Discussion:
Does clocks in different frames accumulate clock seconds at different rates?
Ken Seto
2021-06-07 15:09:17 UTC
Tom Roberts said:
No. The clock never ticks "faster" (or "slower") -- all clocks ALWAYS
tick at their usual rate, independent of their motion or location. This
is MUCH more subtle than clocks simply ticking faster or slower.

Tom:
This seems to imply that a clock second is a universal interval of time....IOW, the passage of a clock second in A’s frame is corresponded to the passage of a clock second in B’s frame. But such implication disagrees with the math that:
Delta(tB)=Gamma*Delta(tA)
Maciej Wozniak
2021-06-07 15:33:50 UTC
Yes, anyone can check GPS, it's 9,192,631,770 on the ground
and ~9,192,631,774 in a satellite (for a Cs atomic clock).
Odd Bodkin
2021-06-07 15:43:34 UTC
Post by Ken Seto
No. The clock never ticks "faster" (or "slower") -- all clocks ALWAYS
tick at their usual rate, independent of their motion or location. This
is MUCH more subtle than clocks simply ticking faster or slower.
This seems to imply that a clock second is a universal interval of time....
No it doesn’t imply that. As is often the case, you manage to misunderstand
the simplest statements made on this newsgroup. This is why it is a futile
gesture to try to learn relativity by asking questions on the newsgroup.

Tom’s statement is that all clocks ALWAYS tick at their usual rate,
independent of their motion or location, IN THEIR OWN INERTIAL REFERENCE
FRAME. This does not mean that any clock ticks at the same rate in any
other inertial reference frame. Nor does it mean that if the clock is
measured to tick at a different rate in a different reference frame, then
the clock is now ticking at a different rate in its own frame.

None of this is going to make any sense to you, until you change your
stance and start reading beginning physics books checked out from the
library for free. I know this is something that you can’t stand the thought
of. And so maybe the thing to come to terms with is that you are never
going to understand relativity, because you can’t do the prep work.
Post by Ken Seto
IOW, the passage of a clock second in A’s frame is corresponded to the
Delta(tB)=Gamma*Delta(tA)
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ken Seto
2021-06-07 17:23:02 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
No. The clock never ticks "faster" (or "slower") -- all clocks ALWAYS
tick at their usual rate, independent of their motion or location. This
is MUCH more subtle than clocks simply ticking faster or slower.
This seems to imply that a clock second is a universal interval of time....
No it doesn’t imply that. As is often the case, you manage to misunderstand
the simplest statements made on this newsgroup. This is why it is a futile
gesture to try to learn relativity by asking questions on the newsgroup.
Tom’s statement is that all clocks ALWAYS tick at their usual rate,
independent of their motion or location, IN THEIR OWN INERTIAL REFERENCE
FRAME.
What does tick at their usual rate at own inertial frame mean when no object is
at rest in any inertial frame?
Post by Odd Bodkin
This does not mean that any clock ticks at the same rate in any
other inertial reference frame.
So a clock second is not a universal interval of time.....right?
Post by Odd Bodkin
Nor does it mean that if the clock is
measured to tick at a different rate in a different reference frame,
So the double talk again.
Post by Odd Bodkin
then
the clock is now ticking at a different rate in its own frame.
So the observed clock is ticking at different rate and at the same time it is not ticking at different rates.
Sorry Double talking is not allowed.
First of all, no Inertial reference frame exists for any object in a gravitational field and all objects are in a gravitational field.
Post by Odd Bodkin
None of this is going to make any sense to you, until you change your
stance and start reading beginning physics books checked out from the
library for free. I know this is something that you can’t stand the thought
of. And so maybe the thing to come to terms with is that you are never
going to understand relativity, because you can’t do the prep work.
Post by Ken Seto
IOW, the passage of a clock second in A’s frame is corresponded to the
Delta(tB)=Gamma*Delta(tA)
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2021-06-07 18:08:24 UTC
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
No. The clock never ticks "faster" (or "slower") -- all clocks ALWAYS
tick at their usual rate, independent of their motion or location. This
is MUCH more subtle than clocks simply ticking faster or slower.
This seems to imply that a clock second is a universal interval of time....
No it doesn’t imply that. As is often the case, you manage to misunderstand
the simplest statements made on this newsgroup. This is why it is a futile
gesture to try to learn relativity by asking questions on the newsgroup.
Tom’s statement is that all clocks ALWAYS tick at their usual rate,
independent of their motion or location, IN THEIR OWN INERTIAL REFERENCE
FRAME.
What does tick at their usual rate at own inertial frame mean when no object is
at rest in any inertial frame?
And that’s bullshit.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
This does not mean that any clock ticks at the same rate in any
other inertial reference frame.
So a clock second is not a universal interval of time.....right?
Not in the way you mean that term, and NO ONE HAS EVER SAID IT WAS. You
keep saying “The problem is that the second is not a universal interval of
time.” No, it’s never been. So what?
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Nor does it mean that if the clock is
measured to tick at a different rate in a different reference frame,
So the double talk again.
Ken, when someone says something you don’t understand, IT’S NOT DOUBLETALK.
It’s just something you don’t understand because you’ve never learned the
basics. You cannot understand advanced topics without learning the basics
first. If you try, it will always sound like doubletalk to you.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
then
the clock is now ticking at a different rate in its own frame.
So the observed clock is ticking at different rate and at the same time
it is not ticking at different rates.
Sorry Double talking is not allowed.
First of all, no Inertial reference frame exists for any object in a gravitational field
And that’s bullshit. Nobody has ever said that gravity has to be zero in an
inertial frame. No one. That is something you’ve made up.
Post by Ken Seto
and all objects are in a gravitational field.
Post by Odd Bodkin
None of this is going to make any sense to you, until you change your
stance and start reading beginning physics books checked out from the
library for free. I know this is something that you can’t stand the thought
of. And so maybe the thing to come to terms with is that you are never
going to understand relativity, because you can’t do the prep work.
Post by Ken Seto
IOW, the passage of a clock second in A’s frame is corresponded to the
passage of a clock second in B’s frame. But such implication disagrees
Delta(tB)=Gamma*Delta(tA)
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ken Seto
2021-06-07 20:02:43 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
No. The clock never ticks "faster" (or "slower") -- all clocks ALWAYS
tick at their usual rate, independent of their motion or location. This
is MUCH more subtle than clocks simply ticking faster or slower.
This seems to imply that a clock second is a universal interval of time....
No it doesn’t imply that. As is often the case, you manage to misunderstand
the simplest statements made on this newsgroup. This is why it is a futile
gesture to try to learn relativity by asking questions on the newsgroup.
Tom’s statement is that all clocks ALWAYS tick at their usual rate,
What does that mean? 1-second/1-second?
If that’s what it mean then it still implied that a second in my frame is corresponded to a second in your frame and thus mean that a second is a universal interval of time.
Post by Odd Bodkin
independent of their motion or location, IN THEIR OWN INERTIAL REFERENCE
FRAME.
This is a flawed statement. No object is at rest in an inertial frame in a gravitational field.
Post by Odd Bodkin
This does not mean that any clock ticks at the same rate in any
other inertial reference frame.
So that means that they tick at different rates......we finally agree.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Nor does it mean that if the clock is
measured to tick at a different rate in a different reference frame, then
the clock is now ticking at a different rate in its own frame.
The double talk begin again.
Post by Odd Bodkin
None of this is going to make any sense to you,
Yes I have problem understanding double talks.
Post by Odd Bodkin
until you change your
stance and start reading beginning physics books checked out from the
library for free. I know this is something that you can’t stand the thought
of. And so maybe the thing to come to terms with is that you are never
going to understand relativity, because you can’t do the prep work.
Post by Ken Seto
IOW, the passage of a clock second in A’s frame is corresponded to the
Delta(tB)=Gamma*Delta(tA)
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2021-06-07 20:15:07 UTC
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
No. The clock never ticks "faster" (or "slower") -- all clocks ALWAYS
tick at their usual rate, independent of their motion or location. This
is MUCH more subtle than clocks simply ticking faster or slower.
This seems to imply that a clock second is a universal interval of time....
No it doesn’t imply that. As is often the case, you manage to misunderstand
the simplest statements made on this newsgroup. This is why it is a futile
gesture to try to learn relativity by asking questions on the newsgroup.
Tom’s statement is that all clocks ALWAYS tick at their usual rate,
What does that mean? 1-second/1-second?
No, it doesn’t mean that.
Post by Ken Seto
If that’s what it mean then it still implied that a second in my frame is
corresponded to a second in your frame and thus mean that a second is a
universal interval of time.
Post by Odd Bodkin
independent of their motion or location, IN THEIR OWN INERTIAL REFERENCE
FRAME.
This is a flawed statement. No object is at rest in an inertial frame in
a gravitational field.
That’s incorrect. Inertial reference frames certainly exist in
gravitational fields. I have no idea why you ever thought inertial
reference frames had to be zero gravity frames.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
This does not mean that any clock ticks at the same rate in any
other inertial reference frame.
So that means that they tick at different rates......we finally agree.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Nor does it mean that if the clock is
measured to tick at a different rate in a different reference frame, then
the clock is now ticking at a different rate in its own frame.
The double talk begin again.
Post by Odd Bodkin
None of this is going to make any sense to you,
Yes I have problem understanding double talks.
The reason you have trouble understanding this is not that it’s
double-talk. You have trouble understanding anything that’s at a more
advance level because you haven’t learned basics. You will never understand
an advanced topic without learning basics first.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
until you change your
stance and start reading beginning physics books checked out from the
library for free. I know this is something that you can’t stand the thought
of. And so maybe the thing to come to terms with is that you are never
going to understand relativity, because you can’t do the prep work.
Post by Ken Seto
IOW, the passage of a clock second in A’s frame is corresponded to the
passage of a clock second in B’s frame. But such implication disagrees
Delta(tB)=Gamma*Delta(tA)
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
beda pietanza
2021-06-07 21:17:34 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
No. The clock never ticks "faster" (or "slower") -- all clocks ALWAYS
tick at their usual rate, independent of their motion or location. This
is MUCH more subtle than clocks simply ticking faster or slower.
This seems to imply that a clock second is a universal interval of time....
No it doesn’t imply that. As is often the case, you manage to misunderstand
the simplest statements made on this newsgroup. This is why it is a futile
gesture to try to learn relativity by asking questions on the newsgroup.
Tom’s statement is that all clocks ALWAYS tick at their usual rate,
independent of their motion or location, IN THEIR OWN INERTIAL REFERENCE
FRAME. This does not mean that any clock ticks at the same rate in any
other inertial reference frame. Nor does it mean that if the clock is
measured to tick at a different rate in a different reference frame, then
the clock is now ticking at a different rate in its own frame.
beda
odd, are you sure that what you wrote is meaningful??
clock A is tickling as its usual rate
clock B, differently moving, is, also, tickling at its usual rate
to make it simple we cancel the frame where they are at rest,
of course since nobody interfere with them, A and B keep their usual rate, correct??
if word have any meaning this means that the two clock are running at same rate.
that is impossible because seeing them both by a third observer they are tickling at
different rate.
something is wrong with your assertion
I give you a hint: in the SR procedure, the clock at rest in its frame, is °°assumed** tickling
at its usual rate (instead it is tickling at a "lower hidden absolute rate")
just like the ruler, it is assumed to remain unchanged but it has an "hidden absolute contraction"
just like the two ways speed of light along the ruler, it is assumed to be invariant locally, but it is really
longer and longer as the ruler' speed is higher.
the poor local observer that you posit into a windowless room in order to fool him and to fool yourself,
is ridiculous, the ruler, the clock, the two way SOL are different according to the speed of them.
and the lenght of the ruler, the rate of the clock, and the two ways of the speed of light are different, and any observer can see that, regardless if they are aware of it, or regardless of any make beleive of your crooked logic.

at end, yes the clock A is measured going slower by a relatevely moving SR frame of yours, but this doesn't mean that clock A runs at its usual rate, it is just that you are pretending not to know that it is running at the its absolute "hidden" rate determined by its absolute "hidden" speed.
but you keep pretending not to know...to fool yourself
cheers
beda
Post by Odd Bodkin
None of this is going to make any sense to you, until you change your
stance and start reading beginning physics books checked out from the
library for free. I know this is something that you can’t stand the thought
of. And so maybe the thing to come to terms with is that you are never
going to understand relativity, because you can’t do the prep work.
Post by Ken Seto
IOW, the passage of a clock second in A’s frame is corresponded to the
Delta(tB)=Gamma*Delta(tA)
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables