|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:GSDlh.197300$aJ.81055@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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
>
> "Mumbo Jumbo, rhubarb rhubarb Tickety bubarb yak yak yak"...
> - "Stop the world, I want to get off" (1966)
>
> pgs 391-392, "The Elegant Universe", Brian Greene (1999)
>
> "5. For the mathematically inclined reader, we note that from the
> spacetime position 4-vector x = (ct, x_sub1, x_sub2, x_sub3) = ct, x_bar
> we can produce the velocity 4-vector u = dx/dtau, where tau is the
> proper
> time defined by dtau^2 = dt^2 - c^-2 (dx_sub1^2 + dx_sub2^2 +dx_sub3^2).
> Then, the "speed through spacetime" is the magnitude of the 4-vector u,
> [((c^2 dt^2 - dx_bar^2)/(dt^2 - c^-2 dx_bar^2))]^0.5, which is
> identically
> the speed of light, c. Now, we can rearrange the equation c^2
> (dt/dtau)^2
> - (dx_bar/dtau)^2 = c^2, to be c^2 (dtau/dt)^2 + (dx_bar/dt)^2 = c^2.
> This
> shows than an increase in an object's speed through space,
> [(dx_bar/dt)^2]^0.5
> must be accompanied by a decrease in dtau/dt, the latter being the
> object's
> speed through time (the rate at which time elapses on its own clock,
> dtau,
> as compared with that on our stationary clock, dt)".
Greene addresses one and only one traveler and traveler's clock. The
limitations of the speed of light create a minimum of two travelers and two
traveler's clocks, the real traveler and clock, and the virtual traveler and
clock. Now if physicists deal in the [light-time] virtual traveler made by
the limitations of the speed of light, what is done in the physics
establishment to deal with the unobservable real traveler in the
'unobservable universe'? If physicists deal in the unobserved real traveler
in the 'unobservable universe', what is done in the physics establishment to
deal with the observed [light-time] virtual traveler existing nowhere else
but in the falseness of the "OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE" strictly made a light-time
virtual space and time by the limitations of the speed of light upon
transmission of all "space-time" information?
I don't think you can or will answer since you don't divide the traveler
into two or more travelers needing two or more descriptions. Also since you
don't divided the Universe into two or more universes needing two or more
descriptions.
GLB
|
|