🚀 go-pugleaf

$$       TiME is run OUT for GR Tivity (..but don't hurt them).
Tom Roberts wrote: > > avergon@verizon.net wrote: -=-SNiP-=-
> Not really. To claim that you need to define what "time" is, and you
> have not done so, you have just _assumed_ that a "common sense"
> definition will suffice. In fact, "common sense" is _not_ sufficient,
> because one must have a definition that is _observable_. The only
> observable definition of "time" that anyone has come up with is: Time is
> what clocks measure. This, of course, requires an operational definition
> of "clock".

$$           ABSOLUTE simultaneity, is OBSERVABLE time.
$$ REAL time (ABSOLUTE simultaneity) is OBSERVABLE ..not MEASURABLE.

> > This led physicists, great and small to recount that if one were to
> > observe a space ship at high velocities, one would observe the on board
> > clock to run at dilation time -
> > t' = t sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) .
> > This we know is not so.
> 
> Wrong. Actually we do indeed know that real clocks moving with speed v
> relative to a locally-inertial frame are _measured_ in that frame to run
> with that rate (to within experimental resolutions).
> 
> > Astronomers observe moving emitters every night
> > -- and what they see is Doppler time.
> 
> This is plain and simply not true. What is _observed_ is Doppler shift.
> No astronomer has ever observed "time" (presumably meaning time
> _at_the_source_) -- astronomy simply does not work that way.

$$               REAL time is ABSOLUTE simultaneity.
 
> > Any known constant emitter is a clock. The variation of its frequency
> > is the variation of observed time. In recession, the time is slower
> > than norm - in approach the time is faster than norm. Following this
> > precept, the Twin Paradox never appears.
> 
> You are confused. The Doppler shifts do not affect the way an _observer_
> moving with the emitter perceives "time" or the frequency of the source.
> 
> Note, please, that the "twin paradox" is not any sort of inconsistency
> or contradiction. It is a "paradox" in that it is a result that a naive
> person does not expect.
> 
>  > [... further nonsense omitted]
> 
> Relastic wrote:
> > What I wonder is if time in relativity slows down because
> > the physical processes slow down or is it really time
> > slowing down.
> 
> As I said above, before you can determine this you must define "time".

$$                      An iMPULSE is "time".
 
> > When you put a human in a cryogenic
> > freezer. As his cells slow down. Is time slowing down.
> > No. Only the physical process is slowing down. Likewise,
> > in Relativity, is time really slowing down or only the physical
> > process.
> 
> In SR, "time dilation" does _not_ mean "time slows down". Nor does it
> mean "the physical process slows down". What it means is that one
> observer _observes_ a moving clock to be ticking slower than her own
> clocks. In particular, an observer comoving with that clock will observe
> it ticking at its usual rate.

$$                       No iMPULSE ..No TiC.

> Here's a direct analogy:

$$                       TiME is an iMPULSE.

> -=- a 1-meter rod will pass through a doorway

$$            A METER is a POiNT-mass *ONLY* in GR Tivity.
                        

> 1/2-meters wide in some orientations, but not in others. What matters is
> the _projection_ of the rod's length onto the width of the doorway. In
> terms of measurements, a ruler along the doorway's width measures the
> projection of the rod onto the ruler. In SR, a given observer measures
> the tick rate of a moving clock by a _projection_ of the interval
> between ticks of the clock onto her own clocks. This is the same type of
> geometric projection as the doorway makes of the rod. But the rod and
> doorway deal with the x-y plane (keeping the rod horizontal), and this
> is familiar Euclidean geometry. The clocks deal with the x-t plane (for
> which a rotation is a relative velocity), and this is unfamiliar
> hyperbolic geometry. But the principle is the same.
> 
> Rotating the rod does not "change" its length. Observing a clock from
> another frame does not "change" its tick rate. But physical and
> geometrical relationships that depend on the relative orientations of
> objects will be different if the rod is rotated or if the clock is moving.

$$                 The POiNT-length of GR TEST-mass.
$$        How LONG is a GR POiNT-mass "going at ..or, near" c.?!!
$$        What is the LENGTH of a POiNT-mass, OBSERVED near c.?!!
$$               Brian A M Stuckless, Ph.T (Tivity).
 
> Tom [ He Between his ERROR-bars ] Roberts     tjroberts@lucent.com
> Tom [ He too EMBARASSED to sign REAL doctor] Roberts ..@lucent.com
Re: Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality)
Re: REAL time (ABSOLUTE simultaneity) is OBSERVABLE ..not MEASURABLE.
$$ Absolute simultaneity is EASY to OBSERVE, iMPOSSiBLE to MEASURE.
Re:   A TiC *CANNOT* be "MEASURED" ..a TiC can *ONLY* be "COUNTED".
$$ [ATOMiC tickers SiMPLY provide more TiC per SECOND, to "COUNT"].
Re:                    No iMPULSE ..No TiC.