Is SR an Ether Theory?

Is SR an Ether Theory?
The answer is: YES.
Here's why:
1. SR and LET have the same math and thus the same predictions for all
experiments and observations.

2. LET is an ether theory and the math of LET is based on the assumptions
that the LET observer is in a state of absolute rest and that's why a LET
observer predicts all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow and all the
rods moving wrt him are contracted.

3. Similarly, an SR observer assumes that he is in a state of rest and all
the objects moving wrt him are doing the moving and thus all clocks moving
wrt him are running slow and all rods moving wrt him are contracted.

4. But SR also said that the speed of light is a universal constant in all
inertial frames. This seems to disagree with the ether concept. NOT so if we
define the speed of light as a constant math ratio in all inertial frames as
follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458 m long physically)/the absolute time
(duration) content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.

5. With the above definition for the speed of light the SR postulates can be
defined as follows:
(1). The laws of physics based on a clock second and a light-second to
measure length are the same for all observers in all inertial reference
frames.
(2). The speed of light in free space based on a clock second and a
light-second to measure length has the same mathematical ratio c in all
directions and all inertial frames.

The above new definition for the speed of light gives rise to a new theory
of relativity called Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). The postulates of IRT
are as follows:
1. The laws of physics based on a clock second and a light-second to measure
length are the same for all observers in all inertial reference frames.
2. The speed of light in free space based on a clock second and a
light-second to measure length has the same mathematical ratio c in all
directions and all inertial frames.
3. The laws of physics based on a defined absolute second and the physical
length of a measuring rod is different in different frames of reference.
4. The one-way speed of light in free space based on a defined absolute
second and the physical length of a measuring rod has a different
mathematical ratio for light speed in different inertial frames. The speed
of light based on a defined absolute second and the physical length of a
measuring rod is a maximum in the rest frame of the E-Matrix (ether).

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

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.


2. LET is an ether theory and the math of LET is based on the assumptions
that the LET observer is in a state of absolute rest and that's why a LET
observer predicts all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow and all the
rods moving wrt him are contracted.

Since you are incapable of expressing an understanding of special
relativity, why would anyone assume you are getting LET right?

Even if you were, SR and LET are different theories.


3. Similarly, an SR observer assumes that he is in a state of rest and all
the objects moving wrt him are doing the moving and thus all clocks moving
wrt him are running slow and all rods moving wrt him are contracted.

Woah, you finally stopped saying SR assumes anything about absolute
rest. You learned something! It took nearly a decade of people
correcting your stupidity on USENET, but you finally learned
something. Maybe.

However, you are still unable to distinguish between the actual
postulates of relativity and the consequences of the postulates. What
you wrote down are the consequences.


4. But SR also said that the speed of light is a universal constant in all
inertial frames. This seems to disagree with the ether concept. NOT so if we
define the speed of light as a constant math ratio in all inertial frames as
follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458 m long physically)/the absolute time
(duration) content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.

That's cute, it really is.

'this seems to disagree with the ether concept, but instead of
abandoning my admittedly idiotic position I will assume something even
more idiotic to save the idiotic idea!'


5. With the above definition for the speed of light the SR postulates can be
defined as follows:
(1). The laws of physics based on a clock second and a light-second to
measure length are the same for all observers in all inertial reference
frames.

How utterly convoluted, and pointless. You replaced the principle of
relativity with a pile of poo.

That reminds me, do you know what an inertial frame is yet?

(2). The speed of light in free space based on a clock second and a
light-second to measure length has the same mathematical ratio c in all
directions and all inertial frames.

What is with your irrational obsession with length?


The above new definition for the speed of light gives rise to a new theory
of relativity called Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). The postulates of IRT
are as follows:
1. The laws of physics based on a clock second and a light-second to measure
length are the same for all observers in all inertial reference frames.
2. The speed of light in free space based on a clock second and a
light-second to measure length has the same mathematical ratio c in all
directions and all inertial frames.
3. The laws of physics based on a defined absolute second and the physical
length of a measuring rod is different in different frames of reference.
4. The one-way speed of light in free space based on a defined absolute
second and the physical length of a measuring rod has a different
mathematical ratio for light speed in different inertial frames. The speed
of light based on a defined absolute second and the physical length of a
measuring rod is a maximum in the rest frame of the E-Matrix (ether).

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

Why is it you have not shown that your theory can accurately predict
the precession of perihelion in Mercury's orbit, Ken?

Plus I would *love* to see you attempt to show how your theory of
gravity [which oddly enough looks Newtonian] 'reduces' to general
relativity. Do you even know anything about general relativity?

On Mar 15, 3:31 pm, "Eric Gisse" wrote:
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.



2. LET is an ether theory and the math of LET is based on the assumptions
that the LET observer is in a state of absolute rest and that's why a LET
observer predicts all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow and all the
rods moving wrt him are contracted.

Since you are incapable of expressing an understanding of special
relativity, why would anyone assume you are getting LET right?

Even if you were, SR and LET are different theories.



3. Similarly, an SR observer assumes that he is in a state of rest and all
the objects moving wrt him are doing the moving and thus all clocks moving
wrt him are running slow and all rods moving wrt him are contracted.

Woah, you finally stopped saying SR assumes anything about absolute
rest. You learned something! It took nearly a decade of people
correcting your stupidity on USENET, but you finally learned
something. Maybe.

However, you are still unable to distinguish between the actual
postulates of relativity and the consequences of the postulates. What
you wrote down are the consequences.



4. But SR also said that the speed of light is a universal constant in all
inertial frames. This seems to disagree with the ether concept. NOT so if we
define the speed of light as a constant math ratio in all inertial frames as
follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458 m long physically)/the absolute time
(duration) content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.

That's cute, it really is.

'this seems to disagree with the ether concept, but instead of
abandoning my admittedly idiotic position I will assume something even
more idiotic to save the idiotic idea!'



5. With the above definition for the speed of light the SR postulates can be
defined as follows:
(1). The laws of physics based on a clock second and a light-second to
measure length are the same for all observers in all inertial reference
frames.

How utterly convoluted, and pointless. You replaced the principle of
relativity with a pile of poo.

That reminds me, do you know what an inertial frame is yet?

(2). The speed of light in free space based on a clock second and a
light-second to measure length has the same mathematical ratio c in all
directions and all inertial frames.

What is with your irrational obsession with length?







The above new definition for the speed of light gives rise to a new theory
of relativity called Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). The postulates of IRT
are as follows:
1. The laws of physics based on a clock second and a light-second to measure
length are the same for all observers in all inertial reference frames.
2. The speed of light in free space based on a clock second and a
light-second to measure length has the same mathematical ratio c in all
directions and all inertial frames.
3. The laws of physics based on a defined absolute second and the physical
length of a measuring rod is different in different frames of reference.
4. The one-way speed of light in free space based on a defined absolute
second and the physical length of a measuring rod has a different
mathematical ratio for light speed in different inertial frames. The speed
of light based on a defined absolute second and the physical length of a
measuring rod is a maximum in the rest frame of the E-Matrix (ether).

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

Why is it you have not shown that your theory can accurately predict
the precession of perihelion in Mercury's orbit, Ken?


1. His so-called 'theory' [sic] doesn't make any predictions.
2. The kenseto doesn't know, and can't learn what a prediction is.
3. The kenseto doesn't know, and can't learn what a theory is.

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
ups.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.


2. LET is an ether theory and the math of LET is based on the
assumptions
that the LET observer is in a state of absolute rest and that's why a
LET
observer predicts all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow and all
the
rods moving wrt him are contracted.

Since you are incapable of expressing an understanding of special
relativity, why would anyone assume you are getting LET right?

Even if you were, SR and LET are different theories.

NO....they are not different theories.


3. Similarly, an SR observer assumes that he is in a state of rest and
all
the objects moving wrt him are doing the moving and thus all clocks
moving
wrt him are running slow and all rods moving wrt him are contracted.

Woah, you finally stopped saying SR assumes anything about absolute
rest. You learned something! It took nearly a decade of people
correcting your stupidity on USENET, but you finally learned
something. Maybe.

Hey idiot:
LET says the observer is in a state of absolute rest = SR says that the
observer is in a state of rest.
That's why both LET and SR assert that all the clocks moving wrt them are
running slow and all the rods moving wrt them are contracted.

You are a runt of the SRians:
Definition for a runt of the SR SRians:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their **** like
gourmet puppy chow. An Asshole who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR

Ken Seto

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

ups.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.

In fact, you seem to believe you understand SR better than other
people despite constantly being corrected about conceptual mistakes
regarding SR.




2. LET is an ether theory and the math of LET is based on the
assumptions
that the LET observer is in a state of absolute rest and that's why a
LET
observer predicts all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow and all
the
rods moving wrt him are contracted.

Since you are incapable of expressing an understanding of special
relativity, why would anyone assume you are getting LET right?

Even if you were, SR and LET are different theories.

NO....they are not different theories.

What are the postulates of LET?




3. Similarly, an SR observer assumes that he is in a state of rest and
all
the objects moving wrt him are doing the moving and thus all clocks
moving
wrt him are running slow and all rods moving wrt him are contracted.

Woah, you finally stopped saying SR assumes anything about absolute
rest. You learned something! It took nearly a decade of people
correcting your stupidity on USENET, but you finally learned
something. Maybe.

Hey idiot:
LET says the observer is in a state of absolute rest = SR says that the
observer is in a state of rest.

Show me one literature reference that says either of these things.

That's why both LET and SR assert that all the clocks moving wrt them are
running slow and all the rods moving wrt them are contracted.

Show me one literature reference that says either of these things.


You are a runt of the SRians:
Definition for a runt of the SR SRians:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their **** like
gourmet puppy chow. An Asshole who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR

Ken Seto

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

ups.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.
In real life this assumption of SR and LET is faulty. In real life no
observer is in a state of rest. This means that no observer is preferred and
therefore no observer can see ALL the clocks moving wrt him are running
slow. In real life he will see some of the clocks moving wrt him are running
slow and some of the clcoks moving wrt him are running fast.

In fact, you seem to believe you understand SR better than other
people despite constantly being corrected about conceptual mistakes
regarding SR.

No scuh conceptual mistake on my part. It is you who don't understand SR.

Ken Seto

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.

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

In real life this assumption of SR and LET is faulty. In real life no
observer is in a state of rest. This means that no observer is preferred and
therefore no observer can see ALL the clocks moving wrt him are running
slow. In real life he will see some of the clocks moving wrt him are running
slow and some of the clcoks moving wrt him are running fast.

So Ken, where did you learn SR? Can you point me to the book/resource
that says what you are saying about SR?




In fact, you seem to believe you understand SR better than other
people despite constantly being corrected about conceptual mistakes
regarding SR.

No scuh conceptual mistake on my part. It is you who don't understand SR.

Ken Seto

"kenseto" wrote in message ...
Is SR an Ether Theory?
The answer is: YES.
Here's why:

Is Ken Seto a Persistent Imbecile?
The answer is: YES.
Here's why:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...quareRoot.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...quareDiff.html
and there's a bit more...

Dirk Vdm

"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

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.