SR is an incomplete aether theory.
in [Relativity]
|
From: mpc755 on 9 Jul 2010 08:51 On Jul 9, 8:39 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "kenseto" wrote in message > > news:9e3c7c63-a5a7-4516-a584-4fe5107c46e4(a)c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > > > > >Hey idiot when you assert that all the clocks moving wrt you are > >running slow > > You measure them as running slow. But you know they are all running at the > correct rate in their own frames > > > you are assuming that you are at rest in the aether frame. > > Nope .. no aether involved or required. Why do you have to lie about what > SR says .. of course, I know the answer (and so do you), that there is no > problem at all with SR, so you have to LIE about what it says in order to > say it is wrong. You're a fraud. The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is determined by the dark matter pressure in which it exists.
From: kenseto on 9 Jul 2010 09:21 On Jul 8, 8:10 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/8/10 6:59 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > On Jul 7, 11:18 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 7/7/10 8:41 AM, kenseto wrote: > > >>> SR is an incomplete aether theory. > > >> There has never been an observation that contracts a prediction > >> of special relativity. It remains a very fruitful theory and > >> you should take the time to learn it, Seto. Hint: Special relativity > >> does not postulate or use the concept of aether! > > >> What is the experimental basis of special relativity? > >> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments..html > > > So?? Let also have the same experimental basis. The reason is that > > they both use the aether frame to derive the math. The experimental basis would be the same as that for SR except that IRT includes the possibility that an observed clock can run faster than the observer's clock. Ken Seto > > ??? > > > > > > > Ken seto > > >> How do you add velocities in special relativity? > >> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html > > >> Can special relativity handle acceleration? > >> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 9 Jul 2010 09:27 On Jul 8, 9:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 8, 7:09 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 7, 12:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 7, 8:41 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > SR is an incomplete aether theory. > > > > You must be talking about a theory other than SR, because: > > > > > Here's why: > > > > 1. The principle of relativity (PoR) says that all inertial frames > > > > including the unique absolute rest frame of the aether are > > > > equaivalent. > > > > The principle of equivalence explicitly says that there is no > > > preferred frame. > > > No it says that all frames are equivalent > > Yes. > > > and the only way for that to > > happen is that they all use the same aether frame to derive the math. > > No, that's what YOU say. That's not what SR says. SR says you don't > need to use the aether frame, you can use any frame, because all > frames are equivalent. That should be obvious. Hey idiot when an SR observer asserts that all the clocks in the universe are running slow he is assuming that he is at rest in the aether frame. > > It's when you mix what SR says with what YOU say that nonsense > results. > > > > > > Your statement is equivalent to saying, "No man is better than any > > > other man, including the man that is better than other men." > > > > > 2. This allows every SR observer to choose any frame to do physics and > > > > the rest frame of the aether is choosed because it is the simplest > > > > frame to do physics. > > > > No, SR does NOT choose that frame. It uses any frame equally. > > > You call the aether frame as an inertial frame and that's why you can > > use any frame equally. > > No, I don't. The aether frame is a preferred frame. I've already told > you that the preferred frame is the one that is NOT equivalent to the > equivalent inertial frames. Then why does every SR observer uses the exclusive properties of the preferred frame to do physics????? > > YOU say that inertial frames are really the aether frame. SR does not > say that. > > It's when you mix what SR says with what YOU say that nonsense > results. > > > > > > > 3. Choosing the aether frame to do physics allows every SR observer to > > > > claim the exclusive properties of the aether frame which are: All the > > > > clocks moving wrt to an SR observer are running slow and all the ruler > > > > moving wrt him are contracted. > > > > That is not the exclusive property of the aether frame. That statement > > > is one you made up. > > > Yes they are the exclusive properties of the aether frame. > > Thats what YOU say. That's not what physicists mean by the aether > frame or the preferred frame. So the physicists are wrong. You cannot assume the properties of the preferred frame and at the same time deny the existence of the preferred frame. Ken Seto > > It's when you mix what SR says with what YOU say that nonsense > results. > > > > >...every LET > > observer accept that the aether frame exists and claims these > > exclusive properties....that's why LET and SR have the same math. > > > Ken Seto > > > > > 4. However, choosing the aether frame to do physics is the reason why > > > > SR is incomplete. In real life all objects (including every SR > > > > observer)in the universe are in a state of absolute motion and the > > > > rate of a clock is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the > > > > clock. Therefore an SR observer cannot claim that all the clocks > > > > moving wrt him are running slow and all the ruler moving wrt him are > > > > contracted. In order to make SR complete an SR observer must include > > > > the possibility that an observed clock can run at a faster rate than > > > > his clock. > > > > > 5. IRT is a new theory of relativity. An IRT observer includes the > > > > possibilities that a clock moving wrt him can run fast by a factor of > > > > gamma or run slow by a factor of 1/gamma. Also an IRT observer posits > > > > that the light-path length of a meter stick moving wrt to him can be > > > > shorter by a factor of 1/gamma or longer by a factor of gamma. The > > > > standard for the light path length of the IRT observer's meter stick > > > > is assumed to be its physical length. With these interpretation of > > > > time and length all the problems and paradoxes of SR are resolved. > > > > > 6. A complete description of IRT is available in the following link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf > > > > > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 9 Jul 2010 09:52 On Jul 8, 12:05 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Jul 7, 3:41 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > SR is an incomplete aether theory. > > Here's why: > > 1. The principle of relativity (PoR) says that all inertial frames > > including the unique absolute rest frame of the aether are > > equaivalent. > > That's one way of putting it (close enough to Eddington)... > > > 2. This allows every SR observer to choose any frame to do physics and > > the rest frame of the aether is choosed because it is the simplest > > frame to do physics. > > That sounds like putting the horse on the rider. Perhaps you mean that > we may pretend for doing physics that any "frame" of our choice is the > "rest frame of the aether", because it is the simplest "frame" to do > physics. How is what I said is putting the horse on the rider?? > > > 3. Choosing the aether frame to do physics allows every SR observer to > > claim the exclusive properties of the aether frame which are: All the > > clocks moving wrt to an SR observer are running slow and all the ruler > > moving wrt him are contracted. > > That's only a small selection of properties, see Newton for many more! That's all we need to show that SR is an incomplete aether theory. > > > 4. However, choosing the aether frame to do physics is the reason why > > SR is incomplete. In real life all objects (including every SR > > observer)in the universe are in a state of absolute motion and the > > rate of a clock is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the > > clock. Therefore an SR observer cannot claim that all the clocks > > moving wrt him are running slow and all the ruler moving wrt him are > > contracted. > > An "SR observer" is not obliged to consider himself to be the center > of the universe; But he is when he assumes the properties of the aether frame. >normal people will not claim what you pretend that > they claim. Instead, most people will admit that it's only a > convenient perspective, and that we cannot say that all the clocks > moving wrt ourselves are *truly* running slow. > Thus that criticism on SRT is invalid. Sure it is a valid criticism....why? because it lead to an incomplete relativity theory. A complete relativty theory must not assume that the observer is is at rest in a preferred frame. That means that he cannot claim that all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow. He must include the possibility that an observed clcok can run at a faster rate than his clock. > > < In order to make SR complete an SR observer must include > > > the possibility that an observed clock can run at a faster rate than > > his clock. > > > 5. IRT is a new theory of relativity. An IRT observer includes the > > possibilities that a clock moving wrt him can run fast by a factor of > > gamma or run slow by a factor of 1/gamma. Also an IRT observer posits > > that the light-path length of a meter stick moving wrt to him can be > > shorter by a factor of 1/gamma or longer by a factor of gamma. The > > standard for the light path length of the IRT observer's meter stick > > is assumed to be its physical length. With these interpretation of > > time and length all the problems and paradoxes of SR are resolved. > > > 6. A complete description of IRT is available in the following link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf > > That sounds familiar. Maybe I heard this before somewhere? But > where? ;-) You heard it from me. I am the inventor of IRT. Ken Seto > > Harald
From: kenseto on 9 Jul 2010 10:00
On Jul 9, 8:39 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "kenseto" wrote in message > > news:9e3c7c63-a5a7-4516-a584-4fe5107c46e4(a)c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > > > > >Hey idiot when you assert that all the clocks moving wrt you are > >running slow > > You measure them as running slow. But you know they are all running at the > correct rate in their own frames Hey idiot....you don't measure them as running slow....you predict them as running slow. > > > you are assuming that you are at rest in the aether frame. > > Nope .. no aether involved or required. Yes there is aether involved....that's why every SR observer calims the exclusive properties of the aether frame. Ken Seto >Why do you have to lie about what > SR says .. of course, I know the answer (and so do you), that there is no > problem at all with SR, so you have to LIE about what it says in order to > say it is wrong. You're a fraud. |