Is SR an Ether Theory?

On Mar 17, 5:18 am, "kenseto" wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Mar 16, 3:47 pm, "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.

So how did you get .9933, Ken? Did you pull it out of your ass like
everything else?

****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.

Oh, so you expect me to immediately know the significance of yet more
numbers you pulled out of your ass without any explanation whatsoever?

On Mar 17, 5:11 am, "kenseto" wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message

ups.com...



On Mar 16, 3:54 pm, "kenseto" wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Mar 16, 5:24 am, "kenseto" wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Mar 16, 4:54 am, "kenseto" wrote:
"kenseto" wrote in message

...

IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT, the
equations
of
IRT
are
valid in all environments, including gravity. Also IRT is
valid
for
use to
replace GRT in cosmology applications. IRT is described in a
paper
entitled
"Improved Relativity Theory" in the following website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ooops.....IRT is not yet in the above website. It is in the
following

link:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2007IRT.pdf

Still no derivation of Mercury's precession, and not one of your
equations was actually derived.

You are a ****ing idiot runt of the SRians. As I said in the paper,
most
of
the equations of IRT are converted SR equations and the conversion
factor
are as follows:
c = lambda*Faa
v = lambda(Faa-Fab)
gamma = Fab/Faa
1/gamma = Faa/Fab
Faa=the measured frequency of a specific standard light source in
A's
frame
as measured by observer A.
Fab=the measured frequency of the same specific standard light
source in
B's
frame as measured by observer A.
Lambda for a specific standard light source is a universal constant.
For
example: sodium has a universal wavelength (lambda) of 589 nm.

Why is it you haven't actually derived any of your equations, Ken?
SR's equations are derived from the starting postulates - your
postulates do not appear to ever be used, you just take what SR
already did and tack some crap onto it.

****ing idiot runt....the first two IRT postulates are the SR postulates
and
therefore I can use the SR equation and convert it into IRT equations.

Really?

The first 4 postulates of Hyperbolic and Elliptic geometry are the
same as the first 4 postulates of Euclidean geometry. Does that mean I
can tack on arbitrary **** to an equation from Euclidean geometry and
get a valid equation in Hyperbolic or Elliptic geometry?

You have not demonstrated that your equations are derivable from your
postulates. You have not shown the validity of your equations. You
have not shown anything, really.

****ing idiot runt....sice the first two postulates of IRT is exactly the
same as the SR postulates why can't I use the Einstein's derivation to get
the IRT equations in terms of v and c?......Then converted those IRT
equations into the current form in terms of Faa and Fab.

You can't use Einstein's derivation because the theories are D I F F E
R E N T. Do you understand the concept of 'different', Ken? You have
no justification whatsoever for all your Faa crap.

Yes, since the SR postulates [albiet *******ized] are in there I
expect to see SR, but that doesn't mean you can tack on whatever you
want to an SR equation and get an "IRT" equation.

BTW, you forgot to mark or reply to the comment that you snipped so
I'll put it back:

So show your derivation of the precession of Mercury's perihelion. It
is a standard fixture in every relativity textbook I have ever seen,
so it should be easy for you. How about deriving Newtonian gravity?
Can you do that? How come you don't incorporate the equivalence
principle into your theory?


Ken Seto

On Mar 17, 9:38 am, "kenseto" wrote:
"Autymn D. C." wrote in oglegroups.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

That is incorrect. The one-way test of light *has* been performed,
just not in the manner you think it should be. It was precisely
because of these tests that the meter was redefined LATER.

PD

On Mar 17, 3:03 pm, "PD" wrote:
On Mar 17, 9:38 am, "kenseto" wrote:

"Autymn D. C." wrote in oglegroups.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

That is incorrect. The one-way test of light *has* been performed,
just not in the manner you think it should be. It was precisely
because of these tests that the meter was redefined LATER.

PD

Statements like Ken's really really entertain me when I realize that
he has been arguing about SR for over a decade now, and still doesn't
know this ****.

If anything, folks like Ken are a cosmic beacon saying "You could
always do worse."

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:QH_Kh.22052$y92.13494@attbi_s22...
kenseto wrote:


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




Historically there is a body of peer reviewed OWLS experiments

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...periments.html

Hey idiot these are one-way isotopy experiments. You can have one-way and
two-way isotropy but with different actual measured values.
The only way to confirm the invariant of one-way light speed is to do a
direct one-way measurement with two spatially separated and synchronized
clocks in the same inertial frame. The fact that you SRians refuse to do
such an experiment speaks volume.

Ken Seto

3.2 One-Way Tests of Light-Speed Isotropy
Note that while these experiments clearly use a one-way light path
and find isotropy, they are inherently unable to rule out a large
class of theories in which the one-way speed of light is
anisotropic.These theories share the property that the round-trip
speed of light is isotropic in any inertial frame, but the one-way
speed is isotropic only in an ether frame. In all of these
theories
the effects of slow clock transport exactly offset the effects of
the
anisotropic one-way speed of light (in any inertial frame), and all
are experimentally indistinguishable from SR. All of these
theories
predict null results for these experiments. See Test Theories
above,
especially Zhang (in which these theories are called "Edwards
frames").

Cialdea, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 4 (1972), p821.
Uses two multi-mode lasers mounted on a rotating table to look for
variations in their interference pattern as the table is rotated.
Places an upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 0.9 m/s.

Krisher et al., Phys. Rev. D, 42, No. 2, pp. 731-734, (1990).
Uses two hydrogen masers fixed to the earth and separated by a 21
km
fiber-optic link to look for variations in the phase between them.
They put an upper limit on the one-way linear anisotropy of 100
m/s.

Champeny et al, Phys. Lett. 7 (1963), p241.

Champeney, Isaak and Khan, Proc. Physical Soc. 85, p583 (1965).

Isaak et al, Phys. Bull. 21 (1970), p255.
Uses a rotating Moessbauer absorber and fixed detector to place an
upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 3 m/s. [one part in 10^8]

On Mar 17, 7:59 pm, "kenseto" wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message

news:QH_Kh.22052$y92.13494@attbi_s22...



kenseto wrote:

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

Historically there is a body of peer reviewed OWLS experiments

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...periments.html

Hey idiot these are one-way isotopy experiments. You can have one-way and
two-way isotropy but with different actual measured values.
The only way to confirm the invariant of one-way light speed is to do a
direct one-way measurement with two spatially separated and synchronized
clocks in the same inertial frame. The fact that you SRians refuse to do
such an experiment speaks volume.

Sam just posted a selection of such measurements. Certainly, this is
only a small portion of all the tests done. This hardly amounts to
"refusal" to do this experiment.

Then again, if you want something done right, do it yourself. Remind
us again, why YOU don't just determine this value experimentally, the
way YOU think it should be properly done You're a bright guy. If it
should have been easy for all the blockheads and Einstein worshippers
to do it, then it should be a piece o' cake for you, right? How hard
can it be? It's so easy, A CAVEMAN COULD DO IT (with apologies to
Geico). Then you can publish the results, and use them as vindication
of your IRT.



Ken Seto





3.2 One-Way Tests of Light-Speed Isotropy
Note that while these experiments clearly use a one-way light path
and find isotropy, they are inherently unable to rule out a large
class of theories in which the one-way speed of light is
anisotropic.These theories share the property that the round-trip
speed of light is isotropic in any inertial frame, but the one-way
speed is isotropic only in an ether frame. In all of these
theories
the effects of slow clock transport exactly offset the effects of
the
anisotropic one-way speed of light (in any inertial frame), and all
are experimentally indistinguishable from SR. All of these
theories
predict null results for these experiments. See Test Theories
above,
especially Zhang (in which these theories are called "Edwards
frames").

Cialdea, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 4 (1972), p821.
Uses two multi-mode lasers mounted on a rotating table to look for
variations in their interference pattern as the table is rotated.
Places an upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 0.9 m/s.

Krisher et al., Phys. Rev. D, 42, No. 2, pp. 731-734, (1990).
Uses two hydrogen masers fixed to the earth and separated by a 21
km
fiber-optic link to look for variations in the phase between them.
They put an upper limit on the one-way linear anisotropy of 100
m/s.

Champeny et al, Phys. Lett. 7 (1963), p241.

Champeney, Isaak and Khan, Proc. Physical Soc. 85, p583 (1965).

Isaak et al, Phys. Bull. 21 (1970), p255.
Uses a rotating Moessbauer absorber and fixed detector to place an
upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 3 m/s. [one part in 10^8]- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Mar 17, 5:11 pm, "The_Man" wrote:
On Mar 17, 7:59 pm, "kenseto" wrote:



"Sam Wormley" wrote in message

news:QH_Kh.22052$y92.13494@attbi_s22...

kenseto wrote:

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

Historically there is a body of peer reviewed OWLS experiments

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...periments.html

Hey idiot these are one-way isotopy experiments. You can have one-way and
two-way isotropy but with different actual measured values.
The only way to confirm the invariant of one-way light speed is to do a
direct one-way measurement with two spatially separated and synchronized
clocks in the same inertial frame. The fact that you SRians refuse to do
such an experiment speaks volume.

Sam just posted a selection of such measurements. Certainly, this is
only a small portion of all the tests done. This hardly amounts to
"refusal" to do this experiment.

Then again, if you want something done right, do it yourself. Remind
us again, why YOU don't just determine this value experimentally, the
way YOU think it should be properly done You're a bright guy. If it
should have been easy for all the blockheads and Einstein worshippers
to do it, then it should be a piece o' cake for you, right? How hard
can it be? It's so easy, A CAVEMAN COULD DO IT (with apologies to
Geico). Then you can publish the results, and use them as vindication
of your IRT.


Ken has attempted this in the past.

He has whined, many times, that nobody will accept his grant requests.
It has been explained to him also, many times, that his grant requests
are poorly written and hasn't offered a valid reason as to why he
should be given money to do again what has already been done many
times.

USENET is the only place that even pretends to listen to Ken anymore,
and Ken knows it.

[...]

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 17, 5:11 am, "kenseto" wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message

ups.com...



On Mar 16, 3:54 pm, "kenseto" wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Mar 16, 5:24 am, "kenseto" wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Mar 16, 4:54 am, "kenseto" wrote:
"kenseto" wrote in message

...

IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT, the
equations
of
IRT
are
valid in all environments, including gravity. Also IRT is
valid
for
use to
replace GRT in cosmology applications. IRT is described in
a
paper
entitled
"Improved Relativity Theory" in the following website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ooops.....IRT is not yet in the above website. It is in the
following

link:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2007IRT.pdf

Still no derivation of Mercury's precession, and not one of
your
equations was actually derived.

You are a ****ing idiot runt of the SRians. As I said in the
paper,
most
of
the equations of IRT are converted SR equations and the
conversion
factor
are as follows:
c = lambda*Faa
v = lambda(Faa-Fab)
gamma = Fab/Faa
1/gamma = Faa/Fab
Faa=the measured frequency of a specific standard light source
in
A's
frame
as measured by observer A.
Fab=the measured frequency of the same specific standard light
source in
B's
frame as measured by observer A.
Lambda for a specific standard light source is a universal
constant.
For
example: sodium has a universal wavelength (lambda) of 589 nm.

Why is it you haven't actually derived any of your equations, Ken?
SR's equations are derived from the starting postulates - your
postulates do not appear to ever be used, you just take what SR
already did and tack some crap onto it.

****ing idiot runt....the first two IRT postulates are the SR
postulates
and
therefore I can use the SR equation and convert it into IRT
equations.

Really?

The first 4 postulates of Hyperbolic and Elliptic geometry are the
same as the first 4 postulates of Euclidean geometry. Does that mean I
can tack on arbitrary **** to an equation from Euclidean geometry and
get a valid equation in Hyperbolic or Elliptic geometry?

You have not demonstrated that your equations are derivable from your
postulates. You have not shown the validity of your equations. You
have not shown anything, really.

****ing idiot runt....sice the first two postulates of IRT is exactly
the
same as the SR postulates why can't I use the Einstein's derivation to
get
the IRT equations in terms of v and c?......Then converted those IRT
equations into the current form in terms of Faa and Fab.

You can't use Einstein's derivation because the theories are D I F F E
R E N T. Do you understand the concept of 'different', Ken? You have
no justification whatsoever for all your Faa crap.

No idiot they are not different theories. SR is a subset of IRT. SR is not
complete. IRT is complete.

Yes, since the SR postulates [albiet *******ized] are in there I
expect to see SR, but that doesn't mean you can tack on whatever you
want to an SR equation and get an "IRT" equation.

Sure SR is a subset of IRT...the IRT equations based v and c are exactly the
same as those for SR. The extended IRT equations based on Faa and Fab
includes the possibility that the observed clock can run at a faster rate
than the observer's clock. That's why IRT has two sets of equations for time
dilation and time expansion. Also it has two sets of coordinate transform
equations.

Ken Seto

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:vJZKh.22389$PF.4220@attbi_s21...
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:ZCTKh.21523$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.



The 20000 km/sec was a separate problem/test, not the satellite's
orbital
velocity.

So what is wrong with the IRT solution to determine the time dilation factor
for a clock that moves at 20000 km/sec wrt the observer? Why did you say
that IRT can't determine the time dilation factor for such a clock???

Shall we start over?

IRT cannot:
A. predict the correct perihelion precession of Mercury

Yes it can. Use the IRT transform equations to determine the coordinates for
Mercury and the Sun at different time intervals. Plot these coordinates and
the precession of Mercury will be revealed.

IRT cannot
B. predict the correct relativistic effects on a satellite clock

Yes it can. From the Pound and Rebka experiment you establish the ratio of
Faa/Fab vs height. Using the IRT equations you establish the effect of
velocity on the ratio Fab/Faa. The relativistic effect on a satellite clock
is = (Faa/Fab) - (Fab/Faa).

IRT cannot
C. predict the time dilation of A's clock measured by B, when their
relative velocity is 20000 km/s.

Sure it can the time dilation factors are as follows:
Fba/Fbb
OR
Fbb/Fba
What this mean is that instead of measuring the relative velocity of A wrt B
to determine the time dilation factor you measure Fba.


Seto cannot demonstrate that IRT can do any of these things!

Wormy you are an idiot runt..

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 17, 5:18 am, "kenseto" wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Mar 16, 3:47 pm, "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.

So how did you get .9933, Ken? Did you pull it out of your ass like
everything else?

****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.

Oh, so you expect me to immediately know the significance of yet more
numbers you pulled out of your ass without any explanation whatsoever?


****ing idiot....read the definitions for Faa and Fab.