[guest39538]

Well I think it is starting to come together as a scientific theory , what do you think ?

[GoC]

Well 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.

[guest39538]

Well 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.

If i am using tP I am defining the time the same way you would.  C energy = time=entropy

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.

[guest39538]

Title: Relative correctness and the correct interpretation of information.

Abstract-
This paper is intended to give a definite structure or shape to relativity in a primary respect to science process. Looking to create a primary rule or principle on which something is based as opposed to presenting naive set theories.
Using a dialectic approach and presenting a Modus Poden of arguments that opposes the present information. Using a logical form of argument, consisting of a function which takes premises, analyses present science information and returns a conclusion (or conclusions) based on these premises. Showing a construction of deductive logical proof's that looks at the true values of relativity that humanity has quantified. Showing by logical axioms and relativistic thought, that these uses have no other discipline other than the literal content created by the practitioner.

Introduction.
Anybody who has ever learnt some science, must of heard of Albert Einstein's relativity. I could not believe when I first ''heard'' time slowed down and wondered how much of relativity was fact and how much of relativity was mythology. The more we look at the intrinsic details of relativity, the more we can realise the mythology involved. In fact the more closely we inspect the entirety of physics science, the more we can observe an ever growing mythology . We can archive our beliefs because we can look at the intrinsic details of relativity that shows ostensibly, thus leading into explaining certain details that creates this mythology in science.

Theory and Hypothesis
An axiom {Cf. axiom, n., etymology. Oxford English Dictionary, accessed 2012-04-28.} is something that is self evidently true, it is important we understand that things that are self evidently true, are true, regardless of the “truth” of propositions. In understanding , it is important we understand the attributes of a theory {Davidson Reynolds, Paul (1971). A primer in theory construction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.} or hypothesis {Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Hypothesis". Encyclopedia Britannica. 14 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 208.}. There is also an importance we understand what a theory or hypothesis actually is in the terms of realism { Ben Dov, Y. Local Realism and the Crucial experiment}. A theory or hypothesis is an idea, an idea that relates to something, however we must not allow ourselves to become besotted in any idea unless it is of axiom tendencies..
An hypothesis differs from a theory, a theory is more evident than a hypothesis, often having experimental results to back it up, where as hypothesis's are often considered more of a speculation without any evident merit.
We must not allow ourselves to speculate to vividly, our premise should remain based on axioms, we should not conclude that set theory , is fact, unless the evidence is axiom related and in accordance strictly relative.

The meaning of math and math use dependency.
We must remember that numbers are the invention of logical rules by humans to aid our existence and synchronise our lives. Numbers do not exist in the Universe, they only exist in our mental interpretation of process by using number equivalents to explain and accurately fit and explain a process or event. The Universe exists without numbers and events happen regardless of the numbers involved.
It is important that we understand that maths is not the answer to the Universe , it is a way to define a process or event in a different context other than words alone. The process or event always preceding the maths, the maths a later of the former.

The firmament of the minds limitations.
It is also important that we learn to deal with and accept reality, to not teach our children illusions of reality that give a sense of hope and belief not according to truth or fact. History has provided illusions in the past, once mankind thought the Earth was flat, civilisation feared falling off the horizon into an abyss. This was later to be discovered a myth and realisation that the world was ''round''. Another belief from our past, was the belief of a Firmament, a said solid dome like structure that covered the flat Earth. We this day and age simply call it the sky, knowingly we have accomplished the ability to leave our atmosphere by the mechanical ingenuity of mankind, the only Firmament that existed was the inability of thought and technology that was needed to allow this Firmament to be reached and explored.
Whenever there is a boundary that can not be reached, whether it be by physical means or mental means, this is the unreachable boundary of the firmament of the mind. A boundary that is seemingly unreachable, a boundary that can only allow imagination and not that of facts or truths.
Moving forward from my introduction I feel it is now important I begin to discuss relative correctness which I have based on three postulates that I believe to be axiom postulates.

Postulate one: The speed of time is infinite, any measurement of time greater than zero becomes immediate history no matter what the speed or the length of measurement is.

Postulate two:Visible light is dependent to electro-magnetic radiation and substance interaction.

Postulate three: Visible light and dark do not exist of  space.


At first these postulates may not be so obviously true to the reader, however thus far I have not explained the nature of the postulates in which the reader will then understand the obvious of the postulates. To view something to be incorrect without understanding it, is not being objective. We can not let ourselves exclude new information biased towards past information. We must give new information considerate thought on the premise or premises of the argument provided and realise that somethings of present information appear to be true, but are not necessarily true. We must also remember the firmament of the mind, this explained earlier. We must not let our thoughts be restricted by the firmament and always have an open mind. Let us now look at the nature of the postulates.

The Nature of time.
Many years have passed, and many great minds have considered time and the meaning of time and shared their thoughts. Humans , the very need for time, the very thought of time, something we look for outside of ourselves. Something we believe is quantifiable, something we believe can be measured, something we believe that can slow down or speed up. Newton believed time was absolute, but this was ''over ruled'' by Albert Einstein who first suggested time can slow down or speed up in his 1905 and 1914 papers on relativity.

I quote:Citation: Albert Einstein Part I: The Special Theory of Relativity : 8.On the Idea of Time in Physic
 '' Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event. 4
Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an absolute significance, i.e. that it is independent of the state of motion of the body of reference. But we have just seen that this assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of simultaneity; if we discard this assumption, then the conflict between the law of the propagation of light in vacuo and the principle of relativity (developed in Section VII) disappears. 5
We were led to that conflict by the considerations of Section VI, which are now no longer tenable. In that section we concluded that the man in the carriage, who traverses the distance w per second relative to the carriage, traverses the same distance also with respect to the embankment in each second of time. But, according to the foregoing considerations, the time required by a particular occurrence with respect to the carriage must not be considered equal to the duration of the same occurrence as judged from the embankment (as reference-body). Hence it cannot be contended that the man in walking travels the distance w relative to the railway line in a time which is equal to one second as judged from the embankment''.

I quote:Citation: Albert Einstein Part I: The Special Theory of Relativity : 9.The Relativity of Simultaneity
''Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event''.


This then proven to be true by various experiments. One of the most famous experiments being that of Hafele–Keating experiment.

I quote:citation:Wikipedia Hafele–Keating experiment
''The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.''

Time dilation and relativity seemingly true and undistuputable. The nature of time seemingly explained and concluded by Albert Einstein.

However by using a dialetic approach and looking at the information and considering the information, there is seemingly something amiss. In Einsteins paper On the electrodynamics of a moving body, he mentions simultainety.

In brief description I quote :Citation:Wikipedia Simultaneity
''Simultaneity is the relation between two events assumed to be happening at the same time in a frame of reference. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, simultaneity is not an absolute relation between events; what is simultaneous in one frame of reference will not necessarily be simultaneous in another.''

I found this interesting and used investigative thought to consider the thinking involved in Einsteins papers and the nature of time. Firstly my thoughts were in the direction of time speeding up or slowing down and considering the relativity between two individual observers. Time having the ability to speed up or slow down being suggestive that time has a speed. Thus leading to my first question in my mind, what is the speed of time?
In considering this, the next increment of time to follow the moment of ''now'' was seemingly immediately away, one increment of time passing to the next increment of time seemingly immediately with no ''gaps'' or pause between, a continuous flow without breaks. No matter how fast I tried to count , time seemingly past as fast as I could count. In my mind there was now an uncertainty of the nature of time that I had interpreted of present information.
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.
This then had me slightly bewildered, if one observers next increment of time is immediately ahead of them, then one must conclude that the second observers next increment of time is also immediate ahead of them .

This thought was thought provoking, so I needed to look deeper for answers and in searching for an answer I came across a thought experiment called The Twin Paradox. It is said that there was two identical twins, let us call them twin one and twin two. Both identical twins start off on the inertial reference frame of the Earth. Twin two starts a journey into space leaving twin one on Earth, twin two returns some time later and is said to have aged less than twin one because of time dilation, experiencing less time than twin one.

Ok, let us consider this in a modus poden view.

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 then objectively accepted,then subsequently →p=q∀


model of relativity twins.jpg (29.22 kB . 985x507 - viewed 5208 times)

This implies the speed of time for twin one is always equal to the speed of time for twin two and concludes a deductive logical proof that applies for all.

Both twins could conclude their rates of time were always synchronous from the deductive proofs.

Thus explaining the first postulate:

Postulate one: The speed of time is infinite, any measurement of time greater than zero becomes immediate history no matter the speed or length of increment measurement.

Let us now look for further evidence of falsifiable statement and we will look at the statement of  {Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity)} from our earlier quote and citation of Albert Einstein on relativity.

Let us consider the train carriage in respect to the embankment, the carriage  begins at rest relative to the embankment and the clock on the embankment is at relative rest in respect of the embankment.  The clock on the carriage in respect to the embankment is synchronous to begin with.  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.  If on the carriage the rate of time was (tP) and the rate of time on the embankment was (tP), I conclude from the earlier shown evident results, that the time would remain synchronous whether at rest or in relative motion.
Evidently if twin two was to travel aboard the carriage, relative too twin one,  twin two's next chronological position on the time line remains (tP) time Planck ahead of them  and synchronous too twin one regardless of motion.

t₁=t₂

Δt₁=(tP)

Δt₂=(tP)



 The unit of a Planck length used in (tP) being fractionally zero and having no negligible length to contract, thus leading us to look at the Lorentz length contraction and the thought experiment of a light clock that supports the time dilation mythology and the ostensibly involved.

[GoC]

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?

 

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.

True.

In the earlier quote Einstein says {with respect to the embankment in each second of time.}.   

Also true. The same meaning as before.

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.

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.

[guest39538]

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?

 

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.

True.

In the earlier quote Einstein says {with respect to the embankment in each second of time.}.   

Also true. The same meaning as before.

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.

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?  how far away is your next position on the time line?
  Hint a second is ''far way''

There no fallacy in my argument.

[GoC]

I 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.

far 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.

 

There 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?

[guest39538]

I 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.

far 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.

 

There 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?

Time at the moment and ''hearing'' what Einstein had to say, time is ''these time-values can be regarded essentially as magnitudes (results of measurements) capable of observation''.

I have mentioned before my definition of time,

Time=timing relative to absolute timeless space. i.e 0

added- I also never said a second was infinite, I said the speed of time was infinite for the simple reason of counting at any speed and the time goes past equally and directional proportional to the speed/rate of counting.

A second is far away compared to (tP), I am glad you recognise the difference.

Counting slow or counting fast does not change the speed/rate of time.   That is what the time dilation Keating experiment is doing , counting slow then by the ''illusion'' think that time is slowing down.

[guest4091]

Thebox

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.

 

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.

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.

Your brain requires a few milliseconds to process an image.
If you are watching a strobe light, there are spaces between the intermittent signals.

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.

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?

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 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?

If c is constant time remains constant, time could only be a variate if c was a variant.

Light speed c is constant in space, but not within/relative to a moving light clock. That's why there is time dilation. If c was constant relative to a moving light clock, observers watching the clock go by would see light speed >c. The first has been experimentally observed, the second has not.

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.

In early history, the speed of light was thought to be instantaneous and time was universal. Experiment has shown that both ideas are incorrect.
Time is relative to a defined standard, like all measurements.

Time does not move, thus it has no speed. It's just an historical record keeping process, an ordering of events, a gage of activity. It is not a thing or party planner as you would have if taking a cruise.

After reading your ideas, I would suggest reading a book on special relativity, without any complicated math.

[guest39538]

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 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?

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

From this we can deduct both statements have the same truth value in every model and twin one and twin two remain synchronous in timing in respect to relative motion.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_equivalence
In logic, statements {\displaystyle p}[​IMG] and {\displaystyle q}[​IMG] are logically equivalent if they have the same logical content. This is a semantic concept; two statements are equivalent if they have the same truth value in every model (Mendelson 1979:56). The logical equivalence of {\displaystyle p}[​IMG] and {\displaystyle q}[​IMG] is sometimes expressed as {\displaystyle p\equiv q}[​IMG], {\displaystyle {\textsf {E}}pq}[​IMG], or {\displaystyle p\iff q}[​IMG].

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.

We measure time ''one step'' at a time to be accurate, we do not do ''daddy'' steps we do ''baby'' steps.   

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?

Try to displace a point without it leaving a past position, try to measure time without leaving a past chronological position.  You can imagine the point is 0t and try to displace it any rate/speed without leaving an equal and proportional past. I have not yet explained this part in my paper fully.

[GoC]

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),

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.

 

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

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.

Time=timing relative to absolute timeless space. i.e 0

Time 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.

[guest39538]

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),

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.

 

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

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.

Time=timing relative to absolute timeless space. i.e 0

Time 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.

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.

[guest39538]

Timeless space = a photon at 0 ft/s. This is not what is observed.

You observe 0 frequency , you do not observe Photons traversing through space, There is nothing to time to obtain timing. i.e ''timingless''

This does not say there is no photons,

Observe and detect being two different things

[GoC]

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.

Most here already understand. I have nothing to really add. This is relativity. I just changed the wording to your understanding format as I recognized it.

You observe 0 frequency , you do not observe Photons traversing through space, There is nothing to time to obtain timing. i.e ''timingless''

Unfortunately you are following the standard model of virtual photons and virtual energy. If something can be measured it exists. Virtual is used because photon mass would invalidate relativity. The MMX was used to disregard a stationary Aether that we travel through. While the MMX disproves a stationary unmoving Aether it was taken beyond the limits of the test to say there is no type of matrix. The test did not disprove all Aether types. There is one that the test did not disprove. Its fundamental energy c itself that causes relativity. A particle spin (Aether) rotating with the Earth and all bodies with mass in the universe except BH's. All clocks tick at the same rate at sea level The direction of gravity attraction is a straight line to the gravitational center not a curve with rotation of the Earth. Light, gravity, magnetism, weak and strong force are different affects of that energy matrix.

We know photons travel through space. It is a wave on the energy matrix which is separate from macro mass and allows waves to be real and not just virtual. Independent from mass, causing relativity. c spin is time motion for distance measurements of the wave form photon. Transfer energy? Certainly.  Time and energy are the same thing. Motion.

Observe and detect being two different things

Except they do not need to be observed to realize they traverse space. Our eyes are detectors of photons.

[guest39538]

[quote author=GoC link=topic=70844.msg518217#msg518217 date=1499528393
Unfortunately you are following the standard model of virtual photons and virtual energy. If something can be measured it exists.
[/quote]

I am not using any model other than my own thinking when concerning the nature of light. We can detect EMR, which we can measure, however the only visible photons you observe are the results on the device you are using to measure. When considering sight the only results we observe are the visible photons in their exact geometrical position, to say photons exist in space is like saying when it rains the ground does not get wet.


factual -emr exists in space

unproven -photons exist in space

factual - no visible photons in space

factual-visible photons exist of ''substance''

Conclusion -Emr has to enter your eyes to allow you to observe visible photons
of substance

[guest39538]

twin one's  next chronological position on the time line is (tP) time Planck ahead of them (p)
twin two's next chronological position on the time line is (tP) time Planck ahead of them (q)

(p→q)Λ(q→p)⇒(p⇐⇒ q)   

any better?

[GoC]

No because Planks length and Planks time has nothing to do with the change of reaction rate for twin 2 or twin 1

[guest39538]

No because Planks length and Planks time has nothing to do with the change of reaction rate for twin 2 or twin 1

Of course not, because if we measured time correctly to begin with instead of  having 3.26 cm = 1 second of the atomic clock, the twins experience no time dilation, the illusion being the construct of the measurement of 1 second which is not there to begin with.
We are simply measuring time wrongly and our semantics of the time dilation are greatly misinterpreted.

Think of it this way,

Twin one is relatively stationary , twin two is in motion, consider the two statements below, do the logical test on the statements.

Twin one experiences time passing one (tP) per tick. (p)

Twin two experiences time passing one (tP) per tick. (q)

The truth of both statements being true.

p implies q is true and  the converse  q implies p to be true.

Added - One (tP) on the timeline is directly proportional to the amount of history recorded.

More inference logic, do the logic test on that statement to. Look at my provided model. Think about geometric positions and chronological positions . 

[GoC]

Lets say you have an electrical line of 120 volts. How many amps are delivered?

[guest39538]

Lets say you have an electrical line of 120 volts. How many amps are delivered?

0.5A or 500 mA and I think I know where you are leading with this but I await your unrelated effort.