Why does SRT and LET have identical Math???

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:SYaoh.296901$FQ1.130502@attbi_s71...
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:y4aoh.341693$1i1.296817@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:

There is no experimental support that B will predict that A's clock is
running slow.

Seto is wrong again!

Clocks A and B are separated by some non zero distance. There is a
non zero constant velocity between clocks A and B, such that |v| 0
and dv/dt = 0 .

The observer in the frame of the clock (A) measures the clock (B)
running
slow (time dilation as modeled by SR). Empirically so!

The observer in the frame of the clock (B) measures the clock (A)
running
slow (time dilation as modeled by SR). Empirically so!

Hey idiot assertion is not emperical.
GPS clock is B and ground clock is A:
From A's point of view: The SR effect on B as predicted by A is 7 us/day
running slow.
From B's point of view: The SR effect on A as predicted by B is 7 us/day
running fast.



You are not correcting for gravitation, Seto... no wonder you get
confused. Try to get it right for once!


****ing idiot runt......I specifically said the SR effect.

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
...
In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto

wrote
on Sun, 7 Jan 2007 10:50:50 -0500
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message
...
In sci.physics, kenseto

wrote
on Sat, 6 Jan 2007 10:57:51 -0500
:
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



5. Kenseto, in case it hasn't occurred to you, if A sees
B's clock going slowly, then *B also sees A's clock going
slowly as well*. This is a consequence of the Lorentz,
which can be easily inverted, resulting in only a sign
change.

There is no experimental support that B will predict that A's clock is
running slow. There is experiment support that B will predict that A's
clock
is running fast as follows:
1. From the ground clock point of view the SR effect on the GPS clock is
7
us/day running
slow.
2. From the GPS clock point of view the SR effect on the ground clock is
7
us/day running
fast.
3. All clocks return after a jouney show that the traveling clocks are
running slow and the stay at home clock is running fast.

You are confusing several experiments here. In particular,
the Hafele-Keating experiment was GR, not SR, and the
clocks sent eastward and westward. The eastward clocks
lost 59 ± 10ns; the westward gained 273 ± 7 ns, relative
to identical clocks on the ground.

Hey idiot....I specifically said the SR effect. on the GPS clock.

In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto

wrote
on Sun, 7 Jan 2007 13:52:57 -0500
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
...
In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto

wrote
on Sun, 7 Jan 2007 10:50:50 -0500
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message
...
In sci.physics, kenseto

wrote
on Sat, 6 Jan 2007 10:57:51 -0500
:
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



5. Kenseto, in case it hasn't occurred to you, if A sees
B's clock going slowly, then *B also sees A's clock going
slowly as well*. This is a consequence of the Lorentz,
which can be easily inverted, resulting in only a sign
change.

There is no experimental support that B will predict that A's clock is
running slow. There is experiment support that B will predict that A's
clock
is running fast as follows:
1. From the ground clock point of view the SR effect on the GPS clock is
7
us/day running
slow.
2. From the GPS clock point of view the SR effect on the ground clock is
7
us/day running
fast.
3. All clocks return after a jouney show that the traveling clocks are
running slow and the stay at home clock is running fast.

You are confusing several experiments here. In particular,
the Hafele-Keating experiment was GR, not SR, and the
clocks sent eastward and westward. The eastward clocks
lost 59 ± 10ns; the westward gained 273 ± 7 ns, relative
to identical clocks on the ground.

Hey idiot....I specifically said the SR effect. on the GPS clock.


What SR effect? The clock is in a rotating coordinate
system; at times it is approaching, at times receding.
One can liken it to a variant of the Twin Paradox, but
the space curvature effect completely swamps it in that
case, as the satellite clock runs fast relative to the
Earth-bound one.

--
#191,
Error 16: Not enough space on file system to delete file(s)

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

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message ...
| In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto
|
| wrote
| on Sun, 7 Jan 2007 10:50:50 -0500
| :
|
| "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
| ...
| In sci.physics, kenseto
|
| wrote
| on Sat, 6 Jan 2007 10:57:51 -0500
| :
| 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
|
|
|
| 5. Kenseto, in case it hasn't occurred to you, if A sees
| B's clock going slowly, then *B also sees A's clock going
| slowly as well*. This is a consequence of the Lorentz,
| which can be easily inverted, resulting in only a sign
| change.
|
| There is no experimental support that B will predict that A's clock is
| running slow. There is experiment support that B will predict that A's clock
| is running fast as follows:
| 1. From the ground clock point of view the SR effect on the GPS clock is 7
| us/day running
| slow.
| 2. From the GPS clock point of view the SR effect on the ground clock is 7
| us/day running
| fast.
| 3. All clocks return after a jouney show that the traveling clocks are
| running slow and the stay at home clock is running fast.
|
| You are confusing several experiments here. In particular,
| the Hafele-Keating experiment was GR, not SR, and the
| clocks sent eastward and westward. The eastward clocks
| lost 59 ± 10ns; the westward gained 273 ± 7 ns, relative
| to identical clocks on the ground.

Yeah, if we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be 1/2 tv^2/c^2 second slow. Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions, and LET has identical math, and since Hafele and Keating
went East and West instead of up, it's an SR and LET result... err... ****heads.


|
| The NST-2 effects are as you describe them (except that
| they are GR as well), but they are different from the
| proposed uniform velocity experiment because the clock is
| traversing a circular path, always coming back to a point.
|
What was the point?

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message ...
| In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto
|
| wrote
| on Sun, 7 Jan 2007 13:52:57 -0500
| :
|
| "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
| ...
| In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto
|
| wrote
| on Sun, 7 Jan 2007 10:50:50 -0500
| :
|
| "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
| message
| ...
| In sci.physics, kenseto
|
| wrote
| on Sat, 6 Jan 2007 10:57:51 -0500
| :
| 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
|
|
|
| 5. Kenseto, in case it hasn't occurred to you, if A sees
| B's clock going slowly, then *B also sees A's clock going
| slowly as well*. This is a consequence of the Lorentz,
| which can be easily inverted, resulting in only a sign
| change.
|
| There is no experimental support that B will predict that A's clock is
| running slow. There is experiment support that B will predict that A's
| clock
| is running fast as follows:
| 1. From the ground clock point of view the SR effect on the GPS clock is
| 7
| us/day running
| slow.
| 2. From the GPS clock point of view the SR effect on the ground clock is
| 7
| us/day running
| fast.
| 3. All clocks return after a jouney show that the traveling clocks are
| running slow and the stay at home clock is running fast.
|
| You are confusing several experiments here. In particular,
| the Hafele-Keating experiment was GR, not SR, and the
| clocks sent eastward and westward. The eastward clocks
| lost 59 ± 10ns; the westward gained 273 ± 7 ns, relative
| to identical clocks on the ground.
|
| Hey idiot....I specifically said the SR effect. on the GPS clock.
|
|
| What SR effect?

The LET effect, of course. LET and SR have identical ma... err... ****wits.

kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:y4aoh.341693$1i1.296817@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:


There is no experimental support that B will predict that A's clock is
running slow.


Seto is wrong again!

Clocks A and B are separated by some non zero distance. There is a
non zero constant velocity between clocks A and B, such that |v| 0
and dv/dt = 0 .

The observer in the frame of the clock (A) measures the clock (B)
running
slow (time dilation as modeled by SR). Empirically so!

The observer in the frame of the clock (B) measures the clock (A)
running
slow (time dilation as modeled by SR). Empirically so!

Hey idiot assertion is not emperical.
GPS clock is B and ground clock is A:
From A's point of view: The SR effect on B as predicted by A is 7 us/day
running slow.
From B's point of view: The SR effect on A as predicted by B is 7 us/day
running fast.

Seto, I have news for you: The GPS clocks occupy noninertial frames.

In sci.physics.relativity, Sorcerer

wrote
on Sun, 07 Jan 2007 21:36:03 GMT
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message ...
| In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto
|
| wrote
| on Sun, 7 Jan 2007 13:52:57 -0500
| :
|
| "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
| ...
| In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto
|
| wrote
| on Sun, 7 Jan 2007 10:50:50 -0500
| :
|
| "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
| message
| ...
| In sci.physics, kenseto
|
| wrote
| on Sat, 6 Jan 2007 10:57:51 -0500
| :
| 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
|
|
|
| 5. Kenseto, in case it hasn't occurred to you, if A sees
| B's clock going slowly, then *B also sees A's clock going
| slowly as well*. This is a consequence of the Lorentz,
| which can be easily inverted, resulting in only a sign
| change.
|
| There is no experimental support that B will predict that A's clock is
| running slow. There is experiment support that B will predict that A's
| clock
| is running fast as follows:
| 1. From the ground clock point of view the SR effect on the GPS clock is
| 7
| us/day running
| slow.
| 2. From the GPS clock point of view the SR effect on the ground clock is
| 7
| us/day running
| fast.
| 3. All clocks return after a jouney show that the traveling clocks are
| running slow and the stay at home clock is running fast.
|
| You are confusing several experiments here. In particular,
| the Hafele-Keating experiment was GR, not SR, and the
| clocks sent eastward and westward. The eastward clocks
| lost 59 ± 10ns; the westward gained 273 ± 7 ns, relative
| to identical clocks on the ground.
|
| Hey idiot....I specifically said the SR effect. on the GPS clock.
|
|
| What SR effect?

The LET effect, of course. LET and SR have identical ma... err... ****wits.

Tyat is correct...and both of them are therefore obviously
wrong, as SR = LET; since no aether has ever been measured
both should be discarded in favor of a non-aether theory
such as Newtonian corpuscular theory.

--
#191,
Linux sucks efficiently, but Windows just blows around
a lot of hot air and vapor.

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

In sci.physics.relativity, Sorcerer

wrote
on Sun, 07 Jan 2007 20:31:57 GMT
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message ...
| In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto
|
| wrote
| on Sun, 7 Jan 2007 10:50:50 -0500
| :
|
| "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
| ...
| In sci.physics, kenseto
|
| wrote
| on Sat, 6 Jan 2007 10:57:51 -0500
| :
| 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
|
|
|
| 5. Kenseto, in case it hasn't occurred to you, if A sees
| B's clock going slowly, then *B also sees A's clock going
| slowly as well*. This is a consequence of the Lorentz,
| which can be easily inverted, resulting in only a sign
| change.
|
| There is no experimental support that B will predict that A's clock is
| running slow. There is experiment support that B will predict that A's clock
| is running fast as follows:
| 1. From the ground clock point of view the SR effect on the GPS clock is 7
| us/day running
| slow.
| 2. From the GPS clock point of view the SR effect on the ground clock is 7
| us/day running
| fast.
| 3. All clocks return after a jouney show that the traveling clocks are
| running slow and the stay at home clock is running fast.
|
| You are confusing several experiments here. In particular,
| the Hafele-Keating experiment was GR, not SR, and the
| clocks sent eastward and westward. The eastward clocks
| lost 59 ± 10ns; the westward gained 273 ± 7 ns, relative
| to identical clocks on the ground.

Yeah, if we assume that the result proved for a
polygonal line is also valid for a continuously curved
line, we arrive at this result: If one of two synchronous
clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant
velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t
seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest the
travelled clock on its arrival at A will be 1/2 tv^2/c^2
second slow. Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at
the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount,
than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the
poles under otherwise identical conditions, and LET has
identical math, and since Hafele and Keating went East and West
instead of up, it's an SR and LET result... err... ****heads.

Correct. The result is entirely *wrong*. I'm not sure
how they managed to cover it up, but cover it up they did.
Perhaps you can ship four clocks (two east, two west) and
disprove it; that would win you quite a bit of recognition,
maybe even a Nobel Prize.

(But be careful; conspiracies are not above "losing"
your clocks.)

I should warn you: the conspiracy is highly active,
responding with press releases such as a reprise of
the experiment with "more accurate clocks". We need
independent data, and between you, H. Wilson, and Kenseto,
I for one would hope that you can work out precisely how
to do the experiment, proper controls, etc., in order to
disprove SR and GR once and for all, replacing it with
proper Newtonian explanations.

One can think of it as a revolt of the masses against the
SR cathedral.



|
| The NST-2 effects are as you describe them (except that
| they are GR as well), but they are different from the
| proposed uniform velocity experiment because the clock is
| traversing a circular path, always coming back to a point.
|
What was the point?


The point is probably over your head, if you are lucky
enough to have a GPS satellite orbiting over it. ;-)
Otherwise, it's more or less arbitrary. It's not
the same problem as a uniformly moving clock that keeps
getting farther and farther away.

--
#191,
Linux sucks efficiently, but Windows just blows around
a lot of hot air and vapor.

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

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message news | In sci.physics.relativity, Sorcerer
|
| wrote
| on Sun, 07 Jan 2007 21:36:03 GMT
| :
|
| "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message ...
| | In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto
| |
| | wrote
| | on Sun, 7 Jan 2007 13:52:57 -0500
| | :
| |
| | "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
| | ...
| | In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto
| |
| | wrote
| | on Sun, 7 Jan 2007 10:50:50 -0500
| | :
| |
| | "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
| | message
| | ...
| | In sci.physics, kenseto
| |
| | wrote
| | on Sat, 6 Jan 2007 10:57:51 -0500
| | :
| | 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
| |
| |
| |
| | 5. Kenseto, in case it hasn't occurred to you, if A sees
| | B's clock going slowly, then *B also sees A's clock going
| | slowly as well*. This is a consequence of the Lorentz,
| | which can be easily inverted, resulting in only a sign
| | change.
| |
| | There is no experimental support that B will predict that A's clock is
| | running slow. There is experiment support that B will predict that A's
| | clock
| | is running fast as follows:
| | 1. From the ground clock point of view the SR effect on the GPS clock is
| | 7
| | us/day running
| | slow.
| | 2. From the GPS clock point of view the SR effect on the ground clock is
| | 7
| | us/day running
| | fast.
| | 3. All clocks return after a jouney show that the traveling clocks are
| | running slow and the stay at home clock is running fast.
| |
| | You are confusing several experiments here. In particular,
| | the Hafele-Keating experiment was GR, not SR, and the
| | clocks sent eastward and westward. The eastward clocks
| | lost 59 ± 10ns; the westward gained 273 ± 7 ns, relative
| | to identical clocks on the ground.
| |
| | Hey idiot....I specifically said the SR effect. on the GPS clock.
| |
| |
| | What SR effect?
|
| The LET effect, of course. LET and SR have identical ma... err... ****wits.
|
| Tyat is correct...and both of them are therefore obviously
| wrong, as SR = LET; since no aether has ever been measured
| both should be discarded in favor of a non-aether theory
| such as Newtonian corpuscular theory.

Yes, as MMX clearly shows
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...k/PoR/mmxb.gif
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...k/PoR/mmxc.gif


LET sucks efficiently, but SR just blows around a lot of hot air and vapor.

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message ...
| In sci.physics.relativity, Sorcerer
|
| wrote
| on Sun, 07 Jan 2007 20:31:57 GMT
| :
|
| "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message ...
| | In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto
| |
| | wrote
| | on Sun, 7 Jan 2007 10:50:50 -0500
| | :
| |
| | "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
| | ...
| | In sci.physics, kenseto
| |
| | wrote
| | on Sat, 6 Jan 2007 10:57:51 -0500
| | :
| | 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
| |
| |
| |
| | 5. Kenseto, in case it hasn't occurred to you, if A sees
| | B's clock going slowly, then *B also sees A's clock going
| | slowly as well*. This is a consequence of the Lorentz,
| | which can be easily inverted, resulting in only a sign
| | change.
| |
| | There is no experimental support that B will predict that A's clock is
| | running slow. There is experiment support that B will predict that A's clock
| | is running fast as follows:
| | 1. From the ground clock point of view the SR effect on the GPS clock is 7
| | us/day running
| | slow.
| | 2. From the GPS clock point of view the SR effect on the ground clock is 7
| | us/day running
| | fast.
| | 3. All clocks return after a jouney show that the traveling clocks are
| | running slow and the stay at home clock is running fast.
| |
| | You are confusing several experiments here. In particular,
| | the Hafele-Keating experiment was GR, not SR, and the
| | clocks sent eastward and westward. The eastward clocks
| | lost 59 ± 10ns; the westward gained 273 ± 7 ns, relative
| | to identical clocks on the ground.
|
| Yeah, if we assume that the result proved for a
| polygonal line is also valid for a continuously curved
| line, we arrive at this result: If one of two synchronous
| clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant
| velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t
| seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest the
| travelled clock on its arrival at A will be 1/2 tv^2/c^2
| second slow. Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at
| the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount,
| than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the
| poles under otherwise identical conditions, and LET has
| identical math, and since Hafele and Keating went East and West
| instead of up, it's an SR and LET result... err... ****heads.
|
| Correct. The result is entirely *wrong*. I'm not sure
| how they managed to cover it up, but cover it up they did.


With sheep like ewe, of course.

"In particular, the Hafele-Keating experiment was GR, not SR, and the
clocks sent eastward and westward -- baa, baa".


| Perhaps you can ship four clocks (two east, two west) and
| disprove it; that would win you quite a bit of recognition,
| maybe even a Nobel Prize.

There are 27 in orbit shrug
Perhaps you can ship four clocks (two east, two west) and
disprove it; that would win you quite a bit of recognition,
maybe even a Nobel Prize, baa, baa.

|
| (But be careful; conspiracies are not above "losing"
| your clocks.)


(But be careful; conspiracies are not above "losing"
your clocks baa, baa.)

| I should warn you: the conspiracy is highly active,
| responding with press releases such as a reprise of
| the experiment with "more accurate clocks".

I should warn you: the conspiracy is highly active,
responding with press releases such as a reprise of
the experiment with "more accurate clocks", baa, baa.

| We need
| independent data, and between you, H. Wilson, and Kenseto,
| I for one would hope that you can work out precisely how
| to do the experiment, proper controls, etc., in order to
| disprove SR and GR once and for all, replacing it with
| proper Newtonian explanations.


We need
independent data, and between you, H. Wilson, and Kenseto,
I for one would hope that you can work out precisely how
to do the experiment, proper controls, etc., in order to
disprove SR and GR once and for all, replacing it with
proper Newtonian explanations, baa, baa.


|
| One can think

But not two.


of it as a revolt of the masses against the
SR cathedral, baa, baa....
|
|
|
| |
| | The NST-2 effects are as you describe them (except that
| | they are GR as well), but they are different from the
| | proposed uniform velocity experiment because the clock is
| | traversing a circular path, always coming back to a point.
| |
| What was the point?
|
|
| The point is probably over your head, if you are lucky
| enough to have a GPS satellite orbiting over it. ;-)

That point moves around the sun at 30,000 km/s.

| Otherwise, it's more or less arbitrary. It's not
| the same problem as a uniformly moving clock that keeps
| getting farther and farther away.

You are almost as good as Draper at saying what things are not.

LET sucks efficiently, but Relativity just blows around
a lot of hot air and vapor.