[guest39538]

Where   to  begin  in  a  universe  of  so  much  garbage ,  perhaps  i  need  to  take  the  garbage  out.....

[Bogie_smiles]

I always keep reminding myself that science is tentative. Here is a link that addresses that:

https://scienceornot.net/2012/02/07/all-scientific-models-are-tentative/

Check out the included link to the Hallmarks of Science while you're there.

[alancalverd]

Science is a recursive process: observe, hypothesise, test.

Scientific knowledge is the residue of explanatory and disprovable hypotheses that have not been disproved.

That's all there is to it.

[guest39538]

Science is a recursive process: observe, hypothesise, test.

Scientific knowledge is the residue of explanatory and disprovable hypotheses that have not been disproved.

That's all there is to it.

I consider  that  science is not  really worth learning , a pointless  exercise  that will get you nowhere in life .  As  fact , it will probably completely ruin your life trying to succeed ,  even  to  point of  where  ''it''  drives you crazy .
Let's  face it , science  defends their  tentative  dogma as  if facts , uses people on forums and will always tell them they are wrong ,  quite a horrible bunch of people really  who could not care less about ''you'' ,  you mean absolutely nothing to them apart from giving free information to them because they have no ability to think for themselves.  At least I can deactivate all this crap and move on , thank GOD for deletion buttons. 


 

[Bogie_smiles]

I consider  that  science is not  really worth learning , a pointless  exercise  that will get you nowhere in life .  As  fact , it will probably completely ruin your life trying to succeed ,  even  to  point of  where  ''it''  drives you crazy .

That is unless, maybe a little like me, you are on the edge of crazy already, lol.

Let's  face it , science  defends their  tentative  dogma as  if facts ,
uses people on forums and will always tell them they are wrong ,  quite a horrible bunch of people really  who could not care less about ''you'' ,  you mean absolutely nothing to them apart from giving free information to them because they have no ability to think for themselves.  At least I can deactivate all this crap and move on , thank GOD for deletion buttons.

Look who got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.


Give me an example of some science "garbage", to start with.

[guest39538]

Give me an example of some science "garbage", to start with.

Alright !  Let's  start  with  something  really  basic  namely  time .   Science  all  around  the   globe  will  insist  that  time  is  the  forth  dimension  ,  persistent  in  saying  that  time  can  speed  up  and  that  time  can  slow  down .   The  truth  and  factual  content   is  none  of  that  is  true  and  is  no  more  than  subjective  mediocre  thought .   
The  objective  nature  of  time  is  that  time is  an  arbitrary  quantifiable  measurement  record  that  is  directly  proportional  to recording  a  duration  of  existence .   The  merit  and  objectivity  of  this  ,  is  that   time  is  only  relative  to  matter   and  does  not  exist  as  an  individual  entity  that  has  any  physicality   other  than  the  subjective  mind experience .
The  scientific  research  I  have  done  on  time  ,   concludes  that  we  have  in  previous experiments  observed    a  timing  dilation  and  an  aging  dilation  but  specifically  no  time  dilation .  All observers  experience  the  same  amount  of  absolute   time  but  not  all  observers  age  the  same  is  the  correct  interpretation .   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment


The  correct  semantics  being  of  importance  to  gain  greater  understanding  of  the  subject .

In  the  twin  paradox ,  both  twins  experience  the  exact  same  amount  of  absolute  time  but  ones  ages  less  biologically  .   

[Bogie_smiles]

Give me an example of some science "garbage", to start with.

Alright !  Let's  start  with  something  really  basic  namely  time . 

Ok, yeah, but beside that … lol, just kidding.

Science  all  around  the   globe  will  insist  that  time  is  the  forth  dimension  ,  persistent  in  saying  that  time  can  speed  up  and  that  time  can  slow  down .   The  truth  and  factual  content   is  none  of  that  is  true  and  is  no  more  than  subjective  mediocre  thought .

Hold on there. Let’s break it down into smaller time pieces, like clocks:

1) Clocks measure the rate that time passes in their local vicinity.

Take for example a clock on board an accelerating rocked ship will measure the passing of time at a slower rate than a clock back at the spaceport (let's call it at rest relative to the clock on the rocket ship). The same goes for the twins paradox; a twin accelerated on board that same rocket ship will age at a slower rate than the stay-at-home twin.

Do agree with this interpretation of science related to clocks and the different rate that they will measure the passing of time in different environments?

 
The  objective  nature  of  time  is  that  time is  an  arbitrary  quantifiable  measurement  record  that  is  directly  proportional  to  the  aging  process .   The  merit  and  objectivity  of  this  ,  is  that   time  is  only  relative  to  matter   and  does  not  exist  as  an  individual  entity  that  has  any  physicality   other  than  the  subjective  mind experience .

I think you get it. I would add that the rate that your clock, whether a time piece or a living aging being like our twin, measures the passing of time relative to the energy density of the local environment, and that would suggest that the energy density of an environment like on board an accelerating rocket ship is higher than the energy density at rest, back at the spaceport. The outcome is that two identical clocks can measure the rate that time is passing around them at different rates.


What is wrong with that?

[guest39538]

The outcome is that two identical clocks can measure the rate that time is passing around them at different rates.

That's  not   correct  and  not  objective .   We  can  measure  the  timing  difference  between  two  identical  clocks  that  we  have  created    too  record  arbitrary  time .   There's  a  huge  difference  in  the  factual  semantics  compared  to   subjective  semantics  and  poor  interpretation .   
The  absolute  time  the  clocks  are   apart   is   equal  which  can  be  easily  demonstrated  using  a  thought  experiment  and  the  constant  of  light  in  a  simultaneously , two way  simulation .


diagram 1.jpg (14.83 kB . 574x277 - viewed 2812 times)
















   

[guest39538]

Additionally ,  to  say  there  is  a  time  dilation  is  disagreeing  with  velocity  .  Einstein  contradicts  himself  in  that  in  relative  velocity  neither  observer  knows  who is  moving .  What  this  means  is  that  if  you  move  away  from  me  at  0.5c ,  relatively  I  am  moving  away  from  you  at  0.5 c .   Light  speed  as  we  know  is  constant  ,  if  you  travel  at  0.5 c away  from me  and   return  in  1.s ,  we'll  both  experience  the  velocity  second  with  no  variation .

[Bogie_smiles]

The outcome is that two identical clocks can measure the rate that time is passing around them at different rates.

That's  not   correct  and  not  objective .   We  can  measure  the  timing  difference  between  two  identical  clocks  that  we  have  created    too  record  arbitrary  time .   There's  a  huge  difference  in  the  factual  semantics  compared  to   subjective  semantics  and  poor  interpretation .   
The  absolute  time  the  clocks  are   apart   is   equal  which  can  be  easily  demonstrated  using  a  thought  experiment  and  the  constant  of  light  in  a  simultaneously , two way  simulation .

diagram 1.jpg (14.83 kB . 574x277 - viewed 35 times)


 

Just to clarify the statement,

“The outcome is that two identical clocks can measure the rate that time is passing around them at different rates”

, … must be taken in the context that the two identical clocks are positioned in environments that have different energy density profiles. For example, a rocket that is accelerating has a different energy density profile than the rocket that remains back at the spaceport, and a clock very near a massive object (like a mountain top for example) will be in an environment that has a different energy density profile than an identical clock positioned far away from that same mountain top, whether you are using General Relativity, or the classical force of gravity modified to reflect the effect of relative motion that Einstein enlightened us on.


Let’s say that you are conducting your though experiment in deep space, uninfluenced by any nearby massive objects. Your diagram would then apply, and the distance that each clock travels in one elapsed second, as measured on the face of each clock, would be equal. If, as indicated by your diagram then, the distance between the two clocks at the start is assumed be equal to the distance that each clock will travel through a perfect vacuum in the length of time it takes for each clock to show one elapsed second, then they will pass each other during that one second journey, and each clock will end up in the exact position that the other clock started out; effectively they will simply change positions. Do I have that right? Have I interpreted correctly what you are intending to show in your diagram?

Assuming that is understood, I would like to point out that:
the speed of light in a perfect vacuum is “c”, but space as we know it is only near being a perfect vacuum, not a perfect vacuum, because the “medium” of space contains various things, and is said to have various characteristics that determine the velocity of light through the medium of space. Therefore, given two identical clocks following the motion that your diagram indicates, and showing that one single second has elapsed on each of them, there are circumstances that could change the outcome in such a way that the clocks would not exactly change positions, there would be some degree of error relative to their initial positions.

For my example, the presence of a massive object moving through the vicinity of space where your thought experiment is talking place would change the outcome, if the motion of that massive object was not identical relative to the motion of both moving clocks. In that case, the clocks would not exactly change positions. Instead, there would be a difference between the ending positions and the initial positions; each clock would not exactly have changed position because of the differing influence that the massive object would have on the respective rate of motion of the two clocks.


Here is why. In my example the presence of massive objects is part of the equation that determines the values of the local density of space surrounding each clock. In General Relativity for example, the presence of a massive object gets considered when the Einstein Field Equations are used, because the massive object affects the value of the tensors, and if the massive object had a trajectory that took it closer to one of your clocks than the other, the value of the respective tenors would change at a different rate as the thought experiment played out.

Of course, GR is not purportedly measuring a characteristic called “energy density” in the same sense that the term applies to the local affect of gravity; it is calculating the value of the tensors relative to each moving clock.

However, in the case where a massive object is present, what we generally mean by “gravity” and what is meant by the “curvature of spacetime” should have the same effect. There is no reason to believe that the outcomes will be different, if GR and Gravity are different ways of describing the same cause and effect.


In GR, if mass tells space how to curve, and curved space tells matter how to move, then when we are talking about the force of gravity, instead of the curvature of space time caused by the presence of mass, we would have to modify the classical equations for gravity to correspond to the EFEs. Science does not say that two identical clocks, traveling in opposite directions for an elapsed time of one exact second on their respective dials will travel the same exact distance in opposite directions. It says that given a perfect vacuum, that two identical clocks, traveling in opposite directions for an elapsed time of one exact second on their respective dials, in identical circumstances in regard to the surrounding presence of massive objects, will travel the same exact distance in opposite directions.

Additionally ,  to  say  there  is  a  time  dilation  is  disagreeing  with  velocity  .  Einstein  contradicts  himself  in  that  in  relative  velocity  neither  observer  knows  who is  moving .  What  this  means  is  that  if  you  move  away  from  me  at  0.5c ,  relatively  I  am  moving  away  from  you  at  0.5 c .   Light  speed  as  we  know  is  constant  ,  if  you  travel  at  0.5 c away  from me  and   return  in  1.s ,  we'll  both  experience  the  velocity  second  with  no  variation .

It isn’t a contradiction. What you say is true, and what Einstein says is true, but you are both talking about different ways of making measurements using the speed of light in a vacuum. When referring to Special Relativity, time dilation is a measure of the effect of objects following different geodesics between the same two points. The physical distance between those two points would differ from an “as the crow flies” distance. However, two objects in relative motion to each other follow different curved paths, and therefore travel different physical distances through spacetime based on the relative motion between two objects.

[guest39538]

The outcome is that two identical clocks can measure the rate that time is passing around them at different rates.

That's  not   correct  and  not  objective .   We  can  measure  the  timing  difference  between  two  identical  clocks  that  we  have  created    too  record  arbitrary  time .   There's  a  huge  difference  in  the  factual  semantics  compared  to   subjective  semantics  and  poor  interpretation .   
The  absolute  time  the  clocks  are   apart   is   equal  which  can  be  easily  demonstrated  using  a  thought  experiment  and  the  constant  of  light  in  a  simultaneously , two way  simulation .

diagram 1.jpg (14.83 kB . 574x277 - viewed 35 times)


 

Just to clarify the statement,

“The outcome is that two identical clocks can measure the rate that time is passing around them at different rates”

, … must be taken in the context that the two identical clocks are positioned in environments that have different energy density profiles. For example, a rocket that is accelerating has a different energy density profile than the rocket that remains back at the spaceport, and a clock very near a massive object (like a mountain top for example) will be in an environment that has a different energy density profile than an identical clock positioned far away from that same mountain top, whether you are using General Relativity, or the classical force of gravity modified to reflect the effect of relative motion that Einstein enlightened us on.


Let’s say that you are conducting your though experiment in deep space, uninfluenced by any nearby massive objects. Your diagram would then apply, and the distance that each clock travels in one elapsed second, as measured on the face of each clock, would be equal. If, as indicated by your diagram then, the distance between the two clocks at the start is assumed be equal to the distance that each clock will travel through a perfect vacuum in the length of time it takes for each clock to show one elapsed second, then they will pass each other during that one second journey, and each clock will end up in the exact position that the other clock started out; effectively they will simply change positions. Do I have that right? Have I interpreted correctly what you are intending to show in your diagram?

Assuming that is understood, I would like to point out that:
the speed of light in a perfect vacuum is “c”, but space as we know it is only near being a perfect vacuum, not a perfect vacuum, because the “medium” of space contains various things, and is said to have various characteristics that determine the velocity of light through the medium of space. Therefore, given two identical clocks following the motion that your diagram indicates, and showing that one single second has elapsed on each of them, there are circumstances that could change the outcome in such a way that the clocks would not exactly change positions, there would be some degree of error relative to their initial positions.

For my example, the presence of a massive object moving through the vicinity of space where your thought experiment is talking place would change the outcome, if the motion of that massive object was not identical relative to the motion of both moving clocks. In that case, the clocks would not exactly change positions. Instead, there would be a difference between the ending positions and the initial positions; each clock would not exactly have changed position because of the differing influence that the massive object would have on the respective rate of motion of the two clocks.


Here is why. In my example the presence of massive objects is part of the equation that determines the values of the local density of space surrounding each clock. In General Relativity for example, the presence of a massive object gets considered when the Einstein Field Equations are used, because the massive object affects the value of the tensors, and if the massive object had a trajectory that took it closer to one of your clocks than the other, the value of the respective tenors would change at a different rate as the thought experiment played out.

Of course, GR is not purportedly measuring a characteristic called “energy density” in the same sense that the term applies to the local affect of gravity; it is calculating the value of the tensors relative to each moving clock.

However, in the case where a massive object is present, what we generally mean by “gravity” and what is meant by the “curvature of spacetime” should have the same effect. There is no reason to believe that the outcomes will be different, if GR and Gravity are different ways of describing the same cause and effect.


In GR, if mass tells space how to curve, and curved space tells matter how to move, then when we are talking about the force of gravity, instead of the curvature of space time caused by the presence of mass, we would have to modify the classical equations for gravity to correspond to the EFEs. Science does not say that two identical clocks, traveling in opposite directions for an elapsed time of one exact second on their respective dials will travel the same exact distance in opposite directions. It says that given a perfect vacuum, that two identical clocks, traveling in opposite directions for an elapsed time of one exact second on their respective dials, in identical circumstances in regard to the surrounding presence of massive objects, will travel the same exact distance in opposite directions.

Additionally ,  to  say  there  is  a  time  dilation  is  disagreeing  with  velocity  .  Einstein  contradicts  himself  in  that  in  relative  velocity  neither  observer  knows  who is  moving .  What  this  means  is  that  if  you  move  away  from  me  at  0.5c ,  relatively  I  am  moving  away  from  you  at  0.5 c .   Light  speed  as  we  know  is  constant  ,  if  you  travel  at  0.5 c away  from me  and   return  in  1.s ,  we'll  both  experience  the  velocity  second  with  no  variation .

It isn’t a contradiction. What you say is true, and what Einstein says is true, but you are both talking about different ways of making measurements using the speed of light in a vacuum. When referring to Special Relativity, time dilation is a measure of the effect of objects following different geodesics between the same two points. The physical distance between those two points would differ from an “as the crow flies” distance. However, two objects in relative motion to each other follow different curved paths, and therefore travel different physical distances through spacetime based on the relative motion between two objects.

It hardly matter , this forum  lies  just  like every other forum.   I am deleting my account never to return  to  science, they can kiss my ......I would not help them even if the earth was at stake.  As far I am concerned the Earth can end I would  happily smile  about it .  Think I got up out of the wrong side of my bed this morning , pffffff, that is nothing  compared to this evening .

[David Cooper]

It hardly matter , this forum  lies  just  like every other forum.   I am deleting my account never to return  to  science, they can kiss my ......I would not help them even if the earth was at stake.

Here much evidence of great sanity I see. Much learning done you have. No clothes the emperor has, and clothes-having-not being told, he likes not.

[Bogie_smiles]

diagram 1.jpg (14.83 kB . 574x277)

In GR, mass tells spacetime how to curve, and curved spacetime tells matter how to move. However, when we are talking about the alternative which recognizes an obvious existent force of gravity, instead of the mathematical equations defining the curvature of spacetime (caused by the presence of matter and other various forms of energy), we would be talking about an alternative to spacetime theory, and that alternative would be the presence of a gravitational wave energy density profile of space that affects the rate that light and gravitational wave energy traverse the local space.


That being said, the statement, "Science does not say", as your diagram depicts, "that two identical clocks, traveling in opposite directions for an elapsed time of one exact second on their respective dials will travel the same exact distance in opposite directions. It says that given a perfect vacuum, that two identical clocks, traveling in opposite directions for an elapsed time of one exact second on their respective dials, in identical circumstances in regard to the surrounding presence of massive objects and the influence of the presence of all forms of energy, will travel the same exact distance in opposite directions."


Mr. Thebox, you have participated in many interesting give-and-take conversations with me,  and so I await your return. Presumably that is contingent upon when you have the Internet back, and when you get up on the right side of the bed, lol. In your absence, this discussion is open in chat.


Elsewhere, I am in discussion with my shy friend, whom we call the Man-on-the-street (Mots). I also await his response to the issue of science dogma and the energy density alternative to spacetime that is mentioned herein.

[Bogie_smiles]

Let's go back to your opening post:

Give me an example of some science "garbage", to start with.

Alright !  Let's  start  with  something  really  basic  namely  time .   Science  all  around  the   globe  will  insist  that  time  is  the  forth  dimension  ,  persistent  in  saying  that  time  can  speed  up  and  that  time  can  slow  down .   The  truth  and  factual  content   is  none  of  that  is  true  and  is  no  more  than  subjective  mediocre  thought .   
The  objective  nature  of  time  is  that  time is  an  arbitrary  quantifiable  measurement  record  that  is  directly  proportional  to recording  a  duration  of  existence .   The  merit  and  objectivity  of  this  ,  is  that   time  is  only  relative  to  matter   and  does  not  exist  as  an  individual  entity  that  has  any  physicality   other  than  the  subjective  mind experience .
The  scientific  research  I  have  done  on  time  ,   concludes  that  we  have  in  previous experiments  observed    a  timing  dilation  and  an  aging  dilation  but  specifically  no  time  dilation .  All observers  experience  the  same  amount  of  absolute   time  but  not  all  observers  age  the  same  is  the  correct  interpretation .   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment


The  correct  semantics  being  of  importance  to  gain  greater  understanding  of  the  subject .

In  the  twin  paradox ,  both  twins  experience  the  exact  same  amount  of  absolute  time  but  ones  ages  less  biologically  .   

The link confirms that both acceleration and gravitational attraction (which is a form of acceleration) affect the rate that clocks measure the rate that time passes. In line with those confirmed effects, in the thought experiments that include the twins, where one goes on a rocket ship and experiences periods of acceleration while the other stays at home at rest relative to the traveling twin, the effect shows up as a difference in the amount of aging between the two twins. The accelerated twin ages slower relative to the "at rest" twin. That result is perfectly in line with the theory and the clock experiments that confirm the theory.

Your reference to each twin experiencing the same of amount of "absolute time" introduces a concept that the experiments have already falsified; there is no absolute time. We define time as a measurement done by a clock. The closest you can get to absolute time is to say that time simply passes everywhere, and the identical atomic clocks show that the rate that time passes as measured by a clock is variable, relative to the amount of acceleration in one local environment relative to another.


There is acceleration experienced in an accelerating rocket ship, or by staying at rest relative to a massive object like the Earth where the acceleration takes the form of the gravitational attraction. The local measure of the gravitational attraction differs from point to point in space.



What is interesting about the concept of absolute time is the reason that there is no absolute time. The reason is that any two objects anywhere in the universe that are in relative motion to each other must be experiencing a difference in the gravitational acceleration that affects their local environment. That difference exists because of the different orientation the two objects have to the massive objects that are influencing them gravitationally. That difference can be described in terms of gravitational wave energy density, which says that the local gravitational wave energy density profile of space is different between any two given locations because the matter that represents the source of gravitational attraction on those locations is always changing at a different rate. 

[guest39538]

The link confirms that both acceleration and gravitational attraction (which is a form of acceleration) affect the rate that clocks measure the rate that time passes.

That  is  not   what  the  experiment  confirms  ,  it  doesn't  ''measure the rate that time passes''.

The  experiment   measures  the  rate  that  c  passes .

9,192,631,770 Hz.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium_standard

[guest39538]

c1.jpg (92.84 kB . 1352x960 - viewed 2431 times)

[Ophiolite]

I am deleting my account never to return  to  science, they can kiss my ......I would not help them even if the earth was at stake

Hmm. Two posts since you posted the above statement.
Your return has quite ruined my celebration.

[guest39538]

I am deleting my account never to return  to  science, they can kiss my ......I would not help them even if the earth was at stake

Hmm. Two posts since you posted the above statement.
Your return has quite ruined my celebration.

Well  , I've  had  a   stressful  day ,  sorry  to  have  ruined  your  fun .   No  real  reason  to  be  that  bothered .

[David Cooper]

That result is perfectly in line with the theory and the clock experiments that confirm the theory.

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

Your reference to each twin experiencing the same of amount of "absolute time" introduces a concept that the experiments have already falsified; there is no absolute time.

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 define time as a measurement done by a clock.

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

The closest you can get to absolute time is to say that time simply passes everywhere, and the identical atomic clocks show that the rate that time passes as measured by a clock is variable, relative to the amount of acceleration in one local environment relative to another.

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.

What is interesting about the concept of absolute time is the reason that there is no absolute time.

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.

The reason is that any two objects anywhere in the universe that are in relative motion to each other must be experiencing a difference in the gravitational acceleration that affects their local environment. That difference exists because of the different orientation the two objects have to the massive objects that are influencing them gravitationally.

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

[Bogie_smiles]

Thank you, Thebox, for stepping back into the discussion. Here is a cut/paste of the wiki/Caesium standard for future reference in the discussion:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The caesium standard is a primary frequency standard[/url] in which electronic transitions[/url] between the two hyperfine[/url] ground states[/url] of caesium-133[/url] atoms[/url] are used to control the output frequency. The first caesium clock was built by Louis Essen[/url] in 1955 at the National Physical Laboratory[/url] in the UK.[/font]^[1] and promoted worldwide by Gernot M. R. Winkler[/url] of the USNO[/url].
Caesium atomic clocks[/url] are the most accurate time and frequency standards, and serve as the primary standard[/url] for the definition of the second[/url] in the International System of Units[/url] (SI) (the metric system[/url]). By definition, radiation produced by the transition between the two hyperfine ground states of caesium (in the absence of external influences such as the Earth's magnetic field) has a frequency, [/font]Δν_Cs, of exactly 9,192,631,770 Hz[/url]. That value was chosen so that the caesium second equalled, to the limit of human measuring ability in 1960 when it was adopted, the existing standard ephemeris second[/url] based on the Earth[/url]'s orbit around the Sun[/url].^[2] Because no other measurement involving time had been as precise, the effect of the change was less than the experimental uncertainty of all existing measurements.


External linksTechnical details[edit]
The official definition of the second[/url] given by the BIPM[/url] at the 13th General Conference on Weights and Measures[/url] in 1967 is: ``The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.'' At its 1997 meeting the BIPM added to the previous definition the following specification: ``This definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K.''[/font]
The meaning of the preceding definition is as follows. The caesium atom has a ground state electron state with configuration[/url] [Xe] 6s[/font]¹ and, consequently, atomic term symbol[/url] ²S_1/2. This means that there is one unpaired electron and the total electron spin of the atom is 1/2. Moreover, the nucleus of caesium-133 has a nuclear spin equal to 7/2. The simultaneous presence of electron spin and nuclear spin leads, by a mechanism called hyperfine interaction[/url], to a (small) splitting of all energy levels into two sub-levels. One of the sub-levels corresponds to the electron and nuclear spin being parallel (i.e., pointing in the same direction), leading to a total spin F equal to F=7/2+1/2 =4; the other sub-level corresponds to anti-parallel electron and nuclear spin (i.e., pointing in opposite directions), leading to a total spin F=7/2-1/2=3. In the caesium atom it so happens that the sub-level lowest in energy is the one with F=3, while the F=4 sub-level lies energetically slightly above. When the atom is irradiated with electromagnetic radiation having an energy corresponding to the energetic difference between the two sub-levels the radiation is absorbed and the atom is excited, going from the F=3 sub-level to the F=4 one. After a small fraction of a second the atom will re-emit the radiation and return to its F=3 ground state. From the definition of the second it follows that the radiation in question has a frequency of exactly 9.19263177 GHz, corresponding to a wavelength[/url] of about 3.26 cm and therefore belonging to the microwave[/url] range.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Kelvin scale is an absolute[/url] thermodynamic temperature[/url] scale[/url] using as its null point absolute zero[/url], the temperature at which all thermal motion[/url] ceases in the classical description of thermodynamics[/url]. The kelvin (symbol: K) is the base unit[/url] of temperature[/url] in the International System of Units[/url] (SI).[/font]
Until 2018, the kelvin was defined as the fraction ¹⁄_273.16 of the thermodynamic temperature of the triple point of water[/url] (exactly 0.01 °C or 32.018 °F).^[1] In other words, it is defined such that the triple point[/url] of water is exactly 273.16 K.
On 16 November 2018, a new definition[/url] was adopted, in terms of a fixed value of the Boltzmann constant[/url]. For legal metrology[/url] purposes, the new definition will officially come into force 20 May 2019[/font]^[2] (the 130th anniversary of the Metre Convention[/url]).
The Kelvin scale is named after the Belfast-born, Glasgow University[/url] engineer and physicist William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin[/url] (1824–1907), who wrote of the need for an "absolute thermometric scale". Unlike the degree Fahrenheit[/url] and degree Celsius[/url], the kelvin is not referred to or written as a degree[/url]. The kelvin is the primary unit of temperature measurement in the physical sciences, but is often used in conjunction with the degree Celsius, which has the same magnitude. The definition implies that absolute zero (0 K) is equivalent to −273.15 °C (−459.67 °F).[/font]

Note the stipulations that apply to the figure 9,192,631,770 Hz.. We are talking about a measurement taken at absolute zero (0 Kelvin), and in the absence of external influences such as the Earth's magnetic field. The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom, at absolute zero Kelvin, which does not exist anywhere, and without any outside influences like gravity and magnetic fields. In other words, the figure does not represent an actual measurement of the frequency, but a sterile conception of a theoretical frequency.
—————————


Given my explanation, one might wonder how a difference in the local gravitational wave energy density can affect that rate that clocks measure the passing of time?


The answer is that it is because clocks, and all objects of matter, are composed of particles. Particles are composed of wave energy in quantum increments, and therefore can be referred to as wave-particles. Different levels of local gravitational wave energy density cause wave-particles to function at different rates, and the different rates that clocks function is directly related to the rate that the particles that make up the clocks are functioning. That difference in the rate that particles function and in the rate that clocks function is governed by the difference in the gravitational wave energy density of the environment where the clocks are located. Clocks located in high energy density environments like on mountain tops or in accelerating rock ships function at a slower rate will measure the passing of time at a slower rate.