A clock second is not a universal interval of time.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Editor of Physical Review A, Dr Gordon W.F. Drake does WRONG subtraction of 8th Class mathematics.
Next: Simultaneity of Relativity
From: Y.Porat on 8 Oct 2009 16:43 On Oct 8, 8:28 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 8, 11:13 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 8, 4:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 8, 5:06 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > ------------------- > > > so why not try me to convince you theoretically > > that it i s inevitable ?? > > Y.P > > --------------------- > > Please retry that sentence again in English. ---------------------- you asked me about the 'Circlon' right? it means that that idea is interesting you right ? if not let me know it does not interest you if you are interested to know about it and my considerations how i came to that insight just let me know that you are interested in it ! and i will try to convince you that it makes sense moreover it is more than making sense it i s inevitable or else we are getting into a series of an endless loop of unanswered questions and all of it --starts and based upon the principle of conservation of linear momentum can you start guessing what i have in mind?? i actually did that explanation a few times TIA Y.Porat ----------------------------
From: PD on 8 Oct 2009 17:12 On Oct 8, 3:43 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 8, 8:28 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Oct 8, 11:13 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 8, 4:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 8, 5:06 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > ------------------- > > > > so why not try me to convince you theoretically > > > that it i s inevitable ?? > > > Y.P > > > --------------------- > > > Please retry that sentence again in English. > > ---------------------- > > you asked me about the 'Circlon' right? No, I didn't ask you about the circlon. I mentioned why your statements about the circlon have been largely scoffed at. That shouldn't be interpreted as an expression of interest. > it means that that idea is interesting you > right ? > > if not let me know it does not interest you > > if you are interested to know about it > and my considerations how i came to that insight > just let me know > that you are interested in it ! > and i will try to convince you that it makes sense As I said, having an idea MAKE SENSE is not considered to be of particular value in science. MAKING SENSE is a feature that is worth virtually nothing in science. Read again what I told you is of value about an idea in science. > moreover > it is more than making sense > it i s inevitable > or else we are getting into a series of an endless > loop of unanswered questions > > and all of it --starts and based upon the principle of > conservation of linear momentum Yes, and your idea that passed objects can only push and not pull. > > can you start guessing what i have in mind?? > i actually did that explanation a few times > > TIA > Y.Porat > ----------------------------
From: Inertial on 9 Oct 2009 18:47 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:3e9bcd50-67fd-48e1-8f1c-2a0841c15459(a)l34g2000vba.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 8, 1:36 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:4bfbc576-8077-485c-aef2-6c7ab708eab2(a)p15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Oct 8, 12:34 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:c299e4b3-d1c4-47ab-b9a8-528b236c372e(a)31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Oct 8, 12:58 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >>news:8d55d0f9-ba3c-44ac-a5fa-5616ecbc9601(a)31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Oct 7, 1:56 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >>news:8b3b20da-1227-4a6c-a70e-a711599cffc6(a)g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> > On Oct 6, 7:11 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> A clock second is not a universal interval of time. >> >> >> >> >> What does this mean? >> >> >> >> > ------------------- >> >> >> >> > it means that there is not at all >> >> >> >> > a universal interval of time !! >> >> >> >> >> > time is an arbitrary human invention >> >> >> >> > (not natures invention ) >> >> >> >> > to describe relative motion to some arbitrary >> >> >> >> > chosen MOTION REFERENCE !! >> >> >> >> >> > (it might be the suns or moons or your clock >> >> >> >> > or atomic movement whatever ) >> >> >> >> > it is a very useful human invention! >> >> >> >> >> Nicely put >> >> >> >> > -------------- >> >> >> > thanks >> >> >> > i hardly believe my eys >> >> >> > didn Indetial agree with me?? >> >> >> > how come you agree with a crackpot ?? >> >> >> > that is not a prof of physics ?? (:-) >> >> >> >> I take every thing people say on its own merit. >> >> >> >> You do post a lot of crackpot nonsense, but sometimes you post >> >> >> something >> >> >> valid. If so, I will happily agree with it. >> >> >> >> That is part of being honest. >> >> >> > -------------- >> >> > it is not eboughto be honest though very important in physics and >> >> > science specifically >> >> > but you have as well >> >> > to think physics >> >> > and not only matheamtical formulas >> >> >> This is something you will have to learn >> >> >> > 2 >> >> > you must understand that all we know >> >> > is a drop in the bucket compared >> >> > to all that lot that we miss in that 'bucket' >> >> >> Very true. Ignoring what we do know isn't a virtue though >> >> >> > not realizing it and keeping your 'smug phase' >> >> > and thinking that all that is in our books >> >> > is the last word --- >> >> > is disastrous to advance of science >> >> >> Noone thinks we know it all. I doubt we every really will. >> >> >> > 3 >> >> > btw >> >> > do you know when did i got to that above insight about Time >> >> > ??? >> >> > it was about while i was 16 years old !!.... >> >> > i had a teacher of physics that made me to like >> >> > and admire physics ..... >> >> >> That is very admirable. >> >> >> > anyway >> >> > it was **my own** insight not his .... >> >> >> Its not an uncommon one. Mankind has been dealing with issues such as >> >> "what >> >> is time" for a long long time. >> >> ------------------------ >> > OHHHHH !!!now i see >> > you claim now that my above insight about Time is** not new** >> >> Of course it is not >> >> > ie precedent-ed ?? (:-) >> > if so >> > PLEASE SHOW US by documentation that IT IS PRECEDENT-ED !! >> >> Oh gawd .. not this AGAIN. >> >> Try wikipedia for a start >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time >> >> ... 'time does not refer to any kind of "container" that events and >> objects >> "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead >> part >> of a fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) >> within which humans sequence and compare events. This second view, in the >> tradition of Gottfried Leibniz[5] and Immanuel Kant,[6][7] holds that >> time >> is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor >> can >> it be travelled.' >> >> 'Immanuel Kant, in the Critique of Pure Reason, described time as an a >> priori intuition that allows us (together with the other a priori >> intuition, >> space) to comprehend sense experience.[26] With Kant, neither space nor >> time >> are conceived as substances, but rather both are elements of a systematic >> mental framework that necessarily structures the experiences of any >> rational >> agent, or observing subject.' >> >> 'In 5th century BC Greece, Antiphon the Sophist, in a fragment preserved >> from his chief work On Truth held that: "Time is not a reality >> (hypostasis), >> but a concept (no�ma) or a measure (metron)." Parmenides went further, >> maintaining that time, motion, and change were illusions, leading to the >> paradoxes of his follower Zeno.[28] Time as illusion is also a common >> theme >> in Buddhist thought,[29] and some modern philosophers have carried on >> with >> this theme. J. M. E. McTaggart's 1908 The Unreality of Time, for example, >> argues that time is unreal (see also The flow of time).' >> >> Man has been dealing with questions such as 'what is time' 'what is >> space' >> for hundreds of years. Your arrogance that your simplistic notion is >> something new is mind-boggling. It may well have been new for you at the >> time, but don't kid yourself that noone else had thought of that and more >> before and after. > > ------------- > you quoted a lot of phylosophy abut time > whether there is an absolute time or if it is > one of natures basics > but i ddint see there my definition of time > as > **motion comparison to some arbitrary motion reference **!! Do i need to go hunting for that as well? I was looking at your claim that the flow of time is a human invention /perception > and non of them stated that > if all those motion references > will change by the same rate > (including the elctrons in your brain etc )--- > NO ONE WILL BE ABLE TO NOTICE IT !! As Lorentz claimed. > (if i am not wrong that is unprecedented > > unles you bring quotes that it is precedented > untill now you ddint bring quotes to that !!) > > and it means as well that time is not natures invention > bot a human arbitrary definition As I showed in the quotes above. Though obviously there is something that we perceive as time .. otherwise we couldn't measure it. That it "flows" can be said to be a human 'invention' > a lot of your references are talking about > the *universal time * ie something that is not > human defined ! No .. it is talking about it BEING human defined. > ie > not dependent on human existence > i showed among the others that here is no universal time > that is sort of independent on human existence > etc etc So if you killed everybody, then time would stop and nothing would ever change?
From: Inertial on 9 Oct 2009 18:56 <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:4eb66b31-d4b0-4ccb-a5f6-02775986dc2a(a)k41g2000vbt.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 7, 6:56 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message >> >> news:90f8a1e3-5260-4619-9804-d84ad16ab59d(a)p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Oct 7, 9:10 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:893458a8-b057-49d6-a6d1-7f488b9d65a6(a)b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Oct 7, 7:52 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Oct 6, 7:11 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:> A clock >> >> >> second >> >> >> is >> >> >> not a universal interval of time. >> >> >> > What does this mean? >> >> >> >> ------------------- >> >> >> it means that there is not at all >> >> >> a universal interval of time !! >> >> >> > No....it means that a clock second does not measure the same >> >> > interval >> >> > of universal time in different frames. >> >> >> What universal time? Does any clock measure universal time? How >> >> could >> >> you >> >> tell if it did? How can it be called a universal time if it doesn't >> >> correspond to what we measure time to be? >> >> > Universal time (or absolute time) is the only time that exists. A >> > clock second will contain a specific interval of universal time >> > (absolute time) in A's frame and a clock second will cntain a >> > different interval of universal time in B's frame. >> >> Doesn't work. >> >> > That's why clocks >> > in different frame run at different rates. >> >> That doesn't explain mutual time dilation. > > There is no such thing as mutual time dilation. All clocks in relative > motion are running at different rates. That's why the passage of a > clock second in A's frame does not correspond to the passage of a > clock second in B's frame. And so you don't get isotropy of light speed. Unless your theory has RoS. Tell me .. if you have two synchronized clocks together, and then you move them apart with the same speed but opposite directions and then bring them to a halt .. does your theory say they will remain synchronized? >> > This is illustrated clearly >> > by the GPS ststem...a GPS second had to redfined to have 4.15 more >> > periods of the Cs 133 radiation than a ground clock second. The >> > purpose of this redefinition is to make the GPS second contain the >> > same anount of absolute time (universal time) as the ground clock >> > second. >> >> GPS is mostly a GR effect. At different gravitational potentials time >> run >> slower or faster. SR is a mutual effect on measurement due to motion. > > This shows me that you don't understand SR/GR. As YOU clearly don't understand it .. what you think it shows you is incorrect. > The GPS is a combined > SR/GR effect. GR includes SR, so every SR effect is also a GR effect. But yes. . there is a SR component of the GR effect (as I said) due to the relative motion of ground and satellite. > The gravitational effect is 45 us/day running fast and > the velocity effect (SR effect) is 7 us/day running slow and the > combined effect is 38 us/day running fast. Yeup (assuming you have the correct figures). > This is converted to 4.15 > more periods of Cs 133 radiation for the GPS second. This redefinition > of the GPS second It isn't redefining a second. The end result is that, wrt the satellite itself, the GPS clock does not 'tick' at the correct rate wrt the time in the satellite. As you said .. 38 us/day fast. > is to make the passage of a GPS second corresponds > to the passage of a ground clokc second. If by "GPS second" you mean the not-exactly-a-second period due to adjusted rate, then yes, that is fine. And no need for any notion of some third 'absolute time' .. just making those two correspond.
From: Inertial on 9 Oct 2009 19:00
"PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:c03ecaf2-6861-4e6a-80e4-f9e2cdd62990(a)e18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 8, 5:06 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Oct 7, 8:48 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Oct 7, 12:40 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > On Oct 7, 1:56 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> > > > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> > > >news:8b3b20da-1227-4a6c-a70e-a711599cffc6(a)g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... >> >> > > > > On Oct 6, 7:11 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: >> > > > >> A clock second is not a universal interval of time. >> > > > >> What does this mean? >> > > > > ------------------- >> > > > > it means that there is not at all >> > > > > a universal interval of time !! >> >> > > > > time is an arbitrary human invention >> > > > > (not natures invention ) >> > > > > to describe relative motion to some arbitrary >> > > > > chosen MOTION REFERENCE !! >> >> > > > > (it might be the suns or moons or your clock >> > > > > or atomic movement whatever ) >> > > > > it is a very useful human invention! >> >> > > > Nicely put >> >> > > -------------- >> > > thanks >> > > i hardly believe my eys >> > > didn Indetial agree with me?? >> > > how come you agree with a crackpot ?? >> > > that is not a prof of physics ?? (:-) >> >> > > Y.P >> > > -------------------------- >> >> > Because, Porat, it doesn't depend on who you are, it depends on what >> > you say. >> > And it should be an indicator to you that the rejection you've >> > received about circlons has less to do with who you are than it does >> > with what you've said. >> >> ------------------- >> about the Circlon: >> >> may be a didnt explain it good enough >> but if you ignore it >> it i s your loss !! >> if you like we can get into it deeper >> any way >> for me >> as time pass i am sure about it more and more >> 2 >> i am not sure you understood my explanation >> WHY IT IS INEVITABLE !!!!! >> repeat INEVITABLE !!! > > Nothing is inevitable in a physics theory. Nothing. > You don't prove anything in physics by logic. Well. you don't 'prove' anything in physics anyway. You can not-refute something, but you can't prove it :) And logic certainly has a place in physics. The math and logic one uses to construct a theory need to be logically valid and consistent. Actually .. I guess that depends on whether reality is logically valid and consistent, which physics assumes is so. If it isn't, then there is not much point looking for 'laws' of physics :):) > Everything gets tested according to a measured prediction (or several) > that singles that theory out from other theories. Until that is done, > you have no certainty in a model, at all. And even afterwards you don't have certainty .. just less uncertainty :):) |