Re: Understanding the theory of special relativity

Am Freitag000024, 24.01.2025 um 12:19 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

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.

This is total nonsense, since a clock is a man-made device, while time is not.
A clock is a tiny machine and counts ticks of some sort internally and shows the results in a user-friendly way.
But this is not equal to the phenomenon 'time', because that is something observable in nature.
For instance we can easily observe the passing of time in the passing of days and years.
And the Earth and the Sun are definitely not man-made.

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.

Clocks do not show time, but the result of a process, which counts ticks.
These ticks are assume to come in a constant frequency, hence we base or measurements of time upon this axiom.
But in fact we don't know, whether or not this is the case and that time flows always at the same speed.
Possibly this ain't true and time jumps occasionally (or often).
But we cannot measured such 'jumps', if all measuring devices would perform the same jumps, too.
So: steady and universal flow of time is an axiom.
But we have actually reason to believe, that this axiom is false.
Most likely time is local only and other places have local time, too, but other tick rates (and possibly other time directions).

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.

'observable' is not the same as 'measurement'.
Observable are day and night, while clocks provide a measurement.

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

Machines don't know anything.
It's the people ('observers') who know something (occasionally).
Such observer are usually somewhere and call the remote clocks 'the other clock'.

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

If you would allow unconscious 'knowledge', then it would be possible to transmit a timing signal from one machine to the other.
That signal is used then by internal 'intelligence' of one of the clocks, which sets the hand according to the internal program in synch with the other clock.

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

That could be measured by a series of timing signals.
...
TH