Is a proper second represent a specific interval of absolute time???

[John Gogo]

On Sep 23, 8:03 pm, "Inertial" <***@rest.com> wrote:
> "kenseto"  wrote in message
>
> news:c61accab-0584-4d84-8a7e-***@j2g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >On Sep 22, 7:11 pm, artful <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sep 23, 6:44 am, kenseto <***@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> >> You claim absolute time is simply a duration of time.  So one second
> >> on a clock is a duration of time and its duration is one second.  So
> >> absolute time is clock time.
>
> >Absolute time is proper time
>
> So .. you don't know what proper time is .. thought so.
>
> No point discussing physics with you when you don't even speak the language.
>
> Bye

To a human being, proper times means the exposure of a phenomena vs.
the time it takes for the distant clock to measure a value.

[kenseto]

On Sep 28, 7:01 pm, artful <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 29, 8:19 am, kenseto <***@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > Sure what I said is exactly what Sr said. a proper second on the
> > observer's clock represents a specific interval of proper time
> > (absolute time).
>
> SR does not mention (absolute time) .. so NO .. that is NOT exactly
> what SR said.. You lied.

SR calls absolute time as proper time. There is no difference between
proper time and absolute time. They both are invariant. The passage of
absloute time or proper time is independent of motion.

[rotchm]

> So, what is your definition of proper time?
> ===========================================
> "It is essential to have time defined by means of stationary clocks in the
> stationary system, and the time now defined being appropriate to the
> stationary system we call it ``the time of the stationary system.''" --  
> Einstein.

That quote represents the concept (a loose definition) of "time" in an
inertial frame, also known as "coordinate time".
The "(coordinate) time" is not "proper time". Our (me, seto)
discussion is about seto's use and definition of "proper time".

Lets keep to the subject at hand: seto's understanding of proper time.
Do not confuse him moreso.

[kenseto]

On Oct 19, 6:41 pm, "Inertial" <***@rest.com> wrote:
> "kenseto" <***@erinet.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6d013f3c-0735-4435-916a-***@j25g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Oct 18, 5:07 pm, artful <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 19, 1:10 am, kenseto <***@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> >> > No that's not what you said. What you said is that a clock second
> >> > represents tthe same amount of time in different frames.
>
> >> A's clock second in A's frame represents the same amount of time as
> >> B's clock second in B's frame.  In both cases it is 1 second.
>
> > But A's cclokc second have different duration than B's clock second.
>
> No .. you are lying again.  Both are one second long.

Hey idiot even SR says that Observer A's clock second is worth 1/gamma
second on the observed clock B.

>
> [snip irrelevance]
>
> >> The difference, according to SR, is between A's clock rate and what A
> >> MEASURES B's clock rate to be.  It is a difference in MEASUREMENT due
> >> to the relative motion of B's clock while its rate is being measured.
>
> > No measurement...
>
> Yes .. measurement

No measurement

>
> > .SR predicts that the
>
> ... measurement of  ....



>
> > passage of a clock second in
> > A's frame correspond to the passage of less than
>
> ... the measurement of  ...

Only prediction....no actual physical measurement is done.

>
> >a clock second in B's
> > frame.
>
> ... as measured in A's frame ...
>
> [snip irrelevance]
>
> >> > not...in SR the passage of a clock second in observer A's frame
> >> > corresponds to the passage of less than a clock second on a B clock.
>
> >> SR does not say that.  You distort what Sr says into lies.
>
> > SR certainly says that. observer A asserts that B's clock second is
> > worth gamma seconds on his clock or one of A's second is worth 1/gaama
> > second on the B clock.
>
> Outright lie.  SR says nothing of the sort.  No wonder you disagree with SR
> .. you don't know what it says and so make up your own claims

So are you saying that observer A doesn't predict that B runs slow by
a factor of 1/gamma? Do you realize that this is the same as saying
that B's clock second is worth gamma second on the A clock. You are
fucking stupid.

Ken Seto

>
> >> The difference, according to SR, is between A's clock rate and what A
> >> MEASURES B's clock rate to be.
>
> > No measurement....
>
> Measurement
>
> > SR predicts the
>
> ... measurement of the ...
>
> > clock rate of B
>
> ... as measured in frame A ...
>
> > to be 1/gamma.
> >>It is a difference in MEASUREMENT due
> >> to the relative motion of B's clock while its rate is being measured.
>
> > No measurement....SR predicts.
>
> SR predicts measurements.
>
> >> > >You cannot read.
> >> > > What I also said is that absolute time, if it exists, is
> >> > > unmeasurable,
> >> > > since no clock measures absolute time.
>
> >> > It is measurable....a clcok second at the rest frame of the clock
> >> > measures a specific amount of absolute time.
>
> >> How much absolute time?  If you do not know, and cannot tell, then you
> >> cannot measure how much absolute time elapsed.
>
> > That's an irrelevant question.....
>
> it is TOTALLY relevant if you can't tell how much is there you cannot
> measure it .. that's the whole point of measuring ..to find out how much
> You simply can't answer the question and have been caught out lying and not
> are running away again
>
> > the amount of absolute time in a
> > clock second is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the
> > clock.
>
> So how can you measure how much absolute time is there .. you claimed above
> that you CAN measure it.  Now you are saying you can't
>
> >> > The GPS uses absolute
> >> > time to synch the GPS clock with the ground clock
>
> >> No .. it uses ground clock time .. not absolute time
>
> > Yes it uses the absolute time
>
> No .. it uses ground time
>
> [snip irrelevance]
>
> >> As you've been told hundreds of times, there is NO redefinition of the
> >> second .. just a change in tick rate of the GPS clocks.
>
> > Sure there is redefinition...
>
> Liar
>
> the ground clock second is represented
>
> > by  9,192,631,770 periods of Cs 133 radiation while the redefined GPS
> > second is is represented by 9.192,631,774.46 periods of cs 133
> > radiation.
>
> That is an adjustment to the rate of the clock .. NOT a redefinition of how
> long a clock second is, moron.

[kenseto]

On Oct 19, 6:41 pm, "Inertial" <***@rest.com> wrote:
> "kenseto" <***@erinet.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6d013f3c-0735-4435-916a-***@j25g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Oct 18, 5:07 pm, artful <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 19, 1:10 am, kenseto <***@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> >> > No that's not what you said. What you said is that a clock second
> >> > represents tthe same amount of time in different frames.
>
> >> A's clock second in A's frame represents the same amount of time as
> >> B's clock second in B's frame.  In both cases it is 1 second.
>
> > But A's cclokc second have different duration than B's clock second.
>
> No .. you are lying again.  Both are one second long.

So are you saying that a second is a universal interval of time? IOW,
a clock second will have the same duration in different frames? How
does this agree with the SR prediction that observer A predicts B's
clock rate to be 1/gamma????

>
> [snip irrelevance]
>
> >> The difference, according to SR, is between A's clock rate and what A
> >> MEASURES B's clock rate to be.  It is a difference in MEASUREMENT due
> >> to the relative motion of B's clock while its rate is being measured.
>
> > No measurement...
>
> Yes .. measurement
>
> > .SR predicts that the
>
> ... measurement of  ....
>
> > passage of a clock second in
> > A's frame correspond to the passage of less than
>
> ... the measurement of  ...
>
> >a clock second in B's
> > frame.
>
> ... as measured in A's frame ...
>
> [snip irrelevance]
>
> >> > not...in SR the passage of a clock second in observer A's frame
> >> > corresponds to the passage of less than a clock second on a B clock.
>
> >> SR does not say that.  You distort what Sr says into lies.
>
> > SR certainly says that. observer A asserts that B's clock second is
> > worth gamma seconds on his clock or one of A's second is worth 1/gaama
> > second on the B clock.
>
> Outright lie.  SR says nothing of the sort.  No wonder you disagree with SR
> .. you don't know what it says and so make up your own claims

So are you saying that an SR observer does not predict every clock
moving wrt him is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma? You are an
idiot.

Ken Seto

K

>
> >> The difference, according to SR, is between A's clock rate and what A
> >> MEASURES B's clock rate to be.
>
> > No measurement....
>
> Measurement
>
> > SR predicts the
>
> ... measurement of the ...
>
> > clock rate of B
>
> ... as measured in frame A ...
>
> > to be 1/gamma.
> >>It is a difference in MEASUREMENT due
> >> to the relative motion of B's clock while its rate is being measured.
>
> > No measurement....SR predicts.
>
> SR predicts measurements.
>
> >> > >You cannot read.
> >> > > What I also said is that absolute time, if it exists, is
> >> > > unmeasurable,
> >> > > since no clock measures absolute time.
>
> >> > It is measurable....a clcok second at the rest frame of the clock
> >> > measures a specific amount of absolute time.
>
> >> How much absolute time?  If you do not know, and cannot tell, then you
> >> cannot measure how much absolute time elapsed.
>
> > That's an irrelevant question.....
>
> it is TOTALLY relevant if you can't tell how much is there you cannot
> measure it .. that's the whole point of measuring ..to find out how much
> You simply can't answer the question and have been caught out lying and not
> are running away again
>
> > the amount of absolute time in a
> > clock second is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the
> > clock.
>
> So how can you measure how much absolute time is there .. you claimed above
> that you CAN measure it.  Now you are saying you can't
>
> >> > The GPS uses absolute
> >> > time to synch the GPS clock with the ground clock
>
> >> No .. it uses ground clock time .. not absolute time
>
> > Yes it uses the absolute time
>
> No .. it uses ground time
>
> [snip irrelevance]
>
> >> As you've been told hundreds of times, there is NO redefinition of the
> >> second .. just a change in tick rate of the GPS clocks.
>
> > Sure there is redefinition...
>
> Liar
>
> the ground clock second is represented
>
> > by  9,192,631,770 periods of Cs 133 radiation while the redefined GPS
> > second is is represented by 9.192,631,774.46 periods of cs 133
> > radiation.
>
> That is an adjustment to the rate of the clock .. NOT a redefinition of how
> long a clock second is, moron.

[kenseto]

On Oct 19, 6:41 pm, "Inertial" <***@rest.com> wrote:
> "kenseto" <***@erinet.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6d013f3c-0735-4435-916a-***@j25g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Oct 18, 5:07 pm, artful <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 19, 1:10 am, kenseto <***@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> >> > No that's not what you said. What you said is that a clock second
> >> > represents tthe same amount of time in different frames.
>
> >> A's clock second in A's frame represents the same amount of time as
> >> B's clock second in B's frame.  In both cases it is 1 second.
>
> > But A's cclokc second have different duration than B's clock second.
>
> No .. you are lying again.  Both are one second long.

Burt a clock second is not a universal interval of time even in SR. In
SR the passage of A's second does not correspond to the passage of a B
second.

>
> [snip irrelevance]
>
> >> The difference, according to SR, is between A's clock rate and what A
> >> MEASURES B's clock rate to be.  It is a difference in MEASUREMENT due
> >> to the relative motion of B's clock while its rate is being measured.
>
> > No measurement...
>
> Yes .. measurement

No measurement...calling a prediction as a measurement is not phyics.
>
> > .SR predicts that the
>
> ... measurement of  ....
>
> > passage of a clock second in
> > A's frame correspond to the passage of less than
>
> ... the measurement of  ...
>
> >a clock second in B's
> > frame.
>
> ... as measured in A's frame ...
>
> [snip irrelevance]
>
> >> > not...in SR the passage of a clock second in observer A's frame
> >> > corresponds to the passage of less than a clock second on a B clock.
>
> >> SR does not say that.  You distort what Sr says into lies.
>
> > SR certainly says that. observer A asserts that B's clock second is
> > worth gamma seconds on his clock or one of A's second is worth 1/gaama
> > second on the B clock.
>
> Outright lie.  SR says nothing of the sort.  No wonder you disagree with SR
> .. you don't know what it says and so make up your own claims
>
> >> The difference, according to SR, is between A's clock rate and what A
> >> MEASURES B's clock rate to be.
>
> > No measurement....
>
> Measurement
>
> > SR predicts the
>
> ... measurement of the ...
>
> > clock rate of B
>
> ... as measured in frame A ...
>
> > to be 1/gamma.
> >>It is a difference in MEASUREMENT due
> >> to the relative motion of B's clock while its rate is being measured.
>
> > No measurement....SR predicts.
>
> SR predicts measurements.
>
> >> > >You cannot read.
> >> > > What I also said is that absolute time, if it exists, is
> >> > > unmeasurable,
> >> > > since no clock measures absolute time.
>
> >> > It is measurable....a clcok second at the rest frame of the clock
> >> > measures a specific amount of absolute time.
>
> >> How much absolute time?  If you do not know, and cannot tell, then you
> >> cannot measure how much absolute time elapsed.
>
> > That's an irrelevant question.....
>
> it is TOTALLY relevant if you can't tell how much is there you cannot
> measure it .. that's the whole point of measuring ..to find out how much
> You simply can't answer the question and have been caught out lying and not
> are running away again
>
> > the amount of absolute time in a
> > clock second is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the
> > clock.
>
> So how can you measure how much absolute time is there .. you claimed above
> that you CAN measure it.  Now you are saying you can't
>
> >> > The GPS uses absolute
> >> > time to synch the GPS clock with the ground clock
>
> >> No .. it uses ground clock time .. not absolute time
>
> > Yes it uses the absolute time
>
> No .. it uses ground time
>
> [snip irrelevance]
>
> >> As you've been told hundreds of times, there is NO redefinition of the
> >> second .. just a change in tick rate of the GPS clocks.
>
> > Sure there is redefinition...
>
> Liar
>
> the ground clock second is represented
>
> > by  9,192,631,770 periods of Cs 133 radiation while the redefined GPS
> > second is is represented by 9.192,631,774.46 periods of cs 133
> > radiation.
>
> That is an adjustment to the rate of the clock .. NOT a redefinition of how
> long a clock second is, moron.

No that's a redefinition of the clock second to make it contain the
same amount of absolute time as the ground clock second.

Ken Seto

[kenseto]

On Oct 19, 6:41 pm, "Inertial" <***@rest.com> wrote:
> "kenseto" <***@erinet.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6d013f3c-0735-4435-916a-***@j25g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Oct 18, 5:07 pm, artful <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 19, 1:10 am, kenseto <***@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> >> > No that's not what you said. What you said is that a clock second
> >> > represents tthe same amount of time in different frames.
>
> >> A's clock second in A's frame represents the same amount of time as
> >> B's clock second in B's frame.  In both cases it is 1 second.
>
> > But A's cclokc second have different duration than B's clock second.
>
> No .. you are lying again.  Both are one second long.

So are you saying that a clock second in different frames have the
same duration....iow, the passage of a clock second in A's frame
corresponds to the passage of a clock second in B's frame?

>
> [snip irrelevance]
>
> >> The difference, according to SR, is between A's clock rate and what A
> >> MEASURES B's clock rate to be.  It is a difference in MEASUREMENT due
> >> to the relative motion of B's clock while its rate is being measured.
>
> > No measurement...
>
> Yes .. measurement
>
> > .SR predicts that the
>
> ... measurement of  ....
>
> > passage of a clock second in
> > A's frame correspond to the passage of less than
>
> ... the measurement of  ...
>
> >a clock second in B's
> > frame.
>
> ... as measured in A's frame ...
>
> [snip irrelevance]
>
> >> > not...in SR the passage of a clock second in observer A's frame
> >> > corresponds to the passage of less than a clock second on a B clock.
>
> >> SR does not say that.  You distort what Sr says into lies.
>
> > SR certainly says that. observer A asserts that B's clock second is
> > worth gamma seconds on his clock or one of A's second is worth 1/gaama
> > second on the B clock.
>
> Outright lie.  SR says nothing of the sort.  No wonder you disagree with SR
> .. you don't know what it says and so make up your own claims
>
> >> The difference, according to SR, is between A's clock rate and what A
> >> MEASURES B's clock rate to be.
>
> > No measurement....
>
> Measurement
>
> > SR predicts the
>
> ... measurement of the ...
>
> > clock rate of B
>
> ... as measured in frame A ...
>
> > to be 1/gamma.
> >>It is a difference in MEASUREMENT due
> >> to the relative motion of B's clock while its rate is being measured.
>
> > No measurement....SR predicts.
>
> SR predicts measurements.
>
> >> > >You cannot read.
> >> > > What I also said is that absolute time, if it exists, is
> >> > > unmeasurable,
> >> > > since no clock measures absolute time.
>
> >> > It is measurable....a clcok second at the rest frame of the clock
> >> > measures a specific amount of absolute time.
>
> >> How much absolute time?  If you do not know, and cannot tell, then you
> >> cannot measure how much absolute time elapsed.
>
> > That's an irrelevant question.....
>
> it is TOTALLY relevant if you can't tell how much is there you cannot
> measure it .. that's the whole point of measuring ..to find out how much
> You simply can't answer the question and have been caught out lying and not
> are running away again
>
> > the amount of absolute time in a
> > clock second is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the
> > clock.
>
> So how can you measure how much absolute time is there .. you claimed above
> that you CAN measure it.  Now you are saying you can't
>
> >> > The GPS uses absolute
> >> > time to synch the GPS clock with the ground clock
>
> >> No .. it uses ground clock time .. not absolute time
>
> > Yes it uses the absolute time
>
> No .. it uses ground time
>
> [snip irrelevance]
>
> >> As you've been told hundreds of times, there is NO redefinition of the
> >> second .. just a change in tick rate of the GPS clocks.
>
> > Sure there is redefinition...
>
> Liar
>
> the ground clock second is represented
>
> > by  9,192,631,770 periods of Cs 133 radiation while the redefined GPS
> > second is is represented by 9.192,631,774.46 periods of cs 133
> > radiation.
>
> That is an adjustment to the rate of the clock .. NOT a redefinition of how
> long a clock second is, moron.