|
That is your standard response. Nobody comprehends but you. This comment of yours just shows you are a nitwit wrt relativity.
"My comment was that it does not measure time! What it measures is proper time along its own space-time path."
What do you think proper time is? Apparently you think time is some metaphysical entity unto its own self and subsequently can't be what physicists (or anybody else) measure for timelapse as they move from one event to another.
Also this conversation with Patrick Reany at sci.physics.relativity
You:
> To All,
>
> First of all, the critical issue is that Clocks do not measure time.
> Time is actually defined from the anthropomorphic perspective that
> "two things which exist at the same *time* can interact"! What
> science has discovered is that it is impossible to construct any
> mechanical device which will yield that information from a general
> perspective. That's a fact and not a conjecture.
PR:
Unclear. In SR time (in the form of intervals) is whatever a working
clock measures, or rather defines. This is the great virtue of SR.
You:
> If one is going to use clocks to provide such a service (determining
> if two things can interact) then the readings on the clocks must be
> adjusted by a complex algorithm. The worst part of the problem is
> that the adjustment required is a function of the actual history of
> the clock; this makes life complex for the physicist. These required
> adjustments are being referred to whenever you hear about a moving
> clock running slow or a clock in a gravity well running slow or any
> problems with what is often called the twin paradox (remember, the
> human body itself has the properties of a clock).
PR:
Maybe.
You:
> No one will admit it as Einstein has achieved the status of a mental
> god, but in fact, Einstein made a simple error which one would not
> expect of a high school student. Under ordinary circumstances, when
> ever one attempts to design a coordinate system with which to display
> the results of an experiment, one uses the measured quantities from
> the experiment as the coordinates of the display.
>
> Essentially, Einstein made time one of his coordinates even after it
> was explicitly clear that clocks did not measure time. It is a fact
> that clocks do measure what physicists call "proper time"
> (Einstein's time-like invariant interval). This they measure very
> accurately, even when following complex accelerating paths. The
> Greek letter tau is commonly used for this variable. Tau certainly
> does not map into the concept *time* as two different paths between
> successive interactions can have totally different lengths in tau yet,
> if the interactions occur, the time differences must be the exactly
> the same (by definition)!
PR:
Clock time is ALL that modern physics cares about. This is not a mistake
on Einstein's part. It was a free choice he made to get away from
metaphysical time. Most physicists today accept this paradigm shift
toward Einstein's view and a way from the older mechanical view
with its undetectable absolute time concept.
It is still perfectly fine to adopt some notion of absolute, unmeasurable
time in one's program of research, but probably few physicists
will adopt this program. But you're free to pursue it.
Patrick
You are just another antirelativity crank who can't give up the notion of absolute time while not realizing that proper time is an absolute (invariant).
|
