Education Forums
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
kenseto
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 1:43 pm Post subject: The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild goos |
 |
|
The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild goose chase:
TIME (duration) is what the clock measures.
This SR definition implies that a clock second represents the same
amount of TIME (duration) in different frames. This means that a clock
second is an interval of universal TIME. This, in turn, leads to the
assertion that time is flexible. This means that when two clocks are
in relative motion the different clock seconds accumlulated by each
clock is due to that the flow of TIME through the clocks is different
in different frames. In other words, the different clock seconds
accumulated by each clock is not due to that the clocks are running at
different rates when they are in different frames.
On the other hand SR also asserts that the passage of a clock second
in observer A's clock corresponds to the passage of less than a clock
second in the observed B clock. This means that a clock second is not
an interval of universal TIME.
It appears that SR is making contradictory claims.
The correct SR interpretation of TIME should be as follows:
1. Absolute time exists. The rate of passage of absolute time in
insensitive to any motion. In other words, the rate of passage of
absolute time is the same in all frames.
2. A clock second will represents a specfic interval of absolute time
at the frame of the clock.
3. A clock second in different frames will represent different
interval of absolute time.
4. Clocks in relative motion run at different rates intrinsically.
These new interpretations of TIME gives a viable explanation why the
speed of light is measured to be a constant math ratio in all frames
as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458 m long physically)/the
absolute time content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
This new definition for the speed of light gives rise to a new theory
of relativity called: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). IRT includes
SRT as a subset. However, unlkie SRT the equations of IRT are valid in
all environments, including gravity. A Paper on IRT entitled "Improved
Relativity Theory and Doppler Theory of Gravity" is available in my
website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Albertito
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:10 pm Post subject: Re: The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild |
|
|
On Jun 13, 2:59 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message
b64cae6e-6079-448b-990d-b9e9d2693...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild goose chase:
TIME (duration) is what the clock measures.
FIRST mistake.
This is not an SR definition. This is a HUMAN BEINGS definition.
If we all carry the same type of clock, then we all use it to measure
something we *call* time.
SR has something to say about what we will find when we all
measure how long a certain well-defined process takes while using
our own personal clocks.
This SR definition implies that a clock second represents the same
amount of TIME (duration) in different frames.
SECOND mistake.
This definition implies that a clock second CAN represent a
DIFFERENT amount of time (duration) in different frames.
This is where your personal wild goose starts.
Dirk Vdm
|
___ ____ ____ ___ _ _ _ ______ __
/ _ \| _ \| _ \_ _| \ | | / \ | _ \ \ / /
| | | | |_) | | | | || \| | / _ \ | |_) \ V /
| |_| | _ <| |_| | || |\ |/ ___ \| _ < | |
\___/|_| \_\____/___|_| \_/_/ \_\_| \_\|_|
_ _ ____ ____ _____ ____ ____ _ ____ _____
| | | | _ \| _ \| ____| _ \ / ___| / \ / ___|| ____|
| | | | |_) | |_) | _| | |_) | | / _ \ \___ \| _|
| |_| | __/| __/| |___| _ <| |___ / ___ \ ___) | |___
\___/|_| |_| |_____|_| \_\\____/_/ \_\____/|_____|
__ _____ _ _ _ _ ___ _____ ____ _____
\ \ / /_ _| | | | | \ | |/ _ \_ _| | __ )| ____|
\ \ /\ / / | || | | | | \| | | | || | | _ \| _|
\ V V / | || |___| |___ | |\ | |_| || | | |_) | |___
\_/\_/ |___|_____|_____| |_| \_|\___/ |_| |____/|_____|
____ _ _ _____ _____ ___ ____ ___ _____ _ _ _____ _
/ ___|| | | | ___| ___|_ _/ ___|_ _| ____| \ | |_ _| |
\___ \| | | | |_ | |_ | | | | || _| | \| | | | | |
___) | |_| | _| | _| | | |___ | || |___| |\ | | | |_|
|____/ \___/|_| |_| |___\____|___|_____|_| \_| |_| (_) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Eric Gisse
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:07 pm Post subject: Re: The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild |
|
|
On Jun 13, 5:43 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
[...]
Should we celebrate when you reach 15 years of arguing about SR even
though you still clearly have no idea what you are talking about? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 6:59 pm Post subject: Re: The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild |
|
|
kenseto <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
b64cae6e-6079-448b-990d-b9e9d269387d@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
| Quote: |
The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild goose chase:
TIME (duration) is what the clock measures.
|
FIRST mistake.
This is not an SR definition. This is a HUMAN BEINGS definition.
If we all carry the same type of clock, then we all use it to measure
something we *call* time.
SR has something to say about what we will find when we all
measure how long a certain well-defined process takes while using
our own personal clocks.
| Quote: |
This SR definition implies that a clock second represents the same
amount of TIME (duration) in different frames.
|
SECOND mistake.
This definition implies that a clock second CAN represent a
DIFFERENT amount of time (duration) in different frames.
This is where your personal wild goose starts.
Dirk Vdm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 7:18 pm Post subject: Re: The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild |
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:g2tuh7$on0$1@news-pa1.hpl.hp.com...
| Quote: |
SECOND mistake.
This definition implies that a clock second CAN represent a
DIFFERENT amount of time (duration) in different frames.
|
Univserse to Dirk,
Come in Dirk
Are you actually thinking at all?
clocks CAN and DO represent different amounts of
periodic count rates in different frames. (It is called time dilation)
Sheesh!
It is simple too,
The clock malfunctions and shows a different time on the
face than the other clock does. and even more stupid,
if they did not have such a physical problem, there would be no
discussion about this at all.
DUH! and....
Sheesh again!
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:49 pm Post subject: Re: The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild |
|
|
On Jun 14, 1:43 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild goose chase:
TIME (duration) is what the clock measures.
This SR definition implies that a clock second represents the same
amount of TIME (duration) in different frames. This means that a clock
second is an interval of universal TIME. This, in turn, leads to the
assertion that time is flexible. This means that when two clocks are
in relative motion the different clock seconds accumlulated by each
clock is due to that the flow of TIME through the clocks is different
in different frames. In other words, the different clock seconds
accumulated by each clock is not due to that the clocks are running at
different rates when they are in different frames.
On the other hand SR also asserts that the passage of a clock second
in observer A's clock corresponds to the passage of less than a clock
second in the observed B clock. This means that a clock second is not
an interval of universal TIME.
It appears that SR is making contradictory claims.
The correct SR interpretation of TIME should be as follows:
1. Absolute time exists. The rate of passage of absolute time in
insensitive to any motion. In other words, the rate of passage of
absolute time is the same in all frames.
2. A clock second will represents a specfic interval of absolute time
at the frame of the clock.
3. A clock second in different frames will represent different
interval of absolute time.
4. Clocks in relative motion run at different rates intrinsically.
These new interpretations of TIME gives a viable explanation why the
speed of light is measured to be a constant math ratio in all frames
as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458 m long physically)/the
absolute time content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
This new definition for the speed of light gives rise to a new theory
of relativity called: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). IRT includes
SRT as a subset. However, unlkie SRT the equations of IRT are valid in
all environments, including gravity. A Paper on IRT entitled "Improved
Relativity Theory and Doppler Theory of Gravity" is available in my
website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
|
I would feel much better if the theory was published in a journal
rather than a vanity press book!
K. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dono
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 5:56 am Post subject: Re: The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild |
|
|
On Jun 13, 6:43 am, kenshito <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
1. It appears that SR is making contradictory claims.
|
| Quote: |
2. IRT includes SRT as a subset.
|
Shito,
If IRT indeed includes SR as a subset and if Sr is indeed self-
contradictory as you claim, this means that IRT is self-
contradictory  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
kenseto
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 1:34 pm Post subject: Re: The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild |
|
|
On Jun 13, 6:49 pm, kronec...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 14, 1:43 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild goose chase:
TIME (duration) is what the clock measures.
This SR definition implies that a clock second represents the same
amount of TIME (duration) in different frames. This means that a clock
second is an interval of universal TIME. This, in turn, leads to the
assertion that time is flexible. This means that when two clocks are
in relative motion the different clock seconds accumlulated by each
clock is due to that the flow of TIME through the clocks is different
in different frames. In other words, the different clock seconds
accumulated by each clock is not due to that the clocks are running at
different rates when they are in different frames.
On the other hand SR also asserts that the passage of a clock second
in observer A's clock corresponds to the passage of less than a clock
second in the observed B clock. This means that a clock second is not
an interval of universal TIME.
It appears that SR is making contradictory claims.
The correct SR interpretation of TIME should be as follows:
1. Absolute time exists. The rate of passage of absolute time in
insensitive to any motion. In other words, the rate of passage of
absolute time is the same in all frames.
2. A clock second will represents a specfic interval of absolute time
at the frame of the clock.
3. A clock second in different frames will represent different
interval of absolute time.
4. Clocks in relative motion run at different rates intrinsically.
These new interpretations of TIME gives a viable explanation why the
speed of light is measured to be a constant math ratio in all frames
as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458 m long physically)/the
absolute time content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
This new definition for the speed of light gives rise to a new theory
of relativity called: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). IRT includes
SRT as a subset. However, unlkie SRT the equations of IRT are valid in
all environments, including gravity. A Paper on IRT entitled "Improved
Relativity Theory and Doppler Theory of Gravity" is available in my
website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
I would feel much better if the theory was published in a journal
rather than a vanity press book!
|
So are you saying that you can't think for yourself???? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
kenseto
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 2:09 pm Post subject: Re: The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild |
|
|
On Jun 14, 8:37 am, jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
| Quote: |
kenseto wrote:
The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild goose chase:
TIME (duration) is what the clock measures.
This SR definition implies that a clock second represents the same
amount of TIME (duration) in different frames. This means that a clock
second is an interval of universal TIME.
What the SR definition of time actually implies is that a clock second
represents the same amount of time on every standard clock, i.e., that
a clock second is a universal interval of time.
|
By "standard clock" do you mean the observer's clock? In that case how
is it become a standard since every observer can claim that his clock
is the standard clock and at the same time the flow of clock seconds
through every observer's clock is at different rates.
Also what do you mean a clock second is a universal interval of time?
Do you mean that the passage of a clock second in A's frame
corresponds to the passage of a clock second in B's frame??
| Quote: |
This, in turn, leads to the
assertion that time is flexible. This means that when two clocks are
in relative motion the different clock seconds accumlulated by each
clock is due to that the flow of TIME through the clocks is different
in different frames. In other words, the different clock seconds
accumulated by each clock is not due to that the clocks are running at
different rates when they are in different frames.
Well, that is a correct interpretation of SR, although it's a stretch
to characterize it as "time is flexible".
|
If a clock second is an interval of universal time then time must be
flexible (the passage of clock seconds) in order for two clocks in
relative motion to accumulate different clock seconds.
| Quote: |
On the other hand SR also asserts that the passage of a clock second
in observer A's clock corresponds to the passage of less than a clock
second in the observed B clock.
And that's correct too (assuming A is doing the measuring and B is in
motion relative to A).
This means that a clock second is not
an interval of universal TIME.
It appears that SR is making contradictory claims.
It's anybody's guess what you mean by "universal TIME", but your "time
is flexible" and "passage of time is less" observations above,
certainly don't contradict the SR implication that a clock second is a
universal interval of time - in fact they require it.
|
You definition that a clock second is a universal interval of time
needs to be defined more clearly. Do you mean that a clock second will
have the same duration in all frames? In other words the time
(duration) required to complete a transition by the Cs atom is the
same in all frames? If that is what you mean then I disagree.
| Quote: |
The correct SR interpretation of TIME should be as follows:
1. Absolute time exists. The rate of passage of absolute time in
insensitive to any motion. In other words, the rate of passage of
absolute time is the same in all frames.
2. A clock second will represents a specfic interval of absolute time
at the frame of the clock.
3. A clock second in different frames will represent different
interval of absolute time.
4. Clocks in relative motion run at different rates intrinsically.
That's not the "correct" interpretation - it's merely a /different/
interpretation. In fact, it's the LET interpretation.
|
No its not the LET interpretation. The LET interpretation place the
observer's clock in the rest frame of the ether. My interpretation
says that the observer's clock is in a state of absolute motion in the
ether. That's why every IRT observer does not claim that his clock is
the fastest running clock in the universe. He claims that some clocks
moving wrt him are running slow and some are running fast.
Ken Seto
| Quote: |
[snip Setoland fantasy] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
jem
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 5:37 pm Post subject: Re: The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
| Quote: |
The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild goose chase:
TIME (duration) is what the clock measures.
This SR definition implies that a clock second represents the same
amount of TIME (duration) in different frames. This means that a clock
second is an interval of universal TIME.
|
What the SR definition of time actually implies is that a clock second
represents the same amount of time on every standard clock, i.e., that
a clock second is a universal interval of time.
| Quote: |
This, in turn, leads to the
assertion that time is flexible. This means that when two clocks are
in relative motion the different clock seconds accumlulated by each
clock is due to that the flow of TIME through the clocks is different
in different frames. In other words, the different clock seconds
accumulated by each clock is not due to that the clocks are running at
different rates when they are in different frames.
|
Well, that is a correct interpretation of SR, although it's a stretch
to characterize it as "time is flexible".
| Quote: |
On the other hand SR also asserts that the passage of a clock second
in observer A's clock corresponds to the passage of less than a clock
second in the observed B clock.
|
And that's correct too (assuming A is doing the measuring and B is in
motion relative to A).
| Quote: |
This means that a clock second is not
an interval of universal TIME.
It appears that SR is making contradictory claims.
|
It's anybody's guess what you mean by "universal TIME", but your "time
is flexible" and "passage of time is less" observations above,
certainly don't contradict the SR implication that a clock second is a
universal interval of time - in fact they require it.
| Quote: |
The correct SR interpretation of TIME should be as follows:
1. Absolute time exists. The rate of passage of absolute time in
insensitive to any motion. In other words, the rate of passage of
absolute time is the same in all frames.
2. A clock second will represents a specfic interval of absolute time
at the frame of the clock.
3. A clock second in different frames will represent different
interval of absolute time.
4. Clocks in relative motion run at different rates intrinsically.
|
That's not the "correct" interpretation - it's merely a /different/
interpretation. In fact, it's the LET interpretation.
[snip Setoland fantasy] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Robert J. Kolker
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 6:34 pm Post subject: Re: The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild |
|
|
kenseto wrote:>
| Quote: |
So are you saying that you can't think for yourself????
|
What he means is that your work should be checked for errors by
competent professionals.
Have your theories been thoroughly tested experimentally. If not, you
are just blowing smoke. Experimental test is the hallmark of valid science.
Bob Kolker |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 4:07 am Post subject: Re: The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild |
|
|
On Jun 13, 5:43 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild goose chase:
TIME (duration) is what the clock measures.
This SR definition implies that a clock second represents the same
amount of TIME (duration) in different frames. This means that a clock
second is an interval of universal TIME. This, in turn, leads to the
assertion that time is flexible. This means that when two clocks are
in relative motion the different clock seconds accumlulated by each
clock is due to that the flow of TIME through the clocks is different
in different frames. In other words, the different clock seconds
accumulated by each clock is not due to that the clocks are running at
different rates when they are in different frames.
On the other hand SR also asserts that the passage of a clock second
in observer A's clock corresponds to the passage of less than a clock
second in the observed B clock. This means that a clock second is not
an interval of universal TIME.
It appears that SR is making contradictory claims.
The correct SR interpretation of TIME should be as follows:
1. Absolute time exists. The rate of passage of absolute time in
insensitive to any motion. In other words, the rate of passage of
absolute time is the same in all frames.
2. A clock second will represents a specfic interval of absolute time
at the frame of the clock.
3. A clock second in different frames will represent different
interval of absolute time.
4. Clocks in relative motion run at different rates intrinsically.
These new interpretations of TIME gives a viable explanation why the
speed of light is measured to be a constant math ratio in all frames
as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458 m long physically)/the
absolute time content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
This new definition for the speed of light gives rise to a new theory
of relativity called: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). IRT includes
SRT as a subset. However, unlkie SRT the equations of IRT are valid in
all environments, including gravity. A Paper on IRT entitled "Improved
Relativity Theory and Doppler Theory of Gravity" is available in my
website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
|
Acceleration makes slow time physics.
Mitch Raemsch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spirit of Truth
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 8:57 am Post subject: Re: The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:8de446e4-381d-49e9-b250-345ccb034e5e@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
No its not the LET interpretation. The LET interpretation place the
observer's clock in the rest frame of the ether. My interpretation
says that the observer's clock is in a state of absolute motion in the
ether. That's why every IRT observer does not claim that his clock is
the fastest running clock in the universe. He claims that some clocks
moving wrt him are running slow and some are running fast.
Ken Seto
.......................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................
Ken, does IRT get rid of lack of simultaneity (Einstein's train
experiement)?
Please review.
Thanks!
Spirit of Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 9:29 am Post subject: Re: The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild |
|
|
Spirit of Truth wrote:
| Quote: |
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:8de446e4-381d-49e9-b250-345ccb034e5e@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
No its not the LET interpretation. The LET interpretation place the
observer's clock in the rest frame of the ether. My interpretation
says that the observer's clock is in a state of absolute motion in the
ether. That's why every IRT observer does not claim that his clock is
the fastest running clock in the universe. He claims that some clocks
moving wrt him are running slow and some are running fast.
Ken Seto
............................................................................. |
...........................
| Quote: |
............................................................................. |
...........................
| Quote: |
Ken, does IRT get rid of lack of simultaneity (Einstein's train
experiement)?
|
If it uses absolute time, it would have to get rid of the lack of it,
since absolute time can make things happen simultaneously
very easily.
(or as close to technically possible at least)
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
93 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
