Positor » May 3rd, 2017, 9:21 am wrote:handmade » May 3rd, 2017, 11:48 am wrote:How do you presume that the twins could agree on a Caesium frequency when both twins argue their speed of frequency is the correct speed of time?
They agree (if they are in the same inertial frame) that the physical electronic transitions in their respective Caesium clocks occur at the same frequency. All they disagree about is the definition of a second. So they either agree to adopt the same definition, or make the necessary conversion from one definition to the other.
Exactly, they disagree on the length of a second no dissimilar to our dilated Caesium in motion.
handmade wrote:What equivalent are you going to use if you cant use a fraction of 24hrs?
The electronic transitions of atoms are periodic phenomena, just like the rotations of planets, so they can be used instead. They are not intrinsically linked to planetary rotations — the decision to pick a number of Caesium transition periods corresponding to the earlier rotation-based second was merely a convention. The Caesium definition is independent of any actual or possible changes in the rotation of the Earth.
Yes the Caesium is now independent of any possible changes in the earths rotation speed, however it is not independent of what history thought and how time was devised like you have just openly ''admitted'' in the above. Changing the ''colour'' of the mechanical second doe's not change the origin of the second, you are technically defining the ''speed'' of time being equal to the rotation speed of earth of how time was devised.
Can you please also address the other points in my previous post. In particular, how can relativistic phenomena depend on people from differently-rotating planets when no such people exist?
The people do not have to exist, what applies in our frame also applies in other frames, why should the other people on planet x devise time any different to us?
What is relative to the earth is not relative to elsewhere...