Is SR an Ether Theory?

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 16, 4:08 pm, "kenseto" wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message

oups.com...



On Mar 16, 5:35 am, "kenseto" wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Mar 15, 2:22 pm, "kenseto" wrote:
Is SR an Ether Theory?

No.

The answer is: YES.

The answer is: "no, and you are stupid for saying that it is".

Here's why:
1. SR and LET have the same math and thus the same predictions
for
all
experiments and observations.

Doesn't mean SR is an ether theory.

Yes it does.

Well, isn't that interesting. SR is an ether theory despite never
explicitly or implicitly referring to the ether.

LET also never implicitly referring to the ether. But both the SR
observer
and the LET observer assume that they are in a state of rest. That's why
both observer sees all the clocks moving wrt them are running slow and
all
the rods moving wrt them are contracted.

Ken, did you see where I said "explicitly" ? LET *EXPLICITLY* assumes
an ether. SR assumes no such thing.

If SR didn't assume an ether then why an SR observer claims that his clock
is in a preferred status.....why is his clock is the fastest running clock
in the universe????????

Furthermore, your assertion that an observer in SR assumes he is at
rest is wrong. Moving observers are trivial applications of the
theory.

****ing idiot..... every SR observer assumes that he is in a state of rest.

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:58SKh.21420$y92.4925@attbi_s22...
kenseto wrote:
..... every SR observer assumes that he is in a state of rest.


In a state of rest with respect to what?

Seto, the clock in the observer's inertial frame has no relative
motion
with respect to the observer. It could be said that the observer's
clock
is at rest WRT the observer.

States of rest are *strictly* observer dependent!

Sigh....every SR observer claims that he is at rest wrt all the objects
moving wrt him.

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:yeSKh.21883$PF.2140@attbi_s21...
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:0IIKh.21248$PF.19485@attbi_s21...
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:uGDKh.20427$y92.6334@attbi_s22...
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:0GxKh.20466$PF.19281@attbi_s21...
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
Nevertheless, IRT cannot even predict the correct time
dilation
for a clock with relative velocity of 20,000 km/s with respect
to an the observer.

Nevertheless wormy is a runt of the SRians.


Seto--It must be embarrassing that IRT can't accurately predict
the
perihelion precession of Mercury or the relativistic effects on
satellite
clocks or even the time dilation for a clock with relative
velocity
of
20,000 km/s for an observer. It doesn't matter what you call me!
IRT
can't predict anything! Sad!

Hey idiot If I give you the following data on a relatively moving
clock:
Faa=5.093*10^14 Hertz
Fab=5.059*10^14 Hertz
Can you use SR to calculate the time dilation of that clock ?
The answer is NO.


You throw out some frequencies, but show no calculations. You are
all
bull****, Seto. What answer do you get at orbital semi major axis
of
10
earth radii? You can't because you don't know how!
Hey ****ing idiot runt accoridng to IRT the time dilation factor is as
follows:
t'=t(Fab/Faa)
t'= 0.9933*t
Now can SR do that? Again the answer is no.




SR is the wrong tool and t'= 0.9933*t is the wrong answer, Seto!

Hey idiot runt why t' = 0.9933*t is the wrong answer???



Because it is wrong for relativistic effects on satellite clocks in
orbit
with semi major axis of 10 earth radii! Show us the calculation whereby
you came up with t'= 0.9933*t.

You are a ****ing idiot runt.
0.9933 = Fab/Faa = 5.059*10^14 Hertz/5.095*10^14 Hertz.
Faa = the frequency of a standard light source in observer A's frame as
measured by A.
Fab= the frequency of an identical standard light source in B's frame as
measured by A. If Fab is not constant or B is moving in a curved path wrt A,
the mean value of Fab over time is used.

IRT can't accurately predict the perihelion precession of Mercury or
the
relativistic effects on satellite clocks in arbitrary orbits or even
the
time dilation for a clock with relative velocity of 20,000 km/s for an
observer.

You are a ****ing idiot and a huge waste of time.

Ken Seto

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:4gSKh.21432$y92.17097@attbi_s22...
kenseto wrote:

****ing idiot runt:
0.9933 = 5.059*10^14 Hertz/5.095*10^14 Hertz
You are so ****ing stupid. I suggest that you don't read any more of my
post.



The question, Seto, is where did you get 5.059*10^14 Hertz and
5.095*10^14 Hertz.

****ing idiot runt....they are measured frequency (by observer A) of a
standard light source in A's frame and an identical standard light source
B's frame.

"Autymn D. C." wrote in message
ups.com...
On Mar 16, 11:43 am, "PD" wrote:
If there should *ever* be evidence that SR is not valid because of a
mismatch of any prediction *other than* the invariance of the speed of
light (and there are plenty of those), then the redefinition of the
meter will be retracted. So far, there is no such evidence.

But SR is based on the invariant one-way speed of light and no direct
one-way speed of light ever been performed. What this mean is that any test
that could potentially refute the claim of SR you SRians will refuse to do
it. You even redefine the meter to fit your theory.

Ken Seto

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:JQSKh.21925$PF.12039@attbi_s21...
kenseto wrote:

Sigh....every SR observer claims that he is at rest wrt all the objects
moving wrt him.



I don't know where you get that idea. The concept of "rest" is
superfluous. Other objects have relative velocity to the observer.
In the observer's own frame the dr/dt = 0.

The concept of rest is not superfluous in SR. Einstein said at the rest
frame of the observer or clock the clock runs at its normal rate. All the
other clock moving wrt the observer's clock are running slow. dr/dt = 0 is
self referencing. It is a stupid statement.

In relativity (and even Galilean relativity) there is no state of
absolute rest or motion. It's all relative.

Hey Idiot then why does an SR observer claims that in his rest frame his
clock is running at normal rate?

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
newszTKh.21973$PF.10227@attbi_s21...
kenseto wrote:

You are a ****ing idiot runt. 0.9933 = Fab/Faa = 5.059*10^14
Hertz/5.095*10^14 Hertz.
Faa = the frequency of a standard light source in observer A's frame as
measured by A.
Fab= the frequency of an identical standard light source in B's frame
as
measured by A. If Fab is not constant or B is moving in a curved path
wrt A,
the mean value of Fab over time is used.

You are a ****ing idiot and a huge waste of time.

Ken Seto



Seto where did you get 5.059*10^14 Hertz/5.095*10^14 Hertz and how does
that relate to the earth's gravitation and the size of the satellite
orbit?

Hey idiot
Faa=5.095*10^14 Hertz= the frequency of sodium source in A's frame as
measured by A.
Fab=50059*10^14 Hertz = the MEAN frequency of sodium source in B's frame as
measured by A.
The earth gravitation and the size of the orbit of the satellite is
irrelevant.
If you choose a different standard light source (other than sodium) then you
will have different Faa and Fab values.

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:ZCTKh.21523$y92.2158@attbi_s22...
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:4gSKh.21432$y92.17097@attbi_s22...
kenseto wrote:

****ing idiot runt:
0.9933 = 5.059*10^14 Hertz/5.095*10^14 Hertz
You are so ****ing stupid. I suggest that you don't read any more of
my
post.


The question, Seto, is where did you get 5.059*10^14 Hertz and
5.095*10^14 Hertz.

****ing idiot runt....they are measured frequency (by observer A) of a
standard light source in A's frame and an identical standard light
source
B's frame.



The problem is about satellite clocks in ten earth radii orbits, not
light sources that have already been measured. IRT is obviously
worthless and can't even predict the relativistic effects on satellite
clocks in ten earth radii orbits! So who is really the idiot?

Hey ****ing idiot do you think you can predict anything with SR without
measured relative velocity data??
With SR/GR you specified a velocity of 20000 km/sec and that along with the
previously measured gravitational potential at the final location of the
satellite and the mass of the earth you determine the time dilation factor.
With IRT I can specify a value for Fab for a standard light source in the
satellite and determine the time dilation factor using the IRT equation of
Fab/Faa to determine the time dilation factor.

In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would
be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might
start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in
physics classrooms.

-- Stephen Jay Gould

--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!


"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:lyZKh.22374$PF.13718@attbi_s21...
kenseto wrote:

Hey Idiot then why does an SR observer claims that in his rest frame his
clock is running at normal rate?



A clock in the observers rest frame has relative velocity of zero with
respect to the observer, dr/dt = 0, so the relativistic gamma reduces
to unity.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ProperTime.html

gamma = (1 - v^2/c^2)^-0.5

When v = 0, then gamma = 1

dTau = dT

No time dilation

On Mar 17, 5:23 am, "kenseto" wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message

oups.com...



On Mar 16, 4:08 pm, "kenseto" wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message

roups.com...

On Mar 16, 5:35 am, "kenseto" wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Mar 15, 2:22 pm, "kenseto" wrote:
Is SR an Ether Theory?

No.

The answer is: YES.

The answer is: "no, and you are stupid for saying that it is".

Here's why:
1. SR and LET have the same math and thus the same predictions
for
all
experiments and observations.

Doesn't mean SR is an ether theory.

Yes it does.

Well, isn't that interesting. SR is an ether theory despite never
explicitly or implicitly referring to the ether.

LET also never implicitly referring to the ether. But both the SR
observer
and the LET observer assume that they are in a state of rest. That's why
both observer sees all the clocks moving wrt them are running slow and
all
the rods moving wrt them are contracted.

Ken, did you see where I said "explicitly" ? LET *EXPLICITLY* assumes
an ether. SR assumes no such thing.

If SR didn't assume an ether then why an SR observer claims that his clock
is in a preferred status.....why is his clock is the fastest running clock
in the universe????????

You don't seem to understand the "relativity" part of special
relativity, Ken. Just because an observer can look at himself and say
"I'm not moving!" that does not mean there is an ether.

Do you know your same "argument" applies to every kinematic theory
under the sun? By your "argument" GR requires an ether, as does
classical mechanics, as does your theory.





Furthermore, your assertion that an observer in SR assumes he is at
rest is wrong. Moving observers are trivial applications of the
theory.

****ing idiot..... every SR observer assumes that he is in a state of rest.

With respect to himself only, everything else is up for grabs.

At least you dropped the "absolute state of rest" crap.