On 23/03/11 13:50, PD wrote:
On Mar 23, 5:39 am, wrote:
On 22/03/11 18:21, PD wrote:




I think Einstein confused himself thinking that clocks measure
time.

Yes, indeed. Time is what clocks measure.

You cannot have your cake and eat it either time is the reciprocal
of frequency or it is what a clock measures.

Time is not the reciprocal of frequency. Time is benchmarked by a
locally stationary reproducible process. See the NIST standards.

You are ducking the issue:

a/The frequency of a transverse moving clock is reduced.
b/The time interval between ticks is increased (dilated means increased)
c/ What the moving clock registers is reduced.

What are the units of a/b/ and c/
a is 1/s or Hz
b is s the reciprocal of Hz
c is the number of ticks (unitless)

Which statement do you disagree with?

Dilate "To expand; to distend; to enlarge or extend in all
directions; to swell; -- opposed to contract"

The time interval between ticks dilates.
The value read on the clock gets smaller - contracts.

They cannot both be described as time. Does time contact or dilate?
c only measures time is the unit of time (second) is invariant.



They in fact count ticks. If time dilates the time interval
between the ticks gets longer (increases) while the number of
ticks counted decreases. If time stops the clock stops because
the time interval between ticks has become infinite - the
frequency of the ticks become zero and what is registered on
the clock is zero.

Of course what the second postulate describes is an observer
(every observer) being stationary w.r.t the aether. What is
perhaps interesting is this:

...............................S-v

...............................X

SR says that light emitted when S is directly opposite X will
travel at c to X and arrive at X from the direction S-X. The
frequency received will not however be Fo (as one might
expect) but lower because of time dilation.

What Ballistic theory says is that the light leaving S has a
component v whereby the light propagates in a circle who's
centre tracks with S. When it arrives at X it does so from the
direction S'-X

..................................S'-v
............................vt| |

...............................X

which means that the source has a component of motion away from
X so the frequency is lower than Fo. In fact both theories give
the same frequency arriving at X. when emitted from position S.
SR claims it is due to time dilation and ballistic theory
because of Doppler shift.

..................................S'-v
............................vt| |

...............................X X'

Ballistic theory says that for light emitted at point S the
frequency will be Fo at point X' where the light is coming
from the S'-X' direction. Strangely so does SR which says that
at X' light is travelling in the direction S-X' and therefore
the source has a component of motion towards X' increasing its
frequency just enough to cancel the effects of time dilation.

It is a very simple example of why - simply because SR gives
the right answer - it is wrong to assume that that disproves
Ballistic theory. If the light postulate was wrong and light
was ballistic then the Lorentz transforms would simply be
equivalence formula making up for the error by suitably
deforming space and time to get the right answer. One might
draw an analogy with the geocentric theory where a wrong
assumption was accommodated by considerably complicating other
things.

Oh, would any wise Dingleberry suggest that [v] is the
velocity of dt frame as observed by dt frame instead? If so,
you can count on the Guillotine is coming down hard in the
reply post. Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar
was a fudger of mathematics. The nitwit understood nothing
about SR and GR. The nitwit could not have analyzed anything
rationally and correctly to save his life.shrug