Is SR an Ether Theory?

On Mar 19, 11:16 pm, "Autymn D. C." wrote:
On Mar 19, 7:49 pm, "PD" wrote:





On Mar 19, 5:45 pm, "Autymn D. C." wrote:

On Mar 19, 3:04 pm, "PD" wrote:

On Mar 19, 3:14 pm, "Autymn D. C." wrote:

On Mar 19, 8:02 am, "kenseto" wrote:

Wrong in SR every observer is claimed to be preferred. That's why every SR
observer claims that his clock is the fastest running clock in the universe.

fastest running = greattest momentum, not speed

Well, there's a stupid remark.
Whoops, sorry, let's try that in normalized Autymnism:
"Wul, thers a stoopit r'mrk."
Which has greater momentum, a train going at 5 mph or a bird going at
35 mph?

I am not as dolly (That's stupid in English) as you to believe that oo
and ue are the same vowel

The train has greatter momentum, so it is faster.

Good for you! 5mph is faster than 35mph.
Exactly when did you lose touch with the rest of reality?

I already told you, cretin, fast is not a speed. Anread my words
carefully or shut up. And I already said theseon many times in the
newsgroups; how could you miss them?:

Glue is fast; rockets are swift; humans are dolts; folks are nescient.

-Aut-

That's ok. Pretty soon, you'll have your own little private language,
with which you can talk with yourself and only yourself, and then you
won't have anyone telling you you're speaking nonsense.

PD

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Mar 19, 8:23 am, "kenseto" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...

On Mar 19, 6:22 am, "kenseto" wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message

roups.com...

On Mar 18, 9:42 am, "kenseto" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

On Mar 18, 6:08 am, "kenseto" wrote:
That's why IRT has two sets of equations for time
dilation and time expansion. Also it has two sets of
coordinate
transform
equations.

Ken Seto-

Unfortunately for you and your IRT you have demonstrated
(repeatedly)
that the two sets of IRT transforms do not satisfy the simple
requirement that:

T*T^-1=I.

I don't understand this equation. Why is this a requirement?

Let me get this straight...you don't understand the concept of the
inverse function?

The concept inverse function work only if a clock second represents
an
interval of universal time in all frames. But we know from
experience
that
the passage of a clock second in A's frame does not correspond to
the
passage of a clock second in B's frame. That means that the concept
of
inverse function in incomplete.

Ken Seto- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This means that IRT is not a correct theory. You have proven this
again.

No it does not mean that IRT is not a correct theory. It means that the
assumption used to formulate the concept of inverse function is not a
valid
concept because a clock second is not an interval of universal time. A
clock
second contains a different amount of universal time (duration)in
different
frames.



You have the transform from A to B. Write it down.
You have the transform from B to A. Write it down.
Composit them together ands write down the result. Let's see what
you've got.

What do you mean by "composite them together"??

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 17, 5:59 pm, "kenseto" wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message

news:QH_Kh.22052$y92.13494@attbi_s22...

kenseto wrote:

But SR is based on the invariant one-way speed of light and no
direct
one-way speed of light ever been performed. What this mean is that
any
test
that could potentially refute the claim of SR you SRians will refuse
to
do
it. You even redefine the meter to fit your theory.

Ken Seto

Historically there is a body of peer reviewed OWLS experiments

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...periments.html

Hey idiot these are one-way isotopy experiments. You can have one-way
and
two-way isotropy but with different actual measured values.
The only way to confirm the invariant of one-way light speed is to do a
direct one-way measurement with two spatially separated and synchronized
clocks in the same inertial frame. The fact that you SRians refuse to do
such an experiment speaks volume.

Ken Seto



3.2 One-Way Tests of Light-Speed Isotropy
Note that while these experiments clearly use a one-way light
path
and find isotropy, they are inherently unable to rule out a
large
class of theories in which the one-way speed of light is
anisotropic.These theories share the property that the
round-trip
speed of light is isotropic in any inertial frame, but the
one-way
speed is isotropic only in an ether frame. In all of these
theories
the effects of slow clock transport exactly offset the effects
of
the
anisotropic one-way speed of light (in any inertial frame), and
all
are experimentally indistinguishable from SR. All of these
theories
predict null results for these experiments. See Test Theories
above,
especially Zhang (in which these theories are called "Edwards
frames").

Cialdea, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 4 (1972), p821.
Uses two multi-mode lasers mounted on a rotating table to look
for
variations in their interference pattern as the table is
rotated.
Places an upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 0.9 m/s.

Krisher et al., Phys. Rev. D, 42, No. 2, pp. 731-734, (1990).
Uses two hydrogen masers fixed to the earth and separated by a
21
km
fiber-optic link to look for variations in the phase between
them.
They put an upper limit on the one-way linear anisotropy of 100
m/s.

Champeny et al, Phys. Lett. 7 (1963), p241.

Champeney, Isaak and Khan, Proc. Physical Soc. 85, p583 (1965).

Isaak et al, Phys. Bull. 21 (1970), p255.
Uses a rotating Moessbauer absorber and fixed detector to place
an
upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 3 m/s. [one part in
10^8]



Dr. Ken

This is very simple really : if light speed is isotropic as the
enumerated experiments show then the speed of light E-W is the same
as the speed of light W-E.
Then, if you measure the two way speed E-W-E this should be the
speed of isotropic light, one way. Can you argue with this?


Yes I can argue with that.
For a two way there is no extinction length....the light ray must return to
the source to get a measurement. Also for a two way method the light beam
will experience a delay at the reflecting mirror. Also the return beam does
not follow the same path as the outgoing beam.

For a one-way beam if there is motion between the light ray and the detector
this will affect the measured value for light speed.
Since they already measured the one-way isotropy directly why don't they use
those same two synchronized clocks measure the distance between them and get
a value for a one-way light speed?

On Mar 20, 8:21 am, "kenseto" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...





On Mar 19, 8:23 am, "kenseto" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

On Mar 19, 6:22 am, "kenseto" wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message

roups.com...

On Mar 18, 9:42 am, "kenseto" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

On Mar 18, 6:08 am, "kenseto" wrote:
That's why IRT has two sets of equations for time
dilation and time expansion. Also it has two sets of
coordinate
transform
equations.

Ken Seto-

Unfortunately for you and your IRT you have demonstrated
(repeatedly)
that the two sets of IRT transforms do not satisfy the simple
requirement that:

T*T^-1=I.

I don't understand this equation. Why is this a requirement?

Let me get this straight...you don't understand the concept of the
inverse function?

The concept inverse function work only if a clock second represents
an
interval of universal time in all frames. But we know from
experience
that
the passage of a clock second in A's frame does not correspond to
the
passage of a clock second in B's frame. That means that the concept
of
inverse function in incomplete.

Ken Seto- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This means that IRT is not a correct theory. You have proven this
again.

No it does not mean that IRT is not a correct theory. It means that the
assumption used to formulate the concept of inverse function is not a
valid
concept because a clock second is not an interval of universal time. A
clock
second contains a different amount of universal time (duration)in
different
frames.

You have the transform from A to B. Write it down.
You have the transform from B to A. Write it down.
Composit them together ands write down the result. Let's see what
you've got.

What do you mean by "composite them together"??

As I said, Ken doesn't know what you mean.

PD

Hi Kenseto,
A second is 9.19 gigaperiods of a special ( ideal ) maser,
while a meter is just 30.66 periods ( 9,192,631,770 / 299,792,458 ).

So c is a unitless constant equal to " 3.34 * 10 ^-9 ".
( i.e. " 30.66 periods / 9.19 gigaperiods " or " 299,792,458^-1 " ).

An inertial reference frame moving at 86.6 percent of c
with respect to you has a gamma of 2.
( because " ( 1 - ( .866 * c )^2 / c^2 )^-.5 " = 2 )

Now measure a heart, beating once a second,
pumping 4 cubic inches per second, in that fast-moving frame...

It's 2 seconds per beat, according to your measurements,
and each beat is pumping half the volume, 2 cubic inches...
So it's pumping just one cubic inch per second, instead of 4.

hmm...

On Mar 20, 6:43 am, "kenseto" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...



On Mar 17, 5:59 pm, "kenseto" wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message

news:QH_Kh.22052$y92.13494@attbi_s22...

kenseto wrote:

But SR is based on the invariant one-way speed of light and no
direct
one-way speed of light ever been performed. What this mean is that
any
test
that could potentially refute the claim of SR you SRians will refuse
to
do
it. You even redefine the meter to fit your theory.

Ken Seto

Historically there is a body of peer reviewed OWLS experiments

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...periments.html

Hey idiot these are one-way isotopy experiments. You can have one-way
and
two-way isotropy but with different actual measured values.
The only way to confirm the invariant of one-way light speed is to do a
direct one-way measurement with two spatially separated and synchronized
clocks in the same inertial frame. The fact that you SRians refuse to do
such an experiment speaks volume.

Ken Seto

3.2 One-Way Tests of Light-Speed Isotropy
Note that while these experiments clearly use a one-way light
path
and find isotropy, they are inherently unable to rule out a
large
class of theories in which the one-way speed of light is
anisotropic.These theories share the property that the
round-trip
speed of light is isotropic in any inertial frame, but the
one-way
speed is isotropic only in an ether frame. In all of these
theories
the effects of slow clock transport exactly offset the effects
of
the
anisotropic one-way speed of light (in any inertial frame), and
all
are experimentally indistinguishable from SR. All of these
theories
predict null results for these experiments. See Test Theories
above,
especially Zhang (in which these theories are called "Edwards
frames").

Cialdea, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 4 (1972), p821.
Uses two multi-mode lasers mounted on a rotating table to look
for
variations in their interference pattern as the table is
rotated.
Places an upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 0.9 m/s.

Krisher et al., Phys. Rev. D, 42, No. 2, pp. 731-734, (1990).
Uses two hydrogen masers fixed to the earth and separated by a
21
km
fiber-optic link to look for variations in the phase between
them.
They put an upper limit on the one-way linear anisotropy of 100
m/s.

Champeny et al, Phys. Lett. 7 (1963), p241.

Champeney, Isaak and Khan, Proc. Physical Soc. 85, p583 (1965).

Isaak et al, Phys. Bull. 21 (1970), p255.
Uses a rotating Moessbauer absorber and fixed detector to place
an
upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 3 m/s. [one part in
10^8]

Dr. Ken

This is very simple really : if light speed is isotropic as the
enumerated experiments show then the speed of light E-W is the same
as the speed of light W-E.
Then, if you measure the two way speed E-W-E this should be the
speed of isotropic light, one way. Can you argue with this?

Yes I can argue with that.
For a two way there is no extinction length....the light ray must return to
the source to get a measurement.

So? How does this affect the result of the measurement?



Also for a two way method the light beam
will experience a delay at the reflecting mirror.

Can you put this in mathematical form, like an equation so we can talk
about it?



Also the return beam does
not follow the same path as the outgoing beam.


So? What mathematical and physical impact does the above have?



For a one-way beam if there is motion between the light ray and the detector this will affect the measured value for light speed.

There is always "motion" between the light ray and the detector, how
else would you measure speed? What point are you trying to make here?



Since they already measured the one-way isotropy directly why don't they use
those same two synchronized clocks measure the distance between them and get
a value for a one-way light speed?

Alveger already did that, didn't you know?

"Jeff.Relf" wrote in message
...
Hi Kenseto,
A second is 9.19 gigaperiods of a special ( ideal ) maser,
while a meter is just 30.66 periods ( 9,192,631,770 / 299,792,458 ).

So c is a unitless constant equal to " 3.34 * 10 ^-9 ".
( i.e. " 30.66 periods / 9.19 gigaperiods " or " 299,792,458^-1 " ).

Oh Jeff, this really is priceless.

I am almost left speachless from this. Am I right in thinking you are using
"c" here to mean something other than th speed of light in a vacuum?

Am I right in thinking you are also using a non-standard approach to maths
and mathematical notations?

Do you think 3.34 * 10^-9 = 30.66 periods / 9.19x10^9 periods?

Do you think either of them are equal to 299792458^-1?

An inertial reference frame moving at 86.6 percent of c
with respect to you has a gamma of 2.
( because " ( 1 - ( .866 * c )^2 / c^2 )^-.5 " = 2 )

Now measure a heart, beating once a second,
pumping 4 cubic inches per second, in that fast-moving frame...

It's 2 seconds per beat, according to your measurements,
and each beat is pumping half the volume, 2 cubic inches...
So it's pumping just one cubic inch per second, instead of 4.

hmm...

hmm indeed Jeff.

On Mar 20, 5:21 am, "kenseto" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...



On Mar 19, 8:23 am, "kenseto" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

On Mar 19, 6:22 am, "kenseto" wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message

roups.com...

On Mar 18, 9:42 am, "kenseto" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

On Mar 18, 6:08 am, "kenseto" wrote:
That's why IRT has two sets of equations for time
dilation and time expansion. Also it has two sets of
coordinate
transform
equations.

Ken Seto-

Unfortunately for you and your IRT you have demonstrated
(repeatedly)
that the two sets of IRT transforms do not satisfy the simple
requirement that:

T*T^-1=I.

I don't understand this equation. Why is this a requirement?

Let me get this straight...you don't understand the concept of the
inverse function?

The concept inverse function work only if a clock second represents
an
interval of universal time in all frames. But we know from
experience
that
the passage of a clock second in A's frame does not correspond to
the
passage of a clock second in B's frame. That means that the concept
of
inverse function in incomplete.

Ken Seto- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This means that IRT is not a correct theory. You have proven this
again.

No it does not mean that IRT is not a correct theory. It means that the
assumption used to formulate the concept of inverse function is not a
valid
concept because a clock second is not an interval of universal time. A
clock
second contains a different amount of universal time (duration)in
different
frames.

You have the transform from A to B. Write it down.
You have the transform from B to A. Write it down.
Composit them together ands write down the result. Let's see what
you've got.

What do you mean by "composite them together"??

Ken, composition of functions is something taught in every calculus
course. How can you not know about it?

Have you ever had calculus?

On Mar 19, 7:12 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, EricGisse

wrote
on 19 Mar 2007 19:58:01 -0700
.com:

On Mar 19, 12:06 pm, "kenseto" wrote:

[...]

I am not going to waste anymore time argueing with an idiot runt like you.

You say that like you have something more meaningful to do.

He does; he needs to secure funding to show evidence for his theory. :-)

First he needs a theory that predicts rather than postdicts.


--
#191,
Windows Vista. Because a BSOD is just so 20th century; why not
try our new color changing variant?

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

On Mar 20, 3:10 pm, "Eric Gisse" wrote:
On Mar 20, 5:21 am, "kenseto" wrote:





wrote in message

oups.com...

On Mar 19, 8:23 am, "kenseto" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

On Mar 19, 6:22 am, "kenseto" wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message

roups.com...

On Mar 18, 9:42 am, "kenseto" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

On Mar 18, 6:08 am, "kenseto" wrote:
That's why IRT has two sets of equations for time
dilation and time expansion. Also it has two sets of
coordinate
transform
equations.

Ken Seto-

Unfortunately for you and your IRT you have demonstrated
(repeatedly)
that the two sets of IRT transforms do not satisfy the simple
requirement that:

T*T^-1=I.

I don't understand this equation. Why is this a requirement?

Let me get this straight...you don't understand the concept of the
inverse function?

The concept inverse function work only if a clock second represents
an
interval of universal time in all frames. But we know from
experience
that
the passage of a clock second in A's frame does not correspond to
the
passage of a clock second in B's frame. That means that the concept
of
inverse function in incomplete.

Ken Seto- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This means that IRT is not a correct theory. You have proven this
again.

No it does not mean that IRT is not a correct theory. It means that the
assumption used to formulate the concept of inverse function is not a
valid
concept because a clock second is not an interval of universal time. A
clock
second contains a different amount of universal time (duration)in
different
frames.

You have the transform from A to B. Write it down.
You have the transform from B to A. Write it down.
Composit them together ands write down the result. Let's see what
you've got.

What do you mean by "composite them together"??

Ken, composition of functions is something taught in every calculus
course. How can you not know about it?

Have you ever had calculus?

He must have, he's a retired chemical engineer. They don't make
engineers who didn't at one time pass calculus. But that was a long,
long time ago, and there's that head injury...

PD