Why does SRT and LET have identical Math???

The answer:
1. LET assumes the existence of the ether and thus the existence of the
absolute rest frame. The LET math was developed based on that assumption. A
LET observer assumes that he is in the absolute rest frame and therefore he
will see all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow and all the rods
moving wrt him are contracted in the direction of motion.

2. In SRT the PoR says that all frames are equivalent. This allows Einstein
to select any frame to develop the SRT math. He choosed the absolute rest
frame because it is the simplest frame to do physics. This choice leads to
the same conclusion as LET: That all the clocks moving wrt an SRT observer
are running slow and all the rods moving wrt an SRT observer are contracted
in the direction of motion.

3. Both SRT and LET are incomplete because their math is based on that the
observer is in the absolute rest frame. In real life no observer in the
universe is in a state of absolute rest. Different observers are in
different states of absolute motion. This assumption gives rise to a new
theory of relativity called IRT (Improved Relativity Theory). An IRT
observer assumes that he is in a state of absolute motion and that his state
of absolute motion is different than the observed frame's absolute motion.
Therefore he will see some of the observed clocks moving wrt him are running
slow and some of the observed clocks moving wrt him are running fast.
Similarly he will see identical moving rods to have longer or shorter light
path lengths than his rod.
IRT includes both SRT and LET as subsets. However, unlike SRT and LET, the
equations of IRT are valid in all environments....including gravity. A
description of IRT is in the paper entitled "Unification of Physics" (page
4) in the following website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto

"kenseto" wrote in message ...
| The answer:
| 1. LET assumes the existence of the ether


End of story.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/spin.gif

In article ,
"kenseto" wrote:

IRT includes both SRT and LET as subsets. However, unlike SRT and LET, the
equations of IRT are valid in all environments....including gravity. A
description of IRT is in the paper entitled "Unification of Physics" (page
4) in the following website:

Is more nonsense. Worked out spectroscopy yet?

--
Saucerhead lingo #137

"(we) whupped yer incredible arse bigtime" = "we were asked a lot of
unanswerable questions we decided to avoid answering and kept repeating the
same old discredited nonsense".

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

kenseto wrote:
The answer:
1. LET assumes the existence of the ether and thus the existence of the
absolute rest frame. The LET math was developed based on that assumption. A
LET observer assumes that he is in the absolute rest frame and therefore he
will see all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow and all the rods
moving wrt him are contracted in the direction of motion.

So what exactly does the term LET mean?

Yousuf Khan

kenseto wrote:

[...]

Tell me Ken - how were you taught relativity?

"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
...
kenseto wrote:
The answer:
1. LET assumes the existence of the ether and thus the existence of the
absolute rest frame. The LET math was developed based on that
assumption. A
LET observer assumes that he is in the absolute rest frame and therefore
he
will see all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow and all the rods
moving wrt him are contracted in the direction of motion.

So what exactly does the term LET mean?

Lorentz ether theory

kenseto wrote:
The answer:
1. LET assumes the existence of the ether and thus the existence of the
absolute rest frame. The LET math was developed based on that assumption. A
LET observer assumes that he is in the absolute rest frame and therefore he
will see all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow and all the rods
moving wrt him are contracted in the direction of motion.

2. In SRT the PoR says that all frames are equivalent. This allows Einstein
to select any frame to develop the SRT math. He choosed the absolute rest
frame because it is the simplest frame to do physics. This choice leads to
the same conclusion as LET: That all the clocks moving wrt an SRT observer
are running slow and all the rods moving wrt an SRT observer are contracted
in the direction of motion.

3. Both SRT and LET are incomplete because their math is based on that the
observer is in the absolute rest frame. In real life no observer in the
universe is in a state of absolute rest. Different observers are in
different states of absolute motion. This assumption gives rise to a new
theory of relativity called IRT (Improved Relativity Theory). An IRT
observer assumes that he is in a state of absolute motion and that his state
of absolute motion is different than the observed frame's absolute motion.
Therefore he will see some of the observed clocks moving wrt him are running
slow and some of the observed clocks moving wrt him are running fast.

This can be immediately seen to be nonsense. In what frame of reference
has there EVER been particle lifetimes SHORTER than at rest? Give even
just ONE example.

Similarly he will see identical moving rods to have longer or shorter light
path lengths than his rod.
IRT includes both SRT and LET as subsets. However, unlike SRT and LET, the
equations of IRT are valid in all environments....including gravity. A
description of IRT is in the paper entitled "Unification of Physics" (page
4) in the following website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto

"The_Man" wrote in message
ups.com...

kenseto wrote:
The answer:
1. LET assumes the existence of the ether and thus the existence of the
absolute rest frame. The LET math was developed based on that
assumption. A
LET observer assumes that he is in the absolute rest frame and therefore
he
will see all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow and all the rods
moving wrt him are contracted in the direction of motion.

2. In SRT the PoR says that all frames are equivalent. This allows
Einstein
to select any frame to develop the SRT math. He choosed the absolute
rest
frame because it is the simplest frame to do physics. This choice leads
to
the same conclusion as LET: That all the clocks moving wrt an SRT
observer
are running slow and all the rods moving wrt an SRT observer are
contracted
in the direction of motion.

3. Both SRT and LET are incomplete because their math is based on that
the
observer is in the absolute rest frame. In real life no observer in the
universe is in a state of absolute rest. Different observers are in
different states of absolute motion. This assumption gives rise to a new
theory of relativity called IRT (Improved Relativity Theory). An IRT
observer assumes that he is in a state of absolute motion and that his
state
of absolute motion is different than the observed frame's absolute
motion.
Therefore he will see some of the observed clocks moving wrt him are
running
slow and some of the observed clocks moving wrt him are running fast.

This can be immediately seen to be nonsense. In what frame of reference
has there EVER been particle lifetimes SHORTER than at rest? Give even
just ONE example.

Hey idiot.....in the frame of the cosmic muon the muon in the lab has a
shorter lifetime. Now **** off.

Ken Seto

Similarly he will see identical moving rods to have longer or shorter
light
path lengths than his rod.
IRT includes both SRT and LET as subsets. However, unlike SRT and LET,
the
equations of IRT are valid in all environments....including gravity. A
description of IRT is in the paper entitled "Unification of Physics"
(page
4) in the following website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto

kenseto wrote:

[...]


This can be immediately seen to be nonsense. In what frame of reference
has there EVER been particle lifetimes SHORTER than at rest? Give even
just ONE example.

Hey idiot.....in the frame of the cosmic muon the muon in the lab has a
shorter lifetime. Now **** off.

Really?

Would you care to work that particular problem out in special
relativity, Ken?

[...]

kenseto wrote:

2. In SRT the PoR says that all frames are equivalent. This allows Einstein
to select any frame to develop the SRT math. He choosed the absolute rest
frame because it is the simplest frame to do physics.

That is an outright lie. In fact he selected no frame for that, which
indeed proved to be the simplest choice, because all frames are
equivalent. There isn't one with a measurable physical property that
makes it unique (or even different.)

You can pick any one of them (so long as nothing in the universe is
co-moving with it according to your restriction stated elsewhere) and
call it an absolute rest frame if you wish so long as "absolute" and
"rest" are used with artistic license rather than as having physical
meaning.

How many legs does a dog have if you call its tail a leg?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein