0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Science is a recursive process: observe, hypothesise, test. Scientific knowledge is the residue of explanatory and disprovable hypotheses that have not been disproved.That's all there is to it.
I consider that science is not really worth learning , a pointless exercise that will get you nowhere in life . As fact , it will probably completely ruin your life trying to succeed , even to point of where ''it'' drives you crazy .
Let's face it , science defends their tentative dogma as if facts , uses people on forums and will always tell them they are wrong , quite a horrible bunch of people really who could not care less about ''you'' , you mean absolutely nothing to them apart from giving free information to them because they have no ability to think for themselves. At least I can deactivate all this crap and move on , thank GOD for deletion buttons.
Give me an example of some science "garbage", to start with.
Quote from: Bogie_smiles on 16/11/2018 13:26:50Give me an example of some science "garbage", to start with.Alright ! Let's start with something really basic namely time .
Science all around the globe will insist that time is the forth dimension , persistent in saying that time can speed up and that time can slow down . The truth and factual content is none of that is true and is no more than subjective mediocre thought .
The objective nature of time is that time is an arbitrary quantifiable measurement record that is directly proportional to the aging process . The merit and objectivity of this , is that time is only relative to matter and does not exist as an individual entity that has any physicality other than the subjective mind experience .
The outcome is that two identical clocks can measure the rate that time is passing around them at different rates.
Quote from: Bogie_smiles on 16/11/2018 15:22:41The outcome is that two identical clocks can measure the rate that time is passing around them at different rates.That's not correct and not objective . We can measure the timing difference between two identical clocks that we have created too record arbitrary time . There's a huge difference in the factual semantics compared to subjective semantics and poor interpretation . The absolute time the clocks are apart is equal which can be easily demonstrated using a thought experiment and the constant of light in a simultaneously , two way simulation . diagram 1.jpg (14.83 kB . 574x277 - viewed 35 times)
“The outcome is that two identical clocks can measure the rate that time is passing around them at different rates”
Additionally , to say there is a time dilation is disagreeing with velocity . Einstein contradicts himself in that in relative velocity neither observer knows who is moving . What this means is that if you move away from me at 0.5c , relatively I am moving away from you at 0.5 c . Light speed as we know is constant , if you travel at 0.5 c away from me and return in 1.s , we'll both experience the velocity second with no variation .
Quote from: Thebox on 16/11/2018 15:52:35Quote from: Bogie_smiles on 16/11/2018 15:22:41The outcome is that two identical clocks can measure the rate that time is passing around them at different rates.That's not correct and not objective . We can measure the timing difference between two identical clocks that we have created too record arbitrary time . There's a huge difference in the factual semantics compared to subjective semantics and poor interpretation . The absolute time the clocks are apart is equal which can be easily demonstrated using a thought experiment and the constant of light in a simultaneously , two way simulation . diagram 1.jpg (14.83 kB . 574x277 - viewed 35 times) Just to clarify the statement, Quote from: bogie“The outcome is that two identical clocks can measure the rate that time is passing around them at different rates”, … must be taken in the context that the two identical clocks are positioned in environments that have different energy density profiles. For example, a rocket that is accelerating has a different energy density profile than the rocket that remains back at the spaceport, and a clock very near a massive object (like a mountain top for example) will be in an environment that has a different energy density profile than an identical clock positioned far away from that same mountain top, whether you are using General Relativity, or the classical force of gravity modified to reflect the effect of relative motion that Einstein enlightened us on.Let’s say that you are conducting your though experiment in deep space, uninfluenced by any nearby massive objects. Your diagram would then apply, and the distance that each clock travels in one elapsed second, as measured on the face of each clock, would be equal. If, as indicated by your diagram then, the distance between the two clocks at the start is assumed be equal to the distance that each clock will travel through a perfect vacuum in the length of time it takes for each clock to show one elapsed second, then they will pass each other during that one second journey, and each clock will end up in the exact position that the other clock started out; effectively they will simply change positions. Do I have that right? Have I interpreted correctly what you are intending to show in your diagram?Assuming that is understood, I would like to point out that:the speed of light in a perfect vacuum is “c”, but space as we know it is only near being a perfect vacuum, not a perfect vacuum, because the “medium” of space contains various things, and is said to have various characteristics that determine the velocity of light through the medium of space. Therefore, given two identical clocks following the motion that your diagram indicates, and showing that one single second has elapsed on each of them, there are circumstances that could change the outcome in such a way that the clocks would not exactly change positions, there would be some degree of error relative to their initial positions.For my example, the presence of a massive object moving through the vicinity of space where your thought experiment is talking place would change the outcome, if the motion of that massive object was not identical relative to the motion of both moving clocks. In that case, the clocks would not exactly change positions. Instead, there would be a difference between the ending positions and the initial positions; each clock would not exactly have changed position because of the differing influence that the massive object would have on the respective rate of motion of the two clocks.Here is why. In my example the presence of massive objects is part of the equation that determines the values of the local density of space surrounding each clock. In General Relativity for example, the presence of a massive object gets considered when the Einstein Field Equations are used, because the massive object affects the value of the tensors, and if the massive object had a trajectory that took it closer to one of your clocks than the other, the value of the respective tenors would change at a different rate as the thought experiment played out.Of course, GR is not purportedly measuring a characteristic called “energy density” in the same sense that the term applies to the local affect of gravity; it is calculating the value of the tensors relative to each moving clock.However, in the case where a massive object is present, what we generally mean by “gravity” and what is meant by the “curvature of spacetime” should have the same effect. There is no reason to believe that the outcomes will be different, if GR and Gravity are different ways of describing the same cause and effect.In GR, if mass tells space how to curve, and curved space tells matter how to move, then when we are talking about the force of gravity, instead of the curvature of space time caused by the presence of mass, we would have to modify the classical equations for gravity to correspond to the EFEs. Science does not say that two identical clocks, traveling in opposite directions for an elapsed time of one exact second on their respective dials will travel the same exact distance in opposite directions. It says that given a perfect vacuum, that two identical clocks, traveling in opposite directions for an elapsed time of one exact second on their respective dials, in identical circumstances in regard to the surrounding presence of massive objects, will travel the same exact distance in opposite directions.Quote from: Thebox on 16/11/2018 16:07:00Additionally , to say there is a time dilation is disagreeing with velocity . Einstein contradicts himself in that in relative velocity neither observer knows who is moving . What this means is that if you move away from me at 0.5c , relatively I am moving away from you at 0.5 c . Light speed as we know is constant , if you travel at 0.5 c away from me and return in 1.s , we'll both experience the velocity second with no variation . It isn’t a contradiction. What you say is true, and what Einstein says is true, but you are both talking about different ways of making measurements using the speed of light in a vacuum. When referring to Special Relativity, time dilation is a measure of the effect of objects following different geodesics between the same two points. The physical distance between those two points would differ from an “as the crow flies” distance. However, two objects in relative motion to each other follow different curved paths, and therefore travel different physical distances through spacetime based on the relative motion between two objects.
It hardly matter , this forum lies just like every other forum. I am deleting my account never to return to science, they can kiss my ......I would not help them even if the earth was at stake.
diagram 1.jpg (14.83 kB . 574x277)
Quote from: Bogie_smiles on 16/11/2018 13:26:50Give me an example of some science "garbage", to start with.Alright ! Let's start with something really basic namely time . Science all around the globe will insist that time is the forth dimension , persistent in saying that time can speed up and that time can slow down . The truth and factual content is none of that is true and is no more than subjective mediocre thought . The objective nature of time is that time is an arbitrary quantifiable measurement record that is directly proportional to recording a duration of existence . The merit and objectivity of this , is that time is only relative to matter and does not exist as an individual entity that has any physicality other than the subjective mind experience . The scientific research I have done on time , concludes that we have in previous experiments observed a timing dilation and an aging dilation but specifically no time dilation . All observers experience the same amount of absolute time but not all observers age the same is the correct interpretation . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experimentThe correct semantics being of importance to gain greater understanding of the subject . In the twin paradox , both twins experience the exact same amount of absolute time but ones ages less biologically .
The link confirms that both acceleration and gravitational attraction (which is a form of acceleration) affect the rate that clocks measure the rate that time passes.
I am deleting my account never to return to science, they can kiss my ......I would not help them even if the earth was at stake
Quote from: Thebox on 24/11/2018 16:12:36 I am deleting my account never to return to science, they can kiss my ......I would not help them even if the earth was at stakeHmm. Two posts since you posted the above statement.Your return has quite ruined my celebration.
That result is perfectly in line with the theory and the clock experiments that confirm the theory.
Your reference to each twin experiencing the same of amount of "absolute time" introduces a concept that the experiments have already falsified; there is no absolute time.
We define time as a measurement done by a clock.
The closest you can get to absolute time is to say that time simply passes everywhere, and the identical atomic clocks show that the rate that time passes as measured by a clock is variable, relative to the amount of acceleration in one local environment relative to another.
What is interesting about the concept of absolute time is the reason that there is no absolute time.
The reason is that any two objects anywhere in the universe that are in relative motion to each other must be experiencing a difference in the gravitational acceleration that affects their local environment. That difference exists because of the different orientation the two objects have to the massive objects that are influencing them gravitationally.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe caesium standard is a primary frequency standard[/url] in which electronic transitions[/url] between the two hyperfine[/url] ground states[/url] of caesium-133[/url] atoms[/url] are used to control the output frequency. The first caesium clock was built by Louis Essen[/url] in 1955 at the National Physical Laboratory[/url] in the UK.[/font][1] and promoted worldwide by Gernot M. R. Winkler[/url] of the USNO[/url].Caesium atomic clocks[/url] are the most accurate time and frequency standards, and serve as the primary standard[/url] for the definition of the second[/url] in the International System of Units[/url] (SI) (the metric system[/url]). By definition, radiation produced by the transition between the two hyperfine ground states of caesium (in the absence of external influences such as the Earth's magnetic field) has a frequency, [/font]ΔνCs, of exactly 9,192,631,770 Hz[/url]. That value was chosen so that the caesium second equalled, to the limit of human measuring ability in 1960 when it was adopted, the existing standard ephemeris second[/url] based on the Earth[/url]'s orbit around the Sun[/url].[2] Because no other measurement involving time had been as precise, the effect of the change was less than the experimental uncertainty of all existing measurements.External linksTechnical details[edit]The official definition of the second[/url] given by the BIPM[/url] at the 13th General Conference on Weights and Measures[/url] in 1967 is: ``The second is 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 its 1997 meeting the BIPM added to the previous definition the following specification: ``This definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K.''[/font]The meaning of the preceding definition is as follows. The caesium atom has a ground state electron state with configuration[/url] [Xe] 6s[/font]1 and, consequently, atomic term symbol[/url] 2S1/2. This means that there is one unpaired electron and the total electron spin of the atom is 1/2. Moreover, the nucleus of caesium-133 has a nuclear spin equal to 7/2. The simultaneous presence of electron spin and nuclear spin leads, by a mechanism called hyperfine interaction[/url], to a (small) splitting of all energy levels into two sub-levels. One of the sub-levels corresponds to the electron and nuclear spin being parallel (i.e., pointing in the same direction), leading to a total spin F equal to F=7/2+1/2 =4; the other sub-level corresponds to anti-parallel electron and nuclear spin (i.e., pointing in opposite directions), leading to a total spin F=7/2-1/2=3. In the caesium atom it so happens that the sub-level lowest in energy is the one with F=3, while the F=4 sub-level lies energetically slightly above. When the atom is irradiated with electromagnetic radiation having an energy corresponding to the energetic difference between the two sub-levels the radiation is absorbed and the atom is excited, going from the F=3 sub-level to the F=4 one. After a small fraction of a second the atom will re-emit the radiation and return to its F=3 ground state. From the definition of the second it follows that the radiation in question has a frequency of exactly 9.19263177 GHz, corresponding to a wavelength[/url] of about 3.26 cm and therefore belonging to the microwave[/url] range.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe Kelvin scale is an absolute[/url] thermodynamic temperature[/url] scale[/url] using as its null point absolute zero[/url], the temperature at which all thermal motion[/url] ceases in the classical description of thermodynamics[/url]. The kelvin (symbol: K) is the base unit[/url] of temperature[/url] in the International System of Units[/url] (SI).[/font]Until 2018, the kelvin was defined as the fraction 1⁄273.16 of the thermodynamic temperature of the triple point of water[/url] (exactly 0.01 °C or 32.018 °F).[1] In other words, it is defined such that the triple point[/url] of water is exactly 273.16 K.On 16 November 2018, a new definition[/url] was adopted, in terms of a fixed value of the Boltzmann constant[/url]. For legal metrology[/url] purposes, the new definition will officially come into force 20 May 2019[/font][2] (the 130th anniversary of the Metre Convention[/url]).The Kelvin scale is named after the Belfast-born, Glasgow University[/url] engineer and physicist William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin[/url] (1824–1907), who wrote of the need for an "absolute thermometric scale". Unlike the degree Fahrenheit[/url] and degree Celsius[/url], the kelvin is not referred to or written as a degree[/url]. The kelvin is the primary unit of temperature measurement in the physical sciences, but is often used in conjunction with the degree Celsius, which has the same magnitude. The definition implies that absolute zero (0 K) is equivalent to −273.15 °C (−459.67 °F).[/font]