B What is a Clock? Syncing Technologies Explained

[Torog]

All clocks have mass, so they all have inertia. So what do you mean by “inertial factor”? Do you merely mean that it has inertia? If so then it is a fairly trivial statement that doesn’t describe much about clocks. Do you mean something more?

Clocks have inertia. Cars have color. Color is not the operating principle of a car. Are you simply stating that clocks have inertia or are you trying to say that inertia is the operating principle for all clocks? Are you merely saying the equivalent of “all cars have a color factor”.

Is this the question you want me to answer? Rather offensive actually. You imply that aside from being ignorant (which I admit) I am also stupid.

What I have been trying to ask is inertia a factor in the stability of clocks? It is in my pendulum clock, my balance wheel watch and in the stability of the orbital period of the Earth. Does it apply to Atomic clocks? Or other clocks?

I also asked this about the speed of clocks. Never got an answer.

Look at it from a GR (or SR?) perspective and with the principle of equivalence gravity and inertia can be interchanged so if the intensity gravitational field effects the clock - proven,of course – then why can’t we postulate that if the inertial mass of the clock changes then its rate will change?

 

[jbriggs444]

Inertial mass is not a factor in the tick rate of a light clock.

Or, to put it differently, inertial mass is as much a factor in the tick rate of a light clock as it is in the length of a ruler.

 

[Dale]

Is this the question you want me to answer? Rather offensive actually. You imply that aside from being ignorant (which I admit) I am also stupid.

This is not acceptable. I never said nor implied any such thing, nor did I even think it.

You are asking a question about a broad topic using non standard terminology and it appears that the responses have been unsatisfactory to you. There are two possibilities, one is that your question was correctly understood and you just don’t like the answer, and the other is that your question has not even been understood so the responses have been responding to misinterpretations of your question. I believe that second possibility is the case here.

The proper thing to do in that second case is to ask for clarification. To challenge the questioner to address their unspoken assumptions and express the meaning behind their terminology. That is a correct intellectual approach, to which you have twice responded exceptionally emotionally.

You have not been bullied, nor cut off, not called ignorant, nor stupid. You have been asked for clarification and asked to examine and express the meaning of your question. Instead of responding substantively and helping to clarify your question, you have inaccurately assigned very negative motives to me and avoided the question.

 

[Dale]

What I have been trying to ask is inertia a factor in the stability of clocks? It is in my pendulum clock,

In what way is inertia a factor in a pendulum clock? A pendulum clock has mass, but its frequency does not depend on its mass. So are you asking about the color of the car or the engine of the car?

A light clock also would have mass, but its frequency would be independent of the mass. So is that all you mean by “inertial factor”, does merely having mass qualify or is there a further qualification implied by your terminology. If so, what is that qualification?

Look at it from a GR (or SR?) perspective and with the principle of equivalence gravity and inertia can be interchanged so if the intensity gravitational field effects the clock - proven,of course – then why can’t we postulate that if the inertial mass of the clock changes then its rate will change?

I don’t think that is a correct statement of the equivalence principle. Roughly the equivalence principle says (with some qualifiers) that gravity is equivalent to acceleration. But acceleration is not the same as inertia, so I wouldn’t say that gravity is equivalent to inertia.

 

[PeterDonis]

Rather offensive actually. You imply that aside from being ignorant (which I admit) I am also stupid.

@Torog, please moderate your language. You are very close to a warning. @Dale is trying to help you.

What I have been trying to ask is inertia a factor in the stability of clocks?

As both @Dale and @jbriggs444 have responded, the answer is no.

 

[Torog]

@Torog, please moderate your language. You are very close to a warning. @Dale is trying to help you.

Torog said: ↑
What I have been trying to ask is inertia a factor in the stability of clocks?

As both @Dale and @jbriggs444 have responded, the answer is no.

At least I got this about atomic clocks which had previously been excluded by other posts.

The hyperfine interaction is between the magnetic moment of the nucleus, which is a constant, and the electrons in the atom. The transition frequency should be a know function of electron mass.

@Peter thanks for the warning of a warning!