0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Well I think it is starting to come together as a scientific theory , what do you think ?
Quote from: Thebox on 05/07/2017 22:24:47Well I think it is starting to come together as a scientific theory , what do you think ?You need to define your understanding of how time is defined.
Einstein claims that when the carriage is in motion relative to the embankment , the rate of the clock on the carriage in relative motion is now different to the rate 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.
thebox, Some of what you say hurts my head. You seem to be missing some of the subtleties of language. Have you defined time? If not than how can you discuss time? Quote from: Thebox on 06/07/2017 18:03:59Einstein claims that when the carriage is in motion relative to the embankment , the rate of the clock on the carriage in relative motion is now different to the rate of the clock at relative rest on the embankment, no longer being synchronous. True.Quote from: Thebox on 06/07/2017 18:03:59In the earlier quote Einstein says {with respect to the embankment in each second of time.}. Also true. The same meaning as before.Quote from: Thebox on 06/07/2017 18:03:59This is the error in thinking by Mr Einstein, a second being a much longer increment than the smallest measure of time (tP) time Planck.You created a straw man argument. The two clocks, one on the train and one on the embankment are no longer synchronous. There was no value given to either clock. The one on the embankment could be running slower or faster depending on the direction of the train being east or west. North or south the trains clock would be slower of course.On the equator your clock would speed up in the east to west direction up to about 1,000 m/h. Then slow down as you increased your speed past 1,000 m/h. At ~2,000 m/h your clock would be synchronous again with the stationary clock on the equator. One caveat is it all being at the same level from gravitational center like sea level. You are confusing the present, being where everybody remains with the measurement of the energy state of your frame. The electron counts every portion of space it travels between its cycle. Stationary allows the fastest cycle. Movement through space registers as increased length for the electron to travel in completing its cycle. The speed of time is c. The electron motion is in a helix like DNA. So the electron speed is measured to be slower than the photon. Time and energy are the same thing motion. Plank time and Plank motion are indistinguishable.
I am not confused in the slightest, you are, sorry to say GOC, do agree in a time line?
far away is your next position on the time line? Hint a second is ''far way''
There no fallacy in my argument.
Quote from: Thebox on 06/07/2017 19:45:55I am not confused in the slightest, you are, sorry to say GOC, do agree in a time line?I am sure we are all confused sometime in our lives.Quote from: Thebox on 06/07/2017 19:45:55far away is your next position on the time line? Hint a second is ''far way''While you can divide a second into infinite slices a second is not infinite. Math can go where reality can not. Once again in science it is generally accepted that Plank's distance is the lowest level of motion. Plank's time relates to Planks distance through c. A second relative to the electron cycle is far away but to my consciousness it is relatively short. Quote from: Thebox on 06/07/2017 19:45:55There no fallacy in my argument. Certainly not by the author. But each of us has a certain depth of understanding the limits of an argument. You have not really defined the parameters of your argument. What is your definition of time?
The problem with relativity which I have tried explaining, is that the distance in the Lorentz contraction is not really there when considering time. I consider the rate of time is equal to the updated information in your brain, the information updates at c, there is no distance between photon packets entering your eyes, the next photon update is immediately away.
I consider the rate of time is equal to the updated information in your brain, the information updates at c, there is no distance between photon packets entering your eyes, the next photon update is immediately away.
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 arrow of time, I could not displace the geometrical point without leaving a past chronological position on the time line, again at any speed.
If twin one accepts firstly that their next chronological position on the time line is (tP) time Planck ahead of them (p),If twin two accepts secondly that their next chronological position on the time line is (tP) time Planck ahead of them (q), (‘if p then q ’) is accepted, →p=q
If c is constant time remains constant, time could only be a variate if c was a variant.
It was not a good idea though by Einsteins to say ignore true time and we will define time as the fingers on a clock.
QuoteIf twin one accepts firstly that their next chronological position on the time line is (tP) time Planck ahead of them (p),If twin two accepts secondly that their next chronological position on the time line is (tP) time Planck ahead of them (q), (‘if p then q ’) is accepted, →p=qIf twin2 rejects (statement for time line), then (if p then q) is false.You can't select the ones in your favor and exclude the others.How would you show the difference in velocities with your timeline graphic?
By definition, the 'second' is just over 9 billion wave lengths of light in the microwave freq. range, i.e. a distance. These can be counted and used as a measure of time.If time is a continuous flow of instants, as you suggest, how do you measure time?An instant is an interval of zero, and n x 0 = 0.
Here you're defining motion. Position is distance and direction relative to a reference object M. Motion is changing position relative to M. Speed is rate of change of position relative to M.It's logical that you can't get to a new position without leaving the previous position.It's logical that you can't be in two positions at the same time.So what's new?
Twin Two can not reject the statement, there is no more I need to say about it , the only thing I need to do in my paper is correct the rules of logic to:If twin one objectively accepts firstly that their next chronological position on the time line is (tP) time Planck ahead of them (p),
If twin two objectively accepts secondly that their next chronological position on the time line is (tP) time Planck ahead of them (q),(‘if p then q ’) is accepted, then subsequently p↔q
Time=timing relative to absolute timeless space. i.e 0
Quote from: Thebox on 07/07/2017 18:15:14Twin Two can not reject the statement, there is no more I need to say about it , the only thing I need to do in my paper is correct the rules of logic to:If twin one objectively accepts firstly that their next chronological position on the time line is (tP) time Planck ahead of them (p),Lets accept that time and timing are two different things as you suggest. I also tend to agree with that assessment with some caveats related to relativity. Lets also accept a second is ~9 billion wave cycles. ~9 billion wave cycles will equal a second. First we will consider the proton at rest with 9 billion wave cycles at c rotation through space. We know the electron and photon are always confounded in every frame. So energy c and electron w are always in step with each other. Energy (measured by the photon) c is what's always available. Now we start at relative rest and move the electron through space towards velocity c. As we move the proton through space the electron reduces its cycle relative to its cycle at rest reducing the relative tick rate. Again this is timing vs. energy c as time. The electron is as constant as the photon is in distance traveled through space. The electron has to count the volume of space it travels through as conserved energy c. Reaction rate, aging and cycle timing are all affected the same while total energy c (time energy) remains constant. In this scenario planks length has nothing to do with time but twin two has everything to do with timing. Quote from: Thebox on 07/07/2017 18:15:14If twin two objectively accepts secondly that their next chronological position on the time line is (tP) time Planck ahead of them (q),(‘if p then q ’) is accepted, then subsequently p↔q Yes but if reaction rate is based on tick rate of the duration of the 9 billion cycles for aging p can =q for the photon c in SR. While aging is not based on total time (energy) available from p to q timing of cycles does affect aging and reaction rates.This is why I keep asking you to define your time. Then we can relate it to what is observed.Quote from: Thebox on 07/07/2017 14:23:22Time=timing relative to absolute timeless space. i.e 0Time is energy and energy allows motion. Total energy is c. Then we have c used vs. c available which is measured by our clocks tick duration. Timeless space = a photon at 0 ft/s. This is not what is observed. Time limit is c. Distance of c relative to ~9 billion cycles of the electron is your second. There is no preferred second in timing but total available is c.
Timeless space = a photon at 0 ft/s. This is not what is observed.
You understand it , . That is all I ever wanted is for somebody with better knowledge and better writing skills than me to understand me. You can now explain all this to your science friends, science will then be accurate, change the definition on wiki from time dilation to timing dilation, FIXED.
You observe 0 frequency , you do not observe Photons traversing through space, There is nothing to time to obtain timing. i.e ''timingless''
Observe and detect being two different things
No because Planks length and Planks time has nothing to do with the change of reaction rate for twin 2 or twin 1
Lets say you have an electrical line of 120 volts. How many amps are delivered?