"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:fkaJd.27275$IV5.15848@attbi_s54...

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message

news:6j4Jd.20366$QC5.19177@fe2.columbus.rr.com...

"Jesse Mazer" <vze2ztqw@mail.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:41F4AEB8.8090007@mail.verizon.net...

kenseto wrote:

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.

Okay, IRT contains SR as a subset.

[snip]

In Einstein's train gedanken:
The track observer will see the events to be simultaneous at time L/c.
The train observer will see the events to be simultaneous at a later
time of gamma*L/c

Okay, so SR is wrong because SR says that the train
observer does not see the events to be simultaneous if
the track observer does.

Yes runt...the SR interpretation of simultaneity is wrong it violates the SR
postulate that the speed of light is isotropic in the train.

Therefore IRT includes SR, which is wrong.

NO stupid runt....simultaneity occurs at a different interval of absolute
time in the train. This has the same desired effect of the wrong SR
interpretation of RoS. But this new interpretation does not violate the
isotropy of the speed of light in the train.

Therefore IRT includes a wrong subset.

Hey fucking stupid runt....the first two postulate of IRT is SR.. SR is
incomplete because it does not include the 3rd and fourth postulates of IRT.

Therefore IRT is wrong.

Hey runt your fucking logic is stupid.

Therefore Ken Seto has demonstrated that Ken Seto is stupid.
But he uses a German word!

Vdm and Worny are runts of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their ***** like
gourmet puppy chow. An ***** who will attack anybody
who disagrees with SR.

Ken Seto

kenseto wrote:

"Jesse Mazer" <vze2ztqw@mail.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:41F597CA.5030007@mail.verizon.net...

kenseto wrote:

"Jesse Mazer" <vze2ztqw@mail.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:41F4AEB8.8090007@mail.verizon.net...

Are you saying that an observer at rest wrt the ether will see moving
clocks slow down, but he *won't* see moving rulers shrink, as measured
by his own coordinate system?

Yes the physical length of a ruler remains the same in all frames

including

the rest frame of the ether. However the light path length of a ruler

dependent of the state of absolute motion of the ruler. The higher is

state of absolute motion of a ruler the longer is its light path

The

ruler at the rest frame of the ether has the shortest light path

How do you define "light path length"? Do you just look at the amount of
time the light took to get from one end to the other as measured by your
own clocks, and then multiply by c?

NO...the light path length of the observer's rod is assumed to be t*c

t is the transit time from one end of the rod to the other end. The

will determine the light path length of an identical moving rod using IRT

follows:
A is the observer and B is the observed frame:
Lba=Laa(Faa/Fab) or Lba=Laa(Fab/Faa)
Laa=the light path length of the observer's rod in A's frame as measured

A.
Lba=the light path length of an identical rod in B's frame as predicted

A.
Faa=the mean frequency of a standard light source in A's frame as

by A.
Fab=the mean frequency of an identical standard light source in B's frame

measured by A.

Why would B choose to define "light path length" by imagining what
things would look like in A's frame?

That's a pretty odd way to define
measurements in different frames. Do you agree that if B uses his own
clocks to measure the time, he will get a different time for the light
to cross a ruler moving relative to the ether depending on which end the
light is emitted from, assuming (as in your theory, but not in SR) that
all observers agree about simultaneity?

No, but in SR each observer defines his time-coordinates in terms of the
readings on a set of clocks which are all at rest relative to himself,
and which have been "synchronized"based on the assumption that light
travels at the same speed in all directions (so two clocks are defined
as synchronized if a light shined at their midpoint will reach each
clock at the same time).

What is the purpose of synchronizing two clocks in the same frame?

So you can assign t-coordinates to events at any location in space just
by looking at the reading of a clock at the same spatial location as the
event. This is how coordinate systems are defined in SR.

I don't
like using light to synchronize clocks. i like slow clock transport of

touching and synchronized clocks in the opposite directions. SR says that
such a pair of clcoks will remain synchronized.

Only from the point of view of an observer at rest with respect to these
clocks. If two clocks are moving together at velocity v in my frame, and
then one of the clocks accelerates to velocity v + s, where s is some
very tiny velocity, then I will see the clocks become noticeably
out-of-sync as they move a significant distance apart, even in the limit
as s approaches 0.

But yes, in the limit as their relative velocity approaches 0, "slow
transport" will have exactly the same effect as synchronization using
light signals, so it doesn't really matter which method you use. But if
slow transport is your synchronization method, and if you agree that
clocks slow down when they're moving relative to the ether, then
observers in different frames will *not* agree about simultaneity.

I don't know what you mean by "see simultaneity occur". In standard SR,
you don't "see" simultaneity, simultaneity just means that two events
are assigned the same time-coordinate in your reference frame (with the
time-coordinate of each event determined by the reading on a clock at
the same spatial location as the event, with all the clocks at rest
relative to the observer and synchronized by the method I mentioned
above). If you are talking about when the light from two events reaches
you, that is a separate issue from simultaneity in SR--the light from
two simultaneous events won't reach you at the same time unless the two
events are both the same distance from you.

Exactly....in Einstein's train gedanken the light strike

both observers are at equal distance from the strikes. The track observ

see the strikes to be simultaneous at L/c. According to the track

the train observer will see the strikes to be simultaneous at gamma*L/c.

What do you mean by the phrase "see the strikes to be simultaneous at
X"? Each observer either will see the light from both strikes reach him
at the same moment or he won't.

If the train observer and the track
observer are both at the same position when the light from both strikes
reaches them, they will both *see* the light from both strikes
simultaneously. However, the train observer will say the strikes weren't
really simultaneous, because he was heading towards one strike and away
from the other,

so for the light from both to reach him at the same
moment, he will have to say that the strike he was heading away from
happened before the strike he was heading towards (if he assumes light
travels at the same speed in all directions in his own rest frame, as in
SR).

But simultaneity is a lot easier to think about if you assume both
observers have a network of clocks at rest relative to themselves, and
synchronized using light signals (or slow transport, if you prefer), and
they assign time-coordinates to events based on the reading on the clock
in their network which was at the same location as the event when it
happened. This is the standard way that Einstein assumed coordinates
should be assigned to events. If you have a different way to assign
time-coordinates to events, please outline it.