Re: The absolute aging of the twins


<surrealistic-dream@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1131461816.032801.5440@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> King Coffee wrote:
>> "Androcles" <Me@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:HImbf.5676$EE2.2194@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >
>> > "King Coffee" <king.coffee@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> > news:vYbbf.25373$qk4.3568@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> The following web page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time
>> >> attempts
>> >> to explain proper time. As relativity implies, there is no absolute
>> >> reference frame. You can say frame A is stationary and frame B is
>> >> moving
>> >> to the right... but on the other hand, since motion is relative, you
>> >> can
>> >> say frame B is stationary and frame A is moving to the left. Both
>> >> observers will measure a slowing down of time in the other's
>> >> coordinate
>> >> system (reference frame).
>> >>
>> >> King
>> >
>> > If you are going to have proper time you need a proper reference frame,
>> > otherwise its gobbledegook.
>
> Every clock that "works" measures its own proper time, by definition.
>
The proper time is the same on both clocks. Another way to put it, according
to your frame of reference, his time will be slow, while yours marches on.
But according to his frame of reference, your time will be slow, while hs
marches on! The proper time is the same for both reference frame... but the
observed time a cross reference frames is dilated.
>
>> > Relativity is gobbledegook.
>> > Androcles.
>> >
>> Since there is no absolute (stationary, or none moving reference) frame,
>> you
>> can pick which one you want to be defined as stationary. Then a clock in
>> that stationary frame is the proper time.
>
> Every clock that works measures its own proper time, by definition.
> Proper time is a parameterization of a timelike curve in spacetime.
>
>> The purpose of the web page is to
>> show 10 years in one frame will amount to 10 years in the other frame if
>> both frames means at the same space-time curve point.
>>
>> P.S. Currently, I too believe that relativity is gobbledygook. It all
>> centers around the assuming "all reference frames will measure the same
>> c,
>> the speed of light."
>
> Get it right: all inertial reference frames will measure the same speed
> c in a vacuum
>
>> But I believe that the observations can be explain in
>> classical terms.
>
> What leads you to believe that and what exactly constitutes a
> "classical" explanation?

A classical point of view is modifying the Newtonian/Galilean concepts to
include the fact -- Information travels between reference frames at the
speed of light, not instantaneously. The true position of an object is not
the appeared position, due to the fact, it took additional time to reach the
observer.
>
>> I so believe, the way they measure and define the velocity
>> of a object is a little obscured.
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Question on the LT and the Inverse LT
    ... probe's frame and the Erath's frame (frame ... I said that the passage of a clock second ... This is the case with the GPS clock compared to the ... "proper time", i.e what a clock measures in its OWN frame. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Question on the LT and the Inverse LT
    ... correspond to the passage of less than a clock second in B's frame. ... Ah...but the passage of an interval of proper time in A's frame (A's clock ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Question on the LT and the Inverse LT
    ... Ah...but the passage of an interval of proper time in A's frame (A's ... I said that the passage of a clock second ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Time-Doppler-Effect?
    ... I check the frequency of the transmitter and it has ... A clock measures the proper time in the frame in which it is at rest. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Fastest Time
    ... >> possible to rank objects according to velocity, ... the same reference frame and different reference frames. ... That is A finds B's clock ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading