Re: A New Definition for TIME

From: TomGee (lvlus_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 10/25/04 

Date: 25 Oct 2004 08:33:32 -0700

kenseto@erinet.com (Ken Seto) wrote in message news:<75dd81d3.0410230711.459f3520@posting.google.com>...
> lvlus@hotmail.com (TomGee) wrote in message news:<cc2dde17.0410222157.281f8693@posting.google.com>...
> > kenseto@erinet.com (Ken Seto) wrote in message news:<75dd81d3.0410221141.22f3d516@posting.google.com>...
> > > lvlus@hotmail.com (TomGee) wrote in message news:<cc2dde17.0410220329.ac56bae@posting.google.com>...
> > > > kenseto@erinet.com (Ken Seto) wrote in message news:<75dd81d3.0410211136.45d9c415@posting.google.com>...
> > > > >
> SNIP
> > > There is cl*** time dilation. There is no universal time dilation. The
> > > reason why clock time is dilated is because that a clock second
> > > represents a different interval of universal time in different frames.
> > >
> >
> > How can you represent that process in a physical way?
>
> When you use the LT or IRT you are converting your interval of
> universal time to the clock reading in the frame moving relative to
> you for that same interval of universal time. IOW, the traveling
> twin's clock reads less clock seconds but in term of universal time
> these two different clock readings represent the same interval of
> universal time.
> >
> >
And just precisely how am I converting my interval to the frame moving
relatively to me?

SNIP
> > >
> > >
> > We probably do not describe universal time in the same way, as I am
> > having trouble seeing how you mean universal time as compared to clock
> > time. If clock time accrues to discrete visible matter, to what does
> > u. time accrue?
>
> See above explanation.
>
>
See above question.

> And if it exists, what relevance does it have wrt
> > anything if it cannot prevent varying time rates?
>
> The existence of universal time explains why the speed of light is a
> constant math ratio in all inertial frames. This makes SR into a
> special case of the ether theory. Also this new interpretation leads
> to the formulation of IRT. IRT includes SR/GR as subsets. its
> equations are valid in all environments....including gravity.
>
> Ken seto

So your idea of the sense of a universal time is essentially no
different than mine which I posted long before you did, and for which
you have failed to give me credit:
  
"We can say, if we wish to, and because we can't prove otherwise at
the moment, that if time rates accrue to objects in inverse proportion
to their states of motion, there must be uni-versal time rates that
apply to the varying levels of motion of similar discrete objects in
space. That is to say, at the speed of planet Earth in the universe
(as it revolves around the Sun, and as the Sun revolves around the
galaxy, and as our galaxy races through space), there is within the
universe a specific time rate which accrues for the particular state
of motion of the earth, and for any similar object which is in the
same state of motion, irrespective of their location within the
universe. As the Sun moves through space slower or faster than Earth,
for example, its time rate varies from Earth's time rate due to the
Sun's particular state of motion in space. And if another similar
star in another similar galaxy far away moves through the universe in
a state of motion similar to our sun, its time rate should be about
the same as the time rate of our star. Only in this sense may the
property of time be considered a universal imposition of the so-called
"force" of the "fabric" of time and space upon objects." (Thomas
Garcia, "The Time And Motion Relationship", Tyro Press, Houston, 1996)
tyropress@yahoo.com
TomGee 102504

Quantcast