 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / November 2007The Meaning of A Clock Second in SRT
Is A Clock Second An Interval of Universal Time (absolute time)? SR asserts that a clock second is an interval of universal time as follows: 1. A and B are in relative motion. 'A' measures the speed of light to be: 299.792,458 meters/1 A clock second 'B' measures the speed of light to be: 299,792,458 meters/1 B clock second SR claims that the speed of light is a Universal constant therefore it follows from that 1 A clock second and 1 B clock second represent an interval of universal time (absolute time). IOW the passage of one A clock second corresponds to the passage of 1 B clock second 2. In the twin paradox scenario the returning twin's clock second is compared directly with the stay at home clock second to reach the conclusion that the traveling twin is younger. Again this means that the stay at home clock second and the travling clock second represent the same interval of universal time. In other words, the passage of a stay at home clock second will coincide with the passage of a traveling clock second. But waite: SR also claims that two clocks in relative motion each will see the other clock to run slow by a factor of gamma. This means that the passage of Twin A's clock second cannot be correspond to the passage of twin B's clock second. This also means that twin A's clock second does not represent the same interval of universal time as twin B's clock second. BTW, this is confirmed by the GPS clock compared to the ground clock. The SR effect on the GPS clock is 7 us/day running slow compared to the ground clock. It appears that SR claims that a clock second in different frames can represent the same interval of universal time (absolute time) and at the same time a clock second can represent a different interval of universal time!!!!!!!!!! Is that why SR is so successful?? Go figure!!!!!! The solution to the above contradictory claims of SR are as follows: Absolute time exists. A clock second will contain a different amount of absolute time in different frames (different state of absolute motion). This explains why the speed of light is measured to be a constant math ratio by every observer as follows: Light path length of ruler (299,792,458 m long phyiscally)/the absolute time content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler. This new definiton for the speed of light gives rise to a new theory of relativity called Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT the equations of IRT are valid in all environments, including gravity. IRT is described in a paper entitled "Improved Relativity Theory" in my website: http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm Ken Seto > Is A Clock Second An Interval of Universal Time (absolute time)? [snipped the bullshit] IRT cannot: A. predict the correct perihelion precession of Mercury IRT cannot B. predict the correct relativistic effects on a satellite clock IRT cannot C. predict the time dilation of A's clock measured by B, when their relative velocity is 22220 km/s. Seto can *not* demonstrate that IRT can do any of these things! [snip junk] What does ANY of this have to do with special relativity as opposed to "Ken Seto's broken interpretation of special relativity" ? On Nov 17, 6:37 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail-nospam.com> wrote: > [snip junk] > > What does ANY of this have to do with special relativity as opposed to > "Ken Seto's broken interpretation of special relativity" ? In that case why don't you give us the correct interpretation? >On Nov 17, 6:37 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail-nospam.com> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >In that case why don't you give us the correct interpretation? You mean nobody has given you the correct answer any time in the past 14 years you have been posting on USENET? > >On Nov 17, 6:37 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail-nospam.com> > >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > You mean nobody has given you the correct answer any time in the past > 14 years you have been posting on USENET? Your refusal to give us the correct interpretation does that mean that you don't know what is the correct SR interpretation???? <...> http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/855/35092155.JPG > <...> > > http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/855/35092155.JPG Say, we could really use that pot to start some pecan trees, even if it has a big crack in it. Just a minute... Just a minute.... "Dave, the AE35 Infinite Relativity Discussion Generator will fail in 38,927 years. Yes, that's a firm estimate. At that point, the members of this group will get tired of posting the same boring crap over and over and over and over, ad infinitum, taking up precious computer memory thus handing the free world over to the Tearists. Why don't you and Frank go EVA and fix the AE35 module, whilst I stay here and look after the sleeping beauties. OK?" >> <...> >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > you and Frank go EVA and fix the AE35 module, whilst I stay here and > look after the sleeping beauties. OK?" wonderful!!! Thanks for the laugh Eric Subject: The Meaning of A Clock Second in SRT > Is A Clock Second An Interval of Universal Time > (absolute time)? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > of one A clock second corresponds to the passage of > 1 B clock second Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> comments: Ken, your statements are not complete and therefore not correct. You are trying to infer that the time produced by a clock used by A is equal to the time produced by a clock used by B. But the times used are not the same, and I wish you would understand that SR is not as simple as you keep trying to make it to appear to be. Now I hope that you know that I hate SR with a passion. I do not really hate SR, but I hate the false interpretations that are used by SR experts. But you are not an SR expert, and you are no help to me in trying to help those who are. I wish you would get smart enough to understand some of you present problems. I have helped you before, but you never seemed to have even read what I wrote. But I am willing to try again. You are trying to present a simple velocity measurement by using a specified distance (like 299,792,458 meters) and a specified time (one clock second.) And you are using two observers (A and B) who have relative motions between them. And you say that if each of these observers measures the speed of light, they each measure the same distance, and the same time, and so their clocks have to be the same. But almost none of this is true. They do not measure the same distance, they do not measure the same time, they do not measure the same things at all. But here are some of the things that do happen: Since they have relative motions, then one of them might have a distance that is shorter than the other. However, even if it were different, the rulers being used are also different, and so they will each get the same value that the other gets. Do you understand this? There could be (the likely situation is that there are) physical differences, but the value obtain in the distance measurement will be the same. And if there were real differences in these distances, then the time for a photon to go over these lengths will also most likely be different. But again, the value measured for the time will be the same. These measured times will be the same, but not because the rates of the clocks were the same, but because the differences in the clock rates perfectly matched up with the differences in the distances and the syncs and the basic differences due to the actual velocities, to make the readings the same. Therefore, Ken Seto, when you say that the distances are the same, and the times are the same, these things are the same not because the distances were really the same, nor were the clock rates really the same. They were the same because of some very complicated match-ups of changes in distances, with changes in rulers, with changes in clock rates, with changes in syncs, on top of all the changes that are being caused by the actual motion itself. And until you address all of these variables, you have no reason to say that the clock rates were the same or not. You have nothing. And your argument is nothing but words, with all the variables that have to be considered being completely ignored. You cannot do this and be scientific. To repeat: The actual distances will most likely be different, but will be measured to be the same because of changes in the lengths of the rulers being used. The measured times will be the same because the time is a very complicated time, consisting of the differences in readings between two clocks in each frame (the clock at the start and the clock at the end of each length being considered), and the differences in the syncs that each pair of clocks were set to when they were made to be part of the measurement system, and the differences in their rates, along with the differences of their actual distances apart and the actual motions between them and that of light. And if there are differences in the real distances between the clocks used by one set compared to the other set, and real differences in the syncs for these clocks (and these differences in syncs are themselves based upon distances between them), and in differences in their velocities relative to the light, then their rates will have to be different also so that the final value obtained as a difference between two clocks will be the same as the differences between two other clocks that have a different distance, with different rates, and with different syncs, etc. And until you are able to show all of these differences, differences in syncs and rates and distances for two sets of clocks, one set in A and the other set in B, then you cannot say anything about how their rates might compare. Now if you cannot do all of what I have said, then you cannot do SR, and you cannot say what SR is even about. Please find a book and do some more studying. In fact, learn LET, and this will actually help you to understand SR. <deletes by O'Barr of all the rest of the post until the above is clearly understood.> Thanks for reading. Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> > Subject: The Meaning of A Clock Second in SRT > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > the time produced by a clock used by A is equal to > the time produced by a clock used by B. Hey idiot I didn't infer anything. I pointed out what SR is saying. SR claims that the speed of light is a universal constant. Therefore a clock second used to define the speed of light in A's frame and B's frame must also be a universal constant. >But the > times used are not the same, and I wish you would > understand that SR is not as simple as you keep > trying to make it to appear to be. Hey idiot in the twin paradox situation a clock second in twin A's frame is compared directly with a clock second in twin B's frame to reach the conclusion that twin B is younger. This means that Twin A's second is equal to twin B's second. > Now I hope that you know that I hate SR with a > passion. I do not really hate SR, but I hate the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > seemed to have even read what I wrote. But I am > willing to try again. ROTFLOL..... your understanding of SR is laughable. > You are trying to present a simple velocity > measurement by using a specified distance (like [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > light, they each measure the same distance, and the > same time, and so their clocks have to be the same. I didn't say that at all. In fact my theory IRT says that the speed of light is a constant math ratio in all frames 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 So where in this definition I claim that they each measure the same distance and the same time? > But almost none of this is true. They do not > measure the same distance, they do not measure the > same time, they do not measure the same things at > all. This shows me that you don't understand SR. SR says that in every SR observer's frame a clock second has the same standard defintion and the physical length of a meter stick has the same definition. However, every SR observer will measure (predict) all clocks moving wrt him are running slow and all meter stick moving wrt him are contracted. The rest of your ranting is due to your poor understanding of SR. Ken Seto > But here are some of the things that do happen: > Since they have relative motions, then one of them [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > > - Show quoted text - >> Subject: The Meaning of A Clock Second in SRT >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > clock second used to define the speed of light in A's frame and B's > frame must also be a universal constant. Locally. >>But the >> times used are not the same, and I wish you would [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > reach the conclusion that twin B is younger. This means that Twin A's > second is equal to twin B's second. The physicist has completely ignored the frame-physic of the non-local. No one lives there but it [appears] that every traveler goes into and/or comes out of the non-local (travels into and/or out of history). So if the traveler appears to be traveling into HISTORY (going away), or out of HISTORY (oncoming), what would be the situations of the observed clock seconds for those two traveler scenarios? Particularly when you look past both the traveler going away and the traveler oncoming and see the common constant background horizon always the distant scene beyond both, the Big Bang singularity (1). Now everyone in the universe but a physicist, or Uncle Al, instinctively knows the traveler is not headed to the [non-local] phenomenon of the Big Bang as his or her [local] destination despite what is being, or would be, observed (time travel backward in time (whether one second -- one light second -- or billions of years -- billions of light years -- in the direction of that far distant summary-constant of Big Bang horizon)). Everyone but a physicist, or Uncle Al, would realize that the traveler, and the traveler's clock, being observed, whether actual or just possible, would not be the real-time space traveler...nor the real-time space traveler's clock. ======================= ======================= Not so humorous aside: :-) The mass of A's [inertial frame] choke-chain tether to B has to become almighty heavy and costly the more of it Big Brother / World Control A has to reel out into the universe to keep B chained absolutely to A. Infinitely more, to keep all B's chained so absolutely to A :-) ======================= ======================= GLB [...] >> > SR asserts that a clock second is an interval of >> > universal time as follows: [...] >> Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> comments: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > clock second used to define the speed of light in A's frame and B's > frame must also be a universal constant. Your claim at the top is fully erroneous, and in the above statement you DO infer something. Thus, time for you to look into the mirror... [...] >> Now if you cannot do all of what I have said, then >> you cannot do SR, and you cannot say what SR is even >> about. Please find a book and do some more studying. >> In fact, learn LET, and this will actually help you >> to understand SR. And that is probably true. Your erroneous conclusions are almost certainly due to confusing/confused geometric explanations by some people here, as geometry cannot match your need for physical insight. But if you try to learn SRT as it was taught by Lorentz and Langevin, it is STILL possible that you WILL understand it. Harald > [...] > >> > SR asserts that a clock second is an interval of [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Your claim at the top is fully erroneous, and in the above statement you DO > infer something. Thus, time for you to look into the mirror... Hey idiot....are you saying that SR didn't claim that the speed of light is a universal constant????? Ken Seto > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Harald Subject: Re: The Meaning of A Clock Second in SRT Ken Seto <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote: >> Ken Seto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote: >>>> Ken Seto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote: >>>> > SR asserts that a clock second is an interval >>>> > of universal time as follows: >>>> > [...] Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> Ken, your statements are not complete and >>>> therefore not correct. You are trying to infer >>>> that the time produced by a clock used by A is >>>> equal to the time produced by a clock used by >>>> B. Ken Seto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote: >>> Hey idiot I didn't infer anything. I pointed >>> out what SR is saying. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>> A's frame and B's >>> frame must also be a universal constant. harry <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> wrote: >> Your claim at the top is fully erroneous, and in >> the above statement you DO >> infer something. Thus, time for you to look into >> the mirror... Ken Seto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote: >Hey idiot....are you saying that SR didn't claim >that the speed of light is a universal constant????? O'Barr comments: Whatever it is that SR 'claims,' what is more important are the actual facts: In SR, in free space, all photons do move at the same absolute velocity. Now SR experts do not like to say it this way, but these are the facts. The best that SR experts will allow this to be said is when they say that the speed of every photon is the same, and they say that it is thus independent of the different speeds of their different sources. And this fact is true, that the speed of every photon is the same, and it is therefore independent of the velocities of their different sources. And this can only be true if the velocity of all photons is the same as each other, and if it is the same as each other, then there is an absolute relationship that they all follow. No one photon can really know how fast any other photon is moving. That is not how they know how fast they have to move. But there has to be a way for one photon to move just as fast as the other photons, and not move at some fixed amount more than their different sources are moving, etc. There has to be a natural way for them to all know how fast it is that they must move, at every point in space. Such logic cannot be escaped. So there is an absolute rate at which all photons move in space. Now this is not all. We also have the fact that the measured velocity is the same. We cannot have the measured velocity to be the same unless there is rigor in the exact velocity of all photons, but there must also be some very important things happening to our measurement tools if the actual measurements remain the same. So unless you are sensitive to both sets of facts, that there has to be an over-all constancy, as well as other effects to allow the measurements to be a constant, then you will never understand SR. To get the measured velocity to remain the same introduces the measurement science that is required in SR, where rulers can change their lengths, where clocks can change their rates, where clocks must be synced in one and only in one certain way. If all these things occur, exactly as stipulated in SR, then the actual measurements of the speed of light will artificially be measured to be a constant. And now you can begin to understand, if you really want to understand, what we as physicist must understand if we are to understand our reality. Gerald. > Subject: Re: The Meaning of A Clock Second in SRT > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >Now SR experts do not like > to say it this way, but these are the facts. SR didn't claim that. SR claims that every observer measures the speed of light to be a constant c with his clock second. >The > best that SR experts will allow this to be said is > when they say that the speed of every photon is the > same, Again SR didn't say that. In fact it does not say anything about the speed of a photon. >and they say that it is thus independent of > the different speeds of their different sources. > And this fact is true, that the speed of every > photon is the same, and it is therefore > independent of the velocities of > their different sources. SR claims that every observer measures the speed of light to be a constant c, independent of the motion of the source. The fact that you keep on talking about the speed of a photon shows that you don't understand SR. Ken Seto > And this can only be true if the velocity of all > photons is the same as each other, and if it is the [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Gerald. Subject: Re: The Meaning of A Clock Second in SRT >> Ken Seto <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote: >>>> Ken Seto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote: >>>>>> Ken Seto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote: >>>>>>> SR asserts that a clock second is an interval >>>>>>> of universal time as follows: >>>>>>> [...] Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>> Ken, your statements are not complete and >>>>>> therefore not correct. You are trying to infer >>>>>> that the time produced by a clock used by A is >>>>>> equal to the time produced by a clock used by >>>>>> B. Ken Seto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote: >>>>> Hey idiot I didn't infer anything. I pointed >>>>> out what SR is saying. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>>>> in A's frame and B's >>>>> frame must also be a universal constant. harry <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> wrote: >>>> Your claim at the top is fully erroneous, and in >>>> the above statement you DO >>>> infer something. Thus, time for you to look >>>> into the mirror... Ken Seto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote: >>> Hey idiot....are you saying that SR didn't claim >>>that the speed of light is a universal >>>constant????? O'Barr comments: >> Whatever it is that SR 'claims,' what is more >> important are the actual facts: >> In SR, in free space, all photons do move at the >> same absolute velocity. >> Now SR experts do not like >> to say it this way, but these are the facts. Ken Seto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote: > SR didn't claim that. SR claims that every observer > measures the speed of light to be a constant c with > his clock second. O'Barr continues: >> The >> best that SR experts will allow this to be said is >> when they say that the speed of every photon is >> the same, Ken Seto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote: > Again SR didn't say that. In fact it does not say > anything about the speed of a photon. O'Barr comments: Come on, Ken. Let us look at your own words: ****************************************** From: "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> Date: 10 Apr 2007 07:55:25 -0700 Message-ID: 1176216925.562653.38870@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com ... In SR the second postulates says that the speed of light is a universal constant in all frames (A and B frames) ***************************************** So SR says nothing about the speed of a photon? Now I agree that SR, as originally presented, did not use the word, photon. But SR still exists today, and today, the word photon is the same as light. And thus, I think you are playing games. Please bring such acts to a halt. O'Barr wrote: >> and they say that it is thus independent of >> the different speeds of their different sources. >> And this fact is true, that the speed of every >> photon is the same, and it is therefore >> independent of the velocities of >> their different sources. Ken Seto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote: > SR claims that every observer measures the speed of > light to be a constant c, independent of the motion > of the source. The fact that you keep on talking > about the speed of a photon shows that you don't > understand SR. O'Barr comments: I see, you really do not know that photons are the same as light as far as their speeds? And as long as I talk about photons, I cannot be talking about SR? It will be difficult for anyone to talk to you, then Ken. Maybe you should start your education over again at the High School level. O'Barr wrote: >> And this can only be true if the velocity of all >> photons is the same as each other, and if it is [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >> want to understand, what we as physicist must >> understand if we are to understand our reality. Thanks for reading. Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> *********************Remove ... for e-mail. <....> You too, can be like him: http://www.dumbcrooks.com/images/unfare-to-stoopid-criminals.jpg > Subject: Re: The Meaning of A Clock Second in SRT > [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > thus, I think you are playing games. Please bring > such acts to a halt. Sigh.....there is no way to measure the speed of a photon. The path of a photon is not defined. > O'Barr wrote: > >> and they say that it is thus independent of [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Ken. Maybe you should start your education over > again at the High School level. ROTFLOL....pot calling the kettle black. Ken Seto > Is A Clock Second An Interval of Universal Time (absolute time)? > > SR asserts that a clock second is an interval of universal time as > follows: Not so: SRT asserts that clock time does NOT measure absolute time, but that such time is "relative" - you should know that by now. Too bad, for that collossal error invalidates everything that follows... [snip] Harald > > Is A Clock Second An Interval of Universal Time (absolute time)? > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > such time is "relative" - you should know that by now. Too bad, for that > collossal error invalidates everything that follows... Hey idiot....if SR compares the traveling twin's clock second directly with the stay at home clock second directly, that can only mean one thing: A clock second is a universal interval of time. It seems that it is you who is making the collossal error. Ken Seto >> > Is A Clock Second An Interval of Universal Time (absolute time)? >> > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Ken Seto Appearances can be wrong - and you STILL haven't looked in the mirror! :-)) In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote on Mon, 19 Nov 2007 08:05:46 -0500 <4741883c$0$8609$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>: >> > Is A Clock Second An Interval of Universal Time (absolute time)? >> > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Ken Seto The comparison of the two clocks is only done at the start and the end of the trip (since that's the only times at which the two clocks are close enough to each other to compare), and only for a finite amount of time, which could lead to some irrelevant inaccuracies. Assuming these inaccuracies are ignored, the clocks do some strange stuff during the trip, leading to the traveling twin's clock being less than the stayathome's. Or.... One can do the comparison via light rays. This leads to *both* clocks measuring 1 second of themselves as being equal to sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c) second of their other half, on the outbound leg, and the reciprocal on the return leg. One issue is that the moving twin is guaranteed to know that his outbound leg is equal to his return leg (in most setups, the speeds are equal), whereas the stayathome doesn't precisely know when the moving twin hits his target and comes back, as laggard light takes a little time to come back. The flip side of all this is that the moving twin doesn't know precisely how long he's going to be travelling. It turns out this all works if one assumes L_M = L_S/g, where g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2) (I'm assuming c=1 for simplicity by a judicious choice of units). Then, if t_S = 2L/v, we can write t_M = t_M/2 + t_M/2 t_S = t_M/2 * sqrt(1-v)/sqrt(1+v) + t_M/2 * sqrt(1+v)/sqrt(1-v) = t_M/2 * g * ( (1-v) + (1+v) ) = t_M * g It's a little harder to work it out from the other end, but if we discard the assumption that t_M = t_S, then it becomes clear that S sees M reaching his far point at the time t_M / 2 * sqrt(1-v)/sqrt(1+v) because of the light dialation, and then M turns around and comes back in time t_M / 2 * sqrt(1+v)/sqrt(1-v) The sum of these two expressions is still t_S and leads to the identical expressions and conclusions. If one requires t_M = t_S then one gets g = 1 and therefore v = 0 -- not a horribly useful result.  Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net /dev/brain: Permission denied -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto > <kenseto@woh.rr.com> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > >> "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message news:6491609f-86e7-4822-be82-d0d4e8430fc6@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > >> > Is A Clock Second An Interval of Universal Time (absolute time)? > >> > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > at which the two clocks are close enough to each other > to compare), Yes so what is your point? Consider this: the traveling clock (B clock) reads 5 million seconds when it rejoins the stay-at-home clock (A clock) and the A clock reads 10 million seconds. SR concludes that the A clock ages twice as much as the traveling clock. This bogus conclusion is based on the direct comparison A's clock second with B's clock second....and such comparison is based on the bogus assumption that a clock second is an interval of universal time. In real life such comparison is not valid. The proper comparison from A's point of view is as follows: 1B second is worth: gamma*(1 A second) Therefore 5 million B clock = (gamma*5 million A seconds) = 10 million A seconds when gamma=2. Therefore there is no time dilation when the two times are compared as shown above. Ken Seto >and only for a finite amount of time, which > could lead to some irrelevant inaccuracies. Assuming these > inaccuracies are ignored, the clocks do some strange stuff > during the trip, leading to the traveling twin's clock > being less than the stayathome's. > Or.... > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > If one requires t_M = t_S then one gets g = 1 and therefore > v = 0 -- not a horribly useful result. < > http://www.movv.com/prvupload/uploads/super_retard_stfu.jpg In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote on Tue, 20 Nov 2007 09:54:28 -0500 <4742f34a$0$16494$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>: >> In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto >> <kenseto@woh.rr.com> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > the A clock reads 10 million seconds. SR concludes that the A clock ages > twice as much as the traveling clock. Not ages. Aged. At the time they are rejoined they age at the exact same rate, assuming no damage during the trip. > This bogus conclusion is based on the > direct comparison A's clock second with B's clock second....and such [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Therefore there is no time dilation when the two times are compared as shown > above. That equation is only valid during the trip proper and is not directly observable. [rest snipped] Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #40490127: for(;;) ; -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto > <kenseto@woh.rr.com> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Not ages. Aged. At the time they are rejoined they age at > the exact same rate, assuming no damage during the trip. They age at the same rate after they are rejoined. This means that their clock seconds have the same duration (absolute time content) after they are rejoined. However they will age at different rates while they were moving wrt each other. This means that while they are apart their clock seconds have different duration (absolute time content). > > This bogus conclusion is based on the > > direct comparison A's clock second with B's clock second....and such [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > That equation is only valid during the trip proper and > is not directly observable. That's not true....that equation is valid at all time. Ken Seto In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote on Wed, 21 Nov 2007 09:16:28 -0500 <47443bcc$0$4967$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>: >> In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto >> <kenseto@woh.rr.com> [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > wrt each other. This means that while they are apart their clock seconds > have different duration (absolute time content). More or less correct...although there are three trip parts involved, which complicates things. 1. Outbound. Each clock light-observes the other as slowing down. 2. Return. Each clock light-observes the other as speeding up. 3. Rejoin. Each clock light-observes the other as being at the same speed. >> > This bogus conclusion is based on the >> > direct comparison A's clock second with B's clock second....and such [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > That's not true....that equation is valid at all time. Only if A is defined as absolute, which is not at all the case; A is also moving relative to the Sun in most problem setups, and the Sun is moving relative to the galactic center as well. > Ken Seto Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #12398234: void f(char *p) {char *q = strdup(p); strcpy(p,q);} -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto > <kenseto@woh.rr.com> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >> >> > > >> >> >> "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message news:6491609f-86e7-4822-be82-d0d4e8430fc6@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > >> >> >> > Is A Clock Second An Interval of Universal Time (absolute time)? > >> >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > 1. Outbound. Each clock light-observes the other as slowing down. NO.....the observer predicts (using IRT) that the outgoing clock is running slow because it experienced acceleration. Acceleration causes the outgoing clock to increase its state of absolute motion compared to the stay-at-home clock and that's why the out going clock is running slower. The outgoing clock is slowed by a factor of F_ab/F_aa. Where F_ab is the mean frequency of B's standard light source as measured by A. > 2. Return. Each clock light-observes the other as speeding up. NO....the direction of motion of the B clock have no effect on its rate compared to the rate of the stay-at-home clock (A). In other words, the approaching B clock is still running slow compared to A by a factor of F_ab/F_aa. > 3. Rejoin. Each clock light-observes the other as being at the same > speed. When A and B rejoin they are at the same state of absolute motion and thus they are running at the same rate. Ken Seto > >> > This bogus conclusion is based on the > >> > direct comparison A's clock second with B's clock second....and such [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > > Ken Seto In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote on Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:44:40 -0500 <4746e566$0$24277$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>: >> In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto >> <kenseto@woh.rr.com> [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > > NO.....the observer predicts (using IRT) that the outgoing clock is running First, there are two observers -- each clock. > slow because it experienced acceleration. Acceleration causes the outgoing > clock to increase its state of absolute motion compared to the stay-at-home > clock and that's why the out going clock is running slower. The outgoing > clock is slowed by a factor of F_ab/F_aa. And so is the stay at home clock, as it turns out, as far as the outgoing clock is concerned, since F_ab/F_aa = F_ba/F_bb = sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c). > Where F_ab is the mean frequency of B's standard light source as measured by > A. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > approaching B clock is still running slow compared to A by a factor of > F_ab/F_aa. Then you've not been paying attention. The returning clock has experienced *two* accelerations (the second one twice as long as the first, if the acceleration is uniform). In short, the trip is: A,B coincident. B loaded onto ship and accelerated away. B coasts to star B accelerates around star, heads to home. B coasts back to Earth B accelerates to a stop (deceleration being acceleration in the opposite direction). So is B, when it comes back to A, running slow with a frequency of (F_ab/F_aa)^4? I think not; you'd better at least be able to somehow distinguish acceleration from deceleration, and the easiest way to do that is to simply ignore it. ;-) Of course, it turns out your enigmatic expression F_ab/F_aa is right on both legs of the trip, except that F_ab/F_aa < 1 outbound, and > 1 inbound. What is F_ab depending on? >> 3. Rejoin. Each clock light-observes the other as being at the same >> speed. > > When A and B rejoin they are at the same state of absolute motion and thus > they are running at the same rate. Well, at least SR and IRT are compatible that far. :-) > Ken Seto > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >> >> > Ken Seto Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Useless C++ Programming Idea #992398129: void f(unsigned u) { if(u < 0) ... } -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto > <kenseto@woh.rr.com> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > >> >> > > > news:6491609f-86e7-4822-be82-d0d4e8430fc6@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > >> More or less correct...although there are three trip parts involved, which > >> complicates things. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > First, there are two observers -- each clock. In IRT each observer has two set of equations: one for time dilation and the other for time expansion. > > slow because it experienced acceleration. Acceleration causes the outgoing > > clock to increase its state of absolute motion compared to the stay-at-home [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > outgoing clock is concerned, since F_ab/F_aa = F_ba/F_bb = > sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c). No.....the passage of one A clock second does not correspond to the passage of one B clock second. Therefore F_ab/F_aa =/= F_ba/F_bb > > Where F_ab is the mean frequency of B's standard light source as measured by > > A. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > B accelerates to a stop (deceleration being acceleration in the opposite > direction). The traveling clock runs slow on the outgoing leg and the returning leg. > So is B, when it comes back to A, running slow with a frequency of > (F_ab/F_aa)^4? I think not; you'd better at least be able to somehow [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > is right on both legs of the trip, except that > F_ab/F_aa < 1 outbound, and > 1 inbound. What is F_ab depending on? No....F_ab/F_aa <1 on both outbound and inbound legs. Ken Seto In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote on Fri, 23 Nov 2007 15:28:06 -0500 <474735e4$0$2342$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>: >> In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto >> <kenseto@woh.rr.com> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > In IRT each observer has two set of equations: one for time dilation and the > other for time expansion. And it is never clear to me which set should be used. >> > slow because it experienced acceleration. Acceleration causes the > outgoing [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > No.....the passage of one A clock second does not correspond to the passage > of one B clock second. Therefore F_ab/F_aa =/= F_ba/F_bb In SR *both* clocks appear to slow down when observed by each other; most (but not all) of this is because they are moving farther apart and therefore the observation takes longer. (Turns out that in Galilean Relativity this is also true, though the calculations are a little more difficult since lightspeed is not constant therein.) >> > Where F_ab is the mean frequency of B's standard light source as > measured by [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > The traveling clock runs slow on the outgoing leg and the returning leg. Actually, it does, by the gamma factor -- *relative to the stay at home clock*. >> So is B, when it comes back to A, running slow with a frequency of >> (F_ab/F_aa)^4? I think not; you'd better at least be able to somehow [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > No....F_ab/F_aa <1 on both outbound and inbound legs. So F_ab doesn't change value when v changes sign, then? > Ken Seto Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Warning: This encrypted signature is a dangerous munition. Please notify the US government immediately upon reception. 0000 0000 0000 0000 0001 0000 0000 0000 ... -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto > <kenseto@woh.rr.com> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message news:6491609f-86e7-4822-be82-d0d4e8430fc6@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > >> >> More or less correct...although there are three trip parts involved, > > which [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > And it is never clear to me which set should be used. That's the point. The observer does not know who is in a higher state of absolute motion and that's why IRT has two sets of equations for each observer to cover both possibilities. In SR the observer assumes that the observed clock is in a higher state of absolute motion and thus the observed clock is running slower than the obsever's clock.....running slower means that the observed clock second contains a larger amount of absolute time than the observed clock second. This SR assumption is the reason why SR is incomplete......why? Because it excludes the possibility that the observed clock is running faster thanthe observer's clock. > >> > slow because it experienced acceleration. Acceleration causes the > > outgoing [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > most (but not all) of this is because they are moving farther apart > and therefore the observation takes longer. No....the time dilation equation is comparing clock rates when the clocks are coincide with each other. > (Turns out that in Galilean Relativity this is also true, though the > calculations are a little more difficult since lightspeed is not [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Actually, it does, by the gamma factor -- *relative to the stay at home > clock*. So you agree that the traveling clock is running slower than the observer's clock in the outbound and inbound legs.....right? > >> So is B, when it comes back to A, running slow with a frequency of > >> (F_ab/F_aa)^4? I think not; you'd better at least be able to somehow [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > So F_ab doesn't change value when v changes sign, then? F_ab is the MEAN frequency of a standard light source in B's frame as measured by A. It is the transverse Doppler frequency. Ken Seto > Is A Clock Second An Interval of Universal Time (absolute time)? > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > interval of universal time (absolute time). IOW the passage of one A > clock second corresponds to the passage of 1 B clock second You've written the above wrong. 'A' measures the speed of light to be: 299,792,458 A meters/1 A clock second 'B' measures the speed of light to be: 299,792,458 B meters/1 B clock second Do you see the difference? In your version, you just wrote down 299,792,458 meters without indicating whose meters they are. > 2. In the twin paradox scenario the returning twin's clock second is > compared directly with the stay at home clock second to reach the > conclusion that the traveling twin is younger. Again this is incorrect. The clock seconds are not directly compared. The reading on the clocks are compared, period. This is JUST LIKE you looking at your watch and me looking at my watch and we tell each other what time it is. Then you go walk around the block, and then you look at your watch and tell me what time it is now and I look at my watch and tell you what time it is now, and then we tell each other how much time has elapsed since the last time we compared. > Again this means that > the stay at home clock second and the travling clock second represent > the same interval of universal time. No, it does not. > In other words, the passage of a > stay at home clock second will coincide with the passage of a > traveling clock second. > > But waite: SR also claims that two clocks in relative motion No, it does not. SR claims that two clocks in relative *inertial* motion will do what you describe. Note this does not apply to the twins in the puzzle you just mentioned, nor does it apply to GPS and ground clocks. > each > will [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > time!!!!!!!!!! > Is that why SR is so successful?? Go figure!!!!!! Seto, it might do you some good for you to learn what SR really says. You spend so much time thinking the wrong things about what SR says, and so it's no wonder you end up with contradictions. I can imagine you thinking that algebra says 3+7=11 but that it also says 11-7=5, and then you doing a step to say that algebra says 3=11-7, which contradicts the other statement, and then you thinking that the theory of algebra must be wrong, and then you come up with an Improved Algebra Theory that says that sometimes 11-7 is less than 4 and sometimes it is more than 4, and that you've proposed an experiment that will measure 11-7=f_ab. > The solution to the above contradictory claims of SR are as follows: > Absolute time exists. A clock second will contain a different amount [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Ken Seto > > Is A Clock Second An Interval of Universal Time (absolute time)? > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Do you see the difference? In your version, you just wrote down > 299,792,458 meters without indicating whose meters they are. Sure I see the difference. The difference is: One A meter does not correspond to one B meter and one A second does not correspond to one B second. The problem is: This means that the speed of light is not a universal constant in all frames as asserted by SR. But rather it is a constant math ratio as defined by IRT as follows: Light path length of ruler (299,792,458 m long physically)/the absolurte time content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler. > > 2. In the twin paradox scenario the returning twin's clock second is > > compared directly with the stay at home clock second to reach the > > conclusion that the traveling twin is younger. > > Again this is incorrect. The clock seconds are not directly compared. Sure it is compared directly. If the clock second were not compared directly then there is no way that you can reach the conclusion that the traveling twin is younger. > The reading on the clocks are compared, period. The traveling twin shows less clock seconds than the stay-at-home clock. >This is JUST LIKE you > looking at your watch and me looking at my watch and we tell each [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > No, it does not. Yes it does when you compare the two clock seconds directly you are assuming that the passage of A's clock second is corresponding to the passage of B's clock second. > > In other words, the passage of a > > stay at home clock second will coincide with the passage of a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > twins in the puzzle you just mentioned, nor does it apply to GPS and > ground clocks. No object in the universe is in a state of inertial motion. So are you saying that SR is not valid in any location? > > each > > will [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > You spend so much time thinking the wrong things about what SR says, > and so it's no wonder you end up with contradictions. It might do you some good if you learn some logical assumptions that will expand the scope of SR: 1. No object in the universe is in a state of inertial motion....including the SR observer. 2. All objects are in a state of absolute motion and absolute motion will effect the rate of a clock. 3. There is no symmetry exist between frames. 4. The physical length of a ruler is invariant in all frames. 5. The light path length of a ruler is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the ruler. 6. acceleration will increase the state of absolute motion of an object. 7. The speed of light is a constant math ratio....not a universal constant as asserted by SR. These logical assumptions gives rise to IRT. IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT are valid in all environments, including gravity. IRT is described in a paper entitled "Improved Relativity Theory" in my website: http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm Ken Seto > > > Is A Clock Second An Interval of Universal Time (absolute time)? > [quoted text clipped - 120 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Is A Clock Second An Interval of Universal Time (absolute time)? > > [quoted text clipped - 114 lines] > > environments, including gravity. IRT is described in a paper entitled > > "Improved Relativity Theory" in my website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm Since you did not write any response to my post I assume that you agree with my arguments. Ken Seto In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote on Sat, 24 Nov 2007 10:14:00 -0500 <47483dc5$0$8680$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>: [snip PD's response for brevity] > Since you did not write any response to my post I assume that you agree with > my arguments. In your mind, he quite probably may. Of course, others may have a slight difference of opinion. :-) > Ken Seto Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Windows Vista. It'll Fix Everything(tm). -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > > > > > Is A Clock Second An Interval of Universal Time (absolute time)? > [quoted text clipped - 125 lines] > Since you did not write any response to my post I assume that you agree with > my arguments. That would be another error on your part, a common event for you. Mine was an unintended posting. I started to bother to respond, but then found something better to do with my time. PD It is good to know that life goes on. I have been away from this newsgroup for 2 months, what with the whole chemistry professor gig and all, and yet nothing has changed. Ken STILL doesn't understand squat about SR, Androcles (for whom even the essentials of Calculus I are much too difficult) still belittles Einstein, and the conspiracy theorists still insist the 911 and the moon landing were "conspiracies". > > > Is A Clock Second An Interval of Universal Time (absolute time)? > [quoted text clipped - 120 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > It is good to know that life goes on. I have been away from this > newsgroup for 2 months, what with the whole chemistry professor gig [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > theorists still insist the 911 and the moon landing were > "conspiracies". ROTFLOL pot calling the kettle black......this runt of the SRians have no valid counter arguement why SR is making contradictory claims. He attacked me to cover up his inadequacy. Definition for a runt of the SRians: A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their sh.t like gourmet puppy chow. An a.shole who will attack anybody who disagrees with SR Ken Seto > > > > Is A Clock Second An Interval of Universal Time (absolute time)? > > [quoted text clipped - 120 lines] > > > > - Show quoted text - <..> You too, can be like him: http://www.dumbcrooks.com/images/unfare-to-stoopid-criminals.jpg |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.