The SRians Said: Time is What the Clock Measures

"jem" wrote in message
news:g1rbe.33168$d43.26413@lakeread03...
Tom Roberts wrote:
kenseto wrote:

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
...

kenseto wrote:

The SRians Said: Time is What the Clock Measures
This definition for time implies that a clock second represents the
same
"duration" (universal time?) in all frames.

No, it does not.


Then why do you compared the twin's clock second directly with the stay
at
home clock second to reach the conclusion that the traveling twin ages
less?


_YOU_ are the only person who tries to do that. And you repeatedly
display how confused you are, most likely because of this misguided
attempt to compare "clock seconds".

In SR, Each twin interprets the "passage of time" to be what a collocated
and comoving clock indicates. These clocks are _DIFFERENT_ for the two
twins, because the two twins move differently. Between their separation
and rejoining, the two twins' clocks indicate different elapsed proper
times. The comparison is of ELAPSED PROPER TIMES and not any sort of
"clock second".

Bottom line: compare only things that are DIRECTLY MEASURABLE. So just
before the twins separate, compare the values indicated on their clocks
(when they are together). And just after they rejoin, again compare the
values indicated on their clocks (when they are together). Anything else
depends in gory detail on HOW you perform the comparison. Accept the
difference in elapsed proper times as a difference in elapsed proper
times, and make no attempt to interpret it as some sort of "clock
second".

But the measurement of the elapsed proper time *is* the number of "clock
seconds" (i.e. ticks) recorded on each clock, so Seto's question is a
natural one: if the "time content" of those clock seconds (i.e. tick
intervals) differs between the two clocks, then how is it that a direct
comparison of the tick counts reflects a difference in elapsed times?

Don't be caught by the trolling, Ken asked a
trick question. Notice he wrote '"duration"
(universal time?)' but duration is proper time
while universal time implies a preferred frame
and hence any real clock measure would be a
coordinate time. He puts them together so that
whichever meaning you assume, he can choose the
other.

Similarly, he sometimes talks of comparing
"clock seconds" but if you give a sensible
answer to that he will switch to discussing the
duration of the trip which is the number of
seconds, not the length of a second.

There is no content in these posts, just word
games, pure trolling.

George

"jem" wrote in message
news:NVqbe.33167$d43.27684@lakeread03...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" wrote in message
news:GFPae.32562$d43.23992@lakeread03...

kenseto wrote:


"jem" wrote in message
news:IGOae.32553$d43.18173@lakeread03...


kenseto wrote:



The SRians Said: Time is What the Clock Measures

This definition for time implies that a clock second represents the

same

"duration" (universal time?) in all frames. The SRians compare the

passage


of clock seconds directly in the twin paradox scenario confirms this
interpretation for time..

Question:
Does this mean that a clock second is an interval of universal time?

Yes


Ah....but this would mean the existence of universal time (absolute

time)

which is denied by SR. Also this is in conflict with what Alan Lightman

said

in his book "Great Idea in Physics" page 120. He said: a clock second
in

one

frame correspond to less than a clock second in another frame. So how
do

you

explain these apparaent contradictory statements?

Everyday language isn't the appropriate tool for describing what's going
on in Relativity (look to the mathematics of the SR model instead).

A stationary observer measures the duration of one second on a moving
clock to be less than one second on a stationary clock,


I think you got it wrong. The stationary observer measures the duration
of
one second on a moving clock to be more than one second on a stationary
clock.


Whoops, yes I did.

and in this
sense clock seconds are of different durations in different reference
frames.


Right....a clock second will contain a different amount of absolute time
(duration) in different frames.

What's usually meant by "absolute time" is "invariant time" (i.e. like
the pre-20th century world view), and because, according to SR, time
isn't invariant,

Clock time is not invariant. Absolute time (or universal time or duration)
is invariant.

that isn't what I meant (or thought you meant) by
"universal time". As you indicated originally, "time" is the
measurement of a clock, and since SR assumes that clocks (ideal ones)
are identical and are unaffected by motion,

This SR assumption is bogus. Even ideal clocks are running at different
rates at different states of moiton.

it logically follows that
the time intervals on those clocks are equivalent regardless of the
overall state of motion. It's in this sense that the time intervals are
"universal".

There is no clock that can measure the same interval of universal time with
the same clock reading. SR was invented to determine the clock reading in
the observed frame for an interval of universal time in the observer's
frame...BTW, I use universal time and absolute time interchangeably.

However, SR assumes all clocks are identical and are unaffected by
motion, so in this sense one second has the same duration in all
reference frames.


This is indeed a bogus assumption. It is designed to avoid the
implication
of absolute time.

Well, the assumption isn't bogus, since "essentially ideal" clocks have
been constructed. However, the existence of ideal clocks doesn't
necessarily "avoid the implications of absolute time".

Moving clocks simply accumulate fewer seconds than
stationary clocks. This desription is probably the better of the two.


But this description contradicts what you said earlier: that a clock
second
is an interval of universal time (absolute time or duration).

Definitely not. If two collocated and synchronized ideal clocks are
moved apart and later reunited, the only way to interpret a difference
in their readings as one clock having experienced less time than the
other, is to assume that the calibrated time intervals (i.e. the
"temporal content" of each interval) on both clocks are identical.

No...both clocks experienced the same amount of absolute time. The different
clock readings contains the same amount of absolute time. Why? Because a
clock time interval does not represent the same amount of absolute time in
different frames (different state of absolute motion). For a detail
explanation of this please read my Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) in the
following link (Pages 2-4)
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/NPApaper.pdf

Ken Seto

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"jem" wrote in message
news:g1rbe.33168$d43.26413@lakeread03...
Tom Roberts wrote:
kenseto wrote:

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
...

kenseto wrote:

The SRians Said: Time is What the Clock Measures
This definition for time implies that a clock second represents the
same
"duration" (universal time?) in all frames.

No, it does not.


Then why do you compared the twin's clock second directly with the
stay
at
home clock second to reach the conclusion that the traveling twin ages
less?


_YOU_ are the only person who tries to do that. And you repeatedly
display how confused you are, most likely because of this misguided
attempt to compare "clock seconds".

In SR, Each twin interprets the "passage of time" to be what a
collocated
and comoving clock indicates. These clocks are _DIFFERENT_ for the two
twins, because the two twins move differently. Between their separation
and rejoining, the two twins' clocks indicate different elapsed proper
times. The comparison is of ELAPSED PROPER TIMES and not any sort of
"clock second".

Bottom line: compare only things that are DIRECTLY MEASURABLE. So just
before the twins separate, compare the values indicated on their clocks
(when they are together). And just after they rejoin, again compare the
values indicated on their clocks (when they are together). Anything
else
depends in gory detail on HOW you perform the comparison. Accept the
difference in elapsed proper times as a difference in elapsed proper
times, and make no attempt to interpret it as some sort of "clock
second".

But the measurement of the elapsed proper time *is* the number of "clock
seconds" (i.e. ticks) recorded on each clock, so Seto's question is a
natural one: if the "time content" of those clock seconds (i.e. tick
intervals) differs between the two clocks, then how is it that a direct
comparison of the tick counts reflects a difference in elapsed times?

Don't be caught by the trolling, Ken asked a
trick question.

No idiot.... I mean duration and universal time and absolute time all mean
the same thing.

Notice he wrote '"duration"
(universal time?)' but duration is proper time
while universal time implies a preferred frame
and hence any real clock measure would be a
coordinate time. He puts them together so that
whichever meaning you assume, he can choose the
other.

For a specific interval of absolute time it is represented by a different
proper clock time time interval in a different frame and these proper clock
time intervals in different frames represent the same amount of absolute
time. BTW, I use duration, universal time and absolute time interchangeably.

Similarly, he sometimes talks of comparing
"clock seconds" but if you give a sensible
answer to that he will switch to discussing the
duration of the trip which is the number of
seconds, not the length of a second.

You are hallucinating.

There is no content in these posts, just word
games, pure trolling.

You are an idiot.

Ken Seto

kenseto wrote:
There is no content in these posts, just word
games, pure trolling.

You are an idiot.

Ken Seto

you arent even up to the standards of idiot

"kenseto" wrote in message
...

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"jem" wrote in message
news:g1rbe.33168$d43.26413@lakeread03...
Tom Roberts wrote:
kenseto wrote:

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
...

kenseto wrote:

The SRians Said: Time is What the Clock Measures
This definition for time implies that a clock second represents the
same
"duration" (universal time?) in all frames.

....

Don't be caught by the trolling, Ken asked a
trick question.

No idiot.... I mean duration and universal time and absolute time all mean
the same thing.

A clock is based on measuring a physical process such
as a characteristic oscillation of an atom. That is
at a rate such that the same number of transitions
occur in equal amounts of _proper_ time. You said
"This definition for time implies that a clock second
represents the same 'duration' ..." which is only
correct if by "duration" you mean an amount of
proper time.

You wrote "universal time?" with a question mark
which means you were asking if it was the same as
"duration". I answered on the basis of what you
wrote.

Notice he wrote '"duration"
(universal time?)' but duration is proper time
while universal time implies a preferred frame
and hence any real clock measure would be a
coordinate time. He puts them together so that
whichever meaning you assume, he can choose the
other.

For a specific interval of absolute time it is represented by a different
proper clock time time interval in a different frame and these proper
clock
time intervals in different frames represent the same amount of absolute
time.

Right, and that also means that equal amounts
of proper time would represent different
amounts of time in your preferred frame, what
you call "universal time", and clearly you are
aware of that. Since the definition of the
second specifies equal amounts of proper time,
why did you say the opposite in your original
question, if it was not a deliberate attempt
to mislead people? That is called trolling.

BTW, I use duration, universal time and absolute time interchangeably.

Then it is hardly surprising that you create
confusion. In your original question you used
"duration" to mean an amount of proper time
instead of an amount of time in the preferred
frame ("universal time").

Similarly, he sometimes talks of comparing
"clock seconds" but if you give a sensible
answer to that he will switch to discussing the
duration of the trip which is the number of
seconds, not the length of a second.

You are hallucinating.

You said:

Then why do you compared the twin's clock second directly with the
stay at
home clock second to reach the conclusion that the traveling twin ages
less?

But that isn't what is done, it is the number of
seconds that is compared, not the length of a
second. It is a subtle difference and one that
might catch the unwary.

There is no content in these posts, just word
games, pure trolling.

You are an idiot.

The fact that you have to resort to such attempts
at insults merely proves you cannot refute my
statements and that I have exposed your childish
word games.

George

jem wrote:
But the measurement of the elapsed proper time *is* the number of "clock
seconds" (i.e. ticks) recorded on each clock,

If kenseto used normal English, one would imagine that to be the case.
But he doesn't, and he means something else by "clock second".

For instance:
kenseto said:
Clock time is not invariant.

The value displayed on a particular clock _must_ be invariant, because
the value it displays cannot possibly depend upon how one looks at the
clock.


Bottom line: In SR and GR the elapsed proper times shown by the clocks
in a twin scenario will differ. But one cannot infer from this that the
clocks themselves "ticked at different rates". In SR/GR, clocks always
tick at their usual rates, but the elapsed proper time between two
points in spacetime depends on the path taken between them -- this is
_geometry_, not any sort of change in "tick rates".

Yhis is the same as the odometer distance between two points
on the globe depends upon the path taken between them. This is
directly analogous, as both odometer distance (on the globe)
and elapsed proper time (in SR) are measures of path length.


Tom Roberts

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
...
jem wrote:
But the measurement of the elapsed proper time *is* the number of "clock
seconds" (i.e. ticks) recorded on each clock,

If kenseto used normal English, one would imagine that to be the case.
But he doesn't, and he means something else by "clock second".

NO I didn't mean something else. I said that SR uses clock seconds to
compare the passage of time and you said that such comparison is doomed.


For instance:
kenseto said:
Clock time is not invariant.

Indeed clcok time is not invariant. The passage of a clock second in one
frame is not equal to the passage of a clcok second in another frame

The value displayed on a particular clock _must_ be invariant, because
the value it displays cannot possibly depend upon how one looks at the
clock.

This assertion implies that a clock second is an interval of absolute time.
This is nonsense in SR and in ether theory.


Bottom line: In SR and GR the elapsed proper times shown by the clocks
in a twin scenario will differ. But one cannot infer from this that the
clocks themselves "ticked at different rates".

Why not if they show different elapsed times?

In SR/GR, clocks always
tick at their usual rates,

This is a nonsensical statement. It is a bogus self reference statement. For
example: an observer sees other clocks moving wrt him are running at
different rates compared to his clock. He accelerated and becomes inertial
again. He will see those clocks running at different rates as before. So you
think that the observer's clock rate didn't change? You think that those
other clocks are doing the rate changing?

but the elapsed proper time between two
points in spacetime depends on the path taken between them -- this is
_geometry_, not any sort of change in "tick rates".

You can call it geometry if you want. For sure the SR effect on the GPS
clock is 7 us/day running slow compared to the ground clock.

Yhis is the same as the odometer distance between two points
on the globe depends upon the path taken between them.

The odometer analogy is bogus. The rate of accumulating mileage for a
specific time interval is dependent on the speed of each car wrt the road.

This is
directly analogous, as both odometer distance (on the globe)
and elapsed proper time (in SR) are measures of path length.

No it's not analogous.

Ken Seto

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
...
jem wrote:
But the measurement of the elapsed proper time *is* the number of "clock
seconds" (i.e. ticks) recorded on each clock,

If kenseto used normal English, one would imagine that to be the case.
But he doesn't, and he means something else by "clock second".

For instance:
kenseto said:
Clock time is not invariant.

The value displayed on a particular clock _must_ be invariant, because
the value it displays cannot possibly depend upon how one looks at the
clock.

Bottom line: In SR and GR the elapsed proper times shown by the clocks
in a twin scenario will differ. But one cannot infer from this that the
clocks themselves "ticked at different rates".

To the contrary: not only one can but one actually has inferred that! Likely
you meant that according to you it isn't necessarily so.

In SR/GR, clocks always tick at their usual rates,

You surely meant their proper rates.

but the elapsed proper time between two
points in spacetime depends on the path taken between them -- this is
_geometry_, not any sort of change in "tick rates".

Indeed, such is the geometers opinion.

Harald

Yhis is the same as the odometer distance between two points
on the globe depends upon the path taken between them. This is
directly analogous, as both odometer distance (on the globe)
and elapsed proper time (in SR) are measures of path length.


Tom Roberts

kenseto wrote:

"jem" wrote in message
news:NVqbe.33167$d43.27684@lakeread03...

kenseto wrote:

"jem" wrote in message
news:GFPae.32562$d43.23992@lakeread03...


kenseto wrote:



"jem" wrote in message
news:IGOae.32553$d43.18173@lakeread03...



kenseto wrote:




The SRians Said: Time is What the Clock Measures

This definition for time implies that a clock second represents the

same


"duration" (universal time?) in all frames. The SRians compare the

passage



of clock seconds directly in the twin paradox scenario confirms this
interpretation for time..

Question:
Does this mean that a clock second is an interval of universal time?

Yes


Ah....but this would mean the existence of universal time (absolute

time)


which is denied by SR. Also this is in conflict with what Alan Lightman

said


in his book "Great Idea in Physics" page 120. He said: a clock second

in

one


frame correspond to less than a clock second in another frame. So how

do

you


explain these apparaent contradictory statements?

Everyday language isn't the appropriate tool for describing what's going
on in Relativity (look to the mathematics of the SR model instead).

A stationary observer measures the duration of one second on a moving
clock to be less than one second on a stationary clock,


I think you got it wrong. The stationary observer measures the duration

of

one second on a moving clock to be more than one second on a stationary
clock.


Whoops, yes I did.


and in this
sense clock seconds are of different durations in different reference
frames.


Right....a clock second will contain a different amount of absolute time
(duration) in different frames.

What's usually meant by "absolute time" is "invariant time" (i.e. like
the pre-20th century world view), and because, according to SR, time
isn't invariant,


Clock time is not invariant. Absolute time (or universal time or duration)
is invariant.


that isn't what I meant (or thought you meant) by
"universal time". As you indicated originally, "time" is the
measurement of a clock, and since SR assumes that clocks (ideal ones)
are identical and are unaffected by motion,


This SR assumption is bogus. Even ideal clocks are running at different
rates at different states of moiton.


it logically follows that
the time intervals on those clocks are equivalent regardless of the
overall state of motion. It's in this sense that the time intervals are
"universal".


There is no clock that can measure the same interval of universal time with
the same clock reading. SR was invented to determine the clock reading in
the observed frame for an interval of universal time in the observer's
frame...BTW, I use universal time and absolute time interchangeably.


However, SR assumes all clocks are identical and are unaffected by
motion, so in this sense one second has the same duration in all
reference frames.


This is indeed a bogus assumption. It is designed to avoid the

implication

of absolute time.

Well, the assumption isn't bogus, since "essentially ideal" clocks have
been constructed. However, the existence of ideal clocks doesn't
necessarily "avoid the implications of absolute time".


Moving clocks simply accumulate fewer seconds than
stationary clocks. This desription is probably the better of the two.


But this description contradicts what you said earlier: that a clock

second

is an interval of universal time (absolute time or duration).

Definitely not. If two collocated and synchronized ideal clocks are
moved apart and later reunited, the only way to interpret a difference
in their readings as one clock having experienced less time than the
other, is to assume that the calibrated time intervals (i.e. the
"temporal content" of each interval) on both clocks are identical.


No...both clocks experienced the same amount of absolute time. The different
clock readings contains the same amount of absolute time. Why? Because a
clock time interval does not represent the same amount of absolute time in
different frames (different state of absolute motion).

The question you asked at the start of the thread had to do with the SR
interpretation of time, and that's what I addressed. SR doesn't utilize
absolute time (i.e. invariant time) so that term isn't applicable to SR.
However, SR does assume that time intervals (e.g. clock seconds) are the
same for all observers regardless of their motion, and that in a sense
can be described as a "universal time".

For a detail
explanation of this please read my Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) in the
following link (Pages 2-4)
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/NPApaper.pdf

If you want IRT to gain some credibility, all you need to do is show how
you reproduced the Pioneer trajectories with it. In the meantime maybe
you could explain a couple of things that aren't clear to me.

What's the difference between "physical length" and "light path length"?

What's meant by "the time interval for the simultaneity to occur will be
different in different frames"?

Tom Roberts wrote:

jem wrote:

But the measurement of the elapsed proper time *is* the number of
"clock seconds" (i.e. ticks) recorded on each clock,


If kenseto used normal English, one would imagine that to be the case.
But he doesn't, and he means something else by "clock second".

For instance:
kenseto said:

Clock time is not invariant.

The value displayed on a particular clock _must_ be invariant, because
the value it displays cannot possibly depend upon how one looks at the
clock.

That's certainly true, but it would be true even if everyone's clocks
ticked at different rates when collocated, howeever in that case, a
difference in the clocks' tick counts couldn't be sensibly interpreted
as a difference in elapsed time.

Bottom line: In SR and GR the elapsed proper times shown by the clocks
in a twin scenario will differ.

i.e. the tick counts on their clocks differ.

But one cannot infer from this that the
clocks themselves "ticked at different rates".

Right. In fact it must be assumed that the tick rates are the same in
order to infer that the difference in tick counts represents a
difference in elapsed time.

In SR/GR, clocks always
tick at their usual rates,

and there's the assumption.

but the elapsed proper time between two
points in spacetime depends on the path taken between them -- this is
_geometry_, not any sort of change in "tick rates".

Right, so Relativity assumes all (ideal) clocks always tick at the same
rate, which implies that the measured "time content" in each tick is a
constant (i.e. "universal"). This is what I thought Seto was getting at
with his question.


Yhis is the same as the odometer distance between two points
on the globe depends upon the path taken between them. This is
directly analogous, as both odometer distance (on the globe)
and elapsed proper time (in SR) are measures of path length.

It's a good analogy if viewed properly, but many people seem to focus on
the irrelevant aspects.