[guest39538]

When you say "Accept it!", are you telling me to accept time dilation or are you saying that you now accept time dilation?

I was being sarcastic, saying , not only do I accept it, I have improved it and can totally explain the reality of it. 

[guest39538]

From what I have seen from the N-Field thread you are not really improving at all - you have just increase the amount of jargon.

Hmmm, there is very little jargon in my latest edit and far less attempts at math, I kept the math simple, Please query the thread if there is something you do not understand.

[Kryptid]

I was being sarcastic, saying , not only do I accept it, I have improved it and can totally explain the reality of it. 

Interesting, given how absolutely certain you said you were that you had completely disproved the possibility of time dilation. The quote in my signature comes to mind. So you were the master of time and space, were you? Einstein would have conceded to you about the nonexistence of time dilation, eh? We were all wrong when we told you that your time dilation denial was nonsense, yes?

My two opening statements that are true, show no actual time dilation.

So you proved that time dilation could not exist using "logical axiom proofs" in the past, huh? How does that look in retrospect now? A little short on logic and axioms, it seems.

You'd best use this as a lesson for future reference next time you think you can't be wrong about something.

[guest39538]

I was being sarcastic, saying , not only do I accept it, I have improved it and can totally explain the reality of it. 

Interesting, given how absolutely certain you said you were that you had completely disproved the possibility of time dilation. The quote in my signature comes to mind. So you were the master of time and space, were you? Einstein would have conceded to you about the nonexistence of time dilation, eh? We were all wrong when we told you that your time dilation denial was nonsense, yes?

My two opening statements that are true, show no actual time dilation.

So you proved that time dilation could not exist using "logical axiom proofs" in the past, huh? How does that look in retrospect now? A little short on logic and axioms, it seems.

You'd best use this as a lesson for future reference next time you think you can't be wrong about something.

Theories take time to develop , while developing they can change, but like I said earlier, you have to understand that absolute time is constant and relativistic time occupies absolute space-time.   So although twin two experiences time at a slower frequency and ages less, he returns to twin one in the present,  because they have both experienced the same amount of absolute time.
So yes there is a time dilation and things can age differently , but everything experiences the same amount of absolute time.

There is also no need for lorentz contractions or light thought experiments, which are poor gimmicks that do not even work.

(Δk = 0 )  = (Δt = 0)

(ΔS = var(E))  = Δt'

Where k is space and E is energy

[Kryptid]

A very simple experiment I have for you, add some energy to the Caesium atom and see if time speeds up.

I can think of another experiment, one that wouldn't require the high-precision equipment needed to observe a single atom. Take a water-soluble radioactive tracer and dissolve it in a certain quantity of water. Then separate that radioactive water into two batches of equal mass. Put one batch in the refrigerator and heat the other batch on the stove until it is close to boiling. Now take both batches and use a Geiger counter to measure their respective radioactivity.

If increases in temperature cause time to move more quickly, then the radioisotope dissolved in the hot water should decay more quickly than the radioisotope dissolved in the cold water. This would result in the Geiger counter picking up more "hits" from the hot water than from the cold water. If time dilation doesn't work this way, then the Geiger counter should show no difference between the two samples.

[guest39538]

A very simple experiment I have for you, add some energy to the Caesium atom and see if time speeds up.

I can think of another experiment, one that wouldn't require the high-precision equipment needed to observe a single atom. Take a water-soluble radioactive tracer and dissolve it in a certain quantity of water. Then separate that radioactive water into two batches of equal mass. Put one batch in the refrigerator and heat the other batch on the stove until it is close to boiling. Now take both batches and use a Geiger counter to measure their respective radioactivity.

If increases in temperature cause time to move more quickly, then the radioisotope dissolved in the hot water should decay more quickly than the radioisotope dissolved in the cold water. This would result in the Geiger counter picking up more "hits" from the hot water than from the cold water. If time dilation doesn't work this way, then the Geiger counter should show no difference between the two samples.

An interesting experiment that I will ponder over, my first though was an error in the experiment but I could not quite put my finger on it.   Have you done this experiment?  If so what was the outcome?

added- I can do a similar experiment with p.v.a lol

[Kryptid]

Have you done this experiment?  If so what was the outcome?

I haven't, but it could potentially be done at home. Geiger counters can easily exceed one hundred dollars, so it would be a serious investment. Getting a hold of something radioactive is a bigger problem, but the americium in a smoke detector might work. I wouldn't necessarily recommend it, though.

Experiments testing to see if temperature affects radioactive decay rates have been done before: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/416009/do-nuclear-decay-rates-depend-on-temperature/

[syhprum]

It is normally stated that the rate of radioactive decay is unaffected by temperature but it has recently suggested  that the stream of Neutrinos that flow from the Sun has some affect.
The intensity of this stream varies according to our distance from the Sun that changes by a small amount thru the year and this is thought to affect the rate of decay

[The Spoon]

It is normally stated that the rate of radioactive decay is unaffected by temperature but it has recently suggested  that the stream of Neutrinos that flow from the Sun has some affect.
The intensity of this stream varies according to our distance from the Sun that changes by a small amount thru the year and this is thought to affect the rate of decay

Please state your source.

[Kryptid]

Please state your source.

There were some studies purporting to show that half-life changes (slightly) with the seasons: http://wavewatching.net/2012/09/01/from-the-annals-of-the-impossible-experimental-physics-edition/

A later study suggests that such seasonal variations may not actually happen: https://phys.org/news/2014-10-textbook-knowledge-reconfirmed-radioactive-substances.html

[guest39538]

Please state your source.

There were some studies purporting to show that half-life changes (slightly) with the seasons: http://wavewatching.net/2012/09/01/from-the-annals-of-the-impossible-experimental-physics-edition/

A later study suggests that such seasonal variations may not actually happen: https://phys.org/news/2014-10-textbook-knowledge-reconfirmed-radioactive-substances.html

I prefer the example of my snowmen,  much simpler to explain a change in state of entropy.

[Bored chemist]

There are lots of things you can use for measuring the flow of time.
One possibility is to look at the linewidth of a gas discharge lamp- say a sodium lamp.
There are effects of temerperature- very carfully measured ones- and they show the effects of Dopler shifts, but not of time dilation.
The experiment has been done.
Temperature didn't affect time.

So, we can write that idea of as "not how the world works".

[guest39538]

There are lots of things you can use for measuring the flow of time.
One possibility is to look at the linewidth of a gas discharge lamp- say a sodium lamp.
There are effects of temerperature- very carfully measured ones- and they show the effects of Dopler shifts, but not of time dilation.
The experiment has been done.
Temperature didn't affect time.

So, we can write that idea of as "not how the world works".

Well it is lucky I do not use temperature T to explain time isn't it. I use S which is more general and shows time can change in many ways.

f(t) ∝  ΔS

[Bored chemist]

Well, it's an unorthodox approach.
Can you show where it leads?
(and I want maths + thermodynamics rather than hogwash here)

You may find this a useful place to start
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isentropic_process
There are processes where ΔS is zero, but time doesn't stop.

[guest39538]

Well, it's an unorthodox approach.
Can you show where it leads?
(and I want maths + thermodynamics rather than hogwash here)

I can attempt the math
You could probably correct math

Δ t (k ) = 0  where k is space

Δt (m) = x

Δ t (m₁) ≠ Δ t' (m₂)

[guest39538]

There are processes where ΔS is zero, but time doesn't stop.

(ΔS=0)  =  (Δf (t)  = 0 )

[Bored chemist]

Did you see this bit

(and I want maths + thermodynamics rather than hogwash here)

[guest39538]

Did you see this bit

(and I want maths + thermodynamics rather than hogwash here)

Well as you know I am useless at maths, you must be quite good at it , why don't you do the maths and present it to the forum?

[guest39538]

∑ΔS = u/S +hf-hf+hf-hf..............................................

∑S/R_n= ∝  1/d²

[Bored chemist]

Did you see this bit

(and I want maths + thermodynamics rather than hogwash here)

Well as you know I am useless at maths, you must be quite good at it , why don't you do the maths and present it to the forum?

Because (broadly speaking) maths is a language for expressing logic, and you haven't provided any.