WITH THIS PSEUDO-PHILOSOPHY OF LOCAL TIME DEFINED AS WHAT A
CLOCK SHOWS, FOR EINSTEIN'S LOCATION AND IMMEDIATE
SURROUNDINGS, AS IT SPREAD, RELATIVISM INFECTED THE MIND OF
GULLIBLE IMBECILES, LIKE MANY OF YOU.
TODAY, NO PHYSICIST CAN MAKE ANY EXPERIMENT IF IT'S NOT BACKED
UP BY AN ATOMIC CLOCK. JUST BECAUSE THE CRETIN SOLD THESE LINE
OF THOUGHTS, AND MOST BOUGHT THIS SHIT:
MY time, for me, Einstein, is what my clock shows. PERIOD.
EXCERPTS:
"a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unless
we are quite clear as to what we understand by “time.”"
....
"We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part
are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for instance, I say, “That train
arrives here at 7 o’clock,” I mean something like this: “The pointing of the small
hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events." ......
"It might appear possible to overcome all the difficulties attending the definition
of “time” by substituting “the position of the small hand of my watch” for
“time.”"
..........
"We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following line of
thought.
If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the
time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A,
it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of events in
the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B."
.......
WITH THIS PSEUDO-PHILOSOPHY OF LOCAL TIME DEFINED AS WHAT A
CLOCK SHOWS, FOR EINSTEIN'S LOCATION AND IMMEDIATE
SURROUNDINGS, AS IT SPREAD, RELATIVISM INFECTED THE MIND OF
GULLIBLE IMBECILES, LIKE MANY OF YOU.
TODAY, NO PHYSICIST CAN MAKE ANY EXPERIMENT IF IT'S NOT BACKED
UP BY AN ATOMIC CLOCK. JUST BECAUSE THE CRETIN SOLD THESE LINE
OF THOUGHTS, AND MOST BOUGHT THIS SHIT:
MY time, for me, Einstein, is what my clock shows. PERIOD.
EXCERPTS:
"a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unless
we are quite clear as to what we understand by “time.”"
....
"We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part
are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for instance, I say, “That train
arrives here at 7 o’clock,” I mean something like this: “The pointing of
the small
hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events." ......
"It might appear possible to overcome all the difficulties attending the definition
of “time” by substituting “the position of the small hand of my watch”
for
“time.”"
..........
"We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following line of thought.
If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the
time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A,
it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B." .......
In fact, it is possible to sunchronize watches, but never absolutely.
The notion of universal present time is a pure mental and physical abstraction.
If I send an impulse from the center C of AB, I will give correct synchronization of A and B FOR C.
But this is only valid for C.
Both watches are synchronized in the C system.
Between them, this procedure having been carried out, they each advance
on the other.
By how much advance reciprocally one on the other.
It's so simple that there's no mistaking saying it and explaining it.
Whether?
WITH THIS PSEUDO-PHILOSOPHY OF LOCAL TIME DEFINED AS WHAT A
CLOCK SHOWS, FOR EINSTEIN'S LOCATION AND IMMEDIATE
SURROUNDINGS, AS IT SPREAD, RELATIVISM INFECTED THE MIND OF
GULLIBLE IMBECILES, LIKE MANY OF YOU.
TODAY, NO PHYSICIST CAN MAKE ANY EXPERIMENT IF IT'S NOT BACKED
UP BY AN ATOMIC CLOCK. JUST BECAUSE THE CRETIN SOLD THESE LINE
OF THOUGHTS, AND MOST BOUGHT THIS SHIT:
MY time, for me, Einstein, is what my clock shows. PERIOD.
EXCERPTS:
"a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unless
we are quite clear as to what we understand by “time.”"
....
"We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part
are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for instance, I say, “That train
arrives here at 7 o’clock,” I mean something like this: “The pointing of the small
hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events." ......
"It might appear possible to overcome all the difficulties attending the definition
of “time” by substituting “the position of the small hand of my watch” for
“time.”"
..........
"We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following line of
thought.
If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the
time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A,
it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of events in
the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B."
.......
On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 10:39:33 AM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
WITH THIS PSEUDO-PHILOSOPHY OF LOCAL TIME DEFINED AS WHAT A
CLOCK SHOWS, FOR EINSTEIN'S LOCATION AND IMMEDIATE
SURROUNDINGS, AS IT SPREAD, RELATIVISM INFECTED THE MIND OF
GULLIBLE IMBECILES, LIKE MANY OF YOU.
TODAY, NO PHYSICIST CAN MAKE ANY EXPERIMENT IF IT'S NOT BACKED
UP BY AN ATOMIC CLOCK. JUST BECAUSE THE CRETIN SOLD THESE LINE
OF THOUGHTS, AND MOST BOUGHT THIS SHIT:
MY time, for me, Einstein, is what my clock shows. PERIOD.
EXCERPTS:
"a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unlessWhat about moisture slow down Einstein's clock? Should it be called Moisture Time Dilation?
we are quite clear as to what we understand by “time.”"
....
"We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part
are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for instance, I say, “That train
arrives here at 7 o’clock,” I mean something like this: “The pointing of the small
hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events."
......
"It might appear possible to overcome all the difficulties attending the definition
of “time” by substituting “the position of the small hand of my watch” for
“time.”"
..........
"We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following line of
thought.
If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the
time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is
at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A,
it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of events in
the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B."
.......
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
WITH THIS PSEUDO-PHILOSOPHY OF LOCAL TIME DEFINED AS WHAT A
CLOCK SHOWS,
FOR EINSTEIN'S LOCATION AND IMMEDIATE
SURROUNDINGS, AS IT SPREAD, RELATIVISM INFECTED THE MIND OF
GULLIBLE IMBECILES, LIKE MANY OF YOU.
TODAY, NO PHYSICIST CAN MAKE ANY EXPERIMENT IF IT'S NOT BACKED
UP BY AN ATOMIC CLOCK. JUST BECAUSE THE CRETIN SOLD THESE LINE
OF THOUGHTS, AND MOST BOUGHT THIS SHIT:
M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:
...
In fact, it is possible to sunchronize watches, but never absolutely.
The notion of universal present time is a pure mental and physical abstraction.
If I send an impulse from the center C of AB, I will give correct
synchronization of A and B FOR C.
But this is only valid for C.
Both watches are synchronized in the C system.
Between them, this procedure having been carried out, they each advance
on the other.
This means that *your* criterium for synchronicity is ill-defined,
moreover as it depends on a position it is inconsistent and useless.
On an other hand the checking procedure for synchronicity
proposed by Poincar and refined by Einstein is sound.
I know your objection : "the universe is not done that way".
Well, first why ? Because you say so ,
Moreover such an objection has no value : the universe does
not care about what simultaneity or present is. Physics
contain such concepts as an intermediate because our
minds are used to think in term of "present".
At the end of the day any physical measure of any quantity
(including "time") and any theoretical prediction is of
the form "such and such events are the same".
This happens there at time t can be rewordes by "a
clock there, prepared in a given way involving my
clock, shows t (event A) and 'this happens there'
(event B)'"
In that sense synchronicity is conventional.
By how much advance reciprocally one on the other.
It's so simple that there's no mistaking saying it and explaining it.
Whether?
It took me some time to understand why you would want to finish
your post by "Whether"? It reminds me a joke.
Remember when your were looking for an English teacher,
back in the day, Richard? You knocked at the door and
asked "Is it the place for English lessons?"
The teacher answered : "If! If! Welcome!"
(for the english speaking readers : "si" is French
for "if" and also "si" means "yes")
On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 11:00:41 AM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 10:39:33 AM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
WITH THIS PSEUDO-PHILOSOPHY OF LOCAL TIME DEFINED AS WHAT A
CLOCK SHOWS, FOR EINSTEIN'S LOCATION AND IMMEDIATE
SURROUNDINGS, AS IT SPREAD, RELATIVISM INFECTED THE MIND OF
GULLIBLE IMBECILES, LIKE MANY OF YOU.
TODAY, NO PHYSICIST CAN MAKE ANY EXPERIMENT IF IT'S NOT BACKED
UP BY AN ATOMIC CLOCK. JUST BECAUSE THE CRETIN SOLD THESE LINE
OF THOUGHTS, AND MOST BOUGHT THIS SHIT:
MY time, for me, Einstein, is what my clock shows. PERIOD.
EXCERPTS:
"a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unless we are quite clear as to what we understand by “time.”"What about moisture slow down Einstein's clock? Should it be called Moisture Time Dilation?
....
"We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part
are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for instance, I say, “That train
arrives here at 7 o’clock,” I mean something like this: “The pointing of the small
hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events."
......
"It might appear possible to overcome all the difficulties attending the definition
of “time” by substituting “the position of the small hand of my watch” for
“time.”"
..........
"We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following line of
thought.
If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the
time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is
at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A,
it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of events in
the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B."
.......
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/viewAnyways in "Out of My Later Years" Einstein instead talks
about "the time" and says it's not clocks, and expresses
a clock hypothesis "the time".
On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 1:42:55 PM UTC-5, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 11:00:41 AM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 10:39:33 AM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
WITH THIS PSEUDO-PHILOSOPHY OF LOCAL TIME DEFINED AS WHAT A
CLOCK SHOWS, FOR EINSTEIN'S LOCATION AND IMMEDIATE
SURROUNDINGS, AS IT SPREAD, RELATIVISM INFECTED THE MIND OF
GULLIBLE IMBECILES, LIKE MANY OF YOU.
TODAY, NO PHYSICIST CAN MAKE ANY EXPERIMENT IF IT'S NOT BACKED
UP BY AN ATOMIC CLOCK. JUST BECAUSE THE CRETIN SOLD THESE LINE
OF THOUGHTS, AND MOST BOUGHT THIS SHIT:
MY time, for me, Einstein, is what my clock shows. PERIOD.
EXCERPTS:
"a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unlessWhat about moisture slow down Einstein's clock? Should it be called Moisture Time Dilation?
we are quite clear as to what we understand by “time.”"
....
"We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part
are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for instance, I say, “That train
arrives here at 7 o’clock,” I mean something like this: “The pointing of the small
hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events."
......
"It might appear possible to overcome all the difficulties attending the definition
of “time” by substituting “the position of the small hand of my watch” for
“time.”"
..........
"We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following line of
thought.
If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the
time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is
at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A,
it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of events in
the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is not possible without further
assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B."
.......
What about dust causes Einstein's clock dilated? should it be call General Trash Relativity?
Then, this very clock Einstein mentioned might be slowed down by dust , moisture, atmosphere pressure, temperature, and numerous factor, What a pity Einstein considered only gravitation.Time is not clock reading of whatever clock. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/viewAnyways in "Out of My Later Years" Einstein instead talks
about "the time" and says it's not clocks, and expresses
a clock hypothesis "the time".
Beside Gravitation General Relativity, there should be moisture General Relativity, atmosphere pressure General Relativity, temperature General Relativity, Dust General Relativity, Trash General Relativity......
Jack
On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 12:37:38 AM UTC+5, Jack Liu wrote:
On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 1:42:55 PM UTC-5, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 11:00:41 AM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 10:39:33 AM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
WITH THIS PSEUDO-PHILOSOPHY OF LOCAL TIME DEFINED AS WHAT A
CLOCK SHOWS, FOR EINSTEIN'S LOCATION AND IMMEDIATE
SURROUNDINGS, AS IT SPREAD, RELATIVISM INFECTED THE MIND OF
GULLIBLE IMBECILES, LIKE MANY OF YOU.
TODAY, NO PHYSICIST CAN MAKE ANY EXPERIMENT IF IT'S NOT BACKED
UP BY AN ATOMIC CLOCK. JUST BECAUSE THE CRETIN SOLD THESE LINE
OF THOUGHTS, AND MOST BOUGHT THIS SHIT:
MY time, for me, Einstein, is what my clock shows. PERIOD.
EXCERPTS:
"a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unlessWhat about moisture slow down Einstein's clock? Should it be called Moisture Time Dilation?
we are quite clear as to what we understand by “time.”"
....
"We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part
are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for instance, I say, “That train
arrives here at 7 o’clock,” I mean something like this: “The pointing of the small
hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events."
......
"It might appear possible to overcome all the difficulties attending the definition
of “time” by substituting “the position of the small hand of my watch” for
“time.”"
..........
"We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following line of
thought.
If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the
time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is
at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A,
it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of events in
the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is not possible without further
assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B."
.......
What about dust causes Einstein's clock dilated? should it be call General Trash Relativity?
Then, this very clock Einstein mentioned might be slowed down by dust , moisture, atmosphere pressure, temperature, and numerous factor, What a pity Einstein considered only gravitation.Time is not clock reading of whatever clock. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/viewAnyways in "Out of My Later Years" Einstein instead talks
about "the time" and says it's not clocks, and expresses
a clock hypothesis "the time".
Beside Gravitation General Relativity, there should be moisture General Relativity, atmosphere pressure General Relativity, temperature General Relativity, Dust General Relativity, Trash General Relativity......
JackThese are physical effects. Have you ever thought of the effect of length contraction on a clock, say a pendulum clock? An atomic clock?
On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 12:37:38 AM UTC+5, Jack Liu wrote:
On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 1:42:55 PM UTC-5, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 11:00:41 AM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 10:39:33 AM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
WITH THIS PSEUDO-PHILOSOPHY OF LOCAL TIME DEFINED AS WHAT A
CLOCK SHOWS, FOR EINSTEIN'S LOCATION AND IMMEDIATE
SURROUNDINGS, AS IT SPREAD, RELATIVISM INFECTED THE MIND OF
GULLIBLE IMBECILES, LIKE MANY OF YOU.
TODAY, NO PHYSICIST CAN MAKE ANY EXPERIMENT IF IT'S NOT BACKED
UP BY AN ATOMIC CLOCK. JUST BECAUSE THE CRETIN SOLD THESE LINE
OF THOUGHTS, AND MOST BOUGHT THIS SHIT:
MY time, for me, Einstein, is what my clock shows. PERIOD.
EXCERPTS:
"a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unlessWhat about moisture slow down Einstein's clock? Should it be called Moisture Time Dilation?
we are quite clear as to what we understand by “time.”"
....
"We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part
are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for instance, I say, “That train
arrives here at 7 o’clock,” I mean something like this: “The pointing of the small
hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events."
......
"It might appear possible to overcome all the difficulties attending the definition
of “time” by substituting “the position of the small hand of my watch” for
“time.”"
..........
"We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following line of
thought.
If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the
time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is
at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A,
it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of events in
the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is not possible without further
assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B."
.......
What about dust causes Einstein's clock dilated? should it be call General Trash Relativity?
Then, this very clock Einstein mentioned might be slowed down by dust , moisture, atmosphere pressure, temperature, and numerous factor, What a pity Einstein considered only gravitation.Time is not clock reading of whatever clock. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/viewAnyways in "Out of My Later Years" Einstein instead talks
about "the time" and says it's not clocks, and expresses
a clock hypothesis "the time".
Beside Gravitation General Relativity, there should be moisture General Relativity, atmosphere pressure General Relativity, temperature General Relativity, Dust General Relativity, Trash General Relativity......
JackThese are physical effects. Have you ever thought of the effect of length contraction on a clock, say a pendulum clock? An atomic clock?
WITH THIS PSEUDO-PHILOSOPHY OF LOCAL TIME DEFINED AS WHAT A
CLOCK SHOWS, FOR EINSTEIN'S LOCATION AND IMMEDIATE
SURROUNDINGS, AS IT SPREAD, RELATIVISM INFECTED THE MIND OF
GULLIBLE IMBECILES, LIKE MANY OF YOU.
TODAY, NO PHYSICIST CAN MAKE ANY EXPERIMENT IF IT'S NOT BACKED
UP BY AN ATOMIC CLOCK. JUST BECAUSE THE CRETIN SOLD THESE LINE
OF THOUGHTS, AND MOST BOUGHT THIS SHIT:
On 02-May-23 1:39 am, Richard Hertz wrote:
WITH THIS PSEUDO-PHILOSOPHY OF LOCAL TIME DEFINED AS WHAT A
CLOCK SHOWS, FOR EINSTEIN'S LOCATION AND IMMEDIATE
SURROUNDINGS, AS IT SPREAD, RELATIVISM INFECTED THE MIND OF
GULLIBLE IMBECILES, LIKE MANY OF YOU.
TODAY, NO PHYSICIST CAN MAKE ANY EXPERIMENT IF IT'S NOT BACKED
UP BY AN ATOMIC CLOCK. JUST BECAUSE THE CRETIN SOLD THESE LINE
OF THOUGHTS, AND MOST BOUGHT THIS SHIT:
When I do physics, I want a measure of time that works with the usual equations that describe how processes unfold.
When I do physics, I want a measure of time that works with the usual equations that describe how processes unfold.
Since I myself am just a collection of atoms engaging in physical and chemical processes, and my own perception of time is a function of how
those processes unfold, such a measure will also correspond to how I
perceive the world.
Any real clock that I build will also perform in accordance with those
same equations.
All in all, having a measure of time that is in accordance with the best clocks I can build seems most convenient.
If time were defined differently, the first thing I'd have to do when
using a measure of time would be to apply the formulae required to
convert that measure into the one I need to put into the usual
equations. That seems a total waste of effort.
Much easier to define time as being what a clock measures, and work from there.
Sylvia.
Le 03/05/2023 à 01:32, Sylvia Else a écrit :
When I do physics, I want a measure of time that works with the usual
equations that describe how processes unfold.
Since I myself am just a collection of atoms engaging in physical and
chemical processes, and my own perception of time is a function of how
those processes unfold, such a measure will also correspond to how I
perceive the world.
Any real clock that I build will also perform in accordance with those
same equations.
All in all, having a measure of time that is in accordance with the
best clocks I can build seems most convenient.
If time were defined differently, the first thing I'd have to do when
using a measure of time would be to apply the formulae required to
convert that measure into the one I need to put into the usual
equations. That seems a total waste of effort.
Much easier to define time as being what a clock measures, and work
from there.
Sylvia.
To say that time is what a clock measures is not wrong.
But that's a bit like saying that a white horse is a white horse.
But that's not a mistake, it's just a tautology.
Where it becomes more complicated is when two watches placed in
different places are used (and therefore desynchronized according to
what the immense prophet Hachel says) to judge the time taken by a
racing car to cross A and B and that we do, like the tiny Python (a
Frenchman known for his enormous psychiatric qualities on French forums) dT(AB)=Watch2-Watch1
So yes, time is what ONE clock measures.
You are adorable, Sylvia.
But in an anisochronous universe, where each entity, accompanied by its
own watch, fights its own notion of simultaneity, you can only trust
your own watch.
It is then impossible to be mistaken about what it will indicate, nor
about the reality of things.
Kisses, Sylvia, my beautiful.
R.H.
Given a measure provided by a clock in our frame of reference, we want a theory will predict what a clock in a different frame of reference will measure. Special relativity is such a theory.
Trying to pretend that what clocks measure is not real time, and that
there is another kind of time that has a better claim on being real, is angels on a pinhead stuff. Philosophers might enjoy spending their
waking hours arguing about such things, but physicists have other fish
to fry.
Sylvia.
Given a measure provided by a clock in our frame of reference, we want a theory will predict what a clock in a different frame of reference will measure. Special relativity is such a theory.
Trying to pretend that what clocks measure is not real time, and that
there is another kind of time that has a better claim on being real, is angels on a pinhead stuff. Philosophers might enjoy spending their
waking hours arguing about such things, but physicists have other fish to fry.
On 03-May-23 9:44 pm, Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 03/05/2023 à 01:32, Sylvia Else a écrit :
When I do physics, I want a measure of time that works with the usual
equations that describe how processes unfold.
Since I myself am just a collection of atoms engaging in physical and
chemical processes, and my own perception of time is a function of how
those processes unfold, such a measure will also correspond to how I
perceive the world.
Any real clock that I build will also perform in accordance with those
same equations.
All in all, having a measure of time that is in accordance with the
best clocks I can build seems most convenient.
If time were defined differently, the first thing I'd have to do when
using a measure of time would be to apply the formulae required to
convert that measure into the one I need to put into the usual
equations. That seems a total waste of effort.
Much easier to define time as being what a clock measures, and work
from there.
Sylvia.
To say that time is what a clock measures is not wrong.
But that's a bit like saying that a white horse is a white horse.
But that's not a mistake, it's just a tautology.
Where it becomes more complicated is when two watches placed in
different places are used (and therefore desynchronized according to
what the immense prophet Hachel says) to judge the time taken by a
racing car to cross A and B and that we do, like the tiny Python (a Frenchman known for his enormous psychiatric qualities on French forums) dT(AB)=Watch2-Watch1
So yes, time is what ONE clock measures.
You are adorable, Sylvia.
But in an anisochronous universe, where each entity, accompanied by its own watch, fights its own notion of simultaneity, you can only trust
your own watch.
It is then impossible to be mistaken about what it will indicate, nor about the reality of things.
Kisses, Sylvia, my beautiful.
R.H.If clocks contrived to provide a measure of time that differed
noticeably from the quantity that determines the progress of other
physical and chemical processes, then that would, um, be noticed.
They don't.
Given a measure provided by a clock in our frame of reference, we want a theory will predict what a clock in a different frame of reference will measure. Special relativity is such a theory.
On 03-May-23 9:44 pm, Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 03/05/2023 à 01:32, Sylvia Else a écrit :
When I do physics, I want a measure of time that works with the usual
equations that describe how processes unfold.
Since I myself am just a collection of atoms engaging in physical and
chemical processes, and my own perception of time is a function of how
those processes unfold, such a measure will also correspond to how I
perceive the world.
Any real clock that I build will also perform in accordance with those
same equations.
All in all, having a measure of time that is in accordance with the
best clocks I can build seems most convenient.
If time were defined differently, the first thing I'd have to do when
using a measure of time would be to apply the formulae required to
convert that measure into the one I need to put into the usual
equations. That seems a total waste of effort.
Much easier to define time as being what a clock measures, and work
from there.
Sylvia.
To say that time is what a clock measures is not wrong.
But that's a bit like saying that a white horse is a white horse.
But that's not a mistake, it's just a tautology.
Where it becomes more complicated is when two watches placed in
different places are used (and therefore desynchronized according to
what the immense prophet Hachel says) to judge the time taken by a
racing car to cross A and B and that we do, like the tiny Python (a Frenchman known for his enormous psychiatric qualities on French forums) dT(AB)=Watch2-Watch1
So yes, time is what ONE clock measures.
You are adorable, Sylvia.
But in an anisochronous universe, where each entity, accompanied by its own watch, fights its own notion of simultaneity, you can only trust
your own watch.
It is then impossible to be mistaken about what it will indicate, nor about the reality of things.
Kisses, Sylvia, my beautiful.
R.H.If clocks contrived to provide a measure of time that differed
noticeably from the quantity that determines the progress of other
physical and chemical processes, then that would, um, be noticed.
They don't.
Given a measure provided by a clock in our frame of reference, we want a theory will predict what a clock in a different frame of reference will measure. Special relativity is such a theory.
Trying to pretend that what clocks measure is not real time, and that
there is another kind of time that has a better claim on being real, is angels on a pinhead stuff. Philosophers might enjoy spending their
waking hours arguing about such things, but physicists have other fish
to fry.
Sylvia.
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 5:27:05 PM UTC+5, Sylvia Else wrote:not notice any of the invisible undetectable effects.
On 03-May-23 9:44 pm, Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 03/05/2023 à 01:32, Sylvia Else a écrit :
When I do physics, I want a measure of time that works with the usual >> equations that describe how processes unfold.
Since I myself am just a collection of atoms engaging in physical and >> chemical processes, and my own perception of time is a function of how >> those processes unfold, such a measure will also correspond to how I
perceive the world.
Any real clock that I build will also perform in accordance with those >> same equations.
All in all, having a measure of time that is in accordance with the
best clocks I can build seems most convenient.
If time were defined differently, the first thing I'd have to do when >> using a measure of time would be to apply the formulae required to
convert that measure into the one I need to put into the usual
equations. That seems a total waste of effort.
Much easier to define time as being what a clock measures, and work
from there.
Sylvia.
To say that time is what a clock measures is not wrong.
But that's a bit like saying that a white horse is a white horse.
But that's not a mistake, it's just a tautology.
Where it becomes more complicated is when two watches placed in different places are used (and therefore desynchronized according to what the immense prophet Hachel says) to judge the time taken by a racing car to cross A and B and that we do, like the tiny Python (a Frenchman known for his enormous psychiatric qualities on French forums) dT(AB)=Watch2-Watch1
So yes, time is what ONE clock measures.
You are adorable, Sylvia.
But in an anisochronous universe, where each entity, accompanied by its own watch, fights its own notion of simultaneity, you can only trust your own watch.
It is then impossible to be mistaken about what it will indicate, nor about the reality of things.
Kisses, Sylvia, my beautiful.
R.H.If clocks contrived to provide a measure of time that differed
noticeably from the quantity that determines the progress of other physical and chemical processes, then that would, um, be noticed.
They don't.
Given a measure provided by a clock in our frame of reference, we want a theory will predict what a clock in a different frame of reference will measure. Special relativity is such a theory.
Trying to pretend that what clocks measure is not real time, and that there is another kind of time that has a better claim on being real, is angels on a pinhead stuff. Philosophers might enjoy spending their
waking hours arguing about such things, but physicists have other fish
to fry.
Sylvia.
Will you at least agree that time dilation to an astronaut is an invisible, undetectable thing, from his waiting time on the launch pad, several hours, to his launch, travelling at 0.1c, returning home and stopping? He will feel the acceleration but
An astronaut, using a watch, does not feel any change in his passing of time. His clock continues to tick at a rate of 1 second/second.
El jueves, 4 de mayo de 2023 a las 1:00:59 UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió:not notice any of the invisible undetectable effects.
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 5:27:05 PM UTC+5, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 03-May-23 9:44 pm, Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 03/05/2023 à 01:32, Sylvia Else a écrit :
When I do physics, I want a measure of time that works with the usual >> equations that describe how processes unfold.
Since I myself am just a collection of atoms engaging in physical and >> chemical processes, and my own perception of time is a function of how
those processes unfold, such a measure will also correspond to how I >> perceive the world.
Any real clock that I build will also perform in accordance with those
same equations.
All in all, having a measure of time that is in accordance with the >> best clocks I can build seems most convenient.
If time were defined differently, the first thing I'd have to do when >> using a measure of time would be to apply the formulae required to
convert that measure into the one I need to put into the usual
equations. That seems a total waste of effort.
Much easier to define time as being what a clock measures, and work >> from there.
Sylvia.
To say that time is what a clock measures is not wrong.
But that's a bit like saying that a white horse is a white horse.
But that's not a mistake, it's just a tautology.
Where it becomes more complicated is when two watches placed in different places are used (and therefore desynchronized according to what the immense prophet Hachel says) to judge the time taken by a racing car to cross A and B and that we do, like the tiny Python (a Frenchman known for his enormous psychiatric qualities on French forums)
dT(AB)=Watch2-Watch1
So yes, time is what ONE clock measures.
You are adorable, Sylvia.
But in an anisochronous universe, where each entity, accompanied by its
own watch, fights its own notion of simultaneity, you can only trust your own watch.
It is then impossible to be mistaken about what it will indicate, nor about the reality of things.
Kisses, Sylvia, my beautiful.
R.H.If clocks contrived to provide a measure of time that differed noticeably from the quantity that determines the progress of other physical and chemical processes, then that would, um, be noticed.
They don't.
Given a measure provided by a clock in our frame of reference, we want a theory will predict what a clock in a different frame of reference will measure. Special relativity is such a theory.
Trying to pretend that what clocks measure is not real time, and that there is another kind of time that has a better claim on being real, is angels on a pinhead stuff. Philosophers might enjoy spending their waking hours arguing about such things, but physicists have other fish to fry.
Sylvia.
Will you at least agree that time dilation to an astronaut is an invisible, undetectable thing, from his waiting time on the launch pad, several hours, to his launch, travelling at 0.1c, returning home and stopping? He will feel the acceleration but
An astronaut, using a watch, does not feel any change in his passing of time. His clock continues to tick at a rate of 1 second/second.
People watching the astronaut trip from Earth will notice (by the regular exchange of messages to/from the astronaut) that the astronaut clock ticks differently from Earth's clocks.odometer than the other car, while both identical odometers measure1 km/km.
The explanation is quite simple, as the astronaut path (through spacetime) is obviously different to Earth path (again through spacetime).
This is similar to what happens with a car's odometer. Two identical cars (with identical odometers) depart from Chicago to New York, following different paths (through space). It is obvious that the car taking the longer path will show more km in its
The astronaut clock path (through spacetime) is indeed shorter than the path the Earth clocks follow (due to hyperbolic geometrical relations).
El jueves, 4 de mayo de 2023 a las 1:00:59 UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió:not notice any of the invisible undetectable effects.
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 5:27:05 PM UTC+5, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 03-May-23 9:44 pm, Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 03/05/2023 à 01:32, Sylvia Else a écrit :
When I do physics, I want a measure of time that works with the usual >> equations that describe how processes unfold.
Since I myself am just a collection of atoms engaging in physical and >> chemical processes, and my own perception of time is a function of how
those processes unfold, such a measure will also correspond to how I >> perceive the world.
Any real clock that I build will also perform in accordance with those
same equations.
All in all, having a measure of time that is in accordance with the >> best clocks I can build seems most convenient.
If time were defined differently, the first thing I'd have to do when >> using a measure of time would be to apply the formulae required to
convert that measure into the one I need to put into the usual
equations. That seems a total waste of effort.
Much easier to define time as being what a clock measures, and work >> from there.
Sylvia.
To say that time is what a clock measures is not wrong.
But that's a bit like saying that a white horse is a white horse.
But that's not a mistake, it's just a tautology.
Where it becomes more complicated is when two watches placed in different places are used (and therefore desynchronized according to what the immense prophet Hachel says) to judge the time taken by a racing car to cross A and B and that we do, like the tiny Python (a Frenchman known for his enormous psychiatric qualities on French forums)
dT(AB)=Watch2-Watch1
So yes, time is what ONE clock measures.
You are adorable, Sylvia.
But in an anisochronous universe, where each entity, accompanied by its
own watch, fights its own notion of simultaneity, you can only trust your own watch.
It is then impossible to be mistaken about what it will indicate, nor about the reality of things.
Kisses, Sylvia, my beautiful.
R.H.If clocks contrived to provide a measure of time that differed noticeably from the quantity that determines the progress of other physical and chemical processes, then that would, um, be noticed.
They don't.
Given a measure provided by a clock in our frame of reference, we want a theory will predict what a clock in a different frame of reference will measure. Special relativity is such a theory.
Trying to pretend that what clocks measure is not real time, and that there is another kind of time that has a better claim on being real, is angels on a pinhead stuff. Philosophers might enjoy spending their waking hours arguing about such things, but physicists have other fish to fry.
Sylvia.
Will you at least agree that time dilation to an astronaut is an invisible, undetectable thing, from his waiting time on the launch pad, several hours, to his launch, travelling at 0.1c, returning home and stopping? He will feel the acceleration but
An astronaut, using a watch, does not feel any change in his passing of time. His clock continues to tick at a rate of 1 second/second.odometer than the other car, while both identical odometers measure1 km/km.
People watching the astronaut trip from Earth will notice (by the regular exchange of messages to/from the astronaut) that the astronaut clock ticks differently from Earth's clocks.
The explanation is quite simple, as the astronaut path (through spacetime) is obviously different to Earth path (again through spacetime).
This is similar to what happens with a car's odometer. Two identical cars (with identical odometers) depart from Chicago to New York, following different paths (through space). It is obvious that the car taking the longer path will show more km in its
The astronaut clock path (through spacetime) is indeed shorter than the path the Earth clocks follow (due to hyperbolic geometrical relations).
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 29:56:08 |
| Calls: | 6,707 |
| Files: | 12,239 |
| Messages: | 5,352,934 |