• The so-called time dilation in general relativity is clock dilation or

    From Jack Liu@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 25 09:55:58 2023
    Real time passes independently and evenly and is not affected by the specific physical environment. Physical devices, in-cluding clocks, including atomic clocks with an error of one second in 20 million years, are affected by external physical conditions.
    A clock is not time, a reading from any physical device is not time. The so-called time dilation in general relativity is clock dilation or physical device dilation.

    Just because of the existence of absolute time as criteria that Einstein can claim clock dilation. Without such criteria, Ein-stein could not make such kind of statement at all.

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to Jack Liu on Tue Apr 25 19:00:38 2023
    Jack Liu wrote:

    Real time passes independently and evenly and is not affected by the specific physical environment. Physical devices, in-cluding clocks, including atomic clocks with an error of one second in 20 million years, are affected by external physical
    conditions. A clock is not time, a reading from any physical device is not time. The so-called time dilation in general relativity is clock dilation or physical device dilation.

    Just because of the existence of absolute time as criteria that Einstein can claim clock dilation. Without such criteria, Ein-stein could not make such kind of statement at all.

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ

    Jack, do you know why sci.physics.relativity has been created quite a
    long time ago?

    Well, to divert kooks of your kind to another group than sci.physics,
    for some reason there far more cranks around SR than any other theory,
    and sci.physics was flooded.

    Also to provide an amusement playground for educated people who are, for
    some reason, interested in the psychological profile of charlatans and
    cranks, or just want to have a good laugh...

    Thank your for confirming this groups and his motivational foundations
    are still accurate!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jack Liu@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 25 09:59:28 2023
    Real time passes independently and evenly and is not affected by the specific physical environment. Physical devices, in-cluding clocks, including atomic clocks with an error of one second in 20 million years, are affected by external physical conditions.
    A clock is not time, a reading from any physical device is not time. The so-called time dilation in general relativity is clock dilation or physical device dilation.

    Just because of the existence of absolute time as criteria that Einstein can claim clock dilation. Without such criteria, Ein-stein could not make such kind of statement at all.

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Jack Liu on Tue Apr 25 10:39:05 2023
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 10:27:21 AM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 12:00:41 PM UTC-5, Python wrote:
    Jack Liu wrote:

    Real time passes independently and evenly and is not affected by the specific physical environment. Physical devices, in-cluding clocks, including atomic clocks with an error of one second in 20 million years, are affected by external physical
    conditions. A clock is not time, a reading from any physical device is not time. The so-called time dilation in general relativity is clock dilation or physical device dilation.

    Just because of the existence of absolute time as criteria that Einstein can claim clock dilation. Without such criteria, Ein-stein could not make such kind of statement at all.

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ
    Jack, do you know why sci.physics.relativity has been created quite a
    long time ago?

    Well, to divert kooks of your kind to another group than sci.physics,
    for some reason there far more cranks around SR than any other theory,
    and sci.physics was flooded.

    Also to provide an amusement playground for educated people who are, for some reason, interested in the psychological profile of charlatans and cranks, or just want to have a good laugh...

    Thank your for confirming this groups and his motivational foundations
    are still accurate!
    Please don't digress, just express your opinion, do you think time dilation is possible?

    It helps space travel. It is next thing to a warp drive science fiction.
    But instead of more speed you get same fastest speed with aging slowness.


    Mitchell Raemsch

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jack Liu@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 25 10:55:21 2023
    There are countless other factors besides gravitation that affect clocks, such as temperature, humidity, pressure, fuel supply. A complete time theory also needs to include Temperature Time dilation, Humidity Time dilation, and Pressure Time dilation etc.
    For each factor that affects the clock, there is a corresponding General Relativity: Temperature General Relativity, Humidity General Relativity and so on. General Relativity has a long way to go.

    Lastly, since extra trash inside clock would slow down the clock, which in terms of relativity, should be called the “trash time dilation”, there should be a trash general relativity accordingly in addition to gravitation general relativity.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Python on Tue Apr 25 10:49:38 2023
    On Tuesday, 25 April 2023 at 19:00:41 UTC+2, Python wrote:
    Jack Liu wrote:

    Real time passes independently and evenly and is not affected by the specific physical environment. Physical devices, in-cluding clocks, including atomic clocks with an error of one second in 20 million years, are affected by external physical
    conditions. A clock is not time, a reading from any physical device is not time. The so-called time dilation in general relativity is clock dilation or physical device dilation.

    Just because of the existence of absolute time as criteria that Einstein can claim clock dilation. Without such criteria, Ein-stein could not make such kind of statement at all.

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ
    Jack, do you know why sci.physics.relativity has been created quite a
    long time ago?



    Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
    and trying again to pretend he knows something.
    Tell me, poor stinker, how are the velocities
    of Gdansk and Warsaw wrt an observer in the
    center of Earth?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jack Liu@21:1/5 to Python on Tue Apr 25 10:27:19 2023
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 12:00:41 PM UTC-5, Python wrote:
    Jack Liu wrote:

    Real time passes independently and evenly and is not affected by the specific physical environment. Physical devices, in-cluding clocks, including atomic clocks with an error of one second in 20 million years, are affected by external physical
    conditions. A clock is not time, a reading from any physical device is not time. The so-called time dilation in general relativity is clock dilation or physical device dilation.

    Just because of the existence of absolute time as criteria that Einstein can claim clock dilation. Without such criteria, Ein-stein could not make such kind of statement at all.

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ
    Jack, do you know why sci.physics.relativity has been created quite a
    long time ago?

    Well, to divert kooks of your kind to another group than sci.physics,
    for some reason there far more cranks around SR than any other theory,
    and sci.physics was flooded.

    Also to provide an amusement playground for educated people who are, for some reason, interested in the psychological profile of charlatans and cranks, or just want to have a good laugh...

    Thank your for confirming this groups and his motivational foundations
    are still accurate!

    Please don't digress, just express your opinion, do you think time dilation is possible?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to Jack Liu on Tue Apr 25 22:01:24 2023
    Jack Liu wrote:
    ...
    Lastly, since extra trash inside clock would slow down the clock, which in terms of relativity, should be called the “trash time dilation”, there should be a trash general relativity accordingly in addition to gravitation general relativity.


    Let me guess... You are convinced you are one of the best logicians
    Humanity ever had, right?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Jack Liu on Tue Apr 25 15:11:30 2023
    On 4/25/23 11:55 AM, Jack Liu wrote:
    Real time passes independently and evenly and is not affected by the specific physical environment.

    Only in your personal fantasy world, and using unusual meanings for the
    words "real" and "time".

    Physical devices, in-cluding clocks,
    including atomic clocks with an error of one second in 20 million
    years, are affected by external physical conditions. A clock is not
    time, a reading from any physical device is not time. The so-called
    time dilation in general relativity is clock dilation or physical
    device dilation.

    You can invoke whatever fantasies you like. But in physics, "time is
    what clocks measure" [Einstein and others]. For the simple reason that
    in every experiment "time" is measured by a clock, and it is only such measurements that matter.

    [... more fantasies and made-p claims that are simply not true]

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Jack Liu on Tue Apr 25 15:06:20 2023
    On 4/25/23 11:59 AM, Jack Liu wrote:
    Real time passes independently and evenly and is not affected by the
    specific physical environment.

    Only in your personal fantasy world, and using unusual meanings for the
    words "real" and "time".

    Physical devices, in-cluding clocks,
    including atomic clocks with an error of one second in 20 million
    years, are affected by external physical conditions. A clock is not
    time, a reading from any physical device is not time. The so-called
    time dilation in general relativity is clock dilation or physical
    device dilation.

    You can invoke whatever fantasies you like. But ins physics, "time is
    what clocks measure" [Einstein and others]. For the simple reason that
    in every experiment "time" is measured by a clock, and it is only such measurements that matter.

    [... more fantasies and made-p claims that are simply not true]

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Jack Liu on Tue Apr 25 15:14:56 2023
    On 4/25/23 12:55 PM, Jack Liu wrote:
    There are countless other factors besides gravitation that affect
    clocks, such as temperature, humidity, pressure, fuel supply.[...]

    You merely display considerable ignorance and REALLY need to learn basic physics and experiments. What you write here is complete nonsense.

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to Jack Liu on Tue Apr 25 22:00:41 2023
    Jack Liu wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 12:00:41 PM UTC-5, Python wrote:
    Jack Liu wrote:

    Real time passes independently and evenly and is not affected by the specific physical environment. Physical devices, in-cluding clocks, including atomic clocks with an error of one second in 20 million years, are affected by external physical
    conditions. A clock is not time, a reading from any physical device is not time. The so-called time dilation in general relativity is clock dilation or physical device dilation.

    Just because of the existence of absolute time as criteria that Einstein can claim clock dilation. Without such criteria, Ein-stein could not make such kind of statement at all.

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view
    https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ
    Jack, do you know why sci.physics.relativity has been created quite a
    long time ago?

    Well, to divert kooks of your kind to another group than sci.physics,
    for some reason there far more cranks around SR than any other theory,
    and sci.physics was flooded.

    Also to provide an amusement playground for educated people who are, for
    some reason, interested in the psychological profile of charlatans and
    cranks, or just want to have a good laugh...

    Thank your for confirming this groups and his motivational foundations
    are still accurate!

    Please don't digress,

    I didn't.

    just express your opinion, do you think time dilation is possible?

    In the sense that measured time between two events measured by an
    inertial clock is always longer than the one measured by an non-inertial
    clock between the same two events, I do. And I *know that is not only
    possible (as demonstrated by SR consistency) it is experimentally
    confirmed.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jack Liu@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Tue Apr 25 13:17:12 2023
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 3:11:43 PM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:

    You can invoke whatever fantasies you like. But in physics, "time is
    what clocks measure" [Einstein and others]. For the simple reason that
    in every experiment "time" is measured by a clock, and it is only such measurements that matter.



    General Relativity misunderstood Positivism as to equate clock (some measurable physical phenomenon) with TIME. The slowing down of time in general relativity only means some physical factors (in which general relativity considers gravitation ONLY) cause
    other physical phenomena to slow down; It has nothing to do with the pace change of Real Time. Also, it will inevitably lead to such ridiculous conclusions: more gravitation slows down a type of Time (some physical phenomenon) and speeds up other type of
    Time (other physical phenomenon). Time theory of General Relativity is not theory about TIME. Rather it is theory about certain type of CLOCK.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jack Liu@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Tue Apr 25 13:19:26 2023
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 3:15:08 PM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:

    You merely display considerable ignorance and REALLY need to learn basic physics and experiments. What you write here is complete nonsense.



    To Tom Roberts

    Talk about Relativity, not any person please.

    Time theory of General Relativity is a logical catastrophe. Time is something used to measure the speed of other physical phenomena, not whose speed to be measured. Mathematically, the speed of time, as time divided by time, must be 1, simply a constant.
    Therefor the so-called time slowing or time speeding up is just like a person lifting himself, which is logically impossible.

    Again, Tom Roberts, Talk about Relativity, not any person please.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Python on Tue Apr 25 13:28:58 2023
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 2:00:41 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:

    <snip>

    Jack, do you know why sci.physics.relativity has been created quite a long time ago?

    Well, to divert kooks of your kind to another group than sci.physics,
    for some reason there far more cranks around SR than any other theory,
    and sci.physics was flooded.

    Also to provide an amusement playground for educated people who are, for some reason, interested in the psychological profile of charlatans and cranks, or just want to have a good laugh...

    Thank your for confirming this groups and his motivational foundations are still accurate!

    Maybe because relativity is a fairy tale, a worthless philosophy about the relativity of existentialism, a pseudo-science opened
    to anybody that like to observe things at a distance, a heretic proposal of how to perceive time and space.

    Who can argue about Newton, Euler, Laplace, Gauss, Ampere, Kirchoff, Maxwell, JJ Thomson, Planck, even Heisenberg?

    Who can find amusing to challenge Ohm's Law, or Hertz discoveries, or from his disciple Lenard?

    But, instead of talking about honest, decent physicists, people find Einstein as the epitome of a charlatan, a crook, a plagiarist, a fraudster
    serving to a zionist cause and one world's government (WEF). A fucking "Manchurian candidate" for physics science.

    And you wouldn't have a job as a troll.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jack Liu@21:1/5 to Python on Tue Apr 25 13:33:15 2023
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 3:01:57 PM UTC-5, Python wrote:
    Jack Liu wrote:
    ...
    Lastly, since extra trash inside clock would slow down the clock, which in terms of relativity, should be called the “trash time dilation”, there should be a trash general relativity accordingly in addition to gravitation general relativity.

    Let me guess... You are convinced you are one of the best logicians
    Humanity ever had, right?


    To Python

    Talk about Relativity, not any person please.

    Dust inside clock would slow down the clock, while relativist think clock reading is time, so there must be a "Dust Time Dilation".
    This is the logic of Relativity.

    Dear Python, talk about Relativity, not any person please. talk about my book if you want, not about myself.

    https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Tue Apr 25 22:33:50 2023
    Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 2:00:41 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:

    <snip>

    Jack, do you know why sci.physics.relativity has been created quite a long time ago?

    Well, to divert kooks of your kind to another group than sci.physics,
    for some reason there far more cranks around SR than any other theory,
    and sci.physics was flooded.

    Also to provide an amusement playground for educated people who are, for
    some reason, interested in the psychological profile of charlatans and
    cranks, or just want to have a good laugh...

    Thank your for confirming this groups and his motivational foundations are still accurate!

    Maybe because relativity is a fairy tale, a worthless philosophy about the relativity of existentialism, a pseudo-science opened
    to anybody that like to observe things at a distance, a heretic proposal of how to perceive time and space.

    Who can argue about Newton, Euler, Laplace, Gauss, Ampere, Kirchoff, Maxwell, JJ Thomson, Planck, even Heisenberg?

    Who can find amusing to challenge Ohm's Law, or Hertz discoveries, or from his disciple Lenard?

    But, instead of talking about honest, decent physicists, people find Einstein as the epitome of a charlatan, a crook, a plagiarist, a fraudster
    serving to a zionist cause and one world's government (WEF). A fucking "Manchurian candidate" for physics science.

    And you wouldn't have a job as a troll.

    Sorry Richard, there is only one place for a guy named Richard
    for the next couple of stupid diner. It is already taken.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Tue Apr 25 13:35:44 2023
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 5:06:27 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:

    <snip>

    You can invoke whatever fantasies you like. But ins physics, "time is
    what clocks measure" [Einstein and others]. For the simple reason that
    in every experiment "time" is measured by a clock, and it is only such measurements that matter.

    Good boy, good boy. Have a treat.

    Now, tell us: What time gives a muon while traveling? Or a time that is perceived by a 100 GeV proton?

    Your TIME AT A DISTANCE, PROBABLY? And for that, you have to use a fucking relativity formulae?

    See? Your talk is void of content, all the time, while writing your RELIGIOUS CREDO. Every single time.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jack Liu@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Tue Apr 25 13:38:33 2023
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 3:28:59 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:


    But, instead of talking about honest, decent physicists, people find Einstein as the epitome of a charlatan, a crook, a plagiarist, a fraudster
    serving to a zionist cause and one world's government (WEF). A fucking "Manchurian candidate" for physics science.

    And you wouldn't have a job as a troll.

    To Dear Richard

    Please write your book, we are interested.
    Please criticize Einstein's theories, not Einstein himself. Please don't Discriminate against Manchurians

    Jack

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jack Liu@21:1/5 to JanPB on Tue Apr 25 14:04:10 2023
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 3:53:09 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote:

    As Tom says, time is what clocks measure _according to the assumptions
    of physics as science_. You are free to be concerned about the
    philosophical implications of this, of course. But this has no relevance
    to physics until you produce a tangible experimental result demonstrating time as something _other_ than clocks measure.

    To JanPB:

    It is all about physics.
    Gravity causes atomic clock run slower, physically, not philosophically. Gravity causes pendulum and plasma clock run faster, physically , not philosophically.

    so which clock represent time , physically?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Tue Apr 25 13:54:17 2023
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 1:28:59 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 2:00:41 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:

    <snip>
    Jack, do you know why sci.physics.relativity has been created quite a long time ago?

    Well, to divert kooks of your kind to another group than sci.physics,
    for some reason there far more cranks around SR than any other theory,
    and sci.physics was flooded.

    Also to provide an amusement playground for educated people who are, for some reason, interested in the psychological profile of charlatans and cranks, or just want to have a good laugh...

    Thank your for confirming this groups and his motivational foundations are still accurate!
    Maybe because relativity is a fairy tale, a worthless philosophy about the relativity of existentialism, a pseudo-science opened
    to anybody that like to observe things at a distance, a heretic proposal of how to perceive time and space.

    No, it's not. You simply don't understand it and also suffer from
    some weird inferiority complex that forces you to get involved in
    the very thing you cannot work with.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Jack Liu on Tue Apr 25 13:53:07 2023
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 1:17:14 PM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 3:11:43 PM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:

    You can invoke whatever fantasies you like. But in physics, "time is
    what clocks measure" [Einstein and others]. For the simple reason that
    in every experiment "time" is measured by a clock, and it is only such measurements that matter.

    General Relativity misunderstood Positivism as to equate clock (some measurable physical phenomenon) with TIME.

    No. You are bringing a philosophical issue into this. But no matter
    how interesting this is philosophically (and it is), this NOT how
    science operates.

    As Tom says, time is what clocks measure _according to the assumptions
    of physics as science_. You are free to be concerned about the
    philosophical implications of this, of course. But this has no relevance
    to physics until you produce a tangible experimental result demonstrating
    time as something _other_ than clocks measure.

    This may happen in a future physical theory, don't get me wrong. But this
    won't happen without a specific experimental result.

    The slowing down of time in general relativity only means some physical factors (in which general relativity considers gravitation ONLY) cause other physical phenomena to slow down; It has nothing to do with the pace change of Real Time.

    Again, this is philosophical speculation. It's not un-interesting but it's
    also non-physical.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jack Liu@21:1/5 to JanPB on Tue Apr 25 14:13:42 2023
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 3:53:09 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote:

    The slowing down of time in general relativity only means some physical factors (in which general relativity considers gravitation ONLY) cause other physical phenomena to slow down; It has nothing to do with the pace change of Real Time.
    Again, this is philosophical speculation. It's not un-interesting but it's also non-physical.
    Jan


    To JANPB

    Let discuss more physics not philosophy.

    Take the pendulum clock as an example. The clock on the top of the mountain will run slower than the clock at the bottom of the mountain, in physics not philosophy.

    At beginning people may think that the time on the top of the mountain slows down. However, ordinary people who do not need any knowledge of physics can realize the one getting slow is the clock not the time.

    Classical physicists later found the reason behind it: the gravitation of the earth at the foot of the mountain is different from that at the top of the mountain.

    Modern physicists have regressed relentlessly. Nowadays they believe that the thing that gets slow is time. The thing get slower is clock, not TIME, physically not philosophically. We need to adjust clock, not invent a "gravity time effect" in physics.

    Again this is about physics not philosophy.

    Jack

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Jack Liu on Tue Apr 25 23:30:46 2023
    Jack Liu <liuedy@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 3:11:43?PM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:

    You can invoke whatever fantasies you like. But in physics, "time is
    what clocks measure" [Einstein and others]. For the simple reason that
    in every experiment "time" is measured by a clock, and it is only such measurements that matter.



    General Relativity misunderstood Positivism as to equate clock (some measurable physical phenomenon) with TIME.

    Au contraire, it is -you- who completely misunderstood positivism.
    The aim of positivism, as founded by Ernst Mach,
    was to liberate physics from unnecessary philosophical clutter
    that cannot be justified by experiment.

    In particular Mach's positivism
    got rid of Newton's absolute space and absolute time.
    (so also of your TIME)

    Mach insisted that time has no meaning
    apart from the readings of clocks,
    and that Newtons absolute time does not exist.
    In this Einstein followed Mach,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jack Liu@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Tue Apr 25 14:42:26 2023
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 4:30:49 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Jack Liu <liu...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 3:11:43?PM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:

    You can invoke whatever fantasies you like. But in physics, "time is what clocks measure" [Einstein and others]. For the simple reason that in every experiment "time" is measured by a clock, and it is only such measurements that matter.



    General Relativity misunderstood Positivism as to equate clock (some measurable physical phenomenon) with TIME.
    Au contraire, it is -you- who completely misunderstood positivism.
    The aim of positivism, as founded by Ernst Mach,
    was to liberate physics from unnecessary philosophical clutter
    that cannot be justified by experiment.

    In particular Mach's positivism
    got rid of Newton's absolute space and absolute time.
    (so also of your TIME)

    Mach insisted that time has no meaning
    apart from the readings of clocks,
    and that Newtons absolute time does not exist.
    In this Einstein followed Mach,


    To J. J. Lodder

    You are right: Mach insisted that time has no meaning apart from the readings of clocks.

    Even if Einstein inherited Ernst Mach, he didn't choose the right clock.

    People might wonder why Einstein easily regarded a certain periodical mechanical device as TIME, since normal people don't make this mistake. In this regard, Einstein really made a public explanation. Einstein declared Relativity was deeply influenced by
    Mach's positivist philosophy: "In physics a concept has meaning only if it is based on its measurement". As a result, Einstein felt that he needed to give time to specific content with something measurable.

    Einstein certainly understood Mach one-sidedly. If he has to need specific and measurable time, he can choose UTC, Universal Time Coordinated. This is not an abstract time, but an observable and measurable thing with specific content.
    Excusing that there was no UTC in that era is not a valid reason. With Einstein's ingenuity, even if he couldn't invent UTC, he must have heard of Greenwich Mean Time.

    Suppose Einstein was lucky enough to travel to the moon at that time, would he use the clock on the moon to time himself? He must know that the moon's gravitation is too small, and the clock he carries will be too fast or too slow depending on which type
    of clock he carries. Therefore, he will definitely go against his own theory of relativity and choose Greenwich Time instead of the time indicated by any wield clock in the moon.

    No wonder Mach hated Relativity; Apparently Einstein misunderstood Mach. Mach required Einstein to choose a certain clock but did not let Einstein to choose any whatever clock, not a clock that was sometimes faster and sometimes slower due to change of
    outside physical factor like gravitation, pressure, temperature, even trash etc.

    Jack

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to Jack Liu on Tue Apr 25 16:11:33 2023
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 9:59:30 AM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
    Real time passes independently and evenly and is not affected by the specific physical environment. Physical devices, in-cluding clocks, including atomic clocks with an error of one second in 20 million years, are affected by external physical
    conditions. A clock is not time, a reading from any physical device is not time. The so-called time dilation in general relativity is clock dilation or physical device dilation.

    Just because of the existence of absolute time as criteria that Einstein can claim clock dilation. Without such criteria, Ein-stein could not make such kind of statement at all.

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ

    If you can study for Fitzgerald you can find he makes a solution
    for Lorentz invariance that makes for "length contraction + time dilation
    = space contraction". (Or, there are defined formulas that, solved,
    have "space contraction" as "real", causal, ....).

    That's compatible with a clock hypothesis or universal time,
    where time only slows or goes, ....

    I'm interested you bring the idea of "atomic clock". If you make a lattice of atomic clocks, then basically it can implement a sensor that just by
    timing and space-contraction, is essentially a sort of detector,
    that, for example, can detect hand-waving.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ken Seto@21:1/5 to Jack Liu on Tue Apr 25 17:31:47 2023
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 1:27:21 PM UTC-4, Jack Liu wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 12:00:41 PM UTC-5, Python wrote:
    Jack Liu wrote:

    Real time passes independently and evenly and is not affected by the specific physical environment. Physical devices, in-cluding clocks, including atomic clocks with an error of one second in 20 million years, are affected by external physical
    conditions. A clock is not time, a reading from any physical device is not time. The so-called time dilation in general relativity is clock dilation or physical device dilation.

    Just because of the existence of absolute time as criteria that Einstein can claim clock dilation. Without such criteria, Ein-stein could not make such kind of statement at all.

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ
    Jack, do you know why sci.physics.relativity has been created quite a
    long time ago?

    Well, to divert kooks of your kind to another group than sci.physics,
    for some reason there far more cranks around SR than any other theory,
    and sci.physics was flooded.

    Also to provide an amusement playground for educated people who are, for some reason, interested in the psychological profile of charlatans and cranks, or just want to have a good laugh...

    Thank your for confirming this groups and his motivational foundations
    are still accurate!
    Please don't digress, just express your opinion, do you think time dilation is possible?

    Absolute time is not dilatable. Clock time is dilatable...Why? Because a clock second does not represent the same amount of absolute time inn different frames.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jack Liu@21:1/5 to Ken Seto on Tue Apr 25 17:44:31 2023
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 7:31:49 PM UTC-5, Ken Seto wrote:

    Absolute time is not dilatable. Clock time is dilatable...Why? Because a clock second does not represent the same amount of absolute time inn different frames.


    To Ken Seto

    HAHA ,I agree with you that :" Absolute time is not dilatable. Clock time is dilatable "

    Problems arise : different clock dilates at different rate!

    Worst and terror part for GTR is that: increaseing gravitation causes atomic clock slower while cause pendulum clock faster. That would be drive relativity crazy. what hell gravity make time faster or slower?

    so, GTR must associate with some special kind of clock.

    Jack

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Jack Liu on Tue Apr 25 21:37:11 2023
    On 4/25/23 3:19 PM, Jack Liu wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 3:15:08 PM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:
    You merely display considerable ignorance and REALLY need to learn
    basic physics and experiments. What you write here is complete
    nonsense.

    Talk about Relativity, not any person please.

    I am happy to do that. Unfortunately, nothing you wrote relates to GR in
    any way. You only discuss your personal fantasies and misconceptions,
    acting as if they were true. I cannot point that out without addressing
    you, personally.

    Time theory of General Relativity is a logical catastrophe.

    No. It's your personal fantasies and misconceptions that are a "logical catastrophe". GR is logically consistent, and supported by many
    experiments and observations about the world we inhabit.

    [... further nonsense ignored]

    Again, Tom Roberts, Talk about Relativity, not any person please.

    I will when you do. But until you learn something about GR, no
    discussion is possible.

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jack Liu@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Tue Apr 25 19:43:15 2023
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 9:37:24 PM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:


    I will when you do. But until you learn something about GR, no
    discussion is possible.

    Tom Roberts


    To Tom Roberts

    OK , Both agree that talk about Relativity, not any person please.

    Time theory of General Relativity is a logical catastrophe. Time is something used to measure the speed of other physical phenomena, not whose speed to be measured. Mathematically, the speed of time, as time divided by time, must be 1, simply a constant.
    Therefor the so-called time slowing or time speeding up is just like a person lifting himself, which is logically impossible.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Jack Liu on Tue Apr 25 22:07:57 2023
    On 4/25/23 3:17 PM, Jack Liu wrote:
    General Relativity misunderstood Positivism as to equate clock (some measurable physical phenomenon) with TIME.

    Hmmmm. The fact remains that in every experiment that involves time [#],
    time is measured by clocks. Your fantasies and philosophical ravings
    cannot change this simple and obvious FACT. (Also, I think you
    misunderstand Positivism and its relationship to physics.)

    [#] As defined by the physical theory being tested, not
    some wishy-washy and abstract notion developed by some
    "philosopher" or arm-chair "physicist".

    The slowing down of time in general relativity [...]

    You REALLY need to learn basic physics, and what General Relativity
    ACTUALLY says. It is useless to attempt to discuss notions like this
    that are not part of the theory.

    In GR there is no "slowing down of time", or "slowing down of clocks" --
    clocks ALWAYS tick at their usual rate.

    You are apparently relying on Pop Sci descriptions of GR that have
    attempted to simplify it so much that their description is incorrect
    (this includes all too many authors who should know better). You need to
    learn and understand the actual theory, and the experiments that support it.

    In GR, while the clocks never change their tick rate, COMPARISONS
    between clocks can yield differences. How the difference is explained
    depends on how the comparison is performed, but it NEVER involves any
    clock ticking slower (or faster).

    Gravity causes atomic clock run slower, physically, not
    philosophically. Gravity causes pendulum and plasma clock run
    faster, physically , not philosophically.

    This is just plain not true:
    A) In GR, gravity does not affect the tick rate of atomic
    clocks.
    B) the earth is part of the timekeeping mechanism of a
    pendulum clock, so moving the pendulum relative to
    the earth changes the clock and its calibration.

    You are confused, and CLEARLY do not understand GR well enough to
    criticize it effectively. You are just criticizing your personal misconceptions, not GR.

    Dust inside clock would slow down the clock

    Perhaps the clocks you are familiar with, but not any atomic clock.
    Indeed all the environmental effects that you claim affect clocks simply
    do not affect modern atomic clocks -- your personal ignorance is
    showing. Hint: in a modern Cs-133 atomic clock the timekeeping mechanism
    is in vacuum.

    Take the pendulum clock as an example. The clock on the top of the
    mountain will run slower than the clock at the bottom of the
    mountain, in physics not philosophy.

    Sure. Because those are TWO DIFFERENT CLOCKS, with two different
    timekeeping mechanisms and two different calibrations. You have
    forgotten that the earth is an essential part of the timekeeping
    mechanism of a pendulum clock.

    If [Einstein] has to need specific and measurable time, he can choose
    UTC [... imagine Einstein travels to the moon]

    That is excessively naive. UTC is VERY SPECIFIC, and applies ONLY on
    earth's geoid -- away from the geoid one must apply corrections (which
    are well known to metrologists and physicists, but not to you). On the
    moon (near side), one could obtain UTC signals via radio, but using that
    as a time coordinate for accurate experiments on the moon would fail
    miserably -- the laws of physics are LOCAL, which implies the use of a
    LOCAL clock, not clocks a quarter-million miles away, the signals from
    which are subjected to many alterations.

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Tue Apr 25 22:48:52 2023
    On Tuesday, 25 April 2023 at 22:15:08 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 4/25/23 12:55 PM, Jack Liu wrote:
    There are countless other factors besides gravitation that affect
    clocks, such as temperature, humidity, pressure, fuel supply.[...]

    You merely display considerable ignorance and REALLY need to learn basic physics and experiments.

    You need to learn that you're FORCED!!! To THE
    BEST WAY!!!!!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Python on Tue Apr 25 22:48:15 2023
    On Tuesday, 25 April 2023 at 22:01:40 UTC+2, Python wrote:
    Jack Liu wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 12:00:41 PM UTC-5, Python wrote:
    Jack Liu wrote:

    Real time passes independently and evenly and is not affected by the specific physical environment. Physical devices, in-cluding clocks, including atomic clocks with an error of one second in 20 million years, are affected by external physical
    conditions. A clock is not time, a reading from any physical device is not time. The so-called time dilation in general relativity is clock dilation or physical device dilation.

    Just because of the existence of absolute time as criteria that Einstein can claim clock dilation. Without such criteria, Ein-stein could not make such kind of statement at all.

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view >>> https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ >> Jack, do you know why sci.physics.relativity has been created quite a
    long time ago?

    Well, to divert kooks of your kind to another group than sci.physics,
    for some reason there far more cranks around SR than any other theory,
    and sci.physics was flooded.

    Also to provide an amusement playground for educated people who are, for >> some reason, interested in the psychological profile of charlatans and
    cranks, or just want to have a good laugh...

    Thank your for confirming this groups and his motivational foundations
    are still accurate!

    Please don't digress,
    I didn't.
    just express your opinion, do you think time dilation is possible?
    In the sense that measured time between two events measured by an


    Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
    and trying again to pretend he knows something.
    Tell me, poor stinker, how are the velocities
    of Gdansk and Warsaw wrt an observer in the
    center of Earth?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Tue Apr 25 22:52:46 2023
    On Tuesday, 25 April 2023 at 23:30:49 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Mach insisted that time has no meaning
    apart from the readings of clocks,
    and that Newtons absolute time does not exist.

    Of course, your Great Mystical Youdontknowwhat
    never existed. It's just that Newton's concept
    was similiar to what clocks REALLY exist and
    may be treaten as an idealization of something
    real, while Einstein's is a pure insane fabrication.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Tue Apr 25 22:54:39 2023
    On Wednesday, 26 April 2023 at 05:08:09 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 4/25/23 3:17 PM, Jack Liu wrote:
    General Relativity misunderstood Positivism as to equate clock (some measurable physical phenomenon) with TIME.
    Hmmmm. The fact remains that in every experiment that involves time [#],
    time is measured by clocks. Your fantasies and philosophical ravings
    cannot change this simple and obvious FACT. (Also, I think you
    misunderstand Positivism and its relationship to physics.)

    [#] As defined by the physical theory being tested, not
    some wishy-washy and abstract notion developed by some
    "philosopher" or arm-chair "physicist".

    The slowing down of time in general relativity [...]

    You REALLY need to learn basic physics, and what General Relativity
    ACTUALLY says. It is useless to attempt to discuss notions like this
    that are not part of the theory.

    In GR there is no "slowing down of time", or "slowing down of clocks" -- clocks ALWAYS tick at their usual rate.

    You are apparently relying on Pop Sci descriptions of GR that have
    attempted to simplify it so much that their description is incorrect
    (this includes all too many authors who should know better). You need to learn and understand the actual theory, and the experiments that support it.

    In GR, while the clocks never change their tick rate, COMPARISONS
    between clocks can yield differences. How the difference is explained
    depends on how the comparison is performed, but it NEVER involves any
    clock ticking slower (or faster).
    Gravity causes atomic clock run slower, physically, not
    philosophically. Gravity causes pendulum and plasma clock run
    faster, physically , not philosophically.
    This is just plain not true:
    A) In GR, gravity does not affect the tick rate of atomic
    clocks.
    B) the earth is part of the timekeeping mechanism of a
    pendulum clock, so moving the pendulum relative to
    the earth changes the clock and its calibration.

    You are confused, and CLEARLY do not understand GR well enough to
    criticize it effectively. You are just criticizing your personal misconceptions, not GR.
    Dust inside clock would slow down the clock
    Perhaps the clocks you are familiar with, but not any atomic clock.
    Indeed all the environmental effects that you claim affect clocks simply
    do not affect modern atomic clocks -- your personal ignorance is
    showing. Hint: in a modern Cs-133 atomic clock the timekeeping mechanism
    is in vacuum.
    Take the pendulum clock as an example. The clock on the top of the
    mountain will run slower than the clock at the bottom of the
    mountain, in physics not philosophy.
    Sure. Because those are TWO DIFFERENT CLOCKS, with two different
    timekeeping mechanisms and two different calibrations. You have
    forgotten that the earth is an essential part of the timekeeping
    mechanism of a pendulum clock.

    If [Einstein] has to need specific and measurable time, he can choose
    UTC [... imagine Einstein travels to the moon]

    That is excessively naive. UTC is VERY SPECIFIC, and applies ONLY on
    earth's geoid

    While the idiocy of physicists is a good example
    of a magnificiently general tool applied nowhere.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Jack Liu on Thu Apr 27 13:48:55 2023
    Jack Liu <liuedy@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 4:30:49?PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Jack Liu <liu...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 3:11:43?PM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:

    You can invoke whatever fantasies you like. But in physics, "time is what clocks measure" [Einstein and others]. For the simple reason that in every experiment "time" is measured by a clock, and it is only such measurements that matter.



    General Relativity misunderstood Positivism as to equate clock (some measurable physical phenomenon) with TIME.
    Au contraire, it is -you- who completely misunderstood positivism.
    The aim of positivism, as founded by Ernst Mach,
    was to liberate physics from unnecessary philosophical clutter
    that cannot be justified by experiment.

    In particular Mach's positivism
    got rid of Newton's absolute space and absolute time.
    (so also of your TIME)

    Mach insisted that time has no meaning
    apart from the readings of clocks,
    and that Newtons absolute time does not exist.
    In this Einstein followed Mach,


    To J. J. Lodder

    You are right: Mach insisted that time has no meaning apart from the readings of clocks.

    Even if Einstein inherited Ernst Mach, he didn't choose the right clock.

    People might wonder why Einstein easily regarded a certain periodical mechanical device as TIME, since normal people don't make this mistake.

    Einstein didn't, that is just your straw man.
    What Einstein, and Huygens before him, understood
    is that time has a dual role in physics.
    On one hand it is the d/dt that occurs in Newton's laws
    and in Maxwell's equations.
    On the other hand it is what the clock shows.

    The two must be identified,
    because a 'clock' must be someting that moves
    in accordance with the laws of nature.

    So any idealised clock will do,
    as long as it obeys the laws of nature.
    A particularly simple conceptual clock
    for relativity thought experiments is a flash of light
    bouncing between perfect mirrors.
    (because you can easily draw the world lines)

    Einstein's fundamental insight in 1905
    translates into the observation that it is Maxwell
    who provides the right laws of nature,
    and hence the right time.
    (Newton and Einstein conflict, so they cannot both be right)

    [snip more straw men]
    The pressure/temperature/whatever dependence
    of actual imperfect clocks can be ignored in fundamental discussions.
    Whatever it is, it must be in accordance with the laws of nature,
    so it can be corrected out.

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Thu Apr 27 05:18:55 2023
    On Thursday, 27 April 2023 at 13:48:58 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    The two must be identified,
    because a 'clock' must be someting that moves
    in accordance with the laws of nature.

    Laws of nature, of course, announced
    by an insane crazie imagining that he's
    speaking in the name of nature. There
    are no others.
    But no, clocks fuck your laws of your
    nature.
    Anyone can check GPS, or TAI...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jack Liu@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Thu Apr 27 08:09:42 2023
    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 6:48:58 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Einstein didn't, that is just your straw man.
    What Einstein, and Huygens before him, understood
    is that time has a dual role in physics.
    On one hand it is the d/dt that occurs in Newton's laws
    and in Maxwell's equations.
    On the other hand it is what the clock shows.

    The two must be identified,
    because a 'clock' must be someting that moves
    in accordance with the laws of nature.

    So any idealised clock will do,
    as long as it obeys the laws of nature.
    A particularly simple conceptual clock
    for relativity thought experiments is a flash of light
    bouncing between perfect mirrors.
    (because you can easily draw the world lines)

    Einstein's fundamental insight in 1905
    translates into the observation that it is Maxwell
    who provides the right laws of nature,
    and hence the right time.
    (Newton and Einstein conflict, so they cannot both be right)

    [snip more straw men]
    The pressure/temperature/whatever dependence
    of actual imperfect clocks can be ignored in fundamental discussions. Whatever it is, it must be in accordance with the laws of nature,
    so it can be corrected out.

    Jan


    No wonder Mach hated Relativity。
    Apparently Einstein misunderstood Mach.
    Mach required Einstein to choose a certain clock but did not let Einstein to choose any whatever clock, not a clock that was sometimes faster and sometimes slower due to change of outside physical factor like gravitation, pressure, temperature, even
    trash etc.

    Jack

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Jack Liu on Thu Apr 27 21:17:29 2023
    Jack Liu <liuedy@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 6:48:58?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Einstein didn't, that is just your straw man.
    What Einstein, and Huygens before him, understood
    is that time has a dual role in physics.
    On one hand it is the d/dt that occurs in Newton's laws
    and in Maxwell's equations.
    On the other hand it is what the clock shows.

    The two must be identified,
    because a 'clock' must be someting that moves
    in accordance with the laws of nature.

    So any idealised clock will do,
    as long as it obeys the laws of nature.
    A particularly simple conceptual clock
    for relativity thought experiments is a flash of light
    bouncing between perfect mirrors.
    (because you can easily draw the world lines)

    Einstein's fundamental insight in 1905
    translates into the observation that it is Maxwell
    who provides the right laws of nature,
    and hence the right time.
    (Newton and Einstein conflict, so they cannot both be right)

    [snip more straw men]
    The pressure/temperature/whatever dependence
    of actual imperfect clocks can be ignored in fundamental discussions. Whatever it is, it must be in accordance with the laws of nature,
    so it can be corrected out.

    Jan


    No wonder Mach hated Relativity?

    Hatred is not a physically relevant emotion.
    For what it is worth, Mach ought to be grateful.
    It was Einstein who immortalised him in cosmology
    by naming "Mach's principle" after him.

    Apparently Einstein misunderstood Mach.

    Certainly not. Einstein understood that some of Mach's ideas
    were still Newtonian, hence wrong.
    Einstein really did all he could, against knowing better even,
    but there really is no way to make it work.
    Mass and inertia remain a mystery.

    Jan

    [snip repeats of your misunderstandings about clocks
    that have nothing to do with Mach or Einstein]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Thu Apr 27 21:17:29 2023
    Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Thursday, 27 April 2023 at 13:48:58 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    The two must be identified,
    because a 'clock' must be someting that moves
    in accordance with the laws of nature.

    Laws of nature, of course, announced
    by an insane crazie imagining that he's
    speaking in the name of nature. There
    are no others.
    But no, clocks fuck your laws of your
    nature.

    That's impossible, by definitions
    of both 'clock' and 'laws of nature',

    Nothing 'fucks the laws of Nature', ever,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jack Liu@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Thu Apr 27 12:55:34 2023
    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 2:17:32 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    The pressure/temperature/whatever dependence
    of actual imperfect clocks can be ignored in fundamental discussions. Whatever it is, it must be in accordance with the laws of nature,
    so it can be corrected out.

    Jan

    Exactly , it can be and it should be corrected out to let it independent to pressure/temperature/gravity/dust/humidity
    in one word, random clock should be adjusted to UTC, kind of absolute time.

    Chapter 5 of https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Thu Apr 27 13:01:16 2023
    On Thursday, 27 April 2023 at 21:17:32 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Thursday, 27 April 2023 at 13:48:58 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    The two must be identified,
    because a 'clock' must be someting that moves
    in accordance with the laws of nature.

    Laws of nature, of course, announced
    by an insane crazie imagining that he's
    speaking in the name of nature. There
    are no others.
    But no, clocks fuck your laws of your
    nature.
    That's impossible, by definitions
    of both 'clock' and 'laws of nature',

    Oh, really? And what is the definition of
    "laws of nature"?

    Nothing 'fucks the laws of Nature', ever,

    As they don't exist... But clocks fuck
    what your bunch of idiots takes as
    "laws of Nature".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jack Liu@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Thu Apr 27 22:46:32 2023
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 10:08:09 PM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:

    Dust inside clock would slow down the clock
    Perhaps the clocks you are familiar with, but not any atomic clock.
    Indeed all the environmental effects that you claim affect clocks simply
    do not affect modern atomic clocks -- your personal ignorance is
    showing. Hint: in a modern Cs-133 atomic clock the timekeeping mechanism
    is in vacuum.





    To Tom Roberts

    Thanks for your long response.

    Why? why a modern Cs-133 atomic clock the timekeeping mechanism need to keep in vacuum?
    The answers is : to make that clock runs independently to indicate the TIME.

    There are much more than vacuum for That Cs-133 atomic clock, it is not only need to keep in vacuum .

    More over , it needs to keep all environmental factors constant in order for a clock to run evenly. Including not allowing the gravitational environment to change.
    Once a clock doesn't run uniformly on its own, it doesn't reflect time.

    Experiments with clocks at different altitudes to prove time dilation are logically erroneous. Because, the gravitational background of that clock has changed, and it no longer reflects the time.

    The clock in the experiment did slow down, but the time did not slow down.

    Sorry Tom for reply late. I just see your response.


    Jack

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jack Liu@21:1/5 to Jack Liu on Thu Apr 27 22:57:43 2023
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:46:34 AM UTC-5, Jack Liu wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 10:08:09 PM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:

    Why? why a modern Cs-133 atomic clock the timekeeping mechanism need to keep in vacuum? The answers is : to make that clock runs independently to indicate the TIME.
    There are much more than vacuum for That Cs-133 atomic clock, it is not only need to keep in vacuum. More ever , it needs to keep all environmental factors constant in order for a clock to run evenly. Including not allowing the gravitational
    environment to change.
    Once a clock doesn't run uniformly on its own, it doesn't reflect time. Experiments with clocks at different altitudes to prove time dilation are logically erroneous. Because, the gravitational background of that clock has changed, and it no longer reflects the time.
    The clock in the experiment did slow down, but the time did not slow down.

    **********************************************************************************
    There are countless other factors besides gravitation that affect clocks, such as temperature, humidity, pressure, fuel supply. A complete time theory also needs to include Temperature Time dilation, Humidity Time dilation, and Pressure Time dilation etc.
    For each factor that affects the clock, there is a corresponding General Relativity: Temperature General Relativity, Humidity General Relativity,and so on. General Relativity has a long way to go.
    Lastly, since extra trash inside clock would slow down the clock, which in terms of relativity, should be called the “trash time dilation”, there should be a trash general relativity accordingly in addition to gravitation general relativity.
    **********************************************************************************

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jack Liu@21:1/5 to All on Sat Apr 29 08:30:01 2023
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:08:09 PM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:

    Why? why a modern Cs-133 atomic clock the timekeeping mechanism need to keep in vacuum? The answers is : to make that clock runs independently to indicate the TIME.
    There are much more than vacuum for That Cs-133 atomic clock, it is not only need to keep in vacuum. More ever , it needs to keep all environmental factors constant in order for a clock to run evenly. Including not allowing the gravitational environment
    to change.
    Once a clock doesn't run uniformly on its own, it doesn't reflect time. Experiments with clocks at different altitudes to prove time dilation are logically erroneous. Because, the gravitational background of that clock has changed, and it no longer reflects the time.
    The clock in the experiment did slow down, but the time did not slow down.

    **********************************************************************************
    There are countless other factors besides gravitation that affect clocks, such as temperature, humidity, pressure, fuel supply. A complete time theory also needs to include Temperature Time dilation, Humidity Time dilation, and Pressure Time dilation etc.
    For each factor that affects the clock, there is a corresponding General Relativity: Temperature General Relativity, Humidity General Relativity,and so on. General Relativity has a long way to go.
    Lastly, since extra trash inside clock would slow down the clock, which in terms of relativity, should be called the “trash time dilation”, there should be a trash general relativity accordingly in addition to gravitation general relativity.
    **********************************************************************************

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Jack Liu on Sat Apr 29 09:53:54 2023
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 8:30:03 AM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:08:09 PM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:

    Why? why a modern Cs-133 atomic clock the timekeeping mechanism need to keep in vacuum? The answers is : to make that clock runs independently to indicate the TIME.
    There are much more than vacuum for That Cs-133 atomic clock, it is not only need to keep in vacuum. More ever , it needs to keep all environmental factors constant in order for a clock to run evenly. Including not allowing the gravitational
    environment to change.
    Once a clock doesn't run uniformly on its own, it doesn't reflect time. Experiments with clocks at different altitudes to prove time dilation are logically erroneous. Because, the gravitational background of that clock has changed, and it no longer reflects the time.
    The clock in the experiment did slow down, but the time did not slow down. **********************************************************************************
    There are countless other factors besides gravitation that affect clocks, such as temperature, humidity, pressure, fuel supply. A complete time theory also needs to include Temperature Time dilation, Humidity Time dilation, and Pressure Time dilation
    etc. For each factor that affects the clock, there is a corresponding General Relativity: Temperature General Relativity, Humidity General Relativity,and so on. General Relativity has a long way to go.
    Lastly, since extra trash inside clock would slow down the clock, which in terms of relativity, should be called the “trash time dilation”, there should be a trash general relativity accordingly in addition to gravitation general relativity.
    **********************************************************************************

    a retarded clock in gravity is a space time clock...
    its parts move slow in space with its slow time rates..

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jack Liu@21:1/5 to mitchr...@gmail.com on Sat Apr 29 10:01:36 2023
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 11:53:56 AM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 8:30:03 AM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:08:09 PM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:

    Why? why a modern Cs-133 atomic clock the timekeeping mechanism need to keep in vacuum? The answers is : to make that clock runs independently to indicate the TIME.
    There are much more than vacuum for That Cs-133 atomic clock, it is not only need to keep in vacuum. More ever , it needs to keep all environmental factors constant in order for a clock to run evenly. Including not allowing the gravitational
    environment to change.
    Once a clock doesn't run uniformly on its own, it doesn't reflect time. Experiments with clocks at different altitudes to prove time dilation are logically erroneous. Because, the gravitational background of that clock has changed, and it no longer reflects the time.
    The clock in the experiment did slow down, but the time did not slow down. **********************************************************************************
    There are countless other factors besides gravitation that affect clocks, such as temperature, humidity, pressure, fuel supply. A complete time theory also needs to include Temperature Time dilation, Humidity Time dilation, and Pressure Time dilation
    etc. For each factor that affects the clock, there is a corresponding General Relativity: Temperature General Relativity, Humidity General Relativity,and so on. General Relativity has a long way to go.
    Lastly, since extra trash inside clock would slow down the clock, which in terms of relativity, should be called the “trash time dilation”, there should be a trash general relativity accordingly in addition to gravitation general relativity.
    **********************************************************************************
    a retarded clock in gravity is a space time clock...
    its parts move slow in space with its slow time rates..


    To mitchr...@gmail

    Yes it is. its parts move slow in space with its slow time rates.

    same thing happen three hundred years ago. A pendulum clock on a high mountain will move slower because the change of gravity. As a result, people need to adjust the length of the pendulum to re-align the pendulum clock with Greenwich Mean Time.

    What the reading of the retarded clock is not TIME, unless they synchronized.

    JACK

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Jack Liu on Sat Apr 29 10:04:38 2023
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:01:38 AM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 11:53:56 AM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 8:30:03 AM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:08:09 PM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:

    Why? why a modern Cs-133 atomic clock the timekeeping mechanism need to keep in vacuum? The answers is : to make that clock runs independently to indicate the TIME.
    There are much more than vacuum for That Cs-133 atomic clock, it is not only need to keep in vacuum. More ever , it needs to keep all environmental factors constant in order for a clock to run evenly. Including not allowing the gravitational
    environment to change.
    Once a clock doesn't run uniformly on its own, it doesn't reflect time. Experiments with clocks at different altitudes to prove time dilation are logically erroneous. Because, the gravitational background of that clock has changed, and it no longer reflects the time.
    The clock in the experiment did slow down, but the time did not slow down.
    **********************************************************************************
    There are countless other factors besides gravitation that affect clocks, such as temperature, humidity, pressure, fuel supply. A complete time theory also needs to include Temperature Time dilation, Humidity Time dilation, and Pressure Time
    dilation etc. For each factor that affects the clock, there is a corresponding General Relativity: Temperature General Relativity, Humidity General Relativity,and so on. General Relativity has a long way to go.
    Lastly, since extra trash inside clock would slow down the clock, which in terms of relativity, should be called the “trash time dilation”, there should be a trash general relativity accordingly in addition to gravitation general relativity.
    **********************************************************************************
    a retarded clock in gravity is a space time clock...
    its parts move slow in space with its slow time rates..
    To mitchr...@gmail

    Yes it is. its parts move slow in space with its slow time rates.

    same thing happen three hundred years ago. A pendulum clock on a high mountain will move slower because the change of gravity. As a result, people need to adjust the length of the pendulum to re-align the pendulum clock with Greenwich Mean Time.

    What the reading of the retarded clock is not TIME, unless they synchronized.

    JACK

    Time has a rate quantity..
    Nothing can end time. Not motion or a black hole...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jack Liu@21:1/5 to Jack Liu on Mon May 1 11:04:55 2023
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 11:59:30 AM UTC-5, Jack Liu wrote:
    Real time passes independently and evenly and is not affected by the specific physical environment. Physical devices, in-cluding clocks, including atomic clocks with an error of one second in 20 million years, are affected by external physical
    conditions. A clock is not time, a reading from any physical device is not time. The so-called time dilation in general relativity is clock dilation or physical device dilation.

    Just because of the existence of absolute time as criteria that Einstein can claim clock dilation. Without such criteria, Ein-stein could not make such kind of statement at all.

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ


    What about moisture slow down Einstein's clock? Should it be called Moisture Time Dilation?
    What about dust causes Einstein's clock dilated? should it be call General Trash Relativity?

    Time is not clock reading of whatever clock. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Jack Liu on Mon May 1 13:18:06 2023
    On Monday, 1 May 2023 at 20:04:56 UTC+2, Jack Liu wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 11:59:30 AM UTC-5, Jack Liu wrote:
    Real time passes independently and evenly and is not affected by the specific physical environment. Physical devices, in-cluding clocks, including atomic clocks with an error of one second in 20 million years, are affected by external physical
    conditions. A clock is not time, a reading from any physical device is not time. The so-called time dilation in general relativity is clock dilation or physical device dilation.

    Just because of the existence of absolute time as criteria that Einstein can claim clock dilation. Without such criteria, Ein-stein could not make such kind of statement at all.

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ
    What about moisture slow down Einstein's clock? Should it be called Moisture Time Dilation?
    What about dust causes Einstein's clock dilated? should it be call General Trash Relativity?

    Time is not clock reading of whatever clock.

    Yes, it is.
    Of course, real clocks keep indicating t'=t,
    and the wonders of Giant Guru are only
    indicated by gedanken clocks. Common
    sense was warning the idiot.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)