Re: The Physics Behind 'Contractions'.

On Jan 19, 5:03 pm, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 06:01:42 -0800 (PST), kenseto <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 18, 4:09 pm, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 06:44:51 -0800 (PST), kenseto <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 17, 6:31 pm, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 08:27:56 -0800 (PST), kenseto <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 16, 3:53 pm, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
I don't like your theory even though you do manage get some things right.

It is irrelevant whether you like my theory or not. The only count is
whether my theory and math explains all the processes of nature.

I don't see that your theory differs from LET. I agree that any claim by
relativists can be better explained using LET. SR is unworkable crap...or 'when
is a contraction not a contraction?'

This shows me that you don't know anything about me theory. My theory
says that an IRT observer is not in a preferred postion to see all the
clocks moving wrt him are running slow and all the rod moving wrt him
are contracted....an IRT observer predicts that his clock can run fast
or slow compared to any clock moving wrt him and the light path length
of any rod can be longer or shorter compared to the light path length
of any rod moving wrt him. The equations of IRT are valid in all
enviroments, including gravity. In addition IRT says that wavelength
of an element such as sodium is a universal constant....eg all IRT
observer measure his sodium source to be 589 nm and this wavelength is
unchanged during transit. The consequence of this is that the incoming
speed of sodium light from a moving sodium source is variable as
follows:
c' = (measured frequency of incoming sodium light)(universal
wavelength of sodium 589nm)

This sounds like you have mixed some of the good asects of BaTh with the bad
aspects of LET.

Bath is not a theory. It has no equations. IRT is a full theory of
relativity. IRT includes LET and SRT as subsets.
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2008irt.dtg.pdf

Clock rates are not affected by changes in clock speed. Why the hell should
they be?

Cocks in relative motion are running at different rates because a
clock second in different state of motion contains a different amount
of absolute time. This is demonstrated by the GPS as follows:
A ground clock second contains N periods of the Cs 133 radiation.
A GPS clock second contains N+4.15 periods of Cs 133 radiation.
In terms of absolute time:
N periods of Cs 133 radiation on the ground clock contains the same
amount of absolute time as N+4.15 periods of the Cs 133 radiation up
at the GPS location.

Rods do not change in any way due to speed changes. Why the hell should they?

Physical length of a rod does not change due to changing speed.
However, the light path length of a moving rod can be shorter or
longer than the observer's rod and the light path length of the
observer's rod is assumed to be the physical length of the observer's
rod.
L' = L/gamma
This is interpreted by SR and LET as the physical length of the rod is
contracted. The correct interpretation is the the light path length of
the moving rod is shorter than the light path length of the observer's
rod.
L' = L*gamma
SR and LET have no such equation and that's why SR and LET are
incomplete. This is an IRT equation and it predicts that the light
path length of a moving rod is longer than the light path length of
the observer's rod.

If a light source is fastened onto the end of a rod, the number of its
wavelengths occupied by the rod is the same no matter how the rod moves
inertially.

This is wrong. If the rod is moving then it will take a higher number
of wavelengths for the light to reach the other end.

Ken Seto

.

Quantcast