Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #575631 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-02-03 09:01 -0800 |
| Last post | 2022-02-05 23:04 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 111 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-03 09:01 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-02-03 10:02 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-02-04 17:33 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2022-02-03 19:15 +0100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 10:28 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-02-03 10:48 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Wills Duket <nbm@tiitu.va> - 2022-02-03 19:28 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-02-03 17:18 -0800
Crank Richard Hertz goes off the rails "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-03 18:21 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2022-02-04 15:49 +1100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-02-03 22:34 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2022-02-04 19:06 +1100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-02-04 10:55 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2022-02-05 10:46 +1100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-02-04 22:56 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2022-02-05 21:46 +1100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-05 12:19 +0100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-04 01:36 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 10:34 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2022-02-07 22:23 +1100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-07 07:26 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-07 15:35 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-07 08:11 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-07 16:18 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-08 04:42 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-08 13:00 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Yasmani Kabai <yask@oennw.jp> - 2022-02-07 18:48 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-07 20:03 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-08 04:15 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Randall Hodge <tiie@ncsde.ca> - 2022-02-08 20:12 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-10 02:54 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Scot Dino <ueue@nbvm.ar> - 2022-02-11 02:13 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 05:24 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Scot Dino <ueue@nbvm.ar> - 2022-02-11 23:25 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 05:39 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Scot Dino <ueue@nbvm.ar> - 2022-02-11 23:17 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-04 12:15 +0100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-04 06:26 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-04 15:31 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-02-04 11:00 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-02-05 10:52 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 10:56 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 19:30 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-05 12:19 +0100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-05 07:21 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-05 15:42 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-05 11:22 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-05 19:35 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 06:48 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-02-06 15:14 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-02-06 16:26 +0100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 15:18 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 10:14 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 19:25 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 11:40 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 20:19 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 11:24 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 19:30 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 11:46 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 20:19 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 21:58 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Moris Colon <cvb@nwnbw.ca> - 2022-02-06 17:51 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-05 15:12 -0500
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Moris Colon <cvb@nwnbw.ca> - 2022-02-05 23:55 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 11:11 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Moris Colon <cvb@nwnbw.ca> - 2022-02-06 19:20 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-06 16:28 -0500
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-07 07:35 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-07 15:45 -0500
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-06 09:01 +0100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 10:05 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-06 21:51 +0100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-07 07:44 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-07 15:59 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-07 21:29 +0100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-07 20:12 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-08 13:32 +0100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-08 05:16 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-08 08:57 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-08 16:28 -0500
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 05:36 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 14:04 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 06:22 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 14:27 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 06:33 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 06:37 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 06:42 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 14:46 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 07:15 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 16:03 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 08:12 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-02-12 05:50 +0100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Scot Dino <ueue@nbvm.ar> - 2022-02-12 05:11 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 22:21 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-02-12 15:57 +0100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-12 07:20 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-02-12 16:34 +0100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-12 07:43 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-02-12 16:50 +0100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-12 08:03 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 14:44 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-12 00:46 -0500
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 22:22 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-05 11:40 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2022-02-06 11:05 +1100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-02-06 00:23 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-02-05 18:00 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-02-06 11:23 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2022-02-05 20:40 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2022-02-06 17:05 +1100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-05 23:04 -0800
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-07 07:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bf747586-fad8-4579-8db6-231eb1b3a0adn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #576203 |
On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 6:23:59 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 07-Feb-22 5:34 am, Ken Seto wrote: > > On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 11:49:36 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > > wrote: > >> On 04-Feb-22 4:01 am, Ken Seto wrote: > >>> > >>> He said that: “time is what the clock shows” This definition is > >>> screwed up.This definition implies that a unit of clock time such > >>> as a clock second represent the same amount of time in different > >>> frames......unfortunately it does not. In real life each clock > >>> accumulate clock seconds at different rates. That means that a > >>> cck second)lock second is not a set amount of time in different > >>> frames. So that means that Einstein’s definition is wrong. > >>> Instead, each clock second in different frames represents a > >>> different amount of clock time and that’s why each observer > >>> observes clock time dilation for clocks moving wrt him.. > >> What would be the point of having a definition that meant that we > >> could not measure time? > >> > >> We want a definition that fits our experience of the passage of > >> time, and that can be used in calculations to predict how events > >> will unfold. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > Einstein assumed wrongly that a clock second is an absolute interval > > of absolute time.....it is not. There is no clock time unit > > (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of > > absolute time in different frames. > Einstein made no such assumption, and had no interest in hypothetical > quantities that cannot be measured. > > He was interested in the rates of physical processes. One such process > is the one that governs the operation of clocks. Yes, he did. He said that time is what the clock shows. That means that at the rest frame of the clock a clock second shows a specific interval of absolute time. > > Sylvia.ock shows.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-07 15:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <stre8r$9k1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #576213 |
Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 6:23:59 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 07-Feb-22 5:34 am, Ken Seto wrote: >>> On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 11:49:36 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>> wrote: >>>> On 04-Feb-22 4:01 am, Ken Seto wrote: >>>>> >>>>> He said that: “time is what the clock shows” This definition is >>>>> screwed up.This definition implies that a unit of clock time such >>>>> as a clock second represent the same amount of time in different >>>>> frames......unfortunately it does not. In real life each clock >>>>> accumulate clock seconds at different rates. That means that a >>>>> cck second)lock second is not a set amount of time in different >>>>> frames. So that means that Einstein’s definition is wrong. >>>>> Instead, each clock second in different frames represents a >>>>> different amount of clock time and that’s why each observer >>>>> observes clock time dilation for clocks moving wrt him.. >>>> What would be the point of having a definition that meant that we >>>> could not measure time? >>>> >>>> We want a definition that fits our experience of the passage of >>>> time, and that can be used in calculations to predict how events >>>> will unfold. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> Einstein assumed wrongly that a clock second is an absolute interval >>> of absolute time.....it is not. There is no clock time unit >>> (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of >>> absolute time in different frames. >> Einstein made no such assumption, and had no interest in hypothetical >> quantities that cannot be measured. >> >> He was interested in the rates of physical processes. One such process >> is the one that governs the operation of clocks. > > Yes, he did. He said that time is what the clock shows. That means that > at the rest frame of the clock a clock second shows a specific interval of absolute time. >> >> Sylvia.ock shows. > Ken Seto has said both “Absolute time is the only time that exists” AND “Absolute time and clock time are different. Clock time is different in different reference frames, and absolute time is the same in all reference frames.” ==> CONTRADICTORY Ken Seto has said both “Natural processes all run on absolute time” and “The processes that run clocks run at different rates in different reference frames.” ==> CONTRADICTORY -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-07 08:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <32494822-413e-4121-b553-34fe0c5b22d7n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #576216 |
On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 10:35:58 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 6:23:59 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 07-Feb-22 5:34 am, Ken Seto wrote: > >>> On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 11:49:36 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > >>> wrote: > >>>> On 04-Feb-22 4:01 am, Ken Seto wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> He said that: “time is what the clock shows” This definition is > >>>>> screwed up.This definition implies that a unit of clock time such > >>>>> as a clock second represent the same amount of time in different > >>>>> frames......unfortunately it does not. In real life each clock > >>>>> accumulate clock seconds at different rates. That means that a > >>>>> cck second)lock second is not a set amount of time in different > >>>>> frames. So that means that Einstein’s definition is wrong. > >>>>> Instead, each clock second in different frames represents a > >>>>> different amount of clock time and that’s why each observer > >>>>> observes clock time dilation for clocks moving wrt him.. > >>>> What would be the point of having a definition that meant that we > >>>> could not measure time? > >>>> > >>>> We want a definition that fits our experience of the passage of > >>>> time, and that can be used in calculations to predict how events > >>>> will unfold. > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >>> > >>> Einstein assumed wrongly that a clock second is an absolute interval > >>> of absolute time.....it is not. There is no clock time unit > >>> (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of > >>> absolute time in different frames. > >> Einstein made no such assumption, and had no interest in hypothetical > >> quantities that cannot be measured. > >> > >> He was interested in the rates of physical processes. One such process > >> is the one that governs the operation of clocks. > > > > Yes, he did. He said that time is what the clock shows. That means that > > at the rest frame of the clock a clock second shows a specific interval of absolute time. > >> > >> Sylvia.ock shows. > > > Ken Seto has said both “Absolute time is the only time that exists” AND > “Absolute time and clock time are different. Clock time is different in > different reference frames, and absolute time is the same in all reference > frames.” ==> CONTRADICTORY I also said that there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represent the same amount of absolute time in different frames......not CONTRADICTORY. > > Ken Seto has said both “Natural processes all run on absolute time” and > “The processes that run clocks run at different rates in different > reference frames.” ==> CONTRADICTORY NO SIR, the completion of a transition of the Cs 133 atom is dependent on the absolute motion of the clock. A clock in a higher state of absolute motion will take a larger interval of absolute time to complete a transition and that’s why a clock run slower after acceleration........not CONTRADICTORY, It is that the woodworker failed to understand new science. > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-07 16:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <strgo9$1lqk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #576219 |
Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 10:35:58 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 6:23:59 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 07-Feb-22 5:34 am, Ken Seto wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 11:49:36 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On 04-Feb-22 4:01 am, Ken Seto wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> He said that: “time is what the clock shows” This definition is >>>>>>> screwed up.This definition implies that a unit of clock time such >>>>>>> as a clock second represent the same amount of time in different >>>>>>> frames......unfortunately it does not. In real life each clock >>>>>>> accumulate clock seconds at different rates. That means that a >>>>>>> cck second)lock second is not a set amount of time in different >>>>>>> frames. So that means that Einstein’s definition is wrong. >>>>>>> Instead, each clock second in different frames represents a >>>>>>> different amount of clock time and that’s why each observer >>>>>>> observes clock time dilation for clocks moving wrt him.. >>>>>> What would be the point of having a definition that meant that we >>>>>> could not measure time? >>>>>> >>>>>> We want a definition that fits our experience of the passage of >>>>>> time, and that can be used in calculations to predict how events >>>>>> will unfold. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>> >>>>> Einstein assumed wrongly that a clock second is an absolute interval >>>>> of absolute time.....it is not. There is no clock time unit >>>>> (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of >>>>> absolute time in different frames. >>>> Einstein made no such assumption, and had no interest in hypothetical >>>> quantities that cannot be measured. >>>> >>>> He was interested in the rates of physical processes. One such process >>>> is the one that governs the operation of clocks. >>> >>> Yes, he did. He said that time is what the clock shows. That means that >>> at the rest frame of the clock a clock second shows a specific interval >>> of absolute time. >>>> >>>> Sylvia.ock shows. >>> >> Ken Seto has said both “Absolute time is the only time that exists” AND >> “Absolute time and clock time are different. Clock time is different in >> different reference frames, and absolute time is the same in all reference >> frames.” ==> CONTRADICTORY > > I also said that there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) > that represent the same amount of absolute time in different frames......not CONTRADICTORY. >> >> Ken Seto has said both “Natural processes all run on absolute time” and >> “The processes that run clocks run at different rates in different >> reference frames.” ==> CONTRADICTORY > NO SIR, the completion of a transition of the Cs 133 atom is dependent on > the absolute motion of the clock. A clock in a higher state of absolute > motion will take a larger interval of absolute time to complete a > transition and that’s why a clock run slower after > acceleration........not CONTRADICTORY, It is that the woodworker failed > to understand new science. >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > . > LOL, Ken. When you say, “Natural processes all run on absolute time”, that MEANS this: “Identical natural processes will take the same amount of time regardless of reference frame.” That’s what absolute time means. Now, maybe on the planet Ballsac, that sentence doesn’t mean that, because they don’t speak English there. On Ballsac, “Natural processes all run on absolute time” means “Stir in the green peppers with the scrambled eggs until the eggs have set.” Are you perhaps speaking Ballsacian? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-08 04:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <442f71bf-befa-4ef6-a0cb-da74002a00f5n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #576220 |
On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 11:18:20 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 10:35:58 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 6:23:59 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>> On 07-Feb-22 5:34 am, Ken Seto wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 11:49:36 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> On 04-Feb-22 4:01 am, Ken Seto wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> He said that: “time is what the clock shows” This definition is > >>>>>>> screwed up.This definition implies that a unit of clock time such > >>>>>>> as a clock second represent the same amount of time in different > >>>>>>> frames......unfortunately it does not. In real life each clock > >>>>>>> accumulate clock seconds at different rates. That means that a > >>>>>>> cck second)lock second is not a set amount of time in different > >>>>>>> frames. So that means that Einstein’s definition is wrong. > >>>>>>> Instead, each clock second in different frames represents a > >>>>>>> different amount of clock time and that’s why each observer > >>>>>>> observes clock time dilation for clocks moving wrt him.. > >>>>>> What would be the point of having a definition that meant that we > >>>>>> could not measure time? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> We want a definition that fits our experience of the passage of > >>>>>> time, and that can be used in calculations to predict how events > >>>>>> will unfold. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>> > >>>>> Einstein assumed wrongly that a clock second is an absolute interval > >>>>> of absolute time.....it is not. There is no clock time unit > >>>>> (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of > >>>>> absolute time in different frames. > >>>> Einstein made no such assumption, and had no interest in hypothetical > >>>> quantities that cannot be measured. > >>>> > >>>> He was interested in the rates of physical processes. One such process > >>>> is the one that governs the operation of clocks. > >>> > >>> Yes, he did. He said that time is what the clock shows. That means that > >>> at the rest frame of the clock a clock second shows a specific interval > >>> of absolute time. > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia.ock shows. > >>> > >> Ken Seto has said both “Absolute time is the only time that exists” AND > >> “Absolute time and clock time are different. Clock time is different in > >> different reference frames, and absolute time is the same in all reference > >> frames.” ==> CONTRADICTORY > > > > I also said that there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) > > that represent the same amount of absolute time in different frames......not CONTRADICTORY. > >> > >> Ken Seto has said both “Natural processes all run on absolute time” and > >> “The processes that run clocks run at different rates in different > >> reference frames.” ==> CONTRADICTORY > > NO SIR, the completion of a transition of the Cs 133 atom is dependent on > > the absolute motion of the clock. A clock in a higher state of absolute > > motion will take a larger interval of absolute time to complete a > > transition and that’s why a clock run slower after > > acceleration........not CONTRADICTORY, It is that the woodworker failed > > to understand new science. > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > . > > > LOL, Ken. > When you say, “Natural processes all run on absolute time”, that MEANS > this: “Identical natural processes will take the same amount of time > regardless of reference frame.” There is no identical process in different frames (different location) in the E-Matrix. All the processes in different locations in the E-Matrix will take different amount of absolute time to complete. Why? Because all the clocks are moving differently (different states of absolute motion) in the E-Matrix and that means that a clock second will take a different amount of absolute time to complete. > > That’s what absolute time means. > > Now, maybe on the planet Ballsac, that sentence doesn’t mean that, because > they don’t speak English there. On Ballsac, “Natural processes all run on > absolute time” means “Stir in the green peppers with the scrambled eggs > until the eggs have set.” Are you perhaps speaking Ballsacian? > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-08 13:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sttpgp$1mh2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #576344 |
Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 11:18:20 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 10:35:58 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 6:23:59 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>> On 07-Feb-22 5:34 am, Ken Seto wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 11:49:36 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 04-Feb-22 4:01 am, Ken Seto wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> He said that: “time is what the clock shows” This definition is >>>>>>>>> screwed up.This definition implies that a unit of clock time such >>>>>>>>> as a clock second represent the same amount of time in different >>>>>>>>> frames......unfortunately it does not. In real life each clock >>>>>>>>> accumulate clock seconds at different rates. That means that a >>>>>>>>> cck second)lock second is not a set amount of time in different >>>>>>>>> frames. So that means that Einstein’s definition is wrong. >>>>>>>>> Instead, each clock second in different frames represents a >>>>>>>>> different amount of clock time and that’s why each observer >>>>>>>>> observes clock time dilation for clocks moving wrt him.. >>>>>>>> What would be the point of having a definition that meant that we >>>>>>>> could not measure time? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We want a definition that fits our experience of the passage of >>>>>>>> time, and that can be used in calculations to predict how events >>>>>>>> will unfold. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Einstein assumed wrongly that a clock second is an absolute interval >>>>>>> of absolute time.....it is not. There is no clock time unit >>>>>>> (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of >>>>>>> absolute time in different frames. >>>>>> Einstein made no such assumption, and had no interest in hypothetical >>>>>> quantities that cannot be measured. >>>>>> >>>>>> He was interested in the rates of physical processes. One such process >>>>>> is the one that governs the operation of clocks. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, he did. He said that time is what the clock shows. That means that >>>>> at the rest frame of the clock a clock second shows a specific interval >>>>> of absolute time. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sylvia.ock shows. >>>>> >>>> Ken Seto has said both “Absolute time is the only time that exists” AND >>>> “Absolute time and clock time are different. Clock time is different in >>>> different reference frames, and absolute time is the same in all reference >>>> frames.” ==> CONTRADICTORY >>> >>> I also said that there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) >>> that represent the same amount of absolute time in different >>> frames......not CONTRADICTORY. >>>> >>>> Ken Seto has said both “Natural processes all run on absolute time” and >>>> “The processes that run clocks run at different rates in different >>>> reference frames.” ==> CONTRADICTORY >>> NO SIR, the completion of a transition of the Cs 133 atom is dependent on >>> the absolute motion of the clock. A clock in a higher state of absolute >>> motion will take a larger interval of absolute time to complete a >>> transition and that’s why a clock run slower after >>> acceleration........not CONTRADICTORY, It is that the woodworker failed >>> to understand new science. >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> . >>> >> LOL, Ken. >> When you say, “Natural processes all run on absolute time”, that MEANS >> this: “Identical natural processes will take the same amount of time >> regardless of reference frame.” > > There is no identical process in different frames (different location) in the E-Matrix. LOL. No identical processes. All different. No predictability. Fat lot of good that does. > All the processes in different locations in the E-Matrix will take > different amount of absolute time to complete. Why? Because all the > clocks are moving differently (different states of absolute motion) in > the E-Matrix and that means that a clock second will take a different > amount of absolute time to complete. >> >> That’s what absolute time means. >> >> Now, maybe on the planet Ballsac, that sentence doesn’t mean that, because >> they don’t speak English there. On Ballsac, “Natural processes all run on >> absolute time” means “Stir in the green peppers with the scrambled eggs >> until the eggs have set.” Are you perhaps speaking Ballsacian? >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Yasmani Kabai <yask@oennw.jp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-07 18:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <strphr$67i$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #576219 |
Ken Seto wrote: > I also said that there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) > that represent the same amount of absolute time in different > frames......not CONTRADICTORY. then you don't know what an unit is. Is a second larger or smaller than a minute? - yours rapturously,
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-07 20:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b4cea175-ab54-4e6b-8975-0eca0879d9acn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #576241 |
On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 1:48:31 PM UTC-5, Yasmani Kabai wrote: > Ken Seto wrote: > > > I also said that there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) > > that represent the same amount of absolute time in different > > frames......not CONTRADICTORY. > then you don't know what an unit is. Is a second larger or smaller than a > minute? Moron. > > - > yours rapturously,
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-08 04:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e05b31b3-d069-469b-84dd-43c21d954f4fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #576241 |
On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 1:48:31 PM UTC-5, Yasmani Kabai wrote: > Ken Seto wrote: > > > I also said that there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) > > that represent the same amount of absolute time in different > > frames......not CONTRADICTORY. > then you don't know what an unit is. Is a second larger or smaller than a > minute? You are a moron. > > - > yours rapturously,
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Randall Hodge <tiie@ncsde.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-08 20:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <stuir4$1ne3$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #576340 |
Ken Seto wrote: > On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 1:48:31 PM UTC-5, Yasmani Kabai wrote: >> Ken Seto wrote: >> >> > I also said that there is no clock time unit (including a clock >> > second) >> > that represent the same amount of absolute time in different >> > frames......not CONTRADICTORY. >> then you don't know what an unit is. Is a second larger or smaller than >> a minute? > > You are a moron. >> >> - >> yours rapturously, if you don't know units has to be the same, you have larger problems, in your country, my friend. That's the idea in having *units*, to be the same. You don't want your 1 Kg of Gold given as 600 grams back to you by the dirty capitalist bankers in your area of residence. Kiss me ass. -- yours understandingly,
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-10 02:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5f7cb48c-ea91-4b6f-9dc2-fb55ae471188n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #576394 |
On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 3:12:23 PM UTC-5, Randall Hodge wrote: > Ken Seto wrote: > > > On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 1:48:31 PM UTC-5, Yasmani Kabai wrote: > >> Ken Seto wrote: > >> > >> > I also said that there is no clock time unit (including a clock > >> > second) > >> > that represent the same amount of absolute time in different > >> > frames......not CONTRADICTORY. > >> then you don't know what an unit is. Is a second larger or smaller than > >> a minute? > > > > You are a moron. > >> > >> - > >> yours rapturously, > if you don't know units has to be the same, you have larger problems, in > your country, my friend. That's the idea in having *units*, to be the > same. You don't want your 1 Kg of Gold given as 600 grams back to you by > the dirty capitalist bankers in your area of residence. Kiss me ass. Idiot, a clock second is not the same amount of absolute time in different frames. If it is then a clock second is a unit of absolute time in all frames. Gee you are so stupid. > > -- > yours understandingly,
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scot Dino <ueue@nbvm.ar> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-11 02:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <su4goi$1p0e$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #576678 |
Ken Seto wrote: >> if you don't know units has to be the same, you have larger problems, >> in your country, my friend. That's the idea in having *units*, to be >> the same. You don't want your 1 Kg of Gold given as 600 grams back to >> you by the dirty capitalist bankers in your area of residence. Kiss me >> ass. > > Idiot, a clock second is not the same amount of absolute time in > different frames. If it is then a clock second is a unit of absolute > time in all frames. Gee you are so stupid. is it an *unit* the same amount of a *dimension* or not, you fucking stupid? This is you have to make sure you understand.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-11 05:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b5ac7829-9b12-4e66-9c85-0ea719a060d8n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #576764 |
On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 9:13:42 PM UTC-5, Scot Dino wrote: > Ken Seto wrote: > > >> if you don't know units has to be the same, you have larger problems, > >> in your country, my friend. That's the idea in having *units*, to be > >> the same. You don't want your 1 Kg of Gold given as 600 grams back to > >> you by the dirty capitalist bankers in your area of residence. Kiss me > >> ass. > > > > Idiot, a clock second is not the same amount of absolute time in > > different frames. If it is then a clock second is a unit of absolute > > time in all frames. Gee you are so stupid. > is it an *unit* the same amount of a *dimension* or not, you fucking > stupid? This is you have to make sure you understand. You are fucking stupid. Delta(t’)=gamma*Delta(t)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scot Dino <ueue@nbvm.ar> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-11 23:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <su6r8s$1avk$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #576796 |
Ken Seto wrote: >> is it an *unit* the same amount of a *dimension* or not, you fucking >> stupid? This is you have to make sure you understand. > > You are fucking stupid. Delta(t’)=gamma*Delta(t) that's not changing the *unit* kiss my ass. At your age you still don't understand relativity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-11 05:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <112186a9-1204-472d-acab-9fefd374fb5bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #576394 |
On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 3:12:23 PM UTC-5, Randall Hodge wrote: > Ken Seto wrote: > > > On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 1:48:31 PM UTC-5, Yasmani Kabai wrote: > >> Ken Seto wrote: > >> > >> > I also said that there is no clock time unit (including a clock > >> > second) > >> > that represent the same amount of absolute time in different > >> > frames......not CONTRADICTORY. > >> then you don't know what an unit is. Is a second larger or smaller than > >> a minute? > > > > You are a moron. > >> > >> - > >> yours rapturously, > if you don't know units has to be the same, you have larger problems, in > your country, my friend. That's the idea in having *units*, to be the > same. You don't want your 1 Kg of Gold given as 600 grams back to you by > the dirty capitalist bankers in your area of residence. Kiss me ass. You are so fucking stupid. Delta(t’)=Gamma*Delta(t)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scot Dino <ueue@nbvm.ar> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-11 23:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <su6qq6$1403$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #576800 |
Ken Seto wrote: >> if you don't know units has to be the same, you have larger problems, >> in your country, my friend. That's the idea in having *units*, to be >> the same. You don't want your 1 Kg of Gold given as 600 grams back to >> you by the dirty capitalist bankers in your area of residence. Kiss me >> ass. > > You are so fucking stupid. Delta(t’)=Gamma*Delta(t) that's not changing the *unit* a millimeter, fucking stupid. You don't understand relativity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-04 12:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1pmuomt.90vvvx17evxxiN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #575631 |
Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote: > He said that: "time is what the clock shows" And your idea of time is...? Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-04 06:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1e941fb0-8a8e-44e1-97f8-b39f34b2df75n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #575824 |
On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 6:15:19 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > He said that: “time is what the clock shows > >And your idea of time is...? Time is absolute and all processes of nature are operated on absolute time. Unfortunately there is no unit of clock time (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frame. Why? Because a clock second contains a different amount of time in different frames. That’s why we use the LT to figure out the clock time rate of a moving clock.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-04 15:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <stjgrr$vbl$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #575838 |
Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote: > On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 6:15:19 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> He said that: “time is what the clock shows >> >> And your idea of time is...? > > Time is absolute and all processes of nature are operated on absolute time. > Unfortunately there is no unit of clock time (including a clock second) > that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frame. Why? > Because a clock second contains a different amount of time in different frames. > That’s why we use the LT to figure out the clock time rate of a moving clock. > So all processes of nature “are operated on absolute time” except the processes that run clocks. Ken Seto has a very strange view of the world where trees have feathers and the E-matrix is obvious to common sense, which is why he lives in a home for people who can’t take care of themselves. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-04 11:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <61FD77B4.318D@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #575842 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > > Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 6:15:19 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> He said that: “time is what the clock shows > >> > >> And your idea of time is...? > > > > Time is absolute and all processes of nature are operated on absolute time. > > Unfortunately there is no unit of clock time (including a clock second) > > that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frame. Why? > > Because a clock second contains a different amount of time in different frames. > > That’s why we use the LT to figure out the clock time rate of a moving clock. > > > > So all processes of nature “are operated on absolute time†except the > processes that run clocks. > > Ken Seto has a very strange view of the world where trees have feathers and > the E-matrix is obvious to common sense, which is why he lives in a home > for people who can't take care of themselves. you mean he only gots two days to live??? he gots both feet in the grave... and all he gots to show for it is a science fiction pdf???? PUT A PILLOW ON HIS HEAD, NURSE!!!! > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web