# Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again.

727 views

### Richard Hertz

May 27, 2022, 12:17:42 AMMay 27
to
Once upon the time, a cretin wrote a paper that had an assertion about time
which was bought by generations of followers who worshiped him:

"Time is what my clock shows", wrote the imbecile. And from that, he
developed a fairy tail about time and length, which plagiarized a prior paper
from Lorentz, which dismissed the expression of time as non-linear undesired
result of his pursuit of length contraction due to inertial motion.

But actually, I never read about any scientific attempt to define time, in the
following 100 years. This is because time is an auxiliary variable to describe
motion, and only has any value as a relative interval or duration. Not an
absolute mark with physical meaning.

Do the following experiment:

Sit and do nothing, except the mental effort trying to capture the pass of
time. If possible, do it in a quiet room with nothing moving. You can have
a clock, either analog or digital.

Do the following:

I) Mark a timestamp, and just allow things happens. You can move or
be still.

Do you feel the pass of time? Check the elapsed timestamp. Did it feel
real?
Now try to focus on the pass of time for one hour (set an alarm).
Once the alarm goes off, what did you experienced? Did you feel the pass
of time? Really? By the second or by the minute?

Think about what time was for you in these experiments.

II) Now repeat I) but looking at the clock all the time, sensing (but not counting)
every second as you observe the clock.

Once a time duration of the experiment (as measured by your clock), think
about time and if you felt that it was passing.

Did the pass of time had ANY MEANING to you?

Probably not. Then ask yourself WHAT THE FUCK TIME IS.

For some cretins, time is the fourth dimension of the aberration called
spacetime.

According to these cretins, you HAVE BEEN TRAVELING in the fourth dimension, moving but not moving.

Does it make any sense to you? Of course not.

But more than 50,000 cretins made a living with this shit in the last 100 years.

You don't feel an IMBECILE yet? Well, keep thinking until you really start

Then, when you're mad enough, you become A NORMAL PERSON.

It is worth the effort to BE AWAKE.

Congratulations.

### mitchr...@gmail.com

May 27, 2022, 12:19:31 AMMay 27
to
Time has different slow rates.

### The Starmaker

May 27, 2022, 1:23:23 AMMay 27
to
Time does not move...so how can it pass?

--
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

### Richard Hertz

May 27, 2022, 2:41:53 AMMay 27
to
You move through time, even when you don't realize it.

And mathematics models this motion, which has been helpful for centuries to develop a technical tool
to get practical results of such models, like letting you know where you are if you have data about original
position, velocity (3D vector) and time duration since start.

You can make a graph with your motion through time flow, which is separated from position (not the spacetime shit).

You realize that time passed because the surrounding environment changed.

It happens even if you remain sat outdoors, because Earth rotates and light and climate changes.

Time is not an illusion. You, and everyone else, have an expiration date, and a beginning.

Every living form perceives the flow of time.

### Maciej Wozniak

May 27, 2022, 3:18:21 AMMay 27
to
Time is a coordinate. A virtual abstract. Similiarly to
geographical latitude/longitude - you feel them when/
because you're trained to.

### Ed Lake

May 27, 2022, 10:08:49 AMMay 27
to
On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 11:17:42 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Once upon the time, a cretin wrote a paper that had an assertion about time
> which was bought by generations of followers who worshiped him:
>
> "Time is what my clock shows", wrote the imbecile. And from that, he
> developed a fairy tail about time and length, which plagiarized a prior paper
> from Lorentz, which dismissed the expression of time as non-linear undesired
> result of his pursuit of length contraction due to inertial motion.
>
> But actually, I never read about any scientific attempt to define time, in the
> following 100 years. This is because time is an auxiliary variable to describe
> motion, and only has any value as a relative interval or duration. Not an
> absolute mark with physical meaning.

Read my paper "What is Time?" https://vixra.org/pdf/1602.0281v2.pdf
Time is particle spin. Every atom is a tiny clock made from smaller clocks.
The particles spin at a specific rate. Motion and gravity slow that rate.

Find a location where particles spin at their fastest rate and you have found
a stationary point in empty space.

Ed

### rotchm

May 27, 2022, 10:39:25 AMMay 27
to
On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 12:17:42 AM UTC-4, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Once upon the time, a cretin wrote a paper that had an assertion about time...

Things change. We have memories of such change. Memories are also 'change'.
Time may be some measure, some parameter to describe changes or events.
How can we proceed to define a parameter (time?) that would be useful in some respect to describe changes?
Using our feelings? The motion of the stars? Something else?
Should such a definition be a quantitative one or subjective one?

So, how would YOU define 'time'?

Is there anything wrong with the meaning of 'time' as used amongst physicists?
Are they free to use whatever definition they want?
Has their use of their concept (their operational definition of time) help them
to progress, to discover, to engineer?
Would alternate definitions of 'time' be more of use to them and to make them progress faster?

etc...

(note that such questions/topics have been discussed in thoroughly for over 2000 years)

### Maciej Wozniak

May 27, 2022, 11:39:30 AMMay 27
to
On Friday, 27 May 2022 at 16:39:25 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 12:17:42 AM UTC-4, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > Once upon the time, a cretin wrote a paper that had an assertion about time...
>
>
> Things change. We have memories of such change. Memories are also 'change'.
> Time may be some measure, some parameter to describe changes or events.
> How can we proceed to define a parameter (time?) that would be useful in some respect to describe changes?
> Using our feelings? The motion of the stars? Something else?
> Should such a definition be a quantitative one or subjective one?

Most of the terms we're using remain undefined.
There are good reasons for it; but unfortunately
not comprehendable by such a poor halfbrain

>
> So, how would YOU define 'time'?
>
> Is there anything wrong with the meaning of 'time' as used amongst physicists?

Yes, poor halfbrain.

> Are they free to use whatever definition they want?

No, poor halfbrain.

> Has their use of their concept (their operational definition of time) help them
> to progress, to discover, to engineer?

No, poor halfbrain.

> Would alternate definitions of 'time' be more of use to them and to make them progress faster?

Most of the terms we're using remain undefined.
There are good reasons for it; but unfortunately
not comprehendable by such a poor halfbrain

### Paparios

May 27, 2022, 12:14:28 PMMay 27
to
El viernes, 27 de mayo de 2022 a las 10:08:49 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribiÃ³:

> Read my paper "What is Time?" https://vixra.org/pdf/1602.0281v2.pdf
> Time is particle spin. Every atom is a tiny clock made from smaller clocks.
> The particles spin at a specific rate. Motion and gravity slow that rate.
>
> Find a location where particles spin at their fastest rate and you have found
> a stationary point in empty space.
>
> Ed

Nature is what it is. We humans (being a part of Nature) do not have the ability to exactly know how and why Nature does its stuff. We have created "PHYSICAL MODELS" of how WE think Nature works, but none of those models (while quite successful) are (or represent) Nature.
We do not really know what time it is. Our best current human time operational model is that time is what a clock reads.
In Nature there are no "clocks" and there are no "meters" and also there are no "frames of reference". All of those are a product of our human thoughts and observations.
Newton saw an apple falling to the ground and got F=ma as a model of his observation.
All physical models are a result of human thoughts and observations and there is no total warranty that any of those models is completely correct. We know Newtonian Mechanics is not correct for large masses and speeds. We know General Relativity is not correct for atomic sizes. We know Quantum Mechanics is not correct for large masses, etc, etc.

### Richard Hertz

May 27, 2022, 12:14:43 PMMay 27
to

1) We, as living species, don't feel or register in any form the pass of time. We just can't, because we don't have
any internal organ or subsystem that is devoted to such a superfluous, metaphysical task.

2) We, as living species, do have subsystems that can sense "time duration" and trigger internal alarms: time to eat, time to sleep,
time to move from one place to another, etc. But, besides such "notifications", we can't feel the flow of time continuously. Only
jumps in time (expiration of time lapses, voluntarily programmed or not).
Hence, for us, time flow is meaningless. We can't feel the pass of seconds, linearly, nor even other superior scale.
We left it for "alarm clocks", either biological or technological.

3) The need to register the flow of time can be divided into spheres of influence of time on events:

- On STEM activities (Science, Technology, Engineering, Manufacturing), it's a need to measure the flow of time in analog terms.
We rely on technology to register such flow, as we can't. Then we use the results, while any task is commanded by devices, not humans.

- On civilian activities (most of what remains), we don't care about the flow of time but about lapses (time duration), and even so
we need of auxiliary systems to notify to us the expiration of the assigned time duration of whatever (or the excess above the
assigned lapse. We also depend on others to react to time-lapse expirations, humans or not. Also, depend on nature events.

- The same apply to military activities.
So, what remains are intellectual activities (like in arts, philosophy, etc.) were time is a matter of discussion: it's metaphysics.

5) The "crime at science" that Einstein perpetuated is the attempt to redefine time as dependent on MOTION, which belongs to
the first class (STEM), but the cretin TRIED to move such concept to other spheres of activities, and a bunch of retarded bought
that shit to be REAL outside of STEM sphere.

That subversive attempt to indoctrinate that "time is not what seems to be", was expanded further by Minkowski's SPACETIME.

Since that crap was brought out of the STEM sphere (and cosmology is OUTSIDE of STEM), the degeneracy of thought expanded
like WILDFIRE in the mind of some fucking LIBERALS, who dared to replace religion with metaphysics. This movement is the heart
of theories about what the Universe is and, even more disgraceful, when the Universe started and how is evolving.

So, being this my final thought about time, it's clear for me that humans don't register the flow of time (if such thing even exist), and
that such need was born due to the need of STEM sphere of activities to control cascades of events (thought as evidence that time
IS NEEDED to model reality).

Humans don't even need TIME. Cascade of events JUST HAPPEN, and we accept this and live in this way all our life. STEM require
that time exist as an analog variable that complement spatial positioning.

Humans only require to be told that different lapses expired (time duration), in order to move on and do other things.

For us, time is not a continuum, and we daily jump from one event to the next. Sometimes, they FEEL longer in time or shorter,
according to our experience of previous chain of events. But TIME, for us, has no meaning if we don't register it with "clocks".

But, some cretins are working on attosecond clocks.

### rotchm

May 27, 2022, 12:23:50 PMMay 27
to
On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 11:39:30 AM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:

> Most of the terms we're using remain undefined.

In physics, 'time' has a clear and precise meaning. Its has
a very specific definition. If you are unaware of this, then search a little on the net.

> not comprehendable by such a poor halfbrain

Namecalling doesn't help the discussion. It just shows your lack of arguments and disrespect.

> > So, how would YOU define 'time'?

> > Is there anything wrong with the meaning of 'time' as used amongst physicists?
> Yes, poor halfbrain.

Namecalling doesn't help the discussion. It just shows your lack of arguments and disrespect.

> > Are they free to use whatever definition they want?
> No, poor halfbrain.

Namecalling doesn't help the discussion. It just shows your lack of arguments and disrespect.

> > Has their use of their concept (their operational definition of time) help them
> > to progress, to discover, to engineer?
> No, poor halfbrain.

Namecalling doesn't help the discussion. It just shows your lack of arguments and disrespect.

> Most of the terms we're using remain undefined.

Good job!

### rotchm

May 27, 2022, 12:33:44 PMMay 27
to
On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 12:14:43 PM UTC-4, Richard Hertz wrote:

> But, some cretins are working on attosecond clocks.

A farmer may not need such clocks.

But some 'cretins' require sending a lot of info away 'over there', really fast.
Such clocks gives them this edge; its useful for them.
Are you still using a 300 baud modem to watch youtube?

### Maciej Wozniak

May 27, 2022, 12:40:52 PMMay 27
to
On Friday, 27 May 2022 at 18:14:28 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> El viernes, 27 de mayo de 2022 a las 10:08:49 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribiÃ³:
>
> > Read my paper "What is Time?" https://vixra.org/pdf/1602.0281v2.pdf
> > Time is particle spin. Every atom is a tiny clock made from smaller clocks.
> > The particles spin at a specific rate. Motion and gravity slow that rate.
> >
> > Find a location where particles spin at their fastest rate and you have found
> > a stationary point in empty space.
> >
> > Ed
> Nature is what it is. We humans (being a part of Nature) do not have the ability to exactly know how and why Nature does its stuff. We have created "PHYSICAL MODELS" of how WE think Nature works

You're too dumb, of course, to even notice that it doesn't
work; and that (together with the rest of your incompetence)
makes your model worthless. But it's true they're what you
think. Your screams of proofs, evidence and so on are nothing
but wishful thinking combined with plain lies.

### Richard Hertz

May 27, 2022, 12:57:36 PMMay 27
to
You are confused.

I'm mocking at femtosecond or attosecond movements in STEM to MEASURE time, not about generating
any process to move information on channels at tera, femto or atto bits/sec.

They are two completely different fields. Right now, technology provides channels running at 400 Terabits/sec, on 4 single FOptics.

Chinese Huawei, Japanese Fujitsu and French Alcatel are leading this segment in submarine FO cables, which run more than
1,000 Km without regenerators. Imagine that.

But, on other institutions that are taking care of time measurement (like BIMP, NIST, etc.), there is a movement of a group of fucking
cretins that INSIST that UTC and TAI has to be kept up to attosecond level of accuracy, FORCING the redefinition of UTC/TAI as
dependent on GRAVITATIONAL FIELD (that is the shitty einstenian theory of GR). These cretins are 5th. columnists of science, working
INSIDE institutions to indoctrinate others about the NEED to observe general relativity everywhere.

Got it?

I can clarify it further, if you need it.

### Python

May 27, 2022, 1:09:44 PMMay 27
to
Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> ... nothing but wishful thinking combined with plain lies.

content here, Wozniak. You forgot libels and insults though.

### whodat

May 27, 2022, 1:14:57 PMMay 27
to
As I wrote earlier, perhaps humans don't have the capacity to understand
how nature works, only small glimpses of the realities that surround us.

### rotchm

May 27, 2022, 1:19:17 PMMay 27
to
On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 12:57:36 PM UTC-4, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 1:33:44 PM UTC-3, rotchm wrote:

> I'm mocking at femtosecond or attosecond movements in STEM to MEASURE time,

They are not doing that to 'measure time'. See below.

> not about generating any process to move information on channels
> at tera, femto or atto bits/sec. They are two completely different fields.

Scientists (and standards bureaus) are advancing femto/atto second devices
so as to make more precise & useful instruments (to probe further our universe, say)
...and to make quicker communications...

> there is a movement of a group of fucking cretins that INSIST that UTC and TAI has to be
> kept up to attosecond level of accuracy, FORCING the redefinition of UTC/TAI as
> dependent on GRAVITATIONAL FIELD

For everyday use, such timing is overkill; farmers don't need it.
But for some people, such accuracies are desired. This won't change
the way the farmer is farming... Thus, such accuracies satisfies 'them' and farmers alike.
Its a win-win situation (in that sense).

### mitchr...@gmail.com

May 27, 2022, 1:32:27 PMMay 27
to
But time does move. A clock must have the property it measures...
a clock has time and it has no absolute rest.

Mitchell Raemsch

### rotchm

May 27, 2022, 1:33:54 PMMay 27
to
On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 1:32:27 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

Spam reported.
I incite others to do the same.

### Richard Hertz

May 27, 2022, 1:35:21 PMMay 27
to
On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 2:19:17 PM UTC-3, rotchm wrote:
> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 12:57:36 PM UTC-4, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 1:33:44 PM UTC-3, rotchm wrote:
>
> > I'm mocking at femtosecond or attosecond movements in STEM to MEASURE time,

> They are not doing that to 'measure time'. See below.

YES THEY ARE!

I put a link from the PTB Institute (Germany), where there was an official page written by this "separate group" within
the PTB. They claimed that UTC/TAI clocks at BIMP (and any other standard body) SHOULD be adjusted at the level
of 10E-18 seconds (attoseconds), having in mind the effect of changes due to THE HEIGHT at which every atomic clock
in the world was located.

When confronted with the evidence of the PTB website, Paul just dissapeared. His usual M.O. when he can't reply.

Now, you find the thread, if interested. Just search this site using "Hertz Andersen PTB UTC TAI".

I'm not going to do it for you.

### whodat

May 27, 2022, 1:38:38 PMMay 27
to
Three hundred baud may be something of a joke today, but I remember
when 300 was fast and 110 baud was more or less the standard. Once,
just for the experience, I used a terminal that printed out the input
(no screen) and one pressed a POTS telephone handset into the "acoustic
modem" to transfer data to and from an ordinary voice phone line.

When I first started reading Usenet I was using a 300 baud modem and
I had to manually dial a phone to connect to the modem on the other end,
then turn on the modem once to other end connected and hang up the phone
quickly. At 300 baud one could actually read (with a little difficulty)
streaming Usenet without using a pager.

### rotchm

May 27, 2022, 2:10:16 PMMay 27
to
On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 1:35:21 PM UTC-4, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 2:19:17 PM UTC-3, rotchm wrote:

> > They are not doing that to 'measure time'. See below.
> YES THEY ARE!

We are referring to different 'they'.

Physicists & standards bureaus are searching & experimenting ways to attain higher accuracies of their systems.
They are advancing more precise instruments. This then can be used by other individuals as per their needs.

> I put a link from the PTB Institute (Germany), where there was an official page written by this "separate group" within
> the PTB. They claimed that UTC/TAI clocks at BIMP (and any other standard body) SHOULD be adjusted at the level
> of 10E-18 seconds (attoseconds), having in mind the effect of changes due to THE HEIGHT at which every atomic clock
> in the world was located.

Yes, there are people/groups who desire this for their needs. This won't affect the farmer.

### Maciej Wozniak

May 27, 2022, 2:11:36 PMMay 27
to
On Friday, 27 May 2022 at 19:09:44 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> > ... nothing but wishful thinking combined with plain lies.
>

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying to pretend he knows something.
Tell me, poor stinker, what is your definition of
a "theory" in the terms of Peano arithmetic?
See: if a theorem is going to be a part of a theory,
it has to be formulable in the language of the
theory. Do you get it? Or are you too stupid even for
that, poor stinker?

### Maciej Wozniak

May 27, 2022, 2:12:25 PMMay 27
to
On Friday, 27 May 2022 at 19:14:57 UTC+2, whodat wrote:

> As I wrote earlier, perhaps humans don't have the capacity to understand
> how nature works, only small glimpses of the realities that surround us.

Or their gedanken delusions.

### rotchm

May 27, 2022, 2:26:12 PMMay 27
to
On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 2:11:36 PM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:

> Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
> and trying to pretend he knows something.
> Tell me, poor stinker, what is your definition of
> a "theory" in the terms of Peano arithmetic?
> See: if a theorem is going to be a part of a theory,
> it has to be formulable in the language of the
> theory. Do you get it? Or are you too stupid even for
> that, poor stinker?

You already asked this and is off topic here. Learn some respect.

### Ed Lake

May 27, 2022, 3:30:42 PMMay 27
to
On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 11:14:28 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
We don't know WHY all electrons in a location oscillate at the same
frequency, but countless experiments show they do. The same with
virtually all particles. So, "why" is not important.

We also KNOW from experiments that time slows down when a clock
is moving fast. And we know WHY.

According to Einstein, electrons gain mass when they are moved.
That results in the electron's oscillation frequency slowing down.
The more mass the electron accumulates, the slower it will "tick"
as a clock. If the electron could be moved to the speed of light,
time would stop for it. But it would also have to have the mass of
countless galaxies.

It's all explained in Einstein's 1905 paper "On The Electrodynamics
of Moving Bodies." You should try reading it.

Ed

### mitchr...@gmail.com

May 27, 2022, 3:36:06 PMMay 27
to
Can't do better than that crotch?
The measuring device must have the property it measures.
A clock must possess the time it measures. And all clocks are in motion.

### Paul B. Andersen

May 27, 2022, 3:49:38 PMMay 27
to

Den 27.05.2022 19:35, skrev Richard Hertz:
>
> I put a link from the PTB Institute (Germany), where there was an official page written by this "separate group" within
> the PTB. They claimed that UTC/TAI clocks at BIMP (and any other standard body) SHOULD be adjusted at the level
> of 10E-18 seconds (attoseconds), having in mind the effect of changes due to THE HEIGHT at which every atomic clock
> in the world was located.
>
> When confronted with the evidence of the PTB website, Paul just dissapeared. His usual M.O. when he can't reply.
>
> Now, you find the thread, if interested. Just search this site using "Hertz Andersen PTB UTC TAI".
>
> I'm not going to do it for you.

So I will do it for you:

Den 14.10.2021 20:11, skrev Richard Hertz:
>
> Excerpt from the German PTB site (Read the OP in this thread, at any case):
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Due to the relativistic time dilatation caused by the earth's gravitational potential, the SI second could only be realised by atomic clocks at sea level if no corrections were applied.

October 17, 2021 Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
> Den 16.10.2021 18:51, skrev Richard Hertz:
>>
>> What is funny (or sad) for me that Paul, the relativist, is willing to state that the German PTB site is wrong,
>> as well as the entire staff of serious and meticulous Germans involved in this subject, because HE IS RIGHT
>> and an entire official agency is WRONG!
>
> The following statement is plain wrong!:
> "Due to the relativistic time dilatation caused by the earth's
> gravitational potential, the SI second could only be realised
> by atomic clocks at sea level if no corrections were applied."
>
> I have a hard time believing that this is written by
> a "scientists at the German PTB " as you claim.
>
> So either it is written by a scientist who is extremely
> bad in expressing himself, or you have translated
> a German statement wrongly, or it is written by a journalist
> (or similar) who has tried to paraphrase a statement he
> didn't understand.
>
> I think the latter is the most probable.
> It could be a very sloppy paraphrase of a statement like
> the following (which is correct, if poorly stated):
>
> "Due to the relativistic time dilatation caused by the earth's
> gravitational potential, the UTC second could only be realised
> by SI-clocks at sea level if no corrections were applied."
>
> See below how the correction should be.
>
>>> On Saturday, 16 October 2021 at 15:17:15 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since the UTC is a theoretical time which simultaneous
>>>> in the ECI frame is the same everywhere, independent
>>>> of its altitude, (like GPS-time), no SI clock will
>>>> stay in synch with UTC unless it is at the geoid.
>>>> The point is that a clock showing UTC does NOT advance one
>>>> second per second unless it is on the geoid.
>>>>
>>>> To stay in synch with UTC a clock at altitude h
>>>> must advance â‰ˆ(1 - gh/cÂ²) seconds per second.
>>>> That's not a SI-clock.
>
> -------------
>
> The following statements of mine are simple facts
> which no scientist at the German PTB will dispute:
>
> The frequency of the photon associated with the hyperfine transition in the Cs atom in ground-state is 9192631770 Hz BY DEFINITION.
>
> So a Cs clock based on this definition will always advance one second per second.
>
> On the geoid, at the top of Mont Everest, in a satellite, on the Moon - you name it. The clock will run at its normal rate.
>
> Case closed.
>

And stays closed.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

### Richard Hertz

May 27, 2022, 4:11:59 PMMay 27
to
I didn't know that you were a relativist but, anyway, you are mixing SR with QM/QFT/QED.

1) That particles gain mass with inertial motion is a concept abandoned long time ago. First rank physicists like Okun
Even Einstein, 40 years later, dismissed this result as non-physical and void of meaning.

2) As of today, an electron is considered "a very tiny ripple in the quantum field" (a wave in the QF that has mass provided by
the Higgs boson).

3) That atoms (and their electrons) gain energy, so the hyperfine transitions change their frequency is MOSTLY produced by ROTATION
instead of linear motion. Angular momentum has to be conserved, as a law, so atoms are more energized at the ground level than
1000 meters above Earth (straight up). This is because ROTATION (without linear motion) forces that angular velocity decrease as
you gain height, if you want to be at the same x,y,z coordinate above ground.

Don't confuse this with orbital motion, which has to satisfy Hamiltonian in order to gain an stable orbit (like GPS satellites).

NOBODY wanted to explore this non-relativistic explanation, because einstenians have a fossilized mind, stuck with SR & GR.

Newton-Maxwell theories can explain this effect, IF IT IS TRUE (which I doubt, because are many variables and parameters involved).

Relativity can't provide an explanation to this phenomena, which seems to happen even with centimeters of difference in height. Also,
relativity is based on OLD PHYSICS, which NEGATES quantum physics body of knowledge. Both fields are DIVORCED.

### Maciej Wozniak

May 27, 2022, 4:26:42 PMMay 27
to
Sorry, poor stinker, you'll get as much respect from me as
you're offering to others.

### The Starmaker

May 27, 2022, 4:27:47 PMMay 27
to
Richard Hertz wrote:
> > --
> > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> > and challenge
> > the unchallengeable.
>
> You move through time, even when you don't realize it.
>
> And mathematics models this motion, which has been helpful for centuries to develop a technical tool
> to get practical results of such models, like letting you know where you are if you have data about original
> position, velocity (3D vector) and time duration since start.
>
> You can make a graph with your motion through time flow, which is separated from position (not the spacetime shit).
>
> You realize that time passed because the surrounding environment changed.
>
> It happens even if you remain sat outdoors, because Earth rotates and light and climate changes.
>
> Time is not an illusion. You, and everyone else, have an expiration date, and a beginning.
>
> Every living form perceives the flow of time.

Yeah, I can tell by looking at the gorillas at the zoo how interested
they are in in the flow of time for them...

### The Starmaker

May 27, 2022, 5:10:37 PMMay 27
to
Let me explain what "pass of time" means...

"Time is what my clock shows"

That means, if somebody tells you
it is half pass seven..
changed numbers from
1-30.

half past seven means
7,
1234567891011121314..30

changed numbers
when it reached
30
it is pass the time of 7 by 30 minutes.

But only the numbers on the clocked have changed.

Time don't pass or move.

"Time is what my clock shows"

'half pass seven is what my clock shows'

Time has not passed.
Only the mumbers
have passed from
1-30.

Boy how time flies!

WAIT WAIT. TIME DOESN'T FLY.

THAT'S JUST AN EXPRESSION!

DON'T GET CARRIED AWAY...

sit on a hot stove.

### Paparios

May 27, 2022, 8:11:29 PMMay 27
to
El viernes, 27 de mayo de 2022 a las 15:30:42 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribiÃ³:
> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 11:14:28 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > El viernes, 27 de mayo de 2022 a las 10:08:49 UTC-4, escribiÃ³:
> >
> > > Read my paper "What is Time?" https://vixra.org/pdf/1602.0281v2.pdf
> > > Time is particle spin. Every atom is a tiny clock made from smaller clocks.
> > > The particles spin at a specific rate. Motion and gravity slow that rate.
> > >
> > > Find a location where particles spin at their fastest rate and you have found
> > > a stationary point in empty space.
> > >
> > > Ed
> > Nature is what it is. We humans (being a part of Nature) do not have the ability to exactly know how and why Nature does its stuff. We have created "PHYSICAL MODELS" of how WE think Nature works, but none of those models (while quite successful) are (or represent) Nature.
> > We do not really know what time it is. Our best current human time operational model is that time is what a clock reads.
> > In Nature there are no "clocks" and there are no "meters" and also there are no "frames of reference". All of those are a product of our human thoughts and observations.
> > Newton saw an apple falling to the ground and got F=ma as a model of his observation.
> > All physical models are a result of human thoughts and observations and there is no total warranty that any of those models is completely correct. We know Newtonian Mechanics is not correct for large masses and speeds. We know General Relativity is not correct for atomic sizes. We know Quantum Mechanics is not correct for large masses, etc, etc.

> We don't know WHY all electrons in a location oscillate at the same
> frequency, but countless experiments show they do. The same with
> virtually all particles. So, "why" is not important.
>

Our "human thought" model of an electron is as follows: The electron is a subatomic particle whose electric charge is negative one elementary charge. Electrons belong to the first generation of the lepton particle family, and are generally thought to be elementary particles because they have no known components or substructure. The electron has a mass that is approximately 1/1836 that of the proton. Quantum mechanical properties of the electron include an intrinsic angular momentum (spin) of a half-integer value, expressed in units of the reduced Planck constant, Ä§. Being fermions, no two electrons can occupy the same quantum state, in accordance with the Pauli exclusion principle. Like all elementary particles, electrons exhibit properties of both particles and waves: they can collide with other particles and can be diffracted like light. The wave properties of electrons are easier to observe with experiments than those of other particles like neutrons and protons because electrons have a lower mass and hence a longer de Broglie wavelength for a given energy.

> We also KNOW from experiments that time slows down when a clock
> is moving fast. And we know WHY.
>

Actually that is completely nonsense. Moving clocks do tick at the same frequency of a stationary clock (ie 1 tick per second) but the frequency tick reading of the moving clock, when measured from the stationary clock, is lower.

> According to Einstein, electrons gain mass when they are moved.

That is also nonsense. Speed does not affect an object mass but it affects its momentum (and energy).

> That results in the electron's oscillation frequency slowing down.
> The more mass the electron accumulates, the slower it will "tick"
> as a clock. If the electron could be moved to the speed of light,
> time would stop for it. But it would also have to have the mass of
> countless galaxies.
>

Complete nonsense.

> It's all explained in Einstein's 1905 paper "On The Electrodynamics
> of Moving Bodies." You should try reading it.
>

There is nothing in Einstein's 1905 paper asserting your nonsense!!!

### Richard Hertz

May 27, 2022, 8:16:46 PMMay 27
to
LOL!

I see your DEFINITIONS (Cs hyperfine transition, speed of light, etc.) and I raise my bet to the Hubble's constant.

About 74.03Â±1.42 Km/s/Mpc (NASA Hubble 2019)
About 67.74Â±0.46 Km/s/Mpc (ESA Planck Mission 2015)

Let's DEFINE Ho = 70.0000 Km/s/Mpc. Problem solved.

NEXT!

### The Starmaker

May 28, 2022, 12:36:05 AMMay 28
to
On Fri, 27 May 2022 17:11:27 -0700 (PDT), Paparios <mr...@ing.puc.cl>
wrote:

>The electron is a subatomic particle whose electric charge is negative one elementary charge. Electrons belong to the first generation of the lepton particle family, and are generally thought to be elementary particles because they have no known components or substructure. The electron has a mass that is approximately 1/1836 that of the proton. Quantum mechanical properties of the electron include an intrinsic angular momentum (spin) of a half-integer value, expressed in units of the reduced Planck constant, ?. Being fermions, no two electrons can occupy the same quantum state, in accordance with the Pauli exclusion principle. Like all elementary particles, electrons exhibit properties of both particles and waves: they can collide with other particles and can be diffracted like light. The wave properties of electrons are easier to observe with experiments than those of other particles like neutrons and protons because electrons
>have a lower mass and hence a longer de Broglie wavelength for a given energy.

teach me, teach me, How To Cut and Paste!!!

http://clearlyexplained.com/electrons/index.html!

https://www.nuclear-power.com/nuclear-power/reactor-physics/atomic-nuclear-physics/fundamental-particles/what-is-electron-properties-of-electron/mass-and-charge-of-electron/

The wave properties of electrons are easier to observe with
experiments than those of other particles like neutrons and protons
because electrons have a lower mass and hence a longer de Broglie
wavelength for a given energy.
Electron - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org â€º wiki â€º Electron

teach me, teach me, How To Cut and Paste!!!!

All cut and paste from here???
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron

teach me, teach me, How To Cut and Paste!!!!

Is there a Cut and Paste book for Dummies???

teach me, teach me, How To Cut and Paste!!!!

You too can look like a Genius with How To Cut and Paste for Dummies!

teach me, teach me, ...

Wat a bunch of funkin phonies!

--
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

### Richard Hertz

May 28, 2022, 1:07:29 AMMay 28
to
Paparios would never plagiarize. He's a relativist, and also a Chilean EE with a PhD in Engineering.

By the way, a PhD in engineering is an absurd anglo-saxon invention to squeeze money from morons.

Engineers don't do Philosophy.

https://tu-dresden.de/ing/maschinenwesen/fsr/fuer-studierende/diplom-vs-bachelor?set_language=en

### Richard Hachel

May 28, 2022, 10:14:02 AMMay 28
to
Le 27/05/2022 Ã  19:09, Python a Ã©crit :
> Wozniak. You forgot libels and insults though.

A little modesty and good manners...

For which I thank you in anticipation.

R.H.

### Ed Lake

May 28, 2022, 10:16:39 AMMay 28
to
On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:11:29 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> El viernes, 27 de mayo de 2022 a las 15:30:42 UTC-4, escribiÃ³:
> > On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 11:14:28 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > > El viernes, 27 de mayo de 2022 a las 10:08:49 UTC-4, escribiÃ³:
> > >
> > > > Read my paper "What is Time?" https://vixra.org/pdf/1602.0281v2.pdf
> > > > Time is particle spin. Every atom is a tiny clock made from smaller clocks.
> > > > The particles spin at a specific rate. Motion and gravity slow that rate.
> > > >
> > > > Find a location where particles spin at their fastest rate and you have found
> > > > a stationary point in empty space.
> > > >
> > > > Ed
> > > Nature is what it is. We humans (being a part of Nature) do not have the ability to exactly know how and why Nature does its stuff. We have created "PHYSICAL MODELS" of how WE think Nature works, but none of those models (while quite successful) are (or represent) Nature.
> > > We do not really know what time it is. Our best current human time operational model is that time is what a clock reads.
> > > In Nature there are no "clocks" and there are no "meters" and also there are no "frames of reference". All of those are a product of our human thoughts and observations.
> > > Newton saw an apple falling to the ground and got F=ma as a model of his observation.
> > > All physical models are a result of human thoughts and observations and there is no total warranty that any of those models is completely correct. We know Newtonian Mechanics is not correct for large masses and speeds. We know General Relativity is not correct for atomic sizes. We know Quantum Mechanics is not correct for large masses, etc, etc.
>
> > We don't know WHY all electrons in a location oscillate at the same
> > frequency, but countless experiments show they do. The same with
> > virtually all particles. So, "why" is not important.
> >
> Our "human thought" model of an electron is as follows: The electron is a subatomic particle whose electric charge is negative one elementary charge. Electrons belong to the first generation of the lepton particle family, and are generally thought to be elementary particles because they have no known components or substructure. The electron has a mass that is approximately 1/1836 that of the proton. Quantum mechanical properties of the electron include an intrinsic angular momentum (spin) of a half-integer value, expressed in units of the reduced Planck constant, Ä§. Being fermions, no two electrons can occupy the same quantum state, in accordance with the Pauli exclusion principle. Like all elementary particles, electrons exhibit properties of both particles and waves: they can collide with other particles and can be diffracted like light. The wave properties of electrons are easier to observe with experiments than those of other particles like neutrons and protons because electrons have a lower mass and hence a longer de Broglie wavelength for a given energy.
> > We also KNOW from experiments that time slows down when a clock
> > is moving fast. And we know WHY.
> >
> Actually that is completely nonsense. Moving clocks do tick at the same frequency of a stationary clock (ie 1 tick per second) but the frequency tick reading of the moving clock, when measured from the stationary clock, is lower.

You definitely have problems with English. You are saying the same
thing I just said.

> > According to Einstein, electrons gain mass when they are moved.
> That is also nonsense. Speed does not affect an object mass but it affects its momentum (and energy).

And, according to Einstein E=mc2, which means there is a direct relationship
between mass and energy.

> > That results in the electron's oscillation frequency slowing down.
> > The more mass the electron accumulates, the slower it will "tick"
> > as a clock. If the electron could be moved to the speed of light,
> > time would stop for it. But it would also have to have the mass of
> > countless galaxies.
> >
> Complete nonsense.
> > It's all explained in Einstein's 1905 paper "On The Electrodynamics
> > of Moving Bodies." You should try reading it.
> >
> There is nothing in Einstein's 1905 paper asserting your nonsense!!!

A quote from page 11:

------------ quote -----------
If one of two synchronous
clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to
A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest
the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be 1/2 tv2/c2 second slow. Thence we
conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very
small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under
otherwise identical conditions.
--------- end quote -----

A couple quotes from page 22:

-------- quote 1 -------
We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an electron
moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K along the axis
of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, it is clear that the energy
withdrawn from the electrostatic field has the value
R Xdx. As the electron is
to be slowly accelerated, and consequently may not give off any energy in the
form of radiation, the energy withdrawn from the electrostatic field must be put
down as equal to the energy of motion W of the electron.

----------quote 2 -------------
Thus, when v = c, W becomes infinite. Velocities greater than that of light
haveâ€”as in our previous resultsâ€”no possibility of existence.
--------- end quotes --------------

Ed

### Ed Lake

May 28, 2022, 10:48:03 AMMay 28
to
On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 3:11:59 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
No. I'm fully aware that Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are totally
irreconcilable. And it is clear why. Prof. Lee Smolin explains it best in his
book "Einsteinâ€™s Unfinished Revolution: The Search for What Lies Beyond the Quantum."

He says, "quantum mechanics is merely '"a theory of subsystems of the universe.'"
And "the theory is wrong. It is highly successful, but incomplete."

Relativity, on the other hand, explains the workings of the universe around us,
but, so far, it cannot be used to explain the workings of atoms and particles.

>
> 1) That particles gain mass with inertial motion is a concept abandoned long time ago.

No one said anything about "inertial motion." If a body gains mass by moving faster and faster,
the motion cannot be inertial.

(snip)
> Relativity can't provide an explanation to this phenomena, which seems to happen even with centimeters of difference in height. Also,
> relativity is based on OLD PHYSICS, which NEGATES quantum physics body of knowledge. Both fields are DIVORCED.

tiny sub-systems within the universe. If you try to apply Quantum Mechanics
to the universe around us, the result is TOTAL NONSENSE.

percentages. It's about mathematics. It works, but it doesn't describe reality.

Ed

### Paparios

May 28, 2022, 10:50:43 AMMay 28
to
El sÃ¡bado, 28 de mayo de 2022 a las 10:16:39 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribiÃ³:
> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:11:29 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:

> > > We also KNOW from experiments that time slows down when a clock
> > > is moving fast. And we know WHY.
> > >
> > Actually that is completely nonsense. Moving clocks do tick at the same frequency of a stationary clock (ie 1 tick per second) but the frequency tick reading of the moving clock, when measured from the stationary clock, is lower.

> You definitely have problems with English. You are saying the same
> thing I just said.

No... you wrote above "time slows down when a clock is moving fast". In fact, nothing physical can affect the ticking of the constant speed moving clock. The ticking rate THERE continues to be 1 tick/second. The measurement of the ticking THERE, when measured HERE, is what apears to be slow (that is a geometrical projection of the moving time coordinate onto the stationary time coordinate).

> > > According to Einstein, electrons gain mass when they are moved.

> > That is also nonsense. Speed does not affect an object mass but it affects its momentum (and energy).

> And, according to Einstein E=mc2, which means there is a direct relationship
> between mass and energy.

But E=mc2 is the expression of the energy of a mass AT REST (that is when v=0). For a moving mass, the formula is E^2=p^2c^2 + m^2c^4 where p is the momentum (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy-momentum_relation).

> > > It's all explained in Einstein's 1905 paper "On The Electrodynamics
> > > of Moving Bodies." You should try reading it.
> > >
> > There is nothing in Einstein's 1905 paper asserting your nonsense!!!
> A quote from page 11:
>
> ------------ quote -----------
> If one of two synchronous
> clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to
> A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest
> the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be 1/2 tv2/c2 second slow. Thence we
> conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very
> small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under
> otherwise identical conditions.
> --------- end quote -----
>

That quote is talking about the ELAPSED TIME between events and that has nothing to do with the clock proper ticking.

> A couple quotes from page 22:
>
> -------- quote 1 -------
> We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an electron
> moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K along the axis
> of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, it is clear that the energy
> withdrawn from the electrostatic field has the value
> R Xdx. As the electron is
> to be slowly accelerated, and consequently may not give off any energy in the
> form of radiation, the energy withdrawn from the electrostatic field must be put
> down as equal to the energy of motion W of the electron.
>
> ----------quote 2 -------------
> Thus, when v = c, W becomes infinite. Velocities greater than that of light
> haveâ€”as in our previous resultsâ€”no possibility of existence.
> --------- end quotes --------------
>

Again, these quotes have nothing to do with the fact that the rest mass does not increase with speed. What it increases is the energy you have to provide to the moving mass in order to reach larger speeds (and that energy goes to infinity when you try to reach the speed of light).

### Ed Lake

May 28, 2022, 11:36:43 AMMay 28
to
On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 9:50:43 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> El sÃ¡bado, 28 de mayo de 2022 a las 10:16:39 UTC-4, escribiÃ³:
> > On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:11:29 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
>
> > > > We also KNOW from experiments that time slows down when a clock
> > > > is moving fast. And we know WHY.
> > > >
> > > Actually that is completely nonsense. Moving clocks do tick at the same frequency of a stationary clock (ie 1 tick per second) but the frequency tick reading of the moving clock, when measured from the stationary clock, is lower.
>
> > You definitely have problems with English. You are saying the same
> > thing I just said.
> No... you wrote above "time slows down when a clock is moving fast". In fact, nothing physical can affect the ticking of the constant speed moving clock. The ticking rate THERE continues to be 1 tick/second. The measurement of the ticking THERE, when measured HERE, is what apears to be slow (that is a geometrical projection of the moving time coordinate onto the stationary time coordinate).

Okay, you definitely have problems with English. When a clock is caused to
MOVE FASTER, it is NOT a "constant speed moving clock." The faster it moves,
the slower it ticks. Yes, it still ticks 1 tick/second, but a SECOND IS LONGER.

The faster you move, the longer your seconds become. It's called "Time Dilation."
You don't notice any difference, but if you can somehow compare the length of
your seconds to the length of second for something moving slower, there will
be a difference.

> > > > According to Einstein, electrons gain mass when they are moved.
>
> > > That is also nonsense. Speed does not affect an object mass but it affects its momentum (and energy).
>
> > And, according to Einstein E=mc2, which means there is a direct relationship
> > between mass and energy.
> But E=mc2 is the expression of the energy of a mass AT REST (that is when v=0). For a moving mass, the formula is E^2=p^2c^2 + m^2c^4 where p is the momentum (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy-momentum_relation).

So what? I was merely pointing out that there is a relationship between
mass and energy.

You wrote "Speed does not affect an object mass but it affects its momentum (and energy)."

If speed affects an objects energy, it also affects the object's mass. E=mc2

> > > > It's all explained in Einstein's 1905 paper "On The Electrodynamics
> > > > of Moving Bodies." You should try reading it.
> > > >
> > > There is nothing in Einstein's 1905 paper asserting your nonsense!!!
> > A quote from page 11:
> >
> > ------------ quote -----------
> > If one of two synchronous
> > clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to
> > A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest
> > the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be 1/2 tv2/c2 second slow. Thence we
> > conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very
> > small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under
> > otherwise identical conditions.
> > --------- end quote -----
> >
> That quote is talking about the ELAPSED TIME between events and that has nothing to do with the clock proper ticking.

Don't you understand English at all????

"a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly" is NOT about elapsed time!
It says the clock at the equator ticks slower than the clock at the pole.

> > A couple quotes from page 22:
> >
> > -------- quote 1 -------
> > We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an electron
> > moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K along the axis
> > of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, it is clear that the energy
> > withdrawn from the electrostatic field has the value
> > R Xdx. As the electron is
> > to be slowly accelerated, and consequently may not give off any energy in the
> > form of radiation, the energy withdrawn from the electrostatic field must be put
> > down as equal to the energy of motion W of the electron.
> >
> > ----------quote 2 -------------
> > Thus, when v = c, W becomes infinite. Velocities greater than that of light
> > haveâ€”as in our previous resultsâ€”no possibility of existence.
> > --------- end quotes --------------
> >
> Again, these quotes have nothing to do with the fact that the rest mass does not increase with speed. What it increases is the energy you have to provide to the moving mass in order to reach larger speeds (and that energy goes to infinity when you try to reach the speed of light).

You are TALKING NONSENSE. "Rest mass" cannot be "rest mass" if
the body is moving faster and faster and is NOT AT REST.

Ed

### Paparios

May 28, 2022, 12:12:57 PMMay 28
to
El sÃ¡bado, 28 de mayo de 2022 a las 11:36:43 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribiÃ³:
> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 9:50:43 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:

> > No... you wrote above "time slows down when a clock is moving fast". In fact, nothing physical can affect the ticking of the constant speed moving clock. The ticking rate THERE continues to be 1 tick/second. The measurement of the ticking THERE, when measured HERE, is what apears to be slow (that is a geometrical projection of the moving time coordinate onto the stationary time coordinate).

> Okay, you definitely have problems with English. When a clock is caused to
> MOVE FASTER, it is NOT a "constant speed moving clock." The faster it moves,
> the slower it ticks. Yes, it still ticks 1 tick/second, but a SECOND IS LONGER.
>

It is you who can't read English. Einstein's 1905 paper relates to Special Relativity, where there are AT REST bodies and MOVING AT CONSTANT SPEED bodies (that is what the speed v is, ie the speed of the moving body relative to the at rest body).

The moving clock has been built identical to the at rest clock (they are both the same design). Speed can't affect the physics the clock uses to tick at 1 tick per second. For example a GPS atomic clock is set to tick at 10.22999999543 MHz before launching. When the GPS clock is orbiting (at a hight of 22000 km) the GPS atomic clock is still ticking at 10.22999999543 MHz (see section 3.3.1.1 in https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200L.pdf). Signals emitted by the GPS satellite arrive to the ground ticking at 10.23 MHz (that is at the ground the ticking of the GPS clock is measured to be higher!!!!).

> The faster you move, the longer your seconds become. It's called "Time Dilation."
> You don't notice any difference, but if you can somehow compare the length of
> your seconds to the length of second for something moving slower, there will
> be a difference.

Nonsense. The faster you move your personal seconds continue to tick at 1 second per second (an egg continues to cook in 5 minutes).
Time dilation is the difference in the elapsed time as measured by TWO clocks.

> > > And, according to Einstein E=mc2, which means there is a direct relationship
> > > between mass and energy.

> > But E=mc2 is the expression of the energy of a mass AT REST (that is when v=0). For a moving mass, the formula is E^2=p^2c^2 + m^2c^4 where p is the momentum (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy-momentum_relation).

> So what? I was merely pointing out that there is a relationship between
> mass and energy.

No you were asserting (without any knowledge) that mass increases with higher speeds!!!!

> You wrote "Speed does not affect an object mass but it affects its momentum (and energy)."
>
> If speed affects an objects energy, it also affects the object's mass. E=mc2

Wrong. The invariant mass, rest mass, intrinsic mass, proper mass, or in the case of bound systems simply mass, is the portion of the total mass of an object or system of objects that is independent of the overall motion of the system. More precisely, it is a characteristic of the system's total energy and momentum that is the same in all frames of reference related by Lorentz transformations. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariant_mass for details.

> > > > There is nothing in Einstein's 1905 paper asserting your nonsense!!!

> > > A quote from page 11:
> > >
> > > ------------ quote -----------
> > > If one of two synchronous
> > > clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to
> > > A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest
> > > the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be 1/2 tv2/c2 second slow. Thence we
> > > conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very
> > > small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under
> > > otherwise identical conditions.
> > > --------- end quote -----
> > >
> > That quote is talking about the ELAPSED TIME between events and that has nothing to do with the clock proper ticking.

> Don't you understand English at all????
>
> "a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly" is NOT about elapsed time!
> It says the clock at the equator ticks slower than the clock at the pole.

Nonsense. You should read it again. It clearly says (see above): "If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A". There are TWO clocks. One of them is moved at constant speed in a closed trajectory (a circle). Therefore, what they compared after the clock A returns to its initial point is the ELAPSED time of the moving clock compared with the elapsed time of the not moving clock!!!!

### Paparios

May 28, 2022, 12:22:11 PMMay 28
to
El sÃ¡bado, 28 de mayo de 2022 a las 1:07:29 UTC-4, Richard Hertz escribiÃ³:

> Paparios would never plagiarize. He's a relativist, and also a Chilean EE with a PhD in Engineering.
>
My degrees are:
1) Bachelor in Electrical Engineering.
2) Electrical Engineer.
3) Master of Applied Sciences in Electrical Engineering.
4) Doctor of Phylosophy in Electrical Engineering.

> By the way, a PhD in engineering is an absurd anglo-saxon invention to squeeze money from morons.

Actually, a PhD degree is a mandatory requisite to be a professor in any university of the world.

### Paparios

May 28, 2022, 12:25:34 PMMay 28
to
El sÃ¡bado, 28 de mayo de 2022 a las 1:07:29 UTC-4, Richard Hertz escribiÃ³:
He's a relativist, and also a Chilean EE with a PhD in Engineering.
>
> By the way, a PhD in engineering is an absurd anglo-saxon invention to squeeze money from morons.
>
> Engineers don't do Philosophy.
>
A Doctor of Philosophy (PhD, Ph.D., or DPhil; Latin: philosophiae doctor or doctor philosophiae) is the most common degree at the highest academic level awarded following a course of study. PhDs are awarded for programs across the whole breadth of academic fields. Because it is an earned research degree, those studying for a PhD are required to produce original research that expands the boundaries of knowledge, normally in the form of a dissertation, and defend their work before a panel of other experts in the field. The completion of a PhD is often a requirement for employment as a university professor, researcher, or scientist in many fields. Individuals who have earned a Doctor of Philosophy degree may, in many jurisdictions, use the title Doctor (often abbreviated "Dr" or "Dr.") with their name, although the proper etiquette associated with this usage may also be subject to the professional ethics of their own scholarly field, culture, or society.

### Maciej Wozniak

May 28, 2022, 12:30:48 PMMay 28
to
On Saturday, 28 May 2022 at 18:12:57 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:

> The moving clock has been built identical to the at rest clock (they are both the same design). Speed can't affect the physics the clock uses to tick at 1 tick per second. For example a GPS atomic clock is set to tick at 10.22999999543 MHz before launching. When the GPS clock is orbiting (at a hight of 22000 km) the GPS atomic clock is still ticking at 10.22999999543 MHz

No it is not. It is 10.23, both measured HERE and measured THERE.

### Stan Fultoni

May 28, 2022, 12:38:28 PMMay 28
to
> On 28 may 2022 at 10:16:39 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> Find a location where particles spin at their fastest rate and you have found
> a stationary point in empty space.

Every spinning object obviously spins at one revolution per revolution, so we can't meaningfully compare its spin rate with itself, we must compare rates of spin, or, equivalently, clock rates, or mass-spring oscillations rates, etc., for entities with different trajectories to find which trajectory gives the fastest rate. But this requires us to be able to compare the rates of clocks with different trajectories, which leads to a problem:

Consider a region far from large gravitating bodies. To compare the rates of clocks for different trajectories, one method is to construct two rows of clocks, sliding past each other in opposite directions. The clocks in each row are mutually at rest and inertially synchronized with each other. Now, according to relativity, the elapsed time on each clock as it passes consecutive clocks of the other row is less than the difference of the readings of those clocks as they pass. Thus your proposed method of determining absolutely stationary points doesn't work, because each clock in each row runs slow in terms of the clocks in the other row.

Of course, it IS possible to find a "cosmologically stationary" trajectory at any location, but not by comparing the local rates of clocks. Rather, we can examine the frequency of the radiation from the big bang arriving from all spatial directions, and choose the trajectory that makes the frequency the same in all directions (isotropic).

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 7:50:43 AM UTC-7, Paparios wrote:
> Moving clocks tick at the same frequency of a stationary clock (ie 1 tick per second)

At best that's an empty tautology, since it is just asserting that a clock ticks once per tick, just as every object spins one revolution per revolution. This would be true in a Newtonian universe as well, so it doesn't tell us anything about the time dilation effects in special and general relativity.

> the frequency tick reading of the moving clock, when measured from the stationary
> clock, is lower.

As explained above, it doesn't make sense to talk about measuring the rate of one clock using a relatively moving clock, you must compare the rate of a clock with a system of clocks, and of course when this is done, we do indeed find that each of two relatively moving clocks runs slow in terms of inertial coordinates (system of inertially synchronized clocks) in which the other clock is at rest.

> that is a geometrical projection of the moving time coordinate onto the stationary
> time coordinate).

You're just referring to passive transformations, which don't tell us anything about the physics. The effects of relativity involve active transformations. It is very important to grasp this if you want to understand relativity.

> > According to Einstein, electrons gain mass when they are moved.
>
> Speed does not affect an object mass...

Well, the point about the slowing of proper time being related to relativistic mass (energy) increase is essentially correct, as you can see from considering (for example) the oscillation frequency of a mass-spring system in terms of different systems of coordinates.

> But E=mc2 is the expression of the energy of a mass AT REST (that is when v=0).

Well, yes, but if the mass is oscillating in a direction perpendicular to the direction of v, it's oscillating about rest in the direction of oscillation, and the applicable "rest mass" for computing the oscillation rate is the relativistic mass.

> That quote is talking about the ELAPSED TIME between events and that has
> nothing to do with the clock proper ticking.

Oh my goodness, that's not true at all. The elapsed proper time between events obviously has to do with the proper ticking (duh), and of course the relations between elapsed times are given by the integrated time dilation effect. If we square both sides of the time dilation equation dtau = sqrt[1-(dx/dt)^2]dt we get (dtau)^2 = (dt)^2 - (dx)^2, which gives the integrated proper time along any path.

### Ed Lake

May 28, 2022, 1:24:32 PMMay 28
to
On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 11:12:57 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
Okay. Your basic problem is that you cannot comprehend that "elapsed time" is
merely a comparison of accumulated times. And the way you "accumulate time"
is by counting seconds. You start a stop watch, and one minute later you stop
the stop watch. You have accumulated 60 seconds.

If you are moving, it takes longer to accumulate 60 seconds than if you are
stationary. The "elapsed time" is 60 seconds for both clocks. You seem
to understand that, but you cannot understand that WHILE the accumulations
were being performed, one clock was ticking slower than the other clock.

Einstein stated that in the quote I provided about clocks at the equator. CLOCKS
TICK SLOWER AT THE EQUATOR THAN AT ONE OF THE POLES. You ignore
that quote and only look at the part that involves ELAPSED time.

How can you not understand that, if the "elapsed times" are different between
a moving clock and a stationary clock, that is BECAUSE the moving clock ticked
slower that the stationary clock?

Is it because you FALSELY BELIEVE that, if Clock-A is moving and Clock-B
is stationary, you can mathematically reverse them and FALSELY ASSUME that
Clock-A is stationary and Clock-B is moving, thereby making only the ELAPSED
TIME important?

I consider that to be the DUMBEST belief in physics.

Einstein's Second Postulate says it is STUPID. "Light is always propagated in empty
space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the
emitting body. " That means that light is emitted from "Stationary Points in Space,"
and when you have "stationary points in space" that means that all other speeds
are relative to those "stationary points in space."

Ed

### Ed Lake

May 28, 2022, 1:35:40 PMMay 28
to
On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 11:38:28 AM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> > On 28 may 2022 at 10:16:39 UTC-4, wrote:
> > Find a location where particles spin at their fastest rate and you have found
> > a stationary point in empty space.
> Every spinning object obviously spins at one revolution per revolution, so we can't meaningfully compare its spin rate with itself, we must compare rates of spin, or, equivalently, clock rates, or mass-spring oscillations rates, etc., for entities with different trajectories to find which trajectory gives the fastest rate. But this requires us to be able to compare the rates of clocks with different trajectories, which leads to a problem:
>
> Consider a region far from large gravitating bodies. To compare the rates of clocks for different trajectories, one method is to construct two rows of clocks, sliding past each other in opposite directions. The clocks in each row are mutually at rest and inertially synchronized with each other. Now, according to relativity, the elapsed time on each clock as it passes consecutive clocks of the other row is less than the difference of the readings of those clocks as they pass. Thus your proposed method of determining absolutely stationary points doesn't work, because each clock in each row runs slow in terms of the clocks in the other row.

No. According to Einstein's Second Postulate, the speed of light is
relative to stationary points in EMPTY SPACE. And all other speeds
are relative to the speed of light. https://vixra.org/pdf/2204.0016v2.pdf

You are arguing what I consider to be the DUMBEST belief in physics,
that if Body-A is moving relative to Body-B, you can also consider
Body-B to be moving relative to Body-A. NO, YOU CAN'T!!!!!
If Body-A is moving at 1% of the speed of light, and Body-B is
moving at 2% of the speed of light, YOU CANNOT simply ignore
that fact and mathematically reverse speeds.

Ed

### Paul Alsing

May 28, 2022, 2:08:34 PMMay 28
to
On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 10:35:40 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:

> You are arguing what I consider to be the DUMBEST belief in physics,
> that if Body-A is moving relative to Body-B, you can also consider
> Body-B to be moving relative to Body-A. NO, YOU CAN'T!!!!!
> If Body-A is moving at 1% of the speed of light, and Body-B is
> moving at 2% of the speed of light, YOU CANNOT simply ignore
> that fact and mathematically reverse speeds.

Ed, this statement alone displays your complete ignorance of relativity. This is basic stuff and you have badly misinterpreted what Einstein and others have said.

You have never actually read a textbook, this much is clear...

### Stan Fultoni

May 28, 2022, 2:14:25 PMMay 28
to
On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 10:35:40 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> > Consider a region far from large gravitating bodies. To compare the rates of clocks for different trajectories, one method is to construct two rows of clocks, sliding past each other in opposite directions. The clocks in each row are mutually at rest and inertially synchronized with each other. Now, according to relativity, the elapsed time on each clock as it passes consecutive clocks of the other row is less than the difference of the readings of those clocks as they pass. Thus your proposed method of determining absolutely stationary points doesn't work, because each clock in each row runs slow in terms of the clocks in the other row.
>
> No. According to Einstein's Second Postulate, the speed of light is
> relative to stationary points in EMPTY SPACE.

Speeds can only be quantified in terms of a specified system of reference, and when Einstein said light moves in vacuum at the definite speed c he carefully specified that this statement applies to the speed of light expressed in terms of a system of reference in which the equations of mechanics (and electrodynamics) hold good. As he said, "in a vacuum light is propagated with the velocity c with respect to a definite inertial system K, and according to the principle of special relativity this applies to every inertial system".

> If Body-A is moving at 1% of the speed of light...

In terms of what system of reference? The speed of light is c in terms of every inertial reference system (see above), and every body is at rest in terms of one inertial system of reference, and it is moving at 99% of the speed of light in terms of another inertial system, and so on. You seem to think, contrary to the principle of relativity, that there is a unique local inertial system of reference. You are mistaken, as Newton and Galileo already knew. The principle of relativity is that the equations of physics take the same form in terms of every inertial reference system.

> and Body-B is moving at 2% of the speed of light...

In terms of what system of reference? Remember, the speed of light has the same value c in terms of every inertial reference system (see above). Speeds can only be quantified in terms of a specified system of reference.

### Paparios

May 28, 2022, 2:46:28 PMMay 28
to
El sÃ¡bado, 28 de mayo de 2022 a las 13:24:32 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribiÃ³:
> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 11:12:57 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:

> >
> > > > > A quote from page 11:
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------ quote -----------
> > > > > If one of two synchronous
> > > > > clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to
> > > > > A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest
> > > > > the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be 1/2 tv2/c2 second slow. Thence we
> > > > > conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very
> > > > > small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under
> > > > > otherwise identical conditions.
> > > > > --------- end quote -----
> > > > >
> > > > That quote is talking about the ELAPSED TIME between events and that has nothing to do with the clock proper ticking.
> >
> > > Don't you understand English at all????
> > >
> > > "a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly" is NOT about elapsed time!
> > > It says the clock at the equator ticks slower than the clock at the pole.

> > Nonsense. You should read it again. It clearly says (see above): "If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A". There are TWO clocks. One of them is moved at constant speed in a closed trajectory (a circle). Therefore, what they compared after the clock A returns to its initial point is the ELAPSED time of the moving clock compared with the elapsed time of the not moving clock!!!!

> Okay. Your basic problem is that you cannot comprehend that "elapsed time" is
> merely a comparison of accumulated times. And the way you "accumulate time"
> is by counting seconds. You start a stop watch, and one minute later you stop
> the stop watch. You have accumulated 60 seconds.
>

It is not that simple. The moving clock follows a path through spacetime and that path is shorter (the moving clock ticks at the same rate the stationary clock but the spacetime path of the moving clock is SHORTER). This is basic spacetime geometry.

> If you are moving, it takes longer to accumulate 60 seconds than if you are
> stationary. The "elapsed time" is 60 seconds for both clocks. You seem
> to understand that, but you cannot understand that WHILE the accumulations
> were being performed, one clock was ticking slower than the other clock.
>
> Einstein stated that in the quote I provided about clocks at the equator. CLOCKS
> TICK SLOWER AT THE EQUATOR THAN AT ONE OF THE POLES. You ignore
> that quote and only look at the part that involves ELAPSED time.
>

The actual quote is: "Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions".
Unfortunately, this is the only error in Einstein's paper. He did not know in 1905 that Earth is not a perfect sphere.

> How can you not understand that, if the "elapsed times" are different between
> a moving clock and a stationary clock, that is BECAUSE the moving clock ticked
> slower that the stationary clock?
>

We understand, unlike you, quite well the difference between a ticking rate and an elapsed time. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation:

"In physics and relativity, time dilation is the difference in the elapsed time 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). When unspecified, "time dilation" usually refers to the effect due to velocity.

After compensating for varying signal delays due to the changing distance between an observer and a moving clock (i.e. Doppler effect), the observer will measure the moving clock as ticking slower than a clock that is at rest in the observer's own reference frame. In addition, a clock that is close to a massive body (and which therefore is at lower gravitational potential) will record less elapsed time than a clock situated further from the said massive body (and which is at a higher gravitational potential)".

### mitchr...@gmail.com

May 28, 2022, 3:34:24 PMMay 28
to
We sense time by cycles of motion. Time is the temporal.
The temporal is the temporary and is the order of change.
We sense change. We sense time.

Mitchell Raemsch

### Ed Lake

May 28, 2022, 3:52:02 PMMay 28
to
On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 1:08:34 PM UTC-5, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 10:35:40 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>
> > You are arguing what I consider to be the DUMBEST belief in physics,
> > that if Body-A is moving relative to Body-B, you can also consider
> > Body-B to be moving relative to Body-A. NO, YOU CAN'T!!!!!
> > If Body-A is moving at 1% of the speed of light, and Body-B is
> > moving at 2% of the speed of light, YOU CANNOT simply ignore
> > that fact and mathematically reverse speeds.
> Ed, this statement alone displays your complete ignorance of relativity. This is basic stuff and you have badly misinterpreted what Einstein and others have said.

Or YOU have badly misinterpreted what Einstein wrote.

>
> You have never actually read a textbook, this much is clear...

Actually, I've got a collection of about 100 college physics textbooks. What
is VERY clear from studying them is that it is very rare to find TWO textbooks
which describe Relativity in the same way. I wrote a paper about how it
sometimes seems that no two college physics textbooks have the same
version of Einstein's Second Postulate. And about 95% of them have a
TOTALLY WRONG MADE UP version. The paper: https://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v5.pdf

Ed

### Ed Lake

May 28, 2022, 4:00:37 PMMay 28
to
On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 1:14:25 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 10:35:40 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > Consider a region far from large gravitating bodies. To compare the rates of clocks for different trajectories, one method is to construct two rows of clocks, sliding past each other in opposite directions. The clocks in each row are mutually at rest and inertially synchronized with each other. Now, according to relativity, the elapsed time on each clock as it passes consecutive clocks of the other row is less than the difference of the readings of those clocks as they pass. Thus your proposed method of determining absolutely stationary points doesn't work, because each clock in each row runs slow in terms of the clocks in the other row.
> >
> > No. According to Einstein's Second Postulate, the speed of light is
> > relative to stationary points in EMPTY SPACE.
> Speeds can only be quantified in terms of a specified system of reference, and when Einstein said light moves in vacuum at the definite speed c he carefully specified that this statement applies to the speed of light expressed in terms of a system of reference in which the equations of mechanics (and electrodynamics) hold good. As he said, "in a vacuum light is propagated with the velocity c with respect to a definite inertial system K, and according to the principle of special relativity this applies to every inertial system".

That quote is from when Einstein was discussing INERTIAL systems. The
math is different when using INERTIAL systems versus ALL systems.
Einstein's Relativity applies to ALL systems.

>
> > If Body-A is moving at 1% of the speed of light...
>
> In terms of what system of reference?

Obviously in terms of the speed of light as the reference system.

> The speed of light is c in terms of every inertial reference system (see above), and every body is at rest in terms of one inertial system of reference, and it is moving at 99% of the speed of light in terms of another inertial system, and so on. You seem to think, contrary to the principle of relativity, that there is a unique local inertial system of reference. You are mistaken, as Newton and Galileo already knew. The principle of relativity is that the equations of physics take the same form in terms of every inertial reference system.

Again you are only talking about INERTIAL systems. Einstein's Relativity
applies to ALL systems. He mentions INERTIAL systems when he describes
mathematical peculiarities.

>
> > and Body-B is moving at 2% of the speed of light...
>
> In terms of what system of reference? Remember, the speed of light has the same value c in terms of every inertial reference system (see above). Speeds can only be quantified in terms of a specified system of reference.

Ed

### Ed Lake

May 28, 2022, 4:18:41 PMMay 28
to
On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 1:46:28 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> El sÃ¡bado, 28 de mayo de 2022 a las 13:24:32 UTC-4, escribiÃ³:
> > On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 11:12:57 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
>
> > >
> > > > > > A quote from page 11:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------ quote -----------
> > > > > > If one of two synchronous
> > > > > > clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to
> > > > > > A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest
> > > > > > the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be 1/2 tv2/c2 second slow. Thence we
> > > > > > conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very
> > > > > > small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under
> > > > > > otherwise identical conditions.
> > > > > > --------- end quote -----
> > > > > >
> > > > > That quote is talking about the ELAPSED TIME between events and that has nothing to do with the clock proper ticking.
> > >
> > > > Don't you understand English at all????
> > > >
> > > > "a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly" is NOT about elapsed time!
> > > > It says the clock at the equator ticks slower than the clock at the pole.
>
> > > Nonsense. You should read it again. It clearly says (see above): "If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A". There are TWO clocks. One of them is moved at constant speed in a closed trajectory (a circle). Therefore, what they compared after the clock A returns to its initial point is the ELAPSED time of the moving clock compared with the elapsed time of the not moving clock!!!!
>
> > Okay. Your basic problem is that you cannot comprehend that "elapsed time" is
> > merely a comparison of accumulated times. And the way you "accumulate time"
> > is by counting seconds. You start a stop watch, and one minute later you stop
> > the stop watch. You have accumulated 60 seconds.
> >
> It is not that simple. The moving clock follows a path through spacetime and that path is shorter (the moving clock ticks at the same rate the stationary clock but the spacetime path of the moving clock is SHORTER). This is basic spacetime geometry.

If so, it is IDIOTICALLY WRONG. A moving clock follows a path that is LONGER
than the path of a stationary clock. The path of a truly stationary clock has a
length of ZERO.

> > If you are moving, it takes longer to accumulate 60 seconds than if you are
> > stationary. The "elapsed time" is 60 seconds for both clocks. You seem
> > to understand that, but you cannot understand that WHILE the accumulations
> > were being performed, one clock was ticking slower than the other clock.
> >
> > Einstein stated that in the quote I provided about clocks at the equator. CLOCKS
> > TICK SLOWER AT THE EQUATOR THAN AT ONE OF THE POLES. You ignore
> > that quote and only look at the part that involves ELAPSED time.
> >
> The actual quote is: "Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions".

Correct. Different words, same meaning.

> Unfortunately, this is the only error in Einstein's paper. He did not know in 1905 that Earth is not a perfect sphere.

That doesn't change the fact that a clock at the equator ticks slower than
a clock at one of the poles DUE TO DIFFERENCES IN VELOCITY. It only affects
GRAVITATIONAL Relativity, because it changes the DISTANCE to the center
of the earth from the equator.

> > How can you not understand that, if the "elapsed times" are different between
> > a moving clock and a stationary clock, that is BECAUSE the moving clock ticked
> > slower that the stationary clock?
> >
> We understand, unlike you, quite well the difference between a ticking rate and an elapsed time. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation:
>
> "In physics and relativity, time dilation is the difference in the elapsed time 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). When unspecified, "time dilation" usually refers to the effect due to velocity.
>
> After compensating for varying signal delays due to the changing distance between an observer and a moving clock (i.e. Doppler effect), the observer will measure the moving clock as ticking slower than a clock that is at rest in the observer's own reference frame. In addition, a clock that is close to a massive body (and which therefore is at lower gravitational potential) will record less elapsed time than a clock situated further from the said massive body (and which is at a higher gravitational potential)".

That's true, but it is also misleading. Relative velocity between two clocks
MUST KNOW which clock is stationary and which is moving (or which is
moving faster than the other). That quote does NOT say that you can just
pick which observer you want to be moving and which you want to be
stationary. Mathematicians just MISINTERPRET it that way.

Ed

### Stan Fultoni

May 28, 2022, 4:46:27 PMMay 28
to
On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 1:00:37 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> > Speeds can only be quantified in terms of a specified system of reference, and when Einstein said light moves in vacuum at the definite speed c he carefully specified that this statement applies to the speed of light expressed in terms of a system of reference in which the equations of mechanics (and electrodynamics) hold good. As he said, "in a vacuum light is propagated with the velocity c with respect to a definite inertial system K, and according to the principle of special relativity this applies to every inertial system".
>
> That quote is from when Einstein was discussing INERTIAL systems.

The quote does indeed refer to (and apply to) inertial reference system, i.e., systems of coordinates in terms of which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good (in the low speed limit). And, again, the speed of light in vacuum has the value c in terms of every such system, which conclusively debunks all your beliefs.

> The math is different when using INERTIAL systems versus ALL systems.

Indeed it is, but that is irrelevant. The relevant fact (again) is that the speed of light in vacuum has the value c in terms of every such system, which conclusively debunks all your beliefs. If you have some substantive rebuttal to this, please go ahead and say it.

> > > If Body-A is moving at 1% of the speed of light...
> >
> > In terms of what system of reference?
>
> Obviously in terms of the speed of light as the reference system.

A speed is not a reference system, and a pulse of light is not a reference system. Again, the speed of light in vacuum has the value c in terms of every inertial coordinate system, which conclusively debunks all your beliefs.

Please tell me, what is the speed of your refrigerator right now? If someone sitting in your refrigerator right now were to set up an inertial coordinate system and determine the speed of light in terms of that system, what would it be?

Science can easily answer these simple question, but you can't even begin to answer them, right?

### Ed Lake

May 28, 2022, 5:10:23 PMMay 28
to
On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 3:46:27 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 1:00:37 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > Speeds can only be quantified in terms of a specified system of reference, and when Einstein said light moves in vacuum at the definite speed c he carefully specified that this statement applies to the speed of light expressed in terms of a system of reference in which the equations of mechanics (and electrodynamics) hold good. As he said, "in a vacuum light is propagated with the velocity c with respect to a definite inertial system K, and according to the principle of special relativity this applies to every inertial system".
> >
> > That quote is from when Einstein was discussing INERTIAL systems.
> The quote does indeed refer to (and apply to) inertial reference system, i.e., systems of coordinates in terms of which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good (in the low speed limit). And, again, the speed of light in vacuum has the value c in terms of every such system, which conclusively debunks all your beliefs.

No, it just means that you do not understand Relativity. The speed of light
has a value c in every such system BECAUSE the speed of light is measured
PER SECOND, and the LENGTH OF A SECOND VARIES depending upon the speed
at which you are moving.

> > The math is different when using INERTIAL systems versus ALL systems.
> Indeed it is, but that is irrelevant. The relevant fact (again) is that the speed of light in vacuum has the value c in terms of every such system, which conclusively debunks all your beliefs. If you have some substantive rebuttal to this, please go ahead and say it.

See above. The value of c is 299,792,458 METERS PER SECOND. But the
LENGTH OF A SECOND gets longer the faster you move.

> > > > If Body-A is moving at 1% of the speed of light...
> > >
> > > In terms of what system of reference?
> >
> > Obviously in terms of the speed of light as the reference system.
> A speed is not a reference system, and a pulse of light is not a reference system. Again, the speed of light in vacuum has the value c in terms of every inertial coordinate system, which conclusively debunks all your beliefs.

No, it just shows you totally misunderstand Relativity. The speed of
light IS A REFERENCE system. Since nothing can go faster than the
speed of light, all other speeds are a PERCENTAGE of the speed of
light.

>
> Please tell me, what is the speed of your refrigerator right now? If someone sitting in your refrigerator right now were to set up an inertial coordinate system and determine the speed of light in terms of that system, what would it be?
>
> Science can easily answer these simple question, but you can't even begin to answer them, right?

The speed of light is 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND in ALL systems.
Due to Gravitational Time Dilation, however, the length of a second will be
slightly shorter atop my refrigerator than it will be on the floor.

If you disagree with the findings by the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) about that, others have performed similar experiments
to confirm it. I have a list here: http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html

Ed