Good morning, paddoboy. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Fair's fair, mate. Just a few posts back, Lakon posted this: ---and this: ---which indicates clearly to me that Lakon is, at this juncture, quite properly and efficiently wishing to concentrate exclusively on following ONLY the side-discussion involving that particular simple 'bottom up' non-SR/GR counter-example put by Russ Watters to chinglu so as not to leave chinglu any more wiggle room to claim something about SR/GR being 'wrong' etc, since Russ's example is simple logic and clock based, and nothing else. It is the speedy resolution of that 'bottom up case' exchange between chinglu and Russ that Lakon is interested in now, since he has seen all the ither exchanges which chinglu has not been dissuaded by (who knows why?), and so Lakon just wants to see this particular 'non-wiggle room' exchange between chinglu and Russ resolved without any further cross-talk which may delay that resolution unnecessarily. paddoboy, it has long been established policy of this site now to disapprove of posters bringing into a discussion 'baggage' from other threads/sites regarding a person. Posts should keep to the OP points/disagreements per se in any particular thread/discussion, not the person's alleged motives or past successes or failures in other contexts. Otherwise it ends up becoming a shrill and emotional 'social media tit-for-tat' triviality rather than remaining dispassionately and scrupulously objective and patient (whatever one may think of the 'other person' that might frustrate and enrage you 'personally' Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ). As I read Lakon (see above quotes indicating clearly his stance), Lakon simply desires a 'fair go' for that particular simplified 'bottom up example' exchange between Tuss and chinglu. That's all. So, for the sake of this one last ditch effort on the part of Russ and Lakon to elicit the final agreement from chinglu regarding that 'bottom up' example, I strongly suggest, as a friend and fellow Aussie objective enquirer into the universal physics, that you hold off on any further commentary until chinglu makes his final (at this point inevitable) agreement to the counter-points argued by all the counterposters (especially Russ, who exchange with chinglu is clearly only what Lakon is most interested to see concluded). So take it easy, mate, and maybe pause in your commentary here?...and spend some time in other discussions while Lakon waits to see what chinglu comes back with and then Lakon can finally rule a line under this discussion fully convinced of who is making what mistake here, and where and why the confusion arose in the first place in chinglu's perspective in all this. Cheers and take it easy, paddoboy, Lakon, chinglu, Russ, everyone! Good luck all. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! PS to Lakon: I trust I have read your posts/intents correctly, mate? If not, please correct me at your earliest convenience. Cheers! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Which is why it is ever so important to continue to persist at the very basic level, rather tha allowing him to defer to SR / GR twins, etc. So far it does not seem that he's got past this basic level with any logic or clarity - though I haven't yet read the posts following yours, above, but will do so shortly.
Long story short, a) My posts are easy to read. There is no intent in them other than what is stated. b) Please do not associate me / my comments with the resident troll. Not interested. Cheers.
Yeah, sure fair's fair Undecided, and being a fair-minded man, I'm the first to realise the attempt at mediation you are trying is for the good of the thread/forum. But you tried it a few days ago also, and I did comply for a while, until my adversary started his crap again. Chinglu at this stage is not the main concern or worry. The concern and worry is with the continued inferences and antics with Larkon...Not just in this thread but in others. You have my assurance that I'll stay clear for a while and see what happens with chinglu's reply, but I suggest you have a little whisper in Larkon's ear about his behaviour....because guess what?? I don't take shit from anyone and that includes being called a troll. I will reply to any inference against my person. That's just me and my nature. I don't and won't suffer bullies gladly.
Hi paddoboy. Thanks for your co-operation, mate. Much appreciated. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please note that my previous mediation efforts were aimed at the overall tone of your and his 'exchanges' on a personal level and obviously unnecessarily spiteful and counter-productive. I hope that has waned to the point of being able to be 'in the past' for both of you. My above mediation effort was directed specifically to the point that Lakon merely wants to concentrate on the Russ Watters-chinglu discussion points ONLY at this juncture in hopes of speedy resolution of Russ's simplified case. Everything else has been said, and that is just about the only thing 'left hanging' for chinglu to make his final arguments/agreement on, as Lakon is hoping to facilitate by having us concentrate exclusively on THAT for the time being. That was the point of this most recent mediation intervention. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Again, thanks for your co-operation, mate! Good luck and enjoy your other discussions. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That's cool, Lakon. No sweat. But please realize that I posted to him asking him to cool it because we don't need more irrelevant/personal 'ado'....and he has obligingly agreed to comply with my suggestion to 'cool it' until the Russ Waters-chinglu 'bottom up' race example side-discussion is concluded. For which he deserves some slack for now, yes? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I also only 'connected' you and him 'eliptically' as it was unavoidable when trying to explain to him that you wished solely to concentrate on Russ's-chinglu 'bottom up' discussion/conclusion at this juncture. No disrespect or 'forcing' or 'direct association' intended, merely clarification of what is the status quo re the discussion essentials at this stage and your wish to concentrate on said essentials without any cross-posts or personal noise distractions. I appreciate what you've been trying to do. And I applaud the evenhandedness you have demonstrated regarding the on-topic discourse to date. I hope you took no offense at my attempt to help achieve what you wish for the discussion at this juncture; and that all will be settled quickly and without too much more ado from any quarter! Cheers, good luck, and enjoy all your discussions, Lakon! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I take no offense at your comments at all, and appreciate your posts. Just to clarify one thing - I am not trying to prevent anyone from any view. I am simply trying to keep the conversation going between RW and Chinglu at the level originally proposed by RW, because, a) I can understanding it at that level, b) Is someone does not have the fundementals right, it becomes quickly obvious. This seems to be the case at the moment with Chinglu, although to be fair, we await his reply to RW's most recent, and hopefully, my genuine recent enquiries. Also, I have no achievent, no goal, no purpose, no interest in mind, with the other poster you mentioned. I can't see how this is not clear. We gotta stop this noise .....
Thanks. Same here. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Yep, that is exactly what is called for at this juncture, straightforward simple conclusion on straightforward simple example in question. I too await chinglu's response at this point, and will be reading-only to see what you can elicit out of chinglu that will make his final stance clear one way or the other to you at least. That's it from me! Take care, everyone!
The only definition I can give for clock and time interval is based on GPS. All clocks in GPS are synchronized to the earth's motion. So, GPS clocks match the earth's rotational and orbital properties. Therefore, science has accepted that the earth's rotational and orbital properties are a valid clock that measures time and time intervals. Now that we have that established, we must now resolve if a clock is not properly synchronized with the earth's rotational and orbital properties, is that clock proper? Well, through accepted astronomical observations, we find the traveling clock is not synchronized with scientific observations of time and GPS. Since GPS works and so does astronomical observations, we have no choice but to conclude the traveling twin lived the same number of earth orbits and the traveling twin's clock that claims they did not live the same number of earth orbits is wrong.
But the question was: what do clocks do, not what is your personal preference for the definition of a clock. Careful, your vacuous sidestepping and prevaricating (you might need to look those up), is becoming way too obvious. How about you? You say clocks aren't used to tell us when events occur. But you're also saying clocks measure time and intervals of time; is this time information of no use to anyone?
I am sorry, are you claiming GPS is not a valid clock standard. Further, are you claiming GPS does not synchronize with the earth's motion. If you can't show these statements are false, then your post is baseless trolling.
I know you'd really like me to be, but no. I know what a clock is, thanks. I know that GPS is synchronised with atomic clocks on the earth; I also know that the earth's orbit isn't a particularly good choice for a clock, compared to what we can build these days.
What we build these days are doomed to synchronize with the earth's motion, is it not? And, our definition of a second is as closely tied to the earth's rotation as possible. But, since the number of earth rotations per earth orbit is not a whole number, then we have to fudge. That is what we do with the definition of second. But, still you have not refuted that fact the all GPS clocks are synchronized with the earth's motion. And, that is because you can't.
Not for several decades. The second is defined these days by the speed of light at a fixed frequency. So, no, the definition of a second isn't closely tied to the earth's rotation. But who cares?
Yes, exactly as tied to the earth's rotation and orbit as possible. What did you think a second was based on something not tied to the earth's motion? LOL.
So you have completely dodged the simple question / confirmation request in RW's post 728, which was basically, what do clocks do ? You've jumped many steps ahead and gone off into your disputed GPS, SR/GR twins, etc, fairyland. I note you have DODGED the question. Another question, you said, above; The only definition I can give for clock and time interval is based on GPS So what was your definition PRIOR to the invention of GPS ?
You are the only idiot "tied to the earth's motion". And you're only continuing to display ignorance. Clocks are not "tied" to anything except a frame of reference. There is no law in physics that says everything is tied to the earth's motion. "Everything" includes the human definition of a standard unit of time, which we chose for convenience, not because the earth goes around the sun. You keep trying to dodge the questions. These are questions a 5 year old can answer, so I guess that "proves" you have the mental capacity of a really dumb 5 year old.
Hi chinglu. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Now that you have made your reply, but still seem to be conflating 'externals' with 'internals' (for reminder of what I mean there, please read my relevant posts explaining the logical/physical 'disconnect' between those things, thanks), I would like to develop the thrust of Lakon's closing question to you (ie, "So what was your definition PRIOR to the invention of GPS ?") a step further back on the essentials involved; so I ask you to consider: If only you and your twin, with your respective IDENTICAL atomic clocks, existed in an otherwise empty universe, and you initially both agree THAT 'periodic' change of state in the atomic clock was to be called THE 'second' standard period of 'timing' unit 'tick', then IF one of you (complete with identical clock) moved off such that your clock ticked more slowly, which would be representing the 'standard' ticking rate? Yours or the stay-put one? See? In that scenario there IS no 'external referent' UNTIL you move off that 'standard' co-moving state which you and your twin agreed to AS the standard as a STAND ALONE definition INTERNAL ONLY to the clocks when co-moving AND when NOT co-moving (the latter internal tick rate being physically AFFECTED BY that 'moving off'). No other considerations or definitions are involved in that stripped-down-to-barest-essentials Reductio ad Absurdum" last ditch effort at highlighting the essentials and the confusion arising from introducing your other non-essentials in your own 'takes' on all this stuff. Ok? Whatever UP TILL THIS SCENARIO may have been the original source of the 'second' standard agreed interval, NOW in this scenario once the twins/clocks have agreed on their OWN 'standard' in co-moving state, then all else must be related ONLY TO that co-moving state tick rate/interval when making comparisons between physically affected/varied clock rate/counts and the standard clock/rate agreed and remaining with the stay-put twin/clock. Yes? And note further, IF the traveling twin never returns to his former twin and former 'standard' co-moving state with him, THEN the traveling twins NEW moving state WILL affect his clock so that it has ITS OWN NEW 'STANDARD' for HIS future events elsewhere------UNLESS he does return to co-moving state with stay-put twin, so his standard once more becomes that standard agreed by them beforehand, or------UNLESS his stay-put twin comes and CATCHES UP to him and stays with him in that NEW co-moving state, then that NEW AGREED standard will apply for BOTH from then on! Get it? PLease then discard your fixed idea about anything other than the clocks being the determinants of anything to do with those clocks. See? Any post-analysis by YOU/scientist is an ABSTRACT analytical construct introducing 'external' philosophical/logical 'connections' to make sense OF what those clocks say. And they DON'T say anything about anything other than just simply what THEY 'ticked off' during the experiment. Yes? I trust that that was enough to finally put all these confused cross-purpose exchanges/misunderstandings 'furfies' to bed once and for all, mateys? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Good luck and good discussing, chinglu, Lakon, Russ Watters, paddoboy, arfa brane, everyone!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
So what is that definition? As others pointed out, saying GPS clocks are synched with earth's motion is not a definition of "clock", it is a statement of a particular synchronization technique (and wrong, too! GPS clocks are not synchronized to earth's motion). Again: what is the definition of the word "clock"? If you are having trouble, you should just google it and copy and paste the definition you are given.
[Sigh.] I think I posted this before, but I'm not certain. It is slightly off track, but simple enough, so why not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System The reason, again as alluded to by others, is that the earth makes for a very poor clock, so for a system that doesn't care about the earth's motion, there is no reason to bother making such adjustments.
