A Time Experiment

[Greg A.]

9 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

That depends on how big your ears are... 😉

 

10 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

That depends on how big your ears are... 😉

Exactly! And how big our ass is too. 

[dimreepr]

Just now, Greg A. said:

 

Exactly! And how big our ass is too. 

Ouch, consider me burned...

[studiot]

I think you are just trolling here.

Instead of solid answers to simple questions, excuses like

On 7/20/2022 at 11:50 PM, Greg A. said:

Maybe it's my poor wordskills which are at their limit. Or that I should give anyone one lessons on something (physics) that I don't all that much about myself. 

when you are playing with words, again and again,  as here

On 7/21/2022 at 1:01 AM, Greg A. said:

That's right but the contentious issue is not time, but is instead Time which it appears does not exist.

You did not introduce two notions of time in your OP but suddenly you have Time and time   -  Why is this ?

Equally there is less wrong with your Physics skills than you make out.

You have introduced several advanced physics concepts, that you would not meet in everyday (non physics) life, in apparent answers to the points of others.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Greg A. said:

There is science used in understanding society but to make predictions about it as would be done with physics or chemistry is not possible. 

A) the transit of Venus is not about “understanding society”

B) Making predictions about society/behavior is very much possible; it would be more like gas laws, where you describe behavior of the ensemble, and not so much like mechanics, where you describe single objects.

 

1 hour ago, Greg A. said:

Time is a measure of motion through space.

It is very much not.

 

1 hour ago, Greg A. said:

It is not a thing and so does not need a medium.

Why were you claiming otherwise?

1 hour ago, Greg A. said:

If anything it is a medium as far as making measurements. 

No, it’s not a medium

1 hour ago, Greg A. said:

We is us, people, humans.

Who are these other people claiming gravity is an illusion?

1 hour ago, Greg A. said:

You don't know how to ride a bicycle?

WTF does that have to do with anything? 

 

1 hour ago, Greg A. said:

Gravity is not an illusion but it is also not a force.

Another reversal of your previous claim.

In Newtonian physics, gravity is a force. 

1 hour ago, Greg A. said:

The  moon is weightless because it has a velocity greater than earth and consequently is in a non-convergent parallel orbit. If it were slowed down it would eventually converge with earth, but that's as the two coming together rather than either falling or rising toward each other.   

The moon is weightless (to the extent that it is) because it’s in freefall, which happens in an orbit. In any non-circular orbit, the object speeds up and slows down. “velocity greater than earth” points to a profound misunderstanding of the physics involved in such motion, and orbits.

 

1 hour ago, Greg A. said:

Hours (minutes and seconds), weeks, months & years all have one thing in common. And that is they don't really have anything in common. 

You should learn about the history of timekeeping. 

1 hour ago, Greg A. said:

Whereas, (with the exception of Kelvin), one amp applied at one volt for one second (1 watt) liberates one Joule of energy, enough to raise one cubic centimeter of water weighing one gram one degree Celsius, a thousand cubic centimeters, a volume of one liter, when consisting of water weighs one kilo, one cubic meter of water weighing one metric ton, factors having everything in common with each other. 

And your point is? They’re all still chosen. 

Notice how you referred to one second - a unit of time.

[Markus Hanke]

7 hours ago, Greg A. said:

Time is a measure of motion through space.

Motion with respect to what? Motion is a relationship between frames, and not an inherent property. I’m at rest with respect to the floor I stand on, but I’m moving at nearly the speed of light with respect to the many billions of neutrinos that penetrate this body every second. Both of these are true simultaneously, so how do you define “my” time as motion through space in a consistent manner? What is your reference point? Are you advocating some kind of absolute frame? And if you do, then, if I’m at rest with respect to whatever frame you propose, will I stop experiencing time, ie will I stop ageing?

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, Markus Hanke said:

Are you advocating some kind of absolute frame? And if you do, then, if I’m at rest with respect to whatever frame you propose, will I stop experiencing time, ie will I stop ageing?

I don't get that ??

I thought, if there was an absolute reference frame, then a clock at rest in it would tick the fastest, and any clock in motion in that frame would tick slower. So if you were at rest in that frame, you would age the fastest. 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

I don't get that ??

I thought, if there was an absolute reference frame, then a clock at rest in it would tick the fastest, and any clock in motion in that frame would tick slower. So if you were at rest in that frame, you would age the fastest. 

Depends on what model you’re using. “Time is a measure of motion through space” suggests no motion = no time

[mistermack]

It's sort of stating the obvious, that if nothing moved, and therefore time stopped, then we would not age. That's happening right now. In zero time, I age zero seconds. That's not "stopping ageing". 

For time to be related to movement, you have to consider the movement of everything in the universe as your clock. And make the assumption that everything in the universe obeys the same physical rules, whether it's here, or ten billion light years from here. Basically, that spacetime behaves identically in every corner of the universe. 

That way, we can measure a time interval locally, and hence deduce that time across the universe has elapsed the same amount. 

[Markus Hanke]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Depends on what model you’re using. “Time is a measure of motion through space” suggests no motion = no time

Yes, this is what I meant.

[Greg A.]

13 hours ago, studiot said:

I think you are just trolling here.

Instead of solid answers to simple questions, excuses like

when you are playing with words, again and again,  as here

It took me years to figure out what a troll is so for that reason it's unlikely I am one. And we develop our wordskills from a young age. That said it didn't happen for me. 

13 hours ago, studiot said:

You did not introduce two notions of time in your OP but suddenly you have Time and time   -  Why is this ?

What we conceive of as time is something I don't believe exists. But there are theorists who say that it is real and we are living in a 'block universe' where past, present and future do exist.  And it had occurred to me that this might be the reason why all attempts (would need to) fail if trying to change an accurate prediction of an event occurring in the future. So in that sense I at least alluded to there possibly being a time factor involved. 

 

13 hours ago, studiot said:

Equally there is less wrong with your Physics skills than you make out.

You have introduced several advanced physics concepts, that you would not meet in everyday (non physics) life, in apparent answers to the points of others.

It's because gravity is actually easy to visualize as an effect it can be understood by someone like me who does not know much about physics . 

 

 

[Greg A.]

20 hours ago, swansont said:

A) the transit of Venus is not about “understanding society”

It's not. But it is a reliable event set to occur in the future. In that sense it relates to a prediction I make. Which too is also something pretty much unstoppable, but for less physical reasons. I'd chosen the Transit of Venus only because it is also set to happen within 100 years. 

20 hours ago, swansont said:

B) Making predictions about society/behavior is very much possible; it would be more like gas laws, where you describe behavior of the ensemble, and not so much like mechanics, where you describe single objects.

Sure but these in effect would be generalizations. For example we can't predict who will win an election with anywhere near accuracy. 

20 hours ago, swansont said:

 

It is very much not.

 

Time is the fourth dimension and as such is what keeps us stuck to the ground (in a comfortable way). It exists because we are traveling (motion) at the same rate as earth through space. 

20 hours ago, swansont said:

Why were you claiming otherwise?

I didn't. Maybe there has been a misunderstanding. 

20 hours ago, swansont said:

No, it’s not a medium

I don't believe so either. But accept I may be wrong. 

20 hours ago, swansont said:

Who are these other people claiming gravity is an illusion?

Only flat earthers (need to) argue that gravity is a force. 

20 hours ago, swansont said:

WTF does that have to do with anything? 

I'd thought your question "who is we" was in response to me at one point saying, "So, if 'we' were to start pedaling our bikes". 

 

20 hours ago, swansont said:

Another reversal of your previous claim.

No reversals ever. 

20 hours ago, swansont said:

In Newtonian physics, gravity is a force. 

You've got that right 

20 hours ago, swansont said:

The moon is weightless (to the extent that it is) because it’s in freefall, which happens in an orbit. In any non-circular orbit, the object speeds up and slows down. “velocity greater than earth” points to a profound misunderstanding of the physics involved in such motion, and orbits.

You've got a little bit of this right. The earth is forever falling while at the same time never falling. That is there is no 'down' factor. The moon orbits the sun along with the earth, but because it also has its own orbit it velocity is greater than that of  the earth. And it's this velocity that keeps it on a non-convergent parallel we call an orbit. 

 

20 hours ago, swansont said:

You should learn about the history of timekeeping. 

Timekeeping is fine as long as we see 'Time' for what it is and that's everyday motion when compared to degrees of rotation of the earth and not some big clock in the sky ticking over. 

 

That is the time our clocks measure has no direction. 

 

 

20 hours ago, swansont said:

And your point is? They’re all still chosen. 

The point was that if you'd chosen 'Celsius' as the measure instead of Kelvin, then you had the near complete metric system covered. The meter and the amp where poor choices as part of an argument from your position. 

Hours (minutes and seconds) represent fractions of the earth's rotation. Weeks phases of the moon. Months orbits of the moon. Years orbits of the earth. Centuries, years x 100 etc. All are measures that do not relate to each other in any way what so ever. Got it!

20 hours ago, swansont said:

Notice how you referred to one second - a unit of time.

One second is 1/60th of a minute. Units on a scale of motion as the earth turns. Not any duration of anything else directly. 

16 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Motion with respect to what? Motion is a relationship between frames, and not an inherent property. I’m at rest with respect to the floor I stand on, but I’m moving at nearly the speed of light with respect to the many billions of neutrinos that penetrate this body every second. Both of these are true simultaneously, so how do you define “my” time as motion through space in a consistent manner? What is your reference point? Are you advocating some kind of absolute frame? And if you do, then, if I’m at rest with respect to whatever frame you propose, will I stop experiencing time, ie will I stop ageing?

The earth occupies a position in time due to its (our) velocity. The earth is in motion through space. 

13 hours ago, swansont said:

Depends on what model you’re using. “Time is a measure of motion through space” suggests no motion = no time

That makes two rights in a row. Well done. 

[swansont]

13 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

 

Time … is what keeps us stuck to the ground (in a comfortable way). It exists because we are traveling (motion) at the same rate as earth through space. 

Repeating this does not make it true.

 

13 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

Only flat earthers (need to) argue that gravity is a force. 

Or anybody that has studied Newtonian physics

13 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

I'd thought your question "who is we" was in response to me at one point saying, "So, if 'we' were to start pedaling our bikes". 

No, it was in response to “We conclude gravity(a product of time) as a force is an illusion” and the way you could tell is that in the very next sentence, I made it clear that this was what I was asking about.

 

13 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

No reversals ever. 

I’d document this, but frankly you’re just not worth the effort

13 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

 

You've got a little bit of this right.

More than a little.

13 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

The earth is forever falling while at the same time never falling. That is there is no 'down' factor. The moon orbits the sun along with the earth, but because it also has its own orbit it velocity is greater than that of  the earth. And it's this velocity that keeps it on a non-convergent parallel we call an orbit. 

And you got a lot wrong. (you admit to not knowing physics, so one might wonder where the confidence that you know what you’re talking about comes from)

 

13 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

Timekeeping is fine as long as we see 'Time' for what it is and that's everyday motion when compared to degrees of rotation of the earth and not some big clock in the sky ticking over. 

Timekeeping hasn’t been based on earth rotation for 50 years, and the notion that there is some universal time went out the window more than 100 years ago.

 

13 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

That is the time our clocks measure has no direction. 

Forward, not backward.If you don’t think so, post a response to this yesterday

 

13 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

 

The point was that if you'd chosen 'Celsius' as the measure instead of Kelvin, then you had the near complete metric system covered. The meter and the amp where poor choices as part of an argument from your position. 

I chose SI units. The length of a meter is arbitrary, as is the number of charges that make up a coulomb of charge, and also the length of the second. Units are a convention, used for convenience.

13 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

Hours (minutes and seconds) represent fractions of the earth's rotation. Weeks phases of the moon. Months orbits of the moon. Years orbits of the earth. Centuries, years x 100 etc. All are measures that do not relate to each other in any way what so ever. Got it!

The length of a solar day isn’t constant, which is why it was discarded and replaced by the mean solar day. But that’s not constant, either. The length of an hour was also variable in some timekeeping systems, where there were always 12 hours of sunlight and 12 of darkness. It’s interesting stuff.

 

[Greg A.]

On 7/24/2022 at 6:00 AM, Markus Hanke said:

Motion with respect to what? Motion is a relationship between frames, and not an inherent property. I’m at rest with respect to the floor I stand on, but I’m moving at nearly the speed of light with respect to the many billions of neutrinos that penetrate this body every second. Both of these are true simultaneously, so how do you define “my” time as motion through space in a consistent manner? What is your reference point? Are you advocating some kind of absolute frame? And if you do, then, if I’m at rest with respect to whatever frame you propose, will I stop experiencing time, ie will I stop ageing?

The reference point would need to be the black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy. As our motion relates to that primarily. No absolute frame is needed. 

[Greg A.]

15 hours ago, swansont said:

Repeating this does not make it true.

Denying it does not make it  false. You would need to argue why it is not true otherwise it stands. Same goes for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. 

 

15 hours ago, swansont said:

Or anybody that has studied Newtonian physics

 

Newton wasn't to know that gravity is not a force. 

15 hours ago, swansont said:

No, it was in response to “We conclude gravity(a product of time) as a force is an illusion” and the way you could tell is that in the very next sentence, I made it clear that this was what I was asking about.

Sure and it was a mistake on my part but it still does not change anything. 

15 hours ago, swansont said:

 

I’d document this, but frankly you’re just not worth the effort. 

Arrogance won't win you the argument. 

15 hours ago, swansont said:

More than a little.

You argue the one thing Newton got wrong. 

15 hours ago, swansont said:

And you got a lot wrong. (you admit to not knowing physics, so one might wonder where the confidence that you know what you’re talking about comes from)

My prediction relates to time so I do need to know a little bit about it. 

15 hours ago, swansont said:

 

Timekeeping hasn’t been based on earth rotation for 50 years, and the notion that there is some universal time went out the window more than 100 years ago.

Hours, minutes & seconds are units of the earth's rotation that has not changed. If it were different then the hours in the day would get out of sync. 

15 hours ago, swansont said:

 

Forward, not backward.If you don’t think so, post a response to this yesterday

Yesterday, like tomorrow, is a concept. The earth rotates continuously, there are no breaks signifying days. 

15 hours ago, swansont said:

 

I chose SI units. The length of a meter is arbitrary, as is the number of charges that make up a coulomb of charge, and also the length of the second. Units are a convention, used for convenience.

There is nothing arbitrary about the length of a meter, because as I'd pointed out the kilo, the Joule, and the amp are linked to it. 

15 hours ago, swansont said:

The length of a solar day isn’t constant, which is why it was discarded and replaced by the mean solar day. But that’s not constant, either. The length of an hour was also variable in some timekeeping systems, where there were always 12 hours of sunlight and 12 of darkness. It’s interesting stuff.

 

Sure, but these still relate to the rotation of the earth and are not units of time as we perceive of it.  It is interesting true, and I'd figured maybe we have a two part day as the only way for the ancients to start the cycles is at midday when the sun is at its highest point. A place it is regardless of the seasons? 

[Ghideon]

On 7/21/2022 at 3:42 AM, Greg A. said:

The medium for time is velocity, but there is no medium for Time as it is an illusion generated by motion (that's other than our 'shared' velocity). 

 

On 7/23/2022 at 2:39 PM, Greg A. said:

Time is a measure of motion through space.

Let's assume a sample of a radioactive isotope at rest at a temperature of 0 K*. The half-life of the isotope depends on time, as far as I know, not any movement. This seems to contradict your claims above, can you clarify?

 

*) Absolute zero. The isotope could for instance be sodium-26

[Markus Hanke]

3 hours ago, Greg A. said:

The reference point would need to be the black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy. As our motion relates to that primarily. No absolute frame is needed. 

So if I’m at rest with respect to that black hole, I won’t experience time (ie I will stop ageing)? Is that what you are saying?

[Greg A.]

10 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

 

Let's assume a sample of a radioactive isotope at rest at a temperature of 0 K*. The half-life of the isotope depends on time, as far as I know, not any movement. This seems to contradict your claims above, can you clarify?

 

*) Absolute zero. The isotope could for instance be sodium-26

I can see your point. And as I don't know all that much about physics I'd say that as there is no movement involved then there can be no accurate prediction and therefor what leads up to its decay is part of the quantum realm? 

5 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

So if I’m at rest with respect to that black hole, I won’t experience time (ie I will stop ageing)? Is that what you are saying?

These questions are difficult for someone who knows little about physics but I'd say the only way you can be at rest in relation to a black hole would be if you were in one. I mean if you knew where one was you'd need to be in an orbit with it (as we all are). 

[Markus Hanke]

8 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

These questions are difficult for someone who knows little about physics

But you are the one who made that claim in the first place? If you can’t answer this, what do you base your claims on?

9 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

I'd say the only way you can be at rest in relation to a black hole would be if you were in one

No, the opposite is true - once you cross the event horizon, there are no longer any stationary frames.

You can be at rest with respect to the BH by locating yourself along its axis of rotation, and firing your thrusters until you hover above the horizon. You’d be stationary there (no orbiting, no in-fall).

[Greg A.]

Here's the test:

1. The moon does not fall down to earth because it is held in place by what?

2. It does not fly of on a tangent because it is held in place by what?

3. Both questions can not have the same answer obviously.  

4. Centrifugal force is the answer if a great big mechanical tether can be pointed to. 

11 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

But you are the one who made that claim in the first place? If you can’t answer this, what do you base your claims on?

No, the opposite is true - once you cross the event horizon, there are no longer any stationary frames.

Then the answer is there is no rest frame. And I'm not to know this thing is as I'd pointed out. 

11 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

You can be at rest with respect to the BH by locating yourself along its axis of rotation, and firing your thrusters until you hover above the horizon. You’d be stationary there (no orbiting, no in-fall).

Hardly. You would be subject to a lot of inertia manifested as gravity/time. 

[Intoscience]

32 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

1. The moon does not fall down to earth because it is held in place by what?

Velocity & Gravity

 

32 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

2. It does not fly of on a tangent because it is held in place by what?

Gravity 

 

32 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

3. Both questions can not have the same answer obviously.

The moon is constantly falling towards the earth due to the mutual gravitational attraction, but due to its velocity it constantly "falls past" the earth. this is basically how orbits work

 

32 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

4. Centrifugal force is the answer if a great big mechanical tether can be pointed to

No need for a mechanical tether, there already is one, its a force called gravity

On 7/23/2022 at 9:00 PM, Markus Hanke said:

Motion with respect to what? Motion is a relationship between frames, and not an inherent property. I’m at rest with respect to the floor I stand on, but I’m moving at nearly the speed of light with respect to the many billions of neutrinos that penetrate this body every second. Both of these are true simultaneously, so how do you define “my” time as motion through space in a consistent manner? What is your reference point? Are you advocating some kind of absolute frame? And if you do, then, if I’m at rest with respect to whatever frame you propose, will I stop experiencing time, ie will I stop ageing?

I find time and its relationships to frames all very fascinating. I wonder, when we consider motion to be a relationship between different frames does this apply also to the "motion" of vibrating subatomic particles or strings in string theory for example?  So say we had a particle/string that was at true absolute zero temperature, sat in empty space with no other point of reference, and there was never any change in it's state, would the particle still experience time? How would time be measured (could it be measured) in this scenario? 

I'm guessing that the simple answer to this is that such a particle/string could not exist there by making the question moot?  

Edited July 25, 2022 by Intoscience

[Greg A.]

6 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Velocity & Gravity

Wrong! The moon is weightless in its orbit, having velocity it would continue on in a tangent. 

6 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Gravity 

Wrong! If the moon were subject to gravity (was not weightless) it would collide with earth. 

6 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

The moon is constantly falling towards the earth due to the mutual gravitational attraction, but due to its velocity it constantly "falls past" the earth. this is basically how orbits work. 

Wrong! The moon is not falling, because for it to fall would require a force this combined with its velocity would cause a massive impact. 

 

 

6 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

 

6 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

 

No need for a mechanical tether, there already is one, its a force called gravity

Gravity does not exist. It is only an effect we 'see' when we drop something for example. 

Sorry, but you have failed the test.

Next!

[Intoscience]

36 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

Wrong! The moon is weightless in its orbit, having velocity it would continue on in a tangent.

Do your know what an orbit is and the mechanics of how they work for bodies in outer space?

 

36 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

Wrong! If the moon were subject to gravity (was not weightless) it would collide with earth.

Do you understand the difference between "weight" and "mass"

 

36 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

Wrong! The moon is not falling, because for it to fall would require a force this combined with its velocity would cause a massive impact.

Well if the orbital velocity of the moon slowed down to a speed where it would not then miss the earth as it falls then yeah there would be a massive impact for sure.  

36 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

Gravity does not exist. It is only an effect we 'see' when we drop something for example.

So what causes something to "drop"? If there are no forces or force of gravity in this instance, then why and how do things attract each other? 

36 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

Sorry, but you have failed the test

I guess I should go back to school then

Edited July 25, 2022 by Intoscience

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Greg A. said:

These questions are difficult for someone who knows little about physics

And yet you seem quite comfortable telling people who do know more than a little about physics that they are wrong, and continue to make some outlandish claims without supporting them.

This is contrary to the rules - speculations must be supported by a model and/or evidence.

3 hours ago, Greg A. said:

There is nothing arbitrary about the length of a meter, because as I'd pointed out the kilo, the Joule, and the amp are linked to it. 

But you could increase the length of the meter and adjust other units, and everything would still work.

The length of the meter's tie into the other units is a fairly recent development. Like the kilogram, it used to be based on a physical artifact (in this case a platinum-iridium bar) and it's only with advances in technology that we've been able to make these connections with other standards. The meter was later defined in terms of the wavelength of a transition in Kr-86, and then was defined in terms of the speed of light and the second (which is defined in terms of a transition in Cs-133)

 

3 hours ago, Greg A. said:

Denying it does not make it  false. You would need to argue why it is not true otherwise it stands. Same goes for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. 

You're the one making the claims, which means you own the burden of proof. You have to show that time depends on motion.

And I've already shown your claim about "traveling at the same rate as earth" to be false. That you ignored it doesn't mean that it's not there.

[Greg A.]

6 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Do your know what an orbit is and the mechanics of how they work for bodies in outer space?

I do, but what I believe goes wrong is that we use centrifugal force as the model when we visualize an orbit. We see an invisible tether when there isn't one. 

 

6 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Do you understand the difference between "weight" and "mass"

I'd had it pointed out to me when I was a boy that everything may weigh on 1/6th on the moon but a ball will still hit you as hard, as its mass is still the same. So yes I've understood that for over 50 years. 

6 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

 

Well if the orbital velocity of the moon slowed down to a speed where it would not then miss the earth as it falls then yeah there would be a massive impact for sure.  

The reality is that the moon orbits the earth in a parallel line that only appear curved due to earth's mass distorting spacetime. The moon's 'time' due to its greater velocity is above the earth's horizon. Our 'time' is with earth's consequently it aligns with earth's center. Unlike the moon's our velocity as we attempt to take what is a converging parallel is obstructed by the earth's surface creating the illusion of there being an attractive force. 

 

6 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

So what causes something to "drop"? if there is no gravity then why do things attract each other? 

We share the same velocity as earth, so we share the same path in time. It is the velocity we travel through in a converging parallel that is being seen when something falls. No gravity needed just a common velocity and a mass sufficient to distort spacetime so as to have a common center we all head for.  

31 minutes ago, swansont said:

And yet you seem quite comfortable telling people who do know more than a little about physics that they are wrong, and continue to make some outlandish claims without supporting them.

This is contrary to the rules - speculations must be supported by a model and/or evidence.

I accept those rules. But there is no speculation as these things are scientific facts. Einstein showed that gravity is not a force but is instead things with similar velocities sharing the same time frame and consequently needing to converge (time being a single dimension). 

31 minutes ago, swansont said:

But you could increase the length of the meter and adjust other units, and everything would still work.

You could and would have to. 

31 minutes ago, swansont said:

The length of the meter's tie into the other units is a fairly recent development. Like the kilogram, it used to be based on a physical artifact (in this case a platinum-iridium bar) and it's only with advances in technology that we've been able to make these connections with other standards. The meter was later defined in terms of the wavelength of a transition in Kr-86, and then was defined in terms of the speed of light and the second (which is defined in terms of a transition in Cs-133)

Good research, but a meter gives us a liter gives us a kilogram. 

31 minutes ago, swansont said:

You're the one making the claims, which means you own the burden of proof. You have to show that time depends on motion.

And I've already shown your claim about "traveling at the same rate as earth" to be false. That you ignored it doesn't mean that it's not there.

We travel through space at the same rate as earth. If we were slower we would be left behind, if we were faster we would be in orbit. If we were really fast we would still travel in parallel but on regular non-converging non-curved (straight) lines as we eventually leave the earth's mass distortion of spacetime. 

[Intoscience]

1 hour ago, Greg A. said:

The reality is that the moon orbits the earth in a parallel line that only appear curved due to earth's mass distorting spacetime

You can model gravity using both Newtonian (gravity as a force) or GR which models spacetime geometrically, both are the accepted models in mainstream physics. Using GR the Earth warps space-time around it like all massive objects do, the greater the mass the greater the warping. To escape this warping then an object requires a velocity, the velocity required depends on the amount of warping. An orbit happens in basic terms when the velocity and the gravity (warping) balance out, i.e. where the escape velocity is not enough to completely escape the gravitational attraction (warping), however at the same time the gravity (warping) is not great  enough to pull the object all the way to the centre of mass so you kind of get an equilibrium creating an orbit. You can easily imagine this as a sort of tether between the Earth and moon, gravity being the tether. 

But I suspect you know this already, since you seem to play dumb when it suits, so what is the point you are trying to make? or rather what is you argument regarding time? 

Edited July 25, 2022 by Intoscience
spelling