Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #429197

Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow?

From	"HGW..." <hgw@....>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow?
Date	2017-08-18 08:59 +1000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<on574j$1fv1$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(18 earlier) <ef115a5c-e0ac-4ce4-ae7b-9825cf531ebd@googlegroups.com> <on142g$1crb$1@gioia.aioe.org> <47138cc3-ee67-4de2-ad7a-c0dbc2f9137b@googlegroups.com> <on2hp5$1k69$1@gioia.aioe.org> <7c165f97-25b6-490c-8365-3481bc377204@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 17/08/17 10:13, rotchm wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 6:42:51 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
>> On 17/08/17 00:31, rotchm wrote:
> 
>>> They do what they do.
>> 
>> A long time ago, a few smart people realized that there was a thing called time which kept on 'passing'. They
>> decided to try to measure it
> 
> And soon after, they found out that they cant measure what they have yet to define. How can they measure 'time' if no
> one agrees on its meaning!? So they have been knowingly using the vague idea of 'time' until they can figure out &
> agree on a concise definition.
> 
>> somehow and found that the Earth's rotation seemed like a good place to start.
> 
> Yes. And they quickly dropped that since it wasn't convenient, for many reasons!

I wouldn't call ten thousand years 'quickly' compared with twenty.

>> At no time did anyone imagine that measuring its flow would constitute a definition.
> 
> Wrong. many philosophers BC have been pondering that. Newton even wrote about it.
> 
>> Similarly with space. Space cannot be DEFINED
> 
> It can be defined to the whim of the definer. This is one of the many standards bureaus. Note that distance & time
> have operational definitions.

Specifying a length standard does not DEFINE length or space itself.

>> 
>> Einstein defined time as 'that which a clock measures' and subsequently became famous for concocting the most
>> ridiculous
> 
> Actually Poincare defined 'time' that way, prior to 1905. Recall that he was appointed head engineer of Europe to
> define time and to synch clocks, hence Poincare's many treaties on 'time' 'science' & 'conventions'.

Well, since Einstein blatantly plagiarized Poincare's entire theory, the does not surprise me at all.

>>>> It is just a  basic dimension, like space.
>>> 
>>> Color too is a dimension.

This is possible.

 > Temperature too...

No, temperature can be defined in terms of the four dimensions we know.

>>> Whatever parameter we can play with, we can model it via symbols & math. The *values* of clocks we can play with,
>>> so its a dimension. We define 'time' via these clocks, so we can play with 'time'. Thus time is a dimension, 
>>> symbolized as "t".

No Rotty, we recognize the dimension we call time and we have devised ways to measure it based on the concept that the
period of an oscillator DEFINE an absolute time interval.. We use the symbol 't' for obvious reasons.

>> Wrong approach altogether.
> 
> Maybe YOU dont like it, but that approach WORKS and is very convenient.
> 
>> You wouldn't define lightning by a photograph of a flash.
> 
> Well, you could define it that way, but that would not be convenient. There are more convenient definitions.

I can define TIME as just being an infinite axis, the coordinates of which represent the ordering of events.... No
mention of clocks.....

>>> One cycle is one cycle.
>> 
>> Yes...and it occupies and defines an absolute interval of time.
> 
> Call it that if you want. But saying it that way is unnecessary salad & ambiguous. Much more concise to say,  "One
> cycle is one cycle", or "the counter/clock displays 0 then 1".

I can't see how that would achieve anything. Such a clock might just as well display yellow then red.



--

Thread

csiph-web