"John C. Polasek" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 02:50:06 GMT, "Bill Hobba"
wrote:


"Spaceman" wrote in message
news:1tQYc.210357$8_6.84021@attbi_s04...

"John Anderson" wrote in message
...
} But then your response has nothing to do with SR. Clocks in SR
measure
} the proper time, s, along their world lines whe

2 things.
SR needs the bad clocks to get all the hype.
Science needs accurate clocks that are improving every year
and losing such "rate changes" as they get better.

Correct - and we now have clocks so accurate that just driving them
around
in a car is enough to demonstrate relativistic effects

Yeah, just drive the car at 60 mph and the clock will run slow by
4x10^-15, so after 7 million years it will be slow by 1 second. After
one year of this it would be slow by 1/8th of a microsecond. Don't be
too sure you could demonstrate this relativistic effect.

The referenced paper concludes otherwise.

Bill


http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf. Is it not funny
how
they just happen to be inaccurate exactly the way relativity predicts?


Ever know what they had for clocks back when SR first came out?
Do you actually think humans have already designed the perfect clock?
Do you think clocks actually measure a physical thing that is time
itself?

I have no idea (although I do agree with Feynmans discussion in The
Character of Physical Law). What I do know is that we all have an
intuitive
idea of this thing called time and in an inertial frame time is supposed
to
be homogeneous meaning exactly the same experiment done at different
times
will take exactly the same amount of time to happen. This intuitively
means
that the count of some repeating process gives us an intuitive measure of
time. But science is not based on intuition, so time is defined as what
clocks measure ie the count of processes that repeat themselves over and
over.

Bill



Mr. Dual Space
(If you have something to say, write an equation.
If you have nothing to say, write an essay).