On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 8:47:25 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 7:34:18 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 1/31/2020 12:04 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 10:37:13 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 1/30/2020 5:37 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 6:29:18 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 5:09:56 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 1/30/2020 12:45 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That's not it. I think the two observers, one in a galaxy far removed >>>>> and one here, would read the same CMBR "time", regardless of the distant >>>>> galaxy's speed of recession. But relativity says otherwise. This is what >>>>> puzzles me. AG >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ask yourself *when* do they read the same time. >>>>> >>>>> Brent >>>>> >>>> >>>> I don't know if this helps. Since the temperature of the CMBR is the >>>> same everywhere, at any time t, we can in principle determine if the two >>>> measurements are simultaneous or not. AG >>>> >>> >>> But regardless of simultaneity or not, there's no dilation of this >>> clock! (And AE doesn't say what a clock is.) What the hell is going on? AG >>> >>> >>> The clocks used in relativity examples are the whatever the most perfect >>> and stable clock in existence are (in this case cesium atom clocks). They >>> always measure proper time thru spacetime. The only reason that when >>> compared they seem to register different durations is because they traveled >>> different paths thru spacetime and these paths had different proper >>> length. "Time dilation" is not some function of the clock...it's a >>> function of the path the clock is measuring. Remember my odometer analogy? >>> >>> Brent >>> >> >> Given that the temperature of the CMBR is the same for every location in >> space-time, it follows that time dilation is not a property of THIS clock. >> >> >> Time dilation is a property of one clock (or one path) relative to >> another. It's called relatvity theory of a reason. >> > > *My point is that the CMB "clock" exists everywhere, and that it has no > relative motion wrt anything, so how can time dilation be applied to it? AG* > >> For this clock, which is NOT moving through space-time, paths through >> space-time are irrelevant. AG >> >> Clocks that aren't moving thru spacetime are stopped. You're thinking of >> clocks that aren't moving thru space. >> > > *I'm thinking about motion through space. That's what the "v" in the > Lorentz transformation means; motion through space. AG * >
*I did refer to motion through space-time to demonstrate that your model of space-time motion to explain that time dilation doesn't work in the case of CMB clocks. But time does change for these clocks, however slowly, which are synchronized and located everywhere. AG* > >> 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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f7f1f14e-9ca6-494e-80f9-57e709a47539%40googlegroups.com.
