|
Hi Luis...
You tried to explain it to me and that is brave, for I can be more dense than anyone. I will not
comprehend 'til nothing is included except the exact explanation, and then, it has to be broken down into baby talk too.
I don't know how to say what is in Stafford's equation 1.27 in plain English or any other language, and until I do, I can't comment much.
Can you tell me what's in that equation before I ask Dr. Stafford?
If you are willing to be patient with me, as Dr. Dick is being, we may yet see the same picture the same way. For now, let me reveal my innermost shallowness of analytic methods by taking YOU to task on the post you generously offered above.
In response to Dr. Dick writing,
>>" 'clocks do not measure time...' "
You wrote:
" Of course they do."
Dear Luis, there is no way to translate that phrase into either math or logic. So I can't
be swayed by it.
You wrote:
"But there is no priveleged frame of reference"
Privilege is not something I can translate into math or logic either.
You wrote:
" -- nothing can be separated from time, just as nothing can be separated from space."
You tell me that, but I don't know. Why are time and space separated in the dictionary? What do you mean "nothing can be separated from..."
" It's called spacetime for a reason."
And that reason is ? because we're not sure what it is, but it seems to involve both space and time? I'm for it, not against it; but as a result of my level of understanding, I don't get to control, predict or manage it better than someone with a degree or experience in administrative management, for example.
In response to Dr. Dick writing,
".
>>>" 'I say clocks measure what Einstein calls "proper time".' "
You wrote:
"See? Stafford is looking for the luminiferous ether."
I draw a blank here. You raced on ahead of me and possibly it is because you have learned the
standard answer very well. But I am still at square one on how those two connect, and I suspect that's not all bad. By proper time, I understand him to mean "agreed-upon frame" time.
There's nothing ethereal about that. It's rather legalistic, instead. And that's fine too, but it's not clear whether and what proper time is truly "done-to" by light-speed situations.
The yardstick thing threw me. Please read again and tell me if that's what you meant to say.
You also wrote:
"Actually, this "path length," in temporal terms, is the same as elapsed time. The space (i.e., distance in spatial terms) covered during this proposed trajectory is usually called distance. And, since everything is relative, by comparing these phenomena with other phenomena, we also arrive at calculations of velocity and time dilation."
I respond by saying the prose may go its own way. These things get dicy in the algebra. Stating it, as you have done, gives us an hypothesis. I am glad you are attempting to explain it. The next step is to verify or troubleshoot the hypothesis. If it is accepted dogma, and Dr. Dick proposes an alternative explanation, we cannot refute his explanation by
insisting upon the accepted dogma. We have to
s . . L . . O . . W . . . - . . D . . O . . W . . N
to see these both freshly
and the feeling alone should do us good.
Okay, Luis!
Mike
|
