El sábado, 28 de mayo de 2022 a las 13:24:32 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 11:12:57 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:

> >
> > > > > A quote from page 11:
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------ quote -----------
> > > > > If one of two synchronous
> > > > > clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to
> > > > > A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest
> > > > > the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be 1/2 tv2/c2 second slow. Thence we
> > > > > conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very
> > > > > small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under
> > > > > otherwise identical conditions.
> > > > > --------- end quote -----
> > > > >
> > > > That quote is talking about the ELAPSED TIME between events and that has nothing to do with the clock proper ticking.
> >
> > > Don't you understand English at all????
> > >
> > > "a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly" is NOT about elapsed time!
> > > It says the clock at the equator ticks slower than the clock at the pole.

> > Nonsense. You should read it again. It clearly says (see above): "If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A". There are TWO clocks. One of them is moved at constant speed in a closed trajectory (a circle). Therefore, what they compared after the clock A returns to its initial point is the ELAPSED time of the moving clock compared with the elapsed time of the not moving clock!!!!

> Okay. Your basic problem is that you cannot comprehend that "elapsed time" is
> merely a comparison of accumulated times. And the way you "accumulate time"
> is by counting seconds. You start a stop watch, and one minute later you stop
> the stop watch. You have accumulated 60 seconds.
>

It is not that simple. The moving clock follows a path through spacetime and that path is shorter (the moving clock ticks at the same rate the stationary clock but the spacetime path of the moving clock is SHORTER). This is basic spacetime geometry.

> If you are moving, it takes longer to accumulate 60 seconds than if you are
> stationary. The "elapsed time" is 60 seconds for both clocks. You seem
> to understand that, but you cannot understand that WHILE the accumulations
> were being performed, one clock was ticking slower than the other clock.
>
> Einstein stated that in the quote I provided about clocks at the equator. CLOCKS
> TICK SLOWER AT THE EQUATOR THAN AT ONE OF THE POLES. You ignore
> that quote and only look at the part that involves ELAPSED time.
>

The actual quote is: "Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions".
Unfortunately, this is the only error in Einstein's paper. He did not know in 1905 that Earth is not a perfect sphere.

> How can you not understand that, if the "elapsed times" are different between
> a moving clock and a stationary clock, that is BECAUSE the moving clock ticked
> slower that the stationary clock?
>

We understand, unlike you, quite well the difference between a ticking rate and an elapsed time. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation:

"In physics and relativity, time dilation is the difference in the elapsed time as measured by two clocks. It is either due to a relative velocity between them (special relativistic "kinetic" time dilation) or to a difference in gravitational potential between their locations (general relativistic gravitational time dilation). When unspecified, "time dilation" usually refers to the effect due to velocity.

After compensating for varying signal delays due to the changing distance between an observer and a moving clock (i.e. Doppler effect), the observer will measure the moving clock as ticking slower than a clock that is at rest in the observer's own reference frame. In addition, a clock that is close to a massive body (and which therefore is at lower gravitational potential) will record less elapsed time than a clock situated further from the said massive body (and which is at a higher gravitational potential)".

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 1:08:34 PM UTC-5, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 10:35:40 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>
> > You are arguing what I consider to be the DUMBEST belief in physics,
> > that if Body-A is moving relative to Body-B, you can also consider
> > Body-B to be moving relative to Body-A. NO, YOU CAN'T!!!!!
> > If Body-A is moving at 1% of the speed of light, and Body-B is
> > moving at 2% of the speed of light, YOU CANNOT simply ignore
> > that fact and mathematically reverse speeds.
> Ed, this statement alone displays your complete ignorance of relativity. This is basic stuff and you have badly misinterpreted what Einstein and others have said.

Or YOU have badly misinterpreted what Einstein wrote.

>
> You have never actually read a textbook, this much is clear...

Actually, I've got a collection of about 100 college physics textbooks. What
is VERY clear from studying them is that it is very rare to find TWO textbooks
which describe Relativity in the same way. I wrote a paper about how it
sometimes seems that no two college physics textbooks have the same
version of Einstein's Second Postulate. And about 95% of them have a
TOTALLY WRONG MADE UP version. The paper: https://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v5.pdf

Ed

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 1:14:25 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 10:35:40 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > Consider a region far from large gravitating bodies. To compare the rates of clocks for different trajectories, one method is to construct two rows of clocks, sliding past each other in opposite directions. The clocks in each row are mutually at rest and inertially synchronized with each other.. Now, according to relativity, the elapsed time on each clock as it passes consecutive clocks of the other row is less than the difference of the readings of those clocks as they pass. Thus your proposed method of determining absolutely stationary points doesn't work, because each clock in each row runs slow in terms of the clocks in the other row.
> >
> > No. According to Einstein's Second Postulate, the speed of light is
> > relative to stationary points in EMPTY SPACE.
> Speeds can only be quantified in terms of a specified system of reference, and when Einstein said light moves in vacuum at the definite speed c he carefully specified that this statement applies to the speed of light expressed in terms of a system of reference in which the equations of mechanics (and electrodynamics) hold good. As he said, "in a vacuum light is propagated with the velocity c with respect to a definite inertial system K, and according to the principle of special relativity this applies to every inertial system".

That quote is from when Einstein was discussing INERTIAL systems. The
math is different when using INERTIAL systems versus ALL systems.
Einstein's Relativity applies to ALL systems.

>
> > If Body-A is moving at 1% of the speed of light...
>
> In terms of what system of reference?

Obviously in terms of the speed of light as the reference system.

> The speed of light is c in terms of every inertial reference system (see above), and every body is at rest in terms of one inertial system of reference, and it is moving at 99% of the speed of light in terms of another inertial system, and so on. You seem to think, contrary to the principle of relativity, that there is a unique local inertial system of reference. You are mistaken, as Newton and Galileo already knew. The principle of relativity is that the equations of physics take the same form in terms of every inertial reference system.

Again you are only talking about INERTIAL systems. Einstein's Relativity
applies to ALL systems. He mentions INERTIAL systems when he describes
mathematical peculiarities.

>
> > and Body-B is moving at 2% of the speed of light...
>
> In terms of what system of reference? Remember, the speed of light has the same value c in terms of every inertial reference system (see above). Speeds can only be quantified in terms of a specified system of reference.

Already explained above.

Ed

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 1:46:28 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> El sábado, 28 de mayo de 2022 a las 13:24:32 UTC-4, escribió:
> > On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 11:12:57 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
>
> > >
> > > > > > A quote from page 11:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------ quote -----------
> > > > > > If one of two synchronous
> > > > > > clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to
> > > > > > A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest
> > > > > > the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be 1/2 tv2/c2 second slow. Thence we
> > > > > > conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very
> > > > > > small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under
> > > > > > otherwise identical conditions.
> > > > > > --------- end quote -----
> > > > > >
> > > > > That quote is talking about the ELAPSED TIME between events and that has nothing to do with the clock proper ticking.
> > >
> > > > Don't you understand English at all????
> > > >
> > > > "a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly" is NOT about elapsed time!
> > > > It says the clock at the equator ticks slower than the clock at the pole.
>
> > > Nonsense. You should read it again. It clearly says (see above): "If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A". There are TWO clocks. One of them is moved at constant speed in a closed trajectory (a circle). Therefore, what they compared after the clock A returns to its initial point is the ELAPSED time of the moving clock compared with the elapsed time of the not moving clock!!!!
>
> > Okay. Your basic problem is that you cannot comprehend that "elapsed time" is
> > merely a comparison of accumulated times. And the way you "accumulate time"
> > is by counting seconds. You start a stop watch, and one minute later you stop
> > the stop watch. You have accumulated 60 seconds.
> >
> It is not that simple. The moving clock follows a path through spacetime and that path is shorter (the moving clock ticks at the same rate the stationary clock but the spacetime path of the moving clock is SHORTER). This is basic spacetime geometry.

If so, it is IDIOTICALLY WRONG. A moving clock follows a path that is LONGER
than the path of a stationary clock. The path of a truly stationary clock has a
length of ZERO.

> > If you are moving, it takes longer to accumulate 60 seconds than if you are
> > stationary. The "elapsed time" is 60 seconds for both clocks. You seem
> > to understand that, but you cannot understand that WHILE the accumulations
> > were being performed, one clock was ticking slower than the other clock..
> >
> > Einstein stated that in the quote I provided about clocks at the equator. CLOCKS
> > TICK SLOWER AT THE EQUATOR THAN AT ONE OF THE POLES. You ignore
> > that quote and only look at the part that involves ELAPSED time.
> >
> The actual quote is: "Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions".

Correct. Different words, same meaning.

> Unfortunately, this is the only error in Einstein's paper. He did not know in 1905 that Earth is not a perfect sphere.

That doesn't change the fact that a clock at the equator ticks slower than
a clock at one of the poles DUE TO DIFFERENCES IN VELOCITY. It only affects
GRAVITATIONAL Relativity, because it changes the DISTANCE to the center
of the earth from the equator.

> > How can you not understand that, if the "elapsed times" are different between
> > a moving clock and a stationary clock, that is BECAUSE the moving clock ticked
> > slower that the stationary clock?
> >
> We understand, unlike you, quite well the difference between a ticking rate and an elapsed time. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation:
>
> "In physics and relativity, time dilation is the difference in the elapsed time as measured by two clocks. It is either due to a relative velocity between them (special relativistic "kinetic" time dilation) or to a difference in gravitational potential between their locations (general relativistic gravitational time dilation). When unspecified, "time dilation" usually refers to the effect due to velocity.
>
> After compensating for varying signal delays due to the changing distance between an observer and a moving clock (i.e. Doppler effect), the observer will measure the moving clock as ticking slower than a clock that is at rest in the observer's own reference frame. In addition, a clock that is close to a massive body (and which therefore is at lower gravitational potential) will record less elapsed time than a clock situated further from the said massive body (and which is at a higher gravitational potential)".

That's true, but it is also misleading. Relative velocity between two clocks
MUST KNOW which clock is stationary and which is moving (or which is
moving faster than the other). That quote does NOT say that you can just
pick which observer you want to be moving and which you want to be
stationary. Mathematicians just MISINTERPRET it that way.

Ed

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 1:00:37 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> > Speeds can only be quantified in terms of a specified system of reference, and when Einstein said light moves in vacuum at the definite speed c he carefully specified that this statement applies to the speed of light expressed in terms of a system of reference in which the equations of mechanics (and electrodynamics) hold good. As he said, "in a vacuum light is propagated with the velocity c with respect to a definite inertial system K, and according to the principle of special relativity this applies to every inertial system".
>
> That quote is from when Einstein was discussing INERTIAL systems.

The quote does indeed refer to (and apply to) inertial reference system, i.e., systems of coordinates in terms of which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good (in the low speed limit). And, again, the speed of light in vacuum has the value c in terms of every such system, which conclusively debunks all your beliefs.

> The math is different when using INERTIAL systems versus ALL systems.

Indeed it is, but that is irrelevant. The relevant fact (again) is that the speed of light in vacuum has the value c in terms of every such system, which conclusively debunks all your beliefs. If you have some substantive rebuttal to this, please go ahead and say it.

> > > If Body-A is moving at 1% of the speed of light...
> >
> > In terms of what system of reference?
>
> Obviously in terms of the speed of light as the reference system.

A speed is not a reference system, and a pulse of light is not a reference system. Again, the speed of light in vacuum has the value c in terms of every inertial coordinate system, which conclusively debunks all your beliefs..

Please tell me, what is the speed of your refrigerator right now? If someone sitting in your refrigerator right now were to set up an inertial coordinate system and determine the speed of light in terms of that system, what would it be?

Science can easily answer these simple question, but you can't even begin to answer them, right?

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 3:46:27 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 1:00:37 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > Speeds can only be quantified in terms of a specified system of reference, and when Einstein said light moves in vacuum at the definite speed c he carefully specified that this statement applies to the speed of light expressed in terms of a system of reference in which the equations of mechanics (and electrodynamics) hold good. As he said, "in a vacuum light is propagated with the velocity c with respect to a definite inertial system K, and according to the principle of special relativity this applies to every inertial system".
> >
> > That quote is from when Einstein was discussing INERTIAL systems.
> The quote does indeed refer to (and apply to) inertial reference system, i.e., systems of coordinates in terms of which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good (in the low speed limit). And, again, the speed of light in vacuum has the value c in terms of every such system, which conclusively debunks all your beliefs.

No, it just means that you do not understand Relativity. The speed of light
has a value c in every such system BECAUSE the speed of light is measured
PER SECOND, and the LENGTH OF A SECOND VARIES depending upon the speed
at which you are moving.

> > The math is different when using INERTIAL systems versus ALL systems.
> Indeed it is, but that is irrelevant. The relevant fact (again) is that the speed of light in vacuum has the value c in terms of every such system, which conclusively debunks all your beliefs. If you have some substantive rebuttal to this, please go ahead and say it.

See above. The value of c is 299,792,458 METERS PER SECOND. But the
LENGTH OF A SECOND gets longer the faster you move.

> > > > If Body-A is moving at 1% of the speed of light...
> > >
> > > In terms of what system of reference?
> >
> > Obviously in terms of the speed of light as the reference system.
> A speed is not a reference system, and a pulse of light is not a reference system. Again, the speed of light in vacuum has the value c in terms of every inertial coordinate system, which conclusively debunks all your beliefs.

No, it just shows you totally misunderstand Relativity. The speed of
light IS A REFERENCE system. Since nothing can go faster than the
speed of light, all other speeds are a PERCENTAGE of the speed of
light.

>
> Please tell me, what is the speed of your refrigerator right now? If someone sitting in your refrigerator right now were to set up an inertial coordinate system and determine the speed of light in terms of that system, what would it be?
>
> Science can easily answer these simple question, but you can't even begin to answer them, right?

The speed of light is 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND in ALL systems.
Due to Gravitational Time Dilation, however, the length of a second will be
slightly shorter atop my refrigerator than it will be on the floor.

If you disagree with the findings by the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) about that, others have performed similar experiments
to confirm it. I have a list here: http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html

Ed

It bothers me big time when people CAN'T QUOTE EXACTLY what the cretin published in 1905.

This is an excerpt of the 1923 English translation of the fucking paper. It clearly states:

1) Postulate I: All laws of physics, electrodynamics and optics hold good (for SMALL values) in all the
frames of reference (INERTIAL FRAMES).

2) Postulate II: Light VELOCITY (a 3D vector) is CONSTANT (definite value) while propagating in FREE SPACE,
INDEPENDENTLY of the motion of THE EMITTING BODY!

Postulate II CLEARLY assert that c velocity in vacuum IS CONSTANT and independent of ANY REFERENCE FRAME!

You all should stick to the original presentation that the cretin did.

The value of c IS CONSTANT and INDEPENDENT of any frame of reference (moving or not). Is it clear enough?

Here is the copy&paste excerpt of the English translation (1923). If you want, the ORIGINAL version in German is available online.
Just search enough and you'll find it.

************************************************
They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of
electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.

We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”)
to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently
irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a DEFINITE velocity c
which is INDEPENDENT of the state of motion of the emitting body.

These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of
moving bodies based on Maxwell’s theory for stationary bodies. The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will
prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an “absolutely stationary space”
provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic
processes take place.
************************************************
This is on PAGE ONE OF:

ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
By A. EINSTEIN
June 30, 1905

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 2:10:23 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> The speed of light has a value c in every such system BECAUSE the speed of
> light is measured PER SECOND, and the LENGTH OF A SECOND VARIES depending
> upon the speed at which you are moving.

You are being blatantly self-contradictory. You have conceded many times that relativistic time dilation is not only far too small to account (by itself) for the invariance of the speed of light, it is also in the wrong direction, since the same time dilation applies both to approaching toward and receding from the light (c+v and c-v). To account for the speed of light being the same in terms of every system of inertial coordinates, we must account not only for time dilation, but also for length contraction and (most importantly) for the relativity of simultaneity. Without all three of these effects, relativity would be self-contradictory. And once you account for these three things, you find that inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations, and hence azre perfectly reciprocal... thereby conclusively debunking all your beliefs.

> > A speed is not a reference system, and a pulse of light is not a reference system. Again,
> > the speed of light in vacuum has the value c in terms of every inertial coordinate system,
> > which conclusively debunks all your beliefs.
>
> The speed of light IS A REFERENCE system.

No, it is not. No speed is a reference system. Speeds are defined in terms of reference systems. So a speed is not a reference system, and a reference system is not a speed. Also, per above, the speed of light in vacuum is c in terms of every inertial reference frame, thereby conclusively debunking all your beliefs. Agreed?

> Since nothing can go faster than the speed of light, all other speeds
> are a PERCENTAGE of the speed of light.

Thanks makes no sense. Even if objects could go faster than light, you could still express their speeds as fractions, such as 5/4, of any specified numerical value... that's just a trivial choice of units, it does not serve as a reference system in terms of which the speed of an object can be expressed. Remember, the speed of light has the same value in terms of every inertial reference system.

> > Please tell me, what is the speed of your refrigerator right now?

You see? You could not even answer this question. Your inability to answer even the simplest questions reveals that your ideas don't work. Agreed?

> If someone sitting in your refrigerator right now were to set up an inertial
> coordinate system and determine the speed of light in terms of that system,
> what would it be?
>
> The speed of light is 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND in ALL systems.

Right, so what is the speed of the refrigerator? You were going to use the speed of light to tell me the speed of the refrigerator, but now you conceed that the speed of light is c in terms of every inertial system, so what is the speed of your refrigerator? You can't answer... agreed?

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 2:32:41 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> This is on PAGE ONE OF:

You're just reading the abstract of the paper. The actual formal statement of the two principles (the principle of relativity and the light-speed principle) is given at the beginning of paragraph 2 of Section I of the paper.

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 6:53:58 PM UTC-3, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 2:32:41 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > This is on PAGE ONE OF:
> You're just reading the abstract of the paper. The actual formal statement of the two principles (the principle of relativity and the light-speed principle) is given at the beginning of paragraph 2 of Section I of the paper.

I know, but it doesn't change a bit (unless you want to play with words).

I just post the heart of the assertions that are foundational to his further developments in the paper.

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 11:08:34 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 10:35:40 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
>
> > You are arguing what I consider to be the DUMBEST belief in physics,
> > that if Body-A is moving relative to Body-B, you can also consider
> > Body-B to be moving relative to Body-A. NO, YOU CAN'T!!!!!
> > If Body-A is moving at 1% of the speed of light, and Body-B is
> > moving at 2% of the speed of light, YOU CANNOT simply ignore
> > that fact and mathematically reverse speeds.
> Ed, this statement alone displays your complete ignorance of relativity. This is basic stuff and you have badly misinterpreted what Einstein and others have said.
>
> You have never actually read a textbook, this much is clear...

Go back to your books you nerd.
You can say both have their own different motions in space.
Space is the unmarked.

Mitchell Raemsch

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 12:52:02 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 1:08:34 PM UTC-5, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 10:35:40 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> >
> > > You are arguing what I consider to be the DUMBEST belief in physics,
> > > that if Body-A is moving relative to Body-B, you can also consider
> > > Body-B to be moving relative to Body-A. NO, YOU CAN'T!!!!!
> > > If Body-A is moving at 1% of the speed of light, and Body-B is
> > > moving at 2% of the speed of light, YOU CANNOT simply ignore
> > > that fact and mathematically reverse speeds.
> > Ed, this statement alone displays your complete ignorance of relativity.. This is basic stuff and you have badly misinterpreted what Einstein and others have said.

> Or YOU have badly misinterpreted what Einstein wrote.

> > You have never actually read a textbook, this much is clear...

> Actually, I've got a collection of about 100 college physics textbooks. What
> is VERY clear from studying them is that it is very rare to find TWO textbooks
> which describe Relativity in the same way. I wrote a paper about how it
> sometimes seems that no two college physics textbooks have the same
> version of Einstein's Second Postulate. And about 95% of them have a
> TOTALLY WRONG MADE UP version. The paper: https://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v5.pdf

Ed, owning textbooks and reading them are 2 entirely different things. I am also pretty sure that these various textbooks basically AGREE with each other and that they present the material in different ways, which leads *you* to think that they are not in agreement. Just operator error, with you being the operator. I stand by my claim that you have not read a single one of those textbooks all the way through. I would speculate that you skipped the parts that baffled you (too much math?) and only read the parts that were marginally easier to grasp and had pictures... but like all science, the devil is in the details, and the details are the hardest parts to fully understand... and you will never understand relativity unless and until you have a solid basis in "regular" physics and "regular" math. No one can normally run before they can walk, and in the world of physics and math you aren't even crawling yet... why, you can't even flip over onto your back yet! An obvious newborn in the world of relativity!

If you are not ready to invest at least 2,000 hours reading textbooks and working and solving the problems presented within them then you will not shake the ignorance of the subject matter that you now expose here. Your call.

Right now, you don't even know what you don't know...

“The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about.”
– Wayne Dyer

On 5/28/22 12:35 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> According to Einstein's Second Postulate, the speed of light is
> relative to stationary points in EMPTY SPACE.

You REALLY should read what Einstein wrote. He said no such thing --
that is purely YOUR fabrication.

In your near-complete ignorance of modern physics, when you just make
stuff up like that, it is invariably wrong. How sad.

Tom Roberts

On May 27, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> Time is particle spin. Every atom is a tiny clock made from smaller clocks.
> The particles spin at a specific rate.

hmmm, this is a bit jumbled, Ed.

If each atom is a clock and a particle, and spins at a specific rate,
how does one measure that rate?

'rate' intrinsically implies time. Which requires a clock. So
to measure the rate, you need a clock, which is the atom itself,
which is made from smaller atoms (clocks), which have their
own rates...

Thinking about this makes my head spin -

--
Rich

El sábado, 28 de mayo de 2022 a las 16:18:41 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 1:46:28 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:

> > > > Nonsense. You should read it again. It clearly says (see above): "If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A". There are TWO clocks. One of them is moved at constant speed in a closed trajectory (a circle). Therefore, what they compared after the clock A returns to its initial point is the ELAPSED time of the moving clock compared with the elapsed time of the not moving clock!!!!
> >
> > > Okay. Your basic problem is that you cannot comprehend that "elapsed time" is
> > > merely a comparison of accumulated times. And the way you "accumulate time"
> > > is by counting seconds. You start a stop watch, and one minute later you stop
> > > the stop watch. You have accumulated 60 seconds.
> > >
> > It is not that simple. The moving clock follows a path through spacetime and that path is shorter (the moving clock ticks at the same rate the stationary clock but the spacetime path of the moving clock is SHORTER). This is basic spacetime geometry.

> If so, it is IDIOTICALLY WRONG. A moving clock follows a path that is LONGER
> than the path of a stationary clock. The path of a truly stationary clock has a
> length of ZERO.

Well, that is no the case. Read for example the solution of the twin paradox, available with spacetime graphs at https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparadox.html

In the (t,x) spacetime graph of the Earth twin (the left graph), the traveling twin follows a path trip of three lightyears undertaken at a speed of 3/5 c (giving a relativistic factor γ = 5/4) in both directions and with a "turnaround time" of negligible duration.

However, when the twins reunite, the path the traveling twin took an elapsed time of 8 years, while the Earth twin took an elapsed time of 10 years.

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 9:29:35 PM UTC-3, RichD wrote:
> On May 27, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> > Time is particle spin. Every atom is a tiny clock made from smaller clocks.
> > The particles spin at a specific rate.
>
> hmmm, this is a bit jumbled, Ed.
>
> If each atom is a clock and a particle, and spins at a specific rate,
> how does one measure that rate?
>
> 'rate' intrinsically implies time. Which requires a clock. So
> to measure the rate, you need a clock, which is the atom itself,
> which is made from smaller atoms (clocks), which have their
> own rates...
>
> Thinking about this makes my head spin -
>
> --
> Rich

Then stop thinking about time measurement, provided that what time is remains unknown.

And regarding particles spinning around atoms, QM killed that concept 100 years ago, when orbits were replaced
by probabilistic clouds describing chances to find electrons within their 3D volumes. Watch some CGI on YT.

So far, for physics nothing is orbiting atoms. And even not "solid"particles are in there.

For QFT, you have probabilistic clouds or "ripples in the quantum field" around nucleus, and any timing is meaningless down there.

As I wrote many times here, what happens down 1 Armstrong (10E-10mt) is forbidden for humans to merely grasp.

So, statistics started to be used 100 years ago (Thanks, Max Born) to explain atom's electric neutrality, valence electrons and so.
Even "free" electrons are subjected to statistical laws and probabilities (Heisenberg's uncertainty, etc.).

Maybe you should stay with Einstein's "time is what my clock shows", and use the best Swiss mechanical clock, down to 1 second.

This "understanding" of time will cure your anxiety for life.

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 6:11:30 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 9:29:35 PM UTC-3, RichD wrote:
> > On May 27, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> > > Time is particle spin. Every atom is a tiny clock made from smaller clocks.
> > > The particles spin at a specific rate.
> >
> > hmmm, this is a bit jumbled, Ed.
> >
> > If each atom is a clock and a particle, and spins at a specific rate,
> > how does one measure that rate?
> >
> > 'rate' intrinsically implies time. Which requires a clock. So
> > to measure the rate, you need a clock, which is the atom itself,
> > which is made from smaller atoms (clocks), which have their
> > own rates...
> >
> > Thinking about this makes my head spin -
> >
> > --
> > Rich
> Then stop thinking about time measurement, provided that what time is remains unknown.
>

It is known. Time or temporal order is change. And change has rate.

Mitchell Raemsch

On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 12:18:07 AM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 6:11:30 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 9:29:35 PM UTC-3, RichD wrote:
> > > On May 27, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> > > > Time is particle spin. Every atom is a tiny clock made from smaller clocks.
> > > > The particles spin at a specific rate.
> > >
> > > hmmm, this is a bit jumbled, Ed.
> > >
> > > If each atom is a clock and a particle, and spins at a specific rate,
> > > how does one measure that rate?
> > >
> > > 'rate' intrinsically implies time. Which requires a clock. So
> > > to measure the rate, you need a clock, which is the atom itself,
> > > which is made from smaller atoms (clocks), which have their
> > > own rates...
> > >
> > > Thinking about this makes my head spin -
> > >
> > > --
> > > Rich
> > Then stop thinking about time measurement, provided that what time is remains unknown.
> >
> It is known. Time or temporal order is change. And change has rate.
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

Change has rate?

- Around 1917, in Chaplin's time, rate was 14 frames/sec. Humans noticed that rate as not normal, but funny.
- Around 1940, in Rita Hayworth's time, rate was 24 frames/sec. Humans perceived motion pictures as capturing nature rate.
- Around 2000, in Neo's Matrix movies, rate was 60 frames/sec. Humans stopped having headaches and sore eyes.
- Around 2010, in 2012 movie, rate was 120 frames/sec. Humans started having headaches again, sore eyes, and dizziness (Blue-Ray).
- Around 2015, in live football games, rate was 240 frames/sec. Symptoms persisted, but ghost trails in sudden movements dissapeared.

Which rate of change is enough for humans, after 100 years of experience with the capture of motion in movies?

Is this problem somehow related to physics? Maybe we should focus on BIOPHYSICS.

Ed Lake wrote:
>
> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 9:50:43 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > El sábado, 28 de mayo de 2022 a las 10:16:39 UTC-4, escribió:
> > > On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:11:29 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> >
> > > > > We also KNOW from experiments that time slows down when a clock
> > > > > is moving fast. And we know WHY.
> > > > >
> > > > Actually that is completely nonsense. Moving clocks do tick at the same frequency of a stationary clock (ie 1 tick per second) but the frequency tick reading of the moving clock, when measured from the stationary clock, is lower.
> >
> > > You definitely have problems with English. You are saying the same
> > > thing I just said.
> > No... you wrote above "time slows down when a clock is moving fast". In fact, nothing physical can affect the ticking of the constant speed moving clock. The ticking rate THERE continues to be 1 tick/second. The measurement of the ticking THERE, when measured HERE, is what apears to be slow (that is a geometrical projection of the moving time coordinate onto the stationary time coordinate).
>
> Okay, you definitely have problems with English. When a clock is caused to
> MOVE FASTER, it is NOT a "constant speed moving clock." The faster it moves,
> the slower it ticks. Yes, it still ticks 1 tick/second, but a SECOND IS LONGER.

How longer? 2 seconds longer??

>
> The faster you move, the longer your seconds become. It's called "Time Dilation."
> You don't notice any difference, but if you can somehow compare the length of
> your seconds to the length of second for something moving slower, there will
> be a difference.

But, but...When does this 'time dilation' causes this second to get longer?

I mean, why does a twin need to get on a rocket ship, make a long trip, and turn around and come back
when he can simply find out if the time dilation cause a long second a ...second later?

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

Ed Lake wrote:
>
> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:11:29 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > El viernes, 27 de mayo de 2022 a las 15:30:42 UTC-4, escribió:
> > > On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 11:14:28 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > > > El viernes, 27 de mayo de 2022 a las 10:08:49 UTC-4, escribió:
> > > >
> > > > > Read my paper "What is Time?" https://vixra.org/pdf/1602.0281v2.pdf
> > > > > Time is particle spin. Every atom is a tiny clock made from smaller clocks.
> > > > > The particles spin at a specific rate. Motion and gravity slow that rate.
> > > > >
> > > > > Find a location where particles spin at their fastest rate and you have found
> > > > > a stationary point in empty space.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ed
> > > > Nature is what it is. We humans (being a part of Nature) do not have the ability to exactly know how and why Nature does its stuff. We have created "PHYSICAL MODELS" of how WE think Nature works, but none of those models (while quite successful) are (or represent) Nature.
> > > > We do not really know what time it is. Our best current human time operational model is that time is what a clock reads.
> > > > In Nature there are no "clocks" and there are no "meters" and also there are no "frames of reference". All of those are a product of our human thoughts and observations.
> > > > Newton saw an apple falling to the ground and got F=ma as a model of his observation.
> > > > All physical models are a result of human thoughts and observations and there is no total warranty that any of those models is completely correct. We know Newtonian Mechanics is not correct for large masses and speeds. We know General Relativity is not correct for atomic sizes. We know Quantum Mechanics is not correct for large masses, etc, etc.
> >
> > > We don't know WHY all electrons in a location oscillate at the same
> > > frequency, but countless experiments show they do. The same with
> > > virtually all particles. So, "why" is not important.
> > >
>
> > > We also KNOW from experiments that time slows down when a clock
> > > is moving fast. And we know WHY.
> > >
> > Actually that is completely nonsense. Moving clocks do tick at the same frequency of a stationary clock (ie 1 tick per second) but the frequency tick reading of the moving clock, when measured from the stationary clock, is lower.
>
> You definitely have problems with English. You are saying the same
> thing I just said.
>
> > > According to Einstein, electrons gain mass when they are moved.
> > That is also nonsense. Speed does not affect an object mass but it affects its momentum (and energy).
>
> And, according to Einstein E=mc2, which means there is a direct relationship
> between mass and energy.

According to The Code: 'In the beggining, God created the heavens and the earth.'

....which means there is a direct relationship heavens (energy) and the earth (mass).

The operative words are "and the", meaning jointly, together with, including, part of each other....(if you know English)

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 4:32:41 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
> It bothers me big time when people CAN'T QUOTE EXACTLY what the cretin published in 1905.
>
> This is an excerpt of the 1923 English translation of the fucking paper. It clearly states:
>
> 1) Postulate I: All laws of physics, electrodynamics and optics hold good (for SMALL values) in all the
> frames of reference (INERTIAL FRAMES).

Wow! It really takes an INSANE person to declare something is from Einstein's
1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" when there is nothing like it
in that paper. It's just CRAP that you made up!

Here's a link to Einstein's paper: https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf

>
> 2) Postulate II: Light VELOCITY (a 3D vector) is CONSTANT (definite value) while propagating in FREE SPACE,
> INDEPENDENTLY of the motion of THE EMITTING BODY!

More made up crap.

>
> Postulate II CLEARLY assert that c velocity in vacuum IS CONSTANT and independent of ANY REFERENCE FRAME!

No. Postulate 2 in English is "light is always propagated in empty space
with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the
emitting body."

Velocity c is NOT a "constant" since it is a speed PER SECOND and
the length of a second will vary if the speed or gravity changes.

And Einstein's Second Postulate says NOTHING about "any reference frame."
It is only about the state of motion of THE EMITTING BODY.

>
> You all should stick to the original presentation that the cretin did.
>
> The value of c IS CONSTANT and INDEPENDENT of any frame of reference (moving or not). Is it clear enough?

It is clear you do not know what you are talking about.

>
> Here is the copy&paste excerpt of the English translation (1923). If you want, the ORIGINAL version in German is available online.
> Just search enough and you'll find it.
>
> ************************************************
> They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of
> electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.
>
> We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”)
> to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently
> irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a DEFINITE velocity c
> which is INDEPENDENT of the state of motion of the emitting body.
>
> These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of
> moving bodies based on Maxwell’s theory for stationary bodies. The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will
> prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an “absolutely stationary space”
> provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic
> processes take place.
> ************************************************
> This is on PAGE ONE OF:
>
> ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
> By A. EINSTEIN
> June 30, 1905

That is a correct version. So why do you claim versions you made up
are the correct version?

Ed

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 4:49:08 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 2:10:23 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > The speed of light has a value c in every such system BECAUSE the speed of
> > light is measured PER SECOND, and the LENGTH OF A SECOND VARIES depending
> > upon the speed at which you are moving.
> You are being blatantly self-contradictory. You have conceded many times that relativistic time dilation is not only far too small to account (by itself) for the invariance of the speed of light, it is also in the wrong direction, since the same time dilation applies both to approaching toward and receding from the light (c+v and c-v).

Wow! You are WILDLY misinterpreting something. c+v and c-v have NOTHING
to do with time dilation. They have to do with some object moving toward or
away from an oncoming photon.

> To account for the speed of light being the same in terms of every system of inertial coordinates, we must account not only for time dilation, but also for length contraction and (most importantly) for the relativity of simultaneity. Without all three of these effects, relativity would be self-contradictory. And once you account for these three things, you find that inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations, and hence azre perfectly reciprocal... thereby conclusively debunking all your beliefs..

The speed of light is NOT the same in "every system of inertial coordinates.."
It is MEASURED to be the same INSIDE each system, but when comparing
BETWEEN systems, the speed of light can be different due to the LENGTH OF
A SECOND being variable.

> > > A speed is not a reference system, and a pulse of light is not a reference system. Again,
> > > the speed of light in vacuum has the value c in terms of every inertial coordinate system,
> > > which conclusively debunks all your beliefs.
> >
> > The speed of light IS A REFERENCE system.
> No, it is not. No speed is a reference system. Speeds are defined in terms of reference systems. So a speed is not a reference system, and a reference system is not a speed. Also, per above, the speed of light in vacuum is c in terms of every inertial reference frame, thereby conclusively debunking all your beliefs. Agreed?

No. Reference systems pertain to MATHEMATICS. REALITY can be very
different from mathematics, if your rules for math do not agree with reality.

The point is that, IN REALITY, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.
That means that speeds for everything else MUST BE a percentage of the
speed of light.

> > Since nothing can go faster than the speed of light, all other speeds
> > are a PERCENTAGE of the speed of light.
> Thanks makes no sense. Even if objects could go faster than light, you could still express their speeds as fractions, such as 5/4, of any specified numerical value... that's just a trivial choice of units, it does not serve as a reference system in terms of which the speed of an object can be expressed. Remember, the speed of light has the same value in terms of every inertial reference system.

You just demonstrated that math can be pure NONSENSE.

> > > Please tell me, what is the speed of your refrigerator right now?
> You see? You could not even answer this question. Your inability to answer even the simplest questions reveals that your ideas don't work. Agreed?

The speed of my refrigerator depends upon what you are comparing
that speed against. If it is relative to the wall, its speed is zero. If it
is relative to a refrigerator on the North Pole, my refrigerator is moving
at about 700 mph as the earth spins on its axis.

> > If someone sitting in your refrigerator right now were to set up an inertial
> > coordinate system and determine the speed of light in terms of that system,
> > what would it be?
> >
> > The speed of light is 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND in ALL systems.
> Right, so what is the speed of the refrigerator? You were going to use the speed of light to tell me the speed of the refrigerator, but now you conceed that the speed of light is c in terms of every inertial system, so what is the speed of your refrigerator? You can't answer... agreed?

The speed of my refrigerator relative to the speed of light is zero, IF
the light you are talking about is from the light bulb inside my
refrigerator. Light emitted by the bulb inside the refrigerator travels
at 299,792,458 meters per second.

At the same time, however, my refrigerator is moving at about 700 mph
as the earth spins on its axis, and at 67,000 mph as the earth orbits the
sun, and at 486,000 mph as the sun orbits the center of the Milky Way
galaxy. So, my refrigerator is moving at over 500,000 mph relative to some
stationary point in space. That is about 0.10006922855945% of the
speed of light at that stationary point in space.

But, I see your point. While everything moves relative to the maximum
allowed speed in the universe, using that to do calculations is almost
impossible. I ONLY use it to point out that speeds are NOT relative
to anything you want them to be relative to. If Object-A is moving
faster than Object-B, you cannot simply decide that that also means
that Object-B is moving faster than Object-A if you decide you want
things that way.

Ed

On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 12:32:11 PM UTC-3, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 4:32:41 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > It bothers me big time when people CAN'T QUOTE EXACTLY what the cretin published in 1905.
> >
> > This is an excerpt of the 1923 English translation of the fucking paper.. It clearly states:
> >
> > 1) Postulate I: All laws of physics, electrodynamics and optics hold good (for SMALL values) in all the
> > frames of reference (INERTIAL FRAMES).
> Wow! It really takes an INSANE person to declare something is from Einstein's
> 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" when there is nothing like it
> in that paper. It's just CRAP that you made up!
>
> Here's a link to Einstein's paper: https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
> >
> > 2) Postulate II: Light VELOCITY (a 3D vector) is CONSTANT (definite value) while propagating in FREE SPACE,
> > INDEPENDENTLY of the motion of THE EMITTING BODY!
> More made up crap.
> >
> > Postulate II CLEARLY assert that c velocity in vacuum IS CONSTANT and independent of ANY REFERENCE FRAME!
> No. Postulate 2 in English is "light is always propagated in empty space
> with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the
> emitting body."
>
> Velocity c is NOT a "constant" since it is a speed PER SECOND and
> the length of a second will vary if the speed or gravity changes.
>
> And Einstein's Second Postulate says NOTHING about "any reference frame."
> It is only about the state of motion of THE EMITTING BODY.
> >
> > You all should stick to the original presentation that the cretin did.
> >
> > The value of c IS CONSTANT and INDEPENDENT of any frame of reference (moving or not). Is it clear enough?
> It is clear you do not know what you are talking about.
> >
> > Here is the copy&paste excerpt of the English translation (1923). If you want, the ORIGINAL version in German is available online.
> > Just search enough and you'll find it.
> >
> > ************************************************
> > They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of
> > electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.
> >
> > We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”)
> > to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently
> > irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a DEFINITE velocity c
> > which is INDEPENDENT of the state of motion of the emitting body.
> >
> > These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of
> > moving bodies based on Maxwell’s theory for stationary bodies. The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will
> > prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an “absolutely stationary space”
> > provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic
> > processes take place.
> > ************************************************
> > This is on PAGE ONE OF:
> >
> > ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
> > By A. EINSTEIN
> > June 30, 1905
> That is a correct version. So why do you claim versions you made up
> are the correct version?
>
> Ed

I try to not take offense to your claim that I, on purpose, MODIFIED the 1923 English translation of the 1905 paper.
And the above is because I consider myself a VERY HONEST PERSON!. And doing such stupidity is UNTHINKABLE for me.
Being almost 68 years old, one of the few things of which I'm proud of is MY HONESTY, intellectual and in any other area of life.

I think that you misunderstood the initial part of the post, where I inserted my OWN COMMENT within the quoted text. I did that
for the sake of CLARITY, nothing else.

As a proof, I copied and paste THE ENTIRE SECTION from the PDF files, at the end of my post, without a single modification.

If you didn't like my clarifications, like inserting (a 3D vector) after Einstein's "light velocity" or CONSTANT before Einstein's
"definite value", then IT IS YOUR PROBLEM, Ed (or whichever your name is).

When you were attacked by the pack of hyenas many months ago (Bodkin in particular), I wrote a post DEFENDING your persona
against those vile attacks. I'm starting to regret my action by then.

Don't ever try to comment SHIT about me again.

For me, you can keep your understanding of relativity (WRONG ONE) and keep posting RIDICULOUS CLAIMS.

Even when not a relativist, my understanding of it (in particular the 1905 paper) IS ABSOLUTE. I master the meaning
of every single comment that THE CRETIN wrote, with help of many. I even compared 1:1 the German to English translation,
and I parsed and correlated the fucking paper with the one of Lorentz, one year before. I wrote several posts, showing HOW
AND FROM WHERE Einstein plagiarized Lorentz, in particular on the topics around the electron.

I never found at any of your posts something posing intellectual depth.

I'm done with you, and I have no use for you. Keep playing with your relativity.

That's final.

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 5:53:11 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 5/28/22 12:35 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > According to Einstein's Second Postulate, the speed of light is
> > relative to stationary points in EMPTY SPACE.
> You REALLY should read what Einstein wrote. He said no such thing --
> that is purely YOUR fabrication.
>
> In your near-complete ignorance of modern physics, when you just make
> stuff up like that, it is invariably wrong. How sad.
>
> Tom Roberts

Einstein wrote this: "light is always propagated in empty space with a
definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the
emitting body."

So, it doesn't make any difference how fast the emitting body is moving,
light will always travel at 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND.

You are correct, however. I didn't mean to write that "the SPEED of light
is relative to stationary points in empty space." It can be measured that
way, but it is more correct to say that when light is EMITTED, it is EMITTED
from a stationary point in space. HOWEVER, its speed will depend upon the
speed of the emitter relative to that stationary point in space. The faster
the emitter is traveling, the longer a second will be for the emitter, and
light will travel at 299,792,458 meters PER THAT LONGER SECOND.

Ed

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 7:29:35 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote:
> On May 27, wrote:
> > Time is particle spin. Every atom is a tiny clock made from smaller clocks.
> > The particles spin at a specific rate.
>
> hmmm, this is a bit jumbled, Ed.
>
> If each atom is a clock and a particle, and spins at a specific rate,
> how does one measure that rate?

You choose a "standard." A long time ago, they divided a day into 24 hours.
A day was one rotation of the earth, from noon until noon. Then they
divided a day into hours, and hours in to minutes, and minutes into seconds.

But the earth doesn't rotate exactly 365 times a year. So, scientists
converted a second into something that is always the same. A second is
now defined this way:

"Since 1967, the second has been defined as exactly "the duration of
9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition
between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133
atom" (at a temperature of 0 K and at mean sea level)."

It's the official standard. All spin rates for particles can be measured
using that standard for a second.

>
> 'rate' intrinsically implies time. Which requires a clock. So
> to measure the rate, you need a clock, which is the atom itself,
> which is made from smaller atoms (clocks), which have their
> own rates...

Just use the standard for a second. All clocks which tick at steady
rates should tick at a specific rate relative to the standard. Every TYPE
of clock might tick at a different rate, but by using the standard you can
compare one rate to another.

Good question.

Ed