Time Dilation Experiments

[Ed Lake]

Over the years, I've accumulated a list of 12 major Time Dilation
experiments which CONFIRM that Time Dilation is REAL, and that
time does run at different rates for an object depending upon an
object's speed and its proximity to a gravitational mass.

Here's the link: http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html

Here's the list of experiments:
1. Hafele-Keating
2. NIST Optical Clocks and Relativity
3. Geodesy and Metrology experiment (measuring altitude by time difference)
4. Muon experiments
5. University of Maryland
6. Japanese Mitaka to Norikura
7. Briatore and Leschiutta
8. National Physical Laboratory - 1996
9. Van Baak - 2005
10. National Physical Laboratory - 2010
11. Van Baak - 2016
12. Tokyo Skytree - 2020

Is there anyone here who seriously claims that Time Dilation
has NOT been fully verified by these experiments?

[Paparios]

What you have not realized, for years now, is that "time dilation" is a comparison between two clocks A and B. For instance, in the Tokio Skytree experiment (testing the gravitational redshift) the comparison was between a clock at the top of the 450 m tower and a clock located at the base of the tower. Hafele Keating compared the elapsed time of flying atomic clocks with the elapsed time of the ground not moving atomic clock.

Therefore, your assertion "time does run at different rates for an object depending upon an object's speed and its proximity to a gravitational mass" is at the very least incomplete.

[Al Coe]

On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 9:10:21 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> Over the years, I've accumulated a list of 12 major Time Dilation
> experiments which CONFIRM that Time Dilation is REAL, and that
> time does run at different rates for an object depending upon an
> object's speed and its proximity to a gravitational mass.

Every competent physicist knows that, in terms of the essentially unique stationary temporal foliation near a large spherical massive body (corresponding to the Schwarzschild time coordinate), the rate of proper time (dtau/dt) for an object along any given path is different depending on the speed and the elevation of the object. That's what it means to say that clocks run at different rates depending on speed and elevation. No competent person disputes this, so all your years of accumulating lists of experimental evidence of this has been pointless. Again: No. One. Disputes. This.

However, it is also true that, in terms of the momentarily co-moving inertial reference system of each object, we always have dtau/dt = 1, regardless of the object's state of motion or elevation. This is an expression of the principle of relativity (for the motion part) and the principle of equivalence (for the gravitational part). This is the empirically verified scientific fact that you (Ed) deny, but all the experiments on your list are perfectly consistent with this fact. So, again, your list is pointless. It merely confirms what every competent physicist has told you.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 9:10:21 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:

Rate differences are too small to measure...
Our gravity is low and so is our motion.
Wait for space travel to measure slow rate.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Ed Lake]

On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 12:31:27 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:

A much longer "assertion" would more likely just confuse the issue.
If you believe the "assertion" is "incomplete," why don't you give us
what you BELIEVE is a "complete" statement?

Ed

[The Starmaker]

Of course time dilation is real, but what is never mentioned is
that Time Dilatiion runs as different rates for different objects.

(not that
time runs at different rates for an different objects)

It is that ..Time Dilatiion runs as different rates for different
objects.


Time Dilation is...inconsistent.


To put it simply, sometime it dilatates, sometimes it doesn't.



Does any of those on dat list mentioned WHEN time dilatated????

In otherwords, do an experiment...all of them using the same object.


Will they all get the same result?


They will discover that
sometime it dilatates, sometimes it doesn't.


Time Dilation is...inconsistent.





--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

[Paparios]

A more complete expression is:

Time dilation is the difference in the elapsed time between events, as measured by two clocks. It is either due to a relative velocity between them (special relativistic "kinetic" time dilation) or to a difference in gravitational potential between their locations (general relativistic gravitational time dilation).

[Ed Lake]

On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 1:04:46 PM UTC-5, Al Coe wrote:

> On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 9:10:21 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > Over the years, I've accumulated a list of 12 major Time Dilation
> > experiments which CONFIRM that Time Dilation is REAL, and that
> > time does run at different rates for an object depending upon an
> > object's speed and its proximity to a gravitational mass.
> Every competent physicist knows that, in terms of the essentially unique stationary temporal foliation near a large spherical massive body (corresponding to the Schwarzschild time coordinate), the rate of proper time (dtau/dt) for an object along any given path is different depending on the speed and the elevation of the object. That's what it means to say that clocks run at different rates depending on speed and elevation. No competent person disputes this, so all your years of accumulating lists of experimental evidence of this has been pointless. Again: No. One. Disputes. This.

It's constantly disputed on this forum. Yesterday, Volney posted this:

"It may be your opinion the length of a second is variable, but actual
scientists have defined a second to be 9,192,631,770 cycles of a certain
frequency of a Cs atom. Variable length seconds make as little sense as
variable length meters or variable mass kilograms. "

>
> However, it is also true that, in terms of the momentarily co-moving inertial reference system of each object, we always have dtau/dt = 1, regardless of the object's state of motion or elevation. This is an expression of the principle of relativity (for the motion part) and the principle of equivalence (for the gravitational part). This is the empirically verified scientific fact that you (Ed) deny, but all the experiments on your list are perfectly consistent with this fact. So, again, your list is pointless. It merely confirms what every competent physicist has told you.

I don't deny things that are meaningless to me. Your mumbo-jumbo comment
is meaningless to me. "Momentarily co-moving inertial reference system"? Who
said anything about anything "co-moving" OR "momentarily co-moving"???

Ed

[Ed Lake]

On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 1:20:53 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

What the experiments DO is measure "rate differences" using atomic clocks.
All that space travel would do is make it more difficult to compare clocks.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 2:11:47 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:

Hmm. I disagree with that. Time dilation is a difference in the RATE OF TIME at
two different locations. A "difference in elapsed time" is not time dilation. It is
the RESULT of time dilation when measuring "elapsed time" in two different locations
where speed and/or gravity are different.

Ed

[Paparios]

Wrong, since to compare two clocks you have to either have both clocks (the stationary and the moving clock) at the same place and time (like Hafele Keating) or have one clock sending signals to the other clock (like the Tokio tower experiments). In both cases, the comparison is made only at one location.

[Ed Lake]

You make no sense. The "objects" being used in ALL the time dilation
experiments are TWO ATOMIC CLOCKS. Nothing else can MEASURE or
DISPLAY the very very TINY effect that velocity and altitude have on objects
at the speeds and altitudes we can achieve with today's technology.

One of the astronaut twins was in space for over a year, while the other twin
was mostly on the ground. As a result, one twin aged 5 MICROSECONDS
more than his twin. Only an atomic clock can measure microseconds.

Ed

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Sunday, 19 June 2022 at 21:11:47 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:

> Time dilation is the difference in the elapsed time between events, as measured by two clocks.

And, as anyone can check in GPS, it doesn't exist. Common sense
was warning your idiot guru.

[The Starmaker]

Okay, then everyone at that list can do the experiment all 'at the same
time',
with two clocks.

Will they all get the same result?

Do you have to wait a year to see a 5 micosseconds?

Is that like around one second every other month?

When does the one second happen? in two months?


or at the end of the year?

[Ed Lake]

On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 2:26:51 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:

Okay. That's just another argument about wording. You don't measure elapsed time
in TWO different locations, in ONE location you measure elapsed time as measured
by two different clocks which are or were in two different locations.

But, I suppose you'll find some fault with that wording, too.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

So, you are saying that all the experiments are wrong?

GPS demonstrates that time dilation DOES exist. They have to
BUILD a clock that ticks at an INCORRECT rate, so that when that
clock is in space it will tick at the SAME CORRECT rate as regular
clocks on the ground.

Ed

[Al Coe]

On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 12:12:18 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> > Every competent physicist knows that, in terms of the essentially unique stationary temporal foliation near a large spherical massive body (corresponding to the Schwarzschild time coordinate), the rate of proper time (dtau/dt) for an object along any given path is different depending on the speed and the elevation of the object. That's what it means to say that clocks run at different rates depending on speed and elevation. No competent person disputes this, so all your years of accumulating lists of experimental evidence of this has been pointless. Again: No. One. Disputes. This.
>
> It's constantly disputed on this forum.

Sure, but when I say "no one disputes it" I'm referring to competent physicists, as I specified (twice) above. And even when people in this group post denials of it, we need only remind them that the "length of a second" is variable in the sense that one second of proper time along a given path occurs in different amounts of coordinate time in terms of standard inertial reference systems with respect to which it is moving, and in terms of the unique stationary coordinates in a gravitational field. As soon as they are reminded of this, they do not dispute it. They merely prefer to focus exclusively on the next paragraph:

> > However, it is also true that, in terms of the momentarily co-moving inertial reference system of each object, we always have dtau/dt = 1, regardless of the object's state of motion or elevation. This is an expression of the principle of relativity (for the motion part) and the principle of equivalence (for the gravitational part). This is the empirically verified scientific fact that you (Ed) deny, but all the experiments on your list are perfectly consistent with this fact. So, again, your list is pointless. It merely confirms what every competent physicist has told you.
>

> "Momentarily co-moving inertial reference system"? Who said anything about
> anything "co-moving" OR "momentarily co-moving"???

Anyone is free to make use of any reference system they like. The comment above is stating a fact about a specified reference system for a given object at a given moment, namely, the essentially unique reference system in terms of which the object is at rest (at least momentarily) and the laws of physics take their simple homogeneous and isotropic form. These are called standard inertial reference systems. These reference systems are particularly useful because they exploit the symmetry of nature expressed by the Lorentz invariance of all physical laws. These are the reference systems to which Einstein is always referring in his 1905 paper, i.e., systems in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good (in the low speed limit). They apply globally in the original special theory, but in the general theory it is shown that they apply only locally.

[Paparios]

Words have meanings. The usual way of performing time dilation experiments, like Hafele-Keating, is:

1) Syncronize the clocks. To do that you have to have both clocks A and B, at the same location in space and time.
2) Move clock B to a certain place, at a certain speed and then return to meet again clock A.
3) At the location of clock A, compare the elapsed times of both clocks A and B. The clock B will show less elapsed time than clock A. That indicates clock B experienced time dilation while moving.

[Ed Lake]

There's an on--line computer for calculating velocity time dilation at
this link: https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224059993

Someone in orbit may travel 17,000 mph which is 7.6 kilometers per second.
That means that 1 second for the person in orbit will be 1.0000000003213
seconds for the person on the ground.

Someone would have to travel 259,628 kilometers per second before
on second for him will be 2 seconds for someone on the ground.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 3:07:15 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:

Okay. We are in FULL AGREEMENT on that.

Ed

[Richard Hachel]

No.


That's not exactly what it means.

>
> Okay. We are in FULL AGREEMENT on that.

Not to me.

> Ed

R.H.

[Ed Lake]

If you disagree, why don't you state what you disagree with AND what
you believe instead?

Ed

[Ross A. Finlayson]

I say instead it's space contraction (alternate mechanism).

[Richard Hachel]

Le 19/06/2022 à 22:34, Ed Lake a écrit :

>> >> 1) Syncronize the clocks. To do that you have to have both clocks A and B, at
>>
>> >> the same location in space and time.
>> >> 2) Move clock B to a certain place, at a certain speed and then return to
>> meet
>> >> again clock A.
>> >> 3) At the location of clock A, compare the elapsed times of both clocks A and
>> B.
>> >> The clock B will show less elapsed time than clock A. That indicates clock B
>> >> experienced time dilation while moving.
>> No.
>>
>>
>> That's not exactly what it means.
>> >
>> > Okay. We are in FULL AGREEMENT on that.
>> Not to me.
>
> If you disagree, why don't you state what you disagree with AND what
> you believe instead?

I explained a hundred times what was really going on.

The problem is that we live in a crazy world.

And that in this world, everyone contaminates everyone (including the
greatest physicists themselves) and that everyone believes they are
authorized to play the puppet.

What saddens me here, on the other hand, is that the question is extremely
well put, but that no one in the world, himis me, knows how to answer it
without answering the wrong way.

I recall the question:

1) Syncronize the clocks. To do that you have to have both clocks A and
B, at
the same location in space and time.

ABSOLUTLY.

2) Move clock B to a certain place, at a certain speed and then return to
meet
again clock A.

ABSOLUTLY.

3) At the location of clock A, compare the elapsed times of both clocks A
and B.

Absolutly. Exemple v=0.8c. A=30 seconds. B=18 sec.

> The clock B will show less elapsed time than clock A.

Here is the dramatic conceptual error.

> That indicates clock B experienced time dilation while moving.

No. Time elasticity. Not dilation. It is not the same concept.

When the watches move away, they reciprocally turn less quickly.

BUT when they approach each other they really turn faster.

That's what I've been trying to explain to physicists for decades, and
that's what they seem unable to understand.

The t'=t/sqrt(1-v²/c²) equation is false.

It is not the same thing to approach a watch and to move away from it
(explanation by the relativistic Doppler effect).

What I have an infinite difficulty in making physicists understand is
that this longitudinal Doppler effect is NOT a visual effect, but a real
effect.

On the way to the watch:
1. For A: A spins for 27 seconds, while B spins for 9 seconds. This is
REAL. There is NO apparent Doppler effect. The Doppler effect is real.

2. For B. B obviously spins by 9 seconds (otherwise it's nonsense), but
she sees A actually spin by only 3 seconds.
This effect is NOT a Doppler effect (I say it again, and say it again).
It's real.

On return.
A spins for only 3 seconds and sees B arrive, which spins in 9 seconds.

B spins in 9 seconds, and sees A who REALLY spins 27 seconds.

Everything is played in direct vision.

There is no speed of light to consider.

The speed of approach of light is always infinite in the longitudinal
direction.

And that, I'm not sure we can hear quickly.

The problem comes from there, and all the paradoxes and actual
misunderstandings come from there.

> Ed

R.H.

[The Starmaker]

All I want to know Mr. Ed is, if it takes a year (365 days) to record 5
MICROSECONDS, then
WHEN did the 1 MICROSECONDS happen? It has to a number between 1 and
364.

[Richard Hachel]

Le 19/06/2022 à 22:12, Ed Lake a écrit :
> Someone would have to travel 259,628 kilometers per second before
> on second for him will be 2 seconds for someone on the ground.

This is true and false at the same time.

If the object passes transversely, yes.

But if the displacement is not transverse, it is false.

This is what Dr. Hachel calls the longitudinal relativistic Doppler
effect.

For him this Doppler effect is NOT only visual, but real.

The three expected effects on times, lengths (or distances), and
wavelengths are real.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?lVXK8H0fisvPycwIBspxYnJ1VTE@jntp/Data.Media:1>

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?lVXK8H0fisvPycwIBspxYnJ1VTE@jntp/Data.Media:2>


R.H.

--
"Mais ne nous trompons pas.
Il n'y a pas que de la violence avec des armes : il y a des situations de
violence."
Abbé Pierre.
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=lVXK8H0fisvPycwIBspxYnJ1VTE@jntp>

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Sunday, 19 June 2022 at 21:55:55 UTC+2, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 2:39:48 PM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, 19 June 2022 at 21:11:47 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> >
> > > Time dilation is the difference in the elapsed time between events, as measured by two clocks.
> > And, as anyone can check in GPS, it doesn't exist. Common sense
> > was warning your idiot guru.
> So, you are saying that all the experiments are wrong?
>
> GPS demonstrates that time dilation DOES exist. They have to
> BUILD a clock that ticks at an INCORRECT rate

It's nothing but your opinion that the rate is INCORRECT,
and obviously GPS staff is not sharing it. Neither I do.

That's The Shit: you believe it's telling you how nature works,
but instead it has persuaded you that the synchronization of
clocks is INCORRECT, becuse it doesn't match a vision of an
insane halfbrain. A real pity so many people are buying such
crap; but, well, it happens.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Sunday, 19 June 2022 at 22:07:15 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:

> Words have meanings. The usual way of performing time dilation experiments, like Hafele-Keating, is:
>
> 1) Syncronize the clocks. To do that you have to have both clocks A and B, at the same location in space and time.
> 2) Move clock B to a certain place, at a certain speed and then return to meet again clock A.
> 3) At the location of clock A, compare the elapsed times of both clocks A and B. The clock B will show less elapsed time than clock A. That indicates clock B experienced time dilation while moving.

In the dreams of Giant Guru and his insane minions.
Not in real GPS.

[Mikko]

On 2022-06-19 21:22:46 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> 3) At the location of clock A, compare the elapsed times of both clocks
> A and B.
> Absolutly. Exemple v=0.8c. A=30 seconds. B=18 sec.
>> The clock B will show less elapsed time than clock A.
>
> Here is the dramatic conceptual error.

So the point of disagreement is whether 18 is less than 30.

Mikko

[Richard Hachel]

Nooo!
The problem is not there.
The problem, I repeat it, it is that the men think that when one observes
a body moving at relativistic speed, his time passes less quickly than
ours.

This is both true if we consider chronotropy, but at the same time false
if we consider the totality of things.

When the body moves away, yes, its time seems to pass more slowly.

But it's the opposite if he approaches.

There is therefore time elasticity and not simply time dilation.

Obviously, at first, whoever reads me will think that I am wrong. Then in
a second step, seriously rereading what I write, he will say to himself:
"He is not mistaken, he is right, but it is nothing other than an
application of the Doppler effect" .

But then again, the reader will not "completely" understand what I am
trying to tell him.

R.H.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 10:49:25 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 20/06/2022 à 10:36, Mikko a écrit :
> > On 2022-06-19 21:22:46 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
> >
> >> 3) At the location of clock A, compare the elapsed times of both clocks
> >> A and B.
> >> Absolutly. Exemple v=0.8c. A=30 seconds. B=18 sec.
> >>> The clock B will show less elapsed time than clock A.
> >>
> >> Here is the dramatic conceptual error.
> >
> > So the point of disagreement is whether 18 is less than 30.
> >
> > Mikko
> Nooo!
> The problem is not there.
> The problem, I repeat it, it is that the men think that when one observes
> a body moving at relativistic speed, his time passes less quickly than
> ours.
>
> This is both true if we consider chronotropy, but at the same time false
> if we consider the totality of things.

In the meantime in the real world, however, evil and INCORRECT
GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
always did.

[Richard Hachel]

Le 20/06/2022 à 10:53, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> In the meantime in the real world, however, evil and INCORRECT
> GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
> always did.

No, that is not correct.

We must abandon the Newtonian idea of ​​absolute time, of absolute
duration.

The first idea to abandon (the most difficult) is that of an isochronous
marker. This idea, it seems that today's men are still unable to abandon
it.

They certainly abandoned the idea of ​​a relative time, that is to say
a relative chronotropy, based on the second degree sqrt(1-v²/c²) but
incredibly, they still did not UNDERSTAND and ADMITTED that the concept of
simultaneity is the complete reverse of what they say. This concept IS
absolute by change of frame of reference (provided we meet in the same
place) and IS relative by positional change in the SAME frame.

So when you write t'=t, it's wrong.

But if you write t'=t/sqrt(1-v²/c²) like them, it's also wrong.

We must write t'=t(1+cosµ.v/c)/sqrt(1-v²/c²).

That is to say that it is necessary to take into account the longitudinal
Doppler effect and not only the transverse Doppler effect.

I repeat again, this effect is not a VISUAL, or APPARENT effect. It is a
real effect.

Esse is perceived.

The real is what I see.

It is the false belief in a standard speed of light according to its
direction that poses the problem and leads and will lead to more and more
paradoxes until we finally understand things.

It is the transverse speed of light which is equal to c, and which is
constant whatever the observing reference frame.

But when we observe starlight, the flux is longitudinal. We see the
universe live-live.

That, the human being still does not seem ready to understand it.

So I continue to play Cassandre.

R.H.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 11:12:04 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 20/06/2022 à 10:53, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> > In the meantime in the real world, however, evil and INCORRECT
> > GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
> > always did.
> No, that is not correct.

Maybe not correct, but real and true.

> We must abandon the Newtonian idea of ​​absolute time, of absolute
> duration.

Who are your "we"? Maybe they must; GPS staff
somehow didn't.
And the idea wasn't Newtonian. There is a whole
world outside your precious physics.

[rotchm]

On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 4:49:25 AM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 20/06/2022 à 10:36, Mikko a écrit :
> > On 2022-06-19 21:22:46 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
> >
> >> 3) At the location of clock A, compare the elapsed times of both clocks
> >> A and B.
> >> Absolutly. Exemple v=0.8c. A=30 seconds. B=18 sec.
> >>> The clock B will show less elapsed time than clock A.
> >>
> >> Here is the dramatic conceptual error.
> >
> > So the point of disagreement is whether 18 is less than 30.
> >
> > Mikko
> Nooo!
> The problem is not there.
> The problem, I repeat it, it is that the men think that when one observes
> a body moving at relativistic speed, his time passes less quickly than
> ours.

Irrelevant. Word salad. 18<30 and that is all. Simple.

> This is both true if we consider chronotropy, but at the same time false
> if we consider the totality of things.

Salad. 18<30. Simple.

> When the body moves away, yes, its time seems to pass more slowly.

How does this negate 18<30 ?
Again, word salad.

SR makes predictions of the *values* of the instruments (observations).
Here, 18 & 30. And 18<30. That is all.

No need to use the words 'time dilation', 'slow', etc. Keep it real & simple.

[Richard Hachel]

You don't seem to have understood that if 18<30 does not mean that 27<3

But you can't understand yourself.

Do you know what decomposition is?

18=Tr1+Tr2=9+9

30= To1+To2=27+3

If you look closely (be careful, it will go very quickly):
27>9 is true.

But 3>9 is wrong.

This is why I prefer to speak of elasticity of lengths and times.

Because speaking of time dilation or length contraction, of the
sqrt(1-v²/c²) type, is only true for transverse displacements.

The rest is a human problem of arrogance and stupidity: "We don't want a
bad guy like Hachel to open his muzzle".

It is a universal behavior.

R.H.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 12:52:36 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:

> SR makes predictions of the *values* of the instruments (observations).

And, as anyone can check in GPS, the *values* of the
real instruments are different. You may insist that if these
instruments and the reality were correct the prophecies
of your guru would fulfill; you're not the first bunch of idiots
surprised by incorrect reality.

[Volney]

On 6/20/2022 1:57 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Sunday, 19 June 2022 at 21:55:55 UTC+2, det...@outlook.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 2:39:48 PM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 19 June 2022 at 21:11:47 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
>>>
>>>> Time dilation is the difference in the elapsed time between events, as measured by two clocks.
>>> And, as anyone can check in GPS, it doesn't exist. Common sense
>>> was warning your idiot guru.
>> So, you are saying that all the experiments are wrong?
>>
>> GPS demonstrates that time dilation DOES exist. They have to
>> BUILD a clock that ticks at an INCORRECT rate
>
> It's nothing but your opinion that the rate is INCORRECT,
> and obviously GPS staff is not sharing it. Neither I do.

So janitor, if the definition of a second is exactly 9,192,631,770
cycles of a certain Cs frequency, setting a GPS satellite clock to
9,192,631,774.1 cycles per tick is not an incorrect setting? Is it
because you believe 9,192,631,770 = 9,192,631,774.1 or something?

And obviously, the "GPS staff", by setting the tick rate to
9,192,631,774.1 is ignoring the GPS specifications to set the tick rate
to 9,192,631,774.1 instead of the correct rate of 9,192,631,770?

>
> That's The Shit: you believe it's telling you how nature works,
> but instead it has persuaded you that the synchronization of
> clocks is INCORRECT, becuse it doesn't match a vision of an
> insane halfbrain. A real pity so many people are buying such
> crap; but, well, it happens.
>
>

You are still very, very confused.

[Volney]

Kꙮꙮkfight!!!

[Ed Lake]

On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 4:22:48 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 19/06/2022 à 22:34, Ed Lake a écrit :
>
> >> >> 1) Syncronize the clocks. To do that you have to have both clocks A and B, at
> >>
> >> >> the same location in space and time.
> >> >> 2) Move clock B to a certain place, at a certain speed and then return to
> >> meet
> >> >> again clock A.
> >> >> 3) At the location of clock A, compare the elapsed times of both clocks A and
> >> B.
> >> >> The clock B will show less elapsed time than clock A. That indicates clock B
> >> >> experienced time dilation while moving.
> >> No.
> >>
> >>
> >> That's not exactly what it means.
> >> >
> >> > Okay. We are in FULL AGREEMENT on that.
> >> Not to me.
> >
> > If you disagree, why don't you state what you disagree with AND what
> > you believe instead?
> I explained a hundred times what was really going on.
>
> The problem is that we live in a crazy world.

That seems to mean that you do not understand it.

>
> And that in this world, everyone contaminates everyone (including the
> greatest physicists themselves) and that everyone believes they are
> authorized to play the puppet.

And only YOU know what is really going on?

>
> What saddens me here, on the other hand, is that the question is extremely
> well put, but that no one in the world, himis me, knows how to answer it
> without answering the wrong way.

"himis me"? Does that mean "except me"? Only YOU understand the world?

>
> I recall the question:
> 1) Syncronize the clocks. To do that you have to have both clocks A and
> B, at
> the same location in space and time.
> ABSOLUTLY.
> 2) Move clock B to a certain place, at a certain speed and then return to
> meet
> again clock A.
> ABSOLUTLY.
> 3) At the location of clock A, compare the elapsed times of both clocks A
> and B.
> Absolutly. Exemple v=0.8c. A=30 seconds. B=18 sec.
> > The clock B will show less elapsed time than clock A.
> Here is the dramatic conceptual error.
> > That indicates clock B experienced time dilation while moving.
> No. Time elasticity. Not dilation. It is not the same concept.

It appears "Time elasticity" is something you made up.

>
> When the watches move away, they reciprocally turn less quickly.
>
> BUT when they approach each other they really turn faster.
>
> That's what I've been trying to explain to physicists for decades, and
> that's what they seem unable to understand.

Well, good luck. Scientists work with experiments and evidence.
You seem to have no interest in such things.

>
> The t'=t/sqrt(1-v²/c²) equation is false.
>
> It is not the same thing to approach a watch and to move away from it
> (explanation by the relativistic Doppler effect).
>
> What I have an infinite difficulty in making physicists understand is
> that this longitudinal Doppler effect is NOT a visual effect, but a real
> effect.
>
> On the way to the watch:
> 1. For A: A spins for 27 seconds, while B spins for 9 seconds. This is
> REAL. There is NO apparent Doppler effect. The Doppler effect is real.
>
> 2. For B. B obviously spins by 9 seconds (otherwise it's nonsense), but
> she sees A actually spin by only 3 seconds.
> This effect is NOT a Doppler effect (I say it again, and say it again).
> It's real.
>
> On return.
> A spins for only 3 seconds and sees B arrive, which spins in 9 seconds.
>
> B spins in 9 seconds, and sees A who REALLY spins 27 seconds.
>
> Everything is played in direct vision.
>
> There is no speed of light to consider.
>
> The speed of approach of light is always infinite in the longitudinal
> direction.
>
> And that, I'm not sure we can hear quickly.
>
> The problem comes from there, and all the paradoxes and actual
> misunderstandings come from there.

It appears the problems come from your inability to correctly translate
English into French, or whatever language is your native language.

Ed

[Volney]

On 6/19/2022 3:12 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 1:04:46 PM UTC-5, Al Coe wrote:

>> On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 9:10:21 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>>> Over the years, I've accumulated a list of 12 major Time Dilation
>>> experiments which CONFIRM that Time Dilation is REAL, and that
>>> time does run at different rates for an object depending upon an
>>> object's speed and its proximity to a gravitational mass.

>> Every competent physicist knows that, in terms of the essentially unique stationary temporal foliation near a large spherical massive body (corresponding to the Schwarzschild time coordinate), the rate of proper time (dtau/dt) for an object along any given path is different depending on the speed and the elevation of the object. That's what it means to say that clocks run at different rates depending on speed and elevation. No competent person disputes this, so all your years of accumulating lists of experimental evidence of this has been pointless. Again: No. One. Disputes. This.
>

> It's constantly disputed on this forum. Yesterday, Volney posted this:
>
> "It may be your opinion the length of a second is variable, but actual
> scientists have defined a second to be 9,192,631,770 cycles of a certain
> frequency of a Cs atom. Variable length seconds make as little sense as
> variable length meters or variable mass kilograms. "

That is the PROPER time, the clock used must be comoving and local to
the observer. Different observers on different paths can have different
values for their own proper times because the proper time of one is NOT
the proper time of the other, because the second observer's clock was
NOT comoving and local to the first observer (because it was comoving
and local to the second observer!

>
>>
>> However, it is also true that, in terms of the momentarily co-moving inertial reference system of each object, we always have dtau/dt = 1, regardless of the object's state of motion or elevation. This is an expression of the principle of relativity (for the motion part) and the principle of equivalence (for the gravitational part). This is the empirically verified scientific fact that you (Ed) deny, but all the experiments on your list are perfectly consistent with this fact. So, again, your list is pointless. It merely confirms what every competent physicist has told you.
>

> I don't deny things that are meaningless to me. Your mumbo-jumbo comment
> is meaningless to me. "Momentarily co-moving inertial reference system"? Who

> said anything about anything "co-moving" OR "momentarily co-moving"???

"Co-moving" with X simply means stationary as far as X is concerned
(zero velocity in X's reference frame). A second observer will see them
moving together, side by side, which is where the word "co-moving" comes
from!

"Momentarily co-moving" implies acceleration or something involved. It
means that for an instant of time ("momentarily"), X sees the object as
momentarily stationary. Think of a ball thrown straight up. It is
moving away from the thrower at first (vertical distance z increasing),
but it is accelerating to earth due to gravity. At some instant, the
thrower sees the ball stop moving away from him (z=0) and then start
falling down back toward him (z decreasing). At that instant when the
ball stopped rising and started falling, it was momentarily co-moving
with the thrower (as someone in space would see them, rotating with
earth and moving with earth around the sun etc., moving together)

This is a standard description of mechanics. If these terms are
confusing to you (you call them mumbo-jumbo), you need to LEARN.

[Ed Lake]

364 divided by 5 equals 72.8. So, every 72.8 days that Scott Kelly spent
in orbit meant that his brother Mark, on the ground, aged 1 MILLIsecond more
than Scott.

Here's an article about it: https://www.space.com/33411-astronaut-scott-kelly-relativity-twin-brother-ages.html

I wrote microseconds when I meant milliseconds. A microsecond is
one millionth of a second. A millisecond is one thousandth of a second.
So Mark aged a thousand times faster than what I wrote.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 5:14:54 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 19/06/2022 à 22:12, Ed Lake a écrit :
> > Someone would have to travel 259,628 kilometers per second before
> > on second for him will be 2 seconds for someone on the ground.
> This is true and false at the same time.
>
> If the object passes transversely, yes.
>
> But if the displacement is not transverse, it is false.

Time dilation has nothing to do with the direction of travel. It is just
about your speed relative to a different speed.

Someone traveling at 259,628 kilometers per second toward the
earth, away from the earth, or at right angles to the earth will age
at 1/2 the rate as someone on earth.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 12:57:34 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:

Here's a link that explains how GPS satellites work:
https://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/pogge.1/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

"Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative motion."

"A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day.

"The combination of these two relativitic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)!"

"The engineers who designed the GPS system included these relativistic effects when they designed and deployed the system. For example, to counteract the General Relativistic effect once on orbit, the onboard clocks were designed to "tick" at a slower frequency than ground reference clocks, so that once they were in their proper orbit stations their clocks would appear to tick at about the correct rate as compared to the reference atomic clocks at the GPS ground stations."

Ed

[Richard Hachel]

Le 20/06/2022 à 16:31, Ed Lake a écrit :
> On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 5:14:54 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:

> Time dilation has nothing to do with the direction of travel.

No.

You, you say that "time dilation has nothing to do with the direction of
travel".

And (in reality) it's false.

> Ed

R.H.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 15:48:42 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 6/20/2022 1:57 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Sunday, 19 June 2022 at 21:55:55 UTC+2, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> >> On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 2:39:48 PM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, 19 June 2022 at 21:11:47 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Time dilation is the difference in the elapsed time between events, as measured by two clocks.
> >>> And, as anyone can check in GPS, it doesn't exist. Common sense
> >>> was warning your idiot guru.
> >> So, you are saying that all the experiments are wrong?
> >>
> >> GPS demonstrates that time dilation DOES exist. They have to
> >> BUILD a clock that ticks at an INCORRECT rate
> >
> > It's nothing but your opinion that the rate is INCORRECT,
> > and obviously GPS staff is not sharing it. Neither I do.
> So janitor, if the definition of a second is exactly 9,192,631,770
> cycles of a certain Cs frequency,

Then, stupid Mike, anyone can write another definition.
But there is no need for that, because the definition
making the rate 9,192,631,774.1 correct [in a GPS
satellite] has been written for centuries.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/second

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 16:10:56 UTC+2, det...@outlook.com wrote:

> Well, good luck. Scientists work with experiments and evidence.

Oh, do they, or maybe they're only asserting they do?
Can you point any experiment demonstrating the incorrectness
of GPS clocks?

[Ed Lake]

On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 9:12:58 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> On 6/19/2022 3:12 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 1:04:46 PM UTC-5, Al Coe wrote:
> >> On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 9:10:21 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> >>> Over the years, I've accumulated a list of 12 major Time Dilation
> >>> experiments which CONFIRM that Time Dilation is REAL, and that
> >>> time does run at different rates for an object depending upon an
> >>> object's speed and its proximity to a gravitational mass.
> >> Every competent physicist knows that, in terms of the essentially unique stationary temporal foliation near a large spherical massive body (corresponding to the Schwarzschild time coordinate), the rate of proper time (dtau/dt) for an object along any given path is different depending on the speed and the elevation of the object. That's what it means to say that clocks run at different rates depending on speed and elevation. No competent person disputes this, so all your years of accumulating lists of experimental evidence of this has been pointless. Again: No. One. Disputes. This.
> >
> > It's constantly disputed on this forum. Yesterday, Volney posted this:
> >
> > "It may be your opinion the length of a second is variable, but actual
> > scientists have defined a second to be 9,192,631,770 cycles of a certain
> > frequency of a Cs atom. Variable length seconds make as little sense as
> > variable length meters or variable mass kilograms. "
>
> That is the PROPER time, the clock used must be comoving and local to
> the observer. Different observers on different paths can have different
> values for their own proper times because the proper time of one is NOT
> the proper time of the other, because the second observer's clock was
> NOT comoving and local to the first observer (because it was comoving
> and local to the second observer!

You are complicating something that is really very simple. A cesium atomic
clock will cycle 9,192,631,770 times per second whether there is an observer
next to it or not. If there is an observer next to it, the time becomes the "proper
time" for that observer.

A different cesium atom clock that is moving 259,628 kilometers per second
faster than the first clock will measure ONE second in the time it takes the first
clock to measure TWO seconds. It makes no difference if there is anyone
around to make it their "proper time" or not.

You only need an observer when you want to COMPARE tick rates. And that is
typically done by starting with the two clocks together in front of the observer,
then moving one of the clocks away at high speed and then bringing the two clocks
back together again. When the two clocks are together again, the clock that
was moved will show less time has passed than the clock that wasn't moved.
The clock that moved will show less ELAPSED time has passed. The clock that
didn't move will still show the "proper time."

> >
> >>
> >> However, it is also true that, in terms of the momentarily co-moving inertial reference system of each object, we always have dtau/dt = 1, regardless of the object's state of motion or elevation. This is an expression of the principle of relativity (for the motion part) and the principle of equivalence (for the gravitational part). This is the empirically verified scientific fact that you (Ed) deny, but all the experiments on your list are perfectly consistent with this fact. So, again, your list is pointless. It merely confirms what every competent physicist has told you.
> >
> > I don't deny things that are meaningless to me. Your mumbo-jumbo comment
> > is meaningless to me. "Momentarily co-moving inertial reference system"? Who
> > said anything about anything "co-moving" OR "momentarily co-moving"???
> "Co-moving" with X simply means stationary as far as X is concerned
> (zero velocity in X's reference frame). A second observer will see them
> moving together, side by side, which is where the word "co-moving" comes
> from!
>
> "Momentarily co-moving" implies acceleration or something involved. It
> means that for an instant of time ("momentarily"), X sees the object as
> momentarily stationary. Think of a ball thrown straight up. It is
> moving away from the thrower at first (vertical distance z increasing),
> but it is accelerating to earth due to gravity. At some instant, the
> thrower sees the ball stop moving away from him (z=0) and then start
> falling down back toward him (z decreasing). At that instant when the
> ball stopped rising and started falling, it was momentarily co-moving
> with the thrower (as someone in space would see them, rotating with
> earth and moving with earth around the sun etc., moving together)
>
> This is a standard description of mechanics. If these terms are
> confusing to you (you call them mumbo-jumbo), you need to LEARN.

Your mumbo jumbo just makes things confusing to YOU by adding in
unnecessary complications.

Ed

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 16:40:07 UTC+2, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 12:57:34 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, 19 June 2022 at 21:55:55 UTC+2, wrote:
> > > On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 2:39:48 PM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, 19 June 2022 at 21:11:47 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Time dilation is the difference in the elapsed time between events, as measured by two clocks.
> > > > And, as anyone can check in GPS, it doesn't exist. Common sense
> > > > was warning your idiot guru.
> > > So, you are saying that all the experiments are wrong?
> > >
> > > GPS demonstrates that time dilation DOES exist. They have to
> > > BUILD a clock that ticks at an INCORRECT rate
> > It's nothing but your opinion that the rate is INCORRECT,
> > and obviously GPS staff is not sharing it. Neither I do.
> >
> > That's The Shit: you believe it's telling you how nature works,
> > but instead it has persuaded you that the synchronization of
> > clocks is INCORRECT, becuse it doesn't match a vision of an
> > insane halfbrain. A real pity so many people are buying such
> > crap; but, well, it happens.
> Here's a link that explains how GPS satellites work:
> https://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/pogge.1/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

And still it's nothing but your opinion that the rate is INCORRECT,
and obviously GPS staff is not sharing it. Neither I am.

>
> "Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative motion."
>
> "A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day.
>
> "The combination of these two relativitic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)!"

It should, I agree. To help itself to fulfill - The Shit has announced
it will be INCORRECT otherwise. But the dreadful "INCORRECT"
curse didn't work and what should happen hasn't happened.
It happens.

[Ed Lake]

On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 9:59:00 AM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 20/06/2022 à 16:31, Ed Lake a écrit :
> > On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 5:14:54 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> > Time dilation has nothing to do with the direction of travel.
> No.

In English, "No" could mean you AGREE that "Time dilation has nothing to do

with the direction of travel."

>

> You, you say that "time dilation has nothing to do with the direction of
> travel".
>
> And (in reality) it's false.

Your English is very bad. What is false? And WHY do you believe it is "false"?

Ed

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 17:18:25 UTC+2, det...@outlook.com wrote:


> You are complicating something that is really very simple. A cesium atomic
> clock will cycle 9,192,631,770 times per second whether there is an observer
> next to it or not.

Unfortunately, having GPS we can call it: it's ~9,192,631,774
for a GPS satellite, and your brilliant theory is just another
theory killed by incorrectness of the reality. What a pity.

[Ed Lake]

On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 10:06:39 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 16:10:56 UTC+2, wrote:
>
> > Well, good luck. Scientists work with experiments and evidence.
> Oh, do they, or maybe they're only asserting they do?

They publish the results of their experiments, so that others can repeat
the experiments or find some reason to challenge the results.

No one has challenged time dilation, except to simply disagree with it
because they cannot BELIEVE it. They cannot DEMONSTRATE that it
is incorrect. Their BELIEFS mean nothing when EXPERIMENTS show
that their BELIEFS are WRONG.

> Can you point any experiment demonstrating the incorrectness
> of GPS clocks?

GPS clocks are "correct" because they tick at the same rate as clocks
on earth. They are only "incorrect" for their location. And there is
no one at that location who cares about that.

> That's The Shit: you believe it's telling you how nature works,
> but instead it has persuaded you that the synchronization of
> clocks is INCORRECT, becuse it doesn't match a vision of an
> insane halfbrain. A real pity so many people are buying such
> crap; but, well, it happens.

That appears to be a crazy attack on Einstein because Einstein doesn't
agree with what YOU BELIEVE. Who cares what you believe if many
EXPERIMENTS show that Einstein is correct?

Ed

[Ed Lake]

On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 10:30:33 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 17:18:25 UTC+2, wrote:
>
>
> > You are complicating something that is really very simple. A cesium atomic
> > clock will cycle 9,192,631,770 times per second whether there is an observer
> > next to it or not.
> Unfortunately, having GPS we can call it: it's ~9,192,631,774
> for a GPS satellite, and your brilliant theory is just another
> theory killed by incorrectness of the reality. What a pity.

Okay, I should have said that "a CORRECT cesium atomic clock will cycle

9,192,631,770 times per second whether there is an observer next to it or not."

A scientist can ADJUST such a clock to be INCORRECT. They can then put that
INCORRECT clock in orbit where it will be INCORRECT for its location, but it
will be a "CORRECT" match to an cesium atomic clock on the ground.

Ed

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 17:41:53 UTC+2, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 10:06:39 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 16:10:56 UTC+2, wrote:
> >
> > > Well, good luck. Scientists work with experiments and evidence.
> > Oh, do they, or maybe they're only asserting they do?
> They publish the results of their experiments, so that others can repeat
> the experiments or find some reason to challenge the results.
>
> No one has challenged time dilation, except to simply disagree with it
> because they cannot BELIEVE it.

In the meantime in the real world, however, INCORRECT

GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks

always did. And, somehow, you didn't point any experiment
demonstrating they're really INCORRECT. Is it possible
that your BELIEFS they are INCORRECT - are wrong?

> > Can you point any experiment demonstrating the incorrectness
> > of GPS clocks?
> GPS clocks are "correct" because they tick at the same rate as clocks
> on earth. They are only "incorrect" for their location. And there is
> no one at that location who cares about that.

Oh, what a pity:(. Looks as if there is nobody to support the
claim that they are "INCORRECT" somehow:(
So, can you point any experiment demonstrating this
incorrectness?

> Who cares what you believe if many
> EXPERIMENTS show that Einstein is correct?

And, precisely, those EXPERIMENTS showing that
GPS equipment is INCORRECT - are ...?

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 17:51:52 UTC+2, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 10:30:33 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 17:18:25 UTC+2, wrote:
> >
> >
> > > You are complicating something that is really very simple. A cesium atomic
> > > clock will cycle 9,192,631,770 times per second whether there is an observer
> > > next to it or not.
> > Unfortunately, having GPS we can call it: it's ~9,192,631,774
> > for a GPS satellite, and your brilliant theory is just another
> > theory killed by incorrectness of the reality. What a pity.
> Okay, I should have said that "a CORRECT cesium atomic clock will cycle
> 9,192,631,770 times per second whether there is an observer next to it or not."

And this experiment showing that GPS is INCORRECT - is?
Sorry, Ed, there is no. You're asserting and waving your
arms - for a COMPLETE idiocy.

[Ed Lake]

On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 10:55:28 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:

There are no experiments showing that "GPS equipment is
incorrect" because the word "incorrect" would mean that there
is something "wrong." There is nothing "wrong" with the GPS
system.

Clocks on GPS satellites are BUILT to tick at the same rate as
clocks on earth WHEN the clock is in orbit on the satellite.
When such a clock is on earth, it ticks slower than clocks that
are used on earth. When such a clock is in orbit, it ticks at the
same rate as clocks that are used on earth.

There is nothing "wrong" or "incorrect" if the clock is BUILT
to work that way.

Ed

[Maciej Wozniak]

Exactly. On the other hand, if these clocks indicating
your "time dilation" can't be used in a serious measurement
system (which GPS surely is) - doesn't it mean that
there is something wrong with them?

>
> Clocks on GPS satellites are BUILT to tick at the same rate as

What a surprise - clocks are BUILT. To tick at some rate
we want them to. Well, well, who would think?

> clocks on earth WHEN the clock is in orbit on the satellite.
> When such a clock is on earth, it ticks slower than clocks that
> are used on earth. When such a clock is in orbit, it ticks at the
> same rate as clocks that are used on earth.
>
> There is nothing "wrong" or "incorrect" if the clock is BUILT
> to work that way.

I absolutely agree. So, there is nothing incorrect about
GPS clocks, keeping indicating t'=t, just like all serious
clocks (BUILT ones) always did.

[Al Coe]

On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 8:51:52 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> > Every competent physicist knows that, in terms of the essentially unique stationary temporal foliation near a large spherical massive body (corresponding to the Schwarzschild time coordinate), the rate of proper time (dtau/dt) for an object along any given path is different depending on the speed and the elevation of the object. That's what it means to say that clocks run at different rates depending on speed and elevation. No competent person disputes this, so all your years of accumulating lists of experimental evidence of this has been pointless.
>

> It's constantly disputed on this forum.

Sure, that's why I specified "no competent person". But you have to be careful, because what I stated above is not what you typically state. I'm carefully specifying a system of reference and then describing events in terms of that system. This is how actual physicists talk. In contrast, most people in this forum (including you) make assertions without specifying your reference system, which is why you endlessly dispute each other, because you are referring to different reference systems. To illustrate, note the following:

> > However, it is also true that, in terms of the momentarily co-moving inertial reference system of each object, we always have dtau/dt = 1, regardless of the object's state of motion or elevation. This is an expression of the principle of relativity (for the motion part) and the principle of equivalence (for the gravitational part). This is the empirically verified scientific fact that you (Ed) deny, but all the experiments on your list are perfectly consistent with this fact. So, again, your list is pointless. It merely confirms what every competent physicist has told you.
>

> "Momentarily co-moving inertial reference system"? Who said anything about
> anything "co-moving" OR "momentarily co-moving"???

Anyone is free to make use of any reference system they like. The comment above is stating a fact about a specified reference system for a given object at a given moment, namely, the essentially unique reference system in terms of which the object is at rest (at least momentarily) and the laws of physics take their simple homogeneous and isotropic form. These are called standard inertial reference systems. These systems are particularly useful because they exploit the symmetry of nature expressed by the Lorentz invariance of all physical laws. These are the reference systems to which Einstein is always referring in his 1905 paper, i.e., systems in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good (in the low speed limit). They apply globally in the original special theory, but in the general theory it is shown that they apply only locally.

It is on this latter subject that you disagree with all the textbooks, not the former subject, so there's no value in you compiling lists of time dilation experiments (unless you just enjoy arguing about the semantics with nitwits on this forum).

[Ed Lake]

On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 1:05:36 PM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:

You make no sense. The clocks on GPS satellites are BUILT to tick
at a different rate than normal clocks. GPS satellite clocks are built to
tick at the same rate that normal clocks on the ground tick when the
GPS satellite clock is orbiting at 14,000 kilometers per hour at an
altitude of 20,000 kilometers. When a GPS clock is on the ground, it
ticks SLOWER than normal clocks.

> >
> > Clocks on GPS satellites are BUILT to tick at the same rate as
> What a surprise - clocks are BUILT. To tick at some rate
> we want them to. Well, well, who would think?
> > clocks on earth WHEN the clock is in orbit on the satellite.
> > When such a clock is on earth, it ticks slower than clocks that
> > are used on earth. When such a clock is in orbit, it ticks at the
> > same rate as clocks that are used on earth.
> >
> > There is nothing "wrong" or "incorrect" if the clock is BUILT
> > to work that way.
> I absolutely agree. So, there is nothing incorrect about
> GPS clocks, keeping indicating t'=t, just like all serious
> clocks (BUILT ones) always did.

Nonsense. You totally misunderstand. Normal clocks are BUILT
to tick at a NORMAL rate. GPS clocks are BUILT to tick at a SLOWER
THAN NORMAL RATE. When the GPS clock is put in obit, THEN it
will tick at the "NORMAL RATE" because it will tick FASTER when it
is in orbit than it did when it was on the ground.

Ed

[Volney]

On 6/20/2022 11:18 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 9:12:58 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>> On 6/19/2022 3:12 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 1:04:46 PM UTC-5, Al Coe wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 9:10:21 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>>>>> Over the years, I've accumulated a list of 12 major Time Dilation
>>>>> experiments which CONFIRM that Time Dilation is REAL, and that
>>>>> time does run at different rates for an object depending upon an
>>>>> object's speed and its proximity to a gravitational mass.
>>>> Every competent physicist knows that, in terms of the essentially unique stationary temporal foliation near a large spherical massive body (corresponding to the Schwarzschild time coordinate), the rate of proper time (dtau/dt) for an object along any given path is different depending on the speed and the elevation of the object. That's what it means to say that clocks run at different rates depending on speed and elevation. No competent person disputes this, so all your years of accumulating lists of experimental evidence of this has been pointless. Again: No. One. Disputes. This.
>>>
>>> It's constantly disputed on this forum. Yesterday, Volney posted this:
>>>
>>> "It may be your opinion the length of a second is variable, but actual
>>> scientists have defined a second to be 9,192,631,770 cycles of a certain
>>> frequency of a Cs atom. Variable length seconds make as little sense as
>>> variable length meters or variable mass kilograms. "
>>
>> That is the PROPER time, the clock used must be comoving and local to
>> the observer. Different observers on different paths can have different
>> values for their own proper times because the proper time of one is NOT
>> the proper time of the other, because the second observer's clock was
>> NOT comoving and local to the first observer (because it was comoving
>> and local to the second observer!
>
> You are complicating something that is really very simple. A cesium atomic
> clock will cycle 9,192,631,770 times per second whether there is an observer
> next to it or not.

Locally, and in a frame in which the clock is stationary.

> If there is an observer next to it, the time becomes the "proper
> time" for that observer.

Clocks always measure their own proper time.

>
> A different cesium atom clock that is moving 259,628 kilometers per second
> faster than the first clock will measure ONE second in the time it takes the first
> clock to measure TWO seconds. It makes no difference if there is anyone
> around to make it their "proper time" or not.

And the first clock will measure ONE second in the time it takes the
second clock to measure TWO seconds.

This is relative motion and time dilation according to Einstein.

>
> You only need an observer when you want to COMPARE tick rates. And that is
> typically done by starting with the two clocks together in front of the observer,
> then moving one of the clocks away at high speed and then bringing the two clocks
> back together again.

Now, that is the traveling twin gedanken, and that happens due to the
turnaround (acceleration). Time dilation as in the 1905 paper works
only when both clocks are inertial. Obviously a turnaround isn't inertial.

> When the two clocks are together again, the clock that
> was moved will show less time has passed than the clock that wasn't moved.

More accurately, the clock with the shorter path through spacetime
experiences more time.

> The clock that moved will show less ELAPSED time has passed.

Because it took a longer path through spacetime. But this is the twins
gedanken, not simple relative motion.

> The clock that
> didn't move will still show the "proper time."

Its own proper time, not "the" proper time. The moving clock shows
*its* own proper time.

>>>> However, it is also true that, in terms of the momentarily co-moving inertial reference system of each object, we always have dtau/dt = 1, regardless of the object's state of motion or elevation. This is an expression of the principle of relativity (for the motion part) and the principle of equivalence (for the gravitational part). This is the empirically verified scientific fact that you (Ed) deny, but all the experiments on your list are perfectly consistent with this fact. So, again, your list is pointless. It merely confirms what every competent physicist has told you.
>>>
>>> I don't deny things that are meaningless to me. Your mumbo-jumbo comment
>>> is meaningless to me. "Momentarily co-moving inertial reference system"? Who
>>> said anything about anything "co-moving" OR "momentarily co-moving"???

>> "Co-moving" with X simply means stationary as far as X is concerned
>> (zero velocity in X's reference frame). A second observer will see them
>> moving together, side by side, which is where the word "co-moving" comes
>> from!
>>
>> "Momentarily co-moving" implies acceleration or something involved. It
>> means that for an instant of time ("momentarily"), X sees the object as
>> momentarily stationary. Think of a ball thrown straight up. It is
>> moving away from the thrower at first (vertical distance z increasing),
>> but it is accelerating to earth due to gravity. At some instant, the
>> thrower sees the ball stop moving away from him (z=0) and then start
>> falling down back toward him (z decreasing). At that instant when the
>> ball stopped rising and started falling, it was momentarily co-moving
>> with the thrower (as someone in space would see them, rotating with
>> earth and moving with earth around the sun etc., moving together)
>>
>> This is a standard description of mechanics. If these terms are
>> confusing to you (you call them mumbo-jumbo), you need to LEARN.
>
> Your mumbo jumbo

Not my mumbo jumbo, it is what's in every book on physical mechanics.
And it's physics, not "mumbo jumbo". As I said, if physics is mumbo
jumbo to you, you need to LEARN.

> just makes things confusing to YOU by adding in
> unnecessary complications.

I have added nothing. Nature already has those "complications". It's all
in books on relativity, and is college freshman mechanics. I'm not
confused, you are. You even admitted freshman mechanics is "mumbo jumbo"
to you.
>
> Ed

[Ed Lake]

On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 1:51:59 PM UTC-5, Al Coe wrote:

I sometimes enjoy arguing with people on this forum because it forces me to
explain the same things in dozens of different ways. When you explain Time
Dilation in a dozen different ways, you are viewing the same things from a dozen
different angles. The more angles you view something from, the better you can
understand everything you see.

I don't enjoy arguing with people who cannot write clearly. To me, most of your
latest comment above is gibberish. If someone uses a "reference system" such
as the earth, and explains how a rocket ship moves away from the earth on its
way to Alpha Centauri, I have no problem with that. But, if they use the rocket
ship as a frame of reference and start talking about how the earth is moving away
from the rocket ship, then I say they are just talking mathematical nonsense. It
has nothing to do with REALITY. And, like Einstein, I'm only interested in understanding
the REALITY of the universe around us, and how things work.

Ed

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 21:22:52 UTC+2, det...@outlook.com wrote:

> > I absolutely agree. So, there is nothing incorrect about
> > GPS clocks, keeping indicating t'=t, just like all serious
> > clocks (BUILT ones) always did.
> Nonsense. You totally misunderstand. Normal clocks are BUILT
> to tick at a NORMAL rate.

And GPS clocks are - as well - BUILT to tick at the NORMAL rate.
All clocks are, and they always were. Being built and being
adjusted is completely NORMAL for a clock, and insisting
otherwise is very stupid. There is nothing extraordinary in
GPS clocks - that they're built and adjusted makes them
no way special - and, of course, they indicate t'=t, just like all
serious clocks always did.

[Ed Lake]

I'm talking about REALITY, not about mathematical models.

> > If there is an observer next to it, the time becomes the "proper
> > time" for that observer.
> Clocks always measure their own proper time.

If two clocks are side by side and one measures minutes to be longer
than the other, one or both of them are WRONG. If "clocks always
measure their own proper time," then "proper time" has no meaning
IN REALITY.

> >
> > A different cesium atom clock that is moving 259,628 kilometers per second
> > faster than the first clock will measure ONE second in the time it takes the first
> > clock to measure TWO seconds. It makes no difference if there is anyone
> > around to make it their "proper time" or not.
> And the first clock will measure ONE second in the time it takes the
> second clock to measure TWO seconds.

Yes.

>
> This is relative motion and time dilation according to Einstein.

It is time dilation according to Einstein. "Relative motion" requires qualifications.

> >
> > You only need an observer when you want to COMPARE tick rates. And that is
> > typically done by starting with the two clocks together in front of the observer,
> > then moving one of the clocks away at high speed and then bringing the two clocks
> > back together again.
> Now, that is the traveling twin gedanken, and that happens due to the
> turnaround (acceleration). Time dilation as in the 1905 paper works
> only when both clocks are inertial. Obviously a turnaround isn't inertial.

You are discussing mathematics. I am discussing REALITY. When discussing
MATHEMATICS, you cannot cope with changing speeds, acceleration and
turnaround complications. When discussing REALITY, changing speeds,
acceleration and turnarounds just mean that the amount of time dilation will
vary during all those factors. That makes it difficult to do the math, but it
is what happens in REALITY.

> > When the two clocks are together again, the clock that
> > was moved will show less time has passed than the clock that wasn't moved.
> More accurately, the clock with the shorter path through spacetime
> experiences more time.

More accurately, the clock that moved at the greater percentage of the speed
of light will show that less time has passed than the clock that moved
at the lower percentage of the speed of light.

> > The clock that moved will show less ELAPSED time has passed.
> Because it took a longer path through spacetime. But this is the twins
> gedanken, not simple relative motion.

That depends upon your definition of "simple relative motion."

I'm not interested in learning mumbo jumbo. I'm just interesting in
learning how the universe works IN REALITY, not in mathematical models.

You have one mathematical model to explain light when it seems to travel
as a wave, and you have a different mathematical model to explain light
when it seems to travel as a particle. THAT IS STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IN REALITY, light is a particle that has oscillating electric and magnetic
fields which give it some wave-like properties. The fact that mathematicians
cannot cope with that is why I look at REALITY, not just at the mathematics.

> > just makes things confusing to YOU by adding in
> > unnecessary complications.
> I have added nothing. Nature already has those "complications". It's all
> in books on relativity, and is college freshman mechanics. I'm not
> confused, you are. You even admitted freshman mechanics is "mumbo jumbo"
> to you.

Right. I'm trying to separate the REALITY of Relativity from the mumbo jumbo
of Quantum Mechanics in order to understand how the universe works IN REALITY.

Ed

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 21:29:54 UTC+2, Volney wrote:

> Clocks always measure their own proper time.

Sorry, stupid Mike, having GPS we can be absolutely sure
that clocks generally ignore your "proper time" idiocy.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 22:05:48 UTC+2, det...@outlook.com wrote:

> If two clocks are side by side and one measures minutes to be longer
> than the other, one or both of them are WRONG.

If they are not side by side and one measures minutes to be longer
than the other - it's the same. Of course, brainwashed morons may insist
it's not wrong and it's proper. But the clocks BUILT by sane people are
avoiding that.

[Ed Lake]

On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 3:03:29 PM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 21:22:52 UTC+2, wrote:
>
> > > I absolutely agree. So, there is nothing incorrect about
> > > GPS clocks, keeping indicating t'=t, just like all serious
> > > clocks (BUILT ones) always did.
> > Nonsense. You totally misunderstand. Normal clocks are BUILT
> > to tick at a NORMAL rate.
> And GPS clocks are - as well - BUILT to tick at the NORMAL rate.

NO! THEY ARE NOT!!! They are built to measure a SECOND as being
LONGER than how a SECOND is measured by all normal clocks.

When on the ground, the clocks do NOT measure a second to be
of the same duration. When the GPS clock is in orbit, the clocks
will measure a second to be of the SAME duration.

> All clocks are, and they always were. Being built and being
> adjusted is completely NORMAL for a clock, and insisting
> otherwise is very stupid. There is nothing extraordinary in
> GPS clocks - that they're built and adjusted makes them
> no way special - and, of course, they indicate t'=t, just like all
> serious clocks always did.

You can keep spouting that nonsense over and over, but it just
shows you do not understand how GPS clocks work to
compensate for Time Dilation.

Read the article at this link, it might help you understand:
https://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/pogge.1/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

Ed

[Ed Lake]

On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 3:17:08 PM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 22:05:48 UTC+2, wrote:
>
> > If two clocks are side by side and one measures minutes to be longer
> > than the other, one or both of them are WRONG.
> If they are not side by side and one measures minutes to be longer
> than the other - it's the same.

NOT IF IT IS DONE ON PURPOSE IN ORDER TO SOLVE A PROBLEM!

Ed

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 22:17:16 UTC+2, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 3:03:29 PM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 21:22:52 UTC+2, wrote:
> >
> > > > I absolutely agree. So, there is nothing incorrect about
> > > > GPS clocks, keeping indicating t'=t, just like all serious
> > > > clocks (BUILT ones) always did.
> > > Nonsense. You totally misunderstand. Normal clocks are BUILT
> > > to tick at a NORMAL rate.
> > And GPS clocks are - as well - BUILT to tick at the NORMAL rate.
> NO! THEY ARE NOT!!! They are built to measure a SECOND as being
> LONGER than how a SECOND is measured by all normal clocks.

Screaming won't help. Yes, they are. We always build clocks
to count a second during a second.

> > All clocks are, and they always were. Being built and being
> > adjusted is completely NORMAL for a clock, and insisting
> > otherwise is very stupid. There is nothing extraordinary in
> > GPS clocks - that they're built and adjusted makes them
> > no way special - and, of course, they indicate t'=t, just like all
> > serious clocks always did.
> You can keep spouting that nonsense over and over, but it just
> shows you do not understand how GPS clocks work to
> compensate for Time Dilation.

You can keep spouting this nonsense over and over, and
GPS clocks will in the meantime keep measuring t'=t,

[Maciej Wozniak]

Yes, also if it is done on purpose in order to solve a problem.
Actually, humans are always doing things on purpose to solve
problems.

[Ed Lake]

On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 3:22:58 PM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:

Why do you keep ignoring the link to the article OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY
has about "Real-World Relativity: The GPS Navigation System"?

Here's the link again: https://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/pogge.1/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

I use it as a reference. You IGNORE it. Why? Because it does not agree
with your SILLY BELIEFS?

Other articles say the same thing, but that one explains things most clearly.

Ed

[Volney]

This IS reality. As in physics (not math). A Cs clock sitting there,
measuring seconds. Someone local to it will confirm it is accurate. Fly
by it at 0.5c, or view it from a gravity well, and it will be seen
ticking at the wrong rate. So I added the requirement "locally, and in
a frame where the clock is stationary." Is that too hard to understand?

>
>>> If there is an observer next to it, the time becomes the "proper
>>> time" for that observer.

>> Clocks always measure their own proper time.
>
> If two clocks are side by side and one measures minutes to be longer
> than the other, one or both of them are WRONG.

In this type of physics gedanken discussion, clocks are ideal, they are
accurate by definition. If something ticks at the wrong rate, it is not
a clock, as far as physics is concerned, even if it looks like a clock.
So for your two devices which look like a clock, one or both are NOT
clocks (in physics).

> If "clocks always
> measure their own proper time," then "proper time" has no meaning
> IN REALITY.

Wrong, clocks, which are ideal in physics, measure their own proper
time. Things that look like clocks but aren't clocks, don't. Of course
in the real world, any physical clock has a margin of error in
measurement but it is assumed the error is smaller than other
measurement errors. If not, the measurement is invalid, and that "clock"
isn't useful as a clock.

>
>>>
>>> A different cesium atom clock that is moving 259,628 kilometers per second
>>> faster than the first clock will measure ONE second in the time it takes the first
>>> clock to measure TWO seconds. It makes no difference if there is anyone
>>> around to make it their "proper time" or not.
>> And the first clock will measure ONE second in the time it takes the
>> second clock to measure TWO seconds.
>
> Yes.
>
>>
>> This is relative motion and time dilation according to Einstein.
>
> It is time dilation according to Einstein. "Relative motion" requires qualifications.

No additional qualification needed. In the frame of the first, the
second is moving at +v. In the frame of the second, the first is moving
at -v. That is Galileo's relative motion. (Einstein not even needed for
that!)

>
>>>
>>> You only need an observer when you want to COMPARE tick rates. And that is
>>> typically done by starting with the two clocks together in front of the observer,
>>> then moving one of the clocks away at high speed and then bringing the two clocks
>>> back together again.
>> Now, that is the traveling twin gedanken, and that happens due to the
>> turnaround (acceleration). Time dilation as in the 1905 paper works
>> only when both clocks are inertial. Obviously a turnaround isn't inertial.
>
> You are discussing mathematics. I am discussing REALITY.

This IS reality (physics). I didn't even mention math. This is done all
the time in things like muon storage rings, or CERN, where things go
round and round back to the origin, even if there are many bending
magnets (curving is acceleration) so that it's almost a circle. One
"twin" is a muon in the storage ring, the other a stationary muon at the
origin.

> When discussing
> MATHEMATICS, you cannot cope with changing speeds, acceleration and
> turnaround complications.

I didn't even mention mathematics. Physics is what copes with changing
speed/turnarounds/acceleration.

> When discussing REALITY, changing speeds,
> acceleration and turnarounds just mean that the amount of time dilation will
> vary during all those factors. That makes it difficult to do the math, but it
> is what happens in REALITY.

REALITY can be predicted with the correct physics formulas. But solving
those formulas will mean doing the math. The whole purpose of physics is
to find and create accurate models of what nature is doing, to MATCH
reality, but those models often have loads of math. Since you appear to
be frightened of math, physics may not be for you.

>
>>> When the two clocks are together again, the clock that
>>> was moved will show less time has passed than the clock that wasn't moved.
>> More accurately, the clock with the shorter path through spacetime
>> experiences more time.
>
> More accurately, the clock that moved at the greater percentage of the speed
> of light will show that less time has passed than the clock that moved
> at the lower percentage of the speed of light.

That makes no sense, since there are three (or more) velocities
involved, and any one of them can be chosen to be 0 if the correct frame
is chosen.

>
>>> The clock that moved will show less ELAPSED time has passed.
>> Because it took a longer path through spacetime. But this is the twins
>> gedanken, not simple relative motion.
>
> That depends upon your definition of "simple relative motion."

Not my definition, Einstein's. Or Galileo's. It means inertial motion
with no acceleration. It means the two can meet each other at most
once, since there is no return. Time comparison is done with a signal
of some sort. Consider a distant galaxy moving away and we're
monitoring a sodium line. The remote sodium is both a clock (sends
light with a constant known frequency at the source) and the signal source.

Then physics isn't for you, if high school physics is mumbo jumbo to
you. May I suggest basket weaving as a hobby, instead?

> I'm just interesting in
> learning how the universe works IN REALITY, not in mathematical models.

You are calling PHYSICS models "mumbo jumbo". If you think physics is
mumbo jumbo, you won't be able to learn how "the universe works in reality".

>
> You have one mathematical model to explain light when it seems to travel
> as a wave, and you have a different mathematical model to explain light
> when it seems to travel as a particle. THAT IS STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You may think it's stupid, but that was found through experiment.
There are some properties of light which cannot be explained by the wave
model, and other properties which cannot be explained by the photon
model. Again, that was found by experiment. Like it or not, light has
properties of both.

>
> IN REALITY, light is a particle that has oscillating electric and magnetic
> fields which give it some wave-like properties.

You mean oscillating magnetic and electric field can be modeled as
particles sometimes.

> The fact that mathematicians

WHAT mathematicians?

> cannot cope with that is why I look at REALITY, not just at the mathematics.

Your opinion that light is oscillating particles is just your opinion,
and just doesn't work for many physics situations.

>
>>> just makes things confusing to YOU by adding in
>>> unnecessary complications.
>> I have added nothing. Nature already has those "complications". It's all
>> in books on relativity, and is college freshman mechanics. I'm not
>> confused, you are. You even admitted freshman mechanics is "mumbo jumbo"
>> to you.
>
> Right. I'm trying to separate the REALITY of Relativity from the mumbo jumbo
> of Quantum Mechanics

Hey, you are the one who says light is photons only, that IS quantum
mechanics! Don't like QM, don't bring up photons. However for most
mechanical relativity type discussions, QM doesn't really matter.

> in order to understand how the universe works IN REALITY.

Physics is all about creating models, models which represent reality as
accurately as possible. If our models are correct, we can accurately
predict what the universe works.
>
> Ed

[rotchm]

On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 7:27:46 AM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:


> > SR makes predictions of the *values* of the instruments (observations).
> > Here, 18 & 30. And 18<30. That is all.
>
> You don't seem to have understood that if 18<30 does not mean that 27<3

Your logic is flawed; Knowing 18<30 does not imply that one knows if 27<3.

> Do you know what decomposition is?

Irrelevant to the discussion.
SR predicts 18 & 30.
And we know 18<30. That is all.

> 18=Tr1+Tr2=9+9
> 30= To1+To2=27+3

All irrelevant.


> This is why I prefer to speak of elasticity of lengths and times.

That Word salad won't change the fact that SR predicts 18 & 30, and that 18<30.

> Because speaking of time dilation or length contraction,

Word salad.

[Richard Hachel]

Le 21/06/2022 à 00:22, rotchm a écrit :

> Word salad.

LOL.

Et c'est à moi que l'on dit ça?

Tu n'a pas du beaucoup lire Hachel, toi.

Ou alors tu es franchement malade.

R.H.

[Al Coe]

On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 12:39:39 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> > Anyone is free to make use of any reference system they like. The comment above is stating a fact about a specified reference system for a given object at a given moment, namely, the essentially unique reference system in terms of which the object is at rest (at least momentarily) and the laws of physics take their simple homogeneous and isotropic form. These are called standard inertial reference systems. These systems are particularly useful because they exploit the symmetry of nature expressed by the Lorentz invariance of all physical laws. These are the reference systems to which Einstein is always referring in his 1905 paper, i.e., systems in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good (in the low speed limit). They apply globally in the original special theory, but in the general theory it is shown that they apply only locally.
>

> If someone uses a "reference system"...

Why do you refer to reference systems in quotes?

> such as the earth...

The earth isn't a reference system. The earth is momentarily at rest in an inertial reference system, but of course it is not at rest in terms of the inertial reference system in which the sun (for example) is at rest.

> and explains how a rocket ship moves away from the earth on its
> way to Alpha Centauri, I have no problem with that.

Great... with the above corrections and clarifications. Remember, an object is not a reference system. For example, the moon's distance from the earth doesn't change (much), and yet the moon is moving at high speed in terms of the inertial reference system in which the earth is at rest.

> But, if they use the rocket ship as a frame of reference and start talking about how
> the earth is moving away from the rocket ship, then I say they are just talking
> mathematical nonsense.

No, they are stating plain facts. For example, a rocket may be at rest in terms of the Sun's co-moving inertial reference system, and of course the earth is moving at high speed in terms of that system, so the earth is moving away from the rocket in terms of the Sun's reference system, which happens to also be the rocket's reference system. These are plain irrefutable facts.

It's important to keep in mind that a statement such as "they are just talking mathematical nonsense" is not a substantive comment, i.e., it has no cognitive content. The meaning and physical significance of inertial reference systems has been thoroughly understood for over 400 years, and indeed it forms the basis of the principle of relativity, which consists of the assertion that all the laws of physics take exactly the same simple form when expressed in terms of any standard inertial reference system. The entire Scientific Revolution, beginning in the 1600s and continuing until today, was based on that insight.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Because
1)I generally don't care about mumbling lies of
a bunch of fanatics idiots.
2)there is nothing there denying that the clocks
of GPS are synchronized (with the precision of
an acceptable error), i.e. measuring t'=t, like
all serious clocks always should.


See, Ed - Newton's clocks were pendulums. They couldn't
indicate t'=t if they weren't intentionally built to do so,
could they?
Nothing has changed. The Shit was trying to force
a change by persuading their doggies (like you) that
building clocks this way is INCORRECT. And it
didn't succeed, even you didn't really believe such
a nonsense, not to mention sane people of GPS staff.

> I use it as a reference. You IGNORE it. Why?

See above.

[Maciej Wozniak]

No, stupid Mike, this is a dream. As in physics. The reality is
GPS, where the clocks are counting ~9,192,631,774.

[Mikko]

On 2022-06-20 11:27:43 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> You don't seem to have understood that if 18<30 does not mean that 27<3

You don't seem to understand that if 18 < 30 that DOES mena that 18 < 30.

Mikko

[Richard Hachel]

You don't seem to understand my immense genius, the adoration given to me
by the rest of the human species, my great physical and intellectual
beauty.

In short, you are stupid.

There are idiots.

What is surprising is that the idiot never wants to admit that he is an
idiot, so he continues his bullshit.

Well, I'm still trying to explain.

Which of Peter or Paul moves faster between Paris and Marseille?

Peter takes five hours, Paul takes seven hours.

Peter moved the fastest.

I am able to understand it: intellectual life is beautiful.

Except that: do you really think I am busting my balls teaching such
bullshit?

You are sick.You don't seem to understand my immense genius, the adoration
given to me by the rest of the human species, my great physical and
intellectual beauty.

In short, you are stupid.

There are idiots.

What is surprising is that the idiot never wants to admit that he is an
idiot, so he continues his bullshit.

Well, I'm still trying to explain.

Which of Peter or Paul moves faster between Paris and Marseille?

Peter takes five hours, Paul takes seven hours.

Peter moved the fastest.

I am able to understand it: intellectual life is beautiful.

Except that: do you really think I am busting my balls teaching such
bullshit?

You are sick.

R.H.

[Python]

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> ...

>
> What is surprising is that the idiot never wants to admit that he is an
> idiot, so he continues his bullshit.

This is true, and applies 200% to you Richard.

> [snip fallacious analogy]

[Richard Hachel]

Le 21/06/2022 à 12:27, Python a écrit :

> This is true,

Merci mon Jean-Pierre d'amour.

Maintenant que tu as compris que 30<18 et tu as compris que celui qui
revient et qui a 18 ans,
a vieilli moins vite que celui qui a 30 ans.

Et qu'au contraire celui qui a 30 ans, a vieilli plus vite que celui qui
a 18.

Je commençais à désespérer de vous voir vous bloquer devant une
formulation aussi triviale.

Tout n'est peut-être pas perdu.

Mais maintenant, la claque!

Tout le monde s'est mis à penser que le phénomène était constant, et
donc que le rapport était constamment de 30/18 sur tout le parcours.

Bref que constamment, l'un des deux jumeaux vieillissait plus vite que
l'autre sous ce rapport.

C'est faux. Il n'y a d'ailleurs JAMAIS de rapport (30/18).

Le rapport à v=0.8c (par exemple) n'est pas celui-là, mais 3 à
l'aller, et 0.3333 au retour.

Même si à la fin, on a bien 30 d'un côté, et 18 de l'autre.

30/18, c'est une MOYENNE, un total.

Pas ce qui s'est constamment passé en chemin.

Ton erreur est que tu te bases sur ce que j'appelle la chronotropie.

Ce n'est pas mal en soi, mais tu oublies l'anisochronie.

Bref, comme tout le monde, tu fais de la physique à vau-l'eau.

Et tu mélanges tout.

R.H.











R.H.

[Richard Hachel]

[Python]

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:

> [snip bullshit in French]

Abuse reported for posting in French in an English-speaking newsgroup.

[Richard Hachel]

Le 21/06/2022 à 13:58, Python a écrit :
>
> Abuse reported for posting in French in an English-speaking newsgroup.

Méchant!

R.H.

[rotchm]

That is not a discussion in relativity.
And it is purposely in the wrong language.

Thus, spam reported.
I incite others to do the same.

[Richard Hachel]

Snifffff....

R.H.

[Ed Lake]

On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 4:35:58 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:

(snip repetitive arguments)

> > You have one mathematical model to explain light when it seems to travel
> > as a wave, and you have a different mathematical model to explain light
> > when it seems to travel as a particle. THAT IS STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> You may think it's stupid, but that was found through experiment.
> There are some properties of light which cannot be explained by the wave
> model, and other properties which cannot be explained by the photon
> model. Again, that was found by experiment. Like it or not, light has
> properties of both.

YES, THAT'S MY POINT! You can only visualize light as TWO DIFFERENT
MODELS. In reality, light is NOT two different models. IN REALITY, light
consists of photons that have oscillating electric and magnetic fields.

> >
> > IN REALITY, light is a particle that has oscillating electric and magnetic
> > fields which give it some wave-like properties.
> You mean oscillating magnetic and electric field can be modeled as
> particles sometimes.

No, I'm NOT TALKING ABOUT MATHEMATICAL MODELS. I'm talking about
photons IN REALITY. Reality is what is defined by EXPERIMENTS. Experiments
show that light consists of individual photons. THERE ARE NO WAVES. There
are just oscillating electric and magnetic fields in the photon. Scientists have
performed experiments to confirm this. Mathematician physicists CANNOT
accept that, since they cannot develop ONE mathematical model that can truly
explain how photons work. So, THEY DENY REALITY and endlessly argue that
"light sometimes acts like a particle and sometimes acts like a wave," and they
use separate mathematical models for each situation.

The problem is that when scientists discuss reality, the mathematician physicists
will always argue that "photons cannot oscillate" and they'll start babbling about
their two mathematical models, REFUSING to discuss REALITY.

>
> > The fact that mathematicians
>
> WHAT mathematicians?
> > cannot cope with that is why I look at REALITY, not just at the mathematics.
> Your opinion that light is oscillating particles is just your opinion,
> and just doesn't work for many physics situations.
> >
> >>> just makes things confusing to YOU by adding in
> >>> unnecessary complications.
> >> I have added nothing. Nature already has those "complications". It's all
> >> in books on relativity, and is college freshman mechanics. I'm not
> >> confused, you are. You even admitted freshman mechanics is "mumbo jumbo"
> >> to you.
> >
> > Right. I'm trying to separate the REALITY of Relativity from the mumbo jumbo
> > of Quantum Mechanics
> Hey, you are the one who says light is photons only, that IS quantum
> mechanics! Don't like QM, don't bring up photons. However for most
> mechanical relativity type discussions, QM doesn't really matter.
> > in order to understand how the universe works IN REALITY.
> Physics is all about creating models, models which represent reality as
> accurately as possible. If our models are correct, we can accurately
> predict what the universe works.

Yes. You just need to understand the LIMITATIONS of your mathematical
models. Those LIMITATIONS are best demonstrated by your INABILITY
to create a SINGLE mathematical model for light.

Ed

[Volney]

On 6/21/2022 6:18 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 21/06/2022 à 09:45, Mikko a écrit :
>> On 2022-06-20 11:27:43 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
>>
>>> You don't seem to have understood that if 18<30 does not mean that 27<3
>>
>> You don't seem to understand that if 18 < 30 that DOES mena that 18 < 30.
>>
>> Mikko
>
> You don't seem to understand my immense genius, the adoration given to
> me by the rest of the human species, my great physical and intellectual
> beauty.
>

The laughter you hear is not adoration by the rest of humanity, it is
people laughing at you and your bizarre ideas.

Remember, the only purpose you cranks have here is to provide
entertainment for the rest of us.

I find fools who declare themselves to be geniuses to be particularly
amusing. The "geniuses" in these newsgroups are the stupidest "geniuses"
ever!

> Well, I'm still trying to explain.
>
> Which of Peter or Paul moves faster between Paris and Marseille?
>
> Peter takes five hours, Paul takes seven hours.
>
> Peter moved the fastest.

Not necessarily. What if Paul took a longer route at a higher speed?

[Ed Lake]

On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 6:47:01 PM UTC-5, Al Coe wrote:

> On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 12:39:39 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > Anyone is free to make use of any reference system they like. The comment above is stating a fact about a specified reference system for a given object at a given moment, namely, the essentially unique reference system in terms of which the object is at rest (at least momentarily) and the laws of physics take their simple homogeneous and isotropic form. These are called standard inertial reference systems. These systems are particularly useful because they exploit the symmetry of nature expressed by the Lorentz invariance of all physical laws. These are the reference systems to which Einstein is always referring in his 1905 paper, i.e., systems in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good (in the low speed limit). They apply globally in the original special theory, but in the general theory it is shown that they apply only locally.
> >
> > If someone uses a "reference system"...
>
> Why do you refer to reference systems in quotes?

Because you create artificial "reference systems" PRIMARILY for
purposes of doing mathematics.

>
> > such as the earth...
>
> The earth isn't a reference system. The earth is momentarily at rest in an inertial reference system, but of course it is not at rest in terms of the inertial reference system in which the sun (for example) is at rest.
> > and explains how a rocket ship moves away from the earth on its
> > way to Alpha Centauri, I have no problem with that.
> Great... with the above corrections and clarifications. Remember, an object is not a reference system. For example, the moon's distance from the earth doesn't change (much), and yet the moon is moving at high speed in terms of the inertial reference system in which the earth is at rest.

In other words, from the point of view of someone on Earth, the moon
is moving in an orbit around the Earth. The Earth appears stationary, but
IN REALITY the Earth is in an orbit around the sun. HOWEVER, if you want
to do mathematics, you must PRETEND that the earth is "at rest" in some
"inertial reference system."

> > But, if they use the rocket ship as a frame of reference and start talking about how
> > the earth is moving away from the rocket ship, then I say they are just talking
> > mathematical nonsense.
> No, they are stating plain facts. For example, a rocket may be at rest in terms of the Sun's co-moving inertial reference system, and of course the earth is moving at high speed in terms of that system, so the earth is moving away from the rocket in terms of the Sun's reference system, which happens to also be the rocket's reference system. These are plain irrefutable facts.

It IS NOT A "FACT" that "the earth is moving away from the rocket."
It is only "a fact" that you can incorrectly view things that way if you
have some mathematical reason for doing so.

The problem is: Such a view has NOTHING TO DO WITH REALITY.

>
> It's important to keep in mind that a statement such as "they are just talking mathematical nonsense" is not a substantive comment, i.e., it has no cognitive content. The meaning and physical significance of inertial reference systems has been thoroughly understood for over 400 years, and indeed it forms the basis of the principle of relativity, which consists of the assertion that all the laws of physics take exactly the same simple form when expressed in terms of any standard inertial reference system. The entire Scientific Revolution, beginning in the 1600s and continuing until today, was based on that insight.

It's also important to keep in mind what Einstein meant when he stated:
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain;
and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

Ed

[Ed Lake]

On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 12:42:29 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:

So, Ohio State University and all the others who explain how the
GPS system works are just "a bunch of fanatics idiots"? Only YOU
know the "truth"?

> 2)there is nothing there denying that the clocks
> of GPS are synchronized (with the precision of
> an acceptable error), i.e. measuring t'=t, like
> all serious clocks always should.

Are you a robot? You always come back to the same silly argument.
It's like you cannot think. All you can do is recite memorized slogans.

There's no point in arguing with someone who thinks anyone
who disagrees with him is a "fanatics idiot."

Ed

[Volney]

On 6/20/2022 11:06 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 16:10:56 UTC+2, det...@outlook.com wrote:
>
>> Well, good luck. Scientists work with experiments and evidence.
>
> Oh, do they, or maybe they're only asserting they do?

Peer review and attempts to reproduce the experiments would catch that.

Remember, part of the scientific method is experiments and evidence. If
they only assert they do, they aren't scientists, are they.

> Can you point any experiment demonstrating the incorrectness
> of GPS clocks?

Of course! The prototype GPS satellite, NTS-2, launched on 23 June
1977. It was launched with a remote control switch, controlling the Cs
clock divisor. It was initially in "Newton" mode, where the clock
divisor was 9,192,631,770, just like every other Cs clock in the world,
since the second was defined as 9,192,631,770 cycles = 1 second. The
downlink frequency transmitted by the satellite was 10.23 MHz, and no
corrections were made to account for general relativity. Earth stations
measured the frequency being incorrect by +443.1 parts per 10^12, which
was out of specifications. After 20 days, they set the switch to
"Einstein" mode, meaning the time dilation corrections predicted by
general relativity are accounted for. This meant the Cs divisor was set
to 9,192,631,774.1, making the downlink transmitted frequency being
10.22999999543 MHz at the satellite. It was determined the frequency
now differed from prediction by -1.9 parts per 10^12. The switch was
never set back to "Newton", all later satellites did not have any
switch, and used a divisor of 9,192,631,774.1, as general relativity
predictions were confirmed.

Janitor, I know there is some sort of flaw in your brain where you think
the results are exactly backwards, so I fully expect another flawed
response to this, because you think t'=t, since you apparently think
1/9192631774.1=1/9192631770.

[Maciej Wozniak]

OSU obviously is. All the others not necessarily.

> Only YOU
> know the "truth"?

Of course not. Even your OSU is not likely going to deny
that GPS clocks are synchronized (i.e. measuring t'=t),
and anyone can check it him- or herself.

> > 2)there is nothing there denying that the clocks
> > of GPS are synchronized (with the precision of
> > an acceptable error), i.e. measuring t'=t, like
> > all serious clocks always should.
> Are you a robot? You always come back to the same silly argument.
> It's like you cannot think. All you can do is recite memorized slogans.
>
> There's no point in arguing with someone who thinks anyone
> who disagrees with him is a "fanatics idiot."

Nobody is forcing you to. The clocks of GPS will keep
measuring t'=t anyway.
At least you've changed your mind about their incorrectness.
Most of The Shit believers don't have enough consciousness
even for that.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Den 19.06.2022 18:10, skrev Ed Lake:
> Over the years, I've accumulated a list of 12 major Time Dilation
> experiments which CONFIRM that Time Dilation is REAL, and that
> time does run at different rates for an object depending upon an
> object's speed and its proximity to a gravitational mass.
>

> Here's the link: http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html
>
> Here's the list of experiments:
> 1. Hafele-Keating
> 2. NIST Optical Clocks and Relativity
> 3. Geodesy and Metrology experiment (measuring altitude by time difference)
> 4. Muon experiments
> 5. University of Maryland
> 6. Japanese Mitaka to Norikura
> 7. Briatore and Leschiutta
> 8. National Physical Laboratory - 1996
> 9. Van Baak - 2005
> 10. National Physical Laboratory - 2010
> 11. Van Baak - 2016
> 12. Tokyo Skytree - 2020
>
> Is there anyone here who seriously claims that Time Dilation
> has NOT been fully verified by these experiments?

https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Richard Hachel]

Le 21/06/2022 à 16:22, Volney a écrit :

>> Which of Peter or Paul moves faster between Paris and Marseille?
>>
>> Peter takes five hours, Paul takes seven hours.
>>
>> Peter moved the fastest.
>
> Not necessarily. What if Paul took a longer route at a higher speed?

On voit les dégâts causés dans les forums anglo-saxons par des fous qui
reprochent qu'on n'y parle pas assez anglo-saxons.

Si c'est pour parler en anglais, je veux bien.

Mais là, je préfère parler la langue de mes ancêtres.

R.H.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Tuesday, 21 June 2022 at 17:30:09 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 6/20/2022 11:06 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 16:10:56 UTC+2, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> >
> >> Well, good luck. Scientists work with experiments and evidence.
> >
> > Oh, do they, or maybe they're only asserting they do?
>
> Peer review and attempts to reproduce the experiments would catch that.
>
> Remember, part of the scientific method is experiments and evidence.

Or, at least, some scientiosts (actually, only physicists)
are asserting it is a part of their method.

> If
> they only assert they do, they aren't scientists, are they.

Well, yes, they are, stupid Mike.

> > Can you point any experiment demonstrating the incorrectness
> > of GPS clocks?
>
> Of course! The prototype GPS satellite, NTS-2, launched on 23 June
> 1977. It was launched with a remote control switch, controlling the Cs
> clock divisor. It was initially in "Newton" mode, where the clock
> divisor was 9,192,631,770,

Stupid Mike, it's not any "Newton mode", it's worshipped by
your bunch of idiots ISO standard, announced in 1968 (afair).

> general relativity are accounted for. This meant the Cs divisor was set
> to 9,192,631,774.1

So, the experiment shows it's a correct value or shows it's
an incorrect value?

[Maciej Wozniak]

In the meantime in the real world - forbidden and announced by
your bunch of idiots as incorrect GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t,

[Ed Lake]

Your paper is about a FICTITIOUS universe where only two objects
exist. The 12 experiments listed above took place in our REAL universe
where countless objects exist and the speed of light is the highest
speed that is possible, which means all other speeds can be viewed
as a percentage of the speed of light.

Ed

[Mikko]

On 2022-06-21 17:02:19 +0000, Ed Lake said:

...

> and the speed of light is the highest
> speed that is possible, which means all other speeds can be viewed
> as a percentage of the speed of light.

The "which means" is not right. Even if something could move faster
than light its speed could be expressed as a percentage of the speed
of light: "The particle we found moved at 105% of c."

What makes it possible and sensible to express speeds as a percentage
of light speed is that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same in
every place, at all times, and for all observers.

Mikko

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

FTL aether energy does not exist.

[Maciej Wozniak]

where forbidden by your insane religion as "incorrect" GPS

[RichD]

On June 20, det...@outlook.com wrote:
>>>> And GPS clocks are - as well - BUILT to tick at the NORMAL rate.
>
>>> NO! THEY ARE NOT!!! They are built to measure a SECOND as being
>>> LONGER than how a SECOND is measured by all normal clocks.
>

> Why do you keep ignoring the link to the article OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY
> has about "Real-World Relativity: The GPS Navigation System"?
>

> https://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/pogge.1/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
> I use it as a reference. You IGNORE it. Why? Because it does not agree
> with your SILLY BELIEFS?

Where does it say "a second on earth is longer than a second in space"?

> Other articles say the same thing,

Name one anywhere who supports your SILLY BELIEF that "a second on earth
is longer than a second in space."

--
Rich