On Mar 24, 4:40*pm, Alfonso wrote:
On 24/03/11 13:47, PD wrote:









On Mar 24, 7:40 am, *wrote:
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.

Yes.

b/The time interval between ticks is increased (dilated means increased)

The time interval as measured by a clock at *rest* in this frame is
increased between the ticks of the clock that is moving in this frame,
yes.

I am clearly talking about the same clock as in a/

Then the statement makes no sense. The time interval between ticks on
the clock moving are *unchanged* in the frame in which that clock is
at rest.

See the comment below about the absence of ethereal, standalone time.




c/ What the moving clock registers is reduced.

Reduced, relative to a clock at rest in this frame, yes.

Note that there is no ethereal, detached Time that is affected. What
you are *always* doing is comparing the time measured on one clock
between two events with the time measured on another clock between the
same two events.

Ignoring Doppler shift (How in practice I don't know but never mind) You
have a moving clock transmitting ticks and locally you have two clocks
one a normal clock counting locally generated ticks and a second
counting transmitted ticks.

You can measure how long the transmitted tick interval is. This is
"measuring the time between two events" as you describe it - the arrival
of one tick and the next. It is this "tick interval" (units seconds)
which dilates.

What is registered on the clock counting the received ticks is a "tick
count".

What time is, is what a clock locally at rest measures.

Not time. It cannot measure anything it simply increments each
tick. It cannot be "time" because it is not dilated, on the contrary the
reading on the clock is smaller than that on the local clock. It
registers (taking into account transmission time) the same as the moving
clock and it increments at the same rate.









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?