[guest39538]

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.

So you admit there is no time dilation ?

dissemination
[dɪˌsɛmɪˈneɪʃn]

NOUN
the action or fact of spreading something, especially information, widely.

[Kryptid]

So you admit there is no time dilation ?

That isn't what I said either.

[guest39538]

So you admit there is no time dilation ?

That isn't what I said either.

You certainly implied it with your answer .  I think you know there is no actual time dilation ,  you can have a timing dilation as the GPS uses .  It's still good science , just not a time dilation .

However we can have an age dilation , this is far more superior than a boring made up time dilation .  I can demonstrate an aging dilation in reality with physical observations .

[Kryptid]

You certainly implied it with your answer .

No I didn't, because time dilation is not defined as "frequency equals time" or "a change in frequency equals a change in time". Time dilation is a change in the rate of the passage of time.

you can have a timing

Okay, so you have now split what modern physics knows simply as "time" into two concepts: actual time and ticking. You claim that what we are measuring is not a dilation of actual time, but a dilation of ticking instead. So in order to demonstrate that this  ticking effect of yours is different from actual time, tell me what kind of experiment could be done that would be able to tell the difference between a ticking dilation and genuine time dilation. More importantly, what experiments have already been done that demonstrate that ticking dilation occurs without actual time dilation occurring? Until such experiments are done, you can't claim this as anything more than a hypothesis.

[guest39538]

Okay, so you have now split what modern physics knows simply as "time" into two concepts: actual time and ticking. You claim that what we are measuring is not a dilation of actual time, but a dilation of ticking instead. So in order to demonstrate that this  ticking effect of yours is different from actual time, tell me what kind of experiment could be done that would be able to tell the difference between a ticking dilation and genuine time dilation. More importantly, what experiments have already been done that demonstrate that ticking dilation occurs without actual time dilation occurring? Until such experiments are done, you can't claim this as anything more than a hypothesis.

Great , you are getting the hang of this and thinking about it yourself .  Don't you think about your own questions and try to answer them yourself ?

I define the drip of my faucet 1.s = 10 drips

You asked '' what experiments have already been done that demonstrate that ticking dilation occurs without actual time dilation occurring?''

I turn the stop cock slightly my drips slow down

That is how bad the time dilation thought is .

Time never dilates it is constant , it is poor measurement of time that is not constant . Who the heck in their right minds would use a clock to measure time that is a variant clock ?



You asked ''

[Kryptid]

I define the drip of my faucet 1.s = 10 drips

You asked '' what experiments have already been done that demonstrate that ticking dilation occurs without actual time dilation occurring?''

I turn the stop cock slightly my drips slow down

That is how bad the time dilation thought is .

Here's the problem with that idea: you are manipulating the system to change the number of drops falling per second in your own reference frame. That would be equivalent to changing the rate at which a cesium clock ticks by replacing the cesium atom with a different kind of atom. In a case of genuine time dilation, the rate that the cesium clock measures will seem completely unchanged to a person in the same reference frame as the clock. It is only an observer in a different reference frame that sees that clock as ticking at a different rate.

So in order to modify my earlier question, what experiment could you perform to demonstrate a difference between ticking dilation and time dilation without a person in the clock's reference frame seeing any such dilation themself?

[guest39538]

So in order to modify my earlier question, what experiment could you perform to demonstrate a difference between ticking dilation and time dilation without a person in the clock's reference frame seeing any such dilation themself?

What do you mean and time dilation ?  There is no time dilation to include ,  the  Hafele–Keating experiment is a ticking dilation without a time dilation . 

[Kryptid]

What do you mean and time dilation ?  There is no time dilation to include ,  the  Hafele–Keating experiment is a ticking dilation without a time dilation . 

This is begging the question. In order to say that, you would need to demonstrate that a ticking dilation and time dilation are two different things in the first place. In order to do that, you would have to be able to perform an experiment that is capable of separately measuring the rate of ticking and the rate of actual time and showing that those two values differ. It would need to be demonstrated that the rate of ticking in the reference frame of the clock is unchanged for an observer in that same reference frame whereas the rate of ticking seen on the clock is changed for an outside observer.

[guest39538]

What do you mean and time dilation ?  There is no time dilation to include ,  the  Hafele–Keating experiment is a ticking dilation without a time dilation . 

This is begging the question. In order to say that, you would need to demonstrate that a ticking dilation and time dilation are two different things in the first place. In order to do that, you would have to be able to perform an experiment that is capable of separately measuring the rate of ticking and the rate of actual time and showing that those two values differ. It would need to be demonstrated that the rate of ticking in the reference frame of the clock is unchanged for an observer in that same reference frame whereas the rate of ticking seen on the clock is changed for an outside observer.

Oh my word, there is no time dilation to demonstrate , it doesn't happen .  Try to understand that although the clocks in transit in the experiments measured less ticks than the clock at rest , the clocks in transit experienced the clocks at rest ticks .

0.9 ticks is equal to 1 tick

Try this ,

Count to 100 fast while a friend simultaneously counts to 100 slow .

The penny will drop .

[Kryptid]

Oh my word, there is no time dilation to demonstrate , it doesn't happen .

What experiment demonstrated this? Remember, in order to answer that question, you have to have a way to measure the time rate that does not simultaneously measure the ticking rate. Otherwise, you can't tell the difference between the two.

[guest39538]

Oh my word, there is no time dilation to demonstrate , it doesn't happen .

What experiment demonstrated this? Remember, in order to answer that question, you have to have a way to measure the time rate that does not simultaneously measure the ticking rate. Otherwise, you can't tell the difference between the two.

You miss the point entirely , there is nothing that demonstrates there is a time dilation , the caesium clock experiment demonstrates a ticking dilation , a change of frequency .  The same change of frequency as I've just give you in the counting experiment .  Your friend will count at a slower frequency than you and the sound wave created will also have a slower frequency than your faster frequency , faster counting .

[Kryptid]

Your friend will count at a slower frequency than you and the sound wave emitted will also have a slower frequency than your faster frequency .

Then that doesn't line up with the way that the time dilation experiment was set up. In their experiment, the frequency of the cesium atom aboard the airplane would be measured by people aboard the same airplane as unchanged from the textbook value of a cesium atom's frequency. Same thing for those people measuring the frequency of their cesium atom on the ground. If you took a slow-counting person on the airplane, the other people on the plane would be able to measure that the person was counting slow. The fast-counting person on the ground would likewise be measured by the people on the ground as counting fast. So it's a faulty analogy that cannot replicate the scenario of the actual experiment.

[guest39538]

If you took a slow-counting person on the airplane, the other people on the plane would be able to measure that the person was counting slow.

No, the other people on the aeroplane would be counting at the same speed but well done on the thought , I had the same thought about it but you said it before me.  You've clicked in by that one thought of the counting slow friend on the aeroplane , did you read my mind on that

[guest39538]

Before I go get some sleep ,  I and Kryptid were basically discussing

Sarah was at relative rest counting

Bill and Dave got onboard two different aeroplanes and took off , they were both counting

Bill and Dave returned to Sarah and compared counting .


Bill , Dave and Sarah all failed to count the same amount .

Good night .

[Bored chemist]

I did explain = didn't mean proportional , it means causes ,

No, you didn't explain that.

I don't know the symbol for causes

How many times have I told you it would help if you learned some science?
That includes the conventions of use of symbols etc.

It's not as if they are hard to find.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logic_symbols

You seem to struggle with a  simple definition.
Time is what clocks measure (by ticking).
So a ticking dilation is a time dilation.

[Bored chemist]

Count to 100 fast while a friend simultaneously counts to 100 slow .

The penny will drop .

When the penny drops you will realise that the two identical clocks don't count really fast  and really slow.

From their points of view, they count at te  normal speed.
They could measure it using a clock for example.

[Kryptid]

No, the other people on the aeroplane would be counting at the same speed

So I suppose this is what you are arguing: both people start off counting at the same rate when they are on the ground (the equivalent to two clocks being synchronized before the experiment), then one person steps aboard an airplane. For whatever reason, the person on the plane starts to slow down their rate of counting and everyone else on the plane has their thought processes slowed by the exact same amount so that they can't tell that the person has slowed down. Then when they land again, they find the two people are on different numbers. Is that how your analogy works?

[Bored chemist]

For whatever reason, the person on the plane starts to slow down their rate of counting and everyone else on the plane has their thought processes slowed by the exact same amount so that they can't tell that the person has slowed down.

It's important to recognise that it isn't just their thought processes.
They could look at their watches and make the same observation- the "counting passenger" has not slowed down.
They could use their heart rates as a comparison and again, they would not observe that the passenger's count rate had slowed.
They could see how long it takes to boil an egg and that too wouldn't show any slow down.
They could use his counting to check on the decay of radioactive material and still it wouldn't show any change.
Someone watching caterpillars turning into butterflies could use the guy's counting as their "clock" and the butterflies would arrive just as predicted.

From the point of everyone on the plane, the man counting would be marking off time, just as he would  on the ground.

Time is what clocks measure by ticking.

[guest39538]

No, the other people on the aeroplane would be counting at the same speed

So I suppose this is what you are arguing: both people start off counting at the same rate when they are on the ground (the equivalent to two clocks being synchronized before the experiment), then one person steps aboard an airplane. For whatever reason, the person on the plane starts to slow down their rate of counting and everyone else on the plane has their thought processes slowed by the exact same amount so that they can't tell that the person has slowed down. Then when they land again, they find the two people are on different numbers. Is that how your analogy works?

You got the idea , Mr C is starting to worry and trying put you off .

[Kryptid]

You got the idea , Mr C is starting to worry and trying put you off .

You do realize what that means, right? It means that it's impossible to set up an experiment that will tell you the difference between ticking dilation and true time dilation. This makes your idea of ticking as a separate phenomenon from time an unfalsifiable hypothesis. If it isn't falsifiable, then it isn't scientific.