On 11/6/23 4:36 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 11/6/23 4:52 PM, Mike Fontenot wrote:
>> The correct statement is that every INERTIAL OBSERVER (i.e., every
>> person who is stationary in an inertial frame) will conclude (by
>> actual measurement, with help by other people stationary in his frame)
>> that any clock moving with respect to him will run slower
>> than his own clocks, by the factor gamma.
>
> [...] (Tom replies):
> Yes, their MEASUREMENTS will be slower
> than their own clocks, but that has NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER on the moving
> clocks [...]

And I, (Mike Fontenot), reply:

That's true. I've never claimed otherwise.

It is also important to understand that the people who are stationary in
that inertial frame synchronized their clocks (that are stationary in
that frame) using ONLY the fact that light travels at 186,000 miles per
second in their frame (plus the fact that their clocks are separated by
identical yardsticks).

So if they for some reason later decide that their clocks are NOT
synchronized, they must ALSO conclude that light is NOT traveling at
186,000 miles per second in their frame. But THAT is THE fundamental
assumption in Special Relativity.

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
news:U4ycnQSP7YIcw9X4nZ2dnZfqlJ9j4p2d@giganews.com...

On 11/5/23 10:20 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 10:04:03 AM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 11/5/23 7:56 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> how come every SR observer predicts all clocks moving wrt to him are
>>> running slow by a factor of 1/gama????
>> NOBODY who understands SR predicts that, because SR predicts that every
>> clock always runs at its usual rate.
>> I don't accept these double talking because you assumed that a clock
>> second is an absolute interval of time......it is not.

>Doesn't matter. Every Cs-133 atomic clock ticks at 9,192,631,770 Hz,
>because that is the definition of the second. This is completely
>independent of whatever you mean by "absolute interval of time" (a
>phrase you have NEVER defined sufficiently precisely).

>> Also every clock always runs at its usual rate has no meaning.

>>Sure it does. It negates your claim that "moving clocks run slow". For
>>Cs-133 atomic clocks, their usual rate is 9,192,631,770 Hz; other types
>>of clocks have different usual rates.

>> It is better to say that every relative clock accumulate clock seconds at
>> different rates.

>BUT THEY DON'T. Every Cs-133 clock accumulates ticks at 9,192,631,770
>Hz, independent of how it might be moving or where it might be located.

Sure, that's the SR *interpretation* of the Lorentz transform, its not the
only valid one.

There is no way to prove that that interpretation is actually correct. Its
only an *assumption* that the clocks tick independent of inertial frame,
based on the POR

Another equally valid interpretation is that clocks do what they are
actually measured to do, and run at different rates. This leads to, as one
alternative, the Lorentz Ether Theory

However, the particular ether of Lorentz is not a requirement, only a
background field is required. We know the vacuum isn't empty... Einstein
didn't....so there you go....

I do agree, that the vast majority don't understand that according to SR,
clocks don't change their tick rate.

For example, the well known pop media "Physicist" Neil deGrasse Tyson Ph.D

1:30 "...The slower time ticks for you..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BCkSYQ0NRQ -- Neil deGrasse Tyson Explains
Time Dilation

>You keep confusing what a clock does with how it is observed/measured
>from SOME OTHER INERTIAL FRAME. They are NOT the same.

>I give up; don't expect me to continue until you learn how to read, and
>learn basic physics.

Professional physicist's usually phrase matters such as this as "according
to SR, clocks run at the same rate independent of inertial frame"

They don't claim absolutes, when it is known that they are alternatives.

For example in quantum mechanics one might point out several alternatives
interpretations of the Schrodinger Equation, such as the MWI or Bohmian
Mechanics.

Not many actually go "the multiverse of QM is the way it is"

SR is only a mathematical model of observations. By construction, it don't
say why/how the model actually works.

Its "space-time" is physically real, but isn't due to a physical substance,
is obviously self contradictory and hence wrong.

Its incredible that such a notion is still entertained.

Lee Smolin:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review

"...And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously
for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of
special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made
time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there
waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a
logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."

https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/misc/Geometry&Relativity.html

-- https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html - General Relativity
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/ SuperSpice Simulation
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html - Electronics

On 11/23/23 2:23 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> Sure, that's the SR *interpretation* of the Lorentz transform, [...] Its only an *assumption* that the clocks tick independent of inertial
> frame, based on the POR

It's much more than merely an "assumption", it is part and parcel of an
entire MODEL that accurately predicts zillions of experimental results.

> Another equally valid interpretation is that clocks do what they are
> actually measured to do, and run at different rates. This leads to, as
> one alternative, the Lorentz Ether Theory

Which is a theoretical dead end that does not lead to QED, the standard
model, or GR. It also contains distasteful assumptions: an ether that is
an "unmoved mover" that is itself completely unobservable yet controls
the basic behavior of the universe. Moreover, LET cannot explain the
weak or strong interactions, and does not lead to a relativistic version
of QM.

In short, LET is based on MAGIC, while SR is based on symmetry (local
Lorentz invariance).

> [SR's] "space-time" is physically real,

No! No! NO!!! In SR (and GR) spacetime is part of the MODEL, not the
world. You REALLY need to learn what science actually is -- we make
models of the world -- we do not attempt "to explain how the world
works", but only to model its behavior.

Tom Roberts