The speed of anything, including light, is observer dependent. The only exception is that the emitter and the receiver are in a state of absolute rest.. But no object in our universe (including light) is in a state of absolute rest.

LET falsely assumes that the LET observer is in a state of absolute rest and the LET math was derived based on this false assumption. Time in LET is
absolute time. Unfortunately, there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames. Why? Because the passage absolute time is constant and it is not sensitive to motion or gravity. Unfortunately there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames.
..
Einstein wanted the SR math to duplicate the successful LET math. He realized that all objects are in a state of individual motion.....so he artifactually made the speed of light to be the universal constant. To do that ,he had to make the measuring tools (the clocks and the ruler to be flexible).

Hey folks, the material length of a meter stick is a universal constant and the only time exists is absolute time and the passage of absolute time is constant.....not sensitive to motion or Gravityity. This means that the SR concepts of length contraction and time dilation are false. Instead they are replaced as follows:
1. Length contraction is replaced by: the length light need to travel to cover the material length of a moving meter stick is: L'=Lo/gamma
2. Time dilation is replaced by: A clock second on a moving clock contains a higher amount of absolute time than a stationary clock second.
To overcome the deficiencies of SR I invented the Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). IRT is described fully in chapter 4 (page 60) of my book in the following link: http://www.modelemchanics.org/2016ibook.pdf

Op 29-aug.-2022 om 17:35 schreef Ken Seto:
> The speed of anything, including light, is observer dependent. The only exception is that the emitter and the receiver are in a state of absolute rest. But no object in our universe (including light) is in a state of absolute rest.
>
> LET falsely assumes that the LET observer is in a state of absolute rest and the LET math was derived based on this false assumption. Time in LET is
> absolute time. Unfortunately, there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames. Why? Because the passage absolute time is constant and it is not sensitive to motion or gravity. Unfortunately there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames.
> .
> Einstein wanted the SR math to duplicate the successful LET math. He realized that all objects are in a state of individual motion.....so he artifactually made the speed of light to be the universal constant. To do that ,he had to make the measuring tools (the clocks and the ruler to be flexible).
>
> Hey folks, the material length of a meter stick is a universal constant and the only time exists is absolute time and the passage of absolute time is constant.....not sensitive to motion or Gravityity. This means that the SR concepts of length contraction and time dilation are false. Instead they are replaced as follows:
> 1. Length contraction is replaced by: the length light need to travel to cover the material length of a moving meter stick is: L'=Lo/gamma
> 2. Time dilation is replaced by: A clock second on a moving clock contains a higher amount of absolute time than a stationary clock second.
> To overcome the deficiencies of SR I invented the Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). IRT is described fully in chapter 4 (page 60) of my book in the following link: http://www.modelemchanics.org/2016ipoop.pdf
>

That link does not work.

Dirk Vdm

On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 8:36:01 AM UTC-7, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> The speed of anything, including light, is observer dependent.

Not according to experiment. You are free to fantasise, of course.

--
Jan

On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 2:46:45 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 8:36:01 AM UTC-7, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The speed of anything, including light, is observer dependent.
> Not according to experiment. You are free to fantasise, of course.
>
> --
> Jan

The atom has its own motion toward or away from light motion in space.
If an atom moves at near light speed ahead of light you get a motion BH.

Mitchell Raemsch

On Monday, 29 August 2022 at 23:46:45 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 8:36:01 AM UTC-7, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The speed of anything, including light, is observer dependent.
> Not according to experiment. You are free to fantasise, of course.

In the meantime in the real world, of course, forbidden by
your bunch of idiots GPS and TAI keep measuring t'=t,
just like all serious clocks always did.

On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 5:24:04 PM UTC-4, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 29-aug.-2022 om 17:35 schreef Ken Seto:
> > The speed of anything, including light, is observer dependent. The only exception is that the emitter and the receiver are in a state of absolute rest. But no object in our universe (including light) is in a state of absolute rest.
> >
> > LET falsely assumes that the LET observer is in a state of absolute rest and the LET math was derived based on this false assumption. Time in LET is
> > absolute time. Unfortunately, there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames. Why? Because the passage absolute time is constant and it is not sensitive to motion or gravity. Unfortunately there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames.
> > .
> > Einstein wanted the SR math to duplicate the successful LET math. He realized that all objects are in a state of individual motion.....so he artifactually made the speed of light to be the universal constant. To do that ,he had to make the measuring tools (the clocks and the ruler to be flexible).
> >
> > Hey folks, the material length of a meter stick is a universal constant and the only time exists is absolute time and the passage of absolute time is constant.....not sensitive to motion or Gravityity. This means that the SR concepts of length contraction and time dilation are false. Instead they are replaced as follows:
> > 1. Length contraction is replaced by: the length light need to travel to cover the material length of a moving meter stick is: L'=Lo/gamma
> > 2. Time dilation is replaced by: A clock second on a moving clock contains a higher amount of absolute time than a stationary clock second.
> > To overcome the deficiencies of SR I invented the Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). IRT is described fully in chapter 4 (page 60) of my book in the following link: http://www.modelemchanics.org/2016ipoop.pdf
> >
>
> That link does not work.
Sorry, the correct link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf

>
> Dirk Vdmhttp:

Op 30-aug.-2022 om 13:54 schreef Ken Seto:
> On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 5:24:04 PM UTC-4, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>> Op 29-aug.-2022 om 17:35 schreef Ken Seto:
>>> The speed of anything, including light, is observer dependent. The only exception is that the emitter and the receiver are in a state of absolute rest. But no object in our universe (including light) is in a state of absolute rest.
>>>
>>> LET falsely assumes that the LET observer is in a state of absolute rest and the LET math was derived based on this false assumption. Time in LET is
>>> absolute time. Unfortunately, there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames. Why? Because the passage absolute time is constant and it is not sensitive to motion or gravity. Unfortunately there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames.
>>> .
>>> Einstein wanted the SR math to duplicate the successful LET math. He realized that all objects are in a state of individual motion.....so he artifactually made the speed of light to be the universal constant. To do that ,he had to make the measuring tools (the clocks and the ruler to be flexible).
>>>
>>> Hey folks, the material length of a meter stick is a universal constant and the only time exists is absolute time and the passage of absolute time is constant.....not sensitive to motion or Gravityity. This means that the SR concepts of length contraction and time dilation are false. Instead they are replaced as follows:
>>> 1. Length contraction is replaced by: the length light need to travel to cover the material length of a moving meter stick is: L'=Lo/gamma
>>> 2. Time dilation is replaced by: A clock second on a moving clock contains a higher amount of absolute time than a stationary clock second.
>>> To overcome the deficiencies of SR I invented the Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). IRT is described fully in chapter 4 (page 60) of my book in the following link: http://www.modelemchanics.org/2016ipoop.pdf
>>>
>>
>> That link does not work.
> Sorry, the correct link:
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016iloon.pdf

Nope, still does not work.

Dirk Vdm

Den 30.08.2022 13:54, skrev Ken Seto:
> Sorry, the correct link:
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf

https://geekflare.com/free-ssl-tls-certificate/
https://blog.hubspot.com/website/best-free-ssl-certificate-sources

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 11:21:19 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 30.08.2022 13:54, skrev Ken Seto:
> > Sorry, the correct link:
> > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
> https://geekflare.com/free-ssl-tls-certificate/
> https://blog.hubspot.com/website/best-free-ssl-certificate-sources
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/

How can the atom not have absolute speed in space if it is moving
with respect to light that is believed to be absolute in space?
An atom moving at near light speed will see a temporary motion
black hole behind. That light is going to wait to be seen.

Mitchell Raemsch

On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 5:24:04 PM UTC-4, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 29-aug.-2022 om 17:35 schreef Ken Seto:
> > The speed of anything, including light, is observer dependent. The only exception is that the emitter and the receiver are in a state of absolute rest. But no object in our universe (including light) is in a state of absolute rest.
> >
> > LET falsely assumes that the LET observer is in a state of absolute rest and the LET math was derived based on this false assumption. Time in LET is
> > absolute time. Unfortunately, there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames. Why? Because the passage absolute time is constant and it is not sensitive to motion or gravity. Unfortunately there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames.
> > .
> > Einstein wanted the SR math to duplicate the successful LET math. He realized that all objects are in a state of individual motion.....so he artifactually made the speed of light to be the universal constant. To do that ,he had to make the measuring tools (the clocks and the ruler to be flexible).
> >
> > Hey folks, the material length of a meter stick is a universal constant and the only time exists is absolute time and the passage of absolute time is constant.....not sensitive to motion or Gravityity. This means that the SR concepts of length contraction and time dilation are false. Instead they are replaced as follows:
> > 1. Length contraction is replaced by: the length light need to travel to cover the material length of a moving meter stick is: L'=Lo/gamma
> > 2. Time dilation is replaced by: A clock second on a moving clock contains a higher amount of absolute time than a stationary clock second.
> > To overcome the deficiencies of SR I invented the Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). IRT is described fully in chapter 4 (page 60) of my book in the following link: http://www.modelemchanics.org/2016ipoop.pdf
> >
> e anidioet > That link does not work.

It recognizes that you are an idiot and that's why it doesn't allow you to read it.

On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 5:46:45 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 8:36:01 AM UTC-7, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The speed of anything, including light, is observer dependent.
> Not according to experiment. You are free to fantasise, of course.
>
No OWLS over a large distance ever been done.
Why? Because physicists knew that OWLS is anisotropic.
They measure the speed of neutrino using two GPS synched clocks.
Why don't they using the same procedure to synch two clock on oumtain tops to measure the speed of light in the opposite directions? he answer: they don't want to do any experiments that can reveal that OW:S is anisotropic

On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 5:36:33 PM UTC-7, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 5:46:45 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> > On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 8:36:01 AM UTC-7, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > The speed of anything, including light, is observer dependent.
> > Not according to experiment. You are free to fantasise, of course.
> >
> No OWLS over a large distance ever been done.
> Why? Because physicists knew that OWLS is anisotropic.

No, it's because you don't understand anything.

Why do people who have absolutely ZERO talent for
physics insist on "doing physics" is an interesting
psychiatric-type question.

--
Jan

Ken Seto wrote:

>> > in the following link: http://www.modelemchanics.org/2016ipoop.pdf
>> >
>> e anidioet > That link does not work.
>
> It recognizes that you are an idiot and that's why it doesn't allow you
> to read it.

no really, it don't works. Maybe you should change the name to

http://www.modelcrapanics.org/2016ishit.pdf etc.

On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 12:02:47 AM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 5:36:33 PM UTC-7, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 5:46:45 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> > > On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 8:36:01 AM UTC-7, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > The speed of anything, including light, is observer dependent.
> > > Not according to experiment. You are free to fantasise, of course.
> > >
> > No OWLS over a large distance ever been done.
> > Why? Because physicists knew that OWLS is anisotropic.
> No, it's because you don't understand anything.
No, it's because you are indoctrinated in Einstein's failed physics.
>
> Why do people who have absolutely ZERO talent for
> physics insist on "doing physics" is an interesting
> psychiatric-type question.

Yes we reject Einstein's obsolete physics and we came up with real physics.

On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 4:34:23 PM UTC-4, Dana Belluomi wrote:
> Ken Seto wrote:
>
> >> > in the following link: http://www.modelemchanics.org/2016ipoop.pdf
> >> >
> >> e anidioet > That link does not work.
> >
> > It recognizes that you are an idiot and that's why it doesn't allow you
> > to read it.
> no really, it don't works. Maybe you should change the name to

No idiot, he changed the link. The correct link is:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
Notice that there is no extra "e" follow "model".
>
> http://www.modelcrapanics.org/2016ishit.pdf etc.

Ken Seto wrote:

>> Why do people who have absolutely ZERO talent for physics insist on
>> "doing physics" is an interesting psychiatric-type question.
>
> Yes we reject Einstein's obsolete physics and we came up with real
> physics.

who are the we? These guys have no problem bombing your country with two
atomic bombs.

On Friday, September 2, 2022 at 10:46:09 AM UTC-4, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 12:02:47 AM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 5:36:33 PM UTC-7, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 5:46:45 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> > > > On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 8:36:01 AM UTC-7, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > The speed of anything, including light, is observer dependent.
> > > > Not according to experiment. You are free to fantasise, of course.
> > > >
> > > No OWLS over a large distance ever been done.
> > > Why? Because physicists knew that OWLS is anisotropic.
> > No, it's because you don't understand anything.
No, it's because you are indoctrinated in Einstein's failed physics.
> >
> > Why do people who have absolutely ZERO talent for
> > physics insist on "doing physics" is an interesting
> > psychiatric-type question.

Yes, we reject Einstein's obsolete physics and we came up with real physics.

Ken Seto wrote:

> On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 4:34:23 PM UTC-4, Dana Belluomi wrote:
>> Ken Seto wrote:
>>
>> >> > in the following link: http://www.modelemchanics.org/2016ipoop.pdf
>> >> >
>> >> e anidioet > That link does not work.
>> >
>> > It recognizes that you are an idiot and that's why it doesn't allow
>> > you to read it.
>> no really, it don't works. Maybe you should change the name to
>
> No idiot, he changed the link. The correct link is:
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf Notice that there is no
> extra "e" follow "model".
>>
>> http://www.modelcrapanics.org/2016ishit.pdf etc.

and if I tell you, that link still don't work, will you believe me? Make
the link shorter, ie

https://mm.org/ibutt.pdf

such a link should work. Remark the _s_ in https.

On Friday, September 2, 2022 at 10:54:57 AM UTC-4, Dana Belluomi wrote:
> Ken Seto wrote:
>
> >> Why do people who have absolutely ZERO talent for physics insist on
> >> "doing physics" is an interesting psychiatric-type question.
> >
> > Yes we reject Einstein's obsolete physics and we came up with real
> > physics.
> who are the we? These guys have no problem bombing your country with two
> atomic bombs.

You are so fucking stupid. My country was not bombed with two atomic bombs.

On Friday, September 2, 2022 at 11:13:20 AM UTC-4, Dana Belluomi wrote:
> Ken Seto wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 4:34:23 PM UTC-4, Dana Belluomi wrote:
> >> Ken Seto wrote:
> >>
> >> >> > in the following link: http://www.modelemchanics.org/2016ipoop.pdf
> >> >> >
> >> >> e anidioet > That link does not work.
> >> >
> >> > It recognizes that you are an idiot and that's why it doesn't allow
> >> > you to read it.
> >> no really, it don't works. Maybe you should change the name to
> >
> > No idiot, he changed the link. The correct link is:
> > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf Notice that there is no
> > extra "e" follow "model".
> >>
> >> http://www.modelcrapanics.org/2016ishit.pdf etc.
> and if I tell you, that link still don't work, will you believe me? Make
> the link shorter, ie

No, you are a fucking waste of time. Bye.
>
> https://mm.org/ibutt.pdf
>
> such a link should work. Remark the _s_ in https.

Ken Seto wrote:

>> >> http://www.modelcrapanics.org/2016ishit.pdf etc.
>> and if I tell you, that link still don't work, will you believe me?
>> Make the link shorter, ie
>> https://mm.org/ibutt.pdf
>> such a link should work. Remark the _s_ in https.
>
> No, you are a fucking waste of time. Bye.

you fool yourself. Most browsers are default disabled for non-secure
access. Make that site secure so WE can use https. I refuse access a site
on http. Capisici? Panimae?

Ken Seto wrote:

>> > Yes we reject Einstein's obsolete physics and we came up with real
>> > physics.
>> who are the we? These guys have no problem bombing your country with
>> two atomic bombs.
>
> You are so fucking stupid. My country was not bombed with two atomic
> bombs.

how did you escape?

On 9/2/2022 10:54 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 4:34:23 PM UTC-4, Dana Belluomi wrote:
>> Ken Seto wrote:
>>
>>>>> in the following link: http://www.modelemchanics.org/2016ipoop.pdf
>>>>>
>>>> e anidioet > That link does not work.
>>>
>>> It recognizes that you are an idiot and that's why it doesn't allow you
>>> to read it.
>> no really, it don't works. Maybe you should change the name to
>
> No idiot, he changed the link. The correct link is:
> http://www.modelmeсhanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
> Notice that there is no extra "e" follow "model".

It still doesn't work, Stupid Ken.

On 9/2/2022 10:55 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Friday, September 2, 2022 at 10:46:09 AM UTC-4, Ken Seto wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 12:02:47 AM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 5:36:33 PM UTC-7, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 5:46:45 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 8:36:01 AM UTC-7, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> The speed of anything, including light, is observer dependent.
>>>>> Not according to experiment. You are free to fantasise, of course.
>>>>>
>>>> No OWLS over a large distance ever been done.
>>>> Why? Because physicists knew that OWLS is anisotropic.
>>> No, it's because you don't understand anything.
> No, it's because you are indoctrinated in Einstein's failed physics.
>>>
>>> Why do people who have absolutely ZERO talent for
>>> physics insist on "doing physics" is an interesting
>>> psychiatric-type question.

It is interesting, how they must believe that if someone who has years
of education in science and works years in labs can do it, they can sit
in their armchairs, and "think" up "answers" just as easily, despite
having no relevant education.
>
> Yes, we reject Einstein's obsolete physics and we came up with real physics.

"We", Stupid Ken? You and your fellow crackpots? Too bad for you that
actual physicists continue to use the (non-)obsolete physics, not your
pretend "new" crackpot physics.

Volney wrote:

>> No idiot, he changed the link. The correct link is:
>> http://www.modelmeсhanics.org/2016ibook.pdf Notice that there is no
>> extra "e" follow "model".
>
> It still doesn't work, Stupid Ken.

how did you do that in puny code, my friend, I only see different this

%68%74%74%70%3A%2F%2F%77%77%77%2E%6D%6F%64%65%6C%6D%65%63 %68%61%6E%69%63%73%2E%6F%72%67%2F%32%30%31%36%69%62%6F%6F%6B%2E%70%64%66
%68%74%74%70%3A%2F%2F%77%77%77%2E%6D%6F%64%65%6C%6D%65%D1%81%68%61%6E%69%63%73%2E%6F%72%67%2F%32%30%31%36%69%62%6F%6F%6B%2E%70%64%66

my friend??