On Thursday, November 6, 2025 at 9:07:13 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:



On 11/6/2025 2:49 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Tuesday, November 4, 2025 at 11:38:20 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Tuesday, November 4, 2025 at 1:35:06 AM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:



On 11/3/2025 9:20 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Saturday, November 1, 2025 at 9:07:12 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Saturday, November 1, 2025 at 5:15:36 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote:



On 10/31/2025 10:36 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Friday, October 31, 2025 at 4:15:29 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote:



On 10/31/2025 6:17 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Friday, October 31, 2025 at 2:40:07 AM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

1) For a body at rest, we multiply clock time, aka proper time, and/or 
coordinate time by some velocity, so its units become spatial. But why 
multiply by c? Is this procedure really a *definition* to get a velocity of 
c in spacetime?

2) Proper time and coordinate time are not equal along some arbitrary path 
in spacetime. 


*Note that for a body at rest, coordinate and proper time are identical. 
Hence, d(tau)/dt = 1, where t is coordinate time and tau is proper time. 
But this is not true for a body not at rest. How does a physical clock 
"know" is it moving, making that derivative non-zero. AG *

You're muddling things.  For a clock moving inertially in flat spacetime, 
the coordinate times are arbitrary up to a linear transformation.  So 
d(tau)/dt=const.  not necessarily 1.  And the constant depends on the speed 
(time dilation).  So the coordinate speed depends on the choice of 
coordinate time, i.e. relativity of motion.

Brent


*In the video toward the end, he claims d(tau)/dt=1, so every 1 sec 
increment in coordinate time is set to 1 sec increment in proper time. *

 

I don't understand that. 


*It's pretty straightforward. If you're at rest in some frame in spacetime, 
you're moving along the time axis only. Along that axis are coordinate 
labels, but since you've multiplied these lables by c, you're left with 
distances (as on spatial axis), and the distance separation of two adjacent 
coordinate unit times, has a distance which light traverses in one second 
of proper time. IOW, along the time axis, proper and coordinate time are 
identical. Thus, d(tau)/dt=1. *

OK, you've used proper (clock) time to mark the intervals of coordinate 
time.


*I didn't do it. The community of physicists did it. How can a test 
particle at rest move at light speed? Makes no sense AFAICT. AG *

*When motion is not strictly along time axis, that is, when you're not at 
rest, coordinate and proper time no longer coincide, no longer have equal 
values. The non trivial existential question is why a clock which measures 
only proper time, "knows" to adjust its rate when moving along some 
arbitrary path in spacetime?  AG*

It doesn't "adjust its rate".  The clock continues to measure proper time 
along the new spacetime direction.  But because the new direction is not 
parallel to the old one the intervals don't match the intervals of the 
clock that remained on the stationary worldline.  Motion is only relative.  
So each clock sees the other as running slow because they judge the other 
clock to not be going in the futureward direction.

Brent


*I don't see any daylight between "adjusting its rate" and "judging" how 
another clock is moving. That aside, you seem to be affirming the TP. AG* 

"Adjusting its rate" would imply that there was some absolute motion that 
would tell it how to adjust. 


*When the ds vector is inclined wrt the time axis, all the test particle 
has to "know" is how far its velocity differs from rest in spacetime, which 
we know is relative. This has nothing to do with absolute anything. But I 
see you ignore the more important issue; namely, how can a test particle at 
rest, move at lightspeed in spacetime, if SR shows it can never reach that 
speed. And if this is mistaken, it implies that your alleged solutions to 
the TP is on very shaky ground, because it assumes what has been 
demonstrated is impossible. A*G
 

Judging how *some other clock*, that's moving relative to you, keeps time 
can depend on relative motion and doesn't imply any absolute.

Brent 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9b91f0c5-72dd-4ecd-baa8-9bc068f6d5a8n%40googlegroups.com.

Reply via email to