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: eric gisse on 6 Oct 2009 20:08 kenseto wrote: [...] How goes the quest to make people take you seriously?
From: Y.Porat on 7 Oct 2009 07:52 On Oct 6, 7:11 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > A clock second is not a universal interval of time. > What does this mean? ------------------- it means that there is not at all a universal interval of time !! time is an arbitrary human invention (not natures invention ) to describe relative motion to some arbitrary chosen MOTION REFERENCE !! (it might be the suns or moons or your clock or atomic movement whatever ) it is a very useful human invention! but not universal because if your movement reference will say slow its movement and you** depend only on that ** you would not notice it !! in parctice we check it by not being deoendant on jsut one movenet reference but still we are movement dependant on our movement comparisons if all of them will say slow down 'syncronically' (theoretically ) ie by the same rate -- you still will not beable to notice it !! it might be universal only in the sense of **human** common language ATB Y.Porat --------------------- > 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
From: Inertial on 7 Oct 2009 07:56 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:8b3b20da-1227-4a6c-a70e-a711599cffc6(a)g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 6, 7:11 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: >> A clock second is not a universal interval of time. >> What does this mean? > ------------------- > it means that there is not at all > a universal interval of time !! > > time is an arbitrary human invention > (not natures invention ) > to describe relative motion to some arbitrary > chosen MOTION REFERENCE !! > > (it might be the suns or moons or your clock > or atomic movement whatever ) > it is a very useful human invention! Nicely put
From: kenseto on 7 Oct 2009 09:07 On Oct 7, 7:52 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 6, 7:11 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:> A clock second is not a universal interval of time. > > What does this mean? > > ------------------- > it means that there is not at all > a universal interval of time !! No....it means that a clock second does not measure the same interval of universal time in different frames. Ken Seto > > time is an arbitrary human invention > (not natures invention ) > to describe relative motion to some arbitrary > chosen MOTION REFERENCE !! > > (it might be the suns or moons or your clock > or atomic movement whatever ) > it is a very useful human invention! > but not universal because if your movement reference will say slow its > movement > and you** depend only on that ** > you would not notice it !! > in parctice we check it by not being deoendant on jsut > one movenet reference > but still we are movement dependant > on our movement comparisons > if all of them will say slow down 'syncronically' > (theoretically ) > ie by the same rate -- > you still will not beable to notice it !! > > it might be universal only in the sense of > **human** common language > > ATB > Y.Porat > --------------------- > > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 7 Oct 2009 09:10
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. > > > > > > > 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/canonicalscienceto...- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |