| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Kowstue" |
| Date: |
05 Jun 2007 05:22:05 AM |
| Object: |
Lorentz Transformation Derivations |
I've been visualizing the derivations of Lorentz
Transformation and the material I'm using is this light
clock where there is a beam of light being bounced by
mirror to a detector and it's moving at a certain distance
relative to a stationary observer and you are solving for
t from the Pythegorean Thorem. How valid is this
example. Who originated this. Is it Feynman?
What's the best site have you encountered for
the derivations of Lorentz Transformation which can
give you an intuitive grasp of it??
So far, the way I see it. The effect of time dilations, length
contraction, etc. is due to some kind of aberrations where
it is projected to our frame of reference and becoming
real.
It is all a result of postulate 2 where the speed of light
is the same in all inertial reference frames. This
produces all those frame effects that are solved by
Lorentz Transformation.
So to dig into this amazing side effects of time dilation,
etc. One has to go after the fact why the speed of light is a
constant in all inertial reference frame. The mainstream
answer is that the structure of spacetime geometry limits
the speed to c and make it self-referential to all frames of
reference. In other words, mathematical concept does the
trick (null-related). I have no problem with this. But is there
another possibility that doesn't involved the spacetime
geometry formalism (which unite space and time in a
minkowski 3 + 1 D fashion). For example. An attempt was
made called "Rotating Dimensions" but it was seriosly
flawed and rejected on day 1. Pls. mention others I'm
not aware of that made good sense. Thanks.
Kowstue
.
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Lorentz Transformation Derivations |
05 Jun 2007 09:38:18 AM |
|
|
"Kowstue" <kowstue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181038925.659015.304430@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
I've been visualizing the derivations of Lorentz
Transformation and the material I'm using is this light
clock where there is a beam of light being bounced by
mirror to a detector and it's moving at a certain distance
relative to a stationary observer and you are solving for
t from the Pythegorean Thorem. How valid is this
example. Who originated this. Is it Feynman?
What's the best site have you encountered for
the derivations of Lorentz Transformation which can
give you an intuitive grasp of it??
So far, the way I see it. The effect of time dilations, length
contraction, etc. is due to some kind of aberrations where
it is projected to our frame of reference and becoming
real.
It is all a result of postulate 2 where the speed of light
is the same in all inertial reference frames. This
produces all those frame effects that are solved by
Lorentz Transformation.
So to dig into this amazing side effects of time dilation,
etc. One has to go after the fact why the speed of light is a
constant in all inertial reference frame. The mainstream
answer is that the structure of spacetime geometry limits
the speed to c and make it self-referential to all frames of
reference. In other words, mathematical concept does the
trick (null-related). I have no problem with this. But is there
another possibility that doesn't involved the spacetime
geometry formalism (which unite space and time in a
minkowski 3 + 1 D fashion). For example. An attempt was
made called "Rotating Dimensions" but it was seriosly
flawed and rejected on day 1. Pls. mention others I'm
not aware of that made good sense. Thanks.
Mainstream physics failed to realize that the speed of light is not a
universal constant as asserted by SR. It is a constant math ratio in all
inertial frames as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458 m long physically)/the absolute time
(duration) content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
This new definition for the speed of light gives rise to a new theory of
relativity called Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). IRT includes SRT as a
subset. However, unlike SRT the equations of IRT are valid in all
environments...including gravity. A description of IRT is in the paper
entitled "Improved Relativity Theory" in the following website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kowstue" |
|
| Title: Re: Lorentz Transformation Derivations |
05 Jun 2007 09:43:56 AM |
|
|
On Jun 5, 10:38 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Kowstue" <kows...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181038925.659015.304430@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
I've been visualizing the derivations of Lorentz
Transformation and the material I'm using is this light
clock where there is a beam of light being bounced by
mirror to a detector and it's moving at a certain distance
relative to a stationary observer and you are solving for
t from the Pythegorean Thorem. How valid is this
example. Who originated this. Is it Feynman?
What's the best site have you encountered for
the derivations of Lorentz Transformation which can
give you an intuitive grasp of it??
So far, the way I see it. The effect of time dilations, length
contraction, etc. is due to some kind of aberrations where
it is projected to our frame of reference and becoming
real.
It is all a result of postulate 2 where the speed of light
is the same in all inertial reference frames. This
produces all those frame effects that are solved by
Lorentz Transformation.
So to dig into this amazing side effects of time dilation,
etc. One has to go after the fact why the speed of light is a
constant in all inertial reference frame. The mainstream
answer is that the structure of spacetime geometry limits
the speed to c and make it self-referential to all frames of
reference. In other words, mathematical concept does the
trick (null-related). I have no problem with this. But is there
another possibility that doesn't involved the spacetime
geometry formalism (which unite space and time in a
minkowski 3 + 1 D fashion). For example. An attempt was
made called "Rotating Dimensions" but it was seriosly
flawed and rejected on day 1. Pls. mention others I'm
not aware of that made good sense. Thanks.
Mainstream physics failed to realize that the speed of light is not a
universal constant as asserted by SR. It is a constant math ratio in all
inertial frames as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458 m long physically)/the absolute time
(duration) content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
This new definition for the speed of light gives rise to a new theory of
relativity called Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). IRT includes SRT as a
subset. However, unlike SRT the equations of IRT are valid in all
environments...including gravity. A description of IRT is in the paper
entitled "Improved Relativity Theory" in the following website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Hmm.. i'll look into this later or tom. Got to do something today.
Either you are the new Copernicus as Planck used to say
to Einstein, or a dreamer :) Primary assessment says all
your atomic model is wrong so you only have a little chance
of being right in the larger scheme of things. It'd be an exercise
to debunk you as we can learn lessons mutually from all this.
Kowstue
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kowstue" |
|
| Title: Re: Lorentz Transformation Derivations |
05 Jun 2007 06:03:27 PM |
|
|
On Jun 5, 10:38 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Kowstue" <kows...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181038925.659015.304430@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
I've been visualizing the derivations of Lorentz
Transformation and the material I'm using is this light
clock where there is a beam of light being bounced by
mirror to a detector and it's moving at a certain distance
relative to a stationary observer and you are solving for
t from the Pythegorean Thorem. How valid is this
example. Who originated this. Is it Feynman?
What's the best site have you encountered for
the derivations of Lorentz Transformation which can
give you an intuitive grasp of it??
So far, the way I see it. The effect of time dilations, length
contraction, etc. is due to some kind of aberrations where
it is projected to our frame of reference and becoming
real.
It is all a result of postulate 2 where the speed of light
is the same in all inertial reference frames. This
produces all those frame effects that are solved by
Lorentz Transformation.
So to dig into this amazing side effects of time dilation,
etc. One has to go after the fact why the speed of light is a
constant in all inertial reference frame. The mainstream
answer is that the structure of spacetime geometry limits
the speed to c and make it self-referential to all frames of
reference. In other words, mathematical concept does the
trick (null-related). I have no problem with this. But is there
another possibility that doesn't involved the spacetime
geometry formalism (which unite space and time in a
minkowski 3 + 1 D fashion). For example. An attempt was
made called "Rotating Dimensions" but it was seriosly
flawed and rejected on day 1. Pls. mention others I'm
not aware of that made good sense. Thanks.
Mainstream physics failed to realize that the speed of light is not a
universal constant as asserted by SR. It is a constant math ratio in all
inertial frames as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458 m long physically)/the absolute time
(duration) content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
This new definition for the speed of light gives rise to a new theory of
relativity called Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). IRT includes SRT as a
subset. However, unlike SRT the equations of IRT are valid in all
environments...including gravity. A description of IRT is in the paper
entitled "Improved Relativity Theory" in the following website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I wonder if someone has written a complete summary about Seto
works pointing out all facets of the contradictions and any possible
strong points. There are thousands of messages written about him
and by him and to save precious time. If someone can point to
the specific thread or even a web site with the summary of it.
I'd appreciate it. We can just focus on his Relativity portions
because his atomic physics is as they say not even wrong.
I heard some physicists side with his arguments concerning
Relativity that's why it deserves an ear. What particular
argument(s) is that. Thanks..
Kows
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Lorentz Transformation Derivations |
05 Jun 2007 07:55:11 PM |
|
|
"Kowstue" <kowstue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181084607.647312.18550@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 5, 10:38 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Kowstue" <kows...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181038925.659015.304430@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
I've been visualizing the derivations of Lorentz
Transformation and the material I'm using is this light
clock where there is a beam of light being bounced by
mirror to a detector and it's moving at a certain distance
relative to a stationary observer and you are solving for
t from the Pythegorean Thorem. How valid is this
example. Who originated this. Is it Feynman?
What's the best site have you encountered for
the derivations of Lorentz Transformation which can
give you an intuitive grasp of it??
So far, the way I see it. The effect of time dilations, length
contraction, etc. is due to some kind of aberrations where
it is projected to our frame of reference and becoming
real.
It is all a result of postulate 2 where the speed of light
is the same in all inertial reference frames. This
produces all those frame effects that are solved by
Lorentz Transformation.
So to dig into this amazing side effects of time dilation,
etc. One has to go after the fact why the speed of light is a
constant in all inertial reference frame. The mainstream
answer is that the structure of spacetime geometry limits
the speed to c and make it self-referential to all frames of
reference. In other words, mathematical concept does the
trick (null-related). I have no problem with this. But is there
another possibility that doesn't involved the spacetime
geometry formalism (which unite space and time in a
minkowski 3 + 1 D fashion). For example. An attempt was
made called "Rotating Dimensions" but it was seriosly
flawed and rejected on day 1. Pls. mention others I'm
not aware of that made good sense. Thanks.
Mainstream physics failed to realize that the speed of light is not a
universal constant as asserted by SR. It is a constant math ratio in all
inertial frames as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458 m long physically)/the absolute
time
(duration) content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
This new definition for the speed of light gives rise to a new theory of
relativity called Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). IRT includes SRT as
a
subset. However, unlike SRT the equations of IRT are valid in all
environments...including gravity. A description of IRT is in the paper
entitled "Improved Relativity Theory" in the following
website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I wonder if someone has written a complete summary about Seto
works pointing out all facets of the contradictions and any possible
strong points. There are thousands of messages written about him
and by him and to save precious time. If someone can point to
the specific thread or even a web site with the summary of it.
I'd appreciate it. We can just focus on his Relativity portions
because his atomic physics is as they say not even wrong.
I don't know where you get this bogus impression. There is no valid
refutation of my atomic physics.
I heard some physicists side with his arguments concerning
Relativity that's why it deserves an ear. What particular
argument(s) is that. Thanks..
Why don't you review it instead of relying on someone else?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kowstue" |
|
| Title: Re: Lorentz Transformation Derivations |
05 Jun 2007 08:02:20 PM |
|
|
On Jun 6, 8:55 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Kowstue" <kows...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181084607.647312.18550@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 5, 10:38 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Kowstue" <kows...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181038925.659015.304430@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
I've been visualizing the derivations of Lorentz
Transformation and the material I'm using is this light
clock where there is a beam of light being bounced by
mirror to a detector and it's moving at a certain distance
relative to a stationary observer and you are solving for
t from the Pythegorean Thorem. How valid is this
example. Who originated this. Is it Feynman?
What's the best site have you encountered for
the derivations of Lorentz Transformation which can
give you an intuitive grasp of it??
So far, the way I see it. The effect of time dilations, length
contraction, etc. is due to some kind of aberrations where
it is projected to our frame of reference and becoming
real.
It is all a result of postulate 2 where the speed of light
is the same in all inertial reference frames. This
produces all those frame effects that are solved by
Lorentz Transformation.
So to dig into this amazing side effects of time dilation,
etc. One has to go after the fact why the speed of light is a
constant in all inertial reference frame. The mainstream
answer is that the structure of spacetime geometry limits
the speed to c and make it self-referential to all frames of
reference. In other words, mathematical concept does the
trick (null-related). I have no problem with this. But is there
another possibility that doesn't involved the spacetime
geometry formalism (which unite space and time in a
minkowski 3 + 1 D fashion). For example. An attempt was
made called "Rotating Dimensions" but it was seriosly
flawed and rejected on day 1. Pls. mention others I'm
not aware of that made good sense. Thanks.
Mainstream physics failed to realize that the speed of light is not a
universal constant as asserted by SR. It is a constant math ratio in all
inertial frames as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458 m long physically)/the absolute
time
(duration) content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
This new definition for the speed of light gives rise to a new theory of
relativity called Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). IRT includes SRT as
a
subset. However, unlike SRT the equations of IRT are valid in all
environments...including gravity. A description of IRT is in the paper
entitled "Improved Relativity Theory" in the following
website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm-Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I wonder if someone has written a complete summary about Seto
works pointing out all facets of the contradictions and any possible
strong points. There are thousands of messages written about him
and by him and to save precious time. If someone can point to
the specific thread or even a web site with the summary of it.
I'd appreciate it. We can just focus on his Relativity portions
because his atomic physics is as they say not even wrong.
I don't know where you get this bogus impression. There is no valid
refutation of my atomic physics.
I heard some physicists side with his arguments concerning
Relativity that's why it deserves an ear. What particular
argument(s) is that. Thanks..
Why don't you review it instead of relying on someone else?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Someone sold me your book before for 50 cents.But I put it in a box in
the attic along with John Polasek's. I'll find it if I have time.
Meanwhile.
I'm reading Julian Barbour End of Time where he said the only way
to combine General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics is to do away
with time. Duh. In physics, we don't need harry potter. We have
the collection of the weirdest, strangest and most mind boggling. Lol.
Kows
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Lorentz Transformation Derivations |
06 Jun 2007 07:39:21 AM |
|
|
"Kowstue" <kowstue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181091740.203751.316880@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 6, 8:55 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Kowstue" <kows...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181084607.647312.18550@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 5, 10:38 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Kowstue" <kows...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181038925.659015.304430@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
I've been visualizing the derivations of Lorentz
Transformation and the material I'm using is this light
clock where there is a beam of light being bounced by
mirror to a detector and it's moving at a certain distance
relative to a stationary observer and you are solving for
t from the Pythegorean Thorem. How valid is this
example. Who originated this. Is it Feynman?
What's the best site have you encountered for
the derivations of Lorentz Transformation which can
give you an intuitive grasp of it??
So far, the way I see it. The effect of time dilations, length
contraction, etc. is due to some kind of aberrations where
it is projected to our frame of reference and becoming
real.
It is all a result of postulate 2 where the speed of light
is the same in all inertial reference frames. This
produces all those frame effects that are solved by
Lorentz Transformation.
So to dig into this amazing side effects of time dilation,
etc. One has to go after the fact why the speed of light is a
constant in all inertial reference frame. The mainstream
answer is that the structure of spacetime geometry limits
the speed to c and make it self-referential to all frames of
reference. In other words, mathematical concept does the
trick (null-related). I have no problem with this. But is there
another possibility that doesn't involved the spacetime
geometry formalism (which unite space and time in a
minkowski 3 + 1 D fashion). For example. An attempt was
made called "Rotating Dimensions" but it was seriosly
flawed and rejected on day 1. Pls. mention others I'm
not aware of that made good sense. Thanks.
Mainstream physics failed to realize that the speed of light is not
a
universal constant as asserted by SR. It is a constant math ratio in
all
inertial frames as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458 m long physically)/the
absolute
time
(duration) content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
This new definition for the speed of light gives rise to a new
theory of
relativity called Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). IRT includes SRT
as
a
subset. However, unlike SRT the equations of IRT are valid in all
environments...including gravity. A description of IRT is in the
paper
entitled "Improved Relativity Theory" in the following
website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm-Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I wonder if someone has written a complete summary about Seto
works pointing out all facets of the contradictions and any possible
strong points. There are thousands of messages written about him
and by him and to save precious time. If someone can point to
the specific thread or even a web site with the summary of it.
I'd appreciate it. We can just focus on his Relativity portions
because his atomic physics is as they say not even wrong.
I don't know where you get this bogus impression. There is no valid
refutation of my atomic physics.
I heard some physicists side with his arguments concerning
Relativity that's why it deserves an ear. What particular
argument(s) is that. Thanks..
Why don't you review it instead of relying on someone else?- Hide quoted
text -
- Show quoted text -
Someone sold me your book before for 50 cents.But I put it in a box in
the attic along with John Polasek's. I'll find it if I have time.
Meanwhile.
I'm reading Julian Barbour End of Time where he said the only way
to combine General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics is to do away
with time. Duh. In physics, we don't need harry potter. We have
the collection of the weirdest, strangest and most mind boggling. Lol.
Barbour is wrong. GR and QM can be combined naturally in my model when the
existence of absolute time is posited. The curvature of space-time in GR is
the distortion in the E-Matrix caused by the absolute motions of the
interacting objects. The fields in QFT is also the distortion in the
E-Matrix and the virtual particles in QFT is the reaction of the interacting
particles to the distortions (fields) in the E-Matrix. I suggest that you
read the paper in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Unification.pdf
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Lorentz Transformation Derivations |
06 Jun 2007 11:32:32 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
Barbour is wrong. GR and QM can be combined naturally in my model when the
existence of absolute time is posited. The curvature of space-time in GR is
the distortion in the E-Matrix caused by the absolute motions of the
interacting objects. The fields in QFT is also the distortion in the
E-Matrix and the virtual particles in QFT is the reaction of the interacting
particles to the distortions (fields) in the E-Matrix. I suggest that you
read the paper in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Unification.pdf
Ken Seto
MM (Model Mechanics) cannot:
A. predict the correct perihelion precession of Mercury
MM cannot
B. predict the correct relativistic effects on a satellite clock
MM cannot
C. predict the time dilation of A's clock measured by B, when their
relative velocity is 20000 km/s.
Seto cannot demonstrate that MM can do any of these things!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kowstue" |
|
| Title: Re: Lorentz Transformation Derivations |
06 Jun 2007 05:47:13 PM |
|
|
On Jun 7, 12:32 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Barbour is wrong. GR and QM can be combined naturally in my model when the
existence of absolute time is posited. The curvature of space-time in GR is
the distortion in the E-Matrix caused by the absolute motions of the
interacting objects. The fields in QFT is also the distortion in the
E-Matrix and the virtual particles in QFT is the reaction of the interacting
particles to the distortions (fields) in the E-Matrix. I suggest that you
read the paper in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Unification.pdf
Ken Seto
MM (Model Mechanics) cannot:
A. predict the correct perihelion precession of Mercury
MM cannot
B. predict the correct relativistic effects on a satellite clock
MM cannot
C. predict the time dilation of A's clock measured by B, when their
relative velocity is 20000 km/s.
Seto cannot demonstrate that MM can do any of these things!
Based on analysis of Seto hydrogen atomic model. It can't
even exist. So in the M-theory cosmic landscape of Seto
Universe, not even hydrogens or elements can exist. It's a sterile
and empty world. See the following for sketch of seto
hydrogen atom:
http://www.pbase.com/chrod68/image/39778113/original
In debate between Seto and Bjoern:
Seto wrote:
At ground state, the attractive and the repulsive forces acting on
the electron are in equilibrium and thus, it is allowed to orbit
at this energy state.
Bjoern answered:
"Wrong. If the two forces where in equilibrium, no net force would
be acting on the electron, and hence there could not be a circular
orbit. Apparently, Seto has never realized that a centripetal force
is required for circular orbits. Like many cranks, he already fails
in simple classical mechanics."
There are hundreds of other arguments. Maybe let's not
waste time and just focus on the ultimate.. the search for
Quantum Gravity.
Kows
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Lorentz Transformation Derivations |
07 Jun 2007 07:32:23 AM |
|
|
"Kowstue" <kowstue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181170033.822991.123290@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 7, 12:32 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Barbour is wrong. GR and QM can be combined naturally in my model when
the
existence of absolute time is posited. The curvature of space-time in
GR is
the distortion in the E-Matrix caused by the absolute motions of the
interacting objects. The fields in QFT is also the distortion in the
E-Matrix and the virtual particles in QFT is the reaction of the
interacting
particles to the distortions (fields) in the E-Matrix. I suggest that
you
read the paper in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Unification.pdf
Ken Seto
MM (Model Mechanics) cannot:
A. predict the correct perihelion precession of Mercury
MM cannot
B. predict the correct relativistic effects on a satellite clock
MM cannot
C. predict the time dilation of A's clock measured by B, when their
relative velocity is 20000 km/s.
Seto cannot demonstrate that MM can do any of these things!
Based on analysis of Seto hydrogen atomic model. It can't
even exist. So in the M-theory cosmic landscape of Seto
Universe, not even hydrogens or elements can exist. It's a sterile
and empty world. See the following for sketch of seto
hydrogen atom:
http://www.pbase.com/chrod68/image/39778113/original
In debate between Seto and Bjoern:
Seto wrote:
At ground state, the attractive and the repulsive forces acting on
the electron are in equilibrium and thus, it is allowed to orbit
at this energy state.
Bjoern answered:
"Wrong. If the two forces where in equilibrium, no net force would
be acting on the electron, and hence there could not be a circular
orbit. Apparently, Seto has never realized that a centripetal force
is required for circular orbits. Like many cranks, he already fails
in simple classical mechanics."
Ha....but Bjoern failed to realize that the S-Particle of the electron is
repulsive to the surrounding E-Strings so whatever its absolute motion in
the E-Matrix is maintained. This got nothing to do with centripetal force.
What this mean is that Bjoern is naive in applying centripetal force in
describing the absolute motion of the S-Particle of the electron.
There are hundreds of other arguments. Maybe let's not
waste time and just focus on the ultimate.. the search for
Quantum Gravity.
There is no need for the search for Quantum Gravity. Doppler Theory of
Gravity (DTG) in the paper "Unification of Physics" in the following link
already unite gravity with all the other forces of nature naturally.
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kowstue" |
|
| Title: Re: Lorentz Transformation Derivations |
07 Jun 2007 08:51:58 AM |
|
|
On Jun 7, 8:32 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Kowstue" <kows...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181170033.822991.123290@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 7, 12:32 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Barbour is wrong. GR and QM can be combined naturally in my model when
the
existence of absolute time is posited. The curvature of space-time in
GR is
the distortion in the E-Matrix caused by the absolute motions of the
interacting objects. The fields in QFT is also the distortion in the
E-Matrix and the virtual particles in QFT is the reaction of the
interacting
particles to the distortions (fields) in the E-Matrix. I suggest that
you
read the paper in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Unification.pdf
Ken Seto
MM (Model Mechanics) cannot:
A. predict the correct perihelion precession of Mercury
MM cannot
B. predict the correct relativistic effects on a satellite clock
MM cannot
C. predict the time dilation of A's clock measured by B, when their
relative velocity is 20000 km/s.
Seto cannot demonstrate that MM can do any of these things!
Based on analysis of Seto hydrogen atomic model. It can't
even exist. So in the M-theory cosmic landscape of Seto
Universe, not even hydrogens or elements can exist. It's a sterile
and empty world. See the following for sketch of seto
hydrogen atom:
http://www.pbase.com/chrod68/image/39778113/original
In debate between Seto and Bjoern:
Seto wrote:
At ground state, the attractive and the repulsive forces acting on
the electron are in equilibrium and thus, it is allowed to orbit
at this energy state.
Bjoern answered:
"Wrong. If the two forces where in equilibrium, no net force would
be acting on the electron, and hence there could not be a circular
orbit. Apparently, Seto has never realized that a centripetal force
is required for circular orbits. Like many cranks, he already fails
in simple classical mechanics."
Ha....but Bjoern failed to realize that the S-Particle of the electron is
repulsive to the surrounding E-Strings so whatever its absolute motion in
the E-Matrix is maintained. This got nothing to do with centripetal force.
What this mean is that Bjoern is naive in applying centripetal force in
describing the absolute motion of the S-Particle of the electron.
There are hundreds of other arguments. Maybe let's not
waste time and just focus on the ultimate.. the search for
Quantum Gravity.
There is no need for the search for Quantum Gravity. Doppler Theory of
Gravity (DTG) in the paper "Unification of Physics" in the following link
already unite gravity with all the other forces of nature naturally.http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Hmm.. your expertise is on SR, so maybe let's talk about SR.
You see. Superluminal signalling is plausible and it gives me
headaches on the paradoxes. So let's see if there is another
way to look at SR without all those paradoxes present. See the
thread "Lorentz Chronology Protection Scheme & Calculations"
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/3bd368fd11b39592/0d388606323598c1#0d388606323598c1
Maybe you can assist or something.
Kows
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Lorentz Transformation Derivations |
07 Jun 2007 04:06:56 PM |
|
|
"Kowstue" <kowstue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181224318.064456.104750@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 7, 8:32 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Kowstue" <kows...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181170033.822991.123290@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 7, 12:32 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Barbour is wrong. GR and QM can be combined naturally in my model
when
the
existence of absolute time is posited. The curvature of space-time
in
GR is
the distortion in the E-Matrix caused by the absolute motions of
the
interacting objects. The fields in QFT is also the distortion in
the
E-Matrix and the virtual particles in QFT is the reaction of the
interacting
particles to the distortions (fields) in the E-Matrix. I suggest
that
you
read the paper in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Unification.pdf
Ken Seto
MM (Model Mechanics) cannot:
A. predict the correct perihelion precession of Mercury
MM cannot
B. predict the correct relativistic effects on a satellite
clock
MM cannot
C. predict the time dilation of A's clock measured by B, when
their
relative velocity is 20000 km/s.
Seto cannot demonstrate that MM can do any of these things!
Based on analysis of Seto hydrogen atomic model. It can't
even exist. So in the M-theory cosmic landscape of Seto
Universe, not even hydrogens or elements can exist. It's a sterile
and empty world. See the following for sketch of seto
hydrogen atom:
http://www.pbase.com/chrod68/image/39778113/original
In debate between Seto and Bjoern:
Seto wrote:
At ground state, the attractive and the repulsive forces acting on
the electron are in equilibrium and thus, it is allowed to orbit
at this energy state.
Bjoern answered:
"Wrong. If the two forces where in equilibrium, no net force would
be acting on the electron, and hence there could not be a circular
orbit. Apparently, Seto has never realized that a centripetal force
is required for circular orbits. Like many cranks, he already fails
in simple classical mechanics."
Ha....but Bjoern failed to realize that the S-Particle of the electron
is
repulsive to the surrounding E-Strings so whatever its absolute motion
in
the E-Matrix is maintained. This got nothing to do with centripetal
force.
What this mean is that Bjoern is naive in applying centripetal force in
describing the absolute motion of the S-Particle of the electron.
There are hundreds of other arguments. Maybe let's not
waste time and just focus on the ultimate.. the search for
Quantum Gravity.
There is no need for the search for Quantum Gravity. Doppler Theory of
Gravity (DTG) in the paper "Unification of Physics" in the following
link
already unite gravity with all the other forces of nature
naturally.http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Hmm.. your expertise is on SR, so maybe let's talk about SR.
You see. Superluminal signalling is plausible and it gives me
headaches on the paradoxes. So let's see if there is another
way to look at SR without all those paradoxes present. See the
thread "Lorentz Chronology Protection Scheme & Calculations"
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/3bd368fd11b39592/0d388606323598c1#0d388606323598c1
Maybe you can assist or something.
The signal doesn't exit before it was sent. Therefore there is no paradox.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kowstue" |
|
| Title: Re: Lorentz Transformation Derivations |
05 Jun 2007 10:38:14 PM |
|
|
On Jun 6, 8:55 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Kowstue" <kows...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181084607.647312.18550@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 5, 10:38 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Kowstue" <kows...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181038925.659015.304430@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
I've been visualizing the derivations of Lorentz
Transformation and the material I'm using is this light
clock where there is a beam of light being bounced by
mirror to a detector and it's moving at a certain distance
relative to a stationary observer and you are solving for
t from the Pythegorean Thorem. How valid is this
example. Who originated this. Is it Feynman?
What's the best site have you encountered for
the derivations of Lorentz Transformation which can
give you an intuitive grasp of it??
So far, the way I see it. The effect of time dilations, length
contraction, etc. is due to some kind of aberrations where
it is projected to our frame of reference and becoming
real.
It is all a result of postulate 2 where the speed of light
is the same in all inertial reference frames. This
produces all those frame effects that are solved by
Lorentz Transformation.
So to dig into this amazing side effects of time dilation,
etc. One has to go after the fact why the speed of light is a
constant in all inertial reference frame. The mainstream
answer is that the structure of spacetime geometry limits
the speed to c and make it self-referential to all frames of
reference. In other words, mathematical concept does the
trick (null-related). I have no problem with this. But is there
another possibility that doesn't involved the spacetime
geometry formalism (which unite space and time in a
minkowski 3 + 1 D fashion). For example. An attempt was
made called "Rotating Dimensions" but it was seriosly
flawed and rejected on day 1. Pls. mention others I'm
not aware of that made good sense. Thanks.
Mainstream physics failed to realize that the speed of light is not a
universal constant as asserted by SR. It is a constant math ratio in all
inertial frames as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458 m long physically)/the absolute
time
(duration) content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
This new definition for the speed of light gives rise to a new theory of
relativity called Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). IRT includes SRT as
a
subset. However, unlike SRT the equations of IRT are valid in all
environments...including gravity. A description of IRT is in the paper
entitled "Improved Relativity Theory" in the following
website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm-Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I wonder if someone has written a complete summary about Seto
works pointing out all facets of the contradictions and any possible
strong points. There are thousands of messages written about him
and by him and to save precious time. If someone can point to
the specific thread or even a web site with the summary of it.
I'd appreciate it. We can just focus on his Relativity portions
because his atomic physics is as they say not even wrong.
I don't know where you get this bogus impression. There is no valid
refutation of my atomic physics.
Once upon a time. The legendary physicist called Bjoern has
refuted all your atomic physics. It's like your model can
only explain 2% of the data in particle physics and the
standard model. For example. With QFT and QED in
particular, they can determine the gyromagnetic ratio with
an accuracy of three parts in 100 billion! Your model can't
even give the predicted value. Now turning to General
Relativity. A force based model can't describe large
objects at cosmic scale. So with QM, QFT, QED, GR,
etc. incompatible with your model, your only hope is
SR. But since QFT is the marriage of SR and QM and
QFT and QED can determine the data in three parts in
100 billion. Then your SR hybrid is taken out too. So you
are left with only Newton which QM and SR has also
taken out. So you have literally nothing.
Look. We are not getting younger. Time is gold. Let's not
waste precious time. Go to the mountains, take a deep
rest and come down free from all the biases that have
solidified in your mind making you see the world thru filtered
eyes. Maybe you have 30 years left in your life. Make
the best of it.
Kows
I heard some physicists side with his arguments concerning
Relativity that's why it deserves an ear. What particular
argument(s) is that. Thanks..
Why don't you review it instead of relying on someone else?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Lorentz Transformation Derivations |
06 Jun 2007 08:04:24 AM |
|
|
"Kowstue" <kowstue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181101094.162709.189210@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 6, 8:55 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Kowstue" <kows...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181084607.647312.18550@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 5, 10:38 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Kowstue" <kows...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181038925.659015.304430@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
I've been visualizing the derivations of Lorentz
Transformation and the material I'm using is this light
clock where there is a beam of light being bounced by
mirror to a detector and it's moving at a certain distance
relative to a stationary observer and you are solving for
t from the Pythegorean Thorem. How valid is this
example. Who originated this. Is it Feynman?
What's the best site have you encountered for
the derivations of Lorentz Transformation which can
give you an intuitive grasp of it??
So far, the way I see it. The effect of time dilations, length
contraction, etc. is due to some kind of aberrations where
it is projected to our frame of reference and becoming
real.
It is all a result of postulate 2 where the speed of light
is the same in all inertial reference frames. This
produces all those frame effects that are solved by
Lorentz Transformation.
So to dig into this amazing side effects of time dilation,
etc. One has to go after the fact why the speed of light is a
constant in all inertial reference frame. The mainstream
answer is that the structure of spacetime geometry limits
the speed to c and make it self-referential to all frames of
reference. In other words, mathematical concept does the
trick (null-related). I have no problem with this. But is there
another possibility that doesn't involved the spacetime
geometry formalism (which unite space and time in a
minkowski 3 + 1 D fashion). For example. An attempt was
made called "Rotating Dimensions" but it was seriosly
flawed and rejected on day 1. Pls. mention others I'm
not aware of that made good sense. Thanks.
Mainstream physics failed to realize that the speed of light is not
a
universal constant as asserted by SR. It is a constant math ratio in
all
inertial frames as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458 m long physically)/the
absolute
time
(duration) content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
This new definition for the speed of light gives rise to a new
theory of
relativity called Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). IRT includes SRT
as
a
subset. However, unlike SRT the equations of IRT are valid in all
environments...including gravity. A description of IRT is in the
paper
entitled "Improved Relativity Theory" in the following
website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm-Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I wonder if someone has written a complete summary about Seto
works pointing out all facets of the contradictions and any possible
strong points. There are thousands of messages written about him
and by him and to save precious time. If someone can point to
the specific thread or even a web site with the summary of it.
I'd appreciate it. We can just focus on his Relativity portions
because his atomic physics is as they say not even wrong.
I don't know where you get this bogus impression. There is no valid
refutation of my atomic physics.
Once upon a time. The legendary physicist called Bjoern has
refuted all your atomic physics. It's like your model can
only explain 2% of the data in particle physics and the
standard model.
No he did not refute anything. My model uses the same math as the QFT. My
model gives different interpretations for all the forces of nature that's
all.
For example. With QFT and QED in
particular, they can determine the gyromagnetic ratio with
an accuracy of three parts in 100 billion! Your model can't
even give the predicted value.
Since my theory uses the same math as QFT then Model Mechanics gives the
same predictions as QFT.
Now turning to General
Relativity. A force based model can't describe large
objects at cosmic scale.
Why Not? However, my theory of gravity (DTG) is used mainly to unite gravity
with the electromagnetic and neuclear forces naturally. The unification is
achieved because all these forces are using the same physical mechanism. IRT
is used to describe large object at cosmic scale.
So with QM, QFT, QED, GR,
etc. incompatible with your model,
You are wrong. Model Mechanics is compatible with QM. QFT, QED and GR. In
fact you might even say that QM. QFT, QED and GR are subsets of Model
Mechanics.
your only hope is
SR. But since QFT is the marriage of SR and QM and
QFT and QED can determine the data in three parts in
100 billion. Then your SR hybrid is taken out too. So you
are left with only Newton which QM and SR has also
taken out. So you have literally nothing.
So your misunderstanding of my theory is your basis of your rejection?
Look. We are not getting younger. Time is gold. Let's not
waste precious time. Go to the mountains, take a deep
rest and come down free from all the biases that have
solidified in your mind making you see the world thru filtered
eyes. Maybe you have 30 years left in your life. Make
the best of it.
I suggest that you do what you preach. If you want to be participate in the
next physics revolution you should take time and study my theory.
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kowstue" |
|
| Title: Re: Lorentz Transformation Derivations |
06 Jun 2007 08:44:57 AM |
|
|
On Jun 6, 9:04 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Kowstue" <kows...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181101094.162709.189210@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 6, 8:55 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Kowstue" <kows...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181084607.647312.18550@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 5, 10:38 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Kowstue" <kows...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181038925.659015.304430@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
I've been visualizing the derivations of Lorentz
Transformation and the material I'm using is this light
clock where there is a beam of light being bounced by
mirror to a detector and it's moving at a certain distance
relative to a stationary observer and you are solving for
t from the Pythegorean Thorem. How valid is this
example. Who originated this. Is it Feynman?
What's the best site have you encountered for
the derivations of Lorentz Transformation which can
give you an intuitive grasp of it??
So far, the way I see it. The effect of time dilations, length
contraction, etc. is due to some kind of aberrations where
it is projected to our frame of reference and becoming
real.
It is all a result of postulate 2 where the speed of light
is the same in all inertial reference frames. This
produces all those frame effects that are solved by
Lorentz Transformation.
So to dig into this amazing side effects of time dilation,
etc. One has to go after the fact why the speed of light is a
constant in all inertial reference frame. The mainstream
answer is that the structure of spacetime geometry limits
the speed to c and make it self-referential to all frames of
reference. In other words, mathematical concept does the
trick (null-related). I have no problem with this. But is there
another possibility that doesn't involved the spacetime
geometry formalism (which unite space and time in a
minkowski 3 + 1 D fashion). For example. An attempt was
made called "Rotating Dimensions" but it was seriosly
flawed and rejected on day 1. Pls. mention others I'm
not aware of that made good sense. Thanks.
Mainstream physics failed to realize that the speed of light is not
a
universal constant as asserted by SR. It is a constant math ratio in
all
inertial frames as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458 m long physically)/the
absolute
time
(duration) content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
This new definition for the speed of light gives rise to a new
theory of
relativity called Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). IRT includes SRT
as
a
subset. However, unlike SRT the equations of IRT are valid in all
environments...including gravity. A description of IRT is in the
paper
entitled "Improved Relativity Theory" in the following
website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm-Hidequoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I wonder if someone has written a complete summary about Seto
works pointing out all facets of the contradictions and any possible
strong points. There are thousands of messages written about him
and by him and to save precious time. If someone can point to
the specific thread or even a web site with the summary of it.
I'd appreciate it. We can just focus on his Relativity portions
because his atomic physics is as they say not even wrong.
I don't know where you get this bogus impression. There is no valid
refutation of my atomic physics.
Once upon a time. The legendary physicist called Bjoern has
refuted all your atomic physics. It's like your model can
only explain 2% of the data in particle physics and the
standard model.
No he did not refute anything. My model uses the same math as the QFT. My
model gives different interpretations for all the forces of nature that's
all.
For example. With QFT and QED in
particular, they can determine the gyromagnetic ratio with
an accuracy of three parts in 100 billion! Your model can't
even give the predicted value.
Since my theory uses the same math as QFT then Model Mechanics gives the
same predictions as QFT.
Now turning to General
Relativity. A force based model can't describe large
objects at cosmic scale.
Why Not? However, my theory of gravity (DTG) is used mainly to unite gravity
with the electromagnetic and neuclear forces naturally. The unification is
achieved because all these forces are using the same physical mechanism. IRT
is used to describe large object at cosmic scale.
So with QM, QFT, QED, GR,
etc. incompatible with your model,
You are wrong. Model Mechanics is compatible with QM. QFT, QED and GR. In
fact you might even say that QM. QFT, QED and GR are subsets of Model
Mechanics.
your only hope is
SR. But since QFT is the marriage of SR and QM and
QFT and QED can determine the data in three parts in
100 billion. Then your SR hybrid is taken out too. So you
are left with only Newton which QM and SR has also
taken out. So you have literally nothing.
So your misunderstanding of my theory is your basis of your rejection?
Look. We are not getting younger. Time is gold. Let's not
waste precious time. Go to the mountains, take a deep
rest and come down free from all the biases that have
solidified in your mind making you see the world thru filtered
eyes. Maybe you have 30 years left in your life. Make
the best of it.
I suggest that you do what you preach. If you want to be participate in the
next physics revolution you should take time and study my theory.http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto- Hide quoted text -
In the landscape of "universes" in M-theory. All possible worlds
can exist with different laws of physics. Therefore all the theories
of all cranks in the world can have existences in one of those
landscape
of universes (that is, if M-theory has any substance). So it would
be interesting to see what kind of lifeforms and objects can
exist in each universe. In your case. I wonder if physical objects
such as tables are even stable or they would just break apart by
mere waves. Anyway. I'll go to the attic tomorrow and open
the box that is sealed and labeled "To be discarded" and look at
your works in details (I forgot them when I looked at them ages
ago). But I'll just do this for you as I realized I wasted so much
time analyzing such kinds of works. This would be the last.
After it. I'd just focus on quantum gravity if I need to entertain
myself. Physics is entertainment better than the movies :)
Kows
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Lorentz Transformation Derivations |
07 Jun 2007 07:42:59 AM |
|
|
"Kowstue" <kowstue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181137497.352381.133880@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 6, 9:04 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Kowstue" <kows...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181101094.162709.189210@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 6, 8:55 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Kowstue" <kows...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181084607.647312.18550@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 5, 10:38 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Kowstue" <kows...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181038925.659015.304430@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
I've been visualizing the derivations of Lorentz
Transformation and the material I'm using is this light
clock where there is a beam of light being bounced by
mirror to a detector and it's moving at a certain distance
relative to a stationary observer and you are solving for
t from the Pythegorean Thorem. How valid is this
example. Who originated this. Is it Feynman?
What's the best site have you encountered for
the derivations of Lorentz Transformation which can
give you an intuitive grasp of it??
So far, the way I see it. The effect of time dilations, length
contraction, etc. is due to some kind of aberrations where
it is projected to our frame of reference and becoming
real.
It is all a result of postulate 2 where the speed of light
is the same in all inertial reference frames. This
produces all those frame effects that are solved by
Lorentz Transformation.
So to dig into this amazing side effects of time dilation,
etc. One has to go after the fact why the speed of light is a
constant in all inertial reference frame. The mainstream
answer is that the structure of spacetime geometry limits
the speed to c and make it self-referential to all frames of
reference. In other words, mathematical concept does the
trick (null-related). I have no problem with this. But is
there
another possibility that doesn't involved the spacetime
geometry formalism (which unite space and time in a
minkowski 3 + 1 D fashion). For example. An attempt was
made called "Rotating Dimensions" but it was seriosly
flawed and rejected on day 1. Pls. mention others I'm
not aware of that made good sense. Thanks.
Mainstream physics failed to realize that the speed of light is
not
a
universal constant as asserted by SR. It is a constant math
ratio in
all
inertial frames as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458 m long physically)/the
absolute
time
(duration) content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
This new definition for the speed of light gives rise to a new
theory of
relativity called Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). IRT includes
SRT
as
a
subset. However, unlike SRT the equations of IRT are valid in
all
environments...including gravity. A description of IRT is in the
paper
entitled "Improved Relativity Theory" in the following
website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm-Hidequoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I wonder if someone has written a complete summary about Seto
works pointing out all facets of the contradictions and any
possible
strong points. There are thousands of messages written about him
and by him and to save precious time. If someone can point to
the specific thread or even a web site with the summary of it.
I'd appreciate it. We can just focus on his Relativity portions
because his atomic physics is as they say not even wrong.
I don't know where you get this bogus impression. There is no valid
refutation of my atomic physics.
Once upon a time. The legendary physicist called Bjoern has
refuted all your atomic physics. It's like your model can
only explain 2% of the data in particle physics and the
standard model.
No he did not refute anything. My model uses the same math as the QFT.
My
model gives different interpretations for all the forces of nature
that's
all.
For example. With QFT and QED in
particular, they can determine the gyromagnetic ratio with
an accuracy of three parts in 100 billion! Your model can't
even give the predicted value.
Since my theory uses the same math as QFT then Model Mechanics gives the
same predictions as QFT.
Now turning to General
Relativity. A force based model can't describe large
objects at cosmic scale.
Why Not? However, my theory of gravity (DTG) is used mainly to unite
gravity
with the electromagnetic and neuclear forces naturally. The unification
is
achieved because all these forces are using the same physical mechanism.
IRT
is used to describe large object at cosmic scale.
So with QM, QFT, QED, GR,
etc. incompatible with your model,
You are wrong. Model Mechanics is compatible with QM. QFT, QED and GR.
In
fact you might even say that QM. QFT, QED and GR are subsets of Model
Mechanics.
your only hope is
SR. But since QFT is the marriage of SR and QM and
QFT and QED can determine the data in three parts in
100 billion. Then your SR hybrid is taken out too. So you
are left with only Newton which QM and SR has also
taken out. So you have literally nothing.
So your misunderstanding of my theory is your basis of your rejection?
Look. We are not getting younger. Time is gold. Let's not
waste precious time. Go to the mountains, take a deep
rest and come down free from all the biases that have
solidified in your mind making you see the world thru filtered
eyes. Maybe you have 30 years left in your life. Make
the best of it.
I suggest that you do what you preach. If you want to be participate in
the
next physics revolution you should take time and study my
theory.http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto- Hide quoted text -
In the landscape of "universes" in M-theory. All possible worlds
can exist with different laws of physics. Therefore all the theories
of all cranks in the world can have existences in one of those
landscape
of universes (that is, if M-theory has any substance). So it would
be interesting to see what kind of lifeforms and objects can
exist in each universe. In your case. I wonder if physical objects
such as tables are even stable or they would just break apart by
mere waves. Anyway. I'll go to the attic tomorrow and open
the box that is sealed and labeled "To be discarded" and look at
your works in details (I forgot them when I looked at them ages
ago). But I'll just do this for you as I realized I wasted so much
time analyzing such kinds of works. This would be the last.
After it. I'd just focus on quantum gravity if I need to entertain
myself. Physics is entertainment better than the movies :)
M- theory is built on a house of cards. It cannot be verified
experimentally.
Model Mechanics is based on a physical model and it can be refuted
experimentally.
You don't need to dig up my book. Read the papers I have in my
website......it contains the updated material on my theory.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Lorentz Transformation Derivations |
07 Jun 2007 07:47:24 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
Model Mechanics is based on a physical model and it can be refuted
experimentally.
That's for sure! Model Mechanics is not self consistent and is
trivially refuted by empirical data. It doesn't even qualify for
smoke and mirrors.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Lorentz Transformation Derivations |
07 Jun 2007 08:16:56 AM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:w7T9i.152296$_c5.51395@attbi_s22...
kenseto wrote:
Model Mechanics is based on a physical model and it can be refuted
experimentally.
That's for sure! Model Mechanics is not self consistent and is
trivially refuted by empirical data. It doesn't even qualify for
smoke and mirrors.
Fucking idiot runt.
Wormy is a runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their ***** like
gourmet puppy chow. An ***** who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Lorentz Transformation Derivations |
07 Jun 2007 08:36:26 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:w7T9i.152296$_c5.51395@attbi_s22...
kenseto wrote:
Model Mechanics is based on a physical model and it can be refuted
experimentally.
That's for sure! Model Mechanics is not self consistent and is
trivially refuted by empirical data. It doesn't even qualify for
smoke and mirrors.
Fucking idiot runt.
Wormy is a runt 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
Seriously Ken, even the beginning of your paper is flat out wrong.
You write, "It was discovered in 1998 that far reached regions of
the Universe are in a state of accelerated expansion".
You have misunderstood that concept. First of all when one looks
out one looks back in time. The data clearly shows that the expansion
rate of the early universe *was* slowing down from gravitation. It
is recently that the expansion rate has been increasing!
You also write, "The observed rotational curves of the galaxies
disagree with the predictions of GRT [sic]".
That is also blatantly wrong. The observations suggest that there
is a lot of "unseen" matter--matter with normal gravitation, but
matter that is not emitting or absorbing electromagnetic radiation
at the sensitivity of our instruments. GTR (not GRT) has been a
fruitful tool, indeed, in mapping the distribution of dark matter.
I, for one, have posted many articles in this newsgroup related to
the evidence for dark matter.
Every paragraph you write, demonstrates a lack of understanding of
physical phenomena, Seto!
You can call me all the names that you like, but the fact remains
that your posting record betrays your total lack of understanding
physical phenomena. You should consider that highly embarrassing, Seto.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Lorentz Transformation Derivations |
07 Jun 2007 03:51:40 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:tRT9i.91025$n_.15289@attbi_s21...
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:w7T9i.152296$_c5.51395@attbi_s22...
kenseto wrote:
Model Mechanics is based on a physical model and it can be refuted
experimentally.
That's for sure! Model Mechanics is not self consistent and is
trivially refuted by empirical data. It doesn't even qualify for
smoke and mirrors.
Fucking idiot runt.
Wormy is a runt 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
Seriously Ken, even the beginning of your paper is flat out wrong.
You write, "It was discovered in 1998 that far reached regions of
the Universe are in a state of accelerated expansion".
Seriously wormy you are a runt of the SR experts.
Wormy is a runt 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
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Lorentz Transformation Derivations |
07 Jun 2007 05:08:13 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:tRT9i.91025$n_.15289@attbi_s21...
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:w7T9i.152296$_c5.51395@attbi_s22...
kenseto wrote:
Model Mechanics is based on a physical model and it can be refuted
experimentally.
That's for sure! Model Mechanics is not self consistent and is
trivially refuted by empirical data. It doesn't even qualify for
smoke and mirrors.
Fucking idiot runt.
Wormy is a runt 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
Seriously Ken, even the beginning of your paper is flat out wrong.
You write, "It was discovered in 1998 that far reached regions of
the Universe are in a state of accelerated expansion".
Seriously wormy you are a runt of the SR experts.
Wormy is a runt 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
Seriously, Seto, your concepts of space, time, light propagation
and Doppler effect are wrong, empirically wrong. We, who are
arguing with you are trying to help you. Seriously!
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Lorentz Transformation Derivations |
07 Jun 2007 08:49:24 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:hl%9i.91971$n_.6118@attbi_s21...
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:tRT9i.91025$n_.15289@attbi_s21...
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:w7T9i.152296$_c5.51395@attbi_s22...
kenseto wrote:
Model Mechanics is based on a physical model and it can be refuted
experimentally.
That's for sure! Model Mechanics is not self consistent and is
trivially refuted by empirical data. It doesn't even qualify for
smoke and mirrors.
Fucking idiot runt.
Wormy is a runt 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
Seriously Ken, even the beginning of your paper is flat out wrong.
You write, "It was discovered in 1998 that far reached regions of
the Universe are in a state of accelerated expansion".
Seriously wormy you are a runt of the SR experts.
Wormy is a runt 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
Seriously, Seto, your concepts of space, time, light propagation
and Doppler effect are wrong, empirically wrong. We, who are
arguing with you are trying to help you. Seriously!
Seriuosly wormy you are the runt 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
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kowstue" |
|
| Title: Re: Lorentz Transformation Derivations |
08 Jun 2007 04:25:19 AM |
|
|
On Jun 8, 9:49 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:hl%9i.91971$n_.6118@attbi_s21...
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:tRT9i.91025$n_.15289@attbi_s21...
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:w7T9i.152296$_c5.51395@attbi_s22...
kenseto wrote:
Model Mechanics is based on a physical model and it can be refuted
experimentally.
That's for sure! Model Mechanics is not self consistent and is
trivially refuted by empirical data. It doesn't even qualify for
smoke and mirrors.
Fucking idiot runt.
Wormy is a runt 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
Seriously Ken, even the beginning of your paper is flat out wrong.
You write, "It was discovered in 1998 that far reached regions of
the Universe are in a state of accelerated expansion".
Seriously wormy you are a runt of the SR experts.
Wormy is a runt 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
Seriously, Seto, your concepts of space, time, light propagation
and Doppler effect are wrong, empirically wrong. We, who are
arguing with you are trying to help you. Seriously!
Seriuosly wormy you are the runt 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
Ken,
I spent more than an hour looking at your paper written in 2005
which is supposed to be going to become as famous as
"On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" written exactly
a century ago. Your model is just a garden variety aether
theory with a privileged frame of reference. You
aether is the E-Strings forming the E-Matrix which
light uses to travel.. something like that. Now let's
just focus on the MM experiment. You said the reason they
detected null is because the setup has to be vertical. Can you
elaborate why the vertical plane would produce a result
while the horizontal can't when our earth revolves around
the sun rotating by itself and the solar system moving
across the galaxy and universe, we should get exposed
to all directions moving in the fixed Aether frame. Pls.
explain why vertical as you may have reasons that our
best minds may have overlooked so pls explain in
details and illuminate the new generation of Relativists.
Kows
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Lorentz Transformation Derivations |
08 Jun 2007 08:51:20 AM |
|
|
"Kowstue" <kowstue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181294719.347233.249780@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 8, 9:49 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:hl%9i.91971$n_.6118@attbi_s21...
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:tRT9i.91025$n_.15289@attbi_s21...
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:w7T9i.152296$_c5.51395@attbi_s22...
kenseto wrote:
Ken,
I spent more than an hour looking at your paper written in 2005
which is supposed to be going to become as famous as
"On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" written exactly
a century ago. Your model is just a garden variety aether
theory with a privileged frame of reference.
The main point of my theory is that no observer is at rest in the E-Matrix
frame. BTW my model is notm just a garden variety aether theory. Is is the
only physical model that can explain all the forces and all the processes of
nature.
You
aether is the E-Strings forming the E-Matrix which
light uses to travel.. something like that.
Right....the E-Matrix is a staionary, structured and elastic medium
occupying space. The E-Matrix, in turn, is comprise of E-Strings. These
E-Strings are repulsive to each other.
Now let's
just focus on the MM experiment. You said the reas | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
