Time dilation or a change of frequency ?

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Ned said:

I have re-drawn the model to show you where science are going wrong .

That’s not what is meant by a model

 

2 hours ago, Ned said:

''Frequency is the number of occurrences of a repeating event per unit of time. ''

OK

2 hours ago, Ned said:

Frequency can't be a unit of time ,period .

Nobody is claiming that it is. I’ve pointed out the relationship between frequency and time already. (twice, I think)

 

2 hours ago, Ned said:

You can't have frequency is the number of occurrences of a repeating frequency .

Don’t know what this is supposed to mean.

 

2 hours ago, Ned said:

Added - Science forgets that the frequency of the clock in motion is being measured by the ground state clock at rest . The second being defined to the clock at rest . 

Science “forgets” the very thing it’s trying to show? LOL

You are really quite clueless about this.

 

2 hours ago, Ned said:

More random stuff in an image, with no explanatory power.

1 hour ago, Ned said:

The Caesium in motion frequency was measured by the clock at rest , end of argument , I win this debate .  

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?

[Ned]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

 

 

 

 

More random stuff in an image, with no explanatory power.

 

We are discussing time dilation and I provided a diagram of the process that is counter evidence against sciences claim of a time dilation . The diagram clearly shows there is no time dilation as time one is equal to time two t=t' . 

It additionally shows that frequency one is not equal to frequency two f1≠f2 . 

If you recall frequency is the amount of occurences over a unit of time , you can't use frequency as a unit of time . 

In the Haffele and Keating experiment the clock in motions measure of frequency was measured by the stationary clock , the defined unit of 1 second . 

Additional contradiction , the observer using the clock in motion claims time slowed down , so factually they are claiming less frequency over less time which demonstrates no time dilation and contradiciton .  

 

 

Edited September 21, 2022 by Ned

[MigL]

5 minutes ago, Ned said:

The diagram clearly shows there is no time dilation as time one is equal to time two t=t' . 

So, if I draw a picture where the two timelines are unequal, that will be proof that there is time dilation ???
If it wasn't so sad, I'd be laughing.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Are you going to take your ball and go home now?

One can only hope ...

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Ned said:

We are discussing time dilation and I provided a diagram of the process that is counter evidence against sciences claim of a time dilation . The diagram clearly shows there is no time dilation as time one is equal to time two t=t' . 

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 

2 hours ago, Ned said:

It additionally shows that frequency one is not equal to frequency two f1≠f2 . 

If you recall frequency is the amount of occurences over a unit of time , you can't use frequency as a unit of time . 

Nobody (other than you) thinks that frequency is a unit of time.

 

2 hours ago, Ned said:

 

In the Haffele and Keating experiment the clock in motions measure of frequency was measured by the stationary clock , the defined unit of 1 second . 

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.

 

2 hours ago, Ned said:

Additional contradiction , the observer using the clock in motion claims time slowed down , so factually they are claiming less frequency over less time which demonstrates no time dilation and contradiciton .  

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.

[Ned]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

So, if I draw a picture where the two timelines are unequal, that will be proof that there is time dilation ???
If it wasn't so sad, I'd be laughing.

One can only hope ...

In the Hafele and Keating experiment the time lines weren't unequal , that is the problem .  If you drew unequal lines , you wouldn't be drawing that experiment . 

moderator - 

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.

 

Clock in motion : frequency over 1.s 

Clock at rest :frequency over 1.s 

Wheres the time difference ? 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

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 

 

 

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.

 

 

Clock in motion : frequency over 1.s 

Clock at rest :frequency over 1.s 

Wheres the time difference ?

The diagram shows no difference of time and my explanation , explains why . 

[swansont]

47 minutes ago, Ned said:

In the Hafele and Keating experiment the time lines weren't unequal , that is the problem .  If you drew unequal lines , you wouldn't be drawing that experiment . 

The clocks started out synchronized and the time readouts differed after the trips.

 

47 minutes ago, Ned said:

 

Clock in motion : frequency over 1.s 

Clock at rest :frequency over 1.s 

Wheres the time difference ? 

Clock in motion : frequency over 1.s 

Clock at rest :frequency over 1.s 

Wheres the time difference ?

The diagram shows no difference of time and my explanation , explains why . 

If it shows no time difference, then it doesn’t represent the experiment. Which just means it’s a crappy drawing.

[Ned]

43 minutes ago, swansont said:

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.

It shows frequency difference which is exactly what the experiment showed . 

You said ''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.'' 

Can't you see the implications of this ? 

Lets use ticks , it's easier to explain . 

The clock on the ground ticked 10 ticks , the clock in motion ticked 9 ticks compared to the ground clock . 

The clock on the ground and the clock in motion , both experience 10 ticks have passed . 

Ground clock 10/10Ticks

Clock in motion 9/10Ticks

No time dilation . 

 

43 minutes ago, swansont said:

The clocks started out synchronized and the time readouts differed after the trips.

 

 

If there is ten ticks in a mm and we both start to travel synchronised at c for 1mm , you haven't travelled 9 ticks whilst I travelled 10 . 

That is why d/t also proves there is no time dilation. 

Added - Starting at x0 , x0+x0=x1 of history . 

The rate of history (time) is actually instant as my math shows . There is no space or time between increments that can dilate . The time line of history is a continuos unbroken line that consists of points . A present point in time changes instantly to the next point , that is how time works . 

Did I say I was pretty much an expert on time ? 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 21, 2022 by Ned

[iNow]

53 minutes ago, Ned said:

Did I say I was pretty much an expert on time ? 

If you did, then we can add liar to the list of valid descriptors of you (alongside time wasting asshat). 

Edited September 22, 2022 by iNow

[Ned]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

If you did, then we can add liar to the list of valid descriptors of you (alongside time wasting asshat). 

I'm not a liar , I have spent years of time discussing time . There isn't anything I don't know about time which makes me an expert . 

Time isn't exactly a difficult subject ! 

Anyway , better things to do than replying to your trolling . 

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, Ned said:

I don't know about time

Agreed 

[Ned]

8 hours ago, iNow said:

Agreed 

You can keep testing me and I'll just prove you wrong ! 

 

[Ghideon]

I have interpreted your diagram and correlated to the predictive power of your claims, seems there is some parts missing. But a simple logical extension to the right would clarify the meaning of "future position":

 

[swansont]

11 hours ago, Ned said:

It shows frequency difference which is exactly what the experiment showed . 

You said ''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.'' 

Can't you see the implications of this ? 

Lets use ticks , it's easier to explain . 

The clock on the ground ticked 10 ticks , the clock in motion ticked 9 ticks compared to the ground clock . 

The clock on the ground and the clock in motion , both experience 10 ticks have passed . 

Ground clock 10/10Ticks

Clock in motion 9/10Ticks

No time dilation . 

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.

 

11 hours ago, Ned said:

If there is ten ticks in a mm and we both start to travel synchronised at c for 1mm , you haven't travelled 9 ticks whilst I travelled 10 . 

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.

11 hours ago, Ned said:

That is why d/t also proves there is no time dilation. 

The actual experiment show there is.

 

11 hours ago, Ned said:

Added - Starting at x0 , x0+x0=x1 of history . 

The rate of history (time) is actually instant as my math shows . There is no space or time between increments that can dilate . The time line of history is a continuos unbroken line that consists of points . A present point in time changes instantly to the next point , that is how time works . 

If your conjecture disagrees with experiment (which shows time dilation), then it is wrong.

 

11 hours ago, Ned said:

Did I say I was pretty much an expert on time ? 

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.

10 hours ago, Ned said:

I'm not a liar , I have spent years of time discussing time . There isn't anything I don't know about time which makes me an expert . 

Time isn't exactly a difficult subject ! 

 

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.

 

[Ned]

34 minutes ago, swansont said:

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.

 

 

 

This is where you are incorrect because the clock in motion wasn't used to measure the elapsed time , the clock at rest was . 

The clock in motion measured less frequency over 1.s 

The clock at rest measured more frequency over 1.s 

Both clocks were measured using the clock at rest second , there is no disagreement on time because both clocks used 1 second based on the clock at rest . 

You aren't seeing this evidential point I'm making but rather instead resort back to the Hafelle and Keating alleged evidence . Evidence which I have provided counter evidence against . 

 

Quote

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.[/quote]

 

I thought I had answered all your questions , I guess you must have not recognised them as an answer . In the future I will be more considerate and quote your questions . 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 22, 2022 by Ned

[swansont]

13 hours ago, Ned said:

 

This is where you are incorrect because the clock in motion wasn't used to measure the elapsed time , the clock at rest was . 

Clock in motion : frequency over 1.s 

Clock at rest :frequency over 1.s 

Wheres the time difference ? 

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.

Quote

 

Both clocks were measured using the clock at rest second , there is no disagreement on time because both clocks used 1 second based on the clock at rest . 

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.

Quote

You aren't seeing this evidential point I'm making but rather instead resort back to the Hafelle and Keating alleged evidence . Evidence which I have provided counter evidence against .

 

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.

[Ned]

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

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.

 

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.

Firstly if both clocks were used to measure time , the clock in motions claim is less frequency in less time . Therefore self contradicting . 

I gave an alternate correct ''math'' model before . 

Δf∝ΔU  Change of frequency is proportional to a change of internal energy 

No subjective added time value required ! 

This can be proven by simply changing the  Enthalpy 

Enthalpy /ˈɛnθəlpi/, a property of a thermodynamic system, is the sum of the system's internal energy and the product of its pressure and volume. It is a state function used in many measurements in chemical, biological, and physical systems at a constant pressure, which is conveniently provided by the large ambient atmosphere. The pressure–volume term expresses the work required to establish the system's physical dimensions, i.e. to make room for it by displacing its surroundings. The pressure-volume term is very small for solids and liquids at common conditions, and fairly small for gases. Therefore, enthalpy is a stand-in for energy in chemical systems; bond, lattice, solvation and other "energies" in chemistry are actually enthalpy differences. As a state function, enthalpy depends only on the final configuration of internal energy, pressure, and volume, not on the path taken to achieve it.

[Phi for All]

18 hours ago, Ned said:

We are discussing time dilation and I provided a diagram of the process that is counter evidence against sciences claim of a time dilation .

!

Moderator Note

Non-mainstream ideas must be discussed in Speculations. You don't have the evidence to explain your ideas in a way that satisfies our rules on speculations. You've also dug in your heels in your ignorance and now consider yourself an expert on time. In science discussion, we need to know that the people involved are capable of accepting what mainstream science has discovered and considers the most supported explanations for various phenomena. You keep insisting you're right, and you don't know enough science to see you're wrong.

You should go somewhere else and start a blog. You can't stay here with your approach to knowledge, it's too destructive and detrimental. Goodbye.