[Bogie_smiles]

They don't confirm the theory - they are merely compatible with it.

Confirming and being compatible are close enough for me.

He means that they're exposed to the same amount of absolute time, and that is the case. They mis-experience it though because they think time is passing more slowly than it actually is. The experiments have not falsified absolute time, and the theories that deny absolute time are irrational.

We’ll have to get into that a little deeper, but I will give you this, time may or may not simple pass at the same rate everywhere, but the rate that clocks measure the passing of time varies based on their motion relative to massive objects, and two clocks will differ in the rate that they measure the passing of time, based on their relative proximity to the surrounding massive objects.

That's your mistake then. Clocks attempt to measure time, but they under-record it in most situations.

Clocks don’t attempt to measure time. The either do or don’t. I am taking the perspective that clocks do measure time; by definition, they are a means of measuring the rate that time is passing, within the tolerances of the particular clock.

The ticking rate of clocks varies depending on the speed of movement of a clock through space due to the increased cycle distances, and due to the speed of light being slowed in the vicinity of mass.

Cycle distances may need some clarification for me to understand the concept you are conveying, exactly.

What is interesting about it is that there is absolute time and that people allow themselves to be blinded to that reality by utter bilge about irrelevant acceleration issues as if the slowing caused by movement is somehow the same as the slowing caused by gravity.

If you are making a distinction between the acceleration of a rocket, and the acceleration of gravity, in terms of the affect they have on the rate that clocks will measure time under the two different circumstances, let's consider it is open for discussion.

Nonsense - the gravitational acceleration on small objects in deep space is so close to zero that it's not worth considering.

You are right that little differences may not be meaningful at the macro scale of clocks measuring time. However, I don’t think you are saying that “close to zero” is that same as “zero”. It depends on the circumstances as to if a non-zero effect is meaningful, and I maintain that at the quantum level, even the tiniest relative gravitational acceleration can be meaningful.

If you're at point A in space and you're stationary, the speed of light is passing you in all directions at c relative to you. If you then travel towards point B at 0.6c, the speed of light relative to you in one direction will necessarily be 1.6c and in the opposite direction it will be 0.4c. (This has to be the case, because if you try to keep it at c, you're going to have to change the speed of light relative to point A, which is something you aren't allowed to do.) If you return from point B to point A at 0.6c too, then the speed of light will be 0.4c relative to you in one direction and 1.6c in the other. That automatically slows your clock such that it only records 0.8 times as many ticks as a clock that stays at A throughout your journey. The moving clock under-records the amount of time that's passed for it because of the increased cycle times, but all the parts of the clock are moving at full speed. If we use light clocks, the light in those is moving at full speed, covering the same distance through space in a given length of absolute time regardless of whether the clock is stationary or moving. The waves and forces travelling about within the matter of the clock to maintain separation between particles also move the same distance through space in a given length of absolute time regardless of whether the clock is stationary or moving. The only thing that slows is the composite functionality, which includes the number of ticks that the clock produces, but there is no slowing of actual time for a moving clock. If you take a light clock and shake it, you can also change the amount of apparent time it records - by getting the frequency of shaking right you can either slow the clock down or speed it up, but all you're doing is making it mis-record the amount of time that's actually gone by. Moving a clock at a constant speed has the same effect. We have a world full of nincompoops who can't see the obvious nature of reality because they've had their minds messed with by people who brainwash them to believe that they become superior by buying into their crazy voodoo and worshipping a false god. they then spend the rest of their lives telling more rational people that there's no such thing as absolute time and informing them that they have to abandon the idea of it in favour of voodoo.

How do you brainwash someone to believe in that voodoo? That's the really big science question here. The idea that you accelerate from rest and yet remain at rest at the new speed with light still passing you at c relative to you in all directions is utterly bonkers, and yet they simply allow that bullscheidt to take over their minds in order to boost their status by becoming part of the elite. People are clearly really susceptible to mind viruses, and not just religious ones - anything that sells status for stupidity can have that power. Absolute time works fine, but the voodoo doesn't - it cheats by changing frame at the drop of a hat and thereby changing the asserted speed of light relative to the content of space. It involves having one's cake and eating it. There are various models which try to account for the action, but all the establishment ones break in one way or another, thereby forcing them to cheat to make their models "work". They invariably smuggle in a Newtonian time that isn't part of their specification (and which is even banned in the specification). Either that or they have no time in them at all, and merely pretend to have it. SR and GR are two of the most embarrassing ideas in the history of science, but so many people have tied their colours to them so firmly that they lack the courage to back down, so they just dig in and go on defending their colossal pile of mouldy old pants.

Here's the really important point though: The Box is more rational than them.

Tell me what you really think about we who envision a universe without absolute time,

There is a lot in those last sections of your post that are worth discussion, so let’s see if we can get to them in due course.

[David Cooper]

Clocks don’t attempt to measure time. The either do or don’t. I am taking the perspective that clocks do measure time; by definition, they are a means of measuring the rate that time is passing, within the tolerances of the particular clock.

And I'm saying that that definition is fundamentally wrong. Imagine that you're standing ten metres away from a friend, kicking a ball to and fro with the ball always moving at the same speed. You have now become a clock that ticks just like a light clock. If you both start walking to the side, the faster you go, the more distance the ball has to travel to complete each tick (with the cycle distance increasing from 20m to greater lengths), and if it's going at the same speed as before, that clock will necessarily tick more slowly. The clock is running slow, but time has not slowed down. We can do the same thing with a sound clock, using a pulse of sound moving to and fro. The faster you move the sound clock through the air, the slower it ticks, but time has not slowed down for this clock either - it's simply under-recording the amount of time that has gone by in the same way as the football clock. It's the same with a light clock, and indeed any other kind of clock, but there's one key difference with a light clock, and that's that there cannot exist any clock which can move along with the light clock which won't also be slowed down by its movement through space in the same way, so the functionality of everything moving with that light clock has its functionality slowed to match. Time is not slowed though - it goes on operating at the same rate as normal. The only thing slowing down the clock's functionality is the increase in cycle distances which make it tick slow, just like with the sound clock and the football clock. Why would we allow ourselves to be fooled into thinking that time slows down for a light clock which is behaving just like a sound clock and a football clock?

[Bogie_smiles]

And I'm saying that that definition is fundamentally wrong. Imagine that you're standing ten metres away from a friend, kicking a ball to and fro with the ball always moving at the same speed. You have now become a clock that ticks just like a light clock. If you both start walking to the side, the faster you go, the more distance the ball has to travel to complete each tick (with the cycle distance increasing from 20m to greater lengths), and if it's going at the same speed as before, that clock will necessarily tick more slowly. The clock is running slow, but time has not slowed down. We can do the same thing with a sound clock, using a pulse of sound moving to and fro. The faster you move the sound clock through the air, the slower it ticks, but time has not slowed down for this clock either - it's simply under-recording the amount of time that has gone by in the same way as the football clock. It's the same with a light clock, and indeed any other kind of clock,...

Note that I have been talking about the different rate that two identical clocks measure the passing of time in different acceleration conditions. I think if you apply that perspective to each of the examples you have given, you will see that the examples you have given ignore that critical factor. To make your examples corresponded to the premise I have presented, your two identical clocks will be measuring the rate of the passing of time on their faces in two different environments where their respective rates of motion differ relative to a rest position.

... but there's one key difference with a light clock, and that's that there cannot exist any clock which can move along with the light clock which won't also be slowed down by its movement through space in the same way, so the functionality of everything moving with that light clock has its functionality slowed to match. Time is not slowed though - it goes on operating at the same rate as normal. The only thing slowing down the clock's functionality is the increase in cycle distances which make it tick slow, just like with the sound clock and the football clock. Why would we allow ourselves to be fooled into thinking that time slows down for a light clock which is behaving just like a sound clock and a football clock?

Please note that I have not said that time slows down. I have said that the rate that two identical clocks measure the passing of time differs when they are in relative motion to each other. I also include the twin's human bodies as clocks. When one twin is accelerated relative to one at rest, the accelerated twin ages slower, just like the accelerated clock measures a different rate of time passing, as confirmed by the experiments with atomic clocks.

[guest39538]

Note that I have been talking about the different rate that two identical clocks measure the passing of time

That's  the  problem !  The  clocks  aren't  measuring  the  passing  of    time .  You  are  measuring   mechanical   movement   that  is  equivalent   to  a  duration    you  have  aged   clock   watching  .    This  equivalence  principle  we  name  time ,  time  being  arbitrary  without  physicality .  Aging  has  a  rate  and  physicality .
An  observer  ,  observing  both  clocks   that  the  frequency   is  a  variance  is   not  affected  by  the  frequency  of  the  clocks.  If  the  clock  in  transit  slowed   down  to  a  stop,  the  clock  does  not  cease  to  exist  and  aging  does  not  stop  exterior  of  the  clock .

[Bogie_smiles]

Note that I have been talking about the different rate that two identical clocks measure the passing of time

That's  the  problem !  The  clocks  aren't  measuring  the  passing  of    time .  You  are  measuring   mechanical   movement   that  is  equivalent   to  a  duration    you  have  aged   clock   watching  .    This  equivalence  principle  we  name  time ,  time  being  arbitrary  without  physicality .  Aging  has  a  rate  and  physicality .
An  observer  ,  observing  both  clocks   that  the  frequency   is  a  variance  is   not  affected  by  the  frequency  of  the  clocks.  If  the  clock  in  transit  slowed   down  to  a  stop,  the  clock  does  not  cease  to  exist  and  aging  does  not  stop  exterior  of  the  clock .

By definition, that is what a clock does. The clock also ages as time passes, just like the twins age.

An observer, observing both clocks will also age as time passes, That is in line with what we observe, and that is the effect that we attribute to "time passing". Your reference to the equivalence principle isn't helping me understand. Energy, mass, the speed of light, are all connected in the way the universe works, but the speed of light, more importantly to my way of thinking is also the speed of gravity.

There are a few points for discussion purposes that are pertinent to this topic:

1) Time simply passes everywhere, and in the absence of matter and gravity, time would logically be passing everywhere at the same undetectable rate, which could be absolutely the same everywhere. Thus, though the rate would be undetectable, that concept could be referred to as absolute time.

2) However, when the real universe is considered, which is filled with matter and energy everywhere, not only is there no detectable absolute rate that time passes, but the measurable rate of the passing of time using identical clocks would show that the measurement of the rate that time passes would be different everywhere, according to the clocks, because of the relative acceleration between all objects in motion in space.

3) It is the nature of the passing of time that its rate of passing is measurable using clocks; this is what clocks do by definition.

4) Because there are differences in the rate that identical clocks would measure the passing of time based on their relative motion to each other (the effect of relative acceleration within the gravitational wave energy density profile of space), time would be measured by identical clocks to be passing at different rates, depending on the individual wave energy conditions relative acceleration) at every point in the universe.

5) Light is the gravitational wave energy emission of the photon wave particle, and c is the speed of light at zero degrees Kelvin of both light waves and gravity waves in an environment that is not affected by gravity or magnetism, or any outside influences (a theoretical value).

6) All particles are composed of gravitational wave energy in quantum increments (quanta), making them wave-particles with mass.

7) Wave-particles all emit and absorb gravitational wave energy, and gravitational wave energy fills all space, and is coming and going, to and from all directions, at all points in space, at the local speed of light and gravity.

8 ) On that basis, photons are unique wave-particles, with mass equal the energy of the quantum increments that they are composed of, that emit and absorb gravitational wave energy.

9) Light is the gravitational wave energy emission of the photon wave-particles, and photons are emitted by electrons at the speed of light and gravity, as the electrons move from  one excited state to a lower state or to the ground state.

10) Light (gravity waves emitted by photons) is absorbed by electrons as they move from the ground state to the excited state, or from one excited state to a higher excited state.


That is the way I see it.
 

[guest39538]

By definition, that is what a clock does. The clock also ages as time passes, just like the twins age.

Good  day  to  you   ,  time  only  exists   as  a  word  ,  a  word  cannot  pass  or  do  anything  other  than  the  fantasy  content  added  by  the  practitioner .

Fact  sorry !

p.s  We  don't  need  time  for  something  to  age . 

i..e  Stop  the  clock  ,  the Universe  does not  end  and  the  clock  will  continue  to  age .

[Bogie_smiles]

No problem. Sometimes the way individuals view and understand the universe around them is different. One man's science might be another man's dogma, lol.

[guest39538]

No problem. Sometimes the way individuals view and understand the universe around them is different.

It's  not  my  view  though , it  is  objective  and  I'm  not   in  anyway  biased  to  this  view  ,  it  is  an  axiom  and  exists  independent  of  my  subjective  thinking .

[Bogie_smiles]

It's  not  my  view  though , it  is  objective  and  I'm  not   in  anyway  biased  to  this  view  ,  it  is  an  axiom  and  exists  independent  of  my  subjective  thinking .

Axioms are necessary "givens" from which we draw insights, hypotheses, speculations, lol.

Theorists use axioms to say, "Ok, nature works in strange ways, and so for my theory to be correct, nature must be axiomatic in this certain way".

[Bored chemist]

Stop  the  clock  ,  the Universe  does not  end  and  the  clock  will  continue  to  age .

How will you be able to tell that the clock is aging?

[guest39538]

It's  not  my  view  though , it  is  objective  and  I'm  not   in  anyway  biased  to  this  view  ,  it  is  an  axiom  and  exists  independent  of  my  subjective  thinking .

Axioms are necessary "givens" from which we draw insights, hypotheses, speculations, lol.

Theorists use axioms to say, "Ok, nature works in strange ways, and so for my theory to be correct, nature must be axiomatic in this certain way".

Axioms  are  something  that  are  self  evidently  true   ,  observable  or  logical  application  of  the   mind . 

Time  is  not  a  difficult  subject  to  reverse  engineer  back  to  the  fundamental  beginning  of  measurement  to  observe  what  we  did  to  record  time  using  primitive  measurement  devices  such  as  sun  dials  or  planet /Sun   cycles  . 

We  have  never  measured  time ,   we record  equivalents  to  record  our  own   measure  of  existence .  I.e  age

[Bogie_smiles]

Axioms  are  something  that  are  self  evidently  true   ,  observable  or  logical  application  of  the   mind . 

Time  is  not  a  difficult  subject  to  reverse  engineer  back  to  the  fundamental  beginning  of  measurement  to  observe  what  we  did  to  record  time  using  primitive  measurement  devices  such  as  sun  dials  or  planet /Sun   cycles  . 

We  have  never  measured  time ,   we record  equivalents  to  record  our  own   measure  of  existence .  I.e  age

It is all in the meaning of "is", lol.

Science is tentative, and the current consensus is established by the professionals that work in the industry. We mere layman are free to say what we want, and use our own brand of logic. But we shouldn't try to talk with one another, lol (just kidding).

[guest39538]

Axioms  are  something  that  are  self  evidently  true   ,  observable  or  logical  application  of  the   mind . 

Time  is  not  a  difficult  subject  to  reverse  engineer  back  to  the  fundamental  beginning  of  measurement  to  observe  what  we  did  to  record  time  using  primitive  measurement  devices  such  as  sun  dials  or  planet /Sun   cycles  . 

We  have  never  measured  time ,   we record  equivalents  to  record  our  own   measure  of  existence .  I.e  age

It is all in the meaning of "is", lol.

Science is tentative, and the current consensus is established by the professionals that work in the industry. We mere layman are free to say what we want, and use our own brand of logic. But we shouldn't try to talk with one another, lol (just kidding).

Science  is  full of  beans  ,  I  will  take on  science  24 /  7  because  I  know  I'm  right  and  they're  wrong  . 

[Bogie_smiles]

Science  is  full of  beans  ,  I  will  take on  science  24 /  7  because  I  know  I'm  right  and  they're  wrong  . 

So did you really sell half your fishing gear? I hope you still have enough to do the job.

[guest39538]

Science  is  full of  beans  ,  I  will  take on  science  24 /  7  because  I  know  I'm  right  and  they're  wrong  . 

So did you really sell half your fishing gear? I hope you still have enough to do the job.

I  sold  all  my  fishing  gear ,  I had  people  to support  .  I'm  still  supporting  people  ,  still  trying  to succeed  and  will not  give  up  until  I succeed .  I saved  my  homeless  friend , he is much better in  himself .

P.s  Was homeless.

[Bogie_smiles]

You are a good father and a good man. Your day will come again.

[guest39538]

You are a good father and a good man. Your day will come again.

I'm  also  a  good  scientist ,  it  is  rather  shameful  I'm ignored .    I  am  not  the  perfect  father ,  I  spend  too  much  time  trying  to succeed .  It  is  my  race  against  my  aging  to  succeed  for  my  children  that  is  important  to  me .

[Bogie_smiles]

Sorry I left off "good scientist". You have some work to do to convince me of that, lol.
 

[guest39538]

Sorry I left off "good scientist". You have some work to do to convince me of that, lol.
 

Good  is  subjective , there is  doing bad  science  that  is  good  science  and  the  opposite can  be  said .  Experiments  and  a  written  report  of  the  experiment  is  elementary .  I  don't  try  often ,  there  seems  little  purpose  with  no  audience ,  whom  am I  trying  to  impress ?

[Bored chemist]

I'm  also  a  good  scientist

Got any evidence?