Improved Relativity Theory and Doppler Theory of Gravity

A Paper entitled "Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) and Doppler Theory
of Gravity (DTG)" is available in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2007IRT.pdf
Also other papers on my theory are available in my website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:07:26 -0700, kenseto
wrote:


A Paper entitled "Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) and Doppler Theory
of Gravity (DTG)" is available in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2007IRT.pdf
Also other papers on my theory are available in my website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto

Ok, Ken.

Show us how to obtain the perihelion precession from equation 14.

I'm especially curious to know how you intend to replicate the
observed relativistic effects with a K/r potential...

On Oct 12, 6:07 am, kenseto wrote:
A Paper entitled "Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) and Doppler Theory
of Gravity (DTG)" is available in the following link:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2007IRT.pdf
Also other papers on my theory are available in my website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto



Kenny boy

Have you thought submitting to Galilean Electrodynamics ?

On Oct 12, 9:40 am, Eric Gisse
wrote:
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:07:26 -0700, kenseto
wrote:



A Paper entitled "Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) and Doppler Theory
of Gravity (DTG)" is available in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2007IRT.pdf
Also other papers on my theory are available in my website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto

Ok, Ken.

Show us how to obtain the perihelion precession from equation 14.

I'm especially curious to know how you intend to replicate the
observed relativistic effects with a K/r potential...

You follow the same procedure as Newtonian physics.
IRT can be used to determine the perihelion precession and to
determine the relativistic effects with K/r potential.

On Oct 12, 10:57 am, Dono wrote:
On Oct 12, 6:07 am, kenseto wrote:

A Paper entitled "Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) and Doppler Theory
of Gravity (DTG)" is available in the following link:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2007IRT.pdf
Also other papers on my theory are available in my website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto

Kenny boy

Have you thought submitting to Galilean Electrodynamics ?

It already been published in Galilean Electrodynamics.
BTW have you learned the rule for matrix multiplication yet? Do you
know that the unit of measurement of time must be universal before
matrix multiplication can be used??????
Also have you learned that the SR effect on the GPS clock is not
symmetrical compared to the ground clock????

On Oct 14, 6:52 am, kenseto wrote:
On Oct 12, 10:57 am, Dono wrote:

On Oct 12, 6:07 am, kenseto wrote:

A Paper entitled "Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) and Doppler Theory
of Gravity (DTG)" is available in the following link:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2007IRT.pdf
Also other papers on my theory are available in my website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto

Kenny boy

Have you thought submitting to Galilean Electrodynamics ?

It already been published in Galilean Electrodynamics.


Yes, I know. You should try it again.


BTW have you learned the rule for matrix multiplication yet?

Yes. I knew it all along. It is you who flunked 9-th grade algebra,
remember?


Do you
know that the unit of measurement of time must be universal before
matrix multiplication can be used??????

No, no one but you knows THAT. You are quite unique, Kenny-boy.

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 13:47:19 -0000, kenseto
wrote:

On Oct 12, 9:40 am, Eric Gisse
wrote:
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:07:26 -0700, kenseto
wrote:



A Paper entitled "Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) and Doppler Theory
of Gravity (DTG)" is available in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2007IRT.pdf
Also other papers on my theory are available in my website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto

Ok, Ken.

Show us how to obtain the perihelion precession from equation 14.

I'm especially curious to know how you intend to replicate the
observed relativistic effects with a K/r potential...

You follow the same procedure as Newtonian physics.

Then it is wrong since a Newtonian does not feature precessing for a
test body in orbit of a single mass.


IRT can be used to determine the perihelion precession and to
determine the relativistic effects with K/r potential.

IRT is wrong then. A K/r potential cannot handle the following:

* Quadrupole radiation while excluding dipole radiation.
* The right /sign/ for radiation.
* Gravitational lensing [for K = GM, it is off by a factor of 2]
* Time dilation / gravitational redshift.
* Plus a crapload of other, more subtle, effects.

This is why you have resisted putting IRT in a mathematical form for
the last 13 years of posting - as soon as you do that, it will be torn
to shreds by those who are educated.

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:42:12 -0400, "kenseto"
wrote:


"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 13:47:19 -0000, kenseto
wrote:

On Oct 12, 9:40 am, Eric Gisse
wrote:
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:07:26 -0700, kenseto
wrote:



A Paper entitled "Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) and Doppler Theory
of Gravity (DTG)" is available in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2007IRT.pdf
Also other papers on my theory are available in my website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto

Ok, Ken.

Show us how to obtain the perihelion precession from equation 14.

I'm especially curious to know how you intend to replicate the
observed relativistic effects with a K/r potential...

You follow the same procedure as Newtonian physics.

Then it is wrong since a Newtonian does not feature precessing for a
test body in orbit of a single mass.

Then that's why you have to use IRT.

Ok - show me how IRT does it.



IRT can be used to determine the perihelion precession and to
determine the relativistic effects with K/r potential.

IRT is wrong then. A K/r potential cannot handle the following:

* Quadrupole radiation while excluding dipole radiation.
* The right /sign/ for radiation.
* Gravitational lensing [for K = GM, it is off by a factor of 2]
* Time dilation / gravitational redshift.
* Plus a crapload of other, more subtle, effects.

Assertion is not a valid argument.

Where is your proof that IRT gets the precession of Mercury correct?
I'm assuming you have it because like you said, assertion is not a
valid argument.

You aren't a hypocrite, are you Ken?




This is why you have resisted putting IRT in a mathematical form for
the last 13 years of posting - as soon as you do that, it will be torn
to shreds by those who are educated.

It is in Math form.


You put what you believe to be the relevant equations down, but you
haven't actually derived anything.

Show us how you obtain the right magnitude of lensing using IRT.

On Oct 15, 10:38 pm, Eric Gisse
wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:42:12 -0400, "kenseto"
wrote:







"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 13:47:19 -0000, kenseto
wrote:

On Oct 12, 9:40 am, Eric Gisse
wrote:
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:07:26 -0700, kenseto
wrote:

A Paper entitled "Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) and Doppler Theory
of Gravity (DTG)" is available in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2007IRT.pdf
Also other papers on my theory are available in my website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto

Ok, Ken.

Show us how to obtain the perihelion precession from equation 14.

I'm especially curious to know how you intend to replicate the
observed relativistic effects with a K/r potential...

You follow the same procedure as Newtonian physics.

Then it is wrong since a Newtonian does not feature precessing for a
test body in orbit of a single mass.

Then that's why you have to use IRT.

Ok - show me how IRT does it.

Use the IRT coordinate transform equations to determine the
coordinates of the Sun and Mercury at various time intervals. Plots of
these coordinates will reveal the perihelion shift and an equation for
the plot can be developed for future shifts.



IRT can be used to determine the perihelion precession and to
determine the relativistic effects with K/r potential.

IRT is wrong then. A K/r potential cannot handle the following:

* Quadrupole radiation while excluding dipole radiation.
* The right /sign/ for radiation.
* Gravitational lensing [for K = GM, it is off by a factor of 2]
* Time dilation / gravitational redshift.
* Plus a crapload of other, more subtle, effects.

Assertion is not a valid argument.

Where is your proof that IRT gets the precession of Mercury correct?
I'm assuming you have it because like you said, assertion is not a
valid argument.

That's what IRT predicts. You need to accumulate the data what the IRT
equations call for before you can confirms its predictions. Just as GR
predict the bending of light and it is confirmed by observation during
an eclipse.



This is why you have resisted putting IRT in a mathematical form for
the last 13 years of posting - as soon as you do that, it will be torn
to shreds by those who are educated.

It is in Math form.

You put what you believe to be the relevant equations down, but you
haven't actually derived anything.

Show us how you obtain the right magnitude of lensing using IRT.- Hide quoted text -

The forst two IRT postulates are the same as th SR postulates and
therefore the SR derivations can be used. This means that the SR
equations are IRT equations. Therefore no different derivations are
required.

As an aside what is your interest on my theory?? If you want to
paticipate in the next physics revolution you need to do some hard
work yourself instead of keep on asking me to do this or that for you.
In other words, you need to answer your own questions with what I
provided in my website.
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto

Ken Seto

On Oct 16, 8:27 am, kenseto wrote:
On Oct 15, 10:38 pm, Eric Gisse
wrote:





On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:42:12 -0400, "kenseto"
wrote:

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 13:47:19 -0000, kenseto
wrote:

On Oct 12, 9:40 am, Eric Gisse
wrote:
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:07:26 -0700, kenseto
wrote:

A Paper entitled "Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) and Doppler Theory
of Gravity (DTG)" is available in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2007IRT.pdf
Also other papers on my theory are available in my website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto

Ok, Ken.

Show us how to obtain the perihelion precession from equation 14.

I'm especially curious to know how you intend to replicate the
observed relativistic effects with a K/r potential...

You follow the same procedure as Newtonian physics.

Then it is wrong since a Newtonian does not feature precessing for a
test body in orbit of a single mass.

Then that's why you have to use IRT.

Ok - show me how IRT does it.

Use the IRT coordinate transform equations to determine the
coordinates of the Sun and Mercury at various time intervals. Plots of
these coordinates will reveal the perihelion shift and an equation for
the plot can be developed for future shifts.


You see? IRT can't really predict anything. All it does is provide a
set of equations with arbitrary constants, which you ascertain by
fitting future data. Then you use those fitted constants to make
predictions a little further down the road. There is not ONE
quantitative prediction that IRT can make at this time.

PD








IRT can be used to determine the perihelion precession and to
determine the relativistic effects with K/r potential.

IRT is wrong then. A K/r potential cannot handle the following:

* Quadrupole radiation while excluding dipole radiation.
* The right /sign/ for radiation.
* Gravitational lensing [for K = GM, it is off by a factor of 2]
* Time dilation / gravitational redshift.
* Plus a crapload of other, more subtle, effects.

Assertion is not a valid argument.

Where is your proof that IRT gets the precession of Mercury correct?
I'm assuming you have it because like you said, assertion is not a
valid argument.

That's what IRT predicts. You need to accumulate the data what the IRT
equations call for before you can confirms its predictions. Just as GR
predict the bending of light and it is confirmed by observation during
an eclipse.



This is why you have resisted putting IRT in a mathematical form for
the last 13 years of posting - as soon as you do that, it will be torn
to shreds by those who are educated.

It is in Math form.

You put what you believe to be the relevant equations down, but you
haven't actually derived anything.

Show us how you obtain the right magnitude of lensing using IRT.- Hide quoted text -

The forst two IRT postulates are the same as th SR postulates and
therefore the SR derivations can be used. This means that the SR
equations are IRT equations. Therefore no different derivations are
required.

As an aside what is your interest on my theory?? If you want to
paticipate in the next physics revolution you need to do some hard
work yourself instead of keep on asking me to do this or that for you.
In other words, you need to answer your own questions with what I
provided in my website.http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto

Ken Seto- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -