Joan-Claude van Dirk Helps to Trivialize Special Relativity
in [Relativity]
|
From: Harry on 17 Mar 2005 03:49 <cadwgan_gedrych(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1110999070.611006.230190(a)l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > At > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/messages/29259fd8837f4457,5e0f92097960cbe2?thread_id= > 8749025eae57c9a5&mode=thread&noheader=1 > > Dirk Van de moortel (correctly, for once,) noted (on Mar 16 2005), > > > The captain of the ship will say exactly the same thing > > about our clocks. > > In other words, time dilation in special relativity is > --------------->>>>RECIPROCAL<<<<----------------. > ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` SRT as used in practice is a theory about *measurements*. Add the word "appear" as disclaimer about reality to every statement, and you'll find that you don't disagree, after all. Indeed, in Einstein's philosophy that reciprocality is "real". But usually *physics theories* are not judged on such personal comments, and "relativity" was for a long time (before GRT) considered to be the theory of Lorentz and Einstein, who held very different opinions about physical reality. Thus I suggest that, in order to avoid misunderstanding, you make clear that you object to Einstein's philosophical explanation and not to the SRT laws. Dirk does not bother about philosophy. Feynmann also didn't bother about that. Still, you could for example cite Einstein's explanation of the Twin paradox to find out how many "relativists" here agree with that. I think you'd be surprised. Cheers, Harald > This proves that relativity's time dilation cannot pertain > to physical clock rhythms (or to any other processes involving > physical time or physical aging) because it is impossible for > two clocks to both physically run slower than each other (or > for two twins to both be younger than each other). > ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` > ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` > It also proves that special relativity cannot handle the > Twin Paradox because even the NO-accelerations case has > real or physical age differences, and yet, as we saw above, > special relativity does not pertain to such differences. > ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` > (And of course, the same applies to real or physical rod lengths > and physical or masses.) > > ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` > Therefore, special relativity is irrelevant in the cases of > physical clock rhythms, physical rod lengths, and physical > masses. > ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` > Regarding relativity's RECIPROCAL "time dilation" or "clock > slowing," or "twin aging," Dirk went on to state that > > > No one can give you the answer why this happens. > > What Dirk really meant was that "No relativist _wants_ to > tell why this happens because to do so would involve the > disastrous (for SR) admission that Einstein's clocks are > incorrectly synchronized." > > This asynchronousness is easily proved, as follows: > Given two events, we know that they must physically occur > either absolutely simultaneously or not, but Einstein's > clocks in various frames will say that two given events > occurred BOTH simultaneously and nonsimultaneously, which, > as we just noted, is simply physically impossible, and, a > picture of this situation quickly shows that Einstein's > clocks cannot be correctly synchronized in any frame but > one: > > left clock right clock > [3]-------Frame A-------[3] > E1 E2 > [3]-------Frame B-------[4] > left clock right clock > > If events E1 and E2 happened to occur absolutely simultaneously, > then only one Einsteinian frame's clocks will say this, but all > other such frames' clocks will say that the events occurred > nonsimultaneously; so, as the picture shows, these other frames' > clocks will be absolutely asynchronous. > > Having found the immediate answer to the question which Dirk > claimed that no one could answer, we can easily go even further, > and answer the question Why are Einstein's clocks asynchronous? > > It's because Einstein ignores the differences in frame velocities > when he uses light signals to "synchronize" his clocks. For > example, whereas Frame A may move toward a given light signal, > Frame B may move away from said signal, so the clocks in these > two frames cannot possibly be set the same way using said signal > as long as one uses Einstein's definition of "synchronization," > which forces all clocks to read the same time x/c for any one-way > signal traveling the frame distance x to the clock. > > This is much easier seen pictorially, as follows: > > Let both frames' origin clocks start on zero when a light signal > is emitted at them. > > left clock right clock (not started) > [0]-------Frame A-------[-] > ~~> signal > [0]-------Frame B-------[-] > left clock right clock (not started) > > > left clock right clock (started now) > [x/c]-------Frame A------[x/c] forced to read Einstein's time x/c > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~> > ------[x/c]-------Frame B-------[-] > left clock right clock (still not started) > > Just to help Einstein, we will assume that both left clocks > now* also read x/c, so that Frame A's clocks are truly or > absolutely synchronized; however, as anyone can easily see, > _after_ Einstein forces B's right clock to read x/c when it > is finally started by the signal, B's left clock _will not_ > then read x/c, so B's clocks will be absolutely asynchronous, > as will the clocks of all other Einsteinian frames. > (*The word "now" is validly used here because I am not saying > that I _know_ that the clocks read x/c. They _must_ read > something, and x/c is a _possible_ reading.) > > Here is how the asynchronicity of Einstein's silly clocks > causes relativity's silly RECIPROCAL "clock slowing": > > a passing clock > [0]--> > [0]-------Frame A-------[2] > > a passing clock > ------------------------[1]--> > [1]-------Frame A-------[3] > > Lo and behold! Frame A's observers see the passing clock > "running slow"; it "fell behind by two time units." Of > course, the observers in the passing clock frames will > RECIPROCALLY find that any Frame A clock "runs slow." > What could be stupider and of less importance to physics? > > Finally, for those who do not know, we will now answer the > question What is the NO-accelerations Twin Paradox case? > > Actually, it is the Triplet Paradox case because we need > three people in order to eliminate acceleration. And it > is better to use clocks because they are more closely > related to time than people. > > Here is the Three-clock Case: > > -------------------------[0] > --------------------<--Clock A > -------------------------[0]--> > -----------------------Clock B---------------<--Clock C > > -----------------[3] > ------------<--Clock A > ---------------------------------[3] > ------------------------------Clock B > ------------------------------Clock C > ---------------------------------[3] > > ----[8] > --Clock A > ------------------------------------------------[8] > --Clock C-------------------------------------Clock B > ----[6] > > Since there are no accelerations, nothing in either > special relativity or general relativity can physically > explain the actual age difference at the end. > > Oh, there are sure to be some relativists who jump up > and scream "Frame jumping!," but then they must tell us > why merely being in different frames causes us to age > differently, and they cannot explain this using SR. > > But the explanation is simple; people in different frames > age differently because such people move at different speeds > through space, and motion through space is the cause of > physical time dilation; however, special relativity denies > all meaning to the notion of motion through space. > > ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` > In conclusion, we see that SR commits three sins, namely, > it talks about only trivial things such as its silly > reciprocal "clock slowing," and yet, one the other hand, > it fails to explicitly address that which is meaningful, > such as real clock slowing and real aging, and, finally, > its clocks which are incorrectly related, so all of its > 2-clock results are incorrect, including its very basis, > the "invariance" of light's one-way speed between two > same-frame clocks. > ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` >
From: Harry on 17 Mar 2005 04:16 "Rudy Drabek" <erdrXs(a)aon.at> wrote in message news:4238a239$0$14666$91cee783(a)newsreader01.highway.telekom.at... > cadwgan_gedrych(a)yahoo.com schrieb: > > At > > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/messages/29259fd8837f4457,5e0f92097960cbe2?thread_id= > > 8749025eae57c9a5&mode=thread&noheader=1 > > > > Dirk Van de moortel (correctly, for once,) noted (on Mar 16 2005), > > > > > >>The captain of the ship will say exactly the same thing > >>about our clocks. > > > > > > In other words, time dilation in special relativity is > > --------------->>>>RECIPROCAL<<<<----------------. > > > > snip > > Let me try an answer as an interested laymen for some years now. > > The answers lie in the basics for SR and are clearly described in the > Einstein 1905 papers. > > 1. The relativity postulate ---> reciprocy/symmetry! > 2. C is constant for all inertial frames in unaccelerated motion. > > For 2. I have read/taken, as a good interpretation, as follows: > Two ships on a sea with constant speed. > On each ship one let fall a stone into the water. > Each ship remains in the center of the concentric waves appearing. Hmm, you leave out two significant details. The speed wrt the water is unknown and no concentric waves can "appear", they can only be "calculated*, due to lack of visibility. You can include that in your example by stating that the people on that ship are blindfolded, and measure with stopwatches the arrival of bounced waves, and they measure equal arrival times. That is the SRT symmetry. Next as model/explanation, in the heads of some appears a picture of concentric waves, centered around one's own ship that is assumedly in rest (but in that same picture the other ship moves and does not remain centered!). In the heads of some others, a picture of deformed ships (by the motion in the water) appears. Again in the heads of some others appears a picture of phonons in a personally modelled "watertime". > That is completely different to our daily life experience. > If you can't accept this then SR is also not acceptable for you. > FINAL statement, acc. to the state of the art! > > All formulas for the Lorentz transformation instead of the Galilean > transformation are based on these 2 postulates. > > From this you came to the paradoxon, that it's not possible that both > clocks are delayed and the reciprocy of the situation. > This paradoxon , now 100 years old, is indeed no paradoxon. > > SR can't say anything about the clockrate of e.g. at the 2 ships > mentioned just before under the conditions 1 and 2. > > If you study the triplet paradoxon you can see, if the ships have > different speeds rel. to the origin of the trip, the ship clocks are > gathering different proper times. > > But SR does not give you any result, if the origin is not taken into > account. > > Remark:THIS STILL WORRIES ME, because if there would be an origin for > the universe, all would be easier. SRT can't tell you that there isn't one. Only that we can't measure it. > The essence is, that the ships had to enter into the condition of rel. > speed between them. This violates postulate 2, because an acceleration > was needed. Professionals say the situation is not symmetrical. > > If you take the origin into account, the formulas of SR are applicable > and giving you the correct results. > > I tried to hold the answer as short as possible. > Pls correct me for failures. Only one glitch. Harald
From: Harry on 17 Mar 2005 04:56 "PD" <pdraper(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1111004650.489408.138750(a)l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > SNIP > > This asynchronousness is easily proved, as follows: > > Given two events, we know that they must physically occur > > either absolutely simultaneously or not, > > And how do you know that? This is not only not obvious, but also > incorrect. > Define simultaneity and how you would determine whether two things are > simultaneous. It depends on one's starting assumptions. In science (natural philosophy) the starting assumption used to be that one single observervation independent reality exists. Based on that assumption, two events can only be either simultaneous *or* not simultaneous. If OTOH one adopts the pov that somehow everyone establishes his/her own reality -- effectively everyone's personal universe -- then indeed everyone can decide on his/her own truth. "Physical" can then be put in the domain of films such as Matrix, it's just personal perception. Harald
From: cadwgan_gedrych on 17 Mar 2005 10:14 > > ... it is impossible for two clocks to both physically run > > slower than each other .... > > Sure it is. Thanks for agreeing. But why did you go on to argue? > > (or for two twins to both be younger than each other). > > That's not the same thing. > Prejudicial mental block at work. > > Note that "younger than" is a comparison made locally and locally only. > "Slower than" is a not necessarily a comparison made locally. In the part of my post which you cowardly snipped, I showed clearly that my clock comparison was LOCAL. Given this, I should not reply to the rest of you silly post, but I will because one of my overall goals here is to help folks to understand special relativity. > There is no such thing as a "physical rod length". Rod length is > strictly the result of an observer-dependent procedure. Hog wash. Every rod and all other physical objects have a given number of atoms which have definite physical shapes, and these two things determine an object's physical length. You were talking about measured rod length; I was talking about the atomic and intrinsic length. There is a world of difference between the two. Try to unconfuse yourself if you can. > "Physical clock rhythms", "physical rod lengths", and "physical > masses" are poorly defined terms. > > Let's start with length. Define the length of a rod, or at least how > you would find it. I defined physical rod length above. And here is how you can correctly measure it: In an inertial frame, place clocks at points (0,0,0) and (100,0,0). At point (50,0,0), simultaneously send out two inertial objects whose speeds wrt the clock frame are equal. (Note that equality does not require quantification, but only qualitative comparison.) (Also note that two things which are at the same point can be started absolutely simultaneously.) Given this, the two clocks must be started absolutely simultaneously by the objects. Then we can use the clocks to measure light's passing speed. This, in turn, will tell us how fast we are moving in relation to light. For example, we could be moving at 60% light speed. If so, then a standard ruler on board the clock frame will be physically contracted by 20% so that its actual, physical, atomic, intrinsic length is not 1 unit, but is .8 unit. Why don't you tell us how SR can correctly measure the length of even a rod that is at rest wrt our frame? In fact, why don't you tell us how SR can even correctly measure the one-way, two-clock speed of anything? In order to do that, here are the hurdles which SR must overcome: [1] SR must prove that its clocks are correctly synchronized. [2] SR must prove that its clocks are not physically slowed. [3] SR must prove that its rulers are not physically contracted. Be sure to let us all know when you have your answer. I will not be holding my breath. And here is a simple definition of "physical clock rhythm": Given: A simple sort of atomic clock where exactly one atomic transition or vibration = 1 time unit. Given this, it is perfectly clear that if two clocks register different numbers of atomic vibrations between the same two events, we know that the clocks' intrinsic rhythms differ. Given this, it is easy to see that no outside, passing frame(s) can control or have any effect upon a clock's intrinsic atomic rhythm. That is, a clock's intrinsic rhythm is absolute, not relative. A given clock will record one and only one time between any two given events, and this unique time is in no way dependent upon the point of view of observers in some passing frame or frames. Got it? [snip] ? > This asynchronousness is easily proved, as follows: > > Given two events, we know that they must physically occur > > either absolutely simultaneously or not, > > And how do you know that? This is not only not obvious, but also > incorrect. Hogwash, again. As you should know, events are observer-independent, and events must occur either truly simultaneously or not. If you believe otherwise, then tell us the alternative. Again, you are talking about measuring things (events), not the things themselves. > Define simultaneity and how you would determine whether two > things are simultaneous. This was done above, but here is another example: It is a simple fact that clocks can have absolutely different velocities. (Indeed, only clocks which are always relatively at rest will have absolutely identical velocities.) In other words, clocks can move differently through space. Let's assume, as Einstein seems to do, that clocks moving at absolutely different speeds do not have absolutely different intrinsic rhythms. Now, we can start two touching clocks on zero so that they are now absolutely synchronous (by simple direct observation and per all observers in all frames). We now slowly move one clock to a different location, so that acceleration is negligible. The clocks, according to our Einsteinian-based assumption, should still be absolutely synchronous. Thus, we can use the clocks to determine whether two things are simultaneous. Got it? > > but Einstein's > > clocks in various frames will say that two given events > > occurred BOTH simultaneously and nonsimultaneously, which, > > as we just noted, is simply physically impossible, and, a > > picture of this situation quickly shows that Einstein's > > clocks cannot be correctly synchronized in any frame but > > one: > > > > left clock right clock > > [3]-------Frame A-------[3] > > E1 E2 > > [3]-------Frame B-------[4] > > left clock right clock > > > > If events E1 and E2 happened to occur absolutely simultaneously, > > That's a big IF. No two events EVER happen *absolutely* simultaneously. > Don't misunderstand me. I'm not implying this is a matter of > imprecision. Events can be simultaneous, but that simultaneity is not > absolute, true, physical, or inherent. > You completely missed the point, as usual. It matters not how the events occurred. All that matters is the fact that they cannot occur in more than one way. If you foolishly believe otherwise, then explain. Since events, as I noted above, are observer-independent (as even Einstein would admit), the way they occur is also observer- independent. However, in SR, as I noted, observers in different frames will find different occurrence orders and times for the SAME two events. This -- see my picture above -- proves that Einstein's clocks cannot be related the same in any two frames. Therefore, even if one of Einstein's frames by sheer accident has absolutely synchronous clocks, no other Einsteinian frame can have absolutely synchronous clocks. > > then only one Einsteinian frame's clocks will say this, but all > > other such frames' clocks will say that the events occurred > > nonsimultaneously; so, as the picture shows, these other frames' > > clocks will be absolutely asynchronous. > > > > Having found the immediate answer to the question which Dirk > > claimed that no one could answer, we can easily go even further, > > and answer the question Why are Einstein's clocks asynchronous? > > > > It's because Einstein ignores the differences in frame velocities > > when he uses light signals to "synchronize" his clocks. For > > example, whereas Frame A may move toward a given light signal, > > Frame B may move away from said signal, so the clocks in these > > two frames cannot possibly be set the same way using said signal > > as long as one uses Einstein's definition of "synchronization," > > You haven't learned how Einstein insists synchronization be done. > Synchronizing clocks involves clocks, sources and receivers that are > all stationary, not moving, in that frame. You don't understand the basic facts about light. Since light is source-independent, ONE light signal can be used to E-synch the clocks of ALL frames. > Summarizing your faulty assumptions: > 1. That duration is a physical, absolute, inherent property. Apparently, you have not heard of proper time. This is an absolute (or observer-independent) time. Apparently, you are not aware that during your lifetime, you will have a single number of heartbeats. This single number is the absolute (or observer-independent) duration of your life. Also, refer to my definition of intrinsic or absolute clock time, given above. > 2. That length is a physical, absolute, inherent property. See my above. > 3. That simultaneity is a physical, absolute, inherent property. See my above.
From: PD on 17 Mar 2005 10:43
cadwgan_gedrych(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > ... it is impossible for two clocks to both physically run > > > slower than each other .... > > > > Sure it is. > > Thanks for agreeing. But why did you go on to argue? Because that was right, and the rest was wrong. > > > > (or for two twins to both be younger than each other). > > > > That's not the same thing. > > Prejudicial mental block at work. > > > > Note that "younger than" is a comparison made locally and locally > only. > > "Slower than" is a not necessarily a comparison made locally. > > In the part of my post which you cowardly snipped, I showed > clearly that my clock comparison was LOCAL. > > Given this, I should not reply to the rest of you silly post, > but I will because one of my overall goals here is to help > folks to understand special relativity. Wait, I want to get this clear in my mind. Are you going to explain YOUR theory or are you going to explain SOMEONE ELSE'S theory? This is important. If you're going to explain special relativity, you'll need to back up your claims about what SR says with references, preferably to the original posers of the theory. If you're going to explain your model, then all we need to determine is whether it stands up to experimental test. > > > There is no such thing as a "physical rod length". Rod length is > > strictly the result of an observer-dependent procedure. > > Hog wash. Every rod and all other physical objects have a given > number of atoms Yes. > which have definite physical shapes, No. Shape is something that is observer-dependent. Another predudicial mental block. What makes you think that shape needs to be observer-independent? Define "shape" in a way that makes no reference to, or depends on, length in any dimension. > and these > two things determine an object's physical length. > > You were talking about measured rod length; I was talking about > the atomic and intrinsic length. > There is a world of difference > between the two. Absolutely, there's a difference. The first is definable and observer-dependent. The second is not definable and a poor concept. Given that shape is not observer-independent, how do you define intrinsic length again? > Try to unconfuse yourself if you can. I'm trying. You're going to have to answer a lot of questions to unconfuse me. > > > "Physical clock rhythms", "physical rod lengths", and "physical > > masses" are poorly defined terms. > > > > Let's start with length. Define the length of a rod, or at least how > > you would find it. > > I defined physical rod length above. And here is how you can correctly > measure it: > > In an inertial frame, place clocks at points (0,0,0) and (100,0,0). I'm sorry. How did you determine where (0,0,0) and (100,0,0) are? I'm going to stop here until we can get past these first few points. PD > At point (50,0,0), simultaneously send out two inertial objects > whose speeds wrt the clock frame are equal. (Note that equality > does not require quantification, but only qualitative comparison.) > (Also note that two things which are at the same point can be > started absolutely simultaneously.) Given this, the two clocks > must be started absolutely simultaneously by the objects. Then > we can use the clocks to measure light's passing speed. This, > in turn, will tell us how fast we are moving in relation to > light. For example, we could be moving at 60% light speed. If so, > then a standard ruler on board the clock frame will be physically > contracted by 20% so that its actual, physical, atomic, intrinsic > length is not 1 unit, but is .8 unit. > > Why don't you tell us how SR can correctly measure the length of > even a rod that is at rest wrt our frame? > > In fact, why don't you tell us how SR can even correctly measure > the one-way, two-clock speed of anything? > > In order to do that, here are the hurdles which SR must overcome: > > [1] SR must prove that its clocks are correctly synchronized. > [2] SR must prove that its clocks are not physically slowed. > [3] SR must prove that its rulers are not physically contracted. > > Be sure to let us all know when you have your answer. > I will not be holding my breath. > > And here is a simple definition of "physical clock rhythm": > Given: A simple sort of atomic clock where exactly one > atomic transition or vibration = 1 time unit. Given this, > it is perfectly clear that if two clocks register different > numbers of atomic vibrations between the same two events, > we know that the clocks' intrinsic rhythms differ. Given > this, it is easy to see that no outside, passing frame(s) > can control or have any effect upon a clock's intrinsic > atomic rhythm. That is, a clock's intrinsic rhythm is > absolute, not relative. A given clock will record one and > only one time between any two given events, and this unique > time is in no way dependent upon the point of view of observers > in some passing frame or frames. > > Got it? > > [snip] > > ? > This asynchronousness is easily proved, as follows: > > > Given two events, we know that they must physically occur > > > either absolutely simultaneously or not, > > > > And how do you know that? This is not only not obvious, but also > > incorrect. > > Hogwash, again. > As you should know, events are observer-independent, and events > must occur either truly simultaneously or not. If you believe > otherwise, then tell us the alternative. Again, you are talking > about measuring things (events), not the things themselves. > > > Define simultaneity and how you would determine whether two > > things are simultaneous. > > This was done above, but here is another example: > It is a simple fact that clocks can have absolutely different > velocities. (Indeed, only clocks which are always relatively at > rest will have absolutely identical velocities.) In other words, > clocks can move differently through space. Let's assume, as > Einstein seems to do, that clocks moving at absolutely different > speeds do not have absolutely different intrinsic rhythms. Now, > we can start two touching clocks on zero so that they are now > absolutely synchronous (by simple direct observation and per all > observers in all frames). We now slowly move one clock to a > different location, so that acceleration is negligible. The > clocks, according to our Einsteinian-based assumption, should > still be absolutely synchronous. Thus, we can use the clocks > to determine whether two things are simultaneous. > > Got it? > > > > but Einstein's > > > clocks in various frames will say that two given events > > > occurred BOTH simultaneously and nonsimultaneously, which, > > > as we just noted, is simply physically impossible, and, a > > > picture of this situation quickly shows that Einstein's > > > clocks cannot be correctly synchronized in any frame but > > > one: > > > > > > left clock right clock > > > [3]-------Frame A-------[3] > > > E1 E2 > > > [3]-------Frame B-------[4] > > > left clock right clock > > > > > > If events E1 and E2 happened to occur absolutely simultaneously, > > > > That's a big IF. No two events EVER happen *absolutely* > simultaneously. > > Don't misunderstand me. I'm not implying this is a matter of > > imprecision. Events can be simultaneous, but that simultaneity is not > > absolute, true, physical, or inherent. > > > > You completely missed the point, as usual. > It matters not how the events occurred. All that matters > is the fact that they cannot occur in more than one way. If you > foolishly believe otherwise, then explain. > > Since events, as I noted above, are observer-independent (as even > Einstein would admit), the way they occur is also observer- > independent. However, in SR, as I noted, observers in different > frames will find different occurrence orders and times for the > SAME two events. This -- see my picture above -- proves that > Einstein's clocks cannot be related the same in any two frames. > > Therefore, even if one of Einstein's frames by sheer accident > has absolutely synchronous clocks, no other Einsteinian frame > can have absolutely synchronous clocks. > > > > then only one Einsteinian frame's clocks will say this, but all > > > other such frames' clocks will say that the events occurred > > > nonsimultaneously; so, as the picture shows, these other frames' > > > clocks will be absolutely asynchronous. > > > > > > Having found the immediate answer to the question which Dirk > > > claimed that no one could answer, we can easily go even further, > > > and answer the question Why are Einstein's clocks asynchronous? > > > > > > It's because Einstein ignores the differences in frame velocities > > > when he uses light signals to "synchronize" his clocks. For > > > example, whereas Frame A may move toward a given light signal, > > > Frame B may move away from said signal, so the clocks in these > > > two frames cannot possibly be set the same way using said signal > > > as long as one uses Einstein's definition of "synchronization," > > > > You haven't learned how Einstein insists synchronization be done. > > Synchronizing clocks involves clocks, sources and receivers that are > > all stationary, not moving, in that frame. > > You don't understand the basic facts about light. Since light is > source-independent, ONE light signal can be used to E-synch the > clocks of ALL frames. > > > Summarizing your faulty assumptions: > > 1. That duration is a physical, absolute, inherent property. > > Apparently, you have not heard of proper time. This is an > absolute (or observer-independent) time. Apparently, you > are not aware that during your lifetime, you will have a > single number of heartbeats. This single number is the > absolute (or observer-independent) duration of your life. > Also, refer to my definition of intrinsic or absolute > clock time, given above. > > > 2. That length is a physical, absolute, inherent property. > > See my above. > > > 3. That simultaneity is a physical, absolute, inherent property. > > See my above. |