[guest39538]

I'm  also  a  good  scientist

Got any evidence?

Of  course ,  I've  advanced  science  and   I  know  very  well  ''you''  are  mostly  ''stumped'' . 

I'm  an ''it'' ,  an  anomaly ,  thinking  ''smarts''.

NGI  reality ,  where most  people  in  science  are  AI .

[jimbobghost]

TheBox,
ask him "why?"

[guest39538]

I'm  also  a  good  scientist

Got any evidence?

Why ?  Shrugs  shoulders !

[Kryptid]

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

Every time he says he's going to leave he never does. By this point it seems like an attention-gathering stunt.

[guest39538]

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

Every time he says he's going to leave he never does. By this point it seems like an attention-gathering stunt.

Yes !  of course  it  is  an  attention  grabbing  stunt  because  I  will  not  give  up  until  science  takes  me  seriously .  Treating  me  compared  to  some   mediocre  thinker  is  just  mediocre  thinking  ,  I  have  ''destroyed''  some  of  Einstein's  work  and  I  know  it !   

[Bored chemist]

I  have  ''destroyed''  some  of  Einstein's  work 

Well, you certainly have not  explained here how you have done so.

I  will  not  give  up  until  science  takes  me  seriously

Why would science take you seriously? You have yet to show any real understanding of science.

[Bored chemist]

I'm  also  a  good  scientist

Got any evidence?

Why ?  Shrugs  shoulders !

Because, without it, nobody will take you seriously.

[guest39538]

Author :TheBox


A  scientific  study  and  research  project,  an  analysis  of   Neurological  process  relative  to  everyday  activities  of  human  interactions   with  the  Universe  and  each other .


Introduction .

Everyday  in  our  lives  we  experience  Neurological  activity  and  the   processing  of  information  in  our  brains  ,   these  processes  allowing  us   to  be  self  aware  of  ourselves  and  our  surrounding  environment .  Daily  information  changing  our  memories  of  prior  events ,  yesterday  and  today  never  being  identical  days .


Does  that  look  like  I  do  not  know  what  I'm  doing ?

[guest39538]

I'm  also  a  good  scientist

Got any evidence?

Why ?  Shrugs  shoulders !

Because, without it, nobody will take you seriously.

I have  just  provided  evidence  of  my  science  in  the  neurological  post  , I  have presented  lots  of  evidence  on  forums of  my  abilities  in  most  science  topics .  It is  time  you  Stop it !  with  your  little  games  and  denial  of  my  science  ability .

[Bored chemist]

Does  that  look  like  I  do  not  know  what  I'm  doing ?

It looks like you are stating the  obvious, and pretending that it is science by putting long words in it from time to  time.

A bit like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science

[guest39538]

Does  that  look  like  I  do  not  know  what  I'm  doing ?

It looks like you are stating the  obvious, and pretending that it is science by putting long words in it from time to  time.

A bit like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science

Neurological  process  stimulation  can  be  attributed  to  five  main  things,  namely  our  own  five  senses  of  taste , sight , touch , smell  and  sound .  Senses  being  the  provider  of  experience  or  new experiences  in  the  brains  Neurological  network ,  forming  a  Neurological  clone  image  of  the  experienced  as   accessible  memory information .

Yes  you're  correct  !  I  have no  idea  what  I'm  doing . 

[jimbobghost]

you tell him!

[Bogie_smiles]

you tell him!

Let's use this as a chance to learn a little about caesium:

[David Cooper]

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.

I've been talking about a light clock in deep space which when at rest ticks more quickly than when it's moving. It's easy enough to have two identical light clocks at the same location as one moves past the other (which is at rest). One of them is ticking more slowly because its movement increases the cycle distance for the light to cover between ticks. How am I ignoring any critical factor there?

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.

Start with my two identical light clocks at rest. Move one of them away from the other (i.e. accelerate it and then have it move away at a constant speed), then move it back again, bringing it to a halt next to the one that never moved. The one that moved has recorded less time, but the moving part in the moving clock, the light pulse, covered exactly the same distance through space as the moving part in the stationary clock. That component never ran slow, but the clock ticked fewer times, just like the ball in the football clock.

Maybe you should think about this. Suppose we have an amount of radiation gradually damaging our clocks. The light clocks have no mechanical moving parts and don't wear, but they are gradually worn away by radiation. The clock that moves records half as much time while it's travelling as the stationary clock, but it's exposed to the same amount of radiation during that time. Some of the radiation is also intensified by the higher impact speed in one direction, though the impact speed in the opposite direction is reduced, so the wear may be equal. Both clocks thus age at the same rate, but the moving clock records that ageing happening in half as long a time as the stationary clock, so if it's to imagine that only half as much time has passed for it, it has aged twice as much in a given length of time. That's the opposite of the amount of ageing it is supposed to have experienced.

Let's do it again without the radiation, but this time let's use light clocks that decay. Now we have a stationary clock that decays much more quickly than the moving clock, so when they're reunited, the one that travelled is in much better condition than the other. That's ageing too, but this time it agrees with the idea that travelling clocks age less. What's the difference between these two types of ageing? In the first case (with the radiation), moving the clock doesn't reduce the amount of radiation that the clock's exposed to, so that component of ageing is unslowed. In the second case (with decaying clocks), the movement of the moving clock slows down the functionality of the clock, and this slows down the mechanism driving the decay. We could make another kind of light clock though where the light is sent in zig-zags between two long mirrors, so instead of moving the clock, we just have the light follow the same path through space as it would with a moving clock while the mirrors of the clock stay still. The clock ticks slow because of the lengthened cycles for the light, but the material of the clock decays at the same rate as a clock at rest.

What is ageing? It could be defined as the rate of damage/decay. Alternatively, it could be defined as the amount of time that actually passed for the clock. A clock made of really stable materials might not decay at all, and if there's no radiation, it may not be damaged at all, so it could tick a quintillion times while an identical clock that's moving ticks once, but neither of them ages in the decay or damage sense of the word. Both have been exposed to the same amount of absolute time, but one has severely under-recorded that time while the other has not. Einstein says that the travelling clock has not under-recorded time - the amount of time which has passed for it is the amount that it has counted. Introduce the radiation though, and that clock wears out at least as quickly as the stationary clock.

What kind of bonkers game is Einstein playing? Well, originally he played a game in which contradictions had to be tolerated. If clock A was stationary, then light was passing it at c relative to it in all directions. If clock B was moving past clock A, clearly the light had to be passing clock B at speeds other than c relative to it in some directions. However, he also said that clock B could be considered to be at rest too in a different frame, and that meant that light was passing it at c relative to it in all directions. Have that happen while it's passing clock A (or rather, when it's being passed by clock A), and clearly light must be passing clock A at speeds other than c in some directions. He wanted both of these to be true, but he can't have it - it goes against logic (and mathematics). Minkowski tried to fix that for him by producing a "time dimension", and this gave space a 4D structure. With that structure, all the paths for light are reduced to zero length and zero time, so the speed of light becomes infinite or zero (depending on which way you look at it), though this is denied and is brushed under the carpet to hide it. They then played a dishonest game in which they asserted that the speed of light was still c on the basis that that's what you measure it as whenever you try to measure it, but the maths of their 4D model tells us that is actual speed must be infinite (or zero). Once you've turned the speed of light into infinite (or zero), you lose all variation in the relative speeds, hiding them in that infinity (or the complete elimination of the speed of light if it's zero). What this trick doesn't do though is account for how light travels from location X to location Y and back at infinite speed and yet take a longer time to cover the distance than zero time - the mechanism falls apart at that point. The alternative approach where time doesn't run at all doesn't suffer from that problem because the light no longer has to go anywhere - it's already there in an eternal block where the entire future is already in existence. In that model though, causality is rendered fake. That's the reality of it - his models are all broken and disproved, but the establishment goes on clinging to them like religious people to fake gods, but hardly anyone is intelligent enough to see the full picture, so this farce just goes on and on. It doesn't matter how much you break it down into small chunks for them so that you can drag them through the argument properly and show them where the models fail, they can't keep the incompatible models in separate compartments, but keep dragging bits of different ones together and asserting the the resulting mess somehow works, but it doesn't. Every single model (simulation) they've made of SR and GR cheats by introducing features that are banned in the official models, but they have to do this to make them work because the simulations are disfunctional otherwise. I've repeatedly asked people to point to a simulation of SR or GR that doesn't break the rules of SR or GR, but no one has been able to do so, and that's no surprise to me because the task of making an impossible model function correctly is impossible.

[Bogie_smiles]

Thanks, I'll look at it more carefully, and respond.


In the mean time, here are some of my favorite waves:
http://www.south-haven.com/police/live_south_beach_camera.php

[guest39538]

Start with my two identical light clocks at rest. Move one of them away from the other (i.e. accelerate it and then have it move away at a constant speed), then move it back again, bringing it to a halt next to the one that never moved. The one that moved has recorded less time, but the moving part in the moving clock, the light pulse, covered exactly the same distance through space as the moving part in the stationary clock. That component never ran slow, but the clock ticked fewer times, just like the ball in the football clock.

The  reference  frame  externally  of  the  clocks  has  0  measurement  ! 

[Bogie_smiles]

I've been talking about a light clock in deep space which when at rest ticks more slowly than when it's moving.

Let’s start with that fact about your light clock at rest in deep space. You say it ticks more slowly when it is at rest. Can you put that statement in terms of the rate of aging? In my way of thinking, the rest clock is synonymous with the stay-at-home twin. If so, the rest clock, like the stay-at-home twin, ages faster and appears older after the twins are reunited. When you say the light clock at rest ticks more slowly, do you mean that the rate that the resting light clock measures the passing of time on its “dial” is slower? Wouldn’t that mean that it would appear to age slower? But isn’t it supposed to be that the accelerating twin ages slower.

It’s easy enough to have two identical light clocks at the same location as one moves past the other (which is at rest). One of them is ticking more slowly because its movement increases the cycle distance for the light to cover between ticks. How am I ignoring any critical factor there?

I would interpret the “because” statement, where you say one clock is ticking more slowly “because its movement increases the cycle distance for the light to cover between ticks”, to mean that the clock that is running slower is the moving clock, while in the first paragraph you said, it ticks more slowly when it is at rest, or to be exact, you said, “I've been talking about a light clock in deep space which when at rest ticks more slowly than when it's moving.”
Those two statement seem inconsistent to me. Are they supposed to be the other way around, i.e., the rest clock ticks faster, and the moving clock ticks slower? That would make more sense to me.

If you have stated it correctly, and I am not on the same page, then I don’t understand the concept of a light clock, so tell me exactly how they work.

Once I get on the same page with you in regard to the light clock ticking slower when at rest, instead of faster at rest, then we can pick up on the rest of your post from there.

[David Cooper]

I've been talking about a light clock in deep space which when at rest ticks more slowly than when it's moving.

Let’s start with that fact about your light clock at rest in deep space. You say it ticks more slowly when it is at rest.

Sorry - that bit was meant to say "more quickly". Writing fast leads to occasional inversions.

Those two statement seem inconsistent to me. Are they supposed to be the other way around, i.e., the rest clock ticks faster, and the moving clock ticks slower? That would make more sense to me.

Correct diagnosis. I'll edit a correction into the relevant post. Apologies again - I don't know why reading through it after posting didn't pick it up either.

[Bogie_smiles]

I've been talking about a light clock in deep space which when at rest ticks more quickly than when it's moving. It's easy enough to have two identical light clocks at the same location as one moves past the other (which is at rest). One of them is ticking more slowly because its movement increases the cycle distance for the light to cover between ticks. How am I ignoring any critical factor there?

I see now, sorry, I was still back at kicking the ball between clocks, lol.

I’ll repeat: “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.”

Start with my two identical light clocks at rest. Move one of them away from the other (i.e. accelerate it and then have it move away at a constant speed), then move it back again, bringing it to a halt next to the one that never moved. The one that moved has recorded less time,

Agreed.

… but the moving part in the moving clock, the light pulse, covered exactly the same distance through space as the moving part in the stationary clock. That component never ran slow, but the clock ticked fewer times, just like the ball in the football clock.

That is subject to different opinions, which we should talk through before we go on.

To start that talk, is this the right link to use to describe the light clocks that you use? https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_clock
If so, then from that Wiki:
“We also know that the speed of light, c, is constant. No matter who measures it, it turns out to be the same speed. So we can use that fact to get another way of calculating how long it takes for the flash of light to go from the base to the top of the pole and back again…”

But wait; c is a constant at 0 degrees Kelvin in an environment that is not influenced by gravity or magnetic fields or any outside influences like the relative motion of massive objects. We certainly don’t have any such perfect vacuums or locations uninfluenced by the presence of massive objects in relative motion to each other when we discuss twins and rocket ships and acceleration through the medium of space. I equate those events to real situations of relative motion through the real medium of space that is filled with light and gravity waves coming and going in all directions, at all points.

The velocity of the light and gravity waves is variable under real conditions, depending on the local gravitational wave energy density of the local space (akin to the curvature of spacetime in GR). Does that statement leave you cold, or do you get where I am coming from when I say:

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.

In my scenarios, the difference in the rate of time passing, as measured by clocks, is not in accord with the axioms of Special Relativity, it is governed by the difference in the gravitational wave energy density profile of the local space in which the identical clocks are functioning. They function at different rates because they are in different gravitational wave energy density situations (different relative acceleration conditions).

So, one issue that we need to work out is that you seem to be talking from the perspective of Special Relativity, where the speed of light is always c, and I am talking about events in the real medium of space, where there are light waves and gravitational waves being emitted and being absorbed to/from the surrounding medium of space, and where massive objects are all in relative motion and are influencing what I like to call the gravitational wave energy density profile of space.

Do you have any inclination to talk through these issues, and see where we agree and where we don’t?

[David Cooper]

I’ll repeat: “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.”

Indeed - every cell in the body is like a clock with its functionality being slowed by fast movement through space and by depth in a gravity well. Every atom is like a clock too, and the radioactive ones which decay have their decay rate slowed to match. All functionality is slowed by speed of travel through space and depth in a gravity well. But time itself isn't slowed - all theories that claim that time itself is slowed contain fatal flaws that rule them out, but it's very hard to get anyone in the establishment to accept this as they simply reject the proof out of hand and appeal to authority instead, backing each other up in an entirely circular manner while refusing to address the contradictions they rest on.

To start that talk, is this the right link to use to describe the light clocks that you use? https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_clock

That page is a cluttered mess. A light clock is simple - it's just like two people kicking a football to and fro, but we replace the ball with a pulse of light, one of the people is replaced with a mirror, and the other is the light emitter/detector. Every time a pulse is detected as returning, a new one is sent out (or the existing one can be reflected back again). Every detection of a pulse of light returning is a clock tick. Incidentally, the MMX is essentially a pair of light clocks at 90 degrees to each other, so that can be used too, and just as alignment of an arm with the direction of travel of the apparatus causes length contraction, a normal light clock aligned the same way will be equally contracted - this ensures that both light clocks in the pair always tick at the same rate as each other.

If so, then from that Wiki:
“We also know that the speed of light, c, is constant. No matter who measures it, it turns out to be the same speed. So we can use that fact to get another way of calculating how long it takes for the flash of light to go from the base to the top of the pole and back again…”

Note that when it talks about measuring the speed of light, it doesn't (or shouldn't) mean the speed of light relative to the apparatus which can vary wildly from c, but they don't want to discuss that issue, and they're happy for people to read it as meaning that the speed of light doesn't vary relative to any object, even though that's impossible if the speed of light through space is c and objects are allowed to move.

But wait; c is a constant at 0 degrees Kelvin in an environment that is not influenced by gravity or magnetic fields or any outside influences like the relative motion of massive objects. We certainly don’t have any such perfect vacuums or locations uninfluenced by the presence of massive objects in relative motion to each other when we discuss twins and rocket ships and acceleration through the medium of space. I equate those events to real situations of relative motion through the real medium of space that is filled with light and gravity waves coming and going in all directions, at all points.

In deep space, the tiny amount of gravity imposing itself on the content of that space is so small that it can be disregarded. The amount of energy moving through that space in the form of light from distant galaxies is also tiny and can be disregarded. Think about gravitational lensing first. The sun distorts the path light takes when that light passes close to the sun, but light further out is hardly affected at all and we don't see much optical distortion. If you look at the background of space past the moon, you don't see any distortion - there will be some, but you won't be able to measure it. This means that the speed of light in the space near the Earth is hardly affected by gravity at all - it's a very small effect even down on the surface where we are a very shallow gravity well. The tiny slowing of light here where we are is almost as trivial as the slowing of clocks that we get by moving them "fast" in the slow vehicles we've designed (such as satellites). If we're dealing with the twins paradox in deep space with speeds of travel like 0.866c, we can ignore any influences of gravity altogether as they simply won't register.

The velocity of the light and gravity waves is variable under real conditions, depending on the local gravitational wave energy density of the local space (akin to the curvature of spacetime in GR). Does that statement leave you cold, ...

It is an irrelevance due to its astronomically tiny impact on things. It becomes a huge factor if you're near a black hole, but that's an exceptional case and we are nowhere near anything of that kind.

...or do you get where I am coming from when I say:

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.

That's fine, but remember that you said earlier that "We define time as a measurement done by a clock." If a clock runs slow and it measures time correctly, then time must have slowed, but a slowed clock fails to measure time correctly and time has not slowed.

In my scenarios, the difference in the rate of time passing is not in accord with the axioms of Special Relativity, it is governed by the difference in the gravitational wave energy density profile of the local space in which the identical clocks are functioning. They function at different rates because they are in different gravitational wave energy density situations (different relative acceleration conditions).

When they're passing each other, they're in the same location with the same conditions applying to them, but they can also move a long way apart without there being any significant difference in the conditions for them, so the only factor worth considering in working out why one clock ticks less than the other is their speed of travel through space. There is no possibility of any other factor having a useful role in explaining the twins paradox result. Also though, if you do a version of it in a lab deep in a gravity well and have the travelling twin go round and round in circles at high speed without ever moving far from the stay-at-home twin, you'll still have a fully-functional twins paradox experiment in which the travelling twin ages a lot less. You can do that with a particle accelerator and compare how long it takes for unstable particles to decay in comparison with their relatively stationary twins. Gravity affects both twins in such a case, but in a way that enables it to be ignored entirely.

So, one issue that we need to work out is that you seem to be talking from the perspective of Special Relativity, where the speed of light is always c, and I am talking about events in the real medium of space, where there are light waves and gravitational waves being emitted and being absorbed to/from the surrounding medium of space, and where massive objects are all in relative motion and are influencing what I like to call the gravitational wave energy density profile of space.

Do you have any inclination to talk through these issues, and see where we agree and where we don’t?

If you think it need further discussion, then go for it, but I think I've covered it already. The only factor relevant to the extended lifespan of unstable particles in particle accelerators is their speed of travel through space slowing their functionality and decay rate.