Re: IRT: A New Theory of Relativity
From: Paul Stowe (ps_at_acompletelyjunkaddress.net)
Date: 01/23/05
- Next message: Daniel Weston: "Re: People are free to hold to any statement or theory come what may"
- Previous message: Tom Roberts: "An Analysis of the Resolution of the Michelson-Morley Experiment"
- In reply to: Bernardz: "Re: IRT: A New Theory of Relativity"
- Next in thread: Bernardz: "Re: IRT: A New Theory of Relativity"
- Reply: Bernardz: "Re: IRT: A New Theory of Relativity"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:37:51 GMT
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 06:29:04 +1100, Bernardz <Bernard_zzz@REMOVEhotmail.com>
wrote:
>In article <_NOId.6675$VZ2.5986@fe1.columbus.rr.com>, kenseto@erinet.com
>says...
>> IRT (Improved Relativity Theory) is a New Theory of Motion.
>> It includes SR as a subset. Its equations are valid in all
>> environments....including gravity.
>>
>> The following is a description of IRT:
>> The postulates:
>> 1) The laws of physics based on a clock second and light
>> path length of a measuring rod are the same for all
>> observers in all inertial reference frames.
>> 2) The speed of light in free space based on a clock
>> second and the light path length of a measuring rod
>> has the same mathematical ratio c in all directions
>> and all inertial frames.
>> 3) The laws of physics based on a defined absolute
>> second and the physical length of a rod is different
>> in different frames of reference.
>> 4) The one-way speed of light in free space based on a
>> defined absolute second and the physical length of a
>> measuring rod has a different mathematical ratio for
>> light speed in different inertial frames. The speed of
>> light based on a defined absolute second and the
>> physical length of a measuring rod is maximum in the
>> rest frame of the aether.
>
> The concept of absolute time does not exist in SR ...
Actually it implicit in the 'arrow of time'. While
perception of time can be 'relative' the actual ordering of
events (cause cannot precede effect) is tantamount to an
absolute ordering (sequence, a.k.a., Time).
> ... by adding it and creating IRT. IST becomes either a
> different set to SR or a subset to SR.
While a most certainly do not agree with Ken this is
explicitly true of his ideas.
Paul Stowe
- Next message: Daniel Weston: "Re: People are free to hold to any statement or theory come what may"
- Previous message: Tom Roberts: "An Analysis of the Resolution of the Michelson-Morley Experiment"
- In reply to: Bernardz: "Re: IRT: A New Theory of Relativity"
- Next in thread: Bernardz: "Re: IRT: A New Theory of Relativity"
- Reply: Bernardz: "Re: IRT: A New Theory of Relativity"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
