Terry Pratchett wrote a "perfect" clock into one of his books. It was dangerous. Iirc the monks who were handling the oldfashioned time wheels that kept things in order and synchronized on Discworld bailed everybody out in the end - but I may have merged two books there.
What makes a good clock? How do you know if one clock is better than another? My answer: put two clocks of the same model/design side by side and see how long it takes them to lose synchronisation. Really, I can't think of many other ways to determine what is a "perfect" clock.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hm. If they were spring clocks, and wound down at the same rate, they'd stay in sync - yet poor clocks make. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No, really. What are you trying to say? You said Even if we assume you meant "must" instead of "most", this in no way matches a description of the Twin Paradox. In which, one Twin takes a trip from the Earth and returns to find that less time has passed for him than it has for his brother. He has aged less, and assuming they both live to the same biological age, would die after his twin does. How much of a difference there will be depends on how far he travels and how fast. If he traveled at 0.8c relative to the Earth and to a star 8 light years away as measured from the Earth, then upon returning, he will have aged 12 yrs and his brother will have aged 16 yrs. This will not be due to something effecting his clocks or aging during his trip, but due to the fact that he took a different path through space-time than his brother did between the two events of their initial separation and their reunion. (It is somewhat analogous to two men both starting at one point and walking to another while one of them takes the straight line path and the other a more circuitous route. They both start and end at the same point, but one will say that he walked further to get there.)
Movement and its trajectory are relative in reality and in transformations, but space and time are relative only in transformations.
You are going to have to do a lot better than just making one sentence assertions to convince anyone that you have even the vaguest idea about the subject of Relativity.
How do you think up this random word salad? It sounds vaguely intelligent but it doesn't actually mean anything. You have not given a single coherent response in the entire thread. Anybody can write random 'intelligent sounding' gobbledegook - here, I'll have a go... Time is like a clock - the transformations that one experiences as they travel through space-time will have a significant chronological effect when accelerating at similar speeds to a photon when orbiting the sun. The Earth acts as a perfect partner in synchronicity within these events - the sun acts as the 'hour hand' the Earth as the 'minute hand' and photons as the 'seconds hand'. Thus we have the PERFECT clock. As you can see the above has pretty much nothing to do with clocks (perfect or otherwise) nor anything to do with relativity - but that pretty much sums up the randomness you seem to be coming out with.
There's a famous phenomenon whereby two mechanical clocks place near each other on a shelf or mantlepiece will sometimes synchronize over time - vibrations through the common surface. Pratchett's idea, which he held and expressed with much less pretension, was more or less that any perfect clock would have to be coupled to time itself (to be perfect) - a resonant symbiosis amounting to a kind of control circuit.
I believe it was pendula - but the pendula 'drove' the clocks - so Iceaura is still sort of right describing them as mechanical clocks. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep11548#affil-auth
Asexperia said: "If c in the equation c = d / t is a constant, d / t must be constant too". Origin said: "This is only true in your own frame of reference". Then the very high speed doesn't affect time, but the perception of the relative observer.
It's also observed with spring-loaded weight governed ratchet mechanisms, iirc - anything that has an intrinsic mechanical resonance delicate enough to respond.
If you could guaranteee that spring clocks all wound down at the same rate, then we would be using spring clocks rather than atomic clocks to measure time accurately.
It's not just perception. Different frames of reference measure real differences in space and time. In the twin paradox, the Earth twin really measures his brother aging only 12 yrs due to time dilation when he travels to that star 8 light years away and back at 0.8c His brother, on the other hand, while at a relative speed of 0.8c relative to the Earth really does measure the distance between Earth and the star as being 6 light years apart due to length contraction, which take 6 yrs to traverse at 0.8c, and 12 yrs for a round trip. Both twins agree that after when meet up again that the "traveling" twin only aged 12 yrs, though they disagree as to the reason for this.
Correct! Incorrect. If it is just a perception, then why is it necessary to take time dilation into account for GPS to work properly?
Maybe you should start posting an actual argument or point to some evidence rather than just make statements of opinion.
