info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again.
735 views
Skip to first unread message
Richard Hertz
May 27, 2022, 12:17:42 AM5/27/22
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
to be mad about this shit.
Then, when you're mad enough, you become A NORMAL PERSON.
It is worth the effort to BE AWAKE.
Congratulations.
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
to be mad about this shit.
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 AM5/27/22
to
Time has different slow rates.
The Starmaker
May 27, 2022, 1:23:23 AM5/27/22
to
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.
Richard Hertz
May 27, 2022, 2:41:53 AM5/27/22
to
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 AM5/27/22
to
geographical latitude/longitude - you feel them when/
because you're trained to.
Ed Lake
May 27, 2022, 10:08:49 AM5/27/22
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
> 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.
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 AM5/27/22
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)
> 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 AM5/27/22
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.
> 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?
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?
> 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?
There are good reasons for it; but unfortunately
not comprehendable by such a poor halfbrain
Paparios
May 27, 2022, 12:14:28 PM5/27/22
to
El viernes, 27 de mayo de 2022 a las 10:08:49 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> 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.
> 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
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 PM5/27/22
to
My conclusion about this topic is as follows:
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.
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 PM5/27/22
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
> Most of the terms we're using remain undefined.
a very specific definition. If you are unaware of this, then search a little on the net.
> 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.
> Most of the terms we're using remain undefined.
So in your reply, you had no arguments, no support, no respect. Just namecalling.
Good job!
rotchm
May 27, 2022, 12:33:44 PM5/27/22
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 are working on attosecond 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 PM5/27/22
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 escribió:
>
> > 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
> El viernes, 27 de mayo de 2022 a las 10:08:49 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió:
>
> > 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
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 PM5/27/22
to
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 PM5/27/22
to
Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> ... nothing but wishful thinking combined with plain lies.
This is an adequate characterization of your published posts'
content here, Wozniak. You forgot libels and insults though.
> ... nothing but wishful thinking combined with plain lies.
This is an adequate characterization of your published posts'
content here, Wozniak. You forgot libels and insults though.
whodat
May 27, 2022, 1:14:57 PM5/27/22
to
how nature works, only small glimpses of the realities that surround us.
rotchm
May 27, 2022, 1:19:17 PM5/27/22
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.
> 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,
> not about generating any process to move information on channels
> at tera, femto or atto bits/sec. They are two completely different fields.
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
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 PM5/27/22
to
a clock has time and it has no absolute rest.
Mitchell Raemsch
rotchm
May 27, 2022, 1:33:54 PM5/27/22
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.
Spam reported.
I incite others to do the same.
Richard Hertz
May 27, 2022, 1:35:21 PM5/27/22
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!
> 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.
Months ago, I had a serious discussion with Paul Andersen about this matter.
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 PM5/27/22
to
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.
<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/Analogue_modem_-_acoustic_coupler.jpg/220px-Analogue_modem_-_acoustic_coupler.jpg>
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 PM5/27/22
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'.
> 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!
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.
> Months ago, I had a serious discussion with Paul Andersen about this matter.
> 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.
Maciej Wozniak
May 27, 2022, 2:11:36 PM5/27/22
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.
>
> This is an adequate characterization of your published posts'
Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> > ... nothing but wishful thinking combined with plain lies.
>
> This is an adequate characterization of your published posts'
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 PM5/27/22
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.
> 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, 2:26:12 PM5/27/22
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.
> 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?
Ed Lake
May 27, 2022, 3:30:42 PM5/27/22
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
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 PM5/27/22
to
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 PM5/27/22
to
Den 27.05.2022 19:35, skrev Richard Hertz:
>
> Months ago, I had a serious discussion with Paul Andersen about this matter.
> 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.
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 ≈(1 - gh/c²) 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 PM5/27/22
to
1) That particles gain mass with inertial motion is a concept abandoned long time ago. First rank physicists like Okun
wrote about this nonsense in several papers, during a decade in the '90s. Physicists has endorsed this position for decades.
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 PM5/27/22
to
you're offering to others.
The Starmaker
May 27, 2022, 4:27:47 PM5/27/22
to
Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> 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 -- 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.
> > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> > and challenge
> > the unchallengeable.
>
>
> 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 PM5/27/22
to
"Time is what my clock shows"
it is half pass seven..
that means your clock
changed numbers from
1-30.
half past seven means
7,
1234567891011121314..30
the numbers of your clock
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"
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 PM5/27/22
to
El viernes, 27 de mayo de 2022 a las 15:30:42 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> 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, escribió:
> >
> > > 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, ħ. 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.
> 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, escribió:
> >
> > > 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.
>
> 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.
>
Richard Hertz
May 27, 2022, 8:16:46 PM5/27/22
to
I see your DEFINITIONS (Cs hyperfine transition, speed of light, etc.) and I raise my bet to the Hubble's constant.
About 74.03±1.42 Km/s/Mpc (NASA Hubble 2019)
About 67.74±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 AM5/28/22
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
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 › wiki › 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!
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.
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.
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › 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!
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
the unchallengeable.
Richard Hertz
May 28, 2022, 1:07:29 AM5/28/22
to
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 AM5/28/22
to
Le 27/05/2022 à 19:09, Python a écrit :
> Wozniak. You forgot libels and insults though.
Jean-Pierre, please...
> 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 AM5/28/22
to
On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:11:29 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
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
have—as in our previous results—no possibility of existence.
--------- end quotes --------------
Ed
> El viernes, 27 de mayo de 2022 a las 15:30:42 UTC-4, escribió:
> > 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, escribió:
> > >
> > > > 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, ħ. 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
> > 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, escribió:
> > >
> > > > 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, ħ. 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.
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).
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!!!
------------ 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
have—as in our previous results—no possibility of existence.
--------- end quotes --------------
Ed
Ed Lake
May 28, 2022, 10:48:03 AM5/28/22
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 "Einstein’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)
tiny sub-systems within the universe. If you try to apply Quantum Mechanics
to the universe around us, the result is TOTAL NONSENSE.
Relativity is about REALITY. Quantum Mechanics is about averages and
percentages. It's about mathematics. It works, but it doesn't describe reality.
Ed
irreconcilable. And it is clear why. Prof. Lee Smolin explains it best in his
book "Einstein’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.
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.
Relativity is about the Universe around us. Quantum Mechanics is about
> 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.
Relativity is about REALITY. Quantum Mechanics is about averages and
percentages. It's about mathematics. It works, but it doesn't describe reality.
Ed
Paparios
May 28, 2022, 10:50:43 AM5/28/22
to
El sábado, 28 de mayo de 2022 a las 10:16:39 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> 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).
> 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.
> > > 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.
> > > 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
> have—as in our previous results—no possibility of existence.
> --------- end quotes --------------
>
Ed Lake
May 28, 2022, 11:36:43 AM5/28/22
to
On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 9:50:43 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
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
> > have—as in our previous results—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
> El sábado, 28 de mayo de 2022 a las 10:16:39 UTC-4, escribió:
> > 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
> > 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).
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).
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.
"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
> > have—as in our previous results—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).
the body is moving faster and faster and is NOT AT REST.
Ed
Paparios
May 28, 2022, 12:12:57 PM5/28/22
to
El sábado, 28 de mayo de 2022 a las 11:36:43 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> 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).
> 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.
>
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.
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.
> 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
> > > > 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.
Paparios
May 28, 2022, 12:22:11 PM5/28/22
to
El sábado, 28 de mayo de 2022 a las 1:07:29 UTC-4, Richard Hertz escribió:
> Paparios would never plagiarize. He's a relativist, and also a Chilean EE with a PhD in Engineering.
>
My degrees are:
> Paparios would never plagiarize. He's a relativist, and also a Chilean EE with a PhD in Engineering.
>
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.
Paparios
May 28, 2022, 12:25:34 PM5/28/22
to
El sábado, 28 de mayo de 2022 a las 1:07:29 UTC-4, Richard Hertz escribió:
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.
>
> By the way, a PhD in engineering is an absurd anglo-saxon invention to squeeze money from morons.
>
> Engineers don't do Philosophy.
>
Maciej Wozniak
May 28, 2022, 12:30:48 PM5/28/22
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.
> 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
Stan Fultoni
May 28, 2022, 12:38:28 PM5/28/22
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:
> Find a location where particles spin at their fastest rate and you have found
> a stationary point in empty space.
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.
> 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.
>
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).
> That quote is talking about the ELAPSED TIME between events and that has
> nothing to do with the clock proper ticking.
Ed Lake
May 28, 2022, 1:24:32 PM5/28/22
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
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 PM5/28/22
to
On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 11:38:28 AM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote:
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
> > 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
> > 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.
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 PM5/28/22
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 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.
You have never actually read a textbook, this much is clear...
Stan Fultoni
May 28, 2022, 2:14:25 PM5/28/22
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".
>
> No. According to Einstein's Second Postulate, the speed of light is
> relative to stationary points in EMPTY SPACE.
> 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 PM5/28/22
to
El sábado, 28 de mayo de 2022 a las 13:24:32 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> 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.
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
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?
>
"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 PM5/28/22
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
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 PM5/28/22
to
On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 1:08:34 PM UTC-5, Paul Alsing 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
> 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 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...
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 PM5/28/22
to
On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 1:14:25 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote:
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.
Already explained above.
Ed
> 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
> > > 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".
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?
> 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.
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 PM5/28/22
to
On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 1:46:28 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
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
> El sábado, 28 de mayo de 2022 a las 13:24:32 UTC-4, escribió:
> > 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
> > 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.
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".
> Unfortunately, this is the only error in Einstein's paper. He did not know in 1905 that Earth is not a perfect sphere.
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)".
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 PM5/28/22
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.
> > 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.
> > > 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.
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 PM5/28/22
to
On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 3:46:27 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote:
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
> 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
> > > 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.
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.
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.
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?
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
Richard Hertz
May 28, 2022, 5:32:41 PM5/28/22
to
It bothers me big time when people CAN'T QUOTE EXACTLY what the cretin published in 1905.
This is an excerpt of the 1923 English translation of the fucking paper. It clearly states:
1) Postulate I: All laws of physics, electrodynamics and optics hold good (for SMALL values) in all the
frames of reference (INERTIAL FRAMES).
2) Postulate II: Light VELOCITY (a 3D vector) is CONSTANT (definite value) while propagating in FREE SPACE,
INDEPENDENTLY of the motion of THE EMITTING BODY!
Postulate II CLEARLY assert that c velocity in vacuum IS CONSTANT and independent of ANY REFERENCE FRAME!
You all should stick to the original presentation that the cretin did.
The value of c IS CONSTANT and INDEPENDENT of any frame of reference (moving or not). Is it clear enough?
Here is the copy&paste excerpt of the English translation (1923). If you want, the ORIGINAL version in German is available online.
Just search enough and you'll find it.
************************************************
They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of
electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.
We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”)
to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently
irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a DEFINITE velocity c
which is INDEPENDENT of the state of motion of the emitting body.
These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of
moving bodies based on Maxwell’s theory for stationary bodies. The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will
prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an “absolutely stationary space”
provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic
processes take place.
************************************************
This is on PAGE ONE OF:
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
By A. EINSTEIN
June 30, 1905
This is an excerpt of the 1923 English translation of the fucking paper. It clearly states:
1) Postulate I: All laws of physics, electrodynamics and optics hold good (for SMALL values) in all the
frames of reference (INERTIAL FRAMES).
2) Postulate II: Light VELOCITY (a 3D vector) is CONSTANT (definite value) while propagating in FREE SPACE,
INDEPENDENTLY of the motion of THE EMITTING BODY!
Postulate II CLEARLY assert that c velocity in vacuum IS CONSTANT and independent of ANY REFERENCE FRAME!
You all should stick to the original presentation that the cretin did.
The value of c IS CONSTANT and INDEPENDENT of any frame of reference (moving or not). Is it clear enough?
Here is the copy&paste excerpt of the English translation (1923). If you want, the ORIGINAL version in German is available online.
Just search enough and you'll find it.
************************************************
They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of
electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.
We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”)
to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently
irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a DEFINITE velocity c
which is INDEPENDENT of the state of motion of the emitting body.
These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of
moving bodies based on Maxwell’s theory for stationary bodies. The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will
prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an “absolutely stationary space”
provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic
processes take place.
************************************************
This is on PAGE ONE OF:
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
By A. EINSTEIN
June 30, 1905
Stan Fultoni
May 28, 2022, 5:49:08 PM5/28/22
to
On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 2:10:23 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> 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.
You are being blatantly self-contradictory. You have conceded many times that relativistic time dilation is not only far too small to account (by itself) for the invariance of the speed of light, it is also in the wrong direction, since the same time dilation applies both to approaching toward and receding from the light (c+v and c-v). To account for the speed of light being the same in terms of every system of inertial coordinates, we must account not only for time dilation, but also for length contraction and (most importantly) for the relativity of simultaneity. Without all three of these effects, relativity would be self-contradictory. And once you account for these three things, you find that inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations, and hence azre perfectly reciprocal... thereby conclusively debunking all your beliefs.
> 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.
> > 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.
>
> The speed of light IS A REFERENCE system.
No, it is not. No speed is a reference system. Speeds are defined in terms of reference systems. So a speed is not a reference system, and a reference system is not a speed. Also, per above, the speed of light in vacuum is c in terms of every inertial reference frame, thereby conclusively debunking all your beliefs. Agreed?
> 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?
>
> The speed of light is 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND in ALL systems.
Right, so what is the speed of the refrigerator? You were going to use the speed of light to tell me the speed of the refrigerator, but now you conceed that the speed of light is c in terms of every inertial system, so what is the speed of your refrigerator? You can't answer... agreed?
Stan Fultoni
May 28, 2022, 5:53:58 PM5/28/22
to
On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 2:32:41 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> This is on PAGE ONE OF:
You're just reading the abstract of the paper. The actual formal statement of the two principles (the principle of relativity and the light-speed principle) is given at the beginning of paragraph 2 of Section I of the paper.
> This is on PAGE ONE OF:
Richard Hertz
May 28, 2022, 5:58:21 PM5/28/22
to
I just post the heart of the assertions that are foundational to his further developments in the paper.
mitchr...@gmail.com
May 28, 2022, 6:00:24 PM5/28/22
to
You can say both have their own different motions in space.
Space is the unmarked.
Mitchell Raemsch
Paul Alsing
May 28, 2022, 6:02:14 PM5/28/22
to
If you are not ready to invest at least 2,000 hours reading textbooks and working and solving the problems presented within them then you will not shake the ignorance of the subject matter that you now expose here. Your call.
Right now, you don't even know what you don't know...
“The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about.”
– Wayne Dyer
Tom Roberts
May 28, 2022, 6:53:11 PM5/28/22
to
On 5/28/22 12:35 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> According to Einstein's Second Postulate, the speed of light is
> relative to stationary points in EMPTY SPACE.
You REALLY should read what Einstein wrote. He said no such thing --
> According to Einstein's Second Postulate, the speed of light is
> relative to stationary points in EMPTY SPACE.
that is purely YOUR fabrication.
In your near-complete ignorance of modern physics, when you just make
stuff up like that, it is invariably wrong. How sad.
Tom Roberts
RichD
May 28, 2022, 8:29:35 PM5/28/22
to
On May 27, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> Time is particle spin. Every atom is a tiny clock made from smaller clocks.
> The particles spin at a specific rate.
hmmm, this is a bit jumbled, Ed.
If each atom is a clock and a particle, and spins at a specific rate,
how does one measure that rate?
'rate' intrinsically implies time. Which requires a clock. So
to measure the rate, you need a clock, which is the atom itself,
which is made from smaller atoms (clocks), which have their
own rates...
Thinking about this makes my head spin -
--
Rich
> Time is particle spin. Every atom is a tiny clock made from smaller clocks.
> The particles spin at a specific rate.
hmmm, this is a bit jumbled, Ed.
If each atom is a clock and a particle, and spins at a specific rate,
how does one measure that rate?
'rate' intrinsically implies time. Which requires a clock. So
to measure the rate, you need a clock, which is the atom itself,
which is made from smaller atoms (clocks), which have their
own rates...
Thinking about this makes my head spin -
--
Rich
Paparios
May 28, 2022, 9:03:52 PM5/28/22
to
El sábado, 28 de mayo de 2022 a las 16:18:41 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 1:46:28 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > > > 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.
Well, that is no the case. Read for example the solution of the twin paradox, available with spacetime graphs at https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparadox.html
> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 1:46:28 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > > > 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.
In the (t,x) spacetime graph of the Earth twin (the left graph), the traveling twin follows a path trip of three lightyears undertaken at a speed of 3/5 c (giving a relativistic factor γ = 5/4) in both directions and with a "turnaround time" of negligible duration.
However, when the twins reunite, the path the traveling twin took an elapsed time of 8 years, while the Earth twin took an elapsed time of 10 years.
Richard Hertz
May 28, 2022, 9:11:30 PM5/28/22
to
And regarding particles spinning around atoms, QM killed that concept 100 years ago, when orbits were replaced
by probabilistic clouds describing chances to find electrons within their 3D volumes. Watch some CGI on YT.
So far, for physics nothing is orbiting atoms. And even not "solid"particles are in there.
For QFT, you have probabilistic clouds or "ripples in the quantum field" around nucleus, and any timing is meaningless down there.
As I wrote many times here, what happens down 1 Armstrong (10E-10mt) is forbidden for humans to merely grasp.
So, statistics started to be used 100 years ago (Thanks, Max Born) to explain atom's electric neutrality, valence electrons and so.
Even "free" electrons are subjected to statistical laws and probabilities (Heisenberg's uncertainty, etc.).
Maybe you should stay with Einstein's "time is what my clock shows", and use the best Swiss mechanical clock, down to 1 second.
This "understanding" of time will cure your anxiety for life.
mitchr...@gmail.com
May 28, 2022, 11:18:07 PM5/28/22
to
On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 6:11:30 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 9:29:35 PM UTC-3, RichD wrote:
> > On May 27, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> > > Time is particle spin. Every atom is a tiny clock made from smaller clocks.
> > > The particles spin at a specific rate.
> >
> > hmmm, this is a bit jumbled, Ed.
> >
> > If each atom is a clock and a particle, and spins at a specific rate,
> > how does one measure that rate?
> >
> > 'rate' intrinsically implies time. Which requires a clock. So
> > to measure the rate, you need a clock, which is the atom itself,
> > which is made from smaller atoms (clocks), which have their
> > own rates...
> >
> > Thinking about this makes my head spin -
> >
> > --
> > Rich
> Then stop thinking about time measurement, provided that what time is remains unknown.
>
It is known. Time or temporal order is change. And change has rate.
> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 9:29:35 PM UTC-3, RichD wrote:
> > On May 27, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> > > Time is particle spin. Every atom is a tiny clock made from smaller clocks.
> > > The particles spin at a specific rate.
> >
> > hmmm, this is a bit jumbled, Ed.
> >
> > If each atom is a clock and a particle, and spins at a specific rate,
> > how does one measure that rate?
> >
> > 'rate' intrinsically implies time. Which requires a clock. So
> > to measure the rate, you need a clock, which is the atom itself,
> > which is made from smaller atoms (clocks), which have their
> > own rates...
> >
> > Thinking about this makes my head spin -
> >
> > --
> > Rich
> Then stop thinking about time measurement, provided that what time is remains unknown.
>
Mitchell Raemsch
Richard Hertz
May 28, 2022, 11:31:08 PM5/28/22
to
- Around 1917, in Chaplin's time, rate was 14 frames/sec. Humans noticed that rate as not normal, but funny.
- Around 1940, in Rita Hayworth's time, rate was 24 frames/sec. Humans perceived motion pictures as capturing nature rate.
- Around 2000, in Neo's Matrix movies, rate was 60 frames/sec. Humans stopped having headaches and sore eyes.
- Around 2010, in 2012 movie, rate was 120 frames/sec. Humans started having headaches again, sore eyes, and dizziness (Blue-Ray).
- Around 2015, in live football games, rate was 240 frames/sec. Symptoms persisted, but ghost trails in sudden movements dissapeared.
Which rate of change is enough for humans, after 100 years of experience with the capture of motion in movies?
Is this problem somehow related to physics? Maybe we should focus on BIOPHYSICS.
The Starmaker
May 29, 2022, 2:44:40 AM5/29/22
to
Ed Lake wrote:
>
> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 9:50:43 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > El sábado, 28 de mayo de 2022 a las 10:16:39 UTC-4, escribió:
>
> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 9:50:43 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > > 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.
How longer? 2 seconds longer??
>
> 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.
I mean, why does a twin need to get on a rocket ship, make a long trip, and turn around and come back
when he can simply find out if the time dilation cause a long second a ...second later?
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.
The Starmaker
May 29, 2022, 2:53:16 AM5/29/22
to
Ed Lake wrote:
>
> 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, escribió:
>
> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:11:29 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > > 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, escribió:
> > > >
> > > > > 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
> > > > > Find a location where particles spin at their fastest rate and you have found
> > > > > a stationary point in empty space.
> > > > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
>
> > > 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.
>
>
> > > 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.
According to The Code: 'In the beggining, God created the heavens and the earth.'
> And, according to Einstein E=mc2, which means there is a direct relationship
> between mass and energy.
...which means there is a direct relationship heavens (energy) and the earth (mass).
The operative words are "and the", meaning jointly, together with, including, part of each other....(if you know English)
Ed Lake
May 29, 2022, 11:32:11 AM5/29/22
to
On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 4:32:41 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
> It bothers me big time when people CAN'T QUOTE EXACTLY what the cretin published in 1905.
>
> This is an excerpt of the 1923 English translation of the fucking paper. It clearly states:
>
> 1) Postulate I: All laws of physics, electrodynamics and optics hold good (for SMALL values) in all the
> frames of reference (INERTIAL FRAMES).
Wow! It really takes an INSANE person to declare something is from Einstein's
> It bothers me big time when people CAN'T QUOTE EXACTLY what the cretin published in 1905.
>
> This is an excerpt of the 1923 English translation of the fucking paper. It clearly states:
>
> 1) Postulate I: All laws of physics, electrodynamics and optics hold good (for SMALL values) in all the
> frames of reference (INERTIAL FRAMES).
1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" when there is nothing like it
in that paper. It's just CRAP that you made up!
Here's a link to Einstein's paper: https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
>
> 2) Postulate II: Light VELOCITY (a 3D vector) is CONSTANT (definite value) while propagating in FREE SPACE,
> INDEPENDENTLY of the motion of THE EMITTING BODY!
>
> Postulate II CLEARLY assert that c velocity in vacuum IS CONSTANT and independent of ANY REFERENCE FRAME!
with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the
emitting body."
Velocity c is NOT a "constant" since it is a speed PER SECOND and
the length of a second will vary if the speed or gravity changes.
And Einstein's Second Postulate says NOTHING about "any reference frame."
It is only about the state of motion of THE EMITTING BODY.
>
> You all should stick to the original presentation that the cretin did.
>
> The value of c IS CONSTANT and INDEPENDENT of any frame of reference (moving or not). Is it clear enough?
>
> Here is the copy&paste excerpt of the English translation (1923). If you want, the ORIGINAL version in German is available online.
> Just search enough and you'll find it.
>
> ************************************************
> They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of
> electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.
>
> We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”)
> to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently
> irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a DEFINITE velocity c
> which is INDEPENDENT of the state of motion of the emitting body.
>
> These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of
> moving bodies based on Maxwell’s theory for stationary bodies. The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will
> prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an “absolutely stationary space”
> provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic
> processes take place.
> ************************************************
> This is on PAGE ONE OF:
>
> ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
> By A. EINSTEIN
> June 30, 1905
are the correct version?
Ed
Ed Lake
May 29, 2022, 12:10:06 PM5/29/22
to
On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 4:49:08 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote:
to do with time dilation. They have to do with some object moving toward or
away from an oncoming photon.
> To account for the speed of light being the same in terms of every system of inertial coordinates, we must account not only for time dilation, but also for length contraction and (most importantly) for the relativity of simultaneity. Without all three of these effects, relativity would be self-contradictory. And once you account for these three things, you find that inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations, and hence azre perfectly reciprocal... thereby conclusively debunking all your beliefs.
The speed of light is NOT the same in "every system of inertial coordinates."
It is MEASURED to be the same INSIDE each system, but when comparing
BETWEEN systems, the speed of light can be different due to the LENGTH OF
A SECOND being variable.
> > > 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.
> >
> > The speed of light IS A REFERENCE system.
> No, it is not. No speed is a reference system. Speeds are defined in terms of reference systems. So a speed is not a reference system, and a reference system is not a speed. Also, per above, the speed of light in vacuum is c in terms of every inertial reference frame, thereby conclusively debunking all your beliefs. Agreed?
No. Reference systems pertain to MATHEMATICS. REALITY can be very
different from mathematics, if your rules for math do not agree with reality.
The point is that, IN REALITY, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.
That means that speeds for everything else MUST BE a percentage of the
> > > Please tell me, what is the speed of your refrigerator right now?
> You see? You could not even answer this question. Your inability to answer even the simplest questions reveals that your ideas don't work. Agreed?
The speed of my refrigerator depends upon what you are comparing
that speed against. If it is relative to the wall, its speed is zero. If it
is relative to a refrigerator on the North Pole, my refrigerator is moving
at about 700 mph as the earth spins on its axis.
> > 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?
> >
> > The speed of light is 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND in ALL systems.
> Right, so what is the speed of the refrigerator? You were going to use the speed of light to tell me the speed of the refrigerator, but now you conceed that the speed of light is c in terms of every inertial system, so what is the speed of your refrigerator? You can't answer... agreed?
The speed of my refrigerator relative to the speed of light is zero, IF
the light you are talking about is from the light bulb inside my
refrigerator. Light emitted by the bulb inside the refrigerator travels
at 299,792,458 meters per second.
At the same time, however, my refrigerator is moving at about 700 mph
as the earth spins on its axis, and at 67,000 mph as the earth orbits the
sun, and at 486,000 mph as the sun orbits the center of the Milky Way
galaxy. So, my refrigerator is moving at over 500,000 mph relative to some
stationary point in space. That is about 0.10006922855945% of the
speed of light at that stationary point in space.
But, I see your point. While everything moves relative to the maximum
allowed speed in the universe, using that to do calculations is almost
impossible. I ONLY use it to point out that speeds are NOT relative
to anything you want them to be relative to. If Object-A is moving
faster than Object-B, you cannot simply decide that that also means
that Object-B is moving faster than Object-A if you decide you want
things that way.
Ed
> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 2:10:23 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > 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.
> You are being blatantly self-contradictory. You have conceded many times that relativistic time dilation is not only far too small to account (by itself) for the invariance of the speed of light, it is also in the wrong direction, since the same time dilation applies both to approaching toward and receding from the light (c+v and c-v).
Wow! You are WILDLY misinterpreting something. c+v and c-v have NOTHING
> > 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.
> You are being blatantly self-contradictory. You have conceded many times that relativistic time dilation is not only far too small to account (by itself) for the invariance of the speed of light, it is also in the wrong direction, since the same time dilation applies both to approaching toward and receding from the light (c+v and c-v).
to do with time dilation. They have to do with some object moving toward or
away from an oncoming photon.
> To account for the speed of light being the same in terms of every system of inertial coordinates, we must account not only for time dilation, but also for length contraction and (most importantly) for the relativity of simultaneity. Without all three of these effects, relativity would be self-contradictory. And once you account for these three things, you find that inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations, and hence azre perfectly reciprocal... thereby conclusively debunking all your beliefs.
It is MEASURED to be the same INSIDE each system, but when comparing
BETWEEN systems, the speed of light can be different due to the LENGTH OF
A SECOND being variable.
> > > 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.
> >
> > The speed of light IS A REFERENCE system.
> No, it is not. No speed is a reference system. Speeds are defined in terms of reference systems. So a speed is not a reference system, and a reference system is not a speed. Also, per above, the speed of light in vacuum is c in terms of every inertial reference frame, thereby conclusively debunking all your beliefs. Agreed?
different from mathematics, if your rules for math do not agree with reality.
The point is that, IN REALITY, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.
That means that speeds for everything else MUST BE a percentage of the
speed of light.
> > Since nothing can go faster than the speed of light, all other speeds
> > are a PERCENTAGE of the speed of light.
> Thanks makes no sense. Even if objects could go faster than light, you could still express their speeds as fractions, such as 5/4, of any specified numerical value... that's just a trivial choice of units, it does not serve as a reference system in terms of which the speed of an object can be expressed. Remember, the speed of light has the same value in terms of every inertial reference system.
You just demonstrated that math can be pure NONSENSE.
> > Since nothing can go faster than the speed of light, all other speeds
> > are a PERCENTAGE of the speed of light.
> Thanks makes no sense. Even if objects could go faster than light, you could still express their speeds as fractions, such as 5/4, of any specified numerical value... that's just a trivial choice of units, it does not serve as a reference system in terms of which the speed of an object can be expressed. Remember, the speed of light has the same value in terms of every inertial reference system.
> > > Please tell me, what is the speed of your refrigerator right now?
> You see? You could not even answer this question. Your inability to answer even the simplest questions reveals that your ideas don't work. Agreed?
that speed against. If it is relative to the wall, its speed is zero. If it
is relative to a refrigerator on the North Pole, my refrigerator is moving
at about 700 mph as the earth spins on its axis.
> > 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?
> >
> > The speed of light is 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND in ALL systems.
> Right, so what is the speed of the refrigerator? You were going to use the speed of light to tell me the speed of the refrigerator, but now you conceed that the speed of light is c in terms of every inertial system, so what is the speed of your refrigerator? You can't answer... agreed?
the light you are talking about is from the light bulb inside my
refrigerator. Light emitted by the bulb inside the refrigerator travels
at 299,792,458 meters per second.
At the same time, however, my refrigerator is moving at about 700 mph
as the earth spins on its axis, and at 67,000 mph as the earth orbits the
sun, and at 486,000 mph as the sun orbits the center of the Milky Way
galaxy. So, my refrigerator is moving at over 500,000 mph relative to some
stationary point in space. That is about 0.10006922855945% of the
speed of light at that stationary point in space.
But, I see your point. While everything moves relative to the maximum
allowed speed in the universe, using that to do calculations is almost
impossible. I ONLY use it to point out that speeds are NOT relative
to anything you want them to be relative to. If Object-A is moving
faster than Object-B, you cannot simply decide that that also means
that Object-B is moving faster than Object-A if you decide you want
things that way.
Ed
Richard Hertz
May 29, 2022, 12:17:01 PM5/29/22
to
And the above is because I consider myself a VERY HONEST PERSON!. And doing such stupidity is UNTHINKABLE for me.
Being almost 68 years old, one of the few things of which I'm proud of is MY HONESTY, intellectual and in any other area of life.
I think that you misunderstood the initial part of the post, where I inserted my OWN COMMENT within the quoted text. I did that
for the sake of CLARITY, nothing else.
As a proof, I copied and paste THE ENTIRE SECTION from the PDF files, at the end of my post, without a single modification.
If you didn't like my clarifications, like inserting (a 3D vector) after Einstein's "light velocity" or CONSTANT before Einstein's
"definite value", then IT IS YOUR PROBLEM, Ed (or whichever your name is).
When you were attacked by the pack of hyenas many months ago (Bodkin in particular), I wrote a post DEFENDING your persona
against those vile attacks. I'm starting to regret my action by then.
Don't ever try to comment SHIT about me again.
For me, you can keep your understanding of relativity (WRONG ONE) and keep posting RIDICULOUS CLAIMS.
Even when not a relativist, my understanding of it (in particular the 1905 paper) IS ABSOLUTE. I master the meaning
of every single comment that THE CRETIN wrote, with help of many. I even compared 1:1 the German to English translation,
and I parsed and correlated the fucking paper with the one of Lorentz, one year before. I wrote several posts, showing HOW
AND FROM WHERE Einstein plagiarized Lorentz, in particular on the topics around the electron.
I never found at any of your posts something posing intellectual depth.
I'm done with you, and I have no use for you. Keep playing with your relativity.
That's final.
Ed Lake
May 29, 2022, 12:20:00 PM5/29/22
to
definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the
emitting body."
So, it doesn't make any difference how fast the emitting body is moving,
emitting body."
light will always travel at 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND.
You are correct, however. I didn't mean to write that "the SPEED of light
is relative to stationary points in empty space." It can be measured that
way, but it is more correct to say that when light is EMITTED, it is EMITTED
from a stationary point in space. HOWEVER, its speed will depend upon the
speed of the emitter relative to that stationary point in space. The faster
the emitter is traveling, the longer a second will be for the emitter, and
light will travel at 299,792,458 meters PER THAT LONGER SECOND.
Ed
Ed Lake
May 29, 2022, 12:34:00 PM5/29/22
to
On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 7:29:35 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote:
A day was one rotation of the earth, from noon until noon. Then they
divided a day into hours, and hours in to minutes, and minutes into seconds.
But the earth doesn't rotate exactly 365 times a year. So, scientists
converted a second into something that is always the same. A second is
now defined this way:
"Since 1967, the second has been defined as exactly "the duration of
9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition
between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133
atom" (at a temperature of 0 K and at mean sea level)."
It's the official standard. All spin rates for particles can be measured
using that standard for a second.
>
> 'rate' intrinsically implies time. Which requires a clock. So
> to measure the rate, you need a clock, which is the atom itself,
> which is made from smaller atoms (clocks), which have their
> own rates...
Just use the standard for a second. All clocks which tick at steady
rates should tick at a specific rate relative to the standard. Every TYPE
of clock might tick at a different rate, but by using the standard you can
compare one rate to another.
Good question.
Ed
> On May 27, wrote:
> > Time is particle spin. Every atom is a tiny clock made from smaller clocks.
> > The particles spin at a specific rate.
>
> hmmm, this is a bit jumbled, Ed.
>
> If each atom is a clock and a particle, and spins at a specific rate,
> how does one measure that rate?
You choose a "standard." A long time ago, they divided a day into 24 hours.
> > Time is particle spin. Every atom is a tiny clock made from smaller clocks.
> > The particles spin at a specific rate.
>
> hmmm, this is a bit jumbled, Ed.
>
> If each atom is a clock and a particle, and spins at a specific rate,
> how does one measure that rate?
A day was one rotation of the earth, from noon until noon. Then they
divided a day into hours, and hours in to minutes, and minutes into seconds.
But the earth doesn't rotate exactly 365 times a year. So, scientists
converted a second into something that is always the same. A second is
now defined this way:
"Since 1967, the second has been defined as exactly "the duration of
9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition
between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133
atom" (at a temperature of 0 K and at mean sea level)."
It's the official standard. All spin rates for particles can be measured
using that standard for a second.
>
> 'rate' intrinsically implies time. Which requires a clock. So
> to measure the rate, you need a clock, which is the atom itself,
> which is made from smaller atoms (clocks), which have their
> own rates...
rates should tick at a specific rate relative to the standard. Every TYPE
of clock might tick at a different rate, but by using the standard you can
compare one rate to another.
Good question.
Ed
Ed Lake
May 29, 2022, 12:53:22 PM5/29/22
to
On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 8:03:52 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
So what? That web page says, "In this case the Earth-bound twin (EBT) finds that it takes
the traveling twin (TT) five years to reach the destination and five years to return for
a total of ten years. During this time the TT's clocks run slow by a factor of 1/γ = 4/5
so that the TT ages by eight years, four years on each leg of the journey, and is,
therefore, two years younger at the reunion."
The difference in "elapsed time" is due to the fact that time ran slower for the
traveling twin. "the TT's clocks run slow by a factor of 1/γ = 4/5 "
How can you not understand that?
Ed
the traveling twin (TT) five years to reach the destination and five years to return for
a total of ten years. During this time the TT's clocks run slow by a factor of 1/γ = 4/5
so that the TT ages by eight years, four years on each leg of the journey, and is,
therefore, two years younger at the reunion."
The difference in "elapsed time" is due to the fact that time ran slower for the
traveling twin. "the TT's clocks run slow by a factor of 1/γ = 4/5 "
How can you not understand that?
Ed
Stan Fultoni
May 29, 2022, 1:20:58 PM5/29/22
to
On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 9:10:06 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> > > 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.
> > You are being blatantly self-contradictory. You have conceded many times that relativistic time dilation is not only far too small to account (by itself) for the invariance of the speed of light, it is also in the wrong direction, since the same time dilation applies both to approaching toward and receding from the light (c+v and c-v).
>
> > > 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.
> > You are being blatantly self-contradictory. You have conceded many times that relativistic time dilation is not only far too small to account (by itself) for the invariance of the speed of light, it is also in the wrong direction, since the same time dilation applies both to approaching toward and receding from the light (c+v and c-v).
>
> c+v and c-v have NOTHING to do with time dilation.
Look up above in your previous quote, where you claimed the speed of light has the value c in every inertial system because the length of a second varies. When you say “the length of a second varies depending on speed”, you are referring to time dilation, right? And when you say time dilation results in the speed of light being c in every inertial frame, you are trying to explain why the speed of light is c rather than c+v or c-v for a system moving toward or away from the light at speed v, right?
So, now that I’ve explained to you what you said, and assuming you meant what you said, look again at my reply, which points out that you yourself have already conceded that time dilation cannot account for why the speed of light has the value c in terms of every inertial reference system. There, I say again: You are being blatantly self-contradictory.
> The speed of light is NOT the same in "every system of inertial coordinates."
> 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.
> The speed of my refrigerator depends upon what you are comparing
> that speed against. If it is relative to the wall, its speed is zero. If it
> is relative to a refrigerator on the North Pole, my refrigerator is moving
> at about 700 mph as the earth spins on its axis.
> If it is relative to a refrigerator on the North Pole, my refrigerator is moving
> at about 700 mph as the earth spins on its axis.
You’re agreed that you can define a reference system in which the North Pole is at rest, and you can also define a reference system in which your kitchen is at rest, and another in which the Sun is at rest, and another in which object A is at rest, and another in which object B is at rest, and so on. So all your earlier remarks, in which you vociferously denied all this, were blatantly wrong. Agreed?
> The speed of my refrigerator relative to the speed of light is zero, IF
> the light you are talking about is from the light bulb inside my
> refrigerator.
> At the same time, however, my refrigerator is moving at about 700 mph
> as the earth spins on its axis, and at 67,000 mph as the earth orbits the
> sun, and at 486,000 mph as the sun orbits the center of the Milky Way
> galaxy. So, my refrigerator is moving at over 500,000 mph relative to some
> stationary point in space. That is about 0.10006922855945% of the
> speed of light at that stationary point in space.
Again, the existence of the CMBR isotropic frame doesn't in any way negate the fact that we can (and do) define systems of reference in a variety of way, and the fact that local inertial reference frames are reciprocally related by Lorentz transformations, which entail length contraction, time dilation, and the relativity of simultaneity. Agreed?
> If Object-A is moving faster than Object-B…
In terms of what system of reference? The local isotropic CMBR frame? Or your kitchen’s frame? Or the inertial frame in which the North Pole is at rest? Or in which the Sun is at rest? Or in which A is at rest? Or in which B is at rest? (What is "object A" is the sun?).
> you cannot simply decide that that also means that Object-B is moving
In terms of what system of reference? Obviously in terms of your kitchen’s reference system your refrigerator has velocity 0 and the refrigerator at the north pole is moving rapidly, but in terms of the system of reference in which the north pole is stationary that refrigerator has velocity 0 and your refrigerator is moving rapidly. You already agreed to this… but of course you also denied it… and then agreed with it… and then denied it… You seem very conflicted about all this.
Richard Hertz
May 29, 2022, 2:02:59 PM5/29/22
to
On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 1:17:42 AM UTC-3, 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.
>
> 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
> to be mad about this shit.
>
> Then, when you're mad enough, you become A NORMAL PERSON.
>
> It is worth the effort to BE AWAKE.
>
> Congratulations.
Sad to see how the topic of this thread has derailed, because relativists can't stand to THINK beyond the fucking
1905 paper.
Now, it turned into a discussion of the twins' paradox, speed of light and similar subjects again and again and again.
And this happens when people, indoctrinated to the core with SR, can't think beyond their noses.
Pathetic show of fossilized minds, stuck in the doctrines of a cult.
Nobody seems to be capable to discuss the concept of time in the quantum world or in the entire universe.
It's a pity, but a predictable behavior. There is a narrative, consolidated for decades, and there is not any intellectual capability
at this forum to discuss things that are detached from such narrative, which provides a comfort zone for mentally weakened snowflakes.
> 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
> to be mad about this shit.
>
> Then, when you're mad enough, you become A NORMAL PERSON.
>
> It is worth the effort to BE AWAKE.
>
> Congratulations.
Sad to see how the topic of this thread has derailed, because relativists can't stand to THINK beyond the fucking
1905 paper.
Now, it turned into a discussion of the twins' paradox, speed of light and similar subjects again and again and again.
And this happens when people, indoctrinated to the core with SR, can't think beyond their noses.
Pathetic show of fossilized minds, stuck in the doctrines of a cult.
Nobody seems to be capable to discuss the concept of time in the quantum world or in the entire universe.
It's a pity, but a predictable behavior. There is a narrative, consolidated for decades, and there is not any intellectual capability
at this forum to discuss things that are detached from such narrative, which provides a comfort zone for mentally weakened snowflakes.
The Starmaker
May 29, 2022, 2:37:45 PM5/29/22
to
The Starmaker
May 29, 2022, 2:42:22 PM5/29/22
to
The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Ed Lake wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 9:50:43 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > > El sábado, 28 de mayo de 2022 a las 10:16:39 UTC-4, escribió:
> > > > 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.
>
> How longer? 2 seconds longer??
1 and 3/4ths longer?
>
> Ed Lake wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 9:50:43 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > > El sábado, 28 de mayo de 2022 a las 10:16:39 UTC-4, escribió:
> > > > 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.
>
> How longer? 2 seconds longer??
I get it. It's a number between one and two, right?
1.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999?
longer?
i still gots room for more 999999999999999999999...
The Starmaker
May 29, 2022, 3:01:45 PM5/29/22
to
Now then, Now now.
Another thing...
if you ask Google what is the age of the earth today, you get the number 4.543 billion years.
But that number was derived in..1953.
1953???? You mean to tell me no progress has been made in Science since 1953????
Maybe it is now allowed for you to think pass 4.543 billion years.
You need permission. From who??? CRANKS?
Ed Lake
May 29, 2022, 3:03:05 PM5/29/22
to
On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 11:17:01 AM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
Sorry. When I come on this forum, I just already know how certain people
think, like Paparios, tjrob137 and Odd Bodkin. Most others are people whose
past arguments I do not remember. So, when they have an argument that
makes no sense, I respond to all of them in basically the same way.
When you posted this AS Einstein's Second Postulate, it was clear that is
is NOT what Einstein wrote: "Postulate II: Light VELOCITY (a 3D vector) is
why I'm on this forum: to discuss Relativity with others who may disagree
with me, in hopes that my own thinking may be clarified in the process.
Ed
think, like Paparios, tjrob137 and Odd Bodkin. Most others are people whose
past arguments I do not remember. So, when they have an argument that
makes no sense, I respond to all of them in basically the same way.
When you posted this AS Einstein's Second Postulate, it was clear that is
is NOT what Einstein wrote: "Postulate II: Light VELOCITY (a 3D vector) is
CONSTANT (definite value) while propagating in FREE SPACE,
INDEPENDENTLY of the motion of THE EMITTING BODY!"
But arguing about this has caused me to do some rethinking. That's
INDEPENDENTLY of the motion of THE EMITTING BODY!"
why I'm on this forum: to discuss Relativity with others who may disagree
with me, in hopes that my own thinking may be clarified in the process.
Ed
Paparios
May 29, 2022, 3:10:25 PM5/29/22
to
Therefore, the traveling twin follows through spacetime a path which appear to be larger than the path the twin at Earth follows (which is the t axis where x=0). However tha path through spacetime of the traveling twin takes 8 years, while the Earth twin takes 10 years to the point where they both meet again.
Notice also how periodically (once per year) the Earth twin sends messages to the traveling twin (for instance at the first aniversary Earth twin sends a message which is received by the traveling twin when he has traveled 2 years, follow the red lines). Notice how the rate of those messages becomes shorter when the traveling twin is coming back to Earth. The blue lines are the yearly messages the traveling twin sends back to Earth.
As the traveling twin speed is v=3/5 c, he reaches the turning point (at 3 light years) after 4 years of traveling.
All this exercise uses only Special Relativity and the Lorentz equations.
The Starmaker
May 29, 2022, 3:18:00 PM5/29/22
to
Ed Lake wrote:
>
> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 8:03:52 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > El sábado, 28 de mayo de 2022 a las 16:18:41 UTC-4, escribió:
> > > On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 1:46:28 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> >
> > > > > > 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.
> > Well, that is no the case. Read for example the solution of the twin paradox, available with spacetime graphs at https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparad
> >
>
> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 8:03:52 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > El sábado, 28 de mayo de 2022 a las 16:18:41 UTC-4, escribió:
> > > On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 1:46:28 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> >
> > > > > > 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.
> > Well, that is no the case. Read for example the solution of the twin paradox, available with spacetime graphs at https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparad
> >
> > In the (t,x) spacetime graph of the Earth twin (the left graph), the traveling twin follows a path trip of three lightyears undertaken at a speed of 3/5 c (giving a relativistic factor γ = 5/4) in both directions and with a "turnaround time" of negligible duration.
> >
> > However, when the twins reunite, the path the traveling twin took an elapsed time of 8 years, while the Earth twin took an elapsed time of 10 years.
>
> So what? That web page says, "In this case the Earth-bound twin (EBT) finds that it takes
> the traveling twin (TT) five years to reach the destination and five years to return for
> a total of ten years. During this time the TT's clocks run slow by a factor of 1/γ = 4/5
> so that the TT ages by eight years, four years on each leg of the journey, and is,
> therefore, two years younger at the reunion."
>
> The difference in "elapsed time" is due to the fact that time ran slower for the
> traveling twin. "the TT's clocks run slow by a factor of 1/γ = 4/5 "
>
> How can you not understand that?
>
> Ed
I understand it is only a ...web page.
> >
> > However, when the twins reunite, the path the traveling twin took an elapsed time of 8 years, while the Earth twin took an elapsed time of 10 years.
>
> So what? That web page says, "In this case the Earth-bound twin (EBT) finds that it takes
> the traveling twin (TT) five years to reach the destination and five years to return for
> a total of ten years. During this time the TT's clocks run slow by a factor of 1/γ = 4/5
> so that the TT ages by eight years, four years on each leg of the journey, and is,
> therefore, two years younger at the reunion."
>
> The difference in "elapsed time" is due to the fact that time ran slower for the
> traveling twin. "the TT's clocks run slow by a factor of 1/γ = 4/5 "
>
> How can you not understand that?
>
> Ed
I understand the web page owner said: "...the opinions expressed here are my own..."
and the webpage owner is also an ...Outlaw, meaning a criminal, blackhat, outcast, etc
https://polycentric.cpp.edu/images/ex-centric/daily_pics/picture_of_day_640x480_744.jpg
One's persons opinion????
FUCK HIM!
TAKE THAT GUITAR AND SHOVE IT UP HIS FUCKIN ASS!!!
Maybe Ed Lake you need to Learn English...
opinion: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
The Starmaker (the smartest guy in the room)
Ed Lake
May 29, 2022, 3:42:33 PM5/29/22
to
On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 12:20:58 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote:
guns. Radar guns emit photons at c and when those photons hit a
moving target, they hit at c+v or c-v, depending on which direction the
target is moving. It has nothing to do with time dilation. It has to do
with the frequency of the photons that are returned to the radar gun
from the target.
>
> So, now that I’ve explained to you what you said, and assuming you meant what you said, look again at my reply, which points out that you yourself have already conceded that time dilation cannot account for why the speed of light has the value c in terms of every inertial reference system. There, I say again: You are being blatantly self-contradictory.
I was talking about the speed of PASSING light. It relates to Einstein's
example, from one of his books, which described how light is measured
on a body moving away from the sun at a constant speed of 1,000 kps.
> > The speed of light is NOT the same in "every system of inertial coordinates."
> Again, you contradict yourself. Look up above at your previous message, where you conceded, regarding inertial reference systems, that “The speed of light has a value c in every such system…”.
> > The speed of light IS A REFERENCE system.
> No, it isn't. Speeds are defined in terms of reference systems, so obviously a speed is not a reference system, and a reference system is not a speed. Also, per above, the speed of light in vacuum is c in terms of every inertial reference frame, thereby conclusively debunking all your beliefs. Agreed?
Okay. I guess you cannot say that light is a "reference system" if there
is no known way to compare your speed to that "reference system."
I was just trying to debunk the idea that all motion is relative, and if
A is moving at 100 kps relative to B, then B is also moving at 100 kps
relative to A. That is nonsense. We know who is moving faster because
one of them had to ACCELERATE to get to the higher speed.
> > Since nothing can go faster than the speed of light, all other speeds
> > are a PERCENTAGE of the speed of light.
> That makes no sense at all. Remember, the reason nothing goes faster than light in terms of any inertial reference system is that light has the same value in terms of every inertial reference system, which you have agreed… and then denied… and then agreed…. and then denied… and so on. Also, each time you agree, you explain it by invoking time dilation, and then you deny time dilation has anything to do with it, and then you re-assert it, and then you deny it, and then you re-assert it… and so on.
Okay, there is no way to measure your speed relative to the speed of light,
so while you speed may be some percentage of the speed of light, there
is no way to calculate that percentage.
> > The speed of my refrigerator depends upon what you are comparing
> > that speed against. If it is relative to the wall, its speed is zero. If it
> > is relative to a refrigerator on the North Pole, my refrigerator is moving
> > at about 700 mph as the earth spins on its axis.
> But you contradict yourself yet again, because your whole claim is that the speeds of things do not depend on the frame of reference. Remember, you said it was the dumbest idea to think that object A is moving relative to object B, and then object B is moving relative to object A. But now you are agreeing that “the speed depends on what you are comparing that speed against”. And when I point this out, you will deny it, and then later you will re-assert it, and then deny it, and then re-assert it… and so on.
The speed of things does not depend upon the frame of reference because
the frame of reference does not represent REALITY. It is something picked
as a reference purely for doing mathematics.
> > If it is relative to a refrigerator on the North Pole, my refrigerator is moving
> > at about 700 mph as the earth spins on its axis.
> Be careful. You keep wanting to define velocities relative to objects, but your example shows the problem with that: How fast is your refrigerator approaching, or receding from, the refrigerator at the north pole? The answer is that the distance between those two refrigerators is not changing, so you need to ask yourself what you actually mean when you say that your refrigerator is moving at 700 mph relative to the one at the North Pole. What you actually mean is: Your refrigertator is moving at 700 mph in terms of an inertial reference system (system of coordinates) in which the refrigerator at the north pole is stationary. The crucial point is that there is more to a reference system than just a single object. That’s why scientists say that velocities are defined in terms of reference systems.
Okay.
>
> You’re agreed that you can define a reference system in which the North Pole is at rest, and you can also define a reference system in which your kitchen is at rest, and another in which the Sun is at rest, and another in which object A is at rest, and another in which object B is at rest, and so on. So all your earlier remarks, in which you vociferously denied all this, were blatantly wrong. Agreed?
I don't define "reference systems." Mathematicians do that. I was
trying to describe how the motion of all those systems affects time.
> > The speed of my refrigerator relative to the speed of light is zero, IF
> > the light you are talking about is from the light bulb inside my
> > refrigerator.
> Again, you contradict yourself, because you’ve agreed that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the source. Of course, you’ve also denied this… then agreed with it… then denied it… and so on.
> > At the same time, however, my refrigerator is moving at about 700 mph
> > as the earth spins on its axis, and at 67,000 mph as the earth orbits the
> > sun, and at 486,000 mph as the sun orbits the center of the Milky Way
> > galaxy. So, my refrigerator is moving at over 500,000 mph relative to some
> > stationary point in space. That is about 0.10006922855945% of the
> > speed of light at that stationary point in space.
> You’re confused. The motion around the center of the galaxy is less than a third of our speed in terms of the isotropic frame of the cosmic background radiation, which is over 0.1% of the speed of light. This finally brings you back to what I explained you were meaning originally, i.e., you are asserting that the local frames in terms of which the CMBR radiation is isotropic are “absolute rest”. But then you denied this, and now you are agreeing to it, and I have no doubt that in your next message you will deny it… and so on.
>
> Again, the existence of the CMBR isotropic frame doesn't in any way negate the fact that we can (and do) define systems of reference in a variety of way, and the fact that local inertial reference frames are reciprocally related by Lorentz transformations, which entail length contraction, time dilation, and the relativity of simultaneity. Agreed?
I wasn't relating anything to the CMBR. The CMBR cannot be stationary.
When I try to find a "stationary" point in our universe, I usually refer to
the point of the Big Bang. And then mathematicians argue that there
is no "point of the Big Bang," since they believe space exists only between
objects. There can be no space into which the universe is expanding.
>
> > If Object-A is moving faster than Object-B…
>
> In terms of what system of reference? The local isotropic CMBR frame? Or your kitchen’s frame? Or the inertial frame in which the North Pole is at rest? Or in which the Sun is at rest? Or in which A is at rest? Or in which B is at rest? (What is "object A" is the sun?).
> > you cannot simply decide that that also means that Object-B is moving
> > faster than Object-A…
>
> In terms of what system of reference? Obviously in terms of your kitchen’s reference system your refrigerator has velocity 0 and the refrigerator at the north pole is moving rapidly, but in terms of the system of reference in which the north pole is stationary that refrigerator has velocity 0 and your refrigerator is moving rapidly. You already agreed to this… but of course you also denied it… and then agreed with it… and then denied it… You seem very conflicted about all this.
No, we are just not talking the same language. I'm going to have to
find a better way to describe things. Plus, this thread has posed a problem
for me that I hadn't thought about before. I'm going to have to drop out
of this discussion to do some rethinking.
Ed
> On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 9:10:06 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > > You are being blatantly self-contradictory. You have conceded many times that relativistic time dilation is not only far too small to account (by itself) for the invariance of the speed of light, it is also in the wrong direction, since the same time dilation applies both to approaching toward and receding from the light (c+v and c-v).
> >
> > c+v and c-v have NOTHING to do with time dilation.
> Look up above in your previous quote, where you claimed the speed of light has the value c in every inertial system because the length of a second varies. When you say “the length of a second varies depending on speed”, you are referring to time dilation, right? And when you say time dilation results in the speed of light being c in every inertial frame, you are trying to explain why the speed of light is c rather than c+v or c-v for a system moving toward or away from the light at speed v, right?
No. When I discuss c+v and c-v it is nearly always a discussion of radar
> > > > 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.
> > > You are being blatantly self-contradictory. You have conceded many times that relativistic time dilation is not only far too small to account (by itself) for the invariance of the speed of light, it is also in the wrong direction, since the same time dilation applies both to approaching toward and receding from the light (c+v and c-v).
> >
> > c+v and c-v have NOTHING to do with time dilation.
> Look up above in your previous quote, where you claimed the speed of light has the value c in every inertial system because the length of a second varies. When you say “the length of a second varies depending on speed”, you are referring to time dilation, right? And when you say time dilation results in the speed of light being c in every inertial frame, you are trying to explain why the speed of light is c rather than c+v or c-v for a system moving toward or away from the light at speed v, right?
guns. Radar guns emit photons at c and when those photons hit a
moving target, they hit at c+v or c-v, depending on which direction the
target is moving. It has nothing to do with time dilation. It has to do
with the frequency of the photons that are returned to the radar gun
from the target.
>
> So, now that I’ve explained to you what you said, and assuming you meant what you said, look again at my reply, which points out that you yourself have already conceded that time dilation cannot account for why the speed of light has the value c in terms of every inertial reference system. There, I say again: You are being blatantly self-contradictory.
example, from one of his books, which described how light is measured
on a body moving away from the sun at a constant speed of 1,000 kps.
> > The speed of light is NOT the same in "every system of inertial coordinates."
> Again, you contradict yourself. Look up above at your previous message, where you conceded, regarding inertial reference systems, that “The speed of light has a value c in every such system…”.
> > The speed of light IS A REFERENCE system.
> No, it isn't. Speeds are defined in terms of reference systems, so obviously a speed is not a reference system, and a reference system is not a speed. Also, per above, the speed of light in vacuum is c in terms of every inertial reference frame, thereby conclusively debunking all your beliefs. Agreed?
is no known way to compare your speed to that "reference system."
I was just trying to debunk the idea that all motion is relative, and if
A is moving at 100 kps relative to B, then B is also moving at 100 kps
relative to A. That is nonsense. We know who is moving faster because
one of them had to ACCELERATE to get to the higher speed.
> > Since nothing can go faster than the speed of light, all other speeds
> > are a PERCENTAGE of the speed of light.
> That makes no sense at all. Remember, the reason nothing goes faster than light in terms of any inertial reference system is that light has the same value in terms of every inertial reference system, which you have agreed… and then denied… and then agreed…. and then denied… and so on. Also, each time you agree, you explain it by invoking time dilation, and then you deny time dilation has anything to do with it, and then you re-assert it, and then you deny it, and then you re-assert it… and so on.
so while you speed may be some percentage of the speed of light, there
is no way to calculate that percentage.
> > The speed of my refrigerator depends upon what you are comparing
> > that speed against. If it is relative to the wall, its speed is zero. If it
> > is relative to a refrigerator on the North Pole, my refrigerator is moving
> > at about 700 mph as the earth spins on its axis.
> But you contradict yourself yet again, because your whole claim is that the speeds of things do not depend on the frame of reference. Remember, you said it was the dumbest idea to think that object A is moving relative to object B, and then object B is moving relative to object A. But now you are agreeing that “the speed depends on what you are comparing that speed against”. And when I point this out, you will deny it, and then later you will re-assert it, and then deny it, and then re-assert it… and so on.
the frame of reference does not represent REALITY. It is something picked
as a reference purely for doing mathematics.
> > If it is relative to a refrigerator on the North Pole, my refrigerator is moving
> > at about 700 mph as the earth spins on its axis.
> Be careful. You keep wanting to define velocities relative to objects, but your example shows the problem with that: How fast is your refrigerator approaching, or receding from, the refrigerator at the north pole? The answer is that the distance between those two refrigerators is not changing, so you need to ask yourself what you actually mean when you say that your refrigerator is moving at 700 mph relative to the one at the North Pole. What you actually mean is: Your refrigertator is moving at 700 mph in terms of an inertial reference system (system of coordinates) in which the refrigerator at the north pole is stationary. The crucial point is that there is more to a reference system than just a single object. That’s why scientists say that velocities are defined in terms of reference systems.
>
> You’re agreed that you can define a reference system in which the North Pole is at rest, and you can also define a reference system in which your kitchen is at rest, and another in which the Sun is at rest, and another in which object A is at rest, and another in which object B is at rest, and so on. So all your earlier remarks, in which you vociferously denied all this, were blatantly wrong. Agreed?
trying to describe how the motion of all those systems affects time.
> > The speed of my refrigerator relative to the speed of light is zero, IF
> > the light you are talking about is from the light bulb inside my
> > refrigerator.
> Again, you contradict yourself, because you’ve agreed that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the source. Of course, you’ve also denied this… then agreed with it… then denied it… and so on.
> > At the same time, however, my refrigerator is moving at about 700 mph
> > as the earth spins on its axis, and at 67,000 mph as the earth orbits the
> > sun, and at 486,000 mph as the sun orbits the center of the Milky Way
> > galaxy. So, my refrigerator is moving at over 500,000 mph relative to some
> > stationary point in space. That is about 0.10006922855945% of the
> > speed of light at that stationary point in space.
> You’re confused. The motion around the center of the galaxy is less than a third of our speed in terms of the isotropic frame of the cosmic background radiation, which is over 0.1% of the speed of light. This finally brings you back to what I explained you were meaning originally, i.e., you are asserting that the local frames in terms of which the CMBR radiation is isotropic are “absolute rest”. But then you denied this, and now you are agreeing to it, and I have no doubt that in your next message you will deny it… and so on.
>
> Again, the existence of the CMBR isotropic frame doesn't in any way negate the fact that we can (and do) define systems of reference in a variety of way, and the fact that local inertial reference frames are reciprocally related by Lorentz transformations, which entail length contraction, time dilation, and the relativity of simultaneity. Agreed?
When I try to find a "stationary" point in our universe, I usually refer to
the point of the Big Bang. And then mathematicians argue that there
is no "point of the Big Bang," since they believe space exists only between
objects. There can be no space into which the universe is expanding.
>
> > If Object-A is moving faster than Object-B…
>
> In terms of what system of reference? The local isotropic CMBR frame? Or your kitchen’s frame? Or the inertial frame in which the North Pole is at rest? Or in which the Sun is at rest? Or in which A is at rest? Or in which B is at rest? (What is "object A" is the sun?).
> > you cannot simply decide that that also means that Object-B is moving
> > faster than Object-A…
>
> In terms of what system of reference? Obviously in terms of your kitchen’s reference system your refrigerator has velocity 0 and the refrigerator at the north pole is moving rapidly, but in terms of the system of reference in which the north pole is stationary that refrigerator has velocity 0 and your refrigerator is moving rapidly. You already agreed to this… but of course you also denied it… and then agreed with it… and then denied it… You seem very conflicted about all this.
find a better way to describe things. Plus, this thread has posed a problem
for me that I hadn't thought about before. I'm going to have to drop out
of this discussion to do some rethinking.
Ed
The Starmaker
May 29, 2022, 3:46:55 PM5/29/22
to
Richard Hertz wrote:
> I consider myself a VERY HONEST PERSON!.
Someone once said...'...honesty is taken as an index of stupidity.'
> I consider myself a VERY HONEST PERSON!.
So, in certain circles...you cannot be trusted.
You cannot be a cop,
because who can trust a cop who doesn't take money?
You cannot be a politician.
You cannot be a woman..
You cannot...
the list is too long!
There are three doors..
one door has a million dollars
behind the door...
two doors have no lock on it
only one door has a lock.
Which door would you open?
Ed Lake
May 29, 2022, 3:51:05 PM5/29/22
to
On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 1:42:22 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Ed Lake wrote:
> > >
> > > On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 9:50:43 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > > > El sábado, 28 de mayo de 2022 a las 10:16:39 UTC-4, escribió:
> > > > > 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.
> >
> > How longer? 2 seconds longer??
> 1 and 3/4ths longer?
When I want to calculate time dilation I usually use the calculator at this
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Ed Lake wrote:
> > >
> > > On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 9:50:43 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > > > El sábado, 28 de mayo de 2022 a las 10:16:39 UTC-4, escribió:
> > > > > 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.
> >
> > How longer? 2 seconds longer??
> 1 and 3/4ths longer?
link: https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224059993
If you simply click on "Execute" and use the numbers that are already
in the boxes, the results show that 1 second for someone traveling
at 200,000 kps is 1.3423847008414 seconds for someone who is
stationary relative to that traveler. And the traveler is traveling at
66.71281903963% of the speed of light.
Ed
mitchr...@gmail.com
May 29, 2022, 4:05:28 PM5/29/22
to
or the Uncertainty principle. We don't have exact light speed
and never will. It is a collective average measurement instead.
If you calculate with that light speed you get another average order.
Mitchell Raemsch
Ed Lake
May 29, 2022, 4:09:50 PM5/29/22
to
On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 2:10:25 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
That has to do with the speed of light. It has nothing to do with time dilation.
If you are moving away from a light source, signals transmitted to you once
per year from the source reach you at less than once per year. If you are moving
toward the light source, signals transmitted once per year from the source will
reach you more frequently than once per year.
That has nothing to do with time dilation. It has to do with the distance
the signals have to travel to reach you.
Ed
If you are moving away from a light source, signals transmitted to you once
per year from the source reach you at less than once per year. If you are moving
toward the light source, signals transmitted once per year from the source will
reach you more frequently than once per year.
That has nothing to do with time dilation. It has to do with the distance
the signals have to travel to reach you.
Ed
The Starmaker
May 29, 2022, 4:14:21 PM5/29/22
to
The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > I consider myself a VERY HONEST PERSON!.
>
> Someone once said...'...honesty is taken as an index of stupidity.'
>
> So, in certain circles...you cannot be trusted.
>
> You cannot be a cop,
> because who can trust a cop who doesn't take money?
>
> You cannot be a politician.
>
> You cannot be a woman..
>
> You cannot...
>
> the list is too long!
>
> There are three doors..
> one door has a million dollars
> behind the door...
>
> two doors have no lock on it
> only one door has a lock.
>
> Which door would you open?
Of course, the door with the lock on it has the million dollars behind
>
> Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > I consider myself a VERY HONEST PERSON!.
>
> Someone once said...'...honesty is taken as an index of stupidity.'
>
> So, in certain circles...you cannot be trusted.
>
> You cannot be a cop,
> because who can trust a cop who doesn't take money?
>
> You cannot be a politician.
>
> You cannot be a woman..
>
> You cannot...
>
> the list is too long!
>
> There are three doors..
> one door has a million dollars
> behind the door...
>
> two doors have no lock on it
> only one door has a lock.
>
> Which door would you open?
the door...
Still, which door would you open?
Ed Lake
May 29, 2022, 4:22:13 PM5/29/22
to
On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 3:05:28 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
The measurements are accurate enough to use in experiments.
I have a web page of time dilation experiments, all of which use
atomic clocks in order to be as accurate as possible.
The link: http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html
When doing time dilation experiments, you do not need to measure
the speed of light. You just need TWO very accurate clocks. If you
are measuring VELOCITY time dilation, one clock is with the traveler
and the other is with the person who is not traveling. When measuring
GRAVITATIONAL time dilation, one clock is at some high altitude and
the other clock is at a lower altitude.
When measuring the speed of light, they use an atomic clock to time
how long it takes for light to travel from the emitter to a mirror and
then back the the receiver next to the emitter.
Ed
I have a web page of time dilation experiments, all of which use
atomic clocks in order to be as accurate as possible.
The link: http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html
When doing time dilation experiments, you do not need to measure
the speed of light. You just need TWO very accurate clocks. If you
are measuring VELOCITY time dilation, one clock is with the traveler
and the other is with the person who is not traveling. When measuring
GRAVITATIONAL time dilation, one clock is at some high altitude and
the other clock is at a lower altitude.
When measuring the speed of light, they use an atomic clock to time
how long it takes for light to travel from the emitter to a mirror and
then back the the receiver next to the emitter.
Ed
Stan Fultoni
May 29, 2022, 5:44:05 PM5/29/22
to
On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 12:42:33 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> I was talking about the speed of PASSING light. It relates to Einstein's
> example, from one of his books, which described how light is measured
> on a body moving away from the sun at a constant speed of 1,000 kps.
But in the passage you’re referring to, Einstein explicitly refers to c-v as what one might expect the speed of light to be relative to someone receding from the sun (and of course, by the same token, one might expect c+v if approaching), and then he explains that, actually, the same ray of light moves at speed c, both relative to the sun and relative to the frame of the receding object. In your attempts to explain this, you habitually attribute it to the different length of a second, which refers to time dilation. But then I explain that time dilation (by itself) cannot account for this. It requires the relativity of simultaneity (not to mention length contraction) as well.
> I was talking about the speed of PASSING light. It relates to Einstein's
> example, from one of his books, which described how light is measured
> on a body moving away from the sun at a constant speed of 1,000 kps.
> Okay. I guess you cannot say that light is a "reference system" if there
> is no known way to compare your speed to that "reference system."
> I was just trying to debunk the idea that all motion is relative, and if
> A is moving at 100 kps relative to B, then B is also moving at 100 kps
> relative to A. That is nonsense. We know who is moving faster because
> one of them had to ACCELERATE to get to the higher speed.
> Okay, there is no way to measure your speed relative to the speed of light,
> so while you speed may be some percentage of the speed of light, there
> is no way to calculate that percentage.
> The speed of things does not depend upon the frame of reference because
> the frame of reference does not represent REALITY. It is something picked
> as a reference purely for doing mathematics.
> I don't define "reference systems."
> I wasn't relating anything to the CMBR.
> The CMBR cannot be stationary.
> I'm going to have to find a better way to describe things.
> I need to do some re-thinking.
Great, and I commend you for recognizing this.
Paparios
May 29, 2022, 7:17:25 PM5/29/22
to
> That has nothing to do with time dilation. It has to do with the distance
> the signals have to travel to reach you.
rotchm
May 29, 2022, 8:10:15 PM5/29/22
to
On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 3:42:33 PM UTC-4, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> The speed of things does not depend upon the frame of reference
Yes it does. This is because speed is defined via a frame of reference.
> The speed of things does not depend upon the frame of reference
Position, times, speeds, are all defined by using a specified reference system
> because the frame of reference does not represent REALITY.
The definition of speed has an operational definition meaning that it uses physical devices.
Didn't you know this?
> I don't define "reference systems." Mathematicians do that.
Aldo
May 29, 2022, 10:45:38 PM5/29/22
to
Aldo
May 29, 2022, 11:03:41 PM5/29/22
to
mitchr...@gmail.com
May 29, 2022, 11:23:58 PM5/29/22
to
But why would science have to be so uncertain in principle?
Mitchell Raemsch
Maciej Wozniak
May 30, 2022, 12:16:29 AM5/30/22
to
On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 02:10:15 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
> Yes it does represent reality. In physics, a reference system is an actual physical system.
No it doesn't. In physics a reference system is some gedanking
> Yes it does represent reality. In physics, a reference system is an actual physical system.
of some insane maniac.
Aldo
May 30, 2022, 12:43:21 AM5/30/22
to
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages