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: Inertial on 7 Oct 2009 18:58 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:8d55d0f9-ba3c-44ac-a5fa-5616ecbc9601(a)31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com... > 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 ?? (:-) I take every thing people say on its own merit. You do post a lot of crackpot nonsense, but sometimes you post something valid. If so, I will happily agree with it. That is part of being honest.
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 8 Oct 2009 04:39 kenseto(a)erinet.com wrote on Wed, 07 Oct 2009 06:10:31 -0700: > 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. Still plain wrong. Apart from your misconceptions about relativity, this reflects your ignorance of basic aspects of science: as measurement, systems of units, dimensional analysis... >> >> > 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 - -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: Y.Porat on 8 Oct 2009 06:06 On Oct 7, 8:48 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. ------------------- about the Circlon: may be a didnt explain it good enough but if you ignore it it i s your loss !! if you like we can get into it deeper any way for me as time pass i am sure about it more and more 2 i am not sure you understood my explanation WHY IT IS INEVITABLE !!!!! repeat INEVITABLE !!! it need a few moments of physics thinking !! (among he others -momentum conservation ....) ATB Y.Porat -------------------
From: Y.Porat on 8 Oct 2009 06:22 On Oct 8, 12:58 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:8d55d0f9-ba3c-44ac-a5fa-5616ecbc9601(a)31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com... > > > > > 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 ?? (:-) > > I take every thing people say on its own merit. > > You do post a lot of crackpot nonsense, but sometimes you post something > valid. If so, I will happily agree with it. > > That is part of being honest. -------------- it is not eboughto be honest though very important in physics and science specifically but you have as well to think physics and not only matheamtical formulas 2 you must understand that all we know is a drop in the bucket compared to all that lot that we miss in that 'bucket' not realizing it and keeping your 'smug phase' and thinking that all that is in our books is the last word --- is disastrous to advance of science 3 btw do you know when did i got to that above insight about Time ??? it was about while i was 16 years old !!.... i had a teacher of physics that made me to like and admire physics ..... anyway it was **my own** insight not his .... btw i remember his first lesson of physics : he came into the class and asked us a question 'what is mass' ...??!! .. and tortured us along one hour letting anyone in class to try and explain.... before he gave his answer ..... so please dont ask me what is my formal degree in physics (:-) ...... ATB Y.Porat -----------------
From: Inertial on 8 Oct 2009 06:34
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:c299e4b3-d1c4-47ab-b9a8-528b236c372e(a)31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 8, 12:58 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:8d55d0f9-ba3c-44ac-a5fa-5616ecbc9601(a)31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > 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 ?? (:-) >> >> I take every thing people say on its own merit. >> >> You do post a lot of crackpot nonsense, but sometimes you post something >> valid. If so, I will happily agree with it. >> >> That is part of being honest. > > -------------- > it is not eboughto be honest though very important in physics and > science specifically > but you have as well > to think physics > and not only matheamtical formulas This is something you will have to learn > 2 > you must understand that all we know > is a drop in the bucket compared > to all that lot that we miss in that 'bucket' Very true. Ignoring what we do know isn't a virtue though > not realizing it and keeping your 'smug phase' > and thinking that all that is in our books > is the last word --- > is disastrous to advance of science Noone thinks we know it all. I doubt we every really will. > 3 > btw > do you know when did i got to that above insight about Time ??? > it was about while i was 16 years old !!.... > i had a teacher of physics that made me to like > and admire physics ..... That is very admirable. > anyway > it was **my own** insight not his .... Its not an uncommon one. Mankind has been dealing with issues such as "what is time" for a long long time. > btw > i remember his first lesson of physics : > he came into the class and asked us a question > 'what is mass' ...??!! > . > and tortured us along one hour letting anyone in class to try and > explain.... > before he gave his answer ..... Bahahaha. > so please dont ask me what is my formal degree in physics (:-) ...... I wasn't intending to |