A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Ken Seto and absolute time.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 30th 11, 12:36 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Koobee Wublee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default Ken Seto and absolute time.

On Aug 29, 11:58 am, PD wrote:

Given two events -- the snapping of Genevieve L. Shatterbeak's fingers
and the collision between a waterglass and the floor -- there are two
measurements of time interval.

On clock A, which has one path through spacetime, the number of seconds
between these events is 18.3 seconds.

On clock B, which has a different path through spacetime, the number of
seconds between these two events is 22.7 seconds.


The above two statements are just ****ing silly. Clocks ticks through
time not through spacetime. Spacetime cannot be a proper measurement
of time. shrug

You can write either Larmor’s transform which does not satisfy the
principle of relativity or the Lorentz transform which does satisfy
the principle of relativity into just a single, same equation below.

** c^2 dTau^2 = c^2 dt1^2 – ds1^2 = c^2 dt2^2 – ds2^2 = c^2 dt3^2 –
ds3^2

Where

** dTau = time flow of the observed
** ds1^2 = dx1^2 + dy1^2 + dz1^2
** 1, 2, 3 = observers

You can write the above equation as follows.

** Tau = sqrt(1 – B1^2) dt1 = sqrt(1 – B2^2) dt2 = sqrt(1 – B3^2) dt3

Where

** B1^2 c^2 = (ds1/dt1)^2
** B2^2 c^2 = (ds2/dt2)^2
** B3^2 c^2 = (ds3/dt3)^2

The fact remains that Tau, dt1, dt2, dt3... are measurements of time.
The mystic quantity of spacetime just does not show up properly in the
mathematics anywhere even the mathematics came out of SR and GR.
shrug

Ken Seto will claim that there is a particular value of absolute time
between these two events, presumably measurable in absolute seconds.


Mr. Seto is correct. Any interferometer proves the physical world
flows with absolute time. Any suggestion of relative simultaneity is
just bull****. There is no experiment that shows the validity of
relative simultaneity. shrug

Yet he cannot say how many absolute seconds are between these two
events, and he cannot find any clock that would be able to read directly
that number of absolute seconds between the events.


He cannot say for Mr. Seto’s model, but one can say absolute
simultaneity does not require time flow to be the same. shrug

He will be happy to dance and tell you that 18.3 seconds "represents" a
certain amount of absolute time, and that 22.7 seconds "represents" the
same amount of absolute time, because as we all know, there is only one
value of absolute time between those two events.


One can flow faster than the other anywhere and anytime. If one flows
faster, it will always flow faster by this amount until its
environment has changed. shrug

But what that value is, nobody knows and nobody can measure.


The claim of mutual dilation is just garbage. The self-styled
physicists cannot think of how to prove. They are now asking Him, who
has told them that this mutual dilation is just silly, to come up with
an experiment to prove this mutual time dilation. Damn! The self-
styled physicists are just getting dumber and dumber. Duh! shrug


  #2  
Old August 30th 11, 02:39 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
[email protected][_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 139
Default Ken Seto and absolute time.

On Aug 29, 4:36*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Aug 29, 11:58 am, PD wrote:

Given two events -- the snapping of Genevieve L. Shatterbeak's fingers
and the collision between a waterglass and the floor -- there are two
measurements of time interval.


On clock A, which has one path through spacetime, the number of seconds
between these events is 18.3 seconds.


On clock B, which has a different path through spacetime, the number of
seconds between these two events is 22.7 seconds.


The above two statements are just ****ing silly. *Clocks ticks through
time not through spacetime. *Spacetime cannot be a proper measurement
of time. *shrug

You can write either Larmor’s transform which does not satisfy the
principle of relativity or the Lorentz transform which does satisfy
the principle of relativity into just a single, same equation below.

** *c^2 dTau^2 = c^2 dt1^2 – ds1^2 = c^2 dt2^2 – ds2^2 = c^2 dt3^2 –
ds3^2

Where

** *dTau = time flow of the observed
** *ds1^2 = dx1^2 + dy1^2 + dz1^2
** *1, 2, 3 = observers

You can write the above equation as follows.

** *Tau = sqrt(1 – B1^2) dt1 = sqrt(1 – B2^2) dt2 = sqrt(1 – B3^2) dt3

Where

** *B1^2 c^2 = (ds1/dt1)^2
** *B2^2 c^2 = (ds2/dt2)^2
** *B3^2 c^2 = (ds3/dt3)^2

The fact remains that Tau, dt1, dt2, dt3... are measurements of time.
The mystic quantity of spacetime just does not show up properly in the
mathematics anywhere even the mathematics came out of SR and GR.
shrug

Ken Seto will claim that there is a particular value of absolute time
between these two events, presumably measurable in absolute seconds.


Mr. Seto is correct. *Any interferometer proves the physical world
flows with absolute time. *Any suggestion of relative simultaneity is
just bull****. *There is no experiment that shows the validity of
relative simultaneity. *shrug

Yet he cannot say how many absolute seconds are between these two
events, and he cannot find any clock that would be able to read directly
that number of absolute seconds between the events.


He cannot say for Mr. Seto’s model, but one can say absolute
simultaneity does not require time flow to be the same. *shrug

He will be happy to dance and tell you that 18.3 seconds "represents" a
certain amount of absolute time, and that 22.7 seconds "represents" the
same amount of absolute time, because as we all know, there is only one
value of absolute time between those two events.


One can flow faster than the other anywhere and anytime. *If one flows
faster, it will always flow faster by this amount until its
environment has changed. *shrug

But what that value is, nobody knows and nobody can measure.


The claim of mutual dilation is just garbage. *The self-styled
physicists cannot think of how to prove. *They are now asking Him, who
has told them that this mutual dilation is just silly, to come up with
an experiment to prove this mutual time dilation. *Damn! *The self-
styled physicists are just getting dumber and dumber. *Duh! *shrug


There is a starting rate for time. It is fastest and slows down from
there
by gravity rate and energy rate slowing.
  #3  
Old August 31st 11, 04:34 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
1treePetrifiedForestLane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 974
Default Ken Seto and absolute time.

perhaps "because" spacetime is just a simple phase space,
with three spatial dimensions.

the matter of clocks "going" at relativistic speeds
is a simple example of the problem of angular momentum,
whose axis is at some angle to the direction.

*Clocks ticks through time not through spacetime.

  #4  
Old August 31st 11, 06:09 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
1treePetrifiedForestLane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 974
Default Ken Seto and absolute time.

of course, since the gross mechanism of a clock
is so slow, you really have to look at, say,
a cesium clock, or even a quartz (piezoelectrical?) one,
oriented at various angles to the direction.

the matter of clocks "going" at relativistic speeds
is a simple example of the problem of angular momentum,
whose axis is at some angle to the direction.

  #5  
Old September 1st 11, 08:03 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
1treePetrifiedForestLane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 974
Default Ken Seto and absolute time.

yes, for waves of light in "free space."

the gross mechanism of a clock
is so slow, you really have to look at, say,
a cesium clock, or even a quartz (piezoelectrical?) one,
oriented at various angles to the direction.
the matter of clocks "going" at relativistic speeds
is a simple example of the problem of angular momentum,
whose axis is at some angle to the direction.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Evidence for the existence of absolute time kenseto Astronomy Misc 30 November 18th 06 04:05 PM
Real time is absolute simultaneity. brian a m stuckless Policy 1 February 15th 06 07:39 PM
Real time is absolute simultaneity. brian a m stuckless Astronomy Misc 1 February 15th 06 07:39 PM
Re; absolute time Oriel36 Research 0 June 13th 04 07:40 PM
Absolute and relative time Jonathan Silverlight Research 1 June 12th 04 11:04 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.