|
|
G. L. Bradford wrote:
> "kenseto" <kenseto@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:45959606$0$18064$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > "Sam Wormley" <swormley1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:RJdlh.331826$1i1.88720@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> kenseto wrote:
> >> > For the runt wormy: none of those you listed below is in my theory.
> >>
> >> Actually I thought your theory had something to say about
> >> >>
> >> >> 4. Devices which can record absolute position. Note that the
> > existence
> >> >> of such devices would also contradict Galilean relativity.
> >
> > No such device exist in IRT. In IRT all objects are in a state of absolute
> > motion so how can IRT has a devvice that can record absolute position????
> >
> >> >>
> >> >> 5. Clocks that are immune to time dilation. Again, this would
> > require a
> >> >> new force not currently explained by the laws of physics.
> >
> > Again in IRT time dilation is represented by a clock second contains a
> > different amount of absolute time in different frames. In fact that's the
> > reason why all observers measures the same speed of light with his own
> > clock
> > and ruler. In IRT the speed of light is defined as a constant math ratio
> > as
> > measured by all observer as follows:
> > Light path length of ruler (299,792,458m lpng physically)/the absolute
> > time
> > content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
>
> (snip)
>
> >
> > Ken Seto
>
> Time does not move. It is expandable or contractible, inflationary or
> deflationary (even to negatively inflating or deflating), relatively
> speaking, but it does not move. It does not even 'co-move'. Regarding
> Relativity, neither does space move. It too is expandable or
> contractible..., relatively speaking, but it does not move.
>
> According to 'c' both space and time are absolute -- "space-time" is an
> absolute -- but that absolutism is balloon quality expandable here,
> contractible there, relative to any observer but THE Observer in THE
> Inertial Frame. The baseline observer in the baseline frame. The one single
> God of Scale and Scaling.
>
> According to Relativity the space and time of c will always be measurably
> the same constant for the expanded or the contracted (no difference in any
> local measurement of c). But the expanded space and time of c, for the
> expanded space-time observer, has to break out -- shatter into -- into many
> differing spaces and times, each [one] of the many contracted space-times
> corresponding to the space-time of some [one] contracted observer. The
> expanded observer incorporates the many differing contracted space-times of
> the many differing contracted observers into his own singularly local and
> different space-time frame relative to him alone (just like each one of the
> many contracted observers then singularly incorporated as far as he and his
> expanded frame is concerned).
>
> Constants, such as 'c', are hyper-dimensional in quality. Thus its
> space-time (thus 'space-time' itself) -- what it is -- is intrinsically
> hyper-quality. It can parcel or de-parcel (particulate or de-particulate),
> but it cannot and will not move. Not even 'co-move'.
>
> GLB
It doesn't compute. You are molding your own categories of imagination.
All is energy, even time. The relativity is processing that data of
observation. The Space remains a mystery. It is non-local, has no
concept of center.
|
|