Recent content by TLR

Its not my personal agenda, its the failure of the so called professionals to posit adequate postulations. Just now seen this, thanks for your time.

The problem I see with this is that you are basing this upon physical imperfect devices rather than mathematical ideal construct. I believe everything starts with the flawless mathematic ideal as the standard then works backwards from there to examine the errors introduced due to physical...

sorry but by my read dale is the only one who is zeroing in on addressing my point so far.

when stated that narrowly I would be forced to agree, however we have mass and movement and as we can see cesium clocks are far from a perfect clock. as we can see however there is a lot of matter in motion that goes into making this clock work properly and they even state in their description...

So that would rule out a sundial I take it ;) All clocks are matter and operate based on oscillation or movement so I would claim we simply have not been able to find the common denominator does not mean it does not exist neither does it mean it is not within practical reason. I do not claim...

Yes they will count the same number of ticks before confirming one second so if the time is different then the speed of the ticks also must be different what else could it be since the counter only counts ticks?

so does the car example I gave above which also gives correct answers though neither match the standard. If we can justify changing the definition of time why not also change the definition of miles per hour? Its fair game is it not? Yes i am calling those differences an error as they both...

What I need, to agree with you is not a perspective or parallax explanation, but a reasonable explanation how two identical clocks can be claimed to operate perfectly that give us wrong answers simply by being subjected to different conditions. (gravity/velocity etc) How can we say the clocks...

Well the distinction that I am trying to express is the distinction between the expected duration of a second, and deviation from that expected duration based on a reference standard. Actually I do not see relativity in and of itself as having anything to do with my point beyond the fact it...

Greets everyone. I am having great difficulty trying to explain to a group of friends who do not understand math too well that the unit we know as time does not speed up or slow down since 1 second is no different than marks on a ruler and has an established interval length, in this case...