The SRians Said: Time is What the Clock Measures

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"jem" wrote in message news:rn4de.618$sy6.438@lakeread04...
George Dishman wrote:

"kenseto" wrote in message
...

"jem" wrote in message
news:iHpce.314$qV3.159@lakeread04...

Tom Roberts wrote:
snip
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.

Correct...that's what I was getting at.


What you are missing is that "jem" is using
"universal" to mean a "universal calibration
method", not units of "universal time".

No, "George", I meant what I said.

No need for quotes, that's my real name.

The fact that Relativity asserts that differences in elapsed time *are*
differences in the tick counts of (ideal) clocks, logically implies that
every interval between the ticks of every such clock contains a
universal
quantity of time.

OK, then I misread your first version
and I apologise for that.

If I follow, you are saying each second
measured by an ideal clock contains the
same amount of (proper) time regardless
of its motion, hence that amount is in
a sense "universal" which is perfectly
correct.

He didn't say that the same amount of proper time. He said: "ticks
of every such clock contains a universal quantity of time."

I could be wrong but I think
from some of Ken's other comments that
he was saying that the definition
implied each second as measured by a
clock contained the same amount of
universal (or absolute) time which is
quite different.

That's no difference than what jem said. The SRians claim that time is what
the clock measures. This definition implies that a clock second contains the
same amount of universal time regardless of the motion of the clock.

Ken Seto

"kenseto" wrote in message
...

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"jem" wrote in message news:rn4de.618$sy6.438@lakeread04...
George Dishman wrote:

"kenseto" wrote in message
...

"jem" wrote in message
news:iHpce.314$qV3.159@lakeread04...

Tom Roberts wrote:
snip
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.

Correct...that's what I was getting at.


What you are missing is that "jem" is using
"universal" to mean a "universal calibration
method", not units of "universal time".

No, "George", I meant what I said.

No need for quotes, that's my real name.

The fact that Relativity asserts that differences in elapsed time *are*
differences in the tick counts of (ideal) clocks, logically implies
that
every interval between the ticks of every such clock contains a
universal
quantity of time.

OK, then I misread your first version
and I apologise for that.

If I follow, you are saying each second
measured by an ideal clock contains the
same amount of (proper) time regardless
of its motion, hence that amount is in
a sense "universal" which is perfectly
correct.

He didn't say that the same amount of proper time. He said: "ticks
of every such clock contains a universal quantity of time."

There is a big difference between saying
"a universal quantity of time" and
"a quantity of universal time". I'll let
Jem speakfor himself though as I got it
wrong last time.

I could be wrong but I think
from some of Ken's other comments that
he was saying that the definition
implied each second as measured by a
clock contained the same amount of
universal (or absolute) time which is
quite different.

That's no difference than what jem said.

I think there is, but perhaps he will
clarify.

The SRians claim that time is what
the clock measures. This definition implies that a clock second contains
the
same amount of universal time regardless of the motion of the clock.

No, since all clocks measure proper time
(by observation), it implies that in the
real world only proper time exists.

Universal time is a figment of our
imaginations.

George

"jem" wrote in message news:Tz4de.619$sy6.526@lakeread04...
kenseto wrote:

"jem" wrote in message
news:XJ3de.615$sy6.240@lakeread04...

kenseto wrote:


"jem" wrote in message

news:iHpce.314$qV3.159@lakeread04...

Tom Roberts wrote:



jem wrote:


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.


I disagree. The clocks tick at different rates can represent the

difference

in elapsed time.

If two clocks tick at different rates then a difference in their tick
counts will be due to both the difference in their elapsed times and the
difference in their tick rates, ehich represents more than just a
difference in elapsed time.


The problem here is that you used tick counts as elapsed time.

It's not a problem - it's what's done in Relativity.

So the
difference in their tick counts is the same as the difference in elapsed
time.

Right.

In SR/GR, clocks always


tick at their usual rates,

and there's the assumption.


Right....that's a nonsenical assumption. It assumes that each tick have

the

same absolute duration in all frames of reference.

I thimk you're too hung up on the word "absolute".


But absolute time (universal time) is the only time that exists. Clock
time...a clock second... will represent a different amount of absolute
time
in different frames.

That's the interpretation in IRT and LET, but not in Relativity which
doesn't model an absolute time.

But you said a clock second represents an interval of universal time. BTW,
LET and IRT have different interpretations. LET interprets rod contraction
IRT interprets rod remains the same but the light path of a rod changes. LET
interprets clocks running at a slower rate when in moiton. IRT interprets
that the different clock time intervals in different states of motion
(different frames) represent the same interval of absolute time.


The fact that time
*intervals* have the same duration for every (ideal) clock


This would mean that your (ideal) clock is an universal clock....no such
clock exists. Definition for a universal clock: A clock that records the
same rate passage of absolute time in different frames (different state
of
absolute motion). Also a universal clock will experience no time
dilation....there is no slowing of a universal clock due to motion of
any
kind.

I've described clock behavior in the contest of Relativity, and as I
keep telling you "absolute time" isn't a feature of Relativity (i.e. the
definition you gave of a universal clock isn't meaningful).

But relativity treats a clock second as an interval of universal time...this
is evidence when SR compared the twin's clock second directly with the stay
at home clock second. At the same time it says that a clcok second in one
frame corresponds to less than a clock second in another frame.

Consider the odometer analogy TR mentioned. Does the rate at which the
odometer moves change as a result of the motion of the vehicle? No, but
two cars with synchronized odometers can leave and return to a single
location and show different odometer readings. This is the sense in
which time dilation affects clocks.

implies
nothing about the amount of time each clock experiences betweeen two
events (except that the time difference will equal the difference in
tick counts).


Here you use tick count to represent the passage of absolute time in
different frames.

Passage of time, yes. Passage of absolute time, no.

So why did you agree that a clock second represents the same interval of
universal time in all frames?

Ken Seto

kenseto wrote:

"jem" wrote in message news:Z94de.616$sy6.335@lakeread04...

kenseto wrote:


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.


I don't have the data that call for by the IRT equations to do the
calculations..

So how can you claim that IRT resolves the discrepancies that arise
under GRT?


Those claims are based on the theoretical predictions of Model Mechanics.
The problem of GRT are resolved by the ad hoc additions of dark matter and
dark energy. Model Mechanics (IRT) includes these entities in its basic
descriptions of the universe.

What I'm asking is how do you know the theoretical predictions of IRT
match the data if you don't have access to the data?


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"?


If a rod is in a state of absolute motion the physical length would be
shorter than the light path length. Why? Because light will need to

travel

an extra length to catch up to the other end of the rod during its

flight to

cover the length of the rod.
My proposed experiments in the same above link are designed to show this
effect of absolute motion.

What I get from that description is that "light path length of a rod" is
the distance a light pulse would travel from the trailing end to the
leading end of a uniformly moving rod,


Yes.


where the distance and speed
measurements are carried out in the absolute reference frame. Is that
right?


No...the distance measurement is carried out in the observer's frame. The
method is using the light-second to do the measurement. Using light-second
to measure distance automatically measures the light path length of a rod.
Why? Because the absolute time content for an observer's clcok second is a
direct consequence of the state of absolute motion of the clock co-moving
with the rod. BTW this is the reason why the speed of light is measured to
be a constant math ratio in all frames as follows:
Light path length of rod (299,792,458m)/thew absolute time content for a
clock second co-moving with the rod.

OK, I'll take a closer look at this when I have more time.


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


The assumption here is that the two frames are in different states of
absolute motion. In Einstein's train gedanken: the train is in a higher
state of absolute motion than the track. That means that the track

observer

will see the lightning strikes to be simultaneous at a time L/c.

However,

the light path length in the train is gamma*L. Therefore the train

observer

will see the strikes to be simultaneous at gamma*L/c.

I can't think of any sense in which "time interval for simultaneity to
occur" is meaningful.


Why not?

Because simultaneous events are separated by a zero length time interval.

If the light path in the train is longer than in the track then
light will take a longer time (absolute time) to reach the observer in the
middle and thus simultaneity in the train will take a longer time to occur.


Are you perhaps referring to the time lag between
the lightning strikes and the light flashes reaching the onservers?


No...the lightning strikes are simultaneous in the track and in the train.
In the track the simultaneity occur at an earlier time because the light
path length in the track is shorter than in the train.

Suppose the lightning strikes are simultaneous in the track frame (say
the two strikes occur at (x1,t) and (x2,t), where the first coordinate
is spatial and the 2nd is time.

Substitute those two coordinates into the coordinate transformation
equations in your IRT paper to find the times that the events occur in
the train frame. When you do that, you'll find that only if the
lightning strikes occur at the same place (x1=x2), or if the train
velocity is zero (f_aa=f_ab), will the stikes be simultaneous in train
frame as well.

George Dishman wrote:
"jem" wrote in message news:Sh4de.617$sy6.117@lakeread04...

Tom Roberts wrote:

jem wrote:

snip

Right, so Relativity assumes all (ideal) clocks always tick at the same
rate,

See above. This is essentially what we mean by "clock". But we can only
compare them accurately when they are collocated and comoving.

Yes, but without the assumption that the tick rates are unaffected by
motion, it's wouldn't be possible to infer that differences in tick counts
represent differences in elapsed times (e.g. LET assumes that mtion has a
specific affect on the tick rates, and from that infers there's no
difference in elapsed (absolute) times).


Isn't it the other way round? LET assumes time is
universal and is therefore forced by experiment to
conclude that clock rates vary with speed. In other
words the formulae for length contraction, time
dilation and mass increase are empirical in LET
but derived from the geometry in SR.

Perhaps - I don't know what the LET supporters favored way of looking at
it is. In general, though, any distinction between the assumptions and
conclusions of a theory is an arbitrary one.

George Dishman wrote:
"jem" wrote in message news:rn4de.618$sy6.438@lakeread04...

George Dishman wrote:


"kenseto" wrote in message
. ..


"jem" wrote in message news:iHpce.314$qV3.159@lakeread04...


Tom Roberts wrote:

snip

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.

Correct...that's what I was getting at.


What you are missing is that "jem" is using
"universal" to mean a "universal calibration
method", not units of "universal time".

No, "George", I meant what I said.


No need for quotes, that's my real name.

and you think mine is unreal?


The fact that Relativity asserts that differences in elapsed time *are*
differences in the tick counts of (ideal) clocks, logically implies that
every interval between the ticks of every such clock contains a universal
quantity of time.


OK, then I misread your first version
and I apologise for that.

No problem.

If I follow, you are saying each second
measured by an ideal clock contains the
same amount of (proper) time regardless
of its motion, hence that amount is in
a sense "universal" which is perfectly
correct.

Yes.

I could be wrong but I think
from some of Ken's other comments that
he was saying that the definition
implied each second as measured by a
clock contained the same amount of
universal (or absolute) time which is
quite different.

Yes.

kenseto wrote:
"jem" wrote in message news:Tz4de.619$sy6.526@lakeread04...

kenseto wrote:


"jem" wrote in message

news:XJ3de.615$sy6.240@lakeread04...

kenseto wrote:



"jem" wrote in message

news:iHpce.314$qV3.159@lakeread04...


Tom Roberts wrote:




jem wrote:


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.


I disagree. The clocks tick at different rates can represent the

difference


in elapsed time.

If two clocks tick at different rates then a difference in their tick
counts will be due to both the difference in their elapsed times and the
difference in their tick rates, ehich represents more than just a
difference in elapsed time.


The problem here is that you used tick counts as elapsed time.

It's not a problem - it's what's done in Relativity.

So the

difference in their tick counts is the same as the difference in elapsed
time.

Right.


In SR/GR, clocks always



tick at their usual rates,

and there's the assumption.


Right....that's a nonsenical assumption. It assumes that each tick have

the


same absolute duration in all frames of reference.

I thimk you're too hung up on the word "absolute".


But absolute time (universal time) is the only time that exists. Clock
time...a clock second... will represent a different amount of absolute

time

in different frames.

That's the interpretation in IRT and LET, but not in Relativity which
doesn't model an absolute time.


But you said a clock second represents an interval of universal time.

No, I said it represents a "universal interval of time", which basically
just means that (ideal) clocks always tick at the same rate.

BTW,
LET and IRT have different interpretations. LET interprets rod contraction
IRT interprets rod remains the same but the light path of a rod changes. LET
interprets clocks running at a slower rate when in moiton. IRT interprets
that the different clock time intervals in different states of motion
(different frames) represent the same interval of absolute time.

Sounds fishy. I need to take a close look at your paper, but don't have
the time right now.

The fact that time
*intervals* have the same duration for every (ideal) clock


This would mean that your (ideal) clock is an universal clock....no such
clock exists. Definition for a universal clock: A clock that records the
same rate passage of absolute time in different frames (different state

of

absolute motion). Also a universal clock will experience no time
dilation....there is no slowing of a universal clock due to motion of

any

kind.

I've described clock behavior in the contest of Relativity, and as I
keep telling you "absolute time" isn't a feature of Relativity (i.e. the
definition you gave of a universal clock isn't meaningful).


But relativity treats a clock second as an interval of universal time...this
is evidence when SR compared the twin's clock second directly with the stay
at home clock second. At the same time it says that a clcok second in one
frame corresponds to less than a clock second in another frame.

Those two statements aren't contradictory, because the word
"corresponds" doesn't have a definitive meaning. If "corresponds" is
interprested to mean "is", then the statement containing it is false and
a contradiction would arise, but if it's (correctly) interpreted to mean
"is measured", then the statement is true, and there's no contrdiction.

Consider the odometer analogy TR mentioned. Does the rate at which the
odometer moves change as a result of the motion of the vehicle? No, but
two cars with synchronized odometers can leave and return to a single
location and show different odometer readings. This is the sense in
which time dilation affects clocks.


implies
nothing about the amount of time each clock experiences betweeen two
events (except that the time difference will equal the difference in
tick counts).


Here you use tick count to represent the passage of absolute time in
different frames.

Passage of time, yes. Passage of absolute time, no.


So why did you agree that a clock second represents the same interval of
universal time in all frames?

Again, clock seconds of equal duration (i.e. universal time intervals)
don't imply Absolute time. Relativity has the former, but not the
latter, and LET has the latter, but not the former.

kenseto wrote:
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"jem" wrote in message news:rn4de.618$sy6.438@lakeread04...

George Dishman wrote:


"kenseto" wrote in message
...


"jem" wrote in message

news:iHpce.314$qV3.159@lakeread04...

Tom Roberts wrote:

snip

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.

Correct...that's what I was getting at.


What you are missing is that "jem" is using
"universal" to mean a "universal calibration
method", not units of "universal time".

No, "George", I meant what I said.

No need for quotes, that's my real name.


The fact that Relativity asserts that differences in elapsed time *are*
differences in the tick counts of (ideal) clocks, logically implies that
every interval between the ticks of every such clock contains a

universal

quantity of time.

OK, then I misread your first version
and I apologise for that.

If I follow, you are saying each second
measured by an ideal clock contains the
same amount of (proper) time regardless
of its motion, hence that amount is in
a sense "universal" which is perfectly
correct.


He didn't say that the same amount of proper time. He said: "ticks
of every such clock contains a universal quantity of time."

It's correct to say "proper time", since the time that ideal clocks
register *is* "proper time".

I could be wrong but I think
from some of Ken's other comments that
he was saying that the definition
implied each second as measured by a
clock contained the same amount of
universal (or absolute) time which is
quite different.


That's no difference than what jem said. The SRians claim that time is what
the clock measures. This definition implies that a clock second contains the
same amount of universal time regardless of the motion of the clock.

It implies that clock seconds contain the same amount of time, not the
same amount of Universal/Absolute time (which is not even defined in
Relativity).

BTW, what is an SRian?

George Dishman wrote:
"kenseto" wrote in message
...

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"jem" wrote in message news:rn4de.618$sy6.438@lakeread04...

George Dishman wrote:


"kenseto" wrote in message
m...


"jem" wrote in message

news:iHpce.314$qV3.159@lakeread04...

Tom Roberts wrote:

snip

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.

Correct...that's what I was getting at.


What you are missing is that "jem" is using
"universal" to mean a "universal calibration
method", not units of "universal time".

No, "George", I meant what I said.

No need for quotes, that's my real name.


The fact that Relativity asserts that differences in elapsed time *are*
differences in the tick counts of (ideal) clocks, logically implies
that
every interval between the ticks of every such clock contains a

universal

quantity of time.

OK, then I misread your first version
and I apologise for that.

If I follow, you are saying each second
measured by an ideal clock contains the
same amount of (proper) time regardless
of its motion, hence that amount is in
a sense "universal" which is perfectly
correct.

He didn't say that the same amount of proper time. He said: "ticks
of every such clock contains a universal quantity of time."


There is a big difference between saying
"a universal quantity of time" and
"a quantity of universal time". I'll let
Jem speakfor himself though as I got it
wrong last time.

Well, I'd say there's a big difference between saying "a universal
quantity of time" and "a quantity of Universal (i.e. Absolute) time".


I could be wrong but I think
from some of Ken's other comments that
he was saying that the definition
implied each second as measured by a
clock contained the same amount of
universal (or absolute) time which is
quite different.

That's no difference than what jem said.


I think there is, but perhaps he will
clarify.

Yes, as indicated above.

The SRians claim that time is what
the clock measures. This definition implies that a clock second contains
the
same amount of universal time regardless of the motion of the clock.


No, since all clocks measure proper time
(by observation), it implies that in the
real world only proper time exists.

All *ideal* clocks measure proper time (e.g. my computer clock sure
doesn't ). There are other meaningful measures of time in Relativity
too (e.g. "coordinate time").

Universal time is a figment of our
imaginations.

Not any more so than Relative time. Both are abstractions that exist
within models created to describe Nature. The preference for Relativity
over say aether theories is due to practical considerations (it's easier
to work with - at least after the initial affront to intuition is
overcome), and not because Relativity is the "correct" viewpoint.

"jem" wrote in message news:Y%ode.1217$sy6.678@lakeread04...
George Dishman wrote:
"jem" wrote in message news:rn4de.618$sy6.438@lakeread04...

George Dishman wrote:
....
What you are missing is that "jem" is using
"universal" to mean a "universal calibration
method", not units of "universal time".

No, "George", I meant what I said.


No need for quotes, that's my real name.

and you think mine is unreal?

Of course, real names are capitalised!

Sorry Jem.

George