Modest:
Quote:
|
You have to define "right now" in a way that makes it a concept which can be understood and used from one person to another. In other words, you need to define it well enough that somebody could describe a real world situation (including multiple events on moving and accelerating objects) and use your definition to find which events are "right now" or simultaneous with other events. You've been asked to do this multiple times and demonstrated that you are unable to do so. Your cosmic perspective of a universal "right now" is thus undefined.
|
Wow! Like "define
'is'!
The Present.
What has already happened (regardless of where in the universe) is not
now happening.
What hasn't happened yet ( again, regardless of where) is not
now happening.
I've said the above many times in many ways. How could it be made more clear?
Since your total reality is within the relativistic frame of reference ("Everything is relative")... and all about the "real world situation (as you see it) (including multiple events on moving and accelerating objects)... you can not even make sense of my repeated references as above.
And you challenge:..." use your definition to find which events are "right now" or simultaneous with other events."
"It"
is "right now" everywhere! The time delay for 'seeing' what happened (past tense) "far, far away" does not change this.
Get it yet?
Quote:
|
Are you still suggesting that "stress" (or some kind of physical force) slows clocks down mechanically as an explanation for time dilation? Or, are you saying you have no idea why they slow down but you are open to some alternative to the spacetime explanation?
|
I thought we beat this debate to death already. Your insistence that velocity alone can account for differences in clocks' time keeping ignores the changes in inertia that gives the clocks different velocities.
The math tool which supports this confusion is called the "momentary comoving reference frame (MCRF.) The idea is that if you take a series of very fast-lens snapshots of moving objects, the changes in inertia are virtually ignored. So then we say there is virtually no difference in inertia between the two objects (say clocks) with different velocities.
But you thought I was claiming it was just about differences in acceleration at launch (say some years ago) that gave the clocks different velocities. Whatever. They were subjected to different forces (including different G-force at different altitudes in other cases) and so they tick faster or slower relative to each other.
In addition I am also obviously " open to some alternative to the spacetime explanation?"
Actually more like "totally reject the "spacetime explanation."
And then you keep saying "Time is what clocks measure*." So when they keep different time, as above you say "time dilates" or slows and speeds up "for one clock" relative to the other. But there is not one 'envelope of time' around one clock and another rate of time in some medium around another!
With the same logic* we can say that "Auras are what aurameters measure" or "Ley lines of force are what specially tuned dowsing rods measure."
Get my point? Ontologically none of the above establishes the "reality" of time as a dilating (etc.) medium... or "bioplasmic energy" or "ley line earth forces" as "real."
Why open the same old can of worms again?
Michael
