Science Forums 2

[Doctordick]

I still say that you all just react to what you perceive as an unjustified attack on your beliefs rather than give any serious thought to what I am saying. What I am saying is actually quite simple but it has some far reaching and subtle consequences very similar to the subtle consequences of the problem of setting two clocks to agree. In fact, your reaction is quite analogous to the common layman's reaction to that central issue of relativity: they simply cannot see the relevance.

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

In Einstein's theory, clocks measure proper time which has a very specific meaning. I don't think anyone in physics is confusing this with "time" in a general sense.

Then which is "time", "proper time" or the coordinate of the space-time reference frame used to calculate "proper time"? To presume these are just two different aspects of the same concept is a little injudicious.

Originally Posted by Buffy

You're certainly welcome to argue that GR and QM disagree (which I agree with completely, but then so does every physicist out there, again, so what?)

You misunderstand what I am saying. What I am saying is that, if you take into account the difference between "time" and "what clocks measure" in a careful and logical way, the difficulty with the problems between QM and GR simply vanish. And that would be the experimental results required of GR, not Einstein's GR. Note here that when I refer to "General Relativity" I am referring to the general procedure for transforming between measurements made in coordinate systems in general motion with respect to one another, not to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.

Originally Posted by Buffy

I'll try to be clear: I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that your argumentative thread is not making sense, and its really *not* because I'm blond!

Now I wouldn't make the assumption you were blond or even female for that matter. With regard to my "argumentative thread" not making sense, that is merely because you misunderstand why I made the post. Every time I ever say "clocks don't measure time", I get the most god awful reaction from professionals: in most cases, all discussion is immediately terminated. I seriously think that modern science has, in many respects, become a religion and very few of the authorities even considers the possibility of error in their fundamental beliefs.

The most important statement in that article, as far as I was concerned was:

These "shakes and shimmies" would make comparisons of future ultraprecise atomic clocks kept at different locations "no more meaningful than comparing the rates of pendulum clocks on small ships scattered in the oceans, each bobbing in its own way and keeping its own time," says Kleppner.

What he is really pointing out is that the "space-time" coordinate system envisioned by Einstein is no more conceivable as an ideal representation than was Newton's coordinate system which assumed all the clocks could be set to agree. This is a fact and it has subtle significant consequences.

Originally Posted by Buffy

Cool! Just pointing to the article doesn't help yer point! You've lost even the smart crowd here.

Oh, I lost the "smart crowd" a long time ago. They already think the big guys know all the answers and that the real issue is understanding what the big guys are saying. They think the purpose of the forum is to teach the initiates their catechisms. (Why is it that religious terms work so well here.)

Originally Posted by Buffy

I'll tell ya my high school Geometry teacher pounded it into me: "those big jumps in your proof are *not* obvious. You're missing a bunch of steps if you expect to get credit for it."

But I haven't put a proof of anything in any of these threads. I don't comprehend how you can expect something as far reaching as what I have proposed would be simple enough to cover in a forum post. All I have done is tried to get a little interest so someone capable of following me might become be willing to talk. I have generally taken the position that outright hostility is a good indicator of a closed mind. So far I have only reached one person, a master of mathematics who is almost as old as I am and has about as much influence in the academy that I do.

If you are interested, read my paper on "A Universal Analytical Model of Explanation Itself". It is not a very difficult presentation if you have any facility with abstract thought. Although I will provide any assistance and/or explanation you desire, if you cannot follow logic on an abstract level, forget it as the issues being presented are far too complex to express in terms of common experiences. If you can understand that paper, the next step is to examine the solutions of the equation developed there. If you are not interested in thinking about the issues, I won't be upset and I certainly didn't mean to upset you!

Have fun -- Dick