You are not telling the truth, I never put words in your mouth; they are your own words
The equation previously quoted, (interchanging t and t’ when corresponds) means
It follows that you put real clocks in inertial reference frames of special relativity, something physically impossible.
Is you who didn’t follow the discussion, this definition was done by Jay on post#102, and you didn’t correct it, later, on post#113
It's funny that you let pass a wrong definition and try to “correct” the right one. 😀
LOL, and then you go on quoting where I never said anything about inertial frames of reference existing in reality... I just said 2 clocks, one in relative motion and the theoretically observed time dilation. That's it.
Are you trying to troll me?
Thank you again for making my point which I also made in the post you quoted. But this is irrelevant to your straw man.
No. I suggested a strongly simplified and idealized experiment trying to make a connection to reality.
I guess next you correct me that we don't have the means to accelerate a clock to 0.866c. Doh!
What are you even talking about. Jay responded with his "true clock" nonsense to me in #102 and I responded in #107.
And, I guess due to cognitive dissonance, he gave an evasive answer in #113 ignoring the rest of what I wrote. Anyway, he did not change his mind from #102. His "most accurate clock" would still be independent of any speeds or "light".
And from your limited understanding of Jay's position by just looking at #113 you came in with your straw man. Great show.
I rest my case.
Obviously you are not playing dumb.
Last edited:
You are going from bad to worse. May Einstein have mercy on your soul.
Inertial reference frames are necessary fundamentals in special relativity.
Even your phrase is misspelled: “two clocks, one in relative motion” so, the other must be fixed, and then there is a preferred inertial reference frame, in open contradiction with special relativity.
No, your physics has been ceased to be serious, you don’t need help to ruin it.
Wow, trying to justify one straw man with another one... it's getting really pathetic. 😀
Optical Clocks and Relativity
Two clocks. One, for example, sits still in a lab. The other one moves relative to that ... and the result is time dilation, as described by the equation.
That's it.
And now strawman away some more please!
Optical Clocks and Relativity
Two clocks. One, for example, sits still in a lab. The other one moves relative to that ... and the result is time dilation, as described by the equation.
That's it.
And now strawman away some more please!
Last edited:
You are still going from bad to worse. Einstein is rolling in his grave.
Now you confuse special relativity with general relativity.
In the flat space-time of special relativity, time dilation is given by the equation of post#158
In the curved space-time of general relativity, you have combined velocity time dilation and gravitational time dilation, the equation of post#158 doesn’t apply anymore.
In your “magical thinking”, your “real clocks” of post#159 now must have a switch
Position 1: ignoring gravity
Position 2: ignoring velocity
You must apologize with Jay, his “true clock” is way better than yours.
Connection to reality...
Oh boy, never go full ... but you've just done it.
I guess you haven't even looked at the paper I posted, which tests special AND general relativity in separate experiments, and the setup for the former matches my simplified description. In the latter they just changed the elevation of the second clock.
Doh!
I know that there can be significant contributions to time dilation of moving clocks from gravity. Almost everybody has at least heard of the Hafele–Keating experiment.
So to sum up your flailing: another straw man.
...
Holy moly, you're the first person that made it on my ignore list. Congrats!
You're definitely not playing stupid.
Last edited:
You must apologize with Jay, his “true clock” is way better than yours.
Connection to reality...
Yes, and I read a long paper from a physics professor with excellent credentials concluding SRT is all wrong and the designers of the GPS system made a mistake that perfectly compensated by accident. 🙄
You can quote all respectable experiments that you want; none of them equals your proposed nonsense of post#159, because it needs one of these conditions
i) Put a real clock in an inertial reference frame.
ii) Using an xnor fantasy clock switched on position 1: ignoring gravity.
iii) Change the laws of physics.
Hi Scott
Really I don’t know if SRT is wrong or not, so far it was proved to be right, the problem is its implementation, or how it works in a locally curved space-time.
BTW, I like your signature, the world would be a better place if people put it in practice.
Ok, you reached the point at which you need to prove you are not trolling. Please explain in plain English why you think putting "a real clocks in inertial reference frames of special relativity" is physically impossible. Can we put a "real ruler" instead?
To make things easier, inertial reference frames are those that move in uniform rectilinear motion, something possible only in the absence of gravity, and then they don’t exist in our universe, that’s why you cannot put real objects on them.
I guess I'm missing the point of where this has gone is someone saying that the three theory based corrections on GPS are wrong but there is some kind of conspiracy to make it work, or maybe as that scientist said it's a fortuitous accident?
You don't have to make it easy for me. If necessary, I can take some abuse in these matters.
I don't read it this way, it appears to me you are claiming that an inertial reference frame doesn't exist (because of gravity) not that you can't put a clock in.
But please answer the second question, can we put a ruler instead of a clock?
I found the story of this clock fascinating (even though it's off-topic, having been designed in the pre-Quantum Physics world of Newtonian Physics):
Clockmaker John Harrison vindicated 250 years after ?absurd? claims | Science | The Guardian
Clockmaker John Harrison vindicated 250 years after ?absurd? claims | Science | The Guardian
It's clear this thread has run its course, and at least we have a decent idea the reference frame of this mechanical clock... 😀
Your approach is typical of a mathematician or a philosopher, so let me change the question
Can a real clock reach uniform rectilinear motion?
The answer is no, it cannot (because of gravity)
From the point of view of physics, an inertial reference frame does not exist in our universe, and a real clock moving in uniform rectilinear motion does not exist either.
It follows that you cannot put a real clock in an inertial reference frame of special relativity. Making another conclusion is not a matter of physics, but of philosophy.
You changed me the question, so for a real ruler, change the word “clock” by the word “ruler” and the answer is no, you cannot put a real ruler in an inertial reference frame of special relativity.
If you are a mathematician and you think that each coordinate axis is a rule by itself, you can put your ruler where you want. 😛😀
Why doesn't going in circles count? 😛 As a NASA engineer said in the 60's, "I don't get paid for the exact answer, but one that's good enough".
Lol.
With the same criterium, I begin to think that my pay here is not good enough. 😛😀
No it is in "Old Physics for New: a worldview alternative to Einstein's relativity theory", by Thomas Phipps considered a kook by many. Enough of his work is available via google to get his point, the sometimes ridiculous mixing in of politics with physics says nut case to me.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.