<kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message news:2f42811d-1914-40ab-84a1-f3f69ce7173f@c9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 2, 6:07 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > wrote: >> "Aetherist" <TheAether...@best.net> wrote in message >> >> news:5q3o451r9tf42nq7r3u753p83jamfq6sr2@4ax.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 18:23:50 -0700, "Spirit of Truth" >> > <junehar...@prodigy.net> wrote: >> >> > {snip...} >> >> >>> Whatever "it" is. >> >> >>:) >> >> >>OK, I mean that disagreeing with the apparent "illogical" >> >>ideas in SR, at least in my case, is not to do with >> >>my "human" intuition disageeing with it. This real universe >> >>of ours does not support lack of simultaneity. >> >> >>Spirit >> >> > You got to understand, for diehard relativists perception IS >> > reality. >> >> Well, if by perception you mean what we see experimentally, yes. >> >> You are quite free to impose your concept of simultaneity and absolute >> time >> and space on the Universe; you can define a privileged frame of reference >> and measure simultaneity etc from within that frame. You can even call it >> the ether, if you want. >> >> But what you also have to accept is that the frame you have chosen is >> completely arbitrary, and anybody else can pick a different inertial >> frame >> to treat as absolute. The details of which frame or reference you choose >> has >> absolutely no bearing on the outcome of physical experiments, and your >> absolute time and space plays no role in any physical experiment. > > Th eproblem with your claim is that the clock second we use to measure > time has different duration in different inertial frames.
In every inertial frame, a clock second for a clock at rest in that frame is the same clock second.
Noone in any inertial frame sees their own at-rest clock ticking slower than any other observer sees their own at-rest-clock ticking.
Of course, SR further says in every inertial frame, the observer will see clocks in motion as running slower than they do when at rest.
> That means > that the outcome of physical experiments in different frames cannot be > compared directly.
An observer in some frame S watching an experiment while it is being performed in a different frame S' will see different results to the observer in S' will see. But both the observer in S and the observer in S' will see the same results when the experiment is performed at rest in their own frames.
> For example a traveling clock second in the twin > scenario cannot be compared directly with a stay at home clock second.
Yes it can .. look at the clocks.
> Why? Because SR claims that the passage of a traveling clock second > corresponds to the passage of less than a clock second on the stay at > home clock.
Actually, you have it backwards. The travelling clock second corresponds to more than a stay-at-home clock second.
Regardless when you compare the clocks when they return, you can see the difference in elapsed time.
I'm not sure what the point is you were trying to make.. but I don't think you succeeded in making it.
