kenseto wrote:
"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...


I did overlook the possible understanding of light speed as constant
within a system, but varying between systems. He still does not tell us
how the speed varies between systems.


Can't you read? In order to determione the variations of the speed of light
in different systems you have to use the same amount of absolute time in
all the systems to determine light speed. One way to do this is that the
observer declare his clock second also represents a defined absolute second
then use SR/GR to determine the clock time value for a defined absolute
second
in the observed frame. Then use that defined absolute second to determine
the speed of light in the observed frame.


Are you saying that the time transformation is a simple scale factor, or
are you retaining the position dependent term?



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

kenseto wrote:
"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...

kenseto wrote:

"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...


kenseto wrote:



The Postulates for a correct Aether Theory:

1) The laws of physics based on a clock second is the same
for all observers in all inertial reference frames.
2) The speed of light in free space based on a clock second
has the same mathematical ratio c in all directions and all
inertial frames.
3) The laws of physics based on a defined absolute second
is different in different frames of reference.
4) The speed of light in free space based on a defined absolute
second has a different mathematical ratio for light speed in
different inertial frames. The speed of light based on a defined
absolute second is maximum in the rest frame of the aether.

In addition, this correct aether theory defines that the *speed of
light is not a universal constant* as asserted by SR. It defines
the *speed of light as a constant* math ratio c as follows:


In this paragraph, you have stated that the speed of light is not a
constant and that it is a constant. You are explicitly basing your
theory on a contradiction.


No...you don't read very well. There is a different between a universal
constant
and a constant math ratio. If the speed of light is a universal constant
then a
clock second is a universal interval of time (...that is the passage of

a

clock
second a clock second in one frame is equal to the passage of a clock in

all

frames.

That does not follow. In fact, if time is universal as you conclude,
then light speed cannot be a universal constant, but must vary between
differently moving frames.

Perhaps you mean that the speed of light is a constant in each inertial
system, but varies between systems, so is not universal?


Sigh...I already explained to you that there is a difference between a
universal
constant and a constant math ratio. Why can't you understand what I am
saying?

Because you are not using words in their usual meanings, but you have
not defined your terms. I am trying to determine the physical content
of your theory.

I don't know what you mean by "math ratio" that differs from the normal
definition of velocity.


This still
leads to a contradiction with your postulate 2 about the isotropy of
light in each system.


A clock second contains a different amount of absolute time in different
frames
and that why the speed of light using a clcok second is isotropic in all
frames.

Changing the time scale in a way that does not depend on position cannot
make a non-isotropic velocity isotropic. See the example I provided
(below).

Light speed isotropy is not compatible with absolute time.


Now this is getting rediclus. Do you have comprehension problem?
The speed of light is an isotropic constant math ratio in all frames as
follows:
Light path length of rod (299,792,458m)/the absolute time content for
a clcok second co-moving with the rod.
What is that about this statement that you don't understand?

I don't understand how it leads to isotropy in all systems.

Consider two

rods. Choose a system in which one of the rods is at rest. Assuming
isotropy, then a light signal will take the same time to travel in each
direction down the rod. If the other rod is moving to the right and its
ends coincide with the first rod when the signals are emitted(t0), then
the left bound signal will reach the left end of the moving rod(t1)
before it reaches the left end of the first rod, and the right bound
signal will reach the end of the first rod before it reaches the end of
the moving rod(t2). So, if time is absolute, even if we allow for a
scale change between frames, the sequence of events t2t1 will be
preserved, and the time for a signal to travel left (A(t1-t0)) will be
less than to to travel right (A(t2-t0)). So, if time is absolute, light
speed is not isotropic in all systems.


This is stupid. In the rest frame of both rods light will take the same time
to traverse the rod in all directions. Observed relative motion have no
effect
on the transit time.

You did not address the point of the example. It is not possible for
the light to reach both ends of the moving rod at the same time when
viewed from the fixed rod, so if time is determined up to a scale
factor, the light cannot reach the ends of the rod at the same time in
the moving system. This leads to the conclusion that the time depends
on direction (or position) or to the conclusion that light speed is not
isotropic.

How do you use your definition to avoid the conclusion?



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

You have not read my posting complete. I say the same.

rgds Rudi
.....
3) The laws of physics based on a defined absolute second
is different in different frames of reference.

Acc. to the Twin Paradox the seconds differ. Also acc. to M&M and
therefore
SR.
So what frame shows the correct "abs. second" ?

We don't have a universal clock that measures absolute time in all frames.
An observer can declare his clock second is also representing a defined
absolute second then he use SR/Gr to determine the clcok time value for
a defined absolute second in the observed frame.

Ken Seto

"kenseto" wrote in message ...
"Rudolf Drabek" wrote in message
...

"Brian Kennelly" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
kenseto wrote:
.....
3) The laws of physics based on a defined absolute second
is different in different frames of reference.

Acc. to the Twin Paradox the seconds differ. Also acc. to M&M and
therefore
SR.
So what frame shows the correct "abs. second" ?

We don't have a universal clock that measures absolute time in all frames.
An observer can declare his clock second is also representing a defined
absolute second then he use SR/Gr to determine the clcok time value for
a defined absolute second in the observed frame.

So we have the possibility of 'absolute tick intervals' with differing
'tick intervals'?

Ken Seto

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 13:31:21 -0800, Bruce Pew wrote:

"kenseto" wrote in message
...
"Rudolf Drabek" wrote in message
...

"Brian Kennelly" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
kenseto wrote:
.....
3) The laws of physics based on a defined absolute second is
different in different frames of reference.

Acc. to the Twin Paradox the seconds differ. Also acc. to M&M and
therefore
SR.
So what frame shows the correct "abs. second" ?

We don't have a universal clock that measures absolute time in all
frames.
An observer can declare his clock second is also representing a defined
absolute second then he use SR/Gr to determine the clcok time value for
a defined absolute second in the observed frame.

So we have the possibility of 'absolute tick intervals' with differing
'tick intervals'?

Of course. Seto has been pushing his absolute relativity theory for years.
It's interesting, because one's reaction typically goes from boisterous
laughter at the thought of how incredibly stupid a human being can be to
legitimately make the claims Seto makes, to a general state of apathy as
the novelty of the circus show begins to wear off, to downright depression
at the fact that human beings exist which actually are as stupid, and in
some cases more so (gasp!), than Seto himself.

All the while, Ken has _absolutely_ no idea how embarrassing his
single-digit IQ really is. Oh well.

Jeff

--
Add an underscore between 'd' and 's' for email.

"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...
kenseto wrote:
"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...


I did overlook the possible understanding of light speed as constant
within a system, but varying between systems. He still does not tell us
how the speed varies between systems.


Can't you read? In order to determione the variations of the speed of
light
in different systems you have to use the same amount of absolute time in
all the systems to determine light speed. One way to do this is that the
observer declare his clock second also represents a defined absolute
second
then use SR/GR to determine the clock time value for a defined absolute
second
in the observed frame. Then use that defined absolute second to
determine
the speed of light in the observed frame.


Are you saying that the time transformation is a simple scale factor, or
are you retaining the position dependent term?

A defined absolute second will have different clock time reading in
different frame
So from that stand point it is frame (position) dependent.

Ken Seto

"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...
kenseto wrote:
"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...

kenseto wrote:

"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...


kenseto wrote:



The Postulates for a correct Aether Theory:

1) The laws of physics based on a clock second is the same
for all observers in all inertial reference frames.
2) The speed of light in free space based on a clock second
has the same mathematical ratio c in all directions and all
inertial frames.
3) The laws of physics based on a defined absolute second
is different in different frames of reference.
4) The speed of light in free space based on a defined absolute
second has a different mathematical ratio for light speed in
different inertial frames. The speed of light based on a defined
absolute second is maximum in the rest frame of the aether.

In addition, this correct aether theory defines that the *speed of
light is not a universal constant* as asserted by SR. It defines
the *speed of light as a constant* math ratio c as follows:


In this paragraph, you have stated that the speed of light is not a
constant and that it is a constant. You are explicitly basing your
theory on a contradiction.


No...you don't read very well. There is a different between a universal
constant
and a constant math ratio. If the speed of light is a universal
constant
then a
clock second is a universal interval of time (...that is the passage of

a

clock
second a clock second in one frame is equal to the passage of a clock
in

all

frames.

That does not follow. In fact, if time is universal as you conclude,
then light speed cannot be a universal constant, but must vary between
differently moving frames.

Perhaps you mean that the speed of light is a constant in each inertial
system, but varies between systems, so is not universal?


Sigh...I already explained to you that there is a difference between a
universal
constant and a constant math ratio. Why can't you understand what I am
saying?

Because you are not using words in their usual meanings, but you have
not defined your terms. I am trying to determine the physical content
of your theory.

I don't know what you mean by "math ratio" that differs from the normal
definition of velocity.

The speed of light is 299,792,458m/clock second.
1. If the speed of light is a universal constant then a clock second is an
interval of universal time (absolute time) in all frames. We know that
is not true in SR. In SR a clock second here does not correspond to
a clock second there.

2. If the speed of light is a constant math ratio as follows:
Light path length of rod (299,792,458m)/the absolute time content
for a clock second co-moving with the rod
Then a clock second does not represent an interval of universal time
(absolute time) in all frames of reference.

If you still can't see the difference I give up.


This still
leads to a contradiction with your postulate 2 about the isotropy of
light in each system.


A clock second contains a different amount of absolute time in different
frames
and that why the speed of light using a clcok second is isotropic in all
frames.

Changing the time scale in a way that does not depend on position cannot
make a non-isotropic velocity isotropic. See the example I provided
(below).

Yes it can. A clcok second will continue to have the correct amount of
absolute
time to maintain a constant math ratio for light speed.

This is stupid. In the rest frame of both rods light will take the same
time
to traverse the rod in all directions. Observed relative motion have no
effect
on the transit time.

You did not address the point of the example. It is not possible for
the light to reach both ends of the moving rod at the same time when
viewed from the fixed rod, so if time is determined up to a scale
factor, the light cannot reach the ends of the rod at the same time in
the moving system. This leads to the conclusion that the time depends
on direction (or position) or to the conclusion that light speed is not
isotropic.

How many time do I have to tell you that your assumption about how the
train moves relative to light is bogus?

Ken Seto

"Bruce Pew" wrote in message
om...
"kenseto" wrote in message
...
"Rudolf Drabek" wrote in message
...

"Brian Kennelly" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
kenseto wrote:
.....
3) The laws of physics based on a defined absolute second
is different in different frames of reference.

Acc. to the Twin Paradox the seconds differ. Also acc. to M&M and
therefore
SR.
So what frame shows the correct "abs. second" ?

We don't have a universal clock that measures absolute time in all
frames.
An observer can declare his clock second is also representing a defined
absolute second then he use SR/Gr to determine the clcok time value for
a defined absolute second in the observed frame.

So we have the possibility of 'absolute tick intervals' with differing
'tick intervals'?

Yes this is true also in SR. A clcok second here does not correspond to
a clock second there. What this mean is that a clcok second will contain
a different amount of universal time (absolute time) in different state
of absolute motion.

Ken Seto

"kenseto" wrote in message ...
"Bruce Pew" wrote in message
om...
"kenseto" wrote in message
...
"Rudolf Drabek" wrote in message
...

"Brian Kennelly" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
kenseto wrote:
.....
3) The laws of physics based on a defined absolute second
is different in different frames of reference.

Acc. to the Twin Paradox the seconds differ. Also acc. to M&M and
therefore
SR.
So what frame shows the correct "abs. second" ?

We don't have a universal clock that measures absolute time in all
frames.
An observer can declare his clock second is also representing a defined
absolute second then he use SR/Gr to determine the clcok time value for
a defined absolute second in the observed frame.

So we have the possibility of 'absolute tick intervals' with differing
'tick intervals'?

Yes this is true also in SR. A clcok second here does not correspond to
a clock second there. What this mean is that a clcok second will contain
a different amount of universal time (absolute time) in different state
of absolute motion.

Ken Seto

So you are saying the value of 'absolute time intervals' is relative
[frame dependent]? Can't be absolute and relative at the same time
[pun intended]. I guess it can if you are a clueless nitwit hopefully
[hopelessly] contriving some reason for a useful theory, such as
relativity, to be replaced by the contrivance of a clueless nitwit.
eh!

Jeff Krimmel wrote in message . ..
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 13:31:21 -0800, Bruce Pew wrote:

"kenseto" wrote in message
...
"Rudolf Drabek" wrote in message
...

"Brian Kennelly" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
kenseto wrote:
.....
3) The laws of physics based on a defined absolute second is
different in different frames of reference.

Acc. to the Twin Paradox the seconds differ. Also acc. to M&M and
therefore
SR.
So what frame shows the correct "abs. second" ?

We don't have a universal clock that measures absolute time in all
frames.
An observer can declare his clock second is also representing a defined
absolute second then he use SR/Gr to determine the clcok time value for
a defined absolute second in the observed frame.

So we have the possibility of 'absolute tick intervals' with differing
'tick intervals'?

Of course. Seto has been pushing his absolute relativity theory for years.
It's interesting, because one's reaction typically goes from boisterous
laughter at the thought of how incredibly stupid a human being can be to
legitimately make the claims Seto makes, to a general state of apathy as
the novelty of the circus show begins to wear off, to downright depression
at the fact that human beings exist which actually are as stupid, and in
some cases more so (gasp!), than Seto himself.

All the while, Ken has _absolutely_ no idea how embarrassing his
single-digit IQ really is. Oh well.

Jeff

Seto is fortunate that 0 is a real number or he wouldn't have an IQ.