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: RustyJames on 18 Oct 2009 19:58 On Oct 7, 6:19 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > news:4ffdd093-5f02-4743-abe6-adf96684f390(a)b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > > > On Oct 6, 7:32 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez > > <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > >> kenseto wrote on Tue, 06 Oct 2009 10:11:57 -0700: > > >> > A clock second is not a universal interval of time. > > >> Plain wrong. > > > You are plain stupid. If a clock second is a universal interval of > > time then the passage of a clock second in A's frame will correspond > > to the passage of a clock second in B's frame. > > In SR, A clock second for a clock stationary in frame A is the same as a > clock second for a clock stationary in frame B. > > Its only when you compare the measurements of rates of stationary vs moving > clocks that you get a difference. The moving clock would be measured as > ticking slower .. just as a moving rod would be measured as shorter. But > that is an artifact of the measurement, not of an intrinsic property of the > clock or rod itself. 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 might be true if you believe light has a constant speed from point a to point be but this is not so unless the impedance in the medium it travels through is constant or consistent but the resistance can be lowered allowing light to travel faster or increased to slow it down, thus changing your use of light as a intrinsic absolute standard.
From: Y.Porat on 19 Oct 2009 04:18
On Oct 19, 7:58 am, "Inertia > >> >> just about everything. > > >> > ------------- > >> > so why above in that tree > >> > of this thread > >> > you said a few words > >> > in my favor ?? > > >> Because, uncommonly, you said something sensible. Such a rare moment was > >> worthy of a comment. > > >> > now you regret about it ?? > > >> My only regret is it has encouraged you to spout more of your nonsense.. > >> Perhaps I should refrain from any positive comments toward you. > > > ----------------------- > > Ohh i see > > you are here nominated hear as super teacher of physics !! > > Good. I try. > > > logic > > > transparency ie not to hide your real identity > > showing you have nothing to hide about yourself > > and that you have no some personal politics agenda > > > - in general --- honesty !! > > I am very honest. indeed a very good evaluation of youself ... ------------- Why else would I say you'd made a good point when you > did? --------------------- but at that point you had to say: 'but you innovated nothing- i saw it many times before ' why didnt you say that then ?? or alternatively not to respond anything to that !! and as i know you you dont miss an opertunity to defame me so what was the difference at that cases ?? ------------- ?? ----------- But I am sensible enough not to reveal my identity to those dishonest > people here. > -------------- who are not honest a ccording to you ?? anyway it is not a convincing excuse for semi intelligent peopel you know why: because if you are even a standard person no one whould have a reason to hurt you in any way it is only if there is soemthing wrong or crooky in you that you have a reason to hide behind something forinstance a crocked personal AGENDA !! OR mission most probably for some personal achievements by some nasty tricky system of behaviour !!!-------------------------------- > > (a person how is not honest - is not a real scientist got it ???!! no chance -------------- > > it seems that that was in your education diet at all > > (may be a pupil of Josef Goebbels ??) > > Why are you obsessed with Goebbels? > -------------- becauase he lived in your country not long ago !!(forgeting what was his end !!) and you took him as sort of a teacher knowingly or unconscious ly !! one of his sytems was: th e bigger the lie it will be --- th e more chance will be that it will be accepted !! -------- - > > so were is your quote that > > shows that my above thought experiment is precedent-ed ? > > Its common knowledge .. such notions has been around for decades .. that is hand waving and not an answer of a serious **responsible** honest SCIENTIST !! it is a response of a little lier crookish .thief.. ------------------------ > centuries. Sure, you did manage to come up with the idea .. so have I .. ok show us the exact point and quote were you came up withthat idea 9if it is not documented it is not realted Personally in our ancient culture we keep strictly the culture of giving credit to the **originator !!* it says: if someone thought you even a **single letter* you should respect and quote him him for that !!! ----------------- .. so > have many many others in the past .. and so will many others in the future. > Who first cam up with the idea? No idea. indeed you have no idea because th efirst time you saw it as i dd was as i presented it !!! not anyone else i was taking about total freeze or common slow down at the same rate INCLUDING ALL THE BIOLOGICAL PROCESSES OF ALL LIVING CREATURES !! you never saw it in any other place !! unless you show a precedence ! (but you are nor intelligent (or honest )enough to understand even that lost point !! BYE Y.Porat ----------------------- |