Search   Memberlist   Usergroups
 Page 2 of 15 [215 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 13, 14, 15 Next
Author Message
kenseto
science forum Guru

Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2151

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 2:44 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.

<surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
 Quote: kenseto wrote: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. This simple assertion is the basis of all what's wrong with SR. It gives rise to the bogus concept of time dilation and length contraction. The correct statement is as follows: Time is absolute. A clock second will contain a different amount of absolute time in a different state of absolute motion (different frame) of the clock. The existence of absolute time is the reason why all observer measure the speed of light to be a constant math ratio of c as follows: c=light path length of physical ruler(299,792,458m)/the absolute time content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler. This new defintion for the speed of light gives rise to a new theory of relativity called Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). IRT includes SRT as a subset. Your theory cannot possibly be an improved version of relativity because your theory is clearly absolutistic, not relativistic. For a theory to be relativistic, the theory must treat all (local) inertial frames as completely identical for all theoretical purposes in the treatment of physical laws.

Clearly you don't know what you are talking about. You reach the above
conclusion without reading my theory. The postulates of my theory IRT are as
follows:
1. The laws of physics based on a clock second and a light-second to measure
length are the same for all observers in all inertial reference frames.
2. The speed of light in free space based on a clock second and a
light-second to measure length has the same mathematical ratio c in all
directions and all inertial frames.
3. The laws of physics based on a defined absolute second and the physical
length of a rod is different in different frames of reference.
4. The one-way speed of light in free space based on a defined absolute
second and the physical length of a measuring rod has a different
mathematical ratio for light speed in different inertial frames. The speed
of light based on a defined absolute second and the physical length of a
measuring rod is a maximum in the rest frame of the E-Matrix.

The first two postulates of IRT are identical to the postulates of SRT and
that's why SRT is a subset of IRT.

Ken Seto
Sam Wormley
science forum Guru

Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 1491

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 3:42 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.

kenseto wrote:
 Quote: ..there is no such thing as time dilation. The emperical data merely show that the relative clocks are running at different rates due to the clock second in different frames contains a different amount of absolute time. The emperical data does not show physical length contraction. It shows that the light path length of a moving rod can be shorter or longer than the light path length of the observer's rod.

SR is a subset of "your model" according to you, Seto, and it definitely
predicts time dilation, which has been confirmed in countless experiments
and observations, including satellite based navigation systems.

SR predicts that time and space are malleable. In fact, there has never
been a prediction of SR that was contradicted by an observation.
tomgee1
science forum Guru

Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 750

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 4:43 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.

kenseto wrote:
 Quote: "tomgee" wrote in message news:1152478989.504262.309480@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... kenseto wrote: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. This simple assertion is the basis of all what's wrong with SR. It gives rise to the bogus concept of time dilation and length contraction. Then, if it is a subset of your theory, doesn't that make your theory wrong too? That queston has already been asked of you, but I have not seen your answer to it. The correct statement is as follows: Time is absolute. Not so. Time is a dimension - a property of the universe. As such, it cannot be an absolute anything in either the common or scientific sense of the term "absolute", because as a property, it is not a fundamental thing. You can claim it is all you want to, but until you can explain how you can claim it is an absolute, you are just stating your unsupported opinion which I refute with my arguments above. ROTFLOL.....so your assertion becomes proof? BTW I am still waiting for you to sue me for using your idea on *time*. I did not say my idea was "proof". I said my idea is supported

by my arguments, but your idea is not. You cannot explain
you for that over and over. You either don't have the vocabulary
skills needed to do that or you don't have an answer for those
questions. Either way, you cannot properly defend your theory.
AllYou!
science forum Guru

Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1088

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 4:46 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.

"tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote in message
 Quote: kenseto wrote: "tomgee" wrote in message news:1152478989.504262.309480@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... kenseto wrote: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. This simple assertion is the basis of all what's wrong with SR. It gives rise to the bogus concept of time dilation and length contraction. Then, if it is a subset of your theory, doesn't that make your theory wrong too? That queston has already been asked of you, but I have not seen your answer to it. The correct statement is as follows: Time is absolute. Not so. Time is a dimension - a property of the universe. As such, it cannot be an absolute anything in either the common or scientific sense of the term "absolute", because as a property, it is not a fundamental thing. You can claim it is all you want to, but until you can explain how you can claim it is an absolute, you are just stating your unsupported opinion which I refute with my arguments above. ROTFLOL.....so your assertion becomes proof? BTW I am still waiting for you to sue me for using your idea on *time*. I did not say my idea was "proof". I said my idea is supported by my arguments, but your idea is not. You cannot explain several of your posited tenets even though readers have asked you for that over and over.

That describes you too!

 Quote: You either don't have the vocabulary skills needed to do that or you don't have an answer for those questions.

Again, that's you!

 Quote: Either way, you cannot properly defend your theory.

And an unsupported opinion to boot!
rotchm@gmail.com
science forum Guru Wannabe

Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 111

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 4:55 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.

 Quote: The GT isn't consistent with the concept of a speed limit. No viable ether theory incorporates it.

GT says nothing about a speed limit. It is neither consistent nor
inconsistent with a speed limit. Speed limit must be assumed if relying
only on GT. LT says that there is a speed limit due to construction.

But, Maxwell eq. imply speed limit. There are ether theories (field eq.
theories) which imply speed limits, length & time contractions etc..
all based on GT.

These two theories (ether's ans SR), although have different
postulates, are 'equivalent' and empirically identical..(almost?).
dda1
science forum Guru

Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 762

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 5:01 pm    Post subject: Dick Head Ken Seto and his ST (s**t Theory)

kenseto wrote:
 Quote: surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1152541355.578278.198590@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... kenseto wrote: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. This simple assertion is the basis of all what's wrong with SR. It gives rise to the bogus concept of time dilation and length contraction. The correct statement is as follows: Time is absolute. A clock second will contain a different amount of absolute time in a different state of absolute motion (different frame) of the clock. The existence of absolute time is the reason why all observer measure the speed of light to be a constant math ratio of c as follows: c=light path length of physical ruler(299,792,458m)/the absolute time content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler. This new defintion for the speed of light gives rise to a new theory of relativity called Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). IRT includes SRT as a subset. Your theory cannot possibly be an improved version of relativity because your theory is clearly absolutistic, not relativistic. For a theory to be relativistic, the theory must treat all (local) inertial frames as completely identical for all theoretical purposes in the treatment of physical laws. Clearly you don't know what you are talking about. You reach the above conclusion without reading my theory. The postulates of my theory IRT are as follows: 1. The laws of physics based on a clock second and a light-second to measure length are the same for all observers in all inertial reference frames. 2. The speed of light in free space based on a clock second and a light-second to measure length has the same mathematical ratio c in all directions and all inertial frames. 3. The laws of physics based on a defined absolute second and the physical length of a rod is different in different frames of reference. 4. The one-way speed of light in free space based on a defined absolute second and the physical length of a measuring rod has a different mathematical ratio for light speed in different inertial frames. The speed of light based on a defined absolute second and the physical length of a measuring rod is a maximum in the rest frame of the E-Matrix. The first two postulates of IRT are identical to the postulates of SRT and that's why SRT is a subset of IRT. Ken Seto

I didn't snip this one because it is perfect for the Immortal Fumbles.

Cretinoid, your IRt has 4 postulates, SR has 2 , how can SR be a subset
kenseto
science forum Guru

Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2151

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 5:54 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.

"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:Xzusg.72894\$1i1.15692@attbi_s72...
 Quote: kenseto wrote: ..there is no such thing as time dilation. The emperical data merely show that the relative clocks are running at different rates due to the clock second in different frames contains a different amount of absolute time. The emperical data does not show physical length contraction. It shows that the light path length of a moving rod can be shorter or longer than the light path length of the observer's rod. SR is a subset of "your model" according to you, Seto, and it definitely predicts time dilation, which has been confirmed in countless experiments and observations, including satellite based navigation systems.

Hey idiot runt......the SR time dilation is merely a clcok second in the
moving frame contains a larger amount of absolute time.

Ken Seto
Sam Wormley
science forum Guru

Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 1491

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:15 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.

kenseto wrote:

 Quote: Hey idiot runt......the SR time dilation is merely a clcok second in the moving frame contains a larger amount of absolute time. Ken Seto

SR is a subset of "your model" according to you, Seto, and it definitely
predicts time dilation, which has been confirmed in countless experiments
and observations, including satellite based navigation systems.

SR predicts that time and space are malleable. In fact, there has never
been a prediction of SR that was contradicted by an observation.
Sam Wormley
science forum Guru

Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 1491

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:17 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.

kenseto wrote:

 Quote: The first two postulates of IRT are identical to the postulates of SRT and that's why SRT is a subset of IRT. Ken Seto

SR is a subset of "your model" according to you, Seto, and it definitely
predicts time dilation, which has been confirmed in countless experiments
and observations, including satellite based navigation systems.

SR predicts that time and space are malleable. In fact, there has never
been a prediction of SR that was contradicted by an observation.
kenseto
science forum Guru

Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2151

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 11:22 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.

"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:fBysg.29287\$FQ1.18453@attbi_s71...
 Quote: kenseto wrote: The first two postulates of IRT are identical to the postulates of SRT and that's why SRT is a subset of IRT. Ken Seto SR is a subset of "your model" according to you, Seto, and it definitely predicts time dilation, which has been confirmed in countless experiments and observations, including satellite based navigation systems.

SR didn't predict time dilation. It predicted relative clocks are running at
different rates and you runts interpret that as time dilation.

Ken Seto
kenseto
science forum Guru

Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2151

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 11:24 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.

"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:szysg.73191\$1i1.34561@attbi_s72...
 Quote: kenseto wrote: Hey idiot runt......the SR time dilation is merely a clcok second in the moving frame contains a larger amount of absolute time. Ken Seto SR is a subset of "your model" according to you, Seto, and it definitely predicts time dilation, which has been confirmed in countless experiments and observations, including satellite based navigation systems.

SR didn't predict time dilation. It predicted relative clocks are running at
different rates and you runts interpret that as time dilation.

Ken Seto
Sam Wormley
science forum Guru

Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 1491

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 11:52 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.

kenseto wrote:

 Quote: SR didn't predict time dilation. It predicted relative clocks are running at different rates and you runts interpret that as time dilation. Ken Seto

Oh, but SR does predict time dilation for any entity in relative motion
to an observer.

t' = t_0/gamma, where gamma = (1-v^2/c^2)^-0.5 with v being the

relative velocity and c being the speed of light. Not only is it
routinely observed in nature, but it is necessary to take it into
account in numerous devices in our lives.
dda1
science forum Guru

Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 762

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 11:54 pm    Post subject: s**t for Brains Ken Seto

..
 Quote: SR didn't predict time dilation. It predicted relative clocks are running at different rates and you runts interpret that as time dilation. Ken Seto

Umm, no f*** face. Eistein showed the transverse Doppler effect, one of
the purest forms of time dilation in his 1905 paper, m**********r!
kenseto
science forum Guru

Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2151

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 11:58 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.

"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:tLBsg.73423\$1i1.52041@attbi_s72...
 Quote: kenseto wrote: SR didn't predict time dilation. It predicted relative clocks are running at different rates and you runts interpret that as time dilation. Ken Seto Oh, but SR does predict time dilation for any entity in relative motion to an observer. t' = t_0/gamma, where gamma = (1-v^2/c^2)^-0.5 with v being the relative velocity and c being the speed of light. Not only is it routinely observed in nature, but it is necessary to take it into account in numerous devices in our lives.

Hey idiot....that's not time dilation. That's the observed clock is running
at a slower rate compared to the observer's clcok.

Ken Seto
Sam Wormley
science forum Guru

Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 1491

Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:13 am    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.

kenseto wrote:
 Quote: "Sam Wormley" wrote in message news:tLBsg.73423\$1i1.52041@attbi_s72... kenseto wrote: SR didn't predict time dilation. It predicted relative clocks are running at different rates and you runts interpret that as time dilation. Ken Seto Oh, but SR does predict time dilation for any entity in relative motion to an observer. t' = t_0/gamma, where gamma = (1-v^2/c^2)^-0.5 with v being the relative velocity and c being the speed of light. Not only is it routinely observed in nature, but it is necessary to take it into account in numerous devices in our lives. Hey idiot....that's not time dilation. That's the observed clock is running at a slower rate compared to the observer's clcok. Ken Seto

Yes sir--Time dilation has the effect of making the observed clock run
slower than the observer's clock--You don't have to be an idiot to
notice that!

 Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First
 Page 2 of 15 [215 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 13, 14, 15 Next View previous topic :: View next topic
 The time now is Sat Apr 20, 2019 10:53 am | All times are GMT
 Jump to: Select a forum-------------------Forum index|___Science and Technology    |___Math    |   |___Research    |   |___num-analysis    |   |___Symbolic    |   |___Combinatorics    |   |___Probability    |   |   |___Prediction    |   |       |   |___Undergraduate    |   |___Recreational    |       |___Physics    |   |___Research    |   |___New Theories    |   |___Acoustics    |   |___Electromagnetics    |   |___Strings    |   |___Particle    |   |___Fusion    |   |___Relativity    |       |___Chem    |   |___Analytical    |   |___Electrochem    |   |   |___Battery    |   |       |   |___Coatings    |       |___Engineering        |___Control        |___Mechanics        |___Chemical

 Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post Similar Topics For the Einstein worshipers and skeptics 3ality Relativity 3 Tue Oct 02, 2007 11:23 pm "Einstein's Unfortunate Legacy #2" Tde Relativity 0 Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:10 pm "Einstein's Unfortunate Legacy #2" Tde Particle 0 Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:10 pm "Einstein's Unfortunate Legacy #2" Tde Physics 0 Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:09 pm Undestanding SR - examination time. Nicolaas Vroom Relativity 14 Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:00 pm