Post by kensetoPost by jemPost by kensetoPost by jemPost by kensetoPost by jemPost by kensetoTIME (duration) is what the clock measures.
This SR definition implies that a clock second represents the same
amount of TIME (duration) in different frames. This means that a clock
second is an interval of universal TIME.
What the SR definition of time actually implies is that a clock second
represents the same amount of time on every standard clock, i.e., that
a clock second is a universal interval of time.
By "standard clock" do you mean the observer's clock?
The standard equations of SR (e.g., the Lorentz Transformation)
presume that all observers use standard clocks.
Then there is no such thing as a standard clock. Why? Because
different observers' clock seconds have different duration....this is
because a transition of the Cs atom in different frame will take
different duration to complete.
Post by jemPost by kensetoIn that case how
is it become a standard since every observer can claim that his clock
is the standard clock
*Every* clock that meets the standard is a standard clock.
What defines the standard....
The same thing as the last time I defined it for you, Seto. Look it
up. Or hire a nursemaid to look it up for you.
So you don't have a valid definition for a standard clock? Then why
did you keep on throwing this *standard clock* shit on me?
Like I said, hire somebody to compensate for your senility.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/e8f23a0efed1947c?hl=en
Post by kensetoPost by jemPost by kensetosince a clock second does not have the
same duration in different frames.
Post by jemPost by kensetoand at the same time the flow of clock seconds
through every observer's clock is at different rates.
So what? Standard clocks need only meet the standard.
What standard?
Ask the nursemaid.
Post by kensetoDo you mean the definition of a clock second? Do you
realize that a definition is not a standard? The reason is that a
difinition is depended on physical processes and physical processes
(such as the passage of a clock second) do not have the same duration
in different frames.
Post by jemPost by kensetoAlso what do you mean a clock second is a universal interval of time?
It means that, in SR, every clock second (i.e. the measurement of a
second on a clock) represents an amount of time equal to a second.
You are talking in circle.
A second as measured on a clock isn't necessarily a second of time,
and I provided a LET example to show you that the two can be
different.
So according to you, in LET, a second of time is not the same as a
clock second? What LET example shows that?
Just LOOK, Seto. How helpless are you?
Post by kensetoPost by jemHowever, in SR, clock seconds and seconds of time are
*defined* to be the same, which means that, in SR, it's appropriate to
characterize a clock second (i.e. a specific number of ticks of a
standard clock) as a *universal* interval of time (since it represents
the same amount of time on *every* standard clock). You're not going
to get it this time either, Seto, but this is the last time I'm going
to explain it to you in this thread.
That's the problem....you adopt the SR definition that time is what
the clock measures. This means that every clock is a perfect clock and
the passage of a clock second on every clock represents the same
amount of time (duration).
Right, but they aren't /perfect/ clocks - they're /standard/ clocks.
Post by kensetoThis contradicts the other SR assertion
that the passage of a clock second in observer A's frame corresponds
to the passage of less than a clock second in the observed B clock.
No it doesn't contradict it. In SR, Seto, time isn't absolute - each
clock keeps its own time. The fact that one tick on clock A takes one
second on clock A, and one tick on clock B takes one second on clock
B, doesn't mean that one tick on clock A takes one second on clock B.
Post by kensetoPost by jemPost by kensetoWhat you are saying is that a second is
equal to a second in all frames. This contradicts with the SR
assertion that the passage of a second in observer A's frame is equal
to the passage of less then a clock second in the observed B frame.
Post by jemContrast that with LET, where a clock second only represents a second
of time when measured by clocks at rest in the stationary ether (i.e.,
in LET, a clock second is NOT a universal interval of time).
In SR A clock seconbd is not an interval of universal time too.
If a clock second is a universal interval of time then the passage of
a clock second in A's frame should correspond to the passage of a
clock second in B's frame. It is not.
Post by jemPost by kensetoDo you mean that the passage of a clock second in A's frame
corresponds to the passage of a clock second in B's frame??
Did you mean to ask - if the interval between two events is one clock
second on A's clock, is it necessarily one clock second on B's clock?
If so, the answer is no (in SR).
Then you can't claim that a clock second is a universal interval of
time.
Post by jemPost by kensetoPost by jemPost by kensetoThis, in turn, leads to the
assertion that time is flexible. This means that when two clocks are
in relative motion the different clock seconds accumlulated by each
clock is due to that the flow of TIME through the clocks is different
in different frames. In other words, the different clock seconds
accumulated by each clock is not due to that the clocks are running at
different rates when they are in different frames.
Well, that is a correct interpretation of SR, although it's a stretch
to characterize it as "time is flexible".
If a clock second is an interval of universal time
It's anybody's guess what you mean by "universal time".
1. A clock second is a universal interval of time.
2. A clock second is an interval of universal time.
Re. 1. - it's been explained to you at least a half-dozen times.
Re. 2. - it's anybody's guess what you mean by "universal time".
So you have no explanation for these two terms??
Re. 1. - it's been explained to you at least a half-dozen times.
Re. 2. - it's anybody's guess what you mean by "universal time".
Post by kensetoPost by jemPost by kensetoPost by jemPost by kensetothen time must be
flexible (the passage of clock seconds) in order for two clocks in
relative motion to accumulate different clock seconds.
Post by jemPost by kensetoOn the other hand SR also asserts that the passage of a clock second
in observer A's clock corresponds to the passage of less than a clock
second in the observed B clock.
And that's correct too (assuming A is doing the measuring and B is in
motion relative to A).
Post by kensetoThis means that a clock second is not
an interval of universal TIME.
It appears that SR is making contradictory claims.
It's anybody's guess what you mean by "universal TIME", but your "time
is flexible" and "passage of time is less" observations above,
certainly don't contradict the SR implication that a clock second is a
universal interval of time - in fact they require it.
You definition that a clock second is a universal interval of time
needs to be defined more clearly.
It's not a definition - it's a characterization.
What do you mean when you said that a clock second is a universal
interval of time? Do you mean that a clock second can be compared
directly between frames?
It doesn't do any good to tell you what it means, Seto, since you
can't understand what you're told, nor even remember /that/ you've
been told, one paragraph later.
In order for a clock second to represent a universal interval of time
it is necessary that the passage of a clock second in observer A's
frame corresponds to the passage of a clcok second in the observed
clock B's frame.
No it's not necessary. The expression "universal interval of time"
doesn't have a unique definition - the adjective "universal" has
simply been used to characterize an interval of time. It's been
explained to you repeatedly the sense in which SR's clock seconds can
be considered to be universal, and it has nothing whatsoever to do
with any relationships between stationary and non-stationary clocks.
Post by kensetoBut SR says: the passage of a clock second in
observer A's clock does not correspond to the passage of a clock
second in B's clock. It seems that you are making contradictory
statements.
It seems that you are mistaken.
Post by kensetoPost by jemPost by kensetoPost by jemPost by kensetoDo you mean that a clock second will
have the same duration in all frames?
Did you mean to ask - does a clock second represent the same amount of
time on all standard clocks regardless of the motion of those clocks?
If so, the answer is yes (in SR).
Here you seem to be saying that a clock second is an interval of
universal time. Are you trying to have you cake and eat it too?
It's anybody's guess what you mean by "universal time".
Universal time: The passage of a clock second in A's frame correspond
to the passage of a clock second in B's frame. In the twin paradox
scenario the traveling twin's clock second is compared to the stay at
home clock second directly to reach the conclusion that the traveling
twin is younger because he accumulated less clock seconds.
Nothing in that paragraph indicates what "universal time" is, not
coherently anyway.
How does "universal time" differ from "time"? How does "universal
time" differ from "absolute time"?
Post by kensetoPost by jemPost by kensetoPost by jemPost by kensetoIn other words the time
(duration) required to complete a transition by the Cs atom is the
same in all frames?
Sure doesn't look like the last question "in other words". The last
question seemed to be asking whether (standard) clock seconds always
represent the same amount of time, snd the answer is simply a matter
of definition.
What definition?
"Time is what a clock measures". That definition.
That definition implies that a clock second in different frames
contains the same amount of time (duration).
That definition implies that all clock seconds on standard clocks
contain the same amount of time.
Post by kensetoThis is shown to be false
emperically by the GPS clock. The GPS clock second is re-defined to
have 4.15 more periods of the radiation than the ground clock. This re-
definition is necessary so that both clock second contains the same
amount of universal time.
Nonsense. As I told you before, Seto, the GPS satellite clocks are
non-standard clocks. I have a computer clock that loses about 5
secs/day relative to the NIST clocks - do you think my computer clock
empirically falsifies the definition too? How about a pendulum clock
on roller coaster?
Post by kensetoPost by jemA clock seocnd is defined as "....the duration (time)
Post by kensetocorresponds to the 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation
corresponding to the transition of the transition between the two
hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom".
No, Seto, that's not the definition of a "clock second". It's the
definition of a unit of time called a "second" (assuming you copied
the definition correctly). A "clock second" is the interval between
two specific events on a clock (e.g. tick and tock).
It is the definition of a clock second. But lets play it your way. A
second of time is represented by the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods
of the radiation....if a second of time is an interval of universal
time
It's still anybody's guess what you mean by "universal time".
Post by kensetothat means that each period of the radiation will require the
same duration to complete. This is shown to be false emperically. Why?
because Doppler shift shows that the completion time for a period of
any radiation is sensitive to relative motion.
Post by jemPost by kensetoMy
question is: Does each period of the radiation takes the same duration
to complete in different frames?
I rephrased your question so that it would have a unique answer and I
provided an answer.
Why do you have to rephrased the question?
I told you why. Hint: look in the part of the sentence that comes
after the part where I told you that I rephrased it.
Post by kensetoPost by jemPost by kensetoPost by jemThis question, OTOH, seems to be asking whether
(standard) clock seconds always coincide with N periods of the
radiation resulting from a particular atomic transition, and the
answer would need to be ascertained empirically.
Its already been done. The GPS clock second is re-defined to have
4.15 periods of the radiation. That means that 9,192,631,774.15
periods of the radiation up at the GPS location will have the duration
of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation on the ground clock.
No, Seto, an empirical test would require reproducing the standard in
different environments and comparing the results. In no way does GPS
do that.
Are you saying that they didn't re-define the GPS clock second?
I should qualify what I said about GPS not being an empirical test of
environmental effects on the production of a standard second (i.e. a
duration of N periods of radiation from a Cs atom).
If the clocks used in the GPS satellites have the same construction as
the clocks that reproduce the standard second on Earth (and they may),
then GPS /would/ provide a test of one particular environmental effect
(i.e. a small change in gravity).
Post by kensetoPost by jemPost by kensetoPost by jemPost by kensetoIf that is what you mean then I disagree.
:) There's hardly a better confirmation of something's correctness
than your disagreement with it.
Post by kensetoPost by jemPost by kenseto1. Absolute time exists. The rate of passage of absolute time in
insensitive to any motion. In other words, the rate of passage of
absolute time is the same in all frames.
2. A clock second will represents a specfic interval of absolute time
at the frame of the clock.
3. A clock second in different frames will represent different
interval of absolute time.
4. Clocks in relative motion run at different rates intrinsically.
That's not the "correct" interpretation - it's merely a /different/
interpretation. In fact, it's the LET interpretation.
No its not the LET interpretation.
Yes, Seto, it is.
No it is not. A LET observ's clock is the fastest runining clock in
the universe.
You misunderstand LET, Seto, just as well as you misunderstand SR,
No I didn't misunderstand LET or SR. Both theories' math show that the
observer's clock is the fastest running clock in the universe and the
observer's identical ruler is the longest ruler in the universe.
See below.
Post by kensetoPost by jem[snip Setoland fantasy]
Post by kensetoPost by jemPost by kensetoThe LET interpretation place the
observer's clock in the rest frame of the ether.
Nonsense. Two clocks in relative motion obviously can't both be at
rest in LET's stationary ether.
Sigh....the LET observer's clock is assumed to be at rest in the
ether. That's why it is the fastest running clock in the universe.
Do you seriously believe that *both* of those relatively moving LET
observers have the "fastest running clock in the universe"?
No...what LET and SR say is that every SR and LET observer claims that
his clock is the fastest running clock in the universe and his ruler
is the longest ruler in the universe.
Contrast that with what LET and SR really say.
In LET, standard clocks at rest in the stationary ether, run faster
(i.e. register more time per tick) than any standard clock that's
moving uniformly relative to the ether.
In SR, all standard clocks (Inertial or not) run at the same rate
(i.e. register the same amount of time per tick).
Here's the thing. Most of us have trouble with this subject because
it's so easy to become confused about how everything fits together.
You, OTOH, aren't the least bit confused. You've got the facts, and
the logical relationships between those facts, down cold. The problem
is that all but a handful of your facts are wrong, and your logic is
illogic. IMO, Seto, unless and until you can manage to become
confused about this subject, you have no hope of learning it.