| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"kenseto" |
| Date: |
04 Jun 2007 02:49:56 PM |
| Object: |
Attention: I can walk at a speed of c. |
Here's how:
Definition for a walk meter = 1/299,792,458 walk-second
Therefore 1 walk- second =299,792,458 walk-meter
Therefore my walking speed in one second is
=299,792,458 walk-meter/1 walk-second
.
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Attention: I can walk at a speed of c. |
04 Jun 2007 06:16:52 PM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:46646b85$0$19505$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
Here's how:
Definition for a walk meter = 1/299,792,458 walk-second
Therefore 1 walk- second =299,792,458 walk-meter
Therefore my walking speed in one second is
=299,792,458 walk-meter/1 walk-second
That is not c
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Attention: I can walk at a speed of c. |
06 Jun 2007 07:05:29 AM |
|
|
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:46649d67$0$1186$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:46646b85$0$19505$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
Here's how:
Definition for a walk meter = 1/299,792,458 walk-second
Therefore 1 walk- second =299,792,458 walk-meter
Therefore my walking speed in one second is
=299,792,458 walk-meter/1 walk-second
That is not c
I made a mistake it should be as follows:
My walking speed is = 299,792,458 walk-meters/1 second.
Now that is c.
Similarly for light:
The speed of light is = 299,792,458 light-meters/1 second.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Attention: I can walk at a speed of c. |
06 Jun 2007 09:06:18 AM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4666a1a8$0$30679$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:46649d67$0$1186$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:46646b85$0$19505$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
Here's how:
Definition for a walk meter = 1/299,792,458 walk-second
Therefore 1 walk- second =299,792,458 walk-meter
Therefore my walking speed in one second is
=299,792,458 walk-meter/1 walk-second
That is not c
I made a mistake it should be as follows:
My walking speed is = 299,792,458 walk-meters/1 second.
Now that is c.
No .. its a number that happens to be the same as c when c is expressing in
meters per second.
Similarly for light:
The speed of light is = 299,792,458 light-meters/1 second.
That's fine.
Just because you arbitrarily change units doesn't mean you can make any
speed 'c' ,, you're just being childish.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Attention: I can walk at a speed of c. |
06 Jun 2007 09:02:30 PM |
|
|
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4666c256$0$1184$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4666a1a8$0$30679$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:46649d67$0$1186$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:46646b85$0$19505$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
Here's how:
Definition for a walk meter = 1/299,792,458 walk-second
Therefore 1 walk- second =299,792,458 walk-meter
Therefore my walking speed in one second is
=299,792,458 walk-meter/1 walk-second
That is not c
I made a mistake it should be as follows:
My walking speed is = 299,792,458 walk-meters/1 second.
Now that is c.
No .. its a number that happens to be the same as c when c is expressing
in
meters per second.
Similarly for light:
The speed of light is = 299,792,458 light-meters/1 second.
That's fine.
Just because you arbitrarily change units doesn't mean you can make any
speed 'c' ,, you're just being childish.
Hey idiot....So you don't think that the current definition for a meter
length based on light speed is also arbitrary?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Attention: I can walk at a speed of c. |
06 Jun 2007 09:45:23 PM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:466765d5$0$9939$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4666c256$0$1184$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4666a1a8$0$30679$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:46649d67$0$1186$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:46646b85$0$19505$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
Here's how:
Definition for a walk meter = 1/299,792,458 walk-second
Therefore 1 walk- second =299,792,458 walk-meter
Therefore my walking speed in one second is
=299,792,458 walk-meter/1 walk-second
That is not c
I made a mistake it should be as follows:
My walking speed is = 299,792,458 walk-meters/1 second.
Now that is c.
No .. its a number that happens to be the same as c when c is expressing
in
meters per second.
Similarly for light:
The speed of light is = 299,792,458 light-meters/1 second.
That's fine.
Just because you arbitrarily change units doesn't mean you can make any
speed 'c' ,, you're just being childish.
Hey idiot....
Hey fucker
So you don't think that the current definition for a meter
length based on light speed is also arbitrary?
Of course its arbitrary .. systems of units are arbitrary.
But c refers to the speed of light .. what number it is depends on the
units. Just because you make up your own units where some other speed
happens to have the same number as 'c' does in SI units is meaningless
drivel.
But you knew that already .. you're just trolling.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Attention: I can walk at a speed of c. |
07 Jun 2007 01:56:52 AM |
|
|
On Jun 6, 5:05 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:46649d67$0$1186$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
"kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:46646b85$0$19505$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
Here's how:
Definition for a walk meter = 1/299,792,458 walk-second
Therefore 1 walk- second =299,792,458 walk-meter
Therefore my walking speed in one second is
=299,792,458 walk-meter/1 walk-second
That is not c
I made a mistake it should be as follows:
My walking speed is = 299,792,458 walk-meters/1 second.
Now that is c.
Similarly for light:
The speed of light is = 299,792,458 light-meters/1 second.
So?
Since 1 walk-meter is not the same as 1 light-meter, then these
are not the same speed.
The speed of sound is 330 m/sec.
I can throw a baseball at 330 mm/sec.
Does that mean I can throw a baseball at the speed of sound?
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Attention: I can walk at a speed of c. |
07 Jun 2007 07:11:26 AM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181199412.810789.183680@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 6, 5:05 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:46649d67$0$1186$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
"kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:46646b85$0$19505$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
Here's how:
Definition for a walk meter = 1/299,792,458 walk-second
Therefore 1 walk- second =299,792,458 walk-meter
Therefore my walking speed in one second is
=299,792,458 walk-meter/1 walk-second
That is not c
I made a mistake it should be as follows:
My walking speed is = 299,792,458 walk-meters/1 second.
Now that is c.
Similarly for light:
The speed of light is = 299,792,458 light-meters/1 second.
So?
Since 1 walk-meter is not the same as 1 light-meter, then these
are not the same speed.
The speed of sound is 330 m/sec.
I can throw a baseball at 330 mm/sec.
Does that mean I can throw a baseball at the speed of sound?
That's precisely the point: SR asserts that the speed of light is a
universal constant (299,792,458 light-meters/ 1 second) in all
frames.....such assertion is not justified. Why? Because different frames
will have different standards for a light-meter.
The speed of light can be a constant math ratio in all frames as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458 meter 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 IRT. IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT the
equations of IRT are valid in all environments...including gravity. A paper
entitled "Improved Relativity Theory (IRT)" is available in the following
website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Attention: I can walk at a speed of c. |
07 Jun 2007 05:39:01 PM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4667f48d$0$19517$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
That's precisely the point: SR asserts that the speed of light is a
universal constant (299,792,458 light-meters/ 1 second) in all
frames.....such assertion is not justified. Why? Because different frames
will have different standards for a light-meter.
You have it backward. The speed of light is constant in all frames.
Because it is (as has been shown) we candefine length based on the speed of
light
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Attention: I can walk at a speed of c. |
07 Jun 2007 08:44:05 PM |
|
|
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4668890b$0$1185$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4667f48d$0$19517$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
That's precisely the point: SR asserts that the speed of light is a
universal constant (299,792,458 light-meters/ 1 second) in all
frames.....such assertion is not justified. Why? Because different
frames
will have different standards for a light-meter.
You have it backward. The speed of light is constant in all frames.
Because it is (as has been shown) we candefine length based on the speed
of
light
No it is you who have it backward. You can define length based on light
speed and I can define length based on my walking speed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Attention: I can walk at a speed of c. |
08 Jun 2007 01:45:14 AM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4668b303$0$3194$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4668890b$0$1185$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4667f48d$0$19517$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
That's precisely the point: SR asserts that the speed of light is a
universal constant (299,792,458 light-meters/ 1 second) in all
frames.....such assertion is not justified. Why? Because different
frames
will have different standards for a light-meter.
You have it backward. The speed of light is constant in all frames.
Because it is (as has been shown) we candefine length based on the speed
of
light
No it is you who have it backward.
No .. it is you.
The speed of light is constant.
You can define length based on light
speed and I can define length based on my walking speed.
And then you end up with 'the speed of walking' .. not the speed of light.
And as walking speed is frame dependant, and so your walking-length
defintion is useless.
Speed of light is frame independant, ans so is useful as a means to define a
standard for length. That's very useful
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Attention: I can walk at a speed of c. |
08 Jun 2007 07:50:55 AM |
|
|
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4668fb43$0$1188$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4668b303$0$3194$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4668890b$0$1185$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4667f48d$0$19517$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
That's precisely the point: SR asserts that the speed of light is a
universal constant (299,792,458 light-meters/ 1 second) in all
frames.....such assertion is not justified. Why? Because different
frames
will have different standards for a light-meter.
You have it backward. The speed of light is constant in all frames.
Because it is (as has been shown) we candefine length based on the
speed
of
light
No it is you who have it backward.
No .. it is you.
The speed of light is constant.
You can define length based on light
speed and I can define length based on my walking speed.
And then you end up with 'the speed of walking' .. not the speed of light.
And as walking speed is frame dependant, and so your walking-length
defintion is useless.
Hey idiot my walking speed of a universal constant in all frame as follows:
299,792,458 walk-meters/second
Speed of light is frame independant, ans so is useful as a means to define
a
standard for length. That's very useful
So is my walking speed is frame independent.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Attention: I can walk at a speed of c. |
10 Jun 2007 10:06:59 AM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:46694f4a$0$1431$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4668fb43$0$1188$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4668b303$0$3194$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4668890b$0$1185$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4667f48d$0$19517$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
That's precisely the point: SR asserts that the speed of light is a
universal constant (299,792,458 light-meters/ 1 second) in all
frames.....such assertion is not justified. Why? Because different
frames
will have different standards for a light-meter.
You have it backward. The speed of light is constant in all frames.
Because it is (as has been shown) we candefine length based on the
speed
of
light
No it is you who have it backward.
No .. it is you.
The speed of light is constant.
You can define length based on light
speed and I can define length based on my walking speed.
And then you end up with 'the speed of walking' .. not the speed of
light.
And as walking speed is frame dependant, and so your walking-length
defintion is useless.
Hey idiot
Hey fuckwit
my walking speed of a universal constant in all frame as follows:
299,792,458 walk-meters/second
Its not a universal constant
Speed of light is frame independant, ans so is useful as a means to
define
a
standard for length. That's very useful
So is my walking speed is frame independent.
No its not. Different frames will measure you speed differently. Learn
some basic physics.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Attention: I can walk at a speed of c. |
11 Jun 2007 09:12:18 AM |
|
|
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:466c144e$0$1185$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:46694f4a$0$1431$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4668fb43$0$1188$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4668b303$0$3194$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4668890b$0$1185$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4667f48d$0$19517$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
That's precisely the point: SR asserts that the speed of light is
a
universal constant (299,792,458 light-meters/ 1 second) in all
frames.....such assertion is not justified. Why? Because different
frames
will have different standards for a light-meter.
You have it backward. The speed of light is constant in all frames.
Because it is (as has been shown) we candefine length based on the
speed
of
light
No it is you who have it backward.
No .. it is you.
The speed of light is constant.
You can define length based on light
speed and I can define length based on my walking speed.
And then you end up with 'the speed of walking' .. not the speed of
light.
And as walking speed is frame dependant, and so your walking-length
defintion is useless.
Hey idiot
Hey fuckwit
my walking speed of a universal constant in all frame as follows:
299,792,458 walk-meters/second
Its not a universal constant
Speed of light is frame independant, ans so is useful as a means to
define
a
standard for length. That's very useful
So is my walking speed is frame independent.
No its not. Different frames will measure you speed differently. Learn
some basic physics.
Fucking idiot if I define a walk-meter is 1/299,792,458 second in all frame
then my walking speed is constant in all frames.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Attention: I can walk at a speed of c. |
11 Jun 2007 06:53:20 PM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:466d56de$0$19479$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
Speed of light is frame independant, ans so is useful as a means to
define
a
standard for length. That's very useful
So is my walking speed is frame independent.
No its not. Different frames will measure you speed differently. Learn
some basic physics.
Fucking idiot if I define a walk-meter is 1/299,792,458 second in all
frame
then my walking speed is constant in all frames.
No .. its not .. if i am on the ground an you in a train and you walk within
the train .. I'll see you going past at the combined velocity of the train
plus your walking speed. If I walk alongside you, I will measure your
velocity as zero.
You're just a fucking idiot *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Attention: I can walk at a speed of c. |
12 Jun 2007 10:41:37 AM |
|
|
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:466de078$0$1184$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:466d56de$0$19479$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
Speed of light is frame independant, ans so is useful as a means to
define
a
standard for length. That's very useful
So is my walking speed is frame independent.
No its not. Different frames will measure you speed differently.
Learn
some basic physics.
Fucking idiot if I define a walk-meter is 1/299,792,458 second in all
frame
then my walking speed is constant in all frames.
No .. its not .. if i am on the ground an you in a train and you walk
within
the train .. I'll see you going past at the combined velocity of the train
plus your walking speed. If I walk alongside you, I will measure your
velocity as zero.
hey fucking idiot runt.....any observer uses my definition for a walk-meter
can walk at a speed of c in his frame.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Attention: I can walk at a speed of c. |
12 Jun 2007 05:48:16 PM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:466ebd4a$0$3097$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:466de078$0$1184$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:466d56de$0$19479$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
Speed of light is frame independant, ans so is useful as a means to
define
a
standard for length. That's very useful
So is my walking speed is frame independent.
No its not. Different frames will measure you speed differently.
Learn
some basic physics.
Fucking idiot if I define a walk-meter is 1/299,792,458 second in all
frame
then my walking speed is constant in all frames.
No .. its not .. if i am on the ground an you in a train and you walk
within
the train .. I'll see you going past at the combined velocity of the
train
plus your walking speed. If I walk alongside you, I will measure your
velocity as zero.
hey fucking idiot runt
hey stupid cuntfaced *****,
.....any observer uses my definition for a walk-meter
can walk at a speed of c in his frame.
if you want to go changing the meaning of c from the speed of light to the
speed of walk, and think that is not a problem, then you're a bigger fool
than we all thought. And that's a BIG fool.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Attention: I can walk at a speed of c. |
14 Jun 2007 07:40:32 AM |
|
|
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:466f22ba$0$1184$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:466ebd4a$0$3097$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:466de078$0$1184$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:466d56de$0$19479$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
Speed of light is frame independant, ans so is useful as a means
to
define
a
standard for length. That's very useful
So is my walking speed is frame independent.
No its not. Different frames will measure you speed differently.
Learn
some basic physics.
Fucking idiot if I define a walk-meter is 1/299,792,458 second in all
frame
then my walking speed is constant in all frames.
No .. its not .. if i am on the ground an you in a train and you walk
within
the train .. I'll see you going past at the combined velocity of the
train
plus your walking speed. If I walk alongside you, I will measure your
velocity as zero.
hey fucking idiot runt
hey stupid cuntfaced *****,
.....any observer uses my definition for a walk-meter
can walk at a speed of c in his frame.
if you want to go changing the meaning of c from the speed of light to the
speed of walk, and think that is not a problem, then you're a bigger fool
than we all thought. And that's a BIG fool.
Hey ***** face....I just want to illustrate that the current definition for a
meter is curcular and laughable. It is designed to save the SR postulate of
constancy of the speed of light.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Attention: I can walk at a speed of c. |
14 Jun 2007 08:08:39 AM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:467135d8$0$4841$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
if you want to go changing the meaning of c from the speed of light to
the
speed of walk, and think that is not a problem, then you're a bigger fool
than we all thought. And that's a BIG fool.
Hey ***** face....I just want to illustrate that the current definition for
a
meter is curcular and laughable.
You're the only thing laughable .. you have no idea.
It is designed to save the SR postulate of
constancy of the speed of light.
Utter *****. Get a life.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Cain" |
|
| Title: Re: Attention: I can walk at a speed of c. |
15 Jun 2007 02:32:12 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
Hey ***** face....I just want to illustrate that the current definition for a
meter is curcular and laughable. It is designed to save the SR postulate of
constancy of the speed of light.
What's circular about the current definition of the meter as the
distance light travels in the frame of a caesium-133 atom during
9,192,631,770/299,792,458 transitions between the two hyperfine levels
of the ground state of that atom?
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Attention: I can walk at a speed of c. |
15 Jun 2007 08:18:09 AM |
|
|
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:P_qdnWkG-tgc3e_bnZ2dnUVZ_qCmnZ2d@giganews.com...
kenseto wrote:
Hey ***** face....I just want to illustrate that the current definition
for a
meter is curcular and laughable. It is designed to save the SR postulate
of
constancy of the speed of light.
What's circular about the current definition of the meter as the
distance light travels in the frame of a caesium-133 atom during
9,192,631,770/299,792,458 transitions between the two hyperfine levels
of the ground state of that atom?
The passage of 9,192,631,770 transitions (a clock second) between the two
hyperfine levels of the ground state of Cs-133 atom represents different
amount of time(duration) in different frames. This means that the clock time
interval of 1/299,792,458 second is a rubber time interval and when it is
converted into length it represents a rubber-meter.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Cain" |
|
| Title: Re: Attention: I can walk at a speed of c. |
15 Jun 2007 05:32:31 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
What's circular about the current definition of the meter as the
distance light travels in the frame of a caesium-133 atom during
9,192,631,770/299,792,458 transitions between the two hyperfine levels
of the ground state of that atom?
The passage of 9,192,631,770 transitions (a clock second) between the two
hyperfine levels of the ground state of Cs-133 atom represents different
amount of time(duration) in different frames. This means that the clock time
interval of 1/299,792,458 second is a rubber time interval and when it is
converted into length it represents a rubber-meter.
Nonsense. It represents 9,192,631,770 transitions between states of
the atom; no more; no less; and nothing otherwise. Certainly nothing
circular.
Why would that interval of time be different among observers holding
such an atom who are moving with respect to each other?
Would they feel themselves age at different rates?
Which of them in your universe measures the "real" second?
If none, how could such an observer be established?
If you say one can't be established you have defeated yourself because
that means that the "real" second can't be defined in your universe in
any way at all. It can in mine. It's 9,192,631,770 transitions
between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of a Cs-133 atom
that doesn't move relative to me.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Attention: I can walk at a speed of c. |
16 Jun 2007 07:37:23 AM |
|
|
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:Y_KdnWQsN8YYju7bnZ2dnUVZ_q6vnZ2d@giganews.com...
kenseto wrote:
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
What's circular about the current definition of the meter as the
distance light travels in the frame of a caesium-133 atom during
9,192,631,770/299,792,458 transitions between the two hyperfine levels
of the ground state of that atom?
The passage of 9,192,631,770 transitions (a clock second) between the
two
hyperfine levels of the ground state of Cs-133 atom represents different
amount of time(duration) in different frames. This means that the clock
time
interval of 1/299,792,458 second is a rubber time interval and when it
is
converted into length it represents a rubber-meter.
Nonsense. It represents 9,192,631,770 transitions between states of
the atom; no more; no less; and nothing otherwise. Certainly nothing
circular.
What you said is nonsense. It is based on yet another assumption that a
period of the Cs radiation takes the same amount of universal time (absolute
time) to complete.
Why would that interval of time be different among observers holding
such an atom who are moving with respect to each other?
Why not....that's the reason why we see clocks moving wrt each other running
slow.
Would they feel themselves age at different rates?
Which of them in your universe measures the "real" second?
If none, how could such an observer be established?
If you say one can't be established you have defeated yourself because
that means that the "real" second can't be defined in your universe in
any way at all. It can in mine. It's 9,192,631,770 transitions
between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of a Cs-133 atom
that doesn't move relative to me.
You assumption is wrong. A period of the Cs-133 radiation will take a
different amount of TIME (absolute time) to complete in different frames
(different state of absolute motion).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Attention: I can walk at a speed of c. |
17 Jun 2007 02:54:10 AM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4673d81a$0$4673$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:Y_KdnWQsN8YYju7bnZ2dnUVZ_q6vnZ2d@giganews.com...
Nonsense. It represents 9,192,631,770 transitions between states of
the atom; no more; no less; and nothing otherwise. Certainly nothing
circular.
What you said is nonsense. It is based on yet another assumption that a
period of the Cs radiation takes the same amount of universal time
(absolute
time) to complete.
Same where as opposed to where .. youre statement makes not sense
Why would that interval of time be different among observers holding
such an atom who are moving with respect to each other?
Why not....that's the reason why we see clocks moving wrt each other
running
slow.
You're mistaken .. the time in everyones frame of reference is correct ..
everyone will see the same second.
That you will see someone ELSE's second as different to yours is ireelevant
to how you see your own second.
Would they feel themselves age at different rates?
Which of them in your universe measures the "real" second?
If none, how could such an observer be established?
If you say one can't be established you have defeated yourself because
that means that the "real" second can't be defined in your universe in
any way at all. It can in mine. It's 9,192,631,770 transitions
between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of a Cs-133 atom
that doesn't move relative to me.
You assumption is wrong. A period of the Cs-133 radiation will take a
different amount of TIME (absolute time) to complete in different frames
(different state of absolute motion).
No .. it won't. It takes the same time in all frames of reference. Get to
know your physics.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Attention: I can walk at a speed of c. |
17 Jun 2007 08:00:50 AM |
|
|
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4674e8ad$0$1185$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4673d81a$0$4673$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:Y_KdnWQsN8YYju7bnZ2dnUVZ_q6vnZ2d@giganews.com...
Nonsense. It represents 9,192,631,770 transitions between states of
the atom; no more; no less; and nothing otherwise. Certainly nothing
circular.
What you said is nonsense. It is based on yet another assumption that a
period of the Cs radiation takes the same amount of universal time
(absolute
time) to complete.
Same where as opposed to where .. youre statement makes not sense
Why would that interval of time be different among observers holding
such an atom who are moving with respect to each other?
Why not....that's the reason why we see clocks moving wrt each other
running
slow.
You're mistaken .. the time in everyones frame of reference is correct ..
everyone will see the same second.
Here you are assuming that a second represents an interval of universal time
(absolute time). It does not. A clock second will contain a different amount
of absolute time in different frames.
That you will see someone ELSE's second as different to yours is
ireelevant
to how you see your own second.
This is the famous bogus SR geometric effect. If that is the case why do
they have to redfine the GPS second to have 4.15 more periods of the
radiation of the cs-133 atom???
Would they feel themselves age at different rates?
Which of them in your universe measures the "real" second?
If none, how could such an observer be established?
If you say one can't be established you have defeated yourself because
that means that the "real" second can't be defined in your universe in
any way at all. It can in mine. It's 9,192,631,770 transitions
between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of a Cs-133 atom
that doesn't move relative to me.
You assumption is wrong. A period of the Cs-133 radiation will take a
different amount of TIME (absolute time) to complete in different frames
(different state of absolute motion).
No .. it won't. It takes the same time in all frames of reference. Get
to
know your physics.
You should learn some real physics instead of regurgitating the bogus SR
assertion that clock running slow is only a perspective effect. In real life
all clocks moving wrt each other are really running at different rates.
That's why all returning clocks after a journey show less elapsed seconds.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Cain" |
|
| Title: Re: Attention: I can walk at a speed of c. |
13 Jun 2007 04:20:00 PM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
if you want to go changing the meaning of c from the speed of light to the
speed of walk, and think that is not a problem, then you're a bigger fool
than we all thought. And that's a BIG fool.
I think he has begun the process of coming out. :-)
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Attention: I can walk at a speed of c. |
11 Jun 2007 09:15:14 AM |
|
|
On Jun 11, 10:12 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:466c144e$0$1185$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...> "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:46694f4a$0$1431$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4668fb43$0$1188$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...> >> "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4668b303$0$3194$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4668890b$0$1185$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
"kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4667f48d$0$19517$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
That's precisely the point: SR asserts that the speed of light is
a
universal constant (299,792,458 light-meters/ 1 second) in all
frames.....such assertion is not justified. Why? Because different
frames
will have different standards for a light-meter.
You have it backward. The speed of light is constant in all frames.
Because it is (as has been shown) we candefine length based on the
speed
of
light
No it is you who have it backward.
No .. it is you.
The speed of light is constant.
You can define length based on light
speed and I can define length based on my walking speed.
And then you end up with 'the speed of walking' .. not the speed of
light.
And as walking speed is frame dependant, and so your walking-length
defintion is useless.
Hey idiot
Hey fuckwit
my walking speed of a universal constant in all frame as follows:
299,792,458 walk-meters/second
Its not a universal constant
Speed of light is frame independant, ans so is useful as a means to
define
a
standard for length. That's very useful
So is my walking speed is frame independent.
No its not. Different frames will measure you speed differently. Learn
some basic physics.
Fucking idiot if I define a walk-meter is 1/299,792,458 second in all frame
then my walking speed is constant in all frames.
OK, you made it abundantly clear in previous threads that
you have no idea what a diffraction grating is or how it is
used.
Here you seem to be stuck on something even more basic:
rulers.
(Less facetiously: the difference between calibrating an
instrument and using it.)
Have you ever used a ruler, Ken? Somewhere in the ruler
factory there is a careful calibration procedure involving
precision measuring equipment, so that the ruler can be
guaranteed to be correctly marked within, say, 0.01".
You do not go through this procedure every time you use the
ruler. It comes to you marked. When you measure something
with the ruler, you are comparing to those calibrated markings.
But you didn't make those marks.
So it goes with a ruler calibrated with your walking units,
or with light. Let's use your units. You walk for 1/299792458 sec.
We mark the distance between start and endpoints on
a stick. This becomes our "walking-meter" meterstick. It is
a ruler. If I want to measure something with this ruler, I hold
that thing up to the stick and compare its length to the marks.
Do you understand this so far?
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Attention: I can walk at a speed of c. |
12 Jun 2007 10:39:36 AM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181571314.716306.99220@n4g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 11, 10:12 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:466c144e$0$1185$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...>
"kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:46694f4a$0$1431$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4668fb43$0$1188$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...>
"kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4668b303$0$3194$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4668890b$0$1185$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
"kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4667f48d$0$19517$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
That's precisely the point: SR asserts that the speed of
light is
a
universal constant (299,792,458 light-meters/ 1 second) in all
frames.....such assertion is not justified. Why? Because
different
frames
will have different standards for a light-meter.
You have it backward. The speed of light is constant in all
frames.
Because it is (as has been shown) we candefine length based on
the
speed
of
light
No it is you who have it backward.
No .. it is you.
The speed of light is constant.
You can define length based on light
speed and I can define length based on my walking speed.
And then you end up with 'the speed of walking' .. not the speed of
light.
And as walking speed is frame dependant, and so your walking-length
defintion is useless.
Hey idiot
Hey fuckwit
my walking speed of a universal constant in all frame as follows:
299,792,458 walk-meters/second
Its not a universal constant
Speed of light is frame independant, ans so is useful as a means to
define
a
standard for length. That's very useful
So is my walking speed is frame independent.
No its not. Different frames will measure you speed differently.
Learn
some basic physics.
Fucking idiot if I define a walk-meter is 1/299,792,458 second in all
frame
then my walking speed is constant in all frames.
OK, you made it abundantly clear in previous threads that
you have no idea what a diffraction grating is or how it is
used.
Here you seem to be stuck on something even more basic:
rulers.
You apparently misunderstood what I said. I said that if other observer in
different frame use my definition for a w-m he too can walk at a speed of c
in his frame.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Attention: I can walk at a speed of c. |
12 Jun 2007 05:46:14 PM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:466ebcd2$0$4918$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
You apparently misunderstood what I said. I said that if other observer in
different frame use my definition for a w-m he too can walk at a speed of
c
in his frame.
You are always moving at zero in your own frame, idiot.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Attention: I can walk at a speed of c. |
12 Jun 2007 11:05:25 AM |
|
|
On Jun 12, 11:39 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181571314.716306.99220@n4g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...> On Jun 11, 10:12 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:466c144e$0$1185$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...>"kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:46694f4a$0$1431$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4668fb43$0$1188$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...>>> "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4668b303$0$3194$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4668890b$0$1185$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
"kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4667f48d$0$19517$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
That's precisely the point: SR asserts that the speed of
light is
a
universal constant (299,792,458 light-meters/ 1 second) in all
frames.....such assertion is not justified. Why? Because
different
frames
will have different standards for a light-meter.
You have it backward. The speed of light is constant in all
frames.
Because it is (as has been shown) we candefine length based on
the
speed
of
light
No it is you who have it backward.
No .. it is you.
The speed of light is constant.
You can define length based on light
speed and I can define length based on my walking speed.
And then you end up with 'the speed of walking' .. not the speed of
light.
And as walking speed is frame dependant, and so your walking-length
defintion is useless.
Hey idiot
Hey fuckwit
my walking speed of a universal constant in all frame as follows:
299,792,458 walk-meters/second
Its not a universal constant
Speed of light is frame independant, ans so is useful as a means to
define
a
standard for length. That's very useful
So is my walking speed is frame independent.
No its not. Different frames will measure you speed differently.
Learn
some basic physics.
Fucking idiot if I define a walk-meter is 1/299,792,458 second in all
frame
then my walking speed is constant in all frames.
OK, you made it abundantly clear in previous threads that
you have no idea what a diffraction grating is or how it is
used.
Here you seem to be stuck on something even more basic:
rulers.
You apparently misunderstood what I said. I said that if other observer in
different frame use my definition for a w-m he too can walk at a speed of c
in his frame.
And here's how rulers work: I use your definition. I calibrate a ruler
in walk-meters. Now I use that ruler, already marked, in another
reference frame. Let's say I use it in the reference frame of somebody
walking alongside you.
The ruler has two marks one walk-meter apart. At time t=0,
I notice you are at the beginning of the ruler. At time t=1,
I notice you are still at the beginning of the ruler since the
ruler and I are moving along next to you. I conclude your
speed in my frame is 0 walk-meters/second, using the ruler
you calibrated according to your prescribed procedure, with
the walk-meter defined your way.
This is why I say you are stuck trying to figure out how rulers
work.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Attention: I can walk at a speed of c. |
13 Jun 2007 08:39:07 AM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181664325.213204.68300@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 12, 11:39 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181571314.716306.99220@n4g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...> On Jun 11,
10:12 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:466c144e$0$1185$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...>"kenseto"
<kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:46694f4a$0$1431$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4668fb43$0$1188$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...>>>
"kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4668b303$0$3194$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4668890b$0$1185$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
"kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4667f48d$0$19517$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
That's precisely the point: SR asserts that the speed of
light is
a
universal constant (299,792,458 light-meters/ 1 second) in
all
frames.....such assertion is not justified. Why? Because
different
frames
will have different standards for a light-meter.
You have it backward. The speed of light is constant in all
frames.
Because it is (as has been shown) we candefine length based
on
the
speed
of
light
No it is you who have it backward.
No .. it is you.
The speed of light is constant.
You can define length based on light
speed and I can define length based on my walking speed.
And then you end up with 'the speed of walking' .. not the
speed of
light.
And as walking speed is frame dependant, and so your
walking-length
defintion is useless.
Hey idiot
Hey fuckwit
my walking speed of a universal constant in all frame as
follows:
299,792,458 walk-meters/second
Its not a universal constant
Speed of light is frame independant, ans so is useful as a
means to
define
a
standard for length. That's very useful
So is my walking speed is frame independent.
No its not. Different frames will measure you speed differently.
Learn
some basic physics.
Fucking idiot if I define a walk-meter is 1/299,792,458 second in
all
frame
then my walking speed is constant in all frames.
OK, you made it abundantly clear in previous threads that
you have no idea what a diffraction grating is or how it is
used.
Here you seem to be stuck on something even more basic:
rulers.
You apparently misunderstood what I said. I said that if other observer
in
different frame use my definition for a w-m he too can walk at a speed
of c
in his frame.
And here's how rulers work: I use your definition. I calibrate a ruler
in walk-meters. Now I use that ruler, already marked, in another
reference frame. Let's say I use it in the reference frame of somebody
walking alongside you.
Hey do you have comprehension problem? We don't use ruler to measure length
anymore!!!!! We use my walk-meter to measure length. One more interesting
thing: using my defined walk-meter I can determine my round trip walking
speed by just measuring my round trip time and guess what? It is 299,792,458
w-m/second every time....isn't it amazing?
This is exactly how SR can claim that the two-way speed of light is a
universal constant of 299,792,458 light-meters/second as measured by all
observer.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
