Path: csiph.com!feeder.erje.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!news-1.dfn.de!news.dfn.de!news.informatik.hu-berlin.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Sylvia Else Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 19:44:18 +1100 Lines: 43 Message-ID: References: <44e5f9c0-7b7b-4e12-a512-de02840ab37f@googlegroups.com> <22e1e2cd-83f3-4feb-81b7-93f99d63c621@googlegroups.com> <10184a60-9a5b-4aaa-b156-75488b0b7337@googlegroups.com> <9ca04f2d-ac44-4f91-961a-65c14c173d02@googlegroups.com> <4872bed7-a995-4236-a54e-004fa987a133@googlegroups.com> <7b02b7dc-6312-4997-be72-323dc2efd7b4@googlegroups.com> <8ab266e9-d992-4fd1-b9d5-31432aed92d5@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net e3Re26awyPxM3G4EPMIS0QPOLfsUDLPcQdVERcYbX160K3EZre Cancel-Lock: sha1:YqQEa7YCODqlRs+Qv9Jh8uniCYo= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 In-Reply-To: Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:378548 On 11/03/2016 7:36 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu piątek, 11 marca 2016 09:25:03 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 11/03/2016 6:22 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu piątek, 11 marca 2016 01:54:18 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>> >>>>> As You're for sure incapable of engaging in any kind of >>>>> rational discussion (obvious with a fanatic lacking >>>>> ANY arguments) - well, probably to the dead end. >>>>> >>>>> It doesn't matter, however, because first we would >>>>> have to agree about basics stated above. >>>> >>>> Physics is about describing measurements. >>> >>> So why does it try to sell me completely useless clocks >>> as "proper" and "standard"? >>> >> >> People have attempted to ensure that we're talking about devices that >> exactly measure the passage of time > > What is this "time"? > For Your guru time is what clocks indicate. > And it's the only wise thing he ever wrote about time. > You're unable to understand it, but it's still true. > Clock is not time dependent. Oppositely - time is > clock dependent. > >> The expression "proper time" is the accepted way of describing the > > Accepted by You, not accepted by me. > It's just a shorthand. I can't see why anyone would object, unless they're just being deliberately obstructive. If we were to place a perfectly accurate clock at a place and with some velocity, then short of someone hitting it with a large hammer (rendering it no longer perfectly accurate, and more than likely no longer even a clock) it would register the passage of time. Surely you don't disagree with that. Sylvia.