[Kryptid]

I have considered that you may all be under some sort of hypnotic state .

Okay then, so which is more likely?

1) One person being delusional.
2) Many thousands (or even millions) of people being hypnotized?

want to look at one step by step ?

It's probably something that you've already spoken of many times before, but if you want to try go ahead.

[guest39538]

I have considered that you may all be under some sort of hypnotic state .

Okay then, so which is more likely?

1) One person being delusional.
2) Many thousands (or even millions) of people being hypnotized?

want to look at one step by step ?

It's probably something that you've already spoken of many times before, but if you want to try go ahead.

It's more likely that your semantics sucks and your understanding is misinformed because of this .

Ok , lets start simple , time dilation , time slowing down or speeding up as predicted by Einstein in relativity .  Later in experiment proven to be true by the Hafele-Keating experiment .
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/airtim.html

To start just one agreement question , don't try to add any complex to the question , just a yes or no please .

Do you agree that a change of velocity of a relative stationary clock v=0  changes the frequency ?

Δv=Δf

[Kryptid]

It's more likely that your semantics sucks and your understanding is misinformed because of this .

So you think it really is more likely that the world at large is hypnotized by some mysterious hidden power structure than a single individual being delusional?

Do you agree that a change of velocity of a relative stationary clock v=0  changes the frequency ?

The frequency of what?

[guest39538]

It's more likely that your semantics sucks and your understanding is misinformed because of this .

So you think it really is more likely that the world at large is hypnotized by some mysterious hidden power structure than a single individual being delusional?

Do you agree that a change of velocity of a relative stationary clock v=0  changes the frequency ?

The frequency of what?

What do you mean the frequency of what ?  This is what I mean , if we're talking about time dilation and I have posted an experiment with a caesium clock , it is quite obvious we're discussing the caesium frequency .  Sorry to sound patronizing but that is quite obvious .

Do you agree that changing the velocity of a stationary caesium clock alters the frequency ?

Δv=Δf

[Kryptid]

Do you agree that changing the velocity of a stationary caesium clock alters the frequency ?

The answer depends on the reference frame that you are asking the question in.

[guest39538]

Do you agree that changing the velocity of a stationary caesium clock alters the frequency ?

The answer depends on the reference frame that you are asking the question in.

The stationary clock at the naval base if I need to be a bit more precise .

[Kryptid]

The stationary clock at the naval base if I need to be a bit more precise .

Relative to that clock, yes, the frequency will change.

[guest39538]

The stationary clock at the naval base if I need to be a bit more precise .

Relative to that clock, yes, the frequency will change.

Ok thank you , so we can express this in basic math

Δv = Δf  where v is velocity , f is frequency and Δ is change

Are you ok with this , do you agree this expresses change of velocity is equal to a change of frequency ?

Equal in  a sense of the cause .  Δv causes Δf

[Kryptid]

Are you ok with this , do you agree this expresses change of velocity is equal to a change of frequency ?

No, because the change in frequency is not linearly proportional to the change in velocity.

[guest39538]

Are you ok with this , do you agree this expresses change of velocity is equal to a change of frequency ?

No, because the change in frequency is not linearly proportional to the change in velocity.

I did explain = didn't mean proportional , it means causes , I don't know the symbol for causes , can I use an arrow as in mapping ?

Δv→Δf

Would you agree with that ?

Or do you know a symbol of causality ?

Δv is the cause

Δf is the effect

[Kryptid]

Fine, I'll tentatively accept that.

[guest39538]

Fine, I'll tentatively accept that.

That's great , now in time dilation , I'm pretty sure you will agree with that a change of frequency is equal to a change of time proportionally  ?


Δt = Δf 

Do you agree with this ?

I'm coming to my first point .

[Kryptid]

Actually, I need to make a correction. It isn't the change in velocity that causes the the frequency to be different. A change in velocity is equal to an acceleration. Acceleration isn't necessary for time dilation. A difference in a constant speed is sufficient.

I'm pretty sure you will agree with that a change of frequency is equal to a change of time proportionally  ?

That doesn't sound quite right. It would be better to say that the measured difference in frequency between the two clocks is proportional to the rate of the passage of time (time dilation). A "change of time" is present whether there is time dilation or not (time is always changing).

[guest39538]

Actually, I need to make a correction. It isn't the change in velocity that causes the the frequency to be different. A change in velocity is equal to an acceleration. Acceleration isn't necessary for time dilation. A difference in a constant speed is sufficient.

I'm pretty sure you will agree with that a change of frequency is equal to a change of time proportionally  ?

That doesn't sound quite right. It would be better to say that the measured difference in frequency between the two clocks is proportional to the rate of the passage of time (time dilation). A "change of time" is present whether there is time dilation or not (time is always changing).

I've noticed you've tried to complicate things but never mind .

Δv→Δf

Tell me where does the time function come from in this process ?

It only exists if the practitioner invents one and defines the frequency to be time .

You say there is a change of time ?  Where ?

Δv→Δf 

There is no time function .

[Kryptid]

Tell me where does the time function come from in this process ?

What is a "time function"?

It only exists if the practitioner invents one and defines the frequency to be time .

I never defined frequency as time, so that's irrelevant.

You say there is a change of time ?  Where ?

Time is always changing (just watch the clock), so everywhere.

[guest39538]

I never defined frequency as time, so that's irrelevant.

That's very relevant actually because if you don't define the frequency as time , then obviously there is no time dilation .

Hafele-Keating experiment  does not show a time dilation , it shows a change of frequency and anything other than that is subjective and made up .

What is a "time function"?

Something subjective you might add and define 1.s is equal too . If you'd flew the caesium clock before 1967 in experiment , the frequency wouldn't of been defined equal to a second . 

I see what happened now , they already  knew the caesium frequency would change if they moved the clock so in an elaborate scheme got the frequency defined as 1.s so they could get famous by proving Alberts made up chit with more made up chit .
Crafty gits lol , I got there eventually , I can see what they did .

So somewhere around about 1965-1967 ,  somebody else must of worked out the famous clock thought experiment error so science had to cover it up by inventing the caesium time dilation .

Thinking maybe it is this guy …  In 1965 a scientist named Prof. R. Foster tried to turn conventional science on its head.

[Kryptid]

That's very relevant actually because if you don't define the frequency as time , then obviously there is no time dilation

Frequency is a measure of cycles per unit time. Time alone does not give you a frequency.

it shows a change of frequency

A change of frequency by the exact amount (within experimental error margins) as predicted by relativistic time dilation.

Something subjective you might add and define 1.s is equal too . If you'd flew the caesium clock before 1967 in experiment , the frequency wouldn't of been defined equal to a second . 

In that case, the "time function" would be defined by whatever clock is being used to conduct the experiment.

[guest39538]

That's very relevant actually because if you don't define the frequency as time , then obviously there is no time dilation

Frequency is a measure of cycles per unit time. Time alone does not give you a frequency.

it shows a change of frequency

A change of frequency by the exact amount (within experimental error margins) as predicted by relativistic time dilation.

Something subjective you might add and define 1.s is equal too . If you'd flew the caesium clock before 1967 in experiment , the frequency wouldn't of been defined equal to a second . 

In that case, the "time function" would be defined by whatever clock is being used to conduct the experiment.

I think you've missed the point some how .  A frequency is not time , a change of frequency is not a change of time . 

[guest39538]

This gets creepier , 

Science and Technology Act 1965
1965 CHAPTER 4
5 Further powers of Secretary of State and Minister of Technology. (1) The [F1Secretary of State][F2or the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food], . . . F3 may defray out of moneys provided by Parliament any expenses which, with the consent of the Treasury, they may respectively incur— (a) in carrying on or supporting scientific research or the dissemination of the results of scientific research; F4[( b ) in furthering the practical application of the results of scientific research;] (c) in making payments in respect of remuneration, allowances or pension benefits payable to or in respect of members of any advisory body established for the purpose of assisting the Secretary of State [F5or, as the case may be, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food]. . .in matters connected with scientific research.


1965 , how curious , then 1967 the caesium etc , they well scammed you ...I now have their motive ...the secret group is amongst you politicians .

[Kryptid]

A frequency is not time

I said the exact same thing when I said:

Frequency is a measure of cycles per unit time. Time alone does not give you a frequency.

a change of frequency is not a change of time

Nor did I say it was.