Evidence for the existence of absolute time

Evidence for the existence of absolute time:
1. In the Lab reference frame the lab muon have a life time of 2.2 us before
decaying.

2. In the cosmic muon reference frame the cosmic muon have a life time of
2.2 us before decaying.

3. According to SR the passage of 2.2 us in the lab frame does not
correspond to the passage of 2.2 us in the cosmic muon frame. If the 2.2 us
in the cosmic muon frame is equavalent to the 2.2 us in the lab frame then
the cosmic muon would have to have a speed of 150 c on its way to the
lab!!!!! This would violate the postulate of SR.

4. The solution for the above conundrum:
From the lab frame and the lab clock point of view:
The lab muon decay at 2.2 us according to the lab clock.
The cosmic muon deacy at gamma*2.2 us according to the lab clock.
Therefore the speed on the cosmic muon is 100,000m/gamma*2.2us and this is
less than c.

5. The above solution implies the existence of absolute time as follows:
The passage of 2.2 us in the cosmic muon frame has the same absolute time
content for the passage of gamma*2.2 us in the lab frame.

6. The existence of absolute time explains why all observers measure the
speed of light to be a constant math ratio as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458m long physically)/the absolute time
content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.

7. The above new definition for the speed of light gives rise to a new
theory of relativity called IRT (Improved Relativity Theory). IRT includes
SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT are vaild in all
environments...including gravity. A description of IRT is in the paper
entitled "Unifcation of Physics" in my website (page 4):
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto

kenseto wrote:
Evidence for the existence of absolute time:
1. In the Lab reference frame the lab muon have a life time of 2.2 us before
decaying.

2. In the cosmic muon reference frame the cosmic muon have a life time of
2.2 us before decaying.

3. According to SR the passage of 2.2 us in the lab frame does not
correspond to the passage of 2.2 us in the cosmic muon frame. If the 2.2 us
in the cosmic muon frame is equavalent to the 2.2 us in the lab frame then
the cosmic muon would have to have a speed of 150 c on its way to the
lab!!!!! This would violate the postulate of SR.

4. The solution for the above conundrum:
From the lab frame and the lab clock point of view:
The lab muon decay at 2.2 us according to the lab clock.
The cosmic muon deacy at gamma*2.2 us according to the lab clock.
Therefore the speed on the cosmic muon is 100,000m/gamma*2.2us and this is
less than c.

5. The above solution implies the existence of absolute time as follows:
The passage of 2.2 us in the cosmic muon frame has the same absolute time
content for the passage of gamma*2.2 us in the lab frame.

6. The existence of absolute time explains why all observers measure the
speed of light to be a constant math ratio as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458m long physically)/the absolute time
content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.

7. The above new definition for the speed of light gives rise to a new
theory of relativity called IRT (Improved Relativity Theory). IRT includes
SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT are vaild in all
environments...including gravity. A description of IRT is in the paper
entitled "Unifcation of Physics" in my website (page 4):
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto

Unless you can identify a place where the laws of physics
change from one moment to the next then there is no case
for anything other than absolute time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem

Sue...
PS what did you assume for Muon Production Height
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q... Google+Search
.... in your examples? ;-)

Along the geometry in the space, a defintely it does, all along!

--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!


"Sue..." wrote in message
ups.com...

kenseto wrote:
Evidence for the existence of absolute time:
1. In the Lab reference frame the lab muon have a life time of 2.2 us
before
decaying.

2. In the cosmic muon reference frame the cosmic muon have a life time
of
2.2 us before decaying.

3. According to SR the passage of 2.2 us in the lab frame does not
correspond to the passage of 2.2 us in the cosmic muon frame. If the 2.2
us
in the cosmic muon frame is equavalent to the 2.2 us in the lab frame
then
the cosmic muon would have to have a speed of 150 c on its way to the
lab!!!!! This would violate the postulate of SR.

4. The solution for the above conundrum:
From the lab frame and the lab clock point of view:
The lab muon decay at 2.2 us according to the lab clock.
The cosmic muon deacy at gamma*2.2 us according to the lab clock.
Therefore the speed on the cosmic muon is 100,000m/gamma*2.2us and this
is
less than c.

5. The above solution implies the existence of absolute time as follows:
The passage of 2.2 us in the cosmic muon frame has the same absolute
time
content for the passage of gamma*2.2 us in the lab frame.

6. The existence of absolute time explains why all observers measure the
speed of light to be a constant math ratio as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458m long physically)/the absolute
time
content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.

7. The above new definition for the speed of light gives rise to a new
theory of relativity called IRT (Improved Relativity Theory). IRT
includes
SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT are vaild in
all
environments...including gravity. A description of IRT is in the paper
entitled "Unifcation of Physics" in my website (page 4):
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto

Unless you can identify a place where the laws of physics
change from one moment to the next then there is no case
for anything other than absolute time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem

Sue...
PS what did you assume for Muon Production Height

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...2+&btnG= Goog
le+Search
... in your examples? ;-)

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:Q1I5h.1060242$084.156808@attbi_s22...
kenseto wrote:
Evidence for the existence of absolute time...

There is no need or evidence for absolute time in physics, Ken.

Wormy is a runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
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 **** like
gourmet puppy chow. An Asshole who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR

Ken Seto

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:G3I5h.1060245$084.662317@attbi_s22...
kenseto wrote:
Evidence for the existence of absolute time...

Don't confuse proper time with absolute time, Ken.

Hey idiot runt....proper time in the *bserved frame* is the clock reading in
the *observed frame* for an interval of absolute time in the *observer's
frame*.

Wormy is a runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
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 **** like
gourmet puppy chow. An Asshole who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR

Ken Seto

"Sue..." wrote in message
ups.com...

kenseto wrote:
Evidence for the existence of absolute time:
1. In the Lab reference frame the lab muon have a life time of 2.2 us
before
decaying.

2. In the cosmic muon reference frame the cosmic muon have a life time
of
2.2 us before decaying.

3. According to SR the passage of 2.2 us in the lab frame does not
correspond to the passage of 2.2 us in the cosmic muon frame. If the 2.2
us
in the cosmic muon frame is equavalent to the 2.2 us in the lab frame
then
the cosmic muon would have to have a speed of 150 c on its way to the
lab!!!!! This would violate the postulate of SR.

4. The solution for the above conundrum:
From the lab frame and the lab clock point of view:
The lab muon decay at 2.2 us according to the lab clock.
The cosmic muon deacy at gamma*2.2 us according to the lab clock.
Therefore the speed on the cosmic muon is 100,000m/gamma*2.2us and this
is
less than c.

5. The above solution implies the existence of absolute time as follows:
The passage of 2.2 us in the cosmic muon frame has the same absolute
time
content for the passage of gamma*2.2 us in the lab frame.

6. The existence of absolute time explains why all observers measure the
speed of light to be a constant math ratio as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458m long physically)/the absolute
time
content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.

7. The above new definition for the speed of light gives rise to a new
theory of relativity called IRT (Improved Relativity Theory). IRT
includes
SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT are vaild in
all
environments...including gravity. A description of IRT is in the paper
entitled "Unifcation of Physics" in my website (page 4):
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto

Unless you can identify a place where the laws of physics
change from one moment to the next then there is no case
for anything other than absolute time.

Your statement makes no sense. The laws of physics numerically are the same
in all places. However, if the laws of physics is based on a defined
absolute second then these laws will vary from frame to frame.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem

What is this got to do with what I said ????

Ken Seto

Sue...
PS what did you assume for Muon Production Height

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q... Google+Search
... in your examples? ;-)

kenseto wrote:
"Sue..." wrote in message
ups.com...

kenseto wrote:
Evidence for the existence of absolute time:
1. In the Lab reference frame the lab muon have a life time of 2.2 us
before
decaying.

2. In the cosmic muon reference frame the cosmic muon have a life time
of
2.2 us before decaying.

3. According to SR the passage of 2.2 us in the lab frame does not
correspond to the passage of 2.2 us in the cosmic muon frame. If the 2.2
us
in the cosmic muon frame is equavalent to the 2.2 us in the lab frame
then
the cosmic muon would have to have a speed of 150 c on its way to the
lab!!!!! This would violate the postulate of SR.

4. The solution for the above conundrum:
From the lab frame and the lab clock point of view:
The lab muon decay at 2.2 us according to the lab clock.
The cosmic muon deacy at gamma*2.2 us according to the lab clock.
Therefore the speed on the cosmic muon is 100,000m/gamma*2.2us and this
is
less than c.

5. The above solution implies the existence of absolute time as follows:
The passage of 2.2 us in the cosmic muon frame has the same absolute
time
content for the passage of gamma*2.2 us in the lab frame.

6. The existence of absolute time explains why all observers measure the
speed of light to be a constant math ratio as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458m long physically)/the absolute
time
content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.

7. The above new definition for the speed of light gives rise to a new
theory of relativity called IRT (Improved Relativity Theory). IRT
includes
SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT are vaild in
all
environments...including gravity. A description of IRT is in the paper
entitled "Unifcation of Physics" in my website (page 4):
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto

Unless you can identify a place where the laws of physics
change from one moment to the next then there is no case
for anything other than absolute time.

Your statement makes no sense. The laws of physics numerically are the same
in all places. However, if the laws of physics is based on a defined
absolute second then these laws will vary from frame to frame.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem


What is this got to do with what I said ????
Hopefully nothing...because I hold some confidence in
what is on the wiki page.

Sue...


Ken Seto

Sue...
PS what did you assume for Muon Production Height

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q... Google+Search
... in your examples? ;-)

kenseto wrote:
Evidence for the existence of absolute time:
1. In the Lab reference frame the lab muon have a life time of 2.2 us before
decaying.

This is to say that in the Lab reference framestationary muons has a
half life of 2.25 microseconds as measured by laboratory clocks.

2. In the cosmic muon reference frame the cosmic muon have a life time of
2.2 us before decaying.

That is to say in another reference frame muons stationary in that
frame will
have a half life of 2.25microseconds.

You have just observed that no frame can be seen as prefered by virtue
of looking at muon half-lives.

3. According to SR the passage of 2.2 us in the lab frame does not
correspond to the passage of 2.2 us in the cosmic muon frame.

If by "the cosmic muon frame" you mean a distinct inertial frame then
correct.

And as a result since the "cosmic" muon is moving relative to the
laboratory frame it will appear to have a longer half-life as time is
measured in the laboratory frame. Specifically
its half-life is extended by a scale of sinh( arctanh(v/c)) where v is
the relative velocity.

If the 2.2 us in the cosmic muon frame is equavalent to the 2.2 us in the lab frame then...
If this were the case then you're not abiding by SR.

It seems to me that you are confusing two distinct ideas.

One is the concept of a universal time standard,e.g. the half-life of a
muon at rest, or the Plank time unit, or 9,192,631,770 periods of the
radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine
levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. [iso-31-1].

The other is the concept of absolute time, i.e. a particular method by
which any observer can physically determine a special clock which apart
from choice of units (i.e. choice of universal time standard) will
agree with the special clock a separate observer discovers without a
prior agreement (such as everyone is to use the clock in Greenwich
England.)
If for example we could measure our motion through the hypothesized
aether we could determine how much our clocks "are slowed" by motion
through this aether and define a universal clock as one stationary
w.r.t. to the aether. Then if we communicate with some moving distant
alien we can compare notes after the fact and see we agree on the
universal stationary clock. However until the aether is actually
measured this will not be possible and hence not meaningful.

the cosmic muon would have to have a speed of 150 c on its way to the
lab!!!!! This would violate the postulate of SR.

I don't follow your math but you can't use SR to violate SR. Either
you assumed something not consistant with SR through misunderstanding
it, and hence violate it automatically or you've not in fact done your
math correctly.

Let me make it simple: The following is what SR predicts. If you
dispute it then simply carry out the experiment and show the numbers
come out differently.

In the laboratory you produce a stream of muons traveling toward the
north star at a speed of 0.5 c. You will see their half life to be
about 2.60 microseconds. The half-distance they travel (distance
before half of them decay) will be 0.5c x 2.60= 389.7 meters. This is
meters and seconds as measured by your laboratory clock and measuring
rod.

An alien in his spaceship passes your orbital laboratory at 0.5c also
traveling toward the north star. He observes the same muons decaying
with the usual half life of 2.25 microseconds and half distance of zero
(since they are stationary in his frame). This as measured by his
clock and meter stick.

It just so happens that this alien is also emitting a beam of muons
traveling away from the north star at speed 0.5 c relative to his ship.
He sees these muons as having a half life of 2.60 microseconds and
half-distance of 389.7 meters but you watching his trail of muons see
them as having a half life of 2.25 microseconds and half distance zero
since they are stationary relative to you.

The point is that both sets of observations are symmetric and so
neither you nor the alien can make any claim about having "the correct
cosmic clock and cosmic measuring rod".
Neither you nor the alien can agree on how long the muons really last
except by randomly choosing one of your two sets of measurements to be
"the real time and distance".

Certainly there are universal time/distance standards. Pick the
Compton wavelength or the Bhor radius and convert to time using c, or
better yet define you second by the ISO standard. But moving cesium
clocks don't read the same as stationary cesium clocks and this works
symmetrically both ways when you reverse frames defining which is
moving and which is stationary.

And further don't keep confusing proper-time (time measured
specifically in the frame comoving with the object in question) with
the time measured in a particular observer's frame. In the above
example the northward muon's proper-time is also the alien's measured
time while the southward muon's proper-time is also your laboratory
time. These are not the same clocks and cannot be equated directly.
The different sets of muons have distinct half-lives as measured by any
one clock. How they differ including which has the longer half-life
depends on which clock. But of course both muons by definition have
the same proper half-life of 2.25 microseconds.

Regards,
James Baugh

kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:G3I5h.1060245$084.662317@attbi_s22...
kenseto wrote:
Evidence for the existence of absolute time...

Don't confuse proper time with absolute time, Ken.

Hey idiot runt....proper time in the *bserved frame* is the clock reading in
the *observed frame* for an interval of absolute time in the *observer's
frame*.

Wormy is a runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
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 **** like
gourmet puppy chow. An Asshole who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR

Ken Seto

Ken, Proper time for a specific object is the time that object
experiences... it is time in that frame which is co-moving with that
object. I have a stop-watch and pace off a 1 km track. I time you
running by at a large percentage of c. I don't use your wrist watch
and my 1km track to measure your speed. I use my own stop-watch.

You on the other hand may use your pocket laser range finder and
wris****ch to time the passage of my race-track and how long it appears
to you. You will find that we both get the same speed, you measuring
how fast the track flew past you and I the speed at which you flew past
my track. However the times and distances will not agree.

Your confusion between proper time and observer time is because you are
intuitively assuming absolute motion. Your points about proper time
work for any relative frames.

It is simply the fact that using SR I can predict what any other
observer moving at any physical velocity will measure on his own clock
and measuring rods. I simply transform my own observations to his
using the appropriate Lorentz transformation. My transformed numbers
will agree with anyone elses no matter their own velocity provided they
then take them and transform them to those of this specific observer.

They will agree after these specific distinct transformations, each of
us transforming the numbers into his frame. This is true for any
observer and so no one observer is universal just because we all know
what he will observe relative to our own observations.

As an analogy we can all agree on the distance between two points
although different people oriented in different directions will resolve
this distance differently into x y and z components. There is no
absolute x direction but there is a proper distance.

SR likewise asserts that there is no absolute t direction, distinct
observers resolve the duration and distance between two events
differently. They will however, using the Lorentz group, be able to
transform their measurements into those of an observer who is either
seeing the two events simultaneously (with zero t separation) or at the
same place (zero x separation). This is the proper observer for the
specific events and changes when you change which events you are
talking about.

Regards,
James Baugh




Regards,
James Baugh

1. If your theory contains SR as a subset, then it must predict exactly the
same behaviour of a muon as does SR. Does it?

2. Can you identify a single example where your theory predicts a different
out come to SR?

3. If not, then it isn't a different theory.