The link in the following link gives an improved relativity theory called IRT.
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
IRT have the following advantages over SRT:
It does not assume that the IRT observer is in a state of rest and that all the objects in the universe are in a state of moving. The SRT assumption gives rise to the dubious SRT concept of mutual time and length contraction.
An IRT observer does not assume (as does an SRT observer do) that he is in a state of rest. Therefore he predicts that all clocks moving wrt him are either running slower or running faster than his clock.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> The link in the following link gives an improved relativity theory called IRT.
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
> IRT have the following advantages over SRT:
> It does not assume that the IRT observer is in a state of rest and that
> all the objects in the universe are in a state of moving.

Neither does SRT. It’s hard to compare your idea with SRT when you have no
idea what SRT says, isn’t it?

> The SRT assumption gives rise to the dubious SRT concept of mutual time
> and length contraction.
> An IRT observer does not assume (as does an SRT observer do) that he is
> in a state of rest. Therefore he predicts that all clocks moving wrt him
> are either running slower or running faster than his clock.

And yet one of those options has never been seen experimentally. Dang.

>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Tuesday, 1 February 2022 at 17:42:52 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The link in the following link gives an improved relativity theory called IRT.
> > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
> > IRT have the following advantages over SRT:
> > It does not assume that the IRT observer is in a state of rest and that
> > all the objects in the universe are in a state of moving.
> Neither does SRT. It’s hard to compare your idea with SRT when you have no
> idea what SRT says, isn’t it?
> > The SRT assumption gives rise to the dubious SRT concept of mutual time
> > and length contraction.
> > An IRT observer does not assume (as does an SRT observer do) that he is
> > in a state of rest. Therefore he predicts that all clocks moving wrt him
> > are either running slower or running faster than his clock.
> And yet one of those options has never been seen experimentally. Dang.

Dang! Of zillions of twins flying their almost-light-speed rockets
none saw it. Dang!

On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 11:42:52 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The link in the following link gives an improved relativity theory called IRT.
> > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
> > IRT have the following advantages over SRT:
> > It does not assume that the IRT observer is in a state of rest and that
> > all the objects in the universe are in a state of moving.
> Neither does SRT. It’s hard to compare your idea with SRT when you have no
> idea what SRT says, isn’t it?

So an SRT observer does not assume that his clock is accumulating clock seconds at a faster rate than the observed clock?

> > The SRT assumption gives rise to the dubious SRT concept of mutual time
> > and length contraction.
> > An IRT observer does not assume (as does an SRT observer do) that he is
> > in a state of rest. Therefore he predicts that all clocks moving wrt him
> > are either running slower or running faster than his clock.
> And yet one of those opt have ions has never been seen experimentally. Dang.

So they didn’t off-set the GPS to have a longer second before the launch?

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 1 February 2022 at 17:42:52 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The link in the following link gives an improved relativity theory called IRT.
>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
>>> IRT have the following advantages over SRT:
>>> It does not assume that the IRT observer is in a state of rest and that
>>> all the objects in the universe are in a state of moving.
>> Neither does SRT. It’s hard to compare your idea with SRT when you have no
>> idea what SRT says, isn’t it?
>>> The SRT assumption gives rise to the dubious SRT concept of mutual time
>>> and length contraction.
>>> An IRT observer does not assume (as does an SRT observer do) that he is
>>> in a state of rest. Therefore he predicts that all clocks moving wrt him
>>> are either running slower or running faster than his clock.
>> And yet one of those options has never been seen experimentally. Dang.
>
> Dang! Of zillions of twins flying their almost-light-speed rockets
> none saw it. Dang!
>

You seem to think that this is only measurable at high speeds. How silly of
you.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 11:42:52 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The link in the following link gives an improved relativity theory called IRT.
>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
>>> IRT have the following advantages over SRT:
>>> It does not assume that the IRT observer is in a state of rest and that
>>> all the objects in the universe are in a state of moving.
>> Neither does SRT. It’s hard to compare your idea with SRT when you have no
>> idea what SRT says, isn’t it?
>
> So an SRT observer does not assume that his clock is accumulating clock
> seconds at a faster rate than the observed clock?

First of all, he doesn’t ASSUME that. That is a result from experiment.
Secondly, the observer does not assume he is at rest. I have no idea where
you got the impression he did.

No observer standing on the surface of the earth says, “I’m at rest.”

>
>>> The SRT assumption gives rise to the dubious SRT concept of mutual time
>>> and length contraction.
>>> An IRT observer does not assume (as does an SRT observer do) that he is
>>> in a state of rest. Therefore he predicts that all clocks moving wrt him
>>> are either running slower or running faster than his clock.
>> And yet one of those opt have ions has never been seen experimentally. Dang.
>
> So they didn’t off-set the GPS to have a longer second before the launch?

That’s not inertial motion.

>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto wrote:

> The link in the following link gives an improved relativity theory
> called IRT. http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf IRT have the
> following advantages over SRT:

"advantages" means zero in physics. You are an idiot.

but what can you expect from a country led by a comedian (Ukraine) and a
boxer (Mayor of Kiev). Just remember who started the whole Ukraine Russia
mess, Nuland. The ugly Slavic bitch said "fuck the EU" some years ago.

and people don't understand the capitalist america is 3rd world country,
with 200 millions citizens under the poverty level and about 50 millions
homeless with no permanent address.

There is relativity of size in the distance.
Einstein also overlooked the motion that creates its own opposite appearance.
In history it was in the sky as the Earth turning and retrograde motion appearance
astronomy...

Mitchell Raemsch

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> There is relativity of size in the distance.
> Einstein also overlooked the motion that creates its own opposite
> appearance. In history it was in the sky as the Earth turning and
> retrograde motion appearance astronomy...

bullshit. You can't see the stars from moon, according to capitalist
america. Not even the earth, respectively, 4 times larger than the moon
seen from earth, is visible from moon.

capitalist ukraina are a gang of opportunistic and criminal fascists.
Fully supported by the capitalist big_pharma west.

On Tuesday, 1 February 2022 at 19:37:57 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 11:42:52 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> The link in the following link gives an improved relativity theory called IRT.
> >>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
> >>> IRT have the following advantages over SRT:
> >>> It does not assume that the IRT observer is in a state of rest and that
> >>> all the objects in the universe are in a state of moving.
> >> Neither does SRT. It’s hard to compare your idea with SRT when you have no
> >> idea what SRT says, isn’t it?
> >
> > So an SRT observer does not assume that his clock is accumulating clock
> > seconds at a faster rate than the observed clock?
> First of all, he doesn’t ASSUME that. That is a result from experiment.

Sure, an experiment gedanken by an insane guru.

> No observer standing on the surface of the earth says, “I’m at rest.”

Odd, poor idiot, you have no contact with any reality.
But it was obvious for a long time.

On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 3:03:00 PM UTC-5, Fred Bice wrote:
> Ken Seto wrote:
>
> > The link in the following link gives an improved relativity theory
> > called IRT. http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf IRT have the
> > following advantages over SRT:
> "advantages" means zero in physics. You are an idiot.
>
> but what can you expect from a country led by a comedian (Ukraine) and a
> boxer (Mayor of Kiev). Just remember who started the whole Ukraine Russia
> mess, Nuland. The ugly Slavic bitch said “fuck the EU” some years ago. ing moron. ck

You are a fucking moron. IRT assumptions have no paradoxes as does SRT has, So it is an advantage.
Gee you are so fucking stupid.
>
> and people don't understand the capitalist america is 3rd world country,
> with 200 millions citizens under the poverty level and about 50 millions
> homeless with no permanent address.

On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 1:37:57 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 11:42:52 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> The link in the following link gives an improved relativity theory called IRT.
> >>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
> >>> IRT have the following advantages over SRT:
> >>> It does not assume that the IRT observer is in a state of rest and that
> >>> all the objects in the universe are in a state of moving.
> >> Neither does SRT. It’s hard to compare your idea with SRT when you have no
> >> idea what SRT says, isn’t it?
> >
> > So an SRT observer does not assume that his clock is accumulating clock
> > seconds at a faster rate than the observed clock?
> First of all, he doesn’t ASSUME that. That is a result from experiment.
> Secondly, the observer does not assume he is at rest. I have no idea where
> you got the impression he did.
>
> No observer standing on the surface of the earth says, “I’m at rest.”

Right.....that’s why the concept of mutual time dilation is bogus. Gee you are so fuckingg stupid.
> >
> >>> The SRT assumption gives rise to the dubious SRT concept of mutual time
> >>> and length contraction.
> >>> An IRT observer does not assume (as does an SRT observer do) that he is
> >>> in a state of rest. Therefore he predicts that all clocks moving wrt him
> >>> are either running slower or running faster than his clock.
> >> And yet one of those opt have ions has never been seen experimentally. Dang.
> >
> > So they didn’t off-set the GPS to have a longer second before the launch?
> That’s not inertial motion.

Idiot there is no inertial motion on earth.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 1:37:57 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 11:42:52 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> The link in the following link gives an improved relativity theory called IRT.
>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
>>>>> IRT have the following advantages over SRT:
>>>>> It does not assume that the IRT observer is in a state of rest and that
>>>>> all the objects in the universe are in a state of moving.
>>>> Neither does SRT. It’s hard to compare your idea with SRT when you have no
>>>> idea what SRT says, isn’t it?
>>>
>>> So an SRT observer does not assume that his clock is accumulating clock
>>> seconds at a faster rate than the observed clock?
>> First of all, he doesn’t ASSUME that. That is a result from experiment.
>> Secondly, the observer does not assume he is at rest. I have no idea where
>> you got the impression he did.
>>
>> No observer standing on the surface of the earth says, “I’m at rest.”
>
> Right.....that’s why the concept of mutual time dilation is bogus.

Mutual time dilation holds for clocks in relative inertial motion, and it
is still true that neither observer says “I am at rest” in that situation.

> Gee you are so fuckingg stupid.
>>>
>>>>> The SRT assumption gives rise to the dubious SRT concept of mutual time
>>>>> and length contraction.
>>>>> An IRT observer does not assume (as does an SRT observer do) that he is
>>>>> in a state of rest. Therefore he predicts that all clocks moving wrt him
>>>>> are either running slower or running faster than his clock.
>>>> And yet one of those opt have ions has never been seen experimentally. Dang.
>>>
>>> So they didn’t off-set the GPS to have a longer second before the launch?
>> That’s not inertial motion.
>
> Idiot there is no inertial motion on earth.

Sure there is.

And GPS is not an example of that.

Maybe you don’t know what inertial motion means. What do you think inertial
motion means?

>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 5:54:24 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 1:37:57 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 11:42:52 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> The link in the following link gives an improved relativity theory called IRT.
> >>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
> >>>>> IRT have the following advantages over SRT:
> >>>>> It does not assume that the IRT observer is in a state of rest and that
> >>>>> all the objects in the universe are in a state of moving.
> >>>> Neither does SRT. It’s hard to compare your idea with SRT when you have no
> >>>> idea what SRT says, isn’t it?
> >>>
> >>> So an SRT observer does not assume that his clock is accumulating clock
> >>> seconds at a faster rate than the observed clock?
> >> First of all, he doesn’t ASSUME that. That is a result from experiment.
> >> Secondly, the observer does not assume he is at rest. I have no idea where
> >> you got the impression he did.
> >>
> >> No observer standing on the surface of the earth says, “I’m at rest.”
> >
> > Right.....that’s why the concept of mutual time dilation is bogus.
> Mutual time dilation holds for clocks in relative inertial motion, and it
> is still true that neither observer says “I am at rest” in that situation.

No it’s not......mutual time dilation does not hold for any two observers in relative motion.

> > Gee you are so fuckingg stupid.
> >>>
> >>>>> The SRT assumption gives rise to the dubious SRT concept of mutual time
> >>>>> and length contraction.
> >>>>> An IRT observer does not assume (as does an SRT observer do) that he is
> >>>>> in a state of rest. Therefore he predicts that all clocks moving wrt him
> >>>>> are either running slower or running faster than his clock.
> >>>> And yet one of those opt have ions has never been seen experimentally. Dang.
> >>>
> >>> So they didn’t off-set the GPS to have a longer second before the launch?
> >> That’s not inertial motion.
> >
> > Idiot there is no inertial motion on earth.
> Sure there is.

In your dream.
>
> And GPS is not an example of that.

>
> Maybe you don’t know what inertial motion means. What do you think inertial
> motion means?
On earth, there is no inertial motion for any pair of observers in relative motion.....maybe you don’t known what inertial motion means?

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 5:54:24 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 1:37:57 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 11:42:52 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> The link in the following link gives an improved relativity theory called IRT.
>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
>>>>>>> IRT have the following advantages over SRT:
>>>>>>> It does not assume that the IRT observer is in a state of rest and that
>>>>>>> all the objects in the universe are in a state of moving.
>>>>>> Neither does SRT. It’s hard to compare your idea with SRT when you have no
>>>>>> idea what SRT says, isn’t it?
>>>>>
>>>>> So an SRT observer does not assume that his clock is accumulating clock
>>>>> seconds at a faster rate than the observed clock?
>>>> First of all, he doesn’t ASSUME that. That is a result from experiment.
>>>> Secondly, the observer does not assume he is at rest. I have no idea where
>>>> you got the impression he did.
>>>>
>>>> No observer standing on the surface of the earth says, “I’m at rest.”
>>>
>>> Right.....that’s why the concept of mutual time dilation is bogus.
>> Mutual time dilation holds for clocks in relative inertial motion, and it
>> is still true that neither observer says “I am at rest” in that situation.
>
> No it’s not......mutual time dilation does not hold for any two observers
> in relative motion.

Read what I said. Mutual time dilation holds for two observers in relative
INERTIAL motion.

>
>>> Gee you are so fuckingg stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The SRT assumption gives rise to the dubious SRT concept of mutual time
>>>>>>> and length contraction.
>>>>>>> An IRT observer does not assume (as does an SRT observer do) that he is
>>>>>>> in a state of rest. Therefore he predicts that all clocks moving wrt him
>>>>>>> are either running slower or running faster than his clock.
>>>>>> And yet one of those opt have ions has never been seen experimentally. Dang.
>>>>>
>>>>> So they didn’t off-set the GPS to have a longer second before the launch?
>>>> That’s not inertial motion.
>>>
>>> Idiot there is no inertial motion on earth.
>> Sure there is.
>
> In your dream.

No, there really is. Why do you think there aren’t any on earth? Just
because you don’t want there to be?

>>
>> And GPS is not an example of that.
>
>
>>
>> Maybe you don’t know what inertial motion means. What do you think inertial
>> motion means?
> On earth, there is no inertial motion for any pair of observers in relative motion.....

That’s just crazy wrong, Ken. What do you think inertial motion means?

> maybe you don’t known what inertial motion means?
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 12:19:18 PM UTC-8, Fred Bice wrote:
> mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > There is relativity of size in the distance.
> > Einstein also overlooked the motion that creates its own opposite
> > appearance. In history it was in the sky as the Earth turning and
> > retrograde motion appearance astronomy...
> bullshit. You can't see the stars from moon

Have you been on the Moon?
Or do you just Moon people in general?
Appearance of motion is real.

Mitchell Raemsch