LET is based on the existence of an aether.
Einstein wanted to copy the LET math but without the Aether.
So he invented the constant speed of light postulate to replace the aether..
But the speed of anything is observer dependent.
So Einstein invented a new set of measuring tools to force light speed to be constant c:
1. Length Contraction: in real life, the material the length of a moving meter stick is constant. The light path length to cover the length of a moving meter stick is contracted by a factor of 1/gamma.

2. Time dilation: In real life, the only time existed is absolute time. But there is no clock time unit that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames. A clock second at the rest frame of the clock will represent a specific interval of absolute time. A clock second in different rest frame of the clock will represent a different interval of absolute time.

The combination of 1 and 2 will give constant light speed in any frame.

Model Mechanics rejects the constant light speed postulate and came up with a new theory of relativity called IRT. IRT is described in page 60 of my book in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf

On Sunday, September 4, 2022 at 5:40:06 PM UTC-7, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> LET is based on the existence of an aether.
> Einstein wanted to copy the LET math but without the Aether.

No, that's not what he wanted to do.

> So he invented the constant speed of light postulate to replace the aether.

No, that's not what his motivation was.

> But the speed of anything is observer dependent.

There we go again. You understand nothing.

--
Jan

On Sunday, September 4, 2022 at 10:37:45 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> On Sunday, September 4, 2022 at 5:40:06 PM UTC-7, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> > LET is based on the existence of an aether.
> > Einstein wanted to copy the LET math but without the Aether.
> No, that's not what he wanted to do.

Yes that's what he did.

> > So he invented the constant speed of light postulate to replace the aether.
> No, that's not what his motivation was.

His motivaton was to get the same math as LET but without the aether.

> > But the speed of anything is observer dependent.
> There we go again. You understand nothing.

The speed of anything is observer dependent.....no exception.
Einstein invented a new set of measuring tools (time dilation and length contraction) to force the speed of light to be constant in all frames. That's not doing physics. That's inventing physics.
The proper way of doing physics physics is IRT (improved Relativity Theory).
IRT is described on page 60 of my book in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf

Ken Seto wrote:

> On Sunday, September 4, 2022 at 10:37:45 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
>> > But the speed of anything is observer dependent.
>> There we go again. You understand nothing.
>
> The speed of anything is observer dependent.....no exception.
> Einstein invented a new set of measuring tools (time dilation and
> length contraction) to force the speed of light to be constant in all
> frames.

but you have a theory, we still don't know who wrote that theory. Like
Einstine watching a church clock interestingly, that theory was published
in advance. No reason to watch the clock.

Ken Seto wrote:

> LET is based on the existence of an aether.
> Einstein wanted to copy the LET math but without the Aether.
> So he invented the constant speed of light postulate to replace the
> aether.

you are not easy to fool.

On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 8:46:43 AM UTC-7, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, September 4, 2022 at 10:37:45 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 4, 2022 at 5:40:06 PM UTC-7, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > LET is based on the existence of an aether.
> > > Einstein wanted to copy the LET math but without the Aether.
> > No, that's not what he wanted to do.
> Yes that's what he did.

No. His goal was to provide a physical basis for his claim that Lorentz's
1904 "abstract time parameter" and "the transformed E and B fields" were
physical (i.e., a moving observer would actually measure those values).

This allowed him to resolve certain paradoxes of electrodynamics, like
the one hi mentions in the intoduction to his 9105 paper: the magnet and
coil question.

Of course in the process of doing this, he invented a new mechanics to
replace Newton's but that's anotger story. The ether thing was a welcome
bonus but it didn't appear to be his motivation (neither was Michelson-Morley
which he even didn't know about at that time).

> > > So he invented the constant speed of light postulate to replace the aether.
> > No, that's not what his motivation was.
> His motivaton was to get the same math as LET but without the aether.

No, it was what I said above. The ether thing was a welcome bonus but not
the main motivation.

> > > But the speed of anything is observer dependent.
> > There we go again. You understand nothing.
> The speed of anything is observer dependent.....no exception.

Not in relativity.

> Einstein invented a new set of measuring tools (time dilation and length contraction)

Those are *derived* results, not an "invention".

> to force the speed of light to be constant in all frames.

No, you have it exactly backwards. He states that the measured speed
of all rays of light in a certain frame is independent of the rays, the motions
of the sources, and *when* the measurements are performed (the last part is
important, without it sound signals would satisfy Einstein's second postulate
which obviously they do not). This comes first, so in this sense it's "forced"
but it's not done by "inventing" time dilation etc., those come *later* as
corollaries.

> That's not doing physics.

This is exactly doing physics, thermodynamics was developed in a similar
way, parts of classical mechanics (e.g. the principle of least action as
formulated by Maupertuis), etc. You simply don't know any of it because
you are hyper-focused on a microscopic segment of physics (special
relativity) and you don't understand what it's all really about.

> That's inventing physics.

That's what you do. Projection, as usual.

> The proper way of doing physics physics is IRT (improved Relativity Theory).
> IRT is described on page 60 of my book in the following link:
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf

No, that's pure nonsense from start to finish. Gobbledygook. Ravings of
a monomaniac.

--
Jan

On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 3:35:51 PM UTC-4, Doreen Pfaffenbach wrote:
> Ken Seto wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, September 4, 2022 at 10:37:45 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> >> > But the speed of anything is observer dependent.
> >> There we go again. You understand nothing.
> >
> > The speed of anything is observer dependent.....no exception.
> > Einstein invented a new set of measuring tools (time dilation and
> > length contraction) to force the speed of light to be constant in all
> > frames.
> but you have a theory, we still don't know who wrote that theory. Like
> Einstine watching a church clock interestingly, that theory was published
> in advance. No reason to watch the clock.

You are a fucking cunt.
I copy righted my book in 2016. and it is shown on the front page of my book.
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf

On 9/6/2022 11:04 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 3:35:51 PM UTC-4, Doreen Pfaffenbach wrote:
>> Ken Seto wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, September 4, 2022 at 10:37:45 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
>>>>> But the speed of anything is observer dependent.
>>>> There we go again. You understand nothing.
>>>
>>> The speed of anything is observer dependent.....no exception.
>>> Einstein invented a new set of measuring tools (time dilation and
>>> length contraction) to force the speed of light to be constant in all
>>> frames.
>> but you have a theory, we still don't know who wrote that theory.

But we do know who wrote that theory. Ken stole it from someone named
"Lisa Hayes". Her name is still in the file!

>> Like
>> Einstine watching a church clock interestingly, that theory was published
>> in advance. No reason to watch the clock.

Yeah, stealing Muddle Mechanics makes about as much sense as stealing a
dog turd from your neighbor's front lawn and claiming it as your own.
>
> You are a fucking cunt.

Such a well thought out, mature response, Stupid Ken.

> I copy righted my book in 2016. and it is shown on the front page of my book.

Shame on the copyright office, as they failed to find the previous work
by "Lisa Hayes".

> http://www.modelmеchanics.org/2016ibook.pdf

Link doesn't work.

Volney wrote:

>>> Like Einstine watching a church clock interestingly, that theory was
>>> published in advance. No reason to watch the clock.
>
> Yeah, stealing Muddle Mechanics makes about as much sense as stealing a
> dog turd from your neighbor's front lawn and claiming it as your own.

you ladies from america I don't think you know the difference between the
Kherson and the Kharkov Region. To you capitalists, it might sound the
same.

Michael Moroney wrote:

>>> Yeah, stealing Muddle Mechanics makes about as much sense as stealing
>>> a dog turd from your neighbor's front lawn and claiming it as your
>>> own.
>>
>> you ladies from america I don't think you know the difference between
>> the Kherson and the Kharkov Region. To you capitalists, it might sound
>> the same.
>
> Hey nymshifter! Speaking of the Kherson and Kharkov regions, how is the
> evil 卐Ru⚡︎⚡︎ian卐 army doing there? It looks like Ukraine is doing a
> great job at denazifying both places!

if not Mother Russia, then the locals will throw the *ukro_nazis* out.
People are not imbeciles, letting a gay actor, cocaine elenske, named
"president" by the capitalist west, no party, no politics etc, no
parliament, just a nazi *production_team* doing his things. You are a
fucking idiot, asking such things. Another proof.

Le 09/09/2022 à 20:35, "Dick's DriveIn" a écrit :
> Which dictator is more capitalist than Putin ?!

Good question, baby.

Paule

Dick's DriveIn wrote:

> Which dictator is more capitalist than Putin ?!

the bidans are stealing money from the poorest country in the fucking
europe, since 2014, then ask his protege, the gay actor cocaine zelenske,
in which countries he has big millions villas and apartments, hmm, selling
grains and everything, meanwhile the people of the fucking uKraine are
already looking for food. My-ohh-my, you capitalists are going to be
fucked up very soon. Mark the calendar.

Michael Moroney wrote:

>> People are not imbeciles, letting a gay actor, cocaine elenske, named
>> "president" by the capitalist west, no party, no politics etc, no
>> parliament, just a nazi *production_team* doing his things. You are a
>> fucking idiot, asking such things. Another proof.
>
> Poor nymshifter, jealous that Ukraine has a real leader, not just a
> Mafia boss whose hero is named Adolf.

there are no "real leader" in democracies, I beg you to reconsider. The
*people_is_the_leader* in democracies. Yet another proof you are also
*stupid_in_another_area* of public interest. Leave math, physics and
relativity alone. You don't know geography. To you, Kharkov and Kherson
are the same thing.

Michael Moroney wrote:

>> if not Mother Russia, then the locals will throw the *ukro_nazis* out.
>
> The Ukrainians are trying their best to throw the Nazi 卐Ru⚡︎⚡︎ians卐
> out. Right now, it looks like it's good for the good guys.

you are blatantly insignificant. In cacapitalis cacamerica you need taking
your fingerprint going to toilet. They need to know how many calories you
are shitting out. For a climate without calories and without gas from
Russia. Too many birds in your thinking.