Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Understanding the theory of special relativity
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2025 12:19:38 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <vmvsre$26sul$1@dont-email.me>
References: <pLY2g2cfZDGOOQgmeYWzTah-WZA@jntp> <vmivft$28k2a$1@dont-email.me>
 <P34uo7fZOF85O-SfjYojnrCRX_8@jntp> <vmm7t2$3cgdv$1@dont-email.me>
 <BJ6Q9nUU0bo9Nwlif25X1jQzfd8@jntp> <vmob71$54vk$1@dont-email.me>
 <IFzu48FyPqxIuz1SjqxEczJXtvA@jntp> <vmrmts$175ja$1@dont-email.me>
 <QmDaLWOKhQFsAUIZ6cUSH4qtPMc@jntp> <vmua4i$1q2gu$2@dont-email.me>
 <hXWH1I_ij_TOJ-KwMa7Rubl81zo@jntp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2025 12:17:02 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c643e7506b6143cf1c9cb511d64e76d7";
	logging-data="2323413"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Pzu2R8hv1PU51foYJJM/W"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:HSLnmHC4DA4cK11qvPYgCUYkWKQ=
In-Reply-To: <hXWH1I_ij_TOJ-KwMa7Rubl81zo@jntp>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 2911

Den 23.01.2025 23:59, skrev Richard Hachel:
> Le 23/01/2025 à 21:51, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
>> Den 23.01.2025 09:22, skrev Richard Hachel:
>>>
>>> There is a flaw in your way of understanding the ratio of observable 
>>> time (terrestrial) and proper time (rockets in general).
>>
>> In physics, proper time is what clocks show.
>> The only way to observe time is to read it off a clock.
>> So "observed time" and "proper time" are the same.
>>
>>
>> https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdf
>>
>> See: 1.1 "What is proper time?"

> 
> It's more complicated than that, breathe, blow...

Are you inflating your rubber duck?

> 
> Observable time is an abstract entity that, in fact, no one really 
> measures.

So "observable time" is not observable,
and isn't the time observed on a clock.

Stands to reason, doesn't it? :-D

> 
> It is based on the chronotropy of watches, that is to say the speed at 
> which their internal mechanism evolves in relation to another watch.

So "the internal mechanism" make the abstract entity "observable time",
that, in fact, no one really can observe, show something in relation
to another watch.

How can "the internal mechanism" know which watch is
the "another watch"?
How can "the internal mechanism" know the reading of
the "another watch"?
How can "the internal mechanism" know the speed of
the "another watch"?

------------------

It isn't really funny.

So why am I amused?

:-D

<snip more nonsense>

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/