Re: The real twin paradox.


"bz" <bz+spr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns99EFC6EC6C39FWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:75645b9d-5e0d-4d6d-8793-6a916df243dd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:


"normal" clocks are usually inertial mechanisms. Are you disputing
this statement with your suggestion that a light-clock should behave
the same way as an inertial clock ?

I am not talking about light clocks at all.
I still don't know about them. KS keeps telling me that the first photons
miss the mirrors.

Yes.....due to the absolute motion of the mirror wrt the light ray.

KS, HW and Sue keep telling me that "normal clocks" don't lose ticks, no
matter how far and fast they go.

Wong I didn't say that at all. I said that a clock second for a moving clock
contains a larger amount of absolute time. This corresponds to the SR
assertion that the rate on the moving clock is running slow compared to the
observer's clock.

I don't know who to believe, KS, HW and Sue or the evidence.

Believe the evidence.....that a moving clock second contains a larger amount
of absolute time.


I would love to see data that falsifies GR, but I don't expect to see it
soon or here.
But that is not my goal at the moment.
My goal is to find a "normal clock" that will be unaffected by traveling
at
relativistic velocities wrt a stay-at-home test clock.
Tell me where I can find one, pleeeese.

There is no such clock exist. The rate of a clock is affected by
relativistic velocities.


And the neutronium clocks are too heavy to carry around.

Show me the data. Did it run slow, as predicted by SR and GR or did it
maintain a constant rate as per Sue, KS, HW???
It was supposed to launch in 2006. This is almost 2008. The web page was
last updated in 2004.
Show me the data.

I didn't say that at all. I said that a moving clock running slow because
its clock second contains a larger amount of absolute time. This corresponds
to the SR/GR prediction that a moving clock runs slow.


Ken Seto


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Time Machine
    ... |> I think that, when talking about time dilation, most people have ... |> a moving clock in mind. ... |> two ticks on the travelling clock is longer that the time between ... Let the two ticks by the hourly measuring moving clock be at 12:00pm and ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Experiment to Test Mutual Time Dilation
    ... > "Similarly, in SR a moving clock LOOKS like it ticks slower, but the ... > clock itself did not slow down; in SR a moving ruler LOOKS like it is ... Nope its perfectly obvious what Tom Roberts was talking about. ... because Ken Seto doesn't have a clue. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Einsteins disservice to physics
    ... His time dilation theory claims that a moving clock will run *slow* in ... That does not alter the fact that as a clock the atoms ... he stated the moving clock "was slow by ... Doppler rate is the result of the following: ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: My clock refuses to obey SRs time dilation!
    ... or to an observer ... >> on the train, the light follows the vertical return path. ... >> but the moving clock has produced a LONGER PATH. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: My clock refuses to obey SRs time dilation!
    ... or to an observer ... >> on the train, the light follows the vertical return path. ... >> but the moving clock has produced a LONGER PATH. ...
    (sci.physics)