A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Is SR an Ether Theory?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 15th 07, 11:22 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
kenseto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 158
Default Is SR an Ether Theory?

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 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.

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:
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.

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





  #2  
Old March 15th 07, 11:31 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Eric Gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default Is SR an Ether Theory?

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.


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.


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.

However, you are still unable to distinguish between the actual
postulates of relativity and the consequences of the postulates. What
you wrote down are the consequences.


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:
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.


That's cute, it really is.

'this seems to disagree with the ether concept, but instead of
abandoning my admittedly idiotic position I will assume something even
more idiotic to save the idiotic idea!'


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.


How utterly convoluted, and pointless. You replaced the principle of
relativity with a pile of poo.

That reminds me, do you know what an inertial frame is yet?

(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.


What is with your irrational obsession with length?


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


Why is it you have not shown that your theory can accurately predict
the precession of perihelion in Mercury's orbit, Ken?

Plus I would *love* to see you attempt to show how your theory of
gravity [which oddly enough looks Newtonian] 'reduces' to general
relativity. Do you even know anything about general relativity?

  #3  
Old March 16th 07, 12:25 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Paul Cardinale
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default Is SR an Ether Theory?

On Mar 15, 3:31 pm, "Eric Gisse" wrote:
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.



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.



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.

However, you are still unable to distinguish between the actual
postulates of relativity and the consequences of the postulates. What
you wrote down are the consequences.



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:
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.


That's cute, it really is.

'this seems to disagree with the ether concept, but instead of
abandoning my admittedly idiotic position I will assume something even
more idiotic to save the idiotic idea!'



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.


How utterly convoluted, and pointless. You replaced the principle of
relativity with a pile of poo.

That reminds me, do you know what an inertial frame is yet?

(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.


What is with your irrational obsession with length?







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


Why is it you have not shown that your theory can accurately predict
the precession of perihelion in Mercury's orbit, Ken?


1. His so-called 'theory' [sic] doesn't make any predictions.
2. The kenseto doesn't know, and can't learn what a prediction is.
3. The kenseto doesn't know, and can't learn what a theory is.

  #4  
Old March 16th 07, 12:31 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Dirk Van de moortel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 247
Default Is SR an Ether Theory?


"kenseto" wrote in message ...
Is SR an Ether Theory?
The answer is: YES.
Here's why:


Is Ken Seto a Persistent Imbecile?
The answer is: YES.
Here's why:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...quareRoot.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...quareDiff.html
and there's a bit more...

Dirk Vdm
  #5  
Old March 16th 07, 01:54 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Eric Gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default Is SR an Ether Theory?

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.

  #6  
Old March 16th 07, 01:54 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
kenseto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 158
Default Is SR an Ether Theory?


"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



  #7  
Old March 16th 07, 02:07 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
kenseto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 158
Default Is SR an Ether Theory?


"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:nnlKh.18263$y92.8916@attbi_s22...
kenseto wrote:

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


It cannot be demonstrated that IRT makes any predictions. For example,
IRT can't be used to calculation of perihelion precession of Mercury.
And IRT can't be used to calculate the relativistic effects on

satellite
clocks.


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



  #8  
Old March 16th 07, 02:24 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
kenseto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 158
Default Is SR an Ether Theory?


"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.

Ken Seto


  #9  
Old March 16th 07, 02:35 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
kenseto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 158
Default Is SR an Ether Theory?


"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.


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.


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.
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.

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


  #10  
Old March 16th 07, 02:45 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
harry[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 50
Default Is SR an Ether Theory?


"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]

Harald


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dark energy or ether ?? Sandesh Astronomy Misc 14 March 15th 07 02:17 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 07:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.