JohnLesser

Have I once said your test are wrong? NO I have said things are misinterpreted.

But 2 people , get different measurements, already proven .

But the background does not contract, only the virtual coordinates?

yes exactly The arrogance is not on my part, your ability to listen is the problem, you are trolling me, not me trolling you, I am serious about science, Have you even read my part paper? Try to find fault if you can ..

Ok here it is again, I will look forward to my next ban because I can show that relativity is misinterpreted but the defensiveness for no reasons by yourselves prevents in your understanding. Elsewhere understand. I get banned for arrogance by all your part , the arrogance is not mine, I keep trying and trying and have been dedicated to learning science for several year by self teaching and forums. It is only of late I have learnt how to explain better. The misinterpretation of time dilation Abstract-This paper is intended to show the true nature of time and show that time dilation is greatly misinterpreted. Also this paper aims to prove that Isaac Newton was correct about absolute time which is a conclusion reached by showing the misinterpretation of time dilation and the understanding of time. Premise:Any measurement of time no matter how small of a measurement or the frequency/speed of measurement becomes an immediate past (history). Introduction The orgin of measuement of time, being that of one day was equal to one rotation of the Earth relative to the Sun's position. Throughout history there has been many arguments about time and what is time, scientists, philosophers and the general public have all engaged in ideas about time. At the moment in physics, we use the Caesium standard time, one second = 9,192,631,770 Hz , to measure time passed. In 1914 Albert Einstein submitted his papers about special relativity in which is world widely accepted to be objective reality. Special relativity implies a wide range of consequences, which have been experimentally verified, including length contraction, time dilation, relativistic mass, mass–energy equivalence, a universal speed limit and relativity of simultaneity. It is world widely accepted that time can slow down or speed up (time dilation), this a notion from Albert Einsteins special relativity papers which has been proven to be true by various experimental observations on many occasions. The more notable of these experimental observations being that of Hafele–Keating. ''Hafele–Keating experiment From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.'' Before Albert Einsteins notions about relative time, Issac Newton believed in absolute time, unlike relative time, Newton believed absolute time could only ever be understood mathematically. The change of time being so subtle, that humans had the inability to perceive this, humans only having the ability to perceive relative time, in my mind, a mechanical construct of relativity. It is now of course word widely accepted that Newton was disproved about absolute time and Einstein is correct about relative time. However, after several years of looking deep inside the minds of Einstein and Newtons thought's,looking at the evidence, I have come to the relisation that neither Newton or Einstein truly understand time or the measurent of time. Thus leading me to my first axiom and premise for argument, which I observe to be a postulate, any measurement of time no matter how small of a measurement or the frequency/speed of measurement becomes an immediate past (history). Postulate 1 - Any measurement of time no matter how small of a measurement or the frequency/speed of measurement becomes an immediate past (history). Using to support this postulate I would like to relate this to the big bang. There would be a truth that from the instant of the big bang , history began to be created at the instant of expansion from a 0 point energy or 0 point space. (You may consider this to be 0 time). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang ''Since Georges Lemaître first noted in 1927 that an expanding universe could be traced back in time to an originating single point, scientists have built on his idea of cosmic expansion.'' In regards to a single point, it is an impossibility to expand this single point without creating an immediate past proportional to the rate/speed of the expansion. In geometry and vectors , if we can imagine a single point and try to move this point along vector X , it is impossible to move this point without creating an immediate past geometrical position. It neither matters at what speed we try to move the single point along vector X, the amount of distance travelled relatively ''forward'' in geometrical position is directly proportional to it's length of immediate relative past position. Diagram (A) past position<-------------present position------------>future position Diagram (A) shows an object in motion creating a past position travelling towards a future position. Extending this to apply to chronological position, Diagram (B) past..............present> The present can not move forward in time without creating an immediate past. Simultaneity . Albert Einstein is his paper on the electrodynamics of a moving body first mentioned simultaneity, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simultaneity ''Simultaneity is the relation between two events assumed to be happening at the same time in a frame of reference. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, simultaneity is not an absolute relation between events; what is simultaneous in one frame of reference will not necessarily be simultaneous in another. '' Any observer who devised time by one day being equal to one rotation of their relative planet, would measure a length of one day to be different than another observer's measured day length on their own relative planet , therefore showing a relative difference in their perceived ''speed'' of time. By the ''speed'' of time, I am referring to how fast time passes by for observers. This notion, I have related to Einsteins simultaneity , although Einstein doe's not explain it this way, I believe this is where his thought's should of ended up. I believe Einsteins thoughts were close to the truth but not to the exact truth. I believe this notion of logic to be my second precise postulate and axiom. I am not a troll so stop being defensive......

I call it the speed of time or the pace of time or the rate of time, how fast doe's time pass for a person? I got banned last time I brought up this question up so please ignore and stick to this threads notions. This forum is quite hostile and repels all ''invaders'' rather than a welcome open arms. You cant agree on c if you can't agree on timing. (think about that for a while). So you can then easily answer for me , what length contracts? added- yes they measure the speed of light to be same, however they can not agree on an actual speed. The can equate their time differential and conclude c is constant, but they still disagree on the speed because they disagree on time.

I asked Moderator earlier, what are you by subjective thoughts thinking contracts when you say the length contracts? I hope you are not trying to say that (A) travels less distance in a shorter time than travelling a longer distance. Because if that is what I suspect length contraction really means, then you need to re-think.

I would ask a question if it wasn't fact, however it is fact and may I suggest you think about it and why it is correct. Simultaneity makes it correct. Two observers in different reference frames will observe simultaneity of measuring time. The Caesium we already know proven by countless experiments ''runs'' at different frequencies when displaced . If Alan is on Earth and John is on planet x , they both measure time at different rates/speeds. Speed as you know is t/d , how do you suggest John and Alan time something travelling between two points, when they have different rates/speeds of time?

Ok, both John and Alan are at rest in their relative reference frames suffering from simultaneity, their Caesium standard frequency being differential to begin with, they both are using different speeds of time. M1 is not equal to m2 I can't believe somebody has clicked dislike or what ever the - is,

If you are contracting the length by subjective thinking, then nothing is different to begin with. what length are you trying to contract? I am measuring the speed light takes to travel a set distance in a vacuum, γ/dx We measure speed by t/d , I measure a faster speed of light than you do because my speed of time is slower than yours. Although I am unaware that my clock is ticking ''slower'' , when I get back , we can compare the results to see that I am correct. Observers can not agree on speed if they can not agree on the speed of time.

I have misunderstood nothing , it is a very simple contradiction to observe. May I suggest you ''listen''? Did you even consider the ''maths''? Ok let me run this by you, John at relative rest in an inertia reference frame measures time to be 1 second = 9,192,631,770 Hz Alan who is in relative motion, measures time to be 1 second = 9,192,631,760 Hz How can John and Alan both ever agree on the speed of something when d/t = speed?

Although experiment proves c to be invariant, relativity also proves c to be variant at the same time. An observer in motion with a slower frequency of time relative to an observer at relative rest in an inertia frame will measure different speeds of light due to the very fact of γ/dx=c

I already understand the relativity post you provided, I appreciate your efforts and will probably read it a few times to make sure I miss nothing. I am not arguing that there is no maths for a time dilation based on relativity etc. I repeat because obviously you are not understanding something relatively simple. Let me change the context slightly. Twin one on Earth time passes for him at an immediate rate Twin two on Venus time passes for him at an immediate rate (consider the dot whilst you consider the above) Please explain how and where there is a time dilation? when the truth is immediate rates can not dilate.

If you genuine don't understand it , why not ask in a genuine manner? The statement is not nonsensical, no offence a child could understand it. Ok try this , it may help you understand Displace the dot without leaving an immediate past: . 0 is representative of 0 time and 0 distance The point is you can not displace the dot without an immediate past, it is the exact same way with time. There is no space from moving from one moment of time to the next. So if you can imagine the two twins, one on earth and the other on another planet, they have the same dilemma. They can both agree they can displace the dot at the exact same rate or at different rates, but it would not affect the actual rate of immediate.

True, but sometimes a simple sentence is all the details we need to ''observe'' something new. My statement of logic reinforces Newton claims of absolute time.

It's better to be correct than wrong. Have you even attempted to think how you can displace 0 without creating an immediate past? Correct, but you knew what I meant so all good.

The second prediction, ridicule. There is no point me even trying to explain is there? It would not matter if I wrote an article that was as good as any paper, you will always avoid the actual question and reply with some form of poppycock. You do not like it because it bothers your ego's. Years of science to be overturned by a single sentence. Well like it or not the single sentence is fact, you can't try to force your beliefs on me when the hard facts show you are wrong.

Poppycock, again a vein attempt and again a lie. The sentence is a single line in plane English. Can anyone on this forum displace 0 without leaving a past geometrical position or past chronological position? That is understandable so stop lying in avoidance by trying to say you can't understand it. I appreciate your great effort, however again avoidance of the statement that shows time dilation is not true. I predicted this would happen. You don't seem to realise that I know what time dilation is and about, yes you are correct in that I could not do the maths required, but the point is I don't require maths for something that doe's not happen. displace 0 without leaving a past geometrical position or past chronological position You can not have a time dilation unless you can displace 0 without leaving a past If you are unsure of what 0 is, 0 is always equal to the present. 3s............2s.............1s............0 There is no forward of 0.

Take note of my earlier predictions where I predicted the post would not be answered or I would be ridiculed. As adults we discuss things, Or do I get more warning points because you can't ever hope to win a debate on that piece of logic? I think that's called wrapped up in a titanium nut shell.

Well regardless of that, do you have any thoughts on the so far undisputed logic?

Huh? no it doe's not. Time and distance have to be constant to measure a constant. Time dilation is nothing to do with time and length, time dilation is a change in output rate. You may call it a time dilation but it certainly is not a contraction of space or time. Imagine the Caesium is 0 in the statement. How does ''something'' emit without leaving an immediate past? 0. the dot is the emitted, there is a past distance travelled. Understand it doe's not matter how fast the dot travels, time will pass for 0 continuous. I do not believe continuous can have a frequency? Understand the rate of Photons ''hitting'' things is also continuous . There is no space between packets, relative to not being in shadow of course. continuous kənˈtɪnjʊəs/ adjective 1. forming an unbroken whole; without interruption.

Huh? I think the twins speak the whole of truth and I have not said my hypothesis doe's not agree with the real world. Quite the opposite. Time is much faster than 1 second a second based on the frequency of output of the Caesium atom. Hmmm different to what I read, but ok I understand. A simple question, how far away is the immediate future from 0? Added : Can anyone on this forum displace 0 without leaving a past geometrical position or past chronological position? It doe's not matter at what speed you try to displace zero, you can not displace it without leaving a past. This one piece of logic not being any magic, but being a fact. This is why we can't have a real time dilation. I believe this logic can not be challenged by anybody in the Universe and shows by the statements evident truth and postulate, that time dilation can not occur in the way we think it occurs. The forum regs will not like to try and answer this, I predict ridicule before an answer or no answers at all.

That did not really answer the question, different distances would be a variant to begin with, how do you expect to measure time correctly without using constants? The constant speed of light proves no time dilation and not the other way around like you all think. c/dx is constant and a very accurate clock.

I understand they are not substitutes, however we still measure the output. We know outputs can change by change of S., I understand Entropy is generally associated with thermodynamics. Would you agree that the rate of change observed in the Caesium output, (time dilation) is a change in the rate of output? Then please explain? How can you have different distances? that can not work out right.

Because a Plank length is distance fractionally adjoined to 0 point space, or 0 point energy if you prefer.