| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"kenseto" |
| Date: |
05 Feb 2005 06:30:03 PM |
| Object: |
Some Contradictory Claims in SR: |
Some Contradictory Claims in SR:
SR says:
1. The speed of light is a universal constant.
The speed of light is measured to be (299,792,458m/1 clock second) in all
inertial frames. This suggests that a clock second is an interval of
universal time.
2. In the twin paradox scenario a clock second in the traveling twin's clock
is compared directly to a clock second in the stay at home clock. Again this
suggests that a clock second is an interval of universal time.
SR also says:
A clock second in A's frame does not correspond to a clock second in B's
frame. This suggests that a clock second is not an interval of universal
time.
The question:
Which of these two views of SR is correct????
Ken Seto
Some Contradictory Claims of SR
.
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Contradictory Claims in SR: |
06 Feb 2005 01:58:38 AM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:fydNd.16480$i42.301@fe1.columbus.rr.com...
Some Contradictory Claims in SR:
SR says:
1. The speed of light is a universal constant.
The speed of light is measured to be (299,792,458m/1 clock second)
in all
inertial frames. This suggests that a clock second is an interval of
universal time.
Why do you say so?
2. In the twin paradox scenario a clock second in the traveling
twin's clock
is compared directly to a clock second in the stay at home clock.
Again this
suggests that a clock second is an interval of universal time.
SR also says:
A clock second in A's frame does not correspond to a clock second in
B's
frame. This suggests that a clock second is not an interval of
universal
time.
Where does SR say that?
The question:
Which of these two views of SR is correct????
Both the views you expressed are incorrect
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Contradictory Claims in SR: |
06 Feb 2005 10:08:16 AM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:cu4ind$fvv$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:fydNd.16480$i42.301@fe1.columbus.rr.com...
Some Contradictory Claims in SR:
SR says:
1. The speed of light is a universal constant.
The speed of light is measured to be (299,792,458m/1 clock second)
in all
inertial frames. This suggests that a clock second is an interval of
universal time.
Why do you say so?
If a clcok second is not a universal interval of time how can the speed of
light be a universal constant??
2. In the twin paradox scenario a clock second in the traveling
twin's clock
is compared directly to a clock second in the stay at home clock.
Again this
suggests that a clock second is an interval of universal time.
Why didn't you address this? Are you admitting that in the twin paradox
situation a clock second is treated as an interval of universal time???
SR also says:
A clock second in A's frame does not correspond to a clock second in
B's
frame. This suggests that a clock second is not an interval of
universal
time.
Where does SR say that?
In Alan Lightman's book "Great Ideas in Physics" page 120. "A second as
measured by one clock corresponds to less than a second as measured by
another clock in motion wrt the first. In other words, time is relative to
the observer"
The question:
Which of these two views of SR is correct????
Both the views you expressed are incorrect
These are not my views. If you think they are wrong why don't you express
them correctly??
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Contradictory Claims in SR: |
06 Feb 2005 07:00:02 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, kenseto
<kenseto@erinet.com>
wrote
on Sun, 06 Feb 2005 16:08:16 GMT
<QhrNd.7447$XY5.4992@fe2.columbus.rr.com>:
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:cu4ind$fvv$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:fydNd.16480$i42.301@fe1.columbus.rr.com...
Some Contradictory Claims in SR:
SR says:
1. The speed of light is a universal constant.
The speed of light is measured to be (299,792,458m/1
clock second) in all inertial frames. This suggests that
a clock second is an interval of universal time.
Why do you say so?
If a clcok second is not a universal interval of time how
can the speed of light be a universal constant??
2. In the twin paradox scenario a clock second in
the traveling twin's clock is compared directly to
a clock second in the stay at home clock. Again this
suggests that a clock second is an interval of universal time.
Why didn't you address this? Are you admitting that in the twin paradox
situation a clock second is treated as an interval of universal time???
I'm not sure how to begin to address this, except to note
that a clock second is *not* an interval of universal time
but merely a convenient method by which to package a series
of vibrations in known phenomena, specifically Cs-133 atoms
in free-fall in our current implementation. If one assumes
that the frequency of a Cs-133 atom, relative to someone
standing next to the clock, is constant, then one gets as
close as a definition of "universal time" as one can get
in SR.
That doesn't mean someone driving past the clock will get
the same count -- even if one assumes Galilean relativity.
The pulses from the clock have to catch up with the driver,
hence the corrective term vx/c^2 in the Lorentz Transformation:
x' = (x - vt) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
t' = (t - vx/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
The Galilean form might be rendered:
x' = x - vt
t' = t - vx/c^2
if one assumes that timepulses are coming from a central observer
and travel at the nominal speed of light.
Now, if we use the first form, we can model a light-ray as
a solution to the equation
x - x_0 = c(t - t_0)
x = ct + x_0 - ct_0
If we assign G = 1 / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), then
x' = G(x - vt)
= G( (c - v)t) + Gx_0 - Gct_0
t' = G(t - vx/c^2)
= G( (c - v)t/c) + Gvx_0/c^2 - Gvt_0/c
so x' - x'_0 = c(t' - t'_0) as well. Ergo, mathematical
proof that lightspeed is invariant -- which isn't worth
that much except to show that the theory is generally consistent.
SR also says:
A clock second in A's frame does not correspond to a clock
second in B's frame. This suggests that a clock second is
not an interval of universal time.
Where does SR say that?
In Alan Lightman's book "Great Ideas in Physics" page 120. "A second as
measured by one clock corresponds to less than a second as measured by
another clock in motion wrt the first. In other words, time is relative to
the observer"
And for SR it always has been.
The question:
Which of these two views of SR is correct????
Both the views you expressed are incorrect
These are not my views. If you think they are wrong why don't you express
them correctly??
Ken Seto
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Contradictory Claims in SR: |
07 Feb 2005 08:51:33 AM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:m7oid2-vqa.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
In sci.physics, kenseto
<kenseto@erinet.com>
wrote
on Sun, 06 Feb 2005 16:08:16 GMT
<QhrNd.7447$XY5.4992@fe2.columbus.rr.com>:
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:cu4ind$fvv$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:fydNd.16480$i42.301@fe1.columbus.rr.com...
Some Contradictory Claims in SR:
SR says:
1. The speed of light is a universal constant.
The speed of light is measured to be (299,792,458m/1
clock second) in all inertial frames. This suggests that
a clock second is an interval of universal time.
Why do you say so?
If a clcok second is not a universal interval of time how
can the speed of light be a universal constant??
2. In the twin paradox scenario a clock second in
the traveling twin's clock is compared directly to
a clock second in the stay at home clock. Again this
suggests that a clock second is an interval of universal time.
Why didn't you address this? Are you admitting that in the twin paradox
situation a clock second is treated as an interval of universal time???
I'm not sure how to begin to address this, except to note
that a clock second is *not* an interval of universal time
Hand waving is not an arguement. If a clock second is not an interval of
universal time then why in SR a traveling clock second is compared directly
with a stay at home clcok second???
but merely a convenient method by which to package a series
of vibrations in known phenomena, specifically Cs-133 atoms
in free-fall in our current implementation. If one assumes
that the frequency of a Cs-133 atom, relative to someone
standing next to the clock, is constant, then one gets as
close as a definition of "universal time" as one can get
in SR.
All observers uses the same defintion for a clock second. If a clcok second
is not an interval of universal time then the definition for a clock second
is not a difinition for *universal time*. That means that you can't compared
clock seconds in different frames directly.
That doesn't mean someone driving past the clock will get
the same count -- even if one assumes Galilean relativity.
The pulses from the clock have to catch up with the driver,
hence the corrective term vx/c^2 in the Lorentz Transformation:
Here you are saying that a clock second represents a different amount of
*time* in different frame. I would agree to that. In fact that's the reason
why the speed of light using a clcok second is a constant math ratio as
follows:
Light path length of rod (299,792,458m)/the universal time content for a
clcok second co-moving with the rod.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Contradictory Claims in SR: |
07 Feb 2005 11:00:09 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, kenseto
<kenseto@erinet.com>
wrote
on Mon, 07 Feb 2005 14:51:33 GMT
<VfLNd.19501$i42.3128@fe1.columbus.rr.com>:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:m7oid2-vqa.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
In sci.physics, kenseto
<kenseto@erinet.com>
wrote
on Sun, 06 Feb 2005 16:08:16 GMT
<QhrNd.7447$XY5.4992@fe2.columbus.rr.com>:
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:cu4ind$fvv$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:fydNd.16480$i42.301@fe1.columbus.rr.com...
Some Contradictory Claims in SR:
SR says:
1. The speed of light is a universal constant.
The speed of light is measured to be (299,792,458m/1
clock second) in all inertial frames. This suggests that
a clock second is an interval of universal time.
Why do you say so?
If a clcok second is not a universal interval of time how
can the speed of light be a universal constant??
2. In the twin paradox scenario a clock second in
the traveling twin's clock is compared directly to
a clock second in the stay at home clock. Again this
suggests that a clock second is an interval of universal time.
Why didn't you address this? Are you admitting that in the twin paradox
situation a clock second is treated as an interval of universal time???
I'm not sure how to begin to address this, except to note
that a clock second is *not* an interval of universal time
Hand waving is not an arguement. If a clock second is not
an interval of universal time then why in SR a traveling
clock second is compared directly with a stay at home clcok second???
And what are we supposed to do with that clock second?
Throw it back?
The comparison is valid if done properly (light beams),
although some interesting anomalies occur because of the
movement and the Lorentz transformation.
but merely a convenient method by which to package a series
of vibrations in known phenomena, specifically Cs-133 atoms
in free-fall in our current implementation. If one assumes
that the frequency of a Cs-133 atom, relative to someone
standing next to the clock, is constant, then one gets as
close as a definition of "universal time" as one can get
in SR.
All observers uses the same defintion for a clock second.
Correct.
If a clcok second is not an interval of universal time
It's not.
then the definition for a clock second is not a difinition
for *universal time*.
Correct!
That means that you can't compared
clock seconds in different frames directly.
Not without some care, no. The clock seconds are traditionally
compared using lightbeams.
That doesn't mean someone driving past the clock will get
the same count -- even if one assumes Galilean relativity.
The pulses from the clock have to catch up with the driver,
hence the corrective term vx/c^2 in the Lorentz Transformation:
Here you are saying that a clock second represents a
different amount of *time* in different frame.
I would agree to that. In fact that's the reason
why the speed of light using a clcok second is
a constant math ratio as follows:
Light path length of rod (299,792,458m)/the universal time content for a
clcok second co-moving with the rod.
Whatever the hell a "light path length of rod" is supposed to mean.
Assume a path of exactly 1 meter, as measured by a conventional
meter stick (if one can do so accurately enough!). Standing still,
one sees:
*-------------------| t=1/299792458 s
1 meter
If, however, the observer is moving, he sees:
*--------------| t=sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)/299792458 s
sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) meter
The speed is still c.
Ken Seto
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Contradictory Claims in SR: |
08 Feb 2005 09:20:33 AM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:c0tld2-olr.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
In sci.physics, kenseto
<kenseto@erinet.com>
wrote
on Mon, 07 Feb 2005 14:51:33 GMT
<VfLNd.19501$i42.3128@fe1.columbus.rr.com>:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:m7oid2-vqa.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
In sci.physics, kenseto
<kenseto@erinet.com>
wrote
on Sun, 06 Feb 2005 16:08:16 GMT
<QhrNd.7447$XY5.4992@fe2.columbus.rr.com>:
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:cu4ind$fvv$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:fydNd.16480$i42.301@fe1.columbus.rr.com...
Some Contradictory Claims in SR:
SR says:
1. The speed of light is a universal constant.
The speed of light is measured to be (299,792,458m/1
clock second) in all inertial frames. This suggests that
a clock second is an interval of universal time.
Why do you say so?
If a clcok second is not a universal interval of time how
can the speed of light be a universal constant??
2. In the twin paradox scenario a clock second in
the traveling twin's clock is compared directly to
a clock second in the stay at home clock. Again this
suggests that a clock second is an interval of universal time.
Why didn't you address this? Are you admitting that in the twin
paradox
situation a clock second is treated as an interval of universal
time???
I'm not sure how to begin to address this, except to note
that a clock second is *not* an interval of universal time
Hand waving is not an arguement. If a clock second is not
an interval of universal time then why in SR a traveling
clock second is compared directly with a stay at home clcok second???
And what are we supposed to do with that clock second?
Throw it back?
???????????
The comparison is valid if done properly (light beams),
although some interesting anomalies occur because of the
movement and the Lorentz transformation.
The comparison is valid only if a clock second is an interval of universal
time. Please remember that we are talking about what SR says....not what I
said.
but merely a convenient method by which to package a series
of vibrations in known phenomena, specifically Cs-133 atoms
in free-fall in our current implementation. If one assumes
that the frequency of a Cs-133 atom, relative to someone
standing next to the clock, is constant, then one gets as
close as a definition of "universal time" as one can get
in SR.
All observers uses the same defintion for a clock second.
Correct.
If a clcok second is not an interval of universal time
It's not.
hand waving is not an auguement. It appears that you don't know what an
interval of universal time means.
then the definition for a clock second is not a difinition
for *universal time*.
Correct!
That means that you can't compared
clock seconds in different frames directly.
Not without some care, no. The clock seconds are traditionally
compared using lightbeams.
????? No clock seconds are compared directly when the twins are rejoined. No
light beams are involved.
That doesn't mean someone driving past the clock will get
the same count -- even if one assumes Galilean relativity.
The pulses from the clock have to catch up with the driver,
hence the corrective term vx/c^2 in the Lorentz Transformation:
Here you are saying that a clock second represents a
different amount of *time* in different frame.
I would agree to that. In fact that's the reason
why the speed of light using a clcok second is
a constant math ratio as follows:
Light path length of rod (299,792,458m)/the universal time content for a
clcok second co-moving with the rod.
Whatever the hell a "light path length of rod" is supposed to mean.
It means that the light path length of a rod is not the same as the physical
length of a rod when the rod is in a state of absolute motion. SR call this
length contraction but in real life it is the light path length get longer.
Assume a path of exactly 1 meter, as measured by a conventional
meter stick (if one can do so accurately enough!). Standing still,
one sees:
*-------------------| t=1/299792458 s
1 meter
When you use clock second to measure length then you are not measuring the
true length. Why? because a clcok second contains a different amount of
universal time in different frames (different state of absolute motion).
Ken Seto
If, however, the observer is moving, he sees:
*--------------| t=sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)/299792458 s
sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) meter
The speed is still c.
Ken Seto
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Contradictory Claims in SR: |
14 Feb 2005 12:58:25 PM |
|
|
Is this the Ken Seto that lives in Savannah, GA, or the one that lives
in Clarkston, MI, or the one that lives in Xenia, OH?
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Contradictory Claims in SR: |
15 Feb 2005 04:26:31 AM |
|
|
"PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1108407505.354189.253580@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Is this the Ken Seto that lives in Savannah, GA, or the one that lives
in Clarkston, MI, or the one that lives in Xenia, OH?
PD
Georgia.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Contradictory Claims in SR: |
05 Feb 2005 09:50:27 PM |
|
|
kenseto Feb 5, 4:30 pm show options
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> - Find messages by this author
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 00:30:03 GMT
Local: Sat, Feb 5 2005 4:30 pm
Subject: Some Contradictory Claims in SR:
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
Some Contradictory Claims in SR:
SR says:
1. The speed of light is a universal constant.
The speed of light is measured to be (299,792,458m/1 clock second) in
all
inertial frames. This suggests that a clock second is an interval of
universal time.
COMMENT:
Not unless the m is a universal unit of length in all inertial frames.
Which it is not.
L/T = c in all inertial frames. But both the length of L, and rate of T
vary between co-moving frames. Only the ratio is fixed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Contradictory Claims in SR: |
06 Feb 2005 09:48:39 AM |
|
|
"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1107661827.521077.46870@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
kenseto Feb 5, 4:30 pm show options
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> - Find messages by this author
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 00:30:03 GMT
Local: Sat, Feb 5 2005 4:30 pm
Subject: Some Contradictory Claims in SR:
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
Some Contradictory Claims in SR:
SR says:
1. The speed of light is a universal constant.
The speed of light is measured to be (299,792,458m/1 clock second) in
all
inertial frames. This suggests that a clock second is an interval of
universal time.
COMMENT:
Not unless the m is a universal unit of length in all inertial frames.
Which it is not.
In SR the physical length of a rod remains the same in all frames. The light
path length of a rod varies from frame to frame. In his 1905 paper he define
the speed of light as:
light path/an interval of time.
In any case you implied that a clock second is NOT an interval of universal
time then how come the speed of light can be a universal constant???
L/T = c in all inertial frames. But both the length of L, and rate of T
vary between co-moving frames. Only the ratio is fixed.
So you are saying that a clock second is not an interval of universal time
and that the speed of light is a math ratio. I agree with this assertion and
I came up with the following definition for the speed of light::
Light path length of rod (299,792,458m)/the universal time (duration) for a
clock second co-moving with the rod.
This new definition makes SR into an aether theory. :-)
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Guy Gordon" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Contradictory Claims in SR: |
06 Feb 2005 02:12:50 AM |
|
|
"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
kenseto Feb 5, 4:30 pm show options
Some Contradictory Claims in SR:
SR says:
1. The speed of light is a universal constant.
The speed of light is measured to be (299,792,458m/1 clock second) in all
inertial frames. This suggests that a clock second is an interval of
universal time.
COMMENT:
Not unless the m is a universal unit of length in all inertial frames.
Which it is not.
L/T = c in all inertial frames. But both the length of L, and rate of T
vary between co-moving frames. Only the ratio is fixed.
I get the feeling that not only Special Relativity, but even simple ratios are
beyond him.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Contradictory Claims in SR: |
06 Feb 2005 09:53:28 AM |
|
|
"Guy Gordon" <gordon@NOSPAMwhite-crane.com> wrote in message
news:dakb011r8d2j22mf06eo4s2q0fsp5gj1eb@4ax.com...
"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
kenseto Feb 5, 4:30 pm show options
Some Contradictory Claims in SR:
SR says:
1. The speed of light is a universal constant.
The speed of light is measured to be (299,792,458m/1 clock second) in all
inertial frames. This suggests that a clock second is an interval of
universal time.
COMMENT:
Not unless the m is a universal unit of length in all inertial frames.
Which it is not.
L/T = c in all inertial frames. But both the length of L, and rate of T
vary between co-moving frames. Only the ratio is fixed.
I get the feeling that not only Special Relativity, but even simple ratios
are
beyond him.
I got the feeling that you are stupid. You don't understand the simple fact
that when you use a clock second to define a universal constant (the speed
of light) that implies that a clock second is also a universal constant.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Contradictory Claims in SR: |
06 Feb 2005 05:23:00 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"Guy Gordon" <gordon@NOSPAMwhite-crane.com> wrote in message
news:dakb011r8d2j22mf06eo4s2q0fsp5gj1eb@4ax.com...
"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
kenseto Feb 5, 4:30 pm show options
Some Contradictory Claims in SR:
SR says:
1. The speed of light is a universal constant.
The speed of light is measured to be (299,792,458m/1 clock second) in all
inertial frames. This suggests that a clock second is an interval of
universal time.
COMMENT:
Not unless the m is a universal unit of length in all inertial frames.
Which it is not.
L/T = c in all inertial frames. But both the length of L, and rate of T
vary between co-moving frames. Only the ratio is fixed.
I get the feeling that not only Special Relativity, but even simple ratios
are
beyond him.
I got the feeling that you are stupid. You don't understand the simple fact
that when you use a clock second to define a universal constant (the speed
of light) that implies that a clock second is also a universal constant.
Even simple ratios are beyond kenseto,
http://www.google.com/search?q=seto+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ken+H.+Seto%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
OTOH, UC/Irvine mght snap him up in a New York second with a fat
scholarship. Asians are specifically excluded from the UC system with
much higher admission standards. That they make up nearly 50% of the
student body anyway means any White kid who espys a sea of straight
black hair in any class' first lecture runs for his life. Adding a
few kensetos would tremendously ease performance anxiety and White
flight by having dreadful grades for the year before they were
expelled.
I'll tell you how bad it is in the Science Quad. My nephew was
hounded by UCI for admission, and he comes with a cosmetically altered
nose and a prayer shawl. I guess he was White enough, considering.
He went elsewhere because he doesn't know how to buy wholesale. How
the mighty have fallen.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Contradictory Claims in SR: |
07 Feb 2005 08:33:13 AM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4206A6D4.A53B6385@hate.spam.net...
kenseto wrote:
"Guy Gordon" <gordon@NOSPAMwhite-crane.com> wrote in message
news:dakb011r8d2j22mf06eo4s2q0fsp5gj1eb@4ax.com...
"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
kenseto Feb 5, 4:30 pm show options
Some Contradictory Claims in SR:
SR says:
1. The speed of light is a universal constant.
The speed of light is measured to be (299,792,458m/1 clock second) in
all
inertial frames. This suggests that a clock second is an interval of
universal time.
COMMENT:
Not unless the m is a universal unit of length in all inertial
frames.
Which it is not.
L/T = c in all inertial frames. But both the length of L, and rate of
T
vary between co-moving frames. Only the ratio is fixed.
I get the feeling that not only Special Relativity, but even simple
ratios
are
beyond him.
I got the feeling that you are stupid. You don't understand the simple
fact
that when you use a clock second to define a universal constant (the
speed
of light) that implies that a clock second is also a universal constant.
Even simple ratios are beyond kenseto,
Hey idiot, so you are saying that the speed of light is NOT a universal
constant as asserted by Einstein. It is a constant math ratio as follows:
Light path length of rod (299,792,458m)/the universal time content for a
clock second co-moving with the rod.
Uncle Al is a runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their ***** like
gourmet puppy chow. An ***** who will attack anybody
who disagrees with SR.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Contradictory Claims in SR: |
06 Feb 2005 12:42:08 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"Guy Gordon" <gordon@NOSPAMwhite-crane.com> wrote in message
news:dakb011r8d2j22mf06eo4s2q0fsp5gj1eb@4ax.com...
"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
kenseto Feb 5, 4:30 pm show options
Some Contradictory Claims in SR:
SR says:
1. The speed of light is a universal constant.
The speed of light is measured to be (299,792,458m/1 clock second) in all
inertial frames. This suggests that a clock second is an interval of
universal time.
COMMENT:
Not unless the m is a universal unit of length in all inertial frames.
Which it is not.
L/T = c in all inertial frames. But both the length of L, and rate of T
vary between co-moving frames. Only the ratio is fixed.
I get the feeling that not only Special Relativity, but even simple ratios
are
beyond him.
I got the feeling that you are stupid. You don't understand the simple fact
that when you use a clock second to define a universal constant (the speed
of light) that implies that a clock second is also a universal constant.
Ken Seto
No universal time, no absolute reference frame, Seto, but you sure do have
a lot of immortal fumbles
http://www.google.com/search?q=seto+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be
and you are a registered crank
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ken+H.+Seto%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Contradictory Claims in SR: |
06 Feb 2005 12:57:31 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:4ytNd.53192$eT5.32976@attbi_s51...
kenseto wrote:
"Guy Gordon" <gordon@NOSPAMwhite-crane.com> wrote in message
news:dakb011r8d2j22mf06eo4s2q0fsp5gj1eb@4ax.com...
"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
kenseto Feb 5, 4:30 pm show options
Some Contradictory Claims in SR:
SR says:
1. The speed of light is a universal constant.
The speed of light is measured to be (299,792,458m/1 clock second) in
all
inertial frames. This suggests that a clock second is an interval of
universal time.
COMMENT:
Not unless the m is a universal unit of length in all inertial frames.
Which it is not.
L/T = c in all inertial frames. But both the length of L, and rate of T
vary between co-moving frames. Only the ratio is fixed.
I get the feeling that not only Special Relativity, but even simple
ratios
are
beyond him.
I got the feeling that you are stupid. You don't understand the simple
fact
that when you use a clock second to define a universal constant (the
speed
of light) that implies that a clock second is also a universal constant.
Ken Seto
Wormy is a runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their ***** like
gourmet puppy chow. An ***** who will attack anybody
who disagrees with SR.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Contradictory Claims in SR: |
06 Feb 2005 05:41:39 PM |
|
|
No universal time, no absolute reference frame, Seto, but you sure do have
a lot of immortal fumbles
http://www.google.com/search?q=seto+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be
and you are a registered crank
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ken+H.+Seto%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Contradictory Claims in SR: |
07 Feb 2005 08:26:28 AM |
|
|
"Morituri-|-Max" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote in message
news:TWxNd.13538$sr1.11940@fe2.texas.rr.com...
ROTFLOL....Idiot runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their ***** like
gourmet puppy chow. An ***** who will attack anybody
who disagrees with SR.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Contradictory Claims in SR: |
05 Feb 2005 08:36:53 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
Some Contradictory Claims in SR:
[snip crap]
None. Special Relativity is a rigorously derived self-consistent
hyperbolic geometry. Your intractible intransigent incurable
psychotic stooopidity is not SR's problem.
Internal inconsistencies in SR (meaning inconsistencies of a purely
mathematical logical nature) automatically lead to contradictions in
number theory, itself, and arithmetic, since the mathematics of
Minkowski geometry is equiconsistent with the theory of real numbers
and with arithmetic.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Contradictory Claims in SR: |
06 Feb 2005 09:33:28 AM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:420582C5.8F0C5925@hate.spam.net...
kenseto wrote:
Some Contradictory Claims in SR:
[snip crap]
None. Special Relativity is a rigorously derived self-consistent
hyperbolic geometry. Your intractible intransigent incurable
psychotic stooopidity is not SR's problem.
Uncle Al is a runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their ***** like
gourmet puppy chow. An ***** who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Contradictory Claims in SR: |
06 Feb 2005 12:41:14 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:420582C5.8F0C5925@hate.spam.net...
kenseto wrote:
Some Contradictory Claims in SR:
[snip crap]
None. Special Relativity is a rigorously derived self-consistent
hyperbolic geometry. Your intractible intransigent incurable
psychotic stooopidity is not SR's problem.
Uncle Al is a runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their ***** like
gourmet puppy chow. An ***** who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR.
Ken Seto
Seto's just this crank, you know?
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Contradictory Claims in SR: |
06 Feb 2005 12:56:41 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:extNd.22652$C24.7593@attbi_s52...
kenseto wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:420582C5.8F0C5925@hate.spam.net...
kenseto wrote:
Some Contradictory Claims in SR:
[snip crap]
None. Special Relativity is a rigorously derived self-consistent
hyperbolic geometry. Your intractible intransigent incurable
psychotic stooopidity is not SR's problem.
Uncle Al is a runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their ***** like
gourmet puppy chow. An ***** who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR.
Ken Seto
Seto's just this crank, you know?
Wormy is a runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their ***** like
gourmet puppy chow. An ***** who will attack anybody
who disagrees with SR.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Contradictory Claims in SR: |
07 Feb 2005 08:36:04 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
Some Contradictory Claims in SR:
SR says:
1. The speed of light is a universal constant.
The speed of light is measured to be (299,792,458m/1 clock second) in
all
inertial frames. This suggests that a clock second is an interval of
universal time.
It suggests no such thing. The number you quoted is a conversion factor
and NOTHING MORE. There is no physical implication, any more than 2.54
cm/in would declare that an inch is an interval of universal distance.
PD
2. In the twin paradox scenario a clock second in the traveling
twin's clock
is compared directly to a clock second in the stay at home clock.
Again this
suggests that a clock second is an interval of universal time.
SR also says:
A clock second in A's frame does not correspond to a clock second in
B's
frame. This suggests that a clock second is not an interval of
universal
time.
The question:
Which of these two views of SR is correct????
Ken Seto
Some Contradictory Claims of SR
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Contradictory Claims in SR: |
07 Feb 2005 10:09:34 AM |
|
|
"PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107786964.640625.245050@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
Some Contradictory Claims in SR:
SR says:
1. The speed of light is a universal constant.
The speed of light is measured to be (299,792,458m/1 clock second) in
all
inertial frames. This suggests that a clock second is an interval of
universal time.
It suggests no such thing. The number you quoted is a conversion factor
and NOTHING MORE. There is no physical implication, any more than 2.54
cm/in would declare that an inch is an interval of universal distance.
Hey idiot the speed of light is not a conversion factor and it is nothing
like 2.54cm/in. SR claims that the speed of light is a universal constant
then it implies that a clock second uses to define it must also represent a
specific interval of universal time. BTW I disagree with this SR implication
that a clock second represents a specfic interval of universal time in all
inertial frames.
I think that a clock second represents a different amount of universal time
in different frames. This means that the speed of light is not a universal
constant but rather it is a constant math ratio in all inertial frames as
follows:
Light path length of rod (299,792,458m)/the universal time content for a
clock second co-moving with the rod.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Contradictory Claims in SR: |
07 Feb 2005 10:28:40 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107786964.640625.245050@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
Some Contradictory Claims in SR:
SR says:
1. The speed of light is a universal constant.
The speed of light is measured to be (299,792,458m/1 clock
second) in
all
inertial frames. This suggests that a clock second is an interval
of
universal time.
It suggests no such thing. The number you quoted is a conversion
factor
and NOTHING MORE. There is no physical implication, any more than
2.54
cm/in would declare that an inch is an interval of universal
distance.
Hey idiot the speed of light is not a conversion factor and it is
nothing
like 2.54cm/in. SR claims that the speed of light is a universal
constant
then it implies that a clock second uses to define it must also
represent a
specific interval of universal time. BTW I disagree with this SR
implication
that a clock second represents a specfic interval of universal time
in all
inertial frames.
On the contrary, SR implies that, in proper units applied to space and
time, the speed of light is 1. It's only when you apply a conversion
factor -- 1 s = 299,792,458 m -- that you get that ridiculous value for
the speed of light, 299,792,458 m/s.
Refusal to acknowledge this fact on your part leads you to another
misplaced presumption: that either the denominator or the numerator of
that conversion factor must be a fixed unit in some universal sense.
Following that simple, misplaced presumption leads to a misguided and
factually incorrect theory, which has cost you an exorbitant amount of
time and resources that would have been better spent in some other
direction. It's not too late to repent.
PD
I think that a clock second represents a different amount of
universal time
in different frames. This means that the speed of light is not a
universal
constant but rather it is a constant math ratio in all inertial
frames as
follows:
Light path length of rod (299,792,458m)/the universal time content
for a
clock second co-moving with the rod.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Contradictory Claims in SR: |
07 Feb 2005 10:59:22 AM |
|
|
"PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107793720.605793.78390@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107786964.640625.245050@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
Some Contradictory Claims in SR:
SR says:
1. The speed of light is a universal constant.
The speed of light is measured to be (299,792,458m/1 clock
second) in
all
inertial frames. This suggests that a clock second is an interval
of
universal time.
It suggests no such thing. The number you quoted is a conversion
factor
and NOTHING MORE. There is no physical implication, any more than
2.54
cm/in would declare that an inch is an interval of universal
distance.
Hey idiot the speed of light is not a conversion factor and it is
nothing
like 2.54cm/in. SR claims that the speed of light is a universal
constant
then it implies that a clock second uses to define it must also
represent a
specific interval of universal time. BTW I disagree with this SR
implication
that a clock second represents a specfic interval of universal time
in all
inertial frames.
On the contrary, SR implies that, in proper units applied to space and
time, the speed of light is 1. It's only when you apply a conversion
factor -- 1 s = 299,792,458 m -- that you get that ridiculous value for
the speed of light, 299,792,458 m/s.
ROTFLOL....so you think that by inventing a rubber second and a rubber ruler
will refute the existence of universal time and absolute space???? <shrug>
Don't you know that that's the reason why SR has limited applicability?
Ken Seto
Refusal to acknowledge this fact on your part leads you to another
misplaced presumption: that either the denominator or the numerator of
that conversion factor must be a fixed unit in some universal sense.
Following that simple, misplaced presumption leads to a misguided and
factually incorrect theory, which has cost you an exorbitant amount of
time and resources that would have been better spent in some other
direction. It's not too late to repent.
PD
I think that a clock second represents a different amount of
universal time
in different frames. This means that the speed of light is not a
universal
constant but rather it is a constant math ratio in all inertial
frames as
follows:
Light path length of rod (299,792,458m)/the universal time content
for a
clock second co-moving with the rod.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Contradictory Claims in SR: |
07 Feb 2005 11:13:39 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
On the contrary, SR implies that, in proper units applied to space and
time, the speed of light is 1. It's only when you apply a conversion
factor -- 1 s = 299,792,458 m -- that you get that ridiculous value for
the speed of light, 299,792,458 m/s.
ROTFLOL....so you think that by inventing a rubber second and a rubber ruler
will refute the existence of universal time and absolute space???? <shrug>
Don't you know that that's the reason why SR has limited applicability?
Ken Seto
Refusal to acknowledge this fact on your part leads you to another
misplaced presumption: that either the denominator or the numerator of
that conversion factor must be a fixed unit in some universal sense.
Following that simple, misplaced presumption leads to a misguided and
factually incorrect theory, which has cost you an exorbitant amount of
time and resources that would have been better spent in some other
direction. It's not too late to repent.
PD
Seto is too stoopid to see the error in his thinking. Let him just
ROTFLOL in his own stupor.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Contradictory Claims in SR: |
07 Feb 2005 01:06:18 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:7lNNd.24589$C24.10940@attbi_s52...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
On the contrary, SR implies that, in proper units applied to space and
time, the speed of light is 1. It's only when you apply a conversion
factor -- 1 s = 299,792,458 m -- that you get that ridiculous value for
the speed of light, 299,792,458 m/s.
ROTFLOL....so you think that by inventing a rubber second and a rubber
ruler
will refute the existence of universal time and absolute space????
<shrug>
Don't you know that that's the reason why SR has limited applicability?
Ken Seto
Refusal to acknowledge this fact on your part leads you to another
misplaced presumption: that either the denominator or the numerator of
that conversion factor must be a fixed unit in some universal sense.
Following that simple, misplaced presumption leads to a misguided and
factually incorrect theory, which has cost you an exorbitant amount of
time and resources that would have been better spent in some other
direction. It's not too late to repent.
PD
Seto is too stoopid to see the error in his thinking. Let him just
ROTFLOL in his own stupor.
Wormy is a runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their ***** like
gourmet puppy chow. An ***** who will attack anybody
who disagrees with SR.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Contradictory Claims in SR: |
07 Feb 2005 11:25:14 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Seto is too stoopid to see the error in his thinking. Let him just
ROTFLOL in his own stupor.
I don't have much faith that Seto will recant anything, but I do want
to circumscribe the keystone of his blindness.
PD
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Contradictory Claims in SR: |
07 Feb 2005 11:12:27 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107793720.605793.78390@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107786964.640625.245050@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
Some Contradictory Claims in SR:
SR says:
1. The speed of light is a universal constant.
The speed of light is measured to be (299,792,458m/1 clock
second) in
all
inertial frames. This suggests that a clock second is an
interval
of
universal time.
It suggests no such thing. The number you quoted is a
conversion
factor
and NOTHING MORE. There is no physical implication, any more
than
2.54
cm/in would declare that an inch is an interval of universal
distance.
Hey idiot the speed of light is not a conversion factor and it is
nothing
like 2.54cm/in. SR claims that the speed of light is a universal
constant
then it implies that a clock second uses to define it must also
represent a
specific interval of universal time. BTW I disagree with this SR
implication
that a clock second represents a specfic interval of universal
time
in all
inertial frames.
On the contrary, SR implies that, in proper units applied to space
and
time, the speed of light is 1. It's only when you apply a
conversion
factor -- 1 s = 299,792,458 m -- that you get that ridiculous value
for
the speed of light, 299,792,458 m/s.
ROTFLOL....so you think that by inventing a rubber second and a
rubber ruler
will refute the existence of universal time and absolute space????
<shrug>
Don't you know that that's the reason why SR has limited
applicability?
The rubber second and the rubber ruler are not prior to the dispensing
of awkward units, though they will follow as a consequence of that bit
of dust-bunny-cleansing. This is important. Realize that meters for
distance and seconds for time is an irrational prejudice, and SR will
follow easily.
Now, as to the limited applicability of SR, what exactly do you mean?
Under what circumstances does SR not apply?
PD
Ken Seto
Refusal to acknowledge this fact on your part leads you to another
misplaced presumption: that either the denominator or the numerator
of
that conversion factor must be a fixed unit in some universal
sense.
Following that simple, misplaced presumption leads to a misguided
and
factually incorrect theory, which has cost you an exorbitant amount
of
time and resources that would have been better spent in some other
direction. It's not too late to repent.
PD
I think that a clock second represents a different amount of
universal time
in different frames. This means that the speed of light is not a
universal
constant but rather it is a constant math ratio in all inertial
frames as
follows:
Light path length of rod (299,792,458m)/the universal time
content
for a
clock second co-moving with the rod.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
