Using a pulsar as a clock to measure Time Dilation

[Ed Lake]

When discussing Time Dilation, the use of regular clocks
just leads to arguments about "seeing" some clock that is
in a space ship that is a billion miles away. And there is the
complication of the speed of light when viewing things that
are billions of miles away.

Back in May 2015, I wrote a paper about using a PULSAR
as a clock to measure Time Dilation. To simplify things,
I used a pulsar that pulses once ever 10 seconds when
viewed from earth. And I used a space ship that is traveling
at right angles to the pulsar, so that there is no change in
the pulse rate due to moving toward or away from the pulsar.

When the space ship starts to move at high speeds away from
the earth, time slows down on the space ship. Instead of
seeing the pulsar pulse once every 10 seconds, as the ship
accelerates faster and faster, the passengers see the pulsar
pulse once every 9 seconds, then once every 8 seconds,
etc., until they are at cruising speed and they see the pulsar
plus once every second. Then, after about 6 months, they
slow down, turn around, and repeat the speeding up process
to return to earth.

When they return to earth, due to Time Dilation, the passengers
on the space ship are about 1 year older than when they left on
their one year trip. But people on earth are TEN years older.

EVERYONE counted the same number of pulses from the
pulsar: 31,553,280. No one was ever ahead or behind anyone
else in time. No one FELT any effects of Time Dilation. But,
due to Time Dilation, people on the spaceship counted
31,553,280 pulses in 1 year, while people on earth counted
31,553,280 pulses in 10 years.

Here's my paper: https://vixra.org/pdf/1505.0234v1.pdf

Doe anyone see any fault in this thought experiment?

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Op 16-mrt.-2021 om 16:54 schreef Ed Lake:

I do see a fault in the assumptions you make about your
relevance.

Dirk Vdm

[Ed Lake]

This seems like the PERFECT experiment to resolve all disputes
over how Time Dilation works. Is that why no one wants to discuss
it? Because you can't find any arguments against it?

Ed

[Odd Bodkin]

No Ed, the reason no one wants to engage in discussion about it is that
everyone here knows that you know nothing about the subject, but you THINK
you do, as illustrated by your assessment that this is a “PERFECT”
experiment to do.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Ed Lake]

On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 11:49:18 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

So, you're saying that everyone here has a closed mind, and therefore
they do not want to discuss anything? They just want to preach their
beliefs? I was hoping that wasn't true.

The idea of using a pulsar as a clock that BOTH parties can see when
one is "stationary" and the other is traveling at high speeds STOPS all
arguments about "illusions" and eliminates any need to use complex
equations. It really shatters the beliefs of most people here. I can see
why they do not want to discuss it.

Ed

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

A pulsar's rotation will slow its time and give it more energy.
By moving in space there will be the same... more time slow and energy.
Neutron stars are end state matter not a BH.

[Cliff Hallston]

On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 8:54:51 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> This seems like the PERFECT experiment to resolve all disputes
> over how Time Dilation works.

What disputes? There aren't any disputes (among competent scientists) about how time dilation works. Special relativity gives a perfectly accurate account of the scenario you described, and no knowledgeable person disputes it.

> No one was ever ahead or behind anyone else in time.

That's not correct (in any meaningful sense). In terms of any chosen system of coordinates we can compute the elapsed time for each object at any given coordinate time. The elapsed times for various objects are different, so it's not correct to say that no one is ever ahead or behind, at least not if you are referring to proper times at equal coordinate times.

> No one FELT any effects of Time Dilation.

That's an ambiguous statement, because you haven't indicated what "feelings" you are talking about (how would one "feel" time dilation?), but the spaceship was subjected to extreme levels of acceleration at a distance to turn around, so the passengers certainly feel a very different experience than the people on earth, and this is correlated directly with the variations in the rate of elapsed proper time versus coordinate time, as is the differences in gravitational potential of people on earth versus out in space, which can also be "felt". Purely by dead-reckoning from rest in a particular frame we can, in principle, always compute the coordinate time from that frame, even after we have changed our state of motion arbitrarily.

> > Doe anyone see any fault in this thought experiment?

If you get the same answers as general relativity, then there is no fault in your answers. If you get different answers, then there is a fault in your answers. But that's beside the point until you explain what you think is disputed. There aren't any disputes (among real scientists) about how time dilation works.

> It really shatters the beliefs of most people here.

What beliefs are those? The scenario you described is quite mundane, and it is perfectly well described by standard special and general relativity: dtau/dx^0 = sqrt[g_mn dx^m dx^n]/dx^0 where x^0 = t. Given x^1, x^2, x^3 as functions of x^0, we can integrate this expression for the rate to give the elapsed time.

[Odd Bodkin]

No, I didn’t say that. There are lots of people who decline to preach, and
who have open minds, and STILL would not care to have a discussion with
someone who doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Surely you can see that
possibility?

Or is it your notion that the definition of having an open mind is being
willing to discuss a topic with someone who doesn’t know what he’s talking
about?

>
> The idea of using a pulsar as a clock that BOTH parties can see when
> one is "stationary" and the other is traveling at high speeds STOPS all
> arguments about "illusions" and eliminates any need to use complex
> equations. It really shatters the beliefs of most people here. I can see
> why they do not want to discuss it.

I think it’s says more about your lack of understanding of what beliefs you
think you’re shattering. As I said, you THINK you know what you’re talking
about, but you actually don’t.

Do you have an open mind to that possibility?

>
> Ed

[beda pietanza]

beda
when you use very high speed in a thought experiment, is to make evident a time dilatation
that at low speeds is negligible.

you thought experiment is impossible to realize because no high speed is permitted for macroscopic bodies
never has been seen or made any macroscopic body travel at speed higher than a very very small fraction of c

at high speed the atoms are depleted of their electrons and the binding forces of material objects would cease
their action and macro objects become just plasma like

in the accelerators no even atoms are accelerated but depleted nucleus

cheers
beda

[Odd Bodkin]

Beda, this is flat out bullshit.

>
> in the accelerators no even atoms are accelerated but depleted nucleus

And there’s a reason why neutral atoms are not accelerated in an
accelerator, but I’m going to guess you have no idea why that’s done on
purpose, and so you just ASSUME the high speed has stripped the electrons
off. Right?

Take a look at RHIC by the way.

>
> cheers
> beda

[Ed Lake]

The pulsar does not move relative to the two observers. That is what is
unique about the "thought experiment." Most arguments result from having
one observer be stationary relative to a clock while the other is moving.
Those arguments are eliminated. So are all arguments about the effect
motion has on the clock. It greatly simplifies Time Dilation.

Here's the link again: https://vixra.org/pdf/1505.0234v1.pdf

[Ed Lake]

On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 12:27:53 PM UTC-5, Cliff Hallston wrote:

> On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 8:54:51 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > This seems like the PERFECT experiment to resolve all disputes
> > over how Time Dilation works.
> What disputes? There aren't any disputes (among competent scientists) about how time dilation works. Special relativity gives a perfectly accurate account of the scenario you described, and no knowledgeable person disputes it.

That may be true in some Fantasyland, but on this forum and in countless books
and papers, the arguments about Time Dilation have raged for over 110 years.

> > No one was ever ahead or behind anyone else in time.
> That's not correct (in any meaningful sense). In terms of any chosen system of coordinates we can compute the elapsed time for each object at any given coordinate time. The elapsed times for various objects are different, so it's not correct to say that no one is ever ahead or behind, at least not if you are referring to proper times at equal coordinate times.

I was saying that if two people are experiencing time pass at different rates,
one is never behind the other. They do not "catch up" when they come
together again.

> > No one FELT any effects of Time Dilation.
> That's an ambiguous statement, because you haven't indicated what "feelings" you are talking about (how would one "feel" time dilation?), but the spaceship was subjected to extreme levels of acceleration at a distance to turn around, so the passengers certainly feel a very different experience than the people on earth, and this is correlated directly with the variations in the rate of elapsed proper time versus coordinate time, as is the differences in gravitational potential of people on earth versus out in space, which can also be "felt". Purely by dead-reckoning from rest in a particular frame we can, in principle, always compute the coordinate time from that frame, even after we have changed our state of motion arbitrarily.

I was merely saying that both observers saw 24 hours in a day.
That never changed for either observer. But they saw time
tick at different rates according to the pulsar "clock."

> > > Doe anyone see any fault in this thought experiment?
> If you get the same answers as general relativity, then there is no fault in your answers. If you get different answers, then there is a fault in your answers. But that's beside the point until you explain what you think is disputed. There aren't any disputes (among real scientists) about how time dilation works.
> > It really shatters the beliefs of most people here.

The experiment has nothing to do with General Relativity. It is almost
entirely about Special Relativity. One observer is traveling faster than
the other.

> What beliefs are those? The scenario you described is quite mundane, and it is perfectly well described by standard special and general relativity: dtau/dx^0 = sqrt[g_mn dx^m dx^n]/dx^0 where x^0 = t. Given x^1, x^2, x^3 as functions of x^0, we can integrate this expression for the rate to give the elapsed time.

Elapsed time for whom?

[Ed Lake]

It's a possibility, but in reality we LEARN from talking with people who have
different ideas that we do. Even if they are totally wrong, you still find that
explaining things in various different ways helps you to more fully understand
what your own argument is.

>
> Or is it your notion that the definition of having an open mind is being
> willing to discuss a topic with someone who doesn’t know what he’s talking
> about?

Yes, it says you have already closed you mind by declaring that the other
person "doesn't know what he is talking about." If you discuss things in
HIS terms, you might learn that it is YOU who does not know what he is
talking about.

> >
> > The idea of using a pulsar as a clock that BOTH parties can see when
> > one is "stationary" and the other is traveling at high speeds STOPS all
> > arguments about "illusions" and eliminates any need to use complex
> > equations. It really shatters the beliefs of most people here. I can see
> > why they do not want to discuss it.
> I think it’s says more about your lack of understanding of what beliefs you
> think you’re shattering. As I said, you THINK you know what you’re talking
> about, but you actually don’t.
>
> Do you have an open mind to that possibility?

Of course. But your argument is that I have to learn to agree with
what you believe before you will listen to any argument from me.
I'm arguing logic and science. You argue mathematical equations.
And you REFUSE to argue anything except mathematical equations.

The argument in my paper is not about mathematical equations.
It is about how time dilation works.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 12:51:51 PM UTC-5, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:

I used a space ship traveling at 95% of the speed of light because it
makes things easier to observe. The same experiment can be done at
much lower speeds, but then you need a way of counting pulses from
the pulsar other than just counting what you observe. You would
have to measure differences that are only tiny fractions of a second.

We on Earth are traveling toward the constellation Hydra at well over
a million miles an hour. And there is no problem with atoms being
depleted of their electrons.

[Odd Bodkin]

Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 12:14:12 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> A pulsar's rotation will slow its time and give it more energy.
>> By moving in space there will be the same... more time slow and energy.
>> Neutron stars are end state matter not a BH.
>
> The pulsar does not move relative to the two observers.

So, since the two observers are moving relative to each other, there are
some details needed to ensure that the pulsar is not moving relative to
EITHER of the two observers.

And that detail was what exactly?

> That is what is
> unique about the "thought experiment." Most arguments result from having
> one observer be stationary relative to a clock while the other is moving.
> Those arguments are eliminated. So are all arguments about the effect
> motion has on the clock. It greatly simplifies Time Dilation.
>
> Here's the link again: https://vixra.org/pdf/1505.0234v1.pdf
>

[Ed Lake]

On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 2:17:14 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 12:14:12 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> A pulsar's rotation will slow its time and give it more energy.
> >> By moving in space there will be the same... more time slow and energy.
> >> Neutron stars are end state matter not a BH.
> >
> > The pulsar does not move relative to the two observers.
> So, since the two observers are moving relative to each other, there are
> some details needed to ensure that the pulsar is not moving relative to
> EITHER of the two observers.
>
> And that detail was what exactly?

It is the fact that the pulsar (the "clock") is tens of billions of miles away,
and that makes the difference in the angle to the pulsar negligible. The
minuscule change in the angle of observation has no effect on the experiment.

[Odd Bodkin]

Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 12:27:53 PM UTC-5, Cliff Hallston wrote:
>> On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 8:54:51 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>>> This seems like the PERFECT experiment to resolve all disputes
>>> over how Time Dilation works.
>> What disputes? There aren't any disputes (among competent scientists)
>> about how time dilation works. Special relativity gives a perfectly
>> accurate account of the scenario you described, and no knowledgeable person disputes it.
>
> That may be true in some Fantasyland, but on this forum and in countless books
> and papers, the arguments about Time Dilation have raged for over 110 years.

Maybe on this forum, yes. But there are also forums that insist that the
mammalian eye was the product of intelligent design and forums that insist
we never put a man on the moon and forums that insist that the earth is
flat. These do not, however, constitute raging controversies.

There are also books and lots of web articles that the earth’s flatness has
not been disproven. Does that make the roundness of the earth
controversial? Well, maybe to someone who WANTS it to be controversial.

[Odd Bodkin]

Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 2:17:14 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 12:14:12 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> A pulsar's rotation will slow its time and give it more energy.
>>>> By moving in space there will be the same... more time slow and energy.
>>>> Neutron stars are end state matter not a BH.
>>>
>>> The pulsar does not move relative to the two observers.
>> So, since the two observers are moving relative to each other, there are
>> some details needed to ensure that the pulsar is not moving relative to
>> EITHER of the two observers.
>>
>> And that detail was what exactly?
>
> It is the fact that the pulsar (the "clock") is tens of billions of miles away,
> and that makes the difference in the angle to the pulsar negligible.

And what makes you believe that it’s the angle that’s important? That
sounds like you’re trying to make a mathematical case you can’t back up.

> The
> minuscule change in the angle of observation has no effect on the experiment.
>
>>> Here's the link again: https://vixra.org/pdf/1505.0234v1.pdf
>
>

[Odd Bodkin]

I dispute that. I learn nothing from someone who believes that the Apollo
mission is a hoax, or that the coronavirus is fictional, or that the earth
is flat.

> Even if they are totally wrong, you still find that
> explaining things in various different ways helps you to more fully understand
> what your own argument is.

I disagree. It is a WASTE of time trying to make any argument to someone
who believes the Apollo landing was a hoax. Because in that case, the
person does not believe in facts, they believe in hidden conspiracies, and
no assemblage of facts is compelling and no argument will convince. It is a
WASTE OF TIME.

>
>>
>> Or is it your notion that the definition of having an open mind is being
>> willing to discuss a topic with someone who doesn’t know what he’s talking
>> about?
>
> Yes, it says you have already closed you mind by declaring that the other
> person "doesn't know what he is talking about." If you discuss things in
> HIS terms, you might learn that it is YOU who does not know what he is
> talking about.

I’m sorry but this is just not so. There are a few simple assessments
anyone can do to tell if someone knows what they’re talking about. If
someone wants to engage in a conversation with me about woodworking but
they can’t tell the difference between a hardwood and a softwood, or they
can’t hold a plane properly, or any of a number of simple tests, then it
will be clear that discussions are futile.

In your case, Ed, what’s clear is that you don’t understand even the basics
of freshman physics, and yet you want to be paid heed about your thoughts
on relativity.

>
>>>
>>> The idea of using a pulsar as a clock that BOTH parties can see when
>>> one is "stationary" and the other is traveling at high speeds STOPS all
>>> arguments about "illusions" and eliminates any need to use complex
>>> equations. It really shatters the beliefs of most people here. I can see
>>> why they do not want to discuss it.
>> I think it’s says more about your lack of understanding of what beliefs you
>> think you’re shattering. As I said, you THINK you know what you’re talking
>> about, but you actually don’t.
>>
>> Do you have an open mind to that possibility?
>
> Of course. But your argument is that I have to learn to agree with
> what you believe before you will listen to any argument from me.

No, that is not true. What is true is that you have to demonstrate that you
know what words mean in physics, that you understand some of the basic
principles of physics and how they have been validated in experiment. This
does not mean that you have to agree. Education does not force agreement.
Reading does not brainwash.

What you offer is your uneducated opinion that physics does not involve
mathematics, that it involves no specialized vocabulary or precise
definitions, that it only requires common sense and a logical mind. This
tells everyone, Ed, two things: 1) that you don’t know any physics at all,
2) that you are uninterested in learning any of it (learn =/= believe)
because you don’t want to work that hard.

> I'm arguing logic and science. You argue mathematical equations.
> And you REFUSE to argue anything except mathematical equations.
>
> The argument in my paper is not about mathematical equations.
> It is about how time dilation works.
>
> Ed
>

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Wednesday, 17 March 2021 at 21:20:08 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> I disagree. It is a WASTE of time trying to make any argument to someone
> who believes the Apollo landing was a hoax.

Believe me, Bod, trying to make any argument to someone
who believes time dilation and other wonders of Giant Guru
- is much worse. Apollo deniers at lesast respect basic
mathematics.

[Cliff Hallston]

On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 11:48:38 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> And I used a space ship that is traveling at right angles to the pulsar...

The angle will depend on the speed, because of aberration. If the direction of the plane wave from the pulsar is at right angles to the direction of the spaceship in terms of the earth's frame, it will not be at right angles in terms of the spaceship's frame, and vice versa.

> > There aren't any disputes (among competent scientists) about how time dilation works. Special relativity gives a perfectly accurate account of the scenario you described, and no knowledgeable person disputes it.
>
> That may be true in some Fantasyland, but on this forum and in countless books
> and papers, the arguments about Time Dilation have raged for over 110 years.

This forum is of no relevance, since it's populated almost entirely with people who don't know what they are talking about. It's true that some books have been written, by kooks like Herbert Dingle, expressing misunderstandings about special relativity in general and time dilation in particular, but those are not counter-examples to my statement, because I referred to competent scientists. I say again, no competent physicist disputes the simple relativistic treatment of time dilation as given in every text book and taught by every physics professor. There is no scientific dispute about this.

> I was saying that if two people are experiencing time pass at different rates,
> one is never behind the other. They do not "catch up" when they come together again.

You said "No one was ever ahead or behind anyone else in time.", and I explained why that's not true. Now you say "one is never behind the other", which is also not true. The elapsed time for two objects following different paths between two events are generally different, so in that sense one is behind the other in terms of a global system of coordinates, and this can be tracked during their journeys in terms of any given system of coordinates. Yes, they do not generally "catch up" when reunited. There's no scientific dispute about this.

> I was merely saying that both observers saw 24 hours in a day.

Huh? What is a "day" for someone in a spaceship far from earth? Perhaps what you mean is that each clock runs at its own rate. That's an empty tautology. Or perhaps you mean that each clock would correctly time the cooking of a co-moving egg, and every other characteristic physical process. So you're just saying an ideal clock indicates proper time along its path, which is essentially the definition of an ideal clock. If that's what you were trying to say, then yes, that is correct.

> That never changed for either observer. But they saw time
> tick at different rates according to the pulsar "clock."

Sure, the value of the observed frequency of pulses in terms of co-moving coordinates of the earth and the spaceship will be in accord with the Doppler formula for general relativity, which takes into account the time dilation for both gravity and motion. There's no scientific dispute about this.

> The experiment has nothing to do with General Relativity. It is almost
> entirely about Special Relativity. One observer is traveling faster than
> the other.

It has to do with general relativity because the clock on the earth's surface is in the earth's gravitational field, subject to gravitational time dilation, whereas the clock in the rocket is far away from the gravitational fields of earth and sun. To account for this, general relativity must be used.

> > > It really shatters the beliefs of most people here.
> >

> > What beliefs are those? The scenario you described is quite mundane, and it is perfectly well described by standard special and general relativity: dtau/dx^0 = sqrt[g_mn dx^m dx^n]/dx^0 where x^0 = t. Given x^1, x^2, x^3 as functions of x^0, we can integrate this expression for the rate to give the elapsed time.
>
> Elapsed time for whom?

The elapsed time along the path defined by the functions x(t), y(t), and z(t) where x,y,z,t is any global system of coordinates. For example, you have one path followed by the clock on earth, and another path followed by the clock in the spaceship, and you can easily compute their elapsed times s a function of the coordinate time t. This correctly accounts for both their gravitational potentials and their states of motion.

Since you didn't answer the crucial question (again), I ask for the third time: What beliefs are shattered? What dispute are you referring to?

[Paul B. Andersen]

You have pulled arbitrary numbers out of thin air.

Here is what SR predicts for the first trip in you paper.

The distance between the Earth and Alpha Centauri [AC] is 4.3 ly

Assume that a very distant pulsar is orthogonal to
the line between the Earth and AC.

Observed from the Earth, the pulse repetition frequency is:
f = 0.1 Hz

A spaceship [ship] is travelling at constant speed from
the Earth to AC, where it turns abruptly around and
travels at the same speed back to Earth.
The Journey takes t = 10 years = 315360000 seconds

During the journey the Earth and the ship must have
counted the same number of pulses from the pulsar.
N = 31536000

Distance travelled by ship: d = 2⋅4.3 ly = 8.6 ly
Speed in Earth frame: v = d/t = 8.6/10 ly/y = 0.86c

Duration of journey on ship's clock:
τ = t/γ = 5.10294 year = 160926326 seconds

Pulse repetition frequency in ship:
f' = N/τ = 0.19596545 Hz

According to SR, the transverse Doppler shift is:
f' = f⋅γ = 0.1⋅1.9596545 Hz = 0.19596545 Hz



--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[beda pietanza]

beda
you are guessing what I am assuming?
you are just playing smart, speak out or stay silent
cheers
beda

[Paul B. Andersen]

Den 17.03.2021 22:27, skrev Paul B. Andersen:
>
>
> Here is what SR predicts for the first trip in you paper.
>
> The distance between the Earth and Alpha Centauri [AC] is 4.3 ly
>
> Assume that a very distant pulsar is orthogonal to
> the line between the Earth and AC.
>
> Observed from the Earth, the pulse repetition frequency is:
>   f = 0.1 Hz
>
> A spaceship [ship] is travelling at constant speed from
> the Earth to AC, where it turns abruptly around and
> travels at the same speed back to Earth.
> The Journey takes t = 10 years = 315360000 seconds

On the the Earth clock.

>
> During the journey the Earth and the ship must have
> counted the same number of pulses from the pulsar.
>   N = 31536000
>
> Distance travelled by ship: d = 2⋅4.3 ly = 8.6 ly
> Speed in Earth frame: v = d/t = 8.6/10 ly/y = 0.86c

γ = 1/√(1−0.86²) = 1.9596545

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Wednesday, 17 March 2021 at 22:41:07 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 17.03.2021 22:27, skrev Paul B. Andersen:
> >
> >
> > Here is what SR predicts for the first trip in you paper.
> >
> > The distance between the Earth and Alpha Centauri [AC] is 4.3 ly
> >
> > Assume that a very distant pulsar is orthogonal to
> > the line between the Earth and AC.
> >
> > Observed from the Earth, the pulse repetition frequency is:
> > f = 0.1 Hz
> >
> > A spaceship [ship] is travelling at constant speed from
> > the Earth to AC, where it turns abruptly around and
> > travels at the same speed back to Earth.
> > The Journey takes t = 10 years = 315360000 seconds
> On the the Earth clock.

Paul, poor trash, your bunch of idiots has redefined second,
but was too stupid to be consequent and redefine year as
well. 10 years on Earth is still 10 years everywhere.

[Odd Bodkin]

Perhaps we might start by you asking yourself the question, HOW does a
particle accelerator work to accelerate particles in the first place? And
would this method work on, say, a neutral hydrogen atom? Why or why not?

[Ed Lake]

On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 3:13:49 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 12:27:53 PM UTC-5, Cliff Hallston wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 8:54:51 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> >>> This seems like the PERFECT experiment to resolve all disputes
> >>> over how Time Dilation works.
> >> What disputes? There aren't any disputes (among competent scientists)
> >> about how time dilation works. Special relativity gives a perfectly
> >> accurate account of the scenario you described, and no knowledgeable person disputes it.
> >
> > That may be true in some Fantasyland, but on this forum and in countless books
> > and papers, the arguments about Time Dilation have raged for over 110 years.

> Maybe on this forum, yes. But there are also forums that insist that the
> mammalian eye was the product of intelligent design and forums that insist
> we never put a man on the moon and forums that insist that the earth is
> flat. These do not, however, constitute raging controversies.
>
> There are also books and lots of web articles that the earth’s flatness has
> not been disproven. Does that make the roundness of the earth
> controversial? Well, maybe to someone who WANTS it to be controversial.

We're on THIS forum where some people believe time dilation is real, and
others insist it is just an "illusion." There are also books and papers which
argue that time dilation is real, and there are books and papers which argue
that time dilation is just an illusion. It's an argument that has raged for over
110 years.

The "experiment" described in my paper eliminates the source for most
of the arguments which claim that time dilation is "just an illusion." It
eliminates the need for people in one "reference frame" to see a clock
that is in a different "reference frame" that is millions of miles away and
moving at a different speed.

In my paper I describe an experiment where the people in the two
"reference frames" can compare the tick rate of clocks in their own
reference frames against a pulsar. The experiment shows that as the
space ship speeds up, it and the people aboard experience time dilation,
causing a second measured on the ship to be longer, and therefore
people on the ship measures more "ticks" per second from the pulsar.

Meanwhile, back on Earth, people there continue to measure the same
number of ticks per second from the pulsar, because, on Earth, seconds
remain the same length.

Einstein's Special Relativity says that seconds get longer the faster
you move. Watching the tick rates of the pulsar increase as your
ship goes faster and faster verifies Special Relativity. That is the
purpose of the experiment.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 3:20:08 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 2:17:14 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ed Lake wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 12:14:12 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> A pulsar's rotation will slow its time and give it more energy.
> >>>> By moving in space there will be the same... more time slow and energy.
> >>>> Neutron stars are end state matter not a BH.
> >>>
> >>> The pulsar does not move relative to the two observers.
> >> So, since the two observers are moving relative to each other, there are
> >> some details needed to ensure that the pulsar is not moving relative to
> >> EITHER of the two observers.
> >>
> >> And that detail was what exactly?
> >
> > It is the fact that the pulsar (the "clock") is tens of billions of miles away,
> > and that makes the difference in the angle to the pulsar negligible.
> And what makes you believe that it’s the angle that’s important? That
> sounds like you’re trying to make a mathematical case you can’t back up.

No, I was trying to avoid giving you and others a mathematical case to
argue instead of discussing the experiment.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

I didn't say we learn FROM the person we talk with. I said we learn from TALKING.
The more different ways we explain OUR OWN understandings, the better we
understand things. Or are you saying that you always understand things PERFECTLY,
and therefore there is no possibility that you can learn anything from a discussion?

> > Even if they are totally wrong, you still find that
> > explaining things in various different ways helps you to more fully understand
> > what your own argument is.
> I disagree. It is a WASTE of time trying to make any argument to someone
> who believes the Apollo landing was a hoax. Because in that case, the
> person does not believe in facts, they believe in hidden conspiracies, and
> no assemblage of facts is compelling and no argument will convince. It is a
> WASTE OF TIME.

Before you can state that it is a waste of time you need to have a discussion.
If the person has a closed mind and just makes the same claims over and over
WITHOUT DISCUSSING anything, then it IS a waste of time. (That is how the
mathematicians on this forum argue.) But if he actually discusses the subject,
then it cannot be a total waste of time. If nothing else, you learn a bit about the
psychology of people who use their BELIEFS to argue against FACTS AND EVIDENCE.

> >
> >>
> >> Or is it your notion that the definition of having an open mind is being
> >> willing to discuss a topic with someone who doesn’t know what he’s talking
> >> about?
> >
> > Yes, it says you have already closed you mind by declaring that the other
> > person "doesn't know what he is talking about." If you discuss things in
> > HIS terms, you might learn that it is YOU who does not know what he is
> > talking about.
> I’m sorry but this is just not so. There are a few simple assessments
> anyone can do to tell if someone knows what they’re talking about. If
> someone wants to engage in a conversation with me about woodworking but
> they can’t tell the difference between a hardwood and a softwood, or they
> can’t hold a plane properly, or any of a number of simple tests, then it
> will be clear that discussions are futile.

But you need to talk to him first, in order to learn that he is claiming things
that relate to the differences between hardwood and softwood, or how to
hold a plane. Maybe his argument is about something you never heard of
before.

>
> In your case, Ed, what’s clear is that you don’t understand even the basics
> of freshman physics, and yet you want to be paid heed about your thoughts
> on relativity.

I understand the SCIENCE of time dilation. I understand that there are
arguments between mathematicians and scientists that have raged for
over 110 years. I understand that mathematicians like you will argue that
there are no disagreements, there are only mathematicians who know "the
truth" and there are ignorant people who know nothing.

> >
> >>>
> >>> The idea of using a pulsar as a clock that BOTH parties can see when
> >>> one is "stationary" and the other is traveling at high speeds STOPS all
> >>> arguments about "illusions" and eliminates any need to use complex
> >>> equations. It really shatters the beliefs of most people here. I can see
> >>> why they do not want to discuss it.
> >> I think it’s says more about your lack of understanding of what beliefs you
> >> think you’re shattering. As I said, you THINK you know what you’re talking
> >> about, but you actually don’t.
> >>
> >> Do you have an open mind to that possibility?
> >
> > Of course. But your argument is that I have to learn to agree with
> > what you believe before you will listen to any argument from me.
> No, that is not true. What is true is that you have to demonstrate that you
> know what words mean in physics, that you understand some of the basic
> principles of physics and how they have been validated in experiment. This
> does not mean that you have to agree. Education does not force agreement.
> Reading does not brainwash.

On the contrary. Education DOES force agreement. If you disagree with what
you are being taught, you FAIL the course. Reading CRAP from a textbook
IS BRAINWASHING if you never have the opportunity to hear other sides.

>
> What you offer is your uneducated opinion that physics does not involve
> mathematics, that it involves no specialized vocabulary or precise
> definitions, that it only requires common sense and a logical mind. This
> tells everyone, Ed, two things: 1) that you don’t know any physics at all,
> 2) that you are uninterested in learning any of it (learn =/= believe)
> because you don’t want to work that hard.

Nonsense. Generally speaking, DISCOVERIES ARE NOT MADE WITH
MATHEMATICS. Discoveries are VERIFIED with mathematics. Discoveries
are MADE via logic and experiments, INCLUDING DISCOVERIES THAT
MATHEMATICAL EXPLANATIONS CAN BE WRONG.

I'm currently reading a book titled "Think Again," by Adam Grant. It is filled
with interesting passages. Here's one:

"If you’re a scientist by trade, rethinking is fundamental to your profession. You’re
paid to be constantly aware of the limits of your understanding. You’re expected
to doubt what you know, be curious about what you don’t know, and update your
views based on new data."

Clearly that is the OPPOSITE of what you believe.

Here's another quote from the book (a "quant jock" is a Quantum Mechanics mathematician):

"Being a quant jock makes you more accurate in interpreting the results—as long
as they support your beliefs. Yet if the empirical pattern clashes with your ideology,
math prowess is no longer an asset; it actually becomes a liability. The better you
are at crunching numbers, the more spectacularly you fail at analyzing patterns that
contradict your views."

Ed

[Python]

Ed Lake xrote:

> On the contrary. Education DOES force agreement. If you disagree with what
> you are being taught, you FAIL the course. Reading CRAP from a textbook
> IS BRAINWASHING if you never have the opportunity to hear other sides.

Good to know that not all idiots live in Poland :-)

[Odd Bodkin]

Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 3:13:49 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 12:27:53 PM UTC-5, Cliff Hallston wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 8:54:51 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>>>>> This seems like the PERFECT experiment to resolve all disputes
>>>>> over how Time Dilation works.
>>>> What disputes? There aren't any disputes (among competent scientists)
>>>> about how time dilation works. Special relativity gives a perfectly
>>>> accurate account of the scenario you described, and no knowledgeable
>>>> person disputes it.
>>>
>>> That may be true in some Fantasyland, but on this forum and in countless books
>>> and papers, the arguments about Time Dilation have raged for over 110 years.
>
>> Maybe on this forum, yes. But there are also forums that insist that the
>> mammalian eye was the product of intelligent design and forums that insist
>> we never put a man on the moon and forums that insist that the earth is
>> flat. These do not, however, constitute raging controversies.
>>
>> There are also books and lots of web articles that the earth’s flatness has
>> not been disproven. Does that make the roundness of the earth
>> controversial? Well, maybe to someone who WANTS it to be controversial.
>
> We're on THIS forum where some people believe time dilation is real, and
> others insist it is just an "illusion."

And again, the fact that there are idiots on a newsgroup who insist that it
is an illusion or who get muddled up about what “real” means, does not mean
that the issue is controversial outside of that group — any more that
people on a different group insisting that the earth is flat makes that
topic controversial.

> There are also books and papers which
> argue that time dilation is real, and there are books and papers which argue
> that time dilation is just an illusion.

And again, being able to find awful resources on the internet or terribly
written books that confuse readers, does not mean that the issue is
controversial.

The fundamental issue here is that people who have not learned the subject
matter in any substantive way also do not have a sense of smell for rotting
garbage. They don’t know enough to have a quality meter. So they can’t tell
when some online publication or ebook has just gotten relativity wrong
because the author is not a physicist, and they can’t tell when a
popularization has sacrificed accuracy for accessibility.

> It's an argument that has raged for over
> 110 years.
>
> The "experiment" described in my paper eliminates the source for most
> of the arguments which claim that time dilation is "just an illusion." It
> eliminates the need for people in one "reference frame" to see a clock
> that is in a different "reference frame" that is millions of miles away and
> moving at a different speed.
>
> In my paper I describe an experiment where the people in the two
> "reference frames" can compare the tick rate of clocks in their own
> reference frames against a pulsar. The experiment shows that as the
> space ship speeds up, it and the people aboard experience time dilation,
> causing a second measured on the ship to be longer, and therefore
> people on the ship measures more "ticks" per second from the pulsar.
>
> Meanwhile, back on Earth, people there continue to measure the same
> number of ticks per second from the pulsar, because, on Earth, seconds
> remain the same length.
>
> Einstein's Special Relativity says that seconds get longer the faster
> you move. Watching the tick rates of the pulsar increase as your
> ship goes faster and faster verifies Special Relativity. That is the
> purpose of the experiment.
>
> Ed
>

[Ken Seto]

This means that 1 year on the spaceship clock represents 10 years on the earth clock. IOW, the spaceship clock second represents 10 clock second on the earth clock. However, in terms of absolute time one-second on the spaceship clock contain the same amount of absolute time as 10 seconds on the earth clock.

[Ed Lake]

On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 3:39:31 PM UTC-5, Cliff Hallston wrote:

Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity says that time slows down when the
observer speeds up. That is generally accepted as true by scientists, since
it has been verified by experiments many many times. Nevertheless, it has
been disputed by mathematicians for over 110 years. Mathematicians
claim time dilation is just an "illusion." They BELIEVE that time ticks at the
same rate everywhere and at every speed BECAUSE their mathematical
equations work the same way in all "frames of reference."

Here's a quote from Albert Einstein: "Since the mathematicians have invaded
the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself any more."

Most of your other arguments are over words. You clearly do not want
to understand, you just want the proper words to be used - according to
what you consider "proper."

[Odd Bodkin]

The only distinction you can seem to make between an earth-bound signaling
clock and a signaling pulsar is that the pulsar is very far away. And the
only argument you have raised that the clock being very far away is
important is that it makes the angle between lines of sight between the two
observers and the signaling ticker very small. But there does not seem to
be any arguable value for that angle needing to be small, or that that
angle has any bearing on the quality of the measurement at all.

[Ed Lake]

It appears to me that you are just babbling mathematics and
not saying anything of value at all.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

It seems like you are starting an argument over the word "controversial."

It's not "controversial" in that it generates arguments. Each side has its
own beliefs, and THEY DO NOT ARGUE. Instead, they teach their views and
claim the other side is wrong (or pretend the other side does not exist).

It is when looking through college text books that you see the two sides.
Some teach that time dilation is real. Some teach that time dilation is an
illusion.

And when a student raises his hand and says he has read a book that says
something different than what the teacher is teaching, the teacher says
just what you are saying: "Finding books or sources that say something
different from what I am teaching just proves that there are people who
will believe and write total nonsense."

So, if a student changes schools, he'll discover that what was taught as
"fact" in one school is considered to be "nonsense" in another school.

I discovered that while researching how Einstein's Second Postulate
is explained in college texts. Here's my paper on that: https://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v4.pdf

Ed

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 10:53:42 AM UTC-5, det...@newsguy.com wrote:

> So, if a student changes schools, he'll discover that what was taught as
> "fact" in one school is considered to be "nonsense" in another school.
>
> I discovered that while researching how Einstein's Second Postulate
> is explained in college texts. Here's my paper on that: https://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v4.pdf

You are very confused.

[Ed Lake]

No, the main difference is that if you use a clock on Earth, that clock is in
a different "reference frame" from the clock on the space ship. And that
allows you to argue that what is seen in one "reference frame" is real and
what is seen in the other "reference frame" is an illusion.

When you use a pulsar, the pulsar is a "clock" that is in NEITHER the
Earth's "reference frame" nor the space ship's "reference frame." Yet
they see the pulsar pulse at different rates. Why? The answer: NEITHER
reference frame is truly "stationary." Both are actually moving through
space at different speeds, which causes them to see the pulsar pulsing
at different rates.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 10:32:45 AM UTC-5, seto...@gmail.com wrote:

NO! Absolutely not! It says there is NO SUCH THING as "absolute time"
as you define it. It says that time depends upon motion and gravity, just
as Einstein claimed.

There may be a location in the universe where time is not affected
by motion or gravity. At that point, time ticks at its fastest rate.
Everywhere else time ticks slower. You might call that "maximum
time" or "absolute time" or "basic time." One second there might
equal 0.995 seconds of Earth time and 9.95 seconds of space ship
time.

Good question though. It really views things in a different way
than all other arguments here.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

Oops. If there is a point in the universe that is not moving and gravity
is balanced in all directions, 1 second there might be 1.1 seconds
on Earth and 11 seconds on the space ship. A second would be
SHORTER at that point than almost everywhere else in the universe,
because everything else in the universe is moving.

Ed

[Odd Bodkin]

Not by talking to someone who has no idea what they’re talking about. You
might as well learn by talking to a tree.

> The more different ways we explain OUR OWN understandings, the better we
> understand things. Or are you saying that you always understand things PERFECTLY,
> and therefore there is no possibility that you can learn anything from a discussion?

No, I’m not saying that at all. What I’m saying is that the likelihood of
improving my understanding by talking with someone knowledgeable about a
subject is VASTLY higher than by talking with someone not knowledgeable
about the subject. So much higher, in fact, that the latter would
constitute squandering my effort and time, with an enormous opportunity
cost to selecting discussion partners more wisely.

>
>>> Even if they are totally wrong, you still find that
>>> explaining things in various different ways helps you to more fully understand
>>> what your own argument is.
>> I disagree. It is a WASTE of time trying to make any argument to someone
>> who believes the Apollo landing was a hoax. Because in that case, the
>> person does not believe in facts, they believe in hidden conspiracies, and
>> no assemblage of facts is compelling and no argument will convince. It is a
>> WASTE OF TIME.
>
> Before you can state that it is a waste of time you need to have a discussion.
> If the person has a closed mind and just makes the same claims over and over
> WITHOUT DISCUSSING anything, then it IS a waste of time.

No, that is not my metric for whether it is a waste of time. That might be
yours. I wouldn’t use yours, personally. My metric is whether my discussion
partner demonstrates that they have a solid understanding of the subject,
at least the basics. If they don’t, then regardless whether they repeat
themselves or say something new every time, then it is a waste of time.

> (That is how the
> mathematicians on this forum argue.) But if he actually discusses the subject,
> then it cannot be a total waste of time. If nothing else, you learn a bit about the
> psychology of people who use their BELIEFS to argue against FACTS AND EVIDENCE.

Here’s what I’ve learned from such discussions. There are people who
believe that all that is necessary to make a worthwhile contribution to a
subject or to have a valuable insight is to have 1) common sense, 2) a
careful thought process, and 3) access to the internet. Such people often
rebel at having to learn jargon — that is, the specialized meanings of
words as they are understood in that subject context — and at having to
learn the basics of a subject as a prerequisite. Such people believe that
someone who doesn’t understand the language, isn’t familiar with basic
principles and concepts, and lacks the skill with analytical tools
customarily used in the subject, might still have a valuable insight worth
discussing. Such people don’t like to hear that the chances of them having
a valuable insight without those other things is exceedingly small. It’s
true in woodworking and it’s true in mathematics and it’s true in physics,
from experience.

>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or is it your notion that the definition of having an open mind is being
>>>> willing to discuss a topic with someone who doesn’t know what he’s talking
>>>> about?
>>>
>>> Yes, it says you have already closed you mind by declaring that the other
>>> person "doesn't know what he is talking about." If you discuss things in
>>> HIS terms, you might learn that it is YOU who does not know what he is
>>> talking about.
>> I’m sorry but this is just not so. There are a few simple assessments
>> anyone can do to tell if someone knows what they’re talking about. If
>> someone wants to engage in a conversation with me about woodworking but
>> they can’t tell the difference between a hardwood and a softwood, or they
>> can’t hold a plane properly, or any of a number of simple tests, then it
>> will be clear that discussions are futile.
>
> But you need to talk to him first, in order to learn that he is claiming things
> that relate to the differences between hardwood and softwood, or how to
> hold a plane. Maybe his argument is about something you never heard of
> before.

It is EXCEEDINGLY unlikely that anyone who doesn’t know the first thing
about wood or woodworking tools would have something useful to offer about
woodworking to an experienced woodworker.

I’ve encountered a couple of inexperienced musicians also, who say they
want to rock out on their guitar. Then I’ll suggest we do a little blues
progression Em7, Am, Bm7, and they won’t know where the E string is on
their guitar, or what a minor chord means, or what a 7th means, and they
just want to be a rock star without doing scales.

[Odd Bodkin]

Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> wrote:

>>>
>>> Of course. But your argument is that I have to learn to agree with
>>> what you believe before you will listen to any argument from me.
>> No, that is not true. What is true is that you have to demonstrate that you
>> know what words mean in physics, that you understand some of the basic
>> principles of physics and how they have been validated in experiment. This
>> does not mean that you have to agree. Education does not force agreement.
>> Reading does not brainwash.
>
> On the contrary. Education DOES force agreement. If you disagree with what
> you are being taught, you FAIL the course. Reading CRAP from a textbook
> IS BRAINWASHING if you never have the opportunity to hear other sides.

I could not disagree more. I don’t know what your educational experience
was like, but where I went to school, the best grades were reserved for
those who did not regurgitate the material, but to those who demonstrated
mastery of the skills used on both sides of a subject. But notice the key
phrase “mastery of the skills used”.

And reading a textbook NEVER precludes you from reading MORE from another
book that might take a different view. It’s just more work, which
sufficient interest will motivate doing. Note that reading a textbook means
COMPREHENDING what’s in there, not skipping stuff that seems hard, doing
the practice exercises to prove to yourself that you’ve really done that.
It does not mean just owning the book, or just opening it, or just scanning
it over, or just reading excerpts that look interesting.

Done properly, education and reading is NEVER brainwashing. Brainwashing is
a handy excuse, however, who find the task of reading textbooks daunting or
boring or too time-consuming.

>
>>
>> What you offer is your uneducated opinion that physics does not involve
>> mathematics, that it involves no specialized vocabulary or precise
>> definitions, that it only requires common sense and a logical mind. This
>> tells everyone, Ed, two things: 1) that you don’t know any physics at all,
>> 2) that you are uninterested in learning any of it (learn =/= believe)
>> because you don’t want to work that hard.
>
> Nonsense. Generally speaking, DISCOVERIES ARE NOT MADE WITH
> MATHEMATICS.

And that is out and out bullshit. Sorry, Ed, but that is not the history of
science, or even of engineering. You have got the role of mathematics in
science all wrong. I do understand how you got to your opinion, however.
It’s a common stance taken by people who lack mathematics as a skill, and
it’s used as a defensive gesture to diminish the function and importance of
mathematics in certain subjects. It’s simply a response of the sort, “Well,
I can’t do that, but I’m interested in this other subject, and so surely
there’s a good way for me to understand the subject without having to use
mathematics.” It’s pure, self-rationalizing bullshit.

> Discoveries are VERIFIED with mathematics. Discoveries
> are MADE via logic and experiments, INCLUDING DISCOVERIES THAT
> MATHEMATICAL EXPLANATIONS CAN BE WRONG.
>
> I'm currently reading a book titled "Think Again," by Adam Grant. It is filled
> with interesting passages. Here's one:
>
> "If you’re a scientist by trade, rethinking is fundamental to your profession. You’re
> paid to be constantly aware of the limits of your understanding. You’re expected
> to doubt what you know, be curious about what you don’t know, and update your
> views based on new data."

And where does it say in that passage that “rethinking” does not involve
math skills?

>
> Clearly that is the OPPOSITE of what you believe.
>
> Here's another quote from the book (a "quant jock" is a Quantum Mechanics mathematician):
>
> "Being a quant jock makes you more accurate in interpreting the results—as long
> as they support your beliefs. Yet if the empirical pattern clashes with your ideology,
> math prowess is no longer an asset; it actually becomes a liability. The better you
> are at crunching numbers, the more spectacularly you fail at analyzing patterns that
> contradict your views."
>

Note that Adam Grant is not a physicist and knows nothing about physics. He
is a PSYCHOLOGIST employed by the BUSINESS SCHOOL at the University of
Pennsylvania. Nothing he says about physics in this book comes from knowing
what he’s talking about. The fact that you would give credence to some
statement about physics in a popularization with a non-physics central
theme by someone without any background or professional role in physics, is
exactly the absence of a bullshit meter I expressed to you earlier.

[Odd Bodkin]

Only in comic book level renditions of relativity. That is a statement so
watered down it has lost any accuracy or explanatory value.

> That is generally accepted as true by scientists, since
> it has been verified by experiments many many times. Nevertheless, it has
> been disputed by mathematicians for over 110 years. Mathematicians
> claim time dilation is just an "illusion." They BELIEVE that time ticks at the
> same rate everywhere and at every speed BECAUSE their mathematical
> equations work the same way in all "frames of reference."
>
> Here's a quote from Albert Einstein: "Since the mathematicians have invaded
> the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself any more."
>
> Most of your other arguments are over words. You clearly do not want
> to understand, you just want the proper words to be used - according to
> what you consider "proper."
>

[Odd Bodkin]

Has this actually happened to you in actual classes on the same subject at
two different schools, or is this just something you imagine must happen?
If it has actually happened, which schools, which classes?

>
> I discovered that while researching how Einstein's Second Postulate
> is explained in college texts. Here's my paper on that:
> https://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v4.pdf
>
> Ed
>

[Odd Bodkin]

Here is an example of what I’ve been talking about, Ed. You are repeatedly
using a physics term “reference frame”. And you put together statements
using that term as though the statements should represent an argument. The
problem is that the statements reveal that you don’t actually know what
“reference frame” means. I mean, you might find an online dictionary or a
Wikipedia article, but it’s clear that anything you cite from that would be
a contextless snippet, but this wouldn’t change the fact that you don’t
really know what a reference frame is or what the term means or implies.

Would it surprise you to learn that ANY reference frame will contain the
Earth, the pulsar, the spaceship, both observers? Would it surprise you to
learn that any OTHER reference frame also contains the Earth, the pulsar,
the spaceship, and both observers? If this does surprise you, then let this
be the illustration that you are using words you don’t really know the
meaning of.

>
> When you use a pulsar, the pulsar is a "clock" that is in NEITHER the
> Earth's "reference frame" nor the space ship's "reference frame." Yet
> they see the pulsar pulse at different rates. Why? The answer: NEITHER
> reference frame is truly "stationary." Both are actually moving through
> space at different speeds, which causes them to see the pulsar pulsing
> at different rates.
>
> Ed
>

[Odd Bodkin]

So here’s a bargain for you, Ed. You want people to explain things in
language you understand. In exchange, you must promise three things.

1. That you will not use a term that you don’t know the meaning of in the
context of physics.

2. That when someone uses a term you don’t know the meaning of in the
context of physics, then you will raise your hand and say, “I don’t know
what you mean by that term.”

3. When someone uses mathematics as a language to convey something, then
you will not dismiss the mathematics as meaningless, and instead you will
say, “I do not understand mathematics, so could you explain that in
ordinary English, even if it is much more laborious to do so?”

[Ed Lake]

On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 11:56:02 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 3:20:08 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ed Lake wrote:

> >>> It's a possibility, but in reality we LEARN from talking with people who have
> >>> different ideas that we do.
> >
> >> I dispute that. I learn nothing from someone who believes that the Apollo
> >> mission is a hoax, or that the coronavirus is fictional, or that the earth
> >> is flat.
> >
> > I didn't say we learn FROM the person we talk with. I said we learn from TALKING.

> Not by talking to someone who has no idea what they’re talking about. You
> might as well learn by talking to a tree.

You must deal with a lot of people who have "no idea what they are talking about."
I meet very few such people.

> > The more different ways we explain OUR OWN understandings, the better we
> > understand things. Or are you saying that you always understand things PERFECTLY,
> > and therefore there is no possibility that you can learn anything from a discussion?

> No, I’m not saying that at all. What I’m saying is that the likelihood of
> improving my understanding by talking with someone knowledgeable about a
> subject is VASTLY higher than by talking with someone not knowledgeable
> about the subject. So much higher, in fact, that the latter would
> constitute squandering my effort and time, with an enormous opportunity
> cost to selecting discussion partners more wisely.

Yes, of course. We all can learn more from experts. But the problem is that
"experts" are usually too busy to discuss things with non-experts. So, if you
want to discuss a topic with people, you go to where people are willing and
anxious to talk - even if they don't know what they are talking about.

That's why I come to this forum.

> >
> >>> Even if they are totally wrong, you still find that
> >>> explaining things in various different ways helps you to more fully understand
> >>> what your own argument is.
> >> I disagree. It is a WASTE of time trying to make any argument to someone
> >> who believes the Apollo landing was a hoax. Because in that case, the
> >> person does not believe in facts, they believe in hidden conspiracies, and
> >> no assemblage of facts is compelling and no argument will convince. It is a
> >> WASTE OF TIME.
> >
> > Before you can state that it is a waste of time you need to have a discussion.
> > If the person has a closed mind and just makes the same claims over and over
> > WITHOUT DISCUSSING anything, then it IS a waste of time.

> No, that is not my metric for whether it is a waste of time. That might be
> yours. I wouldn’t use yours, personally. My metric is whether my discussion
> partner demonstrates that they have a solid understanding of the subject,
> at least the basics. If they don’t, then regardless whether they repeat
> themselves or say something new every time, then it is a waste of time.

And yet you "waste time" by endlessly arguing with me.

> > (That is how the
> > mathematicians on this forum argue.) But if he actually discusses the subject,
> > then it cannot be a total waste of time. If nothing else, you learn a bit about the
> > psychology of people who use their BELIEFS to argue against FACTS AND EVIDENCE.
> Here’s what I’ve learned from such discussions. There are people who
> believe that all that is necessary to make a worthwhile contribution to a
> subject or to have a valuable insight is to have 1) common sense, 2) a
> careful thought process, and 3) access to the internet. Such people often
> rebel at having to learn jargon — that is, the specialized meanings of
> words as they are understood in that subject context — and at having to
> learn the basics of a subject as a prerequisite. Such people believe that
> someone who doesn’t understand the language, isn’t familiar with basic
> principles and concepts, and lacks the skill with analytical tools
> customarily used in the subject, might still have a valuable insight worth
> discussing. Such people don’t like to hear that the chances of them having
> a valuable insight without those other things is exceedingly small. It’s
> true in woodworking and it’s true in mathematics and it’s true in physics,
> from experience.

It seems you view things from the wrong angle. I'm here to examine my
OWN understandings. I expect people on this forum will totally disagree
with me, but arguing with them clarifies my OWN understandings. The
fact that I think your arguments are crap doesn't change that.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 11:56:04 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Ed Lake wrote:
>
> >>>
> >>> Of course. But your argument is that I have to learn to agree with
> >>> what you believe before you will listen to any argument from me.
> >> No, that is not true. What is true is that you have to demonstrate that you
> >> know what words mean in physics, that you understand some of the basic
> >> principles of physics and how they have been validated in experiment. This
> >> does not mean that you have to agree. Education does not force agreement.
> >> Reading does not brainwash.
> >
> > On the contrary. Education DOES force agreement. If you disagree with what
> > you are being taught, you FAIL the course. Reading CRAP from a textbook
> > IS BRAINWASHING if you never have the opportunity to hear other sides.
> I could not disagree more. I don’t know what your educational experience
> was like, but where I went to school, the best grades were reserved for
> those who did not regurgitate the material, but to those who demonstrated
> mastery of the skills used on both sides of a subject. But notice the key
> phrase “mastery of the skills used”.

I don't disagree. "Mastery of the skills" is important for getting a good grade,
even if what you are learning is wrong.

>
> And reading a textbook NEVER precludes you from reading MORE from another
> book that might take a different view. It’s just more work, which
> sufficient interest will motivate doing. Note that reading a textbook means
> COMPREHENDING what’s in there, not skipping stuff that seems hard, doing
> the practice exercises to prove to yourself that you’ve really done that.
> It does not mean just owning the book, or just opening it, or just scanning
> it over, or just reading excerpts that look interesting.
>
> Done properly, education and reading is NEVER brainwashing. Brainwashing is
> a handy excuse, however, who find the task of reading textbooks daunting or
> boring or too time-consuming.

It's not "brainwashing" while you are doing it. It is only "brainwashing" when
you later learn that what you were being taught was crap. I watched the movie
"Inherit the Wind" last night. It's all about brainwashing in schools, only it was
called "proper teaching" by those who believed in what was being taught.

> >
> >>
> >> What you offer is your uneducated opinion that physics does not involve
> >> mathematics, that it involves no specialized vocabulary or precise
> >> definitions, that it only requires common sense and a logical mind. This
> >> tells everyone, Ed, two things: 1) that you don’t know any physics at all,
> >> 2) that you are uninterested in learning any of it (learn =/= believe)
> >> because you don’t want to work that hard.
> >
> > Nonsense. Generally speaking, DISCOVERIES ARE NOT MADE WITH
> > MATHEMATICS.
> And that is out and out bullshit. Sorry, Ed, but that is not the history of
> science, or even of engineering. You have got the role of mathematics in
> science all wrong. I do understand how you got to your opinion, however.
> It’s a common stance taken by people who lack mathematics as a skill, and
> it’s used as a defensive gesture to diminish the function and importance of
> mathematics in certain subjects. It’s simply a response of the sort, “Well,
> I can’t do that, but I’m interested in this other subject, and so surely
> there’s a good way for me to understand the subject without having to use
> mathematics.” It’s pure, self-rationalizing bullshit.

No, it is looking at things from a SCIENTIFIC point of view, instead of from
a mathematician's point of view.

> > Discoveries are VERIFIED with mathematics. Discoveries
> > are MADE via logic and experiments, INCLUDING DISCOVERIES THAT
> > MATHEMATICAL EXPLANATIONS CAN BE WRONG.
> >
> > I'm currently reading a book titled "Think Again," by Adam Grant. It is filled
> > with interesting passages. Here's one:
> >
> > "If you’re a scientist by trade, rethinking is fundamental to your profession. You’re
> > paid to be constantly aware of the limits of your understanding. You’re expected
> > to doubt what you know, be curious about what you don’t know, and update your
> > views based on new data."
> And where does it say in that passage that “rethinking” does not involve
> math skills?

If the math works, why would you "rethink" it?

> >
> > Clearly that is the OPPOSITE of what you believe.
> >
> > Here's another quote from the book (a "quant jock" is a Quantum Mechanics mathematician):
> >
> > "Being a quant jock makes you more accurate in interpreting the results—as long
> > as they support your beliefs. Yet if the empirical pattern clashes with your ideology,
> > math prowess is no longer an asset; it actually becomes a liability. The better you
> > are at crunching numbers, the more spectacularly you fail at analyzing patterns that
> > contradict your views."
> >
> Note that Adam Grant is not a physicist and knows nothing about physics. He
> is a PSYCHOLOGIST employed by the BUSINESS SCHOOL at the University of
> Pennsylvania. Nothing he says about physics in this book comes from knowing
> what he’s talking about. The fact that you would give credence to some
> statement about physics in a popularization with a non-physics central
> theme by someone without any background or professional role in physics, is
> exactly the absence of a bullshit meter I expressed to you earlier.

His book is a best seller, so your opinion doesn't seem to be the prevailing opinion.

I have other books that also argue that math is often wrong and misleading. As
I've stated many times, there was a time when mathematicians believed that the
earth was the center of the universe, and they used MATH to prove it.

Then science showed that the earth orbited the sun, so the mathematicians
revised their equations to show that the SUN was the center of the universe.

Then science showed that the sun was just another star in a rotating galaxy,
and mathematicians then revised their equations to show that. And they argue
that their math is infallible, just as they argued when they claimed the earth
was the center of the universe.

Ed

[Cliff Hallston]

On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 8:34:05 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> > Since you didn't answer the crucial question (again), I ask for the third time: What beliefs
> > are shattered? What dispute are you referring to?
>
> Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity says that time slows down when the
> observer speeds up. That is generally accepted as true by scientists, since
> it has been verified by experiments many many times.

Be careful, your statement is too sloppy, and it is not exactly what special relativity says. What special relativity (absent gravity) says is that a (ideal) clock runs slow in terms of a system of inertial coordinates in which it is moving. If you want to include the effects of gravity, then we can say that, in terms of any global stationary system of coordinates, clocks run slower at higher speeds and deeper in gravitational potential.

You may think that the scientific statements mean essentially the same thing as your statements, but the differences are significant. For example, the above implies that, given two relatively moving clocks, each clock runs slow in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the other clock is at rest.

> Nevertheless, it has been disputed by mathematicians for over 110 years.

The correct statement of time dilation due to motion and gravity (see above) isn't disputed by any competent physicists (or mathematicians, to the extent that they take an interest in the subject), and hasn't been for over 100 years.

> Mathematicians claim time dilation is just an "illusion."

It's ironic you should say that, because Einstein famously wrote "People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." But that's beside the point, because no competent physicist (or mathematician, to the extent that they take an interest in the subject) for the past 100 years (including Einstein) has disputed the correct description of time dilation given above. I say again: There is no dispute about this.

> They BELIEVE that time ticks at the same rate everywhere and at every speed BECAUSE
> their mathematical equations work the same way in all "frames of reference."

You are misunderstanding what people are saying. Obviously an ideal clock in any location and state of motion runs at its own rate, and an ideal clock always shows 3 minutes for the time to boil a co-moving egg, and it shows the same half-life for the decay of a co-moving particle, and so on. This means the rate of a clock is always in the same proportion to the characteristic times of co-located and co-moving physical phenomena, so in this sense an ideal clock always reads the "correct" time, by definition. But this does not contradict the correct description of time dilation given above: In terms of any global stationary system of coordinates, clocks run slower at higher speeds and deeper in gravitational potential.

> Here's a quote from Albert Einstein: "Since the mathematicians have invaded
> the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself any more."

That was a joke toward his former instructor, Minkowski, but of course in seriousness Einstein was very appreciative of the formalism that Minkowski introduced, since it was instrumental in the extension to general relativity accounting for gravity.

> Most of your other arguments are over words.

Not true, my comments (which you ignored wholesale) were almost entirely substantive. Also, bear in mind that a discussion takes place with words, so we can't disregard words, but the difference between your sloppy attempt to describe time dilation and the true description is not merely semantic. If you adopt the correct description (see above), you will find that there is no dispute about it among competent physicists.

> you just want the proper words to be used - according to what you consider "proper."

Oh my goodness. Are you hung up on the word "proper"? Please be aware that this word is *not* being used in the colloquial sense, it has a specific technical meaning in the theory of relativity. For any system of inertial coordinates x,t, the quantity given by sqrt(dt^2 - dx^2) is called the "proper" time. It is called this because it is the elapsed time that would be shown on an ideal clock moving a distance dx in time dt. The word "proper" is not being used to mean "correct" or "appropriate", it just is being used in this technical sense.

[beda pietanza]

Il giorno giovedì 18 marzo 2021 alle 14:05:12 UTC+1 bodk...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> beda pietanza <beda-p...@libero.it> wrote:
> > Il giorno mercoledì 17 marzo 2021 alle 18:57:52 UTC+1 bodk...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> >> beda pietanza <beda-p...@libero.it> wrote:

> >>> beda
> >>> when you use very high speed in a thought experiment, is to make
> >>> evident a time dilatation
> >>> that at low speeds is negligible.
> >>>
> >>> you thought experiment is impossible to realize because no high speed is
> >>> permitted for macroscopic bodies
> >>> never has been seen or made any macroscopic body travel at speed higher
> >>> than a very very small fraction of c
> >>>
> >>> at high speed the atoms are depleted of their electrons and the binding
> >>> forces of material objects would cease
> >>> their action and macro objects become just plasma like
> >> Beda, this is flat out bullshit.
> >>>
> >>> in the accelerators no even atoms are accelerated but depleted nucleus
> >> And there’s a reason why neutral atoms are not accelerated in an
> >> accelerator, but I’m going to guess you have no idea why that’s done on
> >> purpose, and so you just ASSUME the high speed has stripped the electrons
> >> off. Right?
> > beda
> > you are guessing what I am assuming?
> > you are just playing smart, speak out or stay silent
> Perhaps we might start by you asking yourself the question, HOW does a
> particle accelerator work to accelerate particles in the first place? And
> would this method work on, say, a neutral hydrogen atom? Why or why not?
beda
particle accelerators can only accelerate charged particle
and if any neutral hydrogen atom would ever be accelerated at high speed
would have already lost its electron long before that
cheers
> > cheers
> > beda
> >>
> >> Take a look at RHIC by the way.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> cheers
> >>> beda

[Ed Lake]

I answered that question:

I discovered that while researching how Einstein's Second Postulate
is explained in college texts. Here's my paper on that:
https://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v4.pdf

Just check the text books for various colleges, and you will find that
one school teaching things that directly conflicts with what is taught
at another school using another text book.

I wasn't looking at time dilation then, I was looking at how light is
observed. There are on-line classes that teach TOTAL CRAP.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 12:16:48 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:

It is much easier to find people who explain things in a language I already
understand. The problem is asking questions. No one has time to answer
questions from some non-student on the Internet.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Thursday, 18 March 2021 at 19:05:42 UTC+1, Cliff Hallston wrote:

> You are misunderstanding what people are saying. Obviously an ideal clock in any location and state of motion runs at its own rate, and an ideal clock always shows 3 minutes for the time to boil a co-moving egg, and it shows the same half-life for the decay of a co-moving particle, and so on. This means the rate of a clock is always in the same proportion to the characteristic times of co-located and co-moving physical phenomena, so in this sense an ideal clock always reads the "correct" time, by definition.

In the ideal world, where all observers are worshipping and
obeying our beloved Giant Guru. In the real GPS, however,
an ideal clock is indicating t'=t. And if the eggs on a GPS
satellite won't be cooked perfectly - well, we're tough guys,
we can face it.

[Ed Lake]

I read some more from Adam Grant's book "Think Again" during lunch.
This paragraph about arguments between Wilbur and Orvil Wright is worth
noting:

"When they argued about the propeller, the Wright brothers were making a
common mistake. Each was preaching about why he was right and why
the other was wrong. When we argue about why, we run the risk of becoming
emotionally attached to our positions and dismissive of the other side’s.
We’re more likely to have a good fight if we argue about how. "

I'm looking for someone to explain HOW the pulsar time dilation experiment
cannot possibly show time ticking at different rates on earth versus on
the space ship. Instead, the arguments are about WHY my terminology is
wrong and WHY the ship won't remain at a constant distance from the pulsar
as it moves, even though that issue is unimportant, and WHY I need to
argue in math terms, etc.

The experiment is described here: https://vixra.org/pdf/1505.0234v1.pdf

Ed

[Michael Moroney]

On 3/17/2021 2:48 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 12:27:53 PM UTC-5, Cliff Hallston wrote:
>> On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 8:54:51 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>>> This seems like the PERFECT experiment to resolve all disputes
>>> over how Time Dilation works.
>> What disputes? There aren't any disputes (among competent scientists) about how time dilation works. Special relativity gives a perfectly accurate account of the scenario you described, and no knowledgeable person disputes it.
>
> That may be true in some Fantasyland, but on this forum and in countless books
> and papers, the arguments about Time Dilation have raged for over 110 years.

Ed, this group is the Fantasyland. This group is largely populated by
amateurs, many of whom are outright cranks or mentally ill, with many
believing they can sit in their armchair and "discover" all the answers
without setting foot into a lab anywhere. Many others like to watch or
argue with these people.

Real scientists and mathematicians have been mostly absent for over two
decades. And real scientists and mathematicians haven't had any
arguments regarding time dilation for over a century. The existence of
kookbooks notwithstanding.

>
>>> No one was ever ahead or behind anyone else in time.

>> That's not correct (in any meaningful sense). In terms of any chosen system of coordinates we can compute the elapsed time for each object at any given coordinate time. The elapsed times for various objects are different, so it's not correct to say that no one is ever ahead or behind, at least not if you are referring to proper times at equal coordinate times.

>
> I was saying that if two people are experiencing time pass at different rates,
> one is never behind the other. They do not "catch up" when they come
> together again.

According to SR, everyone experiences time at the correct rate.

>
>>> No one FELT any effects of Time Dilation.

>> That's an ambiguous statement, because you haven't indicated what "feelings" you are talking about (how would one "feel" time dilation?), but the spaceship was subjected to extreme levels of acceleration at a distance to turn around, so the passengers certainly feel a very different experience than the people on earth, and this is correlated directly with the variations in the rate of elapsed proper time versus coordinate time, as is the differences in gravitational potential of people on earth versus out in space, which can also be "felt". Purely by dead-reckoning from rest in a particular frame we can, in principle, always compute the coordinate time from that frame, even after we have changed our state of motion arbitrarily.

>
> I was merely saying that both observers saw 24 hours in a day.

> That never changed for either observer. But they saw time
> tick at different rates according to the pulsar "clock."

What is the advantage over using some super-accurate clock on earth
which sends out a signal to everyone?

>
>>>> Doe anyone see any fault in this thought experiment?

>> If you get the same answers as general relativity, then there is no fault in your answers. If you get different answers, then there is a fault in your answers. But that's beside the point until you explain what you think is disputed. There aren't any disputes (among real scientists) about how time dilation works.

>>> It really shatters the beliefs of most people here.
>

> The experiment has nothing to do with General Relativity. It is almost
> entirely about Special Relativity. One observer is traveling faster than
> the other.

Relative to what?

>
>> What beliefs are those? The scenario you described is quite mundane, and it is perfectly well described by standard special and general relativity: dtau/dx^0 = sqrt[g_mn dx^m dx^n]/dx^0 where x^0 = t. Given x^1, x^2, x^3 as functions of x^0, we can integrate this expression for the rate to give the elapsed time.
>
> Elapsed time for whom?

For the observer moving along with the clock at x1(t), x2(t), x3(t).
It's called their proper time.

[Odd Bodkin]

Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 11:56:02 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 3:20:08 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
>
>>>>> It's a possibility, but in reality we LEARN from talking with people who have
>>>>> different ideas that we do.
>>>
>>>> I dispute that. I learn nothing from someone who believes that the Apollo
>>>> mission is a hoax, or that the coronavirus is fictional, or that the earth
>>>> is flat.
>>>
>>> I didn't say we learn FROM the person we talk with. I said we learn from TALKING.
>
>> Not by talking to someone who has no idea what they’re talking about. You
>> might as well learn by talking to a tree.
>
> You must deal with a lot of people who have "no idea what they are talking about."
> I meet very few such people.

Depends on the venue. Some venues are aggregators for people who don’t know
what they’re talking about. Unmoderated Usenet groups are a fine example.

>
>>> The more different ways we explain OUR OWN understandings, the better we
>>> understand things. Or are you saying that you always understand things PERFECTLY,
>>> and therefore there is no possibility that you can learn anything from a discussion?
>
>> No, I’m not saying that at all. What I’m saying is that the likelihood of
>> improving my understanding by talking with someone knowledgeable about a
>> subject is VASTLY higher than by talking with someone not knowledgeable
>> about the subject. So much higher, in fact, that the latter would
>> constitute squandering my effort and time, with an enormous opportunity
>> cost to selecting discussion partners more wisely.
>
> Yes, of course. We all can learn more from experts. But the problem is that
> "experts" are usually too busy to discuss things with non-experts.

On the contrary, there are LOTS of venues for learning from experts. One is
reading from instructional books written by experts. Another is attending
classes offered by experts. Another is engaging in a forum where there are
more experts present than non-experts in a manner that makes clear you are
there to learn.

> So, if you
> want to discuss a topic with people, you go to where people are willing and
> anxious to talk - even if they don't know what they are talking about.

This is what is a waste of time.
There are lots of forums, for example, where people are anxious and willing
to talk about vaccines, and you will learn nothing other than that there
are a bunch of vocal people who have no clue.

>
> That's why I come to this forum.
>
>>>
>>>>> Even if they are totally wrong, you still find that
>>>>> explaining things in various different ways helps you to more fully understand
>>>>> what your own argument is.
>>>> I disagree. It is a WASTE of time trying to make any argument to someone
>>>> who believes the Apollo landing was a hoax. Because in that case, the
>>>> person does not believe in facts, they believe in hidden conspiracies, and
>>>> no assemblage of facts is compelling and no argument will convince. It is a
>>>> WASTE OF TIME.
>>>
>>> Before you can state that it is a waste of time you need to have a discussion.
>>> If the person has a closed mind and just makes the same claims over and over
>>> WITHOUT DISCUSSING anything, then it IS a waste of time.
>
>> No, that is not my metric for whether it is a waste of time. That might be
>> yours. I wouldn’t use yours, personally. My metric is whether my discussion
>> partner demonstrates that they have a solid understanding of the subject,
>> at least the basics. If they don’t, then regardless whether they repeat
>> themselves or say something new every time, then it is a waste of time.
>
> And yet you "waste time" by endlessly arguing with me.

Notice I’m not arguing with you much at all about your original post.
Notice that what I’m doing is reminding you of several things:

- that you don’t actually know what the terms you’re using do mean

- that physics is a quantitative subject with specialized language, though
you’d much prefer that was not so

- that there are far better methods for engaging in a more instructive
discussion about physics

>
>>> (That is how the
>>> mathematicians on this forum argue.) But if he actually discusses the subject,
>>> then it cannot be a total waste of time. If nothing else, you learn a bit about the
>>> psychology of people who use their BELIEFS to argue against FACTS AND EVIDENCE.
>> Here’s what I’ve learned from such discussions. There are people who
>> believe that all that is necessary to make a worthwhile contribution to a
>> subject or to have a valuable insight is to have 1) common sense, 2) a
>> careful thought process, and 3) access to the internet. Such people often
>> rebel at having to learn jargon — that is, the specialized meanings of
>> words as they are understood in that subject context — and at having to
>> learn the basics of a subject as a prerequisite. Such people believe that
>> someone who doesn’t understand the language, isn’t familiar with basic
>> principles and concepts, and lacks the skill with analytical tools
>> customarily used in the subject, might still have a valuable insight worth
>> discussing. Such people don’t like to hear that the chances of them having
>> a valuable insight without those other things is exceedingly small. It’s
>> true in woodworking and it’s true in mathematics and it’s true in physics,
>> from experience.
>
> It seems you view things from the wrong angle. I'm here to examine my
> OWN understandings. I expect people on this forum will totally disagree
> with me, but arguing with them clarifies my OWN understandings. The
> fact that I think your arguments are crap doesn't change that.

Again, if hearing yourself talk helps makes your ideas more concretely
clear in your own head, then you could talk to a tree with the same effect.
Or writing them down without need of an audience. This is what Archimedes
Plutonium (his real name) does.

[Michael Moroney]

On 3/18/2021 11:32 AM, Ken Seto wrote:

> This means that 1 year on the spaceship clock represents 10 years on the earth clock. IOW, the spaceship clock second represents 10 clock second on the earth clock. However, in terms of absolute time one-second on the spaceship clock contain the same amount of absolute time as 10 seconds on the earth clock.

Go away Stupid Ken. This is an adult discussion, you and your unfounded
assertions belong at the children's table.

[Odd Bodkin]

Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 11:56:04 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course. But your argument is that I have to learn to agree with
>>>>> what you believe before you will listen to any argument from me.
>>>> No, that is not true. What is true is that you have to demonstrate that you
>>>> know what words mean in physics, that you understand some of the basic
>>>> principles of physics and how they have been validated in experiment. This
>>>> does not mean that you have to agree. Education does not force agreement.
>>>> Reading does not brainwash.
>>>
>>> On the contrary. Education DOES force agreement. If you disagree with what
>>> you are being taught, you FAIL the course. Reading CRAP from a textbook
>>> IS BRAINWASHING if you never have the opportunity to hear other sides.
>> I could not disagree more. I don’t know what your educational experience
>> was like, but where I went to school, the best grades were reserved for
>> those who did not regurgitate the material, but to those who demonstrated
>> mastery of the skills used on both sides of a subject. But notice the key
>> phrase “mastery of the skills used”.
>
> I don't disagree. "Mastery of the skills" is important for getting a good grade,
> even if what you are learning is wrong.

No, it’s more than that. Mastery of the skills is important for
understanding the subject well enough to assess whether it is problematic.
Without mastery of the skills, you CANNOT accurately make that assessment.
I know this is not what you’d like to hear but it is a reality.

>
>>
>> And reading a textbook NEVER precludes you from reading MORE from another
>> book that might take a different view. It’s just more work, which
>> sufficient interest will motivate doing. Note that reading a textbook means
>> COMPREHENDING what’s in there, not skipping stuff that seems hard, doing
>> the practice exercises to prove to yourself that you’ve really done that.
>> It does not mean just owning the book, or just opening it, or just scanning
>> it over, or just reading excerpts that look interesting.
>>
>> Done properly, education and reading is NEVER brainwashing. Brainwashing is
>> a handy excuse, however, who find the task of reading textbooks daunting or
>> boring or too time-consuming.
>
> It's not "brainwashing" while you are doing it. It is only "brainwashing" when
> you later learn that what you were being taught was crap.

No, it is not brainwashing. If you *thoroughly* learn two ways of treating
the same subject that conflict with each other, then yes, one of them will
likely be crap (unless they are just different methods for understanding
the same thing). But you won’t be able to accurately assess that without
THOROUGHLY learning both ways. That is not a waste. Physicists have learned
both the wrong and right ways to understand the world time and time again,
and they did not know which one was right or wrong until they had exercised
skills in both approaches completely.

> I watched the movie
> "Inherit the Wind" last night. It's all about brainwashing in schools, only it was
> called "proper teaching" by those who believed in what was being taught.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> What you offer is your uneducated opinion that physics does not involve
>>>> mathematics, that it involves no specialized vocabulary or precise
>>>> definitions, that it only requires common sense and a logical mind. This
>>>> tells everyone, Ed, two things: 1) that you don’t know any physics at all,
>>>> 2) that you are uninterested in learning any of it (learn =/= believe)
>>>> because you don’t want to work that hard.
>>>
>>> Nonsense. Generally speaking, DISCOVERIES ARE NOT MADE WITH
>>> MATHEMATICS.
>> And that is out and out bullshit. Sorry, Ed, but that is not the history of
>> science, or even of engineering. You have got the role of mathematics in
>> science all wrong. I do understand how you got to your opinion, however.
>> It’s a common stance taken by people who lack mathematics as a skill, and
>> it’s used as a defensive gesture to diminish the function and importance of
>> mathematics in certain subjects. It’s simply a response of the sort, “Well,
>> I can’t do that, but I’m interested in this other subject, and so surely
>> there’s a good way for me to understand the subject without having to use
>> mathematics.” It’s pure, self-rationalizing bullshit.
>
> No, it is looking at things from a SCIENTIFIC point of view, instead of from
> a mathematician's point of view.

Bullshit. Physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. It is inextricable from
mathematics by that nature. You cannot pull mathematics out of physics and
have any physics left, any more than you can pull being able to read sheet
music from the art of orchestral composition.

>
>>> Discoveries are VERIFIED with mathematics. Discoveries
>>> are MADE via logic and experiments, INCLUDING DISCOVERIES THAT
>>> MATHEMATICAL EXPLANATIONS CAN BE WRONG.
>>>
>>> I'm currently reading a book titled "Think Again," by Adam Grant. It is filled
>>> with interesting passages. Here's one:
>>>
>>> "If you’re a scientist by trade, rethinking is fundamental to your profession. You’re
>>> paid to be constantly aware of the limits of your understanding. You’re expected
>>> to doubt what you know, be curious about what you don’t know, and update your
>>> views based on new data."
>> And where does it say in that passage that “rethinking” does not involve
>> math skills?
>
> If the math works, why would you "rethink" it?

Because the math doesn’t work if it gets the numbers of experimental data
wrong. But since the math is a direct consequence of the physics — it
EXPRESSES the physics quantitatively — then the physics gets rethought. But
this is the confrontation that has to happen, which requires doing the
math.

>
>>>
>>> Clearly that is the OPPOSITE of what you believe.
>>>
>>> Here's another quote from the book (a "quant jock" is a Quantum
>>> Mechanics mathematician):
>>>
>>> "Being a quant jock makes you more accurate in interpreting the results—as long
>>> as they support your beliefs. Yet if the empirical pattern clashes with your ideology,
>>> math prowess is no longer an asset; it actually becomes a liability. The better you
>>> are at crunching numbers, the more spectacularly you fail at analyzing patterns that
>>> contradict your views."
>>>
>> Note that Adam Grant is not a physicist and knows nothing about physics. He
>> is a PSYCHOLOGIST employed by the BUSINESS SCHOOL at the University of
>> Pennsylvania. Nothing he says about physics in this book comes from knowing
>> what he’s talking about. The fact that you would give credence to some
>> statement about physics in a popularization with a non-physics central
>> theme by someone without any background or professional role in physics, is
>> exactly the absence of a bullshit meter I expressed to you earlier.
>
> His book is a best seller, so your opinion doesn't seem to be the prevailing opinion.

A best seller in the BUSINESS world, not in the physics world.

>
> I have other books that also argue that math is often wrong and misleading. As
> I've stated many times, there was a time when mathematicians believed that the
> earth was the center of the universe, and they used MATH to prove it.

Not so. They used math to test whether that idea was consistent with
observations. Then they ran into observations that the math said could not
happen, or should happen with a different amount. This is how the math told
them the physics was likely wrong. Math provides that tool, that insight.
It is INDISPENSABLE in physics.

>
> Then science showed that the earth orbited the sun, so the mathematicians
> revised their equations to show that the SUN was the center of the universe.

No, again, you do not know enough about how math is used in science to
express this correctly. This is not what happened or how it happens.

>
> Then science showed that the sun was just another star in a rotating galaxy,
> and mathematicians then revised their equations to show that. And they argue
> that their math is infallible, just as they argued when they claimed the earth
> was the center of the universe.
>
> Ed
>

[Odd Bodkin]

Right. WHY? How does it used the fact that the particle is charged to
accelerate it, and why would an uncharged particle not work?

And what does it take to make a lead atom charged?

> and if any neutral hydrogen atom would ever be accelerated at high speed
> would have already lost its electron long before that

Nope, that’s nonsense. The electron had to be stripped off BEFORE the
hydrogen atom could be accelerated at all. It didn’t get stripped BECAUSE
of the acceleration.

[Odd Bodkin]

Then don’t constrain yourself to being a non-student using only internet
resources.

What is wrong with making the promises I asked for?

[Ken Seto]

Sigh.....absolute time is the only time exists.
The only way you can synch two clocks in relative motion is through the use of absolute time. Why? Because absolute time is not sensitive to relative motion or gravity. The GPS uses absolute time to synch two clocks in relative motion. Why? Because the rate of passage of absolute times is insensitive to motion or gravity. The GPS uses absolute time to synch the GPS with the ground clock. They achieved this synch by adding 4.4647 more transitions of the CS 133 atom to the GPS second. This makes the passage of 9,192,631,770 cycles on the ground clock is corresponded to the passage of 9,192,631,774.4647 cycles on the GPS clock and thus making the GPS in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Thursday, 18 March 2021 at 19:48:47 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 3/17/2021 2:48 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 12:27:53 PM UTC-5, Cliff Hallston wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 8:54:51 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> >>> This seems like the PERFECT experiment to resolve all disputes
> >>> over how Time Dilation works.
> >> What disputes? There aren't any disputes (among competent scientists) about how time dilation works. Special relativity gives a perfectly accurate account of the scenario you described, and no knowledgeable person disputes it.
> >
> > That may be true in some Fantasyland, but on this forum and in countless books
> > and papers, the arguments about Time Dilation have raged for over 110 years.
> Ed, this group is the Fantasyland. This group is largely populated by
> amateurs, many of whom are outright cranks or mentally ill,

worshipping Giant Guru and his moronic mumble, against common sense,
definitions, basic mathematics and measurement results (which, as
anyone can check GPS, indicate t'=t with the precision of an acceptable error).

> > Elapsed time for whom?
> For the observer moving along with the clock at x1(t), x2(t), x3(t).
> It's called their proper time.

See, stupid Mike: you can scream "Proper!!!" You can scream "The best!!!!".
You can scream "no choice, no choice, we're FORCED!!!!". Sane engineers
of GPS are pissing at you and your chants.

[Ken Seto]

It may be that talking to you is like talking to a tree.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Thursday, 18 March 2021 at 20:04:33 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> No, it’s more than that. Mastery of the skills is important for
> understanding the subject well enough to assess whether it is problematic.
> Without mastery of the skills, you CANNOT accurately make that assessment.
> I know this is not what you’d like to hear but it is a reality.

Odd, poor halfbrain, you can never accurately make that assessment,
with fuzzy terms involved. Nothing comprehendable for your tiny
fanatic halfbrain, of course.

> >> Done properly, education and reading is NEVER brainwashing. Brainwashing is
> >> a handy excuse, however, who find the task of reading textbooks daunting or
> >> boring or too time-consuming.
> >
> > It's not "brainwashing" while you are doing it. It is only "brainwashing" when
> > you later learn that what you were being taught was crap.
> No, it is not brainwashing.

An idiot has said!!!! Simply must be true.
And what is your definition of brainwashing, Odd? What is
your mastery of talking about brainwashing? Why do you
imagine you have ANY competence to talk about it?

> > If the math works, why would you "rethink" it?
> Because the math doesn’t work if it gets the numbers of experimental data
> wrong. But since the math is a direct consequence of the physics — it
> EXPRESSES the physics quantitatively — then the physics gets rethought. But
> this is the confrontation that has to happen, which requires doing the
> math.

Speaking of math, it's always good to remind that your bunch
of idiots had to announce its oldest part false, as it didn't
want to cooperate with the idiocies of your insane guru.

[Cliff Hallston]

On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 11:45:24 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> I'm looking for someone to explain HOW the pulsar time dilation experiment
> cannot possibly show time ticking at different rates on earth versus on
> the space ship.

Let's see if we can sort this out. You have read some explanations of special relativity (in text books and elsewhere), and you think those explanations are wrong, and you think that observations of the pulsar demonstrate that they are wrong. In response, physicists say that the observations of the pulsar are perfectly consistent with their description of special relativity. So that's the disagreement.

To figure out who is right, we need to figure out if, in fact, the observations of the pulsar in the scenario you described are actually consistent with the text book explanations of special relativity. This is easily done, because according to textbook special relativity the clock in the spaceship runs slow (by the factor sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)) in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the earth is stationary. The pulse rate according to a clock on the spaceship therefore differs by this factor from the rate according to the inertial coordinates in which the earth is at rest (neglecting gravity).

At this point, since conversations with you never get pasty square one, I have to speculate that your response might be "No! People tell me that the clock in the spaceship runs at the same rate as the clock on earth! So those people are wrong wrong wrong!" Well, now we aren't talking about what text books say any more, we are talking about what some people on the internet have said to you. Unfortunately, those people are imbeciles, because the statement that clocks always run at the same rate is not a scientific statement, because it doesn't specify any comparison. A "rate" refers to a ratio of two things. The fact underlying what you people are trying (but failing) to express to you, is that each clock runs in a constant proportion to the characteristic times of all co-located and co-moving physical phenomena. That is called the "proper time" for that location and state of motion. That is true, but it isn't a very helpful statement, when trying to discuss the comparative operations of clocks at different locations and states of motion.

So, in summary, the pulsar scenario is perfectly consistent with textbook special relativity (and the reciprocity between inertial coordinate systems, and so on), and it is also consistent with the meaning of "proper time" for each clock. Your belief that the pulsar observation contradicted one or both of these was just due to your misunderstanding the difference between proper time and coordinate time.

[rotchm]

On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 11:34:05 AM UTC-4, det...@newsguy.com wrote:

> Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity says that time slows down when the
> observer speeds up.

No, it does not say that. Why do you keep insisting in using vague words ? There is enough "confusion" already.
Try to be clear. SR tells you the *values* that one would get on the device (clock).

Simply put, SR says 3 & 5. The it is the authors that say 3<5, then say clock 1 slower than clock 2.
Its not SR that says "clock 1 slower than clock 2" but rather the simplified description of authors. Don't fall in that trap.

> That is generally accepted as true by scientists,

Nope. See above.

> since it has been verified by experiments many many times.

Nope. The experiments gave values on the devices. They gave, 3 & 5, say.

> Nevertheless, it has
> been disputed by mathematicians for over 110 years.

Nope. Mathematicians don't care about that and don't lose their time with it. Physicist do and so as cranks.

> Mathematicians claim time dilation is just an "illusion."

Nope. Some scientist Loosely describe it that way.

> They BELIEVE that time ticks at the
> same rate everywhere

And what they mean by that is that when a clock goes from 0 to 1 then that clock went from zero to one. When it Ticks once it ticked once.

> Most of your other arguments are over words.

That is exactly what *you* are doing.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Thursday, 18 March 2021 at 20:37:49 UTC+1, Cliff Hallston wrote:

>
> So, in summary, the pulsar scenario is perfectly consistent with textbook special relativity

Still, real clocks of the real GPS keep indicating t'=t, just
like serious clocks always do. What a pity:(.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Den 18.03.2021 16:36, skrev Ed Lake:
> On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 4:28:09 PM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

>> Den 16.03.2021 16:54, skrev Ed Lake:
>>>
>>> Here's my paper: https://vixra.org/pdf/1505.0234v1.pdf
>>>
>>> Doe anyone see any fault in this thought experiment?
>>>

In your paper you claim that 8.6/10 = 0.9949874371

Don't you think this is a fault? Or don't you?

(Of course you don't understand what I am telling you.)

>> You have pulled arbitrary numbers out of thin air.
>>
>> Here is what SR predicts for the first trip in you paper.
>>
>> The distance between the Earth and Alpha Centauri [AC] is 4.3 ly
>>
>> Assume that a very distant pulsar is orthogonal to
>> the line between the Earth and AC.
>>
>> Observed from the Earth, the pulse repetition frequency is:
>> f = 0.1 Hz
>>
>> A spaceship [ship] is travelling at constant speed from
>> the Earth to AC, where it turns abruptly around and
>> travels at the same speed back to Earth.
>> The Journey takes t = 10 years = 315360000 seconds
>>
>> During the journey the Earth and the ship must have
>> counted the same number of pulses from the pulsar.
>> N = 31536000
>>
>> Distance travelled by ship: d = 2⋅4.3 ly = 8.6 ly
>> Speed in Earth frame: v = d/t = 8.6/10 ly/y = 0.86c
>>
>> Duration of journey on ship's clock:
>> τ = t/γ = 5.10294 year = 160926326 seconds
>>
>> Pulse repetition frequency in ship:
>> f' = N/τ = 0.19596545 Hz
>>
>> According to SR, the transverse Doppler shift is:
>> f' = f⋅γ = 0.1⋅1.9596545 Hz = 0.19596545 Hz

>
> It appears to me that you are just babbling mathematics and
> not saying anything of value at all.
>

Quite.
Your paper makes it obvious that you think
mathematics is babble.

Here is more babble:
---------------------

https://vixra.org/pdf/1505.0234v1.pdf

Here is what SR predicts for trip #2 in you paper:

The same as above, with the difference that
this time, the pulsar is on the same line
as the Earth and AC.

We still have:
The distance between the Earth and Alpha Centauri [AC] is 4.3 ly

Observed from the Earth, the pulse repetition frequency
of the pulsar is f = 0.1 Hz

A spaceship [ship] is travelling at constant speed from
the Earth to AC, where it turns abruptly around and
travels at the same speed back to Earth.
The Journey takes t = 10 years = 315360000 seconds
on the Earth clock.

During the journey the Earth and the ship must have
counted the same number of pulses from the pulsar.
N = 31536000

Distance travelled by ship: d = 2⋅4.3 ly = 8.6 ly
Speed in Earth frame: v = d/t = 8.6/10 ly/y = 0.86c

γ = 1/√(1−0.86²) = 1.9596545

Duration of of each part of the journey on ship's clock:
τ₁ = τ₂ = (t/2)/γ = 2.55147 year = 80463163 seconds

Number of pulses counted by ship on way out:
N₁ = f⋅√((1+v)/(1−v))⋅τ₁ = 29328480

Number of pulses counted by ship on way back:
N₂ = f⋅√((1−v)/(1+v))⋅τ₂ = 2207520

Total number of pulses counted:
N₁+N₂ = 31536000 = N

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Odd Bodkin]

Ed, as a case in point, Ken Seto is one of the long timers here who has NO
IDEA what he’s talking about. He doesn’t know what the words mean, he
doesn’t know what physics is, and he doesn’t care much for the scientific
method. And he can’t tell you what 6/(-2) equals.

> The only way you can synch two clocks in relative motion is through the
> use of absolute time. Why? Because absolute time is not sensitive to
> relative motion or gravity. The GPS uses absolute time to synch two
> clocks in relative motion. Why? Because the rate of passage of absolute
> times is insensitive to motion or gravity. The GPS uses absolute time to
> synch the GPS with the ground clock. They achieved this synch by adding
> 4.4647 more transitions of the CS 133 atom to the GPS second. This makes
> the passage of 9,192,631,770 cycles on the ground clock is corresponded
> to the passage of 9,192,631,774.4647 cycles on the GPS clock and thus
> making the GPS in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time.
>
>> There may be a location in the universe where time is not affected
>> by motion or gravity. At that point, time ticks at its fastest rate.
>> Everywhere else time ticks slower. You might call that "maximum
>> time" or "absolute time" or "basic time." One second there might
>> equal 0.995 seconds of Earth time and 9.95 seconds of space ship
>> time.
>>
>> Good question though. It really views things in a different way
>> than all other arguments here.
>>
>> Ed
>

[Ed Lake]

On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 1:48:47 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 3/17/2021 2:48 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 12:27:53 PM UTC-5, Cliff Hallston wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 8:54:51 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> >>> This seems like the PERFECT experiment to resolve all disputes
> >>> over how Time Dilation works.
> >> What disputes? There aren't any disputes (among competent scientists) about how time dilation works. Special relativity gives a perfectly accurate account of the scenario you described, and no knowledgeable person disputes it.
> >
> > That may be true in some Fantasyland, but on this forum and in countless books
> > and papers, the arguments about Time Dilation have raged for over 110 years.
> Ed, this group is the Fantasyland. This group is largely populated by
> amateurs, many of whom are outright cranks or mentally ill, with many
> believing they can sit in their armchair and "discover" all the answers
> without setting foot into a lab anywhere. Many others like to watch or
> argue with these people.

I assume that just means there are a lot of people on this forum who disagree
with your beliefs.

>
> Real scientists and mathematicians have been mostly absent for over two
> decades. And real scientists and mathematicians haven't had any
> arguments regarding time dilation for over a century. The existence of
> kookbooks notwithstanding.

I can probably go to arXiv.org and find dozens of NEW papers where physicists
disagree with Einstein or with variable time.

> >
> >>> No one was ever ahead or behind anyone else in time.
> >> That's not correct (in any meaningful sense). In terms of any chosen system of coordinates we can compute the elapsed time for each object at any given coordinate time. The elapsed times for various objects are different, so it's not correct to say that no one is ever ahead or behind, at least not if you are referring to proper times at equal coordinate times.
> >
> > I was saying that if two people are experiencing time pass at different rates,
> > one is never behind the other. They do not "catch up" when they come
> > together again.
> According to SR, everyone experiences time at the correct rate.

No, according to SR every particle in the universe spins at its own rate,
a rate that is determine by the speed at which the atom is traveling
and how close the atom is to a gravitational body. We don't notice
the differences in time because all the atoms in our body and our
surroundings measure time at very close to the same rate, so close
you need an atomic clock to measure the differences.

> >
> >>> No one FELT any effects of Time Dilation.
> >> That's an ambiguous statement, because you haven't indicated what "feelings" you are talking about (how would one "feel" time dilation?), but the spaceship was subjected to extreme levels of acceleration at a distance to turn around, so the passengers certainly feel a very different experience than the people on earth, and this is correlated directly with the variations in the rate of elapsed proper time versus coordinate time, as is the differences in gravitational potential of people on earth versus out in space, which can also be "felt". Purely by dead-reckoning from rest in a particular frame we can, in principle, always compute the coordinate time from that frame, even after we have changed our state of motion arbitrarily.
> >
> > I was merely saying that both observers saw 24 hours in a day.
> > That never changed for either observer. But they saw time
> > tick at different rates according to the pulsar "clock."
> What is the advantage over using some super-accurate clock on earth
> which sends out a signal to everyone?

The advantage is that the pulsar ticks at its own rate. A clock on
earth ticks at a different rate than a clock on a space ship. Plus,
sending out "a signal to everyone" means everyone is going to
receive the signal at a different time, because they are all
different distances away from the source. PLUS, some will
receive the signals while moving toward the emitter and some
will receive the signals while moving away from the emitter.
Using a pulsar, all those problems can be eliminated.

> >
> >>>> Doe anyone see any fault in this thought experiment?
> >> If you get the same answers as general relativity, then there is no fault in your answers. If you get different answers, then there is a fault in your answers. But that's beside the point until you explain what you think is disputed. There aren't any disputes (among real scientists) about how time dilation works.
> >>> It really shatters the beliefs of most people here.
> >
> > The experiment has nothing to do with General Relativity. It is almost
> > entirely about Special Relativity. One observer is traveling faster than
> > the other.
> Relative to what?

Relative to the maximum speed of light. Time slows the faster you
move relative to the speed of light, and when you reach the speed of
light TIME STOPS for you.

Ed

[Odd Bodkin]

Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 12:08:50 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 10:18:49 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> It is when looking through college text books that you see the two sides.
>>> Some teach that time dilation is real. Some teach that time dilation is an
>>> illusion.
>>>
>>> And when a student raises his hand and says he has read a book that says
>>> something different than what the teacher is teaching, the teacher says
>>> just what you are saying: "Finding books or sources that say something
>>> different from what I am teaching just proves that there are people who
>>> will believe and write total nonsense."
>>>
>>> So, if a student changes schools, he'll discover that what was taught as
>>> "fact" in one school is considered to be "nonsense" in another school.
>> Has this actually happened to you in actual classes on the same subject at
>> two different schools, or is this just something you imagine must happen?
>> If it has actually happened, which schools, which classes?
>
> I answered that question:
>
> I discovered that while researching how Einstein's Second Postulate
> is explained in college texts. Here's my paper on that:
> https://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v4.pdf

I looked at that a few days ago, and it seems to me your paper says that
every textbook used in classes teaches what you call the “Mathematicians’
All Observer” theory, despite the fact that the books are written by
physicists, not mathematicians. I do see in your paper some references to
NON-textbook papers not used in classes that you argue supports the
“Emitter Only” theory. There is a reason why hand-picked papers are not
used as classroom texts, until the students are advanced enough to read
them appropriately. Do you know what those reasons are?

Anyway, as far as I can tell, you have in fact not provided examples of
textbooks used in classes teaching opposite things about this. There is no
controversy to be found in those textbooks, is there? There is certainly
the controversy you’d like to generate, but that’s an entirely different
matter.

>
> Just check the text books for various colleges, and you will find that
> one school teaching things that directly conflicts with what is taught
> at another school using another text book.
>
> I wasn't looking at time dilation then, I was looking at how light is
> observed. There are on-line classes that teach TOTAL CRAP.
>
> Ed
>

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Thursday, 18 March 2021 at 21:21:04 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 18.03.2021 16:36, skrev Ed Lake:
> > On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 4:28:09 PM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> Den 16.03.2021 16:54, skrev Ed Lake:
> >>>
> >>> Here's my paper: https://vixra.org/pdf/1505.0234v1.pdf
> >>>
> >>> Doe anyone see any fault in this thought experiment?
> >>>
> In your paper you claim that 8.6/10 = 0.9949874371
>
> Don't you think this is a fault? Or don't you?

Paul, poor idiot. Why should it be a fault?
Are arithmetical rules somehow better than
euclidean prejudices, refuted by your idiot guru?
Why?

[Maciej Wozniak]

Ed, as a case in point,Odd Bodkin is one of the long timers here who has NO

IDEA what he’s talking about. He doesn’t know what the words mean, he

doesn’t know what physics is, he doesn't know Pythagorean theorem and
propositional calculus. Ignore him.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

How fast does neutron star spin speed slow down?
It requires new material arriving fast or slow...
By that they always have an expanding radius order...

Mitchell Raemsch

[Ed Lake]

I've done all of them. I have a Facebook group called "Time and Time Dilation."
I recently finished a terrific book titled "About Time," by Paul Davies, who is a physicist.
Here's a quote from that book:

"So often, major progress in science comes when the orthodox paradigm clashes
with a new set of ideas or some new piece of experimental evidence that won't fit
into the prevailing theories. Then somebody discards a cherished assumption,
perhaps one that has almost been taken for granted and not explicitly stated, and
suddenly all is transformed. A new, more successful paradigm is born. This happened
when Einstein formulated the special theory of relativity. Everybody had assumed,
without even thinking about it, that time is absolute and universal; the whole of
classical physics was founded on this belief. But it was wrong—an unjustified
assumption that brought Newton's laws of motion into conflict with electromagnetism
and the behavior of light signals. When Einstein dropped the assumption, everything
fell into place."

It's not about hearing myself talk. It's about responding to questions.
Today someone asked questions about "absolute time." There is no such
thing as "absolute time," so I had to think about what he meant. And my
reply required some thinking about things that are totally off topic.

And you have to sit and wonder: How the hell did he get the idea that there
is some kind of "absolute time"? Einstein's theories have resulted in great
experiments which demonstrate that time ticks at a different rate VIRTUALLY
EVERYWHERE.

Ed

[Odd Bodkin]

Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 1:48:47 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 3/17/2021 2:48 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 12:27:53 PM UTC-5, Cliff Hallston wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 8:54:51 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>>>>> This seems like the PERFECT experiment to resolve all disputes
>>>>> over how Time Dilation works.
>>>> What disputes? There aren't any disputes (among competent scientists)
>>>> about how time dilation works. Special relativity gives a perfectly
>>>> accurate account of the scenario you described, and no knowledgeable
>>>> person disputes it.
>>>
>>> That may be true in some Fantasyland, but on this forum and in countless books
>>> and papers, the arguments about Time Dilation have raged for over 110 years.
>> Ed, this group is the Fantasyland. This group is largely populated by
>> amateurs, many of whom are outright cranks or mentally ill, with many
>> believing they can sit in their armchair and "discover" all the answers
>> without setting foot into a lab anywhere. Many others like to watch or
>> argue with these people.
>
> I assume that just means there are a lot of people on this forum who disagree
> with your beliefs.

No, Ed. Let’s make a careful distinction here. The disagreement of opinions
is not the issue. It’s the difference between informed opinions and
uninformed opinions. If a holder of an opinion makes it clear that he is
unversed in the subject and lacking in the basics, his opinion is
uninformed. This is true no matter how hard he has thought about it or how
many things on the internet he has perused.

I know that you would like your opinion to be treated on the same level
ground as those held by informed people who DO have physics skills and who
DO have training in the basics. But this is not realistic or appropriate to
expect, and it has nothing to do with whether you agree or not. If you
AGREED with the prevailing opinion but also demonstrated that you didn’t
know what you were talking about, your agreement would be similarly
worthless.

>
>>
>> Real scientists and mathematicians have been mostly absent for over two
>> decades. And real scientists and mathematicians haven't had any
>> arguments regarding time dilation for over a century. The existence of
>> kookbooks notwithstanding.
>
> I can probably go to arXiv.org and find dozens of NEW papers where physicists
> disagree with Einstein or with variable time.

There are 18 entries in arXiv.org satisfying the search “second postulate”
and 1 entry satisfying “2nd postulate”. Happy reading. Be sure to read the
whole papers, not just skimming for snippets.

[Ed Lake]

I've got better things to do. Science is just a life-long interest. It is not
my profession. I was an analyst by profession. I'm analyzing the disputes
over Time Dilation for my own edification.

BTW, I'm also a writer. I just published science-fiction NOVEL titled "Time Work."
It's about "anti-time." I don't know if there is such a thing, but I explored it in
the novel, and it was very interesting. Here's the link to the book on Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08X16MCSR/

You can use their "Look Inside" feature to read the first three chapters
and part of the fourth.

Ed

[Odd Bodkin]

That meets none of the categories I described. Is that a class offered by
an expert? Is that a forum where there are more experts present than
non-experts?

> I recently finished a terrific book titled "About Time," by Paul Davies,
> who is a physicist.

That is not an instructional book written by a physicist. It is a
popularization written by a physicist. Are there practice examples in the
book? Is there the requirement to learn specialized meanings of words and
use skills (including mathematical analysis) that are required in physics?
Do you understand or acknowledge the difference between a textbook and a
popularization, other than you enjoy one and not the other?

You spend a lot of time telling me all the things that you do that are NOT
among the recommended ways to learn from experts. Why are you avoiding
those ways? Why do you insist on positioning yourself as a non-student
accessing only internet resources?

And you spent time thinking about something that does not exist, asserted
by someone who doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Was that useful? In
what way, other than keeping you occupied?

As for how he got that idea, Ken, he fetched it from things he believes
from common experience. He has no interest in experimental results if they
conflict with his common sense. Is this something you feel is worthwhile
ferreting out?

>
> And you have to sit and wonder: How the hell did he get the idea that there
> is some kind of "absolute time"? Einstein's theories have resulted in great
> experiments which demonstrate that time ticks at a different rate VIRTUALLY
> EVERYWHERE.
>
> Ed
>
>

[Odd Bodkin]

And this rightfully summarizes your condition. I mentioned earlier that
sufficient interest motivates the extra work involved in learning the
material to the point where you would demonstrate that you know what you’re
talking about. As you just said, you’re not sufficiently interested. You’ve

got better things to do.

Just as a matter of contrast though, having sufficient interest does not
require commitment to do physics professionally. I’m a woodworker. But I
have also read 82 TEXTBOOKS on physics (as well as a couple dozen
popularizations) from cover to cover, working the practice examples and
learning new skills along the way. I do this because I’m sufficiently
interested and because I’m not daunted by unfamiliar language or
mathematics. There are a number of engineers here who have done comparable
study on the subject.

So the difference among the people on the group, you see, is between those
who are sufficiently interested and those who are not, and this is not
particularly correlated with the desire to yap.

>
> BTW, I'm also a writer. I just published science-fiction NOVEL titled "Time Work."
> It's about "anti-time." I don't know if there is such a thing, but I explored it in
> the novel, and it was very interesting. Here's the link to the book on Amazon:
> https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08X16MCSR/
>
> You can use their "Look Inside" feature to read the first three chapters
> and part of the fourth.
>
> Ed
>
>

[Ed Lake]

On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 2:07:32 PM UTC-5, seto...@gmail.com wrote:

You argue against yourself. There can be no "absolute time" if an
atomic clock ticks at a different rate at high altitudes than on the ground.
The fact that an adjustment can be made to compensate for the difference
doesn't establish any "absolute time." It just coordinates clocks at two
different altitudes. Those clocks would tick at a different rate than a clock
on the moon or Mars or atop Mt. Everest.

The fact that you can adjust a clock to tick at a different rate does not
mean there is some "absolute time." It just means that time in one
location can RELATE to time in another location. Time at one location
is NOT totally different than at another location. There's a mathematical
relationship.

[Ed Lake]

On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 2:37:49 PM UTC-5, Cliff Hallston wrote:

> On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 11:45:24 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > I'm looking for someone to explain HOW the pulsar time dilation experiment
> > cannot possibly show time ticking at different rates on earth versus on
> > the space ship.
> Let's see if we can sort this out. You have read some explanations of special relativity (in text books and elsewhere), and you think those explanations are wrong, and you think that observations of the pulsar demonstrate that they are wrong. In response, physicists say that the observations of the pulsar are perfectly consistent with their description of special relativity. So that's the disagreement.

NO! I DO NOT THINK THAT. I think that discussing the pulsar experiment
could show where my understandings conflict with the understandings by
others in this forum. My understandings are in agreement with most
scientists. They just seem to conflict with some physicists.

>
> To figure out who is right, we need to figure out if, in fact, the observations of the pulsar in the scenario you described are actually consistent with the text book explanations of special relativity. This is easily done, because according to textbook special relativity the clock in the spaceship runs slow (by the factor sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)) in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the earth is stationary. The pulse rate according to a clock on the spaceship therefore differs by this factor from the rate according to the inertial coordinates in which the earth is at rest (neglecting gravity).
>
> At this point, since conversations with you never get pasty square one, I have to speculate that your response might be "No! People tell me that the clock in the spaceship runs at the same rate as the clock on earth! So those people are wrong wrong wrong!" Well, now we aren't talking about what text books say any more, we are talking about what some people on the internet have said to you. Unfortunately, those people are imbeciles, because the statement that clocks always run at the same rate is not a scientific statement, because it doesn't specify any comparison. A "rate" refers to a ratio of two things. The fact underlying what you people are trying (but failing) to express to you, is that each clock runs in a constant proportion to the characteristic times of all co-located and co-moving physical phenomena. That is called the "proper time" for that location and state of motion. That is true, but it isn't a very helpful statement, when trying to discuss the comparative operations of clocks at different locations and states of motion.

The problem is that what some people say on this forum is ALSO said in some text books.
And other text books say something totally different. They say what I say.

Generally speaking, I'm in agreement with SCIENCE textbooks and in
disagreement with PHYSICS textbooks.

>
> So, in summary, the pulsar scenario is perfectly consistent with textbook special relativity (and the reciprocity between inertial coordinate systems, and so on), and it is also consistent with the meaning of "proper time" for each clock. Your belief that the pulsar observation contradicted one or both of these was just due to your misunderstanding the difference between proper time and coordinate time.

No, it is due to the FACT that different people here have different understandings,
and most of them are in disagreement with THE FACTS.

Ed

[Python]

Ed Lake wrote:
...

> Generally speaking, I'm in agreement with SCIENCE textbooks and in
> disagreement with PHYSICS textbooks.

You're a parody of yourself. I do love that statement of yours anyway,
it's saying sooo much.

[beda pietanza]

beda
the strong waves accelerator is able to accellerate any particle
regardless of its charge

>
> And what does it take to make a lead atom charged?

beda
I suppose by making them undergo to a strong electrostatic field, or tell it if you know

> > and if any neutral hydrogen atom would ever be accelerated at high speed
> > would have already lost its electron long before that
> Nope, that’s nonsense. The electron had to be stripped off BEFORE the
> hydrogen atom could be accelerated at all

beda
sure, but particles spitted out of stars at high speed are ionized

>. It didn’t get stripped BECAUSE
> of the acceleration.

beda
it would if enough accelerate in any way
cheers
beda

[Odd Bodkin]

Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> wrote:

>
> Generally speaking, I'm in agreement with SCIENCE textbooks and in
> disagreement with PHYSICS textbooks.
>

You do yourself no favors with comments like this.


--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Odd Bodkin]

No sir.

>>
>> And what does it take to make a lead atom charged?
> beda
> I suppose by making them undergo to a strong electrostatic field, or tell it if you know

Would you care to take the effort to look it up rather than guess? Try
googling Tevatron proton source.

>
>>> and if any neutral hydrogen atom would ever be accelerated at high speed
>>> would have already lost its electron long before that
>> Nope, that’s nonsense. The electron had to be stripped off BEFORE the
>> hydrogen atom could be accelerated at all
> beda
> sure, but particles spitted out of stars at high speed are ionized

And it isn’t because of the acceleration.

>> . It didn’t get stripped BECAUSE
>> of the acceleration.
> beda
> it would if enough accelerate in any way

This you claim without basis.

There is no way to argue against something holds as an article of faith.
It’s like trying to dissuade a creationist.

> cheers
> beda
>
>>> cheers
>>>>> cheers
>>>>> beda
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Take a look at RHIC by the way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> cheers
>>>>>>> beda
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

How do we see rotation through different spins?
The ice skater pulls in her arms or extends them
for slow a fast spin from same angular momentum
speed... The neutron star is not a clock we can
observe by any direct way. We cannot count on
them as a clock we can use...

[Cliff Hallston]

On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 8:34:05 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> > Since you didn't answer the crucial question (again), I ask for the third time: What beliefs
> > are shattered? What dispute are you referring to?

>
> Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity says that time slows down when the

> observer speeds up. That is generally accepted as true by scientists, since

> it has been verified by experiments many many times.

Be careful, your statement is not quite right. What special relativity (absent gravity) says is that a (ideal) clock runs slow in terms of a system of inertial coordinates in which it is moving. If you want to include the effects of gravity, then we can say that, in terms of any global stationary system of coordinates, clocks run slower at higher speeds and deeper in gravitational potential. You may think that the scientific statements mean essentially the same thing as your statement, but the differences are significant. For example, the above implies that, given two relatively moving clocks, each clock runs slow in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the other clock is at rest.

> Nevertheless, it has been disputed by mathematicians for over 110 years.

The correct statement of time dilation due to motion and gravity (see above) isn't disputed by any competent physicist (or mathematician, to the extent that they take an interest in the subject), and hasn't been for over 100 years.

> Mathematicians claim time dilation is just an "illusion."

It's ironic you should say that, because Einstein famously wrote "People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." But that's beside the point, because no competent physicist (or mathematician, to the extent that they take an interest in the subject) for the past 100 years (including Einstein) has disputed the correct description of time dilation, as given above. I say again: There is no dispute about this.

> They BELIEVE that time ticks at the same rate everywhere and at every speed BECAUSE
> their mathematical equations work the same way in all "frames of reference."

You are misunderstanding what people are saying. Obviously an ideal clock in any location and state of motion runs at its own rate, and an ideal clock always shows 3 minutes for the time to boil a co-moving egg, and it shows the same half-life for the decay of a co-moving particle, etc. This means the rate of a clock is always in the same proportion to the characteristic times of co-located and co-moving physical phenomena, so in this sense an ideal clock always reads the "correct" time, by definition. But this does not contradict the correct description of time dilation given above: In terms of any global stationary system of coordinates, clocks run slower at higher speeds and deeper in gravitational potential.

> Here's a quote from Albert Einstein: "Since the mathematicians have invaded
> the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself any more."

That was a joke toward his former instructor, Minkowski, but of course Einstein was actually very appreciative of the formalism that Minkowski introduced, since it was instrumental in the extension to general relativity accounting for gravity.

> Most of your other arguments are over words.

Not true, my comments (which you ignored wholesale) were almost entirely substantive. Also, bear in mind that a discussion takes place with words, so we can't disregard words, but the difference between your inaccurate description of time dilation and the true description is not merely semantic. If you adopt the correct description (see above), you will find that there is no dispute about it among competent physicists.

> you just want the proper words to be used - according to what you consider "proper."

Oh my goodness. Are you hung up on the word "proper"? Please be aware that this word is *not* being used in the colloquial sense, it has a specific technical meaning in the theory of relativity. For any system of inertial coordinates x,t, the quantity given by sqrt(dt^2 - dx^2) is called the "proper" time. It's called this because it is the elapsed time that would be shown on an ideal clock moving a distance dx in time dt. The word "proper" is not being used to mean "correct" or "appropriate", it just is being used in this technical sense.

[rotchm]

On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 4:49:33 PM UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> Ed, as a case in point,Odd Bodkin is one of the long timers here who has NO
> IDEA what he’s talking about. He doesn’t know what the words mean, he
> doesn’t know what physics is, he doesn't know Pythagorean theorem and
> propositional calculus. Ignore him.

Why do you lie?
You need to lie to push your POV?
It is you that is nil in physics and that can't even solve simple highschool math.
No wonder that you don't have any Porsches.
Born idiot, remained idiot and will die an idiot.

[rotchm]

On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 5:28:26 PM UTC-4, det...@newsguy.com wrote:

> Generally speaking, I'm in agreement with SCIENCE textbooks and in
> disagreement with PHYSICS textbooks.

:)

And what about MATH textbooks?

[Cliff Hallston]

On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 2:28:26 PM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> I think that discussing the pulsar experiment could show where my understandings
> conflict with the understandings by others in this forum.

I think that conflict has already been explained fairly clearly. Every competent scientist (and every person that you talk to on this forum) agrees that the clock in the spaceship runs slow by the factor sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) in terms of the inertial coordinates in which it is moving with speed v, so this accounts for the different frequency of the pulsar receptions. The "conflict" that you perceive with some people in this forum is that they say things like "every clock always runs at the same rate". When they say this, your head explodes, because you think it conflicts with the previous statement. It actually does not conflict, for the following reason:

When people say every clock runs at the same rate, they are just referring to the obvious fact that each clock runs in a constant proportion to the characteristic times of all co-located and co-moving physical phenomena. For example, each clock shows three minutes of elapsed time while a co-located and co-moving egg is cooked. That is called the "proper time" for that location and state of motion. Naturally every clock shows its own proper time, but this does not contradict the fact that each clock runs slow in terms of the inertial coordinates in which is it moving with speed v.

> Generally speaking, I'm in agreement with SCIENCE textbooks and in
> disagreement with PHYSICS textbooks.

Again, any discrepancies you notice are just due to the fact that sometimes people are talking about proper time, and other times they are talking about coordinate time for some specified system of coordinates. If you don't distinguish between those two things, you can get confused, and think that people are saying contradictory things, when they really are not.

So, in summary, there is no dispute among any competent scientists over time dilation. The apparent conflicts in what you have read and heard are just due to confusion between proper time and coordinate time.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Sure, Odd, and your revelations about Pythagorean theorem or
propositional calculus are disqualifying you.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Friday, 19 March 2021 at 00:52:35 UTC+1, Cliff Hallston wrote:
> On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 8:34:05 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> > > Since you didn't answer the crucial question (again), I ask for the third time: What beliefs
> > > are shattered? What dispute are you referring to?
> >
> > Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity says that time slows down when the
> > observer speeds up. That is generally accepted as true by scientists, since
> > it has been verified by experiments many many times.
> Be careful, your statement is not quite right. What special relativity (absent gravity) says is that a (ideal) clock runs slow in terms of a system of inertial coordinates in which it is moving.

As anyone can check in GPS, however, the ideals of sane people
differ from the ideals of a bunch of brainwashed fanatics. Surprise?

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Friday, 19 March 2021 at 02:08:28 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:
> On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 4:49:33 PM UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> > Ed, as a case in point,Odd Bodkin is one of the long timers here who has NO
> > IDEA what he’s talking about. He doesn’t know what the words mean, he
> > doesn’t know what physics is, he doesn't know Pythagorean theorem and
> > propositional calculus. Ignore him.
> Why do you lie?

I don't. At least not in this case

> You need to lie to push your POV?
> It is you that is nil in physics and that can't even solve simple highschool math.
Why do you lie?
You need to lie to push your POV?

No wonder that you have so many porsches.

> Born idiot, remained idiot and will die an idiot.

Even porsches won't help him.

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 3/17/2021 12:30 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 2:17:14 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 12:14:12 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> A pulsar's rotation will slow its time and give it more energy.
>>>> By moving in space there will be the same... more time slow and energy.
>>>> Neutron stars are end state matter not a BH.
>>>
>>> The pulsar does not move relative to the two observers.
>> So, since the two observers are moving relative to each other, there are
>> some details needed to ensure that the pulsar is not moving relative to
>> EITHER of the two observers.
>>
>> And that detail was what exactly?
>
> It is the fact that the pulsar (the "clock") is tens of billions of miles away,

> and that makes the difference in the angle to the pulsar negligible. The
> minuscule change in the angle of observation has no effect on the experiment.
>
>>> Here's the link again: https://vixra.org/pdf/1505.0234v1.pdf
>

Would a pulsar 450 light years away give different clock behavior from
one that was, say a 100,000 light years away? Also, would the clock
change from the closer one observed at point in time T_0, vs T_1 = T_0 +
450 years? So T_1 is another observation 450 years from T_0. The pulsars
current state is now at T_0, however we cannot observe that actual state
for another 450 years at T_1 from T_0 because its 450 light years away.