[guest39538]

To me, it is not about the rate that time passes, its about what the rate that clocks measure the passing of time. That measurement is a constant rate to an observer in the same location as the clock, and the same to an observer who is moving with the clock. That observer with just one clock will not be able to detect any difference in rate of time passing on that clock in either the at rest measurement or in the measurement made when moving together with the clock.

That would be untrue also, I will explain in my paper why it is untrue.

edited:  On second thought it would be true, but ......the reason it is false for the reason you mention :

''That observer with just one clock will not be able to detect any difference in rate of time passing on that clock in either the at rest measurement or in the measurement made when moving together with the clock.''

One clock being the problem of course.   If we put the above time Planck clock aboard with a caesium clock, we already know the tP clock is synchronous and constant in  motion or at rest.   This will be explained when I continue my next my part of the paper.

[guest39538]

Is there anybody who thinks I am incorrect this far on anything I have said?

[guest39538]

The Caesium clock time dilation

Let us now consider a train carriage that is at rest relative to the embankment. On the embankment is a Caesium clock that is identical to a Caesium clock on the carriage.   When the carriage is in motion relative to the embankment , the frequency  of the Caesium clock on the carriage in relative motion is  different to the frequency of the clock at relative rest on the embankment.  This we all know to be true and experiment as confirmed this .
However in respect to the earlier diagrams and the light clock  that used time Planck that were simultaneous, let us now consider that the train carriage and the embankment both have two clocks.  A Caesium clock and the light clock that uses time Planck.   

Aboard the carriage

A)Clock one light clock :  1.855e+43 tP = 1.s

B)Clock two caesium:  9,192,631,770 Hz. = 1.s

On the embankment


C)Clock one light clock :  1.855e+43 tP = 1.s

D)Clock two caesium:  9,192,631,770 Hz. = 1.s


Now in this scenario only one of the 4 clocks would measure a slower tick.   That clock being the caesium clock that was in motion.

A is equal to C,D but not equal to B

[guest39538]

  When you are not sure of what people are thinking about your notions.

[Bogie_smiles]

I'm not sure I understand the tP clock. Are you making an adjustment to the light clock to neutralize the time dilation between a light clock on the spaceship passing earth, and the earthly observer? The adjustment would have to vary depending on the relative velocities involved. How do you adjust the light clock unless you know the amount of dilation you have to adjust for?

[guest39538]

I'm not sure I understand the tP clock. Are you making an adjustment to the light clock to neutralize the time dilation between a light clock on the spaceship passing earth, and the earthly observer? The adjustment would have to vary depending on the relative velocities involved. How do you adjust the light clock unless you know the amount of dilation you have to adjust for?

The amount of time dilation does not matter.   By using time Planck my clocks are always synchronous, showing no time dilation and overwhelmingly destroying the original light clock thought experiment.

[Bogie_smiles]

I'm not sure I understand the tP clock. Are you making an adjustment to the light clock to neutralize the time dilation between a light clock on the spaceship passing earth, and the earthly observer? The adjustment would have to vary depending on the relative velocities involved. How do you adjust the light clock unless you know the amount of dilation you have to adjust for?

The amount of time dilation does not matter.   By using time Planck my clocks are always synchronous, showing no time dilation and overwhelmingly destroying the original light clock thought experiment.

Are they real, i.e., is patent pending?


If you say they are synchronous, then I am wondering if they are communicating with each other to continually synchronize, and if so, by what means are they in communication. How do they avoid the time dilation that normally results from relative motion?

[guest39538]

I'm not sure I understand the tP clock. Are you making an adjustment to the light clock to neutralize the time dilation between a light clock on the spaceship passing earth, and the earthly observer? The adjustment would have to vary depending on the relative velocities involved. How do you adjust the light clock unless you know the amount of dilation you have to adjust for?

The amount of time dilation does not matter.   By using time Planck my clocks are always synchronous, showing no time dilation and overwhelmingly destroying the original light clock thought experiment.

Are they real, i.e., is patent pending?


If you say they are synchronous, then I am wondering if they are communicating with each other to continually synchronize, and if so, by what means are they in communication. How do they avoid the time dilation that normally results from relative motion?

They are real but there is no patent or applied for patent.  I believe sharing is caring and have no problem giving my notions away for free.
I am not 100% sure but I think because I have posted in this forum I get some rights protection such as the intellectual rights.

How do they avoid the time dilation that normally results from relative motion?

A simple answer, they don't use the illusion of the distance used between light clock points that creates the illusion of a time dilation.

[Bogie_smiles]

They are real but there is no patent or applied for patent.  I believe sharing is caring and have no problem giving my notions away for free.

Playing Santa?

I am not 100% sure but I think because I have posted in this forum I get some rights protection such as the intellectual rights.

Probably true, if someone were to use your idea for profit. Still, there has to be something to steal in order to have some rights to invoke against its theft. That is what you didn't yet reveal, I don't think. How do these tP clocks stay synchronized?

[guest39538]

Playing Santa?

It's in my nature,

How do these tP clocks stay synchronized?

There is no distance to dilate, any affect would be so small, it would be imperceptible.

there has to be something to steal in order to have some rights to invoke against its theft.

The something is that it makes Einstein and science look like a bunch of fools in their thoughts. Science will never accept this because it makes relativity a joke and a laughing ''stock''.

One thing I do know is that I am an expert on time and what I have created is flawless.

Time is a quantifiable measurement directly proportional to the amount of period past. There is no time travel or likes, that is all make believe and subjective parlour tricks that I sore right through.

It is so easy to 'see' , why the Caesium is in flight and the Caesium is at rest, time passes constantly independently of the clocks.
A way of recording time can not affect the time it is recording.

The correct semantics of relativity would be a timing dilation rather than a time dilation, i.e relative correctness

[Bogie_smiles]

The something is that it makes Einstein and science look like a bunch of fools in their thoughts. Science will never accept this because it makes relativity a joke and a laughing ''stock''.

One thing I do know is that I am an expert on time and what I have created is flawless.

Time is a quantifiable measurement directly proportional to the amount of period past. There is no time travel or likes, that is all make believe and subjective parlour tricks that I sore right through.

It is so easy to 'see' , why the Caesium is in flight and the Caesium is at rest, time passes constantly independently of the clocks.
A way of recording time can not affect the time it is recording.

The correct semantics of relativity would be a timing dilation rather than a time dilation, i.e relative correctness

So if you are correct, time simply passes everywhere at its own invariant pace (a basic idea I agree with). But you conclude that our attempts to measure it with clocks is misleading us because distance and motion are perceptions that are subjective to the individuals and have no effect on time that simply passes at the same rate everywhere.

Then you go on that time dilation is an observable, but misinterpreted by our subjectiveness that causes us to believe there is such a thing as relativity, but we are foolishly deceived to believe that something so subjective is anything more than a human misconception, if we take it to mean relativity has any affect on the rate time really passes.

We don’t share that conclusion.


Relativity is real. To me, time simply passes, but the rate that our clocks measure it to be passing is affected by the relative wave energy density of the location of the clock, because the rate that particles function is affected by the local wave energy density, which varies. The variance comes in because relative motion puts the clocks in different wave energy density environments. Different paths through space take them through different wave energy density environments, causing a difference in the rate that their particles function, and hence causing a variance between the amount of time each clock measures to have passed.

[guest39538]

We don’t share that conclusion.

Sometimes facts are not conclusions, they just are.    It is a fact that when the Caesium is in flight and one is at rest, that time is independent of both atoms and does not really ''care'' what the Caesium's are doing. By stating that time changes in any way by the use of the Caesium atoms is subjective and denoting that the Caesium frequency is time itself rather than a measure of the time that is independent of the atoms.   
They have done this in my opinion to try to glam science up a bit by adding complete BS.  There is loads of different ways I can show time dilation thinking is garbage . It is a relative timing dilation which is very different in semantics to a time dilation which is an impossibility.

[Bogie_smiles]

Sometimes facts are not conclusions, they just are.    It is a fact that when the Caesium is in flight and one is at rest, that time is independent of both atoms and does not really ''care'' what the Caesium's are doing. By stating that time changes in any way by the use of the Caesium atoms is subjective and denoting that the Caesium frequency is time itself rather than a measure of the time that is independent of the atoms.   
They have done this in my opinion to try to glam science up a bit by adding complete BS.  There is loads of different ways I can show time dilation thinking is garbage . It is a relative timing dilation which is very different in semantics to a time dilation which is an impossibility.

Ok, can we agree that time is not what atomic clocks are measuring unless you define that as what time is? If you use that definition of time, your clocks are measuring the rate that your clocks are measuring the passing of time, not time in the sense that it is an invariant feature of the universe.

If you define the passing of time as something that is happening in accord with the invariant natural laws of the universe, then your clocks are experiencing the passing of time at an invariant natural rate, while they measure the passing of time at a variable rate. The variable rate is relative to some hidden variable that affects their local environment’s energy density, and the “hidden variable” might be right out in plain sight. For example, if you look at your clocks, they can be said to be measuring the local gravitational wave energy density, in my view. The relative local wave energy density can be observed as the time dilation between two clocks in relative motion; easy peasy.

There is a philosophical point that can be made from that: The passing of time, and the measurement of the passing of time are different, and you can adopt the philosophy that time simply passes at the same rate everywhere, while developing the scientific explanation for the observation of time dilation as a feature of the activity of measuring the passing of local time simultaneously in two local wave energy density environments.

[guest39538]

Ok, can we agree that time is not what atomic clocks are measuring unless you define that as what time is?

Yes, we can agree, exactly that.

If you define the passing of time as something that is happening in accord with the invariant natural laws of the universe, then your clocks are experiencing the passing of time at an invariant natural rate, while they measure the passing of time at a variable rate.

Correct, exactly that.

There is a philosophical point that can be made from that: The passing of time, and the measurement of the passing of time are different,

A physical point not only philosophy.

while developing the scientific explanation for the observation of time dilation as a feature of the activity of measuring the passing of local time simultaneously in two local wave energy density environments.

I don't know the reason why there is a timing dilation, but I do believe it is entropy related and maybe density related but also I think that could be acceleration related. 

[Bogie_smiles]

Yes, we can agree, exactly that.

Correct, exactly that.

A physical point not only philosophy.

I don't know the reason why there is a timing dilation, but I do believe it is entropy related and maybe density related but also I think that could be acceleration related. 

Well, think about it and let me know if you begin to see why I invoke wave mechanics as the explanation. In the mean time, this is one of my arguments in favor:

We observe time dilation when two clocks are at different altitudes relative to the surface of the earth.

We observe time dilation when two clocks are accelerated at different rates.

We observe time dilation when two clocks travel around the world in opposite directions.

All three examples can be explained if you attribute the dilation to the local wave energy density environment in which the clocks are operating.

There is a growing consensus based on evidence, in favor of the emission of gravitational waves from objects with mass (LIGO found gravitational waves traversing space over great distances and long periods, Einstein predicted it). The evidence, and some simple reasoning that says all mass emits and absorbs gravitational waves, leads to the conclusion that all space has some level of gravitational wave energy density. The local level of density is a factor of proximity, and relative motion, to surrounding massive objects.

Time dilation is observed. There is a simple scientific explanation for it that is logical, and it fits with the growing consensus of wave-particle duality.

[guest39538]

We observe time dilation when two clocks are at different altitudes relative to the surface of the earth.

Well sometimes I think better when I am out of my head, like on xmas day where I am really drunk and have had a party and think very carefully about my spelling.

The problem is ''time'' dilation happens by relative motion rather than altitude playing a apart. The density of X remains constant at ground level in accordance to sphericalfication.

We observe time dilation when two clocks are accelerated at different rates.

That is the exact cause, from a constant rest acceleration of 9.81m/s2 to a variant of whatever.

We observe time dilation when two clocks travel around the world in opposite directions.

Direction not having any affect

All three examples can be explained if you attribute the dilation to the local wave energy density environment in which the clocks are operating.

I see your point in accordance with the inverse square law, but variance of density can only happen at altitude where ground level dilation due to motion is the same density and constant  which tends to drift to a conclusion that acceleration as a part to play.

There is a growing consensus based on evidence, in favor of the emission of gravitational waves from objects with mass (LIGO found gravitational waves traversing space over great distances and long periods, Einstein predicted it). The evidence, and some simple reasoning that says all mass emits and absorbs gravitational waves, leads to the conclusion that all space has some level of gravitational wave energy density. The local level of density is a factor of proximity, and relative motion, to surrounding massive objects.

Time dilation is observed. There is a simple scientific explanation for it that is logical, and it fits with the growing consensus of wave-particle duality.

Ok, let me try to clarify my understanding of this.

Imagine each and every particle emits a field that the characteristics are of a linear and isotropic  nature.
Now imagine these fields ''buckle'' (wave) as passing through a resistant field or wave if they are become ''pressured'' by other fields.   I do not believe it would be possible to have waves without a resistant force or pressured force. So to me, waves are quantum fluctuations that are created directly and proportionally to the opposing force, permitivity playing a role.
Gravitational waves being a myth, gravitation being polarity based.
Ligo did not detect gravitational waves, what it detected was actually quantum field fluctuations. A linear force feed back that seemed to be wavelike but mistakenly . (imagine a sheet of paper and causing it to wave).

eads to the conclusion that all space has some level of gravitational wave energy density.

Some level but only existing in space emanating from bodies

[guest39538]

For anyone whom may not be convinced , try this.

It does not matter how fast or slow you count or ''measure'' time, time is an independent constant and continuous while you count.

[Bogie_smiles]

We observe time dilation when two clocks travel around the world in opposite directions.

Direction not having any affect …

I’ll respond to that by pointing out that very important sources of wave energy density as planes carrying atomic clocks in opposite directions around the earth, besides the earth itself, are the moon, and the sun, which rise in the East and set in the West.

A clock on a plane heading into the rising sun or moon will experience higher wave energy density than a clock on a plane heading away from the rising sun or moon. Thus the clock heading into the rising sun or moon will run slower than a clock heading away from the rising sun or moon.

Abstract
Four cesium beam clocks flown around the world on commercial jet flights during October 1971, once eastward and once westward, recorded directionally dependent time differences which are in good agreement with predictions of conventional relativity theory. Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks lost 59 ± 10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and gained 273 ± 7 nanoseconds during the westward trip, where the errors are the corresponding standard deviations. These results provide an unambiguous empirical resolution of the famous clock "paradox" with macroscopic clocks.


Here is a Wiki:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment)



[guest39538]

A clock on a plane heading into the rising sun or moon will experience higher wave energy density than a clock on a plane heading away from the rising sun or moon. Thus the clock heading into the rising sun or moon will run slower than a clock heading away from the rising sun or moon.

I see your point, the inverse square law and the ''transverse-square law''.   Density increasing as you are heading towards the source , which can be also observed by the doppler blue-shift .

Density decreasing as you travel away as can be seen in red-shift.

Doppler may not be an exact explanation but I do understand what you are saying and kinda of agree in your notion.

I consider that the frequency of the Caesium atom is the rate of ''life'' cycle,  this rate being a variant dependent on the situation. So although there is no actual time dilation, there is an ageing dilation.
So when twin 2 returns to twin one, he as aged less but still experienced the same amount of time as twin 1.

It easy to explain by using two batteries that hold the same amount of charge, both batteries begin to be used, except one is outputting more power than the other so as a lesser life .

[Bogie_smiles]

I see your point, the inverse square law and the ''transverse-square law''.   Density increasing as you are heading towards the source , which can be also observed by the doppler blue-shift .

Density decreasing as you travel away as can be seen in red-shift.

Doppler may not be an exact explanation but I do understand what you are saying and kinda of agree in your notion.

If one considers the possibility that space is filled with gravitational waves, and that they are absorbed and emitted by matter, then the density of the wave energy in space is related to the proximity of matter, quite like general relativity. Except spacetime doesn't have to stretch and curve; space just has to be filled with gravitational wave energy density at varying levels related to the ever changing motion of particles and objects (perhaps).

I consider that the frequency of the Caesium atom is the rate of ''life'' cycle,  this rate being a variant dependent on the situation. So although there is no actual time dilation, there is an ageing dilation.

Perhaps ...

So when twin 2 returns to twin one, he as aged less but still experienced the same amount of time as twin 1.

... the same amount of time relative to the invariant rate that time passes regardless of what our clocks might suggest.

It is easy to explain by using two batteries that hold the same amount of charge, both batteries begin to be used, except one is outputting more power than the other so as a lesser life .

I would use a different analogy: It is easy to explain by using the difference in the rate that a marble falls in two fluids, say oil and water. A marble falls faster in water than in oil. The rate that time passes can be equated to the rate that the marble falls. For those in relative motion, the rate would be compared to the rate that the marble falls in oil, while the rate that time passes for the person at rest could be compared to the rate that the marble falls in water. The difference is that oil is denser than water, and so the marble falls further in water, much like more time passes for the twin who stays home. Though the same amount of "invariant universal time" passed for the marble that was falling in each fluid, the higher density of the oil fluid slowed the rate, as the higher wave energy density for a moving clock causes it to run slower.