Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Doctordick
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).
|
Sez who? You're faulting Einstein for "avoiding the issue", which is something of a strawman because his whole point is that time is different for every observer. Einstein says nothing about "past and future" because its not relevant, and he makes no such assumption that "what has happened is entirely known", because it has no bearing on GR and SR.
Now I've glanced at the article but read others associated with this announcement, and you seem to be talking about something completely different than McCarthy and Kleppner:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Doctordick
The scientific community is still totally hung up on interaction concepts which were introduced when pendulum clocks were the most accurate instruments in existence.  |
The issue is the difference between continuing to eat lunch when the sun is overhead versus not having to do adjustments for non-terrestrial events which would make the astronomers much happier so they raise a big ruckus everytime we do a leap-second. Similarly the GPS and phone folks are starting to have problems for the same reason that have very significant bottom line impacts, so instead of being an academic argument, its starting to be a monetary one that AT&T's lobbyiest in WashingtonDC can even converse upon.
I know you want to find examples of the scientific community "finally" understand the flaws that you have discovered, but you've shown nothing here that relates the article or announcement to any such thing:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Doctordick
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.  |
...so you agree with me, but:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Doctordick
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.  |
I'm simply arguing that these last two sentances have nothing to do with eachother. If you want to fill the huge gap that none of the rest of us conventional sticks in the mud do not agree is obvious, then please proceed.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Doctordick
...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.
|
Time does not *inherently* "define the possibility of interaction": that's your limited interpretation, and it can be much more. Secondly, the problem being addressed in the article is between two different *uses* of time, that really are irrelevant to Einstein, they're just deciding that the yardstick should be moved or not moved to a different (but relative!) starting location. No one is "redefining" any "fundamental nature" or description of time.
Keep looking though, and let us all know what ya find!
Jumping to Conclusions,
Buffy
