Gravity and motion according to Einstein.
They would be mixed where measured together.
How do we know the speed of time if it is dual?

Mitchell Raemsch

mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> wrote:

> Gravity and motion according to Einstein.
> They would be mixed where measured together.
> How do we know the speed of time if it is dual?

No problem, time always proceeds at one second per second,

Jan

On December 20, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> No problem, time always proceeds at one second per second,

Does it?
Is that claim falsifiable? Describe your experimental setup.

After that, please explain what 'second per second' means. Because I have no idea -

--
Rich

J. J. Lodder wrote:

> mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Gravity and motion according to Einstein.
>> They would be mixed where measured together.
>> How do we know the speed of time if it is dual?
>
> No problem, time always proceeds at one second per second,

Pseudo-scientific nonsense. That would make time have dimensions of 1.

PointedEars
--
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
testing your knowledge means everything.”
—Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)

RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
[you shouldn't have snipped the context]
> On December 20, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > No problem, time always proceeds at one second per second,
>
> Does it?
> Is that claim falsifiable? Describe your experimental setup.
>
> After that, please explain what 'second per second' means. Because I have
> no idea -

You do not only have no idea,
you shouldn't be so bloody serious,

Jan

On 12/22/21 4:11 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> time always proceeds at one second per second,
>
> Pseudo-scientific nonsense. That would make time have dimensions of 1.

Hmmm. Change it to "clocks always advance one second for each second of
their elapsed proper time", and it is OK.

Presuming that "time is what clocks measure" [Einstein and others}, the
original statement above is also OK.

Tom Roberts

On Wednesday, 22 December 2021 at 16:37:42 UTC+1, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 12/22/21 4:11 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> time always proceeds at one second per second,
> >
> > Pseudo-scientific nonsense. That would make time have dimensions of 1.
> Hmmm. Change it to "clocks always advance one second for each second of
> their elapsed proper time", and it is OK.
>
> Presuming that "time is what clocks measure" [Einstein and others}, the
> original statement above is also OK.

But in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your
moronic religion TAI keep measuring t'=t, just like all
serious clocks always did. Your screams that "we're
FORCED" didn't work at all.

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 12/22/21 4:11 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> time always proceeds at one second per second,
>>
>> Pseudo-scientific nonsense. That would make time have dimensions of 1.
>
> Hmmm. […]

You have replied to a posting that I canceled *yesterday*.

PointedEars
--
Q: Who's on the case when the electricity goes out?
A: Sherlock Ohms.

(from: WolframAlpha)

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 12/22/21 4:11 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>> time always proceeds at one second per second,
>>> Pseudo-scientific nonsense. That would make time have dimensions of 1.
>> Hmmm. […]
>
> You have replied to a posting that I canceled *yesterday*.

Well, for suitable values :-D

Apparently I posted it today, but I lost track of time due to an assignments
that was due today.

PointedEars
--
Q: Where are offenders sentenced for light crimes?
A: To a prism.

(from: WolframAlpha)

On 12/22/2021 11:13 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>
>> On 12/22/21 4:11 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>> time always proceeds at one second per second,
>>>
>>> Pseudo-scientific nonsense. That would make time have dimensions of 1.
>>
>> Hmmm. […]
>
> You have replied to a posting that I canceled *yesterday*.
>
Usenet cancel commands are ignored by many systems due to previous
abuse.Don't count on them working.

On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 9:34:48 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 12/22/2021 11:13 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> >
> >> On 12/22/21 4:11 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >>> J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>> time always proceeds at one second per second,
> >>>

That second can be dilated.

Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> On 12/22/21 4:11 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
For Thomas, not Tom
[when not understanding a joke you shouldn't snip the context]
Let me guess, you have a German sense of humour?

> > J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> time always proceeds at one second per second,
> >
> > Pseudo-scientific nonsense. That would make time have dimensions of 1.

You are mistaken. Second per second is the speed of time.
(which must of course be dimensionless)
The nonsense is entirely yours.

> Hmmm. Change it to "clocks always advance one second for each second of
> their elapsed proper time", and it is OK.
>
> Presuming that "time is what clocks measure" [Einstein and others}, the
> original statement above is also OK.

Yes, that is the idea.
It is a joking way of saying that there is no such thing
as some kind of 'real' background time in which twins age.
They both have their proper time to live in,
and nothing but their proper time.
(which advances at one second per second)

There is no such thing as some kind of absolute time,
and herefore no such thing as a 'speed of time',
which was what this thread was started with,

Jan
(who prefers not to explain jokes)

On Wednesday, 22 December 2021 at 21:40:01 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > On 12/22/21 4:11 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> For Thomas, not Tom
> [when not understanding a joke you shouldn't snip the context]
> Let me guess, you have a German sense of humour?
> > > J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > >> time always proceeds at one second per second,
> > >
> > > Pseudo-scientific nonsense. That would make time have dimensions of 1.
> You are mistaken. Second per second is the speed of time.
> (which must of course be dimensionless)
> The nonsense is entirely yours.
> > Hmmm. Change it to "clocks always advance one second for each second of
> > their elapsed proper time", and it is OK.
> >
> > Presuming that "time is what clocks measure" [Einstein and others}, the
> > original statement above is also OK.

How unfortunate it's t=t', as anyone can check in GPS, or TAI...

> Yes, that is the idea.
> It is a joking way of saying that there is no such thing
> as some kind of 'real' background time in which twins age.
> They both have their proper time to live in,
> and nothing but their proper time.

It's just that professionals doing measurements for
real, not in gedankens like your idiot guru - have
a bit different opiniot of what is and what isn't proper.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, 22 December 2021 at 21:40:01 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On 12/22/21 4:11 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > For Thomas, not Tom
> > [when not understanding a joke you shouldn't snip the context]
> > Let me guess, you have a German sense of humour?
> > > > J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > >> time always proceeds at one second per second,
> > > >
> > > > Pseudo-scientific nonsense. That would make time have dimensions of 1.
> > You are mistaken. Second per second is the speed of time.
> > (which must of course be dimensionless)
> > The nonsense is entirely yours.
> > > Hmmm. Change it to "clocks always advance one second for each second of
> > > their elapsed proper time", and it is OK.
> > >
> > > Presuming that "time is what clocks measure" [Einstein and others}, the
> > > original statement above is also OK.
>
> How unfortunate it's t=t', as anyone can check in GPS, or TAI...

Au contraire, it would be very unfortunate if TAI would not equal TAI.
It is not even possible to imagine how such a state of affairs
could come about. It is impossible, by the very definition of TAI.
You obviously have no idea at all about what TAI is,
and how it is determined by the BIPM.

> > Yes, that is the idea.
> > It is a joking way of saying that there is no such thing
> > as some kind of 'real' background time in which twins age.
> > They both have their proper time to live in,
> > and nothing but their proper time.
>
> It's just that professionals doing measurements for
> real, not in gedankens like your idiot guru - have
> a bit different opiniot of what is and what isn't proper.

Yes, that is your problem.
Real professionals, with real clocks,
doing real measurements comparing those clocks,
find that t' is not t,
in easily observable and quite predictable ways.

Jan

On Wednesday, 22 December 2021 at 22:36:56 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, 22 December 2021 at 21:40:01 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 12/22/21 4:11 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > For Thomas, not Tom
> > > [when not understanding a joke you shouldn't snip the context]
> > > Let me guess, you have a German sense of humour?
> > > > > J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > >> time always proceeds at one second per second,
> > > > >
> > > > > Pseudo-scientific nonsense. That would make time have dimensions of 1.
> > > You are mistaken. Second per second is the speed of time.
> > > (which must of course be dimensionless)
> > > The nonsense is entirely yours.
> > > > Hmmm. Change it to "clocks always advance one second for each second of
> > > > their elapsed proper time", and it is OK.
> > > >
> > > > Presuming that "time is what clocks measure" [Einstein and others}, the
> > > > original statement above is also OK.
> >
> > How unfortunate it's t=t', as anyone can check in GPS, or TAI...
> Au contraire, it would be very unfortunate if TAI would not equal TAI.

Why would it be so unfortunate if the Laws of Nature
(announced by your idiot guru) were obeyed?
Anyway, time is what clocks measure, the clocks measure
(you're admitting it) t'=t, good bye, The Shit.

> > It's just that professionals doing measurements for
> > real, not in gedankens like your idiot guru - have
> > a bit different opiniot of what is and what isn't proper.
> Yes, that is your problem.
> Real professionals, with real clocks,
> doing real measurements comparing those clocks,
> find that t' is not t,

Just some lines above you're admitting they are not,
poor halfbrain.