# Thread: Moved : Farsight's Light Clocks

1. Originally Posted by flopper
...It isn't. It is measuring the proper time in the clock's frame.

...As DrRocket so rightly says precision is an absolute requirement.
I think I need to jump in here.

Clocks don't literally measure "proper time". That's a figure of speech. What they actually do, is employ some kind of motion which is usually regular and cyclical, and show you a cumulative result that you call "the time". All you need to do to verify this is examine an egg timer, or a grandfather clock, or a spring-driven mechanical clock, or a quartz wristwatch, or an atomic clock, or an optical clock, or the gedanken parallel-mirror light-clock used extensively in relativity. Open up a clock and (to be absolutely precise) you do not see something called proper time flowing through it being measured. In the parallel-mirror light-clock there's no literal proper time being measured in the clock's frame. It's merely light moving between the mirrors, wherein the reflections are counted. That's it, take it at face value. Note that the Lorentz factor comes straight out of Pythagoras' theorem. Treat one side of the /\ angled path as a right-angled triangle. The hypotenuse is the lightpath where c=1 in natural units, the base is the speed v as a fraction of c, and the height gives the Lorentz factor γ = 1/√(1-v²/c²). If the moving mirror is going at .99c with respect to you, the Lorentz factor is 1/√(1-0.99²/1²) = 1/√(1-0.98) = 1/√0.02 = 1/0.142 = 7. We use a reciprocal because time dilation has the opposite sense to length contraction.

I recommend A World without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein. It's heavy-going philosophy at times, and the blurb rather suggests that "time does not exist", which is misleading. Instead it should be "time does not exist as it is commonly understood". Time isn't something that literally flows through a clock. A clock is not some kind of mysterious magical proper-time gas meter.

2. Originally Posted by Farsight
I think I need to jump in here.

Clocks don't literally measure "proper time". That's a figure of speech. What they actually do, is employ some kind of motion which is usually regular and cyclical, and show you a cumulative result that you call "the time". All you need to do to verify this is examine an egg timer, or a grandfather clock, or a spring-driven mechanical clock, or a quartz wristwatch, or an atomic clock, or an optical clock, or the gedanken parallel-mirror light-clock used extensively in relativity. Open up a clock and (to be absolutely precise) you do not see something called proper time flowing through it being measured. In the parallel-mirror light-clock there's no literal proper time being measured in the clock's frame. It's merely light moving between the mirrors, wherein the reflections are counted. That's it, take it at face value. Note that the Lorentz factor comes straight out of Pythagoras' theorem. Treat one side of the /\ angled path as a right-angled triangle. The hypotenuse is the lightpath where c=1 in natural units, the base is the speed v as a fraction of c, and the height gives the Lorentz factor γ = 1/√(1-v²/c²). If the moving mirror is going at .99c with respect to you, the Lorentz factor is 1/√(1-0.99²/1²) = 1/√(1-0.98) = 1/√0.02 = 1/0.142 = 7. We use a reciprocal because time dilation has the opposite sense to length contraction.

I recommend A World without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein. It's heavy-going philosophy at times, and the blurb rather suggests that "time does not exist", which is misleading. Instead it should be "time does not exist as it is commonly understood". Time isn't something that literally flows through a clock. A clock is not some kind of mysterious magical proper-time gas meter.
Bullshit.

Clocks, in the sense that the term is used in physics, and particularly in relativity, measure the proper time of segments of their world line, and THAT IS ALL THAT CLOCKS MEASURE.

As usual, you pontificate on a subject about which you know absolutely nothing. In fact, you know less than nothing since much of what you "know" is patently false, as in this case.

[ SENTENCE EDITED OUT BY MODERATOR ]

Crank.

3. DrRocket, I edited out a certain sentence from your last post. While I understand that it wasn't meant literally and was merely a form of sarcasm, I nonetheless feel that its use was not appropriate. The topic alluded to is a very sensitive one, and has a massive impact on anyone who is affected by it. Out of respect for any reader who may be forced to deal with that topic in his/her real life, I have thus removed the sentence in question.

4. I confess I'm surprised here. I gave a good response which has been moved off-thread, and whilst we see evidence of moderation above, words like "Bullshit" and "crank" remain. That's not moderation. That's an officer of this forum engaging in censorship and siding with anonymous abuse directed at me - and no doubt preparing to prevent me defending myself from that abuse.

As regards clocks measure the proper time of segments of their world line, it's not as if you can open up a grandfather clock to see that world line along with some kind of tape measure. That's putting abstraction ahead of experimental observables, and as per my reference above, it is not in line with Einstein's operational view.

5. Originally Posted by Farsight
I confess I'm surprised here. I gave a good response which has been moved off-thread, and whilst we see evidence of moderation above, words like "Bullshit" and "crank" remain. That's not moderation. That's an officer of this forum engaging in censorship and siding with anonymous abuse directed at me - and no doubt preparing to prevent me defending myself from that abuse.

As regards clocks measure the proper time of segments of their world line, it's not as if you can open up a grandfather clock to see that world line along with some kind of tape measure. That's putting abstraction ahead of experimental observables, and as per my reference above, it is not in line with Einstein's operational view.
That is just absurd.

Of course you can't see a world line. You can't see a second, time a kilogram, or weigh a coulomb. No one has seen an electron, but the electron is certainly a critical element in all accepted theories of the atom, and of chemical reaction mechanisms.

The entire experimental basis supporting the general theory of relativity supports the concept of proper time. You cannot logically accept the general theory of relativity without at the same time accepting the model of the universe as the spacetime manifold, and along with that model comes the fact that the only time measured by any clock is the proper time associated with the world line of that clock.

However, neither logic nor the details of the general theory of relativity have appeared to intrude into your concept of physics (which can only be accurately described as bullshit).

What in the hell is "Einstein's operational view" beyond your personal hallucination ?

"When asked by his assistant what his reaction would have been if general relativity had not been confirmed by Eddington and Dyson in 1919, Einstein famously made the quip: "Then I would feel sorry for the dear Lord. The theory is correct anyway." "

6. That's not moderation. That's an officer of this forum engaging in censorship
This forum does not engage in censorship; "censorship" means that a post/thread is prevented from becoming publicly visible ( i.e. deleted or disapproved ) without explanation or prior warning. The only situations which warrant such a course of action are commercial spam and grossly offensive content.
In your case I have done no such thing, as you are very well aware; all I have done is move your posts to a different section of the forum, and I have provided a full public explanation as to why that was done. You are still here, and you are still free to post your ideas and discussion topics - just not in the main sections.

and no doubt preparing to prevent me defending myself from that abuse.
In my last PM to you I have already provided information as to how to go about appealing this decision; I suggest you use it, if you are unhappy. It is certainly not my intention to try and prevent you from doing so.

I confess I'm surprised here.
You shouldn't be, since this isn't the first forum which finds it necessary to take this type of action against you.

8. Once again - the decision stands, and if you are unhappy with it go through the proper channels to put in a complaint. The site admin can always overrule my decisions if he sees fit to do so. No one here is interested in your conspiracy theories of the guy with no qualifications but a superior intellect who has just shown everyone else how wrong they are being suppressed by the old boys' club, because they are afraid of being embarrassed by him. If that is what you really believe, then that is just one more confirmation of how much of a crank you really are.

I do not like to repeat myself, so this is your last warning. I have been far too patient with you already.

9. Originally Posted by Farsight
It's censorship, Markus. Flopper can't see my response to his question, and nor can anybody else because there's no link. You're censoring me, and I'm referring to Einstein, so you're censoring Einstein too. I can answer Flopper's questions with solid facts and references which are not "my ideas". All Dr Rocket can offer is facile non-answers followed by "go read one of the several books on relativity that have been recommended" and finally "I give up. You really are that dense.". It's censorship, born of hubris and envy and ignorance, with a specious fig-leaf "not mainstream" justification. You're certainly not a moderator, if you were you, would not permit slanderous ad-hominem abuse directed at me from an anonymous mathematician who is outraged because I can answer a question that he can't.
The fact that you lack the capability to understand well-formulated, specific, rigorous answers to the question posed makes my responses neither "facile" nor " non-answers". Your problem is just that, your problem. It lies between your ears. Sorry if you cannot understand mathematical reasoning. That is, however, your problem and not mine. Mathematics is the language of physics. Your lack of understanding the language of the subject at hand makes you scientifically illiterate.

There is no hubris involved in the labeling, by anyone with any understanding of basic science, of your trash as "not mainstream". It is not only not mainstream, but also illogical, as it is contradicted by the mountain of empirical evidence that supports the mainstream science that you contradict. All that you have demonstrated is total ignorance of the basis of modern science and a delusion that you know better than the small army of professionals who do understand not only the theories of modern science, but also the basis for those theories and the limitations of them.

You have not begun to answer a question that I can't, as least within the realm of physics. The big problem is not so much that you don't understand, but that you don't understand that you don't understand. This leads to your putting forth, in apparently reasonable tones, the most outlandish "explanations". You are a danger to neophytes who have not yet gained enough background to recognize your nonsense for what it is.

Originally Posted by Farsight
In fact, rather than dealing with it, you add to it by suggesting I'm some my-theory crank who been banned everywhere. The last time I was censored was at thescienceforum in response to a conversation with you about gravity and mass, where I was again referring to Einstein, and rather embarrassing you and certainly Guitarist with the quality of my posts. So you had Kalster tell me I wasn't welcome. Before that I was banned in 2011 by Swanson on scienceforums for "posting pet theories" when what I actually did is give a better answer than he did. See this. It's censorship by self-professed "experts" who can't bear it when somebody comes along and says something that makes them look less expert than they'd like people to think. So much for free speech in science eh Markus?
But you have openly solicited for your "book" (see link above) which most certainly exhibits you as a "my theory crank" of the first order. Hoist by your own petard.

No one has been embarrassed by the quality of your posts. However, were you a bit more perceptive then you would be embarrassed indeed.

BTW the "swanson" who warned you about your nonsensical answer regarding time and clocks at thescienceforum.com is Tom Swanson, a PhD physicist with the Naval Observatory, and an expert on atomic clocks. Not only did you not "give a better answer than he did", but in fact you merely regurgitated your usual nonsense about what clocks measure. So you are wrong on an objective and factual basis, and looking extremely foolish and ignorant in your ridiculous challenge of someone whose expertise, deep expertise, lies in the area of the question that was being addressed. You truly do not understand that you do not understand.

10. Sigh. Another ad-hominem diatribe instead of a level-headed civil and well-crafted evidential physics counterargument backed up by experiment and reference.

Let's open up a clock shall we? See that world line in there? And that tape measure? Why, that clock is measuring the proper time of segments of it's world line, and THAT IS ALL THAT CLOCKS MEASURE.

What? You can't see that world line? Or that tape measure? Huh? You can only see cogs moving? Or a quartz crystal oscillating? Or a pendulum swinging? Why, you are a danger to neophytes who have not yet gained enough background to recognize your nonsense for what it is. And of course, that is just one more confirmation of how much of a crank you really are.

Guys, I am really becoming seriously unhappy with this. I'm none too happy when some anonymous mathematician gives my name and slanders me whilst a moderator lets it happen. But when that "moderator", an appointed representative of this forum, then censors me and slanders me further, I'm even more unhappy. Hence I've put in a complaint to Sahil, and await his response.

11. Originally Posted by Farsight
Sigh. Another ad-hominem diatribe instead of a level-headed civil and well-crafted evidential physics counterargument backed up by experiment and reference.
There has been no ad hominem argument given. It would be an ad homimen argument if one were to say that your assertions are false because you are a crank. But to observe and then show that your arguments lack all validity, are nevertheless argued vociferously, and therefore you are a crank is merely to recognize some facts and from them to draw a logical conclusion.

Originally Posted by Farsight
Let's open up a clock shall we? See that world line in there? And that tape measure? Why, that clock is measuring the proper time of segments of it's world line, and THAT IS ALL THAT CLOCKS MEASURE.

What? You can't see that world line? Or that tape measure? Huh? You can only see cogs moving? Or a quartz crystal oscillating? Or a pendulum swinging? Why, you are a danger to neophytes who have not yet gained enough background to recognize your nonsense for what it is. And of course, that is just one more confirmation of how much of a crank you really are.
If you are trying to provide concrete evidence that you have no concept of the meaning of the theory of relativity, or for that matter any grasp of the most basic of physical principles, you are doing a first-rate job. Physics long ago progressed from the superstitious explanations of pagan religion based on simple visual perception (no, despite what you "see" an eclipse is not the sun being eating by some monster), to a mathematically-formulated quantitative science in which one uses mathematics to make predictions that can then be tested by experiment. The concept of a world line and proper time is central to general relativity, and general relativity is supported by a veritable mountain of carefully controlled and exquisitely instrumented experiments.

Tests of general relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evidence for General and Special Relativity

Amazingly, you claim scientific validity and simultaneously contradict the most well-established principles of the science in which you claim expertise. That is the hallmark of a crank.

Originally Posted by Farsight
Guys, I am really becoming seriously unhappy with this. I'm none too happy when some anonymous mathematician gives my name and slanders me whilst a moderator lets it happen. But when that "moderator", an appointed representative of this forum, then censors me and slanders me further, I'm even more unhappy. Hence I've put in a complaint to Sahil, and await his response.
If you had been censored we would not be subjected to the tripe that you continue to post. Look up the definition of "censor" in the dictionary.

define censor - Bing DICTIONARY

You have simply been told to place your posts in the proper forum, here, rather than in forums that are intended for the discussion of real science. Markus is simply doing his job, and doing it well.

Nor have you been slandered. Slander | What is the Definition of Slander? | Dictionary.com

12. Originally Posted by Farsight
It's censorship, Markus.
Censorship would imply that you had some sort of right to say whatever you want. You (we) don't. In particular, this is a science forum so non-scientific nonsense doesn't really belong in the main science sections.

13. Markus, I've put in a complaint and I've had no response. However I see I've had further ad-hominem responses here. Not good!

Please offer me another method to lodge a complaint.

14. Originally Posted by Farsight
Please offer me another method to lodge a complaint.
Hyde Park soapbox.

15. Originally Posted by Farsight
Markus, I've put in a complaint and I've had no response. However I see I've had further ad-hominem responses here. Not good!

Please offer me another method to lodge a complaint.
There is no other method to contact the admin, except via the "Contact Us" link on the bottom of the page, and directly via PM to "Admin". I suggest you try it again using both methods - usually the Admin replies to me within 24h if I PM him.

16. Please note that there has been of change of forum rules - with immediate effect, The Physics Forum no longer permits the presentation and discussion of personal theories which are not based on current scientific understanding :

http://www.thephysicsforum.com/annou...e-changes.html

This thread is therefore now locked.

 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Forum Rules