Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Buffy
For your statements to be interesting, it would have to be true that Einstein did not account for the fact that relative movement causes differences in the measurement of separate clocks, when in fact that's exactly what the theory accounts for and does so in a completely predictable way.
|
No, that statement is incorrect. Using the fact that Einstein's theory is in agreement with some aspects of reality is exactly the same as defending the existence of phlogiston with a comment that "if the theory of phlogiston is wrong, rubbing sticks together wouldn't make the sticks get hot". There exists a very fundamental difficulty with Einstein's perspective: that is the fact that the scientific community's definition of time is confused.
The difficulty here is exactly the fact that the central purpose of time is to define when two things can interact; this is the central concern of McCarthy and Kleppner and is central to any valid description of our world. Einstein's position (that time is a coordinate of representation) completely avoids this very issue. There is nothing in Einstein's space-time trajectories which embody a differentiation between past and future. Einstein's approach only works when what
has happened is entirely known and all significant interaction is a fact, having nothing to do with the readings on
any clocks (the differentiation between past and future is immaterial to the problem). That perspective has already thrown out the idea that there are other possibilities (other than what has happened) before any analysis of what has happened even begins. Thus it is that his perspective will never be consistent with quantum mechanics. It is a fundamentally wrong perspective. As wrong as was was the theory of phlogiston as an explanation of heat. The scientific community is still totally hung up on interaction concepts which were introduced when pendulum clocks were the most accurate instruments in existence.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Buffy
The Science article is not pointing out any flaw in Einstein's "view" of time, but rather that we humans like the Sun to be directly overhead at noon, which is why the clocks keep getting adjusted which drives the GPS and phone and astronomers up the wall.
|
Oh, here I agree with you. No one mentioned in the article has any comprehension of the fundamental issues underlying their problems; all they see are the consequences of the confused definition of time. Note that we are talking about the "definition" of time, not the usefulness of clocks; these are very different matters.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Buffy
So what?
|
So precise thought requires a good definition of time and "time is what clocks measure" is not a good definition of time. This is the single most important mistake in modern physics.
If you do take the trouble to read the article, you will see that the only solution to their difficulty (which you certainly should comprehend is related to the fact that time defines the possibility of interaction) is given as, "an alternative would be for nations to agree to
define the second on the basis of clocks at just one terrestrial location." They claim "politics" make this unrealistic, completely missing the issue that such a
redefinition of the second amounts to throwing the baby out with the bath water. Covariance under such a
definition becomes a joke as it essentially amounts to saying that only a specific absolute frame is
the only correct frame for definitional purposes. Physics should be based on coherent "universal" definitions.
Have fun -- Dick
