| 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: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
05 Aug 2006 09:14:41 AM |
|
|
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message news:vt1Bg.4872$W93.2251@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:q61Bg.4870$W93.2460@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:q8HAg.4422$W93.3459@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:icmAg.4383$W93.336@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
Seto, you're wasting your time in any field that requires cognitive
awareness. Just how many times do you need things repeated before
they
sink in? SR's standard clocks are clocks that function identically
*when they're collocated* (if you don't know what that means, look it
up), and whose tick mechanisms are unaffected by acceleration. These
criteria can be ensured to any degree of accuracy acheivable using
current technology.
Hey idiot....any clock (standard or real) that uses the clock second to
measure time cannot be functioning identically in different frames.
What
do
you mean *when they are co-located*? Co-located with what?
Collocated with each other, you twit. If a collection of clocks all
tick at the same rate when they're together, then unless there's a
change in the tick rate of one of them, they'll *always* tick at the
same rate (duh), and in SR, it's *presumed* that there are no changes in
the tick rates of any of them.
Duh....they can tick at the same rate when they are together.....because
they are in the same state of absolute motion. But they are ticking at
different rates when they are in relative motion wrt each
other......because
they are now in different states of absolute motion.
You like going around in circles, Seto? We're back to "there's no such
thing as absolute motion in SR". If you want to go around again, do it
through the archives. I'm taking a break.
So are you saying that SR says that clocks do not run at different rates
when they are in relative motion?
.
|
|
|
| User: "jem" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
05 Aug 2006 09:19:25 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message news:vt1Bg.4872$W93.2251@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:q61Bg.4870$W93.2460@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:q8HAg.4422$W93.3459@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:icmAg.4383$W93.336@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
Seto, you're wasting your time in any field that requires cognitive
awareness. Just how many times do you need things repeated before
they
sink in? SR's standard clocks are clocks that function identically
*when they're collocated* (if you don't know what that means, look it
up), and whose tick mechanisms are unaffected by acceleration. These
criteria can be ensured to any degree of accuracy acheivable using
current technology.
Hey idiot....any clock (standard or real) that uses the clock second to
measure time cannot be functioning identically in different frames.
What
do
you mean *when they are co-located*? Co-located with what?
Collocated with each other, you twit. If a collection of clocks all
tick at the same rate when they're together, then unless there's a
change in the tick rate of one of them, they'll *always* tick at the
same rate (duh), and in SR, it's *presumed* that there are no changes in
the tick rates of any of them.
Duh....they can tick at the same rate when they are together.....because
they are in the same state of absolute motion. But they are ticking at
different rates when they are in relative motion wrt each
other......because
they are now in different states of absolute motion.
You like going around in circles, Seto? We're back to "there's no such
thing as absolute motion in SR". If you want to go around again, do it
through the archives. I'm taking a break.
So are you saying that SR says that clocks do not run at different rates
when they are in relative motion?
SR's standard clocks "do not run at different rates when they are in
relative motion".
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
05 Aug 2006 12:02:06 PM |
|
|
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message news:BM1Bg.4873$W93.1018@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:vt1Bg.4872$W93.2251@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:q61Bg.4870$W93.2460@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:q8HAg.4422$W93.3459@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:icmAg.4383$W93.336@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
Seto, you're wasting your time in any field that requires cognitive
awareness. Just how many times do you need things repeated before
they
sink in? SR's standard clocks are clocks that function identically
*when they're collocated* (if you don't know what that means, look
it
up), and whose tick mechanisms are unaffected by acceleration.
These
criteria can be ensured to any degree of accuracy acheivable using
current technology.
Hey idiot....any clock (standard or real) that uses the clock second
to
measure time cannot be functioning identically in different frames.
What
do
you mean *when they are co-located*? Co-located with what?
Collocated with each other, you twit. If a collection of clocks all
tick at the same rate when they're together, then unless there's a
change in the tick rate of one of them, they'll *always* tick at the
same rate (duh), and in SR, it's *presumed* that there are no changes
in
the tick rates of any of them.
Duh....they can tick at the same rate when they are
together.....because
they are in the same state of absolute motion. But they are ticking at
different rates when they are in relative motion wrt each
other......because
they are now in different states of absolute motion.
You like going around in circles, Seto? We're back to "there's no such
thing as absolute motion in SR". If you want to go around again, do it
through the archives. I'm taking a break.
So are you saying that SR says that clocks do not run at different rates
when they are in relative motion?
SR's standard clocks "do not run at different rates when they are in
relative motion".
So does that mean that a clock second in the standard clock has the same
duration in different frames?
.
|
|
|
| User: "jem" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
06 Aug 2006 07:34:40 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message news:BM1Bg.4873$W93.1018@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:vt1Bg.4872$W93.2251@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:q61Bg.4870$W93.2460@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:q8HAg.4422$W93.3459@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:icmAg.4383$W93.336@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
Seto, you're wasting your time in any field that requires cognitive
awareness. Just how many times do you need things repeated before
they
sink in? SR's standard clocks are clocks that function identically
*when they're collocated* (if you don't know what that means, look
it
up), and whose tick mechanisms are unaffected by acceleration.
These
criteria can be ensured to any degree of accuracy acheivable using
current technology.
Hey idiot....any clock (standard or real) that uses the clock second
to
measure time cannot be functioning identically in different frames.
What
do
you mean *when they are co-located*? Co-located with what?
Collocated with each other, you twit. If a collection of clocks all
tick at the same rate when they're together, then unless there's a
change in the tick rate of one of them, they'll *always* tick at the
same rate (duh), and in SR, it's *presumed* that there are no changes
in
the tick rates of any of them.
Duh....they can tick at the same rate when they are
together.....because
they are in the same state of absolute motion. But they are ticking at
different rates when they are in relative motion wrt each
other......because
they are now in different states of absolute motion.
You like going around in circles, Seto? We're back to "there's no such
thing as absolute motion in SR". If you want to go around again, do it
through the archives. I'm taking a break.
So are you saying that SR says that clocks do not run at different rates
when they are in relative motion?
SR's standard clocks "do not run at different rates when they are in
relative motion".
So does that mean that a clock second in the standard clock has the same
duration in different frames?
You get lost in the words, Seto. It's been pointed out to you on
numerous occasions that expressions like that one can be interpreted in
multiple senses, some of which imply the duration is the same and some
of which imply it's different. Furthermore, it's been explained to you
many times, both directly and by analogy, how those multiple senses can
co-exist without contradiction. If you can't remember the explanations,
consult the archives.
E.g., here's one from three months ago:
According to SR, two synchronized standard clocks (clocks that tick at
the same rate when collocated) will be observed to tick at different
rates when in relative motion, and /in this sense/, relatively moving
clocks tick at different rates.
However, SR also presumes that the tick count per unit time of standard
clocks won't change due to a clock's motion, and /in this sense/, the
clocks always tick at the same rate.
This is basically the same as recognizing that although objects are
observed to become smaller as the distance from them increases, their
sizes are presumed unaffected by motion away from them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
06 Aug 2006 08:33:48 AM |
|
|
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message news:XklBg.9214$W93.6993@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:BM1Bg.4873$W93.1018@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:vt1Bg.4872$W93.2251@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
together.....because
So are you saying that SR says that clocks do not run at different
rates
when they are in relative motion?
SR's standard clocks "do not run at different rates when they are in
relative motion".
So does that mean that a clock second in the standard clock has the same
duration in different frames?
You get lost in the words, Seto. It's been pointed out to you on
numerous occasions that expressions like that one can be interpreted in
multiple senses, some of which imply the duration is the same and some
of which imply it's different. Furthermore, it's been explained to you
many times, both directly and by analogy, how those multiple senses can
co-exist without contradiction. If you can't remember the explanations,
consult the archives.
That's the problem with SR.....it expanded the meaning of the word duration
such that it includes that a clock second can have the same duration or
different duration and at the same time it asserts that a clock second is a
universal interval of time. This explanation is not valid unless the word
duration represents absolute time. In that case, a clock second represents
the same amount of absolute time when the clocks are co-located and a clcok
second will represent a different amount of absolute time when the clocks
are in relative motion. This interpretation leads to the explanation why the
speed of light is measured to be a constant math ratio as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458m)/the absolute time content for a
clock second co-moving with the ruler.
E.g., here's one from three months ago:
According to SR, two synchronized standard clocks (clocks that tick at
the same rate when collocated)
Sure that's because when the clocks are co-located their clock seconds will
have the same duration (absolute time content).
will be observed to tick at different
rates when in relative motion, and /in this sense/, relatively moving
clocks tick at different rates.
Sure when the clocks are in different frames their clock seconds will
different durations (absolute time content).
However, SR also presumes that the tick count per unit time of standard
clocks won't change due to a clock's motion, and /in this sense/, the
clocks always tick at the same rate.
This is wrong. the tick count per unit time (duration or absolute time) does
change. This is evident with the GPS clock.
Ken Seto
This is basically the same as recognizing that although objects are
observed to become smaller as the distance from them increases, their
sizes are presumed unaffected by motion away from them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jem" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
07 Aug 2006 07:38:39 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message news:XklBg.9214$W93.6993@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:BM1Bg.4873$W93.1018@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:vt1Bg.4872$W93.2251@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
together.....because
So are you saying that SR says that clocks do not run at different
rates
when they are in relative motion?
SR's standard clocks "do not run at different rates when they are in
relative motion".
So does that mean that a clock second in the standard clock has the same
duration in different frames?
You get lost in the words, Seto. It's been pointed out to you on
numerous occasions that expressions like that one can be interpreted in
multiple senses, some of which imply the duration is the same and some
of which imply it's different. Furthermore, it's been explained to you
many times, both directly and by analogy, how those multiple senses can
co-exist without contradiction. If you can't remember the explanations,
consult the archives.
That's the problem
The problem is that pretty much everything you "know" is nonsense.
with SR.....it expanded the meaning of the word duration
such that it includes that a clock second can have the same duration or
different duration and at the same time it asserts that a clock second is a
universal interval of time. This explanation is not valid unless the word
duration represents absolute time. In that case, a clock second represents
the same amount of absolute time when the clocks are co-located and a clcok
second will represent a different amount of absolute time when the clocks
are in relative motion. This interpretation leads to the explanation why the
speed of light is measured to be a constant math ratio as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458m)/the absolute time content for a
clock second co-moving with the ruler.
E.g., here's one from three months ago:
According to SR, two synchronized standard clocks (clocks that tick at
the same rate when collocated)
Sure that's because when the clocks are co-located their clock seconds will
have the same duration (absolute time content).
will be observed to tick at different
rates when in relative motion, and /in this sense/, relatively moving
clocks tick at different rates.
Sure when the clocks are in different frames their clock seconds will
different durations (absolute time content).
However, SR also presumes that the tick count per unit time of standard
clocks won't change due to a clock's motion, and /in this sense/, the
clocks always tick at the same rate.
This is wrong. the tick count per unit time (duration or absolute time) does
change. This is evident with the GPS clock.
GPS clocks are *set* to tick at different rates (i.e. they aren't
standard clocks).
Ken Seto
This is basically the same as recognizing that although objects are
observed to become smaller as the distance from them increases, their
sizes are presumed unaffected by motion away from them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
07 Aug 2006 08:55:36 AM |
|
|
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:zuGBg.20953$W93.20152@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:XklBg.9214$W93.6993@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:BM1Bg.4873$W93.1018@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:vt1Bg.4872$W93.2251@dukeread05...
You get lost in the words, Seto. It's been pointed out to you on
numerous occasions that expressions like that one can be interpreted in
multiple senses, some of which imply the duration is the same and some
of which imply it's different. Furthermore, it's been explained to you
many times, both directly and by analogy, how those multiple senses can
co-exist without contradiction. If you can't remember the explanations,
consult the archives.
That's the problem
The problem is that pretty much everything you "know" is nonsense.
ROTFLOL....pot calling the kettle black.
with SR.....it expanded the meaning of the word duration
such that it includes that a clock second can have the same duration or
different duration and at the same time it asserts that a clock second
is a
universal interval of time. This explanation is not valid unless the
word
duration represents absolute time. In that case, a clock second
represents
the same amount of absolute time when the clocks are co-located and a
clcok
second will represent a different amount of absolute time when the
clocks
are in relative motion. This interpretation leads to the explanation why
the
speed of light is measured to be a constant math ratio as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458m)/the absolute time content for
a
clock second co-moving with the ruler.
E.g., here's one from three months ago:
According to SR, two synchronized standard clocks (clocks that tick at
the same rate when collocated)
Sure that's because when the clocks are co-located their clock seconds
will
have the same duration (absolute time content).
will be observed to tick at different
rates when in relative motion, and /in this sense/, relatively moving
clocks tick at different rates.
Sure when the clocks are in different frames their clock seconds will
different durations (absolute time content).
However, SR also presumes that the tick count per unit time of standard
clocks won't change due to a clock's motion, and /in this sense/, the
clocks always tick at the same rate.
This is wrong. the tick count per unit time (duration or absolute time)
does
change. This is evident with the GPS clock.
GPS clocks are *set* to tick at different rates (i.e. they aren't
standard clocks).
This is stupid....why can't you realize that it is not possible to have a
standard clock that run at the same rate in different frames? Why? Because
the clock second used to record to the passage of time do not have the same
duration (absolute time) in different frames..
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "AllYou!" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
07 Aug 2006 10:06:38 AM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:sDHBg.56726$u11.14269@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:zuGBg.20953$W93.20152@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:XklBg.9214$W93.6993@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:BM1Bg.4873$W93.1018@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:vt1Bg.4872$W93.2251@dukeread05...
You get lost in the words, Seto. It's been pointed out to you on
numerous occasions that expressions like that one can be
interpreted in
multiple senses, some of which imply the duration is the same and
some
of which imply it's different. Furthermore, it's been explained
to you
many times, both directly and by analogy, how those multiple
senses can
co-exist without contradiction. If you can't remember the
explanations,
consult the archives.
That's the problem
The problem is that pretty much everything you "know" is nonsense.
ROTFLOL....pot calling the kettle black.
with SR.....it expanded the meaning of the word duration
such that it includes that a clock second can have the same
duration or
different duration and at the same time it asserts that a clock
second
is a
universal interval of time. This explanation is not valid unless
the
word
duration represents absolute time. In that case, a clock second
represents
the same amount of absolute time when the clocks are co-located
and a
clcok
second will represent a different amount of absolute time when
the
clocks
are in relative motion. This interpretation leads to the
explanation why
the
speed of light is measured to be a constant math ratio as
follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458m)/the absolute time
content for
a
clock second co-moving with the ruler.
E.g., here's one from three months ago:
According to SR, two synchronized standard clocks (clocks that
tick at
the same rate when collocated)
Sure that's because when the clocks are co-located their clock
seconds
will
have the same duration (absolute time content).
will be observed to tick at different
rates when in relative motion, and /in this sense/, relatively
moving
clocks tick at different rates.
Sure when the clocks are in different frames their clock seconds
will
different durations (absolute time content).
However, SR also presumes that the tick count per unit time of
standard
clocks won't change due to a clock's motion, and /in this sense/,
the
clocks always tick at the same rate.
This is wrong. the tick count per unit time (duration or absolute
time)
does
change. This is evident with the GPS clock.
GPS clocks are *set* to tick at different rates (i.e. they aren't
standard clocks).
This is stupid....why can't you realize that it is not possible to
have a
standard clock that run at the same rate in different frames? Why?
Because
the clock second used to record to the passage of time do not have
the same
duration (absolute time) in different frames..
If time "passes", then in what units would you express this rate?
Numerator? Denominator?
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
08 Aug 2006 08:00:27 AM |
|
|
To You All (Florida talk) Best to keep in mind Einstein was referring
to a "Light Clock" The photon was in between two parallel mirrors.and
the mirrors top and bottom were moving parrel to each other. This cause
the bouncing photon to take a longer diagonal path. "Think about it"
Bert
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "jem" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
08 Aug 2006 07:55:38 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:zuGBg.20953$W93.20152@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:XklBg.9214$W93.6993@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:BM1Bg.4873$W93.1018@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:vt1Bg.4872$W93.2251@dukeread05...
You get lost in the words, Seto. It's been pointed out to you on
numerous occasions that expressions like that one can be interpreted in
multiple senses, some of which imply the duration is the same and some
of which imply it's different. Furthermore, it's been explained to you
many times, both directly and by analogy, how those multiple senses can
co-exist without contradiction. If you can't remember the explanations,
consult the archives.
That's the problem
The problem is that pretty much everything you "know" is nonsense.
ROTFLOL....pot calling the kettle black.
with SR.....it expanded the meaning of the word duration
such that it includes that a clock second can have the same duration or
different duration and at the same time it asserts that a clock second
is a
universal interval of time. This explanation is not valid unless the
word
duration represents absolute time. In that case, a clock second
represents
the same amount of absolute time when the clocks are co-located and a
clcok
second will represent a different amount of absolute time when the
clocks
are in relative motion. This interpretation leads to the explanation why
the
speed of light is measured to be a constant math ratio as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458m)/the absolute time content for
a
clock second co-moving with the ruler.
E.g., here's one from three months ago:
According to SR, two synchronized standard clocks (clocks that tick at
the same rate when collocated)
Sure that's because when the clocks are co-located their clock seconds
will
have the same duration (absolute time content).
will be observed to tick at different
rates when in relative motion, and /in this sense/, relatively moving
clocks tick at different rates.
Sure when the clocks are in different frames their clock seconds will
different durations (absolute time content).
However, SR also presumes that the tick count per unit time of standard
clocks won't change due to a clock's motion, and /in this sense/, the
clocks always tick at the same rate.
This is wrong. the tick count per unit time (duration or absolute time)
does
change. This is evident with the GPS clock.
GPS clocks are *set* to tick at different rates (i.e. they aren't
standard clocks).
This is stupid....why can't you realize that it is not possible to have a
standard clock that run at the same rate in different frames?
Why can't you realize that it is not possible to read this?
Why? Because
the clock second used to record to the passage of time do not have the same
duration (absolute time) in different frames..
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Cain" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
06 Aug 2006 01:49:08 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message news:vt1Bg.4872$W93.2251@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:q61Bg.4870$W93.2460@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:q8HAg.4422$W93.3459@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:icmAg.4383$W93.336@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
Seto, you're wasting your time in any field that requires cognitive
awareness. Just how many times do you need things repeated before
they
sink in? SR's standard clocks are clocks that function identically
*when they're collocated* (if you don't know what that means, look it
up), and whose tick mechanisms are unaffected by acceleration. These
criteria can be ensured to any degree of accuracy acheivable using
current technology.
Hey idiot....any clock (standard or real) that uses the clock second to
measure time cannot be functioning identically in different frames.
What
do
you mean *when they are co-located*? Co-located with what?
Collocated with each other, you twit. If a collection of clocks all
tick at the same rate when they're together, then unless there's a
change in the tick rate of one of them, they'll *always* tick at the
same rate (duh), and in SR, it's *presumed* that there are no changes in
the tick rates of any of them.
Duh....they can tick at the same rate when they are together.....because
they are in the same state of absolute motion. But they are ticking at
different rates when they are in relative motion wrt each
other......because
they are now in different states of absolute motion.
You like going around in circles, Seto? We're back to "there's no such
thing as absolute motion in SR". If you want to go around again, do it
through the archives. I'm taking a break.
So are you saying that SR says that clocks do not run at different rates
when they are in relative motion?
You're back to "do" rather than "are observed to." If you ever come
to understand the difference, the aha moment may be felt the world
round. SR says that each will observe the other's to be running at a
different rate than his. The exact same difference, for that matter,
even at the moment when the closing/separating velocity is zero and
the motion is purely transverse passing each other.
I presume that your IRT says the same, being a superset and all.
SR addresses what will be observed and measured, not what "is" in any
abstract way because "is" has no kinematic meaning among moving
reference frames. You seem unable let go of that existential rubber
duck for fear of drowning. C'mon, Ken, take a leap into the pool in
which the real universe plays. It might be a bit scary at first but,
trust us, it isn't really anything to fear.
If you ever do, I'll treat you to the definition of a real "absolute"
velocity which is unique at every point (in flat spacetime), can
easily be measured and satisfies all of your requirements. However,
it has no kinematic consequences or privileges of any kind due to its
uniqueness.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
06 Aug 2006 07:37:30 AM |
|
|
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:88WdndA4at6tDEjZnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@giganews.com...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:vt1Bg.4872$W93.2251@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:q61Bg.4870$W93.2460@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:q8HAg.4422$W93.3459@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
You like going around in circles, Seto? We're back to "there's no such
thing as absolute motion in SR". If you want to go around again, do it
through the archives. I'm taking a break.
So are you saying that SR says that clocks do not run at different rates
when they are in relative motion?
You're back to "do" rather than "are observed to." If you ever come
to understand the difference, the aha moment may be felt the world
round. SR says that each will observe the other's to be running at a
different rate than his. The exact same difference, for that matter,
even at the moment when the closing/separating velocity is zero and
the motion is purely transverse passing each other.
The problem with that assertion is that the returning clock "do" show less
elapsed time so it is not just *observed to be* running slow.
I presume that your IRT says the same, being a superset and all.
IRT says that clocks moving wrt the observer can run slow or fast compared
to the observer's clock. That's why IRT is a superset because SRT agrees
with IRT when the observed clocks are really running slow compared to the
observer's clock.
Ken Seto
SR addresses what will be observed and measured, not what "is" in any
abstract way because "is" has no kinematic meaning among moving
reference frames. You seem unable let go of that existential rubber
duck for fear of drowning. C'mon, Ken, take a leap into the pool in
which the real universe plays. It might be a bit scary at first but,
trust us, it isn't really anything to fear.
If you ever do, I'll treat you to the definition of a real "absolute"
velocity which is unique at every point (in flat spacetime), can
easily be measured and satisfies all of your requirements. However,
it has no kinematic consequences or privileges of any kind due to its
uniqueness.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
04 Aug 2006 01:20:45 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message news:q8HAg.4422$W93.3459@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:icmAg.4383$W93.336@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:Fi1Ag.3348$W93.544@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:2%azg.1574$W93.391@dukeread05...
in
Man, do you need handholding. Measurements aren't made to infinite
resolution. Determinations of identical functionality are based on
finite levels of precision. It certainly is possible to manufacture
clocks that will report the same time to the nearest (pick a time
interval) over a period of (pick another time interval). Such clocks
function identically.
Man.....resolution of measurements got nothing to do with what we are
discussing. Relative clocks cannot be made to function identically
because
the basic unit of a clock second do not have the same duration in
different
frames.
Seto, you're wasting your time in any field that requires cognitive
awareness. Just how many times do you need things repeated before they
sink in? SR's standard clocks are clocks that function identically
*when they're collocated* (if you don't know what that means, look it
up), and whose tick mechanisms are unaffected by acceleration. These
criteria can be ensured to any degree of accuracy acheivable using
current technology.
Hey idiot....any clock (standard or real) that uses the clock second to
measure time cannot be functioning identically in different frames. What do
you mean *when they are co-located*? Co-located with what? Co-located with A
or B clock? Again when a standard clock is co-located with the A clock it
will run at a different rate than a standard clock co-located with the B
clock.
Whacking a tree stump with a larger hammer only produces a louder,
duller thud, and the stump is still unlikely to move anywhere.
I would suggest an icepick instead, but I think the lobotomy's already
been tried here.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "jem" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
05 Aug 2006 08:40:27 AM |
|
|
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message news:q8HAg.4422$W93.3459@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:icmAg.4383$W93.336@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:Fi1Ag.3348$W93.544@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:2%azg.1574$W93.391@dukeread05...
in
Man, do you need handholding. Measurements aren't made to infinite
resolution. Determinations of identical functionality are based on
finite levels of precision. It certainly is possible to manufacture
clocks that will report the same time to the nearest (pick a time
interval) over a period of (pick another time interval). Such clocks
function identically.
Man.....resolution of measurements got nothing to do with what we are
discussing. Relative clocks cannot be made to function identically
because
the basic unit of a clock second do not have the same duration in
different
frames.
Seto, you're wasting your time in any field that requires cognitive
awareness. Just how many times do you need things repeated before they
sink in? SR's standard clocks are clocks that function identically
*when they're collocated* (if you don't know what that means, look it
up), and whose tick mechanisms are unaffected by acceleration. These
criteria can be ensured to any degree of accuracy acheivable using
current technology.
Hey idiot....any clock (standard or real) that uses the clock second to
measure time cannot be functioning identically in different frames. What do
you mean *when they are co-located*? Co-located with what? Co-located with A
or B clock? Again when a standard clock is co-located with the A clock it
will run at a different rate than a standard clock co-located with the B
clock.
Whacking a tree stump with a larger hammer only produces a louder,
duller thud, and the stump is still unlikely to move anywhere.
I would suggest an icepick instead, but I think the lobotomy's already
been tried here.
PD
I assume that remark's been mis-directed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
05 Aug 2006 09:48:50 AM |
|
|
jem wrote:
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Hey idiot....any clock (standard or real) that uses the clock second to
measure time cannot be functioning identically in different frames. What do
you mean *when they are co-located*? Co-located with what? Co-located with A
or B clock? Again when a standard clock is co-located with the A clock it
will run at a different rate than a standard clock co-located with the B
clock.
Whacking a tree stump with a larger hammer only produces a louder,
duller thud, and the stump is still unlikely to move anywhere.
I would suggest an icepick instead, but I think the lobotomy's already
been tried here.
PD
I assume that remark's been mis-directed.
No, I meant what I said. I responded, however, to the sound of the
thud, not the swing of the hammer. Does that help?
PD
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "jem" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
01 Aug 2006 08:08:42 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message news:2%azg.1574$W93.391@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:bW1zg.1524$W93.992@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:bZIyg.1478$W93.321@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
clock when A and B are in relative motion.
No, Seto - Relativity's standard clocks don't "run at different rates",
any more than its standard scales change their calibrations (i.e. weigh
at different rates) when transported between the Earth and the Moon.
There is no such thing as standard clock. All real clocks are running at
different rates when they are in relative motion.
No real measuring instruments behave according to the ideal standards
set by theories. That's why measurements are reported with errorbars -
yet another aspect of Science that you're patently oblivious to.
It is you who don't get it. No theory can set a standard for an ideal
clock....after all whose clock second you are going to use to set the
standard?. The best an observer can do is to set his clock second to
represent a specific interval of universal time and use IRT (or SRT) to
determine the clock reading for that specific interval of absolute time in
the *observed frame*.
Theories aren't used to *make* measurements, Seto, they're used to
verify and predict measurements that are made with *real* measuring
instruments.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
01 Aug 2006 09:10:03 AM |
|
|
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message news:3nIzg.2595$W93.725@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:2%azg.1574$W93.391@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:bW1zg.1524$W93.992@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:bZIyg.1478$W93.321@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
clock when A and B are in relative motion.
No, Seto - Relativity's standard clocks don't "run at different
rates",
any more than its standard scales change their calibrations (i.e.
weigh
at different rates) when transported between the Earth and the Moon.
There is no such thing as standard clock. All real clocks are running
at
different rates when they are in relative motion.
No real measuring instruments behave according to the ideal standards
set by theories. That's why measurements are reported with errorbars -
yet another aspect of Science that you're patently oblivious to.
It is you who don't get it. No theory can set a standard for an ideal
clock....after all whose clock second you are going to use to set the
standard?. The best an observer can do is to set his clock second to
represent a specific interval of universal time and use IRT (or SRT) to
determine the clock reading for that specific interval of absolute time
in
the *observed frame*.
Theories aren't used to *make* measurements, Seto, they're used to
verify and predict measurements that are made with *real* measuring
instruments.
Isn't that what I was saying above????
.
|
|
|
| User: "jem" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
02 Aug 2006 07:58:57 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message news:3nIzg.2595$W93.725@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:2%azg.1574$W93.391@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:bW1zg.1524$W93.992@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:bZIyg.1478$W93.321@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
clock when A and B are in relative motion.
No, Seto - Relativity's standard clocks don't "run at different
rates",
any more than its standard scales change their calibrations (i.e.
weigh
at different rates) when transported between the Earth and the Moon.
There is no such thing as standard clock. All real clocks are running
at
different rates when they are in relative motion.
No real measuring instruments behave according to the ideal standards
set by theories. That's why measurements are reported with errorbars -
yet another aspect of Science that you're patently oblivious to.
It is you who don't get it. No theory can set a standard for an ideal
clock....after all whose clock second you are going to use to set the
standard?. The best an observer can do is to set his clock second to
represent a specific interval of universal time and use IRT (or SRT) to
determine the clock reading for that specific interval of absolute time
in
the *observed frame*.
Theories aren't used to *make* measurements, Seto, they're used to
verify and predict measurements that are made with *real* measuring
instruments.
Isn't that what I was saying above????
Don't you know???? I claim no proficiency in being able to figure out
what you're saying.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
25 Jul 2006 12:12:02 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message news:jpoxg.71160$nK.67260@dukeread05...
jcon wrote:
jem wrote:
jcon wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.
I wish Einstein had put a bit of thought into it before he
said that. Most of us know what he meant, but the fact is
that statement has been like catnip to kooks for a hundred years.
You seriously believe Einstein spoke without thinking? So let's hear
what it is you "wish" he would have said had he "put a bit of thought
into it". This should be rich.
Clocks in Einstein's day ran on some combination of gravity,
electricity,
and spring mechanisms, any of which can be dramatically (and
differently) affected by environmental factors. While these factors
change what the "clock meaures", Einstein would certainly not
claim that they change "time".
For example, move a pendulum clock to the moon. If "time is what
a clock measures", then I've just slowed time down by sqrt(6). Are
you saying that's what really what he *wanted* to say?
No, what I'm saying he really wanted to say is what he really *did* say
- that the time between two events *is* the number of clock ticks (on
any clock) that are deemed to occur between those events. Obviously
that number depends on clock construction and environmental factors, but
as Mr. Poe pointed out, those are calibration issues, common to all
measuring devices, and of no relevance to Einstein's remark.
The novelty of the proposition "time is what a clock measures" is the
presumption that's there's no temporal entity "out there" which clocks
have been employed to quantify - time simply *is* the measurements of
clocks.
Then you are saying that a clock second is an interval of universal time.
IOW a clock second will have the same duration in all frames or the passage
of a clock second in one frame is equal to the passage of a clock second in
all other frames. If that's not what you mean please explain why you are
comparing the traveling twin's clock second directly with the stay at home
clock second directly to reach the conclusion that the traveling twin is
younger?
If you have two clocks and you want to know which one reads
a larger number than the other, you look at the two clocks
side by side and compare their numbers.
For instance, if clock 1 says: 12:41:03 pm
and clock 2 says: 12:47:15 pm
Then I can conclude "clock 1 reads an earlier time than clock
2" and I have said nothing about "intervals of universal time".
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
26 Jul 2006 07:52:54 AM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153847522.293165.35230@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:jpoxg.71160$nK.67260@dukeread05...
jcon wrote:
jem wrote:
jcon wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.
I wish Einstein had put a bit of thought into it before he
said that. Most of us know what he meant, but the fact is
that statement has been like catnip to kooks for a hundred years.
You seriously believe Einstein spoke without thinking? So let's
hear
what it is you "wish" he would have said had he "put a bit of
thought
into it". This should be rich.
Clocks in Einstein's day ran on some combination of gravity,
electricity,
and spring mechanisms, any of which can be dramatically (and
differently) affected by environmental factors. While these factors
change what the "clock meaures", Einstein would certainly not
claim that they change "time".
For example, move a pendulum clock to the moon. If "time is what
a clock measures", then I've just slowed time down by sqrt(6). Are
you saying that's what really what he *wanted* to say?
No, what I'm saying he really wanted to say is what he really *did*
say
- that the time between two events *is* the number of clock ticks (on
any clock) that are deemed to occur between those events. Obviously
that number depends on clock construction and environmental factors,
but
as Mr. Poe pointed out, those are calibration issues, common to all
measuring devices, and of no relevance to Einstein's remark.
The novelty of the proposition "time is what a clock measures" is the
presumption that's there's no temporal entity "out there" which clocks
have been employed to quantify - time simply *is* the measurements of
clocks.
Then you are saying that a clock second is an interval of universal
time.
IOW a clock second will have the same duration in all frames or the
passage
of a clock second in one frame is equal to the passage of a clock second
in
all other frames. If that's not what you mean please explain why you are
comparing the traveling twin's clock second directly with the stay at
home
clock second directly to reach the conclusion that the traveling twin is
younger?
If you have two clocks and you want to know which one reads
a larger number than the other, you look at the two clocks
side by side and compare their numbers.
But that comparison requires you to assume that the seconds on each clock
represents the same amount of time (duration).
For instance, if clock 1 says: 12:41:03 pm
and clock 2 says: 12:47:15 pm
Again this comparison requires that a clock second in clock 1 has the same
duration as a clock second in clock 2. The difference in clock reading
merely means that the two clocks were running at a different rates....not
that the time in clock 1 is dilated.
Then I can conclude "clock 1 reads an earlier time than clock
2" and I have said nothing about "intervals of universal time".
ROTFLOL...Earlier time??
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
26 Jul 2006 09:31:46 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153847522.293165.35230@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:jpoxg.71160$nK.67260@dukeread05...
jcon wrote:
jem wrote:
jcon wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.
I wish Einstein had put a bit of thought into it before he
said that. Most of us know what he meant, but the fact is
that statement has been like catnip to kooks for a hundred years.
You seriously believe Einstein spoke without thinking? So let's
hear
what it is you "wish" he would have said had he "put a bit of
thought
into it". This should be rich.
Clocks in Einstein's day ran on some combination of gravity,
electricity,
and spring mechanisms, any of which can be dramatically (and
differently) affected by environmental factors. While these factors
change what the "clock meaures", Einstein would certainly not
claim that they change "time".
For example, move a pendulum clock to the moon. If "time is what
a clock measures", then I've just slowed time down by sqrt(6). Are
you saying that's what really what he *wanted* to say?
No, what I'm saying he really wanted to say is what he really *did*
say
- that the time between two events *is* the number of clock ticks (on
any clock) that are deemed to occur between those events. Obviously
that number depends on clock construction and environmental factors,
but
as Mr. Poe pointed out, those are calibration issues, common to all
measuring devices, and of no relevance to Einstein's remark.
The novelty of the proposition "time is what a clock measures" is the
presumption that's there's no temporal entity "out there" which clocks
have been employed to quantify - time simply *is* the measurements of
clocks.
Then you are saying that a clock second is an interval of universal
time.
IOW a clock second will have the same duration in all frames or the
passage
of a clock second in one frame is equal to the passage of a clock second
in
all other frames. If that's not what you mean please explain why you are
comparing the traveling twin's clock second directly with the stay at
home
clock second directly to reach the conclusion that the traveling twin is
younger?
If you have two clocks and you want to know which one reads
a larger number than the other, you look at the two clocks
side by side and compare their numbers.
But that comparison requires you to assume that the seconds on each clock
represents the same amount of time (duration).
Uh, no it doesn't.
For instance, if clock 1 says: 12:41:03 pm
and clock 2 says: 12:47:15 pm
Again this comparison requires that a clock second in clock 1 has the same
duration as a clock second in clock 2. The difference in clock reading
merely means that the two clocks were running at a different rates
Please tell me how clock 1 can have both the same rate
and a different rate from clock 2.
Anyway, what it requires is the ability to note that the
numbers are different. There are no assumptions made
when I look at two numbers and conclude one is higher.
Try it.
....not that the time in clock 1 is dilated.
Who said anything about
Then I can conclude "clock 1 reads an earlier time than clock
2" and I have said nothing about "intervals of universal time".
ROTFLOL...Earlier time??
Have you really never looked at your watch and a
nearby clock and said "huh, my watch is showing an
earlier time"?
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
26 Jul 2006 12:00:28 PM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153924305.916689.62100@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153847522.293165.35230@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
If you have two clocks and you want to know which one reads
a larger number than the other, you look at the two clocks
side by side and compare their numbers.
But that comparison requires you to assume that the seconds on each
clock
represents the same amount of time (duration).
Uh, no it doesn't.
Yes it does, If not then you are comparing apples with oranges.
For instance, if clock 1 says: 12:41:03 pm
and clock 2 says: 12:47:15 pm
Again this comparison requires that a clock second in clock 1 has the
same
duration as a clock second in clock 2. The difference in clock reading
merely means that the two clocks were running at a different rates
Please tell me how clock 1 can have both the same rate
and a different rate from clock 2.
Becasue they don't have the same rate? Same rate is invented by SRians to
confirm the bogus concept of time dilation.
Anyway, what it requires is the ability to note that the
numbers are different. There are no assumptions made
when I look at two numbers and conclude one is higher.
But those different numbers represent the same amount of universal time
(absolute time or duration).
Try it.
....not that the time in clock 1 is dilated.
Who said anything about
Then I can conclude "clock 1 reads an earlier time than clock
2" and I have said nothing about "intervals of universal time".
ROTFLOL...Earlier time??
Have you really never looked at your watch and a
nearby clock and said "huh, my watch is showing an
earlier time"?
I wouldn't say that. I would say that one of our clock is running at a rate
that is different than the standard rate.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
29 Jul 2006 11:00:14 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 10:12:02 -0700, Randy Poe wrote:
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:jpoxg.71160$nK.67260@dukeread05...
[snippage]
The novelty of the proposition "time is what a clock measures" is the
presumption that's there's no temporal entity "out there" which clocks
have been employed to quantify - time simply *is* the measurements of
clocks.
Then you are saying that a clock second is an interval of universal
time. IOW a clock second will have the same duration in all frames or
the passage of a clock second in one frame is equal to the passage of a
clock second in all other frames. If that's not what you mean please
explain why you are comparing the traveling twin's clock second directly
with the stay at home clock second directly to reach the conclusion that
the traveling twin is younger?
If you have two clocks and you want to know which one reads a larger
number than the other, you look at the two clocks side by side and compare
their numbers.
For instance, if clock 1 says: 12:41:03 pm and clock 2 says: 12:47:15 pm
Then I can conclude "clock 1 reads an earlier time than clock 2" and I
have said nothing about "intervals of universal time".
- Randy
If one knows that both clocks read 12:00:00 pm sometime in the past (as
witnessed by the same observer, presumably during problem setup), one can
conclude that the clocks are not ticking at the same rate as well (unless
one postulates a clock malfunction a la Spaceman). No absolute time is
required there, either.
Most "Twin Paradox" problems assume some sort of clock synchronization
prior to flight.
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Newsam" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
25 Jul 2006 08:56:14 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 08:49:29 -0400, jem <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote:
The novelty of the proposition "time is what a clock measures" is the
presumption that's there's no temporal entity "out there" which clocks
have been employed to quantify - time simply *is* the measurements of
clocks.
Personally, I have a *big* conceptual difficulty with that. If you are
nay-saying the temporal entity that clocks quantify, then in what sort
of "space" do clocks operate at all? If there is no real time, then
you can't separate the clock ticks and there is nothing to measure.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
24 Jul 2006 10:36:08 AM |
|
|
jcon wrote:
jem wrote:
jcon wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.
I wish Einstein had put a bit of thought into it before he
said that. Most of us know what he meant, but the fact is
that statement has been like catnip to kooks for a hundred years.
You seriously believe Einstein spoke without thinking? So let's hear
what it is you "wish" he would have said had he "put a bit of thought
into it". This should be rich.
Clocks in Einstein's day ran on some combination of gravity,
electricity,
and spring mechanisms, any of which can be dramatically (and
differently) affected by environmental factors. While these factors
change what the "clock meaures", Einstein would certainly not
claim that they change "time".
For example, move a pendulum clock to the moon. If "time is what
a clock measures", then I've just slowed time down by sqrt(6). Are
you saying that's what really what he *wanted* to say?
Any physicist, including Einstein, would probably say that
this is still a device measuring time, but that the units
are now sqrt(6) seconds. That isn't changing time, just
the units.
It's still time, whether it's measured in seconds, hours,
or moon-clock ticks. Note the difference between "time is
what the clock measures" and "seconds are what the
clock measures".
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "jcon" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
24 Jul 2006 11:04:06 AM |
|
|
Randy Poe wrote:
jcon wrote:
jem wrote:
jcon wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.
I wish Einstein had put a bit of thought into it before he
said that. Most of us know what he meant, but the fact is
that statement has been like catnip to kooks for a hundred years.
You seriously believe Einstein spoke without thinking? So let's hear
what it is you "wish" he would have said had he "put a bit of thought
into it". This should be rich.
Clocks in Einstein's day ran on some combination of gravity,
electricity,
and spring mechanisms, any of which can be dramatically (and
differently) affected by environmental factors. While these factors
change what the "clock meaures", Einstein would certainly not
claim that they change "time".
For example, move a pendulum clock to the moon. If "time is what
a clock measures", then I've just slowed time down by sqrt(6). Are
you saying that's what really what he *wanted* to say?
Any physicist, including Einstein, would probably say that
this is still a device measuring time, but that the units
are now sqrt(6) seconds. That isn't changing time, just
the units.
I believe if you read my original post, you'll see I said
"most of us knew what he meant". Nevertheless,
the argument "The clock measures time, but
sometimes the units change" comes across a little
weak, don't you think?
In standard usage, the phrase "measure something",
implies measuring it to some degree of accuracy.
If I buy a spectrum analyzer and find that it's
off by 10%, I probably won't accept the argument
"It measures in inits of .9Hz".
In fact, a pendulum clock doesn't measure "time".
It counts pendulum swings. In order to convert that
to time (and get it right on the moon), I have to make
assumptions about the role of time in the underlying
physical laws.
It was the role of time in the underlying physical
processes on which clocks operate that Einstein
was alluding to, but that is a subtlety that is
lost on many people.
-jc
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. |
24 Jul 2006 11:15:10 AM |
|
|
jcon wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
jcon wrote:
jem wrote:
jcon wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.
I wish Einstein had put a bit of thought into it before he
said that. Most of us know what he meant, but the fact is
that statement has been like catnip to kooks for a hundred years.
You seriously believe Einstein spoke without thinking? So let's hear
what it is you "wish" he would have said had he "put a bit of thought
into it". This should be rich.
Clocks in Einstein's day ran on some combination of gravity,
electricity,
and spring mechanisms, any of which can be dramatically (and
differently) affected by environmental factors. While these factors
change what the "clock meaures", Einstein would certainly not
claim that they change "time".
For example, move a pendulum clock to the moon. If "time is what
a clock measures", then I've just slowed time down by sqrt(6). Are
you saying that's what really what he *wanted* to say?
Any physicist, including Einstein, would probably say that
this is still a device measuring time, but that the units
are now sqrt(6) seconds. That isn't changing time, just
the units.
I believe if you read my original post, you'll see I said
"most of us knew what he meant". Nevertheless,
the argument "The clock measures time, but
sometimes the units change" comes across a little
weak, don't you think?
No. I have a physical model for this device, which is
that it's period is 2*pi*sqrt(L/g).
It's silly | | | |
