|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Dark energy or ether ?? | Sandesh | Astronomy Misc | 14 | March 15th 07 01:17 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 06:39 PM |