Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
A Note About Clocks
34 views
Skip to first unread message
Henry Wilson DSc.
Apr 8, 2013, 12:29:16 PM4/8/13
to
The word 'clock', is used consistently on this NG. What is implied?
A conventional clock is a counter of cycles of some kind of mechanical
oscillator or other periodic process (ignore 'time constant' and other forms).
Every clock is assumed to be perfectly stable, inertial and to exist in flat
gravity unless otherwise stated.
It follows that every clock in the universe has a fixed rate relative to every
other clock.
In practical terms, a time 'interval' may be defined as the amount of time
elapsing between two readings of a clock. If two time intervals are are the
same or different when measured on one clock, they are the same and different
respectively in terms of the readings of all other clocks.
Does anyone wish to disagree or add to this clarification?
Henry Wilson DSc.
A conventional clock is a counter of cycles of some kind of mechanical
oscillator or other periodic process (ignore 'time constant' and other forms).
Every clock is assumed to be perfectly stable, inertial and to exist in flat
gravity unless otherwise stated.
It follows that every clock in the universe has a fixed rate relative to every
other clock.
In practical terms, a time 'interval' may be defined as the amount of time
elapsing between two readings of a clock. If two time intervals are are the
same or different when measured on one clock, they are the same and different
respectively in terms of the readings of all other clocks.
Does anyone wish to disagree or add to this clarification?
Henry Wilson DSc.
Poutnik
Apr 8, 2013, 12:52:08 PM4/8/13
to
Dne pondělí, 8. dubna 2013 18:29:16 UTC+2 Henry Wilson DSc. napsal(a):
Mutually moving clocks with the same above clock rate
will be observed as having different rates.
>
> It follows that every clock in the universe has a fixed rate relative to every
> other clock.
>
> It follows that every clock in the universe has a fixed rate relative to every
> other clock.
>
> Does anyone wish to disagree or add to this clarification?
Clock rate is rate observed by observer in rest wrt the clock.
Mutually moving clocks with the same above clock rate
will be observed as having different rates.
Absolutely Vertical
Apr 8, 2013, 12:53:21 PM4/8/13
to
On 4/8/2013 11:29 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> The word 'clock', is used consistently on this NG. What is implied?
>
> A conventional clock is a counter of cycles of some kind of mechanical
> oscillator or other periodic process (ignore 'time constant' and other forms).
> Every clock is assumed to be perfectly stable, inertial and to exist in flat
> gravity unless otherwise stated.
> It follows that every clock in the universe has a fixed rate relative to every
> other clock.
unless of course the stipulation of 'inertial' is broken. for example,
> The word 'clock', is used consistently on this NG. What is implied?
>
> A conventional clock is a counter of cycles of some kind of mechanical
> oscillator or other periodic process (ignore 'time constant' and other forms).
> Every clock is assumed to be perfectly stable, inertial and to exist in flat
> gravity unless otherwise stated.
> It follows that every clock in the universe has a fixed rate relative to every
> other clock.
if there is any situation where one of the clocks is accelerated then
this statement is no longer accurate.
secondly, it should be obvious that every clock has a fixed _different_
rate relative to every other clock.
>
> In practical terms, a time 'interval' may be defined as the amount of time
> elapsing between two readings of a clock.
usually for reference, the readings are referenced to two events
>
> In practical terms, a time 'interval' may be defined as the amount of time
> elapsing between two readings of a clock.
occurring near the clock.
> If two time intervals are are the
> same or different when measured on one clock, they are the same and different
> respectively in terms of the readings of all other clocks.
corresponding to the first of the two intervals mentioned and the second
pair corresponding to the second of the two intervals mentioned.
Henry Wilson DSc.
Apr 8, 2013, 1:54:13 PM4/8/13
to
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 09:52:08 -0700 (PDT), Poutnik <poutni...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Dne pond?l�, 8. dubna 2013 18:29:16 UTC+2 Henry Wilson DSc. napsal(a):
Whether two clocks are moving relatively or not, their rates are in a fixed
ratio.
Henry Wilson DSc.
wrote:
>Dne pond?l�, 8. dubna 2013 18:29:16 UTC+2 Henry Wilson DSc. napsal(a):
ratio.
Henry Wilson DSc.
Paul Cardinale
Apr 8, 2013, 1:55:31 PM4/8/13
to
Henry Wilson DSc.
Apr 8, 2013, 2:03:30 PM4/8/13
to
On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 11:53:21 -0500, Absolutely Vertical
<absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 4/8/2013 11:29 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> The word 'clock', is used consistently on this NG. What is implied?
>>
>> A conventional clock is a counter of cycles of some kind of mechanical
>> oscillator or other periodic process (ignore 'time constant' and other forms).
>> Every clock is assumed to be perfectly stable, inertial and to exist in flat
>> gravity unless otherwise stated.
>> It follows that every clock in the universe has a fixed rate relative to every
>> other clock.
>
>unless of course the stipulation of 'inertial' is broken. for example,
>if there is any situation where one of the clocks is accelerated then
>this statement is no longer accurate.
Yes. That is understood.
<absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 4/8/2013 11:29 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> The word 'clock', is used consistently on this NG. What is implied?
>>
>> A conventional clock is a counter of cycles of some kind of mechanical
>> oscillator or other periodic process (ignore 'time constant' and other forms).
>> Every clock is assumed to be perfectly stable, inertial and to exist in flat
>> gravity unless otherwise stated.
>> It follows that every clock in the universe has a fixed rate relative to every
>> other clock.
>
>unless of course the stipulation of 'inertial' is broken. for example,
>if there is any situation where one of the clocks is accelerated then
>this statement is no longer accurate.
>
>secondly, it should be obvious that every clock has a fixed _different_
>rate relative to every other clock.
>
>>
>> In practical terms, a time 'interval' may be defined as the amount of time
>> elapsing between two readings of a clock.
>
>usually for reference, the readings are referenced to two events
>occurring near the clock.
believed that for all practical purposes, time was what a clock measures.
I'm virtually saying the same thing. Mind you, a clock READING indicates a TIME
INSTANT. An interval is the difference between two instants.
>> If two time intervals are are the
>> same or different when measured on one clock, they are the same and different
>> respectively in terms of the readings of all other clocks.
>
>just for clarity, we're talking four events here, the first pair
>corresponding to the first of the two intervals mentioned and the second
>pair corresponding to the second of the two intervals mentioned.
each clock.
However it is not their actual values that are relevant here. It is whether
those values are the same or different on any ONE clock
>>
>> Does anyone wish to disagree or add to this clarification?
>>
>> Henry Wilson DSc.
>>
Henry Wilson DSc.
Apr 8, 2013, 2:23:27 PM4/8/13
to
Henry Wilson DSc.
Absolutely Vertical
Apr 8, 2013, 3:34:17 PM4/8/13
to
On 4/8/2013 1:03 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 11:53:21 -0500, Absolutely Vertical
> <absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/8/2013 11:29 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>> The word 'clock', is used consistently on this NG. What is implied?
>>>
>>> A conventional clock is a counter of cycles of some kind of mechanical
>>> oscillator or other periodic process (ignore 'time constant' and other forms).
>>> Every clock is assumed to be perfectly stable, inertial and to exist in flat
>>> gravity unless otherwise stated.
>>> It follows that every clock in the universe has a fixed rate relative to every
>>> other clock.
>>
>> unless of course the stipulation of 'inertial' is broken. for example,
>> if there is any situation where one of the clocks is accelerated then
>> this statement is no longer accurate.
>
> Yes. That is understood.
>
>>
>> secondly, it should be obvious that every clock has a fixed _different_
>> rate relative to every other clock.
>>
>>>
>>> In practical terms, a time 'interval' may be defined as the amount of time
>>> elapsing between two readings of a clock.
>>
>> usually for reference, the readings are referenced to two events
>> occurring near the clock.
>
> But that it not necessary for the definition. After all, Einstein himslef
> believed that for all practical purposes, time was what a clock measures.
measures between two events, yes.
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 11:53:21 -0500, Absolutely Vertical
> <absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/8/2013 11:29 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>> The word 'clock', is used consistently on this NG. What is implied?
>>>
>>> A conventional clock is a counter of cycles of some kind of mechanical
>>> oscillator or other periodic process (ignore 'time constant' and other forms).
>>> Every clock is assumed to be perfectly stable, inertial and to exist in flat
>>> gravity unless otherwise stated.
>>> It follows that every clock in the universe has a fixed rate relative to every
>>> other clock.
>>
>> unless of course the stipulation of 'inertial' is broken. for example,
>> if there is any situation where one of the clocks is accelerated then
>> this statement is no longer accurate.
>
> Yes. That is understood.
>
>>
>> secondly, it should be obvious that every clock has a fixed _different_
>> rate relative to every other clock.
>>
>>>
>>> In practical terms, a time 'interval' may be defined as the amount of time
>>> elapsing between two readings of a clock.
>>
>> usually for reference, the readings are referenced to two events
>> occurring near the clock.
>
> But that it not necessary for the definition. After all, Einstein himslef
> believed that for all practical purposes, time was what a clock measures.
>
> I'm virtually saying the same thing. Mind you, a clock READING indicates a TIME
> INSTANT. An interval is the difference between two instants.
>
>>> If two time intervals are are the
>>> same or different when measured on one clock, they are the same and different
>>> respectively in terms of the readings of all other clocks.
>>
>> just for clarity, we're talking four events here, the first pair
>> corresponding to the first of the two intervals mentioned and the second
>> pair corresponding to the second of the two intervals mentioned.
>
> Not quite. There are only two intervals but they can have different values on
> each clock.
interval, one for the end. this is not complicated.
rotchm
Apr 8, 2013, 4:31:38 PM4/8/13
to
On Apr 8, 12:29 pm, Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> wrote:
> The word 'clock', is used consistently on this NG. What is implied?
>
> A conventional clock is a counter of cycles of some kind of mechanical
> oscillator or other periodic process...
> The word 'clock', is used consistently on this NG. What is implied?
>
> A conventional clock is a counter of cycles of some kind of mechanical
In physics, a clock has an operational definition. It is any (cycling
or counting )device that remains in synch (remains stable, keeps same
counting, to within error bars) with the standard clock (the cesium
clock) when directly compared (side by side).
> In practical terms, a time 'interval' may be defined as the amount of time
> elapsing between two readings of a clock.
Time, as used in SR (and sometimes as used in physics) is defined wrt
an i-frame, is the value on a (e-synched) clock which is located at an
event in question (if we were to have a clock there). It is *time at
that location, wrt that i-frame*.
More generally, in GR, time (at a location) is the value on the clock
located at the event in question, a clock which has been synched (not
necessarily e-synched) with a master clock, an 'origin'.
Mathematically, this represents a different metric.
A time interval between two events is the difference, the subtraction,
of the two times in question.
Then there is world time, local time, UTC, GMT, ... which are
diffident notions with different standards and a different subject.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time
Dono.
Apr 8, 2013, 6:10:35 PM4/8/13
to
On Apr 8, 1:31 pm, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 8, 12:29 pm, Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> wrote:
>
> > In practical terms, a time 'interval' may be defined as the amount of time
> > elapsing between two readings of a clock.
>
> On Apr 8, 12:29 pm, Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> wrote:
>
> > In practical terms, a time 'interval' may be defined as the amount of time
> > elapsing between two readings of a clock.
>
> A time interval between two events is the difference, the subtraction,
> of the two times in question.
>
...which is precisely what "Henry" wrote.
> of the two times in question.
>
Crotchm,
You need to pay attention, sometimes even cranks like "Henry" get the
notions correctly.
xxein
Apr 8, 2013, 7:36:52 PM4/8/13
to
On Apr 8, 12:29 pm, Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> wrote:
nobody knows how to count the actual number of jellybeans in a jar
because they would rather theorize about it.
rotchm
Apr 8, 2013, 7:55:04 PM4/8/13
to
> > > In practical terms, a time 'interval' may be defined as the amount of time
> > > elapsing between two readings of a clock.
>
> > A time interval between two events is the difference, the subtraction,
> > of the two times in question.
>
> ...which is precisely what "Henry" wrote.
No, thats now what he wrote.
> > > elapsing between two readings of a clock.
>
> > A time interval between two events is the difference, the subtraction,
> > of the two times in question.
>
> ...which is precisely what "Henry" wrote.
> You need to pay attention, sometimes even cranks like "Henry" get the
> notions correctly.
COMPREHEND.
He said "...two readings of a clock."
I said "...the subtraction, of the two times in question." referencing
that a time interval need NOT be by "a clock" but can be by TWO
clocks.
Understand the distinction?
E.g. E1= [x=0,t=0] and E2=[10,1]. Time interval of these two events
located at two different clocks is 1-0 = 1.
You failed again. Every time you 'open your mouth' here, you make a
fool of yourself.
Go play with your failing, oups I mean falling, horizontal rod.
Dono.
Apr 8, 2013, 8:25:20 PM4/8/13
to
On Apr 8, 4:55 pm, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > In practical terms, a time 'interval' may be defined as the amount of time
> > > > elapsing between two readings of a clock.
>
> > > A time interval between two events is the difference, the subtraction,
> > > of the two times in question.
>
> > ...which is precisely what "Henry" wrote.
>
> No, thats now what he wrote.
>
> > You need to pay attention, sometimes even cranks like "Henry" get the
> > notions correctly.
>
> You need to pay attention and to learn to read, and especially, to
> COMPREHEND.
>
> He said "...two readings of a clock."
> I said "...the subtraction, of the two times in question." referencing
> that a time interval need NOT be by "a clock" but can be by TWO
> clocks.
>
It is two readings of the same clock, imbecile. You only pointed out
> > > > In practical terms, a time 'interval' may be defined as the amount of time
> > > > elapsing between two readings of a clock.
>
> > > A time interval between two events is the difference, the subtraction,
> > > of the two times in question.
>
> > ...which is precisely what "Henry" wrote.
>
> No, thats now what he wrote.
>
> > You need to pay attention, sometimes even cranks like "Henry" get the
> > notions correctly.
>
> You need to pay attention and to learn to read, and especially, to
> COMPREHEND.
>
> He said "...two readings of a clock."
> I said "...the subtraction, of the two times in question." referencing
> that a time interval need NOT be by "a clock" but can be by TWO
> clocks.
>
that crank "Henry" had a better definition than crank "crotchm".
rotchm
Apr 8, 2013, 9:18:28 PM4/8/13
to
> It is two readings of the same clock, imbecile.
A "time interval" need not be by a single clock; it can be the
difference of two distinct clocks.
You dont even understand the expression "the time interval between two
events..."
I said it before, I will say it again... Shut up idiot ken.
Dono.
Apr 8, 2013, 9:36:20 PM4/8/13
to
On Apr 8, 6:18 pm, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It is two readings of the same clock, imbecile.
>
> LOL! Again you are deeply confused about SR.
>
Nope, in the years you "progressed" from outright ignorant denier to
> > It is two readings of the same clock, imbecile.
>
> LOL! Again you are deeply confused about SR.
>
"teacher", you have missed learning the basics.
> A "time interval" need not be by a single clock; it can be the
> difference of two distinct clocks.
>
managed to embarrass crank "Crotchm". You reached new lows,
"professor".
rotchm
Apr 8, 2013, 10:52:27 PM4/8/13
to
> > A "time interval" need not be by a single clock; it can be the
> > difference of two distinct clocks.
>
> You are desperately threading water while drowning. Crank "Henry"
> managed to embarrass crank "Crotchm". You reached new lows,
> "professor".
LOL, you are still standing by your idioticies. Wilson's claim may
> > difference of two distinct clocks.
>
> You are desperately threading water while drowning. Crank "Henry"
> managed to embarrass crank "Crotchm". You reached new lows,
> "professor".
have been just an oversight. But your understanding of the situation,
of the notion of "time interval", is totally beyond your
comprehension. Google once again kept record or your ignorance and
stupidity.
Knowing that you are an ignoramus, I did provide you with a simple
example, which you snipped out, indicative that I cornered you
again.
E.g. E1= [x=0,t=0] and E2=[10,1]. Time interval of these two events
Paul Cardinale
Apr 8, 2013, 11:51:10 PM4/8/13
to
My response wasn't for you, you despicable bucket if shit.
Dono.
Apr 9, 2013, 12:00:53 AM4/9/13
to
On Apr 8, 7:52 pm, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > A "time interval" need not be by a single clock; it can be the
> > > difference of two distinct clocks.
>
> > You are desperately threading water while drowning. Crank "Henry"
> > managed to embarrass crank "Crotchm". You reached new lows,
> > "professor".
>
> > > A "time interval" need not be by a single clock; it can be the
> > > difference of two distinct clocks.
>
> > You are desperately threading water while drowning. Crank "Henry"
> > managed to embarrass crank "Crotchm". You reached new lows,
> > "professor".
>
> Wilson's claim may
> have been just an oversight.
Sorry to burst your bubble, pretender but crank "Wilson" is right and
> have been just an oversight.
you are the same idiot you were years ago.
>
> E.g. E1= [x=0,t=0] and E2=[10,1]. Time interval of these two events
> (located at two different clocks)
See : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time
"In relativity, proper time is the elapsed time between two events as
measured by A clock that passes through both events".
One clock, pretentious cretinoid. Stick to selling refurbished
computers, Crotchm.
rotchm
Apr 9, 2013, 12:36:01 AM4/9/13
to
> > E.g. E1= [x=0,t=0] and E2=[10,1]. Time interval of these two events
>
> No, imbecile, you need to LEARN before you masquerade as a "teacher.
> See :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time
By changing the subject you (implicitly) admit once again that you
> No, imbecile, you need to LEARN before you masquerade as a "teacher.
> See :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time
were wrong. You are well known for doing this.
The subject was not t all about proper time. It was about "time" and
"time intervals".
This is what ralph said when he invoked his first instance of "time
interval".
"In practical terms, a time 'interval' may be defined as the amount of
time
elapsing between two readings of a clock. "
One would have expected you to learn throughout the years, but alas,
you are just as the ken's and ralph's; you just dont have the brains
to understand physics, math and language. Pathetic, but becoming
funny as idiot ken.
Dono.
Apr 9, 2013, 12:53:25 AM4/9/13
to
On Apr 8, 9:36 pm, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > E.g. E1= [x=0,t=0] and E2=[10,1]. Time interval of these two events
> > > (located at two different clocks) is 1 - 0 = 1.
>
> > No, imbecile, you need to LEARN before you masquerade as a "teacher.
> > See :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time
>
> By changing the subject you (implicitly) admit once again that you
> were wrong. You are well known for doing this.
>
No, imbecile
> > > E.g. E1= [x=0,t=0] and E2=[10,1]. Time interval of these two events
> > > (located at two different clocks) is 1 - 0 = 1.
>
> > No, imbecile, you need to LEARN before you masquerade as a "teacher.
> > See :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time
>
> By changing the subject you (implicitly) admit once again that you
> were wrong. You are well known for doing this.
>
It is very simple really, time intervals are measured by ONE clock,
not two, as you keep claiming.
Congratulations, you proved to be an even bigger idiot than Ralf.
> The subject was not t all about proper time. It was about "time" and
> "time intervals".
>
pretentious cretinoid.
rotchm
Apr 9, 2013, 1:20:56 AM4/9/13
to
> The wiki page I linked explains the notion in non-ambiguous terms,
> pretentious cretinoid.
Nope. Nowhere does it define the expression "time interval". But it
> pretentious cretinoid.
does hint, imply, that a time interval is the difference of two time
values which are not necessarily from a same clock. The wiki page
supports my claim and refutes yours.
Here what is says, referring to an i-frame (x,t):
"The dark blue vertical line represents an inertial observer measuring
a coordinate time interval t between events E1 and E2. ".
Another example for idiot ken: Wrt a frame S, what is the time
interval between two simultaneous events?
Henry Wilson DSc.
Apr 9, 2013, 7:09:43 AM4/9/13
to
On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 14:34:17 -0500, Absolutely Vertical
A time interval can be calculated as well as measured.
For instance, t = L/v, where L and v are known.
The derived value of t is expressed in terms of the defined standard, which is
also that used to calibrate clocks.
>> I'm virtually saying the same thing. Mind you, a clock READING indicates a TIME
>> INSTANT. An interval is the difference between two instants.
>
>virtually the same thing, yes.
>
>>
>>>> If two time intervals are are the
>>>> same or different when measured on one clock, they are the same and different
>>>> respectively in terms of the readings of all other clocks.
>>>
>>> just for clarity, we're talking four events here, the first pair
>>> corresponding to the first of the two intervals mentioned and the second
>>> pair corresponding to the second of the two intervals mentioned.
>>
>> Not quite. There are only two intervals but they can have different values on
>> each clock.
>
>two intervals with two events each -- one for the beginning of that
>interval, one for the end. this is not complicated.
By the same token, you could say that the 'length' of a rod is the coordinate
of one of its ends minus that of the other. A point in space is not a distance
in space.
>
>> However it is not their actual values that are relevant here. It is whether
>> those values are the same or different on any ONE clock
>>
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone wish to disagree or add to this clarification?
>>>>
>>>> Henry Wilson DSc.
>>>>
>>
>> Henry Wilson DSc.
>>
Henry Wilson DSc.
For instance, t = L/v, where L and v are known.
The derived value of t is expressed in terms of the defined standard, which is
also that used to calibrate clocks.
>> I'm virtually saying the same thing. Mind you, a clock READING indicates a TIME
>> INSTANT. An interval is the difference between two instants.
>
>virtually the same thing, yes.
>
>>
>>>> If two time intervals are are the
>>>> same or different when measured on one clock, they are the same and different
>>>> respectively in terms of the readings of all other clocks.
>>>
>>> just for clarity, we're talking four events here, the first pair
>>> corresponding to the first of the two intervals mentioned and the second
>>> pair corresponding to the second of the two intervals mentioned.
>>
>> Not quite. There are only two intervals but they can have different values on
>> each clock.
>
>two intervals with two events each -- one for the beginning of that
>interval, one for the end. this is not complicated.
of one of its ends minus that of the other. A point in space is not a distance
in space.
>
>> However it is not their actual values that are relevant here. It is whether
>> those values are the same or different on any ONE clock
>>
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone wish to disagree or add to this clarification?
>>>>
>>>> Henry Wilson DSc.
>>>>
>>
>> Henry Wilson DSc.
>>
Henry Wilson DSc.
Apr 9, 2013, 7:11:31 AM4/9/13
to
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 20:51:10 -0700 (PDT), Paul Cardinale
<pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote:
>My response wasn't for you, you despicable bucket if shit.
I not sorry that you are not my friend.
<pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote:
>My response wasn't for you, you despicable bucket if shit.
Henry Wilson DSc.
Henry Wilson DSc.
Apr 9, 2013, 7:31:57 AM4/9/13
to
one. I have suggested a practical definition even though I don't consider it a
basic definition in the philosophical sense.
If the measurement of a time interval is to be achieved with two separated
clocks, any answer can be produced depending on the synchronization between the
two. (Einstein was as master at fiddling clocks to produce the answers he
wanted.)
A time interval can be defined as the temporal distance between any two events
in the universe. Since NOW here is NOW everywhere, it matters not where those
events occurred.
Henry Wilson DSc.
rotchm
Apr 9, 2013, 10:44:16 AM4/9/13
to
> Your argument seems to be more about measuring a time interval than defining
> one.
Nope. I first defined it. Read my original reply. Excerpt:
> one.
In physics, a clock has an operational definition...
Time, as used in SR (and sometimes as used in physics) is defined wrt
an i-frame, is the value on a (e-synched) clock which is located at
an
event in question (if we were to have a clock there). It is *time at
that location, wrt that i-frame*.
A time interval between two events is the difference, the
subtraction,
of the two times in question.
subtraction,
of the two times in question.
> If the measurement of a time interval is to be achieved with two separated
> clocks,
The definition of 'time interval' does not exclude the use of two
> clocks,
separated clocks.
> any answer can be produced depending on the synchronization between the
> two.
e-synch procedure.
That is how 'time' is *defined* in an i-frame.
> A time interval can be defined as the temporal distance between any two events
> in the universe.
> Since NOW here is NOW everywhere, it matters not where those
> events occurred.
philosophical community.
But this 'NOW' has been eliminated from physics due to its irrelevant
and unmeasurable nature.
In physics, the 'NOW' has been replaced by 'simultaneous' (wrt a i-
frame).
How do you measure NOW 'over there' ? You define time via a synch
procedure... and then what?
Dono.
Apr 9, 2013, 10:55:41 AM4/9/13
to
On Apr 8, 10:20 pm, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The wiki page I linked explains the notion in non-ambiguous terms,
> > pretentious cretinoid.
>
> Nope. Nowhere does it define the expression "time interval".
Imbecile,
> > The wiki page I linked explains the notion in non-ambiguous terms,
> > pretentious cretinoid.
>
> Nope. Nowhere does it define the expression "time interval".
"Proper time is what the clocks measure". The wiki page teaches how to
measure time:
"In relativity, proper time is the elapsed time between two events as
measured by A clock that passes through both events."
are wrong.
After all these years you acquired a varnish (thin layer) of
"knowledge" but deep down you are the same ignorant you've always
been.
> But it
> does hint, imply, that a time interval is the difference of two time
> values which are not necessarily from a same clock. The wiki page
> supports my claim and refutes yours.
>
the clocks ACTUALLY measure ) with "coordinate time":
"By contrast, coordinate time is the time between two events as
measured by a distant observer using that observer's own method of
assigning a time to an event. In the special case of an inertial
observer in special relativity, the time is measured using the
observer's clock and the observer's definition of simultaneity."
EVEN SO, the distant observer employs ONE clock, not two as you
persist in your deep idiocy.
> Here what is says, referring to an i-frame (x,t):
>
> "The dark blue vertical line represents an inertial observer measuring
> a coordinate time interval t between events E1 and E2. ".
>
rotchm
Apr 9, 2013, 11:39:36 AM4/9/13
to
On Apr 9, 10:55 am, "Dono." <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Apr 8, 10:20 pm, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The wiki page I linked explains the notion in non-ambiguous terms,
> > > pretentious cretinoid.
>
> > Nope. Nowhere does it define the expression "time interval".
> On Apr 8, 10:20 pm, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The wiki page I linked explains the notion in non-ambiguous terms,
> > > pretentious cretinoid.
>
> > Nope. Nowhere does it define the expression "time interval".
> "In relativity, proper time is the elapsed time between two events as
> measured by A clock that passes through both events."
Correct. But that is not at all the subject of discussion. You are
> measured by A clock that passes through both events."
resorting to your usual tactics of changing the subject when you are
defeated.
The notion of "time" <> "proper time" <> "time interval".
> The point is that crank Ralf was right and that you, crank "Crotchm"
> are wrong.
measured by two different separated clocks. It is once more, you who
is totally oblivious of physics, math and language. You are actually
dumber than idiot ken, since he cant know better... you on the other
hand, should know better but choose not to.
> No, persistent imbecile, you are just mistaking "proper time" (what
> the clocks ACTUALLY measure ) with "coordinate time":
(proper and coordinate)
> "By contrast, coordinate time is the time between two events as
> measured by a distant observer using that observer's own method of
> assigning a time to an event.
defined afterwards...
> In the special case of an inertial
> observer in special relativity, the time is measured using the
> observer's clock and the observer's definition of simultaneity."
defined afterwards...
> EVEN SO, the distant observer employs ONE clock, not two as you
> persist in your deep idiocy.
afterwards...
> > "The dark blue vertical line represents an inertial observer measuring
> > a coordinate time interval t between events E1 and E2. ".
>
> Using ONE clock, imbecile. Not two.
RED curve represents the proper time and the blue vertical line
represent the (coordinate) time interval t2 - t1 taken from TWO
different clocks.
Also, it is clearly indicated that "The measurement of a time interval
between two events is nonproper unless both events are recorded in
terms of the same clock."
What dont you understand in that concise statement that support me?
Dono.
Apr 9, 2013, 11:55:25 AM4/9/13
to
On Apr 9, 8:39 am, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 9, 10:55 am, "Dono." <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 8, 10:20 pm, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > The wiki page I linked explains the notion in non-ambiguous terms,
> > > > pretentious cretinoid.
>
> > > Nope. Nowhere does it define the expression "time interval".
> > "In relativity, proper time is the elapsed time between two events as
> > measured by A clock that passes through both events."
>
> Correct. But that is not at all the subject of discussion.
Sure it is, the wiki page teaches you how to measure time intervals.
> On Apr 9, 10:55 am, "Dono." <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 8, 10:20 pm, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > The wiki page I linked explains the notion in non-ambiguous terms,
> > > > pretentious cretinoid.
>
> > > Nope. Nowhere does it define the expression "time interval".
> > "In relativity, proper time is the elapsed time between two events as
> > measured by A clock that passes through both events."
>
> Correct. But that is not at all the subject of discussion.
The fact that you are still an idiot after all these years and that
you don't understand basic physics is not my fault <shrug>
> The notion of "time" <> "proper time" <> "time interval".
>
intervals" vs. "coordinate time intervals". Both type of measurements
use ONLY ONE clock.
> > The point is that crank Ralf was right and that you, crank "Crotchm"
> > are wrong.
>
> Nope. krank ralf agrees with me in that "time interval" can be
> measured by two different separated clocks.
learn English?
It is once more, you who
> > No, persistent imbecile, you are just mistaking "proper time" (what
> > the clocks ACTUALLY measure ) with "coordinate time":
>
> Nope. I am well aware of the distinction of these two notions of time (proper and coordinate)
>
Yet, you mix them up freely in your posts in this thread.
> > the clocks ACTUALLY measure ) with "coordinate time":
>
> Nope. I am well aware of the distinction of these two notions of time (proper and coordinate)
>
> > "By contrast, coordinate time is the time between two events as
> > measured by a distant observer using that observer's own method of
> > assigning a time to an event.
>
> Exactly as I said when I defined "time". "time interval" will be
> defined afterwards...
>
> > In the special case of an inertial
> > observer in special relativity, the time is measured using the
> > observer's clock and the observer's definition of simultaneity."
>
> Exactly as I said when I defined "time". "time interval" will be
> defined afterwards...
>
> > EVEN SO, the distant observer employs ONE clock, not two as you
> > persist in your deep idiocy.
>
> He employs ONE clock to measure time. "time interval" will be defined
> afterwards...
>
ONE clock measuring "coordinate time interval t2-t1" and ONLY ONE
clock measuring the "proper time interval tau2-tau1". See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Proper_and_coordinate_time.png
> > > "The dark blue vertical line represents an inertial observer measuring
> > > a coordinate time interval t between events E1 and E2. ".
>
> > Using ONE clock, imbecile. Not two.
>
> Using TWO clocks imbicile, not one.
ONE clock measuring "coordinate time interval t2-t1" and ONLY ONE
clock measuring the "proper time interval tau2-tau1". See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Proper_and_coordinate_time.png
See the blue vertical line? It represents ONE CLOCK ONLY, placed at
x=0.
See the red curved line? It also represents ONE CLOCK ONLY.
It says it right there idiot. The
> RED curve represents the proper time and the blue vertical line
> represent the (coordinate) time interval t2 - t1 taken from TWO
> different clocks.
>
Stick to selling refurbished computers and STFU.
Dono.
Apr 9, 2013, 12:03:58 PM4/9/13
to
On Apr 8, 4:55 pm, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > In practical terms, a time 'interval' may be defined as the amount of time
> > > > elapsing between two readings of a clock.
>
> > > A time interval between two events is the difference, the subtraction,
> > > of the two times in question.
>
> > ...which is precisely what "Henry" wrote.
>
> No, thats now what he wrote.
>
> > You need to pay attention, sometimes even cranks like "Henry" get the
> > notions correctly.
>
> You need to pay attention and to learn to read, and especially, to
> COMPREHEND.
>
> He said "...two readings of a clock."
> I said "...the subtraction, of the two times in question." referencing
> that a time interval need NOT be by "a clock" but can be by TWO
> clocks.
>
ONE clock is what mainstream physics uses:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> > > > elapsing between two readings of a clock.
>
> > > A time interval between two events is the difference, the subtraction,
> > > of the two times in question.
>
> > ...which is precisely what "Henry" wrote.
>
> No, thats now what he wrote.
>
> > You need to pay attention, sometimes even cranks like "Henry" get the
> > notions correctly.
>
> You need to pay attention and to learn to read, and especially, to
> COMPREHEND.
>
> He said "...two readings of a clock."
> I said "...the subtraction, of the two times in question." referencing
> that a time interval need NOT be by "a clock" but can be by TWO
> clocks.
>
File:Proper_and_coordinate_time.png
> Understand the distinction?
>
> E.g. E1= [x=0,t=0] and E2=[10,1]. Time interval of these two events
> located at two different clocks is 1-0 = 1.
>
here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Proper_and_coordinate_time.png
Henry Wilson DSc.
Apr 9, 2013, 3:28:17 PM4/9/13
to
On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 07:44:16 -0700 (PDT), rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Your argument seems to be more about measuring a time interval than defining
>> one.
>
>Nope. I first defined it. Read my original reply. Excerpt:
>
>In physics, a clock has an operational definition...
>
>Time, as used in SR (and sometimes as used in physics) is defined wrt
>an i-frame, is the value on a (e-synched) clock which is located at
>an
>event in question (if we were to have a clock there). It is *time at
>that location, wrt that i-frame*.
>
>A time interval between two events is the difference, the
>subtraction,
>of the two times in question.
>
>
>> If the measurement of a time interval is to be achieved with two separated
>> clocks,
>
>The definition of 'time interval' does not exclude the use of two
>separated clocks.
>
>> any answer can be produced depending on the synchronization between the
>> two.
>
>Correct. But in SR, there is a specific, defined synch procedure, the
>e-synch procedure.
That definition is specifically designed to ensure that light speed will always
>> Your argument seems to be more about measuring a time interval than defining
>> one.
>
>Nope. I first defined it. Read my original reply. Excerpt:
>
>In physics, a clock has an operational definition...
>
>Time, as used in SR (and sometimes as used in physics) is defined wrt
>an i-frame, is the value on a (e-synched) clock which is located at
>an
>event in question (if we were to have a clock there). It is *time at
>that location, wrt that i-frame*.
>
>A time interval between two events is the difference, the
>subtraction,
>of the two times in question.
>
>
>> If the measurement of a time interval is to be achieved with two separated
>> clocks,
>
>The definition of 'time interval' does not exclude the use of two
>separated clocks.
>
>> any answer can be produced depending on the synchronization between the
>> two.
>
>Correct. But in SR, there is a specific, defined synch procedure, the
>e-synch procedure.
have a measured value of c. It is pure nonsense.
>That is how 'time' is *defined* in an i-frame.
Single clocks measure time intervals, not pairs of clocks.
>
>> A time interval can be defined as the temporal distance between any two events
>> in the universe.
>
>Yes.
>
>> Since NOW here is NOW everywhere, it matters not where those
>> events occurred.
>
>The notion of 'NOW' is a different debate, a debate well alive in the
>philosophical community.
>But this 'NOW' has been eliminated from physics due to its irrelevant
>and unmeasurable nature.
>In physics, the 'NOW' has been replaced by 'simultaneous' (wrt a i-
>frame).
>
>How do you measure NOW 'over there' ? You define time via a synch
>procedure... and then what?
absolute.
Henry Wilson DSc.
Henry Wilson DSc.
Apr 9, 2013, 3:34:44 PM4/9/13
to
On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 08:55:25 -0700 (PDT), "Dono." <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Apr 9, 8:39嚙窮m, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 9, 10:55嚙窮m, "Dono." <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> The notion of "time" <> "proper time" <> "time interval".
>>
>
>Yet, imbecile, the wiki page is explaining measurement on "proper time
>intervals" vs. "coordinate time intervals". Both type of measurements
>use ONLY ONE clock.
>
>> > The point is that crank Ralf was right and that you, crank "Crotchm"
>> > are wrong.
>>
>> Nope. krank ralf agrees with me in that "time interval" can be
>> measured by two different separated clocks.
>
>It is nice to see you two "kranks" agreeing.BTW, when are you going to
>learn English?
I do not agree with the idiot. I merely pointed out that if a time interval is
measured with separated clocks ANY answer can be produced simply by fiddling
their relative synch.
>It is once more, you who
>
>
>> > No, persistent imbecile, you are just mistaking "proper time" (what
>> > the clocks ACTUALLY measure ) with "coordinate time":
>>
>> Nope. I am well aware of the distinction of these two notions of time (proper and coordinate)
>>
>
>Yet, you mix them up freely in your posts in this thread.
>
>
>> > "By contrast, coordinate time is the time between two events as
>> > measured by a distant observer using that observer's own method of
>> > assigning a time to an event.
>>
>> Exactly as I said 嚙緩hen I defined "time". "time interval" will be
>It says 嚙箠t right there idiot. The
>> RED curve represents the proper time and 嚙緣he blue vertical line
>On Apr 9, 8:39嚙窮m, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 9, 10:55嚙窮m, "Dono." <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On Apr 8, 10:20嚙緘m, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > The wiki page I linked explains the notion in non-ambiguous terms,
>> > > > pretentious cretinoid.
>>
>> > > Nope. Nowhere does it define the expression "time interval".
>> > "In relativity, proper time is the elapsed time between two events as
>> > measured by A clock that passes through both events."
>>
>> Correct. But that is not at all the subject of discussion.
>
>Sure it is, the wiki page teaches you how to measure time intervals.
>The fact that you are still an idiot after all these years and that
>you don't understand basic physics is not my fault <shrug>
That's why he won this year's 'Idiot of The Year' award.
>> > On Apr 8, 10:20嚙緘m, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > The wiki page I linked explains the notion in non-ambiguous terms,
>> > > > pretentious cretinoid.
>>
>> > > Nope. Nowhere does it define the expression "time interval".
>> > "In relativity, proper time is the elapsed time between two events as
>> > measured by A clock that passes through both events."
>>
>> Correct. But that is not at all the subject of discussion.
>
>Sure it is, the wiki page teaches you how to measure time intervals.
>The fact that you are still an idiot after all these years and that
>you don't understand basic physics is not my fault <shrug>
>> The notion of "time" <> "proper time" <> "time interval".
>>
>
>Yet, imbecile, the wiki page is explaining measurement on "proper time
>intervals" vs. "coordinate time intervals". Both type of measurements
>use ONLY ONE clock.
>
>> > The point is that crank Ralf was right and that you, crank "Crotchm"
>> > are wrong.
>>
>> Nope. krank ralf agrees with me in that "time interval" can be
>> measured by two different separated clocks.
>
>It is nice to see you two "kranks" agreeing.BTW, when are you going to
>learn English?
measured with separated clocks ANY answer can be produced simply by fiddling
their relative synch.
>It is once more, you who
>
>
>> > No, persistent imbecile, you are just mistaking "proper time" (what
>> > the clocks ACTUALLY measure ) with "coordinate time":
>>
>> Nope. I am well aware of the distinction of these two notions of time (proper and coordinate)
>>
>
>Yet, you mix them up freely in your posts in this thread.
>
>
>> > "By contrast, coordinate time is the time between two events as
>> > measured by a distant observer using that observer's own method of
>> > assigning a time to an event.
>>
>> RED curve represents the proper time and 嚙緣he blue vertical line
>> represent the (coordinate) time interval t2 - t1 taken from TWO
>> different clocks.
>>
>
>No, pathetic imbecile, It represents ONE CLOCK ONLY, placed at x=0.
>Stick to selling refurbished computers and STFU.
Henry Wilson DSc.
>> different clocks.
>>
>
>No, pathetic imbecile, It represents ONE CLOCK ONLY, placed at x=0.
>Stick to selling refurbished computers and STFU.
rotchm
Apr 9, 2013, 4:05:51 PM4/9/13
to
> >Correct. But in SR, there is a specific, defined synch procedure, the
> >e-synch procedure.
>
> That definition is specifically designed to ensure that light speed will always
> have a measured value of c.
So you agree on the consequence (implication) of that definition.
> >e-synch procedure.
>
> That definition is specifically designed to ensure that light speed will always
> have a measured value of c.
> It is pure nonsense.
Definitions are not "nonsense". They are to be taken as is, as an
axiom. You might not like those definitions used but that will not
change the consequences of those definitions.
> >That is how 'time' is *defined* in an i-frame.
>
> Clock synch is not clock rate.
Correct, and I never stated otherwise.
>
> Clock synch is not clock rate.
> Single clocks measure time intervals, not pairs of clocks.
A time interval is simply "t2 - t1" which can be taken by two
distinct clocks. Thats hos "time interval" is *defined* in SR. That
doesnt mean that we must like that definition, but its SR's
definition.
> >The notion of 'NOW' is a different debate, a debate well alive in the
> >philosophical community.
>
> The notion is pretty obvious to me.
physicist, its not so obvious what is meant by "NOW".
> >But this 'NOW' has been eliminated from physics due to its irrelevant
> >and unmeasurable nature.
>
> ...only from your fairyland physics.....
physics, you must use their concepts, their definitions and their
principles.
> >How do you measure NOW 'over there' ? You define time via a synch
> >procedure... and then what?
stumped, which is why physicists dumped the notion of "NOW" in favor
of "simultaneity".
rotchm
Apr 9, 2013, 4:09:56 PM4/9/13
to
> I merely pointed out that if a time interval is
> measured with separated clocks ANY answer can be produced simply by fiddling
> their relative synch.
a different time interval between two events.
Sounds weird to do things this way, but strangely, actual experiments
concur with such an approach!
Henry Wilson DSc.
Apr 9, 2013, 5:09:07 PM4/9/13
to
On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 13:05:51 -0700 (PDT), rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Correct. But in SR, there is a specific, defined synch procedure, the
>> >e-synch procedure.
>>
>> That definition is specifically designed to ensure that light speed will always
>> have a measured value of c.
>
>So you agree on the consequence (implication) of that definition.
>
>> It is pure nonsense.
>
>Definitions are not "nonsense". They are to be taken as is, as an
>axiom. You might not like those definitions used but that will not
>change the consequences of those definitions.
>> >That is how 'time' is *defined* in an i-frame.
>>
>> Clock synch is not clock rate.
>
>Correct, and I never stated otherwise.
>
>> Single clocks measure time intervals, not pairs of clocks.
>
>Not as per defined in physics and in particular here in SR.
>A time interval is simply "t2 - t1" which can be taken by two
>distinct clocks. Thats hos "time interval" is *defined* in SR. That
>doesnt mean that we must like that definition, but its SR's
>definition.
Even Roberts said that time intervals can only be measured with single clocks
>> >Correct. But in SR, there is a specific, defined synch procedure, the
>> >e-synch procedure.
>>
>> That definition is specifically designed to ensure that light speed will always
>> have a measured value of c.
>
>So you agree on the consequence (implication) of that definition.
>
>> It is pure nonsense.
>
>Definitions are not "nonsense". They are to be taken as is, as an
>axiom. You might not like those definitions used but that will not
>change the consequences of those definitions.
>> >That is how 'time' is *defined* in an i-frame.
>>
>> Clock synch is not clock rate.
>
>Correct, and I never stated otherwise.
>
>> Single clocks measure time intervals, not pairs of clocks.
>
>Not as per defined in physics and in particular here in SR.
>A time interval is simply "t2 - t1" which can be taken by two
>distinct clocks. Thats hos "time interval" is *defined* in SR. That
>doesnt mean that we must like that definition, but its SR's
>definition.
because of the synching problem.
>> >The notion of 'NOW' is a different debate, a debate well alive in the
>> >philosophical community.
>>
>> The notion is pretty obvious to me.
>
>Good for you. Since Plato to his contemporaries philosophers and
>physicist, its not so obvious what is meant by "NOW".
>
>
>> >But this 'NOW' has been eliminated from physics due to its irrelevant
>> >and unmeasurable nature.
>>
>> ...only from your fairyland physics.....
>
>Its not *my* physics; its "theirs", and if you want to analyze their
>physics, you must use their concepts, their definitions and their
>principles.
>
>
>> >How do you measure NOW 'over there' ? You define time via a synch
>> >procedure... and then what?
>
>You avoid answering? I see that you are stumped where physicists were
>stumped, which is why physicists dumped the notion of "NOW" in favor
>of "simultaneity".
assume that their readings don't change and you already know their drift
behavior. Perfect clocks used in definitions and thought experiments don't
drift anyway.
Henry Wilson DSc.
Henry Wilson DSc.
Apr 9, 2013, 5:10:24 PM4/9/13
to
Henry Wilson DSc.
Absolutely Vertical
Apr 9, 2013, 5:17:55 PM4/9/13
to
On 4/9/2013 4:09 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
cataloging tactics, for the sociologists and psychologists here.
>> Not as per defined in physics and in particular here in SR.
>> A time interval is simply "t2 - t1" which can be taken by two
>> distinct clocks. Thats hos "time interval" is *defined* in SR. That
>> doesnt mean that we must like that definition, but its SR's
>> definition.
>
> Even Roberts said that time intervals can only be measured with single clocks
> because of the synching problem.
'if i can't get you off my mistake, then i'll shift attention to where
two of you disagree.'
>
>>
>>>> How do you measure NOW 'over there' ? You define time via a synch
>>>> procedure... and then what?
>>
>> You avoid answering? I see that you are stumped where physicists were
>> stumped, which is why physicists dumped the notion of "NOW" in favor
>> of "simultaneity".
>
> You synch clocks while they are together and then move them into place. You can
> assume that their readings don't change and you already know their drift
> behavior. Perfect clocks used in definitions and thought experiments don't
> drift anyway.
'i shall assume the answer to the question, and then ask the question.'
'i can do anything i want in a hypothetical argument, including
supposing objects that violate the laws of physics in a discussion about
the laws of physics.'
cataloging tactics, for the sociologists and psychologists here.
>> Not as per defined in physics and in particular here in SR.
>> A time interval is simply "t2 - t1" which can be taken by two
>> distinct clocks. Thats hos "time interval" is *defined* in SR. That
>> doesnt mean that we must like that definition, but its SR's
>> definition.
>
> Even Roberts said that time intervals can only be measured with single clocks
> because of the synching problem.
two of you disagree.'
>
>>
>>>> How do you measure NOW 'over there' ? You define time via a synch
>>>> procedure... and then what?
>>
>> You avoid answering? I see that you are stumped where physicists were
>> stumped, which is why physicists dumped the notion of "NOW" in favor
>> of "simultaneity".
>
> You synch clocks while they are together and then move them into place. You can
> assume that their readings don't change and you already know their drift
> behavior. Perfect clocks used in definitions and thought experiments don't
> drift anyway.
'i can do anything i want in a hypothetical argument, including
supposing objects that violate the laws of physics in a discussion about
the laws of physics.'
Absolutely Vertical
Apr 9, 2013, 5:18:57 PM4/9/13
to
On 4/9/2013 4:10 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
cataloging tactics....
>> Exactly. Which is why different i-observers (different frames) obtain
>> a different time interval between two events.
>> Sounds weird to do things this way, but strangely, actual experiments
>> concur with such an approach!
>
> Crap! No exeperiment has ever supported any aspect of SR.
'when in doubt, deny reality. or at least declare that reality is
unbelievable. at least to thinking people.'
cataloging tactics....
>> Exactly. Which is why different i-observers (different frames) obtain
>> a different time interval between two events.
>> Sounds weird to do things this way, but strangely, actual experiments
>> concur with such an approach!
>
> Crap! No exeperiment has ever supported any aspect of SR.
unbelievable. at least to thinking people.'
Dono.
Apr 10, 2013, 11:40:10 AM4/10/13
to
On Apr 8, 1:31 pm, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
This was the starting point of all your idiotic threads. As a matter
of fact, crank Ralf has it right and you have it wrong. You can stop
pretending that you are a "physicist" now since you are nothing more
than a pretender.
> On Apr 8, 12:29 pm, Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> wrote:
> > In practical terms, a time 'interval' may be defined as the amount of time
> > elapsing between two readings of a clock.
>
> No, that is not the definition of time nor of a time interval.
> > In practical terms, a time 'interval' may be defined as the amount of time
> > elapsing between two readings of a clock.
>
This was the starting point of all your idiotic threads. As a matter
of fact, crank Ralf has it right and you have it wrong. You can stop
pretending that you are a "physicist" now since you are nothing more
than a pretender.
Wesley Burns
Apr 10, 2013, 12:28:04 PM4/10/13
to
Dono. wrote:
>> No, that is not the definition of time nor of a time interval.
>
> This was the starting point of all your idiotic threads. As a matter of
> fact, crank Ralf has it right and you have it wrong. You can stop
> pretending that you are a "physicist" now since you are nothing more than
> a pretender.
Unbelievable illegal stupid this rotchm, now measuring a time interval
>> No, that is not the definition of time nor of a time interval.
>
> This was the starting point of all your idiotic threads. As a matter of
> fact, crank Ralf has it right and you have it wrong. You can stop
> pretending that you are a "physicist" now since you are nothing more than
> a pretender.
with two clocks, lol :)
He sends you to work on McDonald, because he makes $200 an hour anyway,
disregards his stupidity :)
Dono.
Apr 10, 2013, 12:40:34 PM4/10/13
to
(when he's not trolling this forum PRETENDING to be a physicist).
Wesley Burns
Apr 10, 2013, 1:07:06 PM4/10/13
to
rotchm wrote:
> Nope. Nowhere does it define the expression "time interval". But it does
> hint, imply, that a time interval is the difference of two time values
> which are not necessarily from a same clock. The wiki page supports my
> claim and refutes yours.
This because is must be written for braindead idiots like you!
> Nope. Nowhere does it define the expression "time interval". But it does
> hint, imply, that a time interval is the difference of two time values
> which are not necessarily from a same clock. The wiki page supports my
> claim and refutes yours.
Put two atomic clocks closest to each other. Tell how you
synchronize those Caesium atoms. Do it fast!!
rotchm
Apr 10, 2013, 2:59:33 PM4/10/13
to
> Unbelievable illegal stupid this rotchm, now measuring a time interval
> with two clocks, lol :)
>
> He sends you to work on McDonald, because he makes $200 an hour anyway,
> disregards his stupidity :)
He cant disregard me. He, as you, is in dire need of attention and
> with two clocks, lol :)
>
> He sends you to work on McDonald, because he makes $200 an hour anyway,
> disregards his stupidity :)
will do anything to try to get it.
Now... should I go buy a BigMac...Nay, I dont want to support idiot
ken who dono nothing.
rotchm
Apr 10, 2013, 3:01:02 PM4/10/13
to
> He's selling refurbished computers
We will believe it when you prove it.
Dono.
Apr 10, 2013, 4:50:43 PM4/10/13
to
On Apr 10, 12:01 pm, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > He's selling refurbished computers
>
> We will believe it when you prove it.
You ARE selling refurbished computers (when you are not trolling this
> > He's selling refurbished computers
>
> We will believe it when you prove it.
rotchm
Apr 10, 2013, 4:56:09 PM4/10/13
to
> You ARE selling refurbished computers
Nope. So, thats your proof?
Just like your proof that "time interval" is measured always with one
unique clock? Just like your proof that the ends of a horizontal
falling rod always fall to the ground simultaneously in all frames?
All your "proofs" are handwaving. Then again, what else can we expect
from a sub par McDonalds employee.
Dono.
Apr 10, 2013, 5:30:14 PM4/10/13
to
On Apr 10, 1:56 pm, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You ARE selling refurbished computers
>
> Nope. So, thats your proof?
>
...when you aren't playing "physicist" posting garbage on this forum,
> > You ARE selling refurbished computers
>
> Nope. So, thats your proof?
>
don't forget that.
> Just like your proof that the ends of a horizontal
> falling rod always fall to the ground simultaneously in all frames?
>
you are too big of an imbecile to understand that (and you have
provided ample proof to that).
> All your "proofs" are handwaving. Then again, what else can we expect from a sub par McDonalds employee.
the handwaving.
Absolutely Vertical
Apr 10, 2013, 5:39:03 PM4/10/13
to
On 4/10/2013 4:30 PM, Dono. wrote:
> On Apr 10, 1:56 pm, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Just like your proof that the ends of a horizontal
>> falling rod always fall to the ground simultaneously in all frames?
>>
>
> An experiment cannot have different outcomes in different frame. But
> you are too big of an imbecile to understand that (and you have
> provided ample proof to that).
>
oh my, dono, please reconsider that statement. in the classic barn pole
> On Apr 10, 1:56 pm, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Just like your proof that the ends of a horizontal
>> falling rod always fall to the ground simultaneously in all frames?
>>
>
> An experiment cannot have different outcomes in different frame. But
> you are too big of an imbecile to understand that (and you have
> provided ample proof to that).
>
gedanken, do the doors close at the same time in all frames? do you
consider those different outcomes? i'd hate to think that you're so
overconfident in yourself that you'd not back down when you've said
something obviously wrong.
Absolutely Vertical
Apr 10, 2013, 5:42:00 PM4/10/13
to
spacelike-separated events that are simultaneous in one inertial frame
are _never_ simultaneous in any other inertial frame moving relative to
the first?
Dono.
Apr 10, 2013, 5:52:41 PM4/10/13
to
On Apr 10, 2:39 pm, Absolutely Vertical <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com>
wrote:
the damage sustained by a falling body.
wrote:
> On 4/10/2013 4:30 PM, Dono. wrote:
>
> > On Apr 10, 1:56 pm, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Just like your proof that the ends of a horizontal
> >> falling rod always fall to the ground simultaneously in all frames?
>
> > An experiment cannot have different outcomes in different frame. But
> > you are too big of an imbecile to understand that (and you have
> > provided ample proof to that).
>
> oh my, dono, please reconsider that statement. in the classic barn pole
> gedanken, do the doors close at the same time in all frames?
This is not what the gedank in discussion is all about. It is about
>
> > On Apr 10, 1:56 pm, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Just like your proof that the ends of a horizontal
> >> falling rod always fall to the ground simultaneously in all frames?
>
> > An experiment cannot have different outcomes in different frame. But
> > you are too big of an imbecile to understand that (and you have
> > provided ample proof to that).
>
> oh my, dono, please reconsider that statement. in the classic barn pole
> gedanken, do the doors close at the same time in all frames?
the damage sustained by a falling body.
Dono.
Apr 10, 2013, 5:54:40 PM4/10/13
to
On Apr 10, 2:42 pm, Absolutely Vertical <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Of course. You are jumping in without knowing what the discussion was
all about. Crotchm has this odious character, when he's about to lose
one argument, he brings back in past arguments (that he's lost just
the same).
wrote:
all about. Crotchm has this odious character, when he's about to lose
one argument, he brings back in past arguments (that he's lost just
the same).
rotchm
Apr 10, 2013, 5:58:44 PM4/10/13
to
> > Just like your proof that the ends of a horizontal
> > falling rod always fall to the ground simultaneously in all frames?
>
> An experiment cannot have different outcomes in different frame. But
> you are too big of an imbecile to understand that (and you have
> provided ample proof to that).
LOL LOL LOL, ROFL, LOL !
> > falling rod always fall to the ground simultaneously in all frames?
>
> An experiment cannot have different outcomes in different frame. But
> you are too big of an imbecile to understand that (and you have
> provided ample proof to that).
You are still standing ground on that!? Good for you!
Dono.
Apr 10, 2013, 5:59:18 PM4/10/13
to
On Apr 10, 12:01 pm, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > He's selling refurbished computers
>
> We will believe it when you prove it.
http://groups.google.com/group/mtl.forsale-vendre/browse_frm/thread/4759e4814770dd32/e6c1512a56f0935d?hl=en&q=#e6c1512a56f0935d
>
> We will believe it when you prove it.
...and many more like this. As you say it "Google kept the record".
Absolutely Vertical
Apr 10, 2013, 6:00:08 PM4/10/13
to
On 4/10/2013 4:54 PM, Dono. wrote:
>> just to make a bold statement here, do you agree with the following?
>> spacelike-separated events that are simultaneous in one inertial frame
>> are _never_ simultaneous in any other inertial frame moving relative to
>> the first?
>
> Of course. You are jumping in without knowing what the discussion was
> all about. Crotchm has this odious character, when he's about to lose
> one argument, he brings back in past arguments (that he's lost just
> the same).
>
good, then i'm glad that you can apply that statement as a firm truth
>> just to make a bold statement here, do you agree with the following?
>> spacelike-separated events that are simultaneous in one inertial frame
>> are _never_ simultaneous in any other inertial frame moving relative to
>> the first?
>
> Of course. You are jumping in without knowing what the discussion was
> all about. Crotchm has this odious character, when he's about to lose
> one argument, he brings back in past arguments (that he's lost just
> the same).
>
about the events of a falling rod hitting the ground. i presume then
that any analysis of damage done to the rod will take into account this
firm truth.
rotchm
Apr 10, 2013, 6:00:45 PM4/10/13
to
>> falling rod always fall to the ground simultaneously in all frames?
>
> > An experiment cannot have different outcomes in different frame. But
> > you are too big of an imbecile to understand that (and you have
> > provided ample proof to that).
>
> oh my, dono, please reconsider that statement. in the classic barn pole
> gedanken, do the doors close at the same time in all frames? do you
> consider those different outcomes? i'd hate to think that you're so
> overconfident in yourself that you'd not back down when you've said
> something obviously wrong.
In a long thread, he has fought to death his above statement. He is
>
> > An experiment cannot have different outcomes in different frame. But
> > you are too big of an imbecile to understand that (and you have
> > provided ample proof to that).
>
> oh my, dono, please reconsider that statement. in the classic barn pole
> gedanken, do the doors close at the same time in all frames? do you
> consider those different outcomes? i'd hate to think that you're so
> overconfident in yourself that you'd not back down when you've said
> something obviously wrong.
still fighting it from beyond the grave... <sigh>.
Dono.
Apr 10, 2013, 6:02:41 PM4/10/13
to
do, please keep posting, keep your imbecilities flowing, it is very
entertaining to burn a pretender like you.
rotchm
Apr 10, 2013, 6:19:46 PM4/10/13
to
> Of course. You are jumping in without knowing what the discussion was
> all about.
> Crotchm has this odious character, when he's about to lose
> one argument,
rotchm
Apr 10, 2013, 6:21:54 PM4/10/13
to
> good, then i'm glad that you can apply that statement as a firm truth
> about the events of a falling rod hitting the ground. i presume then
> that any analysis of damage done to the rod will take into account this
> firm truth.
Lets ask him again:
> about the events of a falling rod hitting the ground. i presume then
> that any analysis of damage done to the rod will take into account this
> firm truth.
If the ends of a horizontal falling rod hits the ground
simultaneously in one i-frame, do the ends hit the ground
simultaneously in another i-frames?
Dono.
Apr 10, 2013, 6:26:07 PM4/10/13
to
rotchm
Apr 11, 2013, 12:59:56 AM4/11/13
to
> > Of course. You are jumping in without knowing what the discussion was
> > all about. Crotchm has this odious character, when he's about to lose
> > one argument, he brings back in past arguments (that he's lost just
> > the same).
>
> good, then i'm glad that you can apply that statement as a firm truth
> about the events of a falling rod hitting the ground. i presume then
> that any analysis of damage done to the rod will take into account this
> firm truth.
Well dono? Care to make another bold statement concerning the
> > all about. Crotchm has this odious character, when he's about to lose
> > one argument, he brings back in past arguments (that he's lost just
> > the same).
>
> good, then i'm glad that you can apply that statement as a firm truth
> about the events of a falling rod hitting the ground. i presume then
> that any analysis of damage done to the rod will take into account this
> firm truth.
following? If the ends of horizontal falling rod hits the ground
simul in your frame, do the ends hit the ground simul in other frames?
Dono.
Apr 11, 2013, 2:11:01 AM4/11/13
to
it all started: https://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/e0eb924ac6bcd2da?hl=en&dmode
rotchm
Apr 11, 2013, 2:22:33 AM4/11/13
to
> Try sticking with the subject of the thread,
Well dono? Care to make another bold statement concerning the
following? If the ends of horizontal falling rod hits the ground
simul in your frame, do the ends hit the ground simul in other frames?
this?
Henry Wilson DSc.
Apr 11, 2013, 5:54:43 AM4/11/13
to
On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 23:22:33 -0700 (PDT), rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Try sticking with the subject of the thread,
>
>Well dono? Care to make another bold statement concerning the
>following? �If the ends of horizontal falling rod hits the ground
>simul in your frame, do the ends hit the ground simul in other frames?
Of course they bloody do, moron.
>
>> Try sticking with the subject of the thread,
>
>Well dono? Care to make another bold statement concerning the
>following? �If the ends of horizontal falling rod hits the ground
>simul in your frame, do the ends hit the ground simul in other frames?
You seem to have some stramge idea that simultaneity is based on what humans
see.
>
>You can answer here or do you prefer that I start a new thread on
>this?
Henry Wilson DSc.
Apr 11, 2013, 5:56:57 AM4/11/13
to
feat really...
Henry Wilson DSc.
Dono.
Apr 11, 2013, 9:35:39 AM4/11/13
to
that thread, stop trying to divert attention from the imbecilities
that you have been posted in this thread.
rotchm
Apr 11, 2013, 11:14:49 AM4/11/13
to
Well, I was requested by dono, aka idiot ken, to revive the old
discussion about his horizontal falling rod. (No, the title is not a
typo...or maybe it is...I just dono...)
Here is the question:
> > Well dono? Care to make another bold statement concerning the
> > following? If the ends of horizontal falling rod hits the ground
> > simul in your frame, do the ends hit the ground simul in other frames?
Here is his modern response:
> There was ALREADY a thread on this subject, bucket of shit.
Here is another recent response (from Uralf? I just dono.)
>Of course they bloody do, moron.
Strangely though, idiot ken/dono does agree that two simul
(spacelike) events are not simul in other frames. (of course we are
talking about i-frames in relative motion etc...). Go figure....
discussion about his horizontal falling rod. (No, the title is not a
typo...or maybe it is...I just dono...)
Here is the question:
> > Well dono? Care to make another bold statement concerning the
> > following? If the ends of horizontal falling rod hits the ground
> > simul in your frame, do the ends hit the ground simul in other frames?
> There was ALREADY a thread on this subject, bucket of shit.
>Of course they bloody do, moron.
(spacelike) events are not simul in other frames. (of course we are
talking about i-frames in relative motion etc...). Go figure....
Dono.
Apr 11, 2013, 11:35:00 AM4/11/13
to
On Apr 11, 8:14 am, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, I was requested by dono, aka idiot ken, to revive the old
> discussion about his horizontal falling rod. (No, the title is not a
> typo...or maybe it is...I just dono...)
>
> Here is the question:
>
> > > Well dono? Care to make another bold statement concerning the
> > > following? If the ends of horizontal falling rod hits the ground
> > > simul in your frame, do the ends hit the ground simul in other frames?
>
> Here is his modern response:
>
> > There was ALREADY a thread on this subject, bucket of shit.
>
> Here is another recent response (from Uralf? I just dono.)
Like I told you, despicable piece of shit, you already have THREE
> Well, I was requested by dono, aka idiot ken, to revive the old
> discussion about his horizontal falling rod. (No, the title is not a
> typo...or maybe it is...I just dono...)
>
> Here is the question:
>
> > > Well dono? Care to make another bold statement concerning the
> > > following? If the ends of horizontal falling rod hits the ground
> > > simul in your frame, do the ends hit the ground simul in other frames?
>
> Here is his modern response:
>
> > There was ALREADY a thread on this subject, bucket of shit.
>
> Here is another recent response (from Uralf? I just dono.)
threads where you spout your idiocies on "time interval", please do
not stop posting your imbecilities, it is so much fun slapping you
around.
Paul Cardinale
Apr 17, 2013, 10:23:06 PM4/17/13
to
On Apr 9, 4:11 am, Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 20:51:10 -0700 (PDT), Paul Cardinale
>
> <pcardin...@volcanomail.com> wrote:
> >My response wasn't for you, you despicable bucket if shit.
>
> I not sorry that you are not my friend.
>
> Henry Wilson DSc.
Being a willfully ignorant butthead disqualifies you.
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 20:51:10 -0700 (PDT), Paul Cardinale
>
> <pcardin...@volcanomail.com> wrote:
> >My response wasn't for you, you despicable bucket if shit.
>
> I not sorry that you are not my friend.
>
> Henry Wilson DSc.
Being a willfully ignorant butthead disqualifies you.
0 new messages