Is SR an Ether Theory?

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

oups.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.

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 18, 6:08 am, "kenseto" wrote:

[...]


No idiot they are not different theories. SR is a subset of IRT. SR is
not
complete. IRT is complete.

By your standard, special relativity and classical mechanics are not
different theories because classical mechanics is a subset of special
relativity.

No as you said classical mechanics is a subset of SR at lower speeds it is
not as complete as SR. Similarly SR is a subset of IRT. SR is not complete
and IRT is complete.


Yes, since the SR postulates [albiet *******ized] are in there I
expect to see SR, but that doesn't mean you can tack on whatever you
want to an SR equation and get an "IRT" equation.

Sure SR is a subset of IRT...the IRT equations based v and c are exactly
the
same as those for SR. The extended IRT equations based on Faa and Fab
includes the possibility that the observed clock can run at a faster
rate
than the observer's clock. That's why IRT has two sets of equations for
time
dilation and time expansion. Also it has two sets of coordinate
transform
equations.

But you missed my point. Again. For the third time.

Why isn't it Faa^2 and Fab^2? Or log(Faa) and log(Fab)? You haven't
actually derived any of your equations, Ken. You simply copied them
from a resource about special relativity and tacked on whatever you
thought would 'work'.

Why don't you read what I wrote?
The IRT equation based on v and c are the same as the SR eqautions.
Converting those equations based on Faa, Fab, f_aa, f_ab and lambda gives
rise to the current IRT equations.
The conversion factor used are as follows:
c = Faa*lambda
v=lambda(Faa-Fab)
lambda=wavelength of the standard light source.


Lets step away from SR for a minute. Lets discuss the far more
complicated by practically ignored part of your theory you claim
exists: general relativity.

Show me how you obtain the general relativistic field equations.

There is no need for the general relativistic field equations. The IRT
equation are valid for use in any environments, including gravity.

Or perhaps you could respond to the paragraph you have thus far
snipped without marking twice and ignored. Why do you keep pretending
my questions about gravity don't exist, Ken? Is it because you don't
actually know anything about GR?

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?

The Mercury perihelion can be calculated using IRT tranform equations as
follows:
1. determine the coordinates of the SUN and Mercuryy at different time
intervals using the IRT transform equations.
2. Plot these coordinates on a graph paper.
3. The perihelion of Mercury will be revealed.
4. Develop an equation that fit the curve of the perihelion of Mercury.

IRT has a modified Newtonian equation for gravity called DTG. A description
of DTG is in the paper entitled "Unification of Physics" in the following
website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.pdf

Ken Seto

On Mar 19, 6:15 am, "kenseto" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...



On Mar 18, 4:13 pm, "kenseto" wrote:
wrote in message

roups.com...

On Mar 18, 10:42 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?

I know you don't, I explained it to you about 15 times. Too bad.

But your explanation is based on the assumption that the observer's
clock is
always running at a faster rate than the observed clock and the current
inverse transform is not always correct based on that assumption. In IRT
each observer has two sets of transforms. One set is the correct outward
transform from A (the observer) to B and the other set is the correct
inverse transform from B to A.

Ken Seto

No, my observation is that in all systems , the result of transforming
from A to B and back to A should give you the IDENTITY transform. You
never managed to prove that in the many attempts you made. You were
and still are unable to get the IDENTITY transform fro the sequence A-
B-A.

OK here's the complete IRT transforms:
When observer A's clock is running faster compared to B's clock the
transforms are as follows::
x'_ab= Faa/Fab[x_aa + t_aa*lambda(f_aa-f_ab)]
t'_ab = Faa/Fab[t_aa + x_aa(f_aa-f_ab)/(lambda*f_aa^2)]
The corresponding inverse transforms from B to A are as follows:
x'_ba = Fba/Fbb[x_bb - t_bb*lambda(f_bb-f_ba)]
t'_ba = Fba/Fbb[t_bb - x_bb(f_bb - f_ba)/(lambda*f_bb^2)]

When observer A's clock is running slower compared to B's clock the
transforms are as follows:
x'_ab = Fab/Faa[x_aa - t_aa*lambda(f_aa - f_ab)]
t'_ab = Fab/Faa[t_aa - x_aa(f_aa - f_ab)/(lambda*f_aa^2)]
The corresponding inverse transforms from B to A are as follows:
x'_ba = Fbb/Fba[x_bb + t_bb*lambda(f_bb-f_ba)]
t'_ba = Fbb/Fba[t_bb + x_bb(f_bb - f_ba)/(lambda*f_bb^2)]- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

OK

So now, please apply the chain of transformations A-B-A.
Show what you get.

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
newsXkLh.23715$y92.12956@attbi_s22...
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:ayfLh.23762$PF.8681@attbi_s21...
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:lyZKh.22374$PF.13718@attbi_s21...
kenseto wrote:

Hey Idiot then why does an SR observer claims that in his rest frame
his
clock is running at normal rate?


A clock in the observers rest frame has relative velocity of zero
with
respect to the observer, dr/dt = 0, so the relativistic gamma
reduces
to unity.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ProperTime.html

gamma = (1 - v^2/c^2)^-0.5

When v = 0, then gamma = 1

dTau = dT

No time dilation

The point is: the observer is at rest wrt what? The claim of the
observer is
at rest means that all the clocks moving wrt him are doing the moving
and
that's why all the clocks moving wrt the observer are running slow.
This
definitely suggest that the observer is declaring that he is in a
preferred
frame.


The observer is simply in the same frame as his own clock... they
both
are likely in motion with respect to other galaxies, stars, trains,
joggers, etc.

Hey idiot if they are in motion wrt other galaxies, stars, trains and
joggers, etc why then is his clock is the fastest running clock in the
universe.



The observer's clock is running "normally", i.e., when there is no
relative velocity between observer and clock, dTau = dT, for
relativistic
gamma is unity.

Running normally wrt what?

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 18, 7:13 am, "kenseto" wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message

oups.com...



On Mar 17, 5:23 am, "kenseto" wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message

roups.com...

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

roups.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?

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

If SR didn't assume an ether then why an SR observer claims that his
clock
is in a preferred status.....why is his clock is the fastest running
clock
in the universe????????

You don't seem to understand the "relativity" part of special
relativity, Ken. Just because an observer can look at himself and say
"I'm not moving!" that does not mean there is an ether.

NO when he says that he is not moving and he assigns the observed
relative
motion to the observed clock then he is assuming that he is declaring
that
his frame is preferred. The correct assumption is that the observer
declares
that he is also moving and thus his clock rate can be faster or slower
than
the observed clock.

Again, you are not understanding the concept of "relativity".

No it is you who don't understand relativity.

No observer is a preferred observer in SR.

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.

BTW: No clock ever runs faster than a resting clock in SR.

A Resting clock wrt what? Why do you keep on using the concept of self
referencing when relativity is based on the idea of relative motion wrt
another object?




Ken Seto

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

oups.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.

On Mar 19, 6:52 am, "kenseto" wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Mar 18, 6:08 am, "kenseto" wrote:

[...]

No idiot they are not different theories. SR is a subset of IRT. SR is
not
complete. IRT is complete.

By your standard, special relativity and classical mechanics are not
different theories because classical mechanics is a subset of special
relativity.

No as you said classical mechanics is a subset of SR at lower speeds it is
not as complete as SR. Similarly SR is a subset of IRT. SR is not complete
and IRT is complete.

You have not shown SR _or_ GR to be subsets of IRT, in fact you
haven't even shown how IRT predicts anything. Every IRT "prediction"
appears to come _after_ the measurement is done, which is hardly
useful.

Plus your assertion that IRT is "complete" is utterly hilarious
because you can't even work out Mercury's precession even though you
have known about the 'procedure' for doing just that for several years
now.






Yes, since the SR postulates [albiet *******ized] are in there I
expect to see SR, but that doesn't mean you can tack on whatever you
want to an SR equation and get an "IRT" equation.

Sure SR is a subset of IRT...the IRT equations based v and c are exactly
the
same as those for SR. The extended IRT equations based on Faa and Fab
includes the possibility that the observed clock can run at a faster
rate
than the observer's clock. That's why IRT has two sets of equations for
time
dilation and time expansion. Also it has two sets of coordinate
transform
equations.

But you missed my point. Again. For the third time.

Why isn't it Faa^2 and Fab^2? Or log(Faa) and log(Fab)? You haven't
actually derived any of your equations, Ken. You simply copied them
from a resource about special relativity and tacked on whatever you
thought would 'work'.

Why don't you read what I wrote?

Why don't you substantiate what you write with something more than
hopes and dreams that you aren't horribly wrong?

The IRT equation based on v and c are the same as the SR eqautions.

Why?

How does this follow from the IRT postulates? Notice that you never
actually USE your IRT postulates, you simply skip them and start
postulating this Faa crap.

Converting those equations based on Faa, Fab, f_aa, f_ab and lambda gives
rise to the current IRT equations.
The conversion factor used are as follows:
c = Faa*lambda
v=lambda(Faa-Fab)
lambda=wavelength of the standard light source.

....which fortunately for you, allows you to skip all those nasty
definitions and derivations that you didn't understand.




Lets step away from SR for a minute. Lets discuss the far more
complicated by practically ignored part of your theory you claim
exists: general relativity.

Show me how you obtain the general relativistic field equations.

There is no need for the general relativistic field equations. The IRT
equation are valid for use in any environments, including gravity.

Looks like you don't know **** about GR to me, Ken.




Or perhaps you could respond to the paragraph you have thus far
snipped without marking twice and ignored. Why do you keep pretending
my questions about gravity don't exist, Ken? Is it because you don't
actually know anything about GR?

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?

The Mercury perihelion can be calculated using IRT tranform equations as
follows:
1. determine the coordinates of the SUN and Mercuryy at different time
intervals using the IRT transform equations.

Why haven't you done this?

2. Plot these coordinates on a graph paper.

Why haven't you done this?

3. The perihelion of Mercury will be revealed.

Why haven't you done this?

4. Develop an equation that fit the curve of the perihelion of Mercury.

Why haven't you done this?

How many times have you told this to me, Ken? Do you really expect me
to consider this as evidence that you have done any work at all on
Mercury?


IRT has a modified Newtonian equation for gravity called DTG. A description
of DTG is in the paper entitled "Unification of Physics" in the following
website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.pdf

Nothing more than buzzwords are contained, Ken. You don't actually
show any mathematics.

In fact, you never show any mathematics. All you have done is copied
some SR equations, modified them slightly, and called them "IRT". You
can't even discuss GR, because you wouldn't even know where to begin.

Is this what a decade's work is supposed to look like?

I did say that before anyway, in the part you snipped without marking
yet again. You sure do love snipping without marking, don't you Ken?
It lets you ignore those nasty, nasty comments that you don't want to
acknowledge by even calling the poster a runt.

C'mon Ken, lets see some calculations. You are so sure of the power of
your theory that you have spent a _DECADE_ arguing about it on USENET.
Surely after a _DECADE_ of arguing about your theory, you know enough
about it to answer my questions. Right?


Ken Seto

On Mar 19, 7:41 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
kenseto wrote:

The Mercury perihelion can be calculated using IRT tranform equations as
follows:
1. determine the coordinates of the SUN and Mercuryy at different time
intervals using the IRT transform equations.
2. Plot these coordinates on a graph paper.
3. The perihelion of Mercury will be revealed.
4. Develop an equation that fit the curve of the perihelion of Mercury.

IRT has a modified Newtonian equation for gravity called DTG. A description
of DTG is in the paper entitled "Unification of Physics" in the following
website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.pdf

Ken Seto

Can IRT calculate the correct perihelion precession of Venus?

SURE SAM JUST USE MY PATENTED PROCEDURE FOR DOING THE JOB. IT WORKS -
TRUST ME! IT IS JUST AS GOOD AS ACTUALLY DOING IT.

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:gMyLh.24659$y92.12463@attbi_s22...
kenseto wrote:
[snip]

As it turns out IRT can't predict anything!

As it turns out Wormy is a runt of the SR experts.
Wormy is a runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
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

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:S%xLh.24601$y92.1453@attbi_s22...
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message

The observer's clock is running "normally", i.e., when there is no
relative velocity between observer and clock, dTau = dT, for
relativistic
gamma is unity.

Running normally wrt what?


Do you, Seto, think the clock on you wrist or in your house is running
normally? That's what I mean when I say the observer's clock is running
"normally".

Running normally wrt what. What is the standard you use to say that it is
running normally??