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: PD on 7 Oct 2009 12:30 On Oct 6, 12:11 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > A clock second is not a universal interval of time. > What does this mean? > It means that the passage of a clock second in A's frame does not > correspond to the passage of a clock second in B's frame. OK. Nor is a clock second defined to be a universal interval of time. It is a local standard that applies in the reference frame in which the clock is at rest. > In other > words, 1 A clock second has different duration than 1 B clock second. Duration is frame-dependent. 1 A-clock second has the same duration in A's frame as 1 B-clock second has in B's frame. This we know because a physical process at rest in A will take the same time on the A-clock as the identical physical process at rest in B will take on the B- clock. However, 1 A-clock second will have a different duration in B's frame as 1 B-clock second has in B's frame. > 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. Of course it can be compared. There is nothing more involved in the comparison than writing down the readings of the two clocks and holding them up to each other to see if they are the same or different. There is no requirement that the two clocks have to be sharing a frame-independent second to make that comparison. That is something that only you dreamed up. > 2. The speed of light as defined by a local clock second is not a > universal constant as claimed by SR. Yes, it is. It's a matter of terminology. You believe that a constant math ratio and a universal constant mean two different things -- and that is language that you made up. In physics, a constant is a constant. If you don't like that, you can stuff it. > 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: PD on 7 Oct 2009 12:34 On Oct 7, 8:15 am, "kens...(a)erinet.com" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Oct 6, 5:37 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > > > > > kens...(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! > > Wormy using the speed of light to define units of distance and time is > circular. No, it's not. The constancy of the speed of light was established long before it was used to define the meter. That is an INDEPENDENTLY established fact. Once the fact is established, there is no harm in using the fact to redefine the meter. After all, the fact doesn't suddenly *change* in the universe once you've redefined the meter. > > > > > > 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-Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -
From: Y.Porat on 7 Oct 2009 13:40 On Oct 7, 1:56 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(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 -------------- thanks i hardly believe my eys didn Indetial agree with me?? how come you agree with a crackpot ?? that is not a prof of physics ?? (:-) Y.P --------------------------
From: PD on 7 Oct 2009 14:48 On Oct 7, 12:40 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 7, 1:56 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(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 > > -------------- > thanks > i hardly believe my eys > didn Indetial agree with me?? > how come you agree with a crackpot ?? > that is not a prof of physics ?? (:-) > > Y.P > -------------------------- Because, Porat, it doesn't depend on who you are, it depends on what you say. And it should be an indicator to you that the rejection you've received about circlons has less to do with who you are than it does with what you've said.
From: Inertial on 7 Oct 2009 18:56
<kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:90f8a1e3-5260-4619-9804-d84ad16ab59d(a)p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 7, 9:10 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message >> >> news:893458a8-b057-49d6-a6d1-7f488b9d65a6(a)b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... >> >> > 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. >> >> What universal time? Does any clock measure universal time? How could >> you >> tell if it did? How can it be called a universal time if it doesn't >> correspond to what we measure time to be? > > Universal time (or absolute time) is the only time that exists. A > clock second will contain a specific interval of universal time > (absolute time) in A's frame and a clock second will cntain a > different interval of universal time in B's frame. Doesn't work. > That's why clocks > in different frame run at different rates. That doesn't explain mutual time dilation. > This is illustrated clearly > by the GPS ststem...a GPS second had to redfined to have 4.15 more > periods of the Cs 133 radiation than a ground clock second. The > purpose of this redefinition is to make the GPS second contain the > same anount of absolute time (universal time) as the ground clock > second. GPS is mostly a GR effect. At different gravitational potentials time runs slower or faster. SR is a mutual effect on measurement due to motion. You really need to learn your physics |