 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / January 2007Improved Relativity Theory (IRT)
Improved Relativity Theory (IRT): IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT are valid in all environments, including gravity. IRT has an unlimited domain of applicability therfore it is also valid for use to replace GRT in cosmological applications. http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2007IRT.pdf Ken Seto > Improved Relativity Theory (IRT): > IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT are [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Ken Seto Hey Dork! Learn mathematics. > > Improved Relativity Theory (IRT): > > IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT are [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Hey Dork! > Learn mathematics. Hey - Androcles vs Ken Seto! Better than Kwik Save Instant Coffee! >> > Improved Relativity Theory (IRT): >> > IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT are [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Hey - Androcles vs Ken Seto! > Better than Kwik Save Instant Coffee! Hey Newbie! I've crossed swords with Seto before. He always loses. Seto is the moron that claimed MMX operated at a right-angle to his aether wind. > Improved Relativity Theory (IRT): > IRT includes SRT as a subset.... SR is a subset of "your model" according to you, Seto, and it definitely predicts time dilation, which has been confirmed in countless experiments and observations, including satellite based navigation systems. SR predicts that time and space are malleable. In fact, there has never been a prediction of SR that was contradicted by an observation. SR make a prediction for the delay in decay time for muon resulting from cosmic ray showers. That time dilation is precisely confirmed by observation. Because your IRT includes SR as a subset, it also has to make the same prediction. If you claim time dilation does not exist, then you can't claim SR as a subset of your IRT. > > Improved Relativity Theory (IRT): > > IRT includes SRT as a subset.... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > If you claim time dilation does not exist, then you can't claim SR as a > subset of your IRT. I don't know where you get this from. IRT has both clock time dilation and clock time expansion for the observed clock. Read the paper before making comment. > I don't know where you get this from. IRT has both clock time dilation and > clock time expansion for the observed clock. Read the paper before making > comment. The "clock time expansion" is not predicted by special relativity or general relativity. If fact, "clock time expansion" is not observed in nature. > > I don't know where you get this from. IRT has both clock time dilation and > > clock time expansion for the observed clock. Read the paper before making [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > general relativity. If fact, "clock time expansion" is not observed in > nature. Clock time expansion is observed by the GPS clock. From the GPS clock point of view the SR effect on the ground clock is 7 us/day running fast. That is clock time expansion. >>> I don't know where you get this from. IRT has both clock time dilation > and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > of view the SR effect on the ground clock is 7 us/day running fast. That is > clock time expansion. From the perspective of a GPS satellite, ground clock run slower because there is greater gravitation--the effect predicted accurately by general relativity. The actual difference is more complex and to attain an accuracy in the 1 ns range, twelve relativistic corrections are applied... most in the clock rate offset on the satellites and at least one correction in receivers down below. For more information, see: http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html#Relativity > >>> I don't know where you get this from. IRT has both clock time dilation > > and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > because there is greater gravitation--the effect predicted accurately > by general relativity. Hey idiot.....I said that from the GPS point of view the *SR Effect* on the ground clock is 7 us/day running fast. This does not include the gravitational GR effect. >> From the perspective of a GPS satellite, ground clock run slower >> because there is greater gravitation--the effect predicted accurately [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ground clock is 7 us/day running fast. This does not include the > gravitational GR effect. Your perception is wrong, Seto. SR only predicts time dilation (slowing) which is empirically verified. GTR is the proper tool to use when considering gravitational effects such as is relevant in the Global Positioning System. Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html > >> From the perspective of a GPS satellite, ground clock run slower > >> because there is greater gravitation--the effect predicted accurately [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Your perception is wrong, Seto. SR only predicts time dilation > (slowing) which is empirically verified. Hey idiot it is not verfied from the traveling clock (the GPS clock) point of view. >>>> From the perspective of a GPS satellite, ground clock run slower >>>> because there is greater gravitation--the effect predicted [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Hey idiot it is not verfied from the traveling clock (the GPS clock) point > of view. To eliminate the effects of gravity for continuing this discussion, picture two light sources A and B in intergalactic space in two different inertial frames that are in relative motion with respect to each other, such that dv/dt = 0 and c > |dr/dt| > 0 . The observer in the frame of the clock (A) measures the frequency of light from (B) shifted according to Doppler's equations. The observer in the frame of the clock (A) measures B's clock to be running slow precisely as predicted by special relativity. Similarly, the observer in the frame of the clock (B) measures the frequency of light from (A) shifted according to Doppler's equations. The observer in the frame of the clock (B) measures A's clock to be running slow precisely as predicted by special relativity. The above is empirically correct. > >>>> From the perspective of a GPS satellite, ground clock run slower > >>>> because there is greater gravitation--the effect predicted [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > The above is empirically correct. Hey idiot the Doppler formula never been performed as follows: 1. A measures B's doppler frequency shift for a standard light source in B's frame. 2. B measures A's doppler frequency shift for a standard light source in A's frame. If 1 and 2 give the same shift then it is confirmed emperically. Ken Seto > "Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message >> To eliminate the effects of gravity for continuing this >> discussion, picture two light sources A and B in intergalactic [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Ken Seto The two observers, A and B, have to see the same Doppler shift because they're equivalent observers. > > "Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > The two observers, A and B, have to see the same Doppler shift > because they're equivalent observers. But do you have experimental evidence to support your claim?? >>> "Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message >>>> To eliminate the effects of gravity for continuing this [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > But do you have experimental evidence to support your claim?? Certainly--two way communication with spacecraft such as those in orbit around (and on the surface of) Mars have continually changing Doppler shifts. Receivers at both end must correct for the Doppler shift in order to maintain the greatest bandwidth with the given resources. Doppler Effect is also an important tool for space navigation http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/index.cfm "The Doppler effect is an important method of tracking the Cassini-Huygens spacecraft throughout its mission. An important point to realize though, is that in order to calculate the speed of the spacecraft, it is necessary to know the original frequency the spacecraft is sending. This is a challenge for any spacecraft, and engineers have developed ways to determine what frequency the spacecraft's transmitter is sending, independently of what is received". Coherent Mode http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/nav-coherent-mode.cfm > >>> "Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message > >>>> To eliminate the effects of gravity for continuing this [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > the Doppler shift in order to maintain the greatest bandwidth > with the given resources. But we were talking about one way: A---->B or B---->A Have you experimental evidence that the two one way shifts are identical???? Ken Seto >>>>> "Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message >>>>>> To eliminate the effects of gravity for continuing this [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Ken Seto We are talking A<--->B as the communication between earth and spacecraft is two way. Instructions, commands, etc. are sent to the spacecraft. Images, data, etc. are sent back. A-->B and B-->A have to deal with identical Doppler shifts. > >>>>> "Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message > >>>>>> To eliminate the effects of gravity for continuing this [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > the spacecraft. Images, data, etc. are sent back. A-->B and > B-->A have to deal with identical Doppler shifts. Two way communication is not proof of symmetry and reciprocity. >>>>>>> "Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> To eliminate the effects of gravity for continuing this [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > Two way communication is not proof of symmetry and reciprocity. Identical! The receiver offsets, taking into account the Doppler shift, are the same for the receivers at both ends A and B to make maximum use of the bandwidth available. The design takes advantage of the fact the the Doppler shift is identical for A and B. > >>>>>>> "Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message > >>>>>>>> To eliminate the effects of gravity for continuing this [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > The receiver offsets, taking into account the Doppler shift, are > the same for the receivers at both ends A and B This means that symmetry and reciprocity are assumed. So this is not experimental proof of symmetry and reciprocity. Ken Seto > to make maximum > use of the bandwidth available. The design takes advantage of the > fact the the Doppler shift is identical for A and B. > This means that symmetry and reciprocity are assumed. So this is not > experimental proof of symmetry and reciprocity. > > Ken Seto The receiver offsets, taking into account the Doppler shift, are the same for the receivers at both ends A and B to make maximum use of the bandwidth available. The design takes advantage of the fact the the Doppler shift is identical for A and B. I suppose you could call a practical implementation--an experiment! Certainly verification of fact that the Doppler shift is identical in both receivers. > This means that symmetry and reciprocity are assumed. So this is not > experimental proof of symmetry and reciprocity. This is just too transparent. Your dishonesty shows through to its full extent. Bob  Signature"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein > the Doppler formula never been performed as follows: > 1. A measures B's doppler frequency shift for a standard light source in > B's frame. > 2. B measures A's doppler frequency shift for a standard light source in > A's frame. > If 1 and 2 give the same shift then it is confirmed emperically. two cops with doppler radars mounted in their cars approach each other at 50 mph ground speed for each vehicle. The doppler shift that each sees in their radar is identical to the doppler shift they would see from an auto approaching at 100 mph. Their radar (if designed for use from a moving vehicle) will compensate for the ground speed of their car and display the correct speed for the other vehicle, but don't let that throw you. Oh, yeah, we have to assume that their radars operate on different bands so that they don't interfer with each other. Emperical verification. Signaturebz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+spr@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap > > > I don't know where you get this from. IRT has both clock time dilation > and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > of view the SR effect on the ground clock is 7 us/day running fast. That is > clock time expansion. Christ, you still don't understand how the time effect is derived in the case of GPS now do you? It is all derived through general relativity. Schwarzschild geometry is a great start, probably mixed with a little pertubation theory for an actual application. > > > I don't know where you get this from. IRT has both clock time dilation > and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > of view the SR effect on the ground clock is 7 us/day running fast. That is > clock time expansion. IRT predicts that "clock time expansion" will be observed between two inertial frames. SR says that this "clock time expansion" -- the appearance of a clock in a different reference frame running faster than the observer's clock -- will only happen if the observer's clock is not in an inertial frame of reference. This is true for the so- called "twin paradox" and it is true for GPS, and it is experimentally verified. IRT's prediction is not experimentally verified. PD > > > > I don't know where you get this from. IRT has both clock time dilation > > and [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > called "twin paradox" and it is true for GPS, and it is experimentally > verified. IRT's prediction is not experimentally verified. Of course, Ken has me killfiled, so he doesn't have to read simple answers that address his misconceptions. PD >> IRT predicts that "clock time expansion" will be observed between two >> inertial frames. SR says that this "clock time expansion" -- the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > PD Hey Ken--Did you see PD's posting? > >> IRT predicts that "clock time expansion" will be observed between two > >> inertial frames. SR says that this "clock time expansion" -- the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Hey Ken--Did you see PD's posting?- Ah, perhaps he just ignores simple answers that address his misconceptions. PD > >> IRT predicts that "clock time expansion" will be observed between two > >> inertial frames. SR says that this "clock time expansion" -- the > >> appearance of a clock in a different reference frame running faster > >> than the observer's clock -- will only happen if the observer's clock > >> is not in an inertial frame of reference. But no observer is in an inertial frame. Time expansion will occur between any two relative frames. A and B. If A's clock is truly running slow then B's clock is truly running fast and vice versa. This eliminates the bogus SR assertion that only the observer's clock is running fast. >This is true for the so- > >> called "twin paradox" and it is true for GPS, and it is experimentally > >> verified. IRT's prediction is not experimentally verified. IRT is experimentally verified. From the GPS point of view the SR effect on the ground clock is 7 us/day running fast. Ken Seto PD Don't fix a clock until it is broken Don't fool with Einstein's theories unless they need fixing So far people have been awarded the Nobel trying to create experiments to show them wrong,only to have the experiments prove they are right. This happened in 1922. and again in our time by two astronomers using GR math when they proved two neutron stars were coming together as predicted It must be nice receiving a Nobel using SR and GR theories of Einstein Bert > Improved Relativity Theory (IRT): > IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT are > valid in all environments, including gravity. > IRT has an unlimited domain of applicability therfore it is also valid for > use to replace GRT in cosmological applications. > http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2007IRT.pdf Why are you trying to repair relativity, instead of ditching it out? >> Improved Relativity Theory (IRT): >> IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT are [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Why are you trying to repair relativity, instead of ditching it out? Well put... but Ken isn't too bright. He mutters about equations but doesn't understand what they mean. > > Improved Relativity Theory (IRT): > > IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT are [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Why are you trying to repair relativity, instead of ditching it out? Because we need to understand why SR agrees with most experiments conducted on earth. It turns out that if the observed object is originated from the observer's frame then SRT is perfectly valid for use to make calculations. This is the reason why SRT is valid for use in accelerator design experiments. A clock accelerated from the observer's frame will achieve a higher state of absolute motion than the observer and thus its clock rate is slower than the observer's clock. This agrees with the predictions of SRT. Ken Seto |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.