[guest39538]

Cough
Light scattering
Cough.

Yes indeed, back to the blue sky and light scattering in which I am still awaiting an answer to my question.

If less dense air scatters light at altitude then why does the much denser air nearer the planets surface not scatter the light to reveal blue to the observer?

[Bored chemist]

Cough
Light scattering
Cough.

Yes indeed, back to the blue sky and light scattering in which I am still awaiting an answer to my question.

If less dense air scatters light at altitude then why does the much denser air nearer the planets surface not scatter the light to reveal blue to the observer?

As has been pointed out before, it does.
However, the sky is miles thick whereas the air between your eyes and your feet s a few feet thick, so the amount of scattered light from the sky is thousands of times brighter- and it's still not very bright compared to direct , or even reflected, sunlight.

[Kryptid]

1)poor logic is the mechanism

Poor logic makes particles take longer to decay when they are moving at high speed relative to the observer... how, exactly?

2) maths is made to fit

You have it backwards. The math was done beforehand (in 1905) to predict how much time should dilate under certain circumstances. It was much later discovered (in 1938) during experiments that time does dilate by the predicted factor. You are either calling Einstein extremely lucky, a time traveler, or a psychic. Which is it?

[guest39538]

1)poor logic is the mechanism

Poor logic makes particles take longer to decay when they are moving at high speed relative to the observer... how, exactly?

2) maths is made to fit

You have it backwards. The math was done beforehand (in 1905) to predict how much time should dilate under certain circumstances. It was much later discovered (in 1938) during experiments that time does dilate by the predicted factor. You are either calling Einstein extremely lucky, a time traveler, or a psychic. Which is it?

Any argument you could have is invalid.  I do not have to answer such questions as how or why Einstein did whatever.    There is a very simple axiom i.e the truth   , that over rules any such subjective thoughts as time slows down.  For the very fact: The next moment of now is immediately ahead of you.

There is no length between now and now to contract or dilate. If you proclaim there is, you are  lying to yourself and the rest of the readers who know I am correct.

[Kryptid]

Any argument you could have is invalid.

I don't need an argument. I have the experimental evidence on my side. If you're trying to say that the evidence is invalid, then the burden of proof is on you to explain how the evidence is deceiving us. You started off by telling us that moving a clock changes it's ability to measure time so that it only appears that time is moving more slowly. I asked you how and you never told me. Have you backed off from that claim?

I do not have to answer such questions as how or why Einstein did whatever.

You won't answer the questions because you can't. You know you can't because you can't think of any sensible alternative explanation. It would not be sensible for me to deny experimental evidence just because some other person told me that it doesn't make sense to them.

There is a very simple axiom i.e the truth   , that over rules any such subjective thoughts as time slows down.  For the very fact: The next moment of now is immediately ahead of you.

Just because you accept something to be an axiom doesn't make it so. If an event is in my future, then by definition it isn't happening now.

There is no length between now and now to contract or dilate.

Good thing that isn't what time dilation is about then.

If you proclaim there is, you are  lying to yourself and the rest of the readers who know I am correct.

And which readers might those be? You're the only person I see here denying observational evidence.

[guest39538]

I don't need an argument. I have the experimental evidence on my side. If you're trying to say that the evidence is invalid, then the burden of proof is on you to explain how the evidence is deceiving us.

I have explained the problem and the fix before.  It is very simple, it is a timing dilation, time does not slow down.

It's all about the relative timing of two atoms frequencies.

The atom in motion has a slower frequency relative to the atom at inertia rest.  There is a difference in timing.

[Kryptid]

I have explained the problem and the fix before.  It is very simple, it is a timing dilation, time does not slow down.

You didn't explain how "timing dilation" works (and by that, I mean explain what mechanism makes everything slow down in the expected way to properly emulate the experimental data).

The atom in motion has a slower frequency relative to the atom at inertia rest.  There is a difference in timing.

What causes that? How does that work for individual unstable particles?

[guest39538]

You won't answer the questions because you can't. You know you can't because you can't think of any sensible alternative explanation. It would not be sensible for me to deny experimental evidence just because some other person told me that it doesn't make sense to them.

I am not ignoring the experimental evidence, I am telling you it does not mean what you think it means.

[guest39538]

I have explained the problem and the fix before.  It is very simple, it is a timing dilation, time does not slow down.

You didn't explain how "timing dilation" works (and by that, I mean explain what mechanism makes everything slow down in the expected way to properly emulate the experimental data).

The atom in motion has a slower frequency relative to the atom at inertia rest.  There is a difference in timing.

What causes that?

A change in entropy of course , there is only a change in entropy that can change an output to increase or decrease in magnitude.

[Kryptid]

I am not ignoring the experimental evidence, I am telling you it does not mean what you think it means.

And yet when I push you to explain how your interpretation matches up with what we know is true, you say "I do not have to answer such questions". That's not an explanation.

A change in entropy of course , there is only a change in entropy that can change an output to increase or decrease in magnitude.

And what experimental evidence can you provide that demonstrates that entropy somehow changes the energy level shift in a cesium atom?

[guest39538]

I am not ignoring the experimental evidence, I am telling you it does not mean what you think it means.

And yet when I push you to explain how your interpretation matches up with what we know is true, you say "I do not have to answer such questions". That's not an explanation.

A change in entropy of course , there is only a change in entropy that can change an output to increase or decrease in magnitude.

And what experimental evidence can you provide that demonstrates that entropy somehow changes the energy level shift in a cesium atom?

Do you have a Caesium atom at hand? Try warming it up and see if the frequency speeds up.   

P.s I am not saying your experimental results don't show a difference in frequency.

added- Pfff have I got do all the work for you.

 Since 1967, the International System of Units (SI) has defined the second as the duration of 9192631770 cycles of radiation corresponding to the transition between two energy levels of the caesium-133 atom. In 1997, the International Committee for Weights and Measures (CIPM) added that the preceding definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K.[14]

[Kryptid]

Do you have a Caesium atom at hand? Try warming it up and see if the frequency speeds up.   

So you're telling me that you don't know if it does or not, huh? That's not a very solid explanation. This is doubly true since the clock carried on the airplane would not have had some kind of special heating device put on it that the clock on the ground did not have.

[guest39538]

 Since 1967, the International System of Units (SI) has defined the second as the duration of 9192631770 cycles of radiation corresponding to the transition between two energy levels of the caesium-133 atom. In 1997, the International Committee for Weights and Measures (CIPM) added that the preceding definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K.[14]

that the preceding definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K

That the preceding definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K

Which suggests temperature causes a variation in the frequency.

[guest39538]

An object in motion like an aeroplane in flight gains electrostatic charge.

[Kryptid]

added- Pfff have I got do all the work for you.

You made the claim, so it's up to you to provide your sources.

Since 1967, the International System of Units (SI) has defined the second as the duration of 9192631770 cycles of radiation corresponding to the transition between two energy levels of the caesium-133 atom. In 1997, the International Committee for Weights and Measures (CIPM) added that the preceding definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K.[14]

That the preceding definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K

Which suggests temperature causes a variation in the frequency.

Alright. Now:

(1) Show me that the temperature of the clock aboard the airplane was higher than the temperature of the clock on the ground.
(2) Show me, mathematically, that the amount by which the frequency of the cesium atom changed due to a temperature increase is in accordance with the recorded difference in time between the two clocks.

If you can't do those things, then your claim remains at the level of pure speculation.

An object in motion like an aeroplane in flight gains electrostatic charge.

And you can demonstrate that this caused the clock specifically not only to heat up, but to heat up by just the right amount to to give the illusion of Einstein's time dilation?

[guest39538]

(1) Show me that the temperature of the clock aboard the airplane was higher than the temperature of the clock on the ground.
(2) Show me, mathematically, that the amount by which the frequency of the cesium atom changed due to a temperature increase is in accordance with the recorded difference in time between the two clocks.

If you can't do those things, then your claim remains at the level of pure speculation.

Of course unless I show specifics it is just speculation. However in reality I only have to show that a change in entropy of the Caesium, causes a change in frequency.  Now if I did this experiment while the Caesium is at inertia rest, it would show for a certainty that the frequency is a variate by change in entropy.  Proving me correct.

On the other hand if a scientist helped me with all the complicated ''stuff'' like the maths.   Then we would have a good venture

The frequency at ground state is only constant and stable because the entropy is being kept stable by keeping it at 0 k.

[guest39538]

ΔV=

[Kryptid]

Of course unless I show specifics it is just speculation.

So then don't act like you've somehow got a better explanation for the experimental data than time dilation.

However in reality I only have to show that a change in entropy of the Caesium, causes a change in frequency.  Now if I did this experiment while the Caesium is at inertia rest, it would show for a certainty that the frequency is a variate by change in entropy.  Proving me correct.

It wouldn't prove that a temperature-induced change in the frequency of an atom is responsible for the "illusion" of time dilation. In fact...

On the other hand if a scientist helped me with all the complicated ''stuff'' like the maths.   Then we would have a good venture .

...there's another problem with your warm cesium atom explanation: the amount of time dilation recorded was different when the plane flew west than when it flew east. Relativistic time dilation can account for that (because the Earth's rotation contributes to the difference in velocity between the clock aboard the plane and the clock on the ground). How does a warm cesium atom know if the plane it is on is moving east or west?

[guest39538]

ΔV=

[guest39538]

Of course unless I show specifics it is just speculation.

So then don't act like you've somehow got a better explanation for the experimental data than time dilation.

However in reality I only have to show that a change in entropy of the Caesium, causes a change in frequency.  Now if I did this experiment while the Caesium is at inertia rest, it would show for a certainty that the frequency is a variate by change in entropy.  Proving me correct.

It wouldn't prove that a temperature-induced change in the frequency of an atom is responsible for the "illusion" of time dilation. In fact...

On the other hand if a scientist helped me with all the complicated ''stuff'' like the maths.   Then we would have a good venture .

...there's another problem with your warm cesium atom explanation: the amount of time dilation recorded was different when the plane flew west than when it flew east. Relativistic time dilation can account for that (because the Earth's rotation contributes to the difference in velocity between the clock aboard the plane and the clock on the ground). How does a warm cesium atom know if the plane it is on is moving east or west?

Maybe the suns direction and relative angle .