|
|
| Author |
Message |
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 = (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!
|
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 |
|
 |
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 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.
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
|
xxein: You did not get my point. CONCEPT!!!
I can give all kinds of mathmatical forms, but what do they signify? |
|
| 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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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 = (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!
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 childish--you 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 |
|
|
kenseto
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2151
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:26 pm Post subject:
Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.
|
|
|
<xxein@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1152590890.307205.223430@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
kenseto wrote:
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 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.
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
xxein: You did not get my point. CONCEPT!!!
I can give all kinds of mathmatical forms, but what do they signify?
|
They signify that SRT is incomplete and IRT is complete. They signify that
the observer's clock can run fast or slow compared to an observed clock.
They signify that the physical length of a rod remains the same in all
frames and that the light path length of a moving rod wrt the observer is
changing. BTW all these are the consequences of the IRT postulates as
described in the above link.
Ken Seto
Ken Seto
> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sam Wormley
science forum Guru
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 1491
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:38 pm Post subject:
Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.
|
|
|
kenseto wrote:
| Quote: |
They [equations?] signify that SRT is incomplete and IRT is complete.
They [equations?] signify that the observer's clock can run fast or
slow compared to an observed clock.
|
The equations of Special Relativity (SR) show that an observed clock
in relative motion to an observer is *always slowed* with respect to
the observer's clock. If [the equations of] IRT shows otherwise, then
IRT is fatal flawed, as nature is accurately modeled by SR. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jem
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 616
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:40 pm Post subject:
Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.
|
|
|
jem:
| Quote: | The GT isn't consistent with the concept of a speed limit. No viable
ether theory incorporates it.
|
rotchm:
| Quote: | 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.
|
Is there no end to the clown parade on this newsgroup? When ruler and
clock measurements are described by the GT, velocity composition is
additive, which means speeds aren't limited.
Learn how to quote properly.
| Quote: |
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 |
|
|
kenseto
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2151
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:41 pm Post subject:
Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.
|
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:dvGsg.73756$1i1.50269@attbi_s72...
| Quote: | kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:D2Csg.29525$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 = (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!
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 childish--you 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".
|
Hey idiot....the observer's clock second is also defined as an interval of
absolute time ...a defined absolute second. The IRT equations [1] and [2]
predict the clock reading in the *observed* frame for a defined absolute
second in the observer's frame. Notice that the passage of a defined
absolute second does not have the same clock reading in the observer's frame
as in the *observed* frame. In the observer's frame the passage of a defined
absolute second is one of abserver's clock second. In the *observed* frame
the passage of a defined absolute second can be less or more than one of the
*observed* clock second. However, these two different clock readings has the
same absolute time content...namely a defined absolute second.
Ken Seto |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sam Wormley
science forum Guru
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 1491
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:49 pm Post subject:
Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.
|
|
|
kenseto wrote:
| Quote: | They signify that SRT is incomplete and IRT is complete. They signify that
the observer's clock can run fast or slow compared to an observed clock.
|
The equations of Special Relativity (SR) show that an observed clock
in relative motion to an observer is *always slowed* with respect to
the observer's clock. If [the equations of] IRT shows otherwise, then
IRT is fatally flawed, as nature is accurately modeled by SR. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sam Wormley
science forum Guru
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 1491
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:51 pm Post subject:
Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.
|
|
|
kenseto wrote:
| Quote: |
In the *observed* frame
the passage of a defined absolute second can be less or more than one of the
*observed* clock second. However, these two different clock readings has the
same absolute time content...namely a defined absolute second.
|
The equations of Special Relativity (SR) show that an observed clock
in relative motion to an observer is *always slowed* with respect to
the observer's clock. If [the equations of] IRT shows otherwise, then
IRT is fatally flawed, as nature is accurately modeled by SR. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rotchm@gmail.com
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 111
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:28 pm Post subject:
Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.
|
|
|
| Quote: | 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.
Is there no end to the clown parade on this newsgroup? When ruler and
clock measurements are described by the GT, velocity composition is
additive, which means speeds aren't limited.
Learn how to quote properly.
|
Obviously, you have no clue of modern ether theories. Of course ruler
and clocks are additive and speeds are not limited. But due to
"physical" contractions of rulers (and slowdowns of clocks),
*measurements* of lightspeed (vacuo) are limited and give c. You should
know that. There are numerous sites and litterature indicating that SR
and (modern) ether theories are equivalent.
The algerba of SR and Ether are different. Their end results are the
same...just do the algera and you will see... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenseto
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2151
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:34 pm Post subject:
Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.
|
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:d7Nsg.30382$FQ1.18413@attbi_s71...
| Quote: | kenseto wrote:
They signify that SRT is incomplete and IRT is complete. They signify
that
the observer's clock can run fast or slow compared to an observed clock.
The equations of Special Relativity (SR) show that an observed clock
in relative motion to an observer is *always slowed* with respect to
the observer's clock. If [the equations of] IRT shows otherwise, then
IRT is fatally flawed, as nature is accurately modeled by SR.
|
You are a stupid idiot. The reason why SR is incomplete because it only show
that an observed clock is running slow. This cannot be unless the observer
is in a state of absolute rest. In real life all clocks are in a state of
absolute motion....this means that the observer's clock can run fast or slow
compared to an observed clock. Eqautions [1] and [2] of IRT show this
clearly. So when you claimed that IRT is flawed is in fact that SRT is
incomplete.
Ken Seto |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenseto
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2151
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:37 pm Post subject:
Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.
|
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:t9Nsg.30385$FQ1.19111@attbi_s71...
| Quote: | kenseto wrote:
In the *observed* frame
the passage of a defined absolute second can be less or more than one of
the
*observed* clock second. However, these two different clock readings has
the
same absolute time content...namely a defined absolute second.
The equations of Special Relativity (SR) show that an observed clock
in relative motion to an observer is *always slowed* with respect to
the observer's clock. If [the equations of] IRT shows otherwise, then
IRT is fatally flawed, as nature is accurately modeled by SR.
|
Fucking idiot runt.
The reason why SR is incomplete because it only show
that an observed clock is running slow. This cannot be unless the observer
is in a state of absolute rest. In real life all clocks are in a state of
absolute motion....this means that the observer's clock can run fast or slow
compared to an observed clock. Eqautions [1] and [2] of IRT show this
clearly. So when you claimed that IRT is flawed is in fact that SRT is
incomplete.
Ken Seto |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dda1
science forum Guru
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 762
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:58 pm Post subject:
Ken Seto - CRETIN
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Fri Feb 08, 2013 11:14 pm | All times are GMT
|
|
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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
Science and Technology
»
Physics
»
Relativity
