Post by: guest39538 on 06/10/2017 14:12:30
you have it wrong!
Post by: evan_au on 06/10/2017 17:15:21
Quote from: TheBox
why is the atmosphere not blue at ground level where the atmosphere is more dense?It is.
Stand at ground level on a clear day, and look up. The sky is blue, due to scattering by dust in the atmosphere.
Now fly in a U2 spyplane above 70,000 feet. You don't need to wait for a clear day, since you are now above the clouds (and, indeed, above most of the atmosphere). The sky is almost black above you, as there is little scattering of light by dust particles. The sky is blue around and below you, as there is enough dust in the atmosphere as you look through a great depth of it.
Now fly in the International Space Station. You don't need to wait for a clear day, since you are now above the atmosphere. The sky is black, as there is no atmospheric dust particles* to scatter the light. You can see a band of blue light around the Earth, where the atmosphere scatters sunlight.
See: https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1529.html
* There is also some faint Zodiacal Light (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zodiacal_light), from dust which is in orbit around the Sun, and outside Earth's atmosphere. This light is so faint that human eyes can't really pick up any color in it.
Post by: guest39538 on 06/10/2017 17:35:02
I believe this has been quite adequately explained to you previously in threads in "New Theories".Stand outside on a nice day, look up at the sky and see the blue sky that you say is scattering of the light dues to air molecules. Now observe the space between your eyes and the blue sky, it is colourless although there is air . According to science light should also then scatter and be blue to the observation at ground level also.Quote from: TheBoxwhy is the atmosphere not blue at ground level where the atmosphere is more dense?It is.
Stand at ground level on a clear day, and look up. The sky is blue, due to scattering by dust in the atmosphere.
Now fly in a U2 spyplane above 70,000 feet. You don't need to wait for a clear day, since you are now above the clouds (and, indeed, above most of the atmosphere). The sky is almost black above you, as there is little scattering of light by dust particles. The sky is blue around and below you, as there is enough dust in the atmosphere as you look through a great depth of it.
Now fly in the International Space Station. You don't need to wait for a clear day, since you are now above the atmosphere. The sky is black, as there is no atmospheric dust particles* to scatter the light. You can see a band of blue light around the Earth, where the atmosphere scatters sunlight.
See: https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1529.html
* There is also some faint Zodiacal Light (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zodiacal_light), from dust which is in orbit around the Sun, and outside Earth's atmosphere. This light is so faint that human eyes can't really pick up any color in it.
Quite clearly literally speaking, we do not observe blue in the space between the ground and sky.
So according to ''you'' somehow the light stops scattering once it as entered deeper into out atmosphere.
scat1.jpg (58.52 kB . 898x572 - viewed 5531 times)There is nothing about ''your'' version of a blue sky I find to be true. The physics involved would be wrong.
Post by: alancalverd on 06/10/2017 17:48:33
1. It's not dust but elastic scattering of photons from air molecules.
2. You can detect Rayleigh scattering from small volumes of gas but you need a very long path length before the effect is visible. It is difficult to do the experiment at ground level because the planet gets in the way and over any reasonable distance there will be a considerable amount of dust, fog, etc.
Your best bet is to set up a white arc light about 200 ft above a frozen lake and observe it on a dark night from around 15 miles distance. The light will appear yellow, with a blue haze around it, just like the sun and sky. I'm pretty sure you could find a suitable spot in Canada somewhere.
Post by: guest39538 on 06/10/2017 17:54:48
Worth looking up Rayleigh scattering. Wikipedia has an excellent article on the subject. Fact isI look ''up'' and I look ''across, ''across' being a greater distance than ''up'' to the blue sky. I really do not think the observation lies of where I observe the blue sky to be. If you were correct then the astronaut would also see a blue sky directly beneath him and at ground level looking ''across'' the air should also still scatter light for the entire distance viewed.
1. It's not dust but elastic scattering of photons from air molecules.
2. You can detect Rayleigh scattering from small volumes of gas but you need a very long path length before the effect is visible. It is difficult to do the experiment at ground level because the planet gets in the way and over any reasonable distance there will be a considerable amount of dust, fog, etc.
Your best bet is to set up a white arc light about 200 ft above a frozen lake and observe it on a dark night from around 15 miles distance. The light will appear yellow, with a blue haze around it, just like the sun and sky. I'm pretty sure you could find a suitable spot in Canada somewhere.
I don't get it, it makes no sense to me that it scatters. Where is the force feedback in the scattering to compress the radiation to 400nm?
Post by: guest39538 on 06/10/2017 18:09:19
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/10/2017 07:16:05
The path length isn't several miles wide.
You have not done a meaningful experiment.
Why did you even raise the idea when you had been told you would need, at least, an arc lamp?
Were you trolling?
Post by: The Spoon on 07/10/2017 08:59:42
Post by: evan_au on 07/10/2017 11:20:37
Quote from: evan_au
Now fly in a U2 spyplane above 70,000 feet.Since none of us are likely to ride a U2 (especially since they made very few dual-seat versions), I tried the experiment today using the tail camera on an Airbus A380.
At 39,000 Feet Altitude
You are above most of the atmosphere. The air looks blue as you look towards the horizon, but as you look higher, it is darker (fewer molecules to scatter the light)
[ Invalid Attachment ]
At 15,000 Feet Altitude
The air looks slightly blue as you look towards the top of the picture (more air molecules to scatter the light)
[ Invalid Attachment ]
At a Lower Altitude
I wasn't able to determine the actual altitude, but you are low enough to make out factory buildings on the ground.
The air is fairly uniformly blue above the clouds and higher.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: guest39538 on 07/10/2017 11:40:11
Good observation EvanQuote from: evan_auNow fly in a U2 spyplane above 70,000 feet.Since none of us are likely to ride a U2 (especially since they made very few dual-seat versions), I tried the experiment today using the tail camera on an Airbus A380.
At 39,000 Feet Altitude
You are above most of the atmosphere. The air looks blue as you look towards the horizon, but as you look higher, it is darker (fewer molecules to scatter the light)
At 15,000 Feet Altitude
The air looks slightly blue as you look towards the top of the picture (more air molecules to scatter the light)
[ Invalid Attachment ]
At a Lower Altitude
I wasn't able to determine the actual altitude, but you are low enough to make out factory buildings on the ground.
The air is fairly uniformly blue above the clouds and higher.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
At 39,000 Feet Altitude
You are above most of the atmosphere. The air looks blue as you look towards the horizon, but as you look higher, it is darker (fewer molecules to scatter the light)
But as you look lower in any of the observations where the air is much more dense than at altitude, the air looks clear, transparent, like glass.So why is the light still not scattering at lower altitudes and looking blue?
I have drawn all 3 of your observations in one picture in basic form.
blue.jpg (21.59 kB . 898x572 - viewed 5415 times)The white represents clear. The black is also clear. The blue the sky.
Post by: guest39538 on 07/10/2017 11:46:14
it is darker (fewer molecules to scatter the light)It is not darker, it just looks darker, it is ''light'' in space remember, it is not looking darker it looks clearer.
The visible spectrum is ''opaque'' relative to the transparency of space.
added- I have drew your observation to objective reality of the observation.
correct observation.jpg (39.3 kB . 898x572 - viewed 5618 times)Post by: The Spoon on 07/10/2017 11:54:03
Only according to your own definitions of the words 'darker', 'light', 'space', 'clearer', 'visible', 'opaque', 'transparency'.it is darker (fewer molecules to scatter the light)It is not darker, it just looks darker, it is light in space remember, it is not looking darker it looks clearer.
The visible spectrum is ''opaque'' relative to the transparency of space.
added- I have drew your observation to objective reality of the observation.
Post by: guest39538 on 07/10/2017 11:59:39
Actually nothing to do with me, I do did not create the Universe and made it that way. It is observational facts not a belief system.Only according to your own definitions of the words 'darker', 'light', 'space', 'clearer', 'visible', 'opaque', 'transparency'.it is darker (fewer molecules to scatter the light)It is not darker, it just looks darker, it is light in space remember, it is not looking darker it looks clearer.
The visible spectrum is ''opaque'' relative to the transparency of space.
added- I have drew your observation to objective reality of the observation.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/10/2017 19:30:23
Well, I'm glad you accept you didn't create the universe.
Actually nothing to do with me, I do did not create the Universe and made it that way. It is observational facts not a belief system.
Can you explain why you feel empowered to create new meanings for words like 'darker', 'light', 'space', 'clearer', 'visible', 'opaque', and 'transparency'?
Certainly, the way you are using them has nothing much to do with their usual meanings.
Post by: guest39538 on 08/10/2017 19:43:01
Ok, I will call it gogi, poki, nanaphal, if it makes you happy. I am not changing the definitions , I am correcting the semantics. You can still call it dark and light if you like, but it won't change the semantics I provided.Well, I'm glad you accept you didn't create the universe.
Actually nothing to do with me, I do did not create the Universe and made it that way. It is observational facts not a belief system.
Can you explain why you feel empowered to create new meanings for words like 'darker', 'light', 'space', 'clearer', 'visible', 'opaque', and 'transparency'?
Certainly, the way you are using them has nothing much to do with their usual meanings.
Quote
semantics
sɪˈmantɪks/Submit
noun
the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. The two main areas are logical semantics, concerned with matters such as sense and reference and presupposition and implication, and lexical semantics, concerned with the analysis of word meanings and relations between them.
the meaning of a word, phrase, or text.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/10/2017 00:41:57
OK, that's a start.
Ok, I will call it gogi, poki, nanaphal, if it makes you happy. I am not changing the definitions ...
Now tell us what those words mean.
They do not seem to mean what 'darker', 'light', 'space', 'clearer', 'visible', 'opaque', and 'transparency' mean.
Post by: guest39538 on 09/10/2017 01:56:16
Some people are just not that intelligent. The whole point is your semantics and description of darkness, what it means is wrong. It would still be called darkness, but darkness would be a property of the object rather than the absence of light.OK, that's a start.
Ok, I will call it gogi, poki, nanaphal, if it makes you happy. I am not changing the definitions ...
Now tell us what those words mean.
They do not seem to mean what 'darker', 'light', 'space', 'clearer', 'visible', 'opaque', and 'transparency' mean.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/10/2017 10:26:57
If you want to coin separate words forSome people are just not that intelligent. The whole point is your semantics and description of darkness, what it means is wrong. It would still be called darkness, but darkness would be a property of the object rather than the absence of light.OK, that's a start.
Ok, I will call it gogi, poki, nanaphal, if it makes you happy. I am not changing the definitions ...
Now tell us what those words mean.
They do not seem to mean what 'darker', 'light', 'space', 'clearer', 'visible', 'opaque', and 'transparency' mean.
"having the property of absorbing all or nearly all of the em radiation in the range about 400 to 700 nm wavelength" and "unillluminated,
that's fine by me. However in English, the word "dark" means both of those, and the word, "darkness" is construed accordingly.
Some people are, it seems not intelligent enough to realise that a word can have two meanings, depending on context.
They then rigidly try to stick to just one of those meanings even when it's not appropriate.
For example, it is dark in my cellar at the moment. Darkness reigns there.
If I go down there and turn the lights on, it will no longer be dark. The darkness will be expelled.
There are two wooden cupboards there one is made from ebony and the other from birch.
The first is dark, the second is light.
That remains true even if I turn the lights back off again.
Post by: guest39538 on 09/10/2017 10:56:52
I for one understand the difference a word can have in meanings. You however still do not understand why it is not dark in your cellar.If you want to coin separate words forSome people are just not that intelligent. The whole point is your semantics and description of darkness, what it means is wrong. It would still be called darkness, but darkness would be a property of the object rather than the absence of light.OK, that's a start.
Ok, I will call it gogi, poki, nanaphal, if it makes you happy. I am not changing the definitions ...
Now tell us what those words mean.
They do not seem to mean what 'darker', 'light', 'space', 'clearer', 'visible', 'opaque', and 'transparency' mean.
"having the property of absorbing all or nearly all of the em radiation in the range about 400 to 700 nm wavelength" and "unillluminated,
that's fine by me. However in English, the word "dark" means both of those, and the word, "darkness" is construed accordingly.
Some people are, it seems not intelligent enough to realise that a word can have two meanings, depending on context.
They then rigidly try to stick to just one of those meanings even when it's not appropriate.
For example, it is dark in my cellar at the moment. Darkness reigns there.
If I go down there and turn the lights on, it will no longer be dark. The darkness will be expelled.
There are two wooden cupboards there one is made from ebony and the other from birch.
The first is dark, the second is light.
That remains true even if I turn the lights back off again.
Your two cupboards in the light seem different in appearance , one being light in appearance and the other being dark in appearance. However when it is dark, both cupboards are the same in appearance,both cupboards are dark in appearance.
The space between you eyes is unaltered in appearance although you ''see'' that space turn dark.
Darkness what you call with the lights out, is not just the absence of light, it is the original appearance of all objects without enough intensity or magnitude of electromagnetic radiation to produce visible light. ( the visible of a dark and light cupboard).
added-
While the lights are on , one of your cupboards appears visibly dark.
When the lights are off, both cupboards appear visibly dark.
In the ''dark'' you can still see the cupboards, but they both appear dark. This gives you the sense that the space is also dark, that bit is an optical illusion.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/10/2017 12:50:00
You however still do not understand why it is not dark in your cellar.
However when it is dark...
Hang on; you just said it can't be dark down there.
Make up your mind.
Perhaps the problem is that you can't understand that it is, in fact, dark down there.
Shall we set up a poll?
Post by: guest39538 on 09/10/2017 14:26:20
Yes we can set up a poll if you like, but perhaps I should write a short paper on the matter to clarify understanding what is meant. You obviously do not understand me exactly or I am sure you would admit it is not dark in your cellar.You however still do not understand why it is not dark in your cellar.However when it is dark...
Hang on; you just said it can't be dark down there.
Make up your mind.
Perhaps the problem is that you can't understand that it is, in fact, dark down there.
Shall we set up a poll?
The objects are dark in your cellar but the space is not. Can you not understand this?
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/10/2017 14:41:58
I should write a short paper on the matter to clarify understanding what is meant.I keep asking you to explain what you mean.
Please, even at this late stage, do so.
The objects are dark in your cellar but the space is not. Can you not understand this?
The white things in my cellar are light, the black things are dark.
The space- as you refer to it, is transparent or colourless.
However all the stuff down there is unilluminated.
It's dark down there, and it's you who needs to understand that.
What do you think the outcome would be if I posed a poll that said this ?
"My cellar is underground. There are no windows. The door is shut. There are no light sources and there's no way for light to get down there.
For the purposes of this poll we set aside things like a trace of bioluminescence from bacteria or fungi, and the scintillation from radioactive decay and/ or cosmic rays,
It's about 10C so the emission of visible light from black body radiation is practically zero.
We are only considering visible light (rather than the rest of the EM spectrum), To summarise, if you tried to walk across it, you would bump into stuff, because you wouldn't be able to see it.
Is it dark in my cellar"
Post by: guest39538 on 09/10/2017 15:51:34
The white things in my cellar are light, the black things are dark.You agree with me but do not even realise it. Exactly, think about the space , it is colourless, it is not illuminated or unilluminated. The space is not dark in your cellar.
The space- as you refer to it, is transparent or colourless.
However all the stuff down there is unilluminated.
It's dark down there, and it's you who needs to understand that.
I will write it up later when my visitors have gone home.
Post by: alancalverd on 09/10/2017 17:15:32
I tried the experiment today using the tail camera on an Airbus A380.Have a gold star for the best throwaway line of the week! As I was saying to the Queen only yesterday.....
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/10/2017 17:22:12
You seem not to understand; whether it is illuminated or not (i e light or dark,) depends on whether I have switched the lights on.The white things in my cellar are light, the black things are dark.You agree with me but do not even realise it. Exactly, think about the space , it is colourless, it is not illuminated or unilluminated. The space is not dark in your cellar.
The space- as you refer to it, is transparent or colourless.
However all the stuff down there is unilluminated.
It's dark down there, and it's you who needs to understand that.
I will write it up later when my visitors have gone home.
(and, of course, strictly speaking, it's not clear- it scatters light slightly.)
What do you think the poll I suggested would say?
Here's a hint; it's dark in the cellar.
Post by: guest39538 on 09/10/2017 17:54:45
You seem not to understand; whether it is illuminated or not (i e light or dark,) depends on whether I have switched the lights on.The white things in my cellar are light, the black things are dark.You agree with me but do not even realise it. Exactly, think about the space , it is colourless, it is not illuminated or unilluminated. The space is not dark in your cellar.
The space- as you refer to it, is transparent or colourless.
However all the stuff down there is unilluminated.
It's dark down there, and it's you who needs to understand that.
I will write it up later when my visitors have gone home.
(and, of course, strictly speaking, it's not clear- it scatters light slightly.)
What do you think the poll I suggested would say?
Here's a hint; it's dark in the cellar.
It is quite clear to me that you have some sort of mental block. I know what the poll will say if I wrote a paper on the matter and if you asked the general public on the matter. I am not sure this forum would not be biased just because it is me, rather than objectively considering the notion.
Post by: guest39538 on 09/10/2017 18:56:31
Abstract - This paper is intended to show by objectivity of observation and logical conclusions, that darkness (The absence of light), is actually the property and natural state of appearance of any object. Thus leading to a conclusion(s) that darkness is the visible darkness of objects and light is the visible illumination of objects.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/10/2017 19:08:37
when you finish, it will still be dark in the cellar.
Also you need to read what you have written. Constructions like "objectivity of observation and logical conclusions" and " natural state of appearance of any object" don't mean anything unless you explain them.
An object doesn't really have a "natural" appearance since the appearance depends on circumstances- notable the illumination.
Post by: guest39538 on 09/10/2017 19:14:26
An object doesn't really have a "natural" appearance since the appearance depends on circumstances- notable the illumination.Without illumination the object is black. In your cellar when you think it it is dark, it is not dark, you are just seeing black everywhere around you. The space does not turn black, it remains transparent to not just light but transparent to sight because of the CMB. Because even in your optical illusion of a dark cellar, electromagnetic radiation still enters your eyes and that is why you can see a laser dot in the ''dark''.
Anyway I will have a re-think about my abstract, I know it is not very good.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/10/2017 19:16:04
Without illumination the object is black.No, in the dark it looks black- a tomato doesn't change colour when you turn the light off. How would it "know" to do so?
Post by: guest39538 on 09/10/2017 19:19:16
I asked the question before about the red apple in the ''dark'' . It knows because the apple stops reacting when there is not enough intensity and magnitude to react to. No interaction equates to no wavelength.Without illumination the object is black.No, in the dark it looks black- a tomato doesn't change colour when you turn the light off. How would it "know" to do so?
Post by: guest39538 on 09/10/2017 19:23:24
An anti-racism ''thing'' : The only difference between you and me is the wave-length.
Post by: The Spoon on 09/10/2017 19:27:33
Darn it, seem to have writers block and not know where to begin. so far.....You also have to write a paper before you right an abstract. An abstract is a summary of the paper and the data contained therein. How can you summarise something you have not written?
Abstract - This paper is intended to show by objectivity of observation and logical conclusions, that darkness (The absence of light), is actually the property and natural state of appearance of any object. Thus leading to a conclusion(s) that darkness is the visible darkness of objects and light is the visible illumination of objects.
Post by: guest39538 on 09/10/2017 19:33:17
I already have all the physics involved and the observations in my mind. I already know my own notion so it is easy to write the abstract firstly . Then I have to make sure in the paper I cover what the abstract says.Darn it, seem to have writers block and not know where to begin. so far.....You also have to write a paper before you right an abstract. An abstract is a summary of the paper and the data contained therein. How can you summarise something you have not written?
Abstract - This paper is intended to show by objectivity of observation and logical conclusions, that darkness (The absence of light), is actually the property and natural state of appearance of any object. Thus leading to a conclusion(s) that darkness is the visible darkness of objects and light is the visible illumination of objects.
However my abstract seems rather boring and is not very elegant. It does not explain the space being transparent etc. It is not easy to just write a paper, I have to be int he right frame of mind which I will be sooner than later.
It just comes to me... I was thinking of starting with clarifying what we mean by light and explaining the various ambiguities of the word. Directing the reader to the intended version to remove ambiguity.
Post by: guest39538 on 09/10/2017 19:43:49
Abstract - This paper is intended to show by observation,logic and present information that darkness (The absence of light), is actually the visual property of any object that is not illuminated. This paper is also intended to show by observation, logic and present information. that light and darkness do not exist of space.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/10/2017 19:47:34
. It knows because the apple stops reacting when there is not enough intensity and magnitude to react to. No interaction equates to no wavelength.So, if an owl and I are both looking at a tomato as the sun sets and the owl- which has better night vision that me- can tel it's red, but I can't, what colour is the tomato?
If I look away, does it change colour?
This whole idea is daft. The thing is red, it stays red.
Post by: The Spoon on 09/10/2017 19:50:16
You have never read an academic paper have you. You really dont have a clue.I already have all the physics involved and the observations in my mind. I already know my own notion so it is easy to write the abstract firstly . Then I have to make sure in the paper I cover what the abstract says.Darn it, seem to have writers block and not know where to begin. so far.....You also have to write a paper before you right an abstract. An abstract is a summary of the paper and the data contained therein. How can you summarise something you have not written?
Abstract - This paper is intended to show by objectivity of observation and logical conclusions, that darkness (The absence of light), is actually the property and natural state of appearance of any object. Thus leading to a conclusion(s) that darkness is the visible darkness of objects and light is the visible illumination of objects.
However my abstract seems rather boring and is not very elegant. It does not explain the space being transparent etc. It is not easy to just write a paper, I have to be int he right frame of mind which I will be sooner than later.
It just comes to me... I was thinking of starting with clarifying what we mean by light and explaining the various ambiguities of the word. Directing the reader to the intended version to remove ambiguity.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/10/2017 19:52:29
Your definition doesn't seem to take account of that.
You seem to be writing an essay plan, but calling it an abstract.
That's no going to help.
Post by: guest39538 on 09/10/2017 20:06:52
I read relativity , of course I don't know how to do a paper correctly. I haven't a clue how to present it.You have never read an academic paper have you. You really dont have a clue.I already have all the physics involved and the observations in my mind. I already know my own notion so it is easy to write the abstract firstly . Then I have to make sure in the paper I cover what the abstract says.Darn it, seem to have writers block and not know where to begin. so far.....You also have to write a paper before you right an abstract. An abstract is a summary of the paper and the data contained therein. How can you summarise something you have not written?
Abstract - This paper is intended to show by objectivity of observation and logical conclusions, that darkness (The absence of light), is actually the property and natural state of appearance of any object. Thus leading to a conclusion(s) that darkness is the visible darkness of objects and light is the visible illumination of objects.
However my abstract seems rather boring and is not very elegant. It does not explain the space being transparent etc. It is not easy to just write a paper, I have to be int he right frame of mind which I will be sooner than later.
It just comes to me... I was thinking of starting with clarifying what we mean by light and explaining the various ambiguities of the word. Directing the reader to the intended version to remove ambiguity.
I could present it in demonstration but explaining it in words as in a paper is not easy.
Post by: The Spoon on 09/10/2017 20:08:53
You read relativity? Where? General or special relativity?I read relativity , of course I don't know how to do a paper correctly. I haven't a clue how to present it.You have never read an academic paper have you. You really dont have a clue.I already have all the physics involved and the observations in my mind. I already know my own notion so it is easy to write the abstract firstly . Then I have to make sure in the paper I cover what the abstract says.Darn it, seem to have writers block and not know where to begin. so far.....You also have to write a paper before you right an abstract. An abstract is a summary of the paper and the data contained therein. How can you summarise something you have not written?
Abstract - This paper is intended to show by objectivity of observation and logical conclusions, that darkness (The absence of light), is actually the property and natural state of appearance of any object. Thus leading to a conclusion(s) that darkness is the visible darkness of objects and light is the visible illumination of objects.
However my abstract seems rather boring and is not very elegant. It does not explain the space being transparent etc. It is not easy to just write a paper, I have to be int he right frame of mind which I will be sooner than later.
It just comes to me... I was thinking of starting with clarifying what we mean by light and explaining the various ambiguities of the word. Directing the reader to the intended version to remove ambiguity.
I could present it in demonstration but explaining it in words as in a paper is not easy.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/10/2017 20:18:39
I read relativity , of course I don't know how to do a paper correctly. I haven't a clue how to present it.
I could present it in demonstration but explaining it in words as in a paper is not easy.
Is your first language German?
Anyway, I don't care if you portray it through interpretive dance, as long as you make it clear what you mean.
Post by: guest39538 on 09/10/2017 21:14:42
http://www.bartleby.com/173/You read relativity? Where? General or special relativity?I read relativity , of course I don't know how to do a paper correctly. I haven't a clue how to present it.You have never read an academic paper have you. You really dont have a clue.I already have all the physics involved and the observations in my mind. I already know my own notion so it is easy to write the abstract firstly . Then I have to make sure in the paper I cover what the abstract says.Darn it, seem to have writers block and not know where to begin. so far.....You also have to write a paper before you right an abstract. An abstract is a summary of the paper and the data contained therein. How can you summarise something you have not written?
Abstract - This paper is intended to show by objectivity of observation and logical conclusions, that darkness (The absence of light), is actually the property and natural state of appearance of any object. Thus leading to a conclusion(s) that darkness is the visible darkness of objects and light is the visible illumination of objects.
However my abstract seems rather boring and is not very elegant. It does not explain the space being transparent etc. It is not easy to just write a paper, I have to be int he right frame of mind which I will be sooner than later.
It just comes to me... I was thinking of starting with clarifying what we mean by light and explaining the various ambiguities of the word. Directing the reader to the intended version to remove ambiguity.
I could present it in demonstration but explaining it in words as in a paper is not easy.
Post by: The Spoon on 09/10/2017 21:19:05
So you read all of it? How long did it take you to find that after I asked you the question? How does that relate to this post and what you are postulating?http://www.bartleby.com/173/You read relativity? Where? General or special relativity?I read relativity , of course I don't know how to do a paper correctly. I haven't a clue how to present it.You have never read an academic paper have you. You really dont have a clue.I already have all the physics involved and the observations in my mind. I already know my own notion so it is easy to write the abstract firstly . Then I have to make sure in the paper I cover what the abstract says.Darn it, seem to have writers block and not know where to begin. so far.....You also have to write a paper before you right an abstract. An abstract is a summary of the paper and the data contained therein. How can you summarise something you have not written?
Abstract - This paper is intended to show by objectivity of observation and logical conclusions, that darkness (The absence of light), is actually the property and natural state of appearance of any object. Thus leading to a conclusion(s) that darkness is the visible darkness of objects and light is the visible illumination of objects.
However my abstract seems rather boring and is not very elegant. It does not explain the space being transparent etc. It is not easy to just write a paper, I have to be int he right frame of mind which I will be sooner than later.
It just comes to me... I was thinking of starting with clarifying what we mean by light and explaining the various ambiguities of the word. Directing the reader to the intended version to remove ambiguity.
I could present it in demonstration but explaining it in words as in a paper is not easy.
Post by: guest39538 on 09/10/2017 21:31:15
I did not read all of it, just some of it that was relevant to different notions I have. I do not think anything relates to my suggested postulate. Often just a title spurs my mind into thinking, the title descriptive enough to allow me to think about that thing. In example The Electrodynamics of Moving bodies , A descriptive title that says enough to allow a person to think about the subject. It took seconds to find it again, I use to have it all bookmarked but I had a computer clean up one day.So you read all of it? How long did it take you to find that after I asked you the question? How does that relate to this post and what you are postulating?http://www.bartleby.com/173/You read relativity? Where? General or special relativity?I read relativity , of course I don't know how to do a paper correctly. I haven't a clue how to present it.You have never read an academic paper have you. You really dont have a clue.I already have all the physics involved and the observations in my mind. I already know my own notion so it is easy to write the abstract firstly . Then I have to make sure in the paper I cover what the abstract says.Darn it, seem to have writers block and not know where to begin. so far.....You also have to write a paper before you right an abstract. An abstract is a summary of the paper and the data contained therein. How can you summarise something you have not written?
Abstract - This paper is intended to show by objectivity of observation and logical conclusions, that darkness (The absence of light), is actually the property and natural state of appearance of any object. Thus leading to a conclusion(s) that darkness is the visible darkness of objects and light is the visible illumination of objects.
However my abstract seems rather boring and is not very elegant. It does not explain the space being transparent etc. It is not easy to just write a paper, I have to be int he right frame of mind which I will be sooner than later.
It just comes to me... I was thinking of starting with clarifying what we mean by light and explaining the various ambiguities of the word. Directing the reader to the intended version to remove ambiguity.
I could present it in demonstration but explaining it in words as in a paper is not easy.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/10/2017 21:37:17
How does that relate to this post and what you are postulating?It probably doesn't.
In fairness you said he never read research paper and he said he had read one- Einstein's.
There's no way you can prove he didn't.
Of course it's clear that he'as not copying the style or format of that paper but that's just a convention.
As long as he expresses his ideas clearly, I don't care if it's in iambic pentameter.
Once he writes down what he thinks, we can look at it and see if it stands up both in its own right(internal consistency) and in the wider scheme of things ( consistency with observation).
That may not take long, but we won't be able to start until he's written down what he means.
Post by: guest39538 on 09/10/2017 21:46:46
There's no way you can prove he didn't.I can prove I did. Do you think I could actually have different notions and ideas on things if I did not know the original view of that thing?
Of course not .
I understand why you and even I use to think darkness is just the absence of light. In my opinion that is a cop out without a complete investigation. So I investigated and found a different answer that ''fits'' reality and the physics involved also agrees with it.
I thought the Universe was mysterious before but with my ''findings'' I now find it even more mysterious. I even will say I admire it because it is just such a ''clever'' universe.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/10/2017 21:56:53
Plenty of people, like me, have a view on relativity without having read the original paper(s).There's no way you can prove he didn't.I can prove I did. Do you think I could actually have different notions and ideas on things if I did not know the original view of that thing?
Of course not .
I understand why you and even I use to think darkness is just the absence of light. In my opinion that is a cop out without a complete investigation. So I investigated and found a different answer that ''fits'' reality and the physics involved also agrees with it.
I thought the Universe was mysterious before but with my ''findings'' I now find it even more mysterious. I even will say I admire it because it is just such a ''clever'' universe.
I couldn't read it- that's why I wondered if German was your first language.
I understand why you and even I use to think darkness is just the absence of light.I think that, because it's plainly observably true.
May I remind you that you were writing an account of your thoughts on the mater.
It might be better if you got back to that.
Post by: guest39538 on 09/10/2017 22:01:48
Ok, soon my friends will be gone and the background ''white noise'' will be gone. I will then sit and write my thoughts on the matter.Plenty of people, like me, have a view on relativity without having read the original paper(s).There's no way you can prove he didn't.I can prove I did. Do you think I could actually have different notions and ideas on things if I did not know the original view of that thing?
Of course not .
I understand why you and even I use to think darkness is just the absence of light. In my opinion that is a cop out without a complete investigation. So I investigated and found a different answer that ''fits'' reality and the physics involved also agrees with it.
I thought the Universe was mysterious before but with my ''findings'' I now find it even more mysterious. I even will say I admire it because it is just such a ''clever'' universe.
I couldn't read it- that's why I wondered if German was your first language.I understand why you and even I use to think darkness is just the absence of light.I think that, because it's plainly observably true.
May I remind you that you were writing an account of your thoughts on the mater.
It might be better if you got back to that.
Post by: guest39538 on 09/10/2017 22:31:39
Light and dark explained
Let us start our discussion with the clarification of what we call light and what we call darkness in a general manner. It is important we remove ambiguity from the discussion so that we can have an equal understanding of the context we mean. In discussing light and dark , let us not mistake the words for being that of the ebony and ivory keys on a piano. What we are discussing is the electromagnetic radiation emitted from a star or a source such as a flashlight. In discussing darkness we are referring to the lack of light or the absence of light as it is presently defined. One must also understand the difference in the visible spectrum ( can be seen by the eye) and the invisible spectrum ( can not be seen by the eye).
The visible spectrum(colour) is visible light that can be seen by the eye, this can be measured to have a constant wave-length for each independent ''colour''. The visible spectrum is measured to be 400nm-700nm , this is the range of light within our range of vision. Shorter or longer wave-lengths of light can not be seen by the human eye although some species of animals such as snakes can see infra red wave-length that extends from 700nm to 1mm.
so far......to be continued
Post by: guest39538 on 09/10/2017 23:10:33
Let us now look at the light permeating through space, the space apparently not opposing the permeating light or having any affect on the light. The observation of the light permeating through space by the human eye, being that of the invisible spectrum, no visible spectrum is observed. The space seemingly empty and colourless in appearance as if there is nothing there, but even a school boy knows the space contains electromagnetic radiation of the invisible kind (invisible spectrum).
The change of state of space with the light on or off.
In the previous chapter we discussed the interference of space on light where we can draw a conclusion that space does not alter the light constant permeating through it . Now let us look at the affects of light on space and the visual appearance of that space with the lights on or the lights off. We have already discussed and know that space is transparent to light and we already know that space does not interfere with the permeating light. With the lights on , humans perceive the space to be light . With the lights off one would perceive that space to be dark. However the physics involved and what we have already discussed about space and interference, one could certainly suggest with an almost certainty that the space remains unaltered in its state and appearance, the appearance of dark and light of that space being an optical illusion. The space remaining transparent with the lights on or off.
Post by: guest39538 on 10/10/2017 01:04:36
Title: Relative correctness and the correct semantics of information.
Abstract-
This paper is intended to correct relativity and semantics in a primary respect to science process. Using a dialectic approach and presenting logical arguments that opposes the present information. Showing a construction of deductive logical proof's , looking at the true values of relativity that humanity has quantified. Concluding that some of the content uses of relativity have no other discipline, other than the literal content created by the practitioner.
Introduction.
Anybody who has ever learnt some science, must of heard of Albert Einstein's relativity. I could not believe when I first ''heard'' time slowed down and wondered how much of relativity was fact and how much of relativity was mythology. The more we look at the intrinsic details of relativity, the more we can realise the mythology involved. In fact the more closely we inspect the entirety of physics science, the more we can observe an ever growing mythology . We can archive our beliefs because we can look at the intrinsic details of relativity that shows ostensibly, thus leading into explaining certain details that creates this mythology in science.
Postulate one: The speed of time is infinite, any measurement of time greater than zero becomes immediate history no matter what the speed or the length of measurement is.
Postulate two: Visible light is dependent to electro-magnetic radiation and substance interaction.
Postulate three: Visible light and dark do not exist of free space.
Postulate four: Visible darkness is a visual property of an object that is not illuminated.
At first these postulates may not be so obviously true to the reader, however thus far I have not explained the nature of the postulates in which the reader will then understand the obvious of the postulates. To view something to be incorrect without understanding it, is not being objective. We can not let ourselves exclude new information biased towards past information. We must give new information considerate thought on the premise or premises of the argument provided and realise that somethings of present information appear to be true, but are not necessarily true. Let us now look at the nature of the postulates.
The Nature of time.
Many years have passed, and many great minds have considered time and the meaning of time and shared their thoughts. Humans , the very need for time, the very thought of time, something we look for outside of ourselves. Something we believe is quantifiable, something we believe can be measured, something we believe that can slow down or speed up. Newton believed time was absolute, but this was ''over ruled'' by Albert Einstein who first suggested time can slow down or speed up in his 1905 and 1914 papers on relativity.
I quote:Citation: Albert Einstein Part I: The Special Theory of Relativity : 8.On the Idea of Time in Physic
'' Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event. 4
Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an absolute significance, i.e. that it is independent of the state of motion of the body of reference. But we have just seen that this assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of simultaneity; if we discard this assumption, then the conflict between the law of the propagation of light in vacuo and the principle of relativity (developed in Section VII) disappears. 5
We were led to that conflict by the considerations of Section VI, which are now no longer tenable. In that section we concluded that the man in the carriage, who traverses the distance w per second relative to the carriage, traverses the same distance also with respect to the embankment in each second of time. But, according to the foregoing considerations, the time required by a particular occurrence with respect to the carriage must not be considered equal to the duration of the same occurrence as judged from the embankment (as reference-body). Hence it cannot be contended that the man in walking travels the distance w relative to the railway line in a time which is equal to one second as judged from the embankment''.
I quote:Citation: Albert Einstein Part I: The Special Theory of Relativity : 9.The Relativity of Simultaneity
''Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event''.
This then proven to be true by various experiments. One of the most famous experiments being that of Hafele–Keating experiment.
I quote:citation:Wikipedia Hafele–Keating experiment
''The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.''
Time dilation and relativity seemingly true and undistuputable. The nature of time seemingly explained and concluded by Albert Einstein.
However by using a dialetic approach and looking at the information and considering the information, there is seemingly something amiss. I found this interesting and used investigative thought to consider the thinking involved in Einsteins papers and the nature of time. Firstly my thoughts were in the direction of time speeding up or slowing down and considering the relativity between two individual observers. Time having the ability to speed up or slow down being suggestive that time has a speed. Thus leading to my first question in my mind, what is the speed of time, how fast does time pass?
In considering this, the next increment of time to follow the moment of ''now'' was seemingly immediately away, one increment of time passing to the next increment of time seemingly immediately with no ''gaps'' or pause between, a continuous flow without breaks. No matter how fast I tried to count , time seemingly past as fast as I could count. In my mind there was now an uncertainty of the nature of time that I had interpreted of present information.
Thus leading me how to explain this, which I looked too geometrical points. I could not displace a geometrical point without leaving a past geometrical position. It did not matter at what speed I tried too displace the point, it always left a past geometrical position. I then considered the direction of time, I could not displace the geometrical point without leaving a past chronological position on the time line, again at any speed.
This then had me slightly bewildered, if one observers next increment of time is immediately ahead of them, then one must conclude that another observers next increment of time is also immediate ahead of them .
This thought was thought provoking, so I needed to look deeper for answers and in searching for an answer I came across a thought experiment called The Twin Paradox.
It is said in thought that there was two identical twins, let us call them twin one and twin two. Both identical twins start off on the inertia reference frame of the Earth. Twin two starts a journey into space leaving twin one on Earth, twin two returns some time later and it is said they had aged less than twin one because of time dilation, experiencing less time than twin one.
Ok, let us consider this in respect to the twins and consider two proposition statements.
proposition 1 : twin one's next chronological position on the time line is (tP) time Planck ahead of them (p)
proposition 2: twin two's next chronological position on the time line is (tP) time Planck ahead of them (q)
conclusion : (p?q)?(q?p)?(p?? q)
p implies q and q implies p which implies p and q are equal and equivalent statements.
From this we can deduct both statements have the same truth value in every model and twin one and twin two remain synchronous in timing in respect to relative motion.
model of relativity twins.jpg
Thus explaining the first postulate:
Postulate one: The speed of time is infinite, any measurement of time greater than zero becomes immediate history no matter the speed or length of increment measurement.
Let us now consider a train carriage that is at rest relative to the embankment. On the embankment is a clock that is identical to a clock on the carriage. Both clocks tick at the frequency of one time Planck per tick.
Einstein claims that when the carriage is in motion relative to the embankment , the frequency of the ticking clock on the carriage in relative motion is different to the frequency of the clock at relative rest on the embankment, no longer being synchronous.
In the earlier quote Einstein says {with respect to the embankment in each second of time.}.
This is the error in thinking by Mr Einstein, a second being a much longer increment than the smallest measure of time (tP) time Planck. If on the carriage the rate of time was (tP) and the rate of time on the embankment was (tp), I conclude from the earlier shown evidental results of the twin statements, that the time would remain synchronous whether at rest or in relative motion.
Evidentally if twin two was to travel in the carriage, relative too twin one, twin two's next chronological position on the time line remains (tP) time Planck ahead of them and synchronous too twin one. The unit of a Planck length being fractionally zero and having no negliable length to contract, thus leading us to look at the Lorentz length contraction and the thought experiment of a light clock that supports the time dilation ideology.
I quote:Citation Wikipedia Light Clock
''The light clock is a simple way of showing a basic feature of Special relativity. A clock is designed to work by bouncing a flash of light off a distant mirror and using its return to trigger another flash of light, meanwhile counting how many flashes have occurred along the way. It is easy to show that people on Earth watching a spaceship fly overhead with such a clock would see it ticking relatively slowly. This effect is called time dilation.''
Light and dark explained
Let us start our discussion with the clarification of what we call light and what we call darkness in a general manner. It is important we remove ambiguity from the discussion so that we can have an equal understanding of the context we mean. In discussing light and dark , let us not mistake the words for being that of the ebony and ivory keys on a piano. What we are discussing is the electromagnetic radiation emitted from a star or a source such as a flashlight. In discussing darkness we are referring to the lack of light or the absence of light as it is presently defined. One must also understand the difference in the visible spectrum ( can be seen by the eye) and the invisible spectrum ( can not be seen by the eye).
The visible spectrum(colour) is visible light that can be seen by the eye, this can be measured to have a constant wave-length for each independent ''colour''. The visible spectrum is measured to be 400nm-700nm , this is the range of light within our range of vision. Shorter or longer wave-lengths of light can not be seen by the human eye although some species of animals such as snakes can see infra red wave-length that extends from 700nm to 1mm.
The interference of space on light.
Let us now look at the light permeating through space, the space apparently not opposing the permeating light or having any affect on the light. The observation of the light permeating through space by the human eye, being that of the invisible spectrum, no visible spectrum is observed. The space seemingly empty and colourless in appearance as if there is nothing there, but even a school boy knows the space contains electromagnetic radiation of the invisible kind (invisible spectrum).
The change of state of space with the light on or off.
In the previous chapter we discussed the interference of space on light where we can draw a conclusion that space does not alter the light constant permeating through it . Now let us look at the affects of light on space and the visual appearance of that space with the lights on or the lights off. We have already discussed and know that space is transparent to light and we already know that space does not interfere with the permeating light. With the lights on , humans perceive the space to be light . With the lights off one would perceive that space to be dark. However the physics involved and what we have already discussed about space and interference, one could certainly suggest with an almost certainty that the space remains unaltered in its state and appearance, the appearance of dark and light of that space being an optical illusion. The space remaining transparent with the lights on or off.
I think I have lost some parts, will have to find them.
Post by: Kryptid on 10/10/2017 03:05:07
Post by: guest39538 on 10/10/2017 12:39:31
Funny how you mentioned the Hafele–Keating experiment only to subsequently ignore its results.Quite clearly you have not read it properly . The conclusion about time dilation is it is a timing dilation.
Post by: Kryptid on 10/10/2017 15:21:57
Quite clearly you have not read it properly . The conclusion about time dilation is it is a timing dilation.
Call it whatever you want to, but the results of that experiment (and others) demonstrate that different objects do indeed experience the flow of time at different rates depending on their relative velocities and positions in a gravity well. To argue anything else is to argue against observed reality.
Post by: guest39538 on 10/10/2017 16:12:56
Nope, what they experience is a different rate of the measurement of time. Time is independent of the clocks. Counting slow or counting fast does not alter the rate of time. Perhaps if you had read it properly and tried to understand it you might not be so defensive. Yes there is a timing dilation but no there is not a time dilation.Quite clearly you have not read it properly . The conclusion about time dilation is it is a timing dilation.
Call it whatever you want to, but the results of that experiment (and others) demonstrate that different objects do indeed experience the flow of time at different rates depending on their relative velocities and positions in a gravity well. To argue anything else is to argue against observed reality.
Post by: The Spoon on 10/10/2017 16:33:06
How do you have a measurement of time without a clock?Nope, what they experience is a different rate of the measurement of time. Time is independent of the clocks. Counting slow or counting fast does not alter the rate of time. Perhaps if you had read it properly and tried to understand it you might not be so defensive. Yes there is a timing dilation but no there is not a time dilation.Quite clearly you have not read it properly . The conclusion about time dilation is it is a timing dilation.
Call it whatever you want to, but the results of that experiment (and others) demonstrate that different objects do indeed experience the flow of time at different rates depending on their relative velocities and positions in a gravity well. To argue anything else is to argue against observed reality.
ETA. Kryptid was not being defensive. He was pointing out why you were wrong.
Post by: Kryptid on 10/10/2017 21:23:40
Nope, what they experience is a different rate of the measurement of time. Time is independent of the clocks. Counting slow or counting fast does not alter the rate of time. Perhaps if you had read it properly and tried to understand it you might not be so defensive. Yes there is a timing dilation but no there is not a time dilation.
Without time dilation there is nothing making the clocks speed up or slow down. If clocks speed up or slow down, then any time measuring device or process must speed up or slow down under the same circumstances, including the human brain. That's effectively the same as time dilating because you can't tell the difference. How can you possibly establish the difference between time actually dilating and time merely appearing to dilate? Those two things would appear identical to any measuring device.
Post by: guest39538 on 10/10/2017 21:31:30
Without time dilation there is nothing making the clocks speed up or slow downWhy would you think time was slowing the clock down? The clock measures time but is not time.
Post by: Kryptid on 10/10/2017 21:39:27
Why would you think time was slowing the clock down?
It obviously isn't due to any changes in the internal structure of the clock, given that it's identical when it's sitting on the ground or when it's flying in an airplane. Even unstable subatomic particles take longer to decay when they are moving quickly. So whatever is causing processes to slow down at high speeds or in strong gravity wells affects all devices and processes equally. Also, the amount by which it slows down is in accordance with the amount that Einstein predicted mathematically that it would if time itself is indeed slowing down. Due to these facts, it is perfectly sensible to say that time is slowing down.
Quote
The clock measures time but is not time.
You don't say...
Post by: guest39538 on 10/10/2017 22:15:31
Can you just for once pretend you know nothing? Forget Einstein and everything about science you know.Why would you think time was slowing the clock down?
It obviously isn't due to any changes in the internal structure of the clock, given that it's identical when it's sitting on the ground or when it's flying in an airplane. Even unstable subatomic particles take longer to decay when they are moving quickly. So whatever is causing processes to slow down at high speeds or in strong gravity wells affects all devices and processes equally. Also, the amount by which it slows down is in accordance with the amount that Einstein predicted mathematically that it would if time itself is indeed slowing down. Due to these facts, it is perfectly sensible to say that time is slowing down.QuoteThe clock measures time but is not time.
You don't say...
I am going to learn you about time ok? Because in this scenario you are ''clueless'' about time.
Time is a quantifiable measurement directly proportional to change.
Do you understand the definition?
added - I will even tell you how to approach the statement.
Firstly we can break the statement down into two segments because the statement says two things:
1)Time is a quantifiable measurement
2) directly proportional to change
Do you disagree with 1 or 2?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/10/2017 22:23:43
Let us now look at the light permeating through space, the space apparently not opposing the permeating light or having any affect on the light. The observation of the light permeating through space by the human eye, being that of the invisible spectrum, no visible spectrum is observed. The space seemingly empty and colourless in appearance as if there is nothing there, but even a school boy knows the space contains electromagnetic radiation of the invisible kind (invisible spectrum).
It's about here that you go wrong.
Post by: guest39538 on 10/10/2017 22:43:03
Really, ask as many people as you like if they see any differently to that.Let us now look at the light permeating through space, the space apparently not opposing the permeating light or having any affect on the light. The observation of the light permeating through space by the human eye, being that of the invisible spectrum, no visible spectrum is observed. The space seemingly empty and colourless in appearance as if there is nothing there, but even a school boy knows the space contains electromagnetic radiation of the invisible kind (invisible spectrum).
It's about here that you go wrong.
Post by: Kryptid on 10/10/2017 22:53:56
Can you just for once pretend you know nothing? Forget Einstein and everything about science you know.
I'll only forget it if and when sufficiently powerful evidence to overturn it comes up. You haven't come even close to refuting the observation by experiments that time dilation does occur.
Quote
I am going to learn you about time ok? Because in this scenario you are ''clueless'' about time.
Time is a quantifiable measurement directly proportional to change.
Do you understand the definition?
added - I will even tell you how to approach the statement.
Firstly we can break the statement down into two segments because the statement says two things:
1)Time is a quantifiable measurement
2) directly proportional to change
Do you disagree with 1 or 2?
No kind of argument, definitions or logical twists you could possibly come up with will refute observable facts. What is your explanation for why clocks and physical processes slow down under certain circumstances? Remember, you also have to be able to explain why these things slow down by the amount that relativity predicts that they will. It can't just be some lucky coincidence that Einstein got the numbers right.
Post by: guest39538 on 10/10/2017 23:12:17
When will you realise that relative timing, i.e a clock speed is not relative time?Why would you think time was slowing the clock down?
It obviously isn't due to any changes in the internal structure of the clock, given that it's identical when it's sitting on the ground or when it's flying in an airplane. Even unstable subatomic particles take longer to decay when they are moving quickly. So whatever is causing processes to slow down at high speeds or in strong gravity wells affects all devices and processes equally. Also, the amount by which it slows down is in accordance with the amount that Einstein predicted mathematically that it would if time itself is indeed slowing down. Due to these facts, it is perfectly sensible to say that time is slowing down.QuoteThe clock measures time but is not time.
You don't say...
What is affecting the Caesium rate has nothing to do with time. I consider it is rather stupid to use a clock that the measurement is affected by motion.
Post by: Kryptid on 11/10/2017 00:01:11
When will you realise that relative timing, i.e a clock speed is not relative time?
When you show me a better way to account for it than existing theories.
Quote
What is affecting the Caesium rate has nothing to do with time. I consider it is rather stupid to use a clock that the measurement is affected by motion.
Do you have any sources showing that motion alone affects the transition times of electron transfer between energy levels in a cesium atom? It's not just cesium atoms either. Unstable particles are also affected by time dilation even though they are orders of magnitude simpler than a clock. How can you account for them being affected the same way? I'm still waiting for you to explain how Einstein got "lucky" with his numerical predictions.
Post by: The Spoon on 11/10/2017 12:07:47
This sums you up very well. You appeal to ignorance and this statement indicates that the only way that people would accept your 'theories' is if they were completely ignorant of science. Unlike the science that has gone before you just have wild conjecture with absolutely no evidence and muddled thinking. The above statement more than any other shows it to be bullshit.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/10/2017 13:07:06
'Can you just for once pretend you know nothing? Forget Einstein and everything about science you know.'Nope, I was trying to open up your minds which will give you the ability to think yourself instead of relying on the recall of memorised information that was taught to you. If you can not allow yourself to surpass the subjective mental block , you will never understand. Understand the education you was subjected too is the same sort of education that gives people notions and belief of 50 virgins awaiting you in heaven.
This sums you up very well. You appeal to ignorance and this statement indicates that the only way that people would accept your 'theories' is if they were completely ignorant of science. Unlike the science that has gone before you just have wild conjecture with absolutely no evidence and muddled thinking. The above statement more than any other shows it to be bullshit.
Be objective and understand this... be open minded, I never know anything and know nothing, my mind is always empty for learning.
Post by: The Spoon on 11/10/2017 13:18:00
But we do think for ourselves and we are objective. That is how science works, by taking on board new evidence. The problem is, you have not presented any evidence, just nonsensical 'thought experiments', childish drawings and nonsense about seeing atoms due to the reflection off a boot.'Can you just for once pretend you know nothing? Forget Einstein and everything about science you know.'Nope, I was trying to open up your minds which will give you the ability to think yourself instead of relying on the recall of memorised information that was taught to you. If you can not allow yourself to surpass the subjective mental block , you will never understand. Understand the education you was subjected too is the same sort of education that gives people notions and belief of 50 virgins awaiting you in heaven.
This sums you up very well. You appeal to ignorance and this statement indicates that the only way that people would accept your 'theories' is if they were completely ignorant of science. Unlike the science that has gone before you just have wild conjecture with absolutely no evidence and muddled thinking. The above statement more than any other shows it to be bullshit.
Be objective and understand this... be open minded, I never know anything and know nothing, my mind is always empty for learning.
What you say about the education we were 'subjected to' giving 'people notions and belief of 50 virgins awaiting you in heaven' is nonsense. You seek to dismiss all learning because it contradicts you. Believing your guff is not being open minded, it is being gullible.You don't even properly understand the subject you are trying to refute and as has been stated by everybody else, you have completely failed to produce evidence. You do not even have the education to know how to use 'were' and 'was' or 'learnt' and 'taught' correctly.
As the phrase goes don't be so open minded that your brain falls out.
Your dismissal of education and experts is like that of Trump or Gove. Designed to fool the ignorant into believing evidence free nonsense.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/10/2017 13:44:07
But we do think for ourselves and we are objective. That is how science works, by taking on board new evidence. The problem is, you have not presented any evidence, just nonsensical 'thought experiments', childish drawings and nonsense about seeing atoms due to the reflection off a boot.
Tell yea what, I will talk to you as if one of me mucker's and be quite blunt. You are not being objective, you are not looking at the new evidence, your just not thinking . Seriously dude I know from talking with you that you are not some thick idiot.
My chit drawings as you put it that are Dirac child like, are very good drawings dude, its just you can't see it. Now lad if they was to come me visit me or I visit you and we sat down at a table with a few bevies or a brew, well lad then by my hand gesters alone you would understand. Posts do not show emotional response or hand gesters etc. I could show you in ten minutes flat if I was there with you buddy.
Post by: The Spoon on 11/10/2017 13:47:55
So instead of doing a parody of a German accent you are typing in a parody of a Northern accent? It just makes you look more ridiculous than you already are.But we do think for ourselves and we are objective. That is how science works, by taking on board new evidence. The problem is, you have not presented any evidence, just nonsensical 'thought experiments', childish drawings and nonsense about seeing atoms due to the reflection off a boot.
Tell yea what, I will talk to you as if one of me mucker's and be quite blunt. You are not being objective, you are not looking at the new evidence, your just not thinking . Seriously dude I know from talking with you that you are not some thick idiot.
My chit drawings as you put it that are Dirac child like, are very good drawings dude, its just you can't see it. Now lad if they was to come me visit me or I visit you and we sat down at a table with a few bevies or a brew, well lad then by my hand gesters alone you would understand. Posts do not show emotional response or hand gesters etc. I could show you in ten minutes flat if I was there with you buddy.
You talk about new evidence. You have not provided any evidence full stop.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/10/2017 14:15:05
We have something in life called logic, if the logic does not work then it is not logical. The evidence is logic my friend and a few simple axioms. p.s I am from the midlands matey , I am up North relative to the South.So instead of doing a parody of a German accent you are typing in a parody of a Northern accent? It just makes you look more ridiculous than you already are.But we do think for ourselves and we are objective. That is how science works, by taking on board new evidence. The problem is, you have not presented any evidence, just nonsensical 'thought experiments', childish drawings and nonsense about seeing atoms due to the reflection off a boot.
Tell yea what, I will talk to you as if one of me mucker's and be quite blunt. You are not being objective, you are not looking at the new evidence, your just not thinking . Seriously dude I know from talking with you that you are not some thick idiot.
My chit drawings as you put it that are Dirac child like, are very good drawings dude, its just you can't see it. Now lad if they was to come me visit me or I visit you and we sat down at a table with a few bevies or a brew, well lad then by my hand gesters alone you would understand. Posts do not show emotional response or hand gesters etc. I could show you in ten minutes flat if I was there with you buddy.
You talk about new evidence. You have not provided any evidence full stop.
Post by: The Spoon on 11/10/2017 14:40:25
Logic is not evidence. Your axioms are things you made up and call axioms because you do not want them examinaed. They are 'just so' stories.We have something in life called logic, if the logic does not work then it is not logical. The evidence is logic my friend and a few simple axioms. p.s I am from the midlands matey , I am up North relative to the South.So instead of doing a parody of a German accent you are typing in a parody of a Northern accent? It just makes you look more ridiculous than you already are.But we do think for ourselves and we are objective. That is how science works, by taking on board new evidence. The problem is, you have not presented any evidence, just nonsensical 'thought experiments', childish drawings and nonsense about seeing atoms due to the reflection off a boot.
Tell yea what, I will talk to you as if one of me mucker's and be quite blunt. You are not being objective, you are not looking at the new evidence, your just not thinking . Seriously dude I know from talking with you that you are not some thick idiot.
My chit drawings as you put it that are Dirac child like, are very good drawings dude, its just you can't see it. Now lad if they was to come me visit me or I visit you and we sat down at a table with a few bevies or a brew, well lad then by my hand gesters alone you would understand. Posts do not show emotional response or hand gesters etc. I could show you in ten minutes flat if I was there with you buddy.
You talk about new evidence. You have not provided any evidence full stop.
I am from the Midlands. We do not call people lad. That is a parody of a Yorkshire accent. You are a liar.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/10/2017 14:56:37
Dude me and my friends all call each other bruv or lad or similar.Logic is not evidence. Your axioms are things you made up and call axioms because you do not want them examinaed. They are 'just so' stories.We have something in life called logic, if the logic does not work then it is not logical. The evidence is logic my friend and a few simple axioms. p.s I am from the midlands matey , I am up North relative to the South.So instead of doing a parody of a German accent you are typing in a parody of a Northern accent? It just makes you look more ridiculous than you already are.But we do think for ourselves and we are objective. That is how science works, by taking on board new evidence. The problem is, you have not presented any evidence, just nonsensical 'thought experiments', childish drawings and nonsense about seeing atoms due to the reflection off a boot.
Tell yea what, I will talk to you as if one of me mucker's and be quite blunt. You are not being objective, you are not looking at the new evidence, your just not thinking . Seriously dude I know from talking with you that you are not some thick idiot.
My chit drawings as you put it that are Dirac child like, are very good drawings dude, its just you can't see it. Now lad if they was to come me visit me or I visit you and we sat down at a table with a few bevies or a brew, well lad then by my hand gesters alone you would understand. Posts do not show emotional response or hand gesters etc. I could show you in ten minutes flat if I was there with you buddy.
You talk about new evidence. You have not provided any evidence full stop.
I am from the Midlands. We do not call people lad. That is a parody of a Yorkshire accent. You are a liar.
I logically challenge science with axioms. Do you wish to to discuss axioms?
Do you want to start with an axiom on time?
The next moment of now is immediately ahead of you.
That is a two part statement:
1)The next moment of now
2)Is immediately ahead of you
1 being the question and 2 being the answer.
Please feel free to examine the truth of the statement. I await your conclusion and logical reply to the statement.
Post by: Kryptid on 11/10/2017 16:46:44
(1) A mechanism that affects all processes that causes them all to "seem" to experience time dilation without actually experiencing it.
(2) An explanation of why Einstein's mathematical predictions were correct if time dilation does not in fact occur.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/10/2017 17:20:56
Still waiting for:1)poor logic is the mechanism
(1) A mechanism that affects all processes that causes them all to "seem" to experience time dilation without actually experiencing it.
(2) An explanation of why Einstein's mathematical predictions were correct if time dilation does not in fact occur.
2) maths is made to fit
Post by: The Spoon on 11/10/2017 17:43:24
Nope. hat is more like the response of a sulky child. Pathetic.Still waiting for:1)poor logic is the mechanism
(1) A mechanism that affects all processes that causes them all to "seem" to experience time dilation without actually experiencing it.
(2) An explanation of why Einstein's mathematical predictions were correct if time dilation does not in fact occur.
2) maths is made to fit
Post by: guest39538 on 11/10/2017 18:20:57
Nope, you just can not think past your education kind sir.Nope. hat is more like the response of a sulky child. Pathetic.Still waiting for:1)poor logic is the mechanism
(1) A mechanism that affects all processes that causes them all to "seem" to experience time dilation without actually experiencing it.
(2) An explanation of why Einstein's mathematical predictions were correct if time dilation does not in fact occur.
2) maths is made to fit
Two Dj's are situated at rest next to each other. One of the Dj's starts a journey while the other Dj sits at rest. Both Dj's play the same song, except the Dj at rest plays the song at 75 rpm while the Dj in motion plays the song at 45 rpm.
Both Dj's experiences the full song of only one of them and they experience much less of the song than the other one is playing. Because the song was slowed down see, but this not effect their experience of one full song.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/10/2017 18:37:35
Post by: guest39538 on 11/10/2017 18:44:40
added- Because if my song ran at 18385263540 Hz, that does not mean the speed of time as just doubled, it means my song is playing faster and it will rotate more cycles in less time.
What is pathetic is scientists keep playing the same song and singing the same song without considering the lyrics or the speed of the song.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/10/2017 19:59:11
Light scattering
Cough.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/10/2017 20:57:28
CoughYes indeed, back to the blue sky and light scattering in which I am still awaiting an answer to my question.
Light scattering
Cough.
If less dense air scatters light at altitude then why does the much denser air nearer the planets surface not scatter the light to reveal blue to the observer?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/10/2017 21:08:21
As has been pointed out before, it does.CoughYes indeed, back to the blue sky and light scattering in which I am still awaiting an answer to my question.
Light scattering
Cough.
If less dense air scatters light at altitude then why does the much denser air nearer the planets surface not scatter the light to reveal blue to the observer?
However, the sky is miles thick whereas the air between your eyes and your feet s a few feet thick, so the amount of scattered light from the sky is thousands of times brighter- and it's still not very bright compared to direct , or even reflected, sunlight.
Post by: Kryptid on 11/10/2017 22:03:32
1)poor logic is the mechanism
Poor logic makes particles take longer to decay when they are moving at high speed relative to the observer... how, exactly?
Quote
2) maths is made to fit
You have it backwards. The math was done beforehand (in 1905) to predict how much time should dilate under certain circumstances. It was much later discovered (in 1938) during experiments that time does dilate by the predicted factor. You are either calling Einstein extremely lucky, a time traveler, or a psychic. Which is it?
Post by: guest39538 on 11/10/2017 23:30:00
Any argument you could have is invalid. I do not have to answer such questions as how or why Einstein did whatever. There is a very simple axiom i.e the truth , that over rules any such subjective thoughts as time slows down. For the very fact: The next moment of now is immediately ahead of you.1)poor logic is the mechanism
Poor logic makes particles take longer to decay when they are moving at high speed relative to the observer... how, exactly?Quote2) maths is made to fit
You have it backwards. The math was done beforehand (in 1905) to predict how much time should dilate under certain circumstances. It was much later discovered (in 1938) during experiments that time does dilate by the predicted factor. You are either calling Einstein extremely lucky, a time traveler, or a psychic. Which is it?
There is no length between now and now to contract or dilate. If you proclaim there is, you are lying to yourself and the rest of the readers who know I am correct.
Post by: Kryptid on 11/10/2017 23:50:06
Any argument you could have is invalid.
I don't need an argument. I have the experimental evidence on my side. If you're trying to say that the evidence is invalid, then the burden of proof is on you to explain how the evidence is deceiving us. You started off by telling us that moving a clock changes it's ability to measure time so that it only appears that time is moving more slowly. I asked you how and you never told me. Have you backed off from that claim?
Quote
I do not have to answer such questions as how or why Einstein did whatever.
You won't answer the questions because you can't. You know you can't because you can't think of any sensible alternative explanation. It would not be sensible for me to deny experimental evidence just because some other person told me that it doesn't make sense to them.
Quote
There is a very simple axiom i.e the truth , that over rules any such subjective thoughts as time slows down. For the very fact: The next moment of now is immediately ahead of you.
Just because you accept something to be an axiom doesn't make it so. If an event is in my future, then by definition it isn't happening now.
Quote
There is no length between now and now to contract or dilate.
Good thing that isn't what time dilation is about then.
Quote
If you proclaim there is, you are lying to yourself and the rest of the readers who know I am correct.
And which readers might those be? You're the only person I see here denying observational evidence.
Post by: guest39538 on 12/10/2017 00:02:00
I don't need an argument. I have the experimental evidence on my side. If you're trying to say that the evidence is invalid, then the burden of proof is on you to explain how the evidence is deceiving us.I have explained the problem and the fix before. It is very simple, it is a timing dilation, time does not slow down.
It's all about the relative timing of two atoms frequencies.
The atom in motion has a slower frequency relative to the atom at inertia rest. There is a difference in timing.
Post by: Kryptid on 12/10/2017 00:06:58
I have explained the problem and the fix before. It is very simple, it is a timing dilation, time does not slow down.
You didn't explain how "timing dilation" works (and by that, I mean explain what mechanism makes everything slow down in the expected way to properly emulate the experimental data).
The atom in motion has a slower frequency relative to the atom at inertia rest. There is a difference in timing.
What causes that? How does that work for individual unstable particles?
Post by: guest39538 on 12/10/2017 00:07:56
You won't answer the questions because you can't. You know you can't because you can't think of any sensible alternative explanation. It would not be sensible for me to deny experimental evidence just because some other person told me that it doesn't make sense to them.I am not ignoring the experimental evidence, I am telling you it does not mean what you think it means.
Post by: guest39538 on 12/10/2017 00:09:53
A change in entropy of course , there is only a change in entropy that can change an output to increase or decrease in magnitude.I have explained the problem and the fix before. It is very simple, it is a timing dilation, time does not slow down.
You didn't explain how "timing dilation" works (and by that, I mean explain what mechanism makes everything slow down in the expected way to properly emulate the experimental data).The atom in motion has a slower frequency relative to the atom at inertia rest. There is a difference in timing.
What causes that?
Post by: Kryptid on 12/10/2017 00:13:03
I am not ignoring the experimental evidence, I am telling you it does not mean what you think it means.
And yet when I push you to explain how your interpretation matches up with what we know is true, you say "I do not have to answer such questions". That's not an explanation.
Quote
A change in entropy of course , there is only a change in entropy that can change an output to increase or decrease in magnitude.
And what experimental evidence can you provide that demonstrates that entropy somehow changes the energy level shift in a cesium atom?
Post by: guest39538 on 12/10/2017 00:16:24
Do you have a Caesium atom at hand? Try warming it up and see if the frequency speeds up.I am not ignoring the experimental evidence, I am telling you it does not mean what you think it means.
And yet when I push you to explain how your interpretation matches up with what we know is true, you say "I do not have to answer such questions". That's not an explanation.QuoteA change in entropy of course , there is only a change in entropy that can change an output to increase or decrease in magnitude.
And what experimental evidence can you provide that demonstrates that entropy somehow changes the energy level shift in a cesium atom?
P.s I am not saying your experimental results don't show a difference in frequency.
added- Pfff have I got do all the work for you.
Since 1967, the International System of Units (SI) has defined the second as the duration of 9192631770 cycles of radiation corresponding to the transition between two energy levels of the caesium-133 atom. In 1997, the International Committee for Weights and Measures (CIPM) added that the preceding definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K.[14]
Post by: Kryptid on 12/10/2017 00:21:25
Do you have a Caesium atom at hand? Try warming it up and see if the frequency speeds up.
So you're telling me that you don't know if it does or not, huh? That's not a very solid explanation. This is doubly true since the clock carried on the airplane would not have had some kind of special heating device put on it that the clock on the ground did not have.
Post by: guest39538 on 12/10/2017 00:25:53
Since 1967, the International System of Units (SI) has defined the second as the duration of 9192631770 cycles of radiation corresponding to the transition between two energy levels of the caesium-133 atom. In 1997, the International Committee for Weights and Measures (CIPM) added that the preceding definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K.[14]
that the preceding definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 KThat the preceding definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K
Which suggests temperature causes a variation in the frequency.
Post by: guest39538 on 12/10/2017 00:27:35
Post by: Kryptid on 12/10/2017 00:32:06
added- Pfff have I got do all the work for you.
You made the claim, so it's up to you to provide your sources.
Quote
Since 1967, the International System of Units (SI) has defined the second as the duration of 9192631770 cycles of radiation corresponding to the transition between two energy levels of the caesium-133 atom. In 1997, the International Committee for Weights and Measures (CIPM) added that the preceding definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K.[14]
That the preceding definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K
Which suggests temperature causes a variation in the frequency.
Alright. Now:
(1) Show me that the temperature of the clock aboard the airplane was higher than the temperature of the clock on the ground.
(2) Show me, mathematically, that the amount by which the frequency of the cesium atom changed due to a temperature increase is in accordance with the recorded difference in time between the two clocks.
If you can't do those things, then your claim remains at the level of pure speculation.
Quote
An object in motion like an aeroplane in flight gains electrostatic charge.
And you can demonstrate that this caused the clock specifically not only to heat up, but to heat up by just the right amount to to give the illusion of Einstein's time dilation?
Post by: guest39538 on 12/10/2017 00:40:37
(1) Show me that the temperature of the clock aboard the airplane was higher than the temperature of the clock on the ground.Of course unless I show specifics it is just speculation. However in reality I only have to show that a change in entropy of the Caesium, causes a change in frequency. Now if I did this experiment while the Caesium is at inertia rest, it would show for a certainty that the frequency is a variate by change in entropy. Proving me correct.
(2) Show me, mathematically, that the amount by which the frequency of the cesium atom changed due to a temperature increase is in accordance with the recorded difference in time between the two clocks.
If you can't do those things, then your claim remains at the level of pure speculation.
On the other hand if a scientist helped me with all the complicated ''stuff'' like the maths. Then we would have a good venture
The frequency at ground state is only constant and stable because the entropy is being kept stable by keeping it at 0 k.
Post by: guest39538 on 12/10/2017 00:46:27
Post by: Kryptid on 12/10/2017 00:47:26
Of course unless I show specifics it is just speculation.
So then don't act like you've somehow got a better explanation for the experimental data than time dilation.
Quote
However in reality I only have to show that a change in entropy of the Caesium, causes a change in frequency. Now if I did this experiment while the Caesium is at inertia rest, it would show for a certainty that the frequency is a variate by change in entropy. Proving me correct.
It wouldn't prove that a temperature-induced change in the frequency of an atom is responsible for the "illusion" of time dilation. In fact...
Quote
On the other hand if a scientist helped me with all the complicated ''stuff'' like the maths. Then we would have a good venture .
...there's another problem with your warm cesium atom explanation: the amount of time dilation recorded was different when the plane flew west than when it flew east. Relativistic time dilation can account for that (because the Earth's rotation contributes to the difference in velocity between the clock aboard the plane and the clock on the ground). How does a warm cesium atom know if the plane it is on is moving east or west?
Post by: guest39538 on 12/10/2017 00:47:55
ΔV=
Post by: guest39538 on 12/10/2017 00:49:54
Maybe the suns direction and relative angle .Of course unless I show specifics it is just speculation.
So then don't act like you've somehow got a better explanation for the experimental data than time dilation.QuoteHowever in reality I only have to show that a change in entropy of the Caesium, causes a change in frequency. Now if I did this experiment while the Caesium is at inertia rest, it would show for a certainty that the frequency is a variate by change in entropy. Proving me correct.
It wouldn't prove that a temperature-induced change in the frequency of an atom is responsible for the "illusion" of time dilation. In fact...QuoteOn the other hand if a scientist helped me with all the complicated ''stuff'' like the maths. Then we would have a good venture .
...there's another problem with your warm cesium atom explanation: the amount of time dilation recorded was different when the plane flew west than when it flew east. Relativistic time dilation can account for that (because the Earth's rotation contributes to the difference in velocity between the clock aboard the plane and the clock on the ground). How does a warm cesium atom know if the plane it is on is moving east or west?
Post by: Kryptid on 12/10/2017 00:52:39
Maybe the suns direction and relative angle .
The cesium was inside of a clock which was inside of an insulated, pressure-sealed airplane. The Sun isn't going to do anything to it.
Post by: guest39538 on 12/10/2017 00:56:46
The Sun emits fields.Maybe the suns direction and relative angle .
The cesium was inside of a clock which was inside of an insulated, pressure-sealed airplane. The Sun isn't going to do anything to it.
I am not sure, I can show there is no time dilation, I can provide enough using time Planck etc to show why there is no length contraction or time dilation.
However I do not really know what ''force'' affects the frequency. That is why I say generally a change in entropy. That being the only possible thing that can cause a lesser output.
Post by: Kryptid on 12/10/2017 01:02:17
The Sun emits fields.
That's irrelevant because a subsequent experiment performed by a research group at the University of Maryland performed a similar time dilation experiment aboard aircraft and put their clocks inside of containers specifically designed to shield them against vibrations, magnetic fields and temperature variations. It too confirmed time dilation. So there goes your temperature theory. Gravitational time dilation has been demonstrated without using airplanes at all and only by putting clocks at different altitudes (such as on a mountain).
Quote
I am not sure, I can show there is no time dilation, I can provide enough using time Planck etc to show why there is no length contraction or time dilation.
You've done nothing of the sort.
Quote
However I do not really know what ''force'' affects the frequency. That is why I say generally a change in entropy. That being the only possible thing that can cause a lesser output.
With clocks shielded against external effects, this is irrelevant.
Post by: guest39538 on 12/10/2017 01:03:49
Something is telling me because when an object is in motion it is gains less energy from the inertia body by the rules and laws of thermodynamics.
Post by: guest39538 on 12/10/2017 01:04:51
You've done nothing of the sort.Yes I have
added- Timing dilation is caused by the change of mass of the inertia frame. I.e the earth has more mass than the aeroplane.
Post by: Kryptid on 12/10/2017 01:05:55
The song is playing slower because I am inputting less energy into the motor by turning the speed down.
Something is telling me because when an object is in motion it is gains less energy from the inertia body by the rules and laws of thermodynamics.
Now you're speaking gibberish. That also doesn't explain why clocks run faster on the top of mountains.
Quote
Yes I have
What you did was make claims without providing evidence.
Post by: guest39538 on 12/10/2017 01:07:45
What you did was make claims without providing evidence.I provided evidence i used chronology and geometric points, I also used tP . Quite clearly you do not understand perfect logic.
Post by: Kryptid on 12/10/2017 01:14:02
I provided evidence i used chronology and geometric points, I also used tP
And you used it to come up with nonsense. If time went infinitely fast, then all events would happen simultaneously because there would be literally no periods of time separating events from each other. Time goes by at a very finite pace.
Quote
Quite clearly you do not understand perfect logic.
You haven't been using "perfect" logic. Logic is a way of thinking that is informed by evidence gained from the world around us. The reason we consider a particular thing to be logical is because it is consistent with our experience of the world. Reality tells us how logic works, and sometimes you can do that the other way around (use logic to tell you how reality works). If reality and logic are at odds with each other, however, then reality is the obvious winner and it means that your logic needs to be corrected. Your proposed explanation doesn't fit the evidence so reality is saying that your logic is wrong.
Post by: guest39538 on 12/10/2017 01:15:25
hat also doesn't explain why clocks run faster on the top of mountains.Ok try this, at ground level gases and the ground is denser than up there. The ground and the gases (denser fields) sucks on the atom at a rate.
When the atom is in motion or higher up, the ground and the gases are less dense so suck less. So the flow slows down. Entropy like i said
Post by: guest39538 on 12/10/2017 01:18:15
You haven't been using "perfect" logic. Logic is a way of thinking that is informed by evidence gained from the world around us.All of a sudden I can not see nor can I experience time passing me by. I look at the world around me and that's why I know.
I have perfect logic, I narrow it down to perfection.
I.e Your next now , is a negligible (so small or unimportant as to be not worth considering) length away from now.
The reason we consider a particular thing to be logical is because it is consistent with our experience of the world.
What is consistent when considering time is that it is not discrete , it is continuous. In reality and the normal world times goes
01
In Einsteins head time goes
0...........1
Strangely enough in the real world version of time, there is no length to contract and nothing to dilate.
If any of the readers are still not convinced, here is a little experiment to do with a friend.
Method.
1) Sit on a chair facing your friend who is also sitting on a chair.
2) Decide which one of you will count slow and which one of you will count fast.
3) Both start to count after 3,2,1, go
Result .
One of you will finish counting first.
One of you will be waiting for the other one to finish .
Conclusion,
You both have just been measuring the amount of time you sat there by counting the time passing by.
Did the person counting slow experience less time? Of course not .
For those who understand time dilation will understand and agree with what I have just shown.
Post by: Kryptid on 12/10/2017 02:40:23
Ok try this, at ground level gases and the ground is denser than up there. The ground and the gases (denser fields) sucks on the atom at a rate.
When the atom is in motion or higher up, the ground and the gases are less dense so suck less. So the flow slows down. Entropy like i said
"Sucks"? You're just pulling stuff out of thin air in an attempt to shoehorn the evidence into your bizarre, unsupported model. How is an atom moving supposed to make the gases or the ground around it less dense? You do also realize that movement slows down time, whereas higher altitude away from a source of gravity speeds it up, right? They have opposite effects.
Remember, all of the effects that you are invoking not only have to explain why it only looks like time dilation is happening, but also have to explain it numerically to the degree that it is observed. Yet you think that various different forces of nature (temperature, fields, etc.) all conspire to make it look like Einstein's mathematical predictions were spot-on when in fact they were not. That sounds like a supernatural level of conspiracy.
Quote
All of a sudden I can not see nor can I experience time passing me by. I look at the world around me and that's why I know.
I have perfect logic, I narrow it down to perfection.
That sounds like something you made up. Or something that someone else made up that you grasped onto. Reasoning devoid of testable evidence is not trustworthy.
Quote
I.e Your next now , is a negligible (so small or unimportant as to be not worth considering) length away from now.
If there is any duration of time, no matter how small between two moments of "now", then time does not flow infinitely fast and your argument is dead. So is the duration from one moment to the next truly zero or some value larger than zero?
Quote
The reason we consider a particular thing to be logical is because it is consistent with our experience of the world.
What is consistent when considering time is that it is not discrete , it is continuous.
By that reasoning, the ancients would have been justified in concluding that matter is not discrete but is continuous down to increasingly tiny levels because you can cut any visible portion of matter down into smaller and smaller pieces. When we discovered atoms, we showed that what appeared to be true to the human eye and intuition was wrong (notwithstanding that a few people did predict atoms a long time before they were discovered)
Quote
In reality and the normal world times goes
01
In Einsteins head time goes
0...........1
Whether time is quantized or continuous is still debated by the physics community. Either one works for time dilation.
Quote
Strangely enough in the real world version of time, there is no length to contract and nothing to dilate.
Length contraction is an inevitable result of the speed of light in a vacuum being a constant for all observers regardless of their motion relative to the beam of light. In order for a beam of light moving away from a moving observer and a beam moving towards the observer to have identical measured speeds, distances must contract in such a way that the measurements will be equal. Tell me how two such observers moving in different directions will agree on the speed of a particular beam of light without invoking length contraction?
Quote
If any of the readers are still not convinced, here is a little experiment to do with a friend.
Method.
1) Sit on a chair facing your friend who is also sitting on a chair.
2) Decide which one of you will count slow and which one of you will count fast.
3) Both start to count after 3,2,1, go
Result .
One of you will finish counting first.
One of you will be waiting for the other one to finish .
Conclusion,
You both have just been measuring the amount of time you sat there by counting the time passing by.
Did the person counting slow experience less time? Of course not .
You're comparing apples to oranges. Time dilation is not about comparing two processes which are intentionally set up to occur at different rates from each other in the same reference frame, it's about comparing two processes which are known to occur at the same rate in the same reference frame and then putting them into different reference frames to see if a difference arises.
Quote
For those who understand time dilation will understand and agree with what I have just shown.
I understand time dilation as it is understood by physicists and I disagree.
I can see quite clearly that the "I can't be wrong" syndrome is still very much present within you.
Post by: evan_au on 12/10/2017 10:44:28
I'll save the internet's electrons and the photons for more useful purposes by locking this thread now.
Evan (moderator)
Post by: evan_au on 21/10/2017 01:16:15
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2005/05/31/1360804.htm