[GoC]

Volts are like Planks length and Planks time. Volts are useless without amps. You have a wire that carries 10 amps. If you use 5 amps for motion you only have 5 amps energy available. All motion uses amps Your clock measures the remaining amps after you have motion. When you were at the 10 amp potential your aging clock ran fast. Now your amps available are only 5 amps of potential your aging clock runs slower. Volts are the same. You have to think in terms of energy used and energy available.

[guest39538]

Volts are like Planks length and Planks time. Volts are useless without amps. You have a wire that carries 10 amps. If you use 5 amps for motion you only have 5 amps energy available. All motion uses amps Your clock measures the remaining amps after you have motion. When you were at the 10 amp potential your aging clock ran fast. Now your amps available are only 5 amps of potential your aging clock runs slower. Volts are the same. You have to think in terms of energy used and energy available.

Scratches head a bit with identifying the relevance, I will have to think your post over to try to understand it.

[guest4091]

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 . 

The essence of your statement is 'if two people agree on a idea,it's true'.

[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 . 

The essence of your statement is 'if two people agree on a idea,it's true'.

If both objectively accept that which is shown in measurement, moving forward in time is directly proportional to the history created. 

By both, it simply means I and the reader agreeing objectively.  The reality is I am correct about this and have just disproved Einstein. There is no possible argument anyone could give, it is a 100% axiom logically and ''physically'' by measurement.

Nobody can displace 0 chronologically or geometrically without creating an equal and proportional past.

[GoC]

Your thinking is one dimensional. c is time energy available while kinetic is a reduction in timing. Timing is recorded with your clock based on energy available (aging). Einstein was a master with multiple dimensional thinking. Your proofs are shallow thinking. And are a block for deeper understanding. Einstein felt only 10 % of the population could understand relativity. Once you understand a realization that relativity is the only course possible to follow observations.

[guest39538]

Your thinking is one dimensional. c is time energy available while kinetic is a reduction in timing. Timing is recorded with your clock based on energy available (aging). Einstein was a master with multiple dimensional thinking. Your proofs are shallow thinking. And are a block for deeper understanding. Einstein felt only 10 % of the population could understand relativity. Once you understand a realization that relativity is the only course possible to follow observations.

Nice try GOC I understand relativity it is easy to understand .  Einstein is wrong and time does not slow down or speed up.

Quite clearly I have shown the bundle of errors. To show me wrong GOC, you or anybody else will have to ''break'' my ''rock solid'' premise.
It is quite clear the premise can not be broken by anyone. Objectively, subjectively, theoretical, relative correctness. 

3.26 cm or 1 second is not there, you are believing the illusion that is constructed.  I have deconstructed the illusion to observe the true values and the truth.
100% certainty , P=1, I do not believe in fairies so do not present them before me in imagination.

[guest39538]

Understand what ''you'' are saying.  If I count time , and count slowly, time runs slowly, if I count time faster, time runs faster.

Try counting if you don't believe me, your count could never be equal to the speed of time , you can't count fast enough.

Do it in words per second if you like

John writes : 


Alice writes :

The speed of time does not '''CARE'' about John or Alice.

[guest39538]

added-






1 is equal to 1, 1 does not change.

1=3.26cm

added :
=t

=t

This is what you are doing.

[GoC]

Nice try GOC I understand relativity it is easy to understand .  Einstein is wrong and time does not slow down or speed up.

Define time? It took me a long time for my current understanding. ~ 40 years. I might be a slow learner.

Quite clearly I have shown the bundle of errors. To show me wrong GOC, you or anybody else will have to ''break'' my ''rock solid'' premise.

I am not trying to break your rocks. Volts and amps. Two dimensions.

[guest39538]

Nice try GOC I understand relativity it is easy to understand .  Einstein is wrong and time does not slow down or speed up.

Define time? It took me a long time for my current understanding. ~ 40 years. I might be a slow learner.

Quite clearly I have shown the bundle of errors. To show me wrong GOC, you or anybody else will have to ''break'' my ''rock solid'' premise.

I am not trying to break your rocks. Volts and amps. Two dimensions.

I define time:  A quantifiable measurement that is directly proportional to change.

adding - The universe changes at the rate of (tP), that is the best we can hope for.
added -
t=Δ(tP)

and there's the maths

added: and here is the counter argument maths

t≠Δ1.s

[guest39538]

 Einstein claims that when the carriage is in motion relative to the embankment , the frequency  of the ticking clock on the carriage in relative motion is  different to the frequency 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 evidental results of the twin statements, that the time would remain synchronous whether at rest or in relative motion.
Evidently if twin two was to travel in 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.  The unit of a Planck length 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 ideology.

I quote:Citation Wikipedia Light Clock

''The light clock is a simple way of showing a basic feature of Special relativity. A clock is designed to work by bouncing a flash of light off a distant mirror and using its return to trigger another flash of light, meanwhile counting how many flashes have occurred along the way. It is easy to show that people on Earth watching a spaceship fly overhead with such a clock would see it ticking relatively slowly. This effect is called time dilation.''

[guest39538]

In the below diagram we observe a carriage in relative motion and observe a light beam travelling between two points vertically.  However this diagram differs from the original light clock thought in that our points are a Planck length apart. The observer clearly observes the light  travelling  a linearity, as opposed to the angled paths in the original thought experiment.  Although one might conclude the linearity objectively looked a bit wave like but not perceivable by the eye and negligible when considering time dilation.


tp.jpg (14.7 kB . 985x507 - viewed 4517 times)

[guest39538]

In the below diagram we can observe the difference in thought experiment of the Lorentz length contraction if we were to substitute the length of carriage with  a Planck Length.   A ''Photon'' is emitted from point (A) and is reflected by point (B) back to point (A) in a continuous manner while the carriage travels left to right.
We can observe from the diagram that the substitute shows no length contraction or said time dilation.


lorentz1.jpg (14.2 kB . 985x507 - viewed 4470 times)

The converse of this diagram also remaining true.

[GoC]

Your plank argument is relative to my volts argument. Plank is based on c which is available volts. Your frames are based on amps. In SR you have velocity using some amps. Your total available amps is limited by c volts like a motor. You have a speed limit for your motor. Lets look at it backwards. Total amps is c at 100 volts. The more volts being used the less are available. Your clock measures your volts available in a frame relative to c as a reduction in the electron cycle. Planks energy is the ratio of volts and amps per frame.

[guest39538]

Your plank argument is relative to my volts argument. Plank is based on c which is available volts. Your frames are based on amps. In SR you have velocity using some amps. Your total available amps is limited by c volts like a motor. You have a speed limit for your motor. Lets look at it backwards. Total amps is c at 100 volts. The more volts being used the less are available. Your clock measures your volts available in a frame relative to c as a reduction in the electron cycle. Planks energy is the ratio of volts and amps per frame.

There is no comparison to the argument, I am measuring time not measuring volts although it may be my understanding of what you are saying, having no idea of what you are saying to be honest because I know very little about volts.
I don't know everything, I only know a few things in good detail because them are the things out of science I hand picked in being not quite right .

[GoC]

Thank you God

[guest39538]

Thank you God

Lol thanking the sky above your head really doesn't help either, I think you are proper scientist GOC?

It is not on me to sort out the difficulties, I can only point to the errors and show the errors in semantics and the thinking involved.  I have invented nothing, created nothing, it is on science to do all the small details.

All I want is for science say yes we understand now and will look in to it, then I can go back to my normal everyday life and stop thinking.

added- For several years now science forums have had me thinking I was loosing my ''marbles'', caused me a break down , anxiety and all sorts.   I got stronger inside and then tried harder to produce the paper I have produced so far, a paper I don't even want to write in reality.   I don't want to be known as the guy who ''wrecked'' science but it has got to be done to achieve relative correctness.

[GoC]

I think you are proper scientist GOC?

You would need to define proper scientist before I could give you my opinion.

Lol thanking the sky above your head really doesn't help either,

Not that I am one of the faithful but how would we know?

I can only point to the errors and show the errors in semantics and the thinking involved

And there lies the problem.

Lets go through one of your logic loops of undeniable truths.
1. You need to understand relativity to believe it.
2. Once you believe in relativity you find it to be true.

Where are you on the logic loop?

[guest39538]

I think you are proper scientist GOC?

You would need to define proper scientist before I could give you my opinion.

Lol thanking the sky above your head really doesn't help either,

Not that I am one of the faithful but how would we know?

I can only point to the errors and show the errors in semantics and the thinking involved

And there lies the problem.

Lets go through one of your logic loops of undeniable truths.
1. You need to understand relativity to believe it.
2. Once you believe in relativity you find it to be true.

Where are you on the logic loop?

By proper scientist, I mean you have qualifications in it, probably a professional scientist  and get paid for it as a job in some section of science.
 
Where am I on the logic loop.


1. You need to prove relativity to accept it.
2. Once you objectively accept the proof  in relativity you will find it to be true.

i.e  Time=A quantifiable measurement that is directly proportional to change

Δt=(tP)

Objectively true by the measurements showing it to be true.

added- I have said before, if it is not 100% true then it is not true it is subjective and belief.  It is not a belief that my next ''now'' is immediate ahead of me, a very small increment of time. My moments of now, do not jump in 1 second increments.

[GoC]

By proper scientist, I mean you have qualifications in it, probably a professional scientist  and get paid for it as a job in some section of science.

Then yes. Analytical chemistry.

Your answer to the logic loop was a Donald Trump answer. Meaningless to the question of relativity.