FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 14 of 15 [215 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 12, 13, 14, 15 Next
Author Message
rotchm@gmail.com
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 111

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

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?).
Back to top
AllYou!
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1088

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

"tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152549812.796023.127260@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

kenseto wrote:
"tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> 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!
Back to top
tomgee1
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 750

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

kenseto wrote:
Quote:
"tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> 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. 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.
Back to top
Sam Wormley
science forum Guru


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 1491

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

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.
Back to top
kenseto
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2151

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

<surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152541355.578278.198590@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
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
Back to top
kenseto
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2151

PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 2:31 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

<xxein@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1152487278.589075.124370@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
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. 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! Co-moving with the ruler.

That sort of limits your theory to Einstein's.

No it doesn't.
Quote:

Did you want to do the math differently? Feel free. It is the same
basic until you want to re-define the terms.

Yes IRT has different math. It is described in the above link.

Ken Seto
Back to top
kenseto
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2151

PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 2:28 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

"jambaugh" <ego@jamesbaugh.info> wrote in message
news:1152477796.307598.209370@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
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.

These "bogus concepts" are indeed misleading. But understand that they
resulted from the empirical data in the Michelson-Morley experiment and
the prior aether based theory which SR supplanted.

No....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.

Quote:
It was supposed
that movement through the aether must slow clocks and shorten measuring
rods in just such a way as to prevent the speed through the aether from
actually being measurable. Einstein then relativized time and
eliminated the need to invoke the aether.

Einstein didn't eliminate the aether at all. The null result of the MMX is
due to the mirrors at the ends of the arms acted as sources and SR says that
the speed of light is independent of the motion of the source and thus the
null result. However, the reason why the speed of light is source
independent is because light is being transmitted by a stationary ether at
constant speed.
Quote:

But his statement, which you quoted, is incontrovertible as it is not a
"scientific theory" but rather an invocation of the very definition of
science (i.e. that science talks about what we can observe and
measure).

His statement is not a good definition for time. Why? Because the passage of
a clock second in one frame does not correspond to the passage of a clock
second in another frame. This is because a clock second contains a different
amount of absolute time in different frames.

Quote:
You may invoke an "absolute time" or some other metaphysical
assertion such as "god" or "djins" but until you explain how such can
be empirically determined you are not refering to a scientific
theory/definition. You are in fact preaching a religious belief.

Sigh....but the whole purpose of SR is to predict the clock time reading in
the observed frame for an absolute time interval (such as a clock second in
the observer's frame) in the observer's frame. The GPS is a good example of
application of absolute time to synchronize the GPS clock with the ground
clock.
Quote:

With regard to your pet theories, your inability to comprehend the
point I made above make me suspicious of any merit in them so I will
not waste time reading them. You can place them atop the compost pile
of other "disproofs of Einstein" which kooks post here weekly.

ROTFLOL.....You need to study physics for another 20 years to reach my level
of understanding of real physics.

Ken Seto
Back to top
surrealistic-dream@hotmai
science forum Guru


Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 409

PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 2:22 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

kenseto wrote:
Quote:
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.
Back to top
jem
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 616

PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 1:35 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

rotchm@gmail.com wrote:

Quote:
These "bogus concepts" are indeed misleading.


Yes...misleading. Now why such a 'genious' keep his concepts misleading
instead of making it simple and clear?


Einstein then relativized time


or, *redefined* time. He used a new definition of 'time', different
from Newtons (absolute) time. To fit empirical results, he had to
change the algebra (making c=constant in all frames does this). That is
why we have LT equations in SR. Physicist could have kept the old
(absolute) definition of time and the good old Galilean Transformations
(GT).

The GT isn't consistent with the concept of a speed limit. No viable
ether theory incorporates it.
Back to top
kenseto
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2151

PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 1:28 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

"tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152478989.504262.309480@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
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. 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*.

Ken Seto
Back to top
rotchm@gmail.com
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 111

PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 1:18 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

Quote:
These "bogus concepts" are indeed misleading.

Yes...misleading. Now why such a 'genious' keep his concepts misleading
instead of making it simple and clear?

Quote:
Einstein then relativized time

or, *redefined* time. He used a new definition of 'time', different
from Newtons (absolute) time. To fit empirical results, he had to
change the algebra (making c=constant in all frames does this). That is
why we have LT equations in SR. Physicist could have kept the old
(absolute) definition of time and the good old Galilean Transformations
(GT). That (simple and usual) algebra makes the same predictions as SR.
That is why it is claimed that (modern) ether theory and SR are
(empirically) equivalent.

Quote:
eliminated the need to invoke the aether.

Correct. Did not 'prove' ether was unexistant. Showed that it was
unnecesarry.

Quote:
But his statement, which you quoted, is incontrovertible as it is not a
"scientific theory" but rather an invocation of the very definition of
science (i.e. that science talks about what we can observe and
measure).

That is the style at this time....

You may invoke an "absolute time" or some other metaphysical
Quote:
assertion such as "god" or "djins" but until you explain how such can
be empirically determined you are not refering to a scientific
theory/definition.

Q: so what if absotlute time is metaphysical?
It (ehter theory) does make the same predictions as SR and since it
uses the well familiar GT, this makes the theory much simpler (in my
view). (I am not saying that Seto's theory is good..he has alooooot of
work to do on it.)

Also, why in this case metaphysical stuff is not 'permitted' but in
other branches of physics/cosmology it is accepted.

Oh, and btw, do not use the concept of i=sqrt(-1) anymore because it is
not measurable.

Quote:
With regard to your pet theories, your inability to comprehend the
point I made above make me suspicious of any merit in them so I will
not waste time reading them.

I fully agree an that.

Quote:
Oh, by the way, Einstein's special relativity is also (locally) valid
in the presence of gravitation.

But ehter theory agree also agrees in global gravitaion..

Im outta here!

-*-*

If you want to be sure, then always doubt

}:-)

-*-*
Back to top
AllYou!
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1088

PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:15 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

"tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152478989.504262.309480@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
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. 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.

All you posted above was a question and an unsupported opinion.
Back to top
Dirk Van de moortel
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 3019

PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 11:41 am    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message news:aL8sg.20855$u11.6993@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
Quote:
Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.

Every engineer says that time is what a clock measures:
http://units.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html

Only armchair philosophers can have a problem with
that statement.

Dirk Vdm
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:13 am    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

"jambaugh" <ego@jamesbaugh.info> wrote in message
news:1152477796.307598.209370@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
|
| kenseto wrote:
| > Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.

kenseto is a fool.
Einstein said

"Die letztere Zeit kann nun definiert werden, indem man durch Definition
festsetzt, daß die "Zeit", welche das Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu
gelangen, gleich ist der "Zeit", welche es braucht, um von B nach A zu
gelangen. "

which translates into English as

"We have not defined a common "time" for A and B, for the latter cannot be
defined at all unless we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B
to A.

and then he cooked up his cuckoo transformations.

Androcles.
Back to top
xxein@bellsouth.net
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 272

PostPosted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 11:21 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

kenseto wrote:
Quote:
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. 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! Co-moving with the ruler.

That sort of limits your theory to Einstein's.

Did you want to do the math differently? Feel free. It is the same
basic until you want to re-define the terms.

Theories contain conceptual terms. If the concept is not right, the
theory is trash, no matter how well it describes an event.

Putting "all" events together in a rational description of their
evidentiality is another story.

Sorry, no cigar!
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 14 of 15 [215 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 12, 13, 14, 15 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Sat Jun 27, 2015 5:27 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts For the Einstein worshipers and skeptics 3ality Relativity 3 Tue Oct 02, 2007 11:23 pm
No new posts Undestanding SR - examination time. Nicolaas Vroom Relativity 14 Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:00 pm
No new posts WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN? Pentcho Valev Relativity 7 Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:24 am
No new posts Space-time and time dilation Henry Haapalainen Relativity 40 Sun Jul 16, 2006 9:58 pm
No new posts Clock Properties dseppala@austin.rr.com Relativity 11 Sat Jul 15, 2006 11:24 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0821s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0365s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]