SR is not wrong but it is incomplete
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Taking a Fresh Look at the Physics of Radiation Pressure.
Next: 9/11 nutbag * Hates US * cannot provide cite to his disproven claim that PNAC "wanted the attack" because that is a lie; inside job proven physically impossible
From: PD on 28 Jul 2010 11:14 On Jul 28, 9:28 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > The identicalness of clocks is NOT set -- at least in physics -- by > > whether two relatively moving clocks record the same time between one > > pair of spacetime events. It just isn't. > > This is wrong interpretation....relative moving clock seconds contain > a different amount of absolute time. > Again, Ken, you simply don't like the definitions of terms used in physics. You have your own language. You cannot communicate with physicists because of it. End of story.
From: kenseto on 29 Jul 2010 09:14
On Jul 28, 11:14 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 28, 9:28 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > The identicalness of clocks is NOT set -- at least in physics -- by > > > whether two relatively moving clocks record the same time between one > > > pair of spacetime events. It just isn't. > > > This is wrong interpretation....relative moving clock seconds contain > > a different amount of absolute time. > > Again, Ken, you simply don't like the definitions of terms used in > physics. > You have your own language. You cannot communicate with physicists > because of it. It is not the case of different definitions. It is the case 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 Sr the passage of a clock second in A's frame corresponds to the passage of 1/gamma second in B's frame and the passage of a clock second in B's frame correspods to the passage of 1/gamma second in A's frame. In IRT the passage of a clock second in A's frame coresponds to the passage of (1/gamma second) in B's frame OR (Gamma seconds) on B's frame. Ken Seto |