[Bored chemist]

Let us now  look at the light permeating through space, the space apparently not opposing the permeating light or having any affect on the light.  The observation of the light permeating through space by the human eye, being that of the invisible spectrum, no visible spectrum is observed.  The space seemingly empty and colourless  in appearance as if there is nothing there, but even a school boy knows the space contains  electromagnetic radiation of the invisible kind (invisible spectrum). 

It's about here that you go wrong.

[guest39538]

Let us now  look at the light permeating through space, the space apparently not opposing the permeating light or having any affect on the light.  The observation of the light permeating through space by the human eye, being that of the invisible spectrum, no visible spectrum is observed.  The space seemingly empty and colourless  in appearance as if there is nothing there, but even a school boy knows the space contains  electromagnetic radiation of the invisible kind (invisible spectrum). 

It's about here that you go wrong.

Really, ask as many people as you like if they see any differently to that.

[Kryptid]

Can you just for once pretend you know nothing?    Forget Einstein and everything about science you know.

I'll only forget it if and when sufficiently powerful evidence to overturn it comes up. You haven't come even close to refuting the observation by experiments that time dilation does occur.

I am going to learn you about time ok?  Because in this scenario you are ''clueless'' about time.

Time is a quantifiable measurement directly proportional to change. 

Do you understand the definition?

added - I will even tell you how to approach the statement.

Firstly we can break the statement down into two segments because the statement says two things:

1)Time is a quantifiable measurement

2) directly proportional to change

Do you disagree with 1 or 2?

No kind of argument, definitions or logical twists you could possibly come up with will refute observable facts. What is your explanation for why clocks and physical processes slow down under certain circumstances? Remember, you also have to be able to explain why these things slow down by the amount that relativity predicts that they will. It can't just be some lucky coincidence that Einstein got the numbers right.

[guest39538]

Why would you think time was slowing the clock down?

It obviously isn't due to any changes in the internal structure of the clock, given that it's identical when it's sitting on the ground or when it's flying in an airplane. Even unstable subatomic particles take longer to decay when they are moving quickly. So whatever is causing processes to slow down at high speeds or in strong gravity wells affects all devices and processes equally. Also, the amount by which it slows down is in accordance with the amount that Einstein predicted mathematically that it would if time itself is indeed slowing down. Due to these facts, it is perfectly sensible to say that time is slowing down.

The clock measures time but is not time.

You don't say...

When will you realise that relative timing, i.e a clock speed is not relative time? 

What is affecting the Caesium rate has nothing to do with time.  I consider  it is rather stupid to use a clock that the measurement  is affected by     motion.

[Kryptid]

When will you realise that relative timing, i.e a clock speed is not relative time?

When you show me a better way to account for it than existing theories.

What is affecting the Caesium rate has nothing to do with time.  I consider  it is rather stupid to use a clock that the measurement  is affected by     motion.

Do you have any sources showing that motion alone affects the transition times of electron transfer between energy levels in a cesium atom? It's not just cesium atoms either. Unstable particles are also affected by time dilation even though they are orders of magnitude simpler than a clock. How can you account for them being affected the same way? I'm still waiting for you to explain how Einstein got "lucky" with his numerical predictions.

[The Spoon]

'Can you just for once pretend you know nothing?    Forget Einstein and everything about science you know.'

This sums you up very well. You appeal to ignorance and this statement indicates that the only way that people would accept your 'theories' is if they were completely ignorant of science. Unlike the science that has gone before you just have wild conjecture with absolutely no evidence and muddled thinking. The above statement more than any other shows it to be bullshit.

[guest39538]

'Can you just for once pretend you know nothing?    Forget Einstein and everything about science you know.'

This sums you up very well. You appeal to ignorance and this statement indicates that the only way that people would accept your 'theories' is if they were completely ignorant of science. Unlike the science that has gone before you just have wild conjecture with absolutely no evidence and muddled thinking. The above statement more than any other shows it to be bullshit.

Nope, I was trying to open up your minds which will give you the ability to think yourself instead of relying on the recall of memorised information that was taught to you.   If you can not allow yourself to surpass the subjective mental block , you will never understand.    Understand the education you was subjected too is the same sort of education that gives people notions and belief of 50 virgins awaiting you in heaven.
Be objective and understand this... be open minded,   I never know anything and know nothing, my mind is always empty for learning.

[The Spoon]

'Can you just for once pretend you know nothing?    Forget Einstein and everything about science you know.'

This sums you up very well. You appeal to ignorance and this statement indicates that the only way that people would accept your 'theories' is if they were completely ignorant of science. Unlike the science that has gone before you just have wild conjecture with absolutely no evidence and muddled thinking. The above statement more than any other shows it to be bullshit.

Nope, I was trying to open up your minds which will give you the ability to think yourself instead of relying on the recall of memorised information that was taught to you.   If you can not allow yourself to surpass the subjective mental block , you will never understand.    Understand the education you was subjected too is the same sort of education that gives people notions and belief of 50 virgins awaiting you in heaven.
Be objective and understand this... be open minded,   I never know anything and know nothing, my mind is always empty for learning.

But we do think for ourselves and we are objective. That is how science works, by taking on board new evidence. The problem is, you have not presented any evidence, just nonsensical 'thought experiments', childish drawings and nonsense about seeing atoms due to the reflection off a boot.

What you say about the education we were 'subjected to' giving 'people notions and belief of 50 virgins awaiting you in heaven' is nonsense. You seek to dismiss all learning because it contradicts you. Believing your guff is not being open minded, it is being gullible.You don't even properly understand the subject you are trying to refute and as has been stated by everybody else, you have completely failed to produce evidence. You do not even have the education to know how to use 'were' and 'was' or 'learnt' and 'taught' correctly.

As the phrase goes don't be so open minded that your brain falls out.

Your dismissal of education and experts is like that of Trump or Gove. Designed to fool the ignorant into believing evidence free nonsense.

[guest39538]

But we do think for ourselves and we are objective. That is how science works, by taking on board new evidence. The problem is, you have not presented any evidence, just nonsensical 'thought experiments', childish drawings and nonsense about seeing atoms due to the reflection off a boot.

Tell yea what, I will talk to you as if one of me mucker's and be quite blunt.    You are not being objective, you are not looking at the new evidence, your just not thinking . Seriously dude I know from talking with you that you are not some thick idiot.
My chit drawings as you put it that are Dirac child like, are very good drawings dude, its just you can't see it.  Now lad if they was to come me visit me or I visit you and we sat down at a table with a few bevies or a brew, well lad then by my hand gesters alone you would understand. Posts do not show emotional response or hand gesters etc.   I could show you in ten minutes flat if I was there with you buddy.

[The Spoon]

But we do think for ourselves and we are objective. That is how science works, by taking on board new evidence. The problem is, you have not presented any evidence, just nonsensical 'thought experiments', childish drawings and nonsense about seeing atoms due to the reflection off a boot.

Tell yea what, I will talk to you as if one of me mucker's and be quite blunt.    You are not being objective, you are not looking at the new evidence, your just not thinking . Seriously dude I know from talking with you that you are not some thick idiot.
My chit drawings as you put it that are Dirac child like, are very good drawings dude, its just you can't see it.  Now lad if they was to come me visit me or I visit you and we sat down at a table with a few bevies or a brew, well lad then by my hand gesters alone you would understand. Posts do not show emotional response or hand gesters etc.   I could show you in ten minutes flat if I was there with you buddy.

So instead of doing a parody of a German accent you are typing in a parody of a Northern accent? It just makes you look more ridiculous than you already are.

You talk about new evidence. You have not provided any evidence full stop.

[guest39538]

But we do think for ourselves and we are objective. That is how science works, by taking on board new evidence. The problem is, you have not presented any evidence, just nonsensical 'thought experiments', childish drawings and nonsense about seeing atoms due to the reflection off a boot.

Tell yea what, I will talk to you as if one of me mucker's and be quite blunt.    You are not being objective, you are not looking at the new evidence, your just not thinking . Seriously dude I know from talking with you that you are not some thick idiot.
My chit drawings as you put it that are Dirac child like, are very good drawings dude, its just you can't see it.  Now lad if they was to come me visit me or I visit you and we sat down at a table with a few bevies or a brew, well lad then by my hand gesters alone you would understand. Posts do not show emotional response or hand gesters etc.   I could show you in ten minutes flat if I was there with you buddy.

So instead of doing a parody of a German accent you are typing in a parody of a Northern accent? It just makes you look more ridiculous than you already are.

You talk about new evidence. You have not provided any evidence full stop.

We have something in life called logic, if the logic does not work then it is not logical.  The evidence is logic my friend and a few simple axioms.  p.s I am from the midlands matey , I am up North relative to the South.

[The Spoon]

But we do think for ourselves and we are objective. That is how science works, by taking on board new evidence. The problem is, you have not presented any evidence, just nonsensical 'thought experiments', childish drawings and nonsense about seeing atoms due to the reflection off a boot.

Tell yea what, I will talk to you as if one of me mucker's and be quite blunt.    You are not being objective, you are not looking at the new evidence, your just not thinking . Seriously dude I know from talking with you that you are not some thick idiot.
My chit drawings as you put it that are Dirac child like, are very good drawings dude, its just you can't see it.  Now lad if they was to come me visit me or I visit you and we sat down at a table with a few bevies or a brew, well lad then by my hand gesters alone you would understand. Posts do not show emotional response or hand gesters etc.   I could show you in ten minutes flat if I was there with you buddy.

So instead of doing a parody of a German accent you are typing in a parody of a Northern accent? It just makes you look more ridiculous than you already are.

You talk about new evidence. You have not provided any evidence full stop.

We have something in life called logic, if the logic does not work then it is not logical.  The evidence is logic my friend and a few simple axioms.  p.s I am from the midlands matey , I am up North relative to the South.

Logic is not evidence. Your axioms are things you made up and call axioms because you do not want them examinaed. They are 'just so' stories.

I am from the Midlands. We do not call people lad. That is a parody of a Yorkshire accent. You are a liar.

[guest39538]

But we do think for ourselves and we are objective. That is how science works, by taking on board new evidence. The problem is, you have not presented any evidence, just nonsensical 'thought experiments', childish drawings and nonsense about seeing atoms due to the reflection off a boot.

Tell yea what, I will talk to you as if one of me mucker's and be quite blunt.    You are not being objective, you are not looking at the new evidence, your just not thinking . Seriously dude I know from talking with you that you are not some thick idiot.
My chit drawings as you put it that are Dirac child like, are very good drawings dude, its just you can't see it.  Now lad if they was to come me visit me or I visit you and we sat down at a table with a few bevies or a brew, well lad then by my hand gesters alone you would understand. Posts do not show emotional response or hand gesters etc.   I could show you in ten minutes flat if I was there with you buddy.

So instead of doing a parody of a German accent you are typing in a parody of a Northern accent? It just makes you look more ridiculous than you already are.

You talk about new evidence. You have not provided any evidence full stop.

We have something in life called logic, if the logic does not work then it is not logical.  The evidence is logic my friend and a few simple axioms.  p.s I am from the midlands matey , I am up North relative to the South.

Logic is not evidence. Your axioms are things you made up and call axioms because you do not want them examinaed. They are 'just so' stories.

I am from the Midlands. We do not call people lad. That is a parody of a Yorkshire accent. You are a liar.

Dude me and my friends all call each other bruv or lad or similar.

I logically challenge science with axioms.       Do you wish to to discuss axioms?

Do you want to start with an axiom on time?

The next moment of now is immediately ahead of you.

That is a two part statement:

1)The next moment of now

2)Is immediately ahead of you

1 being the question and 2 being the answer. 

Please feel free to examine the truth of the statement.  I await your conclusion and logical reply to the statement.

[Kryptid]

Still waiting for:

(1) A mechanism that affects all processes that causes them all to "seem" to experience time dilation without actually experiencing it.
(2) An explanation of why Einstein's mathematical predictions were correct if time dilation does not in fact occur.

[guest39538]

Still waiting for:

(1) A mechanism that affects all processes that causes them all to "seem" to experience time dilation without actually experiencing it.
(2) An explanation of why Einstein's mathematical predictions were correct if time dilation does not in fact occur.

1)poor logic is the mechanism

2) maths is made to fit

[The Spoon]

Still waiting for:

(1) A mechanism that affects all processes that causes them all to "seem" to experience time dilation without actually experiencing it.
(2) An explanation of why Einstein's mathematical predictions were correct if time dilation does not in fact occur.

1)poor logic is the mechanism

2) maths is made to fit

Nope. hat is more like the response of a sulky child. Pathetic.

[guest39538]

Still waiting for:

(1) A mechanism that affects all processes that causes them all to "seem" to experience time dilation without actually experiencing it.
(2) An explanation of why Einstein's mathematical predictions were correct if time dilation does not in fact occur.

1)poor logic is the mechanism

2) maths is made to fit

Nope. hat is more like the response of a sulky child. Pathetic.

Nope, you just can not think past your education kind sir.

Two Dj's are situated at rest next to each other.  One of the Dj's starts a journey while the other Dj sits at rest.    Both Dj's play the same song, except the Dj at rest plays the song at 75 rpm while the Dj in motion plays the song at 45 rpm.

Both Dj's experiences the full song of only one of them and they experience much less of the song than the other one is playing.   Because the song was slowed down see, but this not effect their experience of one full song.

[guest39538]

Your time dilating observer in motion is not playing the same song in the same amount of time see.  The song did not get to the end by time my song had ended.

[guest39538]

Because if my 1 song takes 100 cycles of rotation to complete, you and I have both experienced 100 cycles of rotation regardless of what your slowed down song is doing.

added- Because if my song ran at 18385263540 Hz,    that does not mean the speed of time as just doubled, it means my song is playing faster and it will rotate more cycles in less time. 

What is pathetic is scientists keep playing the same song and singing the same song without considering the lyrics or the speed of the song.

[Bored chemist]

Cough
Light scattering
Cough.