|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
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"? |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CRACK THIS CODE!!! NASA CAN'T | zetasum | Space Shuttle | 0 | February 3rd 05 12:27 AM |
Any complete standardized SNIa data out there? | Eric Flesch | Research | 77 | December 15th 04 09:30 PM |
Pioneer 10 anomaly: Galileo, Ulysses? | James Harris | Astronomy Misc | 58 | January 28th 04 11:15 PM |
UFO Activities from Biblical Times (Long Text) | Kazmer Ujvarosy | UK Astronomy | 3 | December 25th 03 10:41 PM |