A clock second is not a universal interval of time.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Editor of Physical Review A, Dr Gordon W.F. Drake does WRONG subtraction of 8th Class mathematics.
Next: Simultaneity of Relativity
From: Sam Wormley on 6 Oct 2009 16:37 hhc314 wrote: > On Oct 6, 3:01 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >> kenseto wrote: >>> A clock second is not a universal interval of time. >> A clock second is an invention of humans. >> >> An example of universal constant, on the other hand, is >> the speed of light/gravity which is totally independent >> of humans. >> >> Furthermore, Einstein showed in 1905 that neither time >> nor distance is absolute or fixed. Foe experimental con- >> firmation, see: >> >> What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity? >> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html > > Sam, that link you posted is pretty bad, sort of a laymans perceptions > of physics but not the real thing. > > You want to know the experimental basis of special Relativity. Check > any textbook on cyclic particle accelerator design. As the particle > being accelerated (say a proton) is accelerated to higher and higher > levels of enegy, guss what, it gains mass. Neglect the relativistic > gain in mass and your accelerator will not function. > > Here are some credible references on how to design a high energy > particle accator: > > Livingood, Principles of Cyclic Particle Accelerators, Van Nostrand, > New York > Livingston and Blewett, Particle Accelerators, McGraw-Hill, New York > > This list of quality, factual, scientific publications goes on and > on. That's why the large partical accelators function. The take into > design consideration the mass increase with acquired energy just a > predicted by good old Albert Einstein. In fact, the magnetic field in > a cyclic particle accelerator is ramped up precisely in accordance > with the particles gain in mass as it make multiple circuits around > the machine. > > I'm pretty familair with this subject, since as a grad student, I was > responsible for the tune-up computations for the PPA back in the > 1960s. In this machine, protons were injected using a linear > acceleration at an enery of 3-Mev, then accelerated to a terminal > energy of 1-Gev before smashing into a heavy metal plate to produces a > spray of mesons and other strange particles. > > I was trying to remember the relativist mass increase as a particle > like a proton is accelerated from 3-Mev to 1-Gev, but I couldn't find > my records (which of course stored in a safe place -- and you have to > be over 65 to understand what that means). It's easily computed, and > for some reason the figure 1800 to 1 comes into mind, but don't quote > me on that. > > Now here is the show stopper. Good old Albert predicted "c" as a > limiting velocity for any mass, and guess what happens in a particle > accerator: As the particle packet approaches "c", it's orbital > frequency approaches a constant value, and the machine is designed to > accomodate this. Hence, it is experimental evidence that no matter > how much energy you put into accelerating a mass particle of any type, > its limiting velocity is '"c". When you pump in addition energy, it > doesn't travel any faster, and simply gains mass. > > SR worked then, and a particle accelerator is pretty good experimental > evidence for that fact My guess is that SR still works now! > > Harry C. > Thanks Harry. -Sam
From: kenseto on 6 Oct 2009 17:23 On Oct 6, 3:01 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > A clock second is not a universal interval of time. > > A clock second is an invention of humans. > > An example of universal constant, on the other hand, is > the speed of light/gravity which is totally independent > of humans. Hey idiot what is the time interval you use to measure the speed of light????? If you say a clock second is a human invention does that mean that a clock second use to define light speed is also a human invention???? Ken Seto > > Furthermore, Einstein showed in 1905 that neither time > nor distance is absolute or fixed. Foe experimental con- > firmation, see: > > What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity? > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
From: Sam Wormley on 6 Oct 2009 17:37 kenseto(a)erinet.com wrote: > On Oct 6, 3:01 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >> kenseto wrote: >>> A clock second is not a universal interval of time. >> A clock second is an invention of humans. >> >> An example of universal constant, on the other hand, is >> the speed of light/gravity which is totally independent >> of humans. > > Hey idiot what is the time interval you use to measure the speed of > light????? If you say a clock second is a human invention does that > mean that a clock second use to define light speed is also a human > invention???? You got yer cart before yer chicken, Seto. The propagation of light existed long long before humings came up with some way to measure it. This in important, Seto, so pay attention! Light is used as a standard to DEFINE both units of distance and units of time. So join the 20th and 21st centuries, Seto! > > Ken Seto > >> Furthermore, Einstein showed in 1905 that neither time >> nor distance is absolute or fixed. Foe experimental con- >> firmation, see: >> >> What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity? >> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html >
From: Inertial on 6 Oct 2009 19:04 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:6b160fe1-4d0b-44d6-9e3c-938b151b03e7(a)p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > A clock second is not a universal interval of time. > What does this mean? You wouldn't know.
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 6 Oct 2009 19:32
kenseto wrote on Tue, 06 Oct 2009 10:11:57 -0700: > A clock second is not a universal interval of time. Plain wrong. > What does this mean? > It means that the passage of a clock second in A's frame does not > correspond to the passage of a clock second in B's frame. In other > words, 1 A clock second has different duration than 1 B clock second. > This revelation has the following consequences: 1. In the Twin paradox > situation a traveling clock second accumulated during the journey of the > traveling clock cannot be compared directly with a stay at home clock > second to reach the conclusion that the traveling clock (twin) is > younger. > 2. The speed of light as defined by a local clock second is not a > universal constant as claimed by SR. Instead it is a constant math ratio > in all every SR observer's frame 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 IRT. IRT includes SR as a subset. However, unlike SR, > the equations of IRT are valid for use 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 -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html |