0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Volts are like Planks length and Planks time. Volts are useless without amps. You have a wire that carries 10 amps. If you use 5 amps for motion you only have 5 amps energy available. All motion uses amps Your clock measures the remaining amps after you have motion. When you were at the 10 amp potential your aging clock ran fast. Now your amps available are only 5 amps of potential your aging clock runs slower. Volts are the same. You have to think in terms of energy used and energy available.
Quote from: GoC on 09/07/2017 16:07:47No because Planks length and Planks time has nothing to do with the change of reaction rate for twin 2 or twin 1Of course not, because if we measured time correctly to begin with instead of having 3.26 cm = 1 second of the atomic clock, the twins experience no time dilation, the illusion being the construct of the measurement of 1 second which is not there to begin with. We are simply measuring time wrongly and our semantics of the time dilation are greatly misinterpreted. Think of it this way, Twin one is relatively stationary , twin two is in motion, consider the two statements below, do the logical test on the statements. Twin one experiences time passing one (tP) per tick. (p)Twin two experiences time passing one (tP) per tick. (q)The truth of both statements being true. p implies q is true and the converse q implies p to be true.Added - One (tP) on the timeline is directly proportional to the amount of history recorded. More inference logic, do the logic test on that statement to. Look at my provided model. Think about geometric positions and chronological positions .
No because Planks length and Planks time has nothing to do with the change of reaction rate for twin 2 or twin 1
Quote from: Thebox on 09/07/2017 16:45:49Quote from: GoC on 09/07/2017 16:07:47No because Planks length and Planks time has nothing to do with the change of reaction rate for twin 2 or twin 1Of course not, because if we measured time correctly to begin with instead of having 3.26 cm = 1 second of the atomic clock, the twins experience no time dilation, the illusion being the construct of the measurement of 1 second which is not there to begin with. We are simply measuring time wrongly and our semantics of the time dilation are greatly misinterpreted. Think of it this way, Twin one is relatively stationary , twin two is in motion, consider the two statements below, do the logical test on the statements. Twin one experiences time passing one (tP) per tick. (p)Twin two experiences time passing one (tP) per tick. (q)The truth of both statements being true. p implies q is true and the converse q implies p to be true.Added - One (tP) on the timeline is directly proportional to the amount of history recorded. More inference logic, do the logic test on that statement to. Look at my provided model. Think about geometric positions and chronological positions . The essence of your statement is 'if two people agree on a idea,it's true'.
Your thinking is one dimensional. c is time energy available while kinetic is a reduction in timing. Timing is recorded with your clock based on energy available (aging). Einstein was a master with multiple dimensional thinking. Your proofs are shallow thinking. And are a block for deeper understanding. Einstein felt only 10 % of the population could understand relativity. Once you understand a realization that relativity is the only course possible to follow observations.
Nice try GOC I understand relativity it is easy to understand . Einstein is wrong and time does not slow down or speed up.
Quite clearly I have shown the bundle of errors. To show me wrong GOC, you or anybody else will have to ''break'' my ''rock solid'' premise.
Quote from: Thebox on 10/07/2017 18:52:46Nice try GOC I understand relativity it is easy to understand . Einstein is wrong and time does not slow down or speed up.Define time? It took me a long time for my current understanding. ~ 40 years. I might be a slow learner.Quote from: Thebox on 10/07/2017 18:52:46Quite clearly I have shown the bundle of errors. To show me wrong GOC, you or anybody else will have to ''break'' my ''rock solid'' premise. I am not trying to break your rocks. Volts and amps. Two dimensions.
Your plank argument is relative to my volts argument. Plank is based on c which is available volts. Your frames are based on amps. In SR you have velocity using some amps. Your total available amps is limited by c volts like a motor. You have a speed limit for your motor. Lets look at it backwards. Total amps is c at 100 volts. The more volts being used the less are available. Your clock measures your volts available in a frame relative to c as a reduction in the electron cycle. Planks energy is the ratio of volts and amps per frame.
Thank you God
I think you are proper scientist GOC?
Lol thanking the sky above your head really doesn't help either,
I can only point to the errors and show the errors in semantics and the thinking involved
Quote from: Thebox on 11/07/2017 17:06:07I think you are proper scientist GOC? You would need to define proper scientist before I could give you my opinion.Quote from: Thebox on 11/07/2017 17:06:07Lol thanking the sky above your head really doesn't help either,Not that I am one of the faithful but how would we know?Quote from: Thebox on 11/07/2017 17:06:07 I can only point to the errors and show the errors in semantics and the thinking involvedAnd there lies the problem. Lets go through one of your logic loops of undeniable truths.1. You need to understand relativity to believe it.2. Once you believe in relativity you find it to be true.Where are you on the logic loop?
By proper scientist, I mean you have qualifications in it, probably a professional scientist and get paid for it as a job in some section of science.