The Fundamental Problem of SR:
SR rejects the notion of absolute time (universal time). This leads to
incionsistencies in its description of the processes of nature. For example:
SR posits that the speed of light is a universal constant. That implies that
a clock second is an interval of absolute (universal) time. That also
implies that the passage of a clock second in one frame is the same as the
passage of a clock second in another frame. However, the LT refutes these
assertions. It predicts that the passage of a clock second in one frame does
not correspond to the passage of a clock second in another frame.

It appears that even though SR rejects the notion of absolute time, it
uses the notion of absolute time to formulate its postulates. Once that is
done it rejects the notion of absolute time in its mathematics.

Ken Seto

"kenseto" wrote in message ...
The Fundamental Problem of SR:

it is included in Seto Relativity:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=au...includes+SR%22

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Dirk Vdm

"kenseto" wrote in message
...
The Fundamental Problem of SR:
SR rejects the notion of absolute time (universal time). This leads to
incionsistencies in its description of the processes of nature. For
example:
SR posits that the speed of light is a universal constant. That implies
that
a clock second is an interval of absolute (universal) time. That also
implies that the passage of a clock second in one frame is the same as the
passage of a clock second in another frame. However, the LT refutes these
assertions. It predicts that the passage of a clock second in one frame
does
not correspond to the passage of a clock second in another frame.

It appears that even though SR rejects the notion of absolute time, it
uses the notion of absolute time to formulate its postulates. Once that is
done it rejects the notion of absolute time in its mathematics.

This inconsistency can be reconsiled as follows:
Reject the current assertion that the speed of light is a universal
constant. Instead redefine the speed of light as a constant math ratio in
all frames as follows:
Light path length for rod (299,792,458m)/the absolute time content for a
clock second co-moving with the rod

Let me expand this further:
At the rest frame of the ether and by definition the speed of light is
299,792,458m / 1 ether frame clock second.

The speed of light in any moving frame in the ether is determined as
follows:
The light path length of rod in the moving frame=gamma*299,792,458 m
The absolute time content for a clock second in the
moving frame=gamma*1 ether frame clock second

Therefore the speed of light in any moving frame is equal to:
Gamma*299,792,458 m /gamma*1 ether frame clock second
This is reduced to the constant math ratio of:
299,792,458m/1 ether frame clock second

Hope this help. For a more detailed description of this new concept please
read the following paper published in the Journal of Theoretics:
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/L...apers/Seto.pdf

Ken Seto

"Bonnie Granat" wrote in message
...

"kenseto" wrote in message
...
The Fundamental Problem of SR:
SR rejects the notion of absolute time (universal time). This leads to
incionsistencies in its description of the processes of nature. For
example:
SR posits that the speed of light is a universal constant. That implies
that
a clock second is an interval of absolute (universal) time. That also
implies that the passage of a clock second in one frame is the same as
the
passage of a clock second in another frame.

No. If I understand it correctly, It takes "longer" for the the clock
second
to HAPPEN in the frame traveling very fast, because the light has not only
to go UP to the mirror, but also has to travel FORWARD. Greater distance,
greater "TIME." But the person traveling WITH the clock doesn't perceive
that.

That would be the correct description but this is conflicting with the SR
assumption that the speed of light is a universal constant which implies
that a clock second is an interval of universal time. This SR assumption
means that a clock second has the same duration (it does not take "longer"
for the clock second to happen in the frame traveling very fast) in all
frames of reference.

Ken Seto


However, the LT refutes these
assertions. It predicts that the passage of a clock second in one frame
does
not correspond to the passage of a clock second in another frame.

It seems to be the same for those traveling with the clocks.


It appears that even though SR rejects the notion of absolute time, it
uses the notion of absolute time to formulate its postulates. Once that
is
done it rejects the notion of absolute time in its mathematics.


"Time" is a human creation allowing us to compare differing rates of
change.
You think there's a clock out there somewhere keeping perfect "time"?


--
___________________________
Bonnie Granat
GRANAT EDITORIAL SERVICES
http://www.editors-writers.info
Overnight service available

"kenseto" wrote in message
...

"Bonnie Granat" wrote in message
...

"kenseto" wrote in message
...
The Fundamental Problem of SR:
SR rejects the notion of absolute time (universal time). This leads to
incionsistencies in its description of the processes of nature. For
example:
SR posits that the speed of light is a universal constant. That
implies
that
a clock second is an interval of absolute (universal) time. That also
implies that the passage of a clock second in one frame is the same as
the
passage of a clock second in another frame.

No. If I understand it correctly, It takes "longer" for the the clock
second
to HAPPEN in the frame traveling very fast, because the light has not
only
to go UP to the mirror, but also has to travel FORWARD. Greater
distance,
greater "TIME." But the person traveling WITH the clock doesn't perceive
that.

That would be the correct description but this is conflicting with the SR
assumption that the speed of light is a universal constant

To say it's a universal constant is technically incorrect, as I understand
it. Nothing can go faster, but light itself can go slower, although that is
beside the point here. Light, in other words, doesn't always go at its top
speed.

which implies
that a clock second is an interval of universal time.

No, it doesn't. It just says that we have decided to use the distance that
light travels as a measure in OUR "clock." We could use the interval
between a dog barking if it were reliably regular. It doesn't really matter
WHAT is used as the measure. It just so happens that we use light, for
reasons that others can explain (I can't).


This SR assumption
means that a clock second has the same duration (it does not take "longer"
for the clock second to happen in the frame traveling very fast) in all
frames of reference.


In the frame that is traveling, the second seems like a normal second.
From the point of view of nontraveling frames, the second seems to take
longer.

Frankly, it seems to me that the illusion is not in the fact that the second
is longer in the traveling person's clock, but rather in the fact that the
traveling person thinks the second is the same as it was when he was NOT
traveling. He cannot perceive that the second is longer than it was when he
was stationary.

In other words, we think of the lengthened second as being an illusion
perceived by the nontraveling person, when the illusion is really with the
traveling person, who cannot perceive that his second is longer than usual.
It seems normal to him, but apparently, it is longer to observers.

If I understand it correctly, THAT is where any illusion takes place. But I
may be mistaken, so let's see if anyone else comments on what I have said.



--
___________________________
Bonnie Granat
GRANAT EDITORIAL SERVICES
http://www.editors-writers.info
Overnight service available

Ken Seto wrote:

This SR assumption
means that a clock second has the same duration (it does not take "longer"
for the clock second to happen in the frame traveling very fast) in all
frames of reference.


I neglected to comment on this adequately in my previous post. All I really
wanted to say, though, is this:

Unless I am totally mistaken:

- It simply *has* to take longer. If it doesn't, where is the time dilation?
Without the second taking longer to happen, there is no time dilation,
right?

- The second DOES take longer from the point of view of stationary
observers. That's what time dilation MEANS, isn't it? That time is stretched
out? But as I suggested in the previous response I made, it may be that the
"distortion" of time occurs not in the perception of the stationary
observers, but in the perception of the traveling person.


--
___________________________
Bonnie Granat
GRANAT EDITORIAL SERVICES
http://www.editors-writers.info
Overnight service available

(G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote in message ...
Clocks will run slower in a space ship when it starts to accelerate over
94% of "C". People inside the space ship will notice an astronauts that
is 6 feet tall will measure less when lying in the direction the space
ship is going,and have the same length,but look thinner when lying
perpendicular in the direction the space ship is going. Poor Einstein
in his time there were no accelerators that could show him this
reality. I could add lots of other stuff to show relativity leaves off
close to "C" but these points,make my point. Bert


Sounds like the Oregon Vortex House of Mystery, where you can
reportedly get taller or shorter simply by standing in different
spots! Is it illusion, or relativity in action?

Double-A

"Bonnie Granat" wrote in message
...

"kenseto" wrote in message
...

"Bonnie Granat" wrote in message
...

"kenseto" wrote in message
...
The Fundamental Problem of SR:
SR rejects the notion of absolute time (universal time). This leads
to
incionsistencies in its description of the processes of nature. For
example:
SR posits that the speed of light is a universal constant. That
implies
that
a clock second is an interval of absolute (universal) time. That
also
implies that the passage of a clock second in one frame is the same
as
the
passage of a clock second in another frame.

No. If I understand it correctly, It takes "longer" for the the clock
second
to HAPPEN in the frame traveling very fast, because the light has not
only
to go UP to the mirror, but also has to travel FORWARD. Greater
distance,
greater "TIME." But the person traveling WITH the clock doesn't
perceive
that.

That would be the correct description but this is conflicting with the
SR
assumption that the speed of light is a universal constant

To say it's a universal constant is technically incorrect, as I understand
it.

Einstein defined the speed of light as a universal constant in his 1905
paper.

Nothing can go faster, but light itself can go slower, although that is
beside the point here. Light, in other words, doesn't always go at its
top speed.

What is your point??

which implies
that a clock second is an interval of universal time.

No, it doesn't.

Yes it doe if the speed of light is a universal constant then the second
uses to define the speed of light is a universal interval of time. This
means that the passage of a clock second in one frame is equal to the
passage of a clock second in all frames. This is proven to be false by the
LT.

It just says that we have decided to use the distance that
light travels as a measure in OUR "clock."

???????? I thought we use the Transitions of the Cs atom as a measure in our
clock.

This SR assumption
means that a clock second has the same duration (it does not take
"longer"
for the clock second to happen in the frame traveling very fast) in all
frames of reference.


In the frame that is traveling, the second seems like a normal second.

This is just an assertion based on the definition for a clock second. It is
not based on a comparison with any other clock second.

From the point of view of nontraveling frames, the second seems to take
longer.

Right...the traveling clock second has a higher duration (higher absolute
time content)



Frankly, it seems to me that the illusion is not in the fact that the
second
is longer in the traveling person's clock, but rather in the fact that the
traveling person thinks the second is the same as it was when he was NOT
traveling. He cannot perceive that the second is longer than it was when
he
was stationary.

It is not an illusion. This is demonstrated by the twin paradox. The
traveling clock second is longer than the stay at home clock seocnd.


Ken Seto

kenseto wrote:


It is not an illusion. This is demonstrated by the twin paradox. The
traveling clock second is longer than the stay at home clock seocnd.

As it should be. The closer to a light world line the closer the
interval should be to zero. If you sit on your arse, your propertime is
maximal. If you travel near light speed your proper time is near zero.
If a photon could wear a wris****ch it would discover that it could get
from here to there in no time flat.

Bob Kolker

"kenseto" wrote in message
...

"Bonnie Granat" wrote in message
...
Ken Seto wrote:

This SR assumption
means that a clock second has the same duration (it does not take
"longer"
for the clock second to happen in the frame traveling very fast) in
all
frames of reference.


I neglected to comment on this adequately in my previous post. All I
really
wanted to say, though, is this:

Unless I am totally mistaken:

- It simply *has* to take longer. If it doesn't, where is the time
dilation?
Without the second taking longer to happen, there is no time dilation,
right?

Right!!! The traveling clock second has a longer duration (higher absolute
time content) :-)

No, silly. LESS time.


--
___________________________
Bonnie Granat
GRANAT EDITORIAL SERVICES
http://www.editors-writers.info
Overnight service available