0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Thebox on 03/02/2016 21:15:11That is because timing is not time. There is a timing dilation which behaves as predicted, but not a time dilation.Please understand that I have heard you make this claim countless times now, and I still don't see it as any kind of logic I can follow.Timing is just a way to measure the flow rate of time.The flow rate of time itself is what changes. What you use to measure the flow rate of time is just a way of tracking what the flow rate is doing compared with a different reference frame.Timing as you say is not time. It is our only means of observing what time does.If an atomic process has a certain half life, and by changing its environmental parameters we can show that this half life can be changed, then time is shown to have changed its rate within and because of the changes.So unless you can logically make your point of view agree with the observations obtained experimentally or otherwise, or you can offer another logical explanation as to why these observations are consistently made, you can not expect to be taken seriously.Timey, I have an appointment with my surgeon today but will delve further into your comment later.
That is because timing is not time. There is a timing dilation which behaves as predicted, but not a time dilation.
Time has no flow rate , ligth has a flow rate, a caesium clock has a flow rate, but time has no flow rate because time does not move , the value is zero, anything after zero is history, you are all deeply confused , seriously . The stationary reference frame is the zero of space , everything else including light moves relativetly to this,
If distance does not shrink or stretch, and the speed of light stays constant, but the rate of time that light travels through is quicker or slower, there lies the possibility that information transfer is 'not' reliant upon the speed of light, but the rate of time light travels through, as well as the possibility that as a result of frames of time being longer or shorter than our own, perhaps being unable to view a percentage of that frames light.
Yes Space Flow, (chuckle) I truly know the feeling! Have you read 'The Trouble with Physics' Lee Smolin?
Wrong. Axioms are not evidence: they are definitions or assumptions.You will get a more sympathetic hearing if you use the same language as everyone else.
What ? an axiom is something that is self evidently true, things that are true are true, you can not change or twist things that are true. True things are real facts and real science, make believe is for religion.
you are all deeply confused , seriously . The stationary reference frame is the zero of space
Quote from: Thebox on 03/02/2016 22:00:52 you are all deeply confused , seriously . The stationary reference frame is the zero of space There exists absolutely no "zero of space", as you are so fond of defining it. No point in space can be considered as motionless, all frames are in motion.
Well I beg to differ. Every point in space could be considered motionless if an observer is there.
My apologies. There seem to be a lot fewer people to have a sensible conversation with these days.
What ? an axiom is something that is self evidently true, things that are true are true, you can not change or twist things that are true.
Quote from: Ethos_ on 05/02/2016 18:49:20Quote from: Thebox on 03/02/2016 22:00:52 you are all deeply confused , seriously . The stationary reference frame is the zero of space There exists absolutely no "zero of space", as you are so fond of defining it. No point in space can be considered as motionless, all frames are in motion.Well I beg to differ. Every point in space could be considered motionless if an observer is there. To each observer every other point in space may be considered to be either in motion or stationary. The problem in relativity is exactly that we do not have a fixed background. No one knows exactly how fast any object is actually moving with respect to themselves since they cannot be sure that everything they see is not moving at the same rate in some preferred direction. This could include rotational motion. GR is so complex that even if we find solutions to the vacuum field equations are we certain that we would actually recognize them?
No one knows exactly how fast any object is actually moving with respect to themselves since they cannot be sure that everything they see is not moving at the same rate in some preferred direction.
Quote from: jeffreyH on 05/02/2016 20:49:04 No one knows exactly how fast any object is actually moving with respect to themselves since they cannot be sure that everything they see is not moving at the same rate in some preferred direction. No! The starting point for relativity is the commonsense position that we can measure motion with respect to ourselves (and we do it all the time). Experimentally we find that there is no "preferred direction" in space. Now read on.....