On Jun 9, 2:18 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:

"Kowstue" <kows...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1181311169.128077.284870@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...

Reviewing Seto 2005 paper for more than an hour today.
Here's where he made the major false assumptions
that mess up his SR ideas for more than a decade.
After quoting the essential paragraphs of his that
shows his major fallacy (taken from page 16 of
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Unification.pdf)
i'll continue my comments of his false assumption.

Seto explained:

"How does light get from point A to point B? The
current assumption is that, locally, light travels
in a straight line towards the target, and that,
in a train of light pulses, the first pulse hits
the target is the first one the source generated.
These assumptions both make sense if the target is
stationary relative to the light pulses, but if
the target moves the second assumption could be
erroneous. Fig 3 describes a thought experiment
that is currently used by physicists to derive the
time dilation equation. A light clock is
constructed of two mirrors parallel to each other
with light pulses bouncing between them. In one
period of the clock, a light pulse travels up to
the top mirror and returns back to the bottom
mirror. The diagram shows that the light pulse is
presumed to travel a slant path when the light
clock is in motion. This is not a realistic
description of the actual event. It raises the
question: How does light know when to follow a
vertical path and when to follow one of the
infinite numbers of slant paths? It is more
realistic to say that light will always follow the
perpendicular path on its way to the upper mirror.
The reason is that the vertical path is the
direction where all the light pulses are directed.
Figure 4 shows this: the first pulse of a train of
pulses follows the original path AB, but the pulse
detected at "E" travels the path CE.

<snip see page 16 of his paper>
(Seto continued)
... When the mirrors are moving at the speed of light,
no light pulse is able to reach the upper mirror
at all. Current physics interprets this situation
as time standing still at the speed of light. The
new interpretation is that time keeps on ticking
at all speeds of the light clock. The amount of
time (duration) passed depends on the length of
the original light path AB divided by the speed of
light `c'. This new interpretation suggests that
absolute time for a moving frame is not slowed or
dilated as currently assumed. The specific amount
of absolute time (duration) required for light to
travel the original light path AB is equal in all
frames. A light clock runs slow when it is in
motion because it is not catching the first light
pulses, but rather some later one. The lower
elapsed time recorded by a moving clock because
the passage of time is not fully detected when the
clock is in a state of motion.

---------------------------------
My comments (Kows):

In our relativistic universe, the light beam would
get up and reflected down in any inertial frame. Now
what Seto is thinking is that since his light travel
in his aether. When the light beam goes up, it
won't hit the celing mirror in the first few pulses
because the aether is fixed and the light clock is
moving and so the light won't hit the mirror, gets?

That's right the first few pulses won't hit the ceiling mirror. If

not the case, the leading edge of the light ray (the first photon) will

the target. That would mean that you would know the velocity and the
position of the first photon simultaneously.....that is a violation of

Uncertainty Principle.

Deep within I hoped you were somehow right because instantaneous
link disturbs me as I think I can pull a Greysky stunt. But let's
deal with pure reasons and not let emotional bias comes in the way.

To your pulses and mirror thing. Well. Even if the photon hits the
ceiling mirror on the first pulse, it won't violate the Uncertainty
Principle
because the photon in an electromagnetic wave doesn't have definite
position but probabilistic.

Also if your argument is right that the
aether
is fixed and the light would be left behind. There is possibility
that no pulse would hit the mirror at all because all the
light would be left behind.

Here he notes that the clock in the moving frame
is beating slower because the detector doesn't
get all the light sent because some is lost.

That's right it just mean that a cycle of the moving light clock will

larger amount of absolute time to complete.

Yes. After looking at your postulates for like 15 minutes figuring out
how you got all the math. The portions about the light clock made
me realized how you did them.

This
is how he understood the clock of the moving object
to be slower but it is just the light clock slowing
and not the objects in the moving frame.

A moving cycle of the light clock contains a larger amount of absolute

Now if he assumes a relativistic
universe, he would know that there is no aether
and so light clock will have the beam still reaching
the mirror on top.

Except that the light beam will have to know which of the infinite

paths to follow. Such bogus assumption is beyond logic.
Also relative motion between two object is related to their absolute

as follows:
Relative velocity between A and B is the vector different of the vector
component of A's absolute motion and the vector component of B's

motion along the line joining A and B.

Assume the light beam is a laser, since it doesn't need aether to move
and independent of any reference frame, it can go straight. No need
to ask how the light beam will have to know which of the infinite
diagonal paths to follow. You are assuming aether dynamics when
relativistic setup would explain it.

And the reason for the time dilation
is because of the finite speed of light and the delay
which is projected to our frame of reference
making the perspective becoming real in that
the time of the moving frame indeed slow down
relative to ours (although of course the objects
in the moving frame wont feel time slowing down).

This assumptiuon of SR is incomplete. In the real universe all objects

in a state of absolute motion. Therefore the observer's clock can run

or slow compared to the observed clock. Why? Because the rate of passage

clock second in each clock is dependent on the state of absolute motion

the clock. The higher is the state of absolute motion the slower is the

of passage of clock seconds. This mean that a clock second in a faster
moving clock will contain a larger amount of absolute time than a clock
second in a slower moving clock. This is the true reason for the SR

of time dilation.

Because you are assuming its the aether that does them when SR can
give a more elegant explanation but in the end experimental data will
prevail.

Now if he uses an atomic clock in his thought
experiment 20 years ago he may not have the
problem. His aether explanation is ingenious
though like LET.. ad hoc but modern experiments
have proven him long as time dilation really have
physical effect in that after comparison later,
there is time difference in the physical state of
the objects such as muon living longer, etc.

The correct explanation for muon time dilation is as follows:
The decaying process for a subatomic particle such as a muon is

from that for a neutron. It was found that a muon at a speed closed to

of light would have a much longer decay length than that of a muon at

rest frame of the laboratory. When these decay lengths are converted to
decay times they agree with the SRT time dilation equation. This led
physicists to claim that the muon decaying process is a proof of the

dilation concept of SRT. The Model Mechanical explanation of the muon

process is as follows:

How about electrons being swirled in particle accelerators. Their
lifetime is
also increased.

1. The orbit of the muon's S-Particle is unstable and it will decay into

stable orbit of the electron.

Gee. You are serious about the S-Particle are you. The first few pages
of your paper is the worse. How can the E-Matrix maintain the constant
orbital of the S-Particles around the E-Strings??

Also you talk about
clockwise and counterclockwise helical spin of the S-Particles around
the E-Strings. But how do you tell what is clockwise and
counterclockwise
then there is nothing to compare it too.

2. In the rest frame of the Lab a muon decays in 2.2 microseconds.

a muon moving with respect to the Lab will have a longer decay time of
(2.2*10^-6)(F_aa/F_ab)seconds.
3. Therefore from the Lab point of view the decay length for a traveling
muon is:
v(2.2*10^-6)(F_aa/F_ab) meters
Where v is the relative velocity between the Lab and the traveling muon.
This Model Mechanical prediction for the decay length of a traveling

agrees with experimental observations.

To Jim Black. The reason I wanted to discuss with Seto is because
somehow I wished he was right.