|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Is SR an Ether Theory?
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? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Is SR an Ether Theory?
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Is SR an Ether Theory?
"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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Is SR an Ether Theory?
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Is SR an Ether Theory?
"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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Is SR an Ether Theory?
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message news:nnlKh.18263$y92.8916@attbi_s22... kenseto wrote: 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 It cannot be demonstrated that IRT makes any predictions. For example, IRT can't be used to calculation of perihelion precession of Mercury. And IRT can't be used to calculate the relativistic effects on satellite clocks. Hey idiot runt....most of the equations of IRT are converted SR equations. So if SR equations can make predictions why can't IRT also make predictions? The perihelion precession of Mercury can be calculated using the IRT corrdinate transform equations, Hell, IRT can't even predict the correct time dilation for a clock with relative velocity of 20,000 km/s with respect to an the observer. ****ing idiot runt. In IRT time dilation is as follows: t' = t(Fab/Faa) Fab/Faa=1/gamma Therefore time dilation in IRT is: t' = t/gamma. So wormy go **** yourself. 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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Is SR an Ether Theory?
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message ups.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. Ken Seto |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Is SR an Ether Theory?
"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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Is SR an Ether Theory?
"kenseto" wrote in message ... 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 Huh? What "LET" are you referring to? I think you confuse Stokes with Lorentz... 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. He/she may assume so but no need to do so (in fact space shuttle astronauts won't do so) 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. Appearances can be misleading. :-)) - Ether theories: metaphysics - SRT: operationally defined physics. [shrug] Harald |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Dark energy or ether ?? | Sandesh | Astronomy Misc | 14 | March 15th 07 01:17 AM |
What is Ether Space? | Marshall Karp | Space Shuttle | 6 | October 23rd 06 10:43 AM |
~ Ether Patrol, Sailing Through ~ | Twittering One | Misc | 6 | January 2nd 05 06:39 PM |