Author 
Message 
Sam Wormley science forum Guru
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 1491

Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 5:16 am Post subject:
Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.



kenseto wrote:
Quote:  "Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:D2Csg.29525$FQ1.8620@attbi_s71...
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> 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 = (1v^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 sirTime dilation has the effect of making the observed clock run
slower than the observer's clockYou don't have to be an idiot to
notice that!
Yes sir you are an idiot. The reason why relative clock is running slow is
because its clock second contains a larger amount of absolute time.
Ken Seto

That's pretty childishyou saying "its clock second contains a
larger amount of absolute time". Show me your equations defining
absolute time and time dilation. That is certainly missing from
your online "paper". 

Back to top 


Rod Ryker science forum addict
Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Posts: 91

Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 5:06 am Post subject:
Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.



tomgee wrote:
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.
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.

Rod: Property is owned and or associated with.
A moving square has an (x), (y), (z), and (t) associated with it.
However, this is according to you, an observer who uses these
dimensions to associate with the moving square.
YOU associated the dimensions NOT the square.
Now, onward to the Universe.
It observes nothing, therefore dimensions are not part of its
vocabulary.
It is ONLY the observer that owns and or associates stuff with
properties.
Rod Ryker...
It is reasoning and faith that bind truth. 

Back to top 


dda1 science forum Guru
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 762

Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 4:46 am Post subject:
Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.



kenseto wrote:
<idiocy snipped>
Don't you get tired of having so many people s**t on you and on your
"theory"?
When you die, there are still going to be people shitting on your grave
(for a while). 

Back to top 


xxein@bellsouth.net science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 272

Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 4:08 am Post subject:
Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.



kenseto wrote:
Quote:  xxein@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1152487278.589075.124370@35g2000cwc.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 comoving 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. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT are valid in all
environments, including gravity. A description of IRT is in the
following
link (page 4):
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Unification.pdf
Ken Seto
xxein: Oh! Comoving with the ruler.
That sort of limits your theory to Einstein's.
No it doesn't.
Did you want to do the math differently? Feel free. It is the same
basic until you want to redefine the terms.
Yes IRT has different math. It is described in the above link.
Ken Seto

xxein: You did not get my point. CONCEPT!!!
I can give all kinds of mathmatical forms, but what do they signify? 

Back to top 


kenseto science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2151

Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:51 am Post subject:
Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.



"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:D2Csg.29525$FQ1.8620@attbi_s71...
Quote:  kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> 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 = (1v^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 sirTime dilation has the effect of making the observed clock run
slower than the observer's clockYou don't have to be an idiot to
notice that!

Yes sir you are an idiot. The reason why relative clock is running slow is
because its clock second contains a larger amount of absolute time.
Ken Seto 

Back to top 


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" <swormley1@mchsi.com> 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 = (1v^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 sirTime dilation has the effect of making the observed clock run
slower than the observer's clockYou don't have to be an idiot to
notice that! 

Back to top 


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 = (1v^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 

Back to top 


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! 

Back to top 


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 = (1v^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. 

Back to top 


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 

Back to top 


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 

Back to top 


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. 

Back to top 


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. 

Back to top 


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 

Back to top 


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:  surrealisticdream@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 comoving 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 lightsecond 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
lightsecond 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 oneway 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 EMatrix.
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
of your theory. Disgusting Imbecile! 

Back to top 


Google


Back to top 



The time now is Sat Jun 27, 2015 5:27 am  All times are GMT

