[timey]

I think you  have got it sort of, maybe!

I will try to explain, it hurts my brain trying to think really deep.

Consider a length from A to B

any measurement you can think  of

this is now a set quantity constant.

I will  use the distance of 299 792 458 m


A→299 792 458 m→B


If I was to measure the speed of light p=c

I will record 1 second of time for the light from A to reach B and exactly 1 second to light from B to reach point A.

to give the result 299 792 458 m/s in either direction.

Do you agree thus far?


299 792 458 m/s is equal to 1 second=9,192, 631,770 cycles

So we can show

d=A→9,192, 631,770 cycles →B   = 
d=A→→→→→299 792 458 m→B


Now if there was to be less cycles, there would be less distance. if there isn't less distance then that means there is a lesser speed of rate,

we can show the comparison like this

d=A→9,192, 631,770 cycles →B 

d=A→ 631,770 cycles →B

Now the problem is

d=A→→→→→299 792 458 m→B


The distance remains the same which shows a rate change does not change the constant of time.

Ok, after some head scratching and chin rubbing here,  (chuckle) I think I can see where you are going wrong...

The 'cycles' you refer to are the cycles of a caesium atom, and the caesium atom, inclusive of it's frequency, does not radiate at the speed of light, as photons do. 

When a change in the frequency of the cycles of a caesium atom is registered on an atomic clock, this causes the clock to run faster, or indeed slower, and the phenomenon of the change in the frequency of the caesium atom is dependant on the gravitational field.

You are of course aware that the GPS system works on the basis that there are changes in the rate of time?  It's kind of been proved beyond all shadow of a doubt tbh...

Quite 'why' it does it like that though isn't fully realised as of yet...

[Colin2B]

Ok, after some head scratching and chin rubbing here,  (chuckle) I think I can see where you are going wrong...

The 'cycles' you refer to are the cycles of a caesium atom, and the caesium atom, inclusive of it's frequency, does not radiate at the speed of light, as photons do.   

The Cesium atom frequency is in the microwave region so it radiates at light speed.

You will need to do a lot more scratching and rubbing before you get anywhere near understanding where he is going wrong. Even then he won't believe you!

?lesser speed of rate?

[timey]

Ah Colin, trust you to get to the crux of the matter straight away...

You say the caesium atom's frequency radiates at the speed of light...

But when the caesium atom is subject to changes in a gravitational field, the frequency of its cycles is subject to change.  Either we have a speed of light that is constant, and a rate of time that is faster, or indeed slower... that this constant speed of light then takes a shorter, or longer amount of 'time' to cover the same unit of 'distance' in...  Or the speed of light is not constant... or... is only constant to the ratio of the length of a second, as determined by a caesium atomic clock, whereby the rate of the frequency of the cycles of the caesium atom, is determined by the gravitational field.

Edit:  Otherwise, logically speaking, 'distance' has been rendered as a variable!

[Space Flow]

Otherwise, logically speaking, 'distance' has been rendered as a variable!

That was a very roundabout route but it would seem that now everyone finally agrees that "The Box" will never understand this simple fact.

[Colin2B]

Edit:  Otherwise, logically speaking, 'distance' has been rendered as a variable!

Yes, you understand distance and time are variable under SR for a non local observer, and you understand that light only has constant speed for a local observer in a gravitational field under GR. however, if you read The Box's other posts you will realise that he claims that the speed of light is variable under SR, that is it follows Galilean Relativity not SR. This is why he thinks distance is constant for all observers.
This is an instance where learning requires a pupil willing to learn. Despite that, do try, maybe you will succeed.

[guest39538]

Edit:  Otherwise, logically speaking, 'distance' has been rendered as a variable!

Yes, you understand distance and time are variable under SR for a non local observer, and you understand that light only has constant speed for a local observer in a gravitational field under GR. however, if you read The Box's other posts you will realise that he claims that the speed of light is variable under SR, that is it follows Galilean Relativity not SR. This is why he thinks distance is constant for all observers.
This is an instance where learning requires a pupil willing to learn. Despite that, do try, maybe you will succeed.

Any of you please try to explain that distance is a variable, you would be talking out your backsides.  Nothing to do with my understanding of SR, it is garbage. Length does not change of space. 1Ly is 1Ly, and Galilean relativity?  never heard of it , it is my relativity .  A caesium atom is not time, it is a rate and like you put a ?

?lesser speed of rate/d?


go on let us all here the evidence of how?

Firstly you can point me to the observation experiment and proof.

[alancalverd]

my understanding of SR, it is garbage. ........... Galilean relativity?  never heard of it ,

ipsi dixit.

[guest39538]

ipsi dixit.

Never heard of it honestly, I thought Galileo was something to do with star charts?

I use my own ideas for my ideas, I do not even consider your science at times, my science seems more reality.  My reality revolves around the clarity of space. The invariant of clarity is an absolute, the invariant of distance is an absolute.

Spectral colours are individual invariants that are a variate of the invariant of clarity. I have told you before that I thought Einstein meant ,


I am sure ze answer is within ze optics, ze optics are ze constant, we observe optic variation of ze constant moving within ze invariant clarity of ze constant, relatively ze constant clarity is ze stationary invariant reference frame for all ze observers.


Understand this -

equipment - 1 candle , 1 lighter, 1 dark warehouse, several various objects, a marker pen to draw a circle.
 
 
Method -
1.place candle in a central position in the warehouse,
2. draw several circles on the floor isotropic to the candle, at different radius's
3. On each circle circumference line place an object
4. turn the lights off
5. light the candle
6. observe how many objects you can see, from the candle reference point, observe no walls , just darkness,
 
candle.....A.....B.....C.....D......E.....F
 
 
The intensity relatively defining how big your observed space is.

[alancalverd]

I_r = I₀/r² in my universe. What happens in yours?

[Colin2B]

Firstly you can point me to the observation experiment and proof.

Please follow Alan's suggestions in post #9.
It is not the purpose of this forum to provided a full course of science, you have to do some work yourself.

[guest39538]

I_r = I₀/r² in my universe. What happens in yours?

I can't read your equation, I presume (I ) is imaginary number?

[guest39538]

Firstly you can point me to the observation experiment and proof.

Please follow Alan's suggestions in post #9.
It is not the purpose of this forum to provided a full course of science, you have to do some work yourself.

I looked at Alan's link, it says some maths about length contraction, it does not provide any proof's of length contradiction, now if one stated that length contraction was just a Hypothesis, then maybe I could conceive the possibility.

[Colin2B]

Everything in science is hypothesis, so why should I state the obvious.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. 

In this section of the forum we discuss those theories considered to be reasonably consistent with observations and other theories. If you have an alternative theory you are welcome to discuss it in New Theories.

You still need to do a lot of homework before you get near the starting block. Start by understanding dimensional analysis; then to be understood you need to use standard scientific terminology to describe your ideas rather than inventing you own language and interpretations.
Practice in New Theories until you get it right.

[guest39538]

Everything in science is hypothesis, so why should I state the obvious.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. 

In this section of the forum we discuss those theories considered to be reasonably consistent with observations and other theories. If you have an alternative theory you are welcome to discuss it in New Theories.

You still need to do a lot of homework before you get near the starting block. Start by understanding dimensional analysis; then to be understood you need to use standard scientific terminology to describe your ideas rather than inventing you own language and interpretations.
Practice in New Theories until you get it right.

Hmm, OK let me play along and ask about dimensional analysis,

''analysis using the fact that physical quantities added to or equated with each other must be expressed in terms of the same fundamental quantities''



ok I want to analyse time and distance relationship,

I will set a quantity distance  of 299 792 458 m and a time of the distance is equal to 1 second of time.

Both fundamental quantities

I will compare this to the measurement dimension of time


299 792 458 m =  9,192,631,770 Hz. =1 second


So far using your fundamental quantities.

So for  9,192,631,770 Hz to change, 1 second  would have to change, which time dilation says it does,

but 299 792 458 m does not change,

So if we take two equal lengths of 1 second


0..............................1
0..............................1


and we measure a rate of something between 0 and 1

the 1 st result
0..................1
 9,192,631,770

the second result

0..................1
 9,192,631,760


How exactly does this contract the length of 1 second?

relatively

0..................1
 9,192,631,770

0............(.9)
 9,192,631,760

My distance is not synchronous, so what is going wrong with my understanding? 

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

[timey]

Ok, so first thing, your maths are wrong.

If you want to get 0.9 of a second, you need to divide your caesium atoms number of cycles by 10 and then subtract the answer from the original figure.  You will see that this amounts to a lot more than you have allowed for.

Next, you need to understand that the caesium atom's cycles are subject to a change in their frequency due to changes in a gravitational field.

Should be all plain sailing from there... I reckon...

[guest39538]

Ok, so first thing, your maths are wrong.

If you want to get 0.9 of a second, you need to divide your caesium atoms number of cycles by 10 and then subtract the answer from the original figure.  You will see that this amounts to a lot more than you have allowed for.

Next, you need to understand that the caesium atom's cycles are subject to a change in their frequency due to changes in a gravitational field.

Should be all plain sailing from there... I reckon...

I know the representation of .9 is wrong , it was just a rough example,

and yes I know the frequency changes due to gravitational field.

[Colin2B]

Hmm, OK let me play along and ask about dimensional analysis,

''analysis using the fact that physical quantities added to or equated with each other must be expressed in terms of the same fundamental quantities''
.....

299 792 458 m =  9,192,631,770 Hz. =1 second

No, before you go any further your dimensional analysis is wrong.
Read what you quoted.
It means the dimensions on each side of the equals sign must be the same.
You cannot have m=Hz=s
You have to end up with the same units on each side of the equation
You have to start here before trying to go on.
if you have Hz on one side you must have Hz on the other which are also cycles/s

[guest39538]

Hmm, OK let me play along and ask about dimensional analysis,

''analysis using the fact that physical quantities added to or equated with each other must be expressed in terms of the same fundamental quantities''
.....

299 792 458 m =  9,192,631,770 Hz. =1 second

No, before you go any further your dimensional analysis is wrong.
Read what you quoted.
It means the dimensions on each side of the equals sign must be the same.
You cannot have m=Hz=s
You have to end up with the same units on each side of the equation
You have to start here before trying to go on.
if you have Hz on one side you must have Hz on the other which are also cycles/s

Huh?  if something is representative of the same quantity I do not see how this matters?

it says on google 1sec=   9,192,631,770 Hz.

it also says the speed of light is  299 792 458 m/s


so how is  299 792 458 m/ 9,192,631,770 Hz   an inequality?

I get 0.03261225571 something.

[Ethos_]

so how is  299 792 458 m/ 9,192,631,770 Hz   an inequality?

I get 0.03261225571 something.

One apple is not equal to one orange Mr. Box and neither is a meter equal to a Hertz. You can't divide an apple by a orange and a meter can't be divided by a Hertz. Simple......................

[guest39538]

 9,192,631,770 Hz   an inequality?

I get 0.03261225571 something.

One apple is not equal to one orange Mr. Box and neither is a meter equal to a Hertz.

But if an apple has a 1 kg mass and an orange has a 1 kg mass, I seem to be missing any difference.

9,192,631,770 Hz /s


299 792 458 m/s

are both speeds.