Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Feynman's Light Clock
Date: Mon, 5 May 2025 12:56:12 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <vva1vs$789c$1@dont-email.me>
References: <9b1de4a0c6895817425e4c1cc5af6cc9@www.novabbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 05 May 2025 11:56:12 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2913d0f9fa802ab405687b3105f0aadb";
	logging-data="237868"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19I9uR6QvR8n9jKKa0SukHk"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:IVAoiGUKLx+ysRA3qYb7os+zepo=
Bytes: 1713

On 2025-05-04 18:42:33 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:

> Feynman thought that time ran faster in higher gravity because his light
> clock in a rocket ship ran faster the faster it accelerated. The light
> flashes bounced from end to end.

Actual experiments have shown that the prediction was correct.

> Relativists now will say that atomic clocks are better than light
> clocks, so we can judge by them.

They are better for practical purposes such as the definition of
the meaning of a measurement of time.

> The clock's rate is only one process, so it cannot be equated to the
> rate of time.

One of those processes can be equated to meaning of the measurement
of time. The expression "the rate of time" can be left without
meaning because it is not that important.

-- 
Mikko