A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Is SR an Ether Theory?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old March 16th 07, 03:08 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
kenseto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 158
Default Is SR an Ether Theory?


"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:1_wKh.19926$y92.6798@attbi_s22...
kenseto wrote:

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




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.


  #12  
Old March 16th 07, 03:17 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
kenseto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 158
Default Is SR an Ether Theory?


"harry" wrote in message
...

"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]


You are an idiot....[shrug]



  #13  
Old March 16th 07, 03:17 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
PD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,572
Default Is SR an Ether Theory?

On Mar 15, 5:22 pm, "kenseto" wrote:
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.


Two errors:
1. False logic: "If the math is the same, and the predictions are the
same, then the mechanisms must be the same." Nope.
2. SR and LET share a common *subset* of math, but the math of SR is
*much* more extensive than LET. This is part of what distinguishes SR
from LET. The fact that you are unfamiliar with that part of the
mathematical structure of SR and are familiar only with the tiny
subset that they have in common is your problem.


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.


Error 3: SR simply does not make this assumption. The fact that you
cannot understand how it could be otherwise is your problem.


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:


But SR made no such definition, and prior to 1983 this wasn't even the
definition used when the speed of light was *measured* in a test of
SR.

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.


One does not *redefine* postulates of a theory. If you do that, then
you have a different theory. Thus, for the *redefined* postulates
above, you are no longer talking about SR.

PD


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



  #14  
Old March 16th 07, 03:28 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Autymn D. C.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 255
Default Is SR an Ether Theory?

On Mar 16, 6:45 am, "harry"
wrote:
- Ether theories: metaphysics
- SRT: operationally defined physics.


Nope, the scientists annamed the aithèr the field.

  #15  
Old March 16th 07, 04:43 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
harry[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 50
Default Is SR an Ether Theory?


"PD" wrote in message
oups.com...

One does not *redefine* postulates of a theory. If you do that, then
you have a different theory. Thus, for the *redefined* postulates
above, you are no longer talking about SR.


In practice, that's not correct. Newtonian mechanics, Maxwell's theory, and
even SRT have all been redefined over time. What matters for a theory of
physics is the predictions - which are determined by the operational
definitions of its equations.


  #16  
Old March 16th 07, 05:20 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
kenseto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 158
Default Is SR an Ether Theory?


"harry" wrote in message
...

"PD" wrote in message
oups.com...

One does not *redefine* postulates of a theory. If you do that, then
you have a different theory. Thus, for the *redefined* postulates
above, you are no longer talking about SR.


So the length of a meter is not redefined to be 1/299,792,458
light-second?????????? If it is then doesn't that mean that the second SR
postulate is also redefined????

Ken Seto

In practice, that's not correct. Newtonian mechanics, Maxwell's theory,

and
even SRT have all been redefined over time. What matters for a theory of
physics is the predictions - which are determined by the operational
definitions of its equations.




  #17  
Old March 16th 07, 07:43 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
PD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,572
Default Is SR an Ether Theory?

On Mar 16, 11:20 am, "kenseto" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...



"PD" wrote in message
roups.com...


One does not *redefine* postulates of a theory. If you do that, then
you have a different theory. Thus, for the *redefined* postulates
above, you are no longer talking about SR.


So the length of a meter is not redefined to be 1/299,792,458
light-second??????????


Not as an assumption of SR, no.
SR was built completely without that assumption. And it was thoroughly
tested without that assumption.
Once those tests ended up being in complete agreement with SR, THEN
the meter was redefined to be 1/299792458 s.

If it is then doesn't that mean that the second SR
postulate is also redefined????


Following 1983, *after* substantial testing of SR, then the meter was
redefined, and then the second postulate is true by definition. Just
keep in mind that SR was *thoroughly* tested BEFORE the redefinition.

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.

PD


Ken Seto





In practice, that's not correct. Newtonian mechanics, Maxwell's theory,

and
even SRT have all been redefined over time. What matters for a theory of
physics is the predictions - which are determined by the operational
definitions of its equations.-


  #18  
Old March 16th 07, 08:08 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
kenseto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 158
Default Is SR an Ether Theory?


"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.


  #19  
Old March 17th 07, 12:20 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Eric Gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default Is SR an Ether Theory?

On Mar 16, 5:24 am, "kenseto" wrote:
"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.


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.

Why is it you haven't done ANYTHING with gravity, Ken? I am yet to see
your derivation of Mercury's perihelion precession, or a proof that
IRT "reduces" to GR at any level.


Ken Seto



  #20  
Old March 17th 07, 12:27 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Eric Gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default Is SR an Ether Theory?

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



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dark energy or ether ?? Sandesh Astronomy Misc 14 March 15th 07 02:17 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 07:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.