Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #472886 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-09-24 09:43 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-09-28 14:47 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 73 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-24 09:43 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 17:13 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-24 12:38 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 01:20 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 01:38 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-25 06:47 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 14:13 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-25 17:54 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 02:39 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-25 06:32 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 14:13 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-25 17:57 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 02:39 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-24 18:17 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Hilton Packett <wod@wcothr.ce> - 2018-09-24 20:09 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 13:29 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Hilton Packett <wod@wcothr.ce> - 2018-09-25 22:29 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) herbertglazier0@gmail.com - 2018-09-25 16:55 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-25 17:52 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 20:11 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-26 04:11 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 09:54 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-26 14:00 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-26 21:29 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-27 01:10 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-27 06:47 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-27 18:37 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-28 13:18 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 22:05 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-29 08:11 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-29 15:25 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-29 12:40 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-29 20:03 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-29 22:03 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-30 19:07 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 14:52 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-01 11:46 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 21:30 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-02 07:30 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 17:08 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-09-29 08:37 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-09-29 09:20 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-29 12:43 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-09-29 15:00 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 10:31 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-01 11:51 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 21:30 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-02 07:21 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 17:08 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 13:27 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-03 06:03 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-03 13:38 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-03 09:10 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 07:41 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 13:24 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-03 05:59 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 07:43 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 06:20 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-28 07:10 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-28 16:45 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 13:39 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-26 13:57 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 14:42 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-27 12:46 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 06:30 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-28 06:56 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-09-28 09:41 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 13:44 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-09-28 09:43 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 13:51 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-09-28 14:30 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 14:41 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-09-28 14:47 -0700
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-24 09:43 -0700 |
| Subject | Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) |
| Message-ID | <7be9efb0-4e4c-4e57-9180-5e38058f3261@googlegroups.com> |
The paper in the following link describes a new theory of relativity called Improved Relativity Theory (IRT): http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf The differences between IRT and SRT and LET are as follows: 1. IRT says that space is occupied by a structured aether called the E-Matrix. In other words, the E-Matrix is space. The unique structured of the E-Matrix enables it to transmit light isotropically in all directions regardless of the motion of the source. 2. Time in IRT is absolute and the passage of absolute time is insensitive to motion. In other words, the rate of passage of absolute time is the same in all frames of reference. However, there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time different frames. This causes a clock to accumulate clock seconds at different rates, in different frames, according to its state of absolute motion--the higher is the state of absolute motion of the clock the higher is the absolute time content of its clock second. This gives rise to the observed concept of clock time dilation. 3. In IRT the material length of a meter stick is a universal constant in all frames of reference. However, the light-path-length (LPL: the length light must travel to cover the length of a moving meter stick) is predicted to be 1/gamma meter. This prediction is based on the assumption that the LPL of the observer’s meter stick is its material length. 4. An IRT observer does not assume that his clock accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than a clock moving wrt him and the LPL of his meter stick is shorter than a meter stick moving wrt him. He must include the possibilities that the clock moving wrt him is accumulating clock seconds at a faster rate and that the LPL of a meter stick moving wrt him is shorter than the LPL of his meter stick. The above premises of IRT eliminate all the paradoxes of SRT. More importantly, it gives rise to the IRT math that is valid in all environments, including gravity.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-24 17:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pob5v7$mau$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #472886 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > The paper in the following link describes a new theory of relativity > called Improved Relativity Theory (IRT): > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf > > The differences between IRT and SRT and LET are as follows: > > 1. IRT says that space is occupied by a structured aether called the > E-Matrix. In other words, the E-Matrix is space. The unique structured of > the E-Matrix enables it to transmit light isotropically in all directions > regardless of the motion of the source. In other words, you have simply renamed spacetime. Renaming accomplishes nothing physically. > > 2. Time in IRT is absolute and the passage of absolute time is > insensitive to motion. In other words, the rate of passage of absolute > time is the same in all frames of reference. However, there is no clock > time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of > absolute time different frames. This causes a clock to accumulate clock > seconds at different rates, in different frames, according to its state > of absolute motion--the higher is the state of absolute motion of the > clock the higher is the absolute time content of its clock second. This > gives rise to the observed concept of clock time dilation. > > 3. In IRT the material length of a meter stick is a universal constant in > all frames of reference. However, the light-path-length (LPL: the length > light must travel to cover the length of a moving meter stick) is > predicted to be 1/gamma meter. This prediction is based on the assumption > that the LPL of the observer’s meter stick is its material length. For the previous two, you postulate absolute length and absolute time but there are no instruments that can measure these. This is because, according to you, all objects are in absolute motion and therefore no clock reads absolute time and no meter stick reads absolute length. This is therefore an unmeasurable quantity, and therefore not a testable hypothesis. > > 4. An IRT observer does not assume that his clock accumulates clock > seconds at a faster rate than a clock moving wrt him and the LPL of his > meter stick is shorter than a meter stick moving wrt him. He must include > the possibilities that the clock moving wrt him is accumulating clock > seconds at a faster rate and that the LPL of a meter stick moving wrt him > is shorter than the LPL of his meter stick. > > The above premises of IRT eliminate all the paradoxes of SRT. More > importantly, it gives rise to the IRT math that is valid in all > environments, including gravity. > You have done no “IRT math” to show that it is valid. None. And what paradoxes of SRT? -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-24 12:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8c7126a4-c6e3-4287-a3cd-12bb8d23fb91@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #472888 |
On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 1:13:15 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > The paper in the following link describes a new theory of relativity > > called Improved Relativity Theory (IRT): > > > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf > > > > The differences between IRT and SRT and LET are as follows: > > > > 1. IRT says that space is occupied by a structured aether called the > > E-Matrix. In other words, the E-Matrix is space. The unique structured of > > the E-Matrix enables it to transmit light isotropically in all directions > > regardless of the motion of the source. > > In other words, you have simply renamed spacetime. Renaming accomplishes > nothing physically. No transmission of light in the E-Matrix is based on absolute time. Transmission of light in spacetime is not even defined and in any case it is based on flexible time. > > > > > 2. Time in IRT is absolute and the passage of absolute time is > > insensitive to motion. In other words, the rate of passage of absolute > > time is the same in all frames of reference. However, there is no clock > > time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of > > absolute time different frames. This causes a clock to accumulate clock > > seconds at different rates, in different frames, according to its state > > of absolute motion--the higher is the state of absolute motion of the > > clock the higher is the absolute time content of its clock second. This > > gives rise to the observed concept of clock time dilation. > > > > 3. In IRT the material length of a meter stick is a universal constant in > > all frames of reference. However, the light-path-length (LPL: the length > > light must travel to cover the length of a moving meter stick) is > > predicted to be 1/gamma meter. This prediction is based on the assumption > > that the LPL of the observer’s meter stick is its material length. > > For the previous two, you postulate absolute length and absolute time but > there are no instruments that can measure these. This is because, according > to you, all objects are in absolute motion and therefore no clock reads > absolute time and no meter stick reads absolute length. This is therefore > an unmeasurable quantity, and therefore not a testable hypothesis. Absolute length in IRT is material length. And absolute time is a defined quantity--for example any observer can claim that his clock second represents a specific amount of absolute time and he uses the LT to transform his specific unit of absolute time another frame and the result is 1/gamma second--this means that 1/gamma second on a moving clock contains the same amount of absolute time as 1 second on the observer’s clock. The GPS uses absolute time to synch the GPS clock with the ground clock. Before the launch the GPS second is set to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This is designed to make the GPS second at it location contains the same amount absolute time as the ground clock second. This means that the GPS is continually in synch with the group clock interns of absolute time. Absolute motion was detected by several past experiments and new experiments to detect absolute motion are proposed in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > > > > > 4. An IRT observer does not assume that his clock accumulates clock > > seconds at a faster rate than a clock moving wrt him and the LPL of his > > meter stick is shorter than a meter stick moving wrt him. He must include > > the possibilities that the clock moving wrt him is accumulating clock > > seconds at a faster rate and that the LPL of a meter stick moving wrt him > > is shorter than the LPL of his meter stick. > > > > The above premises of IRT eliminate all the paradoxes of SRT. More > > importantly, it gives rise to the IRT math that is valid in all > > environments, including gravity. > > > > You have done no “IRT math” to show that it is valid. None. IRT math is shown in the link that started this thread. > And what paradoxes of SRT? The twin paradox, the pole/barn paradox, the train/tunnel paradox and the bug/rivet paradox.....etc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-25 01:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <poc2hb$2lc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #472907 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 1:13:15 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> The paper in the following link describes a new theory of relativity >>> called Improved Relativity Theory (IRT): >>> >>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf >>> >>> The differences between IRT and SRT and LET are as follows: >>> >>> 1. IRT says that space is occupied by a structured aether called the >>> E-Matrix. In other words, the E-Matrix is space. The unique structured of >>> the E-Matrix enables it to transmit light isotropically in all directions >>> regardless of the motion of the source. >> >> In other words, you have simply renamed spacetime. Renaming accomplishes >> nothing physically. > > No transmission of light in the E-Matrix is based on absolute time. > Transmission of light in spacetime is not even defined Of course it is! That’s what electrodynamics is all about. > and in any case it is based on flexible time. >> >>> >>> 2. Time in IRT is absolute and the passage of absolute time is >>> insensitive to motion. In other words, the rate of passage of absolute >>> time is the same in all frames of reference. However, there is no clock >>> time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of >>> absolute time different frames. This causes a clock to accumulate clock >>> seconds at different rates, in different frames, according to its state >>> of absolute motion--the higher is the state of absolute motion of the >>> clock the higher is the absolute time content of its clock second. This >>> gives rise to the observed concept of clock time dilation. >>> >>> 3. In IRT the material length of a meter stick is a universal constant in >>> all frames of reference. However, the light-path-length (LPL: the length >>> light must travel to cover the length of a moving meter stick) is >>> predicted to be 1/gamma meter. This prediction is based on the assumption >>> that the LPL of the observer’s meter stick is its material length. >> >> For the previous two, you postulate absolute length and absolute time but >> there are no instruments that can measure these. This is because, according >> to you, all objects are in absolute motion and therefore no clock reads >> absolute time and no meter stick reads absolute length. This is therefore >> an unmeasurable quantity, and therefore not a testable hypothesis. > > Absolute length in IRT is material length. And absolute time is a defined quantity A defined quantity that is not measurable is not a testable hypothesis. > --for example any observer can claim that his clock second represents a > specific amount of absolute time and he uses the LT to transform his > specific unit of absolute time another frame and the result is 1/gamma > second--this means that 1/gamma second on a moving clock contains the > same amount of absolute time as 1 second on the observer’s clock. > > The GPS uses absolute time to synch the GPS clock with the ground clock. > Before the launch the GPS second is set to have 4.4647 more periods of > Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This is designed to make > the GPS second at it location contains the same amount absolute time as > the ground clock second. This means that the GPS is continually in synch > with the group clock interns of absolute time. > > Absolute motion was detected by several past experiments and new > experiments to detect absolute motion are proposed in the following link: > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > >> >>> >>> 4. An IRT observer does not assume that his clock accumulates clock >>> seconds at a faster rate than a clock moving wrt him and the LPL of his >>> meter stick is shorter than a meter stick moving wrt him. He must include >>> the possibilities that the clock moving wrt him is accumulating clock >>> seconds at a faster rate and that the LPL of a meter stick moving wrt him >>> is shorter than the LPL of his meter stick. >>> >>> The above premises of IRT eliminate all the paradoxes of SRT. More >>> importantly, it gives rise to the IRT math that is valid in all >>> environments, including gravity. >>> >> >> You have done no “IRT math” to show that it is valid. None. > > IRT math is shown in the link that started this thread. Writing down equations is not doing the math. > >> And what paradoxes of SRT? > > The twin paradox, the pole/barn paradox, the train/tunnel paradox and the > bug/rivet paradox.....etc. > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-25 01:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <poc3ja$3rt$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #472956 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >> On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 1:13:15 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> >>> And what paradoxes of SRT? >> >> The twin paradox, the pole/barn paradox, the train/tunnel paradox and the >> bug/rivet paradox.....etc. And I’m sure you’ve been told that the word “paradox” in that context means puzzle, not logical contradiction. You DO know some words have different meanings, depending on context, right? I mean, you DO speak English well enough to know that, right? -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-25 06:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <448f0b5f-0c0b-4aaa-99f8-62ce90446cb0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #472957 |
On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 9:38:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >> On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 1:13:15 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > >> > >>> And what paradoxes of SRT? > >> > >> The twin paradox, the pole/barn paradox, the train/tunnel paradox and the > >> bug/rivet paradox.....etc. > > And I’m sure you’ve been told that the word “paradox” in that context means > puzzle, not logical contradiction. They are logical contradictions. For example: 1. SR claims: The traveling clock accumulate clock second at the same rate as the stay at home clock. But when they are reunited they accumulated different number of clock seconds. 2. SR claims that: A 80 ft long pole can fit into a 40 ft. barn with both doors close simultaneously. 3. SR claims: The bug is crashed by the rivet before the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole and the bug is still alive when the rivet hits the wall of the hole. > > You DO know some words have different meanings, depending on context, > right? > > I mean, you DO speak English well enough to know that, right? > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-25 14:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <podfph$dn7$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #473004 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 9:38:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>> On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 1:13:15 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>> And what paradoxes of SRT? >>>> >>>> The twin paradox, the pole/barn paradox, the train/tunnel paradox and the >>>> bug/rivet paradox.....etc. >> >> And I’m sure you’ve been told that the word “paradox” in that context means >> puzzle, not logical contradiction. > > They are logical contradictions. No they are not. You’ve used the wrong meaning. > For example: > 1. SR claims: The traveling clock accumulate clock second at the same > rate as the stay at home clock. But when they are reunited they > accumulated different number of clock seconds. This is not an accurate description of what SR claims. > 2. SR claims that: A 80 ft long pole can fit into a 40 ft. barn with both > doors close simultaneously. Again not a sound description of what SR claims. > 3. SR claims: The bug is crashed by the rivet before the head of the > rivet hits the wall of the hole and the bug is still alive when the rivet > hits the wall of the hole. Again, same thing. > >> >> You DO know some words have different meanings, depending on context, >> right? >> >> I mean, you DO speak English well enough to know that, right? >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-25 17:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b4ec95ae-c785-4e86-bf89-7916a93e4100@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473009 |
On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 10:13:08 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 9:38:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>> On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 1:13:15 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> And what paradoxes of SRT? > >>>> > >>>> The twin paradox, the pole/barn paradox, the train/tunnel paradox and the > >>>> bug/rivet paradox.....etc. > >> > >> And I’m sure you’ve been told that the word “paradox” in that context means > >> puzzle, not logical contradiction. > > > > They are logical contradictions. > > No they are not. You’ve used the wrong meaning. > > > For example: > > 1. SR claims: The traveling clock accumulate clock second at the same > > rate as the stay at home clock. But when they are reunited they > > accumulated different number of clock seconds. > > This is not an accurate description of what SR claims. Assertion is not a valid argument. > > > 2. SR claims that: A 80 ft long pole can fit into a 40 ft. barn with both > > doors close simultaneously. > > Again not a sound description of what SR claims. Assertion is not a valid argument. > > > 3. SR claims: The bug is crashed by the rivet before the head of the > > rivet hits the wall of the hole and the bug is still alive when the rivet > > hits the wall of the hole. > > Again, same thing. Assertion is not a valid argument. > > > > >> > >> You DO know some words have different meanings, depending on context, > >> right? > >> > >> I mean, you DO speak English well enough to know that, right? > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-26 02:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <poerh7$tea$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #473095 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 10:13:08 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 9:38:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 1:13:15 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> And what paradoxes of SRT? >>>>>> >>>>>> The twin paradox, the pole/barn paradox, the train/tunnel paradox and the >>>>>> bug/rivet paradox.....etc. >>>> >>>> And I’m sure you’ve been told that the word “paradox” in that context means >>>> puzzle, not logical contradiction. >>> >>> They are logical contradictions. >> >> No they are not. You’ve used the wrong meaning. >> >>> For example: >>> 1. SR claims: The traveling clock accumulate clock second at the same >>> rate as the stay at home clock. But when they are reunited they >>> accumulated different number of clock seconds. >> >> This is not an accurate description of what SR claims. > > Assertion is not a valid argument. This wasn’t an attempt to make an argument. You said incorrect things. Nobody needs to summon an argument to correct them for you. >> >>> 2. SR claims that: A 80 ft long pole can fit into a 40 ft. barn with both >>> doors close simultaneously. >> >> Again not a sound description of what SR claims. > > Assertion is not a valid argument. >> >>> 3. SR claims: The bug is crashed by the rivet before the head of the >>> rivet hits the wall of the hole and the bug is still alive when the rivet >>> hits the wall of the hole. >> >> Again, same thing. > > Assertion is not a valid argument. > >> >>> >>>> >>>> You DO know some words have different meanings, depending on context, >>>> right? >>>> >>>> I mean, you DO speak English well enough to know that, right? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-25 06:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9c1f5935-17ce-4dd0-92f9-532f88caf1bd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #472956 |
On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 9:20:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 1:13:15 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> The paper in the following link describes a new theory of relativity > >>> called Improved Relativity Theory (IRT): > >>> > >>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf > >>> > >>> The differences between IRT and SRT and LET are as follows: > >>> > >>> 1. IRT says that space is occupied by a structured aether called the > >>> E-Matrix. In other words, the E-Matrix is space. The unique structured of > >>> the E-Matrix enables it to transmit light isotropically in all directions > >>> regardless of the motion of the source. > >> > >> In other words, you have simply renamed spacetime. Renaming accomplishes > >> nothing physically. > > > > No transmission of light in the E-Matrix is based on absolute time. > > Transmission of light in spacetime is not even defined > > Of course it is! That’s what electrodynamics is all about. So how does light travel in spacetime....for that matter what is spacetime? Is light travel as particle photons? In that case how is it maintain the same speed wrt an observer moving toward or away from them? > > > and in any case it is based on flexible time. > >> > >>> > >>> 2. Time in IRT is absolute and the passage of absolute time is > >>> insensitive to motion. In other words, the rate of passage of absolute > >>> time is the same in all frames of reference. However, there is no clock > >>> time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of > >>> absolute time different frames. This causes a clock to accumulate clock > >>> seconds at different rates, in different frames, according to its state > >>> of absolute motion--the higher is the state of absolute motion of the > >>> clock the higher is the absolute time content of its clock second. This > >>> gives rise to the observed concept of clock time dilation. > >>> > >>> 3. In IRT the material length of a meter stick is a universal constant in > >>> all frames of reference. However, the light-path-length (LPL: the length > >>> light must travel to cover the length of a moving meter stick) is > >>> predicted to be 1/gamma meter. This prediction is based on the assumption > >>> that the LPL of the observer’s meter stick is its material length. > >> > >> For the previous two, you postulate absolute length and absolute time but > >> there are no instruments that can measure these. This is because, according > >> to you, all objects are in absolute motion and therefore no clock reads > >> absolute time and no meter stick reads absolute length. This is therefore > >> an unmeasurable quantity, and therefore not a testable hypothesis. > > > > Absolute length in IRT is material length. And absolute time is a defined quantity > > A defined quantity that is not measurable is not a testable hypothesis. Are you nuts? You can surely measure the length of a meter stick. > > > --for example any observer can claim that his clock second represents a > > specific amount of absolute time and he uses the LT to transform his > > specific unit of absolute time another frame and the result is 1/gamma > > second--this means that 1/gamma second on a moving clock contains the > > same amount of absolute time as 1 second on the observer’s clock. > > > > The GPS uses absolute time to synch the GPS clock with the ground clock. > > Before the launch the GPS second is set to have 4.4647 more periods of > > Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This is designed to make > > the GPS second at it location contains the same amount absolute time as > > the ground clock second. This means that the GPS is continually in synch > > with the group clock interns of absolute time. > > > > Absolute motion was detected by several past experiments and new > > experiments to detect absolute motion are proposed in the following link: > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > > > >> > >>> > >>> 4. An IRT observer does not assume that his clock accumulates clock > >>> seconds at a faster rate than a clock moving wrt him and the LPL of his > >>> meter stick is shorter than a meter stick moving wrt him. He must include > >>> the possibilities that the clock moving wrt him is accumulating clock > >>> seconds at a faster rate and that the LPL of a meter stick moving wrt him > >>> is shorter than the LPL of his meter stick. > >>> > >>> The above premises of IRT eliminate all the paradoxes of SRT. More > >>> importantly, it gives rise to the IRT math that is valid in all > >>> environments, including gravity. > >>> > >> > >> You have done no “IRT math” to show that it is valid. None. > > > > IRT math is shown in the link that started this thread. > > Writing down equations is not doing the math. Sure it is; IRT equations are math....Einstein’s 1905 paper contains equations and that’s math. > > > > >> And what paradoxes of SRT? > > > > The twin paradox, the pole/barn paradox, the train/tunnel paradox and the > > bug/rivet paradox.....etc. > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-25 14:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <podfpg$dn7$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #473002 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 9:20:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 1:13:15 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> The paper in the following link describes a new theory of relativity >>>>> called Improved Relativity Theory (IRT): >>>>> >>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf >>>>> >>>>> The differences between IRT and SRT and LET are as follows: >>>>> >>>>> 1. IRT says that space is occupied by a structured aether called the >>>>> E-Matrix. In other words, the E-Matrix is space. The unique structured of >>>>> the E-Matrix enables it to transmit light isotropically in all directions >>>>> regardless of the motion of the source. >>>> >>>> In other words, you have simply renamed spacetime. Renaming accomplishes >>>> nothing physically. >>> >>> No transmission of light in the E-Matrix is based on absolute time. >>> Transmission of light in spacetime is not even defined >> >> Of course it is! That’s what electrodynamics is all about. > > So how does light travel in spacetime....for that matter what is spacetime? > Is light travel as particle photons? In that case how is it maintain the > same speed wrt an observer moving toward or away from them? These questions are answered with electrodynamics. > >> >>> and in any case it is based on flexible time. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2. Time in IRT is absolute and the passage of absolute time is >>>>> insensitive to motion. In other words, the rate of passage of absolute >>>>> time is the same in all frames of reference. However, there is no clock >>>>> time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of >>>>> absolute time different frames. This causes a clock to accumulate clock >>>>> seconds at different rates, in different frames, according to its state >>>>> of absolute motion--the higher is the state of absolute motion of the >>>>> clock the higher is the absolute time content of its clock second. This >>>>> gives rise to the observed concept of clock time dilation. >>>>> >>>>> 3. In IRT the material length of a meter stick is a universal constant in >>>>> all frames of reference. However, the light-path-length (LPL: the length >>>>> light must travel to cover the length of a moving meter stick) is >>>>> predicted to be 1/gamma meter. This prediction is based on the assumption >>>>> that the LPL of the observer’s meter stick is its material length. >>>> >>>> For the previous two, you postulate absolute length and absolute time but >>>> there are no instruments that can measure these. This is because, according >>>> to you, all objects are in absolute motion and therefore no clock reads >>>> absolute time and no meter stick reads absolute length. This is therefore >>>> an unmeasurable quantity, and therefore not a testable hypothesis. >>> >>> Absolute length in IRT is material length. And absolute time is a defined quantity >> >> A defined quantity that is not measurable is not a testable hypothesis. > > Are you nuts? You can surely measure the length of a meter stick. Absolute time. > >> >>> --for example any observer can claim that his clock second represents a >>> specific amount of absolute time and he uses the LT to transform his >>> specific unit of absolute time another frame and the result is 1/gamma >>> second--this means that 1/gamma second on a moving clock contains the >>> same amount of absolute time as 1 second on the observer’s clock. >>> >>> The GPS uses absolute time to synch the GPS clock with the ground clock. >>> Before the launch the GPS second is set to have 4.4647 more periods of >>> Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This is designed to make >>> the GPS second at it location contains the same amount absolute time as >>> the ground clock second. This means that the GPS is continually in synch >>> with the group clock interns of absolute time. >>> >>> Absolute motion was detected by several past experiments and new >>> experiments to detect absolute motion are proposed in the following link: >>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 4. An IRT observer does not assume that his clock accumulates clock >>>>> seconds at a faster rate than a clock moving wrt him and the LPL of his >>>>> meter stick is shorter than a meter stick moving wrt him. He must include >>>>> the possibilities that the clock moving wrt him is accumulating clock >>>>> seconds at a faster rate and that the LPL of a meter stick moving wrt him >>>>> is shorter than the LPL of his meter stick. >>>>> >>>>> The above premises of IRT eliminate all the paradoxes of SRT. More >>>>> importantly, it gives rise to the IRT math that is valid in all >>>>> environments, including gravity. >>>>> >>>> >>>> You have done no “IRT math” to show that it is valid. None. >>> >>> IRT math is shown in the link that started this thread. >> >> Writing down equations is not doing the math. > > Sure it is; IRT equations are math....Einstein’s 1905 paper contains > equations and that’s math. Einstein calculated numbers with his equations. He did the math. It’s more than writing equations. > >> >>> >>>> And what paradoxes of SRT? >>> >>> The twin paradox, the pole/barn paradox, the train/tunnel paradox and the >>> bug/rivet paradox.....etc. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-25 17:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b50cc11c-94e1-4d38-83bf-5f1fcc774f05@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473008 |
On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 10:13:08 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 9:20:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 1:13:15 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> The paper in the following link describes a new theory of relativity > >>>>> called Improved Relativity Theory (IRT): > >>>>> > >>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf > >>>>> > >>>>> The differences between IRT and SRT and LET are as follows: > >>>>> > >>>>> 1. IRT says that space is occupied by a structured aether called the > >>>>> E-Matrix. In other words, the E-Matrix is space. The unique structured of > >>>>> the E-Matrix enables it to transmit light isotropically in all directions > >>>>> regardless of the motion of the source. > >>>> > >>>> In other words, you have simply renamed spacetime. Renaming accomplishes > >>>> nothing physically. > >>> > >>> No transmission of light in the E-Matrix is based on absolute time. > >>> Transmission of light in spacetime is not even defined > >> > >> Of course it is! That’s what electrodynamics is all about. > > > > So how does light travel in spacetime....for that matter what is spacetime? > > Is light travel as particle photons? In that case how is it maintain the > > same speed wrt an observer moving toward or away from them? > > These questions are answered with electrodynamics. Nope. > > > > >> > >>> and in any case it is based on flexible time. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 2. Time in IRT is absolute and the passage of absolute time is > >>>>> insensitive to motion. In other words, the rate of passage of absolute > >>>>> time is the same in all frames of reference. However, there is no clock > >>>>> time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of > >>>>> absolute time different frames. This causes a clock to accumulate clock > >>>>> seconds at different rates, in different frames, according to its state > >>>>> of absolute motion--the higher is the state of absolute motion of the > >>>>> clock the higher is the absolute time content of its clock second. This > >>>>> gives rise to the observed concept of clock time dilation. > >>>>> > >>>>> 3. In IRT the material length of a meter stick is a universal constant in > >>>>> all frames of reference. However, the light-path-length (LPL: the length > >>>>> light must travel to cover the length of a moving meter stick) is > >>>>> predicted to be 1/gamma meter. This prediction is based on the assumption > >>>>> that the LPL of the observer’s meter stick is its material length. > >>>> > >>>> For the previous two, you postulate absolute length and absolute time but > >>>> there are no instruments that can measure these. This is because, according > >>>> to you, all objects are in absolute motion and therefore no clock reads > >>>> absolute time and no meter stick reads absolute length. This is therefore > >>>> an unmeasurable quantity, and therefore not a testable hypothesis. > >>> > >>> Absolute length in IRT is material length. And absolute time is a defined quantity > >> > >> A defined quantity that is not measurable is not a testable hypothesis. > > > > Are you nuts? You can surely measure the length of a meter stick. > > Absolute time. So what about absolute time? > > > > >> > >>> --for example any observer can claim that his clock second represents a > >>> specific amount of absolute time and he uses the LT to transform his > >>> specific unit of absolute time another frame and the result is 1/gamma > >>> second--this means that 1/gamma second on a moving clock contains the > >>> same amount of absolute time as 1 second on the observer’s clock. > >>> > >>> The GPS uses absolute time to synch the GPS clock with the ground clock. > >>> Before the launch the GPS second is set to have 4.4647 more periods of > >>> Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This is designed to make > >>> the GPS second at it location contains the same amount absolute time as > >>> the ground clock second. This means that the GPS is continually in synch > >>> with the group clock interns of absolute time. > >>> > >>> Absolute motion was detected by several past experiments and new > >>> experiments to detect absolute motion are proposed in the following link: > >>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 4. An IRT observer does not assume that his clock accumulates clock > >>>>> seconds at a faster rate than a clock moving wrt him and the LPL of his > >>>>> meter stick is shorter than a meter stick moving wrt him. He must include > >>>>> the possibilities that the clock moving wrt him is accumulating clock > >>>>> seconds at a faster rate and that the LPL of a meter stick moving wrt him > >>>>> is shorter than the LPL of his meter stick. > >>>>> > >>>>> The above premises of IRT eliminate all the paradoxes of SRT. More > >>>>> importantly, it gives rise to the IRT math that is valid in all > >>>>> environments, including gravity. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> You have done no “IRT math” to show that it is valid. None. > >>> > >>> IRT math is shown in the link that started this thread. > >> > >> Writing down equations is not doing the math. > > > > Sure it is; IRT equations are math....Einstein’s 1905 paper contains > > equations and that’s math. > > Einstein calculated numbers with his equations. He did the math. It’s more > than writing equations. No calculations in his 1905 paper.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-26 02:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <poerh7$tea$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #473096 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 10:13:08 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 9:20:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 1:13:15 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> The paper in the following link describes a new theory of relativity >>>>>>> called Improved Relativity Theory (IRT): >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The differences between IRT and SRT and LET are as follows: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. IRT says that space is occupied by a structured aether called the >>>>>>> E-Matrix. In other words, the E-Matrix is space. The unique structured of >>>>>>> the E-Matrix enables it to transmit light isotropically in all directions >>>>>>> regardless of the motion of the source. >>>>>> >>>>>> In other words, you have simply renamed spacetime. Renaming accomplishes >>>>>> nothing physically. >>>>> >>>>> No transmission of light in the E-Matrix is based on absolute time. >>>>> Transmission of light in spacetime is not even defined >>>> >>>> Of course it is! That’s what electrodynamics is all about. >>> >>> So how does light travel in spacetime....for that matter what is spacetime? >>> Is light travel as particle photons? In that case how is it maintain the >>> same speed wrt an observer moving toward or away from them? >> >> These questions are answered with electrodynamics. > > Nope. Of course they are. Try reading. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> and in any case it is based on flexible time. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. Time in IRT is absolute and the passage of absolute time is >>>>>>> insensitive to motion. In other words, the rate of passage of absolute >>>>>>> time is the same in all frames of reference. However, there is no clock >>>>>>> time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of >>>>>>> absolute time different frames. This causes a clock to accumulate clock >>>>>>> seconds at different rates, in different frames, according to its state >>>>>>> of absolute motion--the higher is the state of absolute motion of the >>>>>>> clock the higher is the absolute time content of its clock second. This >>>>>>> gives rise to the observed concept of clock time dilation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3. In IRT the material length of a meter stick is a universal constant in >>>>>>> all frames of reference. However, the light-path-length (LPL: the length >>>>>>> light must travel to cover the length of a moving meter stick) is >>>>>>> predicted to be 1/gamma meter. This prediction is based on the assumption >>>>>>> that the LPL of the observer’s meter stick is its material length. >>>>>> >>>>>> For the previous two, you postulate absolute length and absolute time but >>>>>> there are no instruments that can measure these. This is because, according >>>>>> to you, all objects are in absolute motion and therefore no clock reads >>>>>> absolute time and no meter stick reads absolute length. This is therefore >>>>>> an unmeasurable quantity, and therefore not a testable hypothesis. >>>>> >>>>> Absolute length in IRT is material length. And absolute time is a defined quantity >>>> >>>> A defined quantity that is not measurable is not a testable hypothesis. >>> >>> Are you nuts? You can surely measure the length of a meter stick. >> >> Absolute time. > > So what about absolute time? Oh, look! It’s Short Attention-Span Theater! >> >>> >>>> >>>>> --for example any observer can claim that his clock second represents a >>>>> specific amount of absolute time and he uses the LT to transform his >>>>> specific unit of absolute time another frame and the result is 1/gamma >>>>> second--this means that 1/gamma second on a moving clock contains the >>>>> same amount of absolute time as 1 second on the observer’s clock. >>>>> >>>>> The GPS uses absolute time to synch the GPS clock with the ground clock. >>>>> Before the launch the GPS second is set to have 4.4647 more periods of >>>>> Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This is designed to make >>>>> the GPS second at it location contains the same amount absolute time as >>>>> the ground clock second. This means that the GPS is continually in synch >>>>> with the group clock interns of absolute time. >>>>> >>>>> Absolute motion was detected by several past experiments and new >>>>> experiments to detect absolute motion are proposed in the following link: >>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 4. An IRT observer does not assume that his clock accumulates clock >>>>>>> seconds at a faster rate than a clock moving wrt him and the LPL of his >>>>>>> meter stick is shorter than a meter stick moving wrt him. He must include >>>>>>> the possibilities that the clock moving wrt him is accumulating clock >>>>>>> seconds at a faster rate and that the LPL of a meter stick moving wrt him >>>>>>> is shorter than the LPL of his meter stick. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The above premises of IRT eliminate all the paradoxes of SRT. More >>>>>>> importantly, it gives rise to the IRT math that is valid in all >>>>>>> environments, including gravity. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You have done no “IRT math” to show that it is valid. None. >>>>> >>>>> IRT math is shown in the link that started this thread. >>>> >>>> Writing down equations is not doing the math. >>> >>> Sure it is; IRT equations are math....Einstein’s 1905 paper contains >>> equations and that’s math. >> >> Einstein calculated numbers with his equations. He did the math. It’s more >> than writing equations. > > No calculations in his 1905 paper. But there were in the subsequent work. He wrote five papers in 1905 by the way. > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-24 18:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pob9oc$8uv$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #472886 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >The paper in the following link describes a new theory of relativity called > Improved Relativity Theory (IRT): >The differences between IRT and SRT and LET are as follows: 1. IRT is a complete, total disaster, while SR is actually useful. >The above premises of IRT eliminate all the paradoxes of SRT. There are no paradoxes in SR to eliminate. So IRT has accomplished exactly nothing. > More importantly, it gives rise to the IRT math that is valid in all >environments, including gravity. YOU HAVE NEVER SHOWN US ANY MATH WHATSOEVER! How can you claim "IRT math is valid in all environments" when you can't even give us any "IRT math"!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hilton Packett <wod@wcothr.ce> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-24 20:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pobg9i$184q$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #472893 |
the botoxed dwarf Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >>The paper in the following link describes a new theory of relativity >>called >> Improved Relativity Theory (IRT): > >>The differences between IRT and SRT and LET are as follows: > > 1. IRT is a complete, total disaster, while SR is actually useful. Just you, illiterate, and can't read. IRT as a subset, is a consistent theory. http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-25 13:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fe66e130-eae7-4866-a7e4-b1f8a31848f4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #472915 |
On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 4:09:27 PM UTC-4, Hilton Packett wrote: [] > ... IRT as a subset, is a consistent > theory. So Mr. Seto learned how to nym shift?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hilton Packett <wod@wcothr.ce> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-25 22:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <poecrh$6ag$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #473071 |
Edward Prochak wrote: > On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 4:09:27 PM UTC-4, Sir Hilton Packett wrote: > [] >> ... IRT as a subset, is a consistent theory. > > So Mr. Seto learned how to nym shift? I get told all the time I have a doppleganger running around and there's just no way more than 1 man can look THIS good.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | herbertglazier0@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-25 16:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4d12d403-f94c-451e-be89-0545d061ac31@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473085 |
On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 3:29:08 PM UTC-7, Hilton Packett wrote: > Edward Prochak wrote: > > > On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 4:09:27 PM UTC-4, Sir Hilton Packett > wrote: > > [] > >> ... IRT as a subset, is a consistent theory. > > > > So Mr. Seto learned how to nym shift? > > I get told all the time I have a doppleganger running around and there's > just no way more than 1 man can look THIS good. Going through space a close to see means you can do no work on spaceship.Reality is your dead when you hit 74% of c.Bert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-25 17:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <21137bc8-734c-4d5d-9f65-945c3c16435d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473071 |
On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 4:29:27 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 4:09:27 PM UTC-4, Hilton Packett wrote: > [] > > ... IRT as a subset, is a consistent > > theory. > > > So Mr. Seto learned how to nym shift? Hey idiot, I didn’t nym shifted....Hilton Packett is not me. Also IRT is not a subset of any other theory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-25 20:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <43ee2a9a-93c1-458f-bb13-b83247c43ad0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473094 |
On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 8:52:52 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 4:29:27 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > Hey idiot, I didn’t nym shifted.... It sounds as you did. You nym'ed as someone defending you. You are a cheater and a liar. > Hilton Packett is not me. Assertion is not a valid argument. > Also IRT is not a subset of any other theory. Yes it is. You STOLE it from another crackpot, and put ur name on it and copyrighted it, just like de cheater you are. Remember, you DID admit to me this in the past, when I confronted you with an exact same copy of your irt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web