| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"kenseto" |
| Date: |
09 Jul 2006 09:52:54 AM |
| Object: |
Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.
This simple assertion is the basis of all what's wrong with SR. It gives
rise to the bogus concept of time dilation and length contraction.
The correct statement is as follows: Time is absolute. A clock second will
contain a different amount of absolute time in a different state of absolute
motion (different frame) of the clock. The existence of absolute time is the
reason why all observer measure the speed of light to be a constant math
ratio of c as follows:
c=light path length of physical ruler(299,792,458m)/the absolute time
content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
This new defintion for the speed of light gives rise to a new theory of
relativity called Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). IRT includes SRT as a
subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT are valid in all
environments, including gravity. A description of IRT is in the following
link (page 4):
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Unification.pdf
Ken Seto
.
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
10 Jul 2006 09:44:41 AM |
|
|
<surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152541355.578278.198590@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.
This simple assertion is the basis of all what's wrong with SR. It gives
rise to the bogus concept of time dilation and length contraction.
The correct statement is as follows: Time is absolute. A clock second
will
contain a different amount of absolute time in a different state of
absolute
motion (different frame) of the clock. The existence of absolute time is
the
reason why all observer measure the speed of light to be a constant math
ratio of c as follows:
c=light path length of physical ruler(299,792,458m)/the absolute time
content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
This new defintion for the speed of light gives rise to a new theory of
relativity called Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). IRT includes SRT as
a
subset.
Your theory cannot possibly be an improved version of relativity
because your theory is clearly absolutistic, not relativistic. For a
theory to be relativistic, the theory must treat all (local) inertial
frames as completely identical for all theoretical purposes in the
treatment of physical laws.
Clearly you don't know what you are talking about. You reach the above
conclusion without reading my theory. The postulates of my theory IRT are as
follows:
1. The laws of physics based on a clock second and a light-second to measure
length are the same for all observers in all inertial reference frames.
2. The speed of light in free space based on a clock second and a
light-second to measure length has the same mathematical ratio c in all
directions and all inertial frames.
3. The laws of physics based on a defined absolute second and the physical
length of a rod is different in different frames of reference.
4. The one-way speed of light in free space based on a defined absolute
second and the physical length of a measuring rod has a different
mathematical ratio for light speed in different inertial frames. The speed
of light based on a defined absolute second and the physical length of a
measuring rod is a maximum in the rest frame of the E-Matrix.
The first two postulates of IRT are identical to the postulates of SRT and
that's why SRT is a subset of IRT.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "dda1" |
|
| Title: ***** Ken Seto and his ST (***** Theory) |
10 Jul 2006 12:01:46 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
<surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152541355.578278.198590@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.
This simple assertion is the basis of all what's wrong with SR. It gives
rise to the bogus concept of time dilation and length contraction.
The correct statement is as follows: Time is absolute. A clock second
will
contain a different amount of absolute time in a different state of
absolute
motion (different frame) of the clock. The existence of absolute time is
the
reason why all observer measure the speed of light to be a constant math
ratio of c as follows:
c=light path length of physical ruler(299,792,458m)/the absolute time
content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
This new defintion for the speed of light gives rise to a new theory of
relativity called Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). IRT includes SRT as
a
subset.
Your theory cannot possibly be an improved version of relativity
because your theory is clearly absolutistic, not relativistic. For a
theory to be relativistic, the theory must treat all (local) inertial
frames as completely identical for all theoretical purposes in the
treatment of physical laws.
Clearly you don't know what you are talking about. You reach the above
conclusion without reading my theory. The postulates of my theory IRT are as
follows:
1. The laws of physics based on a clock second and a light-second to measure
length are the same for all observers in all inertial reference frames.
2. The speed of light in free space based on a clock second and a
light-second to measure length has the same mathematical ratio c in all
directions and all inertial frames.
3. The laws of physics based on a defined absolute second and the physical
length of a rod is different in different frames of reference.
4. The one-way speed of light in free space based on a defined absolute
second and the physical length of a measuring rod has a different
mathematical ratio for light speed in different inertial frames. The speed
of light based on a defined absolute second and the physical length of a
measuring rod is a maximum in the rest frame of the E-Matrix.
The first two postulates of IRT are identical to the postulates of SRT and
that's why SRT is a subset of IRT.
Ken Seto
I didn't snip this one because it is perfect for the Immortal Fumbles.
Cretinoid, your IRt has 4 postulates, SR has 2 , how can SR be a subset
of your theory. Disgusting Imbecile!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rod Ryker" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
12 Jul 2006 08:20:49 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
<surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152541355.578278.198590@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.
This simple assertion is the basis of all what's wrong with SR. It gives
rise to the bogus concept of time dilation and length contraction.
The correct statement is as follows: Time is absolute. A clock second
will
contain a different amount of absolute time in a different state of
absolute
motion (different frame) of the clock. The existence of absolute time is
the
reason why all observer measure the speed of light to be a constant math
ratio of c as follows:
c=light path length of physical ruler(299,792,458m)/the absolute time
content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
This new defintion for the speed of light gives rise to a new theory of
relativity called Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). IRT includes SRT as
a
subset.
Your theory cannot possibly be an improved version of relativity
because your theory is clearly absolutistic, not relativistic. For a
theory to be relativistic, the theory must treat all (local) inertial
frames as completely identical for all theoretical purposes in the
treatment of physical laws.
Clearly you don't know what you are talking about. You reach the above
conclusion without reading my theory. The postulates of my theory IRT are as
follows:
1. The laws of physics based on a clock second and a light-second to measure
length are the same for all observers in all inertial reference frames.
2. The speed of light in free space based on a clock second and a
light-second to measure length has the same mathematical ratio c in all
directions and all inertial frames.
3. The laws of physics based on a defined absolute second and the physical
length of a rod is different in different frames of reference.
4. The one-way speed of light in free space based on a defined absolute
second and the physical length of a measuring rod has a different
mathematical ratio for light speed in different inertial frames. The speed
of light based on a defined absolute second and the physical length of a
measuring rod is a maximum in the rest frame of the E-Matrix.
The first two postulates of IRT are identical to the postulates of SRT and
that's why SRT is a subset of IRT.
Ken Seto
Rod: Hi Ken.
I again am in agreement.
I understand, that is I (stand under) what you say.
Funny how _many_ people release their minds of definitions.
Rod Ryker...
It is reasoning and faith that bind truth.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
10 Jul 2006 03:17:15 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
The first two postulates of IRT are identical to the postulates of SRT and
that's why SRT is a subset of IRT.
Ken Seto
SR is a subset of "your model" according to you, Seto, and it definitely
predicts time dilation, which has been confirmed in countless experiments
and observations, including satellite based navigation systems.
SR predicts that time and space are malleable. In fact, there has never
been a prediction of SR that was contradicted by an observation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
10 Jul 2006 06:22:38 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:fBysg.29287$FQ1.18453@attbi_s71...
kenseto wrote:
The first two postulates of IRT are identical to the postulates of SRT
and
that's why SRT is a subset of IRT.
Ken Seto
SR is a subset of "your model" according to you, Seto, and it
definitely
predicts time dilation, which has been confirmed in countless
experiments
and observations, including satellite based navigation systems.
SR didn't predict time dilation. It predicted relative clocks are running at
different rates and you runts interpret that as time dilation.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
10 Jul 2006 06:52:57 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
SR didn't predict time dilation. It predicted relative clocks are running at
different rates and you runts interpret that as time dilation.
Ken Seto
Oh, but SR does predict time dilation for any entity in relative motion
to an observer.
t' = t_0/gamma, where gamma = (1-v^2/c^2)^-0.5 with v being the
relative velocity and c being the speed of light. Not only is it
routinely observed in nature, but it is necessary to take it into
account in numerous devices in our lives.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
10 Jul 2006 06:58:34 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:tLBsg.73423$1i1.52041@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:
SR didn't predict time dilation. It predicted relative clocks are
running at
different rates and you runts interpret that as time dilation.
Ken Seto
Oh, but SR does predict time dilation for any entity in relative motion
to an observer.
t' = t_0/gamma, where gamma = (1-v^2/c^2)^-0.5 with v being the
relative velocity and c being the speed of light. Not only is it
routinely observed in nature, but it is necessary to take it into
account in numerous devices in our lives.
Hey idiot....that's not time dilation. That's the observed clock is running
at a slower rate compared to the observer's clcok.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
10 Jul 2006 07:13:23 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:tLBsg.73423$1i1.52041@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:
SR didn't predict time dilation. It predicted relative clocks are
running at
different rates and you runts interpret that as time dilation.
Ken Seto
Oh, but SR does predict time dilation for any entity in relative motion
to an observer.
t' = t_0/gamma, where gamma = (1-v^2/c^2)^-0.5 with v being the
relative velocity and c being the speed of light. Not only is it
routinely observed in nature, but it is necessary to take it into
account in numerous devices in our lives.
Hey idiot....that's not time dilation. That's the observed clock is running
at a slower rate compared to the observer's clcok.
Ken Seto
Yes sir--Time dilation has the effect of making the observed clock run
slower than the observer's clock--You don't have to be an idiot to
notice that!
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
10 Jul 2006 08:51:24 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:D2Csg.29525$FQ1.8620@attbi_s71...
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:tLBsg.73423$1i1.52041@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:
SR didn't predict time dilation. It predicted relative clocks are
running at
different rates and you runts interpret that as time dilation.
Ken Seto
Oh, but SR does predict time dilation for any entity in relative
motion
to an observer.
t' = t_0/gamma, where gamma = (1-v^2/c^2)^-0.5 with v being the
relative velocity and c being the speed of light. Not only is it
routinely observed in nature, but it is necessary to take it into
account in numerous devices in our lives.
Hey idiot....that's not time dilation. That's the observed clock is
running
at a slower rate compared to the observer's clcok.
Ken Seto
Yes sir--Time dilation has the effect of making the observed clock run
slower than the observer's clock--You don't have to be an idiot to
notice that!
Yes sir you are an idiot. The reason why relative clock is running slow is
because its clock second contains a larger amount of absolute time.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
11 Jul 2006 12:16:57 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:D2Csg.29525$FQ1.8620@attbi_s71...
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:tLBsg.73423$1i1.52041@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:
SR didn't predict time dilation. It predicted relative clocks are
running at
different rates and you runts interpret that as time dilation.
Ken Seto
Oh, but SR does predict time dilation for any entity in relative
motion
to an observer.
t' = t_0/gamma, where gamma = (1-v^2/c^2)^-0.5 with v being the
relative velocity and c being the speed of light. Not only is it
routinely observed in nature, but it is necessary to take it into
account in numerous devices in our lives.
Hey idiot....that's not time dilation. That's the observed clock is
running
at a slower rate compared to the observer's clcok.
Ken Seto
Yes sir--Time dilation has the effect of making the observed clock run
slower than the observer's clock--You don't have to be an idiot to
notice that!
Yes sir you are an idiot. The reason why relative clock is running slow is
because its clock second contains a larger amount of absolute time.
Ken Seto
That's pretty childish--you saying "its clock second contains a
larger amount of absolute time". Show me your equations defining
absolute time and time dilation. That is certainly missing from
your online "paper".
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
11 Jul 2006 07:41:14 AM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:dvGsg.73756$1i1.50269@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:D2Csg.29525$FQ1.8620@attbi_s71...
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:tLBsg.73423$1i1.52041@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:
SR didn't predict time dilation. It predicted relative clocks are
running at
different rates and you runts interpret that as time dilation.
Ken Seto
Oh, but SR does predict time dilation for any entity in relative
motion
to an observer.
t' = t_0/gamma, where gamma = (1-v^2/c^2)^-0.5 with v being the
relative velocity and c being the speed of light. Not only is it
routinely observed in nature, but it is necessary to take it into
account in numerous devices in our lives.
Hey idiot....that's not time dilation. That's the observed clock is
running
at a slower rate compared to the observer's clcok.
Ken Seto
Yes sir--Time dilation has the effect of making the observed clock
run
slower than the observer's clock--You don't have to be an idiot to
notice that!
Yes sir you are an idiot. The reason why relative clock is running slow
is
because its clock second contains a larger amount of absolute time.
Ken Seto
That's pretty childish--you saying "its clock second contains a
larger amount of absolute time". Show me your equations defining
absolute time and time dilation. That is certainly missing from
your online "paper".
Hey idiot....the observer's clock second is also defined as an interval of
absolute time ...a defined absolute second. The IRT equations [1] and [2]
predict the clock reading in the *observed* frame for a defined absolute
second in the observer's frame. Notice that the passage of a defined
absolute second does not have the same clock reading in the observer's frame
as in the *observed* frame. In the observer's frame the passage of a defined
absolute second is one of abserver's clock second. In the *observed* frame
the passage of a defined absolute second can be less or more than one of the
*observed* clock second. However, these two different clock readings has the
same absolute time content...namely a defined absolute second.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
11 Jul 2006 07:51:37 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
In the *observed* frame
the passage of a defined absolute second can be less or more than one of the
*observed* clock second. However, these two different clock readings has the
same absolute time content...namely a defined absolute second.
The equations of Special Relativity (SR) show that an observed clock
in relative motion to an observer is *always slowed* with respect to
the observer's clock. If [the equations of] IRT shows otherwise, then
IRT is fatally flawed, as nature is accurately modeled by SR.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
11 Jul 2006 08:37:47 AM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:t9Nsg.30385$FQ1.19111@attbi_s71...
kenseto wrote:
In the *observed* frame
the passage of a defined absolute second can be less or more than one of
the
*observed* clock second. However, these two different clock readings has
the
same absolute time content...namely a defined absolute second.
The equations of Special Relativity (SR) show that an observed clock
in relative motion to an observer is *always slowed* with respect to
the observer's clock. If [the equations of] IRT shows otherwise, then
IRT is fatally flawed, as nature is accurately modeled by SR.
Fucking idiot runt.
The reason why SR is incomplete because it only show
that an observed clock is running slow. This cannot be unless the observer
is in a state of absolute rest. In real life all clocks are in a state of
absolute motion....this means that the observer's clock can run fast or slow
compared to an observed clock. Eqautions [1] and [2] of IRT show this
clearly. So when you claimed that IRT is flawed is in fact that SRT is
incomplete.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "dda1" |
|
| Title: Ken Seto - CRETIN |
11 Jul 2006 08:58:49 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
<idiocy snipped>
Don't you get tired of having so many people ***** on you and on your
"theory"?
When you die, there are still going to be people shitting on your grave
(for a while).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
11 Jul 2006 02:32:57 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
Fucking idiot runt.
The reason why SR is incomplete because it only show
that an observed clock is running slow. This cannot be unless the observer
is in a state of absolute rest. In real life all clocks are in a state of
absolute motion....this means that the observer's clock can run fast or slow
compared to an observed clock. Eqautions [1] and [2] of IRT show this
clearly. So when you claimed that IRT is flawed is in fact that SRT is
incomplete.
Ken Seto
The equations of Special Relativity (SR) show that an observed clock
in relative motion to an observer is *always slowed* with respect to
the observer's clock. If [the equations of] IRT shows otherwise, then
IRT is fatally flawed, as nature is accurately modeled by SR.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
11 Jul 2006 04:15:52 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:J1Tsg.74611$1i1.4295@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:
Fucking idiot runt.
The reason why SR is incomplete because it only show
that an observed clock is running slow. This cannot be unless the
observer
is in a state of absolute rest. In real life all clocks are in a state
of
absolute motion....this means that the observer's clock can run fast or
slow
compared to an observed clock. Eqautions [1] and [2] of IRT show this
clearly. So when you claimed that IRT is flawed is in fact that SRT is
incomplete.
Ken Seto
The equations of Special Relativity (SR) show that an observed clock
in relative motion to an observer is *always slowed* with respect to
the observer's clock. If [the equations of] IRT shows otherwise, then
IRT is fatally flawed, as nature is accurately modeled by SR.
Fucking idiot.....SR has a limited domain of applicability because the
observed clock is not *always slowed* compared to his clock. IRT has
umlimited domain of applicability. So you idiot think that nature is
modelled accurately by SR.....???? Fucking idiot.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
11 Jul 2006 04:30:24 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:J1Tsg.74611$1i1.4295@attbi_s72...
The equations of Special Relativity (SR) show that an observed clock
in relative motion to an observer is *always slowed* with respect to
the observer's clock. If [the equations of] IRT shows otherwise, then
IRT is fatally flawed, as nature is accurately modeled by SR.
Fucking idiot.....SR has a limited domain of applicability because the
observed clock is not *always slowed* compared to his clock. IRT has
umlimited domain of applicability. So you idiot think that nature is
modelled accurately by SR.....???? Fucking idiot.
Ken Seto
Gravitational time dilation effects are also correctly modeled by
General relativity, Seto. Have you ever studied all the relativistic
corrections taken into account in the Global Positioning System?
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
12 Jul 2006 07:40:39 AM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:QLUsg.74755$1i1.36521@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:J1Tsg.74611$1i1.4295@attbi_s72...
The equations of Special Relativity (SR) show that an observed clock
in relative motion to an observer is *always slowed* with respect to
the observer's clock. If [the equations of] IRT shows otherwise, then
IRT is fatally flawed, as nature is accurately modeled by SR.
Fucking idiot.....SR has a limited domain of applicability because the
observed clock is not *always slowed* compared to his clock. IRT has
umlimited domain of applicability. So you idiot think that nature is
modelled accurately by SR.....???? Fucking idiot.
Ken Seto
Gravitational time dilation effects are also correctly modeled by
General relativity, Seto. Have you ever studied all the relativistic
corrections taken into account in the Global Positioning System?
SO???? The equations of IRT are valid in a gravity environment. The GPS can
be correctly modelled by IRT.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
12 Jul 2006 07:51:13 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:QLUsg.74755$1i1.36521@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:J1Tsg.74611$1i1.4295@attbi_s72...
The equations of Special Relativity (SR) show that an observed clock
in relative motion to an observer is *always slowed* with respect to
the observer's clock. If [the equations of] IRT shows otherwise, then
IRT is fatally flawed, as nature is accurately modeled by SR.
Fucking idiot.....SR has a limited domain of applicability because the
observed clock is not *always slowed* compared to his clock. IRT has
umlimited domain of applicability. So you idiot think that nature is
modelled accurately by SR.....???? Fucking idiot.
Ken Seto
Gravitational time dilation effects are also correctly modeled by
General relativity, Seto. Have you ever studied all the relativistic
corrections taken into account in the Global Positioning System?
SO???? The equations of IRT are valid in a gravity environment. The GPS can
be correctly modelled by IRT.
Can IRT correctly calculate the time dilation for an orbit with a period
of 1.000 siderial day? If so, what is it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
12 Jul 2006 09:40:47 AM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:5f6tg.31944$FQ1.10827@attbi_s71...
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:QLUsg.74755$1i1.36521@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:J1Tsg.74611$1i1.4295@attbi_s72...
The equations of Special Relativity (SR) show that an observed clock
in relative motion to an observer is *always slowed* with respect to
the observer's clock. If [the equations of] IRT shows otherwise,
then
IRT is fatally flawed, as nature is accurately modeled by SR.
Fucking idiot.....SR has a limited domain of applicability because the
observed clock is not *always slowed* compared to his clock. IRT has
umlimited domain of applicability. So you idiot think that nature is
modelled accurately by SR.....???? Fucking idiot.
Ken Seto
Gravitational time dilation effects are also correctly modeled by
General relativity, Seto. Have you ever studied all the relativistic
corrections taken into account in the Global Positioning System?
SO???? The equations of IRT are valid in a gravity environment. The GPS
can
be correctly modelled by IRT.
Can IRT correctly calculate the time dilation for an orbit with a
period
of 1.000 siderial day? If so, what is it?
You need frequency data (Faa and Fab) to do such IRT calculations.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Cain" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
11 Jul 2006 09:25:25 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
The reason why SR is incomplete because it only show
that an observed clock is running slow. This cannot be unless the observer
is in a state of absolute rest. In real life all clocks are in a state of
absolute motion....this means that the observer's clock can run fast or slow
compared to an observed clock.
Please describe a setup where an observer will see a clock moving with
respect to him as running faster than his.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
12 Jul 2006 07:43:58 AM |
|
|
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:ua2dnfGQb7o7wCnZnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
kenseto wrote:
The reason why SR is incomplete because it only show
that an observed clock is running slow. This cannot be unless the
observer
is in a state of absolute rest. In real life all clocks are in a state
of
absolute motion....this means that the observer's clock can run fast or
slow
compared to an observed clock.
Please describe a setup where an observer will see a clock moving with
respect to him as running faster than his.
From the GPS clock point of view the SR effect on the ground clock is that
it is running fast.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "tomgee" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
14 Jul 2006 11:39:13 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:ua2dnfGQb7o7wCnZnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
kenseto wrote:
The reason why SR is incomplete because it only show
that an observed clock is running slow.
By that logic, all theories are incomplete since none show
everything about a particular issue. Theory builds upon
theory, creating puzzle pieces that fit the observations as
we learn more and more about the universe.
This cannot be unless the
observer
is in a state of absolute rest.
SR does not deal with absolute motion or the lack of it. It
shows that IF we forget about the reality of the universe,
we can compare relative motions between objects without
having to account for their abs. motions. It is true that it
cannot be so that "moving clocks run slow", but it can be
true that to the observer, it appears that all clocks moving
relative to him run slow. It is an illusion just like the time
dilation effect, but one that can be true and false depending
on the particular situation at hand.
My model explains the time-dilation effect as the result of
time being a property of matter and passing at time rates
that depend on the absolute motions of discrete objects.
There is no time dilation - space and time cannot warp!
There is only a time-dilation effect caused as explained in
my model, but the effect is an illusion. There is another
effect, "all moving clocks run slow", that is also an illusion
at times, but true at other times (as you note too below).
In real life all clocks are in a state of
absolute motion....this means that the observer's clock can run fast or
slow
compared to an observed clock.
Please describe a setup where an observer will see a clock moving with
respect to him as running faster than his.
From the GPS clock point of view the SR effect on the ground clock is that
it is running fast.
Not so. From an observer on the GPS, the ground clock is
running slow, not only due to the illusion that "moving clocks
run slow", but also due to the varying gravitational effects of
the earth on each of them.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Cain" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
13 Jul 2006 02:01:47 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
From the GPS clock point of view the SR effect on the ground clock is that
it is running fast.
Damn. I should have qualified the question to remain within the
domain of SR.
Please show an inertial setup (no accelerations) in a presumed region
of space where gravity is negligable wherein an observed clock moving
with respect to yours will be seen to run faster than yours.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
13 Jul 2006 05:17:19 AM |
|
|
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:zfSdnaF4Cu9ycijZnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@giganews.com...
kenseto wrote:
From the GPS clock point of view the SR effect on the ground clock is
that
it is running fast.
Damn. I should have qualified the question to remain within the
domain of SR.
Please show an inertial setup (no accelerations) in a presumed region
of space where gravity is negligable wherein an observed clock moving
with respect to yours will be seen to run faster than yours.
I can do that if you first show me that all the clocks moving wrt you are
running slow. The point is an observer is not in a state of absolute rest
and therefore his clock cannot be the fastest running clock. For example
does he observes that his clock is running faster than the clock at rest in
the ether? I think not.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Cain" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
14 Jul 2006 03:05:13 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
I can do that if you first show me that all the clocks moving wrt you are
running slow.
Endless evasion remains endless. Doesn't it ever seem strange to you
that all you can muster to nearly all technical questions is evasion?
Hasn't that ever caused you a moment's doubt?
Just answer the question by giving an algebraic expression based on
your IRT that demonstrates and quantifies your claim. Einstein did
exactly what you ask above and his expression has never been found to
be in error. What's yours again? What's f in your t' = f(t,v) that
shows t'>t? No words allowed, just an equation.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
14 Jul 2006 09:54:36 AM |
|
|
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:ePCdnZexz9jSzSrZnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
kenseto wrote:
I can do that if you first show me that all the clocks moving wrt you
are
running slow.
Endless evasion remains endless. Doesn't it ever seem strange to you
that all you can muster to nearly all technical questions is evasion?
Hasn't that ever caused you a moment's doubt?
Just answer the question by giving an algebraic expression based on
your IRT that demonstrates and quantifies your claim. Einstein did
exactly what you ask above and his expression has never been found to
be in error. What's yours again? What's f in your t' = f(t,v) that
shows t'>t? No words allowed, just an equation.
Hey idiot:
t'=t*gamma.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
15 Jul 2006 03:00:10 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 14:54:36 +0000, kenseto wrote:
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:ePCdnZexz9jSzSrZnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
kenseto wrote:
I can do that if you first show me that all the clocks moving wrt you
are
running slow.
Endless evasion remains endless. Doesn't it ever seem strange to you
that all you can muster to nearly all technical questions is evasion?
Hasn't that ever caused you a moment's doubt?
Just answer the question by giving an algebraic expression based on your
IRT that demonstrates and quantifies your claim. Einstein did exactly
what you ask above and his expression has never been found to be in
error. What's yours again? What's f in your t' = f(t,v) that shows
t'>t? No words allowed, just an equation.
Hey idiot:
t'=t*gamma.
Not quite that simple. For an SR setup, f' = f*sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c)
(f = frequency here) mostly because t and t' are related by light, which
obscures the gamma factor. This is for a light source moving away from
the observer directly away with speed v, where v > 0.
If one has a light source *approaching*, the equation flips:
f' = f*sqrt(1+v/c)/sqrt(1-v/c)
and the remote clock is observed to be ticking *faster*.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
15 Jul 2006 04:02:21 PM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill3@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.07.15.19.59.43.819531@earthlink.net...
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 14:54:36 +0000, kenseto wrote:
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:ePCdnZexz9jSzSrZnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
kenseto wrote:
I can do that if you first show me that all the clocks moving wrt you
are
running slow.
Endless evasion remains endless. Doesn't it ever seem strange to you
that all you can muster to nearly all technical questions is evasion?
Hasn't that ever caused you a moment's doubt?
Just answer the question by giving an algebraic expression based on
your
IRT that demonstrates and quantifies your claim. Einstein did exactly
what you ask above and his expression has never been found to be in
error. What's yours again? What's f in your t' = f(t,v) that shows
t'>t? No words allowed, just an equation.
Hey idiot:
t'=t*gamma.
Not quite that simple. For an SR setup, f' = f*sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c)
(f = frequency here) mostly because t and t' are related by light, which
obscures the gamma factor. This is for a light source moving away from
the observer directly away with speed v, where v > 0.
If one has a light source *approaching*, the equation flips:
f' = f*sqrt(1+v/c)/sqrt(1-v/c)
and the remote clock is observed to be ticking *faster*.
You are babling. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
15 Jul 2006 08:00:07 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 21:02:21 +0000, kenseto wrote:
"The Ghost In The Machine" < > wrote in message
news:pan.2006.07.15.19.59.43.819531@earthlink.net...
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 14:54:36 +0000, kenseto wrote:
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:ePCdnZexz9jSzSrZnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
kenseto wrote:
I can do that if you first show me that all the clocks moving wrt
you
are
running slow.
Endless evasion remains endless. Doesn't it ever seem strange to you
that all you can muster to nearly all technical questions is evasion?
Hasn't that ever caused you a moment's doubt?
Just answer the question by giving an algebraic expression based on
your
IRT that demonstrates and quantifies your claim. Einstein did
exactly what you ask above and his expression has never been found to
be in error. What's yours again? What's f in your t' = f(t,v) that
shows t'>t? No words allowed, just an equation.
Hey idiot:
t'=t*gamma.
Not quite that simple. For an SR setup, f' = f*sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c)
(f = frequency here) mostly because t and t' are related by light, which
obscures the gamma factor. This is for a light source moving away from
the observer directly away with speed v, where v > 0.
If one has a light source *approaching*, the equation flips:
f' = f*sqrt(1+v/c)/sqrt(1-v/c)
and the remote clock is observed to be ticking *faster*.
You are babling. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Brilliant response. Perhaps you can clarify precisely why I'm "babbling"?
I for one think I'm perfectly clear, since frequency can be easily
measured locally, by little more than a counter and a stopwatch. (OK, so
it's an idealized local stopwatch [*], especially since light frequency is
on the order of 600 THz. However, all electromagnetic waves exhibit this
frequency shift.)
In any event, gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), but gamma cannot be observed
directly, since the two observers are moving relative to one another.
Perhaps you can compute in IRT the frequency shift for source S moving
from observer O with velocity v? I can easily with SR. If one assumes
that O and S are initially coincident at point (0,0), then one calculates
the following.
event 0: (0,0)_S = (0,0)_O
event 1: (0,1/f)_S = (-vg/f, g/f)_O
event 2: (0,2/f)_S = (-2vg/f,2g/f)_O
....
event n: (0,n/f)_S = (1-nvg/f,ng/f)_O
where g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and f is the frequency of the light source S
(as measured in its own frame), which of course means it spits out crests
(or troughs) every 1/f time units.
Since O cannot see the event at (-nvg/f,ng/f)_O, he must wait for the
light to reach him at x_O = 0; this takes an additional +nvg/(fc) time
units, for an event at (0, ng/f+nvg/(fc))_O or
(0, (n/f)(1+v/c)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)_O or (0, (n/f)(sqrt(1+v/c)/sqrt(1-v/c))_O.
Therefore, O observes the impulses at (n/f)sqrt(1+v/c)/sqrt(1-v/c)
= n/(f(sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c)) = n/f'.
For its part Newtonian/LBaT [+] computations result in the following.
event 0: (0,0)_S = (0,0)_O
event 1: (0,1/f)_S = (-v/f, 1/f)_O
and O observes the event coming at (0, 1/f+(v/(f(c-v))))_O
= (0, ((c-v)+v)/(f(c-v)))_O = (0, (c/(c-v))(1/f))_O, or
f' = f(1-v/c) in Newton's world -- since light is approaching O at the
velocity c-v, not at c.
These two results are obviously not consistent, although for v<<c they are
close.
Since IRT apparently assumes an absolute matrix, one might require O's
velocity (call it w) with respect to that matrix. For Earthbound
observers, this velocity has a variance of at least 2 * 10^-4 c, since the
Earth is moving around the Sun at that velocity, describing a
near-circular path. An additional variance of about 8 km/s = 2.67*10^-5 c
might be had for satellites in orbit around Earth.
Ken Seto
[*] IRT apparently requires a global time reference as well, with the
implicit assumption that all local clocks will be in sync with this
reference. SR is incompatible with this assumption.
[+] L=localized. For long distances BaT has an extinction effect,
according to Henri; the light "adjusts" back to c after a certain distance
is traversed. I forget the exact distance.
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
