WITH THIS PSEUDO-PHILOSOPHY OF LOCAL TIME DEFINED AS WHAT A
CLOCK SHOWS, FOR EINSTEIN'S LOCATION AND IMMEDIATE
SURROUNDINGS, AS IT SPREAD, RELATIVISM INFECTED THE MIND OF
GULLIBLE IMBECILES, LIKE MANY OF YOU.

TODAY, NO PHYSICIST CAN MAKE ANY EXPERIMENT IF IT'S NOT BACKED
UP BY AN ATOMIC CLOCK. JUST BECAUSE THE CRETIN SOLD THESE LINE
OF THOUGHTS, AND MOST BOUGHT THIS SHIT:

MY time, for me, Einstein, is what my clock shows. PERIOD.

EXCERPTS:

"a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unless
we are quite clear as to what we understand by “time.”"
.....
"We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part
are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for instance, I say, “That train
arrives here at 7 o’clock,” I mean something like this: “The pointing of the small
hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events."
.......
"It might appear possible to overcome all the difficulties attending the definition
of “time” by substituting “the position of the small hand of my watch” for
“time.”"
...........
"We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following line of
thought.
If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the
time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the
positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is
at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A,
it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of events in
the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is not possible without further
assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B.."
........

On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 8:39:33 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> WITH THIS PSEUDO-PHILOSOPHY OF LOCAL TIME DEFINED AS WHAT A
> CLOCK SHOWS, FOR EINSTEIN'S LOCATION AND IMMEDIATE
> SURROUNDINGS, AS IT SPREAD, RELATIVISM INFECTED THE MIND OF
> GULLIBLE IMBECILES, LIKE MANY OF YOU.
>
> TODAY, NO PHYSICIST CAN MAKE ANY EXPERIMENT IF IT'S NOT BACKED
> UP BY AN ATOMIC CLOCK. JUST BECAUSE THE CRETIN SOLD THESE LINE
> OF THOUGHTS, AND MOST BOUGHT THIS SHIT:
>
> MY time, for me, Einstein, is what my clock shows. PERIOD.
>
> EXCERPTS:
>
> "a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unless
> we are quite clear as to what we understand by “time.”"
> ....
> "We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part
> are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for instance, I say, “That train
> arrives here at 7 o’clock,” I mean something like this: “The pointing of the small
> hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events."
> ......
> "It might appear possible to overcome all the difficulties attending the definition
> of “time” by substituting “the position of the small hand of my watch” for
> “time.”"
> ..........
> "We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following line of
> thought.
> If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the
> time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the
> positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is
> at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A,
> it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of events in
> the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is not possible without further
> assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B."
> .......

A wall clock's parts move in space.

Le 01/05/2023 à 17:39, Richard Hertz a écrit :
> WITH THIS PSEUDO-PHILOSOPHY OF LOCAL TIME DEFINED AS WHAT A
> CLOCK SHOWS, FOR EINSTEIN'S LOCATION AND IMMEDIATE
> SURROUNDINGS, AS IT SPREAD, RELATIVISM INFECTED THE MIND OF
> GULLIBLE IMBECILES, LIKE MANY OF YOU.
>
> TODAY, NO PHYSICIST CAN MAKE ANY EXPERIMENT IF IT'S NOT BACKED
> UP BY AN ATOMIC CLOCK. JUST BECAUSE THE CRETIN SOLD THESE LINE
> OF THOUGHTS, AND MOST BOUGHT THIS SHIT:
>
> MY time, for me, Einstein, is what my clock shows. PERIOD.
>
> EXCERPTS:
>
> "a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unless
> we are quite clear as to what we understand by “time.”"
> ....
> "We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part
> are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for instance, I say, “That
> train
> arrives here at 7 o’clock,” I mean something like this: “The pointing of
> the small
> hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events."
> ......
> "It might appear possible to overcome all the difficulties attending the
> definition
> of “time” by substituting “the position of the small hand of my watch”
> for
> “time.”"
> ..........
> "We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following line of
> thought.
> If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the
> time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the
> positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is
> at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A,
> it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of events in
> the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is not possible without further
> assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B."
> .......

In fact, it is possible to sunchronize watches, but never absolutely.

The notion of universal present time is a pure mental and physical
abstraction.

If I send an impulse from the center C of AB, I will give correct
synchronization of A and B FOR C.

But this is only valid for C.

Both watches are synchronized in the C system.

Between them, this procedure having been carried out, they each advance on
the other.

By how much advance reciprocally one on the other.

It's so simple that there's no mistaking saying it and explaining it.

Whether?

R.H. <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=-LRvmhmNVwui0hdwRyYp-IKqXDI@jntp>

M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:
....
> In fact, it is possible to sunchronize watches, but never absolutely.
>
> The notion of universal present time is a pure mental and physical
> abstraction.
>
> If I send an impulse from the center C of AB, I will give correct
> synchronization of A and B FOR C.
>
> But this is only valid for C.
>
> Both watches are synchronized in the C system.
>
> Between them, this procedure having been carried out, they each advance
> on the other.

This means that *your* criterium for synchronicity is ill-defined,
moreover as it depends on a position it is inconsistent and useless.

On an other hand the checking procedure for synchronicity
proposed by Poincaré and refined by Einstein is sound.

I know your objection : "the universe is not done that way".
Well, first why ? Because you say so ,
Moreover such an objection has no value : the universe does
not care about what simultaneity or present is. Physics
contain such concepts as an intermediate because our
minds are used to think in term of "present".

At the end of the day any physical measure of any quantity
(including "time") and any theoretical prediction is of
the form "such and such events are the same".

This happens there at time t can be rewordes by "a
clock there, prepared in a given way involving my
clock, shows t (event A) and 'this happens there'
(event B)'"

In that sense synchronicity is conventional.

> By how much advance reciprocally one on the other.
>
> It's so simple that there's no mistaking saying it and explaining it.
>
> Whether?

It took me some time to understand why you would want to finish
your post by "Whether"? It reminds me a joke.

Remember when your were looking for an English teacher,
back in the day, Richard? You knocked at the door and
asked "Is it the place for English lessons?"

The teacher answered : "If! If! Welcome!"

(for the english speaking readers : "si" is French
for "if" and also "si" means "yes")

On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 10:39:33 AM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
> WITH THIS PSEUDO-PHILOSOPHY OF LOCAL TIME DEFINED AS WHAT A
> CLOCK SHOWS, FOR EINSTEIN'S LOCATION AND IMMEDIATE
> SURROUNDINGS, AS IT SPREAD, RELATIVISM INFECTED THE MIND OF
> GULLIBLE IMBECILES, LIKE MANY OF YOU.
>
> TODAY, NO PHYSICIST CAN MAKE ANY EXPERIMENT IF IT'S NOT BACKED
> UP BY AN ATOMIC CLOCK. JUST BECAUSE THE CRETIN SOLD THESE LINE
> OF THOUGHTS, AND MOST BOUGHT THIS SHIT:
>
> MY time, for me, Einstein, is what my clock shows. PERIOD.
>
> EXCERPTS:
>
> "a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unless
> we are quite clear as to what we understand by “time.”"
> ....
> "We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part
> are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for instance, I say, “That train
> arrives here at 7 o’clock,” I mean something like this: “The pointing of the small
> hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events."
> ......
> "It might appear possible to overcome all the difficulties attending the definition
> of “time” by substituting “the position of the small hand of my watch” for
> “time.”"
> ..........
> "We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following line of
> thought.
> If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the
> time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the
> positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is
> at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A,
> it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of events in
> the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is not possible without further
> assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B."
> .......

What about moisture slow down Einstein's clock? Should it be called Moisture Time Dilation?
What about dust causes Einstein's clock dilated? should it be call General Trash Relativity?

Time is not clock reading of whatever clock.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view

On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 11:00:41 AM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
> On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 10:39:33 AM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > WITH THIS PSEUDO-PHILOSOPHY OF LOCAL TIME DEFINED AS WHAT A
> > CLOCK SHOWS, FOR EINSTEIN'S LOCATION AND IMMEDIATE
> > SURROUNDINGS, AS IT SPREAD, RELATIVISM INFECTED THE MIND OF
> > GULLIBLE IMBECILES, LIKE MANY OF YOU.
> >
> > TODAY, NO PHYSICIST CAN MAKE ANY EXPERIMENT IF IT'S NOT BACKED
> > UP BY AN ATOMIC CLOCK. JUST BECAUSE THE CRETIN SOLD THESE LINE
> > OF THOUGHTS, AND MOST BOUGHT THIS SHIT:
> >
> > MY time, for me, Einstein, is what my clock shows. PERIOD.
> >
> > EXCERPTS:
> >
> > "a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unless
> > we are quite clear as to what we understand by “time.”"
> > ....
> > "We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part
> > are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for instance, I say, “That train
> > arrives here at 7 o’clock,” I mean something like this: “The pointing of the small
> > hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events."
> > ......
> > "It might appear possible to overcome all the difficulties attending the definition
> > of “time” by substituting “the position of the small hand of my watch” for
> > “time.”"
> > ..........
> > "We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following line of
> > thought.
> > If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the
> > time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the
> > positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is
> > at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A,
> > it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of events in
> > the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is not possible without further
> > assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B."
> > .......
> What about moisture slow down Einstein's clock? Should it be called Moisture Time Dilation?
> What about dust causes Einstein's clock dilated? should it be call General Trash Relativity?
>
> Time is not clock reading of whatever clock.
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view

Anyways in "Out of My Later Years" Einstein instead talks
about "the time" and says it's not clocks, and expresses
a clock hypothesis "the time".

On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 8:39:33 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> WITH THIS PSEUDO-PHILOSOPHY OF LOCAL TIME DEFINED AS WHAT A
> CLOCK SHOWS,

This is how the model works.

> FOR EINSTEIN'S LOCATION AND IMMEDIATE
> SURROUNDINGS, AS IT SPREAD, RELATIVISM INFECTED THE MIND OF
> GULLIBLE IMBECILES, LIKE MANY OF YOU.

You keep confusing "relativism" (a part of philosophy) with "relativity"
(a physic theory, largely misnamed, BTW, the correct name should be
"Einsteinian mechanics"; things sometimes get named funny for
historical reasons).

> TODAY, NO PHYSICIST CAN MAKE ANY EXPERIMENT IF IT'S NOT BACKED
> UP BY AN ATOMIC CLOCK. JUST BECAUSE THE CRETIN SOLD THESE LINE
> OF THOUGHTS, AND MOST BOUGHT THIS SHIT:

See a doctor. Your constant use of the upper-case and the invective
indicates you are in the grips of a compulsive-obsessive monomania.

--
Jan

On 2023-05-01 17:46:29 +0000, Python said:

> M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:
> ...
>> In fact, it is possible to sunchronize watches, but never absolutely.
>>
>> The notion of universal present time is a pure mental and physical abstraction.
>>
>> If I send an impulse from the center C of AB, I will give correct
>> synchronization of A and B FOR C.
>>
>> But this is only valid for C.
>>
>> Both watches are synchronized in the C system.
>>
>> Between them, this procedure having been carried out, they each advance
>> on the other.
>
> This means that *your* criterium for synchronicity is ill-defined,
> moreover as it depends on a position it is inconsistent and useless.
>
> On an other hand the checking procedure for synchronicity
> proposed by Poincaré and refined by Einstein is sound.
>
> I know your objection : "the universe is not done that way".
> Well, first why ? Because you say so ,
> Moreover such an objection has no value : the universe does
> not care about what simultaneity or present is. Physics
> contain such concepts as an intermediate because our
> minds are used to think in term of "present".
>
> At the end of the day any physical measure of any quantity
> (including "time") and any theoretical prediction is of
> the form "such and such events are the same".
>
> This happens there at time t can be rewordes by "a
> clock there, prepared in a given way involving my
> clock, shows t (event A) and 'this happens there'
> (event B)'"
>
> In that sense synchronicity is conventional.
>
>> By how much advance reciprocally one on the other.
>>
>> It's so simple that there's no mistaking saying it and explaining it.
>>
>> Whether?
>
> It took me some time to understand why you would want to finish
> your post by "Whether"? It reminds me a joke.
>
> Remember when your were looking for an English teacher,
> back in the day, Richard? You knocked at the door and
> asked "Is it the place for English lessons?"
>
> The teacher answered : "If! If! Welcome!"
>
> (for the english speaking readers : "si" is French
> for "if" and also "si" means "yes")

A Spanish-speaking friend of mine who taught at the University of
Tennessee once answered a knock on his door with "Between! No more!"

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 1:42:55 PM UTC-5, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 11:00:41 AM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
> > On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 10:39:33 AM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > WITH THIS PSEUDO-PHILOSOPHY OF LOCAL TIME DEFINED AS WHAT A
> > > CLOCK SHOWS, FOR EINSTEIN'S LOCATION AND IMMEDIATE
> > > SURROUNDINGS, AS IT SPREAD, RELATIVISM INFECTED THE MIND OF
> > > GULLIBLE IMBECILES, LIKE MANY OF YOU.
> > >
> > > TODAY, NO PHYSICIST CAN MAKE ANY EXPERIMENT IF IT'S NOT BACKED
> > > UP BY AN ATOMIC CLOCK. JUST BECAUSE THE CRETIN SOLD THESE LINE
> > > OF THOUGHTS, AND MOST BOUGHT THIS SHIT:
> > >
> > > MY time, for me, Einstein, is what my clock shows. PERIOD.
> > >
> > > EXCERPTS:
> > >
> > > "a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unless
> > > we are quite clear as to what we understand by “time.”"
> > > ....
> > > "We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part
> > > are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for instance, I say, “That train
> > > arrives here at 7 o’clock,” I mean something like this: “The pointing of the small
> > > hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events."
> > > ......
> > > "It might appear possible to overcome all the difficulties attending the definition
> > > of “time” by substituting “the position of the small hand of my watch” for
> > > “time.”"
> > > ..........
> > > "We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following line of
> > > thought.
> > > If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the
> > > time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the
> > > positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is
> > > at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A,
> > > it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of events in
> > > the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is not possible without further
> > > assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B."
> > > .......
> > What about moisture slow down Einstein's clock? Should it be called Moisture Time Dilation?
> > What about dust causes Einstein's clock dilated? should it be call General Trash Relativity?
> >
> > Time is not clock reading of whatever clock.
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view
> Anyways in "Out of My Later Years" Einstein instead talks
> about "the time" and says it's not clocks, and expresses
> a clock hypothesis "the time".

Then, this very clock Einstein mentioned might be slowed down by dust , moisture, atmosphere pressure, temperature, and numerous factor, What a pity Einstein considered only gravitation.

Beside Gravitation General Relativity, there should be moisture General Relativity, atmosphere pressure General Relativity, temperature General Relativity, Dust General Relativity, Trash General Relativity......

Jack

On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 12:37:38 AM UTC+5, Jack Liu wrote:
> On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 1:42:55 PM UTC-5, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 11:00:41 AM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
> > > On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 10:39:33 AM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > WITH THIS PSEUDO-PHILOSOPHY OF LOCAL TIME DEFINED AS WHAT A
> > > > CLOCK SHOWS, FOR EINSTEIN'S LOCATION AND IMMEDIATE
> > > > SURROUNDINGS, AS IT SPREAD, RELATIVISM INFECTED THE MIND OF
> > > > GULLIBLE IMBECILES, LIKE MANY OF YOU.
> > > >
> > > > TODAY, NO PHYSICIST CAN MAKE ANY EXPERIMENT IF IT'S NOT BACKED
> > > > UP BY AN ATOMIC CLOCK. JUST BECAUSE THE CRETIN SOLD THESE LINE
> > > > OF THOUGHTS, AND MOST BOUGHT THIS SHIT:
> > > >
> > > > MY time, for me, Einstein, is what my clock shows. PERIOD.
> > > >
> > > > EXCERPTS:
> > > >
> > > > "a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unless
> > > > we are quite clear as to what we understand by “time.”"
> > > > ....
> > > > "We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part
> > > > are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for instance, I say, “That train
> > > > arrives here at 7 o’clock,” I mean something like this: “The pointing of the small
> > > > hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events."
> > > > ......
> > > > "It might appear possible to overcome all the difficulties attending the definition
> > > > of “time” by substituting “the position of the small hand of my watch” for
> > > > “time.”"
> > > > ..........
> > > > "We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following line of
> > > > thought.
> > > > If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the
> > > > time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the
> > > > positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is
> > > > at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A,
> > > > it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of events in
> > > > the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is not possible without further
> > > > assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B."
> > > > .......
> > > What about moisture slow down Einstein's clock? Should it be called Moisture Time Dilation?
> > > What about dust causes Einstein's clock dilated? should it be call General Trash Relativity?
> > >
> > > Time is not clock reading of whatever clock.
> > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view
> > Anyways in "Out of My Later Years" Einstein instead talks
> > about "the time" and says it's not clocks, and expresses
> > a clock hypothesis "the time".
> Then, this very clock Einstein mentioned might be slowed down by dust , moisture, atmosphere pressure, temperature, and numerous factor, What a pity Einstein considered only gravitation.
>
> Beside Gravitation General Relativity, there should be moisture General Relativity, atmosphere pressure General Relativity, temperature General Relativity, Dust General Relativity, Trash General Relativity......
>
> Jack

These are physical effects. Have you ever thought of the effect of length contraction on a clock, say a pendulum clock? An atomic clock?

On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 8:08:14 PM UTC-5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 12:37:38 AM UTC+5, Jack Liu wrote:
> > On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 1:42:55 PM UTC-5, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 11:00:41 AM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
> > > > On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 10:39:33 AM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > > WITH THIS PSEUDO-PHILOSOPHY OF LOCAL TIME DEFINED AS WHAT A
> > > > > CLOCK SHOWS, FOR EINSTEIN'S LOCATION AND IMMEDIATE
> > > > > SURROUNDINGS, AS IT SPREAD, RELATIVISM INFECTED THE MIND OF
> > > > > GULLIBLE IMBECILES, LIKE MANY OF YOU.
> > > > >
> > > > > TODAY, NO PHYSICIST CAN MAKE ANY EXPERIMENT IF IT'S NOT BACKED
> > > > > UP BY AN ATOMIC CLOCK. JUST BECAUSE THE CRETIN SOLD THESE LINE
> > > > > OF THOUGHTS, AND MOST BOUGHT THIS SHIT:
> > > > >
> > > > > MY time, for me, Einstein, is what my clock shows. PERIOD.
> > > > >
> > > > > EXCERPTS:
> > > > >
> > > > > "a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unless
> > > > > we are quite clear as to what we understand by “time.”"
> > > > > ....
> > > > > "We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part
> > > > > are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for instance, I say, “That train
> > > > > arrives here at 7 o’clock,” I mean something like this: “The pointing of the small
> > > > > hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events."
> > > > > ......
> > > > > "It might appear possible to overcome all the difficulties attending the definition
> > > > > of “time” by substituting “the position of the small hand of my watch” for
> > > > > “time.”"
> > > > > ..........
> > > > > "We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following line of
> > > > > thought.
> > > > > If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the
> > > > > time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the
> > > > > positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is
> > > > > at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A,
> > > > > it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of events in
> > > > > the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is not possible without further
> > > > > assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B."
> > > > > .......
> > > > What about moisture slow down Einstein's clock? Should it be called Moisture Time Dilation?
> > > > What about dust causes Einstein's clock dilated? should it be call General Trash Relativity?
> > > >
> > > > Time is not clock reading of whatever clock.
> > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view
> > > Anyways in "Out of My Later Years" Einstein instead talks
> > > about "the time" and says it's not clocks, and expresses
> > > a clock hypothesis "the time".
> > Then, this very clock Einstein mentioned might be slowed down by dust , moisture, atmosphere pressure, temperature, and numerous factor, What a pity Einstein considered only gravitation.
> >
> > Beside Gravitation General Relativity, there should be moisture General Relativity, atmosphere pressure General Relativity, temperature General Relativity, Dust General Relativity, Trash General Relativity......
> >
> > Jack
> These are physical effects. Have you ever thought of the effect of length contraction on a clock, say a pendulum clock? An atomic clock?

In general relativity, there are more effects than length contraction. there are space bending.

On Tuesday, 2 May 2023 at 03:08:14 UTC+2, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 12:37:38 AM UTC+5, Jack Liu wrote:
> > On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 1:42:55 PM UTC-5, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 11:00:41 AM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
> > > > On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 10:39:33 AM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > > WITH THIS PSEUDO-PHILOSOPHY OF LOCAL TIME DEFINED AS WHAT A
> > > > > CLOCK SHOWS, FOR EINSTEIN'S LOCATION AND IMMEDIATE
> > > > > SURROUNDINGS, AS IT SPREAD, RELATIVISM INFECTED THE MIND OF
> > > > > GULLIBLE IMBECILES, LIKE MANY OF YOU.
> > > > >
> > > > > TODAY, NO PHYSICIST CAN MAKE ANY EXPERIMENT IF IT'S NOT BACKED
> > > > > UP BY AN ATOMIC CLOCK. JUST BECAUSE THE CRETIN SOLD THESE LINE
> > > > > OF THOUGHTS, AND MOST BOUGHT THIS SHIT:
> > > > >
> > > > > MY time, for me, Einstein, is what my clock shows. PERIOD.
> > > > >
> > > > > EXCERPTS:
> > > > >
> > > > > "a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unless
> > > > > we are quite clear as to what we understand by “time.”"
> > > > > ....
> > > > > "We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part
> > > > > are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for instance, I say, “That train
> > > > > arrives here at 7 o’clock,” I mean something like this: “The pointing of the small
> > > > > hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events."
> > > > > ......
> > > > > "It might appear possible to overcome all the difficulties attending the definition
> > > > > of “time” by substituting “the position of the small hand of my watch” for
> > > > > “time.”"
> > > > > ..........
> > > > > "We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following line of
> > > > > thought.
> > > > > If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the
> > > > > time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the
> > > > > positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is
> > > > > at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A,
> > > > > it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of events in
> > > > > the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is not possible without further
> > > > > assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B."
> > > > > .......
> > > > What about moisture slow down Einstein's clock? Should it be called Moisture Time Dilation?
> > > > What about dust causes Einstein's clock dilated? should it be call General Trash Relativity?
> > > >
> > > > Time is not clock reading of whatever clock.
> > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view
> > > Anyways in "Out of My Later Years" Einstein instead talks
> > > about "the time" and says it's not clocks, and expresses
> > > a clock hypothesis "the time".
> > Then, this very clock Einstein mentioned might be slowed down by dust , moisture, atmosphere pressure, temperature, and numerous factor, What a pity Einstein considered only gravitation.
> >
> > Beside Gravitation General Relativity, there should be moisture General Relativity, atmosphere pressure General Relativity, temperature General Relativity, Dust General Relativity, Trash General Relativity......
> >
> > Jack
> These are physical effects. Have you ever thought of the effect of length contraction on a clock, say a pendulum clock? An atomic clock?

If there are physical effect disturbing clocks,
we compensate them. "What clocks indicate"
is not from physics.

On 02-May-23 1:39 am, Richard Hertz wrote:
> WITH THIS PSEUDO-PHILOSOPHY OF LOCAL TIME DEFINED AS WHAT A
> CLOCK SHOWS, FOR EINSTEIN'S LOCATION AND IMMEDIATE
> SURROUNDINGS, AS IT SPREAD, RELATIVISM INFECTED THE MIND OF
> GULLIBLE IMBECILES, LIKE MANY OF YOU.
>
> TODAY, NO PHYSICIST CAN MAKE ANY EXPERIMENT IF IT'S NOT BACKED
> UP BY AN ATOMIC CLOCK. JUST BECAUSE THE CRETIN SOLD THESE LINE
> OF THOUGHTS, AND MOST BOUGHT THIS SHIT:
>
>

When I do physics, I want a measure of time that works with the usual
equations that describe how processes unfold.

Since I myself am just a collection of atoms engaging in physical and
chemical processes, and my own perception of time is a function of how
those processes unfold, such a measure will also correspond to how I
perceive the world.

Any real clock that I build will also perform in accordance with those
same equations.

All in all, having a measure of time that is in accordance with the best
clocks I can build seems most convenient.

If time were defined differently, the first thing I'd have to do when
using a measure of time would be to apply the formulae required to
convert that measure into the one I need to put into the usual
equations. That seems a total waste of effort.

Much easier to define time as being what a clock measures, and work from
there.

Sylvia.

On Wednesday, 3 May 2023 at 01:33:48 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 02-May-23 1:39 am, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > WITH THIS PSEUDO-PHILOSOPHY OF LOCAL TIME DEFINED AS WHAT A
> > CLOCK SHOWS, FOR EINSTEIN'S LOCATION AND IMMEDIATE
> > SURROUNDINGS, AS IT SPREAD, RELATIVISM INFECTED THE MIND OF
> > GULLIBLE IMBECILES, LIKE MANY OF YOU.
> >
> > TODAY, NO PHYSICIST CAN MAKE ANY EXPERIMENT IF IT'S NOT BACKED
> > UP BY AN ATOMIC CLOCK. JUST BECAUSE THE CRETIN SOLD THESE LINE
> > OF THOUGHTS, AND MOST BOUGHT THIS SHIT:
> >
> >
> When I do physics, I want a measure of time that works with the usual
> equations that describe how processes unfold.

Sure, when You do Your liturgy You want
to have a time which fits it.
When competent people want to do real
measurements, however, they need
other time, as anyone can check in
GPS.

Le 03/05/2023 à 01:32, Sylvia Else a écrit :
> When I do physics, I want a measure of time that works with the usual
> equations that describe how processes unfold.
>
> Since I myself am just a collection of atoms engaging in physical and
> chemical processes, and my own perception of time is a function of how
> those processes unfold, such a measure will also correspond to how I
> perceive the world.
>
> Any real clock that I build will also perform in accordance with those
> same equations.
>
> All in all, having a measure of time that is in accordance with the best
> clocks I can build seems most convenient.
>
> If time were defined differently, the first thing I'd have to do when
> using a measure of time would be to apply the formulae required to
> convert that measure into the one I need to put into the usual
> equations. That seems a total waste of effort.
>
> Much easier to define time as being what a clock measures, and work from
> there.
>
> Sylvia.

To say that time is what a clock measures is not wrong.

But that's a bit like saying that a white horse is a white horse.

But that's not a mistake, it's just a tautology.

Where it becomes more complicated is when two watches placed in different
places are used (and therefore desynchronized according to what the
immense prophet Hachel says) to judge the time taken by a racing car to
cross A and B and that we do, like the tiny Python (a Frenchman known for
his enormous psychiatric qualities on French forums) dT(AB)=Watch2-Watch1

So yes, time is what ONE clock measures.

You are adorable, Sylvia.

But in an anisochronous universe, where each entity, accompanied by its
own watch, fights its own notion of simultaneity, you can only trust your
own watch.

It is then impossible to be mistaken about what it will indicate, nor
about the reality of things.

Kisses, Sylvia, my beautiful.

R.H.

On 03-May-23 9:44 pm, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 03/05/2023 à 01:32, Sylvia Else a écrit :
>> When I do physics, I want a measure of time that works with the usual
>> equations that describe how processes unfold.
>>
>> Since I myself am just a collection of atoms engaging in physical and
>> chemical processes, and my own perception of time is a function of how
>> those processes unfold, such a measure will also correspond to how I
>> perceive the world.
>>
>> Any real clock that I build will also perform in accordance with those
>> same equations.
>>
>> All in all, having a measure of time that is in accordance with the
>> best clocks I can build seems most convenient.
>>
>> If time were defined differently, the first thing I'd have to do when
>> using a measure of time would be to apply the formulae required to
>> convert that measure into the one I need to put into the usual
>> equations. That seems a total waste of effort.
>>
>> Much easier to define time as being what a clock measures, and work
>> from there.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> To say that time is what a clock measures is not wrong.
>
> But that's a bit like saying that a white horse is a white horse.
>
> But that's not a mistake, it's just a tautology.
>
> Where it becomes more complicated is when two watches placed in
> different places are used (and therefore desynchronized according to
> what the immense prophet Hachel says) to judge the time taken by a
> racing car to cross A and B and that we do, like the tiny Python (a
> Frenchman known for his enormous psychiatric qualities on French forums)
> dT(AB)=Watch2-Watch1
>
> So yes, time is what ONE clock measures.
>
> You are adorable, Sylvia.
>
> But in an anisochronous universe, where each entity, accompanied by its
> own watch, fights its own notion of simultaneity, you can only trust
> your own watch.
>
> It is then impossible to be mistaken about what it will indicate, nor
> about the reality of things.
>
> Kisses, Sylvia, my beautiful.
>
> R.H.

If clocks contrived to provide a measure of time that differed
noticeably from the quantity that determines the progress of other
physical and chemical processes, then that would, um, be noticed.

They don't.

Given a measure provided by a clock in our frame of reference, we want a
theory will predict what a clock in a different frame of reference will
measure. Special relativity is such a theory.

Trying to pretend that what clocks measure is not real time, and that
there is another kind of time that has a better claim on being real, is
angels on a pinhead stuff. Philosophers might enjoy spending their
waking hours arguing about such things, but physicists have other fish
to fry.

Sylvia.

Le 03/05/2023 à 14:25, Sylvia Else a écrit :

> Given a measure provided by a clock in our frame of reference, we want a
> theory will predict what a clock in a different frame of reference will
> measure. Special relativity is such a theory.

Magnifique.

> Trying to pretend that what clocks measure is not real time, and that
> there is another kind of time that has a better claim on being real, is
> angels on a pinhead stuff. Philosophers might enjoy spending their
> waking hours arguing about such things, but physicists have other fish
> to fry.

Ce n'est pas exactement ce que je dis.

Je dis que les horloges locales mesurent les durées réelles (je ne dis
pas les temps),
et que les horloges situées dans d'autres référentiels inertiels
(c'est à dire en mouvement uniforme ou accélérés) n'ont pas la même
bathmotropie relative.

Toutes les équations je les ai données.

Pour les référentiels en mouvements uniformes, ce sont les mêmes que
celles des équations des physiciens.

Pour les référentiels accélérés, elles sont très différentes pour
les durées propres (non les observables).

> Sylvia.

R.H.

On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 9:27:05 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:

<snip>

> Given a measure provided by a clock in our frame of reference, we want a
> theory will predict what a clock in a different frame of reference will
> measure. Special relativity is such a theory.

No, we don't want that. You NEED that metaphysical concept in order to justify SR and derivations.
You are rationalizing 110 years of crappy pseudoscience, in order to give it value and to affirm that
the theories on which you invested all your faith and most of your adult life did have some value.
Otherwise, your head would implode by the vacuum caused by the purge of the wrongful content.

One second is one second here, there and everywhere. Only that you can't live with such SIMPLE premise.

> Trying to pretend that what clocks measure is not real time, and that
> there is another kind of time that has a better claim on being real, is
> angels on a pinhead stuff. Philosophers might enjoy spending their
> waking hours arguing about such things, but physicists have other fish to fry.

You're on a circular thought here: "clocks measure real time, and if you reject this, what you measure is different from real time".

The mystic assertion "time is what my clock shows" has, obviously, made a hole in your though processing, and you switched to faith.

Besides the fact that time is a FAKE DIMENSION, which has no means to be detected by biological entities, on the contrary of 3D
space, where nature provided means to sense lengths and volumes, no internal organ sense TIME.

Then, the definition of time as a succession of uniformly paced ticks, either by mechanical or electromagnetic processes, is just
ARBITRARY but conveniently adopted by weak minds that need to feel safe. And also, it's a good match for mathematics of motion.

But you, as human, are relying on a SENSORY SYSTEM outside your body, which is alien and UNRELATED to any internal process that
you register, in particular THE SENSATIONS OF YOUR THOUGHTS FLOWING. If I deprive you of all your senses, like putting you in
a sensory deprivation chamber (no sound, no light, no sense of space, no tact) TIME as defined as of today CEASE TO HAVE A
MEANING TO YOU.

So, beware of being so cocky about your definitions of time based on a clock. Excessive arrogance in your assertions are a good
path to deception, frustration and impotence. WHO IN THE HELL can tell you that your "real time clock" IS NOT FAILING, giving incorrect
units of time to you? How many clocks would you have to have, in order to feel safe and protected by the average time of all of them?

Time measured by clocks, even with ticks paced accurately up to one part in 1,000 trillions, is ARBITRARY. It's the same as
taking ANY perfect metallic rod, and define it has 1 meter long. Then, using that rod to interpolate and extrapolate lengths.

What if a space alien form appears in front of you and tell you:

"We use this polynomial to define units of time. Why are you so simple lifeforms?"

"We use this device to translate your time to our time. Have this one as a gift. It contains the history of TIME of the universe".

What would you do with your credence then?

On Wednesday, 3 May 2023 at 14:27:05 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 03-May-23 9:44 pm, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > Le 03/05/2023 à 01:32, Sylvia Else a écrit :
> >> When I do physics, I want a measure of time that works with the usual
> >> equations that describe how processes unfold.
> >>
> >> Since I myself am just a collection of atoms engaging in physical and
> >> chemical processes, and my own perception of time is a function of how
> >> those processes unfold, such a measure will also correspond to how I
> >> perceive the world.
> >>
> >> Any real clock that I build will also perform in accordance with those
> >> same equations.
> >>
> >> All in all, having a measure of time that is in accordance with the
> >> best clocks I can build seems most convenient.
> >>
> >> If time were defined differently, the first thing I'd have to do when
> >> using a measure of time would be to apply the formulae required to
> >> convert that measure into the one I need to put into the usual
> >> equations. That seems a total waste of effort.
> >>
> >> Much easier to define time as being what a clock measures, and work
> >> from there.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > To say that time is what a clock measures is not wrong.
> >
> > But that's a bit like saying that a white horse is a white horse.
> >
> > But that's not a mistake, it's just a tautology.
> >
> > Where it becomes more complicated is when two watches placed in
> > different places are used (and therefore desynchronized according to
> > what the immense prophet Hachel says) to judge the time taken by a
> > racing car to cross A and B and that we do, like the tiny Python (a
> > Frenchman known for his enormous psychiatric qualities on French forums)
> > dT(AB)=Watch2-Watch1
> >
> > So yes, time is what ONE clock measures.
> >
> > You are adorable, Sylvia.
> >
> > But in an anisochronous universe, where each entity, accompanied by its
> > own watch, fights its own notion of simultaneity, you can only trust
> > your own watch.
> >
> > It is then impossible to be mistaken about what it will indicate, nor
> > about the reality of things.
> >
> > Kisses, Sylvia, my beautiful.
> >
> > R.H.
> If clocks contrived to provide a measure of time that differed
> noticeably from the quantity that determines the progress of other
> physical and chemical processes, then that would, um, be noticed.
>
> They don't.
>
> Given a measure provided by a clock in our frame of reference, we want a
> theory will predict what a clock in a different frame of reference will
> measure. Special relativity is such a theory.

Unfortunately, as anyone can test in GPS - what it
predicts matches nothing but Your gedanken
delusions.

On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 5:27:05 PM UTC+5, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 03-May-23 9:44 pm, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > Le 03/05/2023 à 01:32, Sylvia Else a écrit :
> >> When I do physics, I want a measure of time that works with the usual
> >> equations that describe how processes unfold.
> >>
> >> Since I myself am just a collection of atoms engaging in physical and
> >> chemical processes, and my own perception of time is a function of how
> >> those processes unfold, such a measure will also correspond to how I
> >> perceive the world.
> >>
> >> Any real clock that I build will also perform in accordance with those
> >> same equations.
> >>
> >> All in all, having a measure of time that is in accordance with the
> >> best clocks I can build seems most convenient.
> >>
> >> If time were defined differently, the first thing I'd have to do when
> >> using a measure of time would be to apply the formulae required to
> >> convert that measure into the one I need to put into the usual
> >> equations. That seems a total waste of effort.
> >>
> >> Much easier to define time as being what a clock measures, and work
> >> from there.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > To say that time is what a clock measures is not wrong.
> >
> > But that's a bit like saying that a white horse is a white horse.
> >
> > But that's not a mistake, it's just a tautology.
> >
> > Where it becomes more complicated is when two watches placed in
> > different places are used (and therefore desynchronized according to
> > what the immense prophet Hachel says) to judge the time taken by a
> > racing car to cross A and B and that we do, like the tiny Python (a
> > Frenchman known for his enormous psychiatric qualities on French forums)
> > dT(AB)=Watch2-Watch1
> >
> > So yes, time is what ONE clock measures.
> >
> > You are adorable, Sylvia.
> >
> > But in an anisochronous universe, where each entity, accompanied by its
> > own watch, fights its own notion of simultaneity, you can only trust
> > your own watch.
> >
> > It is then impossible to be mistaken about what it will indicate, nor
> > about the reality of things.
> >
> > Kisses, Sylvia, my beautiful.
> >
> > R.H.
> If clocks contrived to provide a measure of time that differed
> noticeably from the quantity that determines the progress of other
> physical and chemical processes, then that would, um, be noticed.
>
> They don't.
>
> Given a measure provided by a clock in our frame of reference, we want a
> theory will predict what a clock in a different frame of reference will
> measure. Special relativity is such a theory.
>
> Trying to pretend that what clocks measure is not real time, and that
> there is another kind of time that has a better claim on being real, is
> angels on a pinhead stuff. Philosophers might enjoy spending their
> waking hours arguing about such things, but physicists have other fish
> to fry.
>
> Sylvia.

Will you at least agree that time dilation to an astronaut is an invisible, undetectable thing, from his waiting time on the launch pad, several hours, to his launch, travelling at 0.1c, returning home and stopping? He will feel the acceleration but not notice any of the invisible undetectable effects.

I have an idea: What about a space watch that computes the time on Earth based on accelerations and movements? Like the GPS this could be useful.

Invisible, undetectable effects, Yes or No?

El jueves, 4 de mayo de 2023 a las 1:00:59 UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió:
> On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 5:27:05 PM UTC+5, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > On 03-May-23 9:44 pm, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > > Le 03/05/2023 à 01:32, Sylvia Else a écrit :
> > >> When I do physics, I want a measure of time that works with the usual
> > >> equations that describe how processes unfold.
> > >>
> > >> Since I myself am just a collection of atoms engaging in physical and
> > >> chemical processes, and my own perception of time is a function of how
> > >> those processes unfold, such a measure will also correspond to how I
> > >> perceive the world.
> > >>
> > >> Any real clock that I build will also perform in accordance with those
> > >> same equations.
> > >>
> > >> All in all, having a measure of time that is in accordance with the
> > >> best clocks I can build seems most convenient.
> > >>
> > >> If time were defined differently, the first thing I'd have to do when
> > >> using a measure of time would be to apply the formulae required to
> > >> convert that measure into the one I need to put into the usual
> > >> equations. That seems a total waste of effort.
> > >>
> > >> Much easier to define time as being what a clock measures, and work
> > >> from there.
> > >>
> > >> Sylvia.
> > >
> > > To say that time is what a clock measures is not wrong.
> > >
> > > But that's a bit like saying that a white horse is a white horse.
> > >
> > > But that's not a mistake, it's just a tautology.
> > >
> > > Where it becomes more complicated is when two watches placed in
> > > different places are used (and therefore desynchronized according to
> > > what the immense prophet Hachel says) to judge the time taken by a
> > > racing car to cross A and B and that we do, like the tiny Python (a
> > > Frenchman known for his enormous psychiatric qualities on French forums)
> > > dT(AB)=Watch2-Watch1
> > >
> > > So yes, time is what ONE clock measures.
> > >
> > > You are adorable, Sylvia.
> > >
> > > But in an anisochronous universe, where each entity, accompanied by its
> > > own watch, fights its own notion of simultaneity, you can only trust
> > > your own watch.
> > >
> > > It is then impossible to be mistaken about what it will indicate, nor
> > > about the reality of things.
> > >
> > > Kisses, Sylvia, my beautiful.
> > >
> > > R.H.
> > If clocks contrived to provide a measure of time that differed
> > noticeably from the quantity that determines the progress of other
> > physical and chemical processes, then that would, um, be noticed.
> >
> > They don't.
> >
> > Given a measure provided by a clock in our frame of reference, we want a
> > theory will predict what a clock in a different frame of reference will
> > measure. Special relativity is such a theory.
> >
> > Trying to pretend that what clocks measure is not real time, and that
> > there is another kind of time that has a better claim on being real, is
> > angels on a pinhead stuff. Philosophers might enjoy spending their
> > waking hours arguing about such things, but physicists have other fish
> > to fry.
> >
> > Sylvia.

> Will you at least agree that time dilation to an astronaut is an invisible, undetectable thing, from his waiting time on the launch pad, several hours, to his launch, travelling at 0.1c, returning home and stopping? He will feel the acceleration but not notice any of the invisible undetectable effects.
>

An astronaut, using a watch, does not feel any change in his passing of time. His clock continues to tick at a rate of 1 second/second.

People watching the astronaut trip from Earth will notice (by the regular exchange of messages to/from the astronaut) that the astronaut clock ticks differently from Earth's clocks.

The explanation is quite simple, as the astronaut path (through spacetime) is obviously different to Earth path (again through spacetime).

This is similar to what happens with a car's odometer. Two identical cars (with identical odometers) depart from Chicago to New York, following different paths (through space). It is obvious that the car taking the longer path will show more km in its odometer than the other car, while both identical odometers measure1 km/km.

The astronaut clock path (through spacetime) is indeed shorter than the path the Earth clocks follow (due to hyperbolic geometrical relations).

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 18:39:05 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:

> An astronaut, using a watch, does not feel any change in his passing of time. His clock continues to tick at a rate of 1 second/second.

Yes, poor idiot, he will. Anyone can check GPS,
he will notice his clock is running 4 Cs periods
faster. Good bye, The Shit.

On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 9:39:05 AM UTC-7, Paparios wrote:
> El jueves, 4 de mayo de 2023 a las 1:00:59 UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió:
> > On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 5:27:05 PM UTC+5, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > > On 03-May-23 9:44 pm, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > > > Le 03/05/2023 à 01:32, Sylvia Else a écrit :
> > > >> When I do physics, I want a measure of time that works with the usual
> > > >> equations that describe how processes unfold.
> > > >>
> > > >> Since I myself am just a collection of atoms engaging in physical and
> > > >> chemical processes, and my own perception of time is a function of how
> > > >> those processes unfold, such a measure will also correspond to how I
> > > >> perceive the world.
> > > >>
> > > >> Any real clock that I build will also perform in accordance with those
> > > >> same equations.
> > > >>
> > > >> All in all, having a measure of time that is in accordance with the
> > > >> best clocks I can build seems most convenient.
> > > >>
> > > >> If time were defined differently, the first thing I'd have to do when
> > > >> using a measure of time would be to apply the formulae required to
> > > >> convert that measure into the one I need to put into the usual
> > > >> equations. That seems a total waste of effort.
> > > >>
> > > >> Much easier to define time as being what a clock measures, and work
> > > >> from there.
> > > >>
> > > >> Sylvia.
> > > >
> > > > To say that time is what a clock measures is not wrong.
> > > >
> > > > But that's a bit like saying that a white horse is a white horse.
> > > >
> > > > But that's not a mistake, it's just a tautology.
> > > >
> > > > Where it becomes more complicated is when two watches placed in
> > > > different places are used (and therefore desynchronized according to
> > > > what the immense prophet Hachel says) to judge the time taken by a
> > > > racing car to cross A and B and that we do, like the tiny Python (a
> > > > Frenchman known for his enormous psychiatric qualities on French forums)
> > > > dT(AB)=Watch2-Watch1
> > > >
> > > > So yes, time is what ONE clock measures.
> > > >
> > > > You are adorable, Sylvia.
> > > >
> > > > But in an anisochronous universe, where each entity, accompanied by its
> > > > own watch, fights its own notion of simultaneity, you can only trust
> > > > your own watch.
> > > >
> > > > It is then impossible to be mistaken about what it will indicate, nor
> > > > about the reality of things.
> > > >
> > > > Kisses, Sylvia, my beautiful.
> > > >
> > > > R.H.
> > > If clocks contrived to provide a measure of time that differed
> > > noticeably from the quantity that determines the progress of other
> > > physical and chemical processes, then that would, um, be noticed.
> > >
> > > They don't.
> > >
> > > Given a measure provided by a clock in our frame of reference, we want a
> > > theory will predict what a clock in a different frame of reference will
> > > measure. Special relativity is such a theory.
> > >
> > > Trying to pretend that what clocks measure is not real time, and that
> > > there is another kind of time that has a better claim on being real, is
> > > angels on a pinhead stuff. Philosophers might enjoy spending their
> > > waking hours arguing about such things, but physicists have other fish
> > > to fry.
> > >
> > > Sylvia.
>
> > Will you at least agree that time dilation to an astronaut is an invisible, undetectable thing, from his waiting time on the launch pad, several hours, to his launch, travelling at 0.1c, returning home and stopping? He will feel the acceleration but not notice any of the invisible undetectable effects.
> >
> An astronaut, using a watch, does not feel any change in his passing of time. His clock continues to tick at a rate of 1 second/second.

Is he not at the center of his universe as well?

>
> People watching the astronaut trip from Earth will notice (by the regular exchange of messages to/from the astronaut) that the astronaut clock ticks differently from Earth's clocks.
>
> The explanation is quite simple, as the astronaut path (through spacetime) is obviously different to Earth path (again through spacetime).
>
> This is similar to what happens with a car's odometer. Two identical cars (with identical odometers) depart from Chicago to New York, following different paths (through space). It is obvious that the car taking the longer path will show more km in its odometer than the other car, while both identical odometers measure1 km/km.
>
> The astronaut clock path (through spacetime) is indeed shorter than the path the Earth clocks follow (due to hyperbolic geometrical relations).

Hyperbolic motion curves are not observed to happen.

On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 9:39:05 PM UTC+5, Paparios wrote:
> El jueves, 4 de mayo de 2023 a las 1:00:59 UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió:
> > On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 5:27:05 PM UTC+5, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > > On 03-May-23 9:44 pm, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > > > Le 03/05/2023 à 01:32, Sylvia Else a écrit :
> > > >> When I do physics, I want a measure of time that works with the usual
> > > >> equations that describe how processes unfold.
> > > >>
> > > >> Since I myself am just a collection of atoms engaging in physical and
> > > >> chemical processes, and my own perception of time is a function of how
> > > >> those processes unfold, such a measure will also correspond to how I
> > > >> perceive the world.
> > > >>
> > > >> Any real clock that I build will also perform in accordance with those
> > > >> same equations.
> > > >>
> > > >> All in all, having a measure of time that is in accordance with the
> > > >> best clocks I can build seems most convenient.
> > > >>
> > > >> If time were defined differently, the first thing I'd have to do when
> > > >> using a measure of time would be to apply the formulae required to
> > > >> convert that measure into the one I need to put into the usual
> > > >> equations. That seems a total waste of effort.
> > > >>
> > > >> Much easier to define time as being what a clock measures, and work
> > > >> from there.
> > > >>
> > > >> Sylvia.
> > > >
> > > > To say that time is what a clock measures is not wrong.
> > > >
> > > > But that's a bit like saying that a white horse is a white horse.
> > > >
> > > > But that's not a mistake, it's just a tautology.
> > > >
> > > > Where it becomes more complicated is when two watches placed in
> > > > different places are used (and therefore desynchronized according to
> > > > what the immense prophet Hachel says) to judge the time taken by a
> > > > racing car to cross A and B and that we do, like the tiny Python (a
> > > > Frenchman known for his enormous psychiatric qualities on French forums)
> > > > dT(AB)=Watch2-Watch1
> > > >
> > > > So yes, time is what ONE clock measures.
> > > >
> > > > You are adorable, Sylvia.
> > > >
> > > > But in an anisochronous universe, where each entity, accompanied by its
> > > > own watch, fights its own notion of simultaneity, you can only trust
> > > > your own watch.
> > > >
> > > > It is then impossible to be mistaken about what it will indicate, nor
> > > > about the reality of things.
> > > >
> > > > Kisses, Sylvia, my beautiful.
> > > >
> > > > R.H.
> > > If clocks contrived to provide a measure of time that differed
> > > noticeably from the quantity that determines the progress of other
> > > physical and chemical processes, then that would, um, be noticed.
> > >
> > > They don't.
> > >
> > > Given a measure provided by a clock in our frame of reference, we want a
> > > theory will predict what a clock in a different frame of reference will
> > > measure. Special relativity is such a theory.
> > >
> > > Trying to pretend that what clocks measure is not real time, and that
> > > there is another kind of time that has a better claim on being real, is
> > > angels on a pinhead stuff. Philosophers might enjoy spending their
> > > waking hours arguing about such things, but physicists have other fish
> > > to fry.
> > >
> > > Sylvia.
>
> > Will you at least agree that time dilation to an astronaut is an invisible, undetectable thing, from his waiting time on the launch pad, several hours, to his launch, travelling at 0.1c, returning home and stopping? He will feel the acceleration but not notice any of the invisible undetectable effects.
> >
> An astronaut, using a watch, does not feel any change in his passing of time. His clock continues to tick at a rate of 1 second/second.
>
> People watching the astronaut trip from Earth will notice (by the regular exchange of messages to/from the astronaut) that the astronaut clock ticks differently from Earth's clocks.
>
> The explanation is quite simple, as the astronaut path (through spacetime) is obviously different to Earth path (again through spacetime).
>
> This is similar to what happens with a car's odometer. Two identical cars (with identical odometers) depart from Chicago to New York, following different paths (through space). It is obvious that the car taking the longer path will show more km in its odometer than the other car, while both identical odometers measure1 km/km.
>
> The astronaut clock path (through spacetime) is indeed shorter than the path the Earth clocks follow (due to hyperbolic geometrical relations).

Just agree that it is an invisible, unmeasurable effect and we are done with science.