1

New Theories / FALSIFIABLE PREDICTION FOR A DOABLE EXPERIMENT?

« on: 05/06/2018 22:05:02 »

FALSIFIABLE PREDICTION FOR A DOABLE EXPERIMENT

A further test of General Relativity can be conducted by comparing clocks that are ONLY experiencing a change in gravity.

So far precision testing of GR with clocks has been conducted concerning change in height in the gravity potential, where the clock is, in addition to a change in gravity, also experiencing a change in centripetal speed and centrifugal force.

And precision testing of GR has also been conducted concerning a change in relative motion, where the clock is not experiencing a change in gravity.

In Febuary this year portable precision clocks were tested for the first time.

https://www.sciencealert.com/portable-atomic-clock-measures-gravity-first-time-relativistic-geodesy

It is my suggestion that these portable clocks should be placed in circumstance where ONLY a change of gravity is occurring, in order to confirm that General Relativity is indeed correct in assuming that an increase in gravity slows time down.

This could be conducted by placing a clock at 2 different locations at same longitude, and at same height above sea level, where there is known density difference in the geology of the locations, and thus compare how they tick.
This will constitute only a difference in gravity

Or - much more simply, just place a clock at one of the gravity wave experiments and record how the clock ticks differently when a gravity wave hits, as compared to how it ticks normally.
This will also constitute only a change in gravity.

General Relativity predicts that a clock that experiences only a change (increase) in gravity will tick slower.

My modification of General Relativity predicts that a clock that experiences only a change (increase) in gravity will tick faster.*

*The consequences of the remit of my modification are, of course, extremely far reaching*

Now that these precision clocks are portable, I daresay that they are going to be used to further test the tenets of General Relativity.

I have voiced my suggestion, and will say no more.

2

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Are clocks ticking faster where gravity is stronger?

« on: 07/05/2018 23:41:39 »

Are clocks ticking faster where gravity is stronger?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth

As one can see on this wiki gravity map from GRACE (NASA), red shows the areas where gravity is stronger than the smooth, standard value, and blue reveals areas where gravity is weaker.

Clocks are supposed to tick slower where there is stronger gravity, yet we observe clocks to tick faster at the top of mountains.

A clock on the top of a mountain will be moving faster relative to a clock at the bottom of a mountain due to centripetal motion. A clock moving faster will tick slower relative to a slower moving clock...

So why are we observing (relative to bottom of the mountain clocks) clocks ticking faster on the top of mountains where gravity is stronger and the centripetal speed is faster?

Anyone got any answers?

3

General Science / What would you add to Starman's Dashboard?

« on: 06/02/2018 22:22:17 »

A Buzz Lightyear placed casually on the dashboard would top that off nicely!

4

Physiology & Medicine / Do people with autistic tendencies lack empathy?

« on: 07/06/2017 23:11:12 »

The autistic spectrum is inclusive of the non-functional autistic, the functional autistic, and the highly functional autistic, where functionality is a measure of the ability to function in society.  Some comments that I have heard recently raised the question of a lacking in empathy being a trait associated with autism, which has led me to asking this question.  Do people with autistic tendencies lack empathy?

One of the traits of autism is that the autistic does not process information in the same manner as the non-autistic person, and I wonder if it is this factor that leads people to believe that autism is associated with a lacking in empathy.  I have been pondering factors as to why the autistic may be considered by the non-autistic as displaying a lacking in empathy, where I am discounting the physical violence of the non-functional autistic as a severe inability to communicate, and concentrating on the traits of the functional or highly functional autistic based upon my having read quite a few books written by autistic people about their everyday experience.

To make an analogy:
Firstly we must recognize the fact that the autistic employs structure as a coping mechanism for his condition.  The more structure there is to a day, the less information he is required to process.
The autistic, who we shall name Bob, is walking down his street taking part in a routine that he recognizes as the structure of his day.  A cat crosses the road in front of a car and is run over.  Bob stops walking and contemplates the situation.  He doesn't know the cat personally, but recognizes it as belonging to the structure of the street.  Part of his contemplation involves thinking about the many ways that the cat could have crossed the road without being hit by the oncoming car.  If he is a mathematically inclined autistic (many are as the structure of mathematics is an attractive trait to the autistic), this may well involve precise mathematical trajectories.

Mrs Jones from down the road approaches and throws her hands up in the air.  "Oh my god, Mrs Smith's cat is dead".
Bob turns to her from his trajectory considerations and almost meets her eye, looks down at the cat and says, "Yes, it's skull is 6.4 mil thick"
Mrs Jones finds that to be a strange comment, but she knows Bob is autistic and equates his comment and autism with a lacking in empathy for the dead cat.

But is Bob actually displaying a lack of empathy for the dead cat?

At least 5 other people have walked past since the cat was run over.  Their response has been that there is nothing to be done for the cat now and they have continued without stopping.  Three of those people know it is Mrs Smiths cat, but would rather let Mrs Jones deal with it.
Mrs Jones does not find their respnse strange.  It is normal that people have structures in their day that need to be adhered to and makes a natural assumption that these people are busy about their day.  She does not make the assumption that they are displaying a lacking in empathy.
Bob realizes that Mrs Jones is feeling strange about his comment.  He is not looking at her face, and she does not say anything in response, but her stance feels hostile.  He feels uncomfortable.  He thinks to himself that perhaps he should have said that the cat got hit by a car.  But it was actually the fact of it's skull being squashed to 6.4mil thick that killed it.  If not for that the cat might have survived being hit by the car and it wouldn't be dead.
What Mrs Jones does not realize is that the structure of Bob's day is much more important to him than the structure of any of the 5 people who have walked past days are to them.  Anyone of those people may well have stopped for a chat with a friend, or been attracted to look at an item in a shop and blowed to the fact that they might be 5 minutes late for work, or have to catch the next bus to the supermarket.
Bob had been on his way to buy his daily newspaper.  He knew he should have turned back when he saw Louise leaving for school in her yellow jumper.  He has noticed that on days that Louise wears her yellow jumper there is, at present calculation, a 78.2% chance that something untoward will occur, and makes a mental note to write to the council about the crack in the pavement 'again', because if the crack in the pavement wasn't there, he wouldn't have to avert his gaze from the ground and risk seeing Louise wearing her yellow jumper, or the high possibility that a yellow jumper day will turn out to be untoward.  He knows it is a bad idea to close ones eyes when one is walking.  He's tried that and it doesn't work very well.

And reciprocally - Is Mrs Jones displaying any more empathy for the dead cat than Bob is?

Mrs Jones has displayed what we typicalise as a normal response to a dead cat on the street, but is this response empathetic?  Certainly she feels sad for the cat and can appreciate that Mrs.Smith is going to be upset, where she also feels upset for herself that she is the one to be the bearer of the bad news and deal with Mrs.Smith's response.
"Mrs.Smith and the kids will be devastated" she says.
Mrs.Jones has passed her initial response of "Oh my God", and gone into action mode.  She will scrape the cat off the road with a snow shovel, put it in a cardboard box, take it to Mrs.Smith when she gets back from the school run, and help Mrs.Smith and the children bury the cat when they get back from school later on.  By next week the memory of the cat being run over will be fading, and if it were not for the comment that Bob had made, after a year she probably would not remember the incident of the dead cat at-all unless the memory was prompted, where what 'will' be of remembrance to Mrs.Jones is what she perceives as Bob's lack of empathy for the death of the cat.
Bob on the other hand has incorporated the day the cat was run over into the structure of his days.  He will know that he has seen the car that killed the cat 26 times in the 365 days that have passed since the cat died, and that he has seen the car that killed the cat 24 times since the car stopped having traces of cat hair on the bumper.  He is pretty sure that the car hasn't hit any more cats, not with the nearside front bumper anyway as there is still only 1 dent in the metalwork, but he cannot guarantee anyone that the car has not squashed any cats that did not bounce of the bumper first.

Is it a mistake for a non-autistic person to perceive the autistic as lacking in empathy?

What do you think?

5

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Where does potential energy reside?

« on: 28/04/2017 03:17:21 »

For illustration purposes let's look at a hydroelectric dam.

A body of water is held at a higher gravity potential, and within that water held at the higher potential there is the potential to produce x amount of electricity by converting potential energy into kinetic energy...
Clearly it is the force of gravity that is creating the potential for energy, but energy is always conserved, so where in this scenario does the potential energy reside?

Is the difference between the equation mgh where m equals zero and where m doesn't equal 0 significant?
If the dam were not full of water there would be no potential for energy.

So although the force of gravity is creating the potential for energy, the mass of the water must be significant to the potential for energy...
And because energy is always conserved - i.e. cannot be created or destroyed - when there is water behind the dam potential energy is converted to kinetic energy, so does this give reasonable argument for the potential energy residing within the mass of the water?

6

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Where does length contraction fit into this scenario?

« on: 25/04/2017 19:02:35 »

Where does length contraction fit into this scenario?

The Earth's depth to centre of gravity is greater at sea level equator than it is at sea level poles.
This means that a clock 'would' run faster at sea level equator than a clock at sea level polar apart from the fact that:
The Earth's radius at the equator is greater than it is at the poles, and therefore centripetal motion at the equator is greater than it is at the poles, where the time dilation caused by the increased motion of radius exactly cancels out the time dilation caused by the increased altitude from centre of Earth at that radius, and clocks at sea level equator will run at the same rate as clocks at sea level polar.

SR calculations for time dilation are usually made via the Lorentz transformations which also incorporate the contraction of length.

Where does length contraction apply for the SR calculations of centripetal motion of radius?

7

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / What will the helicopter's clock say?

« on: 24/04/2017 02:20:40 »

What will the helicopter's clock say?

If a helicopter, fitted out with long range fuel tanks (chuckle) were to hover at elevation from the equator maintaining its position in space while the take off point spins away at 1,040mph - as per the clock on the ground at sea level, 24 hours will pass before the take off point is under the helicopter again, but the clock on the helicopter will show that more than 24 hours has passed due to its altitude and the fact that it is not moving at 1,040mph like the clock on the ground is.

However, the Earth is not only spinning on its axis but also belting around the sun at a staggering 18.5 miles/second (as measured by the ground clock), which is 66,600mph.
Clearly the helicopter will not be able to maintain an exact position of altitude above the equator because the helicopter is not able to achieve speeds of 66,600mph.
If it tried to take off into the inline motion and maintain a position in space at a constant altitude from the Earth, the helicopter not being able to travel at 66,600mph would cause the Earth to crash into the helicopter.
Alternatively, if the helicopter took off away from the inline motion then the Earth would be receding away from the helicopters position in space and the helicopter would end up being left behind.

Let's tell the helicopter to take off away from the inline motion to maintain its position in space and wait for the Earth to complete its circumnavigation of the Sun.
Not withstanding the difficulties the pilot would have in landing the helicopter onto the Earth hurtling towards it at 66,600mph, the clock at sea level at the equator would have recorded that a years worth of time had past, but what would the clock on the helicopter have to say?

However, the Solar System is travelling with the rotation of the galaxy at a whopping 515,000mph, as measured by the clock on Earth at sea level equator, so the helicopter maintaining its position in space would watch the solar system receding away from its position.

Let's tell the helicopter to hover at that position for 230 million years, as measured by the clock on Earth at sea level equator, until the Solar System comes back to that position.  The clock on Earth is saying that 230 million years has passed by, but what will the clock on the helicopter have to say?
From it's position of take off on the equator Earth the helicopter has reduced its motion in space by 515,00mph+66,600mph+1,040mph=182,640mph, so SR motion related time dilation will be somewhat reduced.  Whereas GR altitude time dilation will be rather hard to determine.

However, the Galaxy is also moving through space, and if the helicopter were to maintain its position in space it would observe the Galaxy receding away at the phenomenal rate of 1.3 million mph, as measured by the clock on Earth at sea level equator.
But what will the clock on the helicopter say?
By now the SR motion related time dilation effects will be minimal, and what are the GR gravity potential time dilation calculations saying?

How fast is the helicopter's clock running?

8

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Can we talk about Jim Al-Khalili's relativity mobile phone app?

« on: 23/04/2017 22:56:02 »

Can we talk about Jim Al Kalilli's relativity mobile phone app?

In the program "Gravity and Me: The Force That Shapes Us", Professor of Physics Jim Al Kalilli develops an app that uses GPS positioning to record the user's altitude and speed to tell the user by how much more or less the user has aged due to their relative motion and position.

There were some initial start up problems where Jim readily admitted to having made a crucial mathematical mistake regarding longitude that Kip Thorne then helped him rectify, where it was interesting to see the ins and outs of a near Earth application of a combination of GR and SR time dilation in real life terms.

The premiss of this app and the notion that each person will be ageing at differing rates from each other due to speed and position, where if people moving at differing speed at differing elevations were carrying sensitive enough clocks around with them each clock will be running at differing rates leads me to asking the professionals at this site if this statement can be held as a truth:

"Different rates of time can occur independently of each other and simultaneously to each other."

What do you think?

9

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Does anyone have anything to say about Eric Lerner's study?

« on: 04/04/2017 12:19:04 »

Does anyone have anything to say about Eric Lerner's study?

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

10

New Theories / An alternative perspective on space expansion...?

« on: 27/03/2017 22:11:17 »

An alternative perspective on space expansion...?

My model holds an alternative perspective with respect to the expansion of space in the universe which I intend to go on to discuss, but firstly, to initiate the platform from which my alternative perspective may be acknowledged:

Currently held physics theories are based on the idea that everything is expanding away from everything else at an accelerated rate.
This is backed up by the Hubble interpretation of a velocity related red shift distance correlation...and the luminosities of super nova.

However, on examining this idea of universal expansion I have found there is a certain logical flaw that arises...
We can observe that everything is expanding away from our observation point in every direction, but under this remit of expansion what is occurring for the observation point?
Presumably in a universe that is universally expanding in every direction, the observation point that we observe these observations from must also be expanding away from everywhere else...but if everything else is expanding away from the observation point equally in all directions, where exactly is it in the universe, i.e. which direction is it, that the observation point is expanding away to?

11

New Theories / What is the difference between gravity potential, and gravity potential energy?

« on: 04/03/2017 05:49:06 »

What is the difference between gravity potential, and gravity potential energy?

Do they have different values?

12

New Theories / High efficiency motor theory

« on: 01/03/2017 22:32:43 »

Joe Newman's energy motor was observed to output more energy than it used.
This was observed on many occasions, but notably by over 1000 people at a news reported demonstration, was confirmed by dozens of professional scientists, and a High Court appointed masters confirmed that this motor output more energy than it consumed.

Despite this proof and confirmation of the fact, poor Joe Newman could not get his motor patented.
He could not get his motor that was proven to work patented because it breaks the laws of current physics.

The reason why Joe Newman's motor worked is because the energy and frequency observed of an atom in a differing gravity potential is NOT observer dependent.
An electron will indeed have more potential energy at elevation and this potential energy can be turned into kinetic energy and harnessed.

It is an absolute disgrace that people who describe themselves as educated and intellectual can comprehend that physics does not understand gravity, and then completely ignore, no less ridicule the people who put forward innovative thought.

Especially considering that the history of physics is rife with the fact of significant breakthroughs having been ignored at their conception, only to be proven at some much later date.

It really would not tax a competent mathematician to experimentally calculate a given physical cause for the acceleration of gravity...
But no - the laws of physics are irrefutable - and no-one can be bothered...

13

Just Chat! / What is your favourite line from the movie 'Tombstone'?

« on: 25/02/2017 17:59:01 »

I love this movie...
Apart from being just my sort of thing with horses, harness and wagons, coupled with the typical Wild West allure of freedom, opportunity and self regulation, this movie also gives representation of the sensitive inner self of men in this hard core setting.
Within a non-sexual man to man relationship, we actually get to see Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday crying!

There are a lot of good lines in this movie as far as I'm concerned, mixing humour with an underlying deeper phycology, but my favourite line has got to be just after Wyatt has taken 25% of the take on the card game at the saloon and is crossing the main thoroughfare with his brothers Virgil and Morgan, when Doc steps out of the hotel and defuses the situation of the loser of that 25% of the card game at the saloon, who is seeking revenge against Wyatt with a shotgun.

After making pleasantries with Wyatt, Doc, with marked disdain, forces the vengeful loser to leave his shotgun on the ground, whereas the County Sheriff now approaches the scene...

Wyatt says:
"Hey Doc, have you met the Sheriff?"
And Doc says out the corner of his mouth:
"Piss on you Wyatt..."
Then turns to the Sheriff's outstretched hand and says:
"Please excuse me if I don't shake hands."

Lol, lol, lol!  No doubt exposing some underlying trait in my own character - but hey if something tickles you, it tickles you, right?

What's your favourite line?

14

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Have you seen 'Origami Revoluton'?

« on: 18/02/2017 15:22:47 »

As far as I know, there's no direct connection between black hole hair and cosmic strings; apart from the possibility that neither exists.

Lol!  Excellent...

On top form tonight Bill!

Bill - have you seen 'Origami Revolution'?
I was literally on the edge of my seat!  Unbelievably clever stuff across the board.  Not just art, but engineering, medical application, space technology, and the incredible mathematics...

But the reason I bring it up is because it mentioned hypothesised dark matter strings...
Are these what you refer to?

And further more, they actually make a folded representation of them, which was indeed pretty neat, despite the fact that these strings, and of course Dark Matter itself, may not even exist.

15

New Theories / Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

« on: 16/02/2017 03:18:52 »

This thread is an offshoot from Mike's thread that can be found here:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69764.0

Ever since I saw this information breaking in the national news:

https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale

I have been researching every aspect, and am well read on both caesium atomic clocks and quantum clocks - so the information that I have given is good, as a synopsis, although admittedly after reading the available info now, rather than back in 2010, I see they have seriously overcome the problems that I read about concerning the unreliability of the quantum clock.

Having been analysing the situation, my analysis further compounded through having discussed these matters here at this site for last 2 years, my diagnosis is that there seems to be some confusion surrounding the interpretation of the equivalence principle.

On the one hand what I observe is that there is a school of thought that states that a caesium atomic clock placed at a higher gravity potential only 'appears' to have a higher frequency from the perspective of the lower gravity potential...
And that if one places oneself at the higher gravity potential with the clock, then the frequency of the clock will be the same as it was in the lower gravity potential, and that it will now 'appear' to you that the lower gravity potential clock has a lower frequency.

This is a direct consequence of the equivalence principle, and the concept that a caesium atom will be equivalent in each reference frame.

...and it would seem that the same school of thought is prevalent regarding SR time dilation...
This being that one's atomic clock aboard a rocket in relative motion will also be observed by oneself to be ticking 'normally', and it is the stationary rocket who's clock is observed to be running slow.
But if one were to place oneself on the stationary rocket, the stationary rocket's atomic clock would be ticking normally, and you would observe the rocket in relative motion's clock as ticking slow.

Then on the other hand - there is the school of thought that a person will age in keeping with their time dilated clock as described in the NIST link above, and the link below.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/humans-age-in-space.htm

Physically it just isn't possible for both concepts to reside in 'sensible' physics.

Of course there is a way of turning the equivalence principle on its head to describe why a person ages in keeping with their clock, that also retains the speed of light in each reference frame, but it requires that one take the school of thought that what one observes of the other reference frame is not just an appearance and that the other clock really is running at a differing rate.

If a clock is indeed running at different rates in differing gravity potentials, then a clock with respect to gravitational time dilation can be calibrated at sea level, and all differences mapped for an absolute reference frame in which SR effects will be infinitely more calculable.
(This being relevant to your thread)

Therefore my fascination for the standard second stems from the above.

But, far more significantly in my view, also because the speed of light, frequency, energy, and just about every action/time aspect of physics is indeed held relative to the standard second.

I really cannot understand why nobody seems to recognise the significance of this.

16

New Theories / Why are black holes devoid of energy, light and heat?

« on: 14/02/2017 13:03:24 »

Why are black holes devoid of energy, light and heat?

While it is clear that black holes are devoid of light and heat, because otherwise they would be decidedly more 'observable' in space...
Isn't it a mathematical consequence of General Relativity that black holes are devoid of energy?

This being the reason for the black hole contravention of the second law of thermodynamics and conservation of energy law...

How can it be that the reference frames in the universe that have the largest masses at the highest density of compression, are cold and lacking in energy?

Is this because General Relativity states time to be running faster, and energy to be greater in open space than it is where there is mass?

Looking at why GR is stating this as being so, we arrive at the fact of a clock ticking faster at h from M...

Is there any other reason why GR should calculate time running faster in open space than it does near mass?

Looking at this calculation for attributing open space with a faster time, will placing a clock at h from M be measuring time in open space, or will placing a clock in space just be measuring what time is doing for m at h from M?

As an experiment, let's imagine that GR has got this calculation wrong.  That by placing a measuring device in open space in order to measure open space, that the measuring device, the clock, has changed open space into m in space, and that it is time for m in space that is being measured by the clock, and not the rate of time for open space itself.

Let's look at the situation reversed.

Let's examine what the remit would be for a black hole where time runs really fast and that it is open space where time runs slow...

How would this change the calculations of what occurs for and surrounding black holes?

17

Just Chat! / Has human existence become franchised?

« on: 10/02/2017 18:56:18 »

Under the regime of our planet earth having been reduced to real estate, have the lives of humans become franchised?

18

General Science / What exactly is so 'great' with the metric system?

« on: 05/02/2017 18:54:58 »

What exactly is so 'great' about the metric system?

In that the number 10 can only be divided by 1, 2, 5, and 10...

And the number 12 can be divided by 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 12...

... Indeed what are the benefits of a metric system?

Considering that the phenomenon of time is measured in divisions and multiples of 12's, where clearly there is 'also' a reference to divisions of 10 - presumably for those who can only count on their fingers - and also considering that distances that were once matched to time, (via speed), in feet and yards that use the same divisions or multiples of 12 that time does - when converting to the metric, why was the metric conversion not extended to clocks?

Surely this non compatibility between divisions of 12 regarding time, and the metric divisions of distances into blocks of 10, is unnecessarily complicating the measure of distance, relative to time...
Where it would be clear to work out, just based on ones ability to make use of times tables:

4 yards (4yards*3ft =12ft) distance, covered at a speed of 1 minute per yard (60sec/3ft=20sec per ft) is equal to 0.6 inch per second.
(12ft*12inch=144inch) and (12ft*20 sec=240secs) can be worked out as(2*12*10=240)
so (144inch/240sec=0.6inch per second)
...and it's only that I'm not so good at maths that I had to use a calculator for 144/240.
...But more to the point, 0.6 of an inch is an easy number to go on to use for whatever reason one calculated it for...
(Clearly I could have just calculated as:
36inches/60second=0.6 inches per second
...but I wanted to show use of times tables)

When converting 4 metres at a speed of 1 metre per minute:
4*60*100=240/400=1.6666667
or:
100cm/60=1.6666667cm per second

Comprehensive?
Well yes, of course, ... but we are left with this idiotic number to work with!

... Also of significant consideration, when building to architectural design, clearly it would be of paramount usefulness to employ a system who's base number is 'able' to be easily and comprehensively divided by 6 numbers, rather than a system who's base number can only be divided by 4?

19

New Theories / My model of a cyclic universe continued again...

« on: 31/12/2016 13:58:21 »

Why do you keep locking my thread Jeff?

Yes - that's right, the time dilation is the wrong way round, hence the name 'contra directional gravitational time dilation'.

The problem with QED is that it cannot be reconciled with gravity.

By adding this contra directional gravitational time dilation, my model can potentially unite the standard model with gravity for a continuum in quantum...

...As I have repeatedly been saying here at this site for rather a long time now.

20

New Theories / My model of a cyclic universe continued...

« on: 29/12/2016 20:24:54 »

...for no given reason my other thread of the same title has been locked.  I could not modify my post as I wished, so this is my edited post:

It does not matter if a car makes a whole mark, or a fraction of a mark.  What is relevant is how far apart these marks are when a constant speed is measured via a longer or shorter second relative to the length of second in the lane.  The mark itself does not have a relevant value.  Why can you not understand this?

Ok Colin, make the constant speed the speed of light, and it will be light making 299 792 458 marks per second.

In lane 1 light is making marks at 299 792 458 marks per standard second.

In lane 2 light is making marks at 299 792 458 marks per second that is 10% longer than a standard second.

Measuring the light in lane 2 from lane 1, lane 1's standard second will make the lane 2 light appear as if it has made 10% fewer marks, and that the spaces between these marks will be 10% longer in length.

Measuring the lane 1 light from lane 2, the lane 1 light will have made 299 792 458 marks, but the spaces between the marks will be 10% shorter in length.

All this is doing is illustrating how distances appear to change when measuring a constant speed travelling in a rate of time differing from the rate of time being used to measure with.

Now I double, triple dare you to come back to me with variable speeds for light, and sincerely hope you have ditched this ridiculous notion that a mark should be fractionalised!

On the other hand, if you are all good then we can return to the cars travelling at 10 metres per variable seconds in lanes operating at variable seconds in order to add GR and SR to this contra directional time dilation picture...

I do not need to think about these maths Colin.  These maths are simplicity itself.  Adding GR and SR to the picture are much more complex though, where I do need help to check the dimensions against current physics.  For one instance, it is complexities such as the gamma function in relation to the Laplace transform that I have in mind when I am asking for mathematical help.