Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) and Doppler Theory of Gravity (DTG)

On 3/10/11 3:49 PM, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 08:45:16 -0600, Sam wrote:

On 3/9/11 3:49 AM, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 10:40:29 -0600, Sam wrote:

On 3/6/11 10:06 AM, kenseto wrote:
A new theory of relativity called IRT and a new theory of gravity
called DTG is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.xps


I hate to burst your bubble, Seto, but there has not been any
observation that contradicts a prediction of special or general
relativity. They remain fruitful tools of physics.

Einstein's theory is just a plagiarized version of LET.
Seto makes a lot more sense than Einstein even if he IS just as wrong.



Henry, how come neither you, nor Seto, can calculate the time dilation
of an earth satellite clock in a circular earth orbit at an altitude
of 212 km above MSL? Why is that?

I just did the equivalent..... For GPS orbits....but there is no 'time
dilation'....for which you have no definition anyway.

http://www.scisite.info/fallinglight.txt



GPS satellites are not in low earth orbit, Ralph.

Like I said Ralph, how come neither you, nor Seto, can calculate
the time dilation of an earth satellite clock in a circular earth
orbit at an altitude of 212 km above MSL? Why is that?

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 16:56:37 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 3/10/11 3:49 PM, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 08:45:16 -0600, Sam wrote:

On 3/9/11 3:49 AM, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 10:40:29 -0600, Sam wrote:

On 3/6/11 10:06 AM, kenseto wrote:
A new theory of relativity called IRT and a new theory of gravity
called DTG is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.xps


I hate to burst your bubble, Seto, but there has not been any
observation that contradicts a prediction of special or general
relativity. They remain fruitful tools of physics.

Einstein's theory is just a plagiarized version of LET.
Seto makes a lot more sense than Einstein even if he IS just as wrong.



Henry, how come neither you, nor Seto, can calculate the time dilation
of an earth satellite clock in a circular earth orbit at an altitude
of 212 km above MSL? Why is that?

I just did the equivalent..... For GPS orbits....but there is no 'time
dilation'....for which you have no definition anyway.

http://www.scisite.info/fallinglight.txt



Your "A falling photon increases speed by 0.1598 m/s" is bull****.

How come the Pound Rebka experiment agrees with me?

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 16:59:13 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 3/10/11 3:49 PM, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 08:45:16 -0600, Sam wrote:

On 3/9/11 3:49 AM, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 10:40:29 -0600, Sam wrote:

On 3/6/11 10:06 AM, kenseto wrote:
A new theory of relativity called IRT and a new theory of gravity
called DTG is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.xps


I hate to burst your bubble, Seto, but there has not been any
observation that contradicts a prediction of special or general
relativity. They remain fruitful tools of physics.

Einstein's theory is just a plagiarized version of LET.
Seto makes a lot more sense than Einstein even if he IS just as wrong.



Henry, how come neither you, nor Seto, can calculate the time dilation
of an earth satellite clock in a circular earth orbit at an altitude
of 212 km above MSL? Why is that?

I just did the equivalent..... For GPS orbits....but there is no 'time
dilation'....for which you have no definition anyway.

http://www.scisite.info/fallinglight.txt



GPS satellites are not in low earth orbit, Ralph.

Like I said Ralph, how come neither you, nor Seto, can calculate
the time dilation of an earth satellite clock in a circular earth
orbit at an altitude of 212 km above MSL? Why is that?

Please define this fictional quantity you call 'time dilation'.

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 14:44:21 -0800 (PST), PD wrote:

On Mar 10, 3:52*pm, Hw@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 08:46:13 -0800 (PST), PD wrote:
On Mar 9, 3:49 am, Hw@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 10:40:29 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 3/6/11 10:06 AM, kenseto wrote:
A new theory of relativity called IRT and a new theory of gravity
called DTG is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.xps

I hate to burst your bubble, Seto, but there has not been any
observation that contradicts a prediction of special or general
relativity. They remain fruitful tools of physics.

Einstein's theory is just a plagiarized version of LET.
Seto makes a lot more sense than Einstein even if he IS just as wrong.

Sense, Henri, in science is determined by agreement with experiment.

Correct. That's how big chief Androcles and I proved that light is ballistic.

ALL experiment, Ralph, not cherry-picked ones.


There is no requirement that a model fits with your preconceived
notions of how nature *should* work.

Nature apparently works just as I say.

Apparent to you, obviously. But then again, you are pretty selective
about what you want to have appear in front of you.

Answers to your questions are outlined he

http://www.scisite.info/The_new_ball..._of_light.html

On 3/10/11 6:28 PM, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 16:56:37 -0600, Sam wrote:

On 3/10/11 3:49 PM, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 08:45:16 -0600, Sam wrote:

On 3/9/11 3:49 AM, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 10:40:29 -0600, Sam wrote:

On 3/6/11 10:06 AM, kenseto wrote:
A new theory of relativity called IRT and a new theory of gravity
called DTG is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.xps


I hate to burst your bubble, Seto, but there has not been any
observation that contradicts a prediction of special or general
relativity. They remain fruitful tools of physics.

Einstein's theory is just a plagiarized version of LET.
Seto makes a lot more sense than Einstein even if he IS just as wrong.



Ralph, how come neither you, nor Seto, can calculate the time dilation
of an earth satellite clock in a circular earth orbit at an altitude
of 212 km above MSL? Why is that?

I just did the equivalent..... For GPS orbits....but there is no 'time
dilation'....for which you have no definition anyway.

http://www.scisite.info/fallinglight.txt



Your "A falling photon increases speed by 0.1598 m/s" is bull****.

How come the Pound Rebka experiment agrees with me?


What's the time dilation of an earth satellite clock in a circular
earth orbit at an altitude of 212 km above MSL? You can't calculate
an answer that you can look up somewhere, eh Ralph?

On 3/10/11 6:29 PM, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 16:59:13 -0600, Sam wrote:

On 3/10/11 3:49 PM, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 08:45:16 -0600, Sam wrote:

On 3/9/11 3:49 AM, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 10:40:29 -0600, Sam wrote:

On 3/6/11 10:06 AM, kenseto wrote:
A new theory of relativity called IRT and a new theory of gravity
called DTG is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.xps


I hate to burst your bubble, Seto, but there has not been any
observation that contradicts a prediction of special or general
relativity. They remain fruitful tools of physics.

Einstein's theory is just a plagiarized version of LET.
Seto makes a lot more sense than Einstein even if he IS just as wrong.



Ralph, how come neither you, nor Seto, can calculate the time dilation
of an earth satellite clock in a circular earth orbit at an altitude
of 212 km above MSL? Why is that?

I just did the equivalent..... For GPS orbits....but there is no 'time
dilation'....for which you have no definition anyway.

http://www.scisite.info/fallinglight.txt



GPS satellites are not in low earth orbit, Ralph.

Like I said Ralph, how come neither you, nor Seto, can calculate
the time dilation of an earth satellite clock in a circular earth
orbit at an altitude of 212 km above MSL? Why is that?

Please define this fictional quantity you call 'time dilation'.



I'm sorry you don't know what "time dilation" means in relativity
theory, Ralph. That's pretty blanking sad!

The point is, that you haven't the foggiest idea of how to calculate
the time dilation of an earth satellite clock in a circular earth
orbit at an altitude of 212 km above MSL.

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 19:35:21 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 3/10/11 6:29 PM, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 16:59:13 -0600, Sam wrote:



GPS satellites are not in low earth orbit, Ralph.

Like I said Ralph, how come neither you, nor Seto, can calculate
the time dilation of an earth satellite clock in a circular earth
orbit at an altitude of 212 km above MSL? Why is that?

Please define this fictional quantity you call 'time dilation'.



I'm sorry you don't know what "time dilation" means in relativity
theory, Ralph. That's pretty blanking sad!

You obviously cannot define the imaginary quantity you call 'time dilation'.

Why do you talk about it if you don't know what it is?

The point is, that you haven't the foggiest idea of how to calculate
the time dilation of an earth satellite clock in a circular earth
orbit at an altitude of 212 km above MSL.

That's because there isn't any.

On Mar 10, 5:44*pm, Hw@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 19:35:21 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 3/10/11 6:29 PM, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 16:59:13 -0600, Sam *wrote:

* *GPS satellites are not in low earth orbit, Ralph.

* *Like I said Ralph, how come neither you, nor Seto, can calculate
* *the time dilation of an earth satellite clock in a circular earth
* *orbit at an altitude of 212 km above MSL? *Why is that?

Please define this fictional quantity you call 'time dilation'.

* I'm sorry you don't know what "time dilation" means in relativity
* theory, Ralph. That's pretty blanking sad!

You obviously cannot define the imaginary quantity you call 'time dilation'.

Why do you talk about it if you don't know what it is?

* The point is, that you haven't the foggiest idea of how to calculate
* the time dilation of an earth satellite clock in a circular earth
* orbit at an altitude of 212 km above MSL.

That's because there isn't any.



Your world must be remarkably simple when you exclude everything you
don't agree with...

On 10.03.2011 22:49, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 08:45:16 -0600, Sam wrote:

Henry, how come neither you, nor Seto, can calculate the time dilation
of an earth satellite clock in a circular earth orbit at an altitude
of 212 km above MSL? Why is that?

I just did the equivalent..... For GPS orbits....but there is no 'time
dilation'....for which you have no definition anyway.

http://www.scisite.info/fallinglight.txt


The very first GPS satellite was launched with
the "Relativity correction" switched off. The satellite
clock time was transmitted from the satellite to the Earth,
and compared to a clock on the ground.
After 20 days the satellite clock had advanced 764.6 us
more than the ground clock.
GR predicts the clock should have advanced 771.5 us
more than the ground clock, which is equivalent to
an error of 6.9us/(20 days) = 4E-12, which is about
the precision of the clock.

What does the BaTh predict the difference between
the satellite clock and the ground clock should be
after 20 days?

Are you claiming that the satellite clock is ticking out
more cycles per orbit than does the ground clock
because the photons are accelerated on their way down?

--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/

"Henry Wilson DSc" Hw@.. wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 14:44:21 -0800 (PST), PD
wrote:

On Mar 10, 3:52 pm, Hw@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 08:46:13 -0800 (PST), PD
wrote:
On Mar 9, 3:49 am, Hw@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 10:40:29 -0600, Sam Wormley
wrote:
On 3/6/11 10:06 AM, kenseto wrote:
A new theory of relativity called IRT and a new theory of gravity
called DTG is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.xps

I hate to burst your bubble, Seto, but there has not been any
observation that contradicts a prediction of special or general
relativity. They remain fruitful tools of physics.

Einstein's theory is just a plagiarized version of LET.
Seto makes a lot more sense than Einstein even if he IS just as
wrong.

Sense, Henri, in science is determined by agreement with experiment.

Correct. That's how big chief Androcles and I proved that light is
ballistic.

ALL experiment, Ralph, not cherry-picked ones.


There is no requirement that a model fits with your preconceived
notions of how nature *should* work.

Nature apparently works just as I say.

Apparent to you, obviously. But then again, you are pretty selective
about what you want to have appear in front of you.

Answers to your questions are outlined he

http://www.scisite.info/The_new_ball..._of_light.html


Tha is simple and clear but most of all, logical.

Mathew Orman