Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.

Science > Physics > Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 11 of 11

Topic:	Science > Physics
User:	"kenseto"
Date:	09 Jul 2006 09:52:54 AM
Object:	Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.

Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.
This simple assertion is the basis of all what's wrong with SR. It gives
rise to the bogus concept of time dilation and length contraction.
The correct statement is as follows: Time is absolute. A clock second will
contain a different amount of absolute time in a different state of absolute
motion (different frame) of the clock. The existence of absolute time is the
reason why all observer measure the speed of light to be a constant math
ratio of c as follows:
c=light path length of physical ruler(299,792,458m)/the absolute time
content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
This new defintion for the speed of light gives rise to a new theory of
relativity called Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). IRT includes SRT as a
subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT are valid in all
environments, including gravity. A description of IRT is in the following
link (page 4):
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Unification.pdf
Ken Seto
.

User: "tomgee"
Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.	14 Jul 2006 09:40:32 PM

Sam Wormley wrote:

tomgee wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote:

kenseto wrote:

SR says that the speed of light is a
universal constant. For that to be true the speed of light must be a
constant math ratio as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458m)/the absolute time content for a
clcok second co-moving with the ruler.

Actually Einstein's 1905 paper points out that that both space and
time are malleable, while the speed of light is constant for all
observers.

Your argument falls apart as neither the distance nor the time are
fixed. See: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Worms, I think that the distance is fixed, but not the time. AE was
wrong in claiming that both time and space are flexible and interde-
pendent. I have shown you before why he was wrong, but still you
believe he was right. Why?

That will get you into trouble TomGee--The distance is no more fixed
that the time, according to the theory--and as you well know, there
has never been a prediction of special relativity that was contradicted
by an observation. Never!

Thing about the perspective of those cosmic ray muons, TomGee, and
how the distance to the earth's surface is foreshortened (for them).

I don't see how that relates to what I'm talking about. AE said
that space and time are interdependent, and I have shown they
are not and cannot be. What makes you think that was not a
contradiction of one of the predictions of SR?
The distance from end to end of a rod is fixed, and it does not
change just because someone perceives it to be different due
to that person's relative motion. Time, however, is a dimension
that varies in its passage like the other dimensions vary in their
lengths. The difference is that once there is a length, it remains
the same but only appears to change based on the motion of
observers having different motions wrt the object.
As you say above, the distance to the earth for the muons may
seem to be foreshortened, but that is only a illusion because the
distance is fixed from wherever you take the measurement.
.

User: "Sam Wormley"
Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.	14 Jul 2006 09:47:52 PM

tomgee wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote:

tomgee wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote:

kenseto wrote:

I don't see how that relates to what I'm talking about. AE said
that space and time are interdependent, and I have shown they
are not and cannot be.

You have not!

What makes you think that was not a
contradiction of one of the predictions of SR?

The distance from end to end of a rod is fixed,

Not from the perspective of an observer in relative motion to
the rod!

and it does not
change just because someone perceives it to be different due
to that person's relative motion.

Reality is observer dependent... That concept was introduced
in 1905. Where have you been?

Time, however, is a dimension
that varies in its passage like the other dimensions vary in their
lengths. The difference is that once there is a length, it remains
the same but only appears to change based on the motion of
observers having different motions wrt the object.

As you say above, the distance to the earth for the muons may
seem to be foreshortened, but that is only a illusion because the
distance is fixed from wherever you take the measurement.

Not an illusion for the muons. Reality is observer dependent!
That concept was introduced in 1905. Where have you been?
.

User: "tomgee"
Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.	14 Jul 2006 10:15:28 PM

Sam Wormley wrote:

tomgee wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote:

tomgee wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote:

kenseto wrote:

I don't see how that relates to what I'm talking about. AE said
that space and time are interdependent, and I have shown they
are not and cannot be.

You have not!

Yes, I have. I said that time is a property of matter, and not
of space, while space is not dependent on time at all. Space
exists where is no passage of time, proving that it is indepen-
dent from time. Nothing hard about that, is there?

What makes you think that was not a
contradiction of one of the predictions of SR?

The distance from end to end of a rod is fixed,

Not from the perspective of an observer in relative motion to
the rod!

That's my point, precisely. Perspective is an illusion - it only
appears to be different than what it really is!

and it does not
change just because someone perceives it to be different due
to that person's relative motion.

Reality is observer dependent... That concept was introduced
in 1905. Where have you been?

No, I don't read AE's work as being based on that notion.
Quite the contrary, in fact. Relativity means we cannot
measure abs. motion, only motion between objects. He
clearly states that abs. motion is not needed in SR. I
take that to mean SR does not deal with it because we
cannot measure it, so why bother with it?

Not an illusion for the muons. Reality is observer dependent!
That concept was introduced in 1905. Where have you been?

I know where you've been - to the Pavlovian cages once too often.
.

User: "PD"
Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.	14 Jul 2006 03:40:04 PM

tomgee wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote:

kenseto wrote:

Because you have not convinced anybody of what you claim to have
"shown". The value of an idea or argument is not determined by the
author of the idea or argument, it is determined by others. When others
bother to check it, develop it further, or incorporate it into their
own ideas and arguments, that's when the idea accrues value.
PD
.

User: "tomgee"
Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.	14 Jul 2006 04:18:02 PM

PD wrote:

tomgee wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote:

kenseto wrote:

Because you have not convinced anybody of what you claim to have
"shown".

I am not here to convince anyone of what I think. You are here to
convince everyone that all posters here except for the Stooges
don't know what we're talking about. It is a matter of your trying
to overthrow my claims and failing utterly in that. It is about you
not being able to argue against my ideas logically because your
minds are fully Pavlovian-conditioned to the max.

The value of an idea or argument is not determined by the
author of the idea or argument, it is determined by others.

What a maroon you are, PD. The value of an idea does not
depend on what others think, because if it did, we would still
be in the Dark Ages. What idiots hath our public school system
wrought, that our so-called leaders and teachers think the way
you do? I watched the new Manchurian Candidate last night and
it made me wonder if you don't have some type of implant in you
that makes you say such nonsensical things.

When others
bother to check it, develop it further, or incorporate it into their
own ideas and arguments, that's when the idea accrues value.

Like I've said, what a maroon you are, PD!
.

User: "PD"
Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.	14 Jul 2006 04:42:07 PM

tomgee wrote:

PD wrote:

tomgee wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote:

kenseto wrote:

Because you have not convinced anybody of what you claim to have
"shown".

I am not here to convince anyone of what I think.

Then why did you ask Sam why he still believes that Einstein was right
when you claimed to have shown him he was wrong? That seems like a
stupid question to ask if you're not here to convince anyone of what
you think.

You are here to
convince everyone that all posters here except for the Stooges
don't know what we're talking about.

Not so. There are a number of posters here that do apparently know what
they're talking about, even if I disagree with them. However, you do
not know what you're talking about, and so my role with you has been to
demonstrate that. That is really light work because you demonstrate
that amply all by yourself.

It is a matter of your trying
to overthrow my claims and failing utterly in that.

That depends on what you mean by "overthrow". Once again, the value of
an idea is not determined by its author, but by others.

It is about you
not being able to argue against my ideas logically because your
minds are fully Pavlovian-conditioned to the max.

The value of an idea or argument is not determined by the
author of the idea or argument, it is determined by others.

What a maroon you are, PD. The value of an idea does not
depend on what others think, because if it did, we would still
be in the Dark Ages.

Really? How so? How do you think science works, TomGee?

What idiots hath our public school system
wrought, that our so-called leaders and teachers think the way
you do? I watched the new Manchurian Candidate last night and
it made me wonder if you don't have some type of implant in you
that makes you say such nonsensical things.

When others
bother to check it, develop it further, or incorporate it into their
own ideas and arguments, that's when the idea accrues value.

Like I've said, what a maroon you are, PD!

How do YOU think science works, TomGee?
PD
.

User: "tomgee"
Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.	14 Jul 2006 09:13:17 PM

PD wrote:

tomgee wrote:

PD wrote:

tomgee wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote:

kenseto wrote:

Because you have not convinced anybody of what you claim to have
"shown".

I am not here to convince anyone of what I think.

Just because it seems that way to you does not make it
so. I asked him that to find out why he still believes that
way in spite of my argument to the contrary, to which he
had no answer. I asked him that to try to elicit an answer
from him. I don't know why you relate that to my trying to
convince him of anything other than to think about what I
have said. He has learned to stay quiet when he has no
answer, unlike you who blabs about everything except the
topic when you have no answer.

You are here to
convince everyone that all posters here except for the Stooges
don't know what we're talking about.

Not so. There are a number of posters here that do apparently know what
they're talking about, even if I disagree with them.

Well, you disagree with me, so I must be one of 'em.

However, you do

not know what you're talking about, and so my role with you has been to
demonstrate that. That is really light work because you demonstrate
that amply all by yourself.

If I did not know what I was talking about, how could I
stump any of you with my ideas? Of course, stumping
the Stooges ain't no big thing, but some of the big
brains who post here may be deep thinkers, but they
run silent about my ideas. Note that some of my ideas
are beginning to show up in science works (without
giving me credit for them, of course). That's why I post
them here, in the most public of all places, so that later,
when all the count is in, others will know who thought of
them first.
You have failed miserably in your role to suppress my
ideas, simply because it turns out you're the one who is
parading around naked imagining no one can know more
than you. You imagine all who read your stupid words
come to adore you for what you say, and that everyone
sees you as a learned person. You cannot argue with
any degree of success against my ideas with science,
so you don't talk about science with me like you do with
some others, and instead you twist and squirm every
which way but loose.

It is a matter of your trying
to overthrow my claims and failing utterly in that.

That depends on what you mean by "overthrow". Once again, the value of
an idea is not determined by its author, but by others.

Once again, you show you''re stupider than the other
Stooges, and so I crown you once again King Stooge.
Congrats - your perseverance won your crown back!

It is about you
not being able to argue against my ideas logically because your
minds are fully Pavlovian-conditioned to the max.

The value of an idea or argument is not determined by the
author of the idea or argument, it is determined by others.

What a maroon you are, PD. The value of an idea does not
depend on what others think, because if it did, we would still
be in the Dark Ages.

Really? How so? How do you think science works, TomGee?

When others
bother to check it, develop it further, or incorporate it into their
own ideas and arguments, that's when the idea accrues value.

Like I've said, what a maroon you are, PD!

How do YOU think science works, TomGee?

PD

User: "PD"
Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.	15 Jul 2006 01:52:45 PM

tomgee wrote:

PD wrote:

tomgee wrote:

PD wrote:

tomgee wrote:

Because you have not convinced anybody of what you claim to have
"shown".

I am not here to convince anyone of what I think.

Just because it seems that way to you does not make it
so. I asked him that to find out why he still believes that
way in spite of my argument to the contrary, to which he
had no answer.

And you are not trying to convince him of anything...

I asked him that to try to elicit an answer
from him. I don't know why you relate that to my trying to
convince him of anything other than to think about what I
have said. He has learned to stay quiet when he has no
answer, unlike you who blabs about everything except the
topic when you have no answer.

You are here to
convince everyone that all posters here except for the Stooges
don't know what we're talking about.

Not so. There are a number of posters here that do apparently know what
they're talking about, even if I disagree with them.

Well, you disagree with me, so I must be one of 'em.

Uh, no. Another spectacular example of your scintillating logic.
I also disagree with putting babies in scalding water.
I disagree with you too, so you must be fond of putting babies in
scalding water.

However, you do

not know what you're talking about, and so my role with you has been to
demonstrate that. That is really light work because you demonstrate
that amply all by yourself.

If I did not know what I was talking about, how could I
stump any of you with my ideas?

But you don't.

Of course, stumping
the Stooges ain't no big thing, but some of the big
brains who post here may be deep thinkers, but they
run silent about my ideas.

And you assume that when someone is silent in response that they are
stumped?

Note that some of my ideas
are beginning to show up in science works (without
giving me credit for them, of course). That's why I post
them here, in the most public of all places, so that later,
when all the count is in, others will know who thought of
them first.

The "first" part is the funny part. You think when you first hear about
it is when it shows up in science?

You have failed miserably in your role to suppress my
ideas,

I'm not trying to suppress your ideas. I'm showing that you don't know
what you're talking about. Be my guest. Have lots of crappy, uninformed
ideas.

simply because it turns out you're the one who is
parading around naked imagining no one can know more
than you. You imagine all who read your stupid words
come to adore you for what you say, and that everyone
sees you as a learned person. You cannot argue with
any degree of success against my ideas with science,
so you don't talk about science with me like you do with
some others, and instead you twist and squirm every
which way but loose.

It is a matter of your trying
to overthrow my claims and failing utterly in that.

That depends on what you mean by "overthrow". Once again, the value of
an idea is not determined by its author, but by others.

Once again, you show you''re stupider than the other
Stooges, and so I crown you once again King Stooge.
Congrats - your perseverance won your crown back!

As if anyone cares.

It is about you
not being able to argue against my ideas logically because your
minds are fully Pavlovian-conditioned to the max.

The value of an idea or argument is not determined by the
author of the idea or argument, it is determined by others.

What a maroon you are, PD. The value of an idea does not
depend on what others think, because if it did, we would still
be in the Dark Ages.

Really? How so? How do you think science works, TomGee?

I see you have no answer. That would be silence in response. Are you
stumped, TomGee?

When others
bother to check it, develop it further, or incorporate it into their
own ideas and arguments, that's when the idea accrues value.

Like I've said, what a maroon you are, PD!

How do YOU think science works, TomGee?

PD

User: "tomgee"
Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.	14 Jul 2006 12:11:24 PM

kenseto wrote:

"jambaugh" <ego@jamesbaugh.info> wrote in message
news:1152675390.009733.185030@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

rotchm@gmail.com wrote:

These "bogus concepts" are indeed misleading.

Yes...misleading. Now why such a 'genious' keep his concepts misleading
instead of making it simple and clear?

The concepts were made clear... but coached in an older language.
Language adapts to the new concepts. It is always the case that the
change of concept comes prior to the change in vocabulary. This is
what makes Einstein all the more a genius in that he had to break out
of the implicit assumptions built into the old language.

Einstein then relativized time

or, *redefined* time. He used a new definition of 'time', different
from Newtons (absolute) time.

That is implicit in relativization. But nonetheless Newton's
"absolute" time was still "what clocks measure". It was just assumed
that all clocks regardless of their relative motion measure the same
absolute time.

This assertion is wrong.

I don't see how it's wrong. Simply put, classical physics
assumed time passed at the same rate for all objects,
while SR does the same but posits that time and space
are flexible and interdependent, and that at some point,
arbitrary and apparently random, space and time "warp",
and that fairytale is supposed to explain the time-dilation
effect.

It is SR that assumes that the passage of a clock
second contains the same amount of absolute time in all frames. For example:
In the twin paradox scenario a traveling clock second is compared directly
with the passage of a stay at home clock second to reach the conclusion that
the traveling twin is younger.

I don't think that's true, but I could be wrong. It has been
posted here that SR did not originate the Twin Paradox,
but if you think SR did all that, post a quote from it. I do
not agree that SR uses abs. time, since it refers to the
relative motion of each twin to imply that time and space
warp to cause the age differences.

Also SR postulate says that the speed of
light is the same in all frames. This assertion implies that a clock second
in all frames represents the same amount of absolute time.

But it also implies the use of the same passage of
time rates for both, before and after the warping of
space and time happens. So which explanation is
better, yours or mine? Mine is that:
1. The rate of the passage of time varies wrt the
states of motion of discrete objects,
while yours argues that:
1. Time is absolute,
2. It applies at equal rates to all objects,
3. But the length of the clock seconds vary for
each object dependent on their abs. motions.
What is your explanation for the cause of the
varying of the clock-seconds? I know you say
that depends on the abs. motion of an object,
but how or why does it depend on that? Note
that my model explains that in detail, while
yours simply assumes that without explanation.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.	12 Jul 2006 08:31:21 AM

Interesting reply. I do not disagree with you nor agree fully. Most of
this discussion will fall in the philosophy of theories (physics or
science). One point I fully disagree with you though...

or, *redefined* time. He used a new definition of 'time', different
from Newtons (absolute) time.

That is implicit in relativization. But nonetheless Newton's
"absolute" time was still "what clocks measure".

I disagree. Newton clearly stated that absolute time is NOT what a
clock indicates:
"Absolute, true and mathematical time, in itself, and from its own
nature, flows equally, without relation to any thing external; and by
other name called Duration. Relative, apparent, and vulgar time, is
some sensible and external measure of duration by motion, whether
accurate or unequable, which is commonly used instead of true time; as
an hour, a day, a month, a year...", Newton: Mathematical Principles of
natural philosophy
Newton time or absolute time as used in ether theories is not what a
clock measures.

Correct. Did not 'prove' ether was unexistant. Showed that it was
unnecesarry.

Yes, but why invoke the un-necessary and unobservable?

It makes the "theory" simpler to grasp (in my opinion). If I want to
predict the outcome of an experiment, I can use SR or ether. If its far
simpler to use ether then I would prefer to use it. Both theories would
predict the same result anw. (in all cases?)

Also, why in this case metaphysical stuff is not 'permitted' but in
other branches of physics/cosmology it is accepted.

Other branches take the base theory as a given.

That would lead into a discussion of what is metaphysical and not in
the many branches of science/theory....we are falling into philosophy
of... Perhaps a discussion for another thread.

"Ether theory?" Since the ether is unobservable it "agrees with" any
theory but it ceases to be part of one in the domain of science.

Again a philo debate: can a theory (model) be accepted in science if it
has a power of prediction of experiments, just as effectively as SR?
Why impose that all aspects of the model must be observable
(measurable)? etc...etc...
We have theories that predict black holes. Yet, black holes are not
"directly" observable.
There are many other such examples of 'not directly observable' and
'metaphysical' aspects used in modern science.
---
If you want to be sure, then always doubt.
}:-)
---
---
.

User: "Bilge"
Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.	12 Jul 2006 10:50:33 AM

rotchm@gmail.com:

Newton time or absolute time as used in ether theories is not what a
clock measures.

Which is why ether theories are galilean invariant.
[...]

It makes the "theory" simpler to grasp (in my opinion). If I want to
predict the outcome of an experiment, I can use SR or ether.

No, you cannot. In ether theories, simultaneity is absolute.
In special relativity, spacelike events have no time ordering
and you cannot impose any preferred time ordering to tell
you which event ``really'' happened first without intrducing
inconsistencies. A theory with an absolute simultaneity is
galileant.

If its far
simpler to use ether then I would prefer to use it. Both theories would
predict the same result anw. (in all cases?)

As a matter of fact, no. The epr experiment done with moving beam
splitters contradicts the existence of a preferred frame.
[...]

If it is not possible to measure something, even in principle,
then nature cannot use that ``effect'' as a physical process,
and such an effect can have no physical consequences on any
physics relevant to this universe. What possible reality could
such an effect be given?

We have theories that predict black holes. Yet, black holes are not
"directly" observable.

You are playing with semantics. A black kole can be observed
in principle and nothing in the theory precludes that. The
fact that any black holes we could observe would have to be
very far away, making observation difficult, is what keeps
their existence from being declared a fact.

There are many other such examples of 'not directly observable' and
'metaphysical' aspects used in modern science.

Such as?

---
If you want to be sure, then always doubt.

If you want to be sure, you will end up dying without ever knowing
anything. Intelligence requires exercising judgement and choosing
wisely from among the options.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.	12 Jul 2006 01:16:54 PM

No, you cannot. In ether theories, simultaneity is absolute.

Words. In ether therories, "simultaneity" means that two events are
'simultanious' in the SR sence. When we refer to absolute simul, we say
absolute simul...

In special relativity, spacelike events have no time ordering
and you cannot impose any preferred time ordering to tell
you which event ``really'' happened first without intrducing
inconsistencies.

Exactly as predicted by ether theories. Such theories say that the re
is no time ordering, where 'time' is taken to be SR's time (clocks,
measurements etc...)

A theory with an absolute simultaneity is
galileant.

Correct. But 'measured' time is not Gal.Invar.

Both theories would
predict the same result anw. (in all cases?)

As a matter of fact, no. The epr experiment done with moving beam
splitters contradicts the existence of a preferred frame.

I dont think so..but I will have to read-up on that experiment. What
does SR predict for that experiment?

That can be debated....There are many interpretations on what you (we)
mean. Three body problem, (mathematically) proven that it is impossible
to know (and measure) trajectories...but the trajectory solution
exist...Gravity (a physical process?) does affect bodies.

We have theories that predict black holes. Yet, black holes are not
"directly" observable.

You are playing with semantics.

It was not my intention and I do not consider it a semantics issue. It
will take many lines to explain/detail or sentences...once again.

A black kole can be observed
in principle and nothing in the theory precludes that.

?? I would like to debate that...another thread, another time.

There are many other such examples of 'not directly observable' and
'metaphysical' aspects used in modern science.

Such as?

This will lead to the philo/notion of 'directly observable'...I do not
want to go into that yet.
If I do recall some, I will tell ya. I do have a good example in mind
but will lead to a lengtly discussion on theories/philo/semantics
etc... Not yet.
L8r
.

User: "Bilge"
Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.	12 Jul 2006 11:49:43 PM

rotchm@gmail.com:

No, you cannot. In ether theories, simultaneity is absolute.

Words. In ether therories, "simultaneity" means that two events are
'simultanious' in the SR sence.
When we refer to absolute simul, we say absolute simul...

Either simultaneity is absolute or it is not. Take your pick.

In special relativity, spacelike events have no time ordering
and you cannot impose any preferred time ordering to tell
you which event ``really'' happened first without intrducing
inconsistencies.

Exactly as predicted by ether theories.

In other words, you are claiming that there is no ether frame?

Such theories say that the re
is no time ordering, where 'time' is taken to be SR's time (clocks,
measurements etc...)

Write that down using mathematics.

A theory with an absolute simultaneity is
galileant.

Correct. But 'measured' time is not Gal.Invar.

Whatever that means. In any case, once you have established
absolute simultaneity, you have established a galilean invariant
system and no coordinate transformation can make that equivalent
to special relativity. Absolute siultaneity imposes additional
structure which is incompatible with poincare invariance.

Both theories would
predict the same result anw. (in all cases?)

As a matter of fact, no. The epr experiment done with moving beam
splitters contradicts the existence of a preferred frame.

I dont think so..but I will have to read-up on that experiment.

So, in other words, you don't think so, despite having not read
anything prior to responding? It figures.

What does SR predict for that experiment?

Since the entire point of doing the experiment was to determine
whether or not bohm's interpretation of quntum mechanics (which
requires a preferred frame) was compatible with relativity, the
experimental predictions were obtained from relativity.

That can be debated....

Only if you refuse to employ common sense. I take reality to mean
anything which can have some physical consequence for this universe.
If you wish to debate the semantics of the word ``reality'' to include
things which manifestly contradict any meaning it could possilbly have
without being a non-sequitur, find a new age newsgroup where that sort
of thing is popular.

There are many interpretations on what you (we) mean.

Only if you intent on making any definition of ``reality'' meaningless.

Three body problem, (mathematically) proven that it is impossible
to know (and measure) trajectories...

Where do you get this stuff? It should be quite obvious that
one can easily measure the trajectories in the three body problem.
What is proven mathematically is that the mathematical solution
is chaotic. Before responding with a lot of gobbledy gook, look
up the mathematical meaning of ``chaotic,'' since that is the
meaning I intended, not some malleable colloquialism.

Gravity (a physical process?) does affect bodies.

You are very confused. The three body problem has more degrees
of freedom than conserved quantities, so the trajectories are
not well defined in terms of the first integrals of the motion.
That does not mean a specific solution cannot be found given
all of the initial data.

We have theories that predict black holes. Yet, black holes are not
"directly" observable.

You are playing with semantics.

It was not my intention and I do not consider it a semantics issue. It
will take many lines to explain/detail or sentences...once again.

It is a semantics issue. We define ``things'' by listing its properties
with the context of some self-consistent, theoretical framework. Once we
define it, then it's existence is determined by measuring those properties
and finding the measurements consistent with the theory. That is as direct
an observation as it gets. If you think ``observation'' means only those
things that humans can touch, taste, see, smell or hear, your notion of
observation is extremely naive and anthropomorphic.
[...]

Such as?

This will lead to the philo/notion of 'directly observable'...I do not
want to go into that yet.

The concept of ``directly obsevable'' is quite relevant, since you
are trying to invoke your own personal limitations on that concept
in order to obscure the vast difference between things which can
be measured, in principle and things which have no connection to
anything one could call reality.

If I do recall some, I will tell ya. I do have a good example in mind
but will lead to a lengtly discussion on theories/philo/semantics
etc... Not yet.

It's quite simple really and doesn't even require a particular
physical theory to state. You simply consider _any_ physical process
to be a blackbox which accepts _any_ input data and supplies _any_
output data. (If no physical process in the universe can generate any
input data which can be affected by the black box, such a process
is physically meaningless as it cannot affect anything in this universe).
You then compare the input to the output and find an algorithm which
decodes the input (i.e., translates it to he output data). Any algorithm
which performs the translation better than random chance, specifies
a physical process.
.

User: "Rod Ryker"
Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.	12 Jul 2006 08:32:28 PM

Bilge wrote:

rotchm@gmail.com:

Newton time or absolute time as used in ether theories is not what a
clock measures.

Which is why ether theories are galilean invariant.

[...]

It makes the "theory" simpler to grasp (in my opinion). If I want to
predict the outcome of an experiment, I can use SR or ether.

Rod: ROFLMAO!
Get your head out of your Bilge Funk and apply your (proper) schooling.
Idiot.
Rod Ryker...
It is reasoning and faith that bind truth.
.

User: "mike3"
Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.	13 Jul 2006 02:59:58 AM

jambaugh wrote:

kenseto wrote:

Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.
This simple assertion is the basis of all what's wrong with SR. It gives
rise to the bogus concept of time dilation and length contraction.

These "bogus concepts" are indeed misleading. But understand that they
resulted from the empirical data in the Michelson-Morley experiment and
the prior aether based theory which SR supplanted. It was supposed
that movement through the aether must slow clocks and shorten measuring
rods in just such a way as to prevent the speed through the aether from
actually being measurable. Einstein then relativized time and
eliminated the need to invoke the aether.

But his statement, which you quoted, is incontrovertible as it is not a
"scientific theory" but rather an invocation of the very definition of
science (i.e. that science talks about what we can observe and
measure). You may invoke an "absolute time" or some other metaphysical
assertion such as "god" or "djins" but until you explain how such can
be empirically determined you are not refering to a scientific
theory/definition. You are in fact preaching a religious belief.

With regard to your pet theories, your inability to comprehend the
point I made above make me suspicious of any merit in them so I will
not waste time reading them. You can place them atop the compost pile
of other "disproofs of Einstein" which kooks post here weekly.

Oh, by the way, Einstein's special relativity is also (locally) valid
in the presence of gravitation.

You'd better go and disprove them if you are going to assert their
falsehood
as "fact". Not saying they're right, just criticizing your methodology.
Can you
prove he logically deduced them from his (false) premise, because if so
then
you've disproven the claim because the premise is false, or show also
that
his logic is faulty?

Regards,
James

Page 11 of 11

Post reply

What's the Matter with Einstein?
What Einstein Should Have Done in 1905
"And what is Einstein's crime?"
What is the value of Einstein's so called "Cosmological Constant" ?
What's the beef with Einstein?
What Was The Main Difficulty Einstein Faced When He Tried To Unify GR With Particle Theory?
What Einstein's zombies worship at now?
Re: What kind of energy denotes E in Einstein's 1905 Sep 27paper?

What Bohm calls 'general space' is very similar to what Einstein called 'the gravitational ether'
What was the main difficulty that faced Einstein when he tried to unify GR with electromagnetism ?
What Zombie World Einstein Produced
What is Einstein's "natural" coincidence?
What's the Matter with Einstein?
What's the deal with all these "Einstein sucks" postings?
What was the main difficulty that faced Einstein when he tried to unify GR with electromagnetism?

NEWER

pg.1178 pg.656 pg.366 pg.205 pg.116 pg.67 pg.40 pg.25 pg.17 pg.13 pg.11 pg.9 pg.7 pg.3

OLDER