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 8 Oct 2009 10:45 On Oct 8, 5:06 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 !!! Nothing is inevitable in a physics theory. Nothing. You don't prove anything in physics by logic. Everything gets tested according to a measured prediction (or several) that singles that theory out from other theories. Until that is done, you have no certainty in a model, at all. > it need a few moments of physics thinking !! > (among he others -momentum conservation ....) > ATB > Y.Porat > -------------------
From: Ahmed Ouahi, Architect on 8 Oct 2009 11:01 The point in a fact, is along the physics, a definitely everything is depending on a time, the motion and a velocity, as it can be only proven mathematically, along the microenergy and the macroenergy, all along... However, and here, you do attempt, to the fact, that the physics, whether requires a prediction the mathematics dos not requires any prediction, and this is what makes all the difference... Therefore, as the rest, along the matter of an any theory, it is an other and a different story, and this is what is all about, a simply as that, a definitely as a matter a fact... -- Ahmed Ouahi, Architect Best Regards! "PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> kirjoitti viestiss�:c03ecaf2-6861-4e6a-80e4-f9e2cdd62990(a)e18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com... On Oct 8, 5:06 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 !!! Nothing is inevitable in a physics theory. Nothing. You don't prove anything in physics by logic. Everything gets tested according to a measured prediction (or several) that singles that theory out from other theories. Until that is done, you have no certainty in a model, at all. > it need a few moments of physics thinking !! > (among he others -momentum conservation ....) > ATB > Y.Porat > -------------------
From: Y.Porat on 8 Oct 2009 12:13 On Oct 8, 4:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 8, 5:06 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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 !!! > > Nothing is inevitable in a physics theory. Nothing. > You don't prove anything in physics by logic. > Everything gets tested according to a measured prediction (or several) > that singles that theory out from other theories. Until that is done, > you have no certainty in a model, at all. > > > it need a few moments of physics thinking !! > > (among he others -momentum conservation ....) > > ATB > > Y.Porat > > ------------------- so why not try me to convince you theoretically that it i s inevitable ?? Y.P ---------------------
From: PD on 8 Oct 2009 14:28 On Oct 8, 11:13 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 8, 4:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 8, 5:06 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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 !!! > > > Nothing is inevitable in a physics theory. Nothing. > > You don't prove anything in physics by logic. > > Everything gets tested according to a measured prediction (or several) > > that singles that theory out from other theories. Until that is done, > > you have no certainty in a model, at all. > > > > it need a few moments of physics thinking !! > > > (among he others -momentum conservation ....) > > > ATB > > > Y.Porat > > > ------------------- > > so why not try me to convince you theoretically > that it i s inevitable ?? > Y.P > --------------------- Please retry that sentence again in English.
From: Sam Wormley on 8 Oct 2009 15:42
kenseto(a)erinet.com wrote: > On Oct 7, 12:23 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >> kens...(a)erinet.com wrote: >>> On Oct 6, 5:37 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >>>> 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. >> That's you opinion (and incorrect at that), Seto. > > That's not just my opinion.....the speed of light is a circular > definition as follows: > 1 light-second/1 second. > This means that the speed of light can be anything you want. > This means that I can walk at a speed of c as follows: > 1 walk meter = 1/299,792,458 walk second. > Therefore my walking speed is 299,792,458 walk-meters/1 second. > >> Ref:http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/current.html >> >> Unit of time - second >> "The second is the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation >> corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of >> the ground state of the cesium 133 atom". >> >> Seto--This definition has nothing to so with length! > > Sure it got everything to do with length.....the current definition > for length is: > 1 meter = 1/299,792,458 light second. > >> Unit of length - meter >> "The meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during >> a time interval of 1/299792458 of a second". > > So the definition for a unit of time also defines the unit of > length ....Right? The definition of a second (unit of time) is >> "The second is the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation >> corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of >> the ground state of the cesium 133 atom". That, my dear Seto, has nothing to do (and is independent of) length. PERIOD! > >> So, Seto, as you can see, the definition of length uses the definition >> of a second, but the definition of a second DOES NOT USE the definition >> of length. > > Then tell me how did they measure the speed of light before the new > definition for length based on the speed of light is estabvlished. Decades ago the speed of light was measured as you say. NOW THAT IS NO LONGER THE CASE. Light and light speed inherent in the phenomenon is the NEW STANDARD. Sorry... my shift key stuck. The definition of a second (unit of time) is >> "The second is the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation >> corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of >> the ground state of the cesium 133 atom". > > Ken Seto > |