Discussion:
Does clocks in different frames accumulate clock seconds at different rates?
(too old to reply)
Ken Seto
2021-06-07 15:09:17 UTC
Permalink
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
Permalink
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
Permalink
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
Permalink
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
Permalink
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
Permalink
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
Permalink
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
Maciej Wozniak
2021-06-08 07:10:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
That's because your idiot guru has invented his "elevator"
gedanken. No surprise, of course, you don't know about it.
Ken Seto
2021-06-08 12:35:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
i know, according to you ......I don’t understand advanced SR physics.
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
No answer? I know according to you a second is a universal interval of time and a second is not a universal interval of time....Right?
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
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.
Because a gravitational field will accelerate any objects within it?
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
I have problem understand:
1. clocks are ticking at their usual rate....does not mean that they are ticking at the same rate.
2. clocks are not ticking at different rates.
3. clocks are measure to tick at different rates.
4. i don’t understand advance SR physics.
Post by Odd Bodkin
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
Odd Bodkin
2021-06-08 13:11:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
i know, according to you ......I don’t understand advanced SR physics.
And that’s because you don’t understand ANY physics, basic physics first.

You have never understood relativity. You’ve never understood freshman
physics.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
No answer? I know according to you a second is a universal interval of time
Nope, never said that.
Post by Ken Seto
and a second is not a universal interval of time....Right?
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
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.
Because a gravitational field will accelerate any objects within it?
Not so. Does gravity accelerate your coffee cup when it’s sitting on the
counter?

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
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.
1. clocks are ticking at their usual rate....does not mean that they are
ticking at the same rate.
2. clocks are not ticking at different rates.
3. clocks are measure to tick at different rates.
4. i don’t understand advance SR physics.
Post by Odd Bodkin
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
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Maciej Wozniak
2021-06-08 13:31:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
i know, according to you ......I don’t understand advanced SR physics.
And that’s because you don’t understand ANY physics, basic physics first.
You have never understood relativity. You’ve never understood freshman
physics.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
No answer? I know according to you a second is a universal interval of time
Nope, never said that.
Post by Ken Seto
and a second is not a universal interval of time....Right?
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
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.
Because a gravitational field will accelerate any objects within it?
Not so. Does gravity accelerate your coffee cup when it’s sitting on the
counter?
I have no idea why you ever thought inertial reference frames had to be
zero gravity frames.
Of course you don't, you're such an idiot.
https://www.thegreatcoursesdaily.com/einsteins-experimental-elevator/
Iyoley Mutters
2021-06-08 13:47:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
1. clocks are ticking at their usual rate....does not mean that they are
ticking at the same rate.
2. clocks are not ticking at different rates.
3. clocks are measure to tick at different rates.
4. i don’t understand advance SR physics.
you better start stealling the faster than light *tachyon* without
causality violation *theory*. Without which your *theory_of_everything*
is incomplete.
Rob Acraman
2021-06-09 07:08:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
i know, according to you ......I don’t understand advanced SR physics.
It's not "advanced SR physics"; understanding how time is handled in SR is BASIC.

Since you clearly don't understand that means you equally clearly do not understand SR. That statement is not an insult, but a simple statement of fact.

It's just the same as someone who does not understand how the Knight moves on a chess board equally clearly does not understand Chess nor Chess strategies. Of course, should such a person, whilst still ignorant of those basics of chess, spend effort writing a book on chess strategies - then that person would not deserve to be taken seriously (even if they did, for example, pay Who's Who for an entry lauding their chess claims).

So let's take a different tack to describe what's going on.

Einstein once said "Time is what clocks measure". Likewise, we can say "Height is what plumb lines measure".

So imagine a plumb line, with metres marked along the string. If we have a 10 metre high wall, then obviously we can drop our plumb down the outside of that wall, and confirm sure enough : 10 metres.

So, clocks mark off seconds of time (ie, the duration along the time axis), and plumb lines mark off metres of height (ie the distance along the vertical Z axis).

Now, you've been talking about "a clock second is a universal interval of time".

Let me ask you the equivalent : Do you say a metre is a universal distance of height ?

Well, do you ??? >8->

What do you think "a metre is a universal distance of height" even means ?

For two buildings nearby, the x, y, z axes are pretty much the same, so there will be pretty much no discrepancy - but what about for buildings far away?

For buildings separated by a substantial distance, the earth's curvature has to be taken into account. The x,y,z axes of one building will be tilted relative to the x,y,z axes of the other.

So :
a) Just as all all plumb lines are identical, SIMILARLY all clocks are identical

b) This means just as all plumb lines measure vertical height at their location, SIMILARLY all clocks tick at the "proper" rate in the frame at which they are at rest

c) But just as the z axis at one location is not aligned (ie "tilted", not the same) as the z axis at another location, SIMILARLY the time axis of one frame is not "aligned" with the time axis of different frames

d) This means each observer will measure one metre along all other remote z axes to be shorter (due to that tilt) than one metre on his local z axis, SIMILARLY each observer will measure the one second ticks of each clocks in a different frame to to be longer than the one second ticked by a clock "stationary" in his own frame

e) Just as the effect of (d) for plumb-line-lengths is perfectly mutual/reciprocal without contradiction, SIMILARLY the effect of (d) for clocks ticking time is perfectly mutual/reciprocal without contradiction

As Odd says, none of this is double-talk.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
1. clocks are ticking at their usual rate....does not mean that they are ticking at the same rate.
A metre vertical in London does not not span 1 metre of New York's z axis.
Post by Ken Seto
2. clocks are not ticking at different rates.
One metre is one metre, whether measured in London or NewYork.
Post by Ken Seto
3. clocks are measure to tick at different rates.
The "vertical" z axis of London is not the same as "vertical" in NewYork.,
Post by Ken Seto
4. i don’t understand advance SR physics.
If you don't understand the basics of how time is handled in SR, then you don't understand the basics.
Odd Bodkin
2021-06-09 10:08:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob Acraman
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
i know, according to you ......I don’t understand advanced SR physics.
It's not "advanced SR physics"; understanding how time is handled in SR is BASIC.
Since you clearly don't understand that means you equally clearly do not
understand SR. That statement is not an insult, but a simple statement of fact.
It's just the same as someone who does not understand how the Knight
moves on a chess board equally clearly does not understand Chess nor
Chess strategies. Of course, should such a person, whilst still ignorant
of those basics of chess, spend effort writing a book on chess strategies
- then that person would not deserve to be taken seriously (even if they
did, for example, pay Who's Who for an entry lauding their chess claims).
So let's take a different tack to describe what's going on.
Einstein once said "Time is what clocks measure". Likewise, we can say
"Height is what plumb lines measure".
So imagine a plumb line, with metres marked along the string. If we have
a 10 metre high wall, then obviously we can drop our plumb down the
outside of that wall, and confirm sure enough : 10 metres.
So, clocks mark off seconds of time (ie, the duration along the time
axis), and plumb lines mark off metres of height (ie the distance along
the vertical Z axis).
Now, you've been talking about "a clock second is a universal interval of time".
Let me ask you the equivalent : Do you say a metre is a universal distance of height ?
Well, do you ??? >8->
What do you think "a metre is a universal distance of height" even means ?
For two buildings nearby, the x, y, z axes are pretty much the same, so
there will be pretty much no discrepancy - but what about for buildings far away?
For buildings separated by a substantial distance, the earth's curvature
has to be taken into account. The x,y,z axes of one building will be
tilted relative to the x,y,z axes of the other.
a) Just as all all plumb lines are identical, SIMILARLY all clocks are identical
b) This means just as all plumb lines measure vertical height at their
location, SIMILARLY all clocks tick at the "proper" rate in the frame at
which they are at rest
c) But just as the z axis at one location is not aligned (ie "tilted",
not the same) as the z axis at another location, SIMILARLY the time axis
of one frame is not "aligned" with the time axis of different frames
d) This means each observer will measure one metre along all other remote
z axes to be shorter (due to that tilt) than one metre on his local z
axis, SIMILARLY each observer will measure the one second ticks of each
clocks in a different frame to to be longer than the one second ticked by
a clock "stationary" in his own frame
e) Just as the effect of (d) for plumb-line-lengths is perfectly
mutual/reciprocal without contradiction, SIMILARLY the effect of (d) for
clocks ticking time is perfectly mutual/reciprocal without contradiction
As Odd says, none of this is double-talk.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
1. clocks are ticking at their usual rate....does not mean that they are
ticking at the same rate.
A metre vertical in London does not not span 1 metre of New York's z axis.
Post by Ken Seto
2. clocks are not ticking at different rates.
One metre is one metre, whether measured in London or NewYork.
Post by Ken Seto
3. clocks are measure to tick at different rates.
The "vertical" z axis of London is not the same as "vertical" in NewYork.,
Post by Ken Seto
4. i don’t understand advance SR physics.
If you don't understand the basics of how time is handled in SR, then you
don't understand the basics.
Nice try, but I think Ken is someone who tried to pitch an idea of
“absolutely horizontal”. He is not capable of following the simple
illustration you gave. Seriously.
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Rob Acraman
2021-06-09 11:18:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
i know, according to you ......I don’t understand advanced SR physics.
It's not "advanced SR physics"; understanding how time is handled in SR is BASIC.
Since you clearly don't understand that means you equally clearly do not
understand SR. That statement is not an insult, but a simple statement of fact.
It's just the same as someone who does not understand how the Knight
moves on a chess board equally clearly does not understand Chess nor
Chess strategies. Of course, should such a person, whilst still ignorant
of those basics of chess, spend effort writing a book on chess strategies
- then that person would not deserve to be taken seriously (even if they
did, for example, pay Who's Who for an entry lauding their chess claims).
So let's take a different tack to describe what's going on.
Einstein once said "Time is what clocks measure". Likewise, we can say
"Height is what plumb lines measure".
So imagine a plumb line, with metres marked along the string. If we have
a 10 metre high wall, then obviously we can drop our plumb down the
outside of that wall, and confirm sure enough : 10 metres.
So, clocks mark off seconds of time (ie, the duration along the time
axis), and plumb lines mark off metres of height (ie the distance along
the vertical Z axis).
Now, you've been talking about "a clock second is a universal interval of time".
Let me ask you the equivalent : Do you say a metre is a universal distance of height ?
Well, do you ??? >8->
What do you think "a metre is a universal distance of height" even means ?
For two buildings nearby, the x, y, z axes are pretty much the same, so
there will be pretty much no discrepancy - but what about for buildings far away?
For buildings separated by a substantial distance, the earth's curvature
has to be taken into account. The x,y,z axes of one building will be
tilted relative to the x,y,z axes of the other.
a) Just as all all plumb lines are identical, SIMILARLY all clocks are identical
b) This means just as all plumb lines measure vertical height at their
location, SIMILARLY all clocks tick at the "proper" rate in the frame at
which they are at rest
c) But just as the z axis at one location is not aligned (ie "tilted",
not the same) as the z axis at another location, SIMILARLY the time axis
of one frame is not "aligned" with the time axis of different frames
d) This means each observer will measure one metre along all other remote
z axes to be shorter (due to that tilt) than one metre on his local z
axis, SIMILARLY each observer will measure the one second ticks of each
clocks in a different frame to to be longer than the one second ticked by
a clock "stationary" in his own frame
e) Just as the effect of (d) for plumb-line-lengths is perfectly
mutual/reciprocal without contradiction, SIMILARLY the effect of (d) for
clocks ticking time is perfectly mutual/reciprocal without contradiction
As Odd says, none of this is double-talk.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
1. clocks are ticking at their usual rate....does not mean that they are
ticking at the same rate.
A metre vertical in London does not not span 1 metre of New York's z axis.
Post by Ken Seto
2. clocks are not ticking at different rates.
One metre is one metre, whether measured in London or NewYork.
Post by Ken Seto
3. clocks are measure to tick at different rates.
The "vertical" z axis of London is not the same as "vertical" in NewYork.,
Post by Ken Seto
4. i don’t understand advance SR physics.
If you don't understand the basics of how time is handled in SR, then you
don't understand the basics.
Nice try, but I think Ken is someone who tried to pitch an idea of
“absolutely horizontal”. He is not capable of following the simple
illustration you gave. Seriously.
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Yeah, I know :-D but I have to try, if only because it runs through my head each time I see him re-ask the same question !

Also, I do wonder what his answer is to "is the metre the universal measure of height?"
Ken Seto
2021-06-09 12:24:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
i know, according to you ......I don’t understand advanced SR physics.
It's not "advanced SR physics"; understanding how time is handled in SR is BASIC.
Since you clearly don't understand that means you equally clearly do not understand SR. That statement is not an insult, but a simple statement of fact.
It's just the same as someone who does not understand how the Knight moves on a chess board equally clearly does not understand Chess nor Chess strategies. Of course, should such a person, whilst still ignorant of those basics of chess, spend effort writing a book on chess strategies - then that person would not deserve to be taken seriously (even if they did, for example, pay Who's Who for an entry lauding their chess claims).
So let's take a different tack to describe what's going on.
Einstein once said "Time is what clocks measure". Likewise, we can say "Height is what plumb lines measure".
So imagine a plumb line, with metres marked along the string. If we have a 10 metre high wall, then obviously we can drop our plumb down the outside of that wall, and confirm sure enough : 10 metres.
So, clocks mark off seconds of time (ie, the duration along the time axis), and plumb lines mark off metres of height (ie the distance along the vertical Z axis).
Now, you've been talking about "a clock second is a universal interval of time".
Let me ask you the equivalent : Do you say a metre is a universal distance of height ?
Well, do you ??? >8->
What do you think "a metre is a universal distance of height" even means ?
For two buildings nearby, the x, y, z axes are pretty much the same, so there will be pretty much no discrepancy - but what about for buildings far away?
For buildings separated by a substantial distance, the earth's curvature has to be taken into account. The x,y,z axes of one building will be tilted relative to the x,y,z axes of the other.
a) Just as all all plumb lines are identical, SIMILARLY all clocks are identical
b) This means just as all plumb lines measure vertical height at their location, SIMILARLY all clocks tick at the "proper" rate in the frame at which they are at rest
c) But just as the z axis at one location is not aligned (ie "tilted", not the same) as the z axis at another location, SIMILARLY the time axis of one frame is not "aligned" with the time axis of different frames
d) This means each observer will measure one metre along all other remote z axes to be shorter (due to that tilt) than one metre on his local z axis, SIMILARLY each observer will measure the one second ticks of each clocks in a different frame to to be longer than the one second ticked by a clock "stationary" in his own frame
e) Just as the effect of (d) for plumb-line-lengths is perfectly mutual/reciprocal without contradiction, SIMILARLY the effect of (d) for clocks ticking time is perfectly mutual/reciprocal without contradiction
As Odd says, none of this is double-talk.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
1. clocks are ticking at their usual rate....does not mean that they are ticking at the same rate.
A metre vertical in London does not not span 1 metre of New York's z axis.
Post by Ken Seto
2. clocks are not ticking at different rates.
One metre is one metre, whether measured in London or NewYork.
Post by Ken Seto
3. clocks are measure to tick at different rates.
The "vertical" z axis of London is not the same as "vertical" in NewYork.,
Post by Ken Seto
4. i don’t understand advance SR physics.
If you don’t understand the basics of how time is handled in SR, then you don't understand the basics.
Your usage of material length to explain
Scott Whaples
2021-06-09 14:21:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Rob Acraman
Post by Ken Seto
2. clocks are not ticking at different rates.
One metre is one metre, whether measured in London or NewYork.
Post by Ken Seto
3. clocks are measure to tick at different rates.
The "vertical" z axis of London is not the same as "vertical" in NewYork.,
Post by Ken Seto
4. i don’t understand advance SR physics.
If you don’t understand the basics of how time is handled in SR, then
you don't understand the basics.
Your usage of material length to explain
yes, sure, but without tachyon faster than light theory, your unification
theory of everything is *incomplete*.
mitchr...@gmail.com
2021-06-09 18:12:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Whaples
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Rob Acraman
Post by Ken Seto
2. clocks are not ticking at different rates.
One metre is one metre, whether measured in London or NewYork.
Post by Ken Seto
3. clocks are measure to tick at different rates.
The "vertical" z axis of London is not the same as "vertical" in NewYork.,
Post by Ken Seto
4. i don’t understand advance SR physics.
If you don’t understand the basics of how time is handled in SR, then
you don't understand the basics.
Your usage of material length to explain
yes, sure, but without tachyon faster than light theory, your unification
theory of everything is *incomplete*.
Gamma shows there is no truth behind FTL motion theory.
Your tachyons have negative energy that will annihilate
with positive matter into radiation. That is not observed
to exist.

Mitchell Raemsch
Scott Whaples
2021-06-09 20:44:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Scott Whaples
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Rob Acraman
Post by Ken Seto
2. clocks are not ticking at different rates.
One metre is one metre, whether measured in London or NewYork.
Post by Ken Seto
3. clocks are measure to tick at different rates.
The "vertical" z axis of London is not the same as "vertical" in NewYork.,
Post by Ken Seto
4. i don’t understand advance SR physics.
If you don’t understand the basics of how time is handled in SR,
then you don't understand the basics.
Your usage of material length to explain
yes, sure, but without tachyon faster than light theory, your
unification theory of everything is *incomplete*.
Gamma shows there is no truth behind FTL motion theory.
Your tachyons have negative energy that will annihilate with positive
matter into radiation. That is not observed to exist.
that's not about observations.
Ken Seto
2021-06-09 12:58:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
i know, according to you ......I don’t understand advanced SR physics.
It's not "advanced SR physics"; understanding how time is handled in SR is BASIC.
Since you clearly don't understand that means you equally clearly do not understand SR. That statement is not an insult, but a simple statement of fact.
It's just the same as someone who does not understand how the Knight moves on a chess board equally clearly does not understand Chess nor Chess strategies. Of course, should such a person, whilst still ignorant of those basics of chess, spend effort writing a book on chess strategies - then that person would not deserve to be taken seriously (even if they did, for example, pay Who's Who for an entry lauding their chess claims).
So let's take a different tack to describe what's going on.
Einstein once said "Time is what clocks measure". Likewise, we can say "Height is what plumb lines measure".
So imagine a plumb line, with metres marked along the string. If we have a 10 metre high wall, then obviously we can drop our plumb down the outside of that wall, and confirm sure enough : 10 metres.
So, clocks mark off seconds of time (ie, the duration along the time axis), and plumb lines mark off metres of height (ie the distance along the vertical Z axis).
Now, you've been talking about "a clock second is a universal interval of time".
Let me ask you the equivalent : Do you say a metre is a universal distance of height ?
Well, do you ??? >8->
What do you think "a metre is a universal distance of height" even means ?
For two buildings nearby, the x, y, z axes are pretty much the same, so there will be pretty much no discrepancy - but what about for buildings far away?
For buildings separated by a substantial distance, the earth's curvature has to be taken into account. The x,y,z axes of one building will be tilted relative to the x,y,z axes of the other.
a) Just as all all plumb lines are identical, SIMILARLY all clocks are identical
b) This means just as all plumb lines measure vertical height at their location, SIMILARLY all clocks tick at the "proper" rate in the frame at which they are at rest
c) But just as the z axis at one location is not aligned (ie "tilted", not the same) as the z axis at another location, SIMILARLY the time axis of one frame is not "aligned" with the time axis of different frames
d) This means each observer will measure one metre along all other remote z axes to be shorter (due to that tilt) than one metre on his local z axis, SIMILARLY each observer will measure the one second ticks of each clocks in a different frame to to be longer than the one second ticked by a clock "stationary" in his own frame
e) Just as the effect of (d) for plumb-line-lengths is perfectly mutual/reciprocal without contradiction, SIMILARLY the effect of (d) for clocks ticking time is perfectly mutual/reciprocal without contradiction
As Odd says, none of this is double-talk.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
1. clocks are ticking at their usual rate....does not mean that they are ticking at the same rate.
A metre vertical in London does not not span 1 metre of New York's z axis.
Post by Ken Seto
2. clocks are not ticking at different rates.
One metre is one metre, whether measured in London or NewYork.
Post by Ken Seto
3. clocks are measure to tick at different rates.
The "vertical" z axis of London is not the same as "vertical" in NewYork.,
Post by Ken Seto
4. i don’t understand advance SR physics.
If you don’t understand the basics of how time is handled in SR, then you don’t understand the basics.
Your usage of material length to explain the passage of time is completely false. Material length can be compared directly. A meter stick in London has the same length as a meter stick in New York and a meter stick will come back the same length after a journey. Whereas the passage of time is dependent on the accuracy of oscillator that you use to keep time. For example: Does a transition of the Cs 133 atom represent the same amount of TIME in different frame? The answer to this question is clearly NOT. This means that a clock second in different frames represents a different amount of TIME (duration). A transition of the Cs 133 atom requires the arrival of a specific unit of energy to complete and the arrival of this energy is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the clock. That’s why a moving clock accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate.
I suggest that you and Bodkin get rid of your superior attitude and learn some new physics.
Odd Bodkin
2021-06-09 14:18:52 UTC
Permalink
This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.
Odd Bodkin
2021-06-09 15:29:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
i know, according to you ......I don’t understand advanced SR physics.
It's not "advanced SR physics"; understanding how time is handled in SR is BASIC.
Since you clearly don't understand that means you equally clearly do not
understand SR. That statement is not an insult, but a simple statement of fact.
It's just the same as someone who does not understand how the Knight
moves on a chess board equally clearly does not understand Chess nor
Chess strategies. Of course, should such a person, whilst still ignorant
of those basics of chess, spend effort writing a book on chess
strategies - then that person would not deserve to be taken seriously
(even if they did, for example, pay Who's Who for an entry lauding their chess claims).
So let's take a different tack to describe what's going on.
Einstein once said "Time is what clocks measure". Likewise, we can say
"Height is what plumb lines measure".
So imagine a plumb line, with metres marked along the string. If we have
a 10 metre high wall, then obviously we can drop our plumb down the
outside of that wall, and confirm sure enough : 10 metres.
So, clocks mark off seconds of time (ie, the duration along the time
axis), and plumb lines mark off metres of height (ie the distance along
the vertical Z axis).
Now, you've been talking about "a clock second is a universal interval of time".
Let me ask you the equivalent : Do you say a metre is a universal distance of height ?
Well, do you ??? >8->
What do you think "a metre is a universal distance of height" even means ?
For two buildings nearby, the x, y, z axes are pretty much the same, so
there will be pretty much no discrepancy - but what about for buildings far away?
For buildings separated by a substantial distance, the earth's curvature
has to be taken into account. The x,y,z axes of one building will be
tilted relative to the x,y,z axes of the other.
a) Just as all all plumb lines are identical, SIMILARLY all clocks are identical
b) This means just as all plumb lines measure vertical height at their
location, SIMILARLY all clocks tick at the "proper" rate in the frame at
which they are at rest
c) But just as the z axis at one location is not aligned (ie "tilted",
not the same) as the z axis at another location, SIMILARLY the time axis
of one frame is not "aligned" with the time axis of different frames
d) This means each observer will measure one metre along all other
remote z axes to be shorter (due to that tilt) than one metre on his
local z axis, SIMILARLY each observer will measure the one second ticks
of each clocks in a different frame to to be longer than the one second
ticked by a clock "stationary" in his own frame
e) Just as the effect of (d) for plumb-line-lengths is perfectly
mutual/reciprocal without contradiction, SIMILARLY the effect of (d) for
clocks ticking time is perfectly mutual/reciprocal without contradiction
As Odd says, none of this is double-talk.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
1. clocks are ticking at their usual rate....does not mean that they
are ticking at the same rate.
A metre vertical in London does not not span 1 metre of New York's z axis.
Post by Ken Seto
2. clocks are not ticking at different rates.
One metre is one metre, whether measured in London or NewYork.
Post by Ken Seto
3. clocks are measure to tick at different rates.
The "vertical" z axis of London is not the same as "vertical" in NewYork.,
Post by Ken Seto
4. i don’t understand advance SR physics.
If you don’t understand the basics of how time is handled in SR, then
you don’t understand the basics.
Your usage of material length to explain the passage of time is
completely false. Material length can be compared directly. A meter stick
in London has the same length as a meter stick in New York and a meter
stick will come back the same length after a journey. Whereas the passage
of time is dependent on the accuracy of oscillator that you use to keep
time. For example: Does a transition of the Cs 133 atom represent the
same amount of TIME in different frame? The answer to this question is
clearly NOT. This means that a clock second in different frames
represents a different amount of TIME (duration). A transition of the Cs
133 atom requires the arrival of a specific unit of energy to complete
and the arrival of this energy is dependent on the state of absolute
motion of the clock. That’s why a moving clock accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate.
I suggest that you and Bodkin get rid of your superior attitude and
learn some new physics.
Apparently, not giving equal time to a hack amateur who never bothered to
learn freshman physics, let alone relativity, and who is now claiming to be
decades ahead of professional physicists, is called “having a superior
attitude”.
Apparently, not having a superior attitude means giving equal attention
space to know-nothing pretenders.
Ken Seto is a long retired chemical engineer who was apparently raised in
an environment where self-worth is strongly tied to lists of personal
accomplishments. So string is this drive in Ken that he has resorted to
appropriating the accomplishments of his siblings, with whom he has had
intense rivalries; and to campaigns of self-promotion and
attention-seeking. After retirement, he had a bit of a personal crisis,
becoming deeply unsatisfied with his legacy and craving the kind of lasting
image that someone like Einstein has, judging by the number of biographies
about him.

So he figured, how hard can it be to do what Einstein did and more? This is
where emotional need started to create a break with reality.

When he discovered that physics was harder than he thought, he changed
self-protective tactics. When he got to the next thing in his reading of
physics popularizations that he didn’t understand, rather than saying “I
don’t understand this,” he said, “This is wrong.” Since that conclusion was
so easy for him to jump to, he soon figured that physicists must be a
gullible lot who can’t recognize obvious mistakes. Now the mental slide was
speeding up, and this was his moment to jump further away from reality.

“If physicists can’t recognize obvious mistakes, then the only way Einstein
could have gotten so famous is by aggressively promoting himself.”
Something like a Kardashian. “Heck, I know how do that,” Seto jubilated.

So that’s what he did, the goal being to write a book that would claim to
be the be-all-end-all of physics, which just by the boldness of its claims
would then sell like hotcakes, especially to physicists. Physicists being
gullible and always lusting after revolutionary ideas, they would endorse
the book and its author, and Seto’s humble and aw-shucks interview comments
would appear in newspapers. Now THAT is a legacy worthy of his ancestors’
expectations.

When none of that happened, Seto scratched his head and figured he wasn’t
doing enough to self-promote. So he poured resources and effort into that
cause, until his kids said, “That’s enough, Dad. You’re broke. This is an
unhealthy obsession. We have to move you into a home.” Which is where he
is now.

This is what happens when the emotional need for accomplishment and being
talked about overwhelms all sane responses. Sad, but not uncommon.
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
beda pietanza
2021-06-09 19:08:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
i know, according to you ......I don’t understand advanced SR physics.
It's not "advanced SR physics"; understanding how time is handled in SR is BASIC.
Since you clearly don't understand that means you equally clearly do not
understand SR. That statement is not an insult, but a simple statement of fact.
It's just the same as someone who does not understand how the Knight
moves on a chess board equally clearly does not understand Chess nor
Chess strategies. Of course, should such a person, whilst still ignorant
of those basics of chess, spend effort writing a book on chess
strategies - then that person would not deserve to be taken seriously
(even if they did, for example, pay Who's Who for an entry lauding their chess claims).
So let's take a different tack to describe what's going on.
Einstein once said "Time is what clocks measure". Likewise, we can say
"Height is what plumb lines measure".
So imagine a plumb line, with metres marked along the string. If we have
a 10 metre high wall, then obviously we can drop our plumb down the
outside of that wall, and confirm sure enough : 10 metres.
So, clocks mark off seconds of time (ie, the duration along the time
axis), and plumb lines mark off metres of height (ie the distance along
the vertical Z axis).
Now, you've been talking about "a clock second is a universal interval of time".
Let me ask you the equivalent : Do you say a metre is a universal distance of height ?
Well, do you ??? >8->
What do you think "a metre is a universal distance of height" even means ?
For two buildings nearby, the x, y, z axes are pretty much the same, so
there will be pretty much no discrepancy - but what about for buildings far away?
For buildings separated by a substantial distance, the earth's curvature
has to be taken into account. The x,y,z axes of one building will be
tilted relative to the x,y,z axes of the other.
a) Just as all all plumb lines are identical, SIMILARLY all clocks are identical
b) This means just as all plumb lines measure vertical height at their
location, SIMILARLY all clocks tick at the "proper" rate in the frame at
which they are at rest
c) But just as the z axis at one location is not aligned (ie "tilted",
not the same) as the z axis at another location, SIMILARLY the time axis
of one frame is not "aligned" with the time axis of different frames
d) This means each observer will measure one metre along all other
remote z axes to be shorter (due to that tilt) than one metre on his
local z axis, SIMILARLY each observer will measure the one second ticks
of each clocks in a different frame to to be longer than the one second
ticked by a clock "stationary" in his own frame
e) Just as the effect of (d) for plumb-line-lengths is perfectly
mutual/reciprocal without contradiction, SIMILARLY the effect of (d) for
clocks ticking time is perfectly mutual/reciprocal without contradiction
As Odd says, none of this is double-talk.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
1. clocks are ticking at their usual rate....does not mean that they
are ticking at the same rate.
A metre vertical in London does not not span 1 metre of New York's z axis.
Post by Ken Seto
2. clocks are not ticking at different rates.
One metre is one metre, whether measured in London or NewYork.
Post by Ken Seto
3. clocks are measure to tick at different rates.
The "vertical" z axis of London is not the same as "vertical" in NewYork.,
Post by Ken Seto
4. i don’t understand advance SR physics.
If you don’t understand the basics of how time is handled in SR, then
you don’t understand the basics.
Your usage of material length to explain the passage of time is
completely false. Material length can be compared directly. A meter stick
in London has the same length as a meter stick in New York and a meter
stick will come back the same length after a journey. Whereas the passage
of time is dependent on the accuracy of oscillator that you use to keep
time. For example: Does a transition of the Cs 133 atom represent the
same amount of TIME in different frame? The answer to this question is
clearly NOT. This means that a clock second in different frames
represents a different amount of TIME (duration). A transition of the Cs
133 atom requires the arrival of a specific unit of energy to complete
and the arrival of this energy is dependent on the state of absolute
motion of the clock. That’s why a moving clock accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate.
I suggest that you and Bodkin get rid of your superior attitude and
learn some new physics.
Apparently, not giving equal time to a hack amateur who never bothered to
learn freshman physics, let alone relativity, and who is now claiming to be
decades ahead of professional physicists, is called “having a superior
attitude”.
Apparently, not having a superior attitude means giving equal attention
space to know-nothing pretenders.
Ken Seto is a long retired chemical engineer who was apparently raised in
an environment where self-worth is strongly tied to lists of personal
accomplishments. So string is this drive in Ken that he has resorted to
appropriating the accomplishments of his siblings, with whom he has had
intense rivalries; and to campaigns of self-promotion and
attention-seeking. After retirement, he had a bit of a personal crisis,
becoming deeply unsatisfied with his legacy and craving the kind of lasting
image that someone like Einstein has, judging by the number of biographies
about him.
So he figured, how hard can it be to do what Einstein did and more? This is
where emotional need started to create a break with reality.
When he discovered that physics was harder than he thought, he changed
self-protective tactics. When he got to the next thing in his reading of
physics popularizations that he didn’t understand, rather than saying “I
don’t understand this,” he said, “This is wrong.” Since that conclusion was
so easy for him to jump to, he soon figured that physicists must be a
gullible lot who can’t recognize obvious mistakes. Now the mental slide was
speeding up, and this was his moment to jump further away from reality.
“If physicists can’t recognize obvious mistakes, then the only way Einstein
could have gotten so famous is by aggressively promoting himself.”
Something like a Kardashian. “Heck, I know how do that,” Seto jubilated.
So that’s what he did, the goal being to write a book that would claim to
be the be-all-end-all of physics, which just by the boldness of its claims
would then sell like hotcakes, especially to physicists. Physicists being
gullible and always lusting after revolutionary ideas, they would endorse
the book and its author, and Seto’s humble and aw-shucks interview comments
would appear in newspapers. Now THAT is a legacy worthy of his ancestors’
expectations.
When none of that happened, Seto scratched his head and figured he wasn’t
doing enough to self-promote. So he poured resources and effort into that
cause, until his kids said, “That’s enough, Dad. You’re broke. This is an
unhealthy obsession. We have to move you into a home.” Which is where he
is now.
This is what happens when the emotional need for accomplishment and being
talked about overwhelms all sane responses. Sad, but not uncommon.
beda
look odd, I don't know if what you said is of your invention, in any case I dislike
your getting into personal life of anyone, you should repent and apologize
especially if what you say has any resemblance to the truth
beda
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2021-06-09 19:47:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by beda pietanza
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
i know, according to you ......I don’t understand advanced SR physics.
It's not "advanced SR physics"; understanding how time is handled in SR is BASIC.
Since you clearly don't understand that means you equally clearly do not
understand SR. That statement is not an insult, but a simple statement of fact.
It's just the same as someone who does not understand how the Knight
moves on a chess board equally clearly does not understand Chess nor
Chess strategies. Of course, should such a person, whilst still ignorant
of those basics of chess, spend effort writing a book on chess
strategies - then that person would not deserve to be taken seriously
(even if they did, for example, pay Who's Who for an entry lauding
their chess claims).
So let's take a different tack to describe what's going on.
Einstein once said "Time is what clocks measure". Likewise, we can say
"Height is what plumb lines measure".
So imagine a plumb line, with metres marked along the string. If we have
a 10 metre high wall, then obviously we can drop our plumb down the
outside of that wall, and confirm sure enough : 10 metres.
So, clocks mark off seconds of time (ie, the duration along the time
axis), and plumb lines mark off metres of height (ie the distance along
the vertical Z axis).
Now, you've been talking about "a clock second is a universal interval of time".
Let me ask you the equivalent : Do you say a metre is a universal distance of height ?
Well, do you ??? >8->
What do you think "a metre is a universal distance of height" even means ?
For two buildings nearby, the x, y, z axes are pretty much the same, so
there will be pretty much no discrepancy - but what about for buildings far away?
For buildings separated by a substantial distance, the earth's curvature
has to be taken into account. The x,y,z axes of one building will be
tilted relative to the x,y,z axes of the other.
a) Just as all all plumb lines are identical, SIMILARLY all clocks are identical
b) This means just as all plumb lines measure vertical height at their
location, SIMILARLY all clocks tick at the "proper" rate in the frame at
which they are at rest
c) But just as the z axis at one location is not aligned (ie "tilted",
not the same) as the z axis at another location, SIMILARLY the time axis
of one frame is not "aligned" with the time axis of different frames
d) This means each observer will measure one metre along all other
remote z axes to be shorter (due to that tilt) than one metre on his
local z axis, SIMILARLY each observer will measure the one second ticks
of each clocks in a different frame to to be longer than the one second
ticked by a clock "stationary" in his own frame
e) Just as the effect of (d) for plumb-line-lengths is perfectly
mutual/reciprocal without contradiction, SIMILARLY the effect of (d) for
clocks ticking time is perfectly mutual/reciprocal without contradiction
As Odd says, none of this is double-talk.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
1. clocks are ticking at their usual rate....does not mean that they
are ticking at the same rate.
A metre vertical in London does not not span 1 metre of New York's z axis.
Post by Ken Seto
2. clocks are not ticking at different rates.
One metre is one metre, whether measured in London or NewYork.
Post by Ken Seto
3. clocks are measure to tick at different rates.
The "vertical" z axis of London is not the same as "vertical" in NewYork.,
Post by Ken Seto
4. i don’t understand advance SR physics.
If you don’t understand the basics of how time is handled in SR, then
you don’t understand the basics.
Your usage of material length to explain the passage of time is
completely false. Material length can be compared directly. A meter stick
in London has the same length as a meter stick in New York and a meter
stick will come back the same length after a journey. Whereas the passage
of time is dependent on the accuracy of oscillator that you use to keep
time. For example: Does a transition of the Cs 133 atom represent the
same amount of TIME in different frame? The answer to this question is
clearly NOT. This means that a clock second in different frames
represents a different amount of TIME (duration). A transition of the Cs
133 atom requires the arrival of a specific unit of energy to complete
and the arrival of this energy is dependent on the state of absolute
motion of the clock. That’s why a moving clock accumulate clock
seconds at a slower rate.
I suggest that you and Bodkin get rid of your superior attitude and
learn some new physics.
Apparently, not giving equal time to a hack amateur who never bothered to
learn freshman physics, let alone relativity, and who is now claiming to be
decades ahead of professional physicists, is called “having a superior
attitude”.
Apparently, not having a superior attitude means giving equal attention
space to know-nothing pretenders.
Ken Seto is a long retired chemical engineer who was apparently raised in
an environment where self-worth is strongly tied to lists of personal
accomplishments. So strong is this drive in Ken that he has resorted to
appropriating the accomplishments of his siblings, with whom he has had
intense rivalries; and to campaigns of self-promotion and
attention-seeking. After retirement, he had a bit of a personal crisis,
becoming deeply unsatisfied with his legacy and craving the kind of lasting
image that someone like Einstein has, judging by the number of biographies
about him.
So he figured, how hard can it be to do what Einstein did and more? This is
where emotional need started to create a break with reality.
When he discovered that physics was harder than he thought, he changed
self-protective tactics. When he got to the next thing in his reading of
physics popularizations that he didn’t understand, rather than saying “I
don’t understand this,” he said, “This is wrong.” Since that conclusion was
so easy for him to jump to, he soon figured that physicists must be a
gullible lot who can’t recognize obvious mistakes. Now the mental slide was
speeding up, and this was his moment to jump further away from reality.
“If physicists can’t recognize obvious mistakes, then the only way Einstein
could have gotten so famous is by aggressively promoting himself.”
Something like a Kardashian. “Heck, I know how do that,” Seto jubilated.
So that’s what he did, the goal being to write a book that would claim to
be the be-all-end-all of physics, which just by the boldness of its claims
would then sell like hotcakes, especially to physicists. Physicists being
gullible and always lusting after revolutionary ideas, they would endorse
the book and its author, and Seto’s humble and aw-shucks interview comments
would appear in newspapers. Now THAT is a legacy worthy of his ancestors’
expectations.
When none of that happened, Seto scratched his head and figured he wasn’t
doing enough to self-promote. So he poured resources and effort into that
cause, until his kids said, “That’s enough, Dad. You’re broke. This is an
unhealthy obsession. We have to move you into a home.” Which is where he
is now.
This is what happens when the emotional need for accomplishment and being
talked about overwhelms all sane responses. Sad, but not uncommon.
beda
look odd, I don't know if what you said is of your invention, in any case I dislike
your getting into personal life of anyone, you should repent and apologize
especially if what you say has any resemblance to the truth
Beda, the reason this has all been described, whether you like it or not,
is that what people post is sometimes driven by their hidden motivations,
and their hidden motivations are driven by their emotional needs, and those
emotional needs are revealed in their histories.

If everyone came into this group with an objective and dispassionate view
of their ideas, then it would be a simple matter of discussing facts and
whether they fit with the idea or not. This is what scientists actually do
— they have an interesting idea, but they keep an emotional detachment from
the idea in case it doesn’t work out. If it turns out there’s an objective,
observational fact that is inconsistent with the idea, then the idea is no
good and it is abandoned or significantly reworked.

The problem is that many posters here DO NOT maintain an objective and
dispassionate detachment from their ideas. They have hidden agendas that
make their ideas impossible to let go of in the face of objective evidence.
And in these cases, which are common here, then scientific discussion is
pointless and gets nowhere.

There are some here that for some reason feel put down by scientists (maybe
prior interactions outside the group) and their response is to thumb their
noses at them and just refuse to believe anything that scientists do. There
are some here who adore the respect and mystique that scientists seem to
have, but aren’t interested in doing the work of actual science, so they
would just as soon play dress-up and ACT LIKE a scientist, in the hopes
that some of that respect will rub off on them. There are those who are
interested in the subject but are intimidated by it, and their defensive
reaction is to claim that all this arcane knowledge and training is just a
scheme to keep outsiders away, and they complain about protective elitism.
Notice that in each of these cases, it’s not the scientific idea that
matters at all — it’s the MOTIVATION that drives the behavior.

It is worth calling out those posters to this group for whom discussing the
actual ideas they put forward is a waste of time — precisely because they
will not be able to discuss the idea dispassionately and objectively. They
are too invested in satisfying their underlying psychological needs to do
that.

In the case of Ken Seto, this is particularly fair game because essentially
everything that I described above is stuff that HE HIMSELF has put in his
PUBLIC persona. So needful of public attention is he that he has OPENLY
advertised many aspects of his life that are easily checked. All that I
have done here is compiled them into a coherent story, where Ken is more
torn between hiding the story and telling his life story. If Ken
self-publishes a book, and he lists the name and address of his publishing
company, and the publishing company is listed publicly as himself and the
address is that of a care facility, then talking about those details is
fair game because HE had advertised it.

You may desire this group to be a flat-level forum where the crazy and
uninformed can have their ideas discussed on the same level playing field
as the ideas of the balanced and informed. I don’t think that serves
anybody well.
Post by beda pietanza
beda
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Maciej Wozniak
2021-06-10 07:05:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by beda pietanza
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
i know, according to you ......I don’t understand advanced SR physics.
It's not "advanced SR physics"; understanding how time is handled in SR is BASIC.
Since you clearly don't understand that means you equally clearly do not
understand SR. That statement is not an insult, but a simple statement of fact.
It's just the same as someone who does not understand how the Knight
moves on a chess board equally clearly does not understand Chess nor
Chess strategies. Of course, should such a person, whilst still ignorant
of those basics of chess, spend effort writing a book on chess
strategies - then that person would not deserve to be taken seriously
(even if they did, for example, pay Who's Who for an entry lauding
their chess claims).
So let's take a different tack to describe what's going on.
Einstein once said "Time is what clocks measure". Likewise, we can say
"Height is what plumb lines measure".
So imagine a plumb line, with metres marked along the string. If we have
a 10 metre high wall, then obviously we can drop our plumb down the
outside of that wall, and confirm sure enough : 10 metres.
So, clocks mark off seconds of time (ie, the duration along the time
axis), and plumb lines mark off metres of height (ie the distance along
the vertical Z axis).
Now, you've been talking about "a clock second is a universal interval of time".
Let me ask you the equivalent : Do you say a metre is a universal distance of height ?
Well, do you ??? >8->
What do you think "a metre is a universal distance of height" even means ?
For two buildings nearby, the x, y, z axes are pretty much the same, so
there will be pretty much no discrepancy - but what about for buildings far away?
For buildings separated by a substantial distance, the earth's curvature
has to be taken into account. The x,y,z axes of one building will be
tilted relative to the x,y,z axes of the other.
a) Just as all all plumb lines are identical, SIMILARLY all clocks are identical
b) This means just as all plumb lines measure vertical height at their
location, SIMILARLY all clocks tick at the "proper" rate in the frame at
which they are at rest
c) But just as the z axis at one location is not aligned (ie "tilted",
not the same) as the z axis at another location, SIMILARLY the time axis
of one frame is not "aligned" with the time axis of different frames
d) This means each observer will measure one metre along all other
remote z axes to be shorter (due to that tilt) than one metre on his
local z axis, SIMILARLY each observer will measure the one second ticks
of each clocks in a different frame to to be longer than the one second
ticked by a clock "stationary" in his own frame
e) Just as the effect of (d) for plumb-line-lengths is perfectly
mutual/reciprocal without contradiction, SIMILARLY the effect of (d) for
clocks ticking time is perfectly mutual/reciprocal without contradiction
As Odd says, none of this is double-talk.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
1. clocks are ticking at their usual rate....does not mean that they
are ticking at the same rate.
A metre vertical in London does not not span 1 metre of New York's z axis.
Post by Ken Seto
2. clocks are not ticking at different rates.
One metre is one metre, whether measured in London or NewYork.
Post by Ken Seto
3. clocks are measure to tick at different rates.
The "vertical" z axis of London is not the same as "vertical" in NewYork.,
Post by Ken Seto
4. i don’t understand advance SR physics.
If you don’t understand the basics of how time is handled in SR, then
you don’t understand the basics.
Your usage of material length to explain the passage of time is
completely false. Material length can be compared directly. A meter stick
in London has the same length as a meter stick in New York and a meter
stick will come back the same length after a journey. Whereas the passage
of time is dependent on the accuracy of oscillator that you use to keep
time. For example: Does a transition of the Cs 133 atom represent the
same amount of TIME in different frame? The answer to this question is
clearly NOT. This means that a clock second in different frames
represents a different amount of TIME (duration). A transition of the Cs
133 atom requires the arrival of a specific unit of energy to complete
and the arrival of this energy is dependent on the state of absolute
motion of the clock. That’s why a moving clock accumulate clock
seconds at a slower rate.
I suggest that you and Bodkin get rid of your superior attitude and
learn some new physics.
Apparently, not giving equal time to a hack amateur who never bothered to
learn freshman physics, let alone relativity, and who is now claiming to be
decades ahead of professional physicists, is called “having a superior
attitude”.
Apparently, not having a superior attitude means giving equal attention
space to know-nothing pretenders.
Ken Seto is a long retired chemical engineer who was apparently raised in
an environment where self-worth is strongly tied to lists of personal
accomplishments. So strong is this drive in Ken that he has resorted to
appropriating the accomplishments of his siblings, with whom he has had
intense rivalries; and to campaigns of self-promotion and
attention-seeking. After retirement, he had a bit of a personal crisis,
becoming deeply unsatisfied with his legacy and craving the kind of lasting
image that someone like Einstein has, judging by the number of biographies
about him.
So he figured, how hard can it be to do what Einstein did and more? This is
where emotional need started to create a break with reality.
When he discovered that physics was harder than he thought, he changed
self-protective tactics. When he got to the next thing in his reading of
physics popularizations that he didn’t understand, rather than saying “I
don’t understand this,” he said, “This is wrong.” Since that conclusion was
so easy for him to jump to, he soon figured that physicists must be a
gullible lot who can’t recognize obvious mistakes. Now the mental slide was
speeding up, and this was his moment to jump further away from reality.
“If physicists can’t recognize obvious mistakes, then the only way Einstein
could have gotten so famous is by aggressively promoting himself.”
Something like a Kardashian. “Heck, I know how do that,” Seto jubilated.
So that’s what he did, the goal being to write a book that would claim to
be the be-all-end-all of physics, which just by the boldness of its claims
would then sell like hotcakes, especially to physicists. Physicists being
gullible and always lusting after revolutionary ideas, they would endorse
the book and its author, and Seto’s humble and aw-shucks interview comments
would appear in newspapers. Now THAT is a legacy worthy of his ancestors’
expectations.
When none of that happened, Seto scratched his head and figured he wasn’t
doing enough to self-promote. So he poured resources and effort into that
cause, until his kids said, “That’s enough, Dad. You’re broke. This is an
unhealthy obsession. We have to move you into a home.” Which is where he
is now.
This is what happens when the emotional need for accomplishment and being
talked about overwhelms all sane responses. Sad, but not uncommon.
beda
look odd, I don't know if what you said is of your invention, in any case I dislike
your getting into personal life of anyone, you should repent and apologize
especially if what you say has any resemblance to the truth
Beda, the reason this has all been described, whether you like it or not,
is that what people post is sometimes driven by their hidden motivations,
and their hidden motivations are driven by their emotional needs, and those
emotional needs are revealed in their histories.
If everyone came into this group with an objective and dispassionate view
of their ideas, then it would be a simple matter of discussing facts and
whether they fit with the idea or not.
But fanatic scum brainwashed by your idiot guru prefer to
scream of being FORCED, of THE BEST WAY or of some
alleged bottles of vodka.
beda pietanza
2021-06-10 10:27:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by beda pietanza
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
i know, according to you ......I don’t understand advanced SR physics.
It's not "advanced SR physics"; understanding how time is handled in SR is BASIC.
Since you clearly don't understand that means you equally clearly do not
understand SR. That statement is not an insult, but a simple statement of fact.
It's just the same as someone who does not understand how the Knight
moves on a chess board equally clearly does not understand Chess nor
Chess strategies. Of course, should such a person, whilst still ignorant
of those basics of chess, spend effort writing a book on chess
strategies - then that person would not deserve to be taken seriously
(even if they did, for example, pay Who's Who for an entry lauding
their chess claims).
So let's take a different tack to describe what's going on.
Einstein once said "Time is what clocks measure". Likewise, we can say
"Height is what plumb lines measure".
So imagine a plumb line, with metres marked along the string. If we have
a 10 metre high wall, then obviously we can drop our plumb down the
outside of that wall, and confirm sure enough : 10 metres.
So, clocks mark off seconds of time (ie, the duration along the time
axis), and plumb lines mark off metres of height (ie the distance along
the vertical Z axis).
Now, you've been talking about "a clock second is a universal interval of time".
Let me ask you the equivalent : Do you say a metre is a universal distance of height ?
Well, do you ??? >8->
What do you think "a metre is a universal distance of height" even means ?
For two buildings nearby, the x, y, z axes are pretty much the same, so
there will be pretty much no discrepancy - but what about for buildings far away?
For buildings separated by a substantial distance, the earth's curvature
has to be taken into account. The x,y,z axes of one building will be
tilted relative to the x,y,z axes of the other.
a) Just as all all plumb lines are identical, SIMILARLY all clocks are identical
b) This means just as all plumb lines measure vertical height at their
location, SIMILARLY all clocks tick at the "proper" rate in the frame at
which they are at rest
c) But just as the z axis at one location is not aligned (ie "tilted",
not the same) as the z axis at another location, SIMILARLY the time axis
of one frame is not "aligned" with the time axis of different frames
d) This means each observer will measure one metre along all other
remote z axes to be shorter (due to that tilt) than one metre on his
local z axis, SIMILARLY each observer will measure the one second ticks
of each clocks in a different frame to to be longer than the one second
ticked by a clock "stationary" in his own frame
e) Just as the effect of (d) for plumb-line-lengths is perfectly
mutual/reciprocal without contradiction, SIMILARLY the effect of (d) for
clocks ticking time is perfectly mutual/reciprocal without contradiction
As Odd says, none of this is double-talk.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
1. clocks are ticking at their usual rate....does not mean that they
are ticking at the same rate.
A metre vertical in London does not not span 1 metre of New York's z axis.
Post by Ken Seto
2. clocks are not ticking at different rates.
One metre is one metre, whether measured in London or NewYork.
Post by Ken Seto
3. clocks are measure to tick at different rates.
The "vertical" z axis of London is not the same as "vertical" in NewYork.,
Post by Ken Seto
4. i don’t understand advance SR physics.
If you don’t understand the basics of how time is handled in SR, then
you don’t understand the basics.
Your usage of material length to explain the passage of time is
completely false. Material length can be compared directly. A meter stick
in London has the same length as a meter stick in New York and a meter
stick will come back the same length after a journey. Whereas the passage
of time is dependent on the accuracy of oscillator that you use to keep
time. For example: Does a transition of the Cs 133 atom represent the
same amount of TIME in different frame? The answer to this question is
clearly NOT. This means that a clock second in different frames
represents a different amount of TIME (duration). A transition of the Cs
133 atom requires the arrival of a specific unit of energy to complete
and the arrival of this energy is dependent on the state of absolute
motion of the clock. That’s why a moving clock accumulate clock
seconds at a slower rate.
I suggest that you and Bodkin get rid of your superior attitude and
learn some new physics.
Apparently, not giving equal time to a hack amateur who never bothered to
learn freshman physics, let alone relativity, and who is now claiming to be
decades ahead of professional physicists, is called “having a superior
attitude”.
Apparently, not having a superior attitude means giving equal attention
space to know-nothing pretenders.
Ken Seto is a long retired chemical engineer who was apparently raised in
an environment where self-worth is strongly tied to lists of personal
accomplishments. So strong is this drive in Ken that he has resorted to
appropriating the accomplishments of his siblings, with whom he has had
intense rivalries; and to campaigns of self-promotion and
attention-seeking. After retirement, he had a bit of a personal crisis,
becoming deeply unsatisfied with his legacy and craving the kind of lasting
image that someone like Einstein has, judging by the number of biographies
about him.
So he figured, how hard can it be to do what Einstein did and more? This is
where emotional need started to create a break with reality.
When he discovered that physics was harder than he thought, he changed
self-protective tactics. When he got to the next thing in his reading of
physics popularizations that he didn’t understand, rather than saying “I
don’t understand this,” he said, “This is wrong.” Since that conclusion was
so easy for him to jump to, he soon figured that physicists must be a
gullible lot who can’t recognize obvious mistakes. Now the mental slide was
speeding up, and this was his moment to jump further away from reality.
“If physicists can’t recognize obvious mistakes, then the only way Einstein
could have gotten so famous is by aggressively promoting himself.”
Something like a Kardashian. “Heck, I know how do that,” Seto jubilated.
So that’s what he did, the goal being to write a book that would claim to
be the be-all-end-all of physics, which just by the boldness of its claims
would then sell like hotcakes, especially to physicists. Physicists being
gullible and always lusting after revolutionary ideas, they would endorse
the book and its author, and Seto’s humble and aw-shucks interview comments
would appear in newspapers. Now THAT is a legacy worthy of his ancestors’
expectations.
When none of that happened, Seto scratched his head and figured he wasn’t
doing enough to self-promote. So he poured resources and effort into that
cause, until his kids said, “That’s enough, Dad. You’re broke. This is an
unhealthy obsession. We have to move you into a home.” Which is where he
is now.
This is what happens when the emotional need for accomplishment and being
talked about overwhelms all sane responses. Sad, but not uncommon.
beda
look odd, I don't know if what you said is of your invention, in any case I dislike
your getting into personal life of anyone, you should repent and apologize
especially if what you say has any resemblance to the truth
Beda, the reason this has all been described, whether you like it or not,
is that what people post is sometimes driven by their hidden motivations,
and their hidden motivations are driven by their emotional needs, and those
emotional needs are revealed in their histories.
If everyone came into this group with an objective and dispassionate view
of their ideas, then it would be a simple matter of discussing facts and
whether they fit with the idea or not. This is what scientists actually do
— they have an interesting idea, but they keep an emotional detachment from
the idea in case it doesn’t work out. If it turns out there’s an objective,
observational fact that is inconsistent with the idea, then the idea is no
good and it is abandoned or significantly reworked.
The problem is that many posters here DO NOT maintain an objective and
dispassionate detachment from their ideas. They have hidden agendas that
make their ideas impossible to let go of in the face of objective evidence.
And in these cases, which are common here, then scientific discussion is
pointless and gets nowhere.
There are some here that for some reason feel put down by scientists (maybe
prior interactions outside the group) and their response is to thumb their
noses at them and just refuse to believe anything that scientists do. There
are some here who adore the respect and mystique that scientists seem to
have, but aren’t interested in doing the work of actual science, so they
would just as soon play dress-up and ACT LIKE a scientist, in the hopes
that some of that respect will rub off on them. There are those who are
interested in the subject but are intimidated by it, and their defensive
reaction is to claim that all this arcane knowledge and training is just a
scheme to keep outsiders away, and they complain about protective elitism.
Notice that in each of these cases, it’s not the scientific idea that
matters at all — it’s the MOTIVATION that drives the behavior.
It is worth calling out those posters to this group for whom discussing the
actual ideas they put forward is a waste of time — precisely because they
will not be able to discuss the idea dispassionately and objectively. They
are too invested in satisfying their underlying psychological needs to do
that.
In the case of Ken Seto, this is particularly fair game because essentially
everything that I described above is stuff that HE HIMSELF has put in his
PUBLIC persona. So needful of public attention is he that he has OPENLY
advertised many aspects of his life that are easily checked. All that I
have done here is compiled them into a coherent story, where Ken is more
torn between hiding the story and telling his life story. If Ken
self-publishes a book, and he lists the name and address of his publishing
company, and the publishing company is listed publicly as himself and the
address is that of a care facility, then talking about those details is
fair game because HE had advertised it.
You may desire this group to be a flat-level forum where the crazy and
uninformed can have their ideas discussed on the same level playing field
as the ideas of the balanced and informed. I don’t think that serves
anybody well.
beda
you are not entitle to censor any one, whatever their ideas are, whatever their motivation are,
if you think it is worthwhile to engage a discussion with a person you do it correctly,
otherwise you ignore him,
this is valid in general not only in this ng,
what you wrote didn't make me chamge my opinion on mr. seto, but surely has shown
your wrong attitude towards your eventual counterparts
cheers
beda
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by beda pietanza
beda
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2021-06-10 14:25:42 UTC
Permalink
This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.
Ken Seto
2021-06-10 15:32:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by beda pietanza
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by beda pietanza
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
i know, according to you ......I don’t understand advanced SR physics.
It's not "advanced SR physics"; understanding how time is handled in SR is BASIC.
Since you clearly don't understand that means you equally clearly do not
understand SR. That statement is not an insult, but a simple statement of fact.
It's just the same as someone who does not understand how the Knight
moves on a chess board equally clearly does not understand Chess nor
Chess strategies. Of course, should such a person, whilst still ignorant
of those basics of chess, spend effort writing a book on chess
strategies - then that person would not deserve to be taken seriously
(even if they did, for example, pay Who's Who for an entry lauding
their chess claims).
So let's take a different tack to describe what's going on.
Einstein once said "Time is what clocks measure". Likewise, we can say
"Height is what plumb lines measure".
So imagine a plumb line, with metres marked along the string. If we have
a 10 metre high wall, then obviously we can drop our plumb down the
outside of that wall, and confirm sure enough : 10 metres.
So, clocks mark off seconds of time (ie, the duration along the time
axis), and plumb lines mark off metres of height (ie the distance along
the vertical Z axis).
Now, you've been talking about "a clock second is a universal interval of time".
Let me ask you the equivalent : Do you say a metre is a universal
distance of height ?
Well, do you ??? >8->
What do you think "a metre is a universal distance of height" even means ?
For two buildings nearby, the x, y, z axes are pretty much the same, so
there will be pretty much no discrepancy - but what about for buildings far away?
For buildings separated by a substantial distance, the earth's curvature
has to be taken into account. The x,y,z axes of one building will be
tilted relative to the x,y,z axes of the other.
a) Just as all all plumb lines are identical, SIMILARLY all clocks are identical
b) This means just as all plumb lines measure vertical height at their
location, SIMILARLY all clocks tick at the "proper" rate in the frame at
which they are at rest
c) But just as the z axis at one location is not aligned (ie "tilted",
not the same) as the z axis at another location, SIMILARLY the time axis
of one frame is not "aligned" with the time axis of different frames
d) This means each observer will measure one metre along all other
remote z axes to be shorter (due to that tilt) than one metre on his
local z axis, SIMILARLY each observer will measure the one second ticks
of each clocks in a different frame to to be longer than the one second
ticked by a clock "stationary" in his own frame
e) Just as the effect of (d) for plumb-line-lengths is perfectly
mutual/reciprocal without contradiction, SIMILARLY the effect of (d) for
clocks ticking time is perfectly mutual/reciprocal without contradiction
As Odd says, none of this is double-talk.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
1. clocks are ticking at their usual rate....does not mean that they
are ticking at the same rate.
A metre vertical in London does not not span 1 metre of New York's z axis.
Post by Ken Seto
2. clocks are not ticking at different rates.
One metre is one metre, whether measured in London or NewYork.
Post by Ken Seto
3. clocks are measure to tick at different rates.
The "vertical" z axis of London is not the same as "vertical" in NewYork.,
Post by Ken Seto
4. i don’t understand advance SR physics.
If you don’t understand the basics of how time is handled in SR, then
you don’t understand the basics.
Your usage of material length to explain the passage of time is
completely false. Material length can be compared directly. A meter stick
in London has the same length as a meter stick in New York and a meter
stick will come back the same length after a journey. Whereas the passage
of time is dependent on the accuracy of oscillator that you use to keep
time. For example: Does a transition of the Cs 133 atom represent the
same amount of TIME in different frame? The answer to this question is
clearly NOT. This means that a clock second in different frames
represents a different amount of TIME (duration). A transition of the Cs
133 atom requires the arrival of a specific unit of energy to complete
and the arrival of this energy is dependent on the state of absolute
motion of the clock. That’s why a moving clock accumulate clock
seconds at a slower rate.
I suggest that you and Bodkin get rid of your superior attitude and
learn some new physics.
Apparently, not giving equal time to a hack amateur who never bothered to
learn freshman physics, let alone relativity, and who is now claiming to be
decades ahead of professional physicists, is called “having a superior
attitude”.
Apparently, not having a superior attitude means giving equal attention
space to know-nothing pretenders.
Ken Seto is a long retired chemical engineer who was apparently raised in
an environment where self-worth is strongly tied to lists of personal
accomplishments. So strong is this drive in Ken that he has resorted to
appropriating the accomplishments of his siblings, with whom he has had
intense rivalries; and to campaigns of self-promotion and
attention-seeking. After retirement, he had a bit of a personal crisis,
becoming deeply unsatisfied with his legacy and craving the kind of lasting
image that someone like Einstein has, judging by the number of biographies
about him.
So he figured, how hard can it be to do what Einstein did and more? This is
where emotional need started to create a break with reality.
When he discovered that physics was harder than he thought, he changed
self-protective tactics. When he got to the next thing in his reading of
physics popularizations that he didn’t understand, rather than saying “I
don’t understand this,” he said, “This is wrong.” Since that conclusion was
so easy for him to jump to, he soon figured that physicists must be a
gullible lot who can’t recognize obvious mistakes. Now the mental slide was
speeding up, and this was his moment to jump further away from reality.
“If physicists can’t recognize obvious mistakes, then the only way Einstein
could have gotten so famous is by aggressively promoting himself.”
Something like a Kardashian. “Heck, I know how do that,” Seto jubilated.
So that’s what he did, the goal being to write a book that would claim to
be the be-all-end-all of physics, which just by the boldness of its claims
would then sell like hotcakes, especially to physicists. Physicists being
gullible and always lusting after revolutionary ideas, they would endorse
the book and its author, and Seto’s humble and aw-shucks interview comments
would appear in newspapers. Now THAT is a legacy worthy of his ancestors’
expectations.
When none of that happened, Seto scratched his head and figured he wasn’t
doing enough to self-promote. So he poured resources and effort into that
cause, until his kids said, “That’s enough, Dad. You’re broke. This is an
unhealthy obsession. We have to move you into a home.” Which is where he
is now.
This is what happens when the emotional need for accomplishment and being
talked about overwhelms all sane responses. Sad, but not uncommon.
beda
look odd, I don't know if what you said is of your invention, in any case I dislike
your getting into personal life of anyone, you should repent and apologize
especially if what you say has any resemblance to the truth
Beda, the reason this has all been described, whether you like it or not,
is that what people post is sometimes driven by their hidden motivations,
and their hidden motivations are driven by their emotional needs, and those
emotional needs are revealed in their histories.
If everyone came into this group with an objective and dispassionate view
of their ideas, then it would be a simple matter of discussing facts and
whether they fit with the idea or not. This is what scientists actually do
— they have an interesting idea, but they keep an emotional detachment from
the idea in case it doesn’t work out. If it turns out there’s an objective,
observational fact that is inconsistent with the idea, then the idea is no
good and it is abandoned or significantly reworked.
The problem is that many posters here DO NOT maintain an objective and
dispassionate detachment from their ideas. They have hidden agendas that
make their ideas impossible to let go of in the face of objective evidence.
And in these cases, which are common here, then scientific discussion is
pointless and gets nowhere.
There are some here that for some reason feel put down by scientists (maybe
prior interactions outside the group) and their response is to thumb their
noses at them and just refuse to believe anything that scientists do. There
are some here who adore the respect and mystique that scientists seem to
have, but aren’t interested in doing the work of actual science, so they
would just as soon play dress-up and ACT LIKE a scientist, in the hopes
that some of that respect will rub off on them. There are those who are
interested in the subject but are intimidated by it, and their defensive
reaction is to claim that all this arcane knowledge and training is just a
scheme to keep outsiders away, and they complain about protective elitism.
Notice that in each of these cases, it’s not the scientific idea that
matters at all — it’s the MOTIVATION that drives the behavior.
It is worth calling out those posters to this group for whom discussing the
actual ideas they put forward is a waste of time — precisely because they
will not be able to discuss the idea dispassionately and objectively. They
are too invested in satisfying their underlying psychological needs to do
that.
In the case of Ken Seto, this is particularly fair game because essentially
everything that I described above is stuff that HE HIMSELF has put in his
PUBLIC persona. So needful of public attention is he that he has OPENLY
advertised many aspects of his life that are easily checked. All that I
have done here is compiled them into a coherent story, where Ken is more
torn between hiding the story and telling his life story. If Ken
self-publishes a book, and he lists the name and address of his publishing
company, and the publishing company is listed publicly as himself and the
address is that of a care facility, then talking about those details is
fair game because HE had advertised it.
You may desire this group to be a flat-level forum where the crazy and
uninformed can have their ideas discussed on the same level playing field
as the ideas of the balanced and informed. I don’t think that serves
anybody well.
beda
you are not entitle to censor any one, whatever their ideas are, whatever
their motivation are,
if you think it is worthwhile to engage a discussion with a person you do it correctly,
otherwise you ignore him,
There is no censorship going on here. No one is deleting any of his posts.
No one is forbidding him from saying this or that under some penalty of
confinement or fine.
In fact, I’ve said little that he has not advertised himself. Does he
censor himself by airing these facts about himself?
You take the stance that there are two and only two acceptable ways to
engage with someone on a newsgroup: take their idea seriously and debate it
as a worthwhile topic, or say nothing. This is the plea of the amateur and
the hack to have a safe place to offer uninformed opinions, any and all of
equal validity and worth. I’m sorry, but I just don’t believe that is a
good practice, nor do I believe it is some unwritten code of behavior in a
newsgroup.
I’m of the opinion that if someone comes into a discussion group on a
topic, then that person should be reasonably informed about the topic OR
openly admit that they know nothing about the topic and want to learn from
those with greater experience or knowledge. If someone comes in, completely
unread and uneducated on the topic, and nevertheless blusters that he
understands the topic better than anyone else here and has something
extremely valuable to say about it — that person is a boor begging to be
condemned. People with uninformed opinions do NOT have the right to expect
that their opinions will have equal value. That is not censorship. That is
social condemnation for acting like an idiot.
You take the stance that only the idea should be considered and not the
personality or motivation of the person with the idea. I could not disagree
with that stance more.
Odd: you are pathetic and you are in a state of panic.
You can’t attack my theory so you attacked me personally.
That doesn’t work either. I am proud to spend my money to advance science. In any case what the fuck is your business how I spend my money? The result of my effort is Model Mechanics (MM). MM is a superior theory of the universe, it replaces SR/GR and it is capable of unifying all the forces (including gravity). What have you done for science woodworker?....NOTHING except cruise around the internet and criticize anybody who got new ideas.
I got two patents and developed many products for the automative and construction industries and I established two successful restaurants. What have you done for science beside bullshit?
You wrote a threatening letter to my daughter trying to convince her that what I wrote in the internet is dangerous. I turned that to the FBI and they know who you are, Paul Draper.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by beda pietanza
this is valid in general not only in this ng,
what you wrote didn't make me chamge my opinion on mr. seto, but surely has shown
your wrong attitude towards your eventual counterparts
cheers
beda
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by beda pietanza
beda
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2021-06-10 15:49:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by beda pietanza
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by beda pietanza
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
i know, according to you ......I don’t understand advanced SR physics.
It's not "advanced SR physics"; understanding how time is handled in SR is BASIC.
Since you clearly don't understand that means you equally clearly do not
understand SR. That statement is not an insult, but a simple statement of fact.
It's just the same as someone who does not understand how the Knight
moves on a chess board equally clearly does not understand Chess nor
Chess strategies. Of course, should such a person, whilst still ignorant
of those basics of chess, spend effort writing a book on chess
strategies - then that person would not deserve to be taken seriously
(even if they did, for example, pay Who's Who for an entry lauding
their chess claims).
So let's take a different tack to describe what's going on.
Einstein once said "Time is what clocks measure". Likewise, we can say
"Height is what plumb lines measure".
So imagine a plumb line, with metres marked along the string. If we have
a 10 metre high wall, then obviously we can drop our plumb down the
outside of that wall, and confirm sure enough : 10 metres.
So, clocks mark off seconds of time (ie, the duration along the time
axis), and plumb lines mark off metres of height (ie the distance along
the vertical Z axis).
Now, you've been talking about "a clock second is a universal interval of time".
Let me ask you the equivalent : Do you say a metre is a universal
distance of height ?
Well, do you ??? >8->
What do you think "a metre is a universal distance of height" even means ?
For two buildings nearby, the x, y, z axes are pretty much the same, so
there will be pretty much no discrepancy - but what about for buildings far away?
For buildings separated by a substantial distance, the earth's curvature
has to be taken into account. The x,y,z axes of one building will be
tilted relative to the x,y,z axes of the other.
a) Just as all all plumb lines are identical, SIMILARLY all clocks are identical
b) This means just as all plumb lines measure vertical height at their
location, SIMILARLY all clocks tick at the "proper" rate in the frame at
which they are at rest
c) But just as the z axis at one location is not aligned (ie "tilted",
not the same) as the z axis at another location, SIMILARLY the time axis
of one frame is not "aligned" with the time axis of different frames
d) This means each observer will measure one metre along all other
remote z axes to be shorter (due to that tilt) than one metre on his
local z axis, SIMILARLY each observer will measure the one second ticks
of each clocks in a different frame to to be longer than the one second
ticked by a clock "stationary" in his own frame
e) Just as the effect of (d) for plumb-line-lengths is perfectly
mutual/reciprocal without contradiction, SIMILARLY the effect of (d) for
clocks ticking time is perfectly mutual/reciprocal without contradiction
As Odd says, none of this is double-talk.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
1. clocks are ticking at their usual rate....does not mean that they
are ticking at the same rate.
A metre vertical in London does not not span 1 metre of New York's z axis.
Post by Ken Seto
2. clocks are not ticking at different rates.
One metre is one metre, whether measured in London or NewYork.
Post by Ken Seto
3. clocks are measure to tick at different rates.
The "vertical" z axis of London is not the same as "vertical" in NewYork.,
Post by Ken Seto
4. i don’t understand advance SR physics.
If you don’t understand the basics of how time is handled in SR, then
you don’t understand the basics.
Your usage of material length to explain the passage of time is
completely false. Material length can be compared directly. A meter stick
in London has the same length as a meter stick in New York and a meter
stick will come back the same length after a journey. Whereas the passage
of time is dependent on the accuracy of oscillator that you use to keep
time. For example: Does a transition of the Cs 133 atom represent the
same amount of TIME in different frame? The answer to this question is
clearly NOT. This means that a clock second in different frames
represents a different amount of TIME (duration). A transition of the Cs
133 atom requires the arrival of a specific unit of energy to complete
and the arrival of this energy is dependent on the state of absolute
motion of the clock. That’s why a moving clock accumulate clock
seconds at a slower rate.
I suggest that you and Bodkin get rid of your superior attitude and
learn some new physics.
Apparently, not giving equal time to a hack amateur who never bothered to
learn freshman physics, let alone relativity, and who is now claiming to be
decades ahead of professional physicists, is called “having a superior
attitude”.
Apparently, not having a superior attitude means giving equal attention
space to know-nothing pretenders.
Ken Seto is a long retired chemical engineer who was apparently raised in
an environment where self-worth is strongly tied to lists of personal
accomplishments. So strong is this drive in Ken that he has resorted to
appropriating the accomplishments of his siblings, with whom he has had
intense rivalries; and to campaigns of self-promotion and
attention-seeking. After retirement, he had a bit of a personal crisis,
becoming deeply unsatisfied with his legacy and craving the kind of lasting
image that someone like Einstein has, judging by the number of biographies
about him.
So he figured, how hard can it be to do what Einstein did and more? This is
where emotional need started to create a break with reality.
When he discovered that physics was harder than he thought, he changed
self-protective tactics. When he got to the next thing in his reading of
physics popularizations that he didn’t understand, rather than saying “I
don’t understand this,” he said, “This is wrong.” Since that conclusion was
so easy for him to jump to, he soon figured that physicists must be a
gullible lot who can’t recognize obvious mistakes. Now the mental slide was
speeding up, and this was his moment to jump further away from reality.
“If physicists can’t recognize obvious mistakes, then the only way Einstein
could have gotten so famous is by aggressively promoting himself.”
Something like a Kardashian. “Heck, I know how do that,” Seto jubilated.
So that’s what he did, the goal being to write a book that would claim to
be the be-all-end-all of physics, which just by the boldness of its claims
would then sell like hotcakes, especially to physicists. Physicists being
gullible and always lusting after revolutionary ideas, they would endorse
the book and its author, and Seto’s humble and aw-shucks interview comments
would appear in newspapers. Now THAT is a legacy worthy of his ancestors’
expectations.
When none of that happened, Seto scratched his head and figured he wasn’t
doing enough to self-promote. So he poured resources and effort into that
cause, until his kids said, “That’s enough, Dad. You’re broke. This is an
unhealthy obsession. We have to move you into a home.” Which is where he
is now.
This is what happens when the emotional need for accomplishment and being
talked about overwhelms all sane responses. Sad, but not uncommon.
beda
look odd, I don't know if what you said is of your invention, in any case I dislike
your getting into personal life of anyone, you should repent and apologize
especially if what you say has any resemblance to the truth
Beda, the reason this has all been described, whether you like it or not,
is that what people post is sometimes driven by their hidden motivations,
and their hidden motivations are driven by their emotional needs, and those
emotional needs are revealed in their histories.
If everyone came into this group with an objective and dispassionate view
of their ideas, then it would be a simple matter of discussing facts and
whether they fit with the idea or not. This is what scientists actually do
— they have an interesting idea, but they keep an emotional detachment from
the idea in case it doesn’t work out. If it turns out there’s an objective,
observational fact that is inconsistent with the idea, then the idea is no
good and it is abandoned or significantly reworked.
The problem is that many posters here DO NOT maintain an objective and
dispassionate detachment from their ideas. They have hidden agendas that
make their ideas impossible to let go of in the face of objective evidence.
And in these cases, which are common here, then scientific discussion is
pointless and gets nowhere.
There are some here that for some reason feel put down by scientists (maybe
prior interactions outside the group) and their response is to thumb their
noses at them and just refuse to believe anything that scientists do. There
are some here who adore the respect and mystique that scientists seem to
have, but aren’t interested in doing the work of actual science, so they
would just as soon play dress-up and ACT LIKE a scientist, in the hopes
that some of that respect will rub off on them. There are those who are
interested in the subject but are intimidated by it, and their defensive
reaction is to claim that all this arcane knowledge and training is just a
scheme to keep outsiders away, and they complain about protective elitism.
Notice that in each of these cases, it’s not the scientific idea that
matters at all — it’s the MOTIVATION that drives the behavior.
It is worth calling out those posters to this group for whom discussing the
actual ideas they put forward is a waste of time — precisely because they
will not be able to discuss the idea dispassionately and objectively. They
are too invested in satisfying their underlying psychological needs to do
that.
In the case of Ken Seto, this is particularly fair game because essentially
everything that I described above is stuff that HE HIMSELF has put in his
PUBLIC persona. So needful of public attention is he that he has OPENLY
advertised many aspects of his life that are easily checked. All that I
have done here is compiled them into a coherent story, where Ken is more
torn between hiding the story and telling his life story. If Ken
self-publishes a book, and he lists the name and address of his publishing
company, and the publishing company is listed publicly as himself and the
address is that of a care facility, then talking about those details is
fair game because HE had advertised it.
You may desire this group to be a flat-level forum where the crazy and
uninformed can have their ideas discussed on the same level playing field
as the ideas of the balanced and informed. I don’t think that serves
anybody well.
beda
you are not entitle to censor any one, whatever their ideas are, whatever
their motivation are,
if you think it is worthwhile to engage a discussion with a person you do it correctly,
otherwise you ignore him,
There is no censorship going on here. No one is deleting any of his posts.
No one is forbidding him from saying this or that under some penalty of
confinement or fine.
In fact, I’ve said little that he has not advertised himself. Does he
censor himself by airing these facts about himself?
You take the stance that there are two and only two acceptable ways to
engage with someone on a newsgroup: take their idea seriously and debate it
as a worthwhile topic, or say nothing. This is the plea of the amateur and
the hack to have a safe place to offer uninformed opinions, any and all of
equal validity and worth. I’m sorry, but I just don’t believe that is a
good practice, nor do I believe it is some unwritten code of behavior in a
newsgroup.
I’m of the opinion that if someone comes into a discussion group on a
topic, then that person should be reasonably informed about the topic OR
openly admit that they know nothing about the topic and want to learn from
those with greater experience or knowledge. If someone comes in, completely
unread and uneducated on the topic, and nevertheless blusters that he
understands the topic better than anyone else here and has something
extremely valuable to say about it — that person is a boor begging to be
condemned. People with uninformed opinions do NOT have the right to expect
that their opinions will have equal value. That is not censorship. That is
social condemnation for acting like an idiot.
You take the stance that only the idea should be considered and not the
personality or motivation of the person with the idea. I could not disagree
with that stance more.
Odd: you are pathetic and you are in a state of panic.
You can’t attack my theory so you attacked me personally.
That doesn’t work either. I am proud to spend my money to advance
science. In any case what the fuck is your business how I spend my money?
The result of my effort is Model Mechanics (MM). MM is a superior theory
of the universe, it replaces SR/GR and it is capable of unifying all the
forces (including gravity). What have you done for science
woodworker?....NOTHING except cruise around the internet and criticize
anybody who got new ideas.
I got two patents and developed many products for the automative and
construction industries and I established two successful restaurants.
What have you done for science beside bullshit?
You wrote a threatening letter to my daughter trying to convince her that
what I wrote in the internet is dangerous. I turned that to the FBI and
they know who you are, Paul Draper.
One, I’m glad you think establishing two restaurants counts in your
advancing science.

Two, I’ve heard of this Paul Draper but never overlapped with him. Did the
FBI arrest him? What came of your action?
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by beda pietanza
this is valid in general not only in this ng,
what you wrote didn't make me chamge my opinion on mr. seto, but surely has shown
your wrong attitude towards your eventual counterparts
cheers
beda
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by beda pietanza
beda
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Maciej Wozniak
2021-06-10 16:38:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by beda pietanza
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by beda pietanza
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
i know, according to you ......I don’t understand advanced SR physics.
It's not "advanced SR physics"; understanding how time is handled in SR is BASIC.
Since you clearly don't understand that means you equally clearly do not
understand SR. That statement is not an insult, but a simple statement of fact.
It's just the same as someone who does not understand how the Knight
moves on a chess board equally clearly does not understand Chess nor
Chess strategies. Of course, should such a person, whilst still ignorant
of those basics of chess, spend effort writing a book on chess
strategies - then that person would not deserve to be taken seriously
(even if they did, for example, pay Who's Who for an entry lauding
their chess claims).
So let's take a different tack to describe what's going on.
Einstein once said "Time is what clocks measure". Likewise, we can say
"Height is what plumb lines measure".
So imagine a plumb line, with metres marked along the string. If we have
a 10 metre high wall, then obviously we can drop our plumb down the
outside of that wall, and confirm sure enough : 10 metres.
So, clocks mark off seconds of time (ie, the duration along the time
axis), and plumb lines mark off metres of height (ie the distance along
the vertical Z axis).
Now, you've been talking about "a clock second is a universal interval of time".
Let me ask you the equivalent : Do you say a metre is a universal
distance of height ?
Well, do you ??? >8->
What do you think "a metre is a universal distance of height" even means ?
For two buildings nearby, the x, y, z axes are pretty much the same, so
there will be pretty much no discrepancy - but what about for buildings far away?
For buildings separated by a substantial distance, the earth's curvature
has to be taken into account. The x,y,z axes of one building will be
tilted relative to the x,y,z axes of the other.
a) Just as all all plumb lines are identical, SIMILARLY all clocks are identical
b) This means just as all plumb lines measure vertical height at their
location, SIMILARLY all clocks tick at the "proper" rate in the frame at
which they are at rest
c) But just as the z axis at one location is not aligned (ie "tilted",
not the same) as the z axis at another location, SIMILARLY the time axis
of one frame is not "aligned" with the time axis of different frames
d) This means each observer will measure one metre along all other
remote z axes to be shorter (due to that tilt) than one metre on his
local z axis, SIMILARLY each observer will measure the one second ticks
of each clocks in a different frame to to be longer than the one second
ticked by a clock "stationary" in his own frame
e) Just as the effect of (d) for plumb-line-lengths is perfectly
mutual/reciprocal without contradiction, SIMILARLY the effect of (d) for
clocks ticking time is perfectly mutual/reciprocal without contradiction
As Odd says, none of this is double-talk.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
1. clocks are ticking at their usual rate....does not mean that they
are ticking at the same rate.
A metre vertical in London does not not span 1 metre of New York's z axis.
Post by Ken Seto
2. clocks are not ticking at different rates.
One metre is one metre, whether measured in London or NewYork.
Post by Ken Seto
3. clocks are measure to tick at different rates.
The "vertical" z axis of London is not the same as "vertical" in NewYork.,
Post by Ken Seto
4. i don’t understand advance SR physics.
If you don’t understand the basics of how time is handled in SR, then
you don’t understand the basics.
Your usage of material length to explain the passage of time is
completely false. Material length can be compared directly. A meter stick
in London has the same length as a meter stick in New York and a meter
stick will come back the same length after a journey. Whereas the passage
of time is dependent on the accuracy of oscillator that you use to keep
time. For example: Does a transition of the Cs 133 atom represent the
same amount of TIME in different frame? The answer to this question is
clearly NOT. This means that a clock second in different frames
represents a different amount of TIME (duration). A transition of the Cs
133 atom requires the arrival of a specific unit of energy to complete
and the arrival of this energy is dependent on the state of absolute
motion of the clock. That’s why a moving clock accumulate clock
seconds at a slower rate.
I suggest that you and Bodkin get rid of your superior attitude and
learn some new physics.
Apparently, not giving equal time to a hack amateur who never bothered to
learn freshman physics, let alone relativity, and who is now claiming to be
decades ahead of professional physicists, is called “having a superior
attitude”.
Apparently, not having a superior attitude means giving equal attention
space to know-nothing pretenders.
Ken Seto is a long retired chemical engineer who was apparently raised in
an environment where self-worth is strongly tied to lists of personal
accomplishments. So strong is this drive in Ken that he has resorted to
appropriating the accomplishments of his siblings, with whom he has had
intense rivalries; and to campaigns of self-promotion and
attention-seeking. After retirement, he had a bit of a personal crisis,
becoming deeply unsatisfied with his legacy and craving the kind of lasting
image that someone like Einstein has, judging by the number of biographies
about him.
So he figured, how hard can it be to do what Einstein did and more? This is
where emotional need started to create a break with reality.
When he discovered that physics was harder than he thought, he changed
self-protective tactics. When he got to the next thing in his reading of
physics popularizations that he didn’t understand, rather than saying “I
don’t understand this,” he said, “This is wrong.” Since that conclusion was
so easy for him to jump to, he soon figured that physicists must be a
gullible lot who can’t recognize obvious mistakes. Now the mental slide was
speeding up, and this was his moment to jump further away from reality.
“If physicists can’t recognize obvious mistakes, then the only way Einstein
could have gotten so famous is by aggressively promoting himself.”
Something like a Kardashian. “Heck, I know how do that,” Seto jubilated.
So that’s what he did, the goal being to write a book that would claim to
be the be-all-end-all of physics, which just by the boldness of its claims
would then sell like hotcakes, especially to physicists. Physicists being
gullible and always lusting after revolutionary ideas, they would endorse
the book and its author, and Seto’s humble and aw-shucks interview comments
would appear in newspapers. Now THAT is a legacy worthy of his ancestors’
expectations.
When none of that happened, Seto scratched his head and figured he wasn’t
doing enough to self-promote. So he poured resources and effort into that
cause, until his kids said, “That’s enough, Dad. You’re broke. This is an
unhealthy obsession. We have to move you into a home.” Which is where he
is now.
This is what happens when the emotional need for accomplishment and being
talked about overwhelms all sane responses. Sad, but not uncommon.
beda
look odd, I don't know if what you said is of your invention, in any case I dislike
your getting into personal life of anyone, you should repent and apologize
especially if what you say has any resemblance to the truth
Beda, the reason this has all been described, whether you like it or not,
is that what people post is sometimes driven by their hidden motivations,
and their hidden motivations are driven by their emotional needs, and those
emotional needs are revealed in their histories.
If everyone came into this group with an objective and dispassionate view
of their ideas, then it would be a simple matter of discussing facts and
whether they fit with the idea or not. This is what scientists actually do
— they have an interesting idea, but they keep an emotional detachment from
the idea in case it doesn’t work out. If it turns out there’s an objective,
observational fact that is inconsistent with the idea, then the idea is no
good and it is abandoned or significantly reworked.
The problem is that many posters here DO NOT maintain an objective and
dispassionate detachment from their ideas. They have hidden agendas that
make their ideas impossible to let go of in the face of objective evidence.
And in these cases, which are common here, then scientific discussion is
pointless and gets nowhere.
There are some here that for some reason feel put down by scientists (maybe
prior interactions outside the group) and their response is to thumb their
noses at them and just refuse to believe anything that scientists do. There
are some here who adore the respect and mystique that scientists seem to
have, but aren’t interested in doing the work of actual science, so they
would just as soon play dress-up and ACT LIKE a scientist, in the hopes
that some of that respect will rub off on them. There are those who are
interested in the subject but are intimidated by it, and their defensive
reaction is to claim that all this arcane knowledge and training is just a
scheme to keep outsiders away, and they complain about protective elitism.
Notice that in each of these cases, it’s not the scientific idea that
matters at all — it’s the MOTIVATION that drives the behavior.
It is worth calling out those posters to this group for whom discussing the
actual ideas they put forward is a waste of time — precisely because they
will not be able to discuss the idea dispassionately and objectively. They
are too invested in satisfying their underlying psychological needs to do
that.
In the case of Ken Seto, this is particularly fair game because essentially
everything that I described above is stuff that HE HIMSELF has put in his
PUBLIC persona. So needful of public attention is he that he has OPENLY
advertised many aspects of his life that are easily checked. All that I
have done here is compiled them into a coherent story, where Ken is more
torn between hiding the story and telling his life story. If Ken
self-publishes a book, and he lists the name and address of his publishing
company, and the publishing company is listed publicly as himself and the
address is that of a care facility, then talking about those details is
fair game because HE had advertised it.
You may desire this group to be a flat-level forum where the crazy and
uninformed can have their ideas discussed on the same level playing field
as the ideas of the balanced and informed. I don’t think that serves
anybody well.
beda
you are not entitle to censor any one, whatever their ideas are, whatever
their motivation are,
if you think it is worthwhile to engage a discussion with a person you do it correctly,
otherwise you ignore him,
There is no censorship going on here. No one is deleting any of his posts.
No one is forbidding him from saying this or that under some penalty of
confinement or fine.
It's just than anyone opposing The Shit will be spitted at and
slandered. A standard.
Rob Acraman
2021-06-11 01:56:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
i know, according to you ......I don’t understand advanced SR physics.
It's not "advanced SR physics"; understanding how time is handled in SR is BASIC.
Since you clearly don't understand that means you equally clearly do not understand SR. That statement is not an insult, but a simple statement of fact.
It's just the same as someone who does not understand how the Knight moves on a chess board equally clearly does not understand Chess nor Chess strategies. Of course, should such a person, whilst still ignorant of those basics of chess, spend effort writing a book on chess strategies - then that person would not deserve to be taken seriously (even if they did, for example, pay Who's Who for an entry lauding their chess claims).
So let's take a different tack to describe what's going on.
Einstein once said "Time is what clocks measure". Likewise, we can say "Height is what plumb lines measure".
So imagine a plumb line, with metres marked along the string. If we have a 10 metre high wall, then obviously we can drop our plumb down the outside of that wall, and confirm sure enough : 10 metres.
So, clocks mark off seconds of time (ie, the duration along the time axis), and plumb lines mark off metres of height (ie the distance along the vertical Z axis).
Now, you've been talking about "a clock second is a universal interval of time".
Let me ask you the equivalent : Do you say a metre is a universal distance of height ?
Well, do you ??? >8->
What do you think "a metre is a universal distance of height" even means ?
For two buildings nearby, the x, y, z axes are pretty much the same, so there will be pretty much no discrepancy - but what about for buildings far away?
For buildings separated by a substantial distance, the earth's curvature has to be taken into account. The x,y,z axes of one building will be tilted relative to the x,y,z axes of the other.
a) Just as all all plumb lines are identical, SIMILARLY all clocks are identical
b) This means just as all plumb lines measure vertical height at their location, SIMILARLY all clocks tick at the "proper" rate in the frame at which they are at rest
c) But just as the z axis at one location is not aligned (ie "tilted", not the same) as the z axis at another location, SIMILARLY the time axis of one frame is not "aligned" with the time axis of different frames
d) This means each observer will measure one metre along all other remote z axes to be shorter (due to that tilt) than one metre on his local z axis, SIMILARLY each observer will measure the one second ticks of each clocks in a different frame to to be longer than the one second ticked by a clock "stationary" in his own frame
e) Just as the effect of (d) for plumb-line-lengths is perfectly mutual/reciprocal without contradiction, SIMILARLY the effect of (d) for clocks ticking time is perfectly mutual/reciprocal without contradiction
As Odd says, none of this is double-talk.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
1. clocks are ticking at their usual rate....does not mean that they are ticking at the same rate.
A metre vertical in London does not not span 1 metre of New York's z axis.
Post by Ken Seto
2. clocks are not ticking at different rates.
One metre is one metre, whether measured in London or NewYork.
Post by Ken Seto
3. clocks are measure to tick at different rates.
The "vertical" z axis of London is not the same as "vertical" in NewYork.,
Post by Ken Seto
4. i don’t understand advance SR physics.
If you don’t understand the basics of how time is handled in SR, then you don’t understand the basics.
Your usage of material length to explain the passage of time is completely false. Material length can be compared directly. A meter stick in London has the same length as a meter stick in New York and a meter stick will come back the same length after a journey.
Right. One metre is one metre, and an individual in London going up a 1 metre step as measured by London coordinates is exactly the same as an individual in New York going up a 1 metre step as measured by New York coordinates. LOCALLY they are exactly the same thing - the individual in London experiences exactly the same as the individual in New York - they cannot tell the difference.
Post by Ken Seto
Whereas the passage of time is dependent on the accuracy of oscillator that you use to keep time. For example: Does a transition of the Cs 133 atom represent the same amount of TIME in different frame?
LOCALLY ? Sure. One second is one second, and an individual in Frame-A taking 5 minutes to boil an egg as measured by that Frame-A's coordinates (so Cs 133 clock) is exactly the same as an individual in Frame-B taking 5 minutes to boil an egg as measured by that Frame-B's coordinates (so Cs 133 clock). LOCALLY they are exactly the same thing - the individual in Frame-A experiences exactly the same as the individual in Frame-B - they cannot tell the difference.

Do you disagree with this ? Do you think SR disagrees with this ?
Post by Ken Seto
The answer to this question is clearly NOT. This means that a clock second in different frames represents a different amount of TIME (duration).
OK, then you're not talking about LOCALLY, right ?

You're talking about one second as measured by Frame-A's coordinates (and Cs 133 clock) does not perfectly align with one second by Frame-B's coordinates( and Cs 133 clock).

That is true - and is similar to the 1 metre high as measured by London's coordinates (and a plumb line in London) does not perfectly align with 1 metre high as measured by New York's coordinates (and a plumb line in New York).

When you ask about how a particular clock's seconds compare against "a universal interval of time", that question ONLY makes sense if there IS such a thing as "a universal interval of time" aka Newton's "Absolute Time".

You have obviously chosen to believe that some "universal time" exists. Further, you appear to think SR was (or at least should have been) built on this concept, and therefore you insist on viewing/judging SR only within this context.

In SR, "universal" / "absolute" times are explicitly discarded; there is no "absolute time" in SR any more than there is "absolute height" on earth. In that respect, yes : there is some similarity between "material length" (or rather, height) and "passage of time" - neither are "absolute" / "universal".

Consequently, just as a question about "absolute height" on earth would rightly be regarded as nonsensical / daft, so questions about "universal time" in the context of SR are regarded just the same.
Ken Seto
2021-06-11 14:46:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
i know, according to you ......I don’t understand advanced SR physics.
It's not "advanced SR physics"; understanding how time is handled in SR is BASIC.
Since you clearly don't understand that means you equally clearly do not understand SR. That statement is not an insult, but a simple statement of fact.
It's just the same as someone who does not understand how the Knight moves on a chess board equally clearly does not understand Chess nor Chess strategies. Of course, should such a person, whilst still ignorant of those basics of chess, spend effort writing a book on chess strategies - then that person would not deserve to be taken seriously (even if they did, for example, pay Who's Who for an entry lauding their chess claims).
So let's take a different tack to describe what's going on.
Einstein once said "Time is what clocks measure". Likewise, we can say "Height is what plumb lines measure".
So imagine a plumb line, with metres marked along the string. If we have a 10 metre high wall, then obviously we can drop our plumb down the outside of that wall, and confirm sure enough : 10 metres.
So, clocks mark off seconds of time (ie, the duration along the time axis), and plumb lines mark off metres of height (ie the distance along the vertical Z axis).
Now, you've been talking about "a clock second is a universal interval of time".
Let me ask you the equivalent : Do you say a metre is a universal distance of height ?
Clok sowing
Well, do you ??? >8->
What do you think "a metre is a universal distance of height" even means ?
For two buildings nearby, the x, y, z axes are pretty much the same, so there will be pretty much no discrepancy - but what about for buildings far away?
These are apparent effects......not real effects. It is not measurable.
With clocks, clock slowing is real effect and it is measurable and confirmed experimentally.
Post by Ken Seto
For buildings separated by a substantial distance, the earth's curvature has to be taken into account. The x,y,z axes of one building will be tilted relative to the x,y,z axes of the other.
a) Just as all all plumb lines are identical, SIMILARLY all clocks are identical
b) This means just as all plumb lines measure vertical height. at their location, SIMILARLY all clocks tick at the “proper" rate in the frame at which they are at rest
c) But just as the z axis at one location is not aligned (ie "tilted", not the same) as the z axis at another location, SIMILARLY the time axis of one frame is not "aligned" with the time axis of different frames
d) This means each observer will measure one metre along all other remote z axes to be shorter (due to that tilt) than one metre on his local z axis, SIMILARLY each observer will measure the one second ticks of each clocks in a different frame to to be longer than the one second ticked by a clock "stationary" in his own frame
e) Just as the effect of (d) for plumb-line-lengths is perfectly mutual/reciprocal without contradiction, SIMILARLY the effect of (d) for clocks ticking time is perfectly mutual/reciprocal without contradiction
As Odd says, none of this is double-talk.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
1. clocks are ticking at their usual rate....does not mean that they are ticking at the same rate.
A metre vertical in London does not not span 1 metre of New York's z axis.
Post by Ken Seto
2. clocks are not ticking at different rates.
One metre is one metre, whether measured in London or NewYork.
Post by Ken Seto
3. clocks are measure to tick at different rates.
The "vertical" z axis of London is not the same as "vertical" in NewYork.,
Post by Ken Seto
4. i don’t understand advance SR physics.
If you don’t understand the basics of how time is handled in SR, then you don’t understand the basics.
Your usage of material length to explain the passage of time is completely false. Material length can be compared directly. A meter stick in London has the same length as a meter stick in New York and a meter stick will come back the same length after a journey.
Right. One metre is one metre, and an individual in London going up a 1 metre step as measured by London coordinates is exactly the same as an individual in New York going up a 1 metre step as measured by New York coordinates. LOCALLY they are exactly the same thing - the individual in London experiences exactly the >>same as the individual in New York - they cannot tell the difference.
Post by Ken Seto
Whereas the passage of time is dependent on the accuracy of oscillator that you use to keep time. For example: Does a transition of the Cs 133 atom represent the same amount of TIME in different frame?
LOCALLY ? Sure. One second is one second, and an individual in Frame-A taking 5 minutes to boil an egg as measured by that Frame-A's coordinates (so Cs 133 clock) is exactly the same as an individual in Frame-B taking 5 minutes to boil an egg as measured by that Frame-B's coordinates (so Cs 133 clock). LOCALLY they are exactly the same thing - the individual in Frame-A experiences exactly the same as the individual in Frame->B - they cannot tell the difference.
Do you disagree with this ? Do you think SR disagrees with this ?
I disagree. 5-minute on your clock is worth gamma*5minutes on my clock.
Post by Ken Seto
The answer to this question is clearly NOT. This means that a clock second in different frames represents >>a different amount of TIME (duration).
OK, then you're not talking about LOCALLY, right ?
I am talking about your clock vs my clock when we are in relative motion.
You’re talking about one second as measured by Frame-A's coordinates (and Cs 133 clock) does not perfectly align with one second by Frame-B's coordinates( and Cs 133 clock).
The LT predicts that: Delta(t')=gamma*delta(t)
That is true - and is similar to the 1 metre high as measured by London's coordinates (and a plumb line in London) does not perfectly align with 1 metre high as measured by New York's coordinates (and a plumb line in New York).
No material lengths at different places are apparent effect and it is not measurable measurable directly. Clock slowing is real effect. The GPS uses absolute time to synch the GPS with the ground clock. They do that by adding 4.4647 more periods of the Cs 133 radiation to the GPS second. This means that at its GPS location the passage of a redefined GPS second is corresponded to the passage of a ground clock second and thus making the GPS and the ground clock are in synch with with each other in terms of absolute time.
When you ask about how a particular clock's seconds compare against "a universal interval of time", that question ONLY makes sense if there IS such a thing as "a universal interval of time" aka Newton's "Absolute Time".
Absolute time is the only time that exists. Unfortunately there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames. That’s why we invented the LT to calculate the clock time value on a moving clock for a interval of absolute observer’s clock.
You have obviously chosen to believe that some "universal time" exists. Further, you appear to think SR was (or at least should have been) built on this concept, and therefore you insist on viewing/judging SR only within >this context.
Yes universal time or absolute time is the only time exist.
In SR, "universal" / "absolute" times are explicitly discarded; there is no "absolute time" in SR any more than there is "absolute height" on earth. In that respect, yes : there is some similarity between “material length" (or >rather, height) and "passage of time" - neither are "absolute" / "universal".
I disagree. The GPS prove that SR is wrong.
Consequently, just as a question about "absolute height" on earth would rightly be regarded as nonsensical / daft, so questions about "universal time" in the context of SR are regarded just the same.
mitchr...@gmail.com
2021-06-11 20:28:48 UTC
Permalink
There is no absolute rest for atomic clocks.
Earth turn will slow a clock and and gives it energy.

Mitchell Raemsch
beda pietanza
2021-06-11 22:07:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
i know, according to you ......I don’t understand advanced SR physics.
It's not "advanced SR physics"; understanding how time is handled in SR is BASIC.
Since you clearly don't understand that means you equally clearly do not understand SR. That statement is not an insult, but a simple statement of fact.
It's just the same as someone who does not understand how the Knight moves on a chess board equally clearly does not understand Chess nor Chess strategies. Of course, should such a person, whilst still ignorant of those basics of chess, spend effort writing a book on chess strategies - then that person would not deserve to be taken seriously (even if they did, for example, pay Who's Who for an entry lauding their chess claims).
So let's take a different tack to describe what's going on.
Einstein once said "Time is what clocks measure". Likewise, we can say "Height is what plumb lines measure".
So imagine a plumb line, with metres marked along the string. If we have a 10 metre high wall, then obviously we can drop our plumb down the outside of that wall, and confirm sure enough : 10 metres.
So, clocks mark off seconds of time (ie, the duration along the time axis), and plumb lines mark off metres of height (ie the distance along the vertical Z axis).
Now, you've been talking about "a clock second is a universal interval of time".
Let me ask you the equivalent : Do you say a metre is a universal distance of height ?
Clok sowing
Well, do you ??? >8->
What do you think "a metre is a universal distance of height" even means ?
For two buildings nearby, the x, y, z axes are pretty much the same, so there will be pretty much no discrepancy - but what about for buildings far away?
These are apparent effects......not real effects. It is not measurable.
With clocks, clock slowing is real effect and it is measurable and confirmed experimentally.
Post by Ken Seto
For buildings separated by a substantial distance, the earth's curvature has to be taken into account. The x,y,z axes of one building will be tilted relative to the x,y,z axes of the other.
a) Just as all all plumb lines are identical, SIMILARLY all clocks are identical
b) This means just as all plumb lines measure vertical height. at their location, SIMILARLY all clocks tick at the “proper" rate in the frame at which they are at rest
c) But just as the z axis at one location is not aligned (ie "tilted", not the same) as the z axis at another location, SIMILARLY the time axis of one frame is not "aligned" with the time axis of different frames
d) This means each observer will measure one metre along all other remote z axes to be shorter (due to that tilt) than one metre on his local z axis, SIMILARLY each observer will measure the one second ticks of each clocks in a different frame to to be longer than the one second ticked by a clock "stationary" in his own frame
e) Just as the effect of (d) for plumb-line-lengths is perfectly mutual/reciprocal without contradiction, SIMILARLY the effect of (d) for clocks ticking time is perfectly mutual/reciprocal without contradiction
As Odd says, none of this is double-talk.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
1. clocks are ticking at their usual rate....does not mean that they are ticking at the same rate.
A metre vertical in London does not not span 1 metre of New York's z axis.
Post by Ken Seto
2. clocks are not ticking at different rates.
One metre is one metre, whether measured in London or NewYork.
Post by Ken Seto
3. clocks are measure to tick at different rates.
The "vertical" z axis of London is not the same as "vertical" in NewYork.,
Post by Ken Seto
4. i don’t understand advance SR physics.
If you don’t understand the basics of how time is handled in SR, then you don’t understand the basics.
Your usage of material length to explain the passage of time is completely false. Material length can be compared directly. A meter stick in London has the same length as a meter stick in New York and a meter stick will come back the same length after a journey.
Right. One metre is one metre, and an individual in London going up a 1 metre step as measured by London coordinates is exactly the same as an individual in New York going up a 1 metre step as measured by New York coordinates. LOCALLY they are exactly the same thing - the individual in London experiences exactly the >>same as the individual in New York - they cannot tell the difference.
Post by Ken Seto
Whereas the passage of time is dependent on the accuracy of oscillator that you use to keep time. For example: Does a transition of the Cs 133 atom represent the same amount of TIME in different frame?
LOCALLY ? Sure. One second is one second, and an individual in Frame-A taking 5 minutes to boil an egg as measured by that Frame-A's coordinates (so Cs 133 clock) is exactly the same as an individual in Frame-B taking 5 minutes to boil an egg as measured by that Frame-B's coordinates (so Cs 133 clock). LOCALLY they are exactly the same thing - the individual in Frame-A experiences exactly the same as the individual in Frame->B - they cannot tell the difference.
Do you disagree with this ? Do you think SR disagrees with this ?
I disagree. 5-minute on your clock is worth gamma*5minutes on my clock.
Post by Ken Seto
The answer to this question is clearly NOT. This means that a clock second in different frames represents >>a different amount of TIME (duration).
OK, then you're not talking about LOCALLY, right ?
I am talking about your clock vs my clock when we are in relative motion.
You’re talking about one second as measured by Frame-A's coordinates (and Cs 133 clock) does not perfectly align with one second by Frame-B's coordinates( and Cs 133 clock).
The LT predicts that: Delta(t')=gamma*delta(t)
That is true - and is similar to the 1 metre high as measured by London's coordinates (and a plumb line in London) does not perfectly align with 1 metre high as measured by New York's coordinates (and a plumb line in New York).
No material lengths at different places are apparent effect and it is not measurable measurable directly. Clock slowing is real effect. The GPS uses absolute time to synch the GPS with the ground clock. They do that by adding 4.4647 more periods of the Cs 133 radiation to the GPS second. This means that at its GPS location the passage of a redefined GPS second is corresponded to the passage of a ground clock second and thus making the GPS and the ground clock are in synch with with each other in terms of absolute time.
When you ask about how a particular clock's seconds compare against "a universal interval of time", that question ONLY makes sense if there IS such a thing as "a universal interval of time" aka Newton's "Absolute Time".
Absolute time is the only time that exists. Unfortunately there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames. That’s why we invented the LT to calculate the clock time value on a moving clock for a interval of absolute observer’s clock.
You have obviously chosen to believe that some "universal time" exists. Further, you appear to think SR was (or at least should have been) built on this concept, and therefore you insist on viewing/judging SR only within >this context.
beda
absolute time is implicitly contained in nature, as it is implicitly is contained the absolutness of any object and of the absoluteness of the objects characteristics.
anything we do, is manipulating absolutness of nature up to the point we are nature manipulating itself,
that is why in order to set things rationally we must start from the most elementary facts of nature and with our intuition, figure out what happens at that very simple level.
now, using all the evidences and knowledge we have accumulate, IMO, the best we can conceive is
a) an object traveling in space is affected by its movement and contracts according to its speed vs the space it is instantaneously traveling
b) any atom of the structure of the material object, slows down the frequencies associated to the atomic structure according to the speed of the object vs the local space
from a) and b) we can deduce the absolute nature of space and time and we can fully understand that
the SR heuristic procedure is embedded in the absolute:
the SR frames (E)synchro is obtained automatically by combined action of the absolute speed of light, the absolute speed of objects and the absolute speed of SR frames
Sure in its final formulation SR does without absolutes in its computation, you may be caught by this as if the absolute is not there, it was there in the moment the SR frames are build, then it has been cancelled out,
please be a little smart and distinguish this two moments.

cheers
beda
Post by Ken Seto
Yes universal time or absolute time is the only time exist.
In SR, "universal" / "absolute" times are explicitly discarded; there is no "absolute time" in SR any more than there is "absolute height" on earth. In that respect, yes : there is some similarity between “material length" (or >rather, height) and "passage of time" - neither are "absolute" / "universal".
I disagree. The GPS prove that SR is wrong.
Consequently, just as a question about "absolute height" on earth would rightly be regarded as nonsensical / daft, so questions about "universal time" in the context of SR are regarded just the same.
Ken Seto
2021-06-12 12:41:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by beda pietanza
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
i know, according to you ......I don’t understand advanced SR physics.
It's not "advanced SR physics"; understanding how time is handled in SR is BASIC.
Since you clearly don't understand that means you equally clearly do not understand SR. That statement is not an insult, but a simple statement of fact.
It's just the same as someone who does not understand how the Knight moves on a chess board equally clearly does not understand Chess nor Chess strategies. Of course, should such a person, whilst still ignorant of those basics of chess, spend effort writing a book on chess strategies - then that person would not deserve to be taken seriously (even if they did, for example, pay Who's Who for an entry lauding their chess claims).
So let's take a different tack to describe what's going on.
Einstein once said "Time is what clocks measure". Likewise, we can say "Height is what plumb lines measure".
So imagine a plumb line, with metres marked along the string. If we have a 10 metre high wall, then obviously we can drop our plumb down the outside of that wall, and confirm sure enough : 10 metres.
So, clocks mark off seconds of time (ie, the duration along the time axis), and plumb lines mark off metres of height (ie the distance along the vertical Z axis).
Now, you've been talking about "a clock second is a universal interval of time".
Let me ask you the equivalent : Do you say a metre is a universal distance of height ?
Clok sowing
Well, do you ??? >8->
What do you think "a metre is a universal distance of height" even means ?
For two buildings nearby, the x, y, z axes are pretty much the same, so there will be pretty much no discrepancy - but what about for buildings far away?
These are apparent effects......not real effects. It is not measurable.
With clocks, clock slowing is real effect and it is measurable and confirmed experimentally.
Post by Ken Seto
For buildings separated by a substantial distance, the earth's curvature has to be taken into account. The x,y,z axes of one building will be tilted relative to the x,y,z axes of the other.
a) Just as all all plumb lines are identical, SIMILARLY all clocks are identical
b) This means just as all plumb lines measure vertical height. at their location, SIMILARLY all clocks tick at the “proper" rate in the frame at which they are at rest
c) But just as the z axis at one location is not aligned (ie "tilted", not the same) as the z axis at another location, SIMILARLY the time axis of one frame is not "aligned" with the time axis of different frames
d) This means each observer will measure one metre along all other remote z axes to be shorter (due to that tilt) than one metre on his local z axis, SIMILARLY each observer will measure the one second ticks of each clocks in a different frame to to be longer than the one second ticked by a clock "stationary" in his own frame
e) Just as the effect of (d) for plumb-line-lengths is perfectly mutual/reciprocal without contradiction, SIMILARLY the effect of (d) for clocks ticking time is perfectly mutual/reciprocal without contradiction
As Odd says, none of this is double-talk.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
1. clocks are ticking at their usual rate....does not mean that they are ticking at the same rate.
A metre vertical in London does not not span 1 metre of New York's z axis.
Post by Ken Seto
2. clocks are not ticking at different rates.
One metre is one metre, whether measured in London or NewYork.
Post by Ken Seto
3. clocks are measure to tick at different rates.
The "vertical" z axis of London is not the same as "vertical" in NewYork.,
Post by Ken Seto
4. i don’t understand advance SR physics.
If you don’t understand the basics of how time is handled in SR, then you don’t understand the basics.
Your usage of material length to explain the passage of time is completely false. Material length can be compared directly. A meter stick in London has the same length as a meter stick in New York and a meter stick will come back the same length after a journey.
Right. One metre is one metre, and an individual in London going up a 1 metre step as measured by London coordinates is exactly the same as an individual in New York going up a 1 metre step as measured by New York coordinates. LOCALLY they are exactly the same thing - the individual in London experiences exactly the >>same as the individual in New York - they cannot tell the difference.
Post by Ken Seto
Whereas the passage of time is dependent on the accuracy of oscillator that you use to keep time. For example: Does a transition of the Cs 133 atom represent the same amount of TIME in different frame?
LOCALLY ? Sure. One second is one second, and an individual in Frame-A taking 5 minutes to boil an egg as measured by that Frame-A's coordinates (so Cs 133 clock) is exactly the same as an individual in Frame-B taking 5 minutes to boil an egg as measured by that Frame-B's coordinates (so Cs 133 clock). LOCALLY they are exactly the same thing - the individual in Frame-A experiences exactly the same as the individual in Frame->B - they cannot tell the difference.
Do you disagree with this ? Do you think SR disagrees with this ?
I disagree. 5-minute on your clock is worth gamma*5minutes on my clock.
Post by Ken Seto
The answer to this question is clearly NOT. This means that a clock second in different frames represents >>a different amount of TIME (duration).
OK, then you're not talking about LOCALLY, right ?
I am talking about your clock vs my clock when we are in relative motion.
You’re talking about one second as measured by Frame-A's coordinates (and Cs 133 clock) does not perfectly align with one second by Frame-B's coordinates( and Cs 133 clock).
The LT predicts that: Delta(t')=gamma*delta(t)
That is true - and is similar to the 1 metre high as measured by London's coordinates (and a plumb line in London) does not perfectly align with 1 metre high as measured by New York's coordinates (and a plumb line in New York).
No material lengths at different places are apparent effect and it is not measurable measurable directly. Clock slowing is real effect. The GPS uses absolute time to synch the GPS with the ground clock. They do that by adding 4.4647 more periods of the Cs 133 radiation to the GPS second. This means that at its GPS location the passage of a redefined GPS second is corresponded to the passage of a ground clock second and thus making the GPS and the ground clock are in synch with with each other in terms of absolute time.
When you ask about how a particular clock's seconds compare against "a universal interval of time", that question ONLY makes sense if there IS such a thing as "a universal interval of time" aka Newton's "Absolute Time".
Absolute time is the only time that exists. Unfortunately there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames. That’s why we invented the LT to calculate the clock time value on a moving clock for a interval of absolute observer’s clock.
You have obviously chosen to believe that some "universal time" exists. Further, you appear to think SR was (or at least should have been) built on this concept, and therefore you insist on viewing/judging SR only within >this context.
beda
absolute time is implicitly contained in nature, as it is implicitly is contained the absolutness of any object and of the absoluteness of the objects characteristics.
anything we do, is manipulating absolutness of nature up to the point we are nature manipulating itself,
that is why in order to set things rationally we must start from the most elementary facts of nature and with our intuition, figure out what happens at that very simple level.
now, using all the evidences and knowledge we have accumulate, IMO, the best we can conceive is
a) an object traveling in space is affected by its movement and contracts according to its speed vs the >space it is instantaneously traveling.
There is no material contraction. The observer predicts that the light path length (LPL) of a moving meter stick is shortened by a factor of 1/gamma. This prediction is based on the assumption that the LPL of the observer’s meter stick is its material length.
Cheer,
Ken
Post by beda pietanza
b) any atom of the structure of the material object, slows down the frequencies associated to the atomic structure according to the speed of the object vs the local space
from a) and b) we can deduce the absolute nature of space and time and we can fully understand that
the SR frames (E)synchro is obtained automatically by combined action of the absolute speed of light, the absolute speed of objects and the absolute speed of SR frames
Sure in its final formulation SR does without absolutes in its computation, you may be caught by this as if the absolute is not there, it was there in the moment the SR frames are build, then it has been cancelled out,
please be a little smart and distinguish this two moments.
cheers
beda
Post by Ken Seto
Yes universal time or absolute time is the only time exist.
In SR, "universal" / "absolute" times are explicitly discarded; there is no "absolute time" in SR any more than there is "absolute height" on earth. In that respect, yes : there is some similarity between “material length" (or >rather, height) and "passage of time" - neither are "absolute" / "universal".
I disagree. The GPS prove that SR is wrong.
Consequently, just as a question about "absolute height" on earth would rightly be regarded as nonsensical / daft, so questions about "universal time" in the context of SR are regarded just the same.
beda pietanza
2021-06-07 21:17:34 UTC
Permalink
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
Odd Bodkin
2021-06-08 13:58:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by beda pietanza
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
Yes.
Post by beda pietanza
to make it simple we cancel the frame where they are at rest,
They are different rest frames. The clocks are moving relative to each
other. How do you “cancel” different frames?
Post by beda pietanza
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.
No, it doesn’t. Perhaps it would help to understand better what “ticking at
its usual rate” means in terms of metrology. It does not mean that the rate
of A is compared to B and is found to be ticking at the same rate. There is
no comparison of clocks in different frames made in determining “ticking at
its usual rate.”

What it means is that, comparing the clock readings to local and at-rest
physical processes, those processes continue to take the same amount of
time as measured on the local clock. Concretely, you might have a quartz
piezoelectric oscillator and a spring-mass oscillator next to clock A; and
you might have a fast-decaying radioactive sample and a magnetic pendulum
next to clock B. Clock A continues to tick at its usual rate if the number
of oscillations of the piezoelectric oscillator and the spring-mass
oscillator still have the same rate per tick as always. Clock B continues
to tick at its usual rate if the half-life of the sample and the
oscillations of the magnetic pendulum still have the value per tick as
always. There is no comparison between A and B. There are comparisons
between the clocks and local physics processes.

So you CANNOT say that A and B have the same rate. What you CAN say with
some confidence is that, though the physical processes that run the
piezoelectric crystal, the spring-mass system, the radioactive sample, and
the magnetic pendulum are all completely different than each other, it is
still true that the laws of the physics that run all those processes are
the same in the rest frame of A and the rest frame of B. That’s what the
principle of relativity says: the laws of physics are the same in different
inertial frames. Interestingly, this does NOT force A and B to have the
same rate, because here you’ve not compared them with each other at all.
Post by beda pietanza
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.
Well, let’s see, if I can parse what you attempted to say, maybe you’re
asking what if it’s the case that whatever it is that is slowing clock B
(relative to A) is ALSO slowing the physical process behind the radioactive
decay and is ALSO slowing the physical process behind the magnetic
pendulum? And so there’s some hypothesis that, though the specific physical
processes used to benchmark clock B were selected at random, it JUST SO
HAPPENS that these particular processes are modified to slow at EXACTLY the
same factor as clock B. And since they were randomly chosen, others could
have been chosen, and so you’d come to the mysterious conclusion that NO
MATTER WHAT process is used to benchmark clock B, that process is
mysteriously slowed by exactly the same factor to follow the clock.

And so you’d rather believe that motion has a deep effect on ALL physical
processes to produce EXACTLY the same kind of slow-down that clock B is
experiencing, and that’s why clock B still APPEARS to tick at the same
rate, even though it is in fact slowed down absolutely. Is that what you’re
asking me to entertain?
Post by beda pietanza
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
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
2021-06-09 18:56:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by beda pietanza
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
Yes.
beda
that is impossible, because if they are observed by a third observer they run at a different rate
all you wrote is needless garbled
anything we associate to A and is at rest with A, of course, have a rate accordingly to the speed of A
anything we associate to B and it is at rest with B, of course, have a rate accordingly to the speed of B
a third observer contemporaneously looking at A (and all comoving with A) and at B (and all comoving with B) he will see that A (objects in cluster A)and B (same objects in cluster B) are running at absolute different rate
that is so, simply so, the framing is needed only when you want to quantify the values, a trivial absolute comparison
doesn't need any frame: rate A >B or rate B>A or rateB=A
if speed of A<B or speed of B<A or speed of A=but opposite of the speed B
your logic has become irreversibly frame dependant: but nature doesn't have frames: it works only with absolutes.
cheers
beda
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by beda pietanza
to make it simple we cancel the frame where they are at rest,
They are different rest frames. The clocks are moving relative to each
other. How do you “cancel” different frames?
Post by beda pietanza
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.
No, it doesn’t. Perhaps it would help to understand better what “ticking at
its usual rate” means in terms of metrology. It does not mean that the rate
of A is compared to B and is found to be ticking at the same rate. There is
no comparison of clocks in different frames made in determining “ticking at
its usual rate.”
What it means is that, comparing the clock readings to local and at-rest
physical processes, those processes continue to take the same amount of
time as measured on the local clock. Concretely, you might have a quartz
piezoelectric oscillator and a spring-mass oscillator next to clock A; and
you might have a fast-decaying radioactive sample and a magnetic pendulum
next to clock B. Clock A continues to tick at its usual rate if the number
of oscillations of the piezoelectric oscillator and the spring-mass
oscillator still have the same rate per tick as always. Clock B continues
to tick at its usual rate if the half-life of the sample and the
oscillations of the magnetic pendulum still have the value per tick as
always. There is no comparison between A and B. There are comparisons
between the clocks and local physics processes.
So you CANNOT say that A and B have the same rate. What you CAN say with
some confidence is that, though the physical processes that run the
piezoelectric crystal, the spring-mass system, the radioactive sample, and
the magnetic pendulum are all completely different than each other, it is
still true that the laws of the physics that run all those processes are
the same in the rest frame of A and the rest frame of B. That’s what the
principle of relativity says: the laws of physics are the same in different
inertial frames. Interestingly, this does NOT force A and B to have the
same rate, because here you’ve not compared them with each other at all.
Post by beda pietanza
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.
Well, let’s see, if I can parse what you attempted to say, maybe you’re
asking what if it’s the case that whatever it is that is slowing clock B
(relative to A) is ALSO slowing the physical process behind the radioactive
decay and is ALSO slowing the physical process behind the magnetic
pendulum? And so there’s some hypothesis that, though the specific physical
processes used to benchmark clock B were selected at random, it JUST SO
HAPPENS that these particular processes are modified to slow at EXACTLY the
same factor as clock B. And since they were randomly chosen, others could
have been chosen, and so you’d come to the mysterious conclusion that NO
MATTER WHAT process is used to benchmark clock B, that process is
mysteriously slowed by exactly the same factor to follow the clock.
And so you’d rather believe that motion has a deep effect on ALL physical
processes to produce EXACTLY the same kind of slow-down that clock B is
experiencing, and that’s why clock B still APPEARS to tick at the same
rate, even though it is in fact slowed down absolutely. Is that what you’re
asking me to entertain?
Post by beda pietanza
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
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
Odd Bodkin
2021-06-09 19:16:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by beda pietanza
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by beda pietanza
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
Yes.
beda
that is impossible, because if they are observed by a third observer
they run at a different rate
Yes, by third observer they run at different rates, compared to each other.
No it is not impossible that they are both running at their usual rates. I
described in lots of detail below what “running at their usual rate” means.
You chose to ignore everything I wrote about what “running at their usual
rate” means.
Post by beda pietanza
all you wrote is needless garbled
anything we associate to A and is at rest with A, of course, have a rate
accordingly to the speed of A
anything we associate to B and it is at rest with B, of course, have a
rate accordingly to the speed of B
a third observer contemporaneously looking at A (and all comoving with
A) and at B (and all comoving with B) he will see that A (objects in
cluster A)and B (same objects in cluster B) are running at absolute different rate
that is so, simply so, the framing is needed only when you want to
quantify the values, a trivial absolute comparison
doesn't need any frame: rate A >B or rate B>A or rateB=A
Well, the interesting thing is that the answer as to whether A>B or A<B or
A=B will depend on which third observer you choose. So you see, even the
comparative relation between A and B is not absolute and is observer
dependent.

Specifically, suppose A is moving relative to B (or B is moving relative to
A, it means the same thing). Now choose a third observer such that A and B
are both moving at the SAME SPEED relative to the third observer. (If this
is confusing to you, take the familiar example of two cars going in
opposite directions on a highway — clearly moving relative to each other —
and the third observer is someone standing on a bridge over the highway.)
For this choice of third observer, the rate of A and B clocks will be the
same compared to each other. A=B.

But now take the same A and B and choose a third observer that is moving
more closely matched (not exactly the same, but closer) to the speed of A
compared to B. Now B<A.

But now take the same A and B and choose a third observer that is moving
more closely matched to the the speed of B compared to A. Now B>A.

These are real experimental results by the way.

Now tell me how you would make sense of the observations that just by
choosing a DIFFERENT third observer, the comparative rates of A and B can
be A=B or B>A or B<A. Don’t tell me it’s impossible, because it’s a
verified result. I’m just wondering how you could make sense of that with
your absolutist view of the world. If you can’t, then this tells you that
observations trump your instincts.
Post by beda pietanza
if speed of A<B or speed of B<A or speed of A=but opposite of the speed B
your logic has become irreversibly frame dependant: but nature doesn't
have frames: it works only with absolutes.
cheers
beda
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by beda pietanza
to make it simple we cancel the frame where they are at rest,
They are different rest frames. The clocks are moving relative to each
other. How do you “cancel” different frames?
Post by beda pietanza
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.
No, it doesn’t. Perhaps it would help to understand better what “ticking at
its usual rate” means in terms of metrology. It does not mean that the rate
of A is compared to B and is found to be ticking at the same rate. There is
no comparison of clocks in different frames made in determining “ticking at
its usual rate.”
What it means is that, comparing the clock readings to local and at-rest
physical processes, those processes continue to take the same amount of
time as measured on the local clock. Concretely, you might have a quartz
piezoelectric oscillator and a spring-mass oscillator next to clock A; and
you might have a fast-decaying radioactive sample and a magnetic pendulum
next to clock B. Clock A continues to tick at its usual rate if the number
of oscillations of the piezoelectric oscillator and the spring-mass
oscillator still have the same rate per tick as always. Clock B continues
to tick at its usual rate if the half-life of the sample and the
oscillations of the magnetic pendulum still have the value per tick as
always. There is no comparison between A and B. There are comparisons
between the clocks and local physics processes.
So you CANNOT say that A and B have the same rate. What you CAN say with
some confidence is that, though the physical processes that run the
piezoelectric crystal, the spring-mass system, the radioactive sample, and
the magnetic pendulum are all completely different than each other, it is
still true that the laws of the physics that run all those processes are
the same in the rest frame of A and the rest frame of B. That’s what the
principle of relativity says: the laws of physics are the same in different
inertial frames. Interestingly, this does NOT force A and B to have the
same rate, because here you’ve not compared them with each other at all.
Post by beda pietanza
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.
Well, let’s see, if I can parse what you attempted to say, maybe you’re
asking what if it’s the case that whatever it is that is slowing clock B
(relative to A) is ALSO slowing the physical process behind the radioactive
decay and is ALSO slowing the physical process behind the magnetic
pendulum? And so there’s some hypothesis that, though the specific physical
processes used to benchmark clock B were selected at random, it JUST SO
HAPPENS that these particular processes are modified to slow at EXACTLY the
same factor as clock B. And since they were randomly chosen, others could
have been chosen, and so you’d come to the mysterious conclusion that NO
MATTER WHAT process is used to benchmark clock B, that process is
mysteriously slowed by exactly the same factor to follow the clock.
And so you’d rather believe that motion has a deep effect on ALL physical
processes to produce EXACTLY the same kind of slow-down that clock B is
experiencing, and that’s why clock B still APPEARS to tick at the same
rate, even though it is in fact slowed down absolutely. Is that what you’re
asking me to entertain?
Post by beda pietanza
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
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
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Maciej Wozniak
2021-06-10 07:03:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by beda pietanza
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
Yes.
beda
that is impossible, because if they are observed by a third observer
they run at a different rate
Yes, by third observer they run at different rates, compared to each other.
No it is not impossible that they are both running at their usual rates.
It is not impossible; but, as anyone can check in GPS, outside
your gedankenwelt it's not going to happen.
beda pietanza
2021-06-10 12:53:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by beda pietanza
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
Yes.
beda
that is impossible, because if they are observed by a third observer
they run at a different rate
Yes, by third observer they run at different rates, compared to each other.
No it is not impossible that they are both running at their usual rates. I
described in lots of detail below what “running at their usual rate” means.
You chose to ignore everything I wrote about what “running at their usual
rate” means.
all you wrote is needless garbled
anything we associate to A and is at rest with A, of course, have a rate
accordingly to the speed of A
anything we associate to B and it is at rest with B, of course, have a
rate accordingly to the speed of B
a third observer contemporaneously looking at A (and all comoving with
A) and at B (and all comoving with B) he will see that A (objects in
cluster A)and B (same objects in cluster B) are running at absolute different rate
that is so, simply so, the framing is needed only when you want to
quantify the values, a trivial absolute comparison
doesn't need any frame: rate A >B or rate B>A or rateB=A
Well, the interesting thing is that the answer as to whether A>B or A<B or
A=B will depend on which third observer you choose. So you see, even the
comparative relation between A and B is not absolute and is observer
dependent.
beda
you fall on the same mental acctractor, a third observer can be any third observer, all
will see that A and B have different rate, the difference even not quantified is a
difference in absoluteness
Post by Odd Bodkin
Specifically, suppose A is moving relative to B (or B is moving relative to
A, it means the same thing). Now choose a third observer such that A and B
are both moving at the SAME SPEED relative to the third observer. (If this
is confusing to you, take the familiar example of two cars going in
opposite directions on a highway — clearly moving relative to each other —
and the third observer is someone standing on a bridge over the highway.)
For this choice of third observer, the rate of A and B clocks will be the
same compared to each other. A=B.
beda
your analogy doesn't hold, because the two cars are first of all moving vs the road.
now you imagine that a speedometer measures the car speed versus the road, and a display
on top of the car that tells everyone the speed of the car,
now car A and car B tell to all possible observers their speed versus the road: there is not any
ambiguity about them.(and about which one is consuming gasoline at a higher rate)
exactly the same happens with the rate of the differently moving clocks A and B: they tell by the frequency
emitted to all obsevers, rergardless of the single observer speed, that A has a rate different from B,
absolutely determinate comparatively A>B or B>A or A=B; respectively if the absolute speed
of A<B; B<A; A=B but in opposite direction
the slower clock takes longer to accomplish a task, just as a slower car takes longer to consume gasoline:
only absolutes are here at work
the relative approach is a human post process, and postprocessing can be as manipulating as we want depend on what we want to extract from the data,
considering these manipulation, even when correctly done, as fundamental facts of nature is reversing the priorities and the chain of relevance, is obscuring the very basic absolute elementary facts of nature, hence the conceptual mess

the human intervention in observing nature must not change the observed facts, that are and must remain absolute
Post by Odd Bodkin
But now take the same A and B and choose a third observer that is moving
more closely matched (not exactly the same, but closer) to the speed of A
compared to B. Now B<A.
But now take the same A and B and choose a third observer that is moving
more closely matched to the the speed of B compared to A. Now B>A.
These are real experimental results by the way.
Now tell me how you would make sense of the observations that just by
choosing a DIFFERENT third observer, the comparative rates of A and B can
be A=B or B>A or B<A. Don’t tell me it’s impossible, because it’s a
verified result. I’m just wondering how you could make sense of that with
your absolutist view of the world. If you can’t, then this tells you that
observations trump your instincts.
beda
dear odd, the condition of the third observer is irrelevant, because it is making a visual comparison
of the two light frequencies that A and B arriving to the observer contemporerely,
the rate of the clock of the observer has not any relevance, for the immediate visual comparison.
spend a little more attention to this, my insistence is because this will help you grasp that an absolute difference
can never be reversed by any arbitrary arrengement.
also about the past, present and future, what is happening here, now is after what has happened before here, there and all over
also the spatial position is absolutely unique and related contemporaneously to all the positions of all objects, and immediately referred to the local space.
the reconstruction or the representation problematic must not change this absolute objective conditions, this absolutely wise

now, we have the SR heuristic approach, which is constructed in order to rend the absolute superflous in some computations and measurements of some characteristics of two objects relatively moving,
aside the validity and the conceptual coherence of such approach, my claim is: the construction of the SR frames is based on the use of the absolute speed of the light and of the absolute movement of the SR frame at moment of setting the Esynchron span of the SR frame clocks,
the essential role of the absolute in the SR construction, if denied, leads to a inevitable conceptual mess, just what we experience here in this ng, witnessed not only by antiSRist, but by SR devotee as well.
cheers
beda
Post by Odd Bodkin
if speed of A<B or speed of B<A or speed of A=but opposite of the speed B
your logic has become irreversibly frame dependant: but nature doesn't
have frames: it works only with absolutes.
cheers
beda
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by beda pietanza
to make it simple we cancel the frame where they are at rest,
They are different rest frames. The clocks are moving relative to each
other. How do you “cancel” different frames?
Post by beda pietanza
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.
No, it doesn’t. Perhaps it would help to understand better what “ticking at
its usual rate” means in terms of metrology. It does not mean that the rate
of A is compared to B and is found to be ticking at the same rate. There is
no comparison of clocks in different frames made in determining “ticking at
its usual rate.”
What it means is that, comparing the clock readings to local and at-rest
physical processes, those processes continue to take the same amount of
time as measured on the local clock. Concretely, you might have a quartz
piezoelectric oscillator and a spring-mass oscillator next to clock A; and
you might have a fast-decaying radioactive sample and a magnetic pendulum
next to clock B. Clock A continues to tick at its usual rate if the number
of oscillations of the piezoelectric oscillator and the spring-mass
oscillator still have the same rate per tick as always. Clock B continues
to tick at its usual rate if the half-life of the sample and the
oscillations of the magnetic pendulum still have the value per tick as
always. There is no comparison between A and B. There are comparisons
between the clocks and local physics processes.
So you CANNOT say that A and B have the same rate. What you CAN say with
some confidence is that, though the physical processes that run the
piezoelectric crystal, the spring-mass system, the radioactive sample, and
the magnetic pendulum are all completely different than each other, it is
still true that the laws of the physics that run all those processes are
the same in the rest frame of A and the rest frame of B. That’s what the
principle of relativity says: the laws of physics are the same in different
inertial frames. Interestingly, this does NOT force A and B to have the
same rate, because here you’ve not compared them with each other at all.
Post by beda pietanza
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.
Well, let’s see, if I can parse what you attempted to say, maybe you’re
asking what if it’s the case that whatever it is that is slowing clock B
(relative to A) is ALSO slowing the physical process behind the radioactive
decay and is ALSO slowing the physical process behind the magnetic
pendulum? And so there’s some hypothesis that, though the specific physical
processes used to benchmark clock B were selected at random, it JUST SO
HAPPENS that these particular processes are modified to slow at EXACTLY the
same factor as clock B. And since they were randomly chosen, others could
have been chosen, and so you’d come to the mysterious conclusion that NO
MATTER WHAT process is used to benchmark clock B, that process is
mysteriously slowed by exactly the same factor to follow the clock.
And so you’d rather believe that motion has a deep effect on ALL physical
processes to produce EXACTLY the same kind of slow-down that clock B is
experiencing, and that’s why clock B still APPEARS to tick at the same
rate, even though it is in fact slowed down absolutely. Is that what you’re
asking me to entertain?
Post by beda pietanza
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
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
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2021-06-10 14:10:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by beda pietanza
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by beda pietanza
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
Yes.
beda
that is impossible, because if they are observed by a third observer
they run at a different rate
Yes, by third observer they run at different rates, compared to each other.
No it is not impossible that they are both running at their usual rates. I
described in lots of detail below what “running at their usual rate” means.
You chose to ignore everything I wrote about what “running at their usual
rate” means.
all you wrote is needless garbled
anything we associate to A and is at rest with A, of course, have a rate
accordingly to the speed of A
anything we associate to B and it is at rest with B, of course, have a
rate accordingly to the speed of B
a third observer contemporaneously looking at A (and all comoving with
A) and at B (and all comoving with B) he will see that A (objects in
cluster A)and B (same objects in cluster B) are running at absolute different rate
that is so, simply so, the framing is needed only when you want to
quantify the values, a trivial absolute comparison
doesn't need any frame: rate A >B or rate B>A or rateB=A
Well, the interesting thing is that the answer as to whether A>B or A<B or
A=B will depend on which third observer you choose. So you see, even the
comparative relation between A and B is not absolute and is observer
dependent.
beda
you fall on the same mental acctractor, a third observer can be any third observer, all
will see that A and B have different rate, the difference even not quantified is a
difference in absoluteness
Not so, as I described. Some third observers will see them have the SAME
rate. A=B. And yet other observers will see A>B. Other third observers will
see A<B. And so in what sense is there ANY absoluteness in the clock rates?
Post by beda pietanza
Post by Odd Bodkin
Specifically, suppose A is moving relative to B (or B is moving relative to
A, it means the same thing). Now choose a third observer such that A and B
are both moving at the SAME SPEED relative to the third observer. (If this
is confusing to you, take the familiar example of two cars going in
opposite directions on a highway — clearly moving relative to each other —
and the third observer is someone standing on a bridge over the highway.)
For this choice of third observer, the rate of A and B clocks will be the
same compared to each other. A=B.
beda
your analogy doesn't hold, because the two cars are first of all moving vs the road.
Yes, there is a speed RELATIVE to the road that is measured on a
speedometer.
Post by beda pietanza
now you imagine that a speedometer measures the car speed versus the road, and a display
on top of the car that tells everyone the speed of the car,
now car A and car B tell to all possible observers their speed versus the
road: there is not any
ambiguity about them.(and about which one is consuming gasoline at a higher rate)
But why is the speed relative to the ROAD the one you want to give
priority? Why not the speed relative to each other? Why not the speed
relative to the air, because if there is a 40mph wind blowing east, then
the car going west at 60 mph will consume more gas than the car going east
at 60 mph? Why not the speed relative to a satellite above, where the road
is turning with the earth’s surface at several hundred miles an hour? Why
is THAT CHOICE (the road) of reference in any way preferred physically?
Post by beda pietanza
exactly the same happens with the rate of the differently moving clocks A
and B: they tell by the frequency
emitted to all obsevers, rergardless of the single observer speed, that A
has a rate different from B,
absolutely determinate comparatively A>B or B>A or A=B; respectively if the absolute speed
of A<B; B<A; A=B but in opposite direction
the slower clock takes longer to accomplish a task, just as a slower car
only absolutes are here at work
the relative approach is a human post process, and postprocessing can be
as manipulating as we want depend on what we want to extract from the data,
considering these manipulation, even when correctly done, as fundamental
facts of nature is reversing the priorities and the chain of relevance,
is obscuring the very basic absolute elementary facts of nature, hence the conceptual mess
the human intervention in observing nature must not change the observed
facts, that are and must remain absolute
Post by Odd Bodkin
But now take the same A and B and choose a third observer that is moving
more closely matched (not exactly the same, but closer) to the speed of A
compared to B. Now B<A.
But now take the same A and B and choose a third observer that is moving
more closely matched to the the speed of B compared to A. Now B>A.
These are real experimental results by the way.
Now tell me how you would make sense of the observations that just by
choosing a DIFFERENT third observer, the comparative rates of A and B can
be A=B or B>A or B<A. Don’t tell me it’s impossible, because it’s a
verified result. I’m just wondering how you could make sense of that with
your absolutist view of the world. If you can’t, then this tells you that
observations trump your instincts.
beda
dear odd, the condition of the third observer is irrelevant, because it
is making a visual comparison
of the two light frequencies that A and B arriving to the observer contemporerely,
the rate of the clock of the observer has not any relevance, for the
immediate visual comparison.
Well, this is rather funny. So you say there are absolutes, but when it
comes to the observation that the rate of A compared to B may be A=B, A<B,
A>B depending on the choice of the third observer, and the fact that this
comparison does not yield a definitive, absolute answer doesn’t bother you
in the least.

All you have is dances and excuses why there is absoluteness but it is
veiled from observations, just like there is faith in an unseen Creator
whose existence is claimed but never revealed out in the open.
Post by beda pietanza
spend a little more attention to this, my insistence is because this will
help you grasp that an absolute difference
can never be reversed by any arbitrary arrengement.
also about the past, present and future, what is happening here, now is
after what has happened before here, there and all over
also the spatial position is absolutely unique and related
contemporaneously to all the positions of all objects, and immediately
referred to the local space.
the reconstruction or the representation problematic must not change this
absolute objective conditions, this absolutely wise
now, we have the SR heuristic approach, which is constructed in order to
rend the absolute superflous in some computations and measurements of
some characteristics of two objects relatively moving,
aside the validity and the conceptual coherence of such approach, my
claim is: the construction of the SR frames is based on the use of the
absolute speed of the light and of the absolute movement of the SR frame
at moment of setting the Esynchron span of the SR frame clocks,
the essential role of the absolute in the SR construction, if denied,
leads to a inevitable conceptual mess, just what we experience here in
this ng, witnessed not only by antiSRist, but by SR devotee as well.
cheers
beda
Post by Odd Bodkin
if speed of A<B or speed of B<A or speed of A=but opposite of the speed B
your logic has become irreversibly frame dependant: but nature doesn't
have frames: it works only with absolutes.
cheers
beda
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by beda pietanza
to make it simple we cancel the frame where they are at rest,
They are different rest frames. The clocks are moving relative to each
other. How do you “cancel” different frames?
Post by beda pietanza
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.
No, it doesn’t. Perhaps it would help to understand better what “ticking at
its usual rate” means in terms of metrology. It does not mean that the rate
of A is compared to B and is found to be ticking at the same rate. There is
no comparison of clocks in different frames made in determining “ticking at
its usual rate.”
What it means is that, comparing the clock readings to local and at-rest
physical processes, those processes continue to take the same amount of
time as measured on the local clock. Concretely, you might have a quartz
piezoelectric oscillator and a spring-mass oscillator next to clock A; and
you might have a fast-decaying radioactive sample and a magnetic pendulum
next to clock B. Clock A continues to tick at its usual rate if the number
of oscillations of the piezoelectric oscillator and the spring-mass
oscillator still have the same rate per tick as always. Clock B continues
to tick at its usual rate if the half-life of the sample and the
oscillations of the magnetic pendulum still have the value per tick as
always. There is no comparison between A and B. There are comparisons
between the clocks and local physics processes.
So you CANNOT say that A and B have the same rate. What you CAN say with
some confidence is that, though the physical processes that run the
piezoelectric crystal, the spring-mass system, the radioactive sample, and
the magnetic pendulum are all completely different than each other, it is
still true that the laws of the physics that run all those processes are
the same in the rest frame of A and the rest frame of B. That’s what the
principle of relativity says: the laws of physics are the same in different
inertial frames. Interestingly, this does NOT force A and B to have the
same rate, because here you’ve not compared them with each other at all.
Post by beda pietanza
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.
Well, let’s see, if I can parse what you attempted to say, maybe you’re
asking what if it’s the case that whatever it is that is slowing clock B
(relative to A) is ALSO slowing the physical process behind the radioactive
decay and is ALSO slowing the physical process behind the magnetic
pendulum? And so there’s some hypothesis that, though the specific physical
processes used to benchmark clock B were selected at random, it JUST SO
HAPPENS that these particular processes are modified to slow at EXACTLY the
same factor as clock B. And since they were randomly chosen, others could
have been chosen, and so you’d come to the mysterious conclusion that NO
MATTER WHAT process is used to benchmark clock B, that process is
mysteriously slowed by exactly the same factor to follow the clock.
And so you’d rather believe that motion has a deep effect on ALL physical
processes to produce EXACTLY the same kind of slow-down that clock B is
experiencing, and that’s why clock B still APPEARS to tick at the same
rate, even though it is in fact slowed down absolutely. Is that what you’re
asking me to entertain?
Post by beda pietanza
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
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
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
mitchr...@gmail.com
2021-06-08 17:56:34 UTC
Permalink
Slow time is real just as slow moving clock parts are...
Loading...