[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 1, Issue 25

[Doug Marett]

Hi Ilja,

    You say:
"Working clocks would be obliged to show the same result if they start at
the  same moment and measure time at the same place at the same moment,
independent on how they move between the initial and final moment.   In
relativity, clocks do not have this property, their showings depend on the
whole path they travel.  So, they simply do not measure time, in its common
sense meaning."

    But this is very telling - because the earth rotational clock (or any
rotating frame of reference, such as a spinning disk rotating past a light)
can be constructed as a clock such that it obeys exactly your definition of
"a working clock." Conversely, the clocks that read in error, i.e. the
atomic clocks, fail to measure "time" as you say correctly. But this only
verifies my point ! The clocks that read in error are the very ones that
support your theory,  the "not-working clocks." .

You then say:

"If one recognizes that relativity is a theory about clocks, local clocks,
which show clock time, a number which depends on the path of the clock, and
should in no way be confused with usual common sense time, everything is
fine and unproblematic."

But this statement renders "time" to be effectively meaningless, it is "a
number on a clock" ; this is not what Einstein actually meant - the clock
readings have "meaning" in the theory of relativity - because they refer to
the speed of real processes in nature. In his 1907 paper, he said that a
beam of light bends in a gravitational field because the edge of the
wavefront  closer to the gravitational body is traveling slower than the
edge further out. Time has to be quantitatively different across the
wavefront to explain the process. There has to be a past, present and
future, as well as a rate of time in this process, and the clock readings
are supposed to measure these physical things. So we can't render the clock
readings as meaningless - in fact because the theory does attribute
physical meaning in this way, it is inherently testable. You can't just say
"what can't be measured doesn't exist." If relativity is a true scientific
theory, then all of its assumptions have to be testable (Popper) and I say
we have put it to the test in this thought experiment and from what we
already know from the way nature behaves experimentally, we have no other
choice but to conclude that when an atomic clock says it is in the future,
it is actually in the present - this should be a big problem for the theory
of relativity, but it won't be because unfortunately the scientific
establishment deals with contradictions by ignoring them. I don't want to
sound too severe about it but I believe these kinds of contradictions
should be taken seriously. : (

Doug


On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 1:10 AM, Ilja Schmelzer <
ilja.schmelzer at googlemail.com> wrote:

> 2016-10-24 20:02 GMT+02:00, Doug Marett <dm88dm at gmail.com>:
> > This leads back exactly to the problem of how can an object be in the
> present
> > and the future simultaneously (it is not just a contradiction in reason,
> > but a contradiction in language!)
>
> And therefore forget about this language.  If you use normal language,
> use common sense for this purpose, and use tense as if they would
> refer to some time-like coordinate.  And everything is fine, without
> any contradictions.
>
> > The problem is that relativity claims that the solid body rotating clock
> > where time must be synchronized by definition, is actually
> de-synchronized
> > (!), which goes against our reason and observation of the earth clocks.
>
> No, the confusion is caused by naming clock time time, in a situation
> where clocks are obviously unable to measure time.  Working clocks
> would be obliged to show the same result if they start at the same
> place at the same moment and measure time at the same place at the
> same moment, independent on how they move between the initial and
> final moment.   In relativity, clocks do not have this property, their
> showings depend on the whole path they travel.  So, they simply do not
> measure time, in its common sense meaning.
>
> Where does the confusion come from?  The relativistic mainstream
> simply rejects the notion of common sense time, simply because we have
> no clocks to measure it, and what is not measurable does not exist.
> But they use the word "time", now in a new meaning, namely as the
> clock showing, in a situation where the clock showing is unable to
> measure common sense time.
>
> And, given that physicists are also humans, with common sense, they
> appear unable to throw away common sense time completely.  So
> sometimes they use it too.  So, they use two meanings of the word
> "time", common sense time and clock "time".  And this causes
> confusion.
>
> But the cause of this confusion is not relativistic theory itself, but
> how it is used and interpreted.  If one recognizes that relativity is
> a theory about clocks, local clocks, which show clock time, a number
> which depends on the path of the clock, and should in no way be
> confused with usual common sense time, everything is fine and
> unproblematic.
>
> > we will observe
> > that the speed of light is now measured to be faster at the higher
> > altitude, by exactly the difference in the rate of the atomic clock error
> > reading.
>
> Forget about measuring the speed of light before having a good,
> non-contradictory understanding of time as something different from
> relativistic clock time.
>
> Velocity in the common sense meaning is a coordinate velocity.  And
> the coordinate speed of light is not at all constant.  The constant
> speed of light is something measured with rulers and clocks, and has
> nothing to do with common sense velocity.
>
> > The reason why Einstein's theory and Lorentz theory arrive at the same
> > answers for the same tests s because they are mathematically equivalent,
> > they simply differ in their physical presumptions, namely they exchange a
> > variable but hidden speed of light and absolute time, with a constant
> speed
> > of light/variable time.
>
> No, they are physically equivalent too. The moving clocks are slower,
> in Lorentz theory as well as in Einstein theory.
>
> What makes Lorentz theory different that it has, additionally, an
> absolute time, which is common sense time.  Which is not measurable
> with clocks.  In Einstein theory, this absolute time is also one
> possible time-like coordinate, but not more.  And usual "time" simply
> does not exist in Einstein's theory.  There is only a four-dimensional
> spacetime and our trajectories are paths in this spacetime animal.
>
> But there is no physical difference.  For every clock, Lorentz and
> Einstein theories predict the same result.
>
> >    -    Finally, consider H.G. Well's time machine,
>
> No, ignore it.  It is only adding confusion.
>
> The rough picture:  Take Lorentz theory.  It is a theory in full
> agreement with common sense, no problem at all.
>
> To obtain Einstein theory, all you have to do is to remove parts of
> Lorentz theory, using stupid primitive positivism.  What you cannot
> measure does not exist.
>
> But by removing reasonable things from a reasonable theory you cannot
> obtain anything new, nor time travel nor logical contradictions nor
> any other nonsense.  You loose only some standard common sense notions
> like usual common sense time.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20161025/cd5c3241/attachment.html>