swansont

They were both used. The length of the second disagrees between the two frames. The frequencies do not agree with each other. Thus the elapsed time does not agree. There most decidedly was a difference in time. H-K report this in the paper they wrote. It's right there in the abstract (emphasis added) Four cesium beam clocks flown around the World on commercial jet flights during October 1971, once eastward and once westward, recorded directionally dependent time differences which are in good agreement with predictions of conventional relativity theory They used the second based on the cesium clocks, which does not agree when one of the (groups of) clocks is moving with respect to the other. One second while moving is not the same as a second for the stationary clock, just as relativity predicts. Diagrams aren't evidence. Experiments are evidence. But I've already pointed this out. An expert on time (or any area of science) should know this. The evidence is that the clocks disagreed. No amount of crappy artwork can change that. the best you can do is come up with an alternate mathematical model of why the clocks disagreed.

You claimed that this was "the only mathematical expression of the postulate of constant speed of light" The Lorentz transforms are derived in Einstein's 1905 paper, based on the invariant speed of light. They are an expression of that postulate. As is his later derivation of E=mc2 Try deriving these equations without c being invariant! That might not be proof of c being invariant, but I never claimed anything about proof, only that they are mathematical expression of it. (Though one could probably do a proof by contradiction)

You have mentioned a "wavelike connection and transaction between entangled particles" and the "interaction among entangled particles" along with "QM does not require a direct physical connection for one particle to be able to effect[sic] the condition of a remote particle if the two particles are entangled." How do these particles interact/engage in a transaction, and how does that not count as communication? When you changed my analogy, it ceased to be my analogy. It becomes your analogy. That's not a petty distinction.

That's exactly what you expect from time dilation. A moving clock returned to its starting point does not register the same amount of elapsed time as a stationary one. One clock isn't moving (in the earth-centered 'let's pretend it's inertial' reference frame), so "ticks per mm" isn't a thing. The actual experiment show there is. If your conjecture disagrees with experiment (which shows time dilation), then it is wrong. No, and for good reason; you're not. You wouldn't want to lie. I, OTOH, am considered by the US government to be a subject matter expert on atomic clocks and timekeeping. Discussing time and understanding timekeeping are two distinct things. Lots of people can bloviate. I've asked a number of questions an expert on time would have no problem answering, and yet you have not answered them. I've pointed out a number of errors you have made, so there are things you don't know.

The clocks started out synchronized and the time readouts differed after the trips. If it shows no time difference, then it doesn’t represent the experiment. Which just means it’s a crappy drawing.

You’ve completely missed the point of the analogy, and changing the analogy negates the point of analogies. All it shows is if things are different, they are not the same. It doesn’t. But it doesn’t effect the condition (or affect it); it doesn’t require communication. (and note previous comments about the limitations of analogies)

I think you could, in principle, but it would be pointless in many cases. No, IIRC non-separability does not imply entanglement, but entanglement requires non-separability. Yes. All analogies will fail at some point, because they’re classical, and we’re dealing with QM. But this, IMO, is slightly better because you have an undetermined state. It just eliminates one of the issues with the glove analogy.

It’s QM, so “object” isn’t a description one would use. The system is described by a wave function that can’t be separated into two individual wave functions.

A diagram is not evidence. Evidence is (as an example) the results of the Hafele-Keating experiment, that showed that the clocks ran at different rates Nobody (other than you) thinks that frequency is a unit of time. Sort of correct. Yes, clocks in motion were compared with clocks on the ground. That’s how you can tell if clocks ran fast or slow. A smaller frequency is why there is time dilation. The clock “ticks” at a slower rate, so there is less elapsed time. I can’t fathom the misunderstanding that leads you to conclude that a device that ticks slower would not do this, or how this is a “contradiction” It seems like a simple conclusion given the relation between time and frequency, but you do you.

There is no “transaction” or “connection” other than when the entanglement occurs. I prefer the analogy of a coin flip or toss of a standard six-sided die vs the gloves, because while it is tumbling, the state is undetermined. But when it stops and you observe the side facing you, you instantly know what’s on the opposite side. The coin or die does not need to communicate any information, because that was encoded once the object was made.

That’s not what is meant by a model OK Nobody is claiming that it is. I’ve pointed out the relationship between frequency and time already. (twice, I think) Don’t know what this is supposed to mean. Science “forgets” the very thing it’s trying to show? LOL You are really quite clueless about this. More random stuff in an image, with no explanatory power. I picture you wearing short pants and stamping your little feet while shouting this. Are you going to take your ball and go home now?

Which makes no sense, if you looked at the inside of a cesium beam clock. And yet you wrote about light traveling and being delayed in hitting the detector. So the light - which doesn’t exist - is delayed? You are, and don’t realize it. None if this is connected with dimensional analysis Einstein explained things with thought experiments, but he also wrote papers with actual equations derived from known physics, which is the actual science. Your diagram is rubbish. It conveys little useful information. You are not nearly as good at communicating as you think you are. No, this is not my fault. This is part of my area of expertise, and I’m telling you this is nonsensical.

! Moderator Note This is a discussion forum. You need to go start a blog somewhere. You are teasing things here, as if you are going to link to another site. Don’t. Please review the rules, paying special attention to the ones on soapboxing and advertising.

Again, this is a revelation only to you.

I failed to recognize them as proofs because they are not. You’ve been told this several times, and yet you seem incredibly uncurious as to what is lacking. You have a number of people familiar with, and actually trained in science who could critique your “efforts” As you have acknowledged, temperature affects all atoms’ transitions, and thus cesium is not unique, so this can’t be a consideration. The earth’s non-constant spin was apparent well before atomic clocks were invented; pendulum clocks, and later quartz clocks, were able to show this. You’re 0-for-2 (you also seem to be confusing accuracy and precision) You don’t say what the 3.24 cm refers to, and you should know that in a cesium beam clock such as a 5061 or 5071 (formerly made by HP) there is no visible light involved - the atoms are detected - and should also know that the time-of-flight to the detector doesn’t matter in the measurement. But you don’t know this, because you are way out if your depth.

turnover here is referring to changing one thing to another. It’s caused by the viruses, so it’s viral turnover. Whatever the products of the lysis are is the fertilization.

Thank you, captain obvious. That’s the standard understanding of darkness: the absence of light.

“proofs”? You’ve asserted it, with no supporting science, and I countered that assertion. You’ve not addressed what I have said in rebuttal. Your contention that some other standard could have been chosen, that would not be subject to temperature effects, contradicts this. Perhaps you can discuss the reasons cesium was chosen as the standard, to demonstrate your understanding of the issues. News flash: absolutely nobody is claiming that temperature changes control time. Except you. “field energy differences”? How, exactly, does this allegedly slow down the frequency?

All atoms are subject to the effects of temperature. Cesium is by no mean unique in this regard. Your fixation on this suggests that you don’t actually understand the issues involved The definition is for the atom at 0 K; the effects of temperature are accounted for when doing a frequency evaluation. I believe I covered this already. Earth rotation variability is much larger than the temperature effects - rotation variation is on order of milliseconds per day over the course of the year. IIRC for our rubidium fountains the effect was smaller than a part in 10^16 per degree, so maintaining the temperature to 0.1 K variation was the goal. So more than a factor of 10^10 better. One motivating factor for adopting atomic time.

I don't know what "time value added to the cesium atom" means Time positively cares about the frequency, since you "count the ticks" to tell what time is. More ticks means more time has elapsed. fewer ticks, less time.

There was a frequency change, so the accumulated time was different. The amount of time difference depends on the duration of the trip; IOW both descriptions are true and valid. But it's objective, not subjective. It's not incorrect. They frequencies disagree, and this is in accordance with the theory of relativity. Time (and frequency) are relative to the frame of reference in which they are measured.

You are free to make a compelling argument as to what this incorrect physics is, and why this is the case. But given your track record, I'm skeptical that you will do so. (I expect we will get more vague drawings) Science is also self-correcting, in the long run which is one reason why scientists have jobs.

The label is beside the point.

Funny how you never mentioned the Casimir effect, nor provided any equations related to it. Actually that second part isn't all that surprising, since the Casimir force depends on the fourth power of separation distance of the conducting plates, and is hard to see even with micron-level separations, so making it more than a million times bigger means the effect is 10^24 times smaller. And that's one reason why the math is important: so we can quickly rule out wild supposition. But you don't go through any mathematical justification whatsoever. Nada. Zilch.

! Moderator Note You need to be more explicit in step 2 (those of you familiar with Sidney Harris will get the reference)