|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |