sci.physics.relativity

On Feb 21, 6:13 am, kenseto wrote:
> SR defines that proper time is invariant. In other words, the elapse
> of a specfic interval of proper time in A's frame will correspond to
> the elapse of the same specific interval of proper time in B's frame.
> A specfic interval of proper time is not represented by the same
> interval of clock time in different frames. For example:
> 1. Observer A clock second represent a specfic interval of proper time
> and call this interval of proper time as t_pa.
> 2. Observer A will use the following SR formula to determine the clock
> time value in B's frame (t_pb) for his specfic interval of proper time
> (t_pa) as follows:
> d(t_pb) = d(t_pa) - vdx/c^2
> Where v is the relative velocity between A and B and dx is the
> distance of separation between A and B and c is the speed of light.
>
> What this mean is that proper time is just another term for universal
> time or absolute time. The existence of universal time (proper time)
> explains why the speed of light is a measured constant in all frames
> as follows:
> Light path length of ruler (299,792,458 meters long physically)/the
> proper time content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
> This new definition for the speed of light gives rise to a new theory
> of relativity called IRT. IRT includes SRT as a subset. However,
> unlike SRT the equations of IRT are valid in all environments,
> including gravity. IRT is described in the following link:/kn_seto/
> Also please visit my website for other papers on my theory:/kn_seto/
>
> Ken Seto

Now we all pause and laugh at Ken's deliberately wrong claim that IRT
includes SR as a subset when it is routinely demonstrated that Ken
doesn't understand anything about SR.