Is SR an Ether Theory?

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:UBfLh.23783$PF.20962@attbi_s21...
kenseto wrote:


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



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

Wormy is a runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
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

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:AAfLh.23776$PF.3995@attbi_s21...
kenseto wrote:
"kenseto" wrote in message
...
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:vJZKh.22389$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).

Sorry it should be clarified as follows:
the ratio of (Faa_h/Fab_h) vs height
The ratio of (Fab_v/Faa_v) vs velocity.
The effect on a satellite clock = (Faa_h/Fab_h) - (Fab_v/Faa_v)

Ken Seto



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

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

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

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

Wormy is a runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
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

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:ZzfLh.23775$PF.4427@attbi_s21...
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:vJZKh.22389$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..



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

Wormy is a runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
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

"The_Man" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Mar 18, 12:42 pm, "kenseto" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...

On Mar 18, 6:08 am, "kenseto" wrote:
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-

Unfortunately for you and your IRT you have demonstrated (repeatedly)
that the two sets of IRT transforms do not satisfy the simple
requirement that:

T*T^-1=I.

I don't understand this equation.

Why isn't this a surprise?

Why is this a requirement?

For starters, the Lorentz transformations form a group (as proven by
Einstein and Poincare). There are 4 basic requirements of a group (by
definition). One of these requirements is the presence of an inverse
(T^-1) for every element in the group (T), and the inverse has to be
an element of the group.

To be correct, IRT MUST have the group property. But you haven't
proven this yet. In fact, it is the easiest way to show that IRT is
**** ("more politely expressed as "invalid")

Ah....but in IRT each observer has two sets of transforms. The primed frame
also has two sets of transforms. One set represents the correct outward
transform from the observer's frame. The other set represents the correct
inverse transform from the primed frame. So I guess it is you who don't know
****.:-)

kenseto wrote:

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:AAfLh.23776$PF.3995@attbi_s21...
kenseto wrote:
"kenseto" wrote in message
...
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:vJZKh.22389$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).

Sorry it should be clarified as follows:
the ratio of (Faa_h/Fab_h) vs height
The ratio of (Fab_v/Faa_v) vs velocity.
The effect on a satellite clock = (Faa_h/Fab_h) - (Fab_v/Faa_v)

Ken Seto



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

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

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

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

Wormy is a runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
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

How many more times will you be posting your frothy screed, kook?

--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco

"To err is human, to cover it up is Weasel" -- Dogbert

On Mar 18, 4:03 pm, "kenseto" wrote:
"The_Man" wrote in message

ups.com...





On Mar 18, 12:42 pm, "kenseto" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

On Mar 18, 6:08 am, "kenseto" wrote:
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-

Unfortunately for you and your IRT you have demonstrated (repeatedly)
that the two sets of IRT transforms do not satisfy the simple
requirement that:

T*T^-1=I.

I don't understand this equation.

Why isn't this a surprise?

Why is this a requirement?

For starters, the Lorentz transformations form a group (as proven by
Einstein and Poincare). There are 4 basic requirements of a group (by
definition). One of these requirements is the presence of an inverse
(T^-1) for every element in the group (T), and the inverse has to be
an element of the group.

To be correct, IRT MUST have the group property. But you haven't
proven this yet. In fact, it is the easiest way to show that IRT is
**** ("more politely expressed as "invalid")

Ah....but in IRT each observer has two sets of transforms. The primed frame
also has two sets of transforms. One set represents the correct outward
transform from the observer's frame. The other set represents the correct
inverse transform from the primed frame. So I guess it is you who don't know
****.:-)-

Then where is the inverse for the so-called "outward" transform?

A MINIMAL derivation of your "theory" requires YOU to demonstrate that
the transforms satisfy the group property. Please post the link for
this derivation. :-)


- Show quoted text -

To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a computer.

-- Anonymous

--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!


"Art Deco" wrote in message
...
kenseto wrote:

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:AAfLh.23776$PF.3995@attbi_s21...
kenseto wrote:
"kenseto" wrote in message
...
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:vJZKh.22389$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).

Sorry it should be clarified as follows:
the ratio of (Faa_h/Fab_h) vs height
The ratio of (Fab_v/Faa_v) vs velocity.
The effect on a satellite clock = (Faa_h/Fab_h) - (Fab_v/Faa_v)

Ken Seto



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

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

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

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

Wormy is a runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
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

How many more times will you be posting your frothy screed, kook?

--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco

"To err is human, to cover it up is Weasel" -- Dogbert

On Mar 18, 10:42 am, "kenseto" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...

On Mar 18, 6:08 am, "kenseto" wrote:
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-

Unfortunately for you and your IRT you have demonstrated (repeatedly)
that the two sets of IRT transforms do not satisfy the simple
requirement that:

T*T^-1=I.

I don't understand this equation. Why is this a requirement?



I know you don't, I explained it to you about 15 times. Too bad.



So, you have rendered IRT invalid on every occasion you attempted to
demonstrate the above.

False assertion.

You can count how many times you refuted your own theory.

"The_Man" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Mar 18, 4:03 pm, "kenseto" wrote:
"The_Man" wrote in message

ups.com...





On Mar 18, 12:42 pm, "kenseto" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

On Mar 18, 6:08 am, "kenseto" wrote:
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-

Unfortunately for you and your IRT you have demonstrated
(repeatedly)
that the two sets of IRT transforms do not satisfy the simple
requirement that:

T*T^-1=I.

I don't understand this equation.

Why isn't this a surprise?

Why is this a requirement?

For starters, the Lorentz transformations form a group (as proven by
Einstein and Poincare). There are 4 basic requirements of a group (by
definition). One of these requirements is the presence of an inverse
(T^-1) for every element in the group (T), and the inverse has to be
an element of the group.

To be correct, IRT MUST have the group property. But you haven't
proven this yet. In fact, it is the easiest way to show that IRT is
**** ("more politely expressed as "invalid")

Ah....but in IRT each observer has two sets of transforms. The primed
frame
also has two sets of transforms. One set represents the correct outward
transform from the observer's frame. The other set represents the
correct
inverse transform from the primed frame. So I guess it is you who don't
know
****.:-)-

Then where is the inverse for the so-called "outward" transform?

Do you have reading comprehension problem? One set is the correct transform
from the unprimed frame to the primed frame. The other set is the correct
transform from the primed frame to the unprimed frame. The current inverse
transform is wrong. Why? Because it assumes that the unprimed clock is
always running faster than the primed clock.

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:YHhLh.23957$PF.20077@attbi_s21...
kenseto wrote:


Wormy is a runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
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





Nevertheless:

Nevertheless wormy is a runt of the SRians.

Wormy is a runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
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