Is SR an Ether Theory?

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:uGDKh.20427$y92.6334@attbi_s22...
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:0GxKh.20466$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.



You throw out some frequencies, but show no calculations. You are all
bull****, Seto. What answer do you get at orbital semi major axis of 10
earth radii? You can't because you don't know how!

Hey ****ing idiot runt accoridng to IRT the time dilation factor is as
follows:
t'=t(Fab/Faa)
t'= 0.9933*t
Now can SR do that? Again the answer is no.

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
ups.com...
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.

****ing idiot runt....the first two IRT postulates are the SR postulates and
therefore I can use the SR equation and convert it into IRT equations.

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.

Hey idiot....IRT is a theory of motion. The coordinate transform equations
can be used to determine the coordinates of any object at any time. So if
you determine the coordinates of the sun and Mercury at different time
intervals the precession of Mercury will be revealed. BTW why does IRT have
to reduce to GRT? when it is already a complete theory of motion?

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

LET also never implicitly referring to the ether. But both the SR observer
and the LET observer assume that they are in a state of rest. That's why
both observer sees all the clocks moving wrt them are running slow and all
the rods moving wrt them are contracted.
In real life this assumption of SR and LET is faulty. In real life no
observer is in a state of rest. This means that no observer is preferred and
therefore no observer can see ALL the clocks moving wrt him are running
slow. In real life he will see some of the clocks moving wrt him are running
slow and some of the clcoks moving wrt him are running fast.

In fact, you seem to believe you understand SR better than other
people despite constantly being corrected about conceptual mistakes
regarding SR.

No scuh conceptual mistake on my part. It is you who don't understand SR.

Ken Seto

On Mar 16, 4:08 pm, "kenseto" wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message

oups.com...



On Mar 16, 5:35 am, "kenseto" wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message

oups.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.

LET also never implicitly referring to the ether. But both the SR observer
and the LET observer assume that they are in a state of rest. That's why
both observer sees all the clocks moving wrt them are running slow and all
the rods moving wrt them are contracted.

Ken, did you see where I said "explicitly" ? LET *EXPLICITLY* assumes
an ether. SR assumes no such thing.

Furthermore, your assertion that an observer in SR assumes he is at
rest is wrong. Moving observers are trivial applications of the
theory.

In real life this assumption of SR and LET is faulty. In real life no
observer is in a state of rest. This means that no observer is preferred and
therefore no observer can see ALL the clocks moving wrt him are running
slow. In real life he will see some of the clocks moving wrt him are running
slow and some of the clcoks moving wrt him are running fast.

So Ken, where did you learn SR? Can you point me to the book/resource
that says what you are saying about SR?




In fact, you seem to believe you understand SR better than other
people despite constantly being corrected about conceptual mistakes
regarding SR.

No scuh conceptual mistake on my part. It is you who don't understand SR.

Ken Seto

On Mar 16, 3:54 pm, "kenseto" wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message

ups.com...



On Mar 16, 5:24 am, "kenseto" wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message

oups.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.

****ing idiot runt....the first two IRT postulates are the SR postulates and
therefore I can use the SR equation and convert it into IRT equations.

Really?

The first 4 postulates of Hyperbolic and Elliptic geometry are the
same as the first 4 postulates of Euclidean geometry. Does that mean I
can tack on arbitrary **** to an equation from Euclidean geometry and
get a valid equation in Hyperbolic or Elliptic geometry?

You have not demonstrated that your equations are derivable from your
postulates. You have not shown the validity of your equations. You
have not shown anything, really.




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.

Hey idiot....IRT is a theory of motion. The coordinate transform equations
can be used to determine the coordinates of any object at any time. So if
you determine the coordinates of the sun and Mercury at different time
intervals the precession of Mercury will be revealed. BTW why does IRT have
to reduce to GRT? when it is already a complete theory of motion?

So show your derivation of the precession of Mercury's perihelion. It
is a standard fixture in every relativity textbook I have ever seen,
so it should be easy for you. How about deriving Newtonian gravity?
Can you do that? How come you don't incorporate the equivalence
principle into your theory?

On Mar 16, 3:47 pm, "kenseto" wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message

news:uGDKh.20427$y92.6334@attbi_s22...



kenseto wrote:
"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.

You throw out some frequencies, but show no calculations. You are all
bull****, Seto. What answer do you get at orbital semi major axis of 10
earth radii? You can't because you don't know how!

Hey ****ing idiot runt accoridng to IRT the time dilation factor is as
follows:
t'=t(Fab/Faa)
t'= 0.9933*t
Now can SR do that? Again the answer is no.

So how did you get .9933, Ken? Did you pull it out of your ass like
everything else?

On Mar 16, 11:43 am, "PD" wrote:
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.

But there are no perfect vacua, so there are no constants.

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Mar 16, 3:54 pm, "kenseto" wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message

ups.com...



On Mar 16, 5:24 am, "kenseto" wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message

oups.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.

****ing idiot runt....the first two IRT postulates are the SR postulates
and
therefore I can use the SR equation and convert it into IRT equations.

Really?

The first 4 postulates of Hyperbolic and Elliptic geometry are the
same as the first 4 postulates of Euclidean geometry. Does that mean I
can tack on arbitrary **** to an equation from Euclidean geometry and
get a valid equation in Hyperbolic or Elliptic geometry?

You have not demonstrated that your equations are derivable from your
postulates. You have not shown the validity of your equations. You
have not shown anything, really.

****ing idiot runt....sice the first two postulates of IRT is exactly the
same as the SR postulates why can't I use the Einstein's derivation to get
the IRT equations in terms of v and c?......Then converted those IRT
equations into the current form in terms of Faa and Fab.

Ken Seto

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:0IIKh.21248$PF.19485@attbi_s21...
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:uGDKh.20427$y92.6334@attbi_s22...
kenseto wrote:
"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.


You throw out some frequencies, but show no calculations. You are
all
bull****, Seto. What answer do you get at orbital semi major axis of
10
earth radii? You can't because you don't know how!

Hey ****ing idiot runt accoridng to IRT the time dilation factor is as
follows:
t'=t(Fab/Faa)
t'= 0.9933*t
Now can SR do that? Again the answer is no.





SR is the wrong tool and t'= 0.9933*t is the wrong answer, Seto!

Hey idiot runt why t' = 0.9933*t is the wrong answer???

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 16, 3:47 pm, "kenseto" wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message

news:uGDKh.20427$y92.6334@attbi_s22...



kenseto wrote:
"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.

You throw out some frequencies, but show no calculations. You are
all
bull****, Seto. What answer do you get at orbital semi major axis
of 10
earth radii? You can't because you don't know how!

Hey ****ing idiot runt accoridng to IRT the time dilation factor is as
follows:
t'=t(Fab/Faa)
t'= 0.9933*t
Now can SR do that? Again the answer is no.

So how did you get .9933, Ken? Did you pull it out of your ass like
everything else?

****ing idiot runt:
0.9933 = 5.059*10^14 Hertz/5.095*10^14 Hertz
You are so ****ing stupid. I suggest that you don't read any more of my
post.