0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
They don't confirm the theory - they are merely compatible with it.
He means that they're exposed to the same amount of absolute time, and that is the case. They mis-experience it though because they think time is passing more slowly than it actually is. The experiments have not falsified absolute time, and the theories that deny absolute time are irrational.
That's your mistake then. Clocks attempt to measure time, but they under-record it in most situations.
The ticking rate of clocks varies depending on the speed of movement of a clock through space due to the increased cycle distances, and due to the speed of light being slowed in the vicinity of mass.
What is interesting about it is that there is absolute time and that people allow themselves to be blinded to that reality by utter bilge about irrelevant acceleration issues as if the slowing caused by movement is somehow the same as the slowing caused by gravity.
Nonsense - the gravitational acceleration on small objects in deep space is so close to zero that it's not worth considering.
If you're at point A in space and you're stationary, the speed of light is passing you in all directions at c relative to you. If you then travel towards point B at 0.6c, the speed of light relative to you in one direction will necessarily be 1.6c and in the opposite direction it will be 0.4c. (This has to be the case, because if you try to keep it at c, you're going to have to change the speed of light relative to point A, which is something you aren't allowed to do.) If you return from point B to point A at 0.6c too, then the speed of light will be 0.4c relative to you in one direction and 1.6c in the other. That automatically slows your clock such that it only records 0.8 times as many ticks as a clock that stays at A throughout your journey. The moving clock under-records the amount of time that's passed for it because of the increased cycle times, but all the parts of the clock are moving at full speed. If we use light clocks, the light in those is moving at full speed, covering the same distance through space in a given length of absolute time regardless of whether the clock is stationary or moving. The waves and forces travelling about within the matter of the clock to maintain separation between particles also move the same distance through space in a given length of absolute time regardless of whether the clock is stationary or moving. The only thing that slows is the composite functionality, which includes the number of ticks that the clock produces, but there is no slowing of actual time for a moving clock. If you take a light clock and shake it, you can also change the amount of apparent time it records - by getting the frequency of shaking right you can either slow the clock down or speed it up, but all you're doing is making it mis-record the amount of time that's actually gone by. Moving a clock at a constant speed has the same effect. We have a world full of nincompoops who can't see the obvious nature of reality because they've had their minds messed with by people who brainwash them to believe that they become superior by buying into their crazy voodoo and worshipping a false god. they then spend the rest of their lives telling more rational people that there's no such thing as absolute time and informing them that they have to abandon the idea of it in favour of voodoo.How do you brainwash someone to believe in that voodoo? That's the really big science question here. The idea that you accelerate from rest and yet remain at rest at the new speed with light still passing you at c relative to you in all directions is utterly bonkers, and yet they simply allow that bullscheidt to take over their minds in order to boost their status by becoming part of the elite. People are clearly really susceptible to mind viruses, and not just religious ones - anything that sells status for stupidity can have that power. Absolute time works fine, but the voodoo doesn't - it cheats by changing frame at the drop of a hat and thereby changing the asserted speed of light relative to the content of space. It involves having one's cake and eating it. There are various models which try to account for the action, but all the establishment ones break in one way or another, thereby forcing them to cheat to make their models "work". They invariably smuggle in a Newtonian time that isn't part of their specification (and which is even banned in the specification). Either that or they have no time in them at all, and merely pretend to have it. SR and GR are two of the most embarrassing ideas in the history of science, but so many people have tied their colours to them so firmly that they lack the courage to back down, so they just dig in and go on defending their colossal pile of mouldy old pants.Here's the really important point though: The Box is more rational than them.
Clocks don’t attempt to measure time. The either do or don’t. I am taking the perspective that clocks do measure time; by definition, they are a means of measuring the rate that time is passing, within the tolerances of the particular clock.
And I'm saying that that definition is fundamentally wrong. Imagine that you're standing ten metres away from a friend, kicking a ball to and fro with the ball always moving at the same speed. You have now become a clock that ticks just like a light clock. If you both start walking to the side, the faster you go, the more distance the ball has to travel to complete each tick (with the cycle distance increasing from 20m to greater lengths), and if it's going at the same speed as before, that clock will necessarily tick more slowly. The clock is running slow, but time has not slowed down. We can do the same thing with a sound clock, using a pulse of sound moving to and fro. The faster you move the sound clock through the air, the slower it ticks, but time has not slowed down for this clock either - it's simply under-recording the amount of time that has gone by in the same way as the football clock. It's the same with a light clock, and indeed any other kind of clock,...
... but there's one key difference with a light clock, and that's that there cannot exist any clock which can move along with the light clock which won't also be slowed down by its movement through space in the same way, so the functionality of everything moving with that light clock has its functionality slowed to match. Time is not slowed though - it goes on operating at the same rate as normal. The only thing slowing down the clock's functionality is the increase in cycle distances which make it tick slow, just like with the sound clock and the football clock. Why would we allow ourselves to be fooled into thinking that time slows down for a light clock which is behaving just like a sound clock and a football clock?
Note that I have been talking about the different rate that two identical clocks measure the passing of time
Quote from: Bogie_smiles on 25/11/2018 01:11:37Note that I have been talking about the different rate that two identical clocks measure the passing of timeThat's the problem ! The clocks aren't measuring the passing of time . You are measuring mechanical movement that is equivalent to a duration you have aged clock watching . This equivalence principle we name time , time being arbitrary without physicality . Aging has a rate and physicality . An observer , observing both clocks that the frequency is a variance is not affected by the frequency of the clocks. If the clock in transit slowed down to a stop, the clock does not cease to exist and aging does not stop exterior of the clock .
By definition, that is what a clock does. The clock also ages as time passes, just like the twins age.
No problem. Sometimes the way individuals view and understand the universe around them is different.
It's not my view though , it is objective and I'm not in anyway biased to this view , it is an axiom and exists independent of my subjective thinking .
Stop the clock , the Universe does not end and the clock will continue to age .
Quote from: Thebox on 25/11/2018 14:13:25It's not my view though , it is objective and I'm not in anyway biased to this view , it is an axiom and exists independent of my subjective thinking . Axioms are necessary "givens" from which we draw insights, hypotheses, speculations, lol. Theorists use axioms to say, "Ok, nature works in strange ways, and so for my theory to be correct, nature must be axiomatic in this certain way".
Axioms are something that are self evidently true , observable or logical application of the mind . Time is not a difficult subject to reverse engineer back to the fundamental beginning of measurement to observe what we did to record time using primitive measurement devices such as sun dials or planet /Sun cycles . We have never measured time , we record equivalents to record our own measure of existence . I.e age
Quote from: Thebox on 25/11/2018 14:58:07Axioms are something that are self evidently true , observable or logical application of the mind . Time is not a difficult subject to reverse engineer back to the fundamental beginning of measurement to observe what we did to record time using primitive measurement devices such as sun dials or planet /Sun cycles . We have never measured time , we record equivalents to record our own measure of existence . I.e ageIt is all in the meaning of "is", lol.Science is tentative, and the current consensus is established by the professionals that work in the industry. We mere layman are free to say what we want, and use our own brand of logic. But we shouldn't try to talk with one another, lol (just kidding).
Science is full of beans , I will take on science 24 / 7 because I know I'm right and they're wrong .
Quote from: Thebox on 25/11/2018 15:15:46Science is full of beans , I will take on science 24 / 7 because I know I'm right and they're wrong . So did you really sell half your fishing gear? I hope you still have enough to do the job.
You are a good father and a good man. Your day will come again.
Sorry I left off "good scientist". You have some work to do to convince me of that, lol.
I'm also a good scientist