| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"kenseto" |
| Date: |
10 Apr 2007 09:55:25 AM |
| Object: |
Questions on the meaning of a clock second in SR. |
1. In Alan Lightman's book "Great Ideas in Physics" (Page 126?) he
said (and SR says) that the passage of a clock second in observer A's
frame corresponds to the passage of less than a clock second in the
observed B frame. This means that a clock second is not an interval of
universal time (absolute time).
2. In SR the second postulates says that the speed of light is a
universal constant in all frames (A and B frames). This means that:
Speed of light in A's frame is 299,792,458 m/1 of A's clock second
Speed of light in B's frame is 299,792,458m/1 of B's clock second
This means that 1 of A's second = 1 of B's second.
This means that a clock second is an interval of universal time
(absolute time).
3. In the twin paradox case the traveling clock B's clock seconds is
compared directly with the stay at home clock A's clock seconds to
reach the conclusion that B is younger than A. This direct comparison
means that:
The passage of A's clock second = the passage of B's clock second.
Question:
#1 says that a clock second is not an interval of universal time and #
2 and 3 say that a clock second is an interval of universal time. Is
this why SR is so sucessful because it includes all the possibilities
even though they are contradictory? :-)
Ken Seto
.
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions on the meaning of a clock second in SR. |
10 Apr 2007 06:43:48 PM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:1176216925.562653.38870@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
1. In Alan Lightman's book "Great Ideas in Physics" (Page 126?) he
said (and SR says) that the passage of a clock second in observer A's
frame corresponds to the passage of less than a clock second in the
observed B frame. This means that a clock second is not an interval of
universal time (absolute time).
What is this universal (absolute) time ?
2. In SR the second postulates says that the speed of light is a
universal constant in all frames (A and B frames). This means that:
Speed of light in A's frame is 299,792,458 m/1 of A's clock second
Speed of light in B's frame is 299,792,458m/1 of B's clock second
This means that 1 of A's second = 1 of B's second.
That is not a valid conclusion
This means that a clock second is an interval of universal time
(absolute time).
3. In the twin paradox case the traveling clock B's clock seconds is
compared directly with the stay at home clock A's clock seconds to
reach the conclusion that B is younger than A. This direct comparison
means that:
The passage of A's clock second = the passage of B's clock second.
That is quite the opposite of that it says
Question:
#1 says that a clock second is not an interval of universal time and #
2 and 3 say that a clock second is an interval of universal time. Is
this why SR is so sucessful because it includes all the possibilities
even though they are contradictory? :-)
It's not self-contradictory .. it just shows that your incorrect conclusions
are .. incorrect.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions on the meaning of a clock second in SR. |
10 Apr 2007 10:08:30 AM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message news:1176216925.562653.38870@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
1. In Alan Lightman's book "Great Ideas in Physics" (Page 126?) he
said (and SR says) that the passage of a clock second in observer A's
frame corresponds to the passage of less than a clock second in the
observed B frame. This means that a clock second is not an interval of
universal time (absolute time).
2. In SR the second postulates says that the speed of light is a
universal constant in all frames (A and B frames). This means that:
Speed of light in A's frame is 299,792,458 m/1 of A's clock second
Speed of light in B's frame is 299,792,458m/1 of B's clock second
This means that 1 of A's second = 1 of B's second.
No, bozo, it does not mean that.
Were you *born* an imbecile, or what?
This means that a clock second is an interval of universal time
(absolute time).
3. In the twin paradox case the traveling clock B's clock seconds is
compared directly with the stay at home clock A's clock seconds to
reach the conclusion that B is younger than A. This direct comparison
means that:
The passage of A's clock second = the passage of B's clock second.
Question:
#1 says that a clock second is not an interval of universal time and #
2 and 3 say that a clock second is an interval of universal time. Is
this why SR is so sucessful because it includes all the possibilities
even though they are contradictory? :-)
Try stamp collecting.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Igor" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions on the meaning of a clock second in SR. |
10 Apr 2007 12:43:18 PM |
|
|
On Apr 10, 10:55 am, "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
1. In Alan Lightman's book "Great Ideas in Physics" (Page 126?) he
said (and SR says) that the passage of a clock second in observer A's
frame corresponds to the passage of less than a clock second in the
observed B frame. This means that a clock second is not an interval of
universal time (absolute time).
2. In SR the second postulates says that the speed of light is a
universal constant in all frames (A and B frames). This means that:
Speed of light in A's frame is 299,792,458 m/1 of A's clock second
Speed of light in B's frame is 299,792,458m/1 of B's clock second
This means that 1 of A's second = 1 of B's second.
This means that a clock second is an interval of universal time
(absolute time).
3. In the twin paradox case the traveling clock B's clock seconds is
compared directly with the stay at home clock A's clock seconds to
reach the conclusion that B is younger than A. This direct comparison
means that:
The passage of A's clock second = the passage of B's clock second.
Question:
#1 says that a clock second is not an interval of universal time and #
2 and 3 say that a clock second is an interval of universal time. Is
this why SR is so sucessful because it includes all the possibilities
even though they are contradictory? :-)
Ken Seto
People have explained all of this to you hundreds of times. Time to
hang it up. You'll never get it. It's hopeless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: A longer S.I. second. |
10 Apr 2007 06:01:28 PM |
|
|
Hi Igor and Kenseto,
S.R. and G.R. are explainable, even to the likes of Kenseto.
It's as I told Tom_Potter...
You don't like the way the meter and second are defined
( to wit, as counts of periods of a special maser )
but you don't offer anything that's better... Why ?
Red/Blue shifts alter the S.I. meter and the S.I. second.
Add energy ( e.g. a photon falling into a gravity well )
and you get a blue shift ( i.e. a shorter S.I. second ).
Subtract energy and you get a red shift ( a longer S.I. second ).
( e.g. a photon from a G.P.S. bird with centrifugal force )
Only G.R. gets the red/blue shifts right,
Newtonian physics is off by a factor of 2.
Sure, G.R. is a tad harder to work with... Why does that bother you ?
G.R. explains the origins of the known Universe,
Newton's stuff doesn't. Would you expunge Darwin as well ?
G.R. explains humanity, Newton's stuff doesn't.
Time is spatial; so what is God, entropy and randomness ?
In conversations were the word " God " is mentioned,
I've found that it often means,
" The higher powers that effect our fate. ".
( e.g. The pseudo arrow of time, a.k.a. pseudo entropy )
Also, religious people tend to be more optimistic than sober-minded,
using euphemisms like " Heavenly Father " instead of " Our Fate ".
If Jesus were alive today he'd be nailed to the cross again
by the same gang of law-obsessed, inhumane government stooges.
So I stay " judgement proof ".
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: A longer S.I. second. |
10 Apr 2007 06:16:12 PM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2007_Apr_10_9_@Cotse.NET...
Hi Igor and Kenseto,
S.R. and G.R. are explainable, even to the likes of Kenseto.
It's as I told Tom_Potter...
You don't like the way the meter and second are defined
( to wit, as counts of periods of a special maser )
but you don't offer anything that's better... Why ?
Red/Blue shifts alter the S.I. meter and the S.I. second.
Add energy ( e.g. a photon falling into a gravity well )
and you get a blue shift ( i.e. a shorter S.I. second ).
Subtract energy and you get a red shift ( a longer S.I. second ).
( e.g. a photon from a G.P.S. bird with centrifugal force )
Only G.R. gets the red/blue shifts right,
Newtonian physics is off by a factor of 2.
Sure, G.R. is a tad harder to work with... Why does that bother you ?
G.R. explains the origins of the known Universe,
Newton's stuff doesn't. Would you expunge Darwin as well ?
G.R. explains humanity, Newton's stuff doesn't.
Time is spatial; so what is God, entropy and randomness ?
In conversations were the word " God " is mentioned,
I've found that it often means,
" The higher powers that effect our fate. ".
( e.g. The pseudo arrow of time, a.k.a. pseudo entropy )
Also, religious people tend to be more optimistic than sober-minded,
using euphemisms like " Heavenly Father " instead of " Our Fate ".
If Jesus were alive today he'd be nailed to the cross again
by the same gang of law-obsessed, inhumane government stooges.
So I stay " judgement proof ".
What a wonderful acceptance speech.
It is a shame you have posted it several times already. Do you think saying
over and over makes it more sensible and accurate?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: A longer S.I. second. |
10 Apr 2007 06:22:02 PM |
|
|
In article <I-OdnSqlzNEhh4HbnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
What a wonderful acceptance speech.
It is a shame you have posted it several times already. Do you think saying
over and over makes it more sensible and accurate?
He's a real polymoron...
--
Got mail? I did ;-) Three and counting.
Got proof? Not yet, still waiting.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: A longer S.I. second. |
10 Apr 2007 06:23:32 PM |
|
|
"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:phineaspuddleduck-BE5C58.00220211042007@news.octanews.com...
In article <I-OdnSqlzNEhh4HbnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
What a wonderful acceptance speech.
It is a shame you have posted it several times already. Do you think
saying
over and over makes it more sensible and accurate?
He's a real polymoron...
LOL.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Art Deco" |
|
| Title: Re: A longer S.I. second. |
10 Apr 2007 07:41:04 PM |
|
|
T Wake <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2007_Apr_10_9_@Cotse.NET...
Hi Igor and Kenseto,
S.R. and G.R. are explainable, even to the likes of Kenseto.
It's as I told Tom_Potter...
You don't like the way the meter and second are defined
( to wit, as counts of periods of a special maser )
but you don't offer anything that's better... Why ?
Red/Blue shifts alter the S.I. meter and the S.I. second.
Add energy ( e.g. a photon falling into a gravity well )
and you get a blue shift ( i.e. a shorter S.I. second ).
Subtract energy and you get a red shift ( a longer S.I. second ).
( e.g. a photon from a G.P.S. bird with centrifugal force )
Only G.R. gets the red/blue shifts right,
Newtonian physics is off by a factor of 2.
Sure, G.R. is a tad harder to work with... Why does that bother you ?
G.R. explains the origins of the known Universe,
Newton's stuff doesn't. Would you expunge Darwin as well ?
G.R. explains humanity, Newton's stuff doesn't.
Time is spatial; so what is God, entropy and randomness ?
In conversations were the word " God " is mentioned,
I've found that it often means,
" The higher powers that effect our fate. ".
( e.g. The pseudo arrow of time, a.k.a. pseudo entropy )
Also, religious people tend to be more optimistic than sober-minded,
using euphemisms like " Heavenly Father " instead of " Our Fate ".
If Jesus were alive today he'd be nailed to the cross again
by the same gang of law-obsessed, inhumane government stooges.
So I stay " judgement proof ".
What a wonderful acceptance speech.
It is a shame you have posted it several times already. Do you think saying
over and over makes it more sensible and accurate?
I think he should weave "spatial energy" in there somehow.
--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
"Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Deco?
The section is clearly attributed to Art Deco, not to you, Deco."
-- Dr. David Tholen
"Who is "David Tholen", Daedalus? Still suffering from
attribution problems?"
-- Dr. David Tholen
.
|
|
|
| User: "ah" |
|
| Title: Re: A longer S.I. second. |
10 Apr 2007 11:21:43 PM |
|
|
Art Deco wrote:
T Wake <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2007_Apr_10_9_@Cotse.NET...
Hi Igor and Kenseto,
S.R. and G.R. are explainable, even to the likes of Kenseto.
It's as I told Tom_Potter...
You don't like the way the meter and second are defined
( to wit, as counts of periods of a special maser )
but you don't offer anything that's better... Why ?
Red/Blue shifts alter the S.I. meter and the S.I. second.
Add energy ( e.g. a photon falling into a gravity well )
and you get a blue shift ( i.e. a shorter S.I. second ).
Subtract energy and you get a red shift ( a longer S.I. second ).
( e.g. a photon from a G.P.S. bird with centrifugal force )
Only G.R. gets the red/blue shifts right,
Newtonian physics is off by a factor of 2.
Sure, G.R. is a tad harder to work with... Why does that bother you ?
G.R. explains the origins of the known Universe,
Newton's stuff doesn't. Would you expunge Darwin as well ?
G.R. explains humanity, Newton's stuff doesn't.
Time is spatial; so what is God, entropy and randomness ?
In conversations were the word " God " is mentioned,
I've found that it often means,
" The higher powers that effect our fate. ".
( e.g. The pseudo arrow of time, a.k.a. pseudo entropy )
Also, religious people tend to be more optimistic than sober-minded,
using euphemisms like " Heavenly Father " instead of " Our Fate ".
If Jesus were alive today he'd be nailed to the cross again
by the same gang of law-obsessed, inhumane government stooges.
So I stay " judgement proof ".
What a wonderful acceptance speech.
It is a shame you have posted it several times already. Do you think saying
over and over makes it more sensible and accurate?
I think he should weave "spatial energy" in there somehow.
Being both a particle /and/ a wave immediately doubles your chances of
catching someone's eye on a Saturday night.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John \C" |
|
| Title: Re: A longer S.I. second. |
10 Apr 2007 11:27:51 PM |
|
|
"ah" <splifingate@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:461c5fd1$0$2269$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
Art Deco wrote:
T Wake <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2007_Apr_10_9_@Cotse.NET...
Hi Igor and Kenseto,
S.R. and G.R. are explainable, even to the likes of Kenseto.
It's as I told Tom_Potter...
You don't like the way the meter and second are defined
( to wit, as counts of periods of a special maser )
but you don't offer anything that's better... Why ?
Red/Blue shifts alter the S.I. meter and the S.I. second.
Add energy ( e.g. a photon falling into a gravity well )
and you get a blue shift ( i.e. a shorter S.I. second ).
Subtract energy and you get a red shift ( a longer S.I. second ).
( e.g. a photon from a G.P.S. bird with centrifugal force )
Only G.R. gets the red/blue shifts right,
Newtonian physics is off by a factor of 2.
Sure, G.R. is a tad harder to work with... Why does that bother you ?
G.R. explains the origins of the known Universe,
Newton's stuff doesn't. Would you expunge Darwin as well ?
G.R. explains humanity, Newton's stuff doesn't.
Time is spatial; so what is God, entropy and randomness ?
In conversations were the word " God " is mentioned,
I've found that it often means,
" The higher powers that effect our fate. ".
( e.g. The pseudo arrow of time, a.k.a. pseudo entropy )
Also, religious people tend to be more optimistic than sober-minded,
using euphemisms like " Heavenly Father " instead of " Our Fate ".
If Jesus were alive today he'd be nailed to the cross again
by the same gang of law-obsessed, inhumane government stooges.
So I stay " judgement proof ".
What a wonderful acceptance speech.
It is a shame you have posted it several times already. Do you think
saying
over and over makes it more sensible and accurate?
I think he should weave "spatial energy" in there somehow.
Being both a particle /and/ a wave immediately doubles your chances of
catching someone's eye on a Saturday night.
Filth!
HJ
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Art Deco" |
|
| Title: Re: A longer S.I. second. |
11 Apr 2007 11:15:39 AM |
|
|
ah <splifingate@gmail.com> wrote:
Art Deco wrote:
T Wake <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2007_Apr_10_9_@Cotse.NET...
Hi Igor and Kenseto,
S.R. and G.R. are explainable, even to the likes of Kenseto.
It's as I told Tom_Potter...
You don't like the way the meter and second are defined
( to wit, as counts of periods of a special maser )
but you don't offer anything that's better... Why ?
Red/Blue shifts alter the S.I. meter and the S.I. second.
Add energy ( e.g. a photon falling into a gravity well )
and you get a blue shift ( i.e. a shorter S.I. second ).
Subtract energy and you get a red shift ( a longer S.I. second ).
( e.g. a photon from a G.P.S. bird with centrifugal force )
Only G.R. gets the red/blue shifts right,
Newtonian physics is off by a factor of 2.
Sure, G.R. is a tad harder to work with... Why does that bother you ?
G.R. explains the origins of the known Universe,
Newton's stuff doesn't. Would you expunge Darwin as well ?
G.R. explains humanity, Newton's stuff doesn't.
Time is spatial; so what is God, entropy and randomness ?
In conversations were the word " God " is mentioned,
I've found that it often means,
" The higher powers that effect our fate. ".
( e.g. The pseudo arrow of time, a.k.a. pseudo entropy )
Also, religious people tend to be more optimistic than sober-minded,
using euphemisms like " Heavenly Father " instead of " Our Fate ".
If Jesus were alive today he'd be nailed to the cross again
by the same gang of law-obsessed, inhumane government stooges.
So I stay " judgement proof ".
What a wonderful acceptance speech.
It is a shame you have posted it several times already. Do you think saying
over and over makes it more sensible and accurate?
I think he should weave "spatial energy" in there somehow.
Being both a particle /and/ a wave immediately doubles your chances of
catching someone's eye on a Saturday night.
Much better than an impulse function.
--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
"Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Deco?
The section is clearly attributed to Art Deco, not to you, Deco."
-- Dr. David Tholen
"Who is "David Tholen", Daedalus? Still suffering from
attribution problems?"
-- Dr. David Tholen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hagar" |
|
| Title: Re: A longer S.I. second. |
11 Apr 2007 02:00:45 PM |
|
|
"Art Deco" <erfc@caballista.org> wrote in message
news:110420071015394842%erfc@caballista.org...
ah <splifingate@gmail.com> wrote:
Art Deco wrote:
T Wake <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2007_Apr_10_9_@Cotse.NET...
Hi Igor and Kenseto,
S.R. and G.R. are explainable, even to the likes of Kenseto.
It's as I told Tom_Potter...
You don't like the way the meter and second are defined
( to wit, as counts of periods of a special maser )
but you don't offer anything that's better... Why ?
Red/Blue shifts alter the S.I. meter and the S.I. second.
Add energy ( e.g. a photon falling into a gravity well )
and you get a blue shift ( i.e. a shorter S.I. second ).
Subtract energy and you get a red shift ( a longer S.I. second ).
( e.g. a photon from a G.P.S. bird with centrifugal force )
Only G.R. gets the red/blue shifts right,
Newtonian physics is off by a factor of 2.
Sure, G.R. is a tad harder to work with... Why does that bother you ?
G.R. explains the origins of the known Universe,
Newton's stuff doesn't. Would you expunge Darwin as well ?
G.R. explains humanity, Newton's stuff doesn't.
Time is spatial; so what is God, entropy and randomness ?
In conversations were the word " God " is mentioned,
I've found that it often means,
" The higher powers that effect our fate. ".
( e.g. The pseudo arrow of time, a.k.a. pseudo entropy )
Also, religious people tend to be more optimistic than sober-minded,
using euphemisms like " Heavenly Father " instead of " Our Fate ".
If Jesus were alive today he'd be nailed to the cross again
by the same gang of law-obsessed, inhumane government stooges.
So I stay " judgement proof ".
What a wonderful acceptance speech.
It is a shame you have posted it several times already. Do you think
saying
over and over makes it more sensible and accurate?
I think he should weave "spatial energy" in there somehow.
Being both a particle /and/ a wave immediately doubles your chances of
catching someone's eye on a Saturday night.
Much better than an impulse function.
Is that the same thing as Duckie-pounding ??
.
|
|
|
| User: "John \C" |
|
| Title: Re: A longer S.I. second. |
11 Apr 2007 04:15:43 PM |
|
|
"Hagar" <hagen@sahm.name> wrote in message
news:VvudnbLeqZr-rYDbnZ2dnUVZ_q6vnZ2d@giganews.com...
"Art Deco" <erfc@caballista.org> wrote in message
news:110420071015394842%erfc@caballista.org...
ah <splifingate@gmail.com> wrote:
Art Deco wrote:
T Wake <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2007_Apr_10_9_@Cotse.NET...
Hi Igor and Kenseto,
S.R. and G.R. are explainable, even to the likes of Kenseto.
It's as I told Tom_Potter...
You don't like the way the meter and second are defined
( to wit, as counts of periods of a special maser )
but you don't offer anything that's better... Why ?
Red/Blue shifts alter the S.I. meter and the S.I. second.
Add energy ( e.g. a photon falling into a gravity well )
and you get a blue shift ( i.e. a shorter S.I. second ).
Subtract energy and you get a red shift ( a longer S.I. second ).
( e.g. a photon from a G.P.S. bird with centrifugal force )
Only G.R. gets the red/blue shifts right,
Newtonian physics is off by a factor of 2.
Sure, G.R. is a tad harder to work with... Why does that bother you
?
G.R. explains the origins of the known Universe,
Newton's stuff doesn't. Would you expunge Darwin as well ?
G.R. explains humanity, Newton's stuff doesn't.
Time is spatial; so what is God, entropy and randomness ?
In conversations were the word " God " is mentioned,
I've found that it often means,
" The higher powers that effect our fate. ".
( e.g. The pseudo arrow of time, a.k.a. pseudo entropy )
Also, religious people tend to be more optimistic than sober-minded,
using euphemisms like " Heavenly Father " instead of " Our Fate ".
If Jesus were alive today he'd be nailed to the cross again
by the same gang of law-obsessed, inhumane government stooges.
So I stay " judgement proof ".
What a wonderful acceptance speech.
It is a shame you have posted it several times already. Do you think
saying
over and over makes it more sensible and accurate?
I think he should weave "spatial energy" in there somehow.
Being both a particle /and/ a wave immediately doubles your chances of
catching someone's eye on a Saturday night.
Much better than an impulse function.
Is that the same thing as Duckie-pounding ??
CHA-CHING
BULL'S - EYE!!!!
HJ
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Art Deco" |
|
| Title: Re: A longer S.I. second. |
11 Apr 2007 02:13:03 PM |
|
|
Hagar <hagen@sahm.name> wrote:
"Art Deco" <erfc@caballista.org> wrote in message
news:110420071015394842%erfc@caballista.org...
ah <splifingate@gmail.com> wrote:
Art Deco wrote:
T Wake <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2007_Apr_10_9_@Cotse.NET...
Hi Igor and Kenseto,
S.R. and G.R. are explainable, even to the likes of Kenseto.
It's as I told Tom_Potter...
You don't like the way the meter and second are defined
( to wit, as counts of periods of a special maser )
but you don't offer anything that's better... Why ?
Red/Blue shifts alter the S.I. meter and the S.I. second.
Add energy ( e.g. a photon falling into a gravity well )
and you get a blue shift ( i.e. a shorter S.I. second ).
Subtract energy and you get a red shift ( a longer S.I. second ).
( e.g. a photon from a G.P.S. bird with centrifugal force )
Only G.R. gets the red/blue shifts right,
Newtonian physics is off by a factor of 2.
Sure, G.R. is a tad harder to work with... Why does that bother you ?
G.R. explains the origins of the known Universe,
Newton's stuff doesn't. Would you expunge Darwin as well ?
G.R. explains humanity, Newton's stuff doesn't.
Time is spatial; so what is God, entropy and randomness ?
In conversations were the word " God " is mentioned,
I've found that it often means,
" The higher powers that effect our fate. ".
( e.g. The pseudo arrow of time, a.k.a. pseudo entropy )
Also, religious people tend to be more optimistic than sober-minded,
using euphemisms like " Heavenly Father " instead of " Our Fate ".
If Jesus were alive today he'd be nailed to the cross again
by the same gang of law-obsessed, inhumane government stooges.
So I stay " judgement proof ".
What a wonderful acceptance speech.
It is a shame you have posted it several times already. Do you think
saying
over and over makes it more sensible and accurate?
I think he should weave "spatial energy" in there somehow.
Being both a particle /and/ a wave immediately doubles your chances of
catching someone's eye on a Saturday night.
Much better than an impulse function.
Is that the same thing as Duckie-pounding ??
No surprise that you don't know what an impulse function is, hypocrite.
--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
"Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Deco?
The section is clearly attributed to Art Deco, not to you, Deco."
-- Dr. David Tholen
"Who is "David Tholen", Daedalus? Still suffering from
attribution problems?"
-- Dr. David Tholen
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ah" |
|
| Title: Re: A longer S.I. second. |
11 Apr 2007 08:17:37 PM |
|
|
Art Deco wrote:
ah <splifingate@gmail.com> wrote:
Art Deco wrote:
T Wake <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2007_Apr_10_9_@Cotse.NET...
Hi Igor and Kenseto,
S.R. and G.R. are explainable, even to the likes of Kenseto.
It's as I told Tom_Potter...
You don't like the way the meter and second are defined
( to wit, as counts of periods of a special maser )
but you don't offer anything that's better... Why ?
Red/Blue shifts alter the S.I. meter and the S.I. second.
Add energy ( e.g. a photon falling into a gravity well )
and you get a blue shift ( i.e. a shorter S.I. second ).
Subtract energy and you get a red shift ( a longer S.I. second ).
( e.g. a photon from a G.P.S. bird with centrifugal force )
Only G.R. gets the red/blue shifts right,
Newtonian physics is off by a factor of 2.
Sure, G.R. is a tad harder to work with... Why does that bother you ?
G.R. explains the origins of the known Universe,
Newton's stuff doesn't. Would you expunge Darwin as well ?
G.R. explains humanity, Newton's stuff doesn't.
Time is spatial; so what is God, entropy and randomness ?
In conversations were the word " God " is mentioned,
I've found that it often means,
" The higher powers that effect our fate. ".
( e.g. The pseudo arrow of time, a.k.a. pseudo entropy )
Also, religious people tend to be more optimistic than sober-minded,
using euphemisms like " Heavenly Father " instead of " Our Fate ".
If Jesus were alive today he'd be nailed to the cross again
by the same gang of law-obsessed, inhumane government stooges.
So I stay " judgement proof ".
What a wonderful acceptance speech.
It is a shame you have posted it several times already. Do you think saying
over and over makes it more sensible and accurate?
I think he should weave "spatial energy" in there somehow.
Being both a particle /and/ a wave immediately doubles your chances of
catching someone's eye on a Saturday night.
Much better than an impulse function.
Much less messy, too.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: A longer S.I. second. |
10 Apr 2007 06:08:47 PM |
|
|
On Apr 10, 3:01 pm, Jeff...Relf <Jeff_R...@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
Hi Igor and Kenseto,
S.R. and G.R. are explainable, even to the likes of Kenseto.
A questionable assertion, since you understand neither.
[...]
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Gisse is a thousand times the crank Kenseto ever was. |
10 Apr 2007 06:15:38 PM |
|
|
Hi Eric_Gisse, You're a thousand times the crank Kenseto ever was.
Kenseto asks questions, you just boast about your high school diploma.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Gisse is a thousand times the crank Kenseto ever was. |
10 Apr 2007 06:19:52 PM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2007_Apr_10_11_@Cotse.NET...
Hi Eric_Gisse, You're a thousand times the crank Kenseto ever was.
Once more, you are incorrect.
Kenseto asks questions, you just boast about your high school diploma.
You need to reacquaint yourself with reality sometime.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Gisse is a thousand times the crank Kenseto ever was. |
10 Apr 2007 06:34:15 PM |
|
|
In article <ZsidnQRidKQHhoHbnZ2dnUVZ8v-dnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2007_Apr_10_11_@Cotse.NET...
Hi Eric_Gisse, You're a thousand times the crank Kenseto ever was.
Once more, you are incorrect.
Kenseto asks questions, you just boast about your high school diploma.
You need to reacquaint yourself with reality sometime.
Reality had a restraining order out on him...
--
Got mail? I did ;-) Three and counting.
Got proof? Not yet, still waiting.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Gisse is a thousand times the crank Kenseto ever was. |
10 Apr 2007 06:41:24 PM |
|
|
"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:phineaspuddleduck-705719.00341511042007@news.octanews.com...
In article <ZsidnQRidKQHhoHbnZ2dnUVZ8v-dnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2007_Apr_10_11_@Cotse.NET...
Hi Eric_Gisse, You're a thousand times the crank Kenseto ever was.
Once more, you are incorrect.
Kenseto asks questions, you just boast about your high school diploma.
You need to reacquaint yourself with reality sometime.
Reality had a restraining order out on him...
That explains sooooo much.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Gisse is a thousand times the crank Kenseto ever was. |
10 Apr 2007 07:31:18 PM |
|
|
On Apr 10, 3:15 pm, Jeff...Relf <Jeff_R...@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
Hi Eric_Gisse, You're a thousand times the crank Kenseto ever was.
Kenseto asks questions, you just boast about your high school diploma.
Pop quiz: When was the last time I talked about it? When was the last
time I talked about it without you bringing it up?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Gisse is a thousand times the crank Kenseto ever was. |
11 Apr 2007 02:25:07 AM |
|
|
On Apr 10, 8:31 pm, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 10, 3:15 pm, Jeff...Relf <Jeff_R...@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
Hi Eric_Gisse, You're a thousand times the crank Kenseto ever was.
Kenseto asks questions, you just boast about your high school diploma.
Pop quiz: When was the last time I talked about it? When was the last
time I talked about it without you bringing it up?
Only high school, what a shame.
Mama's boy.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions on the meaning of a clock second in SR. |
11 Apr 2007 09:02:12 AM |
|
|
On Apr 10, 1:43 pm, "Igor" <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
On Apr 10, 10:55 am, "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
1. In Alan Lightman's book "Great Ideas in Physics" (Page 126?) he
said (and SR says) that the passage of a clock second in observer A's
frame corresponds to the passage of less than a clock second in the
observed B frame. This means that a clock second is not an interval of
universal time (absolute time).
2. In SR the second postulates says that the speed of light is a
universal constant in all frames (A and B frames). This means that:
Speed of light in A's frame is 299,792,458 m/1 of A's clock second
Speed of light in B's frame is 299,792,458m/1 of B's clock second
This means that 1 of A's second = 1 of B's second.
This means that a clock second is an interval of universal time
(absolute time).
3. In the twin paradox case the traveling clock B's clock seconds is
compared directly with the stay at home clock A's clock seconds to
reach the conclusion that B is younger than A. This direct comparison
means that:
The passage of A's clock second = the passage of B's clock second.
Question:
#1 says that a clock second is not an interval of universal time and #
2 and 3 say that a clock second is an interval of universal time. Is
this why SR is so sucessful because it includes all the possibilities
even though they are contradictory? :-)
Ken Seto
People have explained all of this to you hundreds of times. Time to
hang it up. You'll never get it. It's hopeless.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Hey idiot are you saying that what is hopeless is your fucking brain.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Cain" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions on the meaning of a clock second in SR. |
12 Apr 2007 01:44:00 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
On Apr 10, 1:43 pm, "Igor" <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
People have explained all of this to you hundreds of times. Time to
hang it up. You'll never get it. It's hopeless.
Hey idiot are you saying that what is hopeless is your fucking brain.
This demonstrates the same problem you have interpreting what Einstein
said.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions on the meaning of a clock second in SR. |
10 Apr 2007 03:57:54 PM |
|
|
On Apr 10, 6:55 am, "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
[...]
Ken, you have been arguing about SR since 1996. Give it a rest.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions on the meaning of a clock second in SR. |
11 Apr 2007 09:31:18 AM |
|
|
On Apr 10, 4:57 pm, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 10, 6:55 am, "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
[...]
Ken, you have been arguing about SR since 1996. Give it a rest.
You are a fucking idiot runt of the SRians.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions on the meaning of a clock second in SR. |
11 Apr 2007 11:07:02 AM |
|
|
On Apr 11, 6:31 am, "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Apr 10, 4:57 pm, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 10, 6:55 am, "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
[...]
Ken, you have been arguing about SR since 1996. Give it a rest.
You are a fucking idiot runt of the SRians.
Maybe, but I have managed to learn a whole lot more physics than you
ever did - and in less than a third of the time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions on the meaning of a clock second in SR. |
12 Apr 2007 08:32:28 AM |
|
|
On Apr 11, 12:07 pm, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 11, 6:31 am, "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Apr 10, 4:57 pm, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 10, 6:55 am, "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
[...]
Ken, you have been arguing about SR since 1996. Give it a rest.
You are a fucking idiot runt of the SRians.
Maybe, but I have managed to learn a whole lot more physics than you
ever did - and in less than a third of the time.
Fucking idiot runt....You didn't learn any real phyiscs. You learn SR
religion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions on the meaning of a clock second in SR. |
12 Apr 2007 03:34:28 PM |
|
|
On Apr 12, 5:32 am, "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Apr 11, 12:07 pm, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 11, 6:31 am, "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Apr 10, 4:57 pm, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 10, 6:55 am, "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
[...]
Ken, you have been arguing about SR since 1996. Give it a rest.
You are a fucking idiot runt of the SRians.
Maybe, but I have managed to learn a whole lot more physics than you
ever did - and in less than a third of the time.
Fucking idiot runt....You didn't learn any real phyiscs. You learn SR
religion.
Actually Ken, relativity has been a very minor component of my
education.
It is important in some places - Compton scattering *just* isn't the
same without it. The fine structure correction to the Hydrogen atom
would be unnecessary without relativity. Explaining why nuclear decay
paths are energetically favorable vs stable is hard to do without E =
mc^2. Most of this has landed in the latter half of my modern physics
course.
What I know about relativity has largely been self taught. From actual
relativity textbooks, but self taught none the less. But then again,
what do you know?
How many years has it been since you read an actual textbook, Ken?
How come after 12 years of arguing about relativity you are still
asking _basic_ questions about the theory?
How come after 12 years you still haven't even worked out the
precession of Mercury's perihelion?
How come you don't have one accomplishment to your name after 12 years?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions on the meaning of a clock second in SR. |
12 Apr 2007 04:02:57 PM |
|
|
In article <1176410068.540342.27450@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:
What I know about relativity has largely been self taught. From actual
relativity textbooks, but self taught none the less. But then again,
what do you know?
How many years has it been since you read an actual textbook, Ken?
How come after 12 years of arguing about relativity you are still
asking _basic_ questions about the theory?
How come after 12 years you still haven't even worked out the
precession of Mercury's perihelion?
How come you don't have one accomplishment to your name after 12 years?
Rhetorical questions ;-) Of course, I suppose it wouldn't be too much to
predict the answers from Ken will include "runt"
--
Got mail? I did ;-) Three and counting.
Got proof? Not yet, still waiting.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
