🚀 go-pugleaf

kenseto wrote:

> On Dec 20, 9:35 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>> > On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 19:52:46 -0600, Tom Roberts
>> > <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >> There are numerous measurements of the
>> >> speed of light emitted by moving sources, and they all obtain c within
>> >> their resolutions. Modeling the speed of light emitted by a source
>> >> moving with speed v as c+kv, experimental measurements require
>> >> k<2*10^-9, SOLIDLY refuting emission theories such as Newton's:
>> 
>>http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#...
>>
>> > Such lab experiments have alternative explanations.
>>
>> To date, nobody has presented a coherent and self-consistent theory that
>> explains ALL of the experiments within the domain of SR, other than SR
>> itself and theories equivalent to it [#]. Certainly YOU have not done so.
>>
>> [#] In the sense that they are experimentally indistinguishable
>> from SR.
> 
> I disagree. IRT is a complete theory of motion. IRT includes SRT as a
> subset. However, unlike SRT the equations of IRT are valid in all
> environments, including gravity. What this mean is that IRT is a self-
> consistent theory that explains ALL of the experiments within the
> domain of SR and more. IRT is described in the following link:
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf

Since you can't derive the equations you use from your postulates, IRT is no 
more a theory than Ralph's spew is a 'theory'.

> 
> Ken Seto
> 
>>
>> > The only real test of the emission theory is [...]
>>
>> ... not NEARLY sufficient. For emission theory to be accepted, there are
>> HUNDREDS of experiments which must be addressed, not just one.
>>
>> Tom Roberts