Discussion:
Is a proper second represent a specific interval of absolute time???
kenseto
2010-09-14 17:03:10 UTC
Is a proper second represent a specific interval of absolute time???
Definition for a proper second: it is a second at the rest frame of a
clock.
The answer to this question is yes.
Why?
Because a clock second in the rest frame of the clock does represent a
specific interval of absolute time. However, it is important to
realize that a clock second does not represent the same interval of
absolute time in different frames....this is the reason why clocks in
different frames run at different rates. This means that one can't
compare clock second accumulated during the journey of a clock to a
clock second accumulated on the stay at home clock. This means that
the twin paradox never happen in terms of absolute time.

The math of SR/GR is design to determine the clock time value on an
observed clock for an interval of proper time (absolute time) on the
observer's clock. The GPS supports this interpretation. The GPS
second is redefined to have 4.46 more periods of Cs 133 radiation.
This redefinition of the GPS second is designed to make the GPS second
contains the same amount of absolute time as a ground clock second and
thus making the GPS in synch with the ground clock permanently.
A new theory of relativity called IRT uses this interpretation. IRT
includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT
are valid in all environments, including gravity. A paper on IRT is
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf

Ken Seto
harald
2010-09-14 17:12:39 UTC
Post by kenseto
Is a proper second represent a specific interval of absolute time???
Definition for a proper second: it is a second at the rest frame of a
clock.
And your definition of "absolute time" is?
Post by kenseto
The answer to this question is yes.
Why?
Because a clock second in the rest frame of the clock does represent a
specific interval of absolute time. However, it is important to
realize that a clock second does not represent the same interval of
absolute time in different frames....this is the reason why clocks in
different frames run at different rates. This means that one can't
compare clock second accumulated during the journey of a clock to a
clock second accumulated on the stay at home clock. This means that
the twin paradox never happen in terms of absolute time.
The math of SR/GR is design to determine the clock time value on an
observed clock for an interval of proper time (absolute time) on the
observer's clock.  The GPS supports this interpretation. The GPS
second is redefined to have 4.46 more periods of Cs 133 radiation.
This redefinition of the GPS second is designed to make the GPS second
contains the same amount of absolute time as a ground clock second and
thus making the GPS in synch with the ground clock permanently.
A new theory of relativity called IRT uses this interpretation. IRT
includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT
are valid in all environments, including gravity. A paper on IRT is
Ken Seto
kenseto
2010-09-16 13:23:16 UTC
Post by harald
Post by kenseto
Is a proper second represent a specific interval of absolute time???
Definition for a proper second: it is a second at the rest frame of a
clock.
And your definition of "absolute time" is?
Absolute time: Absolute time is duration. The rate of passage of
absolute time is the same for all clocks independent of their states
of individual motion.
A clock second does not represent the same amount of absolute time in
different frames. That's why clocks in relative motion are running at
different rates. This new concept means that the current definition
for a clock second is not a universal interval of absolute time since
it contains a different amount of absolute time in different frames.
The GPS uses absolute time to synch the GPS clock with the ground
clock permanently by redefining the GPS second to have 4.46 more
periods of Cs 133 radiation. This is designed to make the redefined
GPS second represents the same amount of absolute time as a standard
ground clock second.
Also the SR/GR or IRT equations are designed to predict the clock
reading on an observed clock for a specific interval of proper time
(absolute time) on the observer's clcok.

Ken Seto

Ken Seto
Post by harald
Post by kenseto
The answer to this question is yes.
Why?
Because a clock second in the rest frame of the clock does represent a
specific interval of absolute time. However, it is important to
realize that a clock second does not represent the same interval of
absolute time in different frames....this is the reason why clocks in
different frames run at different rates. This means that one can't
compare clock second accumulated during the journey of a clock to a
clock second accumulated on the stay at home clock. This means that
the twin paradox never happen in terms of absolute time.
The math of SR/GR is design to determine the clock time value on an
observed clock for an interval of proper time (absolute time) on the
observer's clock.  The GPS supports this interpretation. The GPS
second is redefined to have 4.46 more periods of Cs 133 radiation.
This redefinition of the GPS second is designed to make the GPS second
contains the same amount of absolute time as a ground clock second and
thus making the GPS in synch with the ground clock permanently.
A new theory of relativity called IRT uses this interpretation. IRT
includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT
are valid in all environments, including gravity. A paper on IRT is
Ken Seto- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Peter Webb
2010-09-16 13:33:42 UTC
Post by harald
Post by kenseto
Is a proper second represent a specific interval of absolute time???
Definition for a proper second: it is a second at the rest frame of a
clock.
And your definition of "absolute time" is?
Absolute time: Absolute time is duration. The rate of passage of
absolute time is the same for all clocks independent of their states
of individual motion.
A clock second does not represent the same amount of absolute time in
different frames. That's why clocks in relative motion are running at
different rates. This new concept .....

__________________________________

Hold it right there. This concept is not new; it is the ether theory of
Lorentz, which briefly existed before SR. Over 100 years old.
kenseto
2010-09-16 14:49:33 UTC
On Sep 16, 9:33 am, "Peter Webb"
Post by kenseto
Post by harald
Post by kenseto
Is a proper second represent a specific interval of absolute time???
Definition for a proper second: it is a second at the rest frame of a
clock.
And your definition of "absolute time" is?
Absolute time: Absolute time is duration. The rate of passage of
absolute time is the same for all clocks independent of their states
of individual motion.
A clock second does not represent the same amount of absolute time in
different frames. That's why clocks in relative motion are running at
different rates. This new concept .....
__________________________________
Hold it right there. This concept is not new; it is the ether theory of
Lorentz, which briefly existed before SR. Over 100 years old.
It is new because Lorentz never include the idea that a clock second
does not represent the same amount of absolute time in different
frames.
PD
2010-09-16 15:02:53 UTC
Post by kenseto
On Sep 16, 9:33 am, "Peter Webb"
Post by kenseto
Post by harald
Post by kenseto
Is a proper second represent a specific interval of absolute time???
Definition for a proper second: it is a second at the rest frame of a
clock.
And your definition of "absolute time" is?
Absolute time: Absolute time is duration. The rate of passage of
absolute time is the same for all clocks independent of their states
of individual motion.
A clock second does not represent the same amount of absolute time in
different frames. That's why clocks in relative motion are running at
different rates. This new concept .....
__________________________________
Hold it right there. This concept is not new; it is the ether theory of
Lorentz, which briefly existed before SR. Over 100 years old.
It is new because Lorentz never include the idea that a clock second
does not represent the same amount of absolute time in different
frames.
Actually, yes he did.
PD
2010-09-16 13:47:44 UTC
Post by kenseto
Post by harald
Post by kenseto
Is a proper second represent a specific interval of absolute time???
Definition for a proper second: it is a second at the rest frame of a
clock.
And your definition of "absolute time" is?
Absolute time: Absolute time is duration.
OK.
Post by kenseto
The rate of passage of
absolute time is the same for all clocks independent of their states
of individual motion.
That's an assertion. Assertion is not an argument.

PD
kenseto
2010-09-16 14:45:47 UTC
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by harald
Post by kenseto
Is a proper second represent a specific interval of absolute time???
Definition for a proper second: it is a second at the rest frame of a
clock.
And your definition of "absolute time" is?
Absolute time: Absolute time is duration.
OK.
Post by kenseto
The rate of passage of
absolute time is the same for all clocks independent of their states
of individual motion.
That's an assertion. Assertion is not an argument.
No idiot this is not an assertion. It is a definition.
PD
2010-09-16 15:04:05 UTC
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by harald
Post by kenseto
Is a proper second represent a specific interval of absolute time???
Definition for a proper second: it is a second at the rest frame of a
clock.
And your definition of "absolute time" is?
Absolute time: Absolute time is duration.
OK.
Post by kenseto
The rate of passage of
absolute time is the same for all clocks independent of their states
of individual motion.
That's an assertion. Assertion is not an argument.
No idiot this is not an assertion. It is a definition.
No, it isn't. You are making a statement of fact about duration being
the same for all clocks independent of their states of motion.
harald
2010-09-16 14:03:20 UTC
Post by kenseto
Post by harald
Post by kenseto
Is a proper second represent a specific interval of absolute time???
Definition for a proper second: it is a second at the rest frame of a
clock.
And your definition of "absolute time" is?
Absolute time: Absolute time is duration. The rate of passage of
absolute time is the same for all clocks independent of their states
of individual motion.
OK, so far that corresponds to Newton's definition: "absolute"
anything relates to the perspective from "absolute space" - so to say
a "God's eye perspective". However, that cannot be what you mean, as
becomes clear next!
Post by kenseto
A clock second does not represent the same amount of absolute time in
different frames.
Newton spoke of "the vulgar measures" of time; in his theory these
measures correspond approximately to absolute time, but since Lorentz
and Larmor we know better.

However, I do not follow what you mean with "the same amount of
absolute time in different frames"; to me that phrase is meaningless.
If you mean inertial coordinate systems, these do not measure Newton's
absolute time at all! And below you claim that "GPS uses absolute
time", while that is also incompatible with what other people mean
with it. And in the end you pretend that you in fact mean what others
call "proper time"; however, GPS does not use proper clock time.

Thus the mystery of what you mean with "absolute time" remains.
Post by kenseto
That's why clocks in relative motion are running at different rates.
I also did not copy your cause and effect...

Harald
Post by kenseto
This new concept means that the current definition
for a clock second is not a universal interval of absolute time since
it contains a different amount of absolute time in different frames.
The GPS uses absolute time to synch the GPS clock with the ground
clock permanently by redefining the GPS second to have 4.46 more
periods of Cs 133 radiation. This is designed to make the redefined
GPS second represents the same amount of absolute time as a standard
ground clock second.
Also the SR/GR or IRT equations are designed to predict the clock
reading on an observed clock for a specific interval of proper time
(absolute time) on the observer's clcok.
Ken Seto
Ken Seto
Post by harald
Post by kenseto
The answer to this question is yes.
Why?
Because a clock second in the rest frame of the clock does represent a
specific interval of absolute time. However, it is important to
realize that a clock second does not represent the same interval of
absolute time in different frames....this is the reason why clocks in
different frames run at different rates. This means that one can't
compare clock second accumulated during the journey of a clock to a
clock second accumulated on the stay at home clock. This means that
the twin paradox never happen in terms of absolute time.
The math of SR/GR is design to determine the clock time value on an
observed clock for an interval of proper time (absolute time) on the
observer's clock.  The GPS supports this interpretation. The GPS
second is redefined to have 4.46 more periods of Cs 133 radiation.
This redefinition of the GPS second is designed to make the GPS second
contains the same amount of absolute time as a ground clock second and
thus making the GPS in synch with the ground clock permanently.
A new theory of relativity called IRT uses this interpretation. IRT
includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT
are valid in all environments, including gravity. A paper on IRT is
Ken Seto- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
kenseto
2010-09-16 15:09:42 UTC
Post by harald
Post by kenseto
Post by harald
Post by kenseto
Is a proper second represent a specific interval of absolute time???
Definition for a proper second: it is a second at the rest frame of a
clock.
And your definition of "absolute time" is?
Absolute time: Absolute time is duration. The rate of passage of
absolute time is the same for all clocks independent of their states
of individual motion.
OK, so far that corresponds to Newton's definition: "absolute"
anything relates to the perspective from "absolute space" -  so to say
a "God's eye perspective". However, that cannot be what you mean, as
becomes clear next!
Post by kenseto
A clock second does not represent the same amount of absolute time in
different frames.
Newton spoke of "the vulgar measures" of time; in his theory these
measures correspond approximately to absolute time, but since Lorentz
and Larmor we know better.
Newton is correct....a clock cannot keep the same rate of passage of
absolute time in different frames.....that's why he said "the vulgar
measures" of time.
Post by harald
However, I do not follow what you mean with "the same amount of
absolute time in different frames"; to me that phrase is meaningless.
Why is that meaningless?....a clock second in the observer's frame is
worth 1/gamma second on the observed clock....both 1 second on
observer's clock and 1/gamma second on the observed clock contains the
same amount of absolute time. So why is that so hard for you to
understand???
Post by harald
If you mean inertial coordinate systems, these do not measure Newton's
absolute time at all!
No that's not what I mean...every observer's clock second contains a
specific amount of absolute time. If you want to know the clock value
for this amount of absolute time on an observed clock you use SR/GR or
IRT.
Post by harald
And below you claim that "GPS uses absolute
time", while that is also incompatible with what other people mean
with it.
The GPS uses absolute time by redefining its clock second to have 4.46
more periods of Cs 133 radiation. The redfined GPS second and the
standard ground clock second contains the same amount of absolute
time.
Post by harald
And in the end you pretend that you in fact mean what others
call "proper time"; however, GPS does not use proper clock time.
From the GPS point of view a standard clock second is its proper time
(proper second or specific amount of absolute time). A GPS observer
would use SR/GR or IRT to determine the value of its proper second on
the ground clock. What so hard about that??

Ken Seto
Post by harald
Thus the mystery of what you mean with "absolute time" remains.
Post by kenseto
That's why clocks in relative motion are running at different rates.
I also did not copy your cause and effect...
Harald
Post by kenseto
This new concept means that the current definition
for a clock second is not a universal interval of absolute time since
it contains a different amount of absolute time in different frames.
The GPS uses absolute time to synch the GPS clock with the ground
clock permanently by redefining the GPS second to have 4.46 more
periods of Cs 133 radiation. This is designed to make the redefined
GPS second represents the same amount of absolute time as a standard
ground clock second.
Also the SR/GR or IRT equations are designed to predict the clock
reading on an observed clock for a specific interval of proper time
(absolute time) on the observer's clcok.
Ken Seto
Ken Seto
Post by harald
Post by kenseto
The answer to this question is yes.
Why?
Because a clock second in the rest frame of the clock does represent a
specific interval of absolute time. However, it is important to
realize that a clock second does not represent the same interval of
absolute time in different frames....this is the reason why clocks in
different frames run at different rates. This means that one can't
compare clock second accumulated during the journey of a clock to a
clock second accumulated on the stay at home clock. This means that
the twin paradox never happen in terms of absolute time.
The math of SR/GR is design to determine the clock time value on an
observed clock for an interval of proper time (absolute time) on the
observer's clock.  The GPS supports this interpretation. The GPS
second is redefined to have 4.46 more periods of Cs 133 radiation.
This redefinition of the GPS second is designed to make the GPS second
contains the same amount of absolute time as a ground clock second and
thus making the GPS in synch with the ground clock permanently.
A new theory of relativity called IRT uses this interpretation. IRT
includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT
are valid in all environments, including gravity. A paper on IRT is
Ken Seto- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
harald
2010-09-16 21:38:02 UTC
Post by kenseto
Post by harald
Post by kenseto
Post by harald
Post by kenseto
Is a proper second represent a specific interval of absolute time???
Definition for a proper second: it is a second at the rest frame of a
clock.
And your definition of "absolute time" is?
Absolute time: Absolute time is duration. The rate of passage of
absolute time is the same for all clocks independent of their states
of individual motion.
OK, so far that corresponds to Newton's definition: "absolute"
anything relates to the perspective from "absolute space" -  so to say
a "God's eye perspective". However, that cannot be what you mean, as
becomes clear next!
Post by kenseto
A clock second does not represent the same amount of absolute time in
different frames.
Newton spoke of "the vulgar measures" of time; in his theory these
measures correspond approximately to absolute time, but since Lorentz
and Larmor we know better.
Newton is correct....a clock cannot keep the same rate of passage of
absolute time in different frames.....that's why he said "the vulgar
measures" of time.
Post by harald
However, I do not follow what you mean with "the same amount of
absolute time in different frames"; to me that phrase is meaningless.
Why is that meaningless?....a clock second in the observer's frame is
worth 1/gamma second on the observed clock....
I can parse that sentence, IF the observer's frame is in absolute
rest. Then the moving clock's second indicates 1/gamma of absolute
seconds.
Post by kenseto
both 1 second on
observer's clock and 1/gamma second on the observed clock contains the
same amount of absolute time.
Ok, for the same condition.
Post by kenseto
So why is that so hard for you to understand???
Ambiguities, due to possibilities that you perhaps don't even imagine.
Post by kenseto
Post by harald
If you mean inertial coordinate systems, these do not measure Newton's
absolute time at all!
No that's not what I mean...every observer's clock second contains a
specific amount of absolute time. If you want to know the clock value
for this amount of absolute time on an observed clock you use SR/GR or
IRT.
SRT cannot tell us what the clock value for an amount of absolute time
will be, because SRT cannot tell us our absolute speed.
Post by kenseto
Post by harald
And below you claim that "GPS uses absolute
time", while that is also incompatible with what other people mean
with it.
The GPS uses absolute time by redefining its clock second to have 4.46
more periods of Cs 133 radiation.
Ken, that is NOT absolute time by any means...
Post by kenseto
The redfined GPS second and the
standard ground clock second contains the same amount of absolute
time.
Yes indeed - on the average. However, nobody can tell how much that
is.
Post by kenseto
Post by harald
And in the end you pretend that you in fact mean what others
call "proper time"; however, GPS does not use proper clock time.
From the GPS point of view a standard clock second is its proper time
(proper second or specific amount of absolute time). A GPS observer
would use SR/GR or IRT to determine the value of its proper second on
the ground clock. What so hard about that??
That's simple: you misapply nearly all the terms that you use!

Harald
Post by kenseto
Ken Seto
Post by harald
Thus the mystery of what you mean with "absolute time" remains.
Post by kenseto
That's why clocks in relative motion are running at different rates.
I also did not copy your cause and effect...
Harald
Post by kenseto
This new concept means that the current definition
for a clock second is not a universal interval of absolute time since
it contains a different amount of absolute time in different frames.
The GPS uses absolute time to synch the GPS clock with the ground
clock permanently by redefining the GPS second to have 4.46 more
periods of Cs 133 radiation. This is designed to make the redefined
GPS second represents the same amount of absolute time as a standard
ground clock second.
Also the SR/GR or IRT equations are designed to predict the clock
reading on an observed clock for a specific interval of proper time
(absolute time) on the observer's clcok.
Ken Seto
Ken Seto
Post by harald
Post by kenseto
The answer to this question is yes.
Why?
Because a clock second in the rest frame of the clock does represent a
specific interval of absolute time. However, it is important to
realize that a clock second does not represent the same interval of
absolute time in different frames....this is the reason why clocks in
different frames run at different rates. This means that one can't
compare clock second accumulated during the journey of a clock to a
clock second accumulated on the stay at home clock. This means that
the twin paradox never happen in terms of absolute time.
The math of SR/GR is design to determine the clock time value on an
observed clock for an interval of proper time (absolute time) on the
observer's clock.  The GPS supports this interpretation. The GPS
second is redefined to have 4.46 more periods of Cs 133 radiation.
This redefinition of the GPS second is designed to make the GPS second
contains the same amount of absolute time as a ground clock second and
thus making the GPS in synch with the ground clock permanently.
A new theory of relativity called IRT uses this interpretation. IRT
includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT
are valid in all environments, including gravity. A paper on IRT is
Ken Seto- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
kenseto
2010-09-18 12:43:13 UTC
Post by harald
Post by kenseto
Post by harald
Post by kenseto
Post by harald
Post by kenseto
Is a proper second represent a specific interval of absolute time???
Definition for a proper second: it is a second at the rest frame of a
clock.
And your definition of "absolute time" is?
Absolute time: Absolute time is duration. The rate of passage of
absolute time is the same for all clocks independent of their states
of individual motion.
OK, so far that corresponds to Newton's definition: "absolute"
anything relates to the perspective from "absolute space" -  so to say
a "God's eye perspective". However, that cannot be what you mean, as
becomes clear next!
Post by kenseto
A clock second does not represent the same amount of absolute time in
different frames.
Newton spoke of "the vulgar measures" of time; in his theory these
measures correspond approximately to absolute time, but since Lorentz
and Larmor we know better.
Newton is correct....a clock cannot keep the same rate of passage of
absolute time in different frames.....that's why he said "the vulgar
measures" of time.
Post by harald
However, I do not follow what you mean with "the same amount of
absolute time in different frames"; to me that phrase is meaningless.
Why is that meaningless?....a clock second in the observer's frame is
worth 1/gamma second on the observed clock....
I can parse that sentence, IF the observer's frame is in absolute
rest. Then the moving clock's second indicates 1/gamma of absolute
seconds.
But 1/gamma second on the observed clock is not 1/gamma of absolute
second. There is no definition for an absolute second. An observer
assumes that his clock second represents a specific amount of absolute
time. He uses SR/GR or IRT to predict the value on an observed clock
for this specific interval of absolute time. SR predicts this value is
1/gamma second on the observed clock and IRT predicts that it can be 1/
gamma or gamma seconds on the observed clock.
Post by harald
Post by kenseto
both 1 second on
observer's clock and 1/gamma second on the observed clock contains the
same amount of absolute time.
Ok, for the same condition.
Post by kenseto
So why is that so hard for you to understand???
Ambiguities, due to possibilities that you perhaps don't even imagine.
No ambiguity...Absolute time is the only time exists. A clock second
at the rest frame of the clock represents a specific amount of
absolute time. The amount of absolute time contained in the observer's
clock second is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the
observer (his clock). In SR you call this time dilation.
Post by harald
Post by kenseto
Post by harald
If you mean inertial coordinate systems, these do not measure Newton's
absolute time at all!
No that's not what I mean...every observer's clock second contains a
specific amount of absolute time. If you want to know the clock value
for this amount of absolute time on an observed clock you use SR/GR or
IRT.
SRT cannot tell us what the clock value for an amount of absolute time
will be, because SRT cannot tell us our absolute speed.
Sigh...you don't need to know the absolute speed. The observer uses
the relative velocity to predict.
Post by harald
Post by kenseto
Post by harald
And below you claim that "GPS uses absolute
time", while that is also incompatible with what other people mean
with it.
The GPS uses absolute time by redefining its clock second to have 4.46
more periods of Cs 133 radiation.
Ken, that is NOT absolute time by any means...
Sure it is. The redefined GPS second contain the same amount of
absolute time as a ground clock second and thus making the GPS in
synch with the ground clock permanently.
Post by harald
Post by kenseto
The redfined GPS second and the
standard ground clock second contains the same amount of absolute
time.
Yes indeed - on the average. However, nobody can tell how much that
is.
The specific of absolute time we are talking about is represented by
9,192,631,770 periods of cs 133 radiation on the ground clock and it
is represented by 9,192,631,774.46 periods of Cs 133 radiation on the
GPS clock.

Ken Seto
Post by harald
Post by kenseto
Post by harald
And in the end you pretend that you in fact mean what others
call "proper time"; however, GPS does not use proper clock time.
From the GPS point of view a standard clock second is its proper time
(proper second or specific amount of absolute time). A GPS observer
would use SR/GR or IRT to determine the value of its proper second on
the ground clock. What so hard about that??
That's simple: you misapply nearly all the terms that you use!
Harald
Post by kenseto
Ken Seto
Post by harald
Thus the mystery of what you mean with "absolute time" remains.
Post by kenseto
That's why clocks in relative motion are running at different rates.
I also did not copy your cause and effect...
Harald
Post by kenseto
This new concept means that the current definition
for a clock second is not a universal interval of absolute time since
it contains a different amount of absolute time in different frames.
The GPS uses absolute time to synch the GPS clock with the ground
clock permanently by redefining the GPS second to have 4.46 more
periods of Cs 133 radiation. This is designed to make the redefined
GPS second represents the same amount of absolute time as a standard
ground clock second.
Also the SR/GR or IRT equations are designed to predict the clock
reading on an observed clock for a specific interval of proper time
(absolute time) on the observer's clcok.
Ken Seto
Ken Seto
Post by harald
Post by kenseto
The answer to this question is yes.
Why?
Because a clock second in the rest frame of the clock does represent a
specific interval of absolute time. However, it is important to
realize that a clock second does not represent the same interval of
absolute time in different frames....this is the reason why clocks in
different frames run at different rates. This means that one can't
compare clock second accumulated during the journey of a clock to a
clock second accumulated on the stay at home clock. This means that
the twin paradox never happen in terms of absolute time.
The math of SR/GR is design to determine the clock time value on an
observed clock for an interval of proper time (absolute time) on the
observer's clock.  The GPS supports this interpretation. The GPS
second is redefined to have 4.46 more periods of Cs 133 radiation.
This redefinition of the GPS second is designed to make the GPS second
contains the same amount of absolute time as a ground clock second and
thus making the GPS in synch with the ground clock permanently.
A new theory of relativity called IRT uses this interpretation. IRT
includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT
are valid in all environments, including gravity. A paper on IRT is
Ken Seto- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Inertial
2010-09-16 22:18:18 UTC
Post by kenseto
Post by harald
Post by kenseto
Is a proper second represent a specific interval of absolute time???
Definition for a proper second: it is a second at the rest frame of a
clock.
And your definition of "absolute time" is?
Absolute time: Absolute time is duration.
That doesn't help .. time as measured in any inertial frame is duration.
What makes absolute time different to time in any particular frame
Post by kenseto
The rate of passage of
absolute time is the same for all clocks independent of their states
of individual motion.
But that is not true .. we know that from experiment.

So .. as I said before .. there is no absolute time
Post by kenseto
A clock second does not represent the same amount of absolute time in
different frames.
You just said it did .. you said the passage of absolute time is the same
for all clocks
Post by kenseto
That's why clocks in relative motion are running at
different rates.
But you said the rate was the same for all frames
kenseto
2010-09-17 13:00:21 UTC
Post by Inertial
Post by kenseto
Post by harald
Post by kenseto
Is a proper second represent a specific interval of absolute time???
Definition for a proper second: it is a second at the rest frame of a
clock.
And your definition of "absolute time" is?
Absolute time: Absolute time is duration.
That doesn't help .. time as measured in any inertial frame is duration.
What makes absolute time different to time in any particular frame
Observer A's clock second represent a specific interval of duration
(absolute time). Observer B's clock second represents a different
specific interval of duration (absolute time). These differences in
the absolute time content for a clock second between A and B causes
them to run at different rates. The math of SR/GR or IRT is used to
predict the clock reading on each other's clock for a specific
interval of absolute time.
Post by Inertial
Post by kenseto
The rate of passage of
absolute time is the same for all clocks independent of their states
of individual motion.
But that is not true .. we know that from experiment.
It is certainly true...the GPS uses absolute time to synch the GPS
with the ground clock. The GPS second is redefined to have 4.46 more
periods of Cs 133 radiation. This is designed to make the GPS second
contains the same amount of absolute time as a ground clock second.
Post by Inertial
So .. as I said before .. there is no absolute time
This is an assertion and assertion is not a valid arguement.
Post by Inertial
Post by kenseto
A clock second does not represent the same amount of absolute time in
different frames.
You just said it did .. you said the passage of absolute time is the same
for all clocks
Hey idiot...I said that the rate of passage of absolute time is the
same in all frames but the rate of passage of clock seconds is
different between A and B. This is due to an A second contains a
different amount of absolute time than a B second.

Ken Seto
Post by Inertial
Post by kenseto
That's why clocks in relative motion are running at
different rates.
But you said the rate was the same for all frames
Inertial
2010-09-18 00:22:14 UTC
Post by kenseto
Post by Inertial
Post by kenseto
Post by harald
Post by kenseto
Is a proper second represent a specific interval of absolute time???
Definition for a proper second: it is a second at the rest frame of a
clock.
And your definition of "absolute time" is?
Absolute time: Absolute time is duration.
That doesn't help .. time as measured in any inertial frame is duration.
What makes absolute time different to time in any particular frame
Observer A's clock second represent a specific interval of duration
(absolute time).
But what is absolute time .. you've not defined it yet
Post by kenseto
Observer B's clock second represents a different
specific interval of duration (absolute time).
But what is absolute time .. you've not defined it yet

And why do you think whatever-absolute-time-is is different for these two
clocks?
Post by kenseto
These differences in
the absolute time content
What difference? What absolute time content. You need to DEFINE absolute
time, and you need to SHOW there is a difference in it
Post by kenseto
for a clock second between A and B causes
them to run at different rates. The math of SR/GR or IRT is used to
predict the clock reading on each other's clock for a specific
interval of absolute time.
No .. SR/GR do not use absolute time .. and you have not defined it
Post by kenseto
Post by Inertial
Post by kenseto
The rate of passage of
absolute time is the same for all clocks independent of their states
of individual motion.
But that is not true .. we know that from experiment.
It is certainly true
Wrong
Post by kenseto
...the GPS uses absolute time
Wrong .. there is no absolute time used in GPS satelliets
Post by kenseto
to synch the GPS
with the ground clock. The GPS second is redefined to have 4.46 more
Wrong .. there is no change in the definitions of a second. There is a
change in the ticking rate of the clock to match ground clocks. It is a
matching of clock times. No 'absoute time' (whatever that is) is involved.
Post by kenseto
This is designed to make the GPS second
contains the same amount of absolute time as a ground clock second.
There is no absolute time. It makes clock time on the satellites match
clock time on the ground.
Post by kenseto
Post by Inertial
So .. as I said before .. there is no absolute time
This is an assertion and assertion is not a valid arguement.
That is what you are doing . You have no argument. You cannot even define
your terms. You are a hypocrite
Post by kenseto
Post by Inertial
Post by kenseto
A clock second does not represent the same amount of absolute time in
different frames.
You just said it did .. you said the passage of absolute time is the same
for all clocks
Hey idiot...I said that the rate of passage of absolute time is the
same in all frames but the rate of passage of clock seconds is
different between A and B.
That is not what you said
Post by kenseto
This is due to an A second contains a
different amount of absolute time than a B second.
What is absolute time? What evidence do you have the there is different
amounts of it for relatively moving clocks. Assertion is not valid argument
you know. You are making assertions about undefined things. Come back when
you know what you're talking about.
BURT
2010-09-18 01:01:34 UTC
Post by Inertial
Post by kenseto
Post by Inertial
Post by kenseto
Post by harald
Post by kenseto
Is a proper second represent a specific interval of absolute time???
Definition for a proper second: it is a second at the rest frame of a
clock.
And your definition of "absolute time" is?
Absolute time: Absolute time is duration.
That doesn't help .. time as measured in any inertial frame is duration.
What makes absolute time different to time in any particular frame
Observer A's clock second represent a specific interval of duration
(absolute time).
But what is absolute time .. you've not defined it yet
Post by kenseto
Observer B's clock second represents a different
specific interval of duration (absolute time).
But what is absolute time .. you've not defined it yet
And why do you think whatever-absolute-time-is is different for these two
clocks?
Post by kenseto
These differences in
the absolute time content
What difference?  What absolute time content.  You need to DEFINE absolute
time, and you need to SHOW there is a difference in it
Post by kenseto
for a clock second between A and B causes
them to run at different rates. The math of SR/GR or IRT is used to
predict the clock reading on each other's clock for a specific
interval of absolute time.
No .. SR/GR do not use absolute time .. and you have not defined it
Post by kenseto
Post by Inertial
Post by kenseto
The rate of passage of
absolute time is the same for all clocks independent of their states
of individual motion.
But that is not true .. we know that from experiment.
It is certainly true
Wrong
Post by kenseto
...the GPS uses absolute time
Wrong .. there is no absolute time used in GPS satelliets
Post by kenseto
to synch the GPS
with the ground clock. The GPS second is redefined to have 4.46 more
Wrong .. there is no change in the definitions of a second.  There is a
change in the ticking rate of the clock to match ground clocks.  It is a
matching of clock times.  No 'absoute time' (whatever that is) is involved.
Post by kenseto
This is designed to make the GPS second
contains the same amount of absolute time as a ground clock second.
There is no absolute time.  It makes clock time on the satellites match
clock time on the ground.
Post by kenseto
Post by Inertial
So .. as I said before .. there is no absolute time
This is an assertion and assertion is not a valid arguement.
That is what you are doing . You have no argument.  You cannot even define
your terms.  You are a hypocrite
Post by kenseto
Post by Inertial
Post by kenseto
A clock second does not represent the same amount of absolute time in
different frames.
You just said it did .. you said the passage of absolute time is the same
for all clocks
Hey idiot...I said that the rate of passage of absolute time is the
same in all frames but the rate of passage of clock seconds is
different between A and B.
That is not what you said
Post by kenseto
This is due to an A second contains a
different amount of absolute time than a B second.
What is absolute time?  What evidence do you have the there is different
amounts of it for relatively moving clocks.  Assertion is not valid argument
you know.  You are making assertions about undefined things.  Come back when
you know what you're talking about.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Time is proper time. If time ends proper time no longer exists.
This is a problem at the edge of a black hole. So is Schawarschild
space contraction.

Mitch Raemsch
BURT
2010-09-18 01:10:48 UTC
Post by Inertial
Post by kenseto
Post by Inertial
Post by kenseto
Post by harald
Post by kenseto
Is a proper second represent a specific interval of absolute time???
Definition for a proper second: it is a second at the rest frame of a
clock.
And your definition of "absolute time" is?
Absolute time: Absolute time is duration.
That doesn't help .. time as measured in any inertial frame is duration.
What makes absolute time different to time in any particular frame
Observer A's clock second represent a specific interval of duration
(absolute time).
But what is absolute time .. you've not defined it yet
Post by kenseto
Observer B's clock second represents a different
specific interval of duration (absolute time).
But what is absolute time .. you've not defined it yet
And why do you think whatever-absolute-time-is is different for these two
clocks?
Post by kenseto
These differences in
the absolute time content
What difference?  What absolute time content.  You need to DEFINE absolute
time, and you need to SHOW there is a difference in it
Post by kenseto
for a clock second between A and B causes
them to run at different rates. The math of SR/GR or IRT is used to
predict the clock reading on each other's clock for a specific
interval of absolute time.
No .. SR/GR do not use absolute time .. and you have not defined it
Post by kenseto
Post by Inertial
Post by kenseto
The rate of passage of
absolute time is the same for all clocks independent of their states
of individual motion.
But that is not true .. we know that from experiment.
It is certainly true
Wrong
Post by kenseto
...the GPS uses absolute time
Wrong .. there is no absolute time used in GPS satelliets
Post by kenseto
to synch the GPS
with the ground clock. The GPS second is redefined to have 4.46 more
Wrong .. there is no change in the definitions of a second.  There is a
change in the ticking rate of the clock to match ground clocks.  It is a
matching of clock times.  No 'absoute time' (whatever that is) is involved.
Post by kenseto
This is designed to make the GPS second
contains the same amount of absolute time as a ground clock second.
There is no absolute time.  It makes clock time on the satellites match
clock time on the ground.
Post by kenseto
Post by Inertial
So .. as I said before .. there is no absolute time
This is an assertion and assertion is not a valid arguement.
That is what you are doing . You have no argument.  You cannot even define
your terms.  You are a hypocrite
Post by kenseto
Post by Inertial
Post by kenseto
A clock second does not represent the same amount of absolute time in
different frames.
You just said it did .. you said the passage of absolute time is the same
for all clocks
Hey idiot...I said that the rate of passage of absolute time is the
same in all frames but the rate of passage of clock seconds is
different between A and B.
That is not what you said
Post by kenseto
This is due to an A second contains a
different amount of absolute time than a B second.
What is absolute time?  What evidence do you have the there is different
amounts of it for relatively moving clocks.  Assertion is not valid argument
you know.  You are making assertions about undefined things.  Come back when
you know what you're talking about.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Absolute time is two fold. Gravity and energy time. Both slow down
from their fastest points. Light's clock is the fastest.

Mitch Raemsch
kenseto
2010-09-18 12:46:00 UTC
Post by Inertial
Post by kenseto
Post by Inertial
Post by kenseto
Post by harald
Post by kenseto
Is a proper second represent a specific interval of absolute time???
Definition for a proper second: it is a second at the rest frame of a
clock.
And your definition of "absolute time" is?
Absolute time: Absolute time is duration.
That doesn't help .. time as measured in any inertial frame is duration.
What makes absolute time different to time in any particular frame
Observer A's clock second represent a specific interval of duration
(absolute time).
But what is absolute time .. you've not defined it yet
Yes I did....absolute time is duration. A clock second have different
duration in different frames and you call this time dilation.

Ken Seto
Post by Inertial
Post by kenseto
Observer B's clock second represents a different
specific interval of duration (absolute time).
But what is absolute time .. you've not defined it yet
And why do you think whatever-absolute-time-is is different for these two
clocks?
Post by kenseto
These differences in
the absolute time content
What difference?  What absolute time content.  You need to DEFINE absolute
time, and you need to SHOW there is a difference in it
Post by kenseto
for a clock second between A and B causes
them to run at different rates. The math of SR/GR or IRT is used to
predict the clock reading on each other's clock for a specific
interval of absolute time.
No .. SR/GR do not use absolute time .. and you have not defined it
Post by kenseto
Post by Inertial
Post by kenseto
The rate of passage of
absolute time is the same for all clocks independent of their states
of individual motion.
But that is not true .. we know that from experiment.
It is certainly true
Wrong
Post by kenseto
...the GPS uses absolute time
Wrong .. there is no absolute time used in GPS satelliets
Post by kenseto
to synch the GPS
with the ground clock. The GPS second is redefined to have 4.46 more
Wrong .. there is no change in the definitions of a second.  There is a
change in the ticking rate of the clock to match ground clocks.  It is a
matching of clock times.  No 'absoute time' (whatever that is) is involved.
Post by kenseto
This is designed to make the GPS second
contains the same amount of absolute time as a ground clock second.
There is no absolute time.  It makes clock time on the satellites match
clock time on the ground.
Post by kenseto
Post by Inertial
So .. as I said before .. there is no absolute time
This is an assertion and assertion is not a valid arguement.
That is what you are doing . You have no argument.  You cannot even define
your terms.  You are a hypocrite
Post by kenseto
Post by Inertial
Post by kenseto
A clock second does not represent the same amount of absolute time in
different frames.
You just said it did .. you said the passage of absolute time is the same
for all clocks
Hey idiot...I said that the rate of passage of absolute time is the
same in all frames but the rate of passage of clock seconds is
different between A and B.
That is not what you said
Post by kenseto
This is due to an A second contains a
different amount of absolute time than a B second.
What is absolute time?  What evidence do you have the there is different
amounts of it for relatively moving clocks.  Assertion is not valid argument
you know.  You are making assertions about undefined things.  Come back when
you know what you're talking about.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Inertial
2010-09-18 13:37:48 UTC
Post by kenseto
Post by Inertial
But what is absolute time .. you've not defined it yet
Yes I did....absolute time is duration.
BAHAHAHA. So is clock time. So clock time is absolute. But we know from
experiment that it isn't. Try again.
Post by kenseto
A clock second have different
duration in different frames
No .. a clock second in every frame is a clock second.
Post by kenseto
and you call this time dilation.
SR time dilation is the difference between the elapsed time on a single
moving clock and the time-difference between two synchronised stationary
clocks. It is caused by the differences in clock sync the stationary and
moving frames. And that effect is very easily shown able to be mutual, as I
have done before.

Your terminal ignorance of SR is well known, and shows no sign of a cure.
kenseto
2010-09-18 18:23:08 UTC
Post by kenseto
Post by Inertial
But what is absolute time .. you've not defined it yet
Yes I did....absolute time is duration.
BAHAHAHA.  So is clock time.  So clock time is absolute.  But we know from
experiment that it isn't.  Try again.
No idiot....a clock second represents a specific amount of absolute
time at the rest frame of the clock. This does not mean that a clock
second is an absolute time second.
Why? Because a clock second does not represent the same amount of
absolute time in different frames. You are so fucking stupid.
Post by kenseto
A clock second have different
duration in different frames
No .. a clock second in every frame is a clock second.
No idiot a clock second have different duration (different absolute
time content) in different frames.
Post by kenseto
and you call this time dilation.
SR time dilation is the difference between the elapsed time on a single
moving clock and the time-difference between two synchronised stationary
clocks.  It is caused by the differences in clock sync the stationary and
moving frames.
No idiot...it is caused by the clocks are running at different rates.

And that effect is very easily shown able to be mutual, as I
have done before.
You showed nothing.....clocks in relative motion accumulate clock
seconds at different rates. The clock that accumulate less clock
seconds cannot claim, measure, predict or see the clock that
accumulates more clock second as running slow. You are so fucking
stupid.

Ken Seto
Your terminal ignorance of SR is well known, and shows no sign of a cure.
Inertial
2010-09-19 13:38:51 UTC
Post by kenseto
Post by Inertial
Post by kenseto
Post by Inertial
But what is absolute time .. you've not defined it yet
Yes I did....absolute time is duration.
BAHAHAHA. So is clock time. So clock time is absolute. But we know from
experiment that it isn't. Try again.
No idiot....a clock second represents a specific amount of absolute
time at the rest frame of the clock
I second worth
Post by kenseto
. This does not mean that a clock
second is an absolute time second.
A second on a correctly ticking clock is one second. By defintion

[snip more nonsense from seto]
Post by kenseto
Post by Inertial
SR time dilation is the difference between the elapsed time on a single
moving clock and the time-difference between two synchronised stationary
clocks. It is caused by the differences in clock sync the stationary and
moving frames.
No idiot...it is caused by the clocks are running at different rates.
WRONG
Post by kenseto
Post by Inertial
And that effect is very easily shown able to be mutual, as I
have done before.
You showed nothing.....
Liar
Post by kenseto
Post by Inertial
Your terminal ignorance of SR is well known, and shows no sign of a cure.
kenseto
2010-09-19 15:49:28 UTC
Post by Inertial
Post by kenseto
Post by kenseto
Post by Inertial
But what is absolute time .. you've not defined it yet
Yes I did....absolute time is duration.
BAHAHAHA.  So is clock time.  So clock time is absolute.  But we know from
experiment that it isn't.  Try again.
No idiot....a clock second represents a specific amount of absolute
time at the rest frame of the clock
I second worth
Hey idiot...a second is not a universal interval of time....iow, it
does not have the same duration (absolute time content) in different
frames.
Post by Inertial
Post by kenseto
. This does not mean that a clock
second is an absolute time second.
A second on a correctly ticking clock is one second.  By defintion
The difinition is not universal....a second in different frame have
different duration.
Post by Inertial
[snip more nonsense from seto]
Post by kenseto
SR time dilation is the difference between the elapsed time on a single
moving clock and the time-difference between two synchronised stationary
clocks.  It is caused by the differences in clock sync the stationary and
moving frames.
No idiot...it is caused by the clocks are running at different rates.
WRONG
Not wrong....you are an idiot.

Ken Seto
Post by Inertial
Post by kenseto
And that effect is very easily shown able to be mutual, as I
have done before.
You showed nothing.....
Liar
Post by kenseto
Your terminal ignorance of SR is well known, and shows no sign of a cure.
Tom Roberts
2010-09-19 16:07:56 UTC
Post by kenseto
a second is not a universal interval of time....iow, it
does not have the same duration (absolute time content) in different
frames.
You keep writing as if "universal interval of time" has meaning. And as if
"absolute time" has meaning (in subject). In SR these phrases have no meaning,
because there is no "absolute" frame, and no "universal" standard with which to
define them (in which "universal" means "absolute" or "applies to all frames
simultaneously" or somesuch).

But in SR, for a clock at rest in an inertial frame, its interval of 1 second is
indeed a duration of 1 second IN THAT FRAME.

This actually goes deeper than SR and applies in GR also; based on the extensive
experimental confirmation of those theories, it appears to apply throughout the
world we inhabit.
Post by kenseto
The difinition is not universal....a second in different frame have
different duration.
This is just plain not true in SR -- in any inertial frame, 1 second has "the
duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the
transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium
133 atom." Where that atom is of course at rest in the inertial frame in question.

Note that I am forced to interpret your "duration" as "duration in that frame",
because that is the only way that word applies in SR.

You seem to have such strong opinions about "absolute time" that you cannot hear
anything else; that makes it utterly impossible for you to understand SR.

Tom Roberts
kenseto
2010-09-20 15:38:23 UTC
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by kenseto
a second is not a universal interval of time....iow, it
does not have the same duration (absolute time content) in different
frames.
You keep writing as if "universal interval of time" has meaning. And as if
"absolute time" has meaning (in subject).
Of course absolute time has meaning....it has the meaning of Newton's
absolute time.
Post by Tom Roberts
In SR these phrases have no meaning,
because there is no "absolute" frame, and no "universal" standard with which to
define them (in which "universal" means "absolute"
or "applies to all frames
Post by Tom Roberts
simultaneously" or somesuch).
That doesn't mean that absolute time doesn't exist...in fact absolute
time is the only time that exists....an interval of clock time (a
clock second) on the observer's clock represents a specific interval
of absolute time. SR/GR or IRT equations are used to determine the
clock value on an observed clock for a specific interval of absolute
time in the observer's frame.
In SR the clock value for a specific interval of absolute time (a
clock second)on the observer's clock is worth 1/gamma second on the
observed clock. In IRT the clock reading on an observed clock is 1/
gamma second or gamma seconds.
Post by Tom Roberts
But in SR, for a clock at rest in an inertial frame, its interval of 1 second is
indeed a duration of 1 second IN THAT FRAME.
Right....the PoR allows every SR observer to use the perferred frame
to do physics and the result of such usage gives rise to the bogus
concept of mutual time dialtion.
A clock second in any inertial frame does represent a specific
interval of absolute time (duration) but different inertial frames'
clock seconds will represent different specific intervals of absolute
time (duration).
Post by Tom Roberts
This actually goes deeper than SR and applies in GR also;
I agree the reason is that the only time exists is absolute time. The
rate of passage of absolute time is the same in all frames including
in a graavitational field.
Post by Tom Roberts
based on the extensive
experimental confirmation of those theories, it appears to apply throughout the
world we inhabit.
Yes absolute time is universal.
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by kenseto
The difinition is not universal....a second in different frame have
different duration.
This is just plain not true in SR -- in any inertial frame, 1 second has "the
duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the
transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium
133 atom." Where that atom is of course at rest in the inertial frame in question.
The GPS shows that it is true that a clock second using the same
standard defintion will have different duration (absolute time
content). The GPS designer knew that....they corrected this by
redefine the GPS second to have 4.46 more periods of Cs 133 radiation.
The redefined GPS second will have the same duration (absolute time
content) as a standard ground clock second which has 4.46 less periods
Post by Tom Roberts
Note that I am forced to interpret your "duration" as "duration in that frame",
because that is the only way that word applies in SR.
Yes, duration for a clock second or a specific interval absolute time
for a clcok second in the observer's frame....
Post by Tom Roberts
You seem to have such strong opinions about "absolute time" that you cannot hear
anything else; that makes it utterly impossible for you to understand SR.
You are wrong...I do undersatand SR. That's the reason I was able to
develop IRT that includes SR as a subset.
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf

Ken Seto
Post by Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
PD
2010-09-20 17:10:07 UTC
Post by kenseto
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by kenseto
a second is not a universal interval of time....iow, it
does not have the same duration (absolute time content) in different
frames.
You keep writing as if "universal interval of time" has meaning. And as if
"absolute time" has meaning (in subject).
Of course absolute time has meaning....it has the meaning of Newton's
absolute time.
Then yours is not quite the same as his.
His was an *assumption* about how clocks would behave. It was his
*assumption* that identically constructed clocks would all tick at the
same rate regardless of their motion or their location. This was an
assumption that needed to be tested.

Since then, it has been tested. Had he been privy to those results, he
would have never made that assumption.

One key difference between you and Newton is that you made the
assumption regardless of the evidence to the contrary.

Another key difference is that you've been quite a nincompoop about
that.

PD
kenseto
2010-09-20 17:58:17 UTC
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by kenseto
a second is not a universal interval of time....iow, it
does not have the same duration (absolute time content) in different
frames.
You keep writing as if "universal interval of time" has meaning. And as if
"absolute time" has meaning (in subject).
Of course absolute time has meaning....it has the meaning of Newton's
absolute time.
Then yours is not quite the same as his.
His was an *assumption* about how clocks would behave. It was his
*assumption* that identically constructed clocks would all tick at the
same rate regardless of their motion or their location. This was an
assumption that needed to be tested.
No physical clock or defintion for unit of clock time (a clock
second)can represent the same interval of absolute time in different
frames. The SR/GR or IRT equations are designed to predict the clock
time value on an observed clock for an interval of absolute time (a
clock second on the observer's clock)in the observer's frame. This is
demonstrated by the GPS....a GPS second is redefined to have 4.46 more
periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. The
redfinition of the GPS second is designed to make the GPS second
contain the same amount of absolute time as the ground clcok second.

Ken Seto
Post by PD
Since then, it has been tested. Had he been privy to those results, he
would have never made that assumption.
One key difference between you and Newton is that you made the
assumption regardless of the evidence to the contrary.
Another key difference is that you've been quite a nincompoop about
that.
PD
PD
2010-09-20 19:36:08 UTC
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by kenseto
a second is not a universal interval of time....iow, it
does not have the same duration (absolute time content) in different
frames.
You keep writing as if "universal interval of time" has meaning. And as if
"absolute time" has meaning (in subject).
Of course absolute time has meaning....it has the meaning of Newton's
absolute time.
Then yours is not quite the same as his.
His was an *assumption* about how clocks would behave. It was his
*assumption* that identically constructed clocks would all tick at the
same rate regardless of their motion or their location. This was an
assumption that needed to be tested.
No physical clock or defintion for unit of clock time (a clock
second)can represent the same interval of absolute time in different
frames.
Newton didn't know that. He thought it could, and he thought clocks
behaved that way.
He was wrong.

Regardless, YOUR definition of absolute time is therefore different
than his, because YOU believe that clocks do not measure absolute
time. That is, you do not believe that 112 seconds as measured on one
clock measures the same amount of absolute time as 112 seconds as
measured on another clock. Therefore, at least one of these clocks,
and probably both of the clocks, is not measuring absolute time.

Therefore, absolute time is not something that is measured on clocks,
according to you.

This is where you deviate from physics on the definition of time.
Post by kenseto
The SR/GR or IRT equations are designed to predict the clock
time value on an observed clock for an interval of absolute time (a
clock second on the observer's clock)in the observer's frame. This is
demonstrated by the GPS....a GPS second is redefined to have 4.46 more
periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. The
redfinition of the GPS second is designed to make the GPS second
contain the same amount of absolute time as the ground clcok second.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Since then, it has been tested. Had he been privy to those results, he
would have never made that assumption.
One key difference between you and Newton is that you made the
assumption regardless of the evidence to the contrary.
Another key difference is that you've been quite a nincompoop about
that.
PD
BURT
2010-09-20 20:25:32 UTC
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by kenseto
a second is not a universal interval of time....iow, it
does not have the same duration (absolute time content) in different
frames.
You keep writing as if "universal interval of time" has meaning. And as if
"absolute time" has meaning (in subject).
Of course absolute time has meaning....it has the meaning of Newton's
absolute time.
Then yours is not quite the same as his.
His was an *assumption* about how clocks would behave. It was his
*assumption* that identically constructed clocks would all tick at the
same rate regardless of their motion or their location. This was an
assumption that needed to be tested.
No physical clock or defintion for unit of clock time (a clock
second)can represent the same interval of absolute time in different
frames.
Newton didn't know that. He thought it could, and he thought clocks
behaved that way.
He was wrong.
Regardless, YOUR definition of absolute time is therefore different
than his, because YOU believe that clocks do not measure absolute
time. That is, you do not believe that 112 seconds as measured on one
clock measures the same amount of absolute time as 112 seconds as
measured on another clock. Therefore, at least one of these clocks,
and probably both of the clocks, is not measuring absolute time.
Therefore, absolute time is not something that is measured on clocks,
according to you.
This is where you deviate from physics on the definition of time.
Post by kenseto
The SR/GR or IRT equations are designed to predict the clock
time value on an observed clock for an interval of absolute time (a
clock second on the observer's clock)in the observer's frame. This is
demonstrated by the GPS....a GPS second is redefined to have 4.46 more
periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. The
redfinition of the GPS second is designed to make the GPS second
contain the same amount of absolute time as the ground clcok second.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Since then, it has been tested. Had he been privy to those results, he
would have never made that assumption.
One key difference between you and Newton is that you made the
assumption regardless of the evidence to the contrary.
Another key difference is that you've been quite a nincompoop about
that.
PD- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Black holes violate the time laws. If time ends in them
there can be no time at all. Time ending would end the
proper time relationship.

Mitch Raemsch
kenseto
2010-09-20 22:18:36 UTC
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by kenseto
a second is not a universal interval of time....iow, it
does not have the same duration (absolute time content) in different
frames.
You keep writing as if "universal interval of time" has meaning. And as if
"absolute time" has meaning (in subject).
Of course absolute time has meaning....it has the meaning of Newton's
absolute time.
Then yours is not quite the same as his.
His was an *assumption* about how clocks would behave. It was his
*assumption* that identically constructed clocks would all tick at the
same rate regardless of their motion or their location. This was an
assumption that needed to be tested.
No physical clock or defintion for unit of clock time (a clock
second)can represent the same interval of absolute time in different
frames.
Newton didn't know that. He thought it could, and he thought clocks
behaved that way.
He was wrong.
Regardless, YOUR definition of absolute time is therefore different
than his, because YOU believe that clocks do not measure absolute
time.
No I said that a clock second at the rest frame of the clock
represents a specific amount of absolute time.
Post by PD
That is, you do not believe that 112 seconds as measured on one
clock measures the same amount of absolute time as 112 seconds as
measured on another clock.
Correct 112 seconds on clock A represents a different amount of
absolute time as 112 seconds on clock B. What this mean is that a
clock second is not a universal interval of time and thus you can't
compared an A second directly with a B second as you runts of the
SRians do in the twin paradox scenario.
Post by PD
Therefore, at least one of these clocks,
and probably both of the clocks, is not measuring absolute time.
They both measure absolute time at its rest frame but their clock
seconds represent a different amount of absolute time.
Post by PD
Therefore, absolute time is not something that is measured on clocks,
according to you.
No you are wrong....why don't you read what I said....different
observer's clock second represents a different specific amount of
absolute time.
Post by PD
This is where you deviate from physics on the definition of time.

Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
The SR/GR or IRT equations are designed to predict the clock
time value on an observed clock for an interval of absolute time (a
clock second on the observer's clock)in the observer's frame. This is
demonstrated by the GPS....a GPS second is redefined to have 4.46 more
periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. The
redfinition of the GPS second is designed to make the GPS second
contain the same amount of absolute time as the ground clcok second.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Since then, it has been tested. Had he been privy to those results, he
would have never made that assumption.
One key difference between you and Newton is that you made the
assumption regardless of the evidence to the contrary.
Another key difference is that you've been quite a nincompoop about
that.
PD- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
PD
2010-09-20 22:27:51 UTC
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by kenseto
a second is not a universal interval of time....iow, it
does not have the same duration (absolute time content) in different
frames.
You keep writing as if "universal interval of time" has meaning. And as if
"absolute time" has meaning (in subject).
Of course absolute time has meaning....it has the meaning of Newton's
absolute time.
Then yours is not quite the same as his.
His was an *assumption* about how clocks would behave. It was his
*assumption* that identically constructed clocks would all tick at the
same rate regardless of their motion or their location. This was an
assumption that needed to be tested.
No physical clock or defintion for unit of clock time (a clock
second)can represent the same interval of absolute time in different
frames.
Newton didn't know that. He thought it could, and he thought clocks
behaved that way.
He was wrong.
Regardless, YOUR definition of absolute time is therefore different
than his, because YOU believe that clocks do not measure absolute
time.
No I said that a clock second at the rest frame of the clock
represents a specific amount of absolute time.
Then that STILL is not what Newton called absolute time.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
That is, you do not believe that 112 seconds as measured on one
clock measures the same amount of absolute time as 112 seconds as
measured on another clock.
Correct 112 seconds on clock A represents a different amount of
absolute time as 112 seconds on clock B.
112 clock seconds at the rest frame of clock A represents 112 seconds
of duration (absolute time), according to YOUR definition.
112 clock seconds at the rest frame of clock B represents 112 seconds
of duration (absolute time), according to YOUR definition.

clock A represents a different amount of absolute time as 112 seconds
on clock B."
Post by kenseto
What this mean is that a
clock second is not a universal interval of time and thus you can't
compared an A second directly with a B second
As I told you, you have a funny meaning to the word "compare".
For a physicist, comparison just means writing down what the two
clocks say and then holding what you wrote down for both together and
looking at the numbers to see what they both say.
To you, "compare" means something else.
Post by kenseto
as you runts of the
SRians do in the twin paradox scenario.
Post by PD
Therefore, at least one of these clocks,
and probably both of the clocks, is not measuring absolute time.
They both measure absolute time at its rest frame but their clock
seconds represent a different amount of absolute time.
How can both clocks measure absolute time in their own rest frames but
their measurements represent different amounts of absolute time?

Either 112 seconds on clock A represents 112 seconds of absolute time
in its rest frame or not.
Either 112 seconds on clock B represents 112 seconds of absolute time
in its rest frame or not.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Therefore, absolute time is not something that is measured on clocks,
according to you.
No you are wrong....why don't you read what I said....different
observer's clock second represents a different specific amount of
absolute time.
But they both read 112 seconds. That 112 seconds is the amount of
absolute time read by that clock in its rest frame, which is of course
where it is.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
This is where you deviate from physics on the definition of time.
sense. That is not a contradiction.
You don't understand certain things.
You claim you understand how the one blue box can be both left and
right of the red box without contradiction, but you can't see this
with the order of events, because it conflicts with your common sense
that tells you that the order of things is the same for all observers.
But your common sense is flat wrong.
Post by kenseto
My definition of
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
The SR/GR or IRT equations are designed to predict the clock
time value on an observed clock for an interval of absolute time (a
clock second on the observer's clock)in the observer's frame. This is
demonstrated by the GPS....a GPS second is redefined to have 4.46 more
periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. The
redfinition of the GPS second is designed to make the GPS second
contain the same amount of absolute time as the ground clcok second.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Since then, it has been tested. Had he been privy to those results, he
would have never made that assumption.
One key difference between you and Newton is that you made the
assumption regardless of the evidence to the contrary.
Another key difference is that you've been quite a nincompoop about
that.
PD- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
kenseto
2010-09-21 14:10:15 UTC
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by kenseto
a second is not a universal interval of time....iow, it
does not have the same duration (absolute time content) in different
frames.
You keep writing as if "universal interval of time" has meaning. And as if
"absolute time" has meaning (in subject).
Of course absolute time has meaning....it has the meaning of Newton's
absolute time.
Then yours is not quite the same as his.
His was an *assumption* about how clocks would behave. It was his
*assumption* that identically constructed clocks would all tick at the
same rate regardless of their motion or their location. This was an
assumption that needed to be tested.
No physical clock or defintion for unit of clock time (a clock
second)can represent the same interval of absolute time in different
frames.
Newton didn't know that. He thought it could, and he thought clocks
behaved that way.
He was wrong.
Regardless, YOUR definition of absolute time is therefore different
than his, because YOU believe that clocks do not measure absolute
time.
No I said that a clock second at the rest frame of the clock
represents a specific amount of absolute time.
Then that STILL is not what Newton called absolute time.
Close enough....in any case it is irrelevant.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
That is, you do not believe that 112 seconds as measured on one
clock measures the same amount of absolute time as 112 seconds as
measured on another clock.
Correct 112 seconds on clock A represents a different amount of
absolute time as 112 seconds on clock B.
112 clock seconds at the rest frame of clock A represents 112 seconds
of duration (absolute time), according to YOUR definition.
No I said that 112 seconds on clock A represents a specific interval
of absolute time.
Post by PD
112 clock seconds at the rest frame of clock B represents 112 seconds
of duration (absolute time), according to YOUR definition.
No I said that 112 second on clock B represents a different specific
inertavl of absolute time than 112 seconds on clock A.
Post by PD
clock A represents a different amount of absolute time as 112 seconds
on clock B."
There is no contradiction to what I said.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
What this mean is that a
clock second is not a universal interval of time and thus you can't
compared an A second directly with a B second
As I told you, you have a funny meaning to the word "compare".
For a physicist, comparison just means writing down what the two
clocks say and then holding what you wrote down for both together and
looking at the numbers to see what they both say.
To you, "compare" means something else.
In order to compare seconds directly an A second must represents the
same amount of absolute time as a B second. But they are not and
that's why you can't compare them directly. The proper way to compare
clock time intervals is as follows:
According to SR: B's clock second is covert to A's clock reading and
the result is gamma seconds on A's clock.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
as you runts of the
SRians do in the twin paradox scenario.
Post by PD
Therefore, at least one of these clocks,
and probably both of the clocks, is not measuring absolute time.
They both measure absolute time at its rest frame but their clock
seconds represent a different amount of absolute time.
How can both clocks measure absolute time in their own rest frames but
their measurements represent different amounts of absolute time?
Because a clock second represents a different amount of absolute time
in different frames (different states of absolute motion). What this
mean is that the current definition for time (time is what the clock
measure)is wrong.
Post by PD
Either 112 seconds on clock A represents 112 seconds of absolute time
in its rest frame or not.
Sigh.....112 second is clock time. It is not 112 seconds of absolute
time. There is no definiton for an absolute time secoond.

Ken Seto
Post by PD
Either 112 seconds on clock B represents 112 seconds of absolute time
in its rest frame or not.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Therefore, absolute time is not something that is measured on clocks,
according to you.
No you are wrong....why don't you read what I said....different
observer's clock second represents a different specific amount of
absolute time.
But they both read 112 seconds. That 112 seconds is the amount of
absolute time read by that clock in its rest frame, which is of course
where it is.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
This is where you deviate from physics on the definition of time.
sense. That is not a contradiction.
You don't understand certain things.
You claim you understand how the one blue box can be both left and
right of the red box without contradiction, but you can't see this
with the order of events, because it conflicts with your common sense
that tells you that the order of things is the same for all observers.
But your common sense is flat wrong.
Post by kenseto
My definition of
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
The SR/GR or IRT equations are designed to predict the clock
time value on an observed clock for an interval of absolute time (a
clock second on the observer's clock)in the observer's frame. This is
demonstrated by the GPS....a GPS second is redefined to have 4.46 more
periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. The
redfinition of the GPS second is designed to make the GPS second
contain the same amount of absolute time as the ground clcok second.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Since then, it has been tested. Had he been privy to those results, he
would have never made that assumption.
One key difference between you and Newton is that you made the
assumption regardless of the evidence to the contrary.
Another key difference is that you've been quite a nincompoop about
that.
PD- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
PD
2010-09-21 14:26:11 UTC
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by kenseto
a second is not a universal interval of time....iow, it
does not have the same duration (absolute time content) in different
frames.
You keep writing as if "universal interval of time" has meaning. And as if
"absolute time" has meaning (in subject).
Of course absolute time has meaning....it has the meaning of Newton's
absolute time.
Then yours is not quite the same as his.
His was an *assumption* about how clocks would behave. It was his
*assumption* that identically constructed clocks would all tick at the
same rate regardless of their motion or their location. This was an
assumption that needed to be tested.
No physical clock or defintion for unit of clock time (a clock
second)can represent the same interval of absolute time in different
frames.
Newton didn't know that. He thought it could, and he thought clocks
behaved that way.
He was wrong.
Regardless, YOUR definition of absolute time is therefore different
than his, because YOU believe that clocks do not measure absolute
time.
No I said that a clock second at the rest frame of the clock
represents a specific amount of absolute time.
Then that STILL is not what Newton called absolute time.
Close enough....in any case it is irrelevant.
Not at all close.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
That is, you do not believe that 112 seconds as measured on one
clock measures the same amount of absolute time as 112 seconds as
measured on another clock.
Correct 112 seconds on clock A represents a different amount of
absolute time as 112 seconds on clock B.
112 clock seconds at the rest frame of clock A represents 112 seconds
of duration (absolute time), according to YOUR definition.
No I said that 112 seconds on clock A represents a specific interval
of absolute time.
Presumably 112 seconds worth of absolute time, since it's measured in
its own rest frame.

If no clock measures absolute time, then absolute time is not
measurable. In that case, it is a useless concept in physics.
Unmeasurable quantities are physically useless, period.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
112 clock seconds at the rest frame of clock B represents 112 seconds
of duration (absolute time), according to YOUR definition.
No I said that 112 second on clock B represents a different specific
inertavl of absolute time than 112 seconds on clock A.
But 112 seconds is what clock B reads in its own rest frame. This is
DEFINED as absolute time according to your definition of absolute
time.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
clock A represents a different amount of absolute time as 112 seconds
on clock B."
There is no contradiction to what I said.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
What this mean is that a
clock second is not a universal interval of time and thus you can't
compared an A second directly with a B second
As I told you, you have a funny meaning to the word "compare".
For a physicist, comparison just means writing down what the two
clocks say and then holding what you wrote down for both together and
looking at the numbers to see what they both say.
To you, "compare" means something else.
In order to compare seconds directly an A second must represents the
same amount of absolute time as a B second.
No sir. There is no such requirement for a comparison. Why do you
think there is?

If I take two tire pressure gauges and take a reading of my right
front tire with both of them, and one of them reads 31 psi and the
other reads 29 psi, that is a comparison. You must think it's not.
Post by kenseto
But they are not and
that's why you can't compare them directly. The proper way to compare
According to SR: B's clock second is covert to A's clock reading and
the result is gamma seconds on A's clock.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
as you runts of the
SRians do in the twin paradox scenario.
Post by PD
Therefore, at least one of these clocks,
and probably both of the clocks, is not measuring absolute time.
They both measure absolute time at its rest frame but their clock
seconds represent a different amount of absolute time.
How can both clocks measure absolute time in their own rest frames but
their measurements represent different amounts of absolute time?
Because a clock second represents a different amount of absolute time
in different frames (different states of absolute motion). What this
mean is that the current definition for time (time is what the clock
measure)is wrong.
Then absolute time can't be measured by a clock, because there is no
clock that measures absolute time.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Either 112 seconds on clock A represents 112 seconds of absolute time
in its rest frame or not.
Sigh.....112 second is clock time. It is not 112 seconds of absolute
time. There is no definiton for an absolute time secoond.
Then absolute time is a worthless concept in physics, because it is
unmeasurable.
Post by kenseto
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Either 112 seconds on clock B represents 112 seconds of absolute time
in its rest frame or not.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Therefore, absolute time is not something that is measured on clocks,
according to you.
No you are wrong....why don't you read what I said....different
observer's clock second represents a different specific amount of
absolute time.
But they both read 112 seconds. That 112 seconds is the amount of
absolute time read by that clock in its rest frame, which is of course
where it is.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
This is where you deviate from physics on the definition of time.
sense. That is not a contradiction.
You don't understand certain things.
You claim you understand how the one blue box can be both left and
right of the red box without contradiction, but you can't see this
with the order of events, because it conflicts with your common sense
that tells you that the order of things is the same for all observers.
But your common sense is flat wrong.
Post by kenseto
My definition of
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
The SR/GR or IRT equations are designed to predict the clock
time value on an observed clock for an interval of absolute time (a
clock second on the observer's clock)in the observer's frame. This is
demonstrated by the GPS....a GPS second is redefined to have 4.46 more
periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. The
redfinition of the GPS second is designed to make the GPS second
contain the same amount of absolute time as the ground clcok second.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Since then, it has been tested. Had he been privy to those results, he
would have never made that assumption.
One key difference between you and Newton is that you made the
assumption regardless of the evidence to the contrary.
Another key difference is that you've been quite a nincompoop about
that.
PD- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
kenseto
2010-09-21 15:55:17 UTC
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by kenseto
a second is not a universal interval of time....iow, it
does not have the same duration (absolute time content) in different
frames.
You keep writing as if "universal interval of time" has meaning. And as if
"absolute time" has meaning (in subject).
Of course absolute time has meaning....it has the meaning of Newton's
absolute time.
Then yours is not quite the same as his.
His was an *assumption* about how clocks would behave. It was his
*assumption* that identically constructed clocks would all tick at the
same rate regardless of their motion or their location. This was an
assumption that needed to be tested.
No physical clock or defintion for unit of clock time (a clock
second)can represent the same interval of absolute time in different
frames.
Newton didn't know that. He thought it could, and he thought clocks
behaved that way.
He was wrong.
Regardless, YOUR definition of absolute time is therefore different
than his, because YOU believe that clocks do not measure absolute
time.
No I said that a clock second at the rest frame of the clock
represents a specific amount of absolute time.
Then that STILL is not what Newton called absolute time.
Close enough....in any case it is irrelevant.
Not at all close.
Newton failed to realize that no physical clock unit of time can
represent the same inertavl of absolute time in different frames. If
he realize that he would agree to my definition of absolute time.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
That is, you do not believe that 112 seconds as measured on one
clock measures the same amount of absolute time as 112 seconds as
measured on another clock.
Correct 112 seconds on clock A represents a different amount of
absolute time as 112 seconds on clock B.
112 clock seconds at the rest frame of clock A represents 112 seconds
of duration (absolute time), according to YOUR definition.
No I said that 112 seconds on clock A represents a specific interval
of absolute time.
Presumably 112 seconds worth of absolute time, since it's measured in
its own rest frame.
It represents a specific interval of absolute time.
Post by PD
If no clock measures absolute time, then absolute time is not
measurable.
Sigh....a clock second represents a specific interval of absolute
time.
Post by PD
In that case, it is a useless concept in physics.
Unmeasurable quantities are physically useless, period.
It is measurable....a clock second AT THE REST FRAME OF THE CLOCK
represents a SPECIFIC INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
112 clock seconds at the rest frame of clock B represents 112 seconds
of duration (absolute time), according to YOUR definition.
No I said that 112 second on clock B represents a different specific
inertavl of absolute time than 112 seconds on clock A.
But 112 seconds is what clock B reads in its own rest frame. This is
DEFINED as absolute time according to your definition of absolute
timE.
No a physical clock second is not an absolute second. It represent a
specific interval of absolute time.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
clock A represents a different amount of absolute time as 112 seconds
on clock B."
There is no contradiction to what I said.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
What this mean is that a
clock second is not a universal interval of time and thus you can't
compared an A second directly with a B second
As I told you, you have a funny meaning to the word "compare".
For a physicist, comparison just means writing down what the two
clocks say and then holding what you wrote down for both together and
looking at the numbers to see what they both say.
To you, "compare" means something else.
In order to compare seconds directly an A second must represents the
same amount of absolute time as a B second.
No sir. There is no such requirement for a comparison. Why do you
think there is?
Because an A second represents a different amount of absolute than a B
second.
Post by PD
If I take two tire pressure gauges and take a reading of my right
front tire with both of them, and one of them reads 31 psi and the
other reads 29 psi, that is a comparison. You must think it's not.
There is no motion ivolved in this example. The absolute time content
for a clock second is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the
clock.

Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
But they are not and
that's why you can't compare them directly. The proper way to compare
According to SR: B's clock second is covert to A's clock reading and
the result is gamma seconds on A's clock.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
as you runts of the
SRians do in the twin paradox scenario.
Post by PD
Therefore, at least one of these clocks,
and probably both of the clocks, is not measuring absolute time.
They both measure absolute time at its rest frame but their clock
seconds represent a different amount of absolute time.
How can both clocks measure absolute time in their own rest frames but
their measurements represent different amounts of absolute time?
Because a clock second represents a different amount of absolute time
in different frames (different states of absolute motion). What this
mean is that the current definition for time (time is what the clock
measure)is wrong.
Then absolute time can't be measured by a clock, because there is no
clock that measures absolute time.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Either 112 seconds on clock A represents 112 seconds of absolute time
in its rest frame or not.
Sigh.....112 second is clock time. It is not 112 seconds of absolute
time. There is no definiton for an absolute time secoond.
Then absolute time is a worthless concept in physics, because it is
unmeasurable.
Post by kenseto
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Either 112 seconds on clock B represents 112 seconds of absolute time
in its rest frame or not.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Therefore, absolute time is not something that is measured on clocks,
according to you.
No you are wrong....why don't you read what I said....different
observer's clock second represents a different specific amount of
absolute time.
But they both read 112 seconds. That 112 seconds is the amount of
absolute time read by that clock in its rest frame, which is of course
where it is.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
This is where you deviate from physics on the definition of time.
sense. That is not a contradiction.
You don't understand certain things.
You claim you understand how the one blue box can be both left and
right of the red box without contradiction, but you can't see this
with the order of events, because it conflicts with your common sense
that tells you that the order of things is the same for all observers.
But your common sense is flat wrong.
Post by kenseto
My definition of
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
The SR/GR or IRT equations are designed to predict the clock
time value on an observed clock for an interval of absolute time (a
clock second on the observer's clock)in the observer's frame. This is
demonstrated by the GPS....a GPS second is redefined to have 4.46 more
periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. The
redfinition of the GPS second is designed to make the GPS second
contain the same amount of absolute time as the ground clcok second.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Since then, it has been tested. Had he been privy to those results, he
would have never made that assumption.
One key difference between you and Newton is that you made the
assumption regardless of the evidence to the contrary.
Another key difference is that you've been quite a nincompoop about
that.
PD- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
PD
2010-09-21 16:21:25 UTC
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by kenseto
a second is not a universal interval of time....iow, it
does not have the same duration (absolute time content) in different
frames.
You keep writing as if "universal interval of time" has meaning. And as if
"absolute time" has meaning (in subject).
Of course absolute time has meaning....it has the meaning of Newton's
absolute time.
Then yours is not quite the same as his.
His was an *assumption* about how clocks would behave. It was his
*assumption* that identically constructed clocks would all tick at the
same rate regardless of their motion or their location. This was an
assumption that needed to be tested.
No physical clock or defintion for unit of clock time (a clock
second)can represent the same interval of absolute time in different
frames.
Newton didn't know that. He thought it could, and he thought clocks
behaved that way.
He was wrong.
Regardless, YOUR definition of absolute time is therefore different
than his, because YOU believe that clocks do not measure absolute
time.
No I said that a clock second at the rest frame of the clock
represents a specific amount of absolute time.
Then that STILL is not what Newton called absolute time.
Close enough....in any case it is irrelevant.
Not at all close.
Newton failed to realize  that no physical clock unit of time can
represent the same inertavl of absolute time in different frames. If
he realize that he would agree to my definition of absolute time.
That's what I said. Newton thought they would agree. They don't.
His definition is nothing like yours.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
That is, you do not believe that 112 seconds as measured on one
clock measures the same amount of absolute time as 112 seconds as
measured on another clock.
Correct 112 seconds on clock A represents a different amount of
absolute time as 112 seconds on clock B.
112 clock seconds at the rest frame of clock A represents 112 seconds
of duration (absolute time), according to YOUR definition.
No I said that 112 seconds on clock A represents a specific interval
of absolute time.
Presumably 112 seconds worth of absolute time, since it's measured in
its own rest frame.
It represents a specific interval of absolute time.
How much?

If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Post by PD
If no clock measures absolute time, then absolute time is not
measurable.
Sigh....a clock second represents a specific interval of absolute
time.
How much?

If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Post by PD
In that case, it is a useless concept in physics.
Unmeasurable quantities are physically useless, period.
It is measurable....a clock second AT THE REST FRAME OF THE CLOCK
represents a SPECIFIC INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME
How much?

If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
112 clock seconds at the rest frame of clock B represents 112 seconds
of duration (absolute time), according to YOUR definition.
No I said that 112 second on clock B represents a different specific
inertavl of absolute time than 112 seconds on clock A.
But 112 seconds is what clock B reads in its own rest frame. This is
DEFINED as absolute time according to your definition of absolute
timE.
No a physical clock second is not an absolute second. It represent a
specific interval of absolute time.
How much?

If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
clock A represents a different amount of absolute time as 112 seconds
on clock B."
There is no contradiction to what I said.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
What this mean is that a
clock second is not a universal interval of time and thus you can't
compared an A second directly with a B second
As I told you, you have a funny meaning to the word "compare".
For a physicist, comparison just means writing down what the two
clocks say and then holding what you wrote down for both together and
looking at the numbers to see what they both say.
To you, "compare" means something else.
In order to compare seconds directly an A second must represents the
same amount of absolute time as a B second.
No sir. There is no such requirement for a comparison. Why do you
think there is?
Because an A second represents a different amount of absolute than a B
second.
Post by PD
If I take two tire pressure gauges and take a reading of my right
front tire with both of them, and one of them reads 31 psi and the
other reads 29 psi, that is a comparison. You must think it's not.
There is no motion ivolved in this example. The absolute time content
for a clock second is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the
clock.
So? Why are the rules different for comparing two measurements when
there is motion involved?

To a physicist, a comparison is a comparison, just like the readings
off the tire gauges are compared.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
But they are not and
that's why you can't compare them directly. The proper way to compare
According to SR: B's clock second is covert to A's clock reading and
the result is gamma seconds on A's clock.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
as you runts of the
SRians do in the twin paradox scenario.
Post by PD
Therefore, at least one of these clocks,
and probably both of the clocks, is not measuring absolute time.
They both measure absolute time at its rest frame but their clock
seconds represent a different amount of absolute time.
How can both clocks measure absolute time in their own rest frames but
their measurements represent different amounts of absolute time?
Because a clock second represents a different amount of absolute time
in different frames (different states of absolute motion). What this
mean is that the current definition for time (time is what the clock
measure)is wrong.
Then absolute time can't be measured by a clock, because there is no
clock that measures absolute time.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Either 112 seconds on clock A represents 112 seconds of absolute time
in its rest frame or not.
Sigh.....112 second is clock time. It is not 112 seconds of absolute
time. There is no definiton for an absolute time secoond.
Then absolute time is a worthless concept in physics, because it is
unmeasurable.
Post by kenseto
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Either 112 seconds on clock B represents 112 seconds of absolute time
in its rest frame or not.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Therefore, absolute time is not something that is measured on clocks,
according to you.
No you are wrong....why don't you read what I said....different
observer's clock second represents a different specific amount of
absolute time.
But they both read 112 seconds. That 112 seconds is the amount of
absolute time read by that clock in its rest frame, which is of course
where it is.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
This is where you deviate from physics on the definition of time.
sense. That is not a contradiction.
You don't understand certain things.
You claim you understand how the one blue box can be both left and
right of the red box without contradiction, but you can't see this
with the order of events, because it conflicts with your common sense
that tells you that the order of things is the same for all observers.
But your common sense is flat wrong.
Post by kenseto
My definition of
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
The SR/GR or IRT equations are designed to predict the clock
time value on an observed clock for an interval of absolute time (a
clock second on the observer's clock)in the observer's frame. This is
demonstrated by the GPS....a GPS second is redefined to have 4.46 more
periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. The
redfinition of the GPS second is designed to make the GPS second
contain the same amount of absolute time as the ground clcok second.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Since then, it has been tested. Had he been privy to those results, he
would have never made that assumption.
One key difference between you and Newton is that you made the
assumption regardless of the evidence to the contrary.
Another key difference is that you've been quite a nincompoop about
that.
PD- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
kenseto
2010-09-22 13:20:48 UTC
Post by PD
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by kenseto
a second is not a universal interval of time....iow, it
does not have the same duration (absolute time content) in different
frames.
You keep writing as if "universal interval of time" has meaning. And as if
"absolute time" has meaning (in subject).
Of course absolute time has meaning....it has the meaning of Newton's
absolute time.
Then yours is not quite the same as his.
His was an *assumption* about how clocks would behave. It was his
*assumption* that identically constructed clocks would all tick at the
same rate regardless of their motion or their location. This was an
assumption that needed to be tested.
No physical clock or defintion for unit of clock time (a clock
second)can represent the same interval of absolute time in different
frames.
Newton didn't know that. He thought it could, and he thought clocks
behaved that way.
He was wrong.
Regardless, YOUR definition of absolute time is therefore different
than his, because YOU believe that clocks do not measure absolute
time.
No I said that a clock second at the rest frame of the clock
represents a specific amount of absolute time.
Then that STILL is not what Newton called absolute time.
Close enough....in any case it is irrelevant.
Not at all close.
Newton failed to realize  that no physical clock unit of time can
represent the same inertavl of absolute time in different frames. If
he realize that he would agree to my definition of absolute time.
That's what I said. Newton thought they would agree. They don't.
His definition is nothing like yours.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
That is, you do not believe that 112 seconds as measured on one
clock measures the same amount of absolute time as 112 seconds as
measured on another clock.
Correct 112 seconds on clock A represents a different amount of
absolute time as 112 seconds on clock B.
112 clock seconds at the rest frame of clock A represents 112 seconds
of duration (absolute time), according to YOUR definition.
No I said that 112 seconds on clock A represents a specific interval
of absolute time.
Presumably 112 seconds worth of absolute time, since it's measured in
its own rest frame.
It represents a specific interval of absolute time.
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Sigh....absolute time is proper time....absolute time is invariant as
is proper time. The observer uses the equations of SR/GR or IRT to
calculate the clock time value on an observed clock for an interval of
absolute time (proper time)in the observer's clock.

Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by PD
If no clock measures absolute time, then absolute time is not
measurable.
Sigh....a clock second represents a specific interval of absolute
time.
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Post by PD
In that case, it is a useless concept in physics.
Unmeasurable quantities are physically useless, period.
It is measurable....a clock second AT THE REST FRAME OF THE CLOCK
represents a SPECIFIC INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
112 clock seconds at the rest frame of clock B represents 112 seconds
of duration (absolute time), according to YOUR definition.
No I said that 112 second on clock B represents a different specific
inertavl of absolute time than 112 seconds on clock A.
But 112 seconds is what clock B reads in its own rest frame. This is
DEFINED as absolute time according to your definition of absolute
timE.
No a physical clock second is not an absolute second. It represent a
specific interval of absolute time.
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
clock A represents a different amount of absolute time as 112 seconds
on clock B."
There is no contradiction to what I said.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
What this mean is that a
clock second is not a universal interval of time and thus you can't
compared an A second directly with a B second
As I told you, you have a funny meaning to the word "compare".
For a physicist, comparison just means writing down what the two
clocks say and then holding what you wrote down for both together and
looking at the numbers to see what they both say.
To you, "compare" means something else.
In order to compare seconds directly an A second must represents the
same amount of absolute time as a B second.
No sir. There is no such requirement for a comparison. Why do you
think there is?
Because an A second represents a different amount of absolute than a B
second.
Post by PD
If I take two tire pressure gauges and take a reading of my right
front tire with both of them, and one of them reads 31 psi and the
other reads 29 psi, that is a comparison. You must think it's not.
There is no motion ivolved in this example. The absolute time content
for a clock second is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the
clock.
So? Why are the rules different for comparing two measurements when
there is motion involved?
To a physicist, a comparison is a comparison, just like the readings
off the tire gauges are compared.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
But they are not and
that's why you can't compare them directly. The proper way to compare
According to SR: B's clock second is covert to A's clock reading and
the result is gamma seconds on A's clock.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
as you runts of the
SRians do in the twin paradox scenario.
Post by PD
Therefore, at least one of these clocks,
and probably both of the clocks, is not measuring absolute time.
They both measure absolute time at its rest frame but their clock
seconds represent a different amount of absolute time.
How can both clocks measure absolute time in their own rest frames but
their measurements represent different amounts of absolute time?
Because a clock second represents a different amount of absolute time
in different frames (different states of absolute motion). What this
mean is that the current definition for time (time is what the clock
measure)is wrong.
Then absolute time can't be measured by a clock, because there is no
clock that measures absolute time.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Either 112 seconds on clock A represents 112 seconds of absolute time
in its rest frame or not.
Sigh.....112 second is clock time. It is not 112 seconds of absolute
time. There is no definiton for an absolute time secoond.
Then absolute time is a worthless concept in physics, because it is
unmeasurable.
Post by kenseto
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Either 112 seconds on clock B represents 112 seconds of absolute time
in its rest frame or not.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Therefore, absolute time is not something that is measured on clocks,
according to you.
No you are wrong....why don't you read what I said....different
observer's clock second represents a different specific amount of
absolute time.
But they both read 112 seconds. That 112 seconds is the amount of
absolute time read by that clock in its rest frame, which is of course
where it is.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
This is where you deviate from physics on the definition of time.
sense. That is not a contradiction.
You don't understand certain things.
You claim you understand how the one blue box can be both left and
right of the red box without contradiction, but you can't see this
with the order of events, because it conflicts with your common sense
that tells you that the order of things is the same for all observers.
But your common sense is flat wrong.
Post by kenseto
My definition of
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
The SR/GR or IRT equations are designed to predict the clock
time value on an observed clock for an interval of absolute time (a
clock second on the observer's clock)in the observer's frame. This is
demonstrated by the GPS....a GPS second is redefined to have 4.46 more
periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. The
redfinition of the GPS second is designed to make the GPS second
contain the same amount of absolute time as the ground clcok second.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Since then, it has been tested. Had he been privy to those results, he
would have never made that assumption.
One key difference between you- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -...
PD
2010-09-22 13:29:19 UTC
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by kenseto
a second is not a universal interval of time....iow, it
does not have the same duration (absolute time content) in different
frames.
You keep writing as if "universal interval of time" has meaning. And as if
"absolute time" has meaning (in subject).
Of course absolute time has meaning....it has the meaning of Newton's
absolute time.
Then yours is not quite the same as his.
His was an *assumption* about how clocks would behave. It was his
*assumption* that identically constructed clocks would all tick at the
same rate regardless of their motion or their location. This was an
assumption that needed to be tested.
No physical clock or defintion for unit of clock time (a clock
second)can represent the same interval of absolute time in different
frames.
Newton didn't know that. He thought it could, and he thought clocks
behaved that way.
He was wrong.
Regardless, YOUR definition of absolute time is therefore different
than his, because YOU believe that clocks do not measure absolute
time.
No I said that a clock second at the rest frame of the clock
represents a specific amount of absolute time.
Then that STILL is not what Newton called absolute time.
Close enough....in any case it is irrelevant.
Not at all close.
Newton failed to realize  that no physical clock unit of time can
represent the same inertavl of absolute time in different frames. If
he realize that he would agree to my definition of absolute time.
That's what I said. Newton thought they would agree. They don't.
His definition is nothing like yours.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
That is, you do not believe that 112 seconds as measured on one
clock measures the same amount of absolute time as 112 seconds as
measured on another clock.
Correct 112 seconds on clock A represents a different amount of
absolute time as 112 seconds on clock B.
112 clock seconds at the rest frame of clock A represents 112 seconds
of duration (absolute time), according to YOUR definition.
No I said that 112 seconds on clock A represents a specific interval
of absolute time.
Presumably 112 seconds worth of absolute time, since it's measured in
its own rest frame.
It represents a specific interval of absolute time.
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Sigh....absolute time is proper time....absolute time is invariant as
is proper time.
I'm not sure you know what proper time is.
You do know that the clocks used by the twins in the twin puzzle
measure proper time, don't you?
You do know that the clocks disagree when they meet again, don't you?
Post by kenseto
The observer uses the equations of SR/GR or IRT to
calculate the clock time value on an observed clock for an interval of
absolute time (proper time)in the observer's clock.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by PD
If no clock measures absolute time, then absolute time is not
measurable.
Sigh....a clock second represents a specific interval of absolute
time.
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Post by PD
In that case, it is a useless concept in physics.
Unmeasurable quantities are physically useless, period.
It is measurable....a clock second AT THE REST FRAME OF THE CLOCK
represents a SPECIFIC INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
112 clock seconds at the rest frame of clock B represents 112 seconds
of duration (absolute time), according to YOUR definition.
No I said that 112 second on clock B represents a different specific
inertavl of absolute time than 112 seconds on clock A.
But 112 seconds is what clock B reads in its own rest frame. This is
DEFINED as absolute time according to your definition of absolute
timE.
No a physical clock second is not an absolute second. It represent a
specific interval of absolute time.
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
clock A represents a different amount of absolute time as 112 seconds
on clock B."
There is no contradiction to what I said.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
What this mean is that a
clock second is not a universal interval of time and thus you can't
compared an A second directly with a B second
As I told you, you have a funny meaning to the word "compare".
For a physicist, comparison just means writing down what the two
clocks say and then holding what you wrote down for both together and
looking at the numbers to see what they both say.
To you, "compare" means something else.
In order to compare seconds directly an A second must represents the
same amount of absolute time as a B second.
No sir. There is no such requirement for a comparison. Why do you
think there is?
Because an A second represents a different amount of absolute than a B
second.
Post by PD
If I take two tire pressure gauges and take a reading of my right
front tire with both of them, and one of them reads 31 psi and the
other reads 29 psi, that is a comparison. You must think it's not.
There is no motion ivolved in this example. The absolute time content
for a clock second is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the
clock.
So? Why are the rules different for comparing two measurements when
there is motion involved?
To a physicist, a comparison is a comparison, just like the readings
off the tire gauges are compared.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
But they are not and
that's why you can't compare them directly. The proper way to compare
According to SR: B's clock second is covert to A's clock reading and
the result is gamma seconds on A's clock.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
as you runts of the
SRians do in the twin paradox scenario.
Post by PD
Therefore, at least one of these clocks,
and probably both of the clocks, is not measuring absolute time.
They both measure absolute time at its rest frame but their clock
seconds represent a different amount of absolute time.
How can both clocks measure absolute time in their own rest frames but
their measurements represent different amounts of absolute time?
Because a clock second represents a different amount of absolute time
in different frames (different states of absolute motion). What this
mean is that the current definition for time (time is what the clock
measure)is wrong.
Then absolute time can't be measured by a clock, because there is no
clock that measures absolute time.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Either 112 seconds on clock A represents 112 seconds of absolute time
in its rest frame or not.
Sigh.....112 second is clock time. It is not 112 seconds of absolute
time. There is no definiton for an absolute time secoond.
Then absolute time is a worthless concept in physics, because it is
unmeasurable.
Post by kenseto
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Either 112 seconds on clock B represents 112 seconds of absolute time
in its rest frame or not.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Therefore, absolute time is not something that is measured on clocks,
according to you.
No you are wrong....why don't you read what I said....different
observer's clock second represents a different specific amount of
absolute time.
But they both read 112 seconds. That 112 seconds is the amount of
absolute time read by that clock in its rest frame, which is of course
where it is.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
This is where you deviate from physics on the definition of time.
sense. That is not a contradiction.
You don't understand certain things.
You claim you understand how the one blue box can be both left and
right of the red box without contradiction, but you can't see this
with the order of events, because it conflicts with your common sense
that tells you that the order of things is the same for all observers.
But your common sense is flat wrong.
Post by kenseto
My definition of
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
The SR/GR or IRT equations are designed to predict the clock
time value on
...
kenseto
2010-09-22 14:09:18 UTC
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by kenseto
a second is not a universal interval of time....iow, it
does not have the same duration (absolute time content) in different
frames.
You keep writing as if "universal interval of time" has meaning. And as if
"absolute time" has meaning (in subject).
Of course absolute time has meaning....it has the meaning of Newton's
absolute time.
Then yours is not quite the same as his.
His was an *assumption* about how clocks would behave. It was his
*assumption* that identically constructed clocks would all tick at the
same rate regardless of their motion or their location. This was an
assumption that needed to be tested.
No physical clock or defintion for unit of clock time (a clock
second)can represent the same interval of absolute time in different
frames.
Newton didn't know that. He thought it could, and he thought clocks
behaved that way.
He was wrong.
Regardless, YOUR definition of absolute time is therefore different
than his, because YOU believe that clocks do not measure absolute
time.
No I said that a clock second at the rest frame of the clock
represents a specific amount of absolute time.
Then that STILL is not what Newton called absolute time.
Close enough....in any case it is irrelevant.
Not at all close.
Newton failed to realize  that no physical clock unit of time can
represent the same inertavl of absolute time in different frames. If
he realize that he would agree to my definition of absolute time.
That's what I said. Newton thought they would agree. They don't.
His definition is nothing like yours.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
That is, you do not believe that 112 seconds as measured on one
clock measures the same amount of absolute time as 112 seconds as
measured on another clock.
Correct 112 seconds on clock A represents a different amount of
absolute time as 112 seconds on clock B.
112 clock seconds at the rest frame of clock A represents 112 seconds
of duration (absolute time), according to YOUR definition.
No I said that 112 seconds on clock A represents a specific interval
of absolute time.
Presumably 112 seconds worth of absolute time, since it's measured in
its own rest frame.
It represents a specific interval of absolute time.
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Sigh....absolute time is proper time....absolute time is invariant as
is proper time.
I'm not sure you know what proper time is.
Of course I know what proper time is....it is absolute time.
Post by PD
You do know that the clocks used by the twins in the twin puzzle
measure proper time, don't you?
No it measures the amount of clock time in the traveling clock that
represents the same amount of proper time on the observer's clock.
Post by PD
You do know that the clocks disagree when they meet again, don't you?
Of course that's because a clock second in the moving frame contains a
larger amount of proper time (absolute time).

Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
The observer uses the equations of SR/GR or IRT to
calculate the clock time value on an observed clock for an interval of
absolute time (proper time)in the observer's clock.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by PD
If no clock measures absolute time, then absolute time is not
measurable.
Sigh....a clock second represents a specific interval of absolute
time.
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Post by PD
In that case, it is a useless concept in physics.
Unmeasurable quantities are physically useless, period.
It is measurable....a clock second AT THE REST FRAME OF THE CLOCK
represents a SPECIFIC INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
112 clock seconds at the rest frame of clock B represents 112 seconds
of duration (absolute time), according to YOUR definition.
No I said that 112 second on clock B represents a different specific
inertavl of absolute time than 112 seconds on clock A.
But 112 seconds is what clock B reads in its own rest frame. This is
DEFINED as absolute time according to your definition of absolute
timE.
No a physical clock second is not an absolute second. It represent a
specific interval of absolute time.
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
clock A represents a different amount of absolute time as 112 seconds
on clock B."
There is no contradiction to what I said.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
What this mean is that a
clock second is not a universal interval of time and thus you can't
compared an A second directly with a B second
As I told you, you have a funny meaning to the word "compare".
For a physicist, comparison just means writing down what the two
clocks say and then holding what you wrote down for both together and
looking at the numbers to see what they both say.
To you, "compare" means something else.
In order to compare seconds directly an A second must represents the
same amount of absolute time as a B second.
No sir. There is no such requirement for a comparison. Why do you
think there is?
Because an A second represents a different amount of absolute than a B
second.
Post by PD
If I take two tire pressure gauges and take a reading of my right
front tire with both of them, and one of them reads 31 psi and the
other reads 29 psi, that is a comparison. You must think it's not.
There is no motion ivolved in this example. The absolute time content
for a clock second is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the
clock.
So? Why are the rules different for comparing two measurements when
there is motion involved?
To a physicist, a comparison is a comparison, just like the readings
off the tire gauges are compared.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
But they are not and
that's why you can't compare them directly. The proper way to compare
According to SR: B's clock second is covert to A's clock reading and
the result is gamma seconds on A's clock.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
as you runts of the
SRians do in the twin paradox scenario.
Post by PD
Therefore, at least one of these clocks,
and probably both of the clocks, is not measuring absolute time.
They both measure absolute time at its rest frame but their clock
seconds represent a different amount of absolute time.
How can both clocks measure absolute time in their own rest frames but
their measurements represent different amounts of absolute time?
Because a clock second represents a different amount of absolute time
in different frames (different states of absolute motion). What this
mean is that the current definition for time (time is what the clock
measure)is wrong.
Then absolute time can't be measured by a clock, because there is no
clock that measures absolute time.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Either 112 seconds on clock A represents 112 seconds of absolute time
in its rest frame or not.
Sigh.....112 second is clock time. It is not 112 seconds of absolute
time. There is no definiton for an absolute time secoond.
Then absolute time is a worthless concept in physics, because it is
unmeasurable.
Post by kenseto
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Either 112 seconds on clock B represents 112 seconds of absolute time
in its rest frame or not.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Therefore, absolute time is not something that is measured on clocks,
according to you.
No you are wrong....why don't you read what I said....different
observer's clock second represents a different specific amount of
absolute time.
But they both read 112 seconds. That 112 seconds is the amount of
absolute time read by that clock in its rest frame, which is of course
where it is.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
This is where you deviate from physics on the definition of time.
sense. That is not a contradiction.
You don't understand certain things.
You- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -...
PD
2010-09-22 17:50:38 UTC
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by kenseto
a second is not a universal interval of time....iow, it
does not have the same duration (absolute time content) in different
frames.
You keep writing as if "universal interval of time" has meaning. And as if
"absolute time" has meaning (in subject).
Of course absolute time has meaning....it has the meaning of Newton's
absolute time.
Then yours is not quite the same as his.
His was an *assumption* about how clocks would behave. It was his
*assumption* that identically constructed clocks would all tick at the
same rate regardless of their motion or their location. This was an
assumption that needed to be tested.
No physical clock or defintion for unit of clock time (a clock
second)can represent the same interval of absolute time in different
frames.
Newton didn't know that. He thought it could, and he thought clocks
behaved that way.
He was wrong.
Regardless, YOUR definition of absolute time is therefore different
than his, because YOU believe that clocks do not measure absolute
time.
No I said that a clock second at the rest frame of the clock
represents a specific amount of absolute time.
Then that STILL is not what Newton called absolute time.
Close enough....in any case it is irrelevant.
Not at all close.
Newton failed to realize  that no physical clock unit of time can
represent the same inertavl of absolute time in different frames. If
he realize that he would agree to my definition of absolute time.
That's what I said. Newton thought they would agree. They don't.
His definition is nothing like yours.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
That is, you do not believe that 112 seconds as measured on one
clock measures the same amount of absolute time as 112 seconds as
measured on another clock.
Correct 112 seconds on clock A represents a different amount of
absolute time as 112 seconds on clock B.
112 clock seconds at the rest frame of clock A represents 112 seconds
of duration (absolute time), according to YOUR definition.
No I said that 112 seconds on clock A represents a specific interval
of absolute time.
Presumably 112 seconds worth of absolute time, since it's measured in
its own rest frame.
It represents a specific interval of absolute time.
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Sigh....absolute time is proper time....absolute time is invariant as
is proper time.
I'm not sure you know what proper time is.
Of course I know what proper time is....it is absolute time.
Post by PD
You do know that the clocks used by the twins in the twin puzzle
measure proper time, don't you?
No it measures the amount of clock time in the traveling clock that
represents the same amount of proper time on the observer's clock.
No sir. The Earth's clock measures the proper time on the Earth clock.
The traveling twin's clock measures the proper time on that twin's
clock.

You apparently don't know what proper time means.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
You do know that the clocks disagree when they meet again, don't you?
Of course that's because a clock second in the moving frame contains a
larger amount of proper time (absolute time).
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
The observer uses the equations of SR/GR or IRT to
calculate the clock time value on an observed clock for an interval of
absolute time (proper time)in the observer's clock.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by PD
If no clock measures absolute time, then absolute time is not
measurable.
Sigh....a clock second represents a specific interval of absolute
time.
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Post by PD
In that case, it is a useless concept in physics.
Unmeasurable quantities are physically useless, period.
It is measurable....a clock second AT THE REST FRAME OF THE CLOCK
represents a SPECIFIC INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
112 clock seconds at the rest frame of clock B represents 112 seconds
of duration (absolute time), according to YOUR definition.
No I said that 112 second on clock B represents a different specific
inertavl of absolute time than 112 seconds on clock A.
But 112 seconds is what clock B reads in its own rest frame. This is
DEFINED as absolute time according to your definition of absolute
timE.
No a physical clock second is not an absolute second. It represent a
specific interval of absolute time.
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
clock A represents a different amount of absolute time as 112 seconds
on clock B."
There is no contradiction to what I said.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
What this mean is that a
clock second is not a universal interval of time and thus you can't
compared an A second directly with a B second
As I told you, you have a funny meaning to the word "compare".
For a physicist, comparison just means writing down what the two
clocks say and then holding what you wrote down for both together and
looking at the numbers to see what they both say.
To you, "compare" means something else.
In order to compare seconds directly an A second must represents the
same amount of absolute time as a B second.
No sir. There is no such requirement for a comparison. Why do you
think there is?
Because an A second represents a different amount of absolute than a B
second.
Post by PD
If I take two tire pressure gauges and take a reading of my right
front tire with both of them, and one of them reads 31 psi and the
other reads 29 psi, that is a comparison. You must think it's not.
There is no motion ivolved in this example. The absolute time content
for a clock second is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the
clock.
So? Why are the rules different for comparing two measurements when
there is motion involved?
To a physicist, a comparison is a comparison, just like the readings
off the tire gauges are compared.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
But they are not and
that's why you can't compare them directly. The proper way to compare
According to SR: B's clock second is covert to A's clock reading and
the result is gamma seconds on A's clock.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
as you runts of the
SRians do in the twin paradox scenario.
Post by PD
Therefore, at least one of these clocks,
and probably both of the clocks, is not measuring absolute time.
They both measure absolute time at its rest frame but their clock
seconds represent a different amount of absolute time.
How can both clocks measure absolute time in their own rest frames but
their measurements represent different amounts of absolute time?
Because a clock second represents a different amount of absolute time
in different frames (different states of absolute motion). What this
mean is that the current definition for time (time is what the clock
measure)is wrong.
Then absolute time can't be measured by a clock, because there is no
clock that measures absolute time.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Either 112 seconds on clock A represents 112 seconds of absolute time
in its rest frame or not.
Sigh.....112 second is clock time. It is not 112 seconds of absolute
time. There is no definiton for an absolute time secoond.
Then absolute time is a worthless concept in physics, because it is
unmeasurable.
Post by kenseto
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Either 112 seconds on clock B represents 112 seconds of absolute time
in its rest frame or not.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Therefore, absolute time is not something that is measured on clocks,
according to you.
No
...
kenseto
2010-09-22 20:44:47 UTC
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by kenseto
a second is not a universal interval of time....iow, it
does not have the same duration (absolute time content) in different
frames.
You keep writing as if "universal interval of time" has meaning. And as if
"absolute time" has meaning (in subject).
Of course absolute time has meaning....it has the meaning of Newton's
absolute time.
Then yours is not quite the same as his.
His was an *assumption* about how clocks would behave. It was his
*assumption* that identically constructed clocks would all tick at the
same rate regardless of their motion or their location. This was an
assumption that needed to be tested.
No physical clock or defintion for unit of clock time (a clock
second)can represent the same interval of absolute time in different
frames.
Newton didn't know that. He thought it could, and he thought clocks
behaved that way.
He was wrong.
Regardless, YOUR definition of absolute time is therefore different
than his, because YOU believe that clocks do not measure absolute
time.
No I said that a clock second at the rest frame of the clock
represents a specific amount of absolute time.
Then that STILL is not what Newton called absolute time.
Close enough....in any case it is irrelevant.
Not at all close.
Newton failed to realize  that no physical clock unit of time can
represent the same inertavl of absolute time in different frames. If
he realize that he would agree to my definition of absolute time.
That's what I said. Newton thought they would agree. They don't.
His definition is nothing like yours.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
That is, you do not believe that 112 seconds as measured on one
clock measures the same amount of absolute time as 112 seconds as
measured on another clock.
Correct 112 seconds on clock A represents a different amount of
absolute time as 112 seconds on clock B.
112 clock seconds at the rest frame of clock A represents 112 seconds
of duration (absolute time), according to YOUR definition.
No I said that 112 seconds on clock A represents a specific interval
of absolute time.
Presumably 112 seconds worth of absolute time, since it's measured in
its own rest frame.
It represents a specific interval of absolute time.
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Sigh....absolute time is proper time....absolute time is invariant as
is proper time.
I'm not sure you know what proper time is.
Of course I know what proper time is....it is absolute time.
Post by PD
You do know that the clocks used by the twins in the twin puzzle
measure proper time, don't you?
No it measures the amount of clock time in the traveling clock that
represents the same amount of proper time on the observer's clock.
No sir. The Earth's clock measures the proper time on the Earth clock.
Why no sir? The earth's clock measures the proper time (absolute time)
on the earth clock.
Post by PD
The traveling twin's clock measures the proper time on that twin's
clock.
How is that different than what I said? I said that the twin's clock
second measures a specific interval of proper time (absolute time).
Also I said that the earth's proper time (absloute time) interval is
worth 1/gamma proper time (absolute time)interval on the twin's clock.
Post by PD
You apparently don't know what proper time means.
You apparently can't read what I said.

Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
You do know that the clocks disagree when they meet again, don't you?
Of course that's because a clock second in the moving frame contains a
larger amount of proper time (absolute time).
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
The observer uses the equations of SR/GR or IRT to
calculate the clock time value on an observed clock for an interval of
absolute time (proper time)in the observer's clock.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by PD
If no clock measures absolute time, then absolute time is not
measurable.
Sigh....a clock second represents a specific interval of absolute
time.
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Post by PD
In that case, it is a useless concept in physics.
Unmeasurable quantities are physically useless, period.
It is measurable....a clock second AT THE REST FRAME OF THE CLOCK
represents a SPECIFIC INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
112 clock seconds at the rest frame of clock B represents 112 seconds
of duration (absolute time), according to YOUR definition.
No I said that 112 second on clock B represents a different specific
inertavl of absolute time than 112 seconds on clock A.
But 112 seconds is what clock B reads in its own rest frame. This is
DEFINED as absolute time according to your definition of absolute
timE.
No a physical clock second is not an absolute second. It represent a
specific interval of absolute time.
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
clock A represents a different amount of absolute time as 112 seconds
on clock B."
There is no contradiction to what I said.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
What this mean is that a
clock second is not a universal interval of time and thus you can't
compared an A second directly with a B second
As I told you, you have a funny meaning to the word "compare".
For a physicist, comparison just means writing down what the two
clocks say and then holding what you wrote down for both together and
looking at the numbers to see what they both say.
To you, "compare" means something else.
In order to compare seconds directly an A second must represents the
same amount of absolute time as a B second.
No sir. There is no such requirement for a comparison. Why do you
think there is?
Because an A second represents a different amount of absolute than a B
second.
Post by PD
If I take two tire pressure gauges and take a reading of my right
front tire with both of them, and one of them reads 31 psi and the
other reads 29 psi, that is a comparison. You must think it's not.
There is no motion ivolved in this example. The absolute time content
for a clock second is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the
clock.
So? Why are the rules different for comparing two measurements when
there is motion involved?
To a physicist, a comparison is a comparison, just like the readings
off the tire gauges are compared.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
But they are not and
that's why you can't compare them directly. The proper way to compare
According to SR: B's clock second is covert to A's clock reading and
the result is gamma seconds on A's clock.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
as you runts of the
SRians do in the twin paradox scenario.
Post by PD
Therefore, at least one of these clocks,
and probably both of the clocks, is not measuring absolute time.
They both measure absolute time at its rest frame but their clock
seconds represent a different amount of absolute time.
How can both clocks measure absolute time in their own rest frames but
their measurements represent different amounts of absolute time?
Because a clock second represents a different amount of absolute time
in different frames (different states of absolute motion). What this
mean is that the current definition for time (time is what the clock
measure)is wrong.
Then absolute time can't be measured by a clock, because there is no
clock that measures absolute time.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Either 112 seconds on clock A represents 112 seconds of absolute time
in its rest frame- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -...
PD
2010-09-22 21:33:02 UTC
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by kenseto
a second is not a universal interval of time....iow, it
does not have the same duration (absolute time content) in different
frames.
You keep writing as if "universal interval of time" has meaning. And as if
"absolute time" has meaning (in subject).
Of course absolute time has meaning....it has the meaning of Newton's
absolute time.
Then yours is not quite the same as his.
His was an *assumption* about how clocks would behave. It was his
*assumption* that identically constructed clocks would all tick at the
same rate regardless of their motion or their location. This was an
assumption that needed to be tested.
No physical clock or defintion for unit of clock time (a clock
second)can represent the same interval of absolute time in different
frames.
Newton didn't know that. He thought it could, and he thought clocks
behaved that way.
He was wrong.
Regardless, YOUR definition of absolute time is therefore different
than his, because YOU believe that clocks do not measure absolute
time.
No I said that a clock second at the rest frame of the clock
represents a specific amount of absolute time.
Then that STILL is not what Newton called absolute time.
Close enough....in any case it is irrelevant.
Not at all close.
Newton failed to realize  that no physical clock unit of time can
represent the same inertavl of absolute time in different frames. If
he realize that he would agree to my definition of absolute time.
That's what I said. Newton thought they would agree. They don't.
His definition is nothing like yours.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
That is, you do not believe that 112 seconds as measured on one
clock measures the same amount of absolute time as 112 seconds as
measured on another clock.
Correct 112 seconds on clock A represents a different amount of
absolute time as 112 seconds on clock B.
112 clock seconds at the rest frame of clock A represents 112 seconds
of duration (absolute time), according to YOUR definition.
No I said that 112 seconds on clock A represents a specific interval
of absolute time.
Presumably 112 seconds worth of absolute time, since it's measured in
its own rest frame.
It represents a specific interval of absolute time.
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Sigh....absolute time is proper time....absolute time is invariant as
is proper time.
I'm not sure you know what proper time is.
Of course I know what proper time is....it is absolute time.
Post by PD
You do know that the clocks used by the twins in the twin puzzle
measure proper time, don't you?
No it measures the amount of clock time in the traveling clock that
represents the same amount of proper time on the observer's clock.
No sir. The Earth's clock measures the proper time on the Earth clock.
Why no sir? The earth's clock measures the proper time (absolute time)
on the earth clock.
Post by PD
The traveling twin's clock measures the proper time on that twin's
clock.
How is that different than what I said? I said that the twin's clock
second measures a specific interval of proper time (absolute time).
Also I said that the earth's proper time (absloute time) interval is
worth 1/gamma proper time (absolute time)interval on the twin's clock.
The clock MEASURES proper time. That means when the Earth clock reads
1300 seconds, it's reading 1300 seconds of proper time. When the
proper time. So when they meet and the twin's clock and the Earth
clock both read proper time but have different values, then your
statement that proper time is invariant is clearly wrong.

So either you don't know what proper time means, or you don't know
what invariant means.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
You apparently don't know what proper time means.
You apparently can't read what I said.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
You do know that the clocks disagree when they meet again, don't you?
Of course that's because a clock second in the moving frame contains a
larger amount of proper time (absolute time).
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
The observer uses the equations of SR/GR or IRT to
calculate the clock time value on an observed clock for an interval of
absolute time (proper time)in the observer's clock.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by PD
If no clock measures absolute time, then absolute time is not
measurable.
Sigh....a clock second represents a specific interval of absolute
time.
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Post by PD
In that case, it is a useless concept in physics.
Unmeasurable quantities are physically useless, period.
It is measurable....a clock second AT THE REST FRAME OF THE CLOCK
represents a SPECIFIC INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
112 clock seconds at the rest frame of clock B represents 112 seconds
of duration (absolute time), according to YOUR definition.
No I said that 112 second on clock B represents a different specific
inertavl of absolute time than 112 seconds on clock A.
But 112 seconds is what clock B reads in its own rest frame. This is
DEFINED as absolute time according to your definition of absolute
timE.
No a physical clock second is not an absolute second. It represent a
specific interval of absolute time.
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
clock A represents a different amount of absolute time as 112 seconds
on clock B."
There is no contradiction to what I said.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
What this mean is that a
clock second is not a universal interval of time and thus you can't
compared an A second directly with a B second
As I told you, you have a funny meaning to the word "compare".
For a physicist, comparison just means writing down what the two
clocks say and then holding what you wrote down for both together and
looking at the numbers to see what they both say.
To you, "compare" means something else.
In order to compare seconds directly an A second must represents the
same amount of absolute time as a B second.
No sir. There is no such requirement for a comparison. Why do you
think there is?
Because an A second represents a different amount of absolute than a B
second.
Post by PD
If I take two tire pressure gauges and take a reading of my right
front tire with both of them, and one of them reads 31 psi and the
other reads 29 psi, that is a comparison. You must think it's not.
There is no motion ivolved in this example. The absolute time content
for a clock second is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the
clock.
So? Why are the rules different for comparing two measurements when
there is motion involved?
To a physicist, a comparison is a comparison, just like the readings
off the tire gauges are compared.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
But they are not and
that's why you can't compare them directly. The proper way to compare
According to SR: B's clock second is covert to A's clock reading and
the result is gamma seconds on A's clock.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
as you runts of the
SRians do in the twin paradox scenario.
Post by PD
Therefore, at least one of these clocks,
and probably both of the clocks, is not measuring absolute time.
They both measure absolute time at its rest frame but their
...
kenseto
2010-09-23 13:21:14 UTC
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by kenseto
a second is not a universal interval of time....iow, it
does not have the same duration (absolute time content) in different
frames.
You keep writing as if "universal interval of time" has meaning. And as if
"absolute time" has meaning (in subject).
Of course absolute time has meaning....it has the meaning of Newton's
absolute time.
Then yours is not quite the same as his.
His was an *assumption* about how clocks would behave. It was his
*assumption* that identically constructed clocks would all tick at the
same rate regardless of their motion or their location. This was an
assumption that needed to be tested.
No physical clock or defintion for unit of clock time (a clock
second)can represent the same interval of absolute time in different
frames.
Newton didn't know that. He thought it could, and he thought clocks
behaved that way.
He was wrong.
Regardless, YOUR definition of absolute time is therefore different
than his, because YOU believe that clocks do not measure absolute
time.
No I said that a clock second at the rest frame of the clock
represents a specific amount of absolute time.
Then that STILL is not what Newton called absolute time.
Close enough....in any case it is irrelevant.
Not at all close.
Newton failed to realize  that no physical clock unit of time can
represent the same inertavl of absolute time in different frames. If
he realize that he would agree to my definition of absolute time.
That's what I said. Newton thought they would agree. They don't.
His definition is nothing like yours.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
That is, you do not believe that 112 seconds as measured on one
clock measures the same amount of absolute time as 112 seconds as
measured on another clock.
Correct 112 seconds on clock A represents a different amount of
absolute time as 112 seconds on clock B.
112 clock seconds at the rest frame of clock A represents 112 seconds
of duration (absolute time), according to YOUR definition.
No I said that 112 seconds on clock A represents a specific interval
of absolute time.
Presumably 112 seconds worth of absolute time, since it's measured in
its own rest frame.
It represents a specific interval of absolute time.
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Sigh....absolute time is proper time....absolute time is invariant as
is proper time.
I'm not sure you know what proper time is.
Of course I know what proper time is....it is absolute time.
Post by PD
You do know that the clocks used by the twins in the twin puzzle
measure proper time, don't you?
No it measures the amount of clock time in the traveling clock that
represents the same amount of proper time on the observer's clock.
No sir. The Earth's clock measures the proper time on the Earth clock.
Why no sir? The earth's clock measures the proper time (absolute time)
on the earth clock.
Post by PD
The traveling twin's clock measures the proper time on that twin's
clock.
How is that different than what I said? I said that the twin's clock
second measures a specific interval of proper time (absolute time).
Also I said that the earth's proper time (absloute time) interval is
worth 1/gamma proper time (absolute time)interval on the twin's clock.
The clock MEASURES proper time. That means when the Earth clock reads
1300 seconds, it's reading 1300 seconds of proper time.
No it means that 1300 seconds represents a specific interval of proper
time. Lets call this interval of proper time (absolute time)as T_pe
Post by PD
When the
proper time.
No it means that 680 seconds on the twin's clock represents the same
interval of proper time T_pe as 1300 seconds on the earth clock.
Post by PD
So when they meet and the twin's clock and the Earth
clock both read proper time but have different values, then your
statement that proper time is invariant is clearly wrong.
No you can't compare the earth second directly with the twin's second.
Why? Because the earth second represents a smller amount of proper
time than the twin's second. If you want to make the comparison you
must convert the twin's seconds to the earth seconds by multiplying it
by a factor of gamma.
Post by PD
So either you don't know what proper time means, or you don't know
what invariant means.
No it is you who don't know what proper time means and you don't known
that a clcok second is not a universal interval of proper time.

Ken seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
You apparently don't know what proper time means.
You apparently can't read what I said.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
You do know that the clocks disagree when they meet again, don't you?
Of course that's because a clock second in the moving frame contains a
larger amount of proper time (absolute time).
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
The observer uses the equations of SR/GR or IRT to
calculate the clock time value on an observed clock for an interval of
absolute time (proper time)in the observer's clock.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by PD
If no clock measures absolute time, then absolute time is not
measurable.
Sigh....a clock second represents a specific interval of absolute
time.
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Post by PD
In that case, it is a useless concept in physics.
Unmeasurable quantities are physically useless, period.
It is measurable....a clock second AT THE REST FRAME OF THE CLOCK
represents a SPECIFIC INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
112 clock seconds at the rest frame of clock B represents 112 seconds
of duration (absolute time), according to YOUR definition.
No I said that 112 second on clock B represents a different specific
inertavl of absolute time than 112 seconds on clock A.
But 112 seconds is what clock B reads in its own rest frame. This is
DEFINED as absolute time according to your definition of absolute
timE.
No a physical clock second is not an absolute second. It represent a
specific interval of absolute time.
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
clock A represents a different amount of absolute time as 112 seconds
on clock B."
There is no contradiction to what I said.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
What this mean is that a
clock second is not a universal interval of time and thus you can't
compared an A second directly with a B second
As I told you, you have a funny meaning to the word "compare".
For a physicist, comparison just means writing down what the two
clocks say and then holding what you wrote down for both together and
looking at the numbers to see what they both say.
To you, "compare" means something else.
In order to compare seconds directly an A second must represents the
same amount of absolute time as a B second.
No sir. There is no such requirement for a comparison. Why do you
think there is?
Because an A second represents a different amount of absolute than a B
second.
Post by PD
If I take two tire pressure gauges and take a reading of my right
front tire with both of them, and one of them reads 31 psi and the
other reads 29 psi, that is a comparison. You must think it's not.
There is no motion ivolved in this example. The absolute time content
for a clock second is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the
clock.
So? Why are the rules different for comparing two measurements when- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -...
PD
2010-09-23 15:13:59 UTC
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by kenseto
a second is not a universal interval of time....iow, it
does not have the same duration (absolute time content) in different
frames.
You keep writing as if "universal interval of time" has meaning. And as if
"absolute time" has meaning (in subject).
Of course absolute time has meaning....it has the meaning of Newton's
absolute time.
Then yours is not quite the same as his.
His was an *assumption* about how clocks would behave. It was his
*assumption* that identically constructed clocks would all tick at the
same rate regardless of their motion or their location. This was an
assumption that needed to be tested.
No physical clock or defintion for unit of clock time (a clock
second)can represent the same interval of absolute time in different
frames.
Newton didn't know that. He thought it could, and he thought clocks
behaved that way.
He was wrong.
Regardless, YOUR definition of absolute time is therefore different
than his, because YOU believe that clocks do not measure absolute
time.
No I said that a clock second at the rest frame of the clock
represents a specific amount of absolute time.
Then that STILL is not what Newton called absolute time.
Close enough....in any case it is irrelevant.
Not at all close.
Newton failed to realize  that no physical clock unit of time can
represent the same inertavl of absolute time in different frames. If
he realize that he would agree to my definition of absolute time.
That's what I said. Newton thought they would agree. They don't.
His definition is nothing like yours.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
That is, you do not believe that 112 seconds as measured on one
clock measures the same amount of absolute time as 112 seconds as
measured on another clock.
Correct 112 seconds on clock A represents a different amount of
absolute time as 112 seconds on clock B.
112 clock seconds at the rest frame of clock A represents 112 seconds
of duration (absolute time), according to YOUR definition.
No I said that 112 seconds on clock A represents a specific interval
of absolute time.
Presumably 112 seconds worth of absolute time, since it's measured in
its own rest frame.
It represents a specific interval of absolute time.
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Sigh....absolute time is proper time....absolute time is invariant as
is proper time.
I'm not sure you know what proper time is.
Of course I know what proper time is....it is absolute time.
Post by PD
You do know that the clocks used by the twins in the twin puzzle
measure proper time, don't you?
No it measures the amount of clock time in the traveling clock that
represents the same amount of proper time on the observer's clock.
No sir. The Earth's clock measures the proper time on the Earth clock.
Why no sir? The earth's clock measures the proper time (absolute time)
on the earth clock.
Post by PD
The traveling twin's clock measures the proper time on that twin's
clock.
How is that different than what I said? I said that the twin's clock
second measures a specific interval of proper time (absolute time).
Also I said that the earth's proper time (absloute time) interval is
worth 1/gamma proper time (absolute time)interval on the twin's clock.
The clock MEASURES proper time. That means when the Earth clock reads
1300 seconds, it's reading 1300 seconds of proper time.
No it means that 1300 seconds represents a specific interval of proper
time. Lets call this interval of proper time (absolute time)as T_pe
Post by PD
When the
proper time.
No it means that 680 seconds on the twin's clock represents the same
interval of proper time T_pe as 1300 seconds on the earth clock.
No, it does not mean that. You do not know what proper time means.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
So when they meet and the twin's clock and the Earth
clock both read proper time but have different values, then your
statement that proper time is invariant is clearly wrong.
No you can't compare the earth second directly with the twin's second.
Why? Because the earth second represents a smller amount of proper
time than the twin's second. If you want to make the comparison you
must convert the twin's seconds to the earth seconds by multiplying it
by a factor of gamma.
That's not required for a comparison. That's why I gave you the
example of comparing readings from two tire pressure gauges on the
same tire. Two different numbers from the gauges, no conversion needed
to compare them.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
So either you don't know what proper time means, or you don't know
what invariant means.
No it is you who don't know what proper time means
I'm sorry, Ken, but proper time has a specific meaning FOR PHYSICISTS
and you're not using the term correctly. You're putting your own
definition on the term, and it isn't at all consistent with what
PHYSICISTS mean by the term.
Post by kenseto
and you don't known
that a clcok second is not a universal interval of proper time.
Ken seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
You apparently don't know what proper time means.
You apparently can't read what I said.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
You do know that the clocks disagree when they meet again, don't you?
Of course that's because a clock second in the moving frame contains a
larger amount of proper time (absolute time).
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
The observer uses the equations of SR/GR or IRT to
calculate the clock time value on an observed clock for an interval of
absolute time (proper time)in the observer's clock.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by PD
If no clock measures absolute time, then absolute time is not
measurable.
Sigh....a clock second represents a specific interval of absolute
time.
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Post by PD
In that case, it is a useless concept in physics.
Unmeasurable quantities are physically useless, period.
It is measurable....a clock second AT THE REST FRAME OF THE CLOCK
represents a SPECIFIC INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
112 clock seconds at the rest frame of clock B represents 112 seconds
of duration (absolute time), according to YOUR definition.
No I said that 112 second on clock B represents a different specific
inertavl of absolute time than 112 seconds on clock A.
But 112 seconds is what clock B reads in its own rest frame. This is
DEFINED as absolute time according to your definition of absolute
timE.
No a physical clock second is not an absolute second. It represent a
specific interval of absolute time.
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
clock A represents a different amount of absolute time as 112 seconds
on clock B."
There is no contradiction to what I said.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
What this mean is that a
clock second is not a universal interval of time and thus you can't
compared an A second directly with a B second
As I told you, you have a funny meaning to the word "compare".
For a physicist, comparison just means writing down what the two
clocks say and then holding what you wrote down
...
kenseto
2010-09-23 23:04:11 UTC
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by kenseto
a second is not a universal interval of time....iow, it
does not have the same duration (absolute time content) in different
frames.
You keep writing as if "universal interval of time" has meaning. And as if
"absolute time" has meaning (in subject).
Of course absolute time has meaning....it has the meaning of Newton's
absolute time.
Then yours is not quite the same as his.
His was an *assumption* about how clocks would behave. It was his
*assumption* that identically constructed clocks would all tick at the
same rate regardless of their motion or their location. This was an
assumption that needed to be tested.
No physical clock or defintion for unit of clock time (a clock
second)can represent the same interval of absolute time in different
frames.
Newton didn't know that. He thought it could, and he thought clocks
behaved that way.
He was wrong.
Regardless, YOUR definition of absolute time is therefore different
than his, because YOU believe that clocks do not measure absolute
time.
No I said that a clock second at the rest frame of the clock
represents a specific amount of absolute time.
Then that STILL is not what Newton called absolute time.
Close enough....in any case it is irrelevant.
Not at all close.
Newton failed to realize  that no physical clock unit of time can
represent the same inertavl of absolute time in different frames. If
he realize that he would agree to my definition of absolute time.
That's what I said. Newton thought they would agree. They don't.
His definition is nothing like yours.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
That is, you do not believe that 112 seconds as measured on one
clock measures the same amount of absolute time as 112 seconds as
measured on another clock.
Correct 112 seconds on clock A represents a different amount of
absolute time as 112 seconds on clock B.
112 clock seconds at the rest frame of clock A represents 112 seconds
of duration (absolute time), according to YOUR definition.
No I said that 112 seconds on clock A represents a specific interval
of absolute time.
Presumably 112 seconds worth of absolute time, since it's measured in
its own rest frame.
It represents a specific interval of absolute time.
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Sigh....absolute time is proper time....absolute time is invariant as
is proper time.
I'm not sure you know what proper time is.
Of course I know what proper time is....it is absolute time.
Post by PD
You do know that the clocks used by the twins in the twin puzzle
measure proper time, don't you?
No it measures the amount of clock time in the traveling clock that
represents the same amount of proper time on the observer's clock.
No sir. The Earth's clock measures the proper time on the Earth clock.
Why no sir? The earth's clock measures the proper time (absolute time)
on the earth clock.
Post by PD
The traveling twin's clock measures the proper time on that twin's
clock.
How is that different than what I said? I said that the twin's clock
second measures a specific interval of proper time (absolute time).
Also I said that the earth's proper time (absloute time) interval is
worth 1/gamma proper time (absolute time)interval on the twin's clock.
The clock MEASURES proper time. That means when the Earth clock reads
1300 seconds, it's reading 1300 seconds of proper time.
No it means that 1300 seconds represents a specific interval of proper
time. Lets call this interval of proper time (absolute time)as T_pe
Post by PD
When the
proper time.
No it means that 680 seconds on the twin's clock represents the same
interval of proper time T_pe as 1300 seconds on the earth clock.
No, it does not mean that. You do not know what proper time means.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
So when they meet and the twin's clock and the Earth
clock both read proper time but have different values, then your
statement that proper time is invariant is clearly wrong.
No you can't compare the earth second directly with the twin's second.
Why? Because the earth second represents a smller amount of proper
time than the twin's second. If you want to make the comparison you
must convert the twin's seconds to the earth seconds by multiplying it
by a factor of gamma.
That's not required for a comparison. That's why I gave you the
example of comparing readings from two tire pressure gauges on the
same tire. Two different numbers from the gauges, no conversion needed
to compare them.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
So either you don't know what proper time means, or you don't know
what invariant means.
No it is you who don't know what proper time means
I'm sorry, Ken, but proper time has a specific meaning FOR PHYSICISTS
and you're not using the term correctly. You're putting your own
definition on the term, and it isn't at all consistent with what
PHYSICISTS mean by the term.
It is more likely that you don't understand what proper time means in
SR...just as you don't understand what length contraction mean in SR.
If a proper second is a universal interval of time as you seem to
imply then they wouldn't have to rwedefine the GPS second to have 4.46
more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. The
redefined proper second at the GPS location will contain the same
amount of proper time as a ground clock second.
I feel sorry for your students who are subjected to your bogus
knowledge of physics.

Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
and you don't known
that a clcok second is not a universal interval of proper time.
Ken seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
You apparently don't know what proper time means.
You apparently can't read what I said.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
You do know that the clocks disagree when they meet again, don't you?
Of course that's because a clock second in the moving frame contains a
larger amount of proper time (absolute time).
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
The observer uses the equations of SR/GR or IRT to
calculate the clock time value on an observed clock for an interval of
absolute time (proper time)in the observer's clock.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by PD
If no clock measures absolute time, then absolute time is not
measurable.
Sigh....a clock second represents a specific interval of absolute
time.
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Post by PD
In that case, it is a useless concept in physics.
Unmeasurable quantities are physically useless, period.
It is measurable....a clock second AT THE REST FRAME OF THE CLOCK
represents a SPECIFIC INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
112 clock seconds at the rest frame of clock B represents 112 seconds
of duration (absolute time), according to YOUR definition.
No I said that 112 second on clock B represents a different specific
inertavl of absolute time than 112 seconds on clock A.
But 112 seconds is what clock B reads in its own rest frame. This is
DEFINED as absolute time according to your definition of absolute
timE.
No a physical clock second is not an absolute second. It represent a
specific interval of absolute time.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -...
Michael Moroney
2010-09-23 23:59:46 UTC
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
No it is you who don't know what proper time means
I'm sorry, Ken, but proper time has a specific meaning FOR PHYSICISTS
and you're not using the term correctly. You're putting your own
definition on the term, and it isn't at all consistent with what
PHYSICISTS mean by the term.
It is more likely that you don't understand what proper time means in
SR...just as you don't understand what length contraction mean in SR.
[snip crap]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time

"In relativity, proper time is time measured by a single clock between
events that occur at the same place as the clock. It depends not only on
the events but also on the motion of the clock between the events."
...

You lose.
kenseto
2010-09-24 12:24:15 UTC
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
No it is you who don't know what proper time means
I'm sorry, Ken, but proper time has a specific meaning FOR PHYSICISTS
and you're not using the term correctly. You're putting your own
definition on the term, and it isn't at all consistent with what
PHYSICISTS mean by the term.
It is more likely that you don't understand what proper time means in
SR...just as you don't understand what length contraction mean in SR.
[snip crap]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time
"In relativity, proper time is time measured by a single clock between
events that occur at the same place as the clock. It depends not only on
the events but also on the motion of the clock between the events."
Right....the observer's clock second represents a specific interval of
proper time......but different observer's clock second represents a
different specific interval of proper time. That's why clocks in
relative motion run at different rates.
Post by Michael Moroney
...
You lose.
Michael Moroney
2010-09-24 16:51:40 UTC
Post by kenseto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
No it is you who don't know what proper time means
I'm sorry, Ken, but proper time has a specific meaning FOR PHYSICISTS
and you're not using the term correctly. You're putting your own
definition on the term, and it isn't at all consistent with what
PHYSICISTS mean by the term.
It is more likely that you don't understand what proper time means in
SR...just as you don't understand what length contraction mean in SR.
[snip crap]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time
"In relativity, proper time is time measured by a single clock between
events that occur at the same place as the clock. It depends not only on
the events but also on the motion of the clock between the events."
Right....the observer's clock second represents a specific interval of
proper time......
That "specific interval" is always 1 second. The observer's comoving
clock second is (by definition) one second of proper time.
Post by kenseto
but different observer's clock second represents a
different specific interval of proper time.
No, a different observer with a different comoving clock will also read
that observer's proper time on that clock. Yes, if you compare the two
clocks, they'll read differently, as SR predicts.

You keep trying to redefine "proper time" as what you were previously
calling "absolute time", or something. Sorry, but the phrase "proper
time" already has a definition in relativistic physics, and it's not
"absolute time".
Androcles
2010-09-24 17:07:12 UTC
--
Einstein did NOT write
1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c+v)+x'/(c-v))]=tau(x',0,0, t+x'/(c-v))
<http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif>
and he did not write:
"indem man durch Definition festsetzt, daß die "Zeit", welche das
Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu gelangen, gleich ist der "Zeit",
welche es braucht, um von B nach A zu gelangen." -- Einstein
-- signed, Lying Illiterate Relativistic Dunce (LIRD).

What kind of lunacy prompted Einstein to say
the speed of light from A=(0,0,0) to B=(x',0,0) is c-v,
the speed of light from B=(x',0,0) to A=(0,0,0) is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same, Mickey Moron?

"Michael Moroney" <***@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:i7ikus\$ueu\$***@pcls6.std.com...
| kenseto <***@erinet.com> writes:
|
| >On Sep 23, 7:59=A0pm, ***@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
| >wrote:
| >> kenseto <***@erinet.com> writes:
| >> >On Sep 23, 11:13 am, PD <***@gmail.com> wrote:
| >> >> On Sep 23, 8:21 am, kenseto <***@erinet.com> wrote:
| >> >> > No it is you who don't know what proper time means
| >>
| >> >> I'm sorry, Ken, but proper time has a specific meaning FOR
PHYSICISTS
| >> >> and you're not using the term correctly. You're putting your own
| >> >> definition on the term, and it isn't at all consistent with what
| >> >> PHYSICISTS mean by the term.
| >> >It is more likely that you don't understand what proper time means in
| >> >SR...just as you don't understand what length contraction mean in SR.
| >>
| >> [snip crap]
| >>
| >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time
| >>
| >> "In relativity, proper time is time measured by a single clock between
| >> events that occur at the same place as the clock. It depends not only
on
| >> the events but also on the motion of the clock between the events."
|
| >Right....the observer's clock second represents a specific interval of
| >proper time......
|
| That "specific interval" is always 1 second. The observer's comoving
| clock second is (by definition) one second of proper time.
|
| >but different observer's clock second represents a
| >different specific interval of proper time.
|
| No, a different observer with a different comoving clock will also read
| that observer's proper time on that clock. Yes, if you compare the two
| clocks, they'll read differently, as SR predicts.
|
| You keep trying to redefine "proper time" as what you were previously
| calling "absolute time", or something. Sorry, but the phrase "proper
| time" already has a definition in relativistic physics, and it's not
| "absolute time".
|
kenseto
2010-09-25 13:19:55 UTC
Post by kenseto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
No it is you who don't know what proper time means
I'm sorry, Ken, but proper time has a specific meaning FOR PHYSICISTS
and you're not using the term correctly. You're putting your own
definition on the term, and it isn't at all consistent with what
PHYSICISTS mean by the term.
It is more likely that you don't understand what proper time means in
SR...just as you don't understand what length contraction mean in SR.
[snip crap]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time
"In relativity, proper time is time measured by a single clock between
events that occur at the same place as the clock. It depends not only on
the events but also on the motion of the clock between the events."
Right....the observer's clock second represents a specific interval of
proper time......
That "specific interval" is always 1 second.
The point is: it is 1 second only at the rest frame of the clock. IOW,
a clock second does not represent the same interval of proper time in
different frames. There is no difference between proper time and
absolute time. Just because you call absolute time as proper time does
not rule out the existence of absolute time.
The observer's comoving
clock second is (by definition) one second of proper time.
Post by kenseto
but different observer's clock second represents a
different specific interval of proper time.
No, a different observer with a different comoving clock will also read
that observer's proper time on that clock.  Yes, if you compare the two
clocks, they'll read differently, as SR predicts.
You keep trying to redefine "proper time" as what you were previously
calling "absolute time", or something.  Sorry, but the phrase "proper
time" already has a definition in relativistic physics, and it's not
"absolute time".- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Michael Moroney
2010-09-25 21:47:17 UTC
Post by kenseto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by kenseto
Post by Sam Wormley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time
"In relativity, proper time is time measured by a single clock between
events that occur at the same place as the clock. It depends not only on
the events but also on the motion of the clock between the events."
Right....the observer's clock second represents a specific interval of
proper time......
That "specific interval" is always 1 second.
The point is: it is 1 second only at the rest frame of the clock. IOW,
a clock second does not represent the same interval of proper time in
different frames.
Yes it does, since proper time is what the clock measures in its own
rest frame. By definition.
Post by kenseto
There is no difference between proper time and
absolute time.
Yes there is. Proper time is the time shown on a clock comoving with
the observer. Absolute time is a figment of your imagination.
Post by kenseto
Just because you call absolute time as proper time does
not rule out the existence of absolute time.
It is *you* who is trying to co-opt the term "proper time" as absolute
time. (See your last sentence before the one I quoted here!) Sorry,
Androcles
2010-09-25 22:40:33 UTC
"Michael Moroney" <***@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:i7lql5\$bab\$***@pcls6.std.com...
| kenseto <***@erinet.com> writes:
|
| >On Sep 24, 12:51 pm, ***@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
| >wrote:
| >> kenseto <***@erinet.com> writes:
| >> >On Sep 23, 7:59 pm, ***@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
| >> >wrote:
|
| >> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time
| >>
| >> >> "In relativity, proper time is time measured by a single clock
between
| >> >> events that occur at the same place as the clock. It depends not
only on
| >> >> the events but also on the motion of the clock between the events."
| >> >Right....the observer's clock second represents a specific interval of
| >> >proper time......
| >>
| >> That "specific interval" is always 1 second.
|
| >The point is: it is 1 second only at the rest frame of the clock. IOW,
| >a clock second does not represent the same interval of proper time in
| >different frames.
|
| Yes it does, since proper time is what the clock measures in its own
| rest frame. By definition.
|
| > There is no difference between proper time and
| >absolute time.
|
| Yes there is. Proper time is the time shown on a clock comoving with
| the observer. Absolute time is a figment of your imagination.
|
| > Just because you call absolute time as proper time does
| >not rule out the existence of absolute time.
|
| It is *you* who is trying to co-opt the term "proper time" as absolute
| time. (See your last sentence before the one I quoted here!) Sorry,

Do cite a credible reference to a definition of "proper time", Mickey Moron.
Inertial
2010-09-26 01:35:00 UTC
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by kenseto
The point is: it is 1 second only at the rest frame of the clock. IOW,
a clock second does not represent the same interval of proper time in
different frames.
Yes it does, since proper time is what the clock measures in its own
rest frame. By definition.
Ken's only possibly valid point there is that, though every correctly
working clock measures proper time in its own rest frame, an observer
relative to whom the clock is moving will NOT see that clock showing proper
time in that observer's frame (as measured by synchronised clocks in that
observers frame) .. it will always be measured as slower than proper time ..
even though an observer commoving with the clock WILL see it as showing
proper time (by definition).

Proper time (despite Henry's claims) is not absolute.
Androcles
2010-09-26 07:33:51 UTC
--
Einstein did NOT write
1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c+v)+x'/(c-v))]=tau(x',0,0, t+x'/(c-v))
<http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif>
and he did not write:
"indem man durch Definition festsetzt, daß die "Zeit", welche das
Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu gelangen, gleich ist der "Zeit",
welche es braucht, um von B nach A zu gelangen." -- Einstein
-- signed, Lying Illiterate Relativistic Dunce (LIRD).

What kind of lunacy prompted Einstein to NOT say
the speed of light from A=(0,0,0) to B=(x',0,0) is c-v,
the speed of light from B=(x',0,0) to A=(0,0,0) is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same and invent time dilation,
which he did not NOT do, no, not, no, nno... no.... nooo...?

"Inertial" <***@rest.com> wrote in message news:4c9ea346\$0\$11118\$***@news.astraweb.com...
| "Michael Moroney" wrote in message news:i7lql5\$bab\$***@pcls6.std.com...
| >
| >>The point is: it is 1 second only at the rest frame of the clock. IOW,
| >>a clock second does not represent the same interval of proper time in
| >>different frames.
| >
| >Yes it does, since proper time is what the clock measures in its own
| >rest frame. By definition.
|
| Ken's only possibly valid point there is that, though every correctly
| working clock measures proper time in its own rest frame, an observer
| relative to whom the clock is moving will NOT see that clock showing
proper
| time in that observer's frame (as measured by synchronised clocks in that
| observers frame) .. it will always be measured as slower than proper time
..
| even though an observer commoving with the clock WILL see it as showing
| proper time (by definition).
|
| Proper time (despite Henry's claims) is not absolute.
|
|
kenseto
2010-09-26 13:44:45 UTC
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by kenseto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by kenseto
Post by Sam Wormley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time
"In relativity, proper time is time measured by a single clock between
events that occur at the same place as the clock. It depends not only on
the events but also on the motion of the clock between the events."
Right....the observer's clock second represents a specific interval of
proper time......
That "specific interval" is always 1 second.
The point is: it is 1 second only at the rest frame of the clock. IOW,
a clock second does not represent the same interval of proper time in
different frames.
Yes it does, since proper time is what the clock measures in its own
rest frame.  By definition.
Yes proper time(absolute time) is the time on the observer's clock
ONLY.
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by kenseto
There is no difference between proper time and
absolute time.
Yes there is.  Proper time is the time shown on a clock comoving with
the observer.  Absolute time is a figment of your imagination.
Right proper time is the time on the observer's clock....also absolute
time is also the time on the observer's clock. You seem to think that
a clock second represents the same amount of proper time in different
frames. If that is the case why is there a need for the term proper
time (absolute time)????
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by kenseto
Just because you call absolute time as proper time does
not rule out the existence of absolute time.
It is *you* who is trying to co-opt the term "proper time" as absolute
time.
No idiot absolute time exist before proper time....it is you runts of
the SRians hijacked absolute time and call it proper in an attempt to
eliminate the need for absolute time in SR. <shrug>
Post by Michael Moroney
(See your last sentence before the one I quoted here!) Sorry,
"proper time" already had a definition before you came along.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Michael Moroney
2010-09-26 19:58:46 UTC
Post by kenseto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by kenseto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by kenseto
Post by Michael Moroney
"In relativity, proper time is time measured by a single clock between
events that occur at the same place as the clock. It depends not only on
the events but also on the motion of the clock between the events."
Right....the observer's clock second represents a specific interval of
proper time......
That "specific interval" is always 1 second.
The point is: it is 1 second only at the rest frame of the clock. IOW,
a clock second does not represent the same interval of proper time in
different frames.
Yes it does, since proper time is what the clock measures in its own
rest frame. By definition.
Yes proper time(absolute time) is the time on the observer's clock
ONLY.
Get rid of the irrelevant phrase "(absolute time)" and that's correct.

Every observer has a different proper time.
Post by kenseto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by kenseto
There is no difference between proper time and
absolute time.
Yes there is. Proper time is the time shown on a clock comoving with
the observer. Absolute time is a figment of your imagination.
Right proper time is the time on the observer's clock....also absolute
time is also the time on the observer's clock.
So now we have a different definition of absolute time, that would
conflict with previous definitions (except in the case of something
stationary with your mythical "absolute frame". How could anything
be "absolute" if every observer gets a different value for their own
proper time?
Post by kenseto
You seem to think that
a clock second represents the same amount of proper time in different
frames.
Proper time is for one specific frame at a time. You cannot compare two
proper times in different frames since only one of the frames (the
observer's frame) will have proper time for that frame.
Post by kenseto
If that is the case why is there a need for the term proper
time (absolute time)????
Nobody uses the term "proper time (absolute time)" so you're right, there
is no need for it. On the other hand, however, "proper time" is defined
as the time showed on a clock that's stationary wrt to the observer for
the duration of the observation. Each observer has a different proper
time.
Post by kenseto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by kenseto
Just because you call absolute time as proper time does
not rule out the existence of absolute time.
It is *you* who is trying to co-opt the term "proper time" as absolute
time.
No idiot absolute time exist before proper time....
Einstein and the early developers of SR have been using the phrase "proper
time" pretty much since the beginnings of SR, 1905 or so. Unless you're
so old you cooked up the phrase "proper time" before Einstein came along
in 1905, you're wrong.
Post by kenseto
it is you runts of
the SRians hijacked absolute time and call it proper in an attempt to
eliminate the need for absolute time in SR. <shrug>
Proper time is hardly "absolute". Each observer on a different worldline
has a different proper time, and all those clocks will disagree with each
other.
PD
2010-09-24 16:51:35 UTC
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by kenseto
a second is not a universal interval of time....iow, it
does not have the same duration (absolute time content) in different
frames.
You keep writing as if "universal interval of time" has meaning. And as if
"absolute time" has meaning (in subject).
Of course absolute time has meaning....it has the meaning of Newton's
absolute time.
Then yours is not quite the same as his.
His was an *assumption* about how clocks would behave. It was his
*assumption* that identically constructed clocks would all tick at the
same rate regardless of their motion or their location. This was an
assumption that needed to be tested.
No physical clock or defintion for unit of clock time (a clock
second)can represent the same interval of absolute time in different
frames.
Newton didn't know that. He thought it could, and he thought clocks
behaved that way.
He was wrong.
Regardless, YOUR definition of absolute time is therefore different
than his, because YOU believe that clocks do not measure absolute
time.
No I said that a clock second at the rest frame of the clock
represents a specific amount of absolute time.
Then that STILL is not what Newton called absolute time.
Close enough....in any case it is irrelevant.
Not at all close.
Newton failed to realize  that no physical clock unit of time can
represent the same inertavl of absolute time in different frames. If
he realize that he would agree to my definition of absolute time.
That's what I said. Newton thought they would agree. They don't.
His definition is nothing like yours.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
That is, you do not believe that 112 seconds as measured on one
clock measures the same amount of absolute time as 112 seconds as
measured on another clock.
Correct 112 seconds on clock A represents a different amount of
absolute time as 112 seconds on clock B.
112 clock seconds at the rest frame of clock A represents 112 seconds
of duration (absolute time), according to YOUR definition.
No I said that 112 seconds on clock A represents a specific interval
of absolute time.
Presumably 112 seconds worth of absolute time, since it's measured in
its own rest frame.
It represents a specific interval of absolute time.
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Sigh....absolute time is proper time....absolute time is invariant as
is proper time.
I'm not sure you know what proper time is.
Of course I know what proper time is....it is absolute time.
Post by PD
You do know that the clocks used by the twins in the twin puzzle
measure proper time, don't you?
No it measures the amount of clock time in the traveling clock that
represents the same amount of proper time on the observer's clock.
No sir. The Earth's clock measures the proper time on the Earth clock.
Why no sir? The earth's clock measures the proper time (absolute time)
on the earth clock.
Post by PD
The traveling twin's clock measures the proper time on that twin's
clock.
How is that different than what I said? I said that the twin's clock
second measures a specific interval of proper time (absolute time).
Also I said that the earth's proper time (absloute time) interval is
worth 1/gamma proper time (absolute time)interval on the twin's clock.
The clock MEASURES proper time. That means when the Earth clock reads
1300 seconds, it's reading 1300 seconds of proper time.
No it means that 1300 seconds represents a specific interval of proper
time. Lets call this interval of proper time (absolute time)as T_pe
Post by PD
When the
proper time.
No it means that 680 seconds on the twin's clock represents the same
interval of proper time T_pe as 1300 seconds on the earth clock.
No, it does not mean that. You do not know what proper time means.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
So when they meet and the twin's clock and the Earth
clock both read proper time but have different values, then your
statement that proper time is invariant is clearly wrong.
No you can't compare the earth second directly with the twin's second.
Why? Because the earth second represents a smller amount of proper
time than the twin's second. If you want to make the comparison you
must convert the twin's seconds to the earth seconds by multiplying it
by a factor of gamma.
That's not required for a comparison. That's why I gave you the
example of comparing readings from two tire pressure gauges on the
same tire. Two different numbers from the gauges, no conversion needed
to compare them.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
So either you don't know what proper time means, or you don't know
what invariant means.
No it is you who don't know what proper time means
I'm sorry, Ken, but proper time has a specific meaning FOR PHYSICISTS
and you're not using the term correctly. You're putting your own
definition on the term, and it isn't at all consistent with what
PHYSICISTS mean by the term.
It is more likely that you don't understand what proper time means in
SR...just as you don't understand what length contraction mean in SR.
No, sorry Ken, that is not more likely. If you have lots of people
telling you that you are using terms wrong, then it is not more likely
that you are right and lots of people are wrong. It is more likely
that you are wrong and lots of people are right.

The most important thing to do when you start to learn science is to
learn the meaning of the words as used by scientists, especially if
you are engaged in discussion with scientists. If you don't do that,
then you will fail. If you tell yourself that you know the correct
meaning of the words, and scientists don't, then you are only trying
Post by kenseto
If a proper second is a universal interval of time as you seem to
imply then they wouldn't have to rwedefine the GPS second to have 4.46
more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. The
redefined proper second at the GPS location will contain the same
amount of proper time as a ground clock second.
I feel sorry for your students who are subjected to your bogus
knowledge of physics.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
and you don't known
that a clcok second is not a universal interval of proper time.
Ken seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
You apparently don't know what proper time means.
You apparently can't read what I said.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
You do know that the clocks disagree when they meet again, don't you?
Of course that's because a clock second in the moving frame contains a
larger amount of proper time (absolute time).
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
The observer uses the equations of SR/GR or IRT to
calculate the clock time value on an observed clock for an interval of
absolute time (proper time)in the observer's clock.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by PD
If no clock measures absolute time, then absolute time is not
measurable.
Sigh....a clock second represents a specific interval of absolute
time.
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Post by PD
In that case, it is a useless concept in physics.
Unmeasurable quantities are physically useless, period.
It is measurable....a clock second AT THE REST FRAME OF THE CLOCK
...
Androcles
2010-09-24 17:08:08 UTC
--
Einstein did NOT write
1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c+v)+x'/(c-v))]=tau(x',0,0, t+x'/(c-v))
<http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif>
and he did not write:
"indem man durch Definition festsetzt, daß die "Zeit", welche das
Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu gelangen, gleich ist der "Zeit",
welche es braucht, um von B nach A zu gelangen." -- Einstein
-- signed, Lying Illiterate Relativistic Dunce (LIRD).

What kind of lunacy prompted Einstein to say
the speed of light from A=(0,0,0) to B=(x',0,0) is c-v,
the speed of light from B=(x',0,0) to A=(0,0,0) is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same, Phuckwit Mallard?
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
On Sep 20, 3:36 pm, PD
On Sep 20, 12:58 pm, kenseto
On Sep 20, 1:10 pm, PD
On Sep 20, 10:38 am, kenseto
On Sep 19, 12:07 pm, Tom Roberts
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by kenseto
a second is not a universal
interval of time....iow, it
does not have the same duration
(absolute time content) in
different
frames.
You keep writing as if "universal
interval of time" has meaning. And
as if
"absolute time" has meaning (in
subject).
Of course absolute time has
meaning....it has the meaning of
Newton's
absolute time.
Then yours is not quite the same as his.
His was an *assumption* about how clocks
would behave. It was his
*assumption* that identically
constructed clocks would all tick at the
same rate regardless of their motion or
their location. This was an
assumption that needed to be tested.
No physical clock or defintion for unit of
clock time (a clock
second)can represent the same interval of
absolute time in different
frames.
Newton didn't know that. He thought it
could, and he thought clocks
behaved that way.
He was wrong.
Regardless, YOUR definition of absolute time
is therefore different
than his, because YOU believe that clocks do
not measure absolute
time.
No I said that a clock second at the rest
frame of the clock
represents a specific amount of absolute time.
Then that STILL is not what Newton called
absolute time.
Close enough....in any case it is irrelevant.
Not at all close.
Newton failed to realize that no physical clock unit
of time can
represent the same inertavl of absolute time in
different frames. If
he realize that he would agree to my definition of
absolute time.
That's what I said. Newton thought they would agree.
They don't.
His definition is nothing like yours.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
That is, you do not believe that 112 seconds
as measured on one
clock measures the same amount of absolute
time as 112 seconds as
measured on another clock.
Correct 112 seconds on clock A represents a
different amount of
absolute time as 112 seconds on clock B.
112 clock seconds at the rest frame of clock A
represents 112 seconds
of duration (absolute time), according to YOUR
definition.
No I said that 112 seconds on clock A represents a
specific interval
of absolute time.
Presumably 112 seconds worth of absolute time, since
it's measured in
its own rest frame.
It represents a specific interval of absolute time.
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a
worthless quantity
for physics.
Sigh....absolute time is proper time....absolute time is
invariant as
is proper time.
I'm not sure you know what proper time is.
Of course I know what proper time is....it is absolute time.
Post by PD
You do know that the clocks used by the twins in the twin
puzzle
measure proper time, don't you?
No it measures the amount of clock time in the traveling clock that
represents the same amount of proper time on the observer's clock.
No sir. The Earth's clock measures the proper time on the Earth clock.
Why no sir? The earth's clock measures the proper time (absolute time)
on the earth clock.
Post by PD
The traveling twin's clock measures the proper time on that twin's
clock.
How is that different than what I said? I said that the twin's clock
second measures a specific interval of proper time (absolute time).
Also I said that the earth's proper time (absloute time) interval is
worth 1/gamma proper time (absolute time)interval on the twin's clock.
The clock MEASURES proper time. That means when the Earth clock reads
1300 seconds, it's reading 1300 seconds of proper time.
No it means that 1300 seconds represents a specific interval of proper
time. Lets call this interval of proper time (absolute time)as T_pe
Post by PD
When the
proper time.
No it means that 680 seconds on the twin's clock represents the same
interval of proper time T_pe as 1300 seconds on the earth clock.
No, it does not mean that. You do not know what proper time means.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
So when they meet and the twin's clock and the Earth
clock both read proper time but have different values, then your
statement that proper time is invariant is clearly wrong.
No you can't compare the earth second directly with the twin's second.
Why? Because the earth second represents a smller amount of proper
time than the twin's second. If you want to make the comparison you
must convert the twin's seconds to the earth seconds by multiplying it
by a factor of gamma.
That's not required for a comparison. That's why I gave you the
example of comparing readings from two tire pressure gauges on the
same tire. Two different numbers from the gauges, no conversion needed
to compare them.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
So either you don't know what proper time means, or you don't know
what invariant means.
No it is you who don't know what proper time means
I'm sorry, Ken, but proper time has a specific meaning FOR PHYSICISTS
and you're not using the term correctly. You're putting your own
definition on the term, and it isn't at all consistent with what
PHYSICISTS mean by the term.
It is more likely that you don't understand what proper time means in
SR...just as you don't understand what length contraction mean in SR.
No, sorry Ken, that is not more likely. If you have lots of people
telling you that you are using terms wrong, then it is not more likely
that you are right and lots of people are wrong. It is more likely
that you are wrong and lots of people are right.

The most important thing to do when you start to learn science is to
learn the meaning of the words as used by scientists, especially if
you are engaged in discussion with scientists. If you don't do that,
then you will fail. If you tell yourself that you know the correct
meaning of the words, and scientists don't, then you are only trying
Post by kenseto
If a proper second is a universal interval of time as you seem to
imply then they wouldn't have to rwedefine the GPS second to have 4.46
more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. The
redefined proper second at the GPS location will contain the same
amount of proper time as a ground clock second.
I feel sorry for your students who are subjected to your bogus
knowledge of physics.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
and you don't known
that a clcok second is not a universal interval of proper time.
Ken seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
You apparently don't know what proper time means.
You apparently can't read what I said.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
You do know that the clocks disagree when they meet again,
don't you?
Of course that's because a clock second in the moving frame
contains a
larger amount of proper time (absolute time).
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
The observer uses the equations of SR/GR or IRT to
calculate the clock time value on an observed clock for an
interval of
absolute time (proper time)in the observer's clock.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by PD
If no clock measures absolute time, then absolute
time is not
measurable.
Sigh....a clock second represents a specific interval
of absolute
time.
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a
worthless quantity
for physics.
Post by PD
In that case, it is a useless concept in physics.
Unmeasurable quantities are physically useless,
period.
It is measurable....a clock second AT THE REST FRAME
OF THE CLOCK
...
kenseto
2010-09-25 13:14:01 UTC
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by kenseto
a second is not a universal interval of time....iow, it
does not have the same duration (absolute time content) in different
frames.
You keep writing as if "universal interval of time" has meaning. And as if
"absolute time" has meaning (in subject).
Of course absolute time has meaning....it has the meaning of Newton's
absolute time.
Then yours is not quite the same as his.
His was an *assumption* about how clocks would behave. It was his
*assumption* that identically constructed clocks would all tick at the
same rate regardless of their motion or their location. This was an
assumption that needed to be tested.
No physical clock or defintion for unit of clock time (a clock
second)can represent the same interval of absolute time in different
frames.
Newton didn't know that. He thought it could, and he thought clocks
behaved that way.
He was wrong.
Regardless, YOUR definition of absolute time is therefore different
than his, because YOU believe that clocks do not measure absolute
time.
No I said that a clock second at the rest frame of the clock
represents a specific amount of absolute time.
Then that STILL is not what Newton called absolute time.
Close enough....in any case it is irrelevant.
Not at all close.
Newton failed to realize  that no physical clock unit of time can
represent the same inertavl of absolute time in different frames. If
he realize that he would agree to my definition of absolute time.
That's what I said. Newton thought they would agree. They don't.
His definition is nothing like yours.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
That is, you do not believe that 112 seconds as measured on one
clock measures the same amount of absolute time as 112 seconds as
measured on another clock.
Correct 112 seconds on clock A represents a different amount of
absolute time as 112 seconds on clock B.
112 clock seconds at the rest frame of clock A represents 112 seconds
of duration (absolute time), according to YOUR definition.
No I said that 112 seconds on clock A represents a specific interval
of absolute time.
Presumably 112 seconds worth of absolute time, since it's measured in
its own rest frame.
It represents a specific interval of absolute time.
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Sigh....absolute time is proper time....absolute time is invariant as
is proper time.
I'm not sure you know what proper time is.
Of course I know what proper time is....it is absolute time.
Post by PD
You do know that the clocks used by the twins in the twin puzzle
measure proper time, don't you?
No it measures the amount of clock time in the traveling clock that
represents the same amount of proper time on the observer's clock.
No sir. The Earth's clock measures the proper time on the Earth clock.
Why no sir? The earth's clock measures the proper time (absolute time)
on the earth clock.
Post by PD
The traveling twin's clock measures the proper time on that twin's
clock.
How is that different than what I said? I said that the twin's clock
second measures a specific interval of proper time (absolute time).
Also I said that the earth's proper time (absloute time) interval is
worth 1/gamma proper time (absolute time)interval on the twin's clock.
The clock MEASURES proper time. That means when the Earth clock reads
1300 seconds, it's reading 1300 seconds of proper time.
No it means that 1300 seconds represents a specific interval of proper
time. Lets call this interval of proper time (absolute time)as T_pe
Post by PD
When the
proper time.
No it means that 680 seconds on the twin's clock represents the same
interval of proper time T_pe as 1300 seconds on the earth clock.
No, it does not mean that. You do not know what proper time means.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
So when they meet and the twin's clock and the Earth
clock both read proper time but have different values, then your
statement that proper time is invariant is clearly wrong.
No you can't compare the earth second directly with the twin's second.
Why? Because the earth second represents a smller amount of proper
time than the twin's second. If you want to make the comparison you
must convert the twin's seconds to the earth seconds by multiplying it
by a factor of gamma.
That's not required for a comparison. That's why I gave you the
example of comparing readings from two tire pressure gauges on the
same tire. Two different numbers from the gauges, no conversion needed
to compare them.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
So either you don't know what proper time means, or you don't know
what invariant means.
No it is you who don't know what proper time means
I'm sorry, Ken, but proper time has a specific meaning FOR PHYSICISTS
and you're not using the term correctly. You're putting your own
definition on the term, and it isn't at all consistent with what
PHYSICISTS mean by the term.
It is more likely that you don't understand what proper time means in
SR...just as you don't understand what length contraction mean in SR.
No, sorry Ken, that is not more likely. If you have lots of people
telling you that you are using terms wrong, then it is not more likely
that you are right and lots of people are wrong. It is more likely
that you are wrong and lots of people are right.
Hey idiot I have a new theory of relativity....I can define the terms
that I use anyway I want as long as I define them to start with. I
don't have to use the existing failed definitions that give rise to

Ken Seto
Post by PD
The most important thing to do when you start to learn science is to
learn the meaning of the words as used by scientists, especially if
you are engaged in discussion with scientists. If you don't do that,
then you will fail. If you tell yourself that you know the correct
meaning of the words, and scientists don't, then you are only trying
Post by kenseto
If a proper second is a universal interval of time as you seem to
imply then they wouldn't have to rwedefine the GPS second to have 4.46
more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. The
redefined proper second at the GPS location will contain the same
amount of proper time as a ground clock second.
I feel sorry for your students who are subjected to your bogus
knowledge of physics.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
and you don't known
that a clcok second is not a universal interval of proper time.
Ken seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
You apparently don't know what proper time means.
You apparently can't read what I said.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
You do know that the clocks disagree when they meet again, don't you?
Of course that's because a clock second in the moving frame contains a
larger amount of proper time- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -...
PD
2010-09-25 13:38:29 UTC
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by kenseto
a second is not a universal interval of time....iow, it
does not have the same duration (absolute time content) in different
frames.
You keep writing as if "universal interval of time" has meaning. And as if
"absolute time" has meaning (in subject).
Of course absolute time has meaning....it has the meaning of Newton's
absolute time.
Then yours is not quite the same as his.
His was an *assumption* about how clocks would behave. It was his
*assumption* that identically constructed clocks would all tick at the
same rate regardless of their motion or their location. This was an
assumption that needed to be tested.
No physical clock or defintion for unit of clock time (a clock
second)can represent the same interval of absolute time in different
frames.
Newton didn't know that. He thought it could, and he thought clocks
behaved that way.
He was wrong.
Regardless, YOUR definition of absolute time is therefore different
than his, because YOU believe that clocks do not measure absolute
time.
No I said that a clock second at the rest frame of the clock
represents a specific amount of absolute time.
Then that STILL is not what Newton called absolute time.
Close enough....in any case it is irrelevant.
Not at all close.
Newton failed to realize  that no physical clock unit of time can
represent the same inertavl of absolute time in different frames. If
he realize that he would agree to my definition of absolute time.
That's what I said. Newton thought they would agree. They don't.
His definition is nothing like yours.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
That is, you do not believe that 112 seconds as measured on one
clock measures the same amount of absolute time as 112 seconds as
measured on another clock.
Correct 112 seconds on clock A represents a different amount of
absolute time as 112 seconds on clock B.
112 clock seconds at the rest frame of clock A represents 112 seconds
of duration (absolute time), according to YOUR definition.
No I said that 112 seconds on clock A represents a specific interval
of absolute time.
Presumably 112 seconds worth of absolute time, since it's measured in
its own rest frame.
It represents a specific interval of absolute time.
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Sigh....absolute time is proper time....absolute time is invariant as
is proper time.
I'm not sure you know what proper time is.
Of course I know what proper time is....it is absolute time.
Post by PD
You do know that the clocks used by the twins in the twin puzzle
measure proper time, don't you?
No it measures the amount of clock time in the traveling clock that
represents the same amount of proper time on the observer's clock.
No sir. The Earth's clock measures the proper time on the Earth clock.
Why no sir? The earth's clock measures the proper time (absolute time)
on the earth clock.
Post by PD
The traveling twin's clock measures the proper time on that twin's
clock.
How is that different than what I said? I said that the twin's clock
second measures a specific interval of proper time (absolute time).
Also I said that the earth's proper time (absloute time) interval is
worth 1/gamma proper time (absolute time)interval on the twin's clock.
The clock MEASURES proper time. That means when the Earth clock reads
1300 seconds, it's reading 1300 seconds of proper time.
No it means that 1300 seconds represents a specific interval of proper
time. Lets call this interval of proper time (absolute time)as T_pe
Post by PD
When the
proper time.
No it means that 680 seconds on the twin's clock represents the same
interval of proper time T_pe as 1300 seconds on the earth clock.
No, it does not mean that. You do not know what proper time means.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
So when they meet and the twin's clock and the Earth
clock both read proper time but have different values, then your
statement that proper time is invariant is clearly wrong.
No you can't compare the earth second directly with the twin's second.
Why? Because the earth second represents a smller amount of proper
time than the twin's second. If you want to make the comparison you
must convert the twin's seconds to the earth seconds by multiplying it
by a factor of gamma.
That's not required for a comparison. That's why I gave you the
example of comparing readings from two tire pressure gauges on the
same tire. Two different numbers from the gauges, no conversion needed
to compare them.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
So either you don't know what proper time means, or you don't know
what invariant means.
No it is you who don't know what proper time means
I'm sorry, Ken, but proper time has a specific meaning FOR PHYSICISTS
and you're not using the term correctly. You're putting your own
definition on the term, and it isn't at all consistent with what
PHYSICISTS mean by the term.
It is more likely that you don't understand what proper time means in
SR...just as you don't understand what length contraction mean in SR.
No, sorry Ken, that is not more likely. If you have lots of people
telling you that you are using terms wrong, then it is not more likely
that you are right and lots of people are wrong. It is more likely
that you are wrong and lots of people are right.
Hey idiot I have a new theory of relativity....I can define the terms
that I use anyway I want as long as I define them to start with. I
don't have to use the existing failed definitions that give rise to
Ah, ok, then we have an understanding.

So it's plain that when you argue with people about what relativity
says, and your arguments involve terms that are commonly used in
relativity, like "reference frame", "proper time", "relative motion",
"inertial frame", "acceleration", "absolute motion", then you have
definitions, not the definitions as used by scientists when they
discuss relativity.

So when you discuss what relativity says, you're not really discussing
Einstein's relativity at all, because the words you use don't mean the
same things.

Instead, you're only discussing IRT and some other thing that you CALL
"special relativity" but isn't special relativity at all, because it's
using YOUR definitions of these words.

That's fine. For a few years, you see, I thought you were trying to
COMMUNICATE with physicists. But since communication is impossible
unless you use the same meanings for the words used in the discussion,
it's plain that communication is not your wish. You just want to hear
words.

PD
Post by kenseto
Ken Seto
Post by PD
The most important thing to do when you start to learn science is to
learn the meaning of the words as used by scientists, especially if
you are engaged in discussion with scientists. If you don't do that,
then you will fail. If you tell yourself that you know the correct
meaning of the words, and scientists don't, then you are only trying
Post by kenseto
If a proper second is a universal interval of time as you seem to
imply then they wouldn't have to rwedefine the GPS second to have 4.46
more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. The
redefined proper second at the GPS location will contain the same
amount of proper
...
kenseto
2010-09-26 13:48:44 UTC
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by kenseto
a second is not a universal interval of time....iow, it
does not have the same duration (absolute time content) in different
frames.
You keep writing as if "universal interval of time" has meaning. And as if
"absolute time" has meaning (in subject).
Of course absolute time has meaning....it has the meaning of Newton's
absolute time.
Then yours is not quite the same as his.
His was an *assumption* about how clocks would behave. It was his
*assumption* that identically constructed clocks would all tick at the
same rate regardless of their motion or their location. This was an
assumption that needed to be tested.
No physical clock or defintion for unit of clock time (a clock
second)can represent the same interval of absolute time in different
frames.
Newton didn't know that. He thought it could, and he thought clocks
behaved that way.
He was wrong.
Regardless, YOUR definition of absolute time is therefore different
than his, because YOU believe that clocks do not measure absolute
time.
No I said that a clock second at the rest frame of the clock
represents a specific amount of absolute time.
Then that STILL is not what Newton called absolute time.
Close enough....in any case it is irrelevant.
Not at all close.
Newton failed to realize  that no physical clock unit of time can
represent the same inertavl of absolute time in different frames. If
he realize that he would agree to my definition of absolute time.
That's what I said. Newton thought they would agree. They don't.
His definition is nothing like yours.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
That is, you do not believe that 112 seconds as measured on one
clock measures the same amount of absolute time as 112 seconds as
measured on another clock.
Correct 112 seconds on clock A represents a different amount of
absolute time as 112 seconds on clock B.
112 clock seconds at the rest frame of clock A represents 112 seconds
of duration (absolute time), according to YOUR definition.
No I said that 112 seconds on clock A represents a specific interval
of absolute time.
Presumably 112 seconds worth of absolute time, since it's measured in
its own rest frame.
It represents a specific interval of absolute time.
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Sigh....absolute time is proper time....absolute time is invariant as
is proper time.
I'm not sure you know what proper time is.
Of course I know what proper time is....it is absolute time.
Post by PD
You do know that the clocks used by the twins in the twin puzzle
measure proper time, don't you?
No it measures the amount of clock time in the traveling clock that
represents the same amount of proper time on the observer's clock.
No sir. The Earth's clock measures the proper time on the Earth clock.
Why no sir? The earth's clock measures the proper time (absolute time)
on the earth clock.
Post by PD
The traveling twin's clock measures the proper time on that twin's
clock.
How is that different than what I said? I said that the twin's clock
second measures a specific interval of proper time (absolute time).
Also I said that the earth's proper time (absloute time) interval is
worth 1/gamma proper time (absolute time)interval on the twin's clock.
The clock MEASURES proper time. That means when the Earth clock reads
1300 seconds, it's reading 1300 seconds of proper time.
No it means that 1300 seconds represents a specific interval of proper
time. Lets call this interval of proper time (absolute time)as T_pe
Post by PD
When the
proper time.
No it means that 680 seconds on the twin's clock represents the same
interval of proper time T_pe as 1300 seconds on the earth clock.
No, it does not mean that. You do not know what proper time means.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
So when they meet and the twin's clock and the Earth
clock both read proper time but have different values, then your
statement that proper time is invariant is clearly wrong.
No you can't compare the earth second directly with the twin's second.
Why? Because the earth second represents a smller amount of proper
time than the twin's second. If you want to make the comparison you
must convert the twin's seconds to the earth seconds by multiplying it
by a factor of gamma.
That's not required for a comparison. That's why I gave you the
example of comparing readings from two tire pressure gauges on the
same tire. Two different numbers from the gauges, no conversion needed
to compare them.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
So either you don't know what proper time means, or you don't know
what invariant means.
No it is you who don't know what proper time means
I'm sorry, Ken, but proper time has a specific meaning FOR PHYSICISTS
and you're not using the term correctly. You're putting your own
definition on the term, and it isn't at all consistent with what
PHYSICISTS mean by the term.
It is more likely that you don't understand what proper time means in
SR...just as you don't understand what length contraction mean in SR.
No, sorry Ken, that is not more likely. If you have lots of people
telling you that you are using terms wrong, then it is not more likely
that you are right and lots of people are wrong. It is more likely
that you are wrong and lots of people are right.
Hey idiot I have a new theory of relativity....I can define the terms
that I use anyway I want as long as I define them to start with. I
don't have to use the existing failed definitions that give rise to
Ah, ok, then we have an understanding.
So it's plain that when you argue with people about what relativity
says, and your arguments involve terms that are commonly used in
relativity, like "reference frame", "proper time", "relative motion",
"inertial frame", "acceleration", "absolute motion", then you have
definitions, not the
No most of the arguement with you involves because of your poor
understanding what time dilation and length contraction mean in SR.
<ahrug>

Ken Seto

»- Hide quoted text -
Post by PD
- Show quoted text -...
PD
2010-09-23 15:16:53 UTC
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by kenseto
a second is not a universal interval of time....iow, it
does not have the same duration (absolute time content) in different
frames.
You keep writing as if "universal interval of time" has meaning. And as if
"absolute time" has meaning (in subject).
Of course absolute time has meaning....it has the meaning of Newton's
absolute time.
Then yours is not quite the same as his.
His was an *assumption* about how clocks would behave. It was his
*assumption* that identically constructed clocks would all tick at the
same rate regardless of their motion or their location. This was an
assumption that needed to be tested.
No physical clock or defintion for unit of clock time (a clock
second)can represent the same interval of absolute time in different
frames.
Newton didn't know that. He thought it could, and he thought clocks
behaved that way.
He was wrong.
Regardless, YOUR definition of absolute time is therefore different
than his, because YOU believe that clocks do not measure absolute
time.
No I said that a clock second at the rest frame of the clock
represents a specific amount of absolute time.
Then that STILL is not what Newton called absolute time.
Close enough....in any case it is irrelevant.
Not at all close.
Newton failed to realize  that no physical clock unit of time can
represent the same inertavl of absolute time in different frames. If
he realize that he would agree to my definition of absolute time.
That's what I said. Newton thought they would agree. They don't.
His definition is nothing like yours.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
That is, you do not believe that 112 seconds as measured on one
clock measures the same amount of absolute time as 112 seconds as
measured on another clock.
Correct 112 seconds on clock A represents a different amount of
absolute time as 112 seconds on clock B.
112 clock seconds at the rest frame of clock A represents 112 seconds
of duration (absolute time), according to YOUR definition.
No I said that 112 seconds on clock A represents a specific interval
of absolute time.
Presumably 112 seconds worth of absolute time, since it's measured in
its own rest frame.
It represents a specific interval of absolute time.
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Sigh....absolute time is proper time....absolute time is invariant as
is proper time.
I'm not sure you know what proper time is.
Of course I know what proper time is....it is absolute time.
Post by PD
You do know that the clocks used by the twins in the twin puzzle
measure proper time, don't you?
No it measures the amount of clock time in the traveling clock that
represents the same amount of proper time on the observer's clock.
No sir. The Earth's clock measures the proper time on the Earth clock.
Why no sir? The earth's clock measures the proper time (absolute time)
on the earth clock.
Post by PD
The traveling twin's clock measures the proper time on that twin's
clock.
How is that different than what I said? I said that the twin's clock
second measures a specific interval of proper time (absolute time).
Also I said that the earth's proper time (absloute time) interval is
worth 1/gamma proper time (absolute time)interval on the twin's clock.
The clock MEASURES proper time. That means when the Earth clock reads
1300 seconds, it's reading 1300 seconds of proper time.
No it means that 1300 seconds represents a specific interval of proper
time. Lets call this interval of proper time (absolute time)as T_pe
Specifically, it represents 1300 seconds of proper time, because
proper time in that frame is DEFINED as the time read from an at-rest
clock. The Earth clock is at rest in the Earth frame.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
When the
proper time.
No it means that 680 seconds on the twin's clock represents the same
interval of proper time T_pe as 1300 seconds on the earth clock.
I'm sorry, Ken, but no. It represents 680 seconds of proper time,
because proper time in that frame is DEFINED as the time read from an
at-rest clock.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
So when they meet and the twin's clock and the Earth
clock both read proper time but have different values, then your
statement that proper time is invariant is clearly wrong.
No you can't compare the earth second directly with the twin's second.
Why? Because the earth second represents a smller amount of proper
time than the twin's second. If you want to make the comparison you
must convert the twin's seconds to the earth seconds by multiplying it
by a factor of gamma.
Post by PD
So either you don't know what proper time means, or you don't know
what invariant means.
No it is you who don't know what proper time means and you don't known
that a clcok second is not a universal interval of proper time.
Ken seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
You apparently don't know what proper time means.
You apparently can't read what I said.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
You do know that the clocks disagree when they meet again, don't you?
Of course that's because a clock second in the moving frame contains a
larger amount of proper time (absolute time).
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
The observer uses the equations of SR/GR or IRT to
calculate the clock time value on an observed clock for an interval of
absolute time (proper time)in the observer's clock.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by PD
If no clock measures absolute time, then absolute time is not
measurable.
Sigh....a clock second represents a specific interval of absolute
time.
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Post by PD
In that case, it is a useless concept in physics.
Unmeasurable quantities are physically useless, period.
It is measurable....a clock second AT THE REST FRAME OF THE CLOCK
represents a SPECIFIC INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
112 clock seconds at the rest frame of clock B represents 112 seconds
of duration (absolute time), according to YOUR definition.
No I said that 112 second on clock B represents a different specific
inertavl of absolute time than 112 seconds on clock A.
But 112 seconds is what clock B reads in its own rest frame. This is
DEFINED as absolute time according to your definition of absolute
timE.
No a physical clock second is not an absolute second. It represent a
specific interval of absolute time.
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
clock A represents a different amount of absolute time as 112 seconds
on clock B."
There is no contradiction to what I said.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
What this mean is that a
clock second is not a universal interval of time and thus you can't
compared an A second directly with a B second
As I told you, you have a funny meaning to the word "compare".
For a physicist, comparison just means writing down what the two
clocks say and then holding what you wrote down
...
kenseto
2010-09-23 23:13:47 UTC
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by kenseto
a second is not a universal interval of time....iow, it
does not have the same duration (absolute time content) in different
frames.
You keep writing as if "universal interval of time" has meaning. And as if
"absolute time" has meaning (in subject).
Of course absolute time has meaning....it has the meaning of Newton's
absolute time.
Then yours is not quite the same as his.
His was an *assumption* about how clocks would behave. It was his
*assumption* that identically constructed clocks would all tick at the
same rate regardless of their motion or their location. This was an
assumption that needed to be tested.
No physical clock or defintion for unit of clock time (a clock
second)can represent the same interval of absolute time in different
frames.
Newton didn't know that. He thought it could, and he thought clocks
behaved that way.
He was wrong.
Regardless, YOUR definition of absolute time is therefore different
than his, because YOU believe that clocks do not measure absolute
time.
No I said that a clock second at the rest frame of the clock
represents a specific amount of absolute time.
Then that STILL is not what Newton called absolute time.
Close enough....in any case it is irrelevant.
Not at all close.
Newton failed to realize  that no physical clock unit of time can
represent the same inertavl of absolute time in different frames. If
he realize that he would agree to my definition of absolute time.
That's what I said. Newton thought they would agree. They don't.
His definition is nothing like yours.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
That is, you do not believe that 112 seconds as measured on one
clock measures the same amount of absolute time as 112 seconds as
measured on another clock.
Correct 112 seconds on clock A represents a different amount of
absolute time as 112 seconds on clock B.
112 clock seconds at the rest frame of clock A represents 112 seconds
of duration (absolute time), according to YOUR definition.
No I said that 112 seconds on clock A represents a specific interval
of absolute time.
Presumably 112 seconds worth of absolute time, since it's measured in
its own rest frame.
It represents a specific interval of absolute time.
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Sigh....absolute time is proper time....absolute time is invariant as
is proper time.
I'm not sure you know what proper time is.
Of course I know what proper time is....it is absolute time.
Post by PD
You do know that the clocks used by the twins in the twin puzzle
measure proper time, don't you?
No it measures the amount of clock time in the traveling clock that
represents the same amount of proper time on the observer's clock.
No sir. The Earth's clock measures the proper time on the Earth clock.
Why no sir? The earth's clock measures the proper time (absolute time)
on the earth clock.
Post by PD
The traveling twin's clock measures the proper time on that twin's
clock.
How is that different than what I said? I said that the twin's clock
second measures a specific interval of proper time (absolute time).
Also I said that the earth's proper time (absloute time) interval is
worth 1/gamma proper time (absolute time)interval on the twin's clock.
The clock MEASURES proper time. That means when the Earth clock reads
1300 seconds, it's reading 1300 seconds of proper time.
No it means that 1300 seconds represents a specific interval of proper
time. Lets call this interval of proper time (absolute time)as T_pe
Specifically, it represents 1300 seconds of proper time, because
proper time in that frame is DEFINED as the time read from an at-rest
clock. The Earth clock is at rest in the Earth frame.
No 1300 seconds on an earth clock represents a specific interval of
proper time.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
When the
proper time.
No it means that 680 seconds on the twin's clock represents the same
interval of proper time T_pe as 1300 seconds on the earth clock.
I'm sorry, Ken, but no. It represents 680 seconds of proper time,
No 680 seconds represent a specific interval of proper time on the
travelling clock.
Post by PD
because proper time in that frame is DEFINED as the time read from an at-rest clock.
Clock second in any frame is not a second of proper time. It
represents a spicific interval of proper time.

Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
So when they meet and the twin's clock and the Earth
clock both read proper time but have different values, then your
statement that proper time is invariant is clearly wrong.
No you can't compare the earth second directly with the twin's second.
Why? Because the earth second represents a smller amount of proper
time than the twin's second. If you want to make the comparison you
must convert the twin's seconds to the earth seconds by multiplying it
by a factor of gamma.
Post by PD
So either you don't know what proper time means, or you don't know
what invariant means.
No it is you who don't know what proper time means and you don't known
that a clcok second is not a universal interval of proper time.
Ken seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
You apparently don't know what proper time means.
You apparently can't read what I said.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
You do know that the clocks disagree when they meet again, don't you?
Of course that's because a clock second in the moving frame contains a
larger amount of proper time (absolute time).
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
The observer uses the equations of SR/GR or IRT to
calculate the clock time value on an observed clock for an interval of
absolute time (proper time)in the observer's clock.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by PD
If no clock measures absolute time, then absolute time is not
measurable.
Sigh....a clock second represents a specific interval of absolute
time.
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Post by PD
In that case, it is a useless concept in physics.
Unmeasurable quantities are physically useless, period.
It is measurable....a clock second AT THE REST FRAME OF THE CLOCK
represents a SPECIFIC INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
112 clock seconds at the rest frame of clock B represents 112 seconds
of duration (absolute time), according to YOUR definition.
No I said that 112 second on clock B represents a different specific
inertavl of absolute time than 112 seconds on clock A.
But 112 seconds is what clock B reads in its own rest frame. This is
DEFINED as absolute time according to your definition of absolute
timE.
No a physical clock second is not an absolute second. It represent a
specific interval of absolute time.
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
But this is contradictory- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -...
Inertial
2010-09-24 01:53:44 UTC
Post by kenseto
No 1300 seconds on an earth clock represents a specific interval of
proper time.
Yes .. 1300 seconds of it. Proper time is the time shown by an at-rest
clock
Androcles
2010-09-24 05:50:59 UTC
--
Ref:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif

What kind of lunacy prompted Einstein to say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

"Inertial" <***@rest.com> wrote in message news:4c9c04a1\$0\$28657\$***@news.astraweb.com...
| "kenseto" wrote in message
| >No 1300 seconds on an earth clock represents a specific interval of
| >proper time.
|
| Yes .. 1300 seconds of it. Proper time is the time shown by an at-rest
| clock
|
|
Inertial
2010-09-24 07:00:49 UTC
Another piece of Andcroles copy-and-paste nonsense .. Einstein never said
what Androcles claims he said. Androcles is a liar and a moron and is
doomed to remain one.

===
"Androcles" wrote in message news:A0Xmo.20990\$***@newsfe29.ams2...
--
Ref:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif

What kind of lunacy prompted Einstein to say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

"Inertial" <***@rest.com> wrote in message news:4c9c04a1\$0\$28657\$***@news.astraweb.com...
| "kenseto" wrote in message
| >No 1300 seconds on an earth clock represents a specific interval of
| >proper time.
|
| Yes .. 1300 seconds of it. Proper time is the time shown by an at-rest
| clock
|
|
Androcles
2010-09-24 07:11:52 UTC
Einstein did NOT write
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
-- signed, Illiterate Relativistic Cretin.

What kind of lunacy prompted Einstein to say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

"Inertial" <***@rest.com> wrote in message news:4c9c4c99\$0\$28639\$***@news.astraweb.com...
| Another piece of Andcroles copy-and-paste nonsense .. Einstein never said
| what Androcles claims he said. Androcles is a liar and a moron and is
| doomed to remain one.
|
| ===
| "Androcles" wrote in message news:A0Xmo.20990\$***@newsfe29.ams2...
|
|
| --
| Ref:
|
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
|
|
| What kind of lunacy prompted Einstein to say
| the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
| the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
| the "time" each way is the same?
|
|
|
| "Inertial" <***@rest.com> wrote in message
| news:4c9c04a1\$0\$28657\$***@news.astraweb.com...
|| "kenseto" wrote in message
|| >No 1300 seconds on an earth clock represents a specific interval of
|| >proper time.
||
|| Yes .. 1300 seconds of it. Proper time is the time shown by an at-rest
|| clock
||
||
|
|
|
kenseto
2010-09-24 12:19:42 UTC
Post by kenseto
No 1300 seconds on an earth clock represents a specific interval of
proper time.
Yes .. 1300 seconds of it.  Proper time is the time shown by an at-rest
clock
Heey idiot...1300 seconds of duration (proper time) on observer's
clock. But that duration interval is not represented by 1300 seconds
on a clock moving wrt the observer.

Ken Seto
Inertial
2010-09-25 00:29:08 UTC
Post by Inertial
Post by kenseto
No 1300 seconds on an earth clock represents a specific interval of
proper time.
Yes .. 1300 seconds of it. Proper time is the time shown by an at-rest
clock
Heey idiot...1300 seconds of duration (proper time) on observer's
clock.
That's right. So proper time is NOT absolute time .. it is the time shown
on a clock. You have said that the amount of 'absolute time' in one second
on one clock (ie one second of that clock's proper time) does not correspond
to the 'absolute time' in one second on another clock (one second of that
clock's proper time). So that means absolute time is NOT proper time.

So .. absolute time is NOT proper time. So ... what is absolute time ? How
can it be measured ?
kenseto
2010-09-26 13:30:29 UTC
Post by kenseto
No 1300 seconds on an earth clock represents a specific interval of
proper time.
Yes .. 1300 seconds of it.  Proper time is the time shown by an at-rest
clock
Heey idiot...1300 seconds of duration (proper time) on observer's
clock.
That's right.  So proper time is NOT absolute time .. it is the time shown
on a clock.
Hey idiot....1300 clock seconds on the observer's clock represents a
specific interval of proper time (absolute time).
But 1300 clock seconds in a different frame represents a different
interval of proper time (absolute time). What this mean is that a
clcok second does not represent the same amount of proper time in
different frames. If clock second represents the same interval of
proper time (absolute time) in all frames as you seem to imply then
why do we need the term proper time in SR?????

Ken Seto
You have said that the amount of 'absolute time' in one second
on one clock (ie one second of that clock's proper time) does not correspond
to the 'absolute time' in one second on another clock (one second of that
clock's proper time).  So that means absolute time is NOT proper time.
NO you don't understand what proper time mean in SR. It is the time on
the observer's clock ONLY.

Ken Seto
So .. absolute time is NOT proper time.  So ... what is absolute time ?  How
can it be measured ?
Inertial
2010-09-26 22:21:46 UTC
Post by kenseto
Post by Inertial
Post by Inertial
Post by kenseto
No 1300 seconds on an earth clock represents a specific interval of
proper time.
Yes .. 1300 seconds of it. Proper time is the time shown by an at-rest
clock
Heey idiot...1300 seconds of duration (proper time) on observer's
clock.
That's right. So proper time is NOT absolute time .. it is the time shown
on a clock.
Hey idiot....1300 clock seconds on the observer's clock represents a
specific interval of proper time (absolute time).
1300 seconds exactly .. though how much of your undefined absolute time that
is, is anyone's guess.
Post by kenseto
But 1300 clock seconds in a different frame represents a different
interval of proper time (absolute time).
On which clock .. the observers clock, or a clock at rest in the other
frame? You need to be clear.
Post by kenseto
What this mean is that a
clcok second does not represent the same amount of proper time in
different frames.
The clock will only show the proper time in the frame in which it is at rest
Post by kenseto
If clock second represents the same interval of
proper time (absolute time) in all frames
For each frame in which the corresponding clock is at rest .. not across all
frames.

You seem to have the same problem as porat does with conservation of energy.
He things that as energy must be conserved in each frame it must be
conserved across all frames (ie an object must have the same energy in every
frame). Which is nonsense, of course.

Similarly, every clock shows the proper time in its own frame ... it does
NOT show the proper time in some other frame
Post by kenseto
as you seem to imply then
why do we need the term proper time in SR?????
Because it is only the same as clock time in the rest frame of the clock.
What we do NOT need in SR is your ill-defined immeasurable 'absolute time'.
You might want it in your particular theory, but SR does not have it,
Post by kenseto
Post by Inertial
You have said that the amount of 'absolute time' in one second
on one clock (ie one second of that clock's proper time) does not correspond
to the 'absolute time' in one second on another clock (one second of that
clock's proper time). So that means absolute time is NOT proper time.
NO
So you think a time that depends on the observer is absolute? You're a
moron.
Post by kenseto
you don't understand what proper time mean in SR.
Yes .. it do. Whether or not you do is the question. It appears you are
redefining the words used in physics.
Post by kenseto
It is the time on
the observer's clock ONLY.
That's what i said.

So it is NOT the same as absolute time, which is contrary to what you just
said.

PD
2010-09-24 16:53:54 UTC
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by kenseto
a second is not a universal interval of time....iow, it
does not have the same duration (absolute time content) in different
frames.
You keep writing as if "universal interval of time" has meaning. And as if
"absolute time" has meaning (in subject).
Of course absolute time has meaning....it has the meaning of Newton's
absolute time.
Then yours is not quite the same as his.
His was an *assumption* about how clocks would behave. It was his
*assumption* that identically constructed clocks would all tick at the
same rate regardless of their motion or their location. This was an
assumption that needed to be tested.
No physical clock or defintion for unit of clock time (a clock
second)can represent the same interval of absolute time in different
frames.
Newton didn't know that. He thought it could, and he thought clocks
behaved that way.
He was wrong.
Regardless, YOUR definition of absolute time is therefore different
than his, because YOU believe that clocks do not measure absolute
time.
No I said that a clock second at the rest frame of the clock
represents a specific amount of absolute time.
Then that STILL is not what Newton called absolute time.
Close enough....in any case it is irrelevant.
Not at all close.
Newton failed to realize  that no physical clock unit of time can
represent the same inertavl of absolute time in different frames. If
he realize that he would agree to my definition of absolute time.
That's what I said. Newton thought they would agree. They don't.
His definition is nothing like yours.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
That is, you do not believe that 112 seconds as measured on one
clock measures the same amount of absolute time as 112 seconds as
measured on another clock.
Correct 112 seconds on clock A represents a different amount of
absolute time as 112 seconds on clock B.
112 clock seconds at the rest frame of clock A represents 112 seconds
of duration (absolute time), according to YOUR definition.
No I said that 112 seconds on clock A represents a specific interval
of absolute time.
Presumably 112 seconds worth of absolute time, since it's measured in
its own rest frame.
It represents a specific interval of absolute time.
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Sigh....absolute time is proper time....absolute time is invariant as
is proper time.
I'm not sure you know what proper time is.
Of course I know what proper time is....it is absolute time.
Post by PD
You do know that the clocks used by the twins in the twin puzzle
measure proper time, don't you?
No it measures the amount of clock time in the traveling clock that
represents the same amount of proper time on the observer's clock.
No sir. The Earth's clock measures the proper time on the Earth clock.
Why no sir? The earth's clock measures the proper time (absolute time)
on the earth clock.
Post by PD
The traveling twin's clock measures the proper time on that twin's
clock.
How is that different than what I said? I said that the twin's clock
second measures a specific interval of proper time (absolute time).
Also I said that the earth's proper time (absloute time) interval is
worth 1/gamma proper time (absolute time)interval on the twin's clock.
The clock MEASURES proper time. That means when the Earth clock reads
1300 seconds, it's reading 1300 seconds of proper time.
No it means that 1300 seconds represents a specific interval of proper
time. Lets call this interval of proper time (absolute time)as T_pe
Specifically, it represents 1300 seconds of proper time, because
proper time in that frame is DEFINED as the time read from an at-rest
clock. The Earth clock is at rest in the Earth frame.
No 1300 seconds on an earth clock represents a specific interval of
proper time.
It represents 1300 seconds of proper time, because YOU SAID YOURSELF
that proper time is DEFINED as the time read from an at-rest clock,
and the earth clock is at rest in the earth frame.

You must learn the definition of terms like "proper time" AS THEY ARE
USED BY PHYSICISTS.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
When the
proper time.
No it means that 680 seconds on the twin's clock represents the same
interval of proper time T_pe as 1300 seconds on the earth clock.
I'm sorry, Ken, but no. It represents 680 seconds of proper time,
No 680 seconds represent a specific interval of proper time on the
travelling clock.
Post by PD
because proper time in that frame is DEFINED as the time read from an at-rest clock.
Clock second in any frame is not a second of proper time.
That's not so. The DEFINITION of proper time in a frame is the clock
time read on an at-rest clock. That's what proper time MEANS.
Post by kenseto
It
represents a spicific interval of proper time.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
So when they meet and the twin's clock and the Earth
clock both read proper time but have different values, then your
statement that proper time is invariant is clearly wrong.
No you can't compare the earth second directly with the twin's second.
Why? Because the earth second represents a smller amount of proper
time than the twin's second. If you want to make the comparison you
must convert the twin's seconds to the earth seconds by multiplying it
by a factor of gamma.
Post by PD
So either you don't know what proper time means, or you don't know
what invariant means.
No it is you who don't know what proper time means and you don't known
that a clcok second is not a universal interval of proper time.
Ken seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
You apparently don't know what proper time means.
You apparently can't read what I said.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
You do know that the clocks disagree when they meet again, don't you?
Of course that's because a clock second in the moving frame contains a
larger amount of proper time (absolute time).
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
The observer uses the equations of SR/GR or IRT to
calculate the clock time value on an observed clock for an interval of
absolute time (proper time)in the observer's clock.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by PD
If no clock measures absolute time, then absolute time is not
measurable.
Sigh....a clock second represents a specific interval of absolute
time.
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Post by PD
In that case, it is a useless concept in physics.
Unmeasurable quantities are physically useless, period.
It is measurable....a clock second AT THE REST FRAME OF THE CLOCK
represents a SPECIFIC INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
112 clock seconds at the rest frame of clock B represents 112 seconds
of duration (absolute time), according to YOUR definition.
No I said that 112 second on clock B represents a
...
kenseto
2010-09-25 13:22:34 UTC
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by kenseto
a second is not a universal interval of time....iow, it
does not have the same duration (absolute time content) in different
frames.
You keep writing as if "universal interval of time" has meaning. And as if
"absolute time" has meaning (in subject).
Of course absolute time has meaning....it has the meaning of Newton's
absolute time.
Then yours is not quite the same as his.
His was an *assumption* about how clocks would behave. It was his
*assumption* that identically constructed clocks would all tick at the
same rate regardless of their motion or their location. This was an
assumption that needed to be tested.
No physical clock or defintion for unit of clock time (a clock
second)can represent the same interval of absolute time in different
frames.
Newton didn't know that. He thought it could, and he thought clocks
behaved that way.
He was wrong.
Regardless, YOUR definition of absolute time is therefore different
than his, because YOU believe that clocks do not measure absolute
time.
No I said that a clock second at the rest frame of the clock
represents a specific amount of absolute time.
Then that STILL is not what Newton called absolute time.
Close enough....in any case it is irrelevant.
Not at all close.
Newton failed to realize  that no physical clock unit of time can
represent the same inertavl of absolute time in different frames. If
he realize that he would agree to my definition of absolute time.
That's what I said. Newton thought they would agree. They don't.
His definition is nothing like yours.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
That is, you do not believe that 112 seconds as measured on one
clock measures the same amount of absolute time as 112 seconds as
measured on another clock.
Correct 112 seconds on clock A represents a different amount of
absolute time as 112 seconds on clock B.
112 clock seconds at the rest frame of clock A represents 112 seconds
of duration (absolute time), according to YOUR definition.
No I said that 112 seconds on clock A represents a specific interval
of absolute time.
Presumably 112 seconds worth of absolute time, since it's measured in
its own rest frame.
It represents a specific interval of absolute time.
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Sigh....absolute time is proper time....absolute time is invariant as
is proper time.
I'm not sure you know what proper time is.
Of course I know what proper time is....it is absolute time.
Post by PD
You do know that the clocks used by the twins in the twin puzzle
measure proper time, don't you?
No it measures the amount of clock time in the traveling clock that
represents the same amount of proper time on the observer's clock.
No sir. The Earth's clock measures the proper time on the Earth clock.
Why no sir? The earth's clock measures the proper time (absolute time)
on the earth clock.
Post by PD
The traveling twin's clock measures the proper time on that twin's
clock.
How is that different than what I said? I said that the twin's clock
second measures a specific interval of proper time (absolute time).
Also I said that the earth's proper time (absloute time) interval is
worth 1/gamma proper time (absolute time)interval on the twin's clock.
The clock MEASURES proper time. That means when the Earth clock reads
1300 seconds, it's reading 1300 seconds of proper time.
No it means that 1300 seconds represents a specific interval of proper
time. Lets call this interval of proper time (absolute time)as T_pe
Specifically, it represents 1300 seconds of proper time, because
proper time in that frame is DEFINED as the time read from an at-rest
clock. The Earth clock is at rest in the Earth frame.
No 1300 seconds on an earth clock represents a specific interval of
proper time.
It represents 1300 seconds of proper time, because YOU SAID YOURSELF
that proper time is DEFINED as the time read from an at-rest clock,
and the earth clock is at rest in the earth frame.
Sigh...it represent 1300 seconds of proper time only in the earth
frame. 1300 seconds will represent a different interval of proper time
in a different frame.
Post by PD
You must learn the definition of terms like "proper time" AS THEY ARE
USED BY PHYSICISTS.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
When the
proper time.
No it means that 680 seconds on the twin's clock represents the same
interval of proper time T_pe as 1300 seconds on the earth clock.
I'm sorry, Ken, but no. It represents 680 seconds of proper time,
No 680 seconds represent a specific interval of proper time on the
travelling clock.
Post by PD
because proper time in that frame is DEFINED as the time read from an at-rest clock.
Clock second in any frame is not a second of proper time.
That's not so. The DEFINITION of proper time in a frame is the clock
time read on an at-rest clock. That's what proper time MEANS.
Post by kenseto
It
represents a spicific interval of proper time.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
So when they meet and the twin's clock and the Earth
clock both read proper time but have different values, then your
statement that proper time is invariant is clearly wrong.
No you can't compare the earth second directly with the twin's second.
Why? Because the earth second represents a smller amount of proper
time than the twin's second. If you want to make the comparison you
must convert the twin's seconds to the earth seconds by multiplying it
by a factor of gamma.
Post by PD
So either you don't know what proper time means, or you don't know
what invariant means.
No it is you who don't know what proper time means and you don't known
that a clcok second is not a universal interval of proper time.
Ken seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
You apparently don't know what proper time means.
You apparently can't read what I said.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
You do know that the clocks disagree when they meet again, don't you?
Of course that's because a clock second in the moving frame contains a
larger amount of proper time (absolute time).
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
The observer uses the equations of SR/GR or IRT to
calculate the clock time value on an observed clock for an interval of
absolute time (proper time)in the observer's clock.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by PD
If no clock measures absolute time, then absolute time is not
measurable.
Sigh....a clock second represents a specific interval of absolute
time.
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -...
PD
2010-09-25 13:40:57 UTC
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by kenseto
a second is not a universal interval of time....iow, it
does not have the same duration (absolute time content) in different
frames.
You keep writing as if "universal interval of time" has meaning. And as if
"absolute time" has meaning (in subject).
Of course absolute time has meaning....it has the meaning of Newton's
absolute time.
Then yours is not quite the same as his.
His was an *assumption* about how clocks would behave. It was his
*assumption* that identically constructed clocks would all tick at the
same rate regardless of their motion or their location. This was an
assumption that needed to be tested.
No physical clock or defintion for unit of clock time (a clock
second)can represent the same interval of absolute time in different
frames.
Newton didn't know that. He thought it could, and he thought clocks
behaved that way.
He was wrong.
Regardless, YOUR definition of absolute time is therefore different
than his, because YOU believe that clocks do not measure absolute
time.
No I said that a clock second at the rest frame of the clock
represents a specific amount of absolute time.
Then that STILL is not what Newton called absolute time.
Close enough....in any case it is irrelevant.
Not at all close.
Newton failed to realize  that no physical clock unit of time can
represent the same inertavl of absolute time in different frames. If
he realize that he would agree to my definition of absolute time.
That's what I said. Newton thought they would agree. They don't.
His definition is nothing like yours.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
That is, you do not believe that 112 seconds as measured on one
clock measures the same amount of absolute time as 112 seconds as
measured on another clock.
Correct 112 seconds on clock A represents a different amount of
absolute time as 112 seconds on clock B.
112 clock seconds at the rest frame of clock A represents 112 seconds
of duration (absolute time), according to YOUR definition.
No I said that 112 seconds on clock A represents a specific interval
of absolute time.
Presumably 112 seconds worth of absolute time, since it's measured in
its own rest frame.
It represents a specific interval of absolute time.
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Sigh....absolute time is proper time....absolute time is invariant as
is proper time.
I'm not sure you know what proper time is.
Of course I know what proper time is....it is absolute time.
Post by PD
You do know that the clocks used by the twins in the twin puzzle
measure proper time, don't you?
No it measures the amount of clock time in the traveling clock that
represents the same amount of proper time on the observer's clock.
No sir. The Earth's clock measures the proper time on the Earth clock.
Why no sir? The earth's clock measures the proper time (absolute time)
on the earth clock.
Post by PD
The traveling twin's clock measures the proper time on that twin's
clock.
How is that different than what I said? I said that the twin's clock
second measures a specific interval of proper time (absolute time).
Also I said that the earth's proper time (absloute time) interval is
worth 1/gamma proper time (absolute time)interval on the twin's clock.
The clock MEASURES proper time. That means when the Earth clock reads
1300 seconds, it's reading 1300 seconds of proper time.
No it means that 1300 seconds represents a specific interval of proper
time. Lets call this interval of proper time (absolute time)as T_pe
Specifically, it represents 1300 seconds of proper time, because
proper time in that frame is DEFINED as the time read from an at-rest
clock. The Earth clock is at rest in the Earth frame.
No 1300 seconds on an earth clock represents a specific interval of
proper time.
It represents 1300 seconds of proper time, because YOU SAID YOURSELF
that proper time is DEFINED as the time read from an at-rest clock,
and the earth clock is at rest in the earth frame.
Sigh...it represent 1300 seconds of proper time only in the earth
frame. 1300 seconds will represent a different interval of proper time
in a different frame.
Ah but you said that absolute time and proper time is INVARIANT.
To physicists, the word "invariant" means that it has the same value
independent of frame.
But here you say proper time is invariant but has a different value in
different frames.

So you either are using a different meaning to the word "proper time"
or to the word "invariant".

Either way, you must surely understand that what you say makes
absolutely no sense to physicists.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
You must learn the definition of terms like "proper time" AS THEY ARE
USED BY PHYSICISTS.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
When the
proper time.
No it means that 680 seconds on the twin's clock represents the same
interval of proper time T_pe as 1300 seconds on the earth clock.
I'm sorry, Ken, but no. It represents 680 seconds of proper time,
No 680 seconds represent a specific interval of proper time on the
travelling clock.
Post by PD
because proper time in that frame is DEFINED as the time read from an at-rest clock.
Clock second in any frame is not a second of proper time.
That's not so. The DEFINITION of proper time in a frame is the clock
time read on an at-rest clock. That's what proper time MEANS.
Post by kenseto
It
represents a spicific interval of proper time.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
So when they meet and the twin's clock and the Earth
clock both read proper time but have different values, then your
statement that proper time is invariant is clearly wrong.
No you can't compare the earth second directly with the twin's second.
Why? Because the earth second represents a smller amount of proper
time than the twin's second. If you want to make the comparison you
must convert the twin's seconds to the earth seconds by multiplying it
by a factor of gamma.
Post by PD
So either you don't know what proper time means, or you don't know
what invariant means.
No it is you who don't know what proper time means and you don't known
that a clcok second is not a universal interval of proper time.
Ken seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
You apparently don't know what proper time means.
You apparently can't read what I said.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
You do know that the clocks disagree when they meet again, don't you?
Of course that's because a clock second in the moving frame contains a
larger amount of proper time (absolute time).
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
The observer uses the equations of SR/GR or IRT to
calculate the clock time value on an
...
kenseto
2010-09-26 14:01:30 UTC
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by kenseto
a second is not a universal interval of time....iow, it
does not have the same duration (absolute time content) in different
frames.
You keep writing as if "universal interval of time" has meaning. And as if
"absolute time" has meaning (in subject).
Of course absolute time has meaning....it has the meaning of Newton's
absolute time.
Then yours is not quite the same as his.
His was an *assumption* about how clocks would behave. It was his
*assumption* that identically constructed clocks would all tick at the
same rate regardless of their motion or their location. This was an
assumption that needed to be tested.
No physical clock or defintion for unit of clock time (a clock
second)can represent the same interval of absolute time in different
frames.
Newton didn't know that. He thought it could, and he thought clocks
behaved that way.
He was wrong.
Regardless, YOUR definition of absolute time is therefore different
than his, because YOU believe that clocks do not measure absolute
time.
No I said that a clock second at the rest frame of the clock
represents a specific amount of absolute time.
Then that STILL is not what Newton called absolute time.
Close enough....in any case it is irrelevant.
Not at all close.
Newton failed to realize  that no physical clock unit of time can
represent the same inertavl of absolute time in different frames. If
he realize that he would agree to my definition of absolute time.
That's what I said. Newton thought they would agree. They don't.
His definition is nothing like yours.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
That is, you do not believe that 112 seconds as measured on one
clock measures the same amount of absolute time as 112 seconds as
measured on another clock.
Correct 112 seconds on clock A represents a different amount of
absolute time as 112 seconds on clock B.
112 clock seconds at the rest frame of clock A represents 112 seconds
of duration (absolute time), according to YOUR definition.
No I said that 112 seconds on clock A represents a specific interval
of absolute time.
Presumably 112 seconds worth of absolute time, since it's measured in
its own rest frame.
It represents a specific interval of absolute time.
How much?
If absolute time is not measurable, then it is a worthless quantity
for physics.
Sigh....absolute time is proper time....absolute time is invariant as
is proper time.
I'm not sure you know what proper time is.
Of course I know what proper time is....it is absolute time.
Post by PD
You do know that the clocks used by the twins in the twin puzzle
measure proper time, don't you?
No it measures the amount of clock time in the traveling clock that
represents the same amount of proper time on the observer's clock.
No sir. The Earth's clock measures the proper time on the Earth clock.
Why no sir? The earth's clock measures the proper time (absolute time)
on the earth clock.
Post by PD
The traveling twin's clock measures the proper time on that twin's
clock.
How is that different than what I said? I said that the twin's clock
second measures a specific interval of proper time (absolute time).
Also I said that the earth's proper time (absloute time) interval is
worth 1/gamma proper time (absolute time)interval on the twin's clock.
The clock MEASURES proper time. That means when the Earth clock reads
1300 seconds, it's reading 1300 seconds of proper time.
No it means that 1300 seconds represents a specific interval of proper
time. Lets call this interval of proper time (absolute time)as T_pe
Specifically, it represents 1300 seconds of proper time, because
proper time in that frame is DEFINED as the time read from an at-rest
clock. The Earth clock is at rest in the Earth frame.
No 1300 seconds on an earth clock represents a specific interval of
proper time.
It represents 1300 seconds of proper time, because YOU SAID YOURSELF
that proper time is DEFINED as the time read from an at-rest clock,
and the earth clock is at rest in the earth frame.
Sigh...it represent 1300 seconds of proper time only in the earth
frame. 1300 seconds will represent a different interval of proper time
in a different frame.
Ah but you said that absolute time and proper time is INVARIANT.
To physicists, the word "invariant" means that it has the same value
independent of frame.
But here you say proper time is invariant but has a different value in
different frames.
No idiot...proper time in SR is the time on the observer's clock only.
A clock second on the observer's clock represents a specific interval
of proper time (absolute time). The observer uses SR or IRT to
calculate the clock time value on an observed clock for this specific
interval of proper time on the observer's clock....and the result is 1/
gamma second for SR and 1/gamma or gamma seconds for IRT.
Your problem is that you think a clcok second in any frame represents
the same amount of proper time. If that were the case then why do you
need the term proper time in SR??????

Ken Seto
Post by PD
So you either are using a different meaning to the word "proper time"
or to the word "invariant".
Either way, you must surely understand that what you say makes
absolutely no sense to physicists.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
You must learn the definition of terms like "proper time" AS THEY ARE
USED BY PHYSICISTS.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
When the
proper time.
No it means that 680 seconds on the twin's clock represents the same
interval of proper time T_pe as 1300 seconds on the earth clock.
I'm sorry, Ken, but no. It represents 680 seconds of proper time,
No 680 seconds represent a specific interval of proper time on the
travelling clock.
Post by PD
because proper time in that frame is DEFINED as the time read from an at-rest clock.
Clock second in any frame is not a second of proper time.
That's not so. The DEFINITION of proper time in a frame is the clock
time read on an at-rest clock. That's what proper time MEANS.
Post by kenseto
It
represents a spicific interval of proper time.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
So when they meet and the twin's clock and the Earth
clock both read proper time but have different values, then your
statement that proper time is invariant is clearly wrong.
No you can't compare the earth second directly with the twin's second.
Why? Because the earth second represents a smller amount of proper
time than the twin's second. If you want to make the comparison you
must convert the twin's seconds to the earth seconds by multiplying it
by a factor of gamma.
Post by PD
So either you don't know what proper time means, or you don't know- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -...
artful
2010-09-22 23:11:13 UTC
On Sep 23, 6:44 am, kenseto <***@erinet.com> wrote:
You claim absolute time is simply a duration of time. So one second
on a clock is a duration of time and its duration is one second. So
absolute time is clock time.

You claim absolute time is proper time. Proper time in a frame is the
time shown on a local at-rest clock. So one second on a clock has a
duration of one absolute second. So absolute time is clock time.

But we know the proper time (clock time) between a pair of events is
NOT absolute or universal .. it is path / frame dependent.

So in what way is your so-called absolute time 'absolute'?
kenseto
2010-09-23 13:26:18 UTC
You claim absolute time is simply a duration of time.  So one second
on a clock is a duration of time and its duration is one second.  So
absolute time is clock time.
Absolute time is proper time....a clock second at the rest frame of
the clock represents a specific interval of proper time. A clock
second in different frames represents a different amount of proper
time. that's why clocks in relative motion run at different rates.
You claim absolute time is proper time.  Proper time in a frame is the
time shown on a local at-rest clock.  So one second on a clock has a
duration of one absolute second.  So absolute time is clock time.

Ken Seto
But we know the proper time (clock time) between a pair of events is
NOT absolute or universal .. it is path / frame dependent.
So in what way is your so-called absolute time 'absolute'?
Inertial
2010-09-24 01:03:23 UTC
Post by kenseto
Post by artful
You claim absolute time is simply a duration of time. So one second
on a clock is a duration of time and its duration is one second. So
absolute time is clock time.
Absolute time is proper time
So .. you don't know what proper time is .. thought so.

No point discussing physics with you when you don't even speak the language.

Bye
Michael Moroney
2010-09-22 22:40:17 UTC
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
I'm not sure you know what proper time is.
Of course I know what proper time is....it is absolute time.
Post by PD
You do know that the clocks used by the twins in the twin puzzle
measure proper time, don't you?
No it measures the amount of clock time in the traveling clock that
represents the same amount of proper time on the observer's clock.
No sir. The Earth's clock measures the proper time on the Earth clock.
The traveling twin's clock measures the proper time on that twin's
clock.
You apparently don't know what proper time means.
Yet another case where Ken takes a word or phrase with a particular
meaning in physics (in this case, "proper time"), comes up with
his own conflicting definition for it, and then confuses the argument
by using his changed definition in arguments that mean something
completely different to a physicist using the physicist's definition,
often something Ken never intended.

Stick to "absolute time", Ken. Since there are no absolute frames or
absolute time in SR, there is no conflict of meaning for "absolute
time".

(Now, where is my list of words and phrases Ken has redefined?)
PD
2010-09-23 15:17:52 UTC
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
I'm not sure you know what proper time is.
Of course I know what proper time is....it is absolute time.
Post by PD
You do know that the clocks used by the twins in the twin puzzle
measure proper time, don't you?
No it measures the amount of clock time in the traveling clock that
represents the same amount of proper time on the observer's clock.
No sir. The Earth's clock measures the proper time on the Earth clock.
The traveling twin's clock measures the proper time on that twin's
clock.
You apparently don't know what proper time means.
Yet another case where Ken takes a word or phrase with a particular
meaning in physics (in this case, "proper time"), comes up with
his own conflicting definition for it, and then confuses the argument
by using his changed definition in arguments that mean something
completely different to a physicist using the physicist's definition,
often something Ken never intended.
Stick to "absolute time", Ken.  Since there are no absolute frames or
absolute time in SR, there is no conflict of meaning for "absolute
time".
(Now, where is my list of words and phrases Ken has redefined?)
Including:
relative motion
reference frame
inertial frame
proper time
acceleration
etc
etc
etc
kenseto
2010-09-23 23:12:12 UTC
Post by kenseto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
I'm not sure you know what proper time is.
Of course I know what proper time is....it is absolute time.
Post by PD
You do know that the clocks used by the twins in the twin puzzle
measure proper time, don't you?
No it measures the amount of clock time in the traveling clock that
represents the same amount of proper time on the observer's clock.
No sir. The Earth's clock measures the proper time on the Earth clock.
The traveling twin's clock measures the proper time on that twin's
clock.
You apparently don't know what proper time means.
Yet another case where Ken takes a word or phrase with a particular
meaning in physics (in this case, "proper time"), comes up with
his own conflicting definition for it, and then confuses the argument
by using his changed definition in arguments that mean something
completely different to a physicist using the physicist's definition,
often something Ken never intended.
Stick to "absolute time", Ken.  Since there are no absolute frames or
absolute time in SR, there is no conflict of meaning for "absolute
time".
(Now, where is my list of words and phrases Ken has redefined?)
relative motion
reference frame
inertial frame
proper time
acceleration
etc
etc
etc- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Inertial
2010-09-20 23:40:24 UTC
Post by kenseto
No I said that a clock second at the rest frame of the clock
represents a specific amount of absolute time.
How much? How long is 1 second of absolute time? How much absolute time is
there in one second of clock time? If you can't answer, then absolute time
has no meaning.
artful
2010-09-19 23:35:20 UTC
Post by kenseto
Post by Inertial
I second worth
Hey idiot...a second is not a universal interval of time....
Define what you mean by universal
Post by kenseto
iow, it
does not have the same duration (absolute time content) in different
frames.
Please give an example of a universal interval of time. How does it
compare to a clock second at the equator? Does it depends on the time
of day or time of year? How do we determine the amount of universal
time in a given clock second?

Note that a clock second has a duration of one second in every frame.
Post by kenseto
Post by Inertial
A second on a correctly ticking clock is one second.  By defintion
The difinition is not universal....
Yes .. it is .. it applies in each and every frame
Post by kenseto
a second in different frame have
different duration.
Why do you think that a second for a clock at rest in one frame should
be the same as a second for a clock at rest in another?

Please give a definition of a time that *is* the same in all frames,
and a method for measuring it
kenseto
2010-09-20 15:45:56 UTC
Post by artful
Post by kenseto
Post by Inertial
I second worth
Hey idiot...a second is not a universal interval of time....
Define what you mean by universal
The passage of a clock second in A's frame does not correspond to the
passage of a clock second in B's frame....that means that a clock
second is not a universal interval of time.
Post by artful
Post by kenseto
iow, it
does not have the same duration (absolute time content) in different
frames.
Please give an example of a universal interval of time.
No clock second or definition can represent the same interval of
universal time (absolute time) in different frames. Why? Because a
clock second in different frames represents a different amount of
universalk time (absolute time)in different frames.

Ken Seto
Post by artful
How does it
compare to a clock second at the equator?  Does it depends on the time
of day or time of year?  How do we determine the amount of universal
time in a given clock second?
Note that a clock second has a duration of one second in every frame.
Post by kenseto
Post by Inertial
A second on a correctly ticking clock is one second.  By defintion
The difinition is not universal....
Yes .. it is .. it applies in each and every frame
Post by kenseto
a second in different frame have
different duration.
Why do you think that a second for a clock at rest in one frame should
be the same as a second for a clock at rest in another?
Please give a definition of a time that *is* the same in all frames,
and a method for measuring it
Inertial
2010-09-20 23:37:47 UTC
Post by kenseto
Post by artful
Post by kenseto
Post by Inertial
I second worth
Hey idiot...a second is not a universal interval of time....
Define what you mean by universal
The passage of a clock second in A's frame does not correspond to the
passage of a clock second in B's frame.... that means that a clock
second is not a universal interval of time.
So .. you can't define universal time. Didn't think you could.
Post by kenseto
Post by artful
Post by kenseto
iow, it
does not have the same duration (absolute time content) in different
frames.
Please give an example of a universal interval of time.
No clock second or definition can represent the same interval of
universal time (absolute time) in different frames. Why? Because a
clock second in different frames represents a different amount of
universalk time (absolute time)in different frames.
So .. you can't give an example of universal time. Didn't think you could.

supposed universal time of yours that you can't define or provide and
example of
Michael Moroney
2010-09-14 19:43:53 UTC
Post by kenseto
observer's clock. The GPS supports this interpretation.
The GPS second is redefined
condemned to never, ever, learn anything about relativity.
Sam Wormley
2010-09-14 20:56:00 UTC
Post by kenseto
Is a proper second represent a specific interval of absolute time???
Definition for a proper second: it is a second at the rest frame of a
clock.
The answer to this question is yes.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time

There is not need for, nor a definition of "absolute" time in physics.
Igor
2010-09-14 21:16:04 UTC
Post by kenseto
Is a proper second represent a specific interval of absolute time???
The second is a standard. Coordinate time is relative. Proper time
is invariant. But keep up the nonsensical trolling. It's what you do
best.
Inertial
2010-09-14 23:46:43 UTC
Post by kenseto
Is a proper second represent a specific interval of absolute time???
There is no absolute time

[snip rest after nonsense question]
Androcles
2010-09-15 02:23:44 UTC
"Inertial" <***@rest.com> wrote in message news:4c900961\$0\$28645\$***@news.astraweb.com...

| [snip rest after nonsense question]
|
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

are red in the face, Inert Queer, you are fucked and can
An event in B's frame, meeting A at noon, doesn't have
to be simultaneous with an event in A's frame, meeting
B at dawn.
You need to learn the relativity of simultaneity, you deranged cretin.

Clock A goes on a long journey and returns to clock B.
Clock B says its 12:00 o'clock and takes clock A out for
lunch with the sun high in the sky. Clock B had breakfast
6 hours ago and is now hungry. Clock B keeps the correct
time.
"Its pretty obvious really. If a clock is physically
unaffected, it must still be keeping correct time." -- Inert Queer.

Both clocks keep correct time. Less time has elapsed for
travelling clock A than for stay-at-home clock B.

Clock A says its 6:00 am so it arrives at clock B at sunrise
in time for breakfast because it kept the correct time, it is
far too early for lunch.
"Its pretty obvious really. If a clock is physically
unaffected, it must still be keeping correct time." -- Inert Queer.

"Androcles laughed: "There's no use trying," he said; "one can't believe
impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Inert Queer. "When
I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes
I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
-- Androcles in Relativityland by Lewis Einstein.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
artful
2010-09-15 03:24:25 UTC
Post by Androcles
| [snip rest after nonsense question]
|
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
are red in the face
funny .. I don't see myself doing any of those things .. the only one
ranting and raving is you,

[snip stalker Andrcoles ranting]
Androcles
2010-09-15 03:43:59 UTC
Post by Androcles
| [snip rest after nonsense question]
Agreed,
is nonsense.

are red in the face, Inert Queer, you are fucked and can
An event in B's frame, meeting A at noon, doesn't have
to be simultaneous with an event in A's frame, meeting
B at dawn.
You need to learn the relativity of simultaneity, you deranged cretin.

Clock A goes on a long journey and returns to clock B.
Clock B says its 12:00 o'clock and takes clock A out for
lunch with the sun high in the sky. Clock B had breakfast
6 hours ago and is now hungry. Clock B keeps the correct
time.
"Its pretty obvious really. If a clock is physically
unaffected, it must still be keeping correct time." -- Inert Queer.

Both clocks keep correct time. Less time has elapsed for
travelling clock A than for stay-at-home clock B.

Clock A says its 6:00 am so it arrives at clock B at sunrise
in time for breakfast because it kept the correct time, it is
far too early for lunch.
"Its pretty obvious really. If a clock is physically
unaffected, it must still be keeping correct time." -- Inert Queer.

"Androcles laughed: "There's no use trying," he said; "one can't believe
impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Inert Queer. "When
I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes
I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
-- Androcles in Relativityland by Lewis Einstein.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Inertial
2010-09-15 06:39:06 UTC
Post by Androcles
[Further copy/paste taunting and tantrums by fucktard Androcles ignored]
Androcles
2010-09-15 06:48:03 UTC
"Inertial" <***@rest.com> wrote in message news:4c906a08\$0\$11107\$***@news.astraweb.com...
| "Androcles" wrote in message news:IiXjo.61406\$***@newsfe21.ams2...
| >Scream and stamp your feet and hold your breath until you
|
| [Further copy/paste taunting and tantrums by fucktard Androcles ignored]
|
Snip all you want to, have all the tantrums you want to.
There is no difference between relative velocity and closing velocity,
both are c+v.

You can't shoot the messenger because you don't like the message;
you have no ammunition, dumbfuck, your peashooter is empty.
Richard Tobin
2010-09-15 16:14:17 UTC
Post by Androcles
There is no difference between relative velocity and closing velocity,
Progress! Androcles has learnt the jargon to express his ignorance.

-- Richard
Androcles
2010-09-15 17:26:11 UTC
"Richard Tobin" <***@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message news:i6qrcp\$10rv\$***@automatic.inf.ed.ac.uk...
| In article <90_jo.131614\$***@newsfe06.ams2>,
| Androcles <***@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote:
|
| >There is no difference between relative velocity and closing velocity,

No progress, the stupid cunt Tobin still has to snip in mid-sentence.
BURT
2010-09-16 03:54:38 UTC
Post by Androcles
|
| >There is no difference between relative velocity and closing velocity,
No progress, the stupid cunt Tobin still has to snip in mid-sentence.
Gravity strength and change of speed in energy through space changes
Two Time Rates in one clock. The starting point of time is a fastest
time that will slow down.

Mitch Raemsch
BURT
2010-09-15 02:42:12 UTC
Post by Inertial
Post by kenseto
Is a proper second represent a specific interval of absolute time???
There is no absolute time
[snip rest after nonsense question]
There is fastest time (whereby gravity and motion inverse Gamma slow
when they come together.)

Mitch Raemsch
kenseto
2010-09-16 12:43:44 UTC
Post by Inertial
Post by kenseto
Is a proper second represent a specific interval of absolute time???
There is no absolute time
Assertion is not a valid arguement.
Post by Inertial
[snip rest after nonsense question]
Inertial
2010-09-16 22:15:03 UTC
Post by kenseto
Post by Inertial
Post by kenseto
Is a proper second represent a specific interval of absolute time???
There is no absolute time
Assertion is not a valid arguement.
That's the only argument you use.

PD
2010-09-15 16:19:06 UTC
Post by kenseto
Is a proper second represent a specific interval of absolute time???
You use words funny. "Specific interval of absolute time" is a term
you've invented and have not clearly defined.
It is also at odds with how time is understood by physicists.
Post by kenseto
Definition for a proper second: it is a second at the rest frame of a
clock.
The answer to this question is yes.
Why?
Because a clock second in the rest frame of the clock does represent a
specific interval of absolute time
You have a funny way of arguing answers to questions:
Question: Does a proper second represent a specific interval of
absolute time?
Answer: Yes, because a proper second represents a specific interval of
absolute time.
Post by kenseto
. However, it is important to
realize that a clock second does not represent the same interval of
absolute time in different frames....this is the reason why clocks in
different frames run at different rates. This means that one can't
compare clock second accumulated during the journey of a clock to a
clock second accumulated on the stay at home clock.
You have a funny meaning to the word "compare".
To a physicist, comparing means taking the readings from two
instruments, recording them, and then looking at both recorded
To you, comparing means that you have to have additional requirements
you've not justified.
Post by kenseto
This means that
the twin paradox never happen in terms of absolute time.
The math of SR/GR is design to determine the clock time value on an
observed clock for an interval of proper time (absolute time) on the
observer's clock.
No, it's not. The clock time on an observed clock is determined by
reading it. That is the experimental result.
SR/GR provides a prediction about what that determination will be.
That is the theoretical prediction.
It is the objective of science to take both answers -- the
experimental result and the theoretical prediction -- to see if they
match. It is NOT the objective of science to let the theory tell you
what the clock says without reading it.
Post by kenseto
The GPS supports this interpretation. The GPS
second is redefined to have 4.46 more periods of Cs 133 radiation.
This redefinition of the GPS second is designed to make the GPS second
contains the same amount of absolute time as a ground clock second and
thus making the GPS in synch with the ground clock permanently.
A new theory of relativity called IRT uses this interpretation. IRT
includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT
are valid in all environments, including gravity. A paper on IRT is