skip

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!

Ken Seto is right. Take the lifetime of Mesons in our frame and the Mesons
frame.
Its strongly different!
We should better take care for a clear terminology and good definitions, so
all understand the same.
Rudi

"Bruce Pew" wrote in message
om...
"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].

Hey stupid....clock time is relative and the rate of passage of absolute
time is the same in all frames.

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!

ROTFLOL.....I seems that you are the one who has a zero IQ.

Ken Seto

"Jeff Krimmel" wrote in message
news
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.

Krimmel is a typical RUNT of the learned SRians.
Definition for a runt of the learned SRians:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the learned SRians around like a puppy and eats up their **** like
gourmet puppy chow. An Asshole who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR.

Ken Seto

"kenseto" wrote in message ...
"Bruce Pew" wrote in message
om...
"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].

Hey stupid....clock time is relative and the rate of passage of absolute
time is the same in all frames.

The only 'time which is measurable' [has any meaning in the physical
universe] is relative dummy. Universal time is just a contrivance
you've created to troll this newsgroup.

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!

"Rudolf Drabek" wrote in message ...
skip

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!

Ken Seto is right. Take the lifetime of Mesons in our frame and the Mesons
frame.
Its strongly different!
We should better take care for a clear terminology and good definitions, so
all understand the same.
Rudi

Ken Seto is a nitwit.

"Bruce Pew" wrote in message
om...
"kenseto" wrote in message
...
"Bruce Pew" wrote in message
om...
"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].

Hey stupid....clock time is relative and the rate of passage of
absolute
time is the same in all frames.

The only 'time which is measurable' [has any meaning in the physical
universe] is relative dummy. Universal time is just a contrivance
you've created to troll this newsgroup.

Idiot.....SR/GR were invented to convert a specific interval of absolute
time in the observer's frame to an interval of clock time in the observed
frame.

Ken Seto

"Bruce Pew" wrote in message
m...
"Rudolf Drabek" wrote in message
...
skip

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!

Ken Seto is right. Take the lifetime of Mesons in our frame and the
Mesons
frame.
Its strongly different!
We should better take care for a clear terminology and good definitions,
so
all understand the same.
Rudi

Ken Seto is a nitwit.

Pew is a RUNT of the learned SRians.
Definition:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the learned SRians around like a puppy and eats up their **** like
gourmet puppy chow. An Asshole who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR.

Ken Seto