The correct statement is as follows: Time is absolute. A clock second will
contain a different amount of absolute time in a different state of absolute
motion (different frame) of the clock. The existence of absolute time is the
reason why all observer measure the speed of light to be a constant math
ratio of c as follows:
c=light path length of physical ruler(299,792,458m)/the absolute time
content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
This new defintion 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. A description of IRT is in the following
link (page 4):
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Unification.pdf
Ken Seto
No one gives a fuck. So, go fuck yourself, CRETIN.
Those things aren't bogus, but measured.
These "bogus concepts" are indeed misleading. But understand that they
resulted from the empirical data in the Michelson-Morley experiment and
the prior aether based theory which SR supplanted. It was supposed
that movement through the aether must slow clocks and shorten measuring
rods in just such a way as to prevent the speed through the aether from
actually being measurable. Einstein then relativized time and
eliminated the need to invoke the aether.
But his statement, which you quoted, is incontrovertible as it is not a
"scientific theory" but rather an invocation of the very definition of
science (i.e. that science talks about what we can observe and
measure). You may invoke an "absolute time" or some other metaphysical
assertion such as "god" or "djins" but until you explain how such can
be empirically determined you are not refering to a scientific
theory/definition. You are in fact preaching a religious belief.
With regard to your pet theories, your inability to comprehend the
point I made above make me suspicious of any merit in them so I will
not waste time reading them. You can place them atop the compost pile
of other "disproofs of Einstein" which kooks post here weekly.
Oh, by the way, Einstein's special relativity is also (locally) valid
in the presence of gravitation.
Regards,
James
Very good, Herb.
xxein: Oh! Co-moving with the ruler.
That sort of limits your theory to Einstein's.
Did you want to do the math differently? Feel free. It is the same
basic until you want to re-define the terms.
Theories contain conceptual terms. If the concept is not right, the
theory is trash, no matter how well it describes an event.
Putting "all" events together in a rational description of their
evidentiality is another story.
Sorry, no cigar!
kenseto is a fool.
Einstein said
"Die letztere Zeit kann nun definiert werden, indem man durch Definition
festsetzt, daß die "Zeit", welche das Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu
gelangen, gleich ist der "Zeit", welche es braucht, um von B nach A zu
gelangen. "
which translates into English as
"We have not defined a common "time" for A and B, for the latter cannot be
defined at all unless we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B
to A.
and then he cooked up his cuckoo transformations.
Androcles.
Every engineer says that time is what a clock measures:
http://units.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html
Only armchair philosophers can have a problem with
that statement.
Dirk Vdm
All you posted above was a question and an unsupported opinion.
Yes...misleading. Now why such a 'genious' keep his concepts misleading
instead of making it simple and clear?
> Einstein then relativized time
or, *redefined* time. He used a new definition of 'time', different
from Newtons (absolute) time. To fit empirical results, he had to
change the algebra (making c=constant in all frames does this). That is
why we have LT equations in SR. Physicist could have kept the old
(absolute) definition of time and the good old Galilean Transformations
(GT). That (simple and usual) algebra makes the same predictions as SR.
That is why it is claimed that (modern) ether theory and SR are
(empirically) equivalent.
> eliminated the need to invoke the aether.
Correct. Did not 'prove' ether was unexistant. Showed that it was
unnecesarry.
> But his statement, which you quoted, is incontrovertible as it is not a
> "scientific theory" but rather an invocation of the very definition of
> science (i.e. that science talks about what we can observe and
> measure).
That is the style at this time....
You may invoke an "absolute time" or some other metaphysical
> assertion such as "god" or "djins" but until you explain how such can
> be empirically determined you are not refering to a scientific
> theory/definition.
Q: so what if absotlute time is metaphysical?
It (ehter theory) does make the same predictions as SR and since it
uses the well familiar GT, this makes the theory much simpler (in my
view). (I am not saying that Seto's theory is good..he has alooooot of
work to do on it.)
Also, why in this case metaphysical stuff is not 'permitted' but in
other branches of physics/cosmology it is accepted.
Oh, and btw, do not use the concept of i=sqrt(-1) anymore because it is
not measurable.
> With regard to your pet theories, your inability to comprehend the
> point I made above make me suspicious of any merit in them so I will
> not waste time reading them.
I fully agree an that.
> Oh, by the way, Einstein's special relativity is also (locally) valid
> in the presence of gravitation.
But ehter theory agree also agrees in global gravitaion..
Im outta here!
-*-*
If you want to be sure, then always doubt
}:-)
-*-*
ROTFLOL.....so your assertion becomes proof? BTW I am still waiting for you
to sue me for using your idea on *time*.
Ken Seto
>>These "bogus concepts" are indeed misleading.
>
>
> Yes...misleading. Now why such a 'genious' keep his concepts misleading
> instead of making it simple and clear?
>
>
>>Einstein then relativized time
>
>
> or, *redefined* time. He used a new definition of 'time', different
> from Newtons (absolute) time. To fit empirical results, he had to
> change the algebra (making c=constant in all frames does this). That is
> why we have LT equations in SR. Physicist could have kept the old
> (absolute) definition of time and the good old Galilean Transformations
> (GT).
The GT isn't consistent with the concept of a speed limit. No viable
ether theory incorporates it.
Your theory cannot possibly be an improved version of relativity
because your theory is clearly absolutistic, not relativistic. For a
theory to be relativistic, the theory must treat all (local) inertial
frames as completely identical for all theoretical purposes in the
treatment of physical laws.
No....there is no such thing as time dilation. The emperical data merely
show that the relative clocks are running at different rates due to the
clock second in different frames contains a different amount of absolute
time. The emperical data does not show physical length contraction. It shows
that the light path length of a moving rod can be shorter or longer than the
light path length of the observer's rod.
>It was supposed
> that movement through the aether must slow clocks and shorten measuring
> rods in just such a way as to prevent the speed through the aether from
> actually being measurable. Einstein then relativized time and
> eliminated the need to invoke the aether.
Einstein didn't eliminate the aether at all. The null result of the MMX is
due to the mirrors at the ends of the arms acted as sources and SR says that
the speed of light is independent of the motion of the source and thus the
null result. However, the reason why the speed of light is source
independent is because light is being transmitted by a stationary ether at
constant speed.
>
> But his statement, which you quoted, is incontrovertible as it is not a
> "scientific theory" but rather an invocation of the very definition of
> science (i.e. that science talks about what we can observe and
> measure).
His statement is not a good definition for time. Why? Because the passage of
a clock second in one frame does not correspond to the passage of a clock
second in another frame. This is because a clock second contains a different
amount of absolute time in different frames.
>You may invoke an "absolute time" or some other metaphysical
> assertion such as "god" or "djins" but until you explain how such can
> be empirically determined you are not refering to a scientific
> theory/definition. You are in fact preaching a religious belief.
Sigh....but the whole purpose of SR is to predict the clock time reading in
the observed frame for an absolute time interval (such as a clock second in
the observer's frame) in the observer's frame. The GPS is a good example of
application of absolute time to synchronize the GPS clock with the ground
clock.
>
> With regard to your pet theories, your inability to comprehend the
> point I made above make me suspicious of any merit in them so I will
> not waste time reading them. You can place them atop the compost pile
> of other "disproofs of Einstein" which kooks post here weekly.
ROTFLOL.....You need to study physics for another 20 years to reach my level
of understanding of real physics.
Ken Seto
No it doesn't.
>
> Did you want to do the math differently? Feel free. It is the same
> basic until you want to re-define the terms.
Yes IRT has different math. It is described in the above link.
Ken Seto
Clearly you don't know what you are talking about. You reach the above
conclusion without reading my theory. The postulates of my theory IRT are as
follows:
1. The laws of physics based on a clock second and a light-second to measure
length are the same for all observers in all inertial reference frames.
2. The speed of light in free space based on a clock second and a
light-second to measure length has the same mathematical ratio c in all
directions and all inertial frames.
3. The laws of physics based on a defined absolute second and the physical
length of a rod is different in different frames of reference.
4. The one-way speed of light in free space based on a defined absolute
second and the physical length of a measuring rod has a different
mathematical ratio for light speed in different inertial frames. The speed
of light based on a defined absolute second and the physical length of a
measuring rod is a maximum in the rest frame of the E-Matrix.
The first two postulates of IRT are identical to the postulates of SRT and
that's why SRT is a subset of IRT.
Ken Seto
SR is a subset of "your model" according to you, Seto, and it definitely
predicts time dilation, which has been confirmed in countless experiments
and observations, including satellite based navigation systems.
SR predicts that time and space are malleable. In fact, there has never
been a prediction of SR that was contradicted by an observation.
That describes you too!
> You either don't have the vocabulary
> skills needed to do that or you don't have an answer for those
> questions.
Again, that's you!
> Either way, you cannot properly defend your theory.
And an unsupported opinion to boot!
GT says nothing about a speed limit. It is neither consistent nor
inconsistent with a speed limit. Speed limit must be assumed if relying
only on GT. LT says that there is a speed limit due to construction.
But, Maxwell eq. imply speed limit. There are ether theories (field eq.
theories) which imply speed limits, length & time contractions etc..
all based on GT.
These two theories (ether's ans SR), although have different
postulates, are 'equivalent' and empirically identical..(almost?).
I didn't snip this one because it is perfect for the Immortal Fumbles.
Cretinoid, your IRt has 4 postulates, SR has 2 , how can SR be a subset
of your theory. Disgusting Imbecile!
Hey idiot runt......the SR time dilation is merely a clcok second in the
moving frame contains a larger amount of absolute time.
Ken Seto
>
> Hey idiot runt......the SR time dilation is merely a clcok second in the
> moving frame contains a larger amount of absolute time.
>
> Ken Seto
>
>
SR is a subset of "your model" according to you, Seto, and it definitely
predicts time dilation, which has been confirmed in countless experiments
and observations, including satellite based navigation systems.
SR predicts that time and space are malleable. In fact, there has never
> The first two postulates of IRT are identical to the postulates of SRT and
> that's why SRT is a subset of IRT.
>
> Ken Seto
>
>
SR is a subset of "your model" according to you, Seto, and it definitely
SR didn't predict time dilation. It predicted relative clocks are running at
different rates and you runts interpret that as time dilation.
Ken Seto
SR didn't predict time dilation. It predicted relative clocks are running at
> SR didn't predict time dilation. It predicted relative clocks are running at
> different rates and you runts interpret that as time dilation.
>
> Ken Seto
>
>
>
Oh, but SR does predict time dilation for any entity in relative motion
to an observer.
t' = t_0/gamma, where gamma = (1-v^2/c^2)^-0.5 with v being the
relative velocity and c being the speed of light. Not only is it
routinely observed in nature, but it is necessary to take it into
account in numerous devices in our lives.
Umm, no fuck face. Eistein showed the transverse Doppler effect, one of
the purest forms of time dilation in his 1905 paper, Motherfucker!
Hey idiot....that's not time dilation. That's the observed clock is running
at a slower rate compared to the observer's clcok.
Ken Seto
>SR time dilation is merely a clcok second in the
>moving frame contains a larger amount of absolute time.
What is absolute time? And how can you tell?
Yes sir--Time dilation has the effect of making the observed clock run
slower than the observer's clock--You don't have to be an idiot to
notice that!
Yes sir you are an idiot. The reason why relative clock is running slow is
because its clock second contains a larger amount of absolute time.
Ken Seto
xxein: You did not get my point. CONCEPT!!!
I can give all kinds of mathmatical forms, but what do they signify?
Don't you get tired of having so many people shit on you and on your
"theory"?
When you die, there are still going to be people shitting on your grave
(for a while).
Rod: Property is owned and or associated with.
A moving square has an (x), (y), (z), and (t) associated with it.
However, this is according to you, an observer who uses these
dimensions to associate with the moving square.
YOU associated the dimensions NOT the square.
Now, onward to the Universe.
It observes nothing, therefore dimensions are not part of its
vocabulary.
It is ONLY the observer that owns and or associates stuff with
properties.
Rod Ryker...
It is reasoning and faith that bind truth.
That's pretty childish--you saying "its clock second contains a
larger amount of absolute time". Show me your equations defining
absolute time and time dilation. That is certainly missing from
your online "paper".
They signify that SRT is incomplete and IRT is complete. They signify that
the observer's clock can run fast or slow compared to an observed clock.
They signify that the physical length of a rod remains the same in all
frames and that the light path length of a moving rod wrt the observer is
changing. BTW all these are the consequences of the IRT postulates as
described in the above link.
Ken Seto
Ken Seto
>
The equations of Special Relativity (SR) show that an observed clock
in relative motion to an observer is *always slowed* with respect to
the observer's clock. If [the equations of] IRT shows otherwise, then
IRT is fatal flawed, as nature is accurately modeled by SR.
rotchm:
> GT says nothing about a speed limit. It is neither consistent nor
> inconsistent with a speed limit. Speed limit must be assumed if relying
> only on GT. LT says that there is a speed limit due to construction.
Is there no end to the clown parade on this newsgroup? When ruler and
clock measurements are described by the GT, velocity composition is
additive, which means speeds aren't limited.
Learn how to quote properly.
Hey idiot....the observer's clock second is also defined as an interval of
absolute time ...a defined absolute second. The IRT equations [1] and [2]
predict the clock reading in the *observed* frame for a defined absolute
second in the observer's frame. Notice that the passage of a defined
absolute second does not have the same clock reading in the observer's frame
as in the *observed* frame. In the observer's frame the passage of a defined
absolute second is one of abserver's clock second. In the *observed* frame
the passage of a defined absolute second can be less or more than one of the
*observed* clock second. However, these two different clock readings has the
same absolute time content...namely a defined absolute second.
Ken Seto
> They signify that SRT is incomplete and IRT is complete. They signify that
> the observer's clock can run fast or slow compared to an observed clock.
>
The equations of Special Relativity (SR) show that an observed clock
in relative motion to an observer is *always slowed* with respect to
the observer's clock. If [the equations of] IRT shows otherwise, then
IRT is fatally flawed, as nature is accurately modeled by SR.
The equations of Special Relativity (SR) show that an observed clock
Obviously, you have no clue of modern ether theories. Of course ruler
and clocks are additive and speeds are not limited. But due to
"physical" contractions of rulers (and slowdowns of clocks),
*measurements* of lightspeed (vacuo) are limited and give c. You should
know that. There are numerous sites and litterature indicating that SR
and (modern) ether theories are equivalent.
The algerba of SR and Ether are different. Their end results are the
same...just do the algera and you will see...
You are a stupid idiot. The reason why SR is incomplete because it only show
that an observed clock is running slow. This cannot be unless the observer
is in a state of absolute rest. In real life all clocks are in a state of
absolute motion....this means that the observer's clock can run fast or slow
compared to an observed clock. Eqautions [1] and [2] of IRT show this
clearly. So when you claimed that IRT is flawed is in fact that SRT is
incomplete.
Ken Seto
Fucking idiot runt.
Fucking idiot.....SR has a limited domain of applicability because the
observed clock is not *always slowed* compared to his clock. IRT has
umlimited domain of applicability. So you idiot think that nature is
modelled accurately by SR.....???? Fucking idiot.
Ken Seto
Fucking idiot.....SR has a limited domain of applicability because the
Gravitational ime dilation effects are also correctly modeled by
General relativity, Seto. Have you ever studied all the relativistic
corrections taken into account in the Global Positioning System?
>
> Fucking idiot.....SR has a limited domain of applicability because the
> observed clock is not *always slowed* compared to his clock. IRT has
> umlimited domain of applicability. So you idiot think that nature is
> modelled accurately by SR.....???? Fucking idiot.
>
> Ken Seto
>
>
Gravitational time dilation effects are also correctly modeled by
>>
>> The equations of Special Relativity (SR) show that an observed clock
>> in relative motion to an observer is *always slowed* with respect to
>> the observer's clock. If [the equations of] IRT shows otherwise, then
>> IRT is fatally flawed, as nature is accurately modeled by SR.
>
>
> Fucking idiot.....SR has a limited domain of applicability because the
> observed clock is not *always slowed* compared to his clock. IRT has
> umlimited domain of applicability. So you idiot think that nature is
> modelled accurately by SR.....???? Fucking idiot.
>
> Ken Seto
>
>
Gravitational time dilation effects are also correctly modeled by
> The reason why SR is incomplete because it only show
> that an observed clock is running slow. This cannot be unless the observer
> is in a state of absolute rest. In real life all clocks are in a state of
> absolute motion....this means that the observer's clock can run fast or slow
> compared to an observed clock.
Please describe a setup where an observer will see a clock moving with
respect to him as running faster than his.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
The concepts were made clear... but coached in an older language.
Language adapts to the new concepts. It is always the case that the
change of concept comes prior to the change in vocabulary. This is
what makes Einstein all the more a genius in that he had to break out
of the implicit assumptions built into the old language.
> > Einstein then relativized time
>
> or, *redefined* time. He used a new definition of 'time', different
> from Newtons (absolute) time.
That is implicit in relativization. But nonetheless Newton's
"absolute" time was still "what clocks measure". It was just assumed
that all clocks regardless of their relative motion measure the same
absolute time. Einstein recognize this assumption as an unsupported
postulate and then established the experimental proceedures by which it
could be affirmed or falsfied. It has been and we are done with it...
except for a few amateurs who still take assumptions built into the
langauge as "obvious truths".
> > eliminated the need to invoke the aether.
>
> Correct. Did not 'prove' ether was unexistant. Showed that it was
> unnecesarry.
Yes, but why invoke the un-necessary and unobservable?
> > But his statement, which you quoted, is incontrovertible as it is not a
> > "scientific theory" but rather an invocation of the very definition of
> > science (i.e. that science talks about what we can observe and
> > measure).
>
> That is the style at this time....
It is not a matter of style, it is at the fundament of modern science.
Science only accepts as knowledge what can be observed. It is those
who would pass their faiths off as science who belittle the one
component of science which gives it the authority they would like to
steal.
> You may invoke an "absolute time" or some other metaphysical
> > assertion such as "god" or "djins" but until you explain how such can
> > be empirically determined you are not refering to a scientific
> > theory/definition.
>
> Q: so what if absotlute time is metaphysical?
> It (ehter theory) does make the same predictions as SR and since it
> uses the well familiar GT, this makes the theory much simpler (in my
> view). (I am not saying that Seto's theory is good..he has alooooot of
> work to do on it.)
>
> Also, why in this case metaphysical stuff is not 'permitted' but in
> other branches of physics/cosmology it is accepted.
Other branches take the base theory as a given. Thence the treatment
of a moon, planet, star or galaxy as a metaphysical object does not
differ from the fact that they are fundamentally empirical phenomena.
We needn't be careful about confirming the moon's existance or gross
properties... just as we needn't worry about Einstein vs. Newton when
building a house.
> Oh, and btw, do not use the concept of i=sqrt(-1) anymore because it is
> not measurable.
Please don't be so sophmoric. Of course one may utilize non-empirical
concepts... one simply doesn't given them physical status. i is as
real as the number pi or the concept of an equalateral triangle. It
and they are mathematical constructs existing in the minds of those who
conceive of them. You can likewise use "the aether" or "demons"(a la
Maxwell) conceptually... it is when people make assertions that they
"really are real" that they open themselves to be asked whether they
are asserting knowledge based on scientific epistemology or the
epistemology of religion.
>
> > With regard to your pet theories, your inability to comprehend the
> > point I made above make me suspicious of any merit in them so I will
> > not waste time reading them.
>
> I fully agree an that.
>
> > Oh, by the way, Einstein's special relativity is also (locally) valid
> > in the presence of gravitation.
>
> But ehter theory agree also agrees in global gravitaion..
"Ether theory?" Since the ether is unobservable it "agrees with" any
theory but it ceases to be part of one in the domain of science. One
may speak of "ether models" but until you provide a falsifiable
experiment which directly detects an ether (or an absolute time scale)
you are using the term "theory" outside the domain of science.
Regards,
James
No... the empirical data shows clocks are running at different rates.
The "due to" is your interpretation of this observation based on your
model. I agree (and hence call them bogus) that "time dilation"
doesn't occur as such... Clocks read differently *period*. SR
describes qualitatively and quantitatively exactly how they will
differ. That part is the theory. You may add more in order to
"explain why" but that goes beyond the theory.
> >It was supposed
> > that movement through the aether must slow clocks and shorten measuring
> > rods in just such a way as to prevent the speed through the aether from
> > actually being measurable. Einstein then relativized time and
> > eliminated the need to invoke the aether.
>
> Einstein didn't eliminate the aether at all.
Read more carefully... he eliminated *the need to invoke an aether*.
> The null result of the MMX is
> due to ...[snip]
Again you can reinterpret all day but you are not proposing a new
*scientific theory* if you are not altering the quantative and
qualitative predictions of empirical phenomena. You are model building
and not theorizing.
> > But his statement, which you quoted, is incontrovertible as it is not a
> > "scientific theory" but rather an invocation of the very definition of
> > science (i.e. that science talks about what we can observe and
> > measure).
>
> His statement is not a good definition for time. Why? Because the passage of
> a clock second in one frame does not correspond to the passage of a clock
> second in another frame.
In short it is not a good definition of *absolute* time. It none the
less is the *only* definition of time in a scientific context. How do
you know there is an absolute time? How do you *empirically* verify
this knowledge? You can preach all day and no scientist will take you
seriously until you anser this last question.
> This is because a clock second contains a different
> amount of absolute time in different frames.
Then (if as you say your "theory" agrees with SR) how do you resolve
the twin's paradox?
> >You may invoke an "absolute time" or some other metaphysical
> > assertion such as "god" or "djins" but until you explain how such can
> > be empirically determined you are not refering to a scientific
> > theory/definition. You are in fact preaching a religious belief.
>
> Sigh....but the whole purpose of SR is to predict the clock time reading in
> the observed frame for an absolute time interval (such as a clock second in
> the observer's frame) in the observer's frame.
No! for an *absolute space-time interval* which is very different. The
key point is that different observers resolve that segment between two
space-time events into different components of space and time. It is
no different then the fact that two rotated observers resolve a
diagional displacement into distinct vertical and lateral components.
The only difference between these examples is the geometric signature.
> The GPS is a good example of
> application of absolute time to synchronize the GPS clock with the ground
> clock.
> >
> > With regard to your pet theories, your inability to comprehend the
> > point I made above make me suspicious of any merit in them so I will
> > not waste time reading them. You can place them atop the compost pile
> > of other "disproofs of Einstein" which kooks post here weekly.
>
> ROTFLOL.....You need to study physics for another 20 years to reach my level
> of understanding of real physics.
Let's start with your definition of "real physics"... enlighten me!
Regards,
James
SO???? The equations of IRT are valid in a gravity environment. The GPS can
be correctly modelled by IRT.
jem:
>>Is there no end to the clown parade on this newsgroup? When ruler and
>>clock measurements are described by the GT, velocity composition is
>>additive, which means speeds aren't limited.
>>
>>Learn how to quote properly.
>
rotchm:
> Obviously, you have no clue of modern ether theories.
Obviously you have no clue what a measurement is. Here's a clue: it's
not an instrument reading suitably modified to account for imagined
physical effects that cause incorrect instrument readings.
Of course ruler
> and clocks are additive and speeds are not limited. But due to
> "physical" contractions of rulers (and slowdowns of clocks),
> *measurements* of lightspeed (vacuo) are limited and give c. You should
> know that. There are numerous sites and litterature indicating that SR
> and (modern) ether theories are equivalent.
and what makes them equivalent is the fact that they predict the same
relationships between the ruler and clock measurements of relatively
moving observers, and those relationships are not based on the GT.
From the GPS clock point of view the SR effect on the ground clock is that
it is running fast.
Ken Seto
SO???? The equations of IRT are valid in a gravity environment. The GPS can
Can IRT correctly calculate the time dilation for an orbit with a period
of 1.000 siderial day? If so, what is it?
This assertion is wrong. It is SR that assumes that the passage of a clock
second contains the same amount of absolute time in all frames. For example:
In the twin paradox scenario a traveling clock second is compared directly
with the passage of a stay at home clock second to reach the conclusion that
the traveling twin is younger. Also SR postulate says that the speed of
light is the same in all frames. This assertion implies that a clock second
in all frames represents the same amount of absolute time.
Ken Seto
Einstein recognize this assumption as an unsupported
> "jambaugh" <e...@jamesbaugh.info> wrote in message
> news:1152675390.0...@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>>rot...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>These "bogus concepts" are indeed misleading.
>>>
>>>Yes...misleading. Now why such a 'genious' keep his concepts misleading
>>>instead of making it simple and clear?
>>
>>The concepts were made clear... but coached in an older language.
>>Language adapts to the new concepts. It is always the case that the
>>change of concept comes prior to the change in vocabulary. This is
>>what makes Einstein all the more a genius in that he had to break out
>>of the implicit assumptions built into the old language.
>>
>>
>>>>Einstein then relativized time
>>>
>>>or, *redefined* time. He used a new definition of 'time', different
>>>from Newtons (absolute) time.
>>
>>That is implicit in relativization. But nonetheless Newton's
>>"absolute" time was still "what clocks measure". It was just assumed
>>that all clocks regardless of their relative motion measure the same
>>absolute time.
>
>
> This assertion is wrong.
Of course it's not wrong. It's an obvious (as usual, to everyone but
you) fact about the Newtonian model.
It is SR that assumes that the passage of a clock
> second contains the same amount of absolute time in all frames.
The same amount of *time*. For the umpteenth time, Relativity doesn't
incorporate the concept of "absolute time", anymore than it incorporates
Disneyland.
For example:
> In the twin paradox scenario a traveling clock second is compared directly
> with the passage of a stay at home clock second to reach the conclusion that
> the traveling twin is younger. Also SR postulate says that the speed of
> light is the same in all frames. This assertion implies that a clock second
> in all frames represents the same amount of absolute time.
Time, Seto, time.
> > or, *redefined* time. He used a new definition of 'time', different
> > from Newtons (absolute) time.
> That is implicit in relativization. But nonetheless Newton's
> "absolute" time was still "what clocks measure".
I disagree. Newton clearly stated that absolute time is NOT what a
clock indicates:
"Absolute, true and mathematical time, in itself, and from its own
nature, flows equally, without relation to any thing external; and by
other name called Duration. Relative, apparent, and vulgar time, is
some sensible and external measure of duration by motion, whether
accurate or unequable, which is commonly used instead of true time; as
an hour, a day, a month, a year...", Newton: Mathematical Principles of
natural philosophy
Newton time or absolute time as used in ether theories is not what a
clock measures.
> > Correct. Did not 'prove' ether was unexistant. Showed that it was
> > unnecesarry.
>
> Yes, but why invoke the un-necessary and unobservable?
It makes the "theory" simpler to grasp (in my opinion). If I want to
predict the outcome of an experiment, I can use SR or ether. If its far
simpler to use ether then I would prefer to use it. Both theories would
predict the same result anw. (in all cases?)
> > Also, why in this case metaphysical stuff is not 'permitted' but in
> > other branches of physics/cosmology it is accepted.
>
> Other branches take the base theory as a given.
That would lead into a discussion of what is metaphysical and not in
the many branches of science/theory....we are falling into philosophy
of... Perhaps a discussion for another thread.
> "Ether theory?" Since the ether is unobservable it "agrees with" any
> theory but it ceases to be part of one in the domain of science.
Again a philo debate: can a theory (model) be accepted in science if it
has a power of prediction of experiments, just as effectively as SR?
Why impose that all aspects of the model must be observable
(measurable)? etc...etc...
We have theories that predict black holes. Yet, black holes are not
"directly" observable.
There are many other such examples of 'not directly observable' and
'metaphysical' aspects used in modern science.
---
If you want to be sure, then always doubt.
}:-)
---
---
Why *NO*?? That's exactly what my theory says.
> The "due to" is your interpretation of this observation based on your
> model. I agree (and hence call them bogus) that "time dilation"
> doesn't occur as such... Clocks read differently *period*. SR
> describes qualitatively and quantitatively exactly how they will
> differ. That part is the theory. You may add more in order to
> "explain why" but that goes beyond the theory.
But what SR describes is incomplete. There are situations in which the SR
effect on the observer's clock is running slower than the *observed* clock.
For example: from the GPS point of view the SR effect on the ground clock is
that it is running at a faster rate.
>
> > >It was supposed
> > > that movement through the aether must slow clocks and shorten
measuring
> > > rods in just such a way as to prevent the speed through the aether
from
> > > actually being measurable. Einstein then relativized time and
> > > eliminated the need to invoke the aether.
> >
> > Einstein didn't eliminate the aether at all.
>
> Read more carefully... he eliminated *the need to invoke an aether*.
No he didn't. He assumed that each observer is in a state of absolute rest
(this is allowed by the PoR) and that's why he asserted that all clock
moving wrt each observer are running slow. This assumption is incomplete and
that's why SR is incomplete. In real life all observers are in a state of
absolute motion and thus the observer's clock can run fast or slow compared
to other clocks moving wrt him.
>
> > The null result of the MMX is
> > due to ...[snip]
>
> Again you can reinterpret all day but you are not proposing a new
> *scientific theory* if you are not altering the quantative and
> qualitative predictions of empirical phenomena. You are model building
> and not theorizing.
You haven't read what IRT said so how can you make such an absurd
conclusion?
>
> > > But his statement, which you quoted, is incontrovertible as it is not
a
> > > "scientific theory" but rather an invocation of the very definition of
> > > science (i.e. that science talks about what we can observe and
> > > measure).
> >
> > His statement is not a good definition for time. Why? Because the
passage of
> > a clock second in one frame does not correspond to the passage of a
clock
> > second in another frame.
>
> In short it is not a good definition of *absolute* time. It none the
> less is the *only* definition of time in a scientific context.
But it is not scientific if such definition introduces paradoxes into a
theory and at the same time it makes the theory incomplete.
>How do
> you know there is an absolute time? How do you *empirically* verify
> this knowledge? You can preach all day and no scientist will take you
> seriously until you anser this last question.
The existence of absolute time explains why the speed of light is a measured
constant by all observers. The speed of light can be defined as a constant
math ratio as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458m long)/the absolute time content for
a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
The GPS uses absolute time to synchrobnize the ground clock with the GPS
clocks.
The purpose of the SR equation is to predict the clock time reading in the
observed frame for an interval of absolute time in the observer's frame.
>
> > This is because a clock second contains a different
> > amount of absolute time in different frames.
>
> Then (if as you say your "theory" agrees with SR) how do you resolve
> the twin's paradox?
There is no paradox if absolute time exists. The different clock readings
between the twins represent the same amount of absolute time. I suggest that
you read IRT in the following link (page 4) to get a better understanding of
my theory:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Unification.pdf
>
>
> > >You may invoke an "absolute time" or some other metaphysical
> > > assertion such as "god" or "djins" but until you explain how such can
> > > be empirically determined you are not refering to a scientific
> > > theory/definition. You are in fact preaching a religious belief.
> >
> > Sigh....but the whole purpose of SR is to predict the clock time reading
in
> > the observed frame for an absolute time interval (such as a clock second
in
> > the observer's frame) in the observer's frame.
>
> No! for an *absolute space-time interval* which is very different.
NO it is not necessary to introduce the concept of space-time if one accept
the existence of absolute time.
Ken Seto
> But nonetheless Newton's
>>>"absolute" time was still "what clocks measure". It was just assumed
>>>that all clocks regardless of their relative motion measure the same
>>>absolute time.
>>
>>
>> This assertion is wrong.
>
>Of course it's not wrong. It's an obvious (as usual, to everyone but
>you) fact about the Newtonian model.
>
>It is SR that assumes that the passage of a clock
>> second contains the same amount of absolute time in all frames.
>
>The same amount of *time*. For the umpteenth time, Relativity doesn't
>incorporate the concept of "absolute time", anymore than it incorporates
>Disneyland.
>
> For example:
>> In the twin paradox scenario a traveling clock second is compared directly
>> with the passage of a stay at home clock second to reach the conclusion that
>> the traveling twin is younger. Also SR postulate says that the speed of
>> light is the same in all frames. This assertion implies that a clock second
>> in all frames represents the same amount of absolute time.
>
>Time, Seto, time.
read "in all frames", and not "as viewed from another frame"
although I don't understand his description of the twins.
w.
(REM: I am not defending Seto's theory...in fact I disagree with
it...there are many flaws in my opinion)
Both in SR or ether, there is no 'paradox'. Both theories predict that
the travelling twin will age less. The ether's explanation is simple
and involves only simple algebra. (I did it when I was in highschool
and knew nothing of SR!). Generally, SR explanations are quite
convoluted and unintuitive. That is why many still debate it.
The SR's explanation is simple too though: The twins are NOT in a
symmetrical position hence the principle of relativity (or symmetry in
the problem) is not broken. Eg: the travelling twin goes 10 LY away and
comes back, wrt stat twin. This implies that the stat twin is NOT
travelling 10 LY and back wrt travelling twin. Then by appropriately
applying LT, one gets the desired conclusion...but one must be at ease
with LT...something quite difficult to acheive...contrary to GT.
NO....the correct ether theory would say that in terms of absolute time both
twin will age the same the different clock readings for the twin is due to
the traveling clock second contains a larger amount of absolute time.
Ken Seto
You need frequency data (Faa and Fab) to do such IRT calculations.
We are using same words for different things and using different words
for the same thing...
Yes, both twins 'age' the same ABSOLUTE time. But 'to age' means that
the twins are biological entities/physical entities. They, their atoms,
electrical impulses tick at different rates just as a physical clock
does. The twins 'rot' or slowly 'decay'. That is what is meant by 'to
age'. Twins are 'real/physical clocks. These tick at a slower rate:
Travelling twin ages less. Physical processes run at a slower rate when
travelling within the ether, within the (Maxwell) field equations.
And btw, 'ether' here and in my previous discussions does not
necesarely mean a ponderable/physical media. It can mean just a
mathematical (prefered) reference frame, a system of coords.
---
If you want to be sure, then always doubt
}:-)
---
---
>Newton time or absolute time as used in ether theories is not what a
>clock measures.
Which is why ether theories are galilean invariant.
[...]
>It makes the "theory" simpler to grasp (in my opinion). If I want to
>predict the outcome of an experiment, I can use SR or ether.
No, you cannot. In ether theories, simultaneity is absolute.
In special relativity, spacelike events have no time ordering
and you cannot impose any preferred time ordering to tell
you which event ``really'' happened first without intrducing
inconsistencies. A theory with an absolute simultaneity is
galileant.
>If its far
>simpler to use ether then I would prefer to use it. Both theories would
>predict the same result anw. (in all cases?)
As a matter of fact, no. The epr experiment done with moving beam
splitters contradicts the existence of a preferred frame.
[...]
>Again a philo debate: can a theory (model) be accepted in science if it
>has a power of prediction of experiments, just as effectively as SR?
>Why impose that all aspects of the model must be observable
>(measurable)? etc...etc...
If it is not possible to measure something, even in principle,
then nature cannot use that ``effect'' as a physical process,
and such an effect can have no physical consequences on any
physics relevant to this universe. What possible reality could
such an effect be given?
>We have theories that predict black holes. Yet, black holes are not
>"directly" observable.
You are playing with semantics. A black kole can be observed
in principle and nothing in the theory precludes that. The
fact that any black holes we could observe would have to be
very far away, making observation difficult, is what keeps
their existence from being declared a fact.
>There are many other such examples of 'not directly observable' and
>'metaphysical' aspects used in modern science.
Such as?
>---
>If you want to be sure, then always doubt.
If you want to be sure, you will end up dying without ever knowing
anything. Intelligence requires exercising judgement and choosing
wisely from among the options.
No it is not because the traveling twin ages slower. It is that the
traveling twin's year represents more than the one of the stay at home year.
IOW the traveling twins' life span is only 1/2 that of the stay at home life
span even though his clock says that he is 1/2 the age of the stay at home
twin.
>Twins are 'real/physical clocks. These tick at a slower rate:
> Travelling twin ages less. Physical processes run at a slower rate when
> travelling within the ether, within the (Maxwell) field equations.
>
> And btw, 'ether' here and in my previous discussions does not
> necesarely mean a ponderable/physical media. It can mean just a
> mathematical (prefered) reference frame, a system of coords.
Then you don't have an ether theory. You have a math theory.
Ken Seto
Words. In ether therories, "simultaneity" means that two events are
'simultanious' in the SR sence. When we refer to absolute simul, we say
absolute simul...
> In special relativity, spacelike events have no time ordering
> and you cannot impose any preferred time ordering to tell
> you which event ``really'' happened first without intrducing
> inconsistencies.
Exactly as predicted by ether theories. Such theories say that the re
is no time ordering, where 'time' is taken to be SR's time (clocks,
measurements etc...)
>A theory with an absolute simultaneity is
> galileant.
Correct. But 'measured' time is not Gal.Invar.
>> Both theories would
> >predict the same result anw. (in all cases?)
>
> As a matter of fact, no. The epr experiment done with moving beam
> splitters contradicts the existence of a preferred frame.
I dont think so..but I will have to read-up on that experiment. What
does SR predict for that experiment?
> If it is not possible to measure something, even in principle,
> then nature cannot use that ``effect'' as a physical process,
> and such an effect can have no physical consequences on any
> physics relevant to this universe. What possible reality could
> such an effect be given?
That can be debated....There are many interpretations on what you (we)
mean. Three body problem, (mathematically) proven that it is impossible
to know (and measure) trajectories...but the trajectory solution
exist...Gravity (a physical process?) does affect bodies.
> >We have theories that predict black holes. Yet, black holes are not
> >"directly" observable.
>
> You are playing with semantics.
It was not my intention and I do not consider it a semantics issue. It
will take many lines to explain/detail or sentences...once again.
>A black kole can be observed
> in principle and nothing in the theory precludes that.
?? I would like to debate that...another thread, another time.
> >There are many other such examples of 'not directly observable' and
> >'metaphysical' aspects used in modern science.
>
> Such as?
This will lead to the philo/notion of 'directly observable'...I do not
want to go into that yet.
If I do recall some, I will tell ya. I do have a good example in mind
but will lead to a lengtly discussion on theories/philo/semantics
etc... Not yet.
L8r
I have trouble understanding you here.
If a twin does an out and back trip, will he be and 'old man', 'older
than' his twin (will he have aged biologically wrt his twin)? What
about the clocks that both posess?
> Then you don't have an ether theory. You have a math theory.
Call it what you want. Litterature calls it an ether theory, prefered
frame theories usw.
Eg: Einstein called his u_v in G_uv a kind of 'ether'...it is not a
'physical' ponderable media ether...it is just the parameters in the
gauge...its a 'math' theory, a 'physics' theory...an 'ether' theory.
Rod: Hi Ken.
I again am in agreement.
I understand, that is I (stand under) what you say.
Funny how _many_ people release their minds of definitions.
Rod Ryker...
It is reasoning and faith that bind truth.
Rod: ROFLMAO!
Get your head out of your Bilge Funk and apply your (proper) schooling.
Idiot.
Actually, this is NOT true, and this is an important point. A region of
spacetime is imbued with physical properties that do not necessarily
belong to identifiable "stuff" in that region.
PD
Either simultaneity is absolute or it is not. Take your pick.
>> In special relativity, spacelike events have no time ordering
>> and you cannot impose any preferred time ordering to tell
>> you which event ``really'' happened first without intrducing
>> inconsistencies.
>
>Exactly as predicted by ether theories.
In other words, you are claiming that there is no ether frame?
>Such theories say that the re
>is no time ordering, where 'time' is taken to be SR's time (clocks,
>measurements etc...)
Write that down using mathematics.
>>A theory with an absolute simultaneity is
>> galileant.
>
>Correct. But 'measured' time is not Gal.Invar.
Whatever that means. In any case, once you have established
absolute simultaneity, you have established a galilean invariant
system and no coordinate transformation can make that equivalent
to special relativity. Absolute siultaneity imposes additional
structure which is incompatible with poincare invariance.
>>> Both theories would
>> >predict the same result anw. (in all cases?)
>>
>> As a matter of fact, no. The epr experiment done with moving beam
>> splitters contradicts the existence of a preferred frame.
>
>I dont think so..but I will have to read-up on that experiment.
So, in other words, you don't think so, despite having not read
anything prior to responding? It figures.
>What does SR predict for that experiment?
Since the entire point of doing the experiment was to determine
whether or not bohm's interpretation of quntum mechanics (which
requires a preferred frame) was compatible with relativity, the
experimental predictions were obtained from relativity.
>> If it is not possible to measure something, even in principle,
>> then nature cannot use that ``effect'' as a physical process,
>> and such an effect can have no physical consequences on any
>> physics relevant to this universe. What possible reality could
>> such an effect be given?
>
>That can be debated....
Only if you refuse to employ common sense. I take reality to mean
anything which can have some physical consequence for this universe.
If you wish to debate the semantics of the word ``reality'' to include
things which manifestly contradict any meaning it could possilbly have
without being a non-sequitur, find a new age newsgroup where that sort
of thing is popular.
>There are many interpretations on what you (we) mean.
Only if you intent on making any definition of ``reality'' meaningless.
>Three body problem, (mathematically) proven that it is impossible
>to know (and measure) trajectories...
Where do you get this stuff? It should be quite obvious that
one can easily measure the trajectories in the three body problem.
What is proven mathematically is that the mathematical solution
is chaotic. Before responding with a lot of gobbledy gook, look
up the mathematical meaning of ``chaotic,'' since that is the
meaning I intended, not some malleable colloquialism.
>Gravity (a physical process?) does affect bodies.
You are very confused. The three body problem has more degrees
of freedom than conserved quantities, so the trajectories are
not well defined in terms of the first integrals of the motion.
That does not mean a specific solution cannot be found given
all of the initial data.
>> >We have theories that predict black holes. Yet, black holes are not
>> >"directly" observable.
>>
>> You are playing with semantics.
>
>It was not my intention and I do not consider it a semantics issue. It
>will take many lines to explain/detail or sentences...once again.
It is a semantics issue. We define ``things'' by listing its properties
with the context of some self-consistent, theoretical framework. Once we
define it, then it's existence is determined by measuring those properties
and finding the measurements consistent with the theory. That is as direct
an observation as it gets. If you think ``observation'' means only those
things that humans can touch, taste, see, smell or hear, your notion of
observation is extremely naive and anthropomorphic.
[...]
>> Such as?
>
>This will lead to the philo/notion of 'directly observable'...I do not
>want to go into that yet.
The concept of ``directly obsevable'' is quite relevant, since you
are trying to invoke your own personal limitations on that concept
in order to obscure the vast difference between things which can
be measured, in principle and things which have no connection to
anything one could call reality.
>If I do recall some, I will tell ya. I do have a good example in mind
>but will lead to a lengtly discussion on theories/philo/semantics
>etc... Not yet.
It's quite simple really and doesn't even require a particular
physical theory to state. You simply consider _any_ physical process
to be a blackbox which accepts _any_ input data and supplies _any_
output data. (If no physical process in the universe can generate any
input data which can be affected by the black box, such a process
is physically meaningless as it cannot affect anything in this universe).
You then compare the input to the output and find an algorithm which
decodes the input (i.e., translates it to he output data). Any algorithm
which performs the translation better than random chance, specifies
a physical process.
Rod: Again, "associated with".
> > A moving square has an (x), (y), (z), and (t) associated with it.
> > However, this is according to you, an observer who uses these
> > dimensions to associate with the moving square.
> > YOU associated the dimensions NOT the square.
> >
> No.
Rod: :S
You say yes, then no above, then agree below,
then disagree again below.
> It is well-accepted that the universe has spatial dimensions,
> and one of time. The numbers and units we attach to those are
> our own, true, but the dimensions are real: They do exist. Even
> AE used the same ones to invent his spacetime continuum.
> >
> > Now, onward to the Universe.
> > It observes nothing, therefore dimensions are not part of its
> > vocabulary.
> >
> Nor does it speak, for that matter.
> >
> > It is ONLY the observer that owns and or associates stuff with
> > properties.
> >
> In Philosophy, perhaps, but in physics, properties are associated
> with "stuff".
Rod: You need to understand this (stuff) BEFORE you can understand
Ken's statements.
Alright, to make it simpler for you to understand:
Actually, this is NOT true, and this is an important point. A region of
space is imbued with physical properties that do not necessarily belong
to identifiable "stuff" in that region. Some well-known examples
include an impedance of 377 ohms, a permeability, and a permittivity.
PD
> From the GPS clock point of view the SR effect on the ground clock is that
> it is running fast.
Damn. I should have qualified the question to remain within the
domain of SR.
Please show an inertial setup (no accelerations) in a presumed region
of space where gravity is negligable wherein an observed clock moving
with respect to yours will be seen to run faster than yours.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
You'd better go and disprove them if you are going to assert their
falsehood
as "fact". Not saying they're right, just criticizing your methodology.
Can you
prove he logically deduced them from his (false) premise, because if so
then
you've disproven the claim because the premise is false, or show also
that
his logic is faulty?
> Regards,
> James
No...the traveling twin will be younger according to his clock when compared
to the stay at home clock. But his life expectancy is shorter than that of
the stay at home twin. The end result is that in terms of absolute time they
will have the same life expantancy even though their clocks show them to
have different life expectancy. For example:
Life expectancy of the stay at home twin is 70 years according to his clcok.
Life expectancy of the traveling twin is 35 years according to his clock.
Life expantancy of the traveling twin in terms of the stay at home twin
clock=gamma*35=70years.
>
>
> > Then you don't have an ether theory. You have a math theory.
>
> Call it what you want. Litterature calls it an ether theory, prefered
> frame theories usw.
No ether theories in literature are based on a material medium occupying
space.
Ken Seto
I can do that if you first show me that all the clocks moving wrt you are
running slow. The point is an observer is not in a state of absolute rest
and therefore his clock cannot be the fastest running clock. For example
does he observes that his clock is running faster than the clock at rest in
the ether? I think not.
Ken Seto
His example illustrates that in order for the reunited twins to compare
elapsed times by comparing the tick counts of their clocks, the
durations between ticks on both clocks have to all represent the same
amount of time.
With that in mind, it makes no more sense to say that the duration
between clock ticks depends on the clock's motion (i.e. "as viewed from
another frame") than it does to say that a person's height depends on
their distance.
Why it makes no sense?? In SR the passage of a clock second in one frame
does not correspond to the passage of a clock second in another frame. This
merely means that the clock second contains different duration (absolute
time) in different frames.
Ken Seto
>
> I can do that if you first show me that all the clocks moving wrt you are
> running slow.
Endless evasion remains endless. Doesn't it ever seem strange to you
that all you can muster to nearly all technical questions is evasion?
Hasn't that ever caused you a moment's doubt?
Just answer the question by giving an algebraic expression based on
your IRT that demonstrates and quantifies your claim. Einstein did
exactly what you ask above and his expression has never been found to
be in error. What's yours again? What's f in your t' = f(t,v) that
shows t'>t? No words allowed, just an equation.
Rod: I no longer care to use my previous argument as a basis
to teach. Here is a better example for you.
In LAW, (injury) means one thing.
In MEDICINE, (injury) means something different.
In order for you to argue with Ken, perhaps you
should define what he is actually talking about.
I didn't say it makes no sense. It makes sense in the same way that it
makes sense to say a person's height depends on their distance. *Based
on measurements*, a person gets shorter as they move away from you (i.e.
their height when they're nearby does not /correspond/ to their height
when they're farther away).
And how many times must it be explained to you that there's no such
thing as "absolute time" in SR, before you're going to to stop using
that expression when discussing SR?
In SR the projected height get shorter the further away from you (the
observer). But projected height is not the real height. So what is your
point?
>
> And how many times must it be explained to you that there's no such
> thing as "absolute time" in SR, before you're going to to stop using
> that expression when discussing SR?
Sure there is absolute time in SR. Sr says that the speed of light is a
universal constant. For that to be true the speed of light must be a
constant math ratio as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458m)/the absolute time content for a
clcok second co-moving with the ruler.
BTW even though SR said that there is no absolute time...so what? Why can't
we discuss SR in the context that absolute time exists?
Ken Seto
>
Hey idiot:
t'=t*gamma.