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: kenseto on 6 Oct 2009 13:11 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. 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: oriel36 on 6 Oct 2009 13:29 On Oct 6, 6:11 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > A clock second is not a universal interval of time. > What does this mean? Self-referencial, useless and a signature of cowardice,dumbness and every undesirable trait a human being can have as opposed to the system which creates the equable day,hour and minute. Make a statement in sci.relativity and everyone begs questions,do it in saa and you get an astronomical education on the links between timekeeping systems and the raw planetary dynamics from which these conveniences emerged. > 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. 'Time travel',something that could be found in any science fiction section of a bookstore in the late 19th century - "Scientific people, proceeded the Time Traveller, after the pause required for the proper assimilation of this, know very well that Time is only a kind of Space" H.G. Wells http://www.bartleby.com/1000/1.html > 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. > The guys here will give you a decent education between natural noon and the average 24 hour day as Isaac tried to relate it or rather,remove the indoctrination - "Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality..." Newton You poor creatures are caught in a labyrinth conjured up by Newton for although he appears to promote the accurate distinction between clock noon and natural noon,Isaac followed the framework of Flamsteed which worked off a 'sidereal time' or Ra/Dec monstrosity.I not only know the ins and outs of the antecedent geocentric astronomies,the astronomies based on planetary dynamics and the erors and distortions of the late 17th century empiricists which led to the nightmare of 'time travel' as something actual,but also I am well aware how modern imaging and data obliterates the foolish ideologies which no longer find interest with the exception of a few hopeless people like yourself. > 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 The idea of 'all motion is relative' is basically the stated observation of Flamsteed that any point on the Earth surface can served as a basis for explaining planetary dynamics through right ascension,this following motion in other words - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYy0EQBnqHI It also represents the loss of planetary dynamics for a silly wordplay that shows people don't even understand Newton let alone the genuine astronomers.
From: Igor on 6 Oct 2009 13:39 On Oct 6, 1:11 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. 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 De do do do, de da da da Is all I want to say to you De do do do, de da da da Their innocence will pull me through De do do do, de da da da Is all I want to say to you De do do do, de da da da Theyre meaningless and all thats true
From: Sam Wormley on 6 Oct 2009 15:01 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. 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
From: hhc314 on 6 Oct 2009 16:06
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. > > 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 Sam, that link you posted is pretty bad, sort of a laymans perceptions of physics but not the real thing. You want to know the experimental basis of special Relativity. Check any textbook on cyclic particle accelerator design. As the particle being accelerated (say a proton) is accelerated to higher and higher levels of enegy, guss what, it gains mass. Neglect the relativistic gain in mass and your accelerator will not function. Here are some credible references on how to design a high energy particle accator: Livingood, Principles of Cyclic Particle Accelerators, Van Nostrand, New York Livingston and Blewett, Particle Accelerators, McGraw-Hill, New York This list of quality, factual, scientific publications goes on and on. That's why the large partical accelators function. The take into design consideration the mass increase with acquired energy just a predicted by good old Albert Einstein. In fact, the magnetic field in a cyclic particle accelerator is ramped up precisely in accordance with the particles gain in mass as it make multiple circuits around the machine. I'm pretty familair with this subject, since as a grad student, I was responsible for the tune-up computations for the PPA back in the 1960s. In this machine, protons were injected using a linear acceleration at an enery of 3-Mev, then accelerated to a terminal energy of 1-Gev before smashing into a heavy metal plate to produces a spray of mesons and other strange particles. I was trying to remember the relativist mass increase as a particle like a proton is accelerated from 3-Mev to 1-Gev, but I couldn't find my records (which of course stored in a safe place -- and you have to be over 65 to understand what that means). It's easily computed, and for some reason the figure 1800 to 1 comes into mind, but don't quote me on that. Now here is the show stopper. Good old Albert predicted "c" as a limiting velocity for any mass, and guess what happens in a particle accerator: As the particle packet approaches "c", it's orbital frequency approaches a constant value, and the machine is designed to accomodate this. Hence, it is experimental evidence that no matter how much energy you put into accelerating a mass particle of any type, its limiting velocity is '"c". When you pump in addition energy, it doesn't travel any faster, and simply gains mass. SR worked then, and a particle accelerator is pretty good experimental evidence for that fact My guess is that SR still works now! Harry C. |