Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #363426 > unrolled thread

Are modified clocks synchronized?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Are modified clocks synchronized? John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-07 17:22 -0700
    Re: Are modified clocks synchronized? John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-16 20:18 -0700
      Re: Are modified clocks synchronized? John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-16 20:22 -0700
      Re: Are modified clocks synchronized? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-17 12:01 -0700
        Re: Are modified clocks synchronized? John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-18 20:14 -0700
    Re: Are modified clocks synchronized? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 12:07 -0700
      Re: Are modified clocks synchronized? John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-18 20:07 -0700

#363426 — Are modified clocks synchronized?

We have extrapolated our clocks A and B and realize that they have their own unique x,y,z coordinates with respect to each other. But, then there is measuring an event at C which A and B have to consider with respect to each other.  In this, our biggest problems exist in the temporal aspects of whether information is observed in the past, present, or future.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#364332

On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 7:22:28 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
> We have extrapolated our clocks A and B and realize that they have their own unique x,y,z coordinates with respect to each other. But, then there is measuring an event at C which A and B have to consider with respect to each other.  In this, our biggest problems exist in the temporal aspects of whether information is observed in the past, present, or future.

It is amazing that no one has anything to say about this- or are you busy re-inventing?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#364333

On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 10:18:28 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
> On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 7:22:28 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
> > We have extrapolated our clocks A and B and realize that they have their own unique x,y,z coordinates with respect to each other. But, then there is measuring an event at C which A and B have to consider with respect to each other.  In this, our biggest problems exist in the temporal aspects of whether information is observed in the past, present, or future.
> 
> It is amazing that no one has anything to say about this- or are you busy re-inventing?

It seemed to me that Tom Roberts was willing to acknowledge that modified clocks are synchronized- but he pulled back at that moment sensing that it might be a trap.  C'mon Tom, tell us about your modified clocks.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#364402

John Gogo wrote:
> 
> On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 7:22:28 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
> > We have extrapolated our clocks A and B and realize that they have their own unique x,y,z coordinates with respect to each other. But, then there is measuring an event at C which A and B have to consider with respect to each other.  In this, our biggest problems exist in the temporal aspects of whether information is observed in the past, present, or future.
> 
> It is amazing that no one has anything to say about this- or are you busy re-inventing?


My time
my clock
that measures time
may slow down
second by second
but if
my time
my clock
stops ticking..
then my time stops.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#364544

On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 2:02:03 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> John Gogo wrote:
> > 
> > On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 7:22:28 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
> > > We have extrapolated our clocks A and B and realize that they have their own unique x,y,z coordinates with respect to each other. But, then there is measuring an event at C which A and B have to consider with respect to each other.  In this, our biggest problems exist in the temporal aspects of whether information is observed in the past, present, or future.
> > 
> > It is amazing that no one has anything to say about this- or are you busy re-inventing?
> 
> 
> My time
> my clock
> that measures time
> may slow down
> second by second
> but if
> my time
> my clock
> stops ticking..
> then my time stops.

If your clock stops- it means your dead.  From birth we are in perpetual motion.  The whole problem is to break this perpetual motion code- to come up with a meaningful static measure.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#364404

On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 8:22:28 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote:
> We have extrapolated our clocks A and B and realize that they have their own 
...

Well, clocks dont need to be synchronized. But **time** does (in inertial frames).
IOW, in inertial frames, TIME is *defined* via an operational procedure that uses *clocks* AND a synch procedure. This is what is meant by "to coordinate the inertial reference frame" (time-wise).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#364543

On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 2:07:39 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
> On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 8:22:28 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote:
> > We have extrapolated our clocks A and B and realize that they have their own 
> ...
> 
> Well, clocks dont need to be synchronized. But **time** does (in inertial frames).
> IOW, in inertial frames, TIME is *defined* via an operational procedure that uses *clocks* AND a synch procedure. This is what is meant by "to coordinate the inertial reference frame" (time-wise).

Time not light.  This must be an internal matter.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web