Where is the universe hiding its missing mass?

February 15, 2019, Chandra X-ray Center
Credit: Chandra X-ray Center

Astronomers have spent decades looking for something that sounds like it would be hard to miss: about a third of the "normal" matter in the Universe. New results from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory may have helped them locate this elusive expanse of missing matter.

From independent, well-established observations, scientists have confidently calculated how much normal matter—meaning hydrogen, helium and other elements—existed just after the Big Bang. In the time between the first few minutes and the first billion years or so, much of the normal matter made its way into cosmic dust, gas and objects such as stars and planets that telescopes can see in the present-day Universe.

The problem is that when astronomers add up the mass of all the normal matter in the present-day Universe about a third of it can't be found. (This missing matter is distinct from the still-mysterious .)

One idea is that the missing mass gathered into gigantic strands or filaments of warm (temperature less than 100,000 Kelvin) and hot (temperature greater than 100,000 Kelvin) gas in intergalactic space. These filaments are known by as the "warm-hot intergalactic medium" or WHIM. They are invisible to optical light telescopes, but some of the warm gas in filaments has been detected in ultraviolet light.

Using a , researchers have found new and strong evidence for the hot component of the WHIM based on data from Chandra and other telescopes.

"If we find this missing mass, we can solve one of the biggest conundrums in astrophysics," said Orsolya Kovacs of the Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian (CfA) in Cambridge, Massachusetts. "Where did the universe stash so much of its matter that makes up stuff like stars and planets and us?"

Astronomers used Chandra to look for and study filaments of warm gas lying along the path to a quasar, a bright source of X-rays powered by a rapidly growing supermassive black hole. This quasar is located about 3.5 billion light years from Earth. If the WHIM's hot gas component is associated with these filaments, some of the X-rays from the quasar would be absorbed by that hot gas. Therefore, they looked for a signature of hot gas imprinted in the quasar's X-ray light detected by Chandra.

Light Path (Credit: NASA/CXC/K. Williamson, Springel et al.

One of the challenges of this method is that the signal of absorption by the WHIM is weak compared to the total amount of X-rays coming from the quasar. When searching the entire spectrum of X-rays at different wavelengths, it is difficult to distinguish such weak absorption features—actual signals of the WHIM—from random fluctuations.

Kovacs and her team overcame this problem by focusing their search only on certain parts of the X-ray light spectrum, reducing the likelihood of false positives. They did this by first identifying galaxies near the line of sight to the quasar that are located at the same distance from Earth as regions of warm gas detected from ultraviolet data. With this technique they identified 17 possible filaments between the quasar and us, and obtained their distances.

Because of the expansion of the universe, which stretches out light as it travels, any absorption of X-rays by matter in these filaments will be shifted to redder wavelengths. The amounts of the shifts depend on the known distances to the filament, so the team knew where to search in the spectrum for absorption from the WHIM.

"Our technique is similar in principle to how you might conduct an efficient search for animals in the vast plains of Africa," said Akos Bogdan, a co-author also from CfA. "We know that animals need to drink, so it makes sense to search around watering holes first."

While narrowing their search helped, the researchers also had to overcome the problem of the faintness of the X-ray absorption. So, they boosted the signal by adding spectra together from 17 filaments, turning a 5.5-day-long observation into the equivalent of almost 100 days' worth of data. With this technique they detected oxygen with characteristics suggesting it was in a gas with a temperature of about one million degrees Kelvin.

By extrapolating from these observations of oxygen to the full set of elements, and from the observed region to the local universe, the researchers report they can account for the complete amount of missing matter. At least in this particular case, the missing matter had been hiding in the WHIM after all.

"We were thrilled that we were able to track down some of this missing matter" said co-author Randall Smith, also of CfA. "In the future we can apply this same method to other quasar data to confirm that this long-standing mystery has at last been cracked."

A paper describing these results was published in the Astrophysical Journal on February 13, 2019.

Explore further: Researchers find last of universe's missing ordinary matter

More information: Orsolya E. Kovacs et al. Detection of the Missing Baryons toward the Sightline of H1821+643. arXiv:1812.04625 [astro-ph.CO]. arxiv.org/abs/1812.04625

Related Stories

X-ray discovery points to location of missing matter

May 11, 2010

Using observations with NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and ESA's XMM-Newton, astronomers have announced a robust detection of a vast reservoir of intergalactic gas about 400 million light years from Earth. This discovery ...

Distant quasar illuminates a filament of the cosmic web

January 19, 2014

Astronomers have discovered a distant quasar illuminating a vast nebula of diffuse gas, revealing for the first time part of the network of filaments thought to connect galaxies in a cosmic web. Researchers at the University ...

Recommended for you

A decade on, smartphone-like software finally heads to space

March 20, 2019

Once a traditional satellite is launched into space, its physical hardware and computer software stay mostly immutable for the rest of its existence as it orbits the Earth, even as the technology it serves on the ground continues ...

Tiny 'water bears' can teach us about survival

March 20, 2019

Earth's ultimate survivors can weather extreme heat, cold, radiation and even the vacuum of space. Now the U.S. military hopes these tiny critters called tardigrades can teach us about true toughness.

Researchers find hidden proteins in bacteria

March 20, 2019

Scientists at the University of Illinois at Chicago have developed a way to identify the beginning of every gene—known as a translation start site or a start codon—in bacterial cell DNA with a single experiment and, through ...

Turn off a light, save a life, says new study

March 20, 2019

We all know that turning off lights and buying energy-efficient appliances affects our financial bottom line. Now, according to a new study by University of Wisconsin-Madison researchers, we know that saving energy also saves ...

754 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

beeds
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 15, 2019
Maybe the missing mass is somehow related to the kinetic energy of the stuff we can see?
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (26) Feb 15, 2019
Welcome to the Plasma Universe, where the cosmic web of electric currents drive the largest scales processes just as they do all the way down.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (21) Feb 15, 2019
Welcome to the Plasma Universe, where the cosmic web of electric currents drive the largest scales processes just as they do all the way down.


Dead hypothesis, long since debunked.
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (23) Feb 15, 2019
Except for the confirmation afforded by numerous observations, such as the above article.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (21) Feb 15, 2019
Except for the confirmation afforded by numerous observations, such as the above article.


Nope. Nothing to do with PC woo.
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (22) Feb 15, 2019
Everything to do with PC as the cosmic web is an explicit prediction of the theory. The cosmic web hes no place in standard guesswork, only ad hoc a posteriori epicycles were conjured up to fit it to observation. As usual.
jonesdave
3.6 / 5 (23) Feb 15, 2019
Everything to do with PC as the cosmic web is an explicit prediction of the theory. The cosmic web hes no place in standard guesswork, only ad hoc a posteriori epicycles were conjured up to fit it to observation. As usual.


Wrong. The predictions of WHIM in filamentary structures in the galactic halo is a direct result of modelling. And those observations match the models very well. And those models that predict the distribution use dark matter. Without it, the models fail. In the PC woo, there is no DM halo, and they have no model.
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (18) Feb 15, 2019
This is pretty good confirmation of the WHIM, at the column concentration needed to explain the missing baryons. All that's needed now is confirmation with some more quasars. The instrumentation is already in place; all that's needed is the observing time.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (16) Feb 15, 2019
The Network Behind the Cosmic Web
Coutinho, B. C. et al.
https://arxiv.org...3236.pdf
beeds
2 / 5 (8) Feb 15, 2019
"Maybe the missing mass is somehow related to the kinetic energy of the stuff we can see?"
Maybe the missing DARK mass is somehow related to the kinetic energy of the stuff we can see?
Old_C_Code
3.3 / 5 (12) Feb 15, 2019
Everything to do with PC as the cosmic web is an explicit prediction of the theory. The cosmic web hes no place in standard guesswork, only ad hoc a posteriori epicycles were conjured up to fit it to observation. As usual.


The EU discombobulates facts from greats like Alfven, a supposed hero of the EU contradicts them constantly. Example, Alfven proposed the Alfven Waves which are magnetic field heat bombs blasted out from the Sun's surface heating the Corona to millions of degrees K. But EU says the hot corona is from galactic currents heating the Sun.
Rynosaurus18
2.7 / 5 (15) Feb 15, 2019
I lean more toward there being a flaw in our current model, than there being "missing matter".
JaxPavan
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 15, 2019
Epicycles.
Bob West
1 / 5 (12) Feb 15, 2019
Dark matter is a supersolid that fills 'empty' space, strongly interacts with ordinary matter and is displaced by ordinary matter. What is referred to geometrically as curved spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the supersolid dark matter. The state of displacement of the supersolid dark matter is gravity.

The supersolid dark matter displaced by a galaxy pushes back, causing the stars in the outer arms of the galaxy to orbit the galactic center at the rate in which they do.

Displaced supersolid dark matter is curved spacetime.

In the Bullet Cluster collision the dark matter has not separated from the ordinary matter. The collision is analogous to two boats that collide, the boats slow down and their bow waves continue to propagate. The water has not separated from the boats, the bow waves have. In the Bullet Cluster collision the galaxy's dark matter displacement waves have separated from the colliding galaxies, causing the light to lense
Anonym262722
1 / 5 (11) Feb 15, 2019
The apparently 'missing mass' is another epicycle of the flawed GR/QM based cosmology like the apparently constant (vs. true) speed of light C and distorted time/distance concepts. An example is the age of the present decelerated expansion phase of Riemann 4-sphere (Einstein's starting point of GR) believed to be 13.8 B yrs under the postulate that the ticking rate of modern atomic clocks and all other atomic processes has been constant since BB to extend the 4-radius R4 to its present value of 13.8 Bly. Feynman noticed the 'biggest mystery' that at BB the positive motion energy of the total mass in the closed 3-D space as the surface of 4-sphere equaled exactly its negative gravitational energy. Suntola noticed since 1970's that this 0-energy balance in dynamic universe defines C=C4 as nonlinear functions of R4, absolute cosmic time T4 and its ticking frequency F4. Present T4= 2/3 13.8 =9.2 B yrs - GR based cosmology has also lost 1/3 of its age since BB!
rrwillsj
1 / 5 (9) Feb 15, 2019
An idler's thought.
"... Because of the expansion of the universe, which stretches out light as it travels, ..."

Contrary to the tired light loons. Would this "stretching" of Light, actually result in speeding it up?
Energy in, acceleration out.

Then again, which is the cause & which is the result?

Another improbable explanation of one of the mutitude of irrational reasons the expansion of the Universe is accelerating?

Wouldn't that be a kick in the pants?
howhot3
2 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2019
With no WIMP baryons to be found, it looks bleak for standard model physics, the only approach to dark matter and even the dark energy question are interlinked involved in gravity in the equations of gravity.
observicist
3.7 / 5 (12) Feb 15, 2019
@rrwillsj,

Light that is stretched loses energy. When the frequency of light is decreased, thus increasing its wavelength, the energy in that light -- EM radiation -- is decreased. That is fundamental.

The higher the frequency of light, the greater its energy. The lower the frequency of light, the less energy it contains.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 15, 2019
As a corollary of this, it's obvious that energy is not conserved across non-consistent frames of reference. Lots of people trip over this one.
rrwillsj
1 / 5 (9) Feb 15, 2019
An idler's thought.
"... Because of the expansion of the universe, which stretches out light as it travels, ..."

Contrary to the tired light loons. Would this "stretching" of Light, actually result in speeding it up?
Energy in, acceleration out.

Then again, which is the cause & which is the result?

Another improbable explanation of one of the mutitude of irrational reasons the expansion of the Universe is accelerating?

Wouldn't that be a kick in the pants?
aksdad
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 15, 2019
Where is the universe hiding its missing mass?

Here?

http://www.funnyf...uppy.jpg

valeriy_polulyakh
1.7 / 5 (7) Feb 15, 2019
The investigation of the large-scale structure of the World revealed its high inhomogeneity. During the last couple of decades, a rich picture of groups, clusters and superclusters of the galaxies separated by a number of huge empty voids was released. The foam-like structure becomes more and more clear. The building blocks of the large-scale structure are superclusters and voids which are forming the supercluster-void network. This network has pronounced filamentary structure.
https://www.acade...he_World
Anonym262722
1 / 5 (9) Feb 15, 2019
Reverse kick in pants for TRUE decelerating expansion due to 0-energe balance of DU is analogous to the APPARENT constancy of C vs. TRUE decelerating value as function of sqrt(R4) and T4=f[1/C4)^3]. The energy of one quanta in Planck emission at time T4_past is linear with 1/C4 -so it is always higher than emitted energy at receival time T4_today. The emitted energy corresponding to C4(T4_past) is preserved during its travel although its wavelength is expanded at the same rate as R4 - resulting in the mistaken interpretation of GR based SN1a data of 'Planck dilution'. This caused the 'tired light' or Planck dilution error of GR based brightness factor of 1/(1+z) to explain 1998 SN1a data. Another factor 1/(1+z) error was caused by GR static vs. DU dynamic distance measure of the emitted/received travel distance. These GR systematic errors were compensated by the mistaken GR cosmological constant and DE acceleration epicycle, given 2011 Nobel despite annual side-by-side DU comparisons.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (16) Feb 15, 2019
None of the trolls can explain why the result came out to the exact prediction by theory.

They're all trying to deflect and raise their whining to avoid addressing the fact that the theory has turned out correct. Standard trolling.
Anonym262722
1 / 5 (9) Feb 16, 2019
"None of the trolls can explain why the result came out to the exact prediction by theory".

This is the key point of general estimation and inverse theory of Gaussian estimation and general inverse theory in array (unified matrix and tensor) calculus: Both biased and unbiased functional or physical models can predict the observed values in the sense of least squares but the used parameters themselves (vs. their projections on the observables) may be biased in the fashion of epicycles of Copernicus Sun vs Earth centered model. The main "epicycle' of GR/QM is the postulate of constancy of C taking the physics and standard cosmology foundations back to Ptolemy times thousands of years ago. Suntola's DU physical model in 4/5, 10/11-D etc. nested dimensions is a step forward from Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Leibnitz & Newton times by cosmic expansion of GR/QM that are valid only in local energy frames but fail at cosmic distances beyond our galaxy.
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (14) Feb 16, 2019
None of this means anything if the theory predicts the results. Especially if there's no other theory that does.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.3 / 5 (12) Feb 16, 2019
Interesting confirmation of last year's find of the missing normal matter (that the article linked to: https://phys.org/...ary.html ).

Epicycles


How can a basic observation be 'an epicycle' ? How can a test of a basic prediction be 'an epicycle'?

It can't. Da Schneib put it best: "None of the trolls can explain why the result came out to the exact prediction by theory."

But by rejecting the evidence at hand - or C&P earlier comments of ideas that did not make it against data - they confirm that trolls are not understanding the physics at hand or are even interested in science. Even the sad crackpot that constantly links to a vanity press where he or she was scammed out of money for no gain show us a disinterest in learning what science is and is not.

But please go on, even if it is hard to tell if we are supposed to laugh or cry over the behavior. As long as there are science interested to vote down or at times interject facts.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (17) Feb 16, 2019
Even the sad crackpot that constantly links to a vanity press where he or she was scammed out of money for no gain show us a disinterest in learning what science is and is not.


"scammed" ???????

.........what the hell do ya call the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on all the so-called research for inferred DARK MATTER that has never yet been discovered, and holds no promise in the future to show observational evidence this cosmic fairy dust exists. But you don't bitch about that being a scam do you?

As far as you're concerned, the immutable fantasies of funny farm Pop-Cosmology transcend criticism because they are YOUR FUNNY FARM FACTS.

Just admit you don't like FACTS that detract from your immutable DM fantasies. Anything that detracts from your immutable fantasies are a scam as far as you're concerned.
Anonym262722
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 16, 2019

"How can a basic observation be 'an epicycle' ? How can a test of a basic prediction be 'an epicycle'?"

These are key questions where the common sense math of surveyors revealed some flaws in general inverse and Gaussian estimation theories some 50 yrs ago, resulting in the loop inverse expansion of Gaussian math statistics, involving the unification of matrix and tensor calculus by correcting Einstein's summation convention of indical tensor notations. Start from the example of leveling or measuring all 3 differences among 3 points to determine their elevations using rank-deficient least squares. The adjusted absolute elevations has an infinite set of solutions in the same fashion as the TRUE value of C when locally measured by atomic clocks - their frequency is slowing down at the same rate as the TRUE value C. Only the local APPARENT constant value C is unbiasedly estimable, see Talvio2.pdf 2006 paper of lfs.fi or 6/1974 Rauhala KTH thesis of array algebra/loop inverses.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (13) Feb 16, 2019
Even the...


"scammed" ??

.........what do ya call the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on all the so-called research for inferred DARK MATTER that has never yet been discovered, and holds no promise in the future to show observational evidence this cosmic fairy dust exists. But you don't bitch about that being a scam do you?

As far as you're concerned, the immutable fantasies of funny farm Pop-Cosmology transcend criticism because they are YOUR FUNNY FARM FACTS.

Just admit you don't like FACTS that detract from your immutable DM fantasies. Anything that detracts from your immutable fantasies are a scam as far as you're concerned.
says Benni

Many in the science/research community know already that Dark Matter/Energy is not working out for them. But they still persist in the pretense anyway - because to admit to failure in their search for the 'faerie dust' is to admit defeat - which would make the public wonder if they know what they're doing.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Feb 16, 2019
The dark matter and dark energy are confirmed multiple ways. @SRU is lying again. So's @Benni.
Anonym262722
1 / 5 (6) Feb 17, 2019
DU has a simple explanation for what is understood as DM in terms of GR but DE and accelerated expansion is an epicycle of the basic flaws of GR/QM as repeatedly proven since 1998 SN1a data.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.6 / 5 (13) Feb 17, 2019
The dark matter and dark energy are confirmed multiple ways. @SRU is lying again. So's @Benni.


Prove it without faking it.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2019
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (15) Feb 17, 2019
Wikipaedia is the poor man's source of information - often filled with errors. Science journals, science papers, validated and credible sources with documented observable evidence. Prove it.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (10) Feb 17, 2019
It's sourced, as you would admit if you weren't a troll.

There is no proof in science; there is, however, good evidence and it's detailed there, and I'll be happy to stuff it up your ass if you insist.

We can start here:

https://www.aanda...2266.pdf

There's about a hundred of them.

Why doesn't it surprise me that someone who can't successfully use teh google successfully to find the answer to

2 + 2 / 2 = ?

in five days doesn't understand how Wikipedia works?
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2019
Oh, look, here's another one: http://ned.ipac.c...mes.html
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2019
Gee, and here's another one: http://articles.a...ype=.pdf

You sure you want all of these? It's liable to take a few days.

Guess you don't understand Wikipedia all that well. You know those funny numbers and stuff? They're links to source data. You prolly should have bothered to find that out before you ran your stinking pie hole.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2019
Oh, and here's another one: http://articles.a...ype=.pdf

You know we haven't even finished with M31 in Andromeda yet. We're gonna be here all night just on that.

Does your asshole hurt yet?
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2019
Here, maybe this will help your butthurt:

http://articles.a...ype=.pdf
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2019
Hey, look! Here's another one: http://articles.a...ype=.pdf

Looks to me like you're gonna get kinda stretched with all the articles you asked for, butt hey, it's your asshole!
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2019
Oh, look! Another one:

https://arxiv.org.../9508025
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 17, 2019
And gee whillikers, another one: http://articles.a...ype=.pdf
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Feb 17, 2019
Oh, and hey, here's another one: https://arxiv.org...001.3447

You really sure you want all of these? You could, you know, just read the Wikipedia article and follow all the reference links.

Your asshole would hurt less.

Butt that's OK, I'll be here all night.

It's fun playing with trolls.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2019
Oh, and look, another one: https://arxiv.org.../9704274

We're not gonna finish the article just on dark matter tonight.

Butt hey, you assed! Ass and ye shall receive.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 17, 2019
Lookee here: https://arxiv.org...09.05917

I think you better relax and pull your cheeks apart, it's looking kinda crowded in there.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 17, 2019
Hey, another one! https://arxiv.org...10.06183

Now, shall I go get more? I'll wait; it's a hassle.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 17, 2019
Here's the funny part: that is a partial listing of the sources for the Wikipedia article on galaxy rotation curves, which is only one of the articles on dark matter. It has over 30 citations. I only used the ones for on-line available materials; there are many more from books and paywalled articles. I can get those too if you like. Then we'll move on to the second major piece of evidence for dark matter: velocity dispersions of stars in observed galaxies.

Meanwhile, looks like you got some reading of all these peer-reviewed articles published in the scholarly journals to do. I'd say about a week.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 17, 2019
Wikipedia is better. It has references, and they're very often to scholarly papers, peer reviewed and published in the scholarly literature.

So the next time you think you're going to bloviate about Wikipedia, perhaps you'll remember how much your asshole hurt after this time.

Stupid babbling asshole.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2019
Next, the troll will claim they're all "Wikipedia sources" because it's too stupid to notice they're from the Astrophysics Journal, or the Journal of the Netherlands Astronomy Society, or Astronomy and Astrophysics.

Blathering foolish asshole.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 17, 2019
Welcome to the Plasma Universe, where the cosmic web of electric currents drive the largest scales processes just as they do all the way down
Filaments... extension cords... electric fences... thors hammer... it all makes so much sense...
https://youtu.be/d1DwTcSlgqs
https://youtu.be/cjImFYf2Vzc

That song always makes otto cry boohoo
Benni
2 / 5 (12) Feb 17, 2019
Meanwhile, looks like you got some reading of all these peer-reviewed articles published in the scholarly journals to do. I'd say about a week.


Here schneibo, you can do this one in about ten minutes ± :

Physicists Keep Trying — and Failing — to Find Dark Matter in Dark Places

https://www.lives...led.html

"The latest news, however, is not good for DAMA. On Wednesday (Dec. 5), researchers at the Cosine-100 detector in South Korea published a paper in the journal Nature reporting that they'd seen no yearly shift in their newer, fancier detector. That's a big deal, because Cosine-100's light sensors are watching underground chunks of sodium iodide, just like DAMA's. So if DAMA had found a real result, it should show up in Cosine-100 as well."

..........so much for all the outdated links you posted above,
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 17, 2019
None of them is outdated, @Benni. The evidence is what it is.

And like usual, here you are lying again.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (13) Feb 17, 2019
None of them is outdated, @Benni. The evidence is what it is.

And like usual, here you are lying again.


Your fantasy world of Pop-Cosmology is everything you live for in this chatroom, and is what the "lying" is all about.

With YOU it's just one more "lying" Pop-Cosmology fantasy to the next. It has gotten so bad with you that it took you how many months to get somebody to do this for you:
2 + 2 / 2 = ?
Yeah, you had to submit it to smarter people in the chatroom because you're unable to do 6th grade math.......give you the pointy cap award, dunce.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 17, 2019
That song always makes otto cry boohoo

Awhhhh, blotto! That is so sweet of you. And so near Valentine's Day, you must care so...

These filaments are known by astronomers as the "warm-hot intergalactic medium" or WHIM.

In other words plasma, the physics of which are accurately described by Alfvén and Peratt. The purveyors of The Plasma Universe and plasma cosmology. So yes, it all makes very good sense.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (12) Feb 17, 2019

In other words plasma, the physics of which are accurately described by Alfvén and Peratt. The purveyors of The Plasma Universe and plasma cosmology. So yes, it all makes very good sense.


Wrong. The filaments match very well what was predicted by scientists using models that include DM. Take the DM out of the models, and it looks a whole lot different. So, no, Peratt and Alfven have squat to do with this observation. It is more confirmation that DM exists.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (12) Feb 17, 2019
Your fantasy world of Pop-Cosmology is everything you live for in this chatroom, and is what the "lying" is all about.


You still here, you ignorant tosspot? Why? You know Jack shit about any science, and are totally innumerate. Go away, you waste of oxygen.
And it isn't a chatroom, dickhead - it is a comments section. A chatroom would be where you go to discuss things with people who have a similar interest, or other things in common. Such as Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

cantdrive85
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 17, 2019
The filaments match very well what was predicted by scientists using models that include DM.

Because the plasma ignoramuses conveniently place the faerie dust just where they need it to match observation, a posteriori.
Or, one can simply apply the known physics of plasma to achieve the filamentary aspects of space plasma. That which Alfvén did in the 1930's to predict the filamentary structure of the Universe, a half century before the plasma ignoramuses did using faerie dust. Oh, lest we forget, the plasma ignoramuses did this after the filamentary nature of the Universe was confirmed, ad hoc and a posteriori. Typical of the plasma ignoramuses predictive ability.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 17, 2019
@Benni has only one trick: lie.

And it never works.
BackBurner
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 17, 2019
This Dark Matter/Dark Energy obsession needs to be stopped for the good of physics; it just doesn't hold water. It's a classic case of trying desperately to salvage a beautiful theory that doesn't match observation.

So let's have another go at salvaging the theory? Gravity is considered an emergent feature of curved spacetime. Often, the rubber sheet analogy is used to describe the effect and that's a problem, since it's seen only as a function of mass (and only seen as an effect on a plane).

Locally we observe acceleration in the direction of mass and Newton describes it, but it doesn't work well on intergalactic scales. Why is this? Either a lot of mass is missing, or gravity (spacetime curvature) does different things in the extreme absence of mass observed between galaxies. Spacetime doesn't just curve down in the presence of mass, it curves up in it's absence. The upward curvature is what we've dubbed Dark Energy.
BackBurner
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 17, 2019
Try visualizing two galaxies with enough distance (vacuum) between them. Now, visualize a spacetime curvature who's Y axis dimension (using the 2D "rubber sheet analogy) increases with the distance between the masses. Within a dense field, the increased curvature is negligible but likely observable; at some distance even local masses will cease attracting. At distances beyond that, they begin repelling. At large distances they measurably begin accelerating away from each other. Hence an expanding universe accelerating in all dimensions.

Come on guys, this isn't rocket science :)
Benni
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 17, 2019
Locally we observe acceleration in the direction of mass


"acceleration" of what? Certainly not electro-magnetic waves.

Spacetime doesn't just curve down in the presence of mass, it curves up in it's absence. The upward curvature is what we've dubbed Dark Energy.


Presuming photon deflection occurs as an electro-magnetic wave passes into the gravity field of a body of mass & curves as Einstein's photon deflection calculations predict would occur, what is this "curves up in it's absence" effect? If there is an absence of a gravitating mass, how does curvature of any kind occur whether you want to define it as "up" or "down"?

What is your theory that "upward curvature" is Dark Energy?
BackBurner
2.2 / 5 (5) Feb 17, 2019
"acceleration" of what? Certainly not electro-magnetic waves.


Photons (electromagnetic waves) are known to bend around spacetime curvatures. See gravity lensing. Acceleration is a Newtonian construct I used for clarity. Most masses are described as "accelerating" towards one another in a spacetime curvature.

Spacetime doesn't just curve down in the presence of mass, it curves up in it's absence. The upward curvature is what we've dubbed Dark Energy.


what is this "curves up in it's absence" effect? If there is an absence of a gravitating mass, how does curvature of any kind occur whether you want to define it as "up" or "down"?

What is your theory that "upward curvature" is Dark Energy?


If the curvature increases with the distance between masses, we should observe a diminishing effect of gravity (curvature) with distance, though possibly so small as to be unmeasurable on very small (intragalactic) scales. (cont.)
BackBurner
2.8 / 5 (5) Feb 17, 2019
I really screwed up on the multi quotes. Sorry. Arcane.

As the distance between masses increases, eventually spacetime begins curving up rather than down, and as distance grows the curvature becomes negative, accelerating distant masses away from each other. This is "dark energy". It's an emergent feature of curved spacetime.
BackBurner
2 / 5 (5) Feb 17, 2019
It's very difficult to explain this without some sort of graphic and I think even a graphic might be hard to follow since it's going to require at least four dimensions I'd guess.

Think of it as a rubber sheet again. Usually we visualize the effects of mass causing dimples in the sheet and flattening out between masses on the sheet, but it's really not ever flat when the distances aren't large. When they get large enough, it actually starts to flatten, then starts forming ridges between the clustered masses (think of them as a bowl of blueberries). As the distance between masses grows, the ridges between them gets higher, forcing the lumps of mass together and the distant masses apart. Distant masses accelerate away from each other, hence Dark Energy.

Does that make any more sense?
Benni
1.9 / 5 (12) Feb 17, 2019
As the distance between masses increases, eventually spacetime begins curving up rather than down, and as distance grows the curvature becomes negative


It sounds like you're saying that subsequent to a particle of mass passing through the stronger field of a larger gravitating body, that it will suddenly take a turn in a different direction than the one it was deflected into by the larger gravitating body? Is this what you're saying?

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (11) Feb 17, 2019
@BackBurner
I've always admired the flexibility of the "Rubber Sheet Analogy" as it perfectly represents the Gravity Well surrounding Mass.
Motion/Momentum is equal to the gravitational push/pull effect of mass toward mass. At intergalactic distances between material objects such as planets and Stars, the flexibility of Space (the Rubber Sheet) provides and allows the Motion/Momentum of eg. planets, clusters and Stars to move toward each other, no matter the distance due to the flexibility of Space. It may be that EMFields help to move them along lines of currents - similar to information along axons and synapses leading from neurons in brains.

There is no Dark Matter or Dark Energy nor is there any need for such faerie dust. It is SPACE ITSELF that moves mass toward or away from other mass. Gravity only establishes the links between 2 or more bodies of mass, while Space makes the journey smooth and enables the Motion and Momentum of each body.
BackBurner
3 / 5 (3) Feb 17, 2019
As the distance between masses increases, eventually spacetime begins curving up rather than down, and as distance grows the curvature becomes negative


It sounds like you're saying that subsequent to a particle of mass passing through the stronger field of a larger gravitating body, that it will suddenly take a turn in a different direction than the one it was deflected into by the larger gravitating body? Is this what you're saying?


It will appear to have taken a turn. That's how we describe the effect we've named "gravitational lensing" and observed to occur around distant galaxies.
BackBurner
2.8 / 5 (4) Feb 17, 2019
Gravity only establishes the links between 2 or more bodies of mass, while Space makes the journey smooth and enables the Motion and Momentum of each body.


That's the general idea, yes. Local objects influence each other (are "attracted") by a local curvature of spacetime; they're all blueberries in the same bowl. But they're in a bowl with a rim higher than the lowest blueberry in that bowl. They can't escape the bowl. This is "Dark Matter".

Bowls that are "close" to each other may still be in a larger bowl with a higher rim than clusters them. When the bowls get too far apart, they fall down the sides of the largest bowl and start moving away from each other. This is "Dark Energy".
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 17, 2019
Gravitational lensing is only light that is deflected off of mass and is redirected toward another line of sight.
BackBurner
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 17, 2019
Gravitational lensing is only light that is deflected off of mass and is redirected toward another line of sight.


I'm not certain I can understand that analogy.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 17, 2019
It sounds like you're saying that subsequent to a particle of mass passing through the stronger field of a larger gravitating body, that it will suddenly take a turn in a different direction than the one it was deflected into by the larger gravitating body? Is this what you're saying?


It will appear to have taken a turn. That's how we describe the effect we've named "gravitational lensing" and observed to occur around distant galaxies.


BB, you're confusing the issues here. You start off talking about the effects of two gravitating masses on one another, then mixing "gravitational lensing" into that, two separate issues.

Here, as Egg correctly points out:

Gravitational lensing is only light that is deflected off of mass and is redirected toward another line of sight

TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2019
Awhhhh, blotto! That is so sweet of you. And so near Valentine's Day, you must care so...
Crackpot idiot pseudoscience theories make me cry as well so what can I say?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 17, 2019
Sorry BackBurner,, but your "blueberries in a bowl" analogy doesn't explain why bodies of mass move/drift apart, at sometimes very large distances. I don't believe that the unobservable DM is in play here. Space itself moves things along, sometimes Stars or planets collide, while others move away from each other. There is a certain amount of economics in this Motion/Momentum, where the planets/Stars are unable to congregate too closely due to each gravity well that inhibits major contact. But Space is the prime mover and determinant (but not sentient) of the Motion/Momentum of all Mass, according to the requirements of the natural spacing of Mass.
In effect, it is similar to the Fibonacci "rules of engagement" where spacing of Mass is equivalent to what you see in the spacing of sunflower seeds - but not quite the same, of course.
BackBurner
4 / 5 (4) Feb 17, 2019
Gravitational lensing is only light that is deflected off of mass and is redirected toward another line of sight.


Maybe I can.

At some distance from our local reference frame, we're outside it's gravitational effect and the reference frame of our stellar system dominates; we've attained escape velocity from Earth. It's been proposed that outside 50,000 au from Sol, we're beyond its influence and subject to the galactic reference. So, in effect, we've attained a stellar system escape velocity. At some higher velocity, we attain galactic escape velocity.

The more distance we put between us and Earth, the more momentum we've obtained, and the escape velocity increases. I think that's a pretty standard interpretation. At each energy level, the sides of the bowl go up and more energy is required to escape.

But there's a point when we've reached a universal escape velocity, at which moving we begin moving away from everything at a speed that increases with distance.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 17, 2019
Awhhhh, blotto! That is so sweet of you. And so near Valentine's Day, you must care so...
Crackpot idiot pseudoscience theories make me cry as well so what can I say?

says SpookyOtto

Would you care to add your own "pseudoscience" to the mix? Don't worry. We won't think any less of you.
:)
BackBurner
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 17, 2019
Sorry BackBurner,, but your "blueberries in a bowl" analogy doesn't explain why bodies of mass move/drift apart.


Yes, it tries to. The idea you may have glossed over is the rising rim of the bowl (curvature), and the idea that with sufficient distance from the bottom of the bowl, mass begins to fall off the other side. It's an analogy.

At intergalactic distances, mass begins to fall away down the other side of the slope. That's dark energy.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 17, 2019
@BB, there is no slope, hills or dales in Space. It is smooth in every direction except where volumes of Mass and their gravity well happens to be. There are no structures, otherwise, to influence the Motion/Momentum of Mass to move along any direction whether up or down. The gravity is only influential when 2 or more bodies of Mass are close enough to move toward each other. No DM there. When they move away from each other, it's not due to DE - it is that Space itself requires that Mass is given enough leeway to keep its distance from other Mass - otherwise, it would be like a game of pool (billiards) where one ball is hit by a cue stick and scatters all the other balls in many directions, often colliding.
Sorry for that analogy, but there has to be a certain formality, even in astrophysics.
Moving right along, even clusters of galaxies keep their distance from each other. This avoids chaos and disorder. LOL It may seem metaphysical, but it is what it is.
BackBurner
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 17, 2019
It sounds like you're saying that subsequent to a particle of mass passing through the stronger field of a larger gravitating body, that it will suddenly take a turn in a different direction than the one it was deflected into by the larger gravitating body? Is this what you're saying?


It will appear to have taken a turn. That's how we describe the effect we've named "gravitational lensing" and observed to occur around distant galaxies.


BB, you're confusing the issues here. You start off talking about the effects of two gravitating masses on one another, then mixing "gravitational lensing" into that, two separate issues.



It was a tangental question and I may have not answered it well. The original question was "does gravity influence the acceleration of electromagnetic radiation". We have evidence it does and we call it "gravitational lensing".

If light appears to take a longer path in shorter time, it's been "accelerated".
BackBurner
4 / 5 (4) Feb 17, 2019
LOL It may seem metaphysical, but it is what it is.


It does in fact seem metaphysical. I like to avoid metaphysics in this context myself.

I did try to explain it. Eventually, with sufficient distance, the absence of mass creates a negative gradient that appears repulsive.

Another way to look at the effect described is to examine atomic physics, where we have valence bands (escape velocities) and free electrons. It's a different analogy with different assumptions, but it also describes observation and it doesn't depend on "dark matter" or "dark energy".
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2019
In fact, the Dark Matter and Dark Energy fable is more metaphysical than what I have stated above. There is Law and Order in the Universe, BB. It is impossible to disassociate many of the Laws of Physics that we know of on this planet, with the Laws of the Universe. Mass/Energy doesn't need a spooky DM and DE to exist and function and neither do the Forces.
They are all up to snuff (of which we should be thankful).

'If light appears to take a longer path in shorter time, it's been "accelerated".
No. It has only been REDIRECTED into a different course at the same velocity. It only SEEMS to have accelerated due to it having been deflected by the Mass that deflected it. c remains at c
BackBurner
4 / 5 (4) Feb 17, 2019
@BB, there is no slope, hills or dales in Space.


But there are hills, slopes and dales in spacetime. We know this and it's been demonstrated experimentally. Why do you hold this belief? How do you explain gravitational time dilation?
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 17, 2019
But there's all that evidence. And no other sound theory to account for it.

Lots more where that came from, too, and all of it says the same thing as the first did.

The closest anyone has come, other than dark matter, to an explanation of all of it is MOND, and GW 20170817 kinda killed that when it proved that the relative speed of light and speed of gravity are the same within the limits of error. A speed difference between light and gravitation is a pervasive feature of MOND theories, and that's now ruled out to high confidence levels. So now what?

Now if you want to say that dark energy is actually some field effect we haven't discovered yet in GRT, I might not fight too hard; these types of hypotheses seem to conflict less with the evidence. But still there is no consistent theory to explain it.
BackBurner
4 / 5 (4) Feb 17, 2019
No. It has only been REDIRECTED into a different course at the same velocity. It only SEEMS to have accelerated due to it having been deflected by the Mass that deflected it. c remains at c


You forget your own question, which was something along the lines of "does gravity accelerate electromagnetic radiation?"

My answer was "yes. we call it gravity lensing" (should have been gravitational lensing).

We have empirical evidence that gravity bends light into a path that isn't straight. A curved path is longer than a strait path. Therefore gravity appears to accelerate light. It may not go faster, but it takes a longer path in the same amount of time, because after all, c remains c?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2019
BB, if you take a plastic triangle and measure 2 sides of it, you would have to TURN A CORNER of the triangle (gravitational lensing), but that measurement of the 2 sides - it is the equivalent distance of the straight third side in a straight line from point to point or line of sight.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Feb 17, 2019
Something has to be there. Will it be a particle we can identify? We don't know yet. As has been repeatedly emphasized here, without acknowledgement from any of dark matter's detractors, "dark matter" is only a placeholder for whatever this additional gravitational effect is. Unless and until someone actually shows a reliable detection of a dark matter particle, this is all hypotheses- it's merely that such a particle is the most convincing hypothesis that we continue to call it dark matter.

But of course none of the nutjobs can get their heads around this. No one will be either surprised or dismayed if it turns out not to be a particle. But if you're betting, a particle is the way to bet given what we know now.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 17, 2019
BackBurner I'm giving you all 5s anyway even though we essentially disagree. You've made a great argument for your understanding of the issue. You are correct on grav lensing, but as I said, it is equivalent to the triangle analogy.
BackBurner
2.8 / 5 (4) Feb 17, 2019
The closest anyone has come, other than dark matter, to an explanation of all of it is MOND


MOND was certainly the first attempt I'd heard of, there are variations. The most recent was a non-linear description of spacetime distortion I read not two years ago and I'm damned if I can remember the name of it. It attracted my attention because it echos my own thoughts. The authors described a "bubble" around mass that causes gravitational effects to increase with distance, very similar to my own thoughts. Where they didn't go is towards the idea that sufficient distance between masses might result in a repulsive force between them, a "negative gradient" of gravity that might describe "dark energy"; the force that drives expanding spacetime.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Feb 17, 2019
The speed of light is a speed- and being dr/dt, it is inextricably linked to time. If gravity warps time, then the geodesic the light must follow is shortened by gravitational time dilation to be the shortest distance between points on either side of the gravity well.

You may wish to consider this fact, @BackBurner.
BackBurner
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 17, 2019
BackBurner I'm giving you all 5s anyway even though we essentially disagree. You've made a great argument for your understanding of the issue. You are correct on grav lensing, but as I said, it is equivalent to the triangle analogy.


Thanks. Sincerely. I appreciated the opportunity to try, though I may have not convinced anyone. It's a model I've been working on for many years. But, in the immortal words of Monty Python, "it's only a model".
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 17, 2019
@BackBurner, we crossposted.

Attempts to make this all a minor inaccuracy in GRT are pervasive in the literature. I can't quite tell which one you're referring to here, but these hypotheses are certainly not excluded from the literature as the nutjobs claim. Unless or until someone manages to detect a particle that accounts for dark matter, those hypotheses that do not violate known evidence of these effects we call "dark matter" as a field correction to GRT remain viable and no one who looks at this closely disagrees.

My own conjecture (it doesn't rise to the level of a hypothesis- call it an opinion if you like) is that dark matter is a particle, but dark energy is an adjustment to GRT that we have not yet discovered. I freely admit I could be wrong, but the preponderance of evidence militates toward this, I think.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 17, 2019
it is that Space itself requires that Mass is given enough leeway to keep its distance from other Mass - otherwise, it would be like a game of pool (billiards) where one ball is hit by a cue stick and scatters all the other balls in many directions, often colliding.
Sorry for that analogy, but there has to be a certain formality, even in astrophysics.
Moving right along, even clusters of galaxies keep their distance from each other. This avoids chaos and disorder.


........the effects of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, ENTROPY, the distribution of energy. The randomness of the distribution of energy is what avoids chaos & thus a breakdown within the closed boundary of an energy system. The Universe is a big energy generator & the galaxies in motion is it's motor consuming all that energy giving motion to all we see about us via what we call KINETIC ENERGY.

Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 17, 2019
@Benni, since you cannot do differential equations, you cannot understand entropy.

Hell, you can't even figure out fractions or for that matter

2 + 2 / 2 = ?
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Feb 17, 2019
Here's the essential equation of entropy:

S = k ln(W)

It's a differential equation on which you are not competent to comment.

It's engraved on Boltzmann's gravestone.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 17, 2019
Liar deniers always downvote facts.

This is their single and only strategy. And it never works; facts are facts. Evidence is evidence. Confounding facts with theory is their only strategy.

It's engraved on his gravestone.

You deny it at your peril. Everyone can see you.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 17, 2019
it is that Space itself requires that Mass is given enough leeway to keep its distance from other Mass - otherwise, it would be like a game of pool (billiards) where one ball is hit by a cue stick and scatters all the other balls in many directions, often colliding.
Sorry for that analogy, but there has to be a...
Moving right along, even clusters of galaxies keep their distance from each other. This avoids chaos and disorder.
says I

........the effects of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, ENTROPY, the distribution of energy. The randomness of the distribution of energy is what avoids chaos & thus a breakdown within the closed boundary of an energy system. The Universe is a big energy generator & the galaxies in motion is it's motor consuming all that energy giving motion to all we see about us via what we call KINETIC ENERGY.

says Benni

Correct. Kinetic Energy is another term for Motion/Momentum. The Universe is a Mechanism that employs the Laws of Thermo.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Feb 17, 2019
I mean seriously, you're yammering about entropy and downvoting Boltzmann's gravestone?

Teh stoopit it burnz.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2019
@Benni and BackBurner

There is no such animal as Time Dilation. There is NO WAY to dilate Time. Time does NOT occupy Space or Mass/Energy. It has no STRUCTURE. Time is merely a CONCEPT - a construct of the human mind for the purpose of measurement of duration of events AND to quantify the duration of a Distance between Point A and Point B, or Point A and Point C as in quantifying gravitational lensing (the deflection of light by Mass as I stated above.
Professor A. Einstein through Spacetime in there rather than a description of Space only. He should have known better. But he messed that up - big time.
Space may dilate, which is why it forms gravity wells around planets and Stars.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2019
BackBurner I'm giving you all 5s anyway even though we essentially disagree. You've made a great argument for your understanding of the issue. You are correct on grav lensing, but as I said, it is equivalent to the triangle analogy.


Thanks. Sincerely. I appreciated the opportunity to try, though I may have not convinced anyone. It's a model I've been working on for many years. But, in the immortal words of Monty Python, "it's only a model".
says BackBurner

You're very welcome. You should consider all possibilities put forth, including mine and Benni's. I believe that you will come to the conclusion that a Phd doesn't mean that a scientist/researcher has considered all the possibilities, including the ones I gave you. Many scientists are so mesmerised by the works of past scientists/researchers that they can't get out to explore new possibilities. The books/journals talk of Dark Matter/Energy and they are stuck on that as tho they've found the holy grail
BackBurner
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 17, 2019


2 + 2 / 2 = ?


With or without parens?

With: 2 + (2/2) = 3
With different: (2 + 2) / 2 = 2

It's a diminuative test Schnoz. Below your aspirations I'd think?

Your pick.
BackBurner
4 / 5 (4) Feb 17, 2019
@Benni and BackBurner

There is no such animal as Time Dilation.


Well, then there's the whole GPS system we all depend on, which experimentally validates time dilation, or did I miss something?

It isn't an easy idea to wrap your head around, I'll give you that much? But I'm an empiricists and I give experimental results quite a bit of credence.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 17, 2019
Try visualizing two galaxies with enough distance (vacuum) between them. Now, visualize a spacetime curvature who's Y axis dimension (using the 2D "rubber sheet analogy) increases with the distance between the masses. Within a dense field, the increased curvature is negligible but likely observable; at some distance even local masses will cease attracting. At distances beyond that, they begin repelling. At large distances they measurably begin accelerating away from each other. Hence an expanding universe accelerating in all dimensions.

Come on guys, this isn't rocket science :)
says BackBurner

I wanted to mention that all Mass is going ONE WAY. It matters not whether the one galaxy is ahead of - or the galaxy is behind the one that is out in front of it. *>* or *<*
The swiftness of the one that's out in front will determine whether or not the two will collide eventually. MilkyWay in front with Andromeda lagging behind will eventually merge. Gravity is pulling Andromeda
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 17, 2019
toward the Milky Way. The greater the volume of Mass, the stronger is the gravitational pull towards it from behind. If it didn't go in one direction only - then all of the galaxies would be colliding or have "near misses" - thus utter Chaos.
BackBurner
4 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2019

I wanted to mention that all Mass is going ONE WAY.


That is the popular view. I disagree, as does observation.
BackBurner
4 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2019
Gravity is pulling Andromeda


Same blueberry bowl. No contest.
BackBurner
4 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2019
toward the Milky Way. The greater the volume of Mass, the stronger is the gravitational pull towards it from behind. If it didn't go in one direction only - then all of the galaxies would be colliding or have "near misses" - thus utter Chaos.


But of course they aren't. Some near galaxies do collide; same blueberry bowl.

Other's run from each other at accelerating speeds apparently. We need to describe both observed phenomena with our models. I've tried to do that.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2019

I wanted to mention that all Mass is going ONE WAY.


That is the popular view. I disagree, as does observation.


The Big Bang itself is the main indicator that all are going one way - outward from the centre of wherever the Big Bang initially occurred. Even if all are going in all directions from that point like the spokes in a wheel - it would still mean that galaxies are following the ones ahead of them, in a row from whichever "spoke" they are on.
The MilkyWay is lagging behind the galaxy that is in front, which is why Andromeda is catching up.
BackBurner
3 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2019

I wanted to mention that all Mass is going ONE WAY.


That is the popular view. I disagree, as does observation.


The Big Bang itself is the main indicator that all are going one way - outward from the centre of wherever the Big Bang initially occurred. Even if all are going in all directions from that point like the spokes in a wheel - it would still mean that galaxies are following the ones ahead of them, in a row from whichever "spoke" they are on.


But that isn't the apparent case based on observation; spacetime is expanding in all directions. There is no center?

This gives lie to the big bang theory. I don't mean that as an epithet; it only means the theory can't be correct in an isomorphic universe.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2019
Personally, I favour the "wagon wheel" model.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 18, 2019
I believe that I've already mentioned that the time that was included into "Spacetime" is incorrect. Please review that part above.
So you seem to be saying that everything began within a static Universe. That would mean that there is no beginning and no end; that everything existed already and that it is all chaotic like your blueberries in a bowl.
The wheel spoke at least would indicate that there is a beginning - somewhere.
BackBurner
3 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2019
You're very welcome. You should consider all possibilities put forth, including mine and Benni's. I believe that you will come to the conclusion that a Phd doesn't mean that a scientist/researcher has considered all the possibilities


I will, you can count on that. This is one of the more important questions in my life.

I am openly and actively pursuing all the possibilities put forth and I evaluate them equally to the best of my ability.

I honestly do appreciate your participation in this process very much. You may be an academic and have the luxury of well informed and educated peers; I can't say we share that luxury.

I appreciate your participation. Sincerely.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2019
toward the Milky Way. The greater the volume of Mass, the stronger is the gravitational pull towards it from behind. If it didn't go in one direction only - then all of the galaxies would be colliding or have "near misses" - thus utter Chaos.


But of course they aren't. Some near galaxies do collide; same blueberry bowl.

Other's run from each other at accelerating speeds apparently. We need to describe both observed phenomena with our models. I've tried to do that.


I think that you are describing the oft vaunted "red shift" which I was describing in the way of a galaxy following in the path of another (red shift) and another galaxy following from behind (blue shift). If you're in a car following the car ahead of you, you would see that car in the red shift. But you turn around in your seat and see that another car is following YOU...blue shift.
BackBurner
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2019
Surveillance_Egg_Unit writes:

"So you seem to be saying that everything began within a static Universe. That would mean that there is no beginning and no end; that everything existed already and that it is all chaotic like your blueberries in a bowl."

In essence, yes.

That's my fundamental understanding. No beginning, no end. From a philosophical perspective (maybe you'd call it metaphysical) I agree with that model. I find it very difficult to accept a "beginning" or "end" of time. However I'm an empiricist, so I do accept contravening evidence.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2019
With or without parens?


Without. Punch it in your calculator and see what you get.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2019
BackBurner
I am but a mere scholar and interested observer of scientific ideology - whether logical and reasonable or utter nonsense. It's still all very interesting that humans have come this far.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2019
Surveillance_Egg_Unit writes:

"So you seem to be saying that everything began within a static Universe. That would mean that there is no beginning and no end; that everything existed already and that it is all chaotic like your blueberries in a bowl."

In essence, yes.

That's my fundamental understanding. No beginning, no end. From a philosophical perspective (maybe you'd call it metaphysical) I agree with that model. I find it very difficult to accept a "beginning" or "end" of time. However I'm an empiricist, so I do accept contravening evidence.
says BackBurner

There is no "end of time". Please review what I've said about the Time element that was illogically included in "Spacetime" by Mr. Einstein - who obviously appears to have thought that Time was a dimension - which it most certainly isn't.

There is a beginning and an end to everything. If not, then Matter/Energy will never cease to exist. But that would also mean that the Universe would stagnate - sour
BackBurner
3 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2019
But you turn around in your seat and see that another car is following YOU...blue shift.


In the example we're discussing, "close" mass, the model you describe can be (and has been) investigated and articulated. It's only been recently we've had the tools to observe the larger universe, then discovered the inconsistencies of the larger universe.

I'm only working on the observed results and attempting to reconcile those observations with general relativity.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 18, 2019
@BB
Time has ALWAYS existed, and will forever exist. Even before "the Beginning" it had already existed. There is no stopping Time. Even in the alleged Black Hole, Time continues on. What you DO see are EVENTS slowing down or stopping. Which means that you could start running a marathon - and while running, you start slowing down, slower and slower, until you come to a stop with both legs airborne. That's an event. Time doesn't slow down.
BackBurner
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2019
There is no "end of time".


Aha! So you're a quantum mechanic? :)

I have to agree; world without end. I do tend to lean towards the block universe. That would be my official and current opinion. I freely admit it.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (9) Feb 18, 2019
"I'm only working on the observed results and attempting to reconcile those observations with general relativity"
Not all observations are popular with the "in" crowd, especially if they are huge fans of GR. You can read that melee' in many physorg phorums where some will KILL to show they are fans of GR. Einstein created some very obsessive fans. But do take your time and don't get fooled by propaganda from the science community. They're all jockeying for position to be the best.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 18, 2019
You misunderstand my stance on Time. It had no beginning and no matter how the Universe started up, Time was already running. Even BEFORE the "Big Bang", Time was running. Since it is not a dimension, it isn't constrained as are the first, second and third dimensions.
We only use the concept of Time to measure and because we needed a way to explain how long it takes for the Sun to rise again. It's that simple. When you come to realise that Time is only a TOOL, then you will accept that it has nothing to do with Space as in spacetime
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 18, 2019
@BackBurner
We've had a very interesting discussion and I appreciate your candor and wit. I wish you well in your endeavours and hope that you remain open to new logic - even if unpopular.
I assume that you're in Oz, so I hope that there's a break in the hot weather and things cool down.
BackBurner
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2019
@BackBurner
We've had a very interesting discussion and I appreciate your candor and wit. I wish you well in your endeavours and hope that you remain open to new logic - even if unpopular.
I assume that you're in Oz, so I hope that there's a break in the hot weather and things cool down.


It's high summer. Cooling down should happen in a few months. :)
BackBurner
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2019
With or without parens?


Without. Punch it in your calculator and see what you get.


I would, but I don't own a calculator, I remain one of those old school folks who does simple arithmetic in my head?

Come on. This is beneath both of us.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2019
You have a computer. I don't know of an OS that doesn't include a calculator.
Benni
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 18, 2019
@Benni, since you cannot do differential equations, you cannot understand entropy.

Hell, you can't even figure out fractions or for that matter

2 + 2 / 2 = ?

Your IQ
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 18, 2019
BB, you're confusing the issues here. You start off talking about the effects of two gravitating masses on one another, then mixing "gravitational lensing" into that, two separate issues.

It was a tangental question ...... The original question was "does gravity influence the acceleration of electromagnetic radiation". We have evidence it does and we call it "gravitational lensing".
EM Waves DO NOT "accelerate" under any conditions known to the immutable laws of physics.

Gravitational lensing has absolutely ZERO effect on the velocity of electro-magnetic waves. It has a small effect on shifting the wavelength of an EM Wave but NEVER it's velocity.

The issue about velocity effects of GRAVITY on EM Waves comes from disproven 19th Century black hole math that Einstein eviscerated in his publication of Special Relativity in 1905. He irrevocably proved that EM Waves CANNOT be subjected to the ESCAPE VELOCITY equations derived from Kinetic Energy, 1/2mv².

jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 18, 2019
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Idiot. Why are you still here? You know shit about physics. As proven.
Benni
2 / 5 (10) Feb 18, 2019
There is no "end of time". Please review what I've said about the Time element that was illogically included in "Spacetime" by Mr. Einstein - who obviously appears to have thought that Time was a dimension - which it most certainly isn't.


Einstein was badgered into using "spacetime continuum" by a few others who were also working on coming up with the field equations that ultimately became known as General Relativity.

Einstein decided to use the expression not because it meant a great deal to him personally, but that using it would allow the Maxwell's of his time to be more willing to support the publication of General Relativity. Of course we can look back on it 100 years later & see how empty of meaning "spacetime continuum" really is when not immediately clarified within context of whatever issue is under discussion.
humy
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2019
Time has ALWAYS existed,
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

REGARDLESS of whether there was a beginning of time, time by definition has "ALWAYS existed".
That is because (even) if there was a beginning of time then there was no 'before' that beginning of time (else, as logically implied by the word 'before', there was a point in time 'before' that beginning therefore the said "beginning of time" isn't the beginning of time) which means if there was a beginning of time then all points of time "existed" in "ALWAYS" because the word "ALWAYS" means AT ALL POINTS in time and thus "ALWAYS" doesn't including a point in time where time doesn't exist (which would be a contradiction ANYWAY). Therefore time by definition has "ALWAYS" "existed" i.e. "ALWAYS existed".
But I doubt any of that was what you really meant to say.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (10) Feb 18, 2019
Time has ALWAYS existed,
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

REGARDLESS of whether there was a beginning of time, time by definition has "ALWAYS existed".
That is because (even) if there was a beginning of time then there was no 'before' that beginning of time (else, as logically implied by the word 'before', there was a point in time 'before' that beginning therefore the said "beginning of time" isn't the beginning of time) which means if there was a beginning of time then all points of time "existed" in "ALWAYS" because the word "ALWAYS" means AT ALL POINTS in time and thus "ALWAYS" doesn't including a point in time where time doesn't exist (which would be a contradiction ANYWAY). Therefore time by definition has "ALWAYS" "existed" i.e. "ALWAYS existed".
But I doubt any of that was what you really meant to say.
......so what then is the mechanism of this ETERNAL CLOCK?

If there's an eternal clock out there somewhere, then somebody built it,,,,,,who?
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2019
. If you're in a car following the car ahead of you, you would see that car in the red shift. But you turn around in your seat and see that another car is following YOU...blue shift.

Since you are three are travelling in the same direction and at an equivalent, you would see NO shift (Unless your driving a 5 speed manual)
humy
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2019
so what then is the mechanism of this ETERNAL CLOCK?
Benni

Exactly what do you mean by "ETERNAL CLOCK" and how do you know there exists one?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 18, 2019
SEU, latest in the long line of pirouette/russkiye/pussycateyes/obamasocks iterations of the same perennial crackpot, has this to say in response to my response to cantdrive85
says SpookyOtto

Would you care to add your own "pseudoscience" to the mix? Don't worry. We won't think any less of you.
:)
-Cantdrive85 is the only other poster to refer to me as blotto. The aforementioned suckpuppet menagerie used to call me that all the time.

I've long suspected that that poster (commonly referred to as pussytard for short) was a 'regular' poster who donned one of these idiot socks every once in awhile in order to bait the legitimate posters here as a way of feeding his egomaniac proclivities; and because of that last response by SEU, I now suspect cantdrive85 the EU czar, is none other than one and the same crackpot.

Cantdrive85 = SEU
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 18, 2019
Blueberries in a bowl or our Universe

A bran new concept
for our Universe
how fitting a name for our Universe
blueberries in a bowl
well why not
we explain gravity
in our expanding Universe
as berries expanding on a rubber sheet
so if individuals come to think of our Universe as blueberries in a bowl
blame the individuals who explain gravitational expansion as berries on a rubber sheet
as to time
is simply
the moon makes 12orbitals of earth as earth makes 1 orbital of the sun
is the basis of the mathematics of time
because
as a physical entity time does not exist, except in mathematics
Albert knew this even as devised time dilation
as he struggled with Pythagoras's theorem
as light bends its path it travels a longer path
rather than accept light takes longer to travel this longer path
Albert theorised, postulated, thought a bit more then by George he got it in one
Time Dilation - Length Contraction or Pythagoras's Theorem
Benni
2.1 / 5 (10) Feb 18, 2019
so what then is the mechanism of this ETERNAL CLOCK?
Benni

Exactly what do you mean by "ETERNAL CLOCK" and how do you know there exists one?


You're the one who insists on it's existence,
Therefore time by definition has "ALWAYS" "existed" i.e. "ALWAYS existed".
"Always existed", TIME with no beginning & no end is what you're saying, sounds rather contrarian to the bigo bango, so all I'm asking you is where I look to find it to find the tick tock of all that kinetic energy your cosmic clock is ticking off.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 18, 2019
^^^^^^^^^And the clueless idiot is still babbling on about stuff it doesn't understand!
Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 18, 2019
Blueberries in a bowl or our Universe

A bran new concept
for our Universe
how fitting a name for our Universe
blueberries in a bowl
well why not
we explain gravity
in our expanding Universe
as berries expanding on a rubber sheet
so if individuals come to think of our Universe as blueberries in a bowl
blame the individuals who explain gravitational expansion as berries on a rubber sheet
as to time
is simply
the moon makes 12orbitals of earth as earth makes 1 orbital of the sun
is the basis of the mathematics of time
because
as a physical entity time does not exist, except in mathematics
Albert knew this even as devised time dilation
as he struggled with Pythagoras's theorem
as light bends its path it travels a longer path
rather than accept light takes longer to travel this longer path
Albert theorised, thought a bit more then by George he got it in one
Time Dilation - Length Contraction or Pythagoras's Theorem


A real kinetic energy clock in action.
humy
4 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2019
so what then is the mechanism of this ETERNAL CLOCK?
Benni

Exactly what do you mean by "ETERNAL CLOCK" and how do you know there exists one?


You're the one who insists on it's existence,
Since it wasn't me but only that said "ETERNAL CLOCK", whatever the hell that is supposed to mean, and since I have NO IDEA what you are talking about, that is clearly false i.e. I very clearly did NOT insist that an "ETERNAL CLOCK" exists, whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.
"Always existed", TIME with no beginning & no end is what you're saying,
Nope. I clearly said no such thing. Apparently you cannot read.
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 18, 2019
You can take this to Galactic proportions

Benni, A real kinetic energy clock in action
when the Earth rotates 91,250,000,000 days
the Moon makes 3,000,000,000 orbital's of Earth
as Earth makes 250,000,000 orbital of the Sun
as the Sun makes 1 orbital of the galaxy
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2019
-Cantdrive85 is the only other poster to refer to me as blotto.

I go there for nostalgic reasons only, a reminder of days gone by...
Cantdrive85 = SEU

Never socked, never will. Hell, it's the only damn thing that'll get you banned here. It's why we don't hear from a few of my favs, Zephyr and Hannes.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2019
I am not convinced. Please answer a few pertinent questions:
1) have you ever had sex up against the microwave?
2) are you allergic to sweet sorghum or no?
3) have you ever had your comments here at physorg altered by sinister forces?
4) have you ever called the NRC to recommend cooling meltdowns with dry ice?
5) have you ever worked for NASA as an engineer?
6) were you in the control room all night when Curiosity landed?
7) were you ever a black psychiatrist?
8) do you believe that the only way to achieve zero growth is not to make any babies AT ALL for 100 years? (My fav)
9) do you believe the FACT that the solar system is just big enough to accommodate all the planets, is PROOF of the existence of god?

-Take your time but understand that I wont believe a word of your testimony.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 18, 2019
so what then is the mechanism of this ETERNAL CLOCK?
Benni

Exactly what do you mean by "ETERNAL CLOCK" and how do you know there exists one?


You're the one who insists on it's existence, Since it wasn't me but only that said "ETERNAL CLOCK", whatever the hell that is supposed to mean, and since I have NO IDEA what you are talking about, that is clearly false i.e. I very clearly did NOT insist that an "ETERNAL CLOCK" exists, whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.
"Always existed", TIME with no beginning & no end is what you're saying,
Nope. I clearly said no such thing. Apparently you cannot read.
.....I guess you can't even discern your own quotes:

So explain how TIME is measured if not by the finite mechanism of kinetic energy? You're the one who insisted:
Therefore time by definition has "ALWAYS" "existed" i.e. "ALWAYS existed".
So if TIME has always existed, how was it measured?
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 18, 2019
You can take this to Galactic proportions

Benni, A real kinetic energy clock in action
when the Earth rotates 91,250,000,000 days
the Moon makes 3,000,000,000 orbital's of Earth
as Earth makes 250,000,000 orbital of the Sun
as the Sun makes 1 orbital of the galaxy


Yep, another good example of the expenditure of kinetic energy to measure humy's concept of "TIME" that he claims has "ALWAYS existed" even as he now claims he never made such a statement.

I'm still awaiting humy's evidence to his claim for the pre-existence of kinetic energy that is needed for measuring time before there was the bigo bango, but he gets confused.
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2019
Kinetic Energy is mass in theory - E = MC²
beeds> Maybe the missing mass is somehow related to the kinetic energy of the stuff we can see?

The Milkyway is moving at 600kms, its stars are spinning, its stars are orbiting
the rotational and linear kinetic energy of all the mass in motion
totals
an enormous sum
as
a high percentage of this mass
is
moving at velocity
at velocity most profound
at over 90% the velocity of light
such that
this equation of Albert's, E = MC² is 4 or more time the energy E that exist in the mass
the mass that has to provide the energy to accelerate the mass to over 90% the speed of light
in point of fact
if the existing mass multiplied by its velocity
The kinetic energy, more than accounts for the missing mass, in spade full's
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2019
Time has ALWAYS existed,
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

REGARDLESS of whether there was a beginning of time, time by definition has "ALWAYS existed".
That is because (even) if there was a beginning of time then there was no 'before' that beginning of time (else, as logically implied by the word 'before', there was a point in time 'before' that beginning therefore the said "beginning of time" isn't the beginning of time) which means if there was a beginning of time then all points of time "existed" in "ALWAYS" because the word "ALWAYS" means AT ALL POINTS in time and thus "ALWAYS" doesn't including a point in time where time doesn't exist (which would be a contradiction ANYWAY). Therefore time by definition has "ALWAYS" "existed" i.e. "ALWAYS existed".
But I doubt any of that was what you really meant to say.
says humy

As Time is not a "dimension". it is unobservable in and of itself.

-contd-
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2019
-contd-
Time is inanimate, therefore Time cannot be captured by an alleged Black Hole and drawn toward it or be a part of it. It is EVENTS that slow down within the alleged BH, where the spin is created by natural forces, similar to water spinning inside a sink drain pipe before entering the pipe itself.
Our concept of Time is only related to the fact that we are living and are aware of THE PASSAGE OF EVENTS, and it is that passage that we call Time.
There was NO BEGINNING OF TIME - and it even transcends the Creator God's existence - whether before or during. There is no "after" in that context because the Creator is immortal.
But Time itself - not as we have conceptualised had no beginning and will never end. Even long after the Universe has ended in whichever way, Time will still be inviolate as there is nothing that can make it cease to exist. Existence is not the right term - for Time to exist, it would to be quantifiable - and it isn't -except by our use as a concept
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2019
Kinetic Energy is mass in theory - E = MC²
beeds> Maybe the missing mass is somehow related to the kinetic energy of the stuff we can see?

The Milkyway is . . .
this equation of Albert's, E = MC² is 4 or more time the energy E that exist in the mass
the mass that has to provide the energy to accelerate the mass to over 90% the speed of light
in point of fact
if the existing mass multiplied by its velocity
The kinetic energy, more than accounts for the missing mass, in spade full's
says granville

Brilliant estimation. Mass/Energy are convertible and interchangeable from one to the other and back again - over and over ad infinitum.
It is ENERGY and its Motion/Momentum that is where the missing Mass is hidden. Dark Matter is toast.
Thank you, granville and beeds
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2019
...
So if TIME has always existed, how was it measured?

The same way space was measured - it wasn't. It just - was...
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2019
SEU, latest in the long line of pirouette/russkiye/pussycateyes/obamasocks iterations of the same perennial crackpot, has this to say in response to my response to cantdrive85
says SpookyOtto

Would you care to add your own "pseudoscience" to the mix? Don't worry. We won't think any less
:)
-Cantdrive85 is the only other poster to refer to me as blotto. The aforementioned suckpuppet menagerie used to call me that all the time.

I've long suspected that that poster (commonly referred to as pussytard for short) was a 'regular' poster who donned one of these idiot socks every once in awhile in order to bait the legitimate posters here as a way of feeding his egomaniac proclivities; and because of that last response by SEU, I now suspect cantdrive85 the EU czar, is none other than one and the same crackpot.

Cantdrive85 = SEU
says SpookyOtto

I have ALWAYS called you SpookyOtto and nothing BUT SpookyOtto.
Go take your D-K meds before you completely lose your mind
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 18, 2019
Go take your D-K meds before you completely lose your mind
.....it's too late.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 18, 2019
Brilliant estimation. Mass/Energy are convertible and interchangeable from one to the other and back again - over and over ad infinitum.


It's for this reason that the Universe displays remarkable homogeneity. No matter what direction we aim our telescopes, the most distant views are so much alike one another that we can probably conclude from such homogeneity that the Universe could very well be trillions of years old.

When they finally get that James Webb Infrared telescope into orbit & running, I believe there will be a lot of present day theories about the Universe be shattered so badly that all the textbooks on Astronomy will be rewritten.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2019
What are "D-K meds?" Snicker.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2019
. If you're in a car following the car ahead of you, you would see that car in the red shift. But you turn around in your seat and see that another car is following YOU...blue shift.

Since you are three are travelling in the same direction and at an equivalent, you would see NO shift (Unless your driving a 5 speed manual)
says Whyde

LOL Precisely. 3 cars are headed in the same direction with 1 on each end, and 1 in the middle. But the 1 in the middle is MilkyWay that is following the gal. in front of him who is driving at a steady velocity. BUT, MilkyWay slows down a fair bit to give the gal in front some leeway (in case another gal. decides to cut in front of MilkyWay suddenly). Then, as he slows down a mite, the gal. behind him is moving forward at the normal velocity. Eventually, MilkyWay is slowing a bit TOO much and Andromeda (the name of the gal. behind him) will soon go crashing into MilkyWay's car where they will merge and live happily ever after.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2019
Worth noting at this point that the treatment of time as a dimension is special relativity theory, not general relativity theory, and time dilation is one of those inconvenient laboratory-proven facts that shows it's correct.

Oops.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2019
Worth noting at this point that the treatment of time as a dimension is special relativity theory, not general relativity theory, and time dilation is one of those inconvenient laboratory-proven facts that shows it's correct.

Oops.


Worth noting that they are still wrong.
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2019
Eventually, MilkyWay is slowing a bit TOO much and Andromeda (the name of the gal. behind him) will soon go crashing into MilkyWay's car where they will merge and live happily ever after.


To me, the most logical description in the motions of galaxies is that the Universe is a BARYCENTER, that there is an actual CENTER but there's nothing in it. Barycenter motion is the most common structure we see in satellite clusters that orbit the Milky Way, and is in fact the manner the Milky Way moves in it's motion within our local Virgo group where no single galaxy actually occupies a center.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2019
Worth noting at this point that the treatment of time as a dimension is special relativity theory, not general relativity theory, and time dilation is one of those inconvenient laboratory-proven facts that shows it's correct.

Oops.


Worth noting that they are still wrong.
It's experimental data. From 1938. It's called the "Ives-Stillwell experiment." The experiment has been repeated, many times and in several different ways. https://en.wikipe...periment

Like most crank nutjobs, yuo're denying data. It's yuo who's wrong. The only question is whether yuo're stupid or lying.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2019
Oh, and just for the record, the Dunning-Kruger effect (sometimes called D-K syndrome) is the fairly obvious observation that the stupider people are the less likely they are to realize they're stupid. Obviously there are no medications for this. It's not a psychiatric condition; just a natural and logical consequence of stupidity.

Kinda like not noticing you're denying data.

Dumbshit apparently has been told it's exhibiting clear signs of D-K and thought it was some sort of disease. The disease is stupidity. The only cure is to admit you were wrong and find out the truth. And as the old joke goes,

Q. How many psychologists does it take to change a light bulb?
A. Only one, but the light bulb has to really want to change.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 18, 2019
Space can Dilate - Time cannot. IF Time was able to Dilate, then it would have to be animate and observable. Fool. Repeated many times and in several different ways means they were wrong that many times and ways.
Show what makes Time dilate and what it looks like, idiot twat nutjob
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2019
Yet the experimental results show not only can time dilate, but it does.

Still denying data, I see. You are a stupid. It's observable. I have no idea what "animate" means; dimensions can't think, as you appear from your statements to believe.

Time and space are interchangeable, just as the space dimensions are interchangeable.

Hold a pencil in front of your eyes perpendicular to your line of sight. Now rotate the pencil in the plane if your line of sight, and the direction the pencil is pointing. It appears shorter. Now, if you use depth perception, you will note that one space dimension has interchanged with another. Do you deny this?

OK, now make something go fast. Since velocity is a function of time, time interchanges with space. And that is exactly and only what time dilation is.

Shown. Next?
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2019
I could go into a lot more detail, some of which is covered in the relativity concept of "rapidity," but I have done so many times before and most D-K sufferers like you don't get it anyway because you're too stupid. If someone else is interested they can google up "rapidity relativity" and find out a lot more- and if that still doesn't do it I'll step up to the plate and swing at it again, but not for this foul-mouthed idiot.

Lessons:

1. Don't lie about me. Especially trash mouth lies. I'll humiliate you.
2. If you wanna stop being stupid you gotta learn.
3. Don't be an asshole.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2019
4. If you wanna argue about relativity, learn it first.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2019
Here, I will teach you something, if you're smart enough to learn:

Show what makes Time dilate and what it looks like, idiot twat nutjob
It's already shown what makes time dilate. What does it look like? Well, that depends on what frame of reference you're looking at it from.

There you go. The essential lesson of relativity. All frames are equivalent, but not all frames are equal.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2019
Hahahahaha, idiot thinks you don't have to know what some concept actually means before you argue about it.

Classic D-K effect. What we have here is a dog arguing about astrophysics. You might as well let it scrabble on the keyboard and then post that. The billion chimpanzees experiment trying to reproduce Shakespeare. One post at a time. We'll be here for a trillion years. And you'll still be stupid.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 18, 2019
1. Don't lie about me. Especially trash mouth lies. I'll humiliate you.
2. If you wanna stop being stupid you gotta learn.
3. Don't be an asshole.


2 + 2 / 2 = schneibo's IQ
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2019
@Benni's shit is pitifully weak. You aren't even a stupid; you're a Down's Syndrome sufferer. I pity you. Not only don't you know but you never can. You should stop posting on the Internets about relativity and concentrate on things you can learn, like the best way to swirl the mop when you're mopping toilets.

You'll never understand why that's the best way; you should just accept it as procedural knowledge, how to complete a task. Maybe that way the people who work there wouldn't complain so much about how dirty you leave everything.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2019
Teh stoopit, it burnz.
jimmybobber
3 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2019
@SEU

In order for the Laws of Physics to be the same in every frame of reference time must dilate. Otherwise the Laws of Physics would vary.
Maxwell's Equations are the same regardless of frame of reference. This is proof of that and what led Einstein to develop his theories.
jimmybobber
3 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2019
And 2 + 2/2 = 3. Always and forever.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2019
@jimmy, excellent. Yes, this is so. This is indeed what Einstein saw. The fact that Maxwell's equations must obtain in every frame of reference is exactly what Einstein saw; in order for that to be true, it is necessary not only to define laws to convert from one frame to another, but show that all of them can always be converted. (We call these conversions "transforms" or to be precise, "coordinate transformations.") The math Einstein did showed these transforms, And of course, these "frames of reference" must be defined.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2019
Now, once these idiots

a) admit time dilation
and
b) admit gravitational time dilation

There is a conversation possible. Until then they are arguing unicorns.

I of course have references to papers for the third as well as the first, already produced.

I am lying in wait. With the math.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2019
Let's see. . .
Isotropy of the speed of light = light waves

Relativistic Deppler effect = sound waves

annnnnddd
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2019
You've left out so many elements of your reasoning path it doesn't make any sense.

Neither of your observations seem to have any relevance. Both appear to be non-sequiturs. I might as well say unicorns = jebus. Or argon = infinity. Or music = evil.

Stupid is as stupid does.

How about (stupid + tribe) = (danger to society)

How does that work for you?
jimmybobber
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2019
@SEU

What does 2/3 + 1/3 = ?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 18, 2019
Slow moving clocks
Meanwhile, the measurement of time dilation at everyday speeds has been accomplished as well. Chou et al. (2010) created two clocks each holding a single 27Al+ ion in a Paul trap. In one clock, the Al+ ion was accompanied by a 9Be+ ion as a "logic" ion, while in the other, it was accompanied by a 25Mg+ ion. The two clocks were situated in separate laboratories and connected with a 75 m long, phase-stabilized optical fiber for exchange of clock signals. These optical atomic clocks emitted frequencies in the petahertz (1 PHz = 1015 Hz) range and had frequency uncertainties in the 10−17 range. With these clocks, it was possible to measure a frequency shift due to time dilation of ∼10−16 at speeds below 36 km/h (< 10 m/s, the speed of a fast runner) by comparing the rates of moving and resting aluminum ions. It was also possible to detect gravitational time dilation from a difference in elevation between the two clocks of 33 cm.[24]

-contd-
jimmybobber
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2019
Keep going SEU, i'm waiting for your point.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2019
We had already discussed this wrt the 2 Caesium clocks - 1 on an airplane and 1 on the ground, where it was found that it was Gravity itself that was responsible for the clocks differentiating in the mechanical works of each clock DUE TO GRAVITY... not Time Dilation

Benni - do you remember that discussion in one of the physorg phorums, I think it was last year.
I think it had to do with Pauli exclusion IIRC, and that Gravity affect the 2 clocks as to velocity, height and direction of the plane in the air in which it flew. I also added that the time zones were affecting GPS.
But there was no Time dilation whatsoever supposed to protect Einstein's GR/SR
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2019
Oh, and Benni - don't forget THIS little gem....

Ignore userQuoteReport
Da Schneib

1 /5 (2)
20 hours ago
What you do with these is go around behind their back and lie about them every chance you get.

https://phys.org/...html#jCp
jimmybobber
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2019
@SEU

How do you know if you are in the earths gravitational field on the surface feeling a force of mg, g being 9.8 m/s^2, or in an craft accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2? You both feel a force of mg.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2019
If you're just going to lie about Chou 2010, i don't see any reason to respond other than to show the lies. What they (Chou et al.2010) showed was that we can measure both SRT (velocity) effects and GRT (gravity effects) on time dilation using a pair of atomic clocks and a 70 meter optical fiber. We're now that good. It's getting late in the game to show any pride or shame. Best to just admit it instead of trying to lie some more. I will note that I have given this advice to only two others on this site.
jimmybobber
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2019
@SEU

Please go on and explain how gravity slows a clock down. This is very interesting.
What about a digital clock. How does this happen?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2019
@SEU

How do you know if you are in the earths gravitational field on the surface feeling a force of mg, g being 9.8 m/s^2, or in an craft accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2? You both feel a force of mg.


Nope. The gravitational pull on the surface of the Earth at sea level is different from the one at height, whether on an aircraft or up on a mountain. There further you get from Mass, the less the grav pull. The velocity of the aircraft is a factor also plus direction. Going East at dawn you are affected by the Earth's rotation in that heading, the opposite going West
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2019
@SEU

Please go on and explain how gravity slows a clock down. This is very interesting.
What about a digital clock. How does this happen?


Of course, jimmybobs. nuclear clocks are always affected by gravity. Normal clocks are mechanical only and depend on how fast the windup runs down.
jimmybobber
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2019
@SEU
so how does gravity affect a clock?
jimmybobber
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2019
@SEU
And how are nuclear clocks always affected by gravity?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2019
A Caesium clock, you mean, aye jimmybobs? I told you already that nuclear clocks are affected by gravity, depending on the height of said clock, direction, and velocity. On a plane at 33000, the clock will run slower than the one at the surface. Higher than that and it runs even slower.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2019
Not to mention lying about relativity.

x' = x - vt / τ
y' = y
z' = z
t' = ((t - vx) / c² ) / τ
Where, x, y, z, and t are the values in the frame to be transformed from
x', y', z', and t' are the values in the frame to be transformed to
v is velocity in the from frame
c is the speed of light
τ is √(1-(v² /c²))
You get to transform v into v'. Note v' is not used in any of the equations.
jimmybobber
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2019
Why SEU?
Why is a "nuclear clock" affected by gravity? You can tell me all you want. But I wan't you to explain it to me. Not just "tell" me.

What is a "direction of a clock"?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 18, 2019
You seem to forget, jimmybobs, that Gravity depends on Mass to activate grav pull. The closer to the surface of Mass, the stronger the pull of gravity. Got it?
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2019
A Caesium clock, you mean, aye jimmybobs? I told you already that nuclear clocks are affected by gravity, depending on the height of said clock, direction, and velocity. On a plane at 33000, the clock will run slower than the one at the surface. Higher than that and it runs even slower.
Trying to imitate someone who knows how relativity works is even stupider than lying about how relativity works.

You told us there's no time dilation. Then you say in this post atomic clocks measure time dilation.

Make up the thing you think is your mind.
jimmybobber
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2019
What SEU?
Mass can "activate grav pull"?

So Nuclear clocks are affected by gravity but normal, mechanical, clocks are not SEU?

This is interesting stuff! Keep going!
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 18, 2019
Really, jimmybobs? You really don't know?
If the cesium clock is on an airplane that is in the air at height, if it going West, it has to follow the curvature of the Earth. Sun rises in the East so that your pilot with the clock is heading West while gaining time - 3 hours if you're on the East coast of the US. Got it? Going East you're losing 3 hours. Still nothing to do with Time dilating
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2019
D-K sufferer @Russian_Troll_Unit doesn't even understand what the Hafele-Keating experiment showed. It's yammering about timezones.

Prolly thinks "atomic clocks" have like hour hands and stuff.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 18, 2019
Stop your silly baiting, jimmybobs. I tire of you. Go ask you uncle De Scheide. Bye bye

You stupid humans are too amazing as how easy it is to make fools of you. Time dilation ROFLOL
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2019
Denying special relativity theory ROTFFLMFAO

What an idiot. What do you do for a living, repair faucets? I suppose it's better than mopping toilets like @Benni.
jimmybobber
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2019
SEU said:

"Really, jimmybobs? You really don't know?
If the cesium clock is on an airplane that is in the air at height, if it going West, it has to follow the curvature of the Earth. Sun rises in the East so that your pilot with the clock is heading West while gaining time - 3 hours if you're on the East coast of the US. Got it? Going East you're losing 3 hours. Still nothing to do with Time dilating"

I'm speechless.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2019
Here ya go, jimmybobs

https://phys.org/...ies.html]https://phys.org/...ies.html[/url]

https://phys.org/...ies.html]https://phys.org/...ies.html[/url]
jimmybobber
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2019
I thought you were tired of me SEU. You said bye bye. I'm just a stupid human and a fool. Why do you persist in communicating with me?
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2019
Posting the same link twice doesn't make it better.

Just sayin'.

And just for grins yuo might want to actually quote something from it that wasn't rated "1."
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2019
Here, I will teach you something, if you're smart enough to learn:

Show what makes Time dilate and what it looks like, idiot twat nutjob
It's already shown what makes time dilate. What does it look like? Well, that depends on what frame of reference you're looking at it from.

There you go. The essential lesson of relativity. All frames are equivalent, but not all frames are equal.
says Da Pussyman

Obfuscating and averting to avoid answering the question. It's already shown nothing. ROFLOL
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2019
And here is the other one...

https://phys.org/...ace.html
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2019
1) have you ever had sex up against the microwave?
Does a cell phone tower that looks like a palm tree count?
2) are you allergic to sweet sorghum or no?
No, but I prefer the after taste of stevia.
3) have you ever had your comments here at physorg altered by sinister forces?
Comments removed by the moderator, so yeah.
4) have you ever called the NRC to recommend cooling meltdowns with dry ice?
Sea water is much better, see Fukushima.
5) have you ever worked for NASA as an engineer?
Pretty sure I was a conquistador in a past life.
6) were you in the control room all night when Curiosity landed?
Baatroom
7) were you ever a black psychiatrist?
Black holeatrist
8) do you believe that the only way to achieve zero growth is not to make any babies AT ALL for 100 years
It's a start.
9) do you believe the FACT that the solar system is just big enough to accommodate all the planets, is PROOF of the existence of god?
Which one?

Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Feb 19, 2019
Lying and denying again, I see.

Not to mention cherry-picking.

I'll quote it since you wanna lie about whether I posted it or not.

You told us there's no time dilation. Then you say in this post atomic clocks measure time dilation.


Waiting.
Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2019
So, no answer. Kneejerk vote 1. Transparent as a 3-year-old with cookie crumbs on her shirt standing over the broken cookie jar.
humy
4 / 5 (4) Feb 19, 2019
Therefore time by definition has "ALWAYS" "existed" i.e. "ALWAYS existed".
So if TIME has always existed, how was it measured?
Benni

Where did I say/imply time was always measured?
All I said was, regardless of whether time has a beginning, and for the reasons I gave, it is correct to say "Time has always existed". How time is measured has nothing to do with that.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 19, 2019
Hehehehehehehehh
Uhh nope - nuclear clocks can't measure Time dilation cuz Time no dilate. Pupils dilate; wimmings about to give birth dilate; blood vessels dilate; but ain't no Time dilation - no way Hosay.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2019
So how come clocks moving relative to each other no faster than a man can run show it?

Why did yuo think they had 70-yard wires?

Teh stoopit. It burnz.

Remember yuo cited this experiment. Apparently yuo're too stoopit to actually read the paper on it.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2019
More cookie crumbs. Mama still spank.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (9) Feb 19, 2019
No Time dilation there either. Only Gravity can slow a clockworks mechanism or make it run faster when it is powered by Caesium atoms, for instance, according to location and other conditions. A Caesium powered clock can run for IIRC 30000 years. Ordinary clocks with a spring windup thingy run as long as it is wound up and gradually winds down.
Get used to it.
Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2019
Only velocity is required. See Einstein's 1905 Special Relativity Theory. And start with the Ives-Stilwell experiment. 1936.

Noticed you don't want to talk about Chou et al. 2010. Run and hide.
humy
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2019
Without careful thought, this might might sound wrong but, even if there was a beginning of time, the assertion "Time has always existed" logically must STILL necessarily be correct!

This is because "always" means "at all point in time" and if time had a beginning then there was no points in time 'before' that beginning (and, if fact, there wouldn't have been a 'before' that beginning else that said "beginning of time" wasn't the beginning of time thus contradiction!) and that means there would be no points in time 'before' that beginning for there to NOT exist a point in time because there was no such 'before' (else that said "beginning" wasn't the beginning of time!) for there to exist no time thus "Time has always existed" logically must still necessarily be correct!

Put more simply, at all points in time, time itself existed, therefore time has always existed.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2019
You can always smell trolls. They deny evidence.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 19, 2019
@humy
After much pondering, I think that I'M the one who said that and you had answered and were making YOUR case for Time always existing. There was no beginning and no end. It's just there.
And Time can't be dilated.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2019
Well, time for lunch. CYA
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 19, 2019
Perils measuring 1s under accelerative force

Atoms move in continuous motion unless acted on by a force
gravity occupies the vacuum acts on all atoms in the vacuum
all motion is curved
a curved path is accelerating motion
atoms are accelerating under force caesium atoms increase oscillation
gravitation equals accelerating force
moving in a curved path equals accelerating motion
motion in the vacuum is accelerating motion
1second is measured by an oscillating caesium atom
under accelerating motion
its oscillations are dependent on accelerative force
An atom
whether sitting on the beach sunbathing
whether in orbit round the earth
whether in free fall
all atoms are under accelerative force
atoms oscillations are dependant of accelerative force

All atoms in this vacuum oscillate where that oscillation is dependent on accelerative motion
all velocity in this vacuum is the rate of change of velocity
All Motion is an Accelerative Force
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2019
Einstein, 1905, On the Electromagnetics of Moving Bodies. Annals of Physics. Translation available here: http://www.fourmi...rel/www/

Next?
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Feb 19, 2019
If you wanna see where the transform I gave above is in this paper, look in section 3.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2019
Albert Einstein- Oct 1939

On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses
Author(s): Albert Einstein Reviewed work(s): Source: The Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Oct., 1939), pp. 922-936 Published by: Annals of Mathematics Stable URL:

http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf

"This investigation arose out of discussions the author conducted with Professor H. P. Robertson and with Drs. V. Bargmann and P. Bergmann on the mathematical and physical significance of the Schwarzschild singularity. The problem quite naturally leads to the question, answered by this paper in the negative, as to whether physical models are capable of exhibiting such a singularity."

>schneibo.....Okay schneibo, I see you have had a change of heart & now want to start invoking Einstein into your unhinged tirades, so how about YOU go look at the link I just put up........?
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2019
So you proved there's no singularity.

As you've been told over and over, most physicists don't think there's one either. We just don't have a quantum gravity theory to tell us what is there.

Next?
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Feb 19, 2019
So you proved there's no singularity.

As you've been told over and over, most physicists don't think there's one either. We just don't have a quantum gravity theory to tell us what is there. Next?
........"Next"? What do you mean "what is there"? You got pictures that makes you think something is there? Like what?
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2019
So you proved there's no singularity.

As you've been told over and over, most physicists don't think there's one either. We just don't have a quantum gravity theory to tell us what is there. Next?
........"Next"? What do you mean "what is there"? You got pictures that makes you think something is there? Like what?


A permanent radio source, dickhead. Occasional flaring in IR due to accretion, moron. The orbits of the stars definitively prove a mass of ~ 4m solar masses, cretin. Gravitational redshift of star S2, thicko.
humy
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2019
@humy
There was no beginning (of time) and no end (of time).

How do you know this? NOBODY does! And, at least currently, nobody can know! Scientists still have an incomplete picture.
Time can't be dilated.
If what you mean by that is that there is no such thing at time dilation, WRONG!
It is a proven scientific fact, backed-up by numerous observations and measurements, that there is time dilation. Learn some science.
humy
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2019
---continued---

Surveillance_Egg_Unit

Just one small part of the evidence for time dilation:

https://www.scien...erified/

"Physicists have verified a key prediction of Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity with unprecedented accuracy. Experiments at a particle accelerator in Germany confirm that time moves slower for a moving clock than for a stationary one.

The work is the most stringent test yet of this 'time-dilation' effect,..."

Also see

https://en.wikipe...periment
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Feb 19, 2019
@humy
There was no beginning (of time) and no end (of time).

How do you know this? NOBODY does! And, at least currently, nobody can know! Scientists still have an incomplete picture.
Time can't be dilated.
If what you mean by that is that there is no such thing at time dilation, WRONG!
It is a proven scientific fact, backed-up by numerous observations and measurements, that there is time dilation. Learn some science.


You learn some science, the "dilation effect" is the result of kinetic energy input to a system, "time" cannot be "input" to a system, it is simply a UNIT OF MEASURE, just like any system of recording measurements. If you think differently, then YOU explain the physics of inputting time into a system.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2019
You can also take an atomic clock up a mountain;

http://leapsecond...eat2005/
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2019
Albert Einstein- Oct 1939

On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses
Author(s): Albert Einstein Reviewed work(s): Source: The Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Oct., 1939), pp. 922-936 Published by: Annals of Mathematics Stable URL:

http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf

"This investigation arose out of discussions the author conducted with Professor H. P. Robertson and with Drs. V. Bargmann and P. Bergmann on the mathematical and physical significance of the Schwarzschild singularity. The problem quite naturally leads to the question, answered by this paper in the negative, as to whether physical models are capable of exhibiting such a singularity."

>schneibo.....Okay schneibo, I see you have had a change of heart & now want to start invoking Einstein into your unhinged tirades, so how about YOU go look at the link I just put up?


Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2019
You can also take an atomic clock up a mountain;

http://leapsecond...eat2005/
It's called changing the kinetic energy input to a system.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Feb 19, 2019
So you proved there's no singularity.

As you've been told over and over, most physicists don't think there's one either. We just don't have a quantum gravity theory to tell us what is there. Next?
........"Next"? What do you mean "what is there"? You got pictures that makes you think something is there? Like what?
Strong gravity, electric charge (if it has any), and angular momentum (if it has any). Those are the only things that can come out from behind the event horizon; everything else is inside. That's according to theory; and nothing we've seen around any black hole has ever cast any doubt on it.

Next?
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2019
@Benni the bullshitting janitor;

He was wrong. Obviously. It was an inevitable consequence of his own maths that a singularity would form. This shows that GR is not the whole answer, and we need a quantum gravity explanation. You have been told this multiple times, you ignorant cretin. Einstein also predicted gravitational redshift for light passing near a massive object. The observation of this for star S2 proves, beyond any doubt, that there is a massive object there. Or was Einstein wrong about gravitational redshift? Make your mind up, shitforbrains.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2019
You can also take an atomic clock up a mountain;

http://leapsecond...eat2005/
It's called changing the kinetic energy input to a system.


No it is not, you f***wit.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2019
You can also take an atomic clock up a mountain;

http://leapsecond...eat2005/
It's called changing the kinetic energy input to a system.
Is that supposed to mean something? Because it doesn't seem to have anything to do with time.
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Feb 19, 2019
So you proved there's no singularity.

As you've been told over and over, most physicists don't think there's one either. We just don't have a quantum gravity theory to tell us what is there. Next?
........"Next"? What do you mean "what is there"? You got pictures that makes you think something is there? Like what?
Strong gravity, electric charge (if it has any), and angular momentum (if it has any). Those are the only things that can come out from behind the event horizon; everything else is inside. That's according to theory; and nothing we've seen around any black hole has ever cast any doubt on it. Next?
......which is why you can't prove SgrA* is NOT a barycenter, because there's nothing to see there.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Feb 19, 2019
......which is why you can't prove SgrA* is NOT a barycenter, because there's nothing to see there.


Clueless twat. A barycentre cannot cause those orbits, shitforbrains. A barycentre cannot cause gravitational redshift, moron. Put your mop down, and head off to high school, you ignorant POS.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2019
You can also take an atomic clock up a mountain;

http://leapsecond...eat2005/
It's called changing the kinetic energy input to a system.
Is that supposed to mean something? Because it doesn't seem to have anything to do with time.
.....you don't comprehend it because of your inability to comprehend 1/2mv², and that it's the system in motion that undergoes dilation, not TIME.

Explain how TIME can be INPUT to a system to change it's kinetic energy? You can't, so you start another name calling rant.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2019
^^^^^^^^ Go away you ignorant cockwomble. You know nothing about physics. As proven repeatedly. Take up astrology, or something more befitting your low IQ.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2019
Is that supposed to mean something? Because it doesn't seem to have anything to do with time.
.....you don't comprehend it because of your inability to comprehend 1/2mv², and that it's the system in motion that undergoes dilation, not TIME.
What kind of dilation does the system in motion undergo?

Explain how TIME can be INPUT to a system to change it's kinetic energy? You can't, so you start another name calling rant.
I don't see where it's an input to anything you've said here so far.

Meanwhile, how come we measure it as different for a system in motion relative to us? And how come Einstein said it's different? Want the link to On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies again? Because that's what he said. How about the link to the Ives-Stilwell experiment? Because that's what the experiment says.
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2019
Benni
You can also take an atomic clock up a mountain;

http://leapsecond...eat2005/
It's called changing the kinetic energy input to a system.

your other link
http www cscamm umd edu people facult tiglio GR2012 Syllabus files/EinsteinSchwarzschild pdf

does not work
Is this what you are looking for

https://www.googl...Wz_xRUSk

jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2019
^^^^^^^ Benni has now buggered off, having realised that a barycentre cannot cause the observed orbits, nor the gravitational redshift. It is a clueless eejit. It'll be back soon, as if it never made such stupid claims. The thickness of its skin is inversely proportional to the size of its brain.
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2019
Benni, In my Liverpool Home

p.s. We know everyone's into pop cosmology, now that includes The Beatles

https://www.youtu...eZu_Ivho
humy
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2019
You learn some science, the "dilation effect" is the result of kinetic energy input to a system,
Benni

WRONG. Try learning some REAL science instead of making-up a load of crap, like above.
Start here:
https://en.wikipe...dilation
"time" cannot be "input" to a system
What the hell does that mean? And who said/implied that, whatever 'that' is supposed to mean? Certainly not me. You are talking complete gibberish, as usual.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2019
You are talking complete gibberish, as usual.


The idiot Benni is fluent in gibberish.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2019
-cont-

Surveillance_Egg_Unit

Just one small part of the evidence

https://www.scien...verified
"Physicists have verified a key prediction of Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity with unprecedented accuracy. Experiments at a particle accelerator in Germany confirm that time moves slower for a moving clock than for a stationary one.

The work is the most stringent test yet of this 'time-dilation' effect,..."

Also

https://en.wikipe...periment

Read more at: https://phys.org/...tml#jCp/
says humy

LOL I hate to say it but, humy, you are so gullible.
Those scientists claiming that Time Dilation has to be real are also gullible/deluded. I have already said that TIME IS INANIMATE. This means that Time is NOT an object which can be captured, caged, tortured, experimented on or with, taken photos of, moved up or down, or any of the things that scientists do
JaxPavan
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2019
@Larson

The epicycles were based on observations too, and tooled to explain those observations in a fundamentally warped way, to wit, in order to maintain a religious creation story with the earth at the center. In modern times, The Big Bang has become such a story, and thus all the swirling theories are as suspect as epicycles, quite frankly. Most so-called scientists in the realm of cosmology understand where their bread is buttered, and the successful can ones approach their theory building from a very results oriented perspective. In short, epicycles.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2019
LOL I hate to say it but, humy, you are so gullible.
Those scientists claiming that Time Dilation has to be real are also gullible/deluded. I have already said that TIME IS INANIMATE. This means that Time is NOT an object which can be captured, caged, tortured, experimented on or with, taken photos of, moved up or down, or any of the things that scientists do


Stop being an ignorant twat, just for once. Time dilation is a measured effect. Without taking account of it, you tosser, your GPS wouldn't work.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2019
@Larson

The epicycles were based on observations too, and tooled to explain those observations in a fundamentally warped way, to wit, in order to maintain a religious creation story with the earth at the center. In modern times, The Big Bang has become such a story, and thus all the swirling theories are as suspect as epicycles, quite frankly. Most so-called scientists in the realm of cosmology understand where their bread is buttered, and the successful can ones approach their theory building from a very results oriented perspective. In short, epicycles.


Utter shit. Written like a true crank. Go get an education.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2019
@humy

I will read those later, and those scientists are fool or money-hungry. But you should know by now that Time is NOT a Dimension as the other three. IF Time was a dimension, then you would be able to make drawings or paintings with it, make 3 dimensional blocks with it, and build structures made of Time. You would be able to SEE Time. This is WHY you cannot dilate Time as you could with Space.
Time has no power at all. When you age, it isn't Time doing it - it is only the cells of your body transforming/decaying through sustained attrition. It's an event.
Iron doesn't rust due to Time itself. Rust is caused by chemical changes, not Time.
Time has NO VALUE, except for the human conceptualising it as something of value...as in getting to work on time.
You must try to understand that scientists are desperately hoping to hold on to Einstein's GR/SR theories in order to uphold their own credibility as scientists. You will never hear that they've debunked any part of GR/SR
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2019
You must try to understand that scientists are desperately hoping to hold on to Einstein's GR/SR theories in order to uphold their own credibility as scientists. You will never hear that they've debunked any part of GR/SR


What an ignorant tosser. GR/SR has been tested to death and back. It passes every time. Your GPS is proof of that, idiot.

rrwillsj
3 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2019
jd, do you really believe that he got his GPS working?
Hell I would not at all be surprised if all the digital clocks & microwave oven were constantly flashing 12:00!

Forget about him wearing lace up shoes. Those bunny slippers on his feet? Cause he never did get the hang of velcro straps.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Feb 19, 2019
LOL I hate to say it but, humy, you are so gullible.
Those scientists claiming that Time Dilation has to be real are also gullible/deluded. I have already said that TIME IS INANIMATE. This means that Time is NOT an object which can be captured, caged, tortured, experimented on or with, taken photos of, moved up or down, or any of the things that scientists do


Stop being an ignorant twat, just for once. Time dilation is a measured effect. Without taking account of it, you tosser, your GPS wouldn't work.
says jones the deluded simp

That's full steam ahead BS. Time DILATION is a hoax. There is no way to halve or quarter it or make it smaller or larger or bend it - because it's not a THING. IT IS A CONCEPT CONCEIVED BY THE HUMAN MIND TO MEASURE THE PASSAGE OF EVENTS.
YOU are the one that's thick. You need to remove your rose-colored glasses and look at the real world.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2019

YOU are the one that's thick. You need to remove your rose-colored glasses and look at the real world.


Dickhead. It is a proven fact. And there is shed loads of evidence to support that, you ignorant prick. Go get an education, you posing moron. You haven't got a bloody clue, shitforbrains.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2019
The GPS works through nuclear atomic power and is not Time dependent. It is set at a certain setting and then the Caesium atoms enable to keep running for thousands of years. Occasionally, depending on the Time Zone it is above, the clock's "face/numbers" have to be updated by a human. It can run slower or faster with elevation and it has to be adjusted for that also.
Nothing gets dilated in GPS. It is all automatic and mechanical.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2019
...
You learn some science, the "dilation effect" is the result of kinetic energy input to a system,

Not getting your connection on this one...
"time" cannot be "input" to a system, it is simply a UNIT OF MEASURE, just like any system of recording measurements. If you think differently, then YOU explain the physics of inputting time into a system.

Actually it's about how a "system" is input into time...

I can run slower with elevation and it has to be adjusted for that also.

You run slower cuz oxygen level is lower...
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2019
The GPS works through nuclear atomic power and is not Time dependent. It is set at a certain setting and then the Caesium atoms enable to keep running for thousands of year. Occasionally, depending on the Time Zone it is above, the clock's "face/numbers" have to be updated by a human. I can run slower with elevation and it has to be adjusted for that also.
Nothing gets dilated in GPS. It is all automatic and mechanical.


Don't talk shit, you moron. You'd be in the wrong county if they didn't adjust for GR and SR. As is well known from the very first GPS satellite launched, dickhead. Want to see the paper? Show you up as an ignorant liar, yet again? Say the word, thicko.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2019
Occasionally, depending on the Time Zone it is above, the clock's "face/numbers" have to be updated by a human


F*** me! The stupid here hurts! Time zone? WTF difference would that make, you idiot? Dear me. Some people are just so thick.
They launched the first satellite without adjusting for GR/SR as some people (probably bloody engineers) didn't think such effects were real. The physicists included a frequency adjuster should it be shown that they really did need to account for GR/SR. Guess what? They did.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2019
@Whyde

That should have been: IT can run slower or faster with elevation and it has to be adjusted for that also.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Feb 19, 2019
Occasionally, depending on the Time Zone it is above, the clock's "face/numbers" have to be updated by a human


F*** me! The stupid here hurts! Time zone? WTF difference would that make, you idiot? Dear me. Some people are just so thick.
They launched the first satellite without adjusting for GR/SR as some people (probably bloody engineers) didn't think such effects were real. The physicists included a frequency adjuster should it be shown that they really did need to account for GR/SR. Guess what? They did.

says the gullible jones

Yes, Time Zones. You know the kind that when you fly West or East, there are increments of 1hour for each time zone that is passed over. Or maybe you didn't know that. I wouldn't be surprised.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2019
Occasionally, depending on the Time Zone it is above, the clock's "face/numbers" have to be updated by a human


F*** me! The stupid here hurts! Time zone? WTF difference would that make, you idiot? Dear me. Some people are just so thick.
They launched the first satellite without adjusting for GR/SR as some people (probably bloody engineers) didn't think such effects were real. The physicists included a frequency adjuster should it be shown that they really did need to account for GR/SR. Guess what? They did.

says the gullible jones

Yes, Time Zones. You know the kind that when you fly West or East, there are increments of 1hour for each time zone that is passed over. Or maybe you didn't know that. I wouldn't be surprised.


Twat. That is nothing to do with adjustments to GPS you ignorant fool.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2019
...
You learn some science, the "dilation effect" is the result of kinetic energy input to a system,

Not getting your connection on this one...
"time" cannot be "input" to a system, it is simply a UNIT OF MEASURE, just like any system of recording measurements. If you think differently, then YOU explain the physics of inputting time into a system.

Actually it's about how a "system" is input into time...

I can run slower with elevation and it has to be adjusted for that also.

You run slower cuz
says Whyde

You said: "Actually it's about how a "system" is input into time..."
Could you elaborate on HOW a system can be input into TIME, plus the methodology of how Time can stand still long enough to accept the "system"? What does the system look like when it goes INTO Time? Does the Time change in appearance somehow? Does Time add weight to the system?
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2019
^^^^ WTF is this idiot talking about??????
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2019
Occasionally, depending on the Time Zone it is above, the clock's "face/numbers" have to be updated by a human


F*** me! The stupid here hurts! Time zone? WTF difference would that make, you idiot? Dear me. Some people are just so thick.
They launched the first satellite without adjusting for GR/SR as some people (probably bloody engineers) didn't think such effects were real. The physicists included a frequency adjuster should it be shown that they really did need to account for GR/SR. Guess what? They did.

says the gullible jones

Yes, Time Zones. You know the kind that when you fly West or East, there are increments of 1hour for each time zone that is passed over. Or maybe you didn't know that.


Twat. That is nothing to do with adjustments to GPS you ignorant fool.


Oh so you DO admit that GPS needs adjusting, aye?'

Since you are bypassing the 3 minute wait before you post again, I assume that you have more than one computer
MrBojangles
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2019
That's full steam ahead BS. Time DILATION is a hoax. There is no way to halve or quarter it or make it smaller or larger or bend it - because it's not a THING. IT IS A CONCEPT CONCEIVED BY THE HUMAN MIND TO MEASURE THE PASSAGE OF EVENTS.
YOU are the one that's thick. You need to remove your rose-colored glasses and look at the real world.


Space is a concept conceived by the human mind as well to measure distance between two points. Space and time are inseparable. Space therefore cannot be dilated either by your logic.

We know that's not the case though. Or you figured out something Einstein and Minkowski were unaware of?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2019
That's full steam ahead BS. Time DILATION is a hoax. There is no way to halve or quarter it or make it smaller or larger or bend it - because it's not a THING. IT IS A CONCEPT CONCEIVED BY THE HUMAN MIND TO MEASURE THE PASSAGE OF EVENTS.
YOU are the one that's thick. You need to remove your rose-colored glasses and look at the real world.


Space is a concept conceived by the human mind as well to measure distance between two points. Space and time are inseparable. Space therefore cannot be dilated either by your logic.

We know that's not the case though. Or you figured out something Einstein and Minkowski were unaware of?
says B

Time can't be weighed, seen, or moved about. It is not conjoined with Space as you seem to be alluding to. Objects are able to move through Space, but not through Time. YOU are referring to Distance - not Space itself. Space dilates, you know. Ever hear of gravity wells?

humy
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2019
TIME IS INANIMATE . This means that Time is NOT an object which can be captured,
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

And science and the scientists don't say or think time is a living thing and "an object which can be captured", whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. You make up a load of straw man crap.
Time DILATION is a hoax.
Oh not yet another stupid world-wide mass conspiracy theory. Time dilation is a scientific fact.
I will read those later,
That tells us you haven't even bothered to ever try and learn the first thing about the scientific theories/facts you say are all wrong.
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 19, 2019
Perils measuring 1s under accelerative force

Whether it is an electron transitioning
or
an atom, proton oscillating
the time between each oscillation is proportional to the velocity of light
as the atom oscillates in the De Broglie frequency
this frequency
when in motion
its frequency moves at the velocity of light
there fore
the atoms velocity reduces the De Broglie frequency wave length
as
is obvious
when the wave length decreases
the frequency increases
which
comes to this little point:- Perils measuring 1s under accelerative force
with increased frequency
the 10billion Hz
occurs in a smaller time span
Every one agrees this is not time accelerating
just
the physicality's
of
Atoms in motion oscillating in the De Broglie frequency
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Feb 19, 2019
....you don't comprehend it because of your inability to comprehend 1/2mv², and that it's the system in motion that undergoes dilation, not TIME.


What kind of dilation does the system in motion undergo?
.......change in MASS as kinetic energy is input into the system, or removed from the system. Try removing or adding TIME to a system & see how far you get.....zip.

I don't see where it's an input to anything you've said here so far.

Meanwhile, how come we measure it as different for a system in motion relative to us?
.....as I explained: "change in MASS as kinetic energy is input into the system, or removed from the system".
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Feb 19, 2019
TIME IS INANIMATE . This means that Time is NOT an object which can be captured,
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

And science and the scientists don't say or think time is a living thing and "an object which can be captured", whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. You make up a load of straw man crap.
Time DILATION is a hoax.
Oh not yet another stupid world-wide mass conspiracy theory. Time dilation is a scientific fact.
I will read those later,
That tells us you haven't even bothered to ever try and learn the first thing about the scientific theories/facts you say are all wrong.
says the misled humy

You're free to believe in an obvious hoax as long as it comes directly from those scientists who claim that Time has the capacity to dilate. Doesn't matter to me.
If Time dilation was a fact, then where is all the evidence? Papers have been written to (supposedly) describe that Time has dilated - and what are the properties of dilated Time?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Feb 19, 2019
....you don't comprehend it because of your inability to comprehend 1/2mv², and that it's the system in motion that undergoes dilation, not TIME.


What kind of dilation does the system in motion undergo?
.......change in MASS as kinetic energy is input into the system, or removed from the system. Try removing or adding TIME to a system & see how far you get.....zip.

I don't see where it's an input to anything you've said here so far.

Meanwhile, how come we measure it as different for a system in motion relative to us?
.....as I explained: "change in MASS as kinetic energy is input into the system, or removed from the system".
says Benni

"Try removing or adding TIME to a system & see how far you get.....zip."
LOL That's exactly the point - there is NO WAY to add Time to any system. Time is ONLY A CONCEPT - a TOOL - for measurement of events and distance. Perhaps the scientists all threw their wristwatches in?
Nahhh LOL
MrBojangles
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2019
Time can't be weighed, seen, or moved about. It is not conjoined with Space as you seem to be alluding to. Objects are able to move through Space, but not through Time. YOU are referring to Distance - not Space itself. Space dilates, you know. Ever hear of gravity wells?


Again, you've not answered the question, but merely sidestepped it and repeated your point (and you've also needlessly downvoted the honestly posited question, though I suppose this is to be expected of your ilk.)

Can space be seen or weighed? No. Therefore, your point about seeing or weighing time are erroneous.

Do you know something Minkowski and Einstein did not? They say that space and time are inseparable, hence why we refer to it as spacetime. This is something well accepted in physics, not just astronomy. All of special relativity is contingent on time existing. You have the audacity though to say everyone is wrong except you. That's why nobody takes you seriously.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 19, 2019
Again, you've not answered the question, but merely sidestepped it
.......well I did answer the question so directly to schneibo that it couldn't be missed, but somehow YOU managed it.

That which is being physically DILATED is the increasing or decreasing MASS of the system in motion.

The closer a MASS approaches the speed of light due to the input of kinetic energy, the more massive in every physical feature it becomes, including increasing gravity to the system. The physical dimensions of the system change measurably , those changing dimensions are DILATION effects be they increasing or decreasing depending on the effects of acceleration on the system.
MrBojangles
4 / 5 (8) Feb 19, 2019
well I did answer the question so directly to schneibo that it couldn't be missed, but somehow YOU managed it.

That which is being physically DILATED is the increasing or decreasing MASS of the system in motion.

The closer a MASS approaches the speed of light due to the input of kinetic energy, the more massive in every physical feature it becomes, including increasing gravity to the system


You forgot to switch accounts, moron. You meant to post from SEU, I didn't pose any question to you. I've asked several times and never received an answer; why are you incapable of conveying a point without randomly capitalizing words? It only makes you look inarticulate and ultimately detracts from your message. And again, SR predicts time dilation as well as length contraction. I'm not going to bother trying to unpack your word vomit to figure out how you think you've disproved those predictions.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2019
Einstein said it right there in section 3 of On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies in 1905. In 1936, Ives and Stilwell proved it in the laboratory, and many experiments since have confirmed it.

That's how science works. There is nowhere to hide except in lies or delusions.
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Feb 19, 2019
Einstein said it right there in section 3 of On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies in 1905. In 1936, Ives and Stilwell proved it in the laboratory, and many experiments since have confirmed it.

That's how science works. There is nowhere to hide except in lies or delusions.


Suddenly you run out of obfuscating arguments when I pointed out what ACTUALLY changes dimensionally leaving you & the DancerBo to your silly name calling rants once again.

Hey, how's that Physorg embedded moderator job coming along? Changed any Comments lately?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2019
What arguments? I just asked questions.

So basically you're now denying Einstein? Because he's the one who said it.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2019
Incidentally you never said how changes in kinetic energy operate to do something you never specified that looks exactly like time dilation. You said something dilates, but when asked your only response was to repeat what you'd said earlier.

Would you like to answer the question with something other than handwaving at kinetic energy now?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2019
And I have to tell you that there is a theory, the Special Relativity Theory, proposed by Einstein in 1905 in On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, published in Annalen der Physik (Annals of Physics), which proposes a specific mechanism for time dilation, on a firm mathematical basis, something you have not done. And this theory has been proven over and over again in the lab and in the field. Ives-Stilwell was only the first experiment; many others under many different conditions have all said not merely "there is time dilation" but measured the exact same amount, over and over and over and over and over again. No one has seen anything different. And they've looked extensively.

Handwaving will never compete with a well-defined mathematically based theory of physics that has withstood all theoretical and experimental challenges for over a hundred years.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2019
You can buy your very own atomic clock for US$1,500.00 these days: https://physicswo...-market/

This is a chip-level atomic clock. The only reason it costs this much is because there's little demand so no mass production.

Now you need about $100 worth of fiber optic cable and another couple thousand dollars worth of sensing gear and a computer, and you can verify both SRT and GRT in your basement. To verify SRT, make one of the clocks move no faster than a man can run; to verify GRT separate them vertically. I predict this will be on YouTube before too much longer.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 19, 2019
Incidentally you never said how changes in kinetic energy operate to do something
......sure I did, you're just being your usual hard of reading:
The closer a MASS approaches the speed of light due to the input of kinetic energy, the more massive in every physical feature it becomes, including increasing gravity to the system.


You said something dilates, but when asked your only response was to repeat what you'd said earlier.
......of course it was something I said earlier, no reason the answer should change.

Would you like to answer the question with something other than handwaving at kinetic energy now?;


Just because you do not understand mass/energy transformation is no reason why E=mc² or KE=1/2mv² should be changed.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Feb 19, 2019
In fact, as microprocessors (think Pentium) have increased their operating speeds into the GHz range, allowances now need to be made for the speed-of-light delay and the time dilation across the span of motherboards. Light moves at a foot per nanosecond; this can introduce clocking problems across a motherboard since the distance will introduce a phase change at opposite sides of the board. At 3 GHz you're off by three clock cycles across the motherboard.

So tell me, does your 3GHz Pentium motherboard work? If it does you've just proven relativity.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Feb 19, 2019
Oh, and the kinetic energy equation is modified by the same factor as time dilation and length contraction. I can present the equations but since you're innumerate you won't understand them and since you're lying or delusional you'll deny them anyway.

You've already denied

2 + 2 / 2 = 3

I'm more than happy to make the effort for someone honest who asks, but I won't bother for a liar denier like @Benni.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Feb 19, 2019
@Benni still thinks it can lie its way out of both denying and admitting relativistic time dilation in the same post.

What's dilating, @Benni?
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2019
OK, since I said it, the KE equation KE = 1/2mv² only holds for v << c. In fact it only holds exactly for v = 0. As v approaches c, an additional term appears: mc² which is added to the KE equation for v = 0. This term is

KE = mc² + 1/2mv²

@Benni, being innumerate, will not be able to understand this and there will be more handwaving around kinetic energy.

Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2019
C'mon, @Benni, have you made the five posts the psychiatrists allow you each day so you're out of posts?
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2019

.....as I explained: "change in MASS as kinetic energy is input into the system, or removed from the system".

Sounds like you are inferring a relative mass....
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 20, 2019
Time can't be weighed, seen, or moved about. It is not conjoined with Space as you seem to be alluding to. Objects are able to move through Space, but not through Time. YOU are referring to Distance - not Space itself. Space dilates, you know. Ever hear of gravity wells?


Again, you've not answered the question, but merely sidestepped it and repeated your point (and you've also needlessly downvoted the honestly posited question, though I suppose this is to be expected of your ilk.)
says B

I assume your query was regarding Minkowski and Einstein. Not having met and known them personally, or read their minds from a distance when I had the chance, I can only assume that neither one had thought of it. Which was possibly not their intention to claim that Time could be dilated - which I know that it cannot.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Feb 20, 2019
@B

Scientists of today don't wish to upset the memories of the grand masters, so they prefer to toe the line and continue to press the concept of Time dilation - although I believe that at least some of them secretly think that Time dilation is pure BS - which it is.
And, of course, all such experiments, hundreds and thousands of them all agreeing to the fakery of Time dilation - is in direct refusal to insult the memory by putting forth new logic that might damage their careers and credibility amongst their peers - as well as having to begin again on a slightly new tack - namely, Space without Time - an already major faux pas that could not be undone.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Feb 20, 2019
-contd-
Your tit-for-tat opinion that Space cannot be dilated only because I had said that Time cannot is quite irrational and churlish.
And what is THIS that you sent to Benni, where you say: "And again, SR predicts time dilation as well as length contraction."
Time dilation and length contraction? Are you saying that SR includes Time as a rubber band - not only dilating but also contracting? Can Time also reverse so that you can time travel to the past? ARE YOU CRAZY? LOL
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Feb 20, 2019
---continued---

Surveillance_Egg_Unit

Just one small part of the evidence for time dilation:

https://www.scien...erified/
says humy

WTF is this BS you're posting on here, humy? They used 2 clocks: one stationary and one traveling. Are you nuts or something? IT IS GRAVITY THAT CAUSES ONE TO RUN SLOWER THAN THE OTHER, HUMY. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO REPEAT IT, HUMY.
IT IS GRAVITY THAT IS DOING IT - not Time Dilation. The Time is NOT dilating. Time cannot get FAT or THIN. It can't CURVE or STRETCH.
You people are truly sick in the head. Below is a synopsis from the article in your link.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 20, 2019
"Experiments at a particle accelerator in Germany confirm that time moves slower for a moving clock than for a stationary one.
The work is the most stringent test yet of this 'time-dilation' effect, which Einstein predicted. One of the consequences of this effect is that a person travelling in a high-speed rocket would age more slowly than people back on Earth.
Few scientists doubt that Einstein was right. But the mathematics describing the time-dilation effect are "fundamental to all physical theories", says Thomas Udem, a physicist at the Max Planck Institute for Quantum Optics in Garching, Germany, who was not involved in the research. "It is of utmost importance to verify it with...accuracy.""

Was Einstein smoking weed or sniffing cocaine? He must have been high on something when he decided that Time could possibly dilate.
This is so ****ing weird. YOU PEOPLE are so ****ing weird. All of you except for granville and Benni who don't believe that cocknbullshit
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 20, 2019
More stupid bulls*t from you link, humy
says "FEW SCIENTISTS DOUBT THAT EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT" - but YOU swallowed it hook-line-and sinker, didn't you, humy?
Ahaaa - it is says: "But the MATHEMATICS describing the time dilation effect are fundamental blah blah blah blah and blah.
BULLSHIT MATH IT IS.

As I've said all along - they make up the theory with Math BEFORE they do the Physics.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 20, 2019
BULLSHIT MATH IT IS.
Then prove it. Math is like that, see; if it's bullshit you can prove it. But if all you got is repeatedly shouting at the equations, you ain't proving anything at all except what an asshole you are.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 20, 2019
So here they are again:

x' = x - vt / τ
y' = y
z' = z
t' = ((t - vx) / c² ) / τ
Where, x, y, z, and t are the values in the frame to be transformed from
x', y', z', and t' are the values in the frame to be transformed to
v is velocity in the from frame
c is the speed of light
τ is √(1-(v² /c²))
You get to transform v into v'. Note v' is not used in any of the equations.

So where's it bullshit?

Waiting over here.
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 20, 2019
Time in transition
accelerating lithium ions to one-third the speed of light a set of transitions within the lithium as electrons between various energy levels. The frequency of the transitions served as the 'ticking clock Transitions in stationary lithium ions clock.
http://www.fourmi...rel/www/

Measuring transitions in ions travelling 100million m/s

Transitions in the stationary ions use less energy
than
transitions in the ions moving at 100million m/s
electrons physically move so require more energy
moving at (100,000,001m/s)² requires more energy than moving at (1m/s)²
then there is the small matter of frequency
an ion oscillating at 10billion Hz moving at 1m/s
has
a different frequency than the same ion moving at 100,000,001m/s
so
to all those detractors
there is a change in frequency
and
extra energy is required
There is no change in time
humy
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 20, 2019
They used 2 clocks: one stationary and one traveling. ... IT IS GRAVITY THAT CAUSES ONE TO RUN SLOWER THAN THE OTHER, ...
IT IS GRAVITY THAT IS DOING IT - not Time Dilation.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

1, If read that link you should easily comprehend that the two 'clocks' are exposed to the SAME magnitude of gravity because they are both positioned at the same distance from the Earth's center of gravity. How can it be "gravity" that causes the two clocks to run at different rates if they are exposed to exactly the SAME gravity? You make no sense.

2, According to general relativity, relative differences in gravity can ALSO produce a time dilation effect. And we also have proof of that effect. So "gravity doing it" and "time dilation" are not mutually exclusive. As the link below shows, the observed wobble of Mercury's orbit is in fact proof of that time dilation effect.

https://en.wikipe..._Mercury

Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2019
@SRU has no answer. It doesn't "believe in" math.

Otherwise why did it take it a week to find the answer to

2 + 2 / 2 =3
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2019
More stupid bulls*t from you link, humy
says "FEW SCIENTISTS DOUBT THAT EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT" - but YOU swallowed it hook-line-and sinker, didn't you, humy?
Ahaaa - it is says: "But the MATHEMATICS describing the time dilation effect are fundamental blah blah blah blah and blah.
BULLSHIT MATH IT IS.

As I've said all along - they make up the theory with Math BEFORE they do the Physics.


Idiot. And the maths was right, you ignorant fool. As proven by the first GPS satellite, Navstar.

http://www.leapse...vity.htm

http://www.leapse...vity.htm#NTS-2

So, instead of talking crap, deal with the science as proven. Or give us a link to a scientist backing you up. If you can't do that, why not take a hike, as you are clueless about the subject area.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 20, 2019
"Experiments at a particle accelerator in Germany confirm that time moves slower for a moving clock than for a stationary one.
The work is the most stringent test yet of this 'time-dilation' effect, which Einstein predicted. One of the consequences of this effect is that a person travelling in a high-speed rocket would age more slowly than people back on Earth......"

This is the EFFECT of kinetic energy being input to an isolated system, KE=1/2mv²........ or to solve for it's mass if KE input is changing and velocity are known: m=2KE/v². Changing the velocity changes the MASS of an isolated system. When the mass of the system changes so also does it's field of gravity because gravity is mass dependent.

Two objects of exactly the same mass on planet earth will have different comparative MASS & kinetic energy if one of them is sent into an 18,000 mph orbital velocity around Earth. When MASS dilates so also do ALL parameters of measurements.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 20, 2019
@Benni you had the chance to respond with something other than handwaving at KE.

You blew it and everyone saw.

Meanwhile,
When MASS dilates so also do ALL parameters of measurements.
For example, time.
MrBojangles
4 / 5 (8) Feb 20, 2019
Your tit-for-tat opinion that Space cannot be dilated only because I had said that Time cannot is quite irrational and churlish.
And what is THIS that you sent to Benni, where you say: "And again, SR predicts time dilation as well as length contraction."
Time dilation and length contraction? Are you saying that SR includes Time as a rubber band - not only dilating but also contracting? Can Time also reverse so that you can time travel to the past? ARE YOU CRAZY? LOL


Benni's alter ego is starting to get hysterical. It's probably an effect of time dilation.
Anonym262722
1 / 5 (1) Feb 20, 2019
Parties of above arguments about the concept of time (simultaneity, local physical vs. global atomic clock) in GR/QM based cosmology and its cosmic DU expansion may want to read an explanation of physical atomic clocks and their use in GPS since 1970's in http://www.protsv...vio2.pdf
DU and GR/QM agree in local energy frames within 18 decimals but GR based spacetime system starts failing in time, distance and angular concepts outside our planetary and galaxy system . Space in DU needs the 4th dimension to be metric R4. Absolute time T4 is used as the 5th dimension by solving for C=C4 (C4 = contraction/expansion speed of R4) as f(R4) of 0-energy balance. You cannot observe the true value of C within local energy frames as the frequency of physical atomic clocks slows linearly with TRUE decelerating value of C=C4. Read Suntola DU explanation of DM using de Broglie and Compton wave formulation of Planck and Mach energy equations.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2019
@humy
The SA article is from 9/22/2014 about an experiment done on 9/16/14.
"To test the time-dilation effect, physicists need to compare two clocks — one that is stationary and one that moves. To do this, the researchers used the Experimental Storage Ring, where high-speed particles are stored and studied at the GSI Helmholtz Centre for heavy-ion research in Darmstadt, Germany.
The scientists made the moving clock by accelerating lithium ions to one-third the speed of light. Then they measured a set of transitions within the lithium as electrons hopped between various energy levels. The frequency of the transitions served as the 'ticking' of the clock.

They are running at different times because one is stationary, while the other is in motion and are still affected by enough Gravity even at the Quantum level without Altitude.
-contd-
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2019
-contd-
@humy
This is NOT Time dilation. It isn't Time that is dilating. These are particles of Matter that are in motion/momentum, which amounts to Matter/Energy in Motion. Time itself is NOT a factor unless you are counting/measuring the duration/distance of velocity of the Lithium ions, as well as the activity of the hopping electrons. These are all PHYSICAL activities like runners or tennis players.

"The speed of fast-moving ions means that accelerator experiments can test time dilation more precisely than experiments in Earth orbit, says Matthew Mewes, a physicist at California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo, who is not part of the team. "It's important to look wherever we can and push the technology whenever possible," he says.
But the research group is dismantling its longtime collaboration, as there is no larger accelerator they can go to... "
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2019
2 clocks: one stationary one traveling. ... IT IS GRAVITY THAT CAUSES ONE TO RUN SLOWER THAN THE OTHER, ...
IT IS GRAVITY THAT IS DOING IT - not Time Dilation.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

2, According to general relativity, relative differences in gravity can ALSO produce a time dilation effect. And we also have proof of that effect. So "gravity doing it" and "time dilation" are not mutually exclusive. As the link below shows, the observed wobble of Mercury's orbit is in fact proof of that time dilation effect.

https://en.wikipe..._Mercury

says humy

What is Mercury? A planet, right? And what weak Force affects planets aka Mass? And which other Mass is Mercury closest to, humy? A huge Mass that could possibly affect Mercury's orbit and stability going around it. Do you know, humy?
What is that big hot orb up there that has a nice gravitational pull toward it for those planets who get too close?
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 21, 2019
"There is no time dilation. We measure this other dilation thingie with time that is not time dilation."

Were you born this stupid, or did you have to practice?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2019
-contd-
@humy
Still waiting for your answers, humy Very easy to comprehend planetary-Sun connections.
humy
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2019
while the other is in motion and are still affected by enough Gravity
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

-And the SAME amount of gravity. In this case, it cannot be a the difference in gravity making one clock go slower than the other in that particle experiment because there is no difference. You make no sense.
And which other Mass is Mercury closest to,
Dirr, the sun. What about it? That just confirms that time dilation can ALSO be effected by differences in gravity and this is what is causing the wobble in Mercury's orbit, just as general relativity says.
This time dilation effect has a different cause from that of the particle experiment because the cause of the particle experiment one has nothing to do with gravity (and it is explained by special relativity, not general relativity) while the cause of observed time dilation effect on Mercury IS to do with gravity (and is explained by general relativity, not special relativity). Get it now?
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2019
Da Schneib
...................Regarding time dilation, time accelerating, time decelerating
All atoms have matter waves
matter waves are the De Broglie frequency
when waves are in motion
waves, as they travel at the velocity of light
as
matter and waves are as one
matter waves in motion compress waves
this compression in wave length
because Da Schneib, as the speed of light is not affected by the speed of the emitter
waves in motion change their wave length compared to the same when stationery
so
Da Schneib, as we measure time by waves
when this wave length
Da Schneib
changes in motion
Da Schneib
this effects the frequency chosen as the standard 1s frequency
as can be seen Da Schneib, the second at 10billion Hz
occurs in a shorter time span
under
motion
gravity
acceleration
velocity
Da Schneib, all motion in this vacuum is curved
curved motion Da Schneib, is acceleration
so
Da Schneib
waves under acceleration
is
Not Time Dilation
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 21, 2019
@humy, it's important to remember that GRT works on both space and time. The precession of Mercury's orbit is affected by both. It's just like electric charge and magnetism in Maxwell's theory.
kl31415
3 / 5 (10) Feb 21, 2019
"There is no time dilation. We measure this other dilation thingie with time that is not time dilation."

Were you born this stupid, or did you have to practice?


Might of been external influences as bad parenting, heavy iodine deficiency, heavy metal intoxication...
These things have terrible consequences on a maturing brain.

@Da Schneib
Saw that math problem yesterday, absolutely amazed that Benni the Differential Equasionist doesn't know basic math. LMAO

granville583762's response was just brilliant and the ridiculous excuse by Stupid Egg was below my expectations...

Loving the heavy denial of time dilation, not surprising as they've proven they can't even do the simplest of maths, heheheh.
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2019
When an electron in a protons orbital shell transitions

Electrons physically move
electrons are an electric field
electrons are a magnetic field
electrons absorb photons which are a electromagnetic
when an electron transitions Da Schneib
an electron is surrounded by waves
an electron is propelled by electromagnetic waves
an electron Da Schneib, in orbital is suspended in this vacuum by waves
so Da Schneib
is propelled, transitioning by waves
so
Da Schneib, this electron is propelled by a wave traveling at the speed of light
so
Da Schneib, the faster this electron moves the longer the force propelling this electron
takes to act on this electron
and
consequently Da Schneib, this electron is when travelling at (1m/s)² kinetic energy
requires, when travelling at 1/3C, (100,000,001m/s)² kinetic energy
as you know, Da Schneib
this electron only has a certain quota of energy
so
Da Schneib, this effects transitioning time
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 21, 2019
2 clocks: one stationary one traveling. ... IT IS GRAVITY THAT CAUSES ONE TO RUN SLOWER THAN THE OTHER, ...
IT IS GRAVITY THAT IS DOING IT - not Time Dilation.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

According to general relativity, relative differences in gravity can ALSO produce a time dilation effect. And we also have proof of that effect. So "gravity doing it" and "time dilation" are not mutually exclusive. As the link below shows, the observed wobble of Mercury's orbit is in fact proof of that time dilation effect.
....it is the effect of gravity inputting kinetic energy causing the "dilation", "TIME" inputs nothing because it is not a FORCE, it is simply a mechanical unit of measure that dilates with the rest of the system.

Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2019
It's time dilation, @Benni. Now you're just outright lying. There isn't anything else to dilate.
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2019
Da Schneib
................... What is being pointed out, Da Schneib
Is, by trying to measure time
on this level
at this accuracy
when using
the speed of light
when using frequency and wave
it is not possible to measure time dilation with anything that uses a wave
firstly
as soon as you move, there is a change in frequency
which is the basis, Da Schneib of jet fighter navigation systems
laser gyro's base their navigation on this principle
The speed of light is not effected by the speed of the emitter
taking this to its logical conclusion, Da Schneib
as the speed of light is the absolute velocity
when light come to halt this is absolute zero velocity
so
this principle allows all motion to be calculated by the change in frequency of an object in motion
when compared to the laser
because
Da Schneib, the speed of light is not affected by the speed of the emitter
the object in motion changes the frequency
This is not time dilation
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2019
Da Schneib, the speed of light is not affected by the speed of the emitter
the object in motion changes the frequency
This is not time dilation

Taking this principle further, Da Schneib
when the frequency changes
it stays at this changed state till there is a further change in motion
as
you can see, Da Schneib
when measuring time with frequency and wave
as long as this change of frequency remains constant
the 10billion Hz constantly occurs in a smaller or larger amount of time
because
Da Schneib, all that is being recorded is 10billion oscillations
once
these 10billion oscillations have been counted we count that as one second
because that is the definition of a second
as you can see, Da Schneib
there is only one way to find out how long these 10billion oscillations took to occur
as
that is Da Schneib
is
measuring the change in frequency of the laser
from
the principal
The speed of light is not affected by the speed of the emitter
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2019
It's time dilation, @Benni. Now you're just outright lying. There isn't anything else to dilate.


Tick Tock, tick tock, tick tock, tick tock, of orbtal electrons. It's called WORK, Kinetic Energy.....it's what makes ALL clocks measure that inimitable feature of existing in a finite Universe.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2019
@Benni, but you never say how.

Einstein says how. Doesn't look like you're listening.

Maybe you shouldn't link and quote his papers if you don't understand what they mean. Especially after your huge gaffe on the difference between black holes and singularities.
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2019
Albert Einstein

Is not one and all
dear old Albert
who, along with his statement
The speed of light is the absolute velocity of this vacuum
also
was a favourite of
the principal
The speed of light is not affected by the speed of the emitter
humy
4 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2019
Benni

You are speaking a load of gibberish yet again. Apart from your usual nonsense of saying "kinetic energy" causes the apparently observed time dilation effects, which shows you don't understand the first thing about even the most basic physics let alone relativity, you now say;
... "TIME" inputs nothing ...
What does " "TIME" inputs " supposed to mean? Neither I nor any physicists I am aware of said/implied "...time inputs..." into something, whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.
...because it is not a FORCE...
Who said/implied 'time' is a 'force'? OBVIOUSLY, anyone, including myself, that knows the first thing about known physics wouldn't say this. Although there are know physical relationships between time and force, 'time' and 'force' are completely different concepts in physics and no one I am aware of says they are the same thing.
humy
4 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2019
My misedit;

"Although there are know physical relationships between time and force,... "

should be;

"Although there are KNOWN physical relationships between time and force,... "
antigoracle
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2019
"There is no time dilation. We measure this other dilation thingie with time that is not time dilation."

Were you born this stupid, or did you have to practice?

LMAO.
Da Schitts using the line, I used on him, on someone else.
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2019
someone said < TIME IS FORCE > it was seen
humy> Who said/implied 'time' is a 'force'? OBVIOUSLY, anyone, including myself, that knows the first thing about known physics wouldn't say this. Although there are know physical relationships between time and force, 'time' and 'force' are completely different concepts in physics and no one I am aware of says they are the same thing

< THIS TIME THE FORCE IS TRUELLY WITH US > as < SPACE TIME IS SAID TO BE A FORCE > humy

Some one said this, if you disowning this astounding ground breaking BUNKUM humy
There is hope for your eternal soul from Beelzebub's fires of damnation, humy
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2019
The force that drives expanding spacetime
BackBurner> MOND was certainly the first attempt I'd heard of there are variations The most recent was a non-linear description of spacetime distortion I read not two years ago It attracted my attention because it echoes my own thoughts The authors described a bubble around mass that causes gravitational effects to increase with distance very similar to my own thoughts Where they didn't go is towards the idea that sufficient distance between masses might result in a repulsive force between them, a negative gradient of gravity that might describe dark energy the force that drives expanding spacetime

This astounding ground breaking BUNKUM is revealed as none other than the right honourable BackBurner esquire
The force that drives expanding spacetime
It is obscured in the shenanigans of dark energy negatives gradients spacetime force where even MOND made an appearance adding an appearance of respectability
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2019
Bunkum is different - bunkum is good as long as it is good bunkum!

BackBurner
...................take heart in this Bunkum
as this where innovation development and new ideas emerge
as new ideas are in short supplies of late
the intellect got lost and has never found its way out of this mathematical maze
we are still awaiting the answer to the puzzle of the century
it is occupying these boards greatest minds
...................< 2+2/2 = ? >…………………..
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2019
Who said/implied 'time' is a 'force'? OBVIOUSLY, anyone, including myself, that knows the first thing about known physics wouldn't say this. Although there are know physical relationships between time and force, 'time' and 'force' are completely different concepts in physics and no one I am aware of says they are the same thing.


Pure unadulterated Pop-Cosmology psycho-babble, even you don't know what you just wrote.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Feb 21, 2019

Pure unadulterated Pop-Cosmology psycho-babble, even you don't know what you just wrote.


Lol. This from a scientifically illiterate idiot, who knows zilch about physics, and can't even understand basic arithmetic!
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2019
TIME is FORCE
humy> there is now in your statement

When we said humy
There is hope for your eternal soul from Beelzebub's fires of damnation, humy
we were ahead of TIME so to speak
as
humy
we did not infer directly enough into your statement
< physical relationships between time and force >
by implication, humy
you are also implying
SPACE is a FORCE
because
humy
this concept
has a familiar ring about it, as though is has been mentioned on a previous board
As we do, humy
in this ethereal internet of phys.org
having defined space as the vacuum
the vacuous vacuum of space
as time is a mathematical formula, it is not an entity so does not exist
as you have inferred a physical relationships between time and force
essentially, humy
you have inadvertently made a clanger
TIME DOES NOT EXIST and SPACE IS THE VACUUM
as
you claim a physical relationships between time and force
Beelzebub's fires of damnation awaits, humy
humy
3 / 5 (4) Feb 21, 2019
SPACE TIME IS SAID TO BE A FORCE
granville583762

"space time" doesn't equate with just "time", let alone a "force" as normally technically defined in physics.
The force that drives expanding spacetime
The word "force" in the above statement is for the vague common-English meaning of the word "force" NOT to be confused with the normally technically defined "force" in physics, which is the kind of 'force' I was clearly referencing.
see
https://en.wikipe...vocation

< physical relationships between time and force >
by implication, humy
you are also implying
SPACE is a FORCE
NO.
If there are a relationship between two things X and Y then that does NOT imply X = Y.
Example; there is a relationship between night and day; each one repeatedly follows the other. So night IS day?

humy
3 / 5 (4) Feb 21, 2019
as time is a mathematical formula, it is not an entity so does not exist
granville583762

What the hell does that mean? Are you saying if something can be described by a mathematical formula then it doesn't exist? If so, why so? If that is correct, very little if anything exists including mass, energy, stars, planets, orbits of planets, light, the speed of light, etc. etc.
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2019
Space does not exist, it is Vacuum

Vacuum is occupied by gravity protons electrons electromagnetic radiation
time does not exist
electrons move from A to B, movement exists
inertial mass exists
only inertial mass emits gravity
acceleration is the rate of change of velocity which applied to inertial mass is force exists
The concept of time is explained extensively in these comments humy
You can measure the space between A + B even though that space does not exist because space is vacuum
This might be a difficult concept for you to fathom, humy
that you can measure distance which does not exist divided by time which does not exist to give the velocity of the electron which does exist
because, humy
time is a mathematical formula
as has been said humy time is explained extensively in this board
as
you have read these explanations
so
Even though you might not agree, you have to demonstrate you have read them so you understand this concept
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2019
The word "force" in the above statement is for the vague common-English meaning of the word "force" NOT to be confused with the normally technically defined "force" in physics, which is the kind of 'force' I was clearly referencing.
see
https://en.wikipe...vocation

< physical relationships between time and force >
by implication, humy
you are also implying
SPACE is a FORCE
NO.
If there are a relationship between two things X and Y then that does NOT imply X = Y.
Example; there is a relationship between night and day; each one repeatedly follows the other. So night IS day?


Righto humy.........just keep adding to the Pop-Cosmology psycho-babble so that no one ever figures what it was you wrote in the first place so that no one can ever come back at a later time to point out that you made a DEFINITIVE statement about something.

You imply TIME is somehow a FORCE, but you won't tell us how to INPUT it into a system to make the system do something.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2019
You're all mixing up metaphysical, physical and mathematical-analytical interpretations/uses/definitions of 'time' concept.

To help you all see the problems/confusions for yourselves, and so learn more about the subject matter before arguing/insulting as usual, please calmly consider the salient/real physical aspects in the following scenario:

- you're cryogenically frozen, your twin is not;

- you don't 'age' due to SLOWED/STOPPED (frozen) 'biological clock' metabolic rates/motions;

- your twin 'ages' normally due to 'biological clock' dynamics/motions continuing as normal;

- Note that 'time' concept plays NO PART in ACTUAL biological physical parameters/outcomes, ie, ONLY CUMULATIVE MOTIONS/CYCLES of biological clock 'ageing' processes have any PHYSICALLY EFFECTIVE bearing;

- hence 'time/timing' DIFFERENTIALS are STRICTLY mathematical/graphing ANALYTICAL CONSTRUCT 'dimensions/comparisons', ie, NOT REAL/EFFECTIVE DIMENSIONS like spatial dimensions are.

Good luck.
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2019
Time, Vacuum, Time in Dilation do not exist

humy
....... It has been explained at great length
You cannot measure time dilation with frequency and wave
because humy
Light is not affected by the speed of the emitter
you have read the extensive explanation humy
one second is a set no of oscillations, as velocity changes - wavelength is extensively explained
you cannot measure time dilation with frequency and wave
because we are dealing with a laser gyro principal
so
we cannot measure time dilation
and
time does not exist
and
what we thought was time dilation
was
simply
the speed of light is not affected by the speed of the emitter
we
have
time does not exist
we cannot measure time dilation
as
time does not exist, time dilation cannot be measured
because
All time dilation is, is simply the change of frequency of movement
Time and Time dilation do not exist
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 21, 2019

it is the effect of gravity inputting kinetic energy causing the "dilation", "TIME" inputs nothing because it is not a FORCE, it is simply a mechanical unit of measure that dilates with the rest of the system.

Not exactly sure how your connecting gravity and kinetic energy to time. However, I do see time as a property of the combination of the three vectorable dimensions, allowing anything to exist and therefore, move, in a given space. Ergo, time/space being a single collective thing.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2019

it is the effect of gravity inputting kinetic energy causing the "dilation", "TIME" inputs nothing because it is not a FORCE, it is simply a mechanical unit of measure that dilates with the rest of the system.

Not exactly sure how your connecting gravity and kinetic energy to time. However, I do see time as a property of the combination of the three vectorable dimensions, allowing anything to exist and therefore, move, in a given space. Ergo, time/space being a single collective thing.
d says Whyde

He isn't. There is no connection of gravity & Kinetic Energy with Time. And no - Time is not a "property" of anything - not even the 3 dimensions. It is SPACE ITSELF that allows Motion/movement/momentum.
You CANNOT MOVE THROUGH TIME - you can ONLY move through SPACE.
The human brain often makes one THINK that time has slowed down or sped up - but it hasn't done either. It is only how the human mind conceives the passage of EVENTS.
-contd-
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2019
Stepping on Toes

BeingOfCorrect
Is this another anomaly in your Toe
everyone who reads BeingOfCorrect by BeingOfCorrect
is expecting a truthful derivation of time and time dilation
they are physicists, scientist, professors, fellows
they will be an expectation of a thorough physical understanding of how time is measured
and
whether or not in fact it is actually being measured
they will not be expecting an emotional basis to any claim that time dilation exists
everyone is expecting a critical view point, especially as there are inherent determination difficulties

p.s. this is not one of RealityCheck's flybys by any chance, BeingOfCorrect
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2019
Time is only in the mind

it is the effect of gravity inputting kinetic energy causing the "dilation", "TIME" inputs nothing because it is not a FORCE, it is simply a mechanical unit of measure that dilates with the rest of the system.

Whydening Gyre> Not exactly sure how your connecting gravity and kinetic energy to time. However, I do see time as a property of the combination of the three vectorable dimensions, allowing anything to exist and therefore, move, in a given space. Ergo, time/space being a single collective thing.

You are starting to think about the extensionalism of time, Whydening Gyre
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2019
-contd-
@Whyde
If you can understand HOW THE HUMAN MIND WORKS - you will understand that it is the human mind itself that conceptualises the degrees/increments of the passage of Time, and thus creating in his/her own mind a manufactured temporal ability to have "cause and effect" on Matter/Energy aka Mass. Time is only a concept. It is not REAL.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2019
"There is no time dilation. We measure this other dilation thingie with time that is not time dilation."

Were you born this stupid, or did you have to practice?

LMAO.
Da Schitts using the line, I used on him, on someone else.
says antigoracle

LOL I noticed that too. He is getting desperate to hold onto what he deems to be right - which it isn't,, of course. It must be terrible to be so wrong so often, and have to fight back by telling lies.
What was that saying? Thou shalt not bear false witness. Da Esh breaks that rule regularly.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2019
2 clocks: one stationary one traveling. ... IT IS GRAVITY THAT CAUSES ONE TO RUN SLOWER THAN THE OTHER, ...
IT IS GRAVITY - not Time Dilation.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

...general relativity, relative differences in gravity can ALSO produce a time dilation effect. And we also have proof of that effect. So "gravity doing it" and "time dilation" are not mutually exclusive. As the link below shows, the observed wobble of Mercury's orbit is in fact proof of that time dilation effect.
....it is the effect of gravity inputting kinetic energy causing the "dilation", "TIME" inputs nothing because it is not a FORCE, it is simply a mechanical unit of measure that dilates with the rest of the system.

says Benni

It is a mistake to say that Time dilates with the rest of the system. Time cannot dilate because it isn't REAL, but only a concept of the human mind. The Mind conceives of MANY THINGS and always tries to place those concepts into the realm of Reality
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2019
BeingOfCorrect coming in from the cold

BeingOfCorrect, this 22nd day of our lord
In these summer temperatures on a winters day in February
If as it seems your fin rot has healed your free to leave your bridge, BeingOfCorrect
RealityCheck> Note that 'time' concept plays NO PART in ACTUAL biological physical parameters/outcomes, ie, ONLY CUMULATIVE MOTIONS/CYCLES of biological clock 'ageing' processes have any PHYSICALLY EFFECTIVE bearing;

- hence 'time/timing' DIFFERENTIALS are STRICTLY mathematical/graphing ANALYTICAL CONSTRUCT 'dimensions/comparisons', ie, NOT REAL/EFFECTIVE DIMENSIONS like spatial dimensions are

Are you, BeingOfCorrect
actually saying time and time dilation does not exist
you have you seen the light, BeingOfCorrect
your contemplation under your bridge is complete
you are now a free upright standing trollian in this community once more
Able to boldly go, always BeingOfCorrect
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2019
LOL Time (in the sense of a clockwork's mechanism) to walk the dog. Be back later.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Feb 21, 2019
So if there's no such thing as time, what's a "second?"

I mean, just askin'.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Feb 21, 2019
More to the point, if time is only a construction of the human mind, what's a "nanosecond?" Because we're totally incapable of sensing such a short period of time; we don't live fast enough.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2019
And what's a microsecond and a picosecond, etc. Obviously, All are made-up concepts to justify the original concept. To explain that original concept through incremental points - imagined through observation of sunrise to sunrise and divided by 24 hours - then going further to explain ever smaller concepts, also derived from the human mind. Highly imaginative humans, they are.
All are derived from the imagination by those who wished to explain events to others somewhat logically.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2019
Well, I had a reason for picking nanoseconds, actually.

They're about the time one instruction cycle takes on the computer you typed that on.

And gee whillikers, Wally, that computer works!

Now how do you suppose that could be?

You are an idiot.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2019
Apparently you think jebus makes nanosecond-timescale microprocessors. With its laser eyeballs, no doubt: https://pbs.twimg...pg:large

The fifteenth century is calling you; they want their natural philosophy back.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2019
And what's your point, Da Scheide...and what is one instruction cycle mean? Have you been imbibing on hootch again?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2019
Trying to imagine this fool trying to use an oscilloscope.

"What's the horizontal axis mean?" "Nothing, time doesn't exist."
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2019
ROFL this idiot doesn't know how the computer it's making idiotic statements on the Intertubes with works.

You could at least have the pride to google "instruction cycle" up and try to pretend you know what you're talking about.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2019
So what are those funny things with the constantly changing numbers on them that people keep all over their houses all about?

I mean, come on. You cannot possibly be serious unless you're a complete idiot.

How do you eat without stabbing yourself in the face with the fork?
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2019
Wanna measure space? Get a ruler.

Wanna measure time? Get a clock.

Wanna measure EMF? Get a multimeter.

Wanna measure mass? Get a scale.

What's hard about this for you?
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2019
You wouldn't know a physics if it jumped up and bit you in the ass and tore off a chunk.

F = ma

Now define a without time. Good luck.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2019
So, did jebus discover

F = ma

Just askin'.
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2019
LOL Time (in the sense of a clockwork's mechanism) to walk the dog. Be back later.

How much "time" did that take you?
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2019
LOL Time (in the sense of a clockwork's mechanism) to walk the dog. Be back later.

How much "time" did that take you?

If it took you 15 minutes, you've traveled 250 miles of the rotation of earth...
And you've travelled 16500 miles of our orbit of the sun...
You've also travelled 128500 miles of our journey around the galaxy.
145250 miles in total.
You and that dog must be exhausted.
Silly rabbit, all of it is a clock.
humy
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2019
Space does not exist, it is Vacuum
granville583762

That is a self-contradiction. 'vacuum', by definition, is SPACE devoid of matter.
Light is not affected by the speed of the emitter
It is effected. It's speed (c) stays constant but its frequency changes. Have you ever heard of the "red shift"?
time does not exist
In what sense? Time is a dimension.
the speed of light is not affected by the speed of the emitter
Correct. OBVIOUSLY I already knew that and you are just insulting my intelligence. PROBLEM! You have just contradicted yourself yet again! -Because speed by definition is distance traveled per unit TIME therefore IF there is no time then there is no speed. Thus the 'speed' of light wouldn't exist without time and yet you contradict that (time not existing) by asserting (correctly) that the 'speed' of light is not affected by the speed of the emitter, which would be a nonsense assertion if there is no such 'speed' to be effected!
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2019
Occupying Vacuum
Space does not exist, it is Vacuum


humy> That is a self-contradiction. 'vacuum', by definition, is SPACE devoid of matter.

That is the phrase, occupying the vacuum
Its jogged those grey cells into action
Once its realized time dilation does not exist, cannot be measured, as you said humy, the 'speed' of light is not affected by the speed of the emitter, as you realise time also does not exist
then
you are able to use time mathematically as though it does exist
the problem starts
when
humy, you begin to think time actually exists
then
just like the film, Groundhog day
Its Groundhog day again, as every day is yesterday so tomorrow everyone has forgotten last night
as
Yesterday starts anew tomorrow
https://www.youtu...eDx9fk60

Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 22, 2019
-contd-
@Whyde
If you can understand HOW THE HUMAN MIND WORKS - you will understand that it is the human mind itself that conceptualises the degrees/increments of the passage of Time, and thus creating in his/her own mind a manufactured temporal ability to have "cause and effect" on Matter/Energy aka Mass. Time is only a concept. It is not REAL.


..........well put Egg, it's all in their heads, better labeled as PSYCHO-BABBLE.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2019
-contd-
@Whyde
If you can understand HOW THE HUMAN MIND WORKS - you will understand that it is the human mind itself that conceptualises the degrees/increments of the passage of Time, and thus creating in his/her own mind a manufactured temporal ability to have "cause and effect" on Matter/Energy aka Mass. Time is only a concept. It is not REAL.


..........well put Egg, it's all in their heads, better labeled as PSYCHO-BABBLE.


Says an innumerate, scientifically illiterate loon.
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2019
says Benni

It is a mistake to say that Time dilates with the rest of the system. Time cannot dilate because it isn't REAL, but only a concept of the human mind. The Mind conceives of MANY THINGS and always tries to place those concepts into the realm of Reality
.....it depends on the context. There is the Pop-Cosmology context, then there is the Kinetic Energy CONTEXT, two different issues.

Every isolated system is governed by the immutable law of Entropy, therefore each has it's own self governing mechanism (clock) based upon it's present relativistic mass. How each isolated system functions is determined by the input/output of kinetic energy causing electrons within the electron shell structure to move into higher or lower orbital positions & thus gaining or releasing EM energy which can be measured, and this is what creates the CLOCK used as a timing mechanism for recording TIME, basically a local event.

jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2019
^^^^ Give up. You haven't got a clue what you're talking about.
humy
3 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2019
Once its realized time dilation does not exist, cannot be measured,
granville583762

How can that be "realized" when time dilation does exist because it has already been measured?
Unless you never bother to look at what the science says, you must have already seen the many science weblinks showing/explaining this.
And you still haven't explained all those self-contradiction in your assertions I pointed out. For example, given speed is by definition distance traveled per unit of time, how can there be 'speed' if there is no 'time'? You say (incorrectly) time doesn't exist and yet you say (correctly) speed of light is constant; How can its speed be constant if there isn't such thing as 'speed'?
MrBojangles
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2019
It is a mistake to say that Time dilates with the rest of the system. Time cannot dilate because it isn't REAL, but only a concept of the human mind.


"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep."

Beginning: the point in time or space at which something starts.

Time is a product of your Creator, not of man. How dare you defy your God.
MrBojangles
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2019
Someone tell Nasa to recall the Voyager probe. We're going to look like idiots when the aliens find our diagrams trying to depict time, which is a concept we've created in our minds and doesn't actually exist.

https://voyager.j...d-cover/
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2019
That is the point humy, time dilation has not been measured

You have a clock
that measures time by frequency and wave
and what do with this clock, humy
you move it
and
what happen to this frequency and wave as you move this clock, humy
there is a change in wavelength and frequency
and
why is that humy
because
the speed of light is not affected by the speed of the emitter

humy, that we do not want to be a harbinger of gloomy news
what your measuring when you move this clock, is not time dilation, humy
it is simply the change of frequency of the wave the clock is oscillating at

If you want measure the change in time with movement, humy
you cannot use a clock that uses frequency and wave that counts oscillations

as this is the point, humy that is being driven home
and
on this point apparently everyone agrees
as
the method used
Has to be unaffected by motion, such that the measurement of time is unaffected by motion
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2019
And that is not a contradiction in terms humy

To measure time dilation
a clock is required that does not use frequency
because frequency changes with motion
which changes time in motion

It is plainly obvious
to measure changing time in motion
a clock is required
that does not change time in motion
This is the scientific basis for sound scientific experiments
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2019
A circular argument to prove your theory

Time dilation is a circular argument
to prove time dilation in motion
first
find a clock
that by its mechanics
when in motion
its motion changes time
there by proving time dilation
A circular argument, which proves time dilation
jonesdave
3 / 5 (2) Feb 22, 2019
Time dilation is a circular argument
to prove time dilation in motion
first
find a clock
that by its mechanics
when in motion
its motion changes time
there by proving time dilation
A circular argument, which proves time dilation


Idiot. How is a clock on top of a mountain in motion? Go away you clueless oik.
Anonym262722
1 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2019
Thank you Gran for your poetic patience of explaining the time concept in a local energy frame such as ECI of stationary Earth, planet to the next higher or global energy frame of Sun. So, we are back at the starting point of Ptolemy Earth centered world view of metaphysics before Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler times of physical vs epicycle math model for observable distances and angles. Newton, Leibniz, Laplace, Gauss, Riemann etc. provided more advanced math tools for SR/GR and QM formulation for physics foundations and surveying technologies that have worked o.k until today's exploration of more cosmic observables - where GR/QM based time, distance and angular concepts start failing. This has resulted in many Nobel level mistakes by GR/QM based school of thought as proven since the 'time and math poetry' of DU and array calculus from 1970's.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2019
where GR/QM based time, distance and angular concepts start failing.


Please point to the experiments/ observations that disproved GR and QM.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2019
How is a clock on top of a mountain in motion?
On top of a mountain a clock is traveling at a higher rate of velocity than one at the bottom. Don't know why do you?
MrBojangles
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2019
On top of a mountain a clock is traveling at a higher rate of velocity than one at the bottom. Don't know why do you?


That really depends on the frame of reference.
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2019
Benni
How is a clock on top of a mountain in motion?
On top of a mountain a clock is traveling at a higher rate of velocity than one at the bottom. Don't know why do you?

You beat me to it
The punch line, velocity v = rω
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2019
How is a clock on top of a mountain in motion?
On top of a mountain a clock is traveling at a higher rate of velocity than one at the bottom. Don't know why do you?


Stupid idiot. The clock at the top of a mountain is ticking faster than one at ground level. A clock in a spacecraft is ticking slower due to velocity. Twat. Lern to scienz..
humy
3 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2019
To measure time dilation
a clock is required that does not use frequency
granville583762

No, a clock that uses frequency is just fine to measure time dilation as relative motion changes frequency just like relativity says it should which, when observed, is proof of time dilation. By admitting relative motion changes frequency just like (special) relativity says it should you are admitting relativity is correct thus there should be time dilation just like (special) relativity says there should.

And please please talk coherently.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2019
You beat me to it


Another idiot. So, the clock on the mountain is ticking faster due to velocity, and the clock in the spaceship is ticking slower due to.........................velocity! Jeez some people are dumb.
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2019
Instantaneous velocity about a point
ω = 2π/t
v = rω
where r(2π/t) is the instantaneous velocity perpendicular to radius r
as
anyone has measured the instantaneous velocity
of
a pendulum at its lowest point of swing
being
that the Earth is 8000miles in diameter
the curve over the distance of the mountain is practically a straight line
As at sea level it is generally accepted we are travelling approximately a 1000mph
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2019
^^^^^Irrelevant, you dick. If it was due to velocity, we would see time ticking more slowly, as in a spaceship clock. We see the opposite. Get that through your thick head. When physicists calculated the adjustment that would be necessary for GPS, they had to take into account the altitude, meaning the clocks would tick faster, and the velocity, which would cause them to tick slower. This turned out to be 45 microseconds faster for altitude (GR), and 7 microseconds slower due to velocity (SR). That equals a net gain of 38 microseconds per day.
Now, bugger off you clueless oaf.
Anonym262722
1 / 5 (2) Feb 22, 2019
You probably have seen my past references to experiments and observations where the vast DU literature has confirmed the local validity of GR/QM as a special case of the unified DU. The Earth based observations of coral fossils from the latest 400-800 M yr period explains the global 'time dilution' problem in the direction of R4 vs. the local effect of reduced ticking rate of physical atomic clocks in GPS technology. I have mentioned that according to early Eddington proof of GR based Mercury perihelion advance Mercury would have been flied out from Solar system. Laser measurements of Moon-Earth distances have found no 10 cm/yr systematic variations due to assumed GR equivalence principle. Failure of GR/QM based distance/time explanation of SN1a with the epicycle of DE/DM densities will stay as a landmark 'proof' in history in the fashion of Galileo proof of Sun vs Earth centered universe.
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2019
This is what I like about your theories, humy
To measure time dilation clock is required that does not use frequency

No a clock that uses frequency is just fine to measure time dilation as relative motion changes frequency just like relativity says it should which, when observed, is proof of time dilation
By admitting relative motion changes frequency just like SR says it should you are admitting relativity is correct thus there should be time dilation just like (special) relativity says there should.
And please talk coherently

You start from a view point that cannot disprove its self
as
in
a clock that changes frequency with motion
where that motion
change the frequency
that changes the clocks ability to measure time
to prove the clock is measuring time dilation
humy, if you think this is incoherent
You have never heard me talk incoherently
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2019
^^^^^^ Idiot. Then how are scientists able to predict the effect in advance? Sod off Granville, you are bloody clueless. Nobody is questioning the effects on time of GR and SR. Nobody who is scientifically literate, anyway. The Pound-Rebka experiment in 1959 was the first to confirm GR effects on time.
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2019
Everyone synchronise watch's

When all time is equally adjusted
^^^^^Irrelevant, you dick. If it was due to velocity, we would see time ticking more slowly, as in a spaceship clock. We see the opposite. Get that through your thick head. When physicists calculated the adjustment that would be necessary for GPS, they had to take into account the altitude, meaning the clocks would tick faster, and the velocity, which would cause them to tick slower. This turned out to be 45 microseconds faster for altitude (GR), and 7 microseconds slower due to velocity (SR). That equals a net gain of 38 microseconds per day.
Now, bugger off you clueless oaf.

It is irrelevant whether the correction is right or wrong
when all time is equally adjusted
All the clocks tell the same time
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2019
It is irrelevant whether the correction is right or wrong
when all time is equally adjusted
All the clocks tell the same time


WTF are you talking about, you cockwomble? Go away, you are bloody clueless.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2019
LOL Time (in the sense of a clockwork's mechanism) to walk the dog. Be back later.

How much "time" did that take you?
says Whyde

All of 882.5 seconds
:)
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2019
This is implying this dilation is incorrect
When physicists calculated the adjustment that would be necessary for GPS, they had to take into account the altitude, meaning the clocks would tick faster, and the velocity, which would cause them to tick slower

When physicists calculated the adjustment that would be necessary

This is what everyone is saying
the caesium clock in motion is telling the incorrect time
and
when physicists calculate and adjust that would be necessary
so that the satellite is telling the same time as on the ground
because
the satellite would be in the wrong place otherwise
therefore time has not changed
It is the caesium clock telling the incorrect time at altitude, acceleration and velocity
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2019
LOL Time (in the sense of a clockwork's mechanism) to walk the dog. Be back later.

How much "time" did that take you?

If it took you 15 minutes, you've traveled 250 miles of the rotation of earth...
And you've travelled 16500 miles of our orbit of the sun...
You've also travelled 128500 miles of our journey around the galaxy.
145250 miles in total.
You and that dog must be exhausted.
rabbit, all of it is a clock.
says Whyde

LOL My dog, Precious and I/we love to travel - both on and off Earth.
The Earth and all the planets; the Sun and all other Stars; all of the galaxies, etc. are moving in, and THROUGH SPACE. Every time a MASS moves THROUGH SPACE - that SPACE is what dilates/folds/moves aside to allow the Mass to move through Space, regardless of how long it takes for Mass to move through Space. Mass is 3 dimensional, which is why it is able to move through and within Space. Distance is only THE LENGTH of which MASS is MOVING THROUGH SPACE.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2019
-contd-
@Whyde
I am being repetitious so that you may understand better.
DISTANCE from Point A to Point B is measured by Red Shift out in the Cosmos that not only tells how far an object is from Point A, but also how fast Point B is traveling away (velocity) from Point A (supposedly). That is an EVENT just as how one would measure the distance that a runner must travel to get from Point A to Point B. In essence, Length and Distance mean the same thing.
The 882.5 seconds (~15 minutes) that it took us to walk that distance and for Precious stopping to poop and pee on the ground that we named after Da Schniebo - is the measurement of that EVENT and its DURATION that is measured by the increments on my expensive wristwatch.

RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2019
@Da Schneib.
So if there's no such thing as time, what's a "second?" I mean, just askin'.
The "Second of arc" LABEL was originally applied to the amount of 'turn' (ie, MOTION/CHANGE) around a circle subdivided into 360 degree segments. in like vein, the larger 'turn' segments being "Minute of arc" and "Degree of arc" (whence the 12-HOUR CLOCK "face" and its standard subdivisions to TELL the 'time elapsed', ie, TIMING ACTION, by the number/value of such 'turn' units/subunits by the Minute 'hand', Second 'hand', and of course, the Hour 'hand' around the clock-face 'circle'. Hence 'time' and 'time segment' LABELS relate to ACTION/MOTION 'standards used for TIMING OTHER actions/motions.

@DS later to @S_E_U:
Trying to imagine this fool trying to use an oscilloscope. "What's the horizontal axis mean?" "Nothing, time doesn't exist."
In my previous post (22 hours ago) I explained the mathematical/graphical nature of the 'time' and 'timing' ANALYTICAL construct/dimension.
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2019
Everyone synchronise watch's

As JD has said
When physicists calculate and adjust that would be necessary
so that the satellite is telling the same time as on the ground

the satellites clock is synchronised to ground based clocks

……………………Length contraction…………........
That nails the nail in the coffin for length contraction
because
the boffins on the ground
are
devising cunning mathematical formula
To stretch length contraction back to its original length again
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2019
It is the caesium clock telling the incorrect time at altitude, acceleration and velocity


Wrong, cockwomble. Sod off you uneducated oaf. A f***ing clock on a mountain is moving faster than a clock on the ground. A clock on a spaceship is moving faster than one on the ground. However, one causes time to speed up, the other makes it slow down. Get it dumbo? Probably not, thick eejit.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2019
@RealityCheck
An Oscilloscope is merely an INSTRUMENT. It is a MACHINE that was manufactured from Matter/Energy aka Mass and endowed with a PROGRAM. It has an EMF and runs in the same way that all other Electronics run. If there is any clock inside it - it is ONLY the mechanics of that clock that measure duration by incremental measurements with wheels and gears (purely mechanical).

There is no boogeyman called Time hiding in oscilloscopes, telescopes, or stethoscopes.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2019
-contd-
@Whyde
I am being repetitious so that you may understand better.
DISTANCE from Point A to Point B is measured by Red Shift out in the Cosmos that not only tells how far an object is from Point A, but also how fast Point B is traveling away (velocity) from Point A (supposedly). That is an EVENT just as how one would measure the distance that a runner must travel to get from Point A to Point B. In essence, Length and Distance mean the same thing.
The 882.5 seconds (~15 minutes) that it took us to walk that distance and for Precious stopping to poop and pee on the ground that we named after Da Schniebo - is the measurement of that EVENT and its DURATION that is measured by the increments on my expensive wristwatch.



Dafuq is this loon on about?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2019
How is a clock on top of a mountain in motion?
On top of a mountain a clock is traveling at a higher rate of velocity than one at the bottom. Don't know why do you?


Stupid idiot. The clock at the top of a mountain is ticking faster than one at ground level. A clock in a spacecraft is ticking slower due to velocity. Twat. Lern to scienz..
says jones'cojones

You have it in reverse, jonesybonesy. The clock at ALTITUDE ticks SLOWER due to less gravitational pull/attraction than the clock at the surface. Do try to get it right or continue to humiliate yourself. The clock on a traveling airplane IS at ALTITUDE.
And no, a clock on top of a mountain does not tick faster than the one at ground level, as the mountaintop is a surface.
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2019
This would be hilarious if not everyone's is taking it seriously

The boffins correct relativity to sea level time
and
the boffins correct length contraction to sea level length

If dear old Albert were here to day
he would go in for some good old head banging
we can just hear him saying
why all that hard work
when the boffins mathematically winkle out all that theorising
Its enough to turn a theorist to the bottle in shame!
jimmybobber
3 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2019
@SEU I quote you:

"You have it in reverse, jonesybonesy. The clock at ALTITUDE ticks SLOWER due to less gravitational pull/attraction than the clock at the surface. Do try to get it right or continue to humiliate yourself. The clock on a traveling airplane IS at ALTITUDE.
And no, a clock on top of a mountain does not tick faster than the one at ground level, as the mountaintop is a surface."

I enjoy watching you humiliate yourself in a public forum..
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2019
@SEU I quote you:

"You have it in reverse, jonesybonesy. The clock at ALTITUDE ticks SLOWER due to less gravitational pull/attraction than the clock at the surface. Do try to get it right or continue to humiliate yourself. The clock on a traveling airplane IS at ALTITUDE.
And no, a clock on top of a mountain does not tick faster than the one at ground level, as the mountaintop is a surface."

I enjoy watching you humiliate yourself in a public forum..
says jimmybobs

I did not say that I would enjoy watching jonesy humiliate himself in a public phorum, perhaps you have a thing about jonesy that you prefer to say it in another's post, yes?
jimmybobber
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2019
@SEU

You literally just humiliated yourself with your own words:

"You have it in reverse, jonesybonesy. The clock at ALTITUDE ticks SLOWER due to less gravitational pull/attraction than the clock at the surface. Do try to get it right or continue to humiliate yourself. The clock on a traveling airplane IS at ALTITUDE.
And no, a clock on top of a mountain does not tick faster than the one at ground level, as the mountaintop is a surface."
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2019
^^^^^^ Idiot. Then how are scientists able to predict the effect in advance? Sod off Granville, you are bloody clueless. Nobody is questioning the effects on time of GR and SR. Nobody who is scientifically literate, anyway. The Pound-Rebka experiment in 1959 was the first to confirm GR effects on time.
says jonesy

Scientists can predict anything they darn please - mainly through allegations involving math equations. They are way off the mark with regard to TIME, but they can't get their heads out of their arses enough to understand that TIME IS NOT a dimension. That Time is ONLY a concept invented by early humans to explain things such as the Earth's orbit and the duration/length of the sunrise to sunrise EVENT.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2019
Scientists can predict anything they darn please - mainly through allegations involving math equations. They are way off the mark with regard to TIME, but they can't get their heads out of their arses enough to understand that TIME IS NOT a dimension. That Time is ONLY a concept invented by early humans to explain things such as the Earth's orbit and the duration/length of the sunrise to sunrise EVENT.


Twat. Look up NAVSTAR. And the people who thought alterations wouldn't be necessary, and those who did. They had to buile a frequency synthesiser into the satellite, just in case it was needed to correct for relativistic effects. The real scientists did the maths, and predicted the changes necessary. They were right, you uneducated cockwomble. GR -SR = 38 microseconds. You are proven wrong, you uneducated POS.
jimmybobber
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2019
I quote SEU:

"The clock at ALTITUDE ticks SLOWER due to less gravitational pull/attraction than the clock at the surface."

Idiot.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2019
@SEU

You literally just humiliated yourself with your own words:

"You have it in reverse, jonesybonesy. The clock at ALTITUDE ticks SLOWER due to less gravitational pull/attraction than the clock at the surface. Do try to get it right or continue to humiliate yourself. The clock on a traveling airplane IS at ALTITUDE.
And no, a clock on top of a mountain does not tick faster than the one at ground level, as the mountaintop is a surface."
says jimmy booboo

Not at all. I don't waste my time on humiliating concepts as you, Da Esh and jonesy appear to enjoy doing with your idiotic melodrama of the spacetime wookie that Einstein chose to include in his hallowed GR/SR equations. That latter-day scientists have continued that farce with their hare-brained experiments to confuse the public further wrt Time as a real entity/dimension/factor that they all believe and worship at its altar.
And jimmy booboo - you humiliate yourself by changing the wordings of others' comments
jimmybobber
2 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2019
@SEU

Da Schneib and Jonesdave are right.
You continually humiliate yourself on this forum. The internet never forgets. I'd normally feel sad for you but you are such a jackass I don't. You deserve the ridicule.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2019
Scientists can predict anything they darn please - mainly through allegations involving math equations. They are way off the mark with regard to TIME, but they can't get their heads out of their arses enough to understand that TIME IS NOT a dimension. That Time is ONLY a concept invented by early humans to explain things


Twat. Look up NAVSTAR. And the people who thought alterations wouldn't be necessary, and those who did. They had to buile a frequency synthesiser into the satellite, just in case it was needed to correct for relativistic effects. The real scientists did the maths, and predicted the changes necessary. They were right, you uneducated cockwomble. GR -SR = 38 microseconds. You are proven wrong, you uneducated POS.
says jonesy

It's a FREAKING MACHINE, you dummy. ALL machines need to be altered/fixed/taken apart at one time or another - with or without so-called relativistic effects. Clock mechanisms need to be altered/fixed - NOT Time
jimmybobber
3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2019
@SEU

You are an uneducated idiot, disrespectful, and a bully.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2019
@SEU

Da Schneib and Jonesdave are right.
You continually humiliate yourself on this forum. The internet never forgets. I'd normally feel sad for you but you are such a jackass I don't. You deserve the ridicule.
says jimmy booboo

Good for you. Now get lost. Your sandbox is waiting for you.
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2019
You cannot mathematical erase physical effects

These effects are not real
Twat. Look up NAVSTAR. And the people who thought alterations wouldn't be necessary, and those who did. They had to buile a frequency synthesiser into the satellite, just in case it was needed to correct for relativistic effects. The real scientists did the maths, and predicted the changes necessary. They were right, you uneducated cockwomble. GR -SR = 38 microseconds. You are proven wrong, you uneducated POS

As you cannot mathematical erase physical effects
because
these are not physical effects, but errors in measurement, due to instruments
Proved by mathematical erasure
jimmybobber
3 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2019
@SEU

Sandbox?

What does "Your sandbox is waiting for you." mean?

jimmybobber
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2019
I repeat

@SEU

You are an uneducated idiot, disrespectful, and a bully and fixated on sandboxes (whatever that means)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2019
You cannot mathematical erase physical effects

These effects are not real
Twat. Look up NAVSTAR. And the people who thought alterations wouldn't be necessary, and those who did. They had to buile a frequency synthesiser into the satellite, just in case it was needed to correct for relativistic effects. The real scientists did the maths, and predicted the changes necessary. They were right, you uneducated cockwomble. GR -SR = 38 microseconds. You are proven wrong, you uneducated POS

As you cannot mathematical erase physical effects
because
these are not physical effects, but errors in measurement, due to instruments
Proved by mathematical erasure
says granville

Precisely. If the "real" scientists had predicted it correctly in the first place, there would have been no need at all for corrections. But they messed up, and needed to make alterations from a distance. Otherwise, they would have needed to send up Engineers to solve the problem. Like the HST.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2019
-contd-
@Whyde
I am being repetitious so that you may understand better.
DISTANCE from Point A to Point B is measured by Red Shift out in the Cosmos that not only tells how far an object is from Point A, but also how fast Point B is traveling away (velocity) from Point A (supposedly). That is an EVENT just as how one would measure the distance that a runner must travel to get from Point A to Point B. In essence, Length and Distance mean the same thing.
The 882.5 seconds (~15 minutes) that it took us to walk that distance and for Precious stopping to poop and pee on the ground that we named after Da Schniebo - is the measurement of that EVENT and its DURATION that is measured by the increments on my expensive wristwatch.
.......you have a watch with a neutron powered kinetic energy clock.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2019
@Benni
LOL If I had such a wristwatch, I would be glowing in the dark. Particularly if it is a Free Neutron.
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2019
What on Earth are we doing?

When push comes to shove, SEU
it's interesting what emerges
out of this vacuous vacuum of ours
what is relativity is mathematics
what is mathematics is not real
what is not real
can be
mathematically winkled out
there
is
just oner question, SEU
Why calculate this time dilation in the first instance
when
in the last instance, we are mathematically winkling it out
That is the question
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2019
> Egg

it is ONLY the mechanics of that clock that measure duration by incremental measurements with wheels and gears (purely mechanical).
For good measure you could throw in all this dilation stuff that the Pop-Cosmology culture here wants labeled as a 4th dimension. They simply are unable to comprehend how atomic clocks work, via expenditure of kinetic energy as electrons cross back & forth through orbital repositioning. Expenditure of kinetic energy ain't no kind of 4th dimension.

Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2019
@SEU

You are an uneducated idiot, disrespectful, and a bully.

jimbo.........you're the one on a name calling rant
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2019
@granville
Those who bought into all this math furfluffy should be finding out quite soon that their inclusion of Time as a physical dimension has no reality in the realities of Matter/Energy and the mechanisms that are derived from the manufacture of instruments within the realities of Matter/Energy.
Instruments are only as good as the Program incorporated into it. And if that Program happens to include an improper application - it is going to bollux up the whole works.
Such as Time included as spacetime - they can't get it into their heads that Space is real, while Time is ONLY a concept of the mind and is not a physical thing. What they are remediating is the mechanics of a working model that may include the adjustment of the increments of the clock.
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2019
SEU, we have a caesium clock in a satellite

That has errors in motion
that boffins
on the ground
have to devise formulas
that sort of corrects this clock
the most accurate clock in this universe
has to corrected
with a botched formula
that drastically waters down this highly accurate clock
that
if
they simply put a wind up gold jewelled Swiss watch
it would be equally accurate
and
Most probably would not need mathematically correcting for errors due to being in orbit
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2019
> Egg

it is ONLY the mechanics of that clock that measure duration by incremental measurements with wheels and gears (purely mechanical).
For good measure you could throw in all this dilation stuff that the Pop-Cosmology culture here wants labeled as a 4th dimension. They simply are unable to comprehend how atomic clocks work, via expenditure of kinetic energy as electrons cross back & forth through orbital repositioning. Expenditure of kinetic energy ain't no kind of 4th dimension.

says Benni

And what are Electrons? Why, they are forms of Matter/Energy - the building blocks of the Universe itself. All quantum particles are Matter/Energy that are governed by Motion/Momentum - strict Rules of Engagement - whether in the quantum universe, or in OUR Universe. And Time has nothing to do with any of it since Time is a Mind Experiment.
jimmybobber
3 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2019
@Benni

You are worse than an idiot. You don't even know what "2 +2/2 =" Yet you pretend you do know.
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2019
SEU and Benni, have they put wind up gold jewelled Swiss watch
in the space station
and what is the result ?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2019
SEU and Benni, have they put wind up gold jewelled Swiss watch
in the space station
and what is the result ?
says granville

I'm not entirely sure that gold jeweled watches are regulation approved for the ISS. I know that certain items are not approved due to constraints of weight and other factors - even as small as a watch. And it couldn't be allowed to be worn inside a spacesuit where it might snag on the fabric.
I believe that they only depend on the clocks aboard and inside the cabin that are a part of the structure itself. As they would tend to run slower, being in LEO, they would have to be adjusted often, as needed.
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2019
In other words
SEU and Benni, have they put wind up gold jewelled Swiss watch
in the space station
and what is the result ?

Can they keep the space station in its correct orbit?
with no relativistic corrections
With a the best wind up gold jewelled Swiss watch available on the market

p.s. you have answered the question SEU
They have not tried it
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2019
the point that is being made is
how ever accurate these watches are at sea level
are they equaly as accurate in orbit
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2019

@granville
I believe that the ISS altitude is monitored and adjusted according to the Earth's surface. Passing over the Himalayas it may have to temporarily adjust for the height of the mountains so that the ISS would fly at a slightly higher altitude in relation to the mountain tops in comparison to at sea level. Since the Earth's surface is bumpy, the ISS instruments account for that, taking the path of least resistance, in effect.

But I'm not even sure that it flies over the Himalayas.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2019
the point that is being made is
how ever accurate these watches are at sea level
are they equaly as accurate in orbit
says granville

An emphatic no. LOL
Gravity also affects gold windup watches at altitude. The springs, cogs and wheels, being material, are also subject to gravitational effects. They would run slower compared to the same type of watch at sea level. There too, is no faerie dust called Time hiding inside the watch.
A Caesium-powered clock also has no faerie dust hiding in the works. It is ALL powered by Matter/Energy in the form of jumping Electrons causing the clock's hands or number to move incrementally.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2019
OK Precious has to go out and make weewee and poo on Da Schniebo.
Russia is making threats to the US - this should be VERY interesting. Another Cuba-missile-crisis?
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2019
I have actually seen it some time a go as a satellite
there like ships at sea sailing by the stars
the shuttle used to nudge into higher orbit every time it docked
for free
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2019
OK Precious has to go out and make weewee and poo on Da Schniebo.
Russia is making threats to the US - this should be VERY interesting. Another Cuba-missile-crisis?


......couldn't stop myself, I had to downstar you on this one.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2019
@Benni

You are worse than an idiot. You don't even know what "2 +2/2 =" Yet you pretend you do know.


.....all this time I thought it was Schneibo bragging about his IQ? Why do you think that's wrong?
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2019
Funniest thing, the mountains I can see out my window don't seem to have moved any, despite (according to the comedy crew) having a velocity relative to me.

Dumb da dumb dumb.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2019
ROFLOL Now Da Esh believes that someone has implied that mountains are capable of moving and have velocity. Poor Da Esh is stoned out of his mind again.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2019
Gotta love the teeny tiny mechanical movements inside the oscilloscopes, too.

This is like some sort of mythology or something. A suitable field for an anthropology study of primitive ideation.

With a laugh track.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2019
Your butt buddy @Benny said it. I'm still chuckling:

On top of a mountain a clock is traveling at a higher rate of velocity than one at the bottom. Don't know why do you?


Not to mention the invisible mechanical movements in oscilloscopes and computers.

Now who's stoned, again?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2019
Gotta love the teeny tiny mechanical movements inside the oscilloscopes, too.

This is like some sort of mythology or something. A suitable field for an anthropology study of primitive ideation.

With a laugh track.
says Da Esh or Daesh

LOL
ahaaa...Da Scheide has finally come to realise that there are, indeed, MECHANICAL MOVEMENTS inside oscilloscopes. Da Scheide must have learned that from RealityCheck, right DS? Then goes on to talk gibberish...again.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2019
Hahahahahahaha, I have repaired oscilloscopes and computers, and I guarantee there are no teeny little gears and escapements inside them. Schematics and pictures of their insides are available online. After making this outrageous claim you are the one making the claim; show on the schematics and pictures where these little teeny tiny invisible springs and escapements and gears are. Good luck with that.

Like I said, mythology. Just like the mountains moving around.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2019
Your butt buddy @Benny said it. I'm still chuckling:

On top of a mountain a clock is traveling at a higher rate of velocity than one at the bottom. Don't know why do you?


Not to mention the invisible mechanical movements in oscilloscopes and computers.

Now who's stoned, again?


Benni said that it is THE CLOCK that is traveling at a higher rate of velocity. He never said anything about a mountain traveling at all.
You are imagining things, Da Scheide, or else you're drunk. Get off the joy juice before it kills you.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2019
So tell us, @SRU, if time isn't a thing, how can clocks measure it?
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2019
Benni said that it is THE CLOCK that is traveling at a higher rate of velocity. He never said anything about a mountain traveling at all.
The clock is
on top of the mountain
. If the clock is moving, so is the mountain.

Maybe you forgot.

Relativity cranks always screw up frames of reference. That's because they're innumerate.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2019
The comedy crew screws it up again. Great stuff here; I'm bookmarking this thread and making notes on the particularly funny crank mythology bits.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2019
What on Earth are we doing?

When push comes to shove, SEU
it's interesting what emerges
out of this vacuous vacuum of ours
what is relativity is mathematics
what is mathematics is not real
what is not real
can be
mathematically winkled out
there
is
just oner question, SEU
Why calculate this time dilation in the first instance
when
in the last instance, we are mathematically winkling it out
That is the question
says granville

Math equations are supposed to translate into the realities of mechanics. The fact that it is impossible to dilate Time creates a conundrum for scientists/researchers who have dedicated themselves to the belief that Time can dilate. Those who have learnt that Time cannot and will not be dilated - are free of its idiocy. But those who aren't scientists and believe that Time can dilate, will wait for science to disprove the fallacy. And they will read of it with a heavy heart, and cannot reason well enough to know the differences.
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (2) Feb 22, 2019
https://www.youtu...Z8LmwTds

Now imagine @SRU trying to back the dog into the house.

Bwahahahahahaha!

Absolute comedy gold.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2019
So tell us, @SRU, if time isn't a thing, how can clocks measure it?
......because they are measuring changing conditions of ENERGY.

I can just imagine you also think the TIME dimension has a sound as well? Like tick tock, tick tock, tick tock..........
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2019
@Benni

You are worse than an idiot. You don't even know what "2 +2/2 =" Yet you pretend you do know.


.....all this time I thought it was Schneibo bragging about his IQ? Why do you think that's wrong?
says Benni

Yes, they are so much alike, aren't they. Either they are the same, or they are related such as uncle and nephew. . . .or Da Scheide's buttbuddy - a word that Da Scheide is quite fond of.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2019
So tell us, @SRU, if time isn't a thing, how can clocks measure it?
......because they are measuring changing conditions of ENERGY.
More garbage technospeak by the janitor.

Tell me, @Benni, do you measure time by the number of swishes of the mop in the toilet bowl?
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2019
So tell us, @SRU, if time isn't a thing, how can clocks measure it?
......because they are measuring changing conditions of ENERGY.

More garbage technospeak by the janitor.

Tell me, @Benni, do you measure time by the number of swishes of the mop in the toilet bowl?


Some are suggesting 2+2/2 is your IQ. I think that's overstatng it.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2019
Hahahahahahaha, I have repaired oscilloscopes and computers, and I guarantee there are no teeny little gears and escapements inside them. Schematics and pictures of their insides are available online. After making this outrageous claim you are the one making the claim; show on the schematics and pictures where these little teeny tiny invisible springs and escapements and gears are. Good luck with that.

Like I said, mythology. Just like the mountains moving around.
says Da Scheide

According to this site - there are no signs of Time dilation either.
And we were referring to the springs, gears and wheels in a clock or a watch - not an oscilloscope. Learn to read better, Da Esh

https://www.allab...-probes/
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (2) Feb 22, 2019
No, "we" weren't referring to anything of the kind. You're just lying now.

I know far better than you how an oscilloscope works. You haven't even referred to the essential timing element of either oscilloscopes and computers.

The site you linked doesn't talk about time dilation because all they're talking about is probes used on the surface of the Earth. That's you obfuscating. Probes are checked and adjusted before every critical measurement using a time and voltage reference provided by the 'scope. They have a hole in the bottom of the connector for making this adjustment. But you wouldn't know that not having ever actually used one, much less having learned how 'scopes work.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2019
Benni said that it is THE CLOCK that is traveling at a higher rate of velocity. He never said anything about a mountain traveling at all.
The clock is
on top of the mountain
. If the clock is moving, so is the mountain.

Maybe you forgot.

Relativity cranks always screw up frames of reference. That's because they're innumerate.

says Da Scheide

Many mountaintops have a plateau, which is a flattened portion. If the clock is in a vehicle riding on that portion, then IT is moving while the mountaintop is stationary.

Maybe you forgot.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2019
I don't see where @Benni mentioned anything of the kind.

You're lying again, @SRU. And it's obvious. And got a chorus from the laugh track.

You're trying to back precious into the house again. And the dude across the street raking his lawn still says "pitiful."
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2019
No, "we" weren't referring to anything of the kind. You're just lying now.

I know far better than you how an oscilloscope. You haven't even referred to the essential timing element of either oscilloscopes and computers.

The site you linked doesn't talk about time dilation because all they're talking about is probes used on the surface of the Earth. That's you obfuscating. Probes are checked and adjusted before every critical measurement using a time and voltage reference provided by the 'scope. They have a hole in the bottom of the connector for making this adjustment. But you wouldn't know that not having ever actually used one, much less having learned how 'scopes work.

says Da Scheide

Uhh For what reason would I need an oscilloscope. I never indicated that I have used one. Why would you think that I have used or have one or have need of one???

Timing of an o-scope is a mechanism - not by Time dilation. Time is not dilating in an oscilloscope. You're drunk
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2019
You keep talking about time like it doesn't exist.

That has nothing to do with time dilation. You're lying again, @SRU, and still trying to back the dog into the house, and the guy across the street is still saying "pitiful."

And the laugh track is swelling again.

Meanwhile, it is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that you have never used an oscilloscope and have absolutely not the least slightest clue about time, about which you've been bloviating now for two threads.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2019
There are 18 incidences of the word "oscilloscope" occurring in this phorum. The very first incidence of the word is by YOU.

Da Schneib3.4 / 5 (5) 22 hours ago
Trying to imagine this fool trying to use an oscilloscope.

"What's the horizontal axis mean?" "Nothing, time doesn't exist.""
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (2) Feb 22, 2019
It's shameful that you should bloviate about time when you intuitively obviously have no knowledge about it.

On the other hand, it's also intuitively obvious that I do.

You are obviously trolling, and obviously failing not merely miserably but spectacularly, think Hindenburg.

You can't even name the timing element. There is one in every computer and every oscilloscope and every function generator and in every digital watch and clock. And you have no idea what it is.

Still trying to back precious into the house. Still being derided by the guy across the street. Still having the laugh track swell every time you post.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2019
You keep talking about time like it doesn't exist.
says the bloviating Da Scheide

That is correct. Time does NOT EXIST. It is only a construct within the human mind for the purpose of measuring distance and duration of events. Get used to it.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2019
Then how come we can measure it?

This is like claiming there's no such thing as distance. Completely idiotic. I suppose the speedometer on your car measures something that doesn't exist. Remember it's marked in miles or kilometers PER HOUR.

Maybe you'd like to try this line of argument in court after a speeding ticket.

Dumb da dumb dumb. Dumb da dumb dumb duuuuuh.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2019
You measure the duration of events and distance with clocks, watches, calculators, slide rules, measuring tape, etc. Didn't you know this? Are you really that stupid, Da Scheide?
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2019
None of those are part of the human mind. Which is your claim. And BTW calculators slide rules, and measuring tape don't measure time.

Laugh track swells again. As I said above, you wouldn't know a physics if it jumped up, bit you on the ass, and ripped off a chunk.
howhot3
3 / 5 (2) Feb 22, 2019
I've been trying to catch up on this discussion and there seems to be some confusion about Einstein's equations regarding as you approach the speed of light. Will you have to think of the equations as being three-dimensional about the dilations from C. Time dilation only happens along the vector that approaches the speed of light. So Einstein's equations when applied to contraction of length only occurs along the vector of the direction approaching C. Similarly with time dilation and other effects like energy. So if you're on a photon (a packet of energy) looking straight at the direction that you're heading towards at speed C, you have no time. Time is 0. The interaction is immediate. Because of length contraction, everything is squished directly to a point you're entangled with. This is the whole weird part of "creepy interaction at a distance" that Einstein struggle with. Is that along the vector of C, singularities occur.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2019
@howhot you're trying to explain relativity to a dog. There is nothing left in these smoking ashes but ridicule for leaving a candle burning on top of a newspaper.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2019
None of those are part of the human mind. Which is your claim. And BTW calculators slide rules, and measuring tape don't measure time.

Laugh track swells again. As I said above, you wouldn't know a physics if it jumped up, bit you on the ass, and ripped off a chunk.
says the idiot Da Scheide

The human mind is amazing. It is capable of conceiving an idea, as well as the blueprints of a mechanism and putting it into a computer - then taking it to be manufactured. That is how clocks, watches, and other timepieces are created. Sliderules and tape do the measuring for accuracy.

Didn't you know these things, Da Scheide? Of Course they are all a part of the human mind. It is the human mind that conceived all of it. Are you belittling the human mind and saying that it can do none of these things?
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2019
But the human mind has nothing to do with it.

The human mind didn't make electrons, photons, or any more of the plethora of subatomic particles, all of which experience and can therefore be used to measure time. This stuff all happens faster than we can perceive, which means we don't see it until it's a done deal. And a measured deal.

You're obfuscating again, @SRU.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2019
I've been trying to catch up on this discussion and there seems to be some confusion about Einstein's equations regarding as you approach the speed of light. Will you have to think of the equation is being three-dimensional in a sentence dilation about time only happens along the vector that approaches the speed of light. So Einstein's equations when applied to contraction of length only occurs along the vector of the direction approaching C. Similarly with time dilation. So if you're on a photon looking straight at the direction that you're heading towards, you have no time. Time is 0. The interaction is immediate. Because of length contraction, everything is squished directly to a point. This is the whole weird... Is that along the vector of C, singularities occur.
says howhot3

There is no such thing as Time or Time dilation. Contraction of length does not involve the concept of Time. It is the contraction of SPACE ITSELF.
howhot3
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2019
Yeah, your correct @Da Schneib, it is like teaching a dog. Repeat, Rinse, Clean, Rinse ...
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2019
Denying Einstein- particularly SRT, which is distinct from GRT- has no future. And you certainly don't have the math to disprove it.

Let me repeat this; due to the slowness of the human brain, everything we sense has happened in the past. Saying there is no time is equivalent to saying there is no past. This is psychotic ideation.

Laugh track swells again. Pitiful.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2019
@howhot
Space is extremely flexible. It can lengthen or contract; fold in upon itself; make a gravity well around planets and Stars. But nothing to do with the concept of Time, and Time can do nothing of these things. If Time was flexible, we would be able to go into the past or the future.
howhot3
3 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2019
There is no such thing as Time
If that was so, then how did the second hand on your clock (digital or analog) just move forward?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2019
But the human mind has nothing to do with it.

The human mind didn't make electrons, photons, or any more of the plethora of subatomic particles, all of which experience and can therefore be used to measure time. This stuff all happens faster than we can perceive, which means we don't see it until it's a done deal. And a measured deal.

You're obfuscating again, @SRU.
says the stupid fool, Da Scheide

Who said that the human mind created electrons, etc.? I surely did not. YOU are making shit up because you don't have any further valid arguments to offer, so you obfuscate by referring to quantum particles - which incidentally were created by the Creator God when He created the Universe. Isn't that right, how hot?
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2019
And we can, @SRU. In fact we go into the future at one second per second, in our local frame. YMMV if you observe from a different frame. But you wouldn't know about frames, being innumerate.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2019
There is no such thing as Time
If that was so, then how did second hand on your clock (digital or analog) just move forward?
says howhot

OMG howhot. I cannot believe what you just said. Why did you just say that? Are you trying to be a dummy like Da Scheide?
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2019
Who said that the human mind created electrons, etc.? I surely did not. YOU are making shit up because you don't have any further valid arguments to offer, so you obfuscate by referring to quantum particles - which incidentally were created by the Creator God when He created the Universe. Isn't that right, how hot?
They experience time. And it's measurable. Our definition of time is based upon quantum transitions of electrons between energy states.

Maybe yuo forgot.

This is still comedy gold, yuo are still trying to back the dog into the house, and the laugh track still swells every time yuo post.

Pitiful.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2019
What dog are you talking about, fool? That comedy is YOU and your stupidity, as usual
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2019
The one you keep posting about taking out to shit and piss all over the landscape.

Do you now claim you don't have a dog?

Maybe you claim it doesn't know when it's time to go out.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2019
The one you keep posting about taking out to shit and piss all over Da Schniebo.

Do you now claim you don't have a dog?
says Da Schniebo

Why do you want to know? Is it any of your business?
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2019
You posted it.

Welcome to the Intertubes, n00b.

What you say has permanent consequences.
howhot3
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2019
@Sir_Egg_dude; The universe can create odd states of thought; including your clouded mind. Throw out the nonsense of even trying to understand it with concepts of God, or higher forces. Just be an observer. Be a witness of things bigger than yourself.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2019
Ho Hum...I tire of this drivel from this mindless Da Schniebo. I have a great movie to watch. Good night Bennie and howhot. Hopefully Howhot will recognise his error. I have an early plane to catch.
howhot3
3 / 5 (2) Feb 22, 2019
Oh well, Meta-physics does bore a lot of people.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2019
@Sir_Egg_dude; The universe can create odd states of thought; including your clouded mind. Throw out the nonsense of even trying to understand it with concepts of God, or higher forces. Just be an observer. Be a witness of things bigger than yourself.
says howhot3

You have NO IDEA of what I have been witness to, howhot3. Yes, far bigger than myself. More than that, I will not divulge.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2019
@SRU denies it's own posts and tries to distract attention from them.

Transparently obvious. Now it's attempting to claim it's a telepathic alien again.

Laugh track swells again.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2019
Remember this one?

Da Schneib

1 /5 (2)
20 hours ago
What you do with these is go around behind their back and lie about them every chance you get.

https://phys.org/...html#jCp
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2019
If you do the same, and what I say is supported by physics and math, I win.

I'm just lying about your motivations. And since you do about mine that seems like equality to me. Maybe you object to equality.

Laugh track swells again.
howhot3
3 / 5 (2) Feb 22, 2019
Humm... Aliens using telepathy to manipulate weak Minds. It's a possibility that some readers might believe they are being influenced telepathically by the devious physicists. Buhhahaha. Yeah, we're not evil dead.
Just trust Einstein.
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (2) Feb 22, 2019
Still waiting to hear how @SRU argued that time doesn't exist in front of a judge.

If you can't make the rubber meet the road you don't have any traction.

Just sayin'.
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (2) Feb 22, 2019
Meanwhile, noted we're now off into psychology. Gee, I thought this thread was about missing baryonic mass, not dark matter, black holes, dark energy, or relativity? And certainly not into psychology.

Nutjob @SRU runs away to hide again.

Laugh track swells again.
howhot3
3 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2019
Cool. So are we back on the subject line? I just had a great idea on wave/particle duality from that earlier "Time 0" post.

Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2019
I just had a great idea on wave/particle duality from that earlier "Time 0" post.
Quote it please, then I'll do my best to answer.
howhot3
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2019
The particle nature in wave/particle duality only occurs at the vector that is at speed C. All other observations not directly on that vector will be wave nature with a higher frequency as it approaches the head on-vector. Thus, the double slit explained.

howhot3
3 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2019
Just to open discussions, for Da Schneib.

Think of the equations as being three-dimensional about the dilations from C. Time dilation only happens along the vector that approaches the speed of light. So Einstein's equations when applied to contraction of length only occurs along the vector of the direction approaching C. Similarly with time dilation and other effects like energy. So if you're on a photon (a packet of energy) looking straight at the direction that you're heading towards at speed C, you have no time. Time is 0. The interaction is immediate. Because of length contraction, everything is squished directly to a point you're entangled with. This is the whole weird part of "creepy interaction at a distance" that Einstein struggle with. Is that along the vector of C, singularities occur.
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2019
@howhot, I think you got them backwards, Particle should occur at less than the speed of light and wave at it.
humy
3 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2019
This is what I like about your theories, humy
granville583762

Relativity is NOT "my" theories but Einstein's; you know, that genies that was a LOT smarter than you and I and knew about it far better than you and I (especially smarter and better than you).
And relativity, including time dilation which is an essential component of relativity, is a proven scientific fact.
Relativity made many specific predictions NOT made by any other theory. Those relativity predictions have since then been tested and observed to be correct and, with no credible alternative theory making those predictions, that means its is a proven scientific fact.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2019
Einstein, 1905, On the Electromagnetics of Moving Bodies. Annals of Physics. Translation available here: http://www.fourmi...rel/www/

See section 3.
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2019
INTERESTING

In the 1730s
The admiralty required an accurate chronometer for mariners at sea
that
did not vary its time keeping from Greenwich

Space mariners also require an accurate chronometer for mariners in space
that
does not vary its time keeping from Greenwich

because
this is what we are actually trying to achieve
by
Correcting caesium chronometers in orbit
so they do not vary their time keeping from Greenwich

In the 2019s
Space mariners require an accurate chronometer to sail the stars
synchronised with Greenwich
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2019
Since @granny is innumerate and incapable of normal human speech I see no point in any response other than to note the facts.

For example:
Einstein, 1905, On the Electromagnetics of Moving Bodies. Annals of Physics. Translation available here: http://www.fourmi...rel/www/

See section 3.

Read more at: https://phys.org/...html#jCp
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2019
None of those are part of the human mind. Which is your claim. And BTW calculators slide rules, and measuring tape don't measure time.


How about CLOCKS, going tick tock, tick tock, tick tock........are these measuring time? Or just counting successions of EVENTS?
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2019
LINKS ON THIS INTERWEB
Da Schneib > Since @granny is innumerate and incapable of normal human speech I see no point in any response other than to note the facts.

For example:
Einstein, 1905, On the Electromagnetics of Moving Bodies. Annals of Physics. Translation available here: http://www.fourmi...rel/www/

Since @granny is innumerate and incapable of normal human speech

Your link, Da Schneib http www fourmi...rel/www/
Returns, in Firefox Quantum 65.0.1 (64-bit)

< Hmm. We're having trouble finding that site.
We can't connect to the server at www fourmi...rel.
If that address is correct, here are three other things you can try:

Try again later.
Check your network connection.
If you are connected but behind a firewall, check that Firefox has permission to access the Web >

Me thinks you need to recheck out your link again and think this out again, Da Schneib
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2019
The human mind didn't make electrons, photons, or any more of the plethora of subatomic particles, all of which experience and can therefore be used to measure time. This stuff all happens faster than we can perceive, which means we don't see it until it's a done deal. And a measured deal.


......and without those electrons that keep jumping back & forth between orbital positions, there won't be a "measure" of ANYTHING, much less the 2+2/2 concept of your IQ.

jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2019
^^^^ Clueless idiot. Go away, you understand nothing about science, you blowhard. You are a scientifically illiterate fraud.
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2019
Da Schneib, since @granny is innumerate and incapable of normal human speech

Granny always checks that all links however mundane always work
granny always give a complete sentence devoted solely to the link
because
granny, has found out the hard way
Links on this phys.org can be fickle!
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2019
Oh well, Meta-physics does bore a lot of people.


No, it's the mindless fantasies of Pop-Cosmology that bores a lot of people. Like the silliness of trying to spoonfeed to us the concept that infinite gravity exists at the surface of a finite stellar mass in total violation of the Inverse Square Law.
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2019
Electrons are Physical, Real, subject to Gravitational acceleration
Benni> ......and without those electrons that keep jumping back & forth between orbital positions, there won't be a "measure

The electron has 9.1x10-31kg of inertial mass
all inertial mass is subject to gravity and emits gravity
by implication
when this electron transitions
it is subject to gravitation
which
varies with altitude from the planets centre of mass
which is why
Caesium chronometers make excellent gravitometers

p.s. when we find our unvarying chronometer for space mariners, caesium chronometers can go along for the ride as caesium gravitometers
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2019
Oh well, Meta-physics does bore a lot of people.


No, it's the mindless fantasies of Pop-Cosmology that bores a lot of people. Like the silliness of trying to spoonfeed to us the concept that infinite gravity exists at the surface of a finite stellar mass in total violation of the Inverse Square Law.


Clueless, uneducated fraud.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2019
Da Schneib's 500th prediction
commeth true, we made it, Phew!
...................2+2/2 = ?....................
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2019
Electrons are Physical, Real, subject to Gravitational acceleration
Benni> ......and without those electrons that keep jumping back & forth between orbital positions, there won't be a "measure

The electron has 9.1x10-31kg of inertial mass
all inertial mass is subject to gravity and emits gravity
by implication
when this electron transitions
it is subject to gravitation
which
varies with altitude from the planets centre of mass
which is why
Caesium chronometers make excellent gravitometers

p.s. when we find our unvarying chronometer for space mariners, caesium chronometers can go along for the ride as caesium gravitometers
.......kinetic energy making things move. How much those things DILATE when accelerating depends on how closely the system is approaching the speed of light, or vice versa if receding.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2019
Electrons are Physical, Real, subject to Gravitational acceleration
Benni> ......and without those electrons that keep jumping back & forth between orbital positions, there won't be a "measure

The electron has 9.1x10-31kg of inertial mass
all inertial mass is subject to gravity and emits gravity
by implication
when this electron transitions
it is subject to gravitation
which
varies with altitude from the planets centre of mass
which is why
Caesium chronometers make excellent gravitometers

p.s. when we find our unvarying chronometer for space mariners, caesium chronometers can go along for the ride as caesium gravitometers
.......kinetic energy making things move. How much those things DILATE when accelerating depends on how closely the system is approaching the speed of light, or vice versa if receding.


Ignorant fool.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2019
Da Schneib's 500th prediction
commeth true, we made it, Phew!
...................2+2/2 = ?....................
......you've been counting? Is this the 500th TIME as a dimension or a count from a clock?

Miscue on the 1 Star above.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2019
Da Schneib's 500th prediction
commeth true, we made it, Phew!
...................2+2/2 = ?....................
......you've been counting? Is this the 500th TIME as a dimension or a count from a clock?

Miscue on the 1 Star above.


Dozy tosspot.
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2019
Remember, remember the professor at Staffordshire university

Relativistic kinetic energy is not is not inertial mass simply kinetic energy of motion
kinetic energy of motion is not inertial mass so is not subject to gravitation
electrons in particle accelerator do not experience increased downward force
because
The technicians do not increase the containing magnetic field

………………………..< STAFFORDSHIRE UNIVERSITY >…………………..
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2019
The fail safe mathematics
Da Schneib's 500th prediction
commeth true, we made it, Phew!
...................2+2/2 = ?....................
......you've been counting? Is this the 500th TIME as a dimension or a count from a clock?
Benni> Miscue on the 1 Star above.

The fail safe mathematics
Da Schneib's 500th prediction
or
Da Schneib's new avatar 2+2/2=?
when all mathematics fails
this is a foolproof method
< 1+2+3+4.....+497+498+499+500 >
humy
3 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2019
.......kinetic energy making things move.
Benni

NO Benni, NO. Kinetic energy is just something that a moving thing with mass HAS. What makes something with mass go from being stationary (stationary in some arbitrary frame of reference) to moving (moving in the same arbitrary frame of reference) is ACCELERATION that is in turn due to a net FORCE in a particular direction. the fact that ACCELERATION and net FORCE in a particular direction.gives an object more kinetic energy (in the same arbitrary frame of reference) is just coincidental to what causes it to accelerate.
see
F = ma
at
http://zonalanded...qMA.html

humy
3 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2019
Not EVERYTHING in physics is DIRECTLY to do with "kinetic energy"; don't know where that silly idea came from here.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2019
None of those are part of the human mind. Which is your claim. And BTW calculators slide rules, and measuring tape don't measure time.


How about CLOCKS, going tick tock, tick tock, tick tock........are these measuring time? Or just counting successions of EVENTS?
That depends on the type of clock. Would you consider a rotation of the phase of an EM wave through 2π radians an "event?" Because there are clocks for which that is a "tick."
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2019
Worth mentioning that many SI units, for some good examples the meter, the ampere, (which are both base units) and the Newton and Joule (derived units), are all based on the definition of the second. For example, the definition of a meter is defined in terms of the speed ot light, and the speed of course is defined by the second; the ampere is defined in terms of how many electrons flow past a certain point in a second; the Newton is defined (of course!) by F = ma, where a is defined in terms of seconds, and the Joule is defined in terms of Newtons.

All of these units require time. So to say time is non-existent is patently ludicrous. If you deny time you are essentially denying the size of anything as well as the amount of any electric current. It's mythology. Not science and never even looked like it. Certainly nothing since Newton wrote the Principia.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2019
Let me reiterate that: the meter, the most basic unit of our system of measurement, is defined by time. Now, would you rather use a measurement system that is defined by research and can be recreated in any lab in case there's any question as to its accuracy, or by a bitch of trolls who won't even admit we can measure time?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2019
INTERESTING

In the 1730s
The admiralty required an accurate chronometer for mariners at sea
that
did not vary its time keeping from Greenwich

Space mariners also require an accurate chronometer for mariners in space
that
does not vary its time keeping from Greenwich

because
this is what we are actually trying to achieve
by
Correcting caesium chronometers in orbit
so they do not vary their time keeping from Greenwich

In the 2019s
Space mariners require an accurate chronometer to sail the stars
synchronised with Greenwich
says granville

Yes. Greenwich Mean Time - aka GMT - is the basis for determining the increments of the 24 hour clock, whether digital or nuclear powered. Each increment of the hourly differences in each Time Zone refers to and is confirmed by GMT - whether on the surface of a planet or at Altitude.
It is the standard time worldwide, independent of location - separate from clocks running according to Time Zone.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2019
None of those are part of the human mind. Which is your claim. And BTW calculators slide rules, and measuring tape don't measure time.


How about CLOCKS, going tick tock, tick tock, tick tock........are these measuring time? Or just counting successions of EVENTS?
says Benni

LOL
Da Schnitzophrenic doesn't recognise that it is the human mind that has INVENTED clocks that measure the passage of Events with incremental stages of hours, minutes, seconds, nano/micro/pico seconds, etc. Calculators do the Math to divide the Hours and Days into increments of ... which is how you can switch from 882.5 seconds to 14.7 minutes by calculating it.
Tape and slide rules measure distance as clocks measure the duration of the event to run from distance Point A to Point B. Clocks are also Calculators
All these inventions and concepts are creations of the human mind through the observations of the Minds' Eye.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2019
Worth mentioning that many SI units, for some good examples the meter, the ampere, (which are both base units) and the Newton and Joule (derived units), are all based on the definition of the second. For example, the definition of a meter is defined in terms of the speed ot light, and...

All of these units require time. So to say time is non-existent is patently ludicrous. If you deny time you are essentially denying the size of anything as well as the amount of any electric current. It's mythology. Not science and never even looked like it. Certainly nothing since Newton wrote the Pri
says Da Schnitzophrenic

Time has NO SUBSTANCE - therefore the concept of Time is ONLY a construct of the human mind. The measure of Events and Distance gives the human mind an illusory conjunction to identify the human conception of Time with the duration of an Event or the length of distance divided by the increments of a clock. Time is conceived as Past, Present & Future only
Anonym262722
1 / 5 (1) Feb 23, 2019
@DS,Gran, SEU
In my understanding of the unified DU theory of GR/QM you ALL are (at least partially) right - no need to argue but you may want to study details of DU literature:
1) The distances in EM bound matter are constant, say, to define the unit of standard meter
2) The APPARENT or local speed C of light is constant when measured by a physical atomic clock thereby enabling the GPS technology - this allows the definition of meter in terms of local time or ticks per today's second (and year) definition.
3) The cosmic time dilation and TRUE value of decelerating C=C4 takes place in the direction of metric R4 or Riemann (Hubble) 4-radius of decelerating expansion. Because of the lengthened second of today for energy balancing of total energized mass M in motion and gravitation of the 3-D space, decelerating C=C4 needs T4= 9.2B (today's) yrs to expand R4 to 13.8 B ly. T4=f(C4^3) and R4=f(C4^2).
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2019
All these inventions and concepts are creations of the human mind through the observations of the Minds' Eye.


Idiot.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2019
Electrons are Physical, Real, subject to Gravitational acceleration
Benni> ......and without those electrons that keep jumping back & forth between orbital positions, there won't be a "measure

The electron has 9.1x10-31kg of inertial mass
all inertial mass is subject to gravity and emits gravity...

p.s. when we find our unvarying chronometer for space mariners, caesium chronometers can go along for the ride as caesium gravitometers
.......kinetic energy making things move. How much those things DILATE when accelerating depends on how closely the system is approaching the speed of light, or vice versa if receding.
says Benni

Kinetic Energy is a "property" that is available to make things move.
What humy says about "acceleration" and "Force" is merely the probable/possible ACTION of Matter. It is Matter such as Protons/Electrons that is capable of dilating - not Time. Please tell me if I'm wrong, Benni
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2019
^^^^ Clueless idiot. Go away, you understand nothing about science, you blowhard. You are a scientifically illiterate fraud.
says jones

You offer NOTHING, contribute NOTHING in any of your posts. It is YOU that should go away.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2019
^^^^ Clueless idiot. Go away, you understand nothing about science, you blowhard. You are a scientifically illiterate fraud.
says jones

You offer NOTHING, contribute NOTHING in any of your posts. It is YOU that should go away.


Wrong. I continually link to real science that shows idiots like you and Benni to be fraudulent, scientifically illiterate tossers. No need to thank me.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2019
^^^^ Clueless idiot. Go away, you understand nothing about science, you blowhard. You are a scientifically illiterate fraud.
says jones

You offer NOTHING, contribute NOTHING in any of your posts. It is YOU that should go away.


Wrong. I continually link to real science that shows idiots like you and Benni to be fraudulent, scientifically illiterate tossers. No need to thank me.
says jones

You're right. No need to thank you for doing nothing but post links. You offer nothing and don't contribute anything but links to distant contributors whose offerings you have no desire to tell us in your own words.
Instead, you expect those here to go to your links. This means that you have read the texts, but can't remember it enough to tell your own version here. This means that you are being carried by others. Idiot
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2019
This means that you have read the texts, but can't remember it enough to tell your own version here. This means that you are being carried by others. Idiot


F***ing lying clown. How many times did I link to the neutron experiments, and have to explain the papers to you dumb f***ers? Piss off, you cretinous retard. If you can't understand straightforward science papers, WTF are you doing here, you posing twat?

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2019
That reminds me that howhot3 came in this phorum with his/her version for which s/he wanted Da Schnitzophrenic to help him/her out - to see if it had merit.
So instead of offering howhot3 a valid argument against it or assent, he offers a LINK instead.
LOL Poor howhot3 had nothing to show for it.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2019
^^^^^^If somebody asks for help in a genuine way, I will help. I am not going to that trouble for a bunch of cretins who think they know better than real scientists, despite not having a f***ing clue.
humy
3 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2019
Kinetic Energy is a "property" that is available to make things move.
What humy says about "acceleration" and "Force" is merely the probable/possible ACTION of Matter. It is Matter such as Protons/Electrons that is capable of dilating - not Time. Please tell me if I'm wrong, Benni
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

I can tell you that you are BOTH wrong; You are BOTH talking complete gibberish (like above) that shows neither of you has a clue what you are talking about. Interesting that you disagree with each other; you two are disagreeing what complete gibberish should be believed. I don't see what difference it makes WHICH complete gibberish is believed; its still just worthless complete gibberish that is no nearer to any truth. Study some REAL science then come back to us.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2019
OK Genius
1. So where does the idea/concept of Time come from and why?
2. if Time was invented, who invented Time?
3. what is the whole purpose of Time?
4. if Time occurs naturally, where can Time be found?
5. with which method(s) is Time encapsulated to be stored for use?
6. aside from past, present and future, what properties does Time have?
7. what is the structure of Time if it was a dimension?
8. does Time have a beginning and an end?

In your own words, please
jonesdave
Feb 23, 2019
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2019
A caesium chronometer that is accurate only when it is bolted to the Earth's mantle

Now the metre is the second
Da Schneib> Let me reiterate that: the meter, the most basic unit of our system of measurement, is defined by time.

This was predicated to be one almighty disaster
because caesium chronometers
are corrected mathematically in errors incurred in altitude and motion
Da Schneib, have you realised the consequence of defining the metre as the second
Chronometers in orbit, altitude, visiting the planets
No longer tell the standard second as defined by the interplanetary committee

This chronometer has to be corrected for its motion and it's vicinity of planetary and solar gravitational fields
that, Da Schneib as these are unknown gravitational fields
that as we cannot or are unable to measure
That is a fine mess you have got us into

Well, here's another fine mess you've gotten us into: Laurel and Hardy
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2019
This chronometer has to be corrected for its motion and it's vicinity of planetary and solar gravitational fields
that, Da Schneib as these are unknown gravitational fields
that as we cannot or are unable to measure


In what f***ing language does that make any sense?

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2019
^^^^^^^^Lol. What a dickhead!
says jones the obfuscator

I gave you 8 questions and you have answered exactly NONE.
Obviously, you don't KNOW the answers. Good going, genius boy.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2019
^^^^^^^^Lol. What a dickhead!
says jones the obfuscator

I gave you 8 questions and you have answered exactly NONE.
Obviously, you don't KNOW the answers. Good going, genius boy.


Ask them on a physics forum, you f***ing clueless clown. Piss off you posing twat. You are scientifically illiterate. We are not here to explain basic shit to f***wits.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2019
"Well, here's another fine mess you've gotten us into: Laurel and Hardy " says granville

LOL I have always been a BIG fan of the Laurel & Hardy movies ever since they were first shown in movie houses/theatres. Stan Laurel was British, you know, and Oliver Hardy was an American. No two comedians were ever so great as a team. I truly miss them and I have admired their comedic effect as perhaps the BEST of the best in comedy.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2019
^^^^^^^^Lol. What a dickhead!
says jones the obfuscator

I gave you 8 questions and you have answered exactly NONE.
Obviously, you don't KNOW the answers. Good going, genius boy.


Ask them on a physics forum, you f***ing clueless clown. Piss off you posing twat. You are scientifically illiterate. We are not here to explain basic shit to f***wits.
says jones, hiding in the rushes oh

No jonesy genius boy. I asked YOU to answer those 8 questions. Now if you cannot answer them to everyone's satisfaction, then that can only mean that YOU are a big phony baloney plastic fruit bowl full of BS.
Now be a grownup and answer the 8 questions.
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2019
Maybe following comparison-of-terms will cut through.

Analytical-construct TIME representation of MOTIONAL/EVOLUTIONAL 'energy-space content/mass' of object/process being 'time-d' by use of a 'comparative clock standard' motion/change...

...can be thought of in similar 'analytical abstraction' way as...

Analytical-construct TEMPERATURE representation of MOTIONAL/EVOLUTIONAL 'energy-space content/mass' of object/process being 'temperature-ed' by use of 'comparative thermometer standard' motion/change.

In BOTH cases the PHYSICALLY EFFECTIVE factor is 'energy-space content/mass' entrained in the dynamical physical entities/processes arising from, evolving within and subsiding back to, repeatingly/indefinitely, within the underlying fundamental UNIVERSAL 'energy-space fabric'...

...which Einstein etc (unfortunately) call 'space-time fabric'!

See? Both TIME/TIME-ING and TEMPERATURE/TEMPERATURE-ING are ANALYTICAL MEASUREMENT constructs/systems, and NOT FUNDAMENTAL ENTITIES.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2019
^^^^^^^^Lol. What a dickhead!
says jones the obfuscator

I gave you 8 questions and you have answered exactly NONE.
Obviously, you don't KNOW the answers. Good going, genius boy.


Ask them on a physics forum, you f***ing clueless clown. Piss off you posing twat. You are scientifically illiterate. We are not here to explain basic shit to f***wits.
says jones, hiding in the rushes oh

No jonesy genius boy. I asked YOU to answer those 8 questions. Now if you cannot answer them to everyone's satisfaction, then that can only mean that YOU are a big phony baloney plastic fruit bowl full of BS.
Now be a grownup and answer the 8 questions.


No, it means I cannot be arsed with f***wits like you. You are a scientifically illiterate loon. Go post on Q & A section on a physics forum, instead of making a twat of yourself on here, you clueless clown.
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2019
Stan an Ollie

SEU, only the best comedians make their appearance on phys.org
and what their secret was, SEU
Not one foul word passed their lips
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2019
Thank you, RealityCheck for your roundabout way of coming to the correct conclusions. But I am waiting breathlessly, I might add - for jonesybonesy the pie boy, to provide us with the correct answers to the 8 very relevant questions regarding Time, that he will have to dig deep into his cupboard of genius-inspired knowledge to extract the answers.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2019
^^^^^^^^Lol. What a dickhead!
says jones the obfuscator

I gave you 8 questions and you have answered exactly NONE.
Obviously, you don't KNOW the answers. Good going, genius boy.


Ask them on a physics forum, you f***ing clueless clown. Piss off you posing twat. You are scientifically illiterate. We are not here to explain basic shit to f***wits.
says jones, hiding in the rushes oh

No jonesy I asked YOU to answer those 8 questions. Now if you cannot answer them to everyone's satisfaction, then that can only mean that YOU are a big phony baloney plastic fruit bowl full of BS.
Now be a grownup and answer the 8 questions.


No, it means I cannot be arsed with f***wits like you. You are a scientifically illiterate loon. Go post on Q & A section on a physics forum, instead of making a twat of yourself on here, you clueless clown.
says jonesybonesy pudding and pie

No. It just means that you are a charlatan and a fake
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2019
@jones
I repeat:

1. So where does the idea/concept of Time come from and why?
2. if Time was invented, who invented Time?
3. what is the whole purpose of Time?
4. if Time occurs naturally, where can Time be found?
5. with which method(s) is Time encapsulated to be stored for use?
6. aside from past, present and future, what properties does Time have?
7. what is the structure of Time if it was a dimension?
8. does Time have a beginning and an end?

In your own words, please
Show us, your audience, how much real knowledge travels to and fro through your neurons, axons and synapses. And don't pass it off to a physics forums for them to solve.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2019
@jones
I repeat:

1. So where does the idea/concept of Time come from and why?
2. if Time was invented, who invented Time?
3. what is the whole purpose of Time?
4. if Time occurs naturally, where can Time be found?
5. with which method(s) is Time encapsulated to be stored for use?
6. aside from past, present and future, what properties does Time have?
7. what is the structure of Time if it was a dimension?
8. does Time have a beginning and an end?

In your own words, please
Show us, your audience, how much real knowledge travels to and fro through your neurons, axons and synapses. And don't pass it off to a physics forums for them to solve.


Why do you need my words, you f***ing clown? Go ask a physicist, you uneducated poser.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2019
Not EVERYTHING in physics is DIRECTLY to do with "kinetic energy"; don't know where that silly idea came from here.


Kinetic energy is the measurement of Force applied to distance.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2019
Stan an Ollie

SEU, only the best comedians make their appearance on phys.org
and what their secret was, SEU
Not one foul word passed their lips
says granville

Yes, they were super-great and, IMO, no other comedy team has come even close to them in stature as comedians. I would venture to say that they are both "up there" entertaining and causing a lot of laughter in high places. I think that you understand my meaning.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2019
@jones
I repeat:

1. So where does the idea/concept of Time come from and why?
2. if Time was invented, who invented Time?
3. what is the whole purpose of Time?
4. if Time occurs naturally, where can Time be found?
5. with which method(s) is Time encapsulated to be stored for use?
6. aside from past, present and future, what properties does Time have?
7. what is the structure of Time if it was a dimension?
8. does Time have a beginning and an end?

In your own words,
Show us, your audience, how much real knowledge travels to and fro through your neurons, axons and synapses. And don't pass it off to a physics forums for them to solve.


Why do you need my words, you f***ing clown? Go ask a physicist, you uneducated poser.

says jones

You are already here, are you not? You have made many statements denigrating my, and others' opinions of the validity of Time as a non-substance. So now is your opportunity to refute us properly - ANSWER THE QUESTIONS
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2019
Stan an Ollie

SEU, only the best comedians make their appearance on phys.org
and what their secret was, SEU
Not one foul word passed their lips
says granville

Yes, they were super-great and, IMO, no other comedy team has come even close to them in stature as comedians. I would venture to say that they are both "up there" entertaining and causing a lot of laughter in high places. I think that you understand my meaning.


It was decent for its time. Too much slapstick. Appeals to Americans. Morecambe and Wise were better.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2019
.......kinetic energy making things move. How much those things DILATE when accelerating depends on how closely the system is approaching the speed of light, or vice versa if receding.
says Benni

Kinetic Energy is a "property" that is available to make things move.
What humy says about "acceleration" and "Force" is merely the probable/possible ACTION of Matter. It is Matter such as Protons/Electrons that is capable of dilating - not Time. Please tell me if I'm wrong, Benni


Unequivocally correct. Kinetic energy is the measurement of Force applied to distance.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2019

You are already here, are you not? You have made many statements denigrating my, and others' opinions of the validity of Time as a non-substance. So now is your opportunity to refute us properly - ANSWER THE QUESTIONS


F*** off. Go read Einstein.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2019
Obfuscating again, pie boy? Answer at least ONE of the 8 questions, will you?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2019
@Benni
I see that pie boy, jonesy cannot answer ANY of the 8 questions which I have put to him. He can only offer insults that have no bite, and insistence to go to others for the answers - instead of jonesy himself. What do you make of this, Benni? The point is that jones seems to think of himself as a boy genius, and yet refuses to answer the 8 questions. A fake and a charlatan he is. The answers are quite easy.
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2019
Consider:

One clock on Earth.

Other sent to SUN-centric orbit like Earths' BUT ON OPPOSITE SIDE OF SUN so Earth-gravity NOT affecting satellite clock.

Both clocks have CUMULATIVE COUNTERS 'totting up' whatever the 'cycling ticks' are set to at start.

After a year, satellite clock tick-count and Earth-bound clock tick-count are compared.

The cumulative tick COUNT 'total' will be HIGHER in satellite clock than Earth-bound clock...because RATE of 'ticking' has been FASTER in satellite clock than in Earth-bound clock!

Since sun-orbiting clock speed is same as Earth's, the ONLY VARIABLE factor was REMOVAL of Earth GRAVITY EFFECT on satellite clock tick RATE...effectively, its 'TIMING' RATE INTERVALS were 'compressed' such that MORE TICKS occurred compared to the Earth-bound clock.

Or, obversely, Gravity effect on Earth-bound clock 'dilates' ITS 'TIMING' RATE INTERVALS.

So ONLY cycling 'tick' MOTION/CHANGE of mass/energy was dilated/compressed, NOT some 'time' entity.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2019
@Benni
I see that pie boy, jonesy cannot answer ANY of the 8 questions which I have put to him. He can only offer insults that have no bite, and insistence to go to others for the answers - instead of jonesy himself. What do you make of this, Benni? The point is that jones seems to think of himself as a boy genius, and yet refuses to answer the 8 questions. A fake and a charlatan he is. The answers are quite easy.


.....I guess about what can be expected from one who has ONLY a degree in Anthropology from the University of Auckland, NZ.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2019
huhhh what did he say?
LOL just kidding, RC.

Such gravitational effect(s) are only on the mechanical moving parts of a digital clock, whereas in a Caesium clock, eg, the jumping electrons cause the moving parts of the clock's mechanism to activate with kinetic energy.
Is this correct, Benni?
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2019
Or, obversely, Gravity effect on Earth-bound clock 'dilates' ITS 'TIMING' RATE INTERVALS.

So ONLY cycling 'tick' MOTION/CHANGE of mass/energy was dilated/compressed, NOT some 'time' entity.


True, but additionally if the clocking device is far out in granDy's vacuous vacuum & traveling at velocities approaching that of EM Waves, dilation occurs. What this shows is the relationship between GRAVITY & VELOCITY of ELECTRO-MAGNETISM as it affects the dilation of mass.

Such gravitational effect(s) are only on the mechanical moving parts of a digital clock, whereas in a Caesium clock, eg, the jumping electrons cause the moving parts of the clock's mechanism to activate with kinetic energy.
Is this correct, Benni?
......absolutely correct.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2019
The Dilation of MASS. Thank you, Benni. Space AND Mass are capable of dilating which, in essence, means to contract, stretch out a long distance, curve around, fold and do other beautiful cosmic calisthenics to remain fit as a fiddle. LOL
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2019
Movie time. Be back later.
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2019
@Benni.
The cumulative tick COUNT 'total' will be HIGHER in satellite clock than Earth-bound clock...because RATE of 'ticking' has been FASTER in satellite clock than in Earth-bound clock!

Since sun-orbiting clock speed is same as Earth's, the ONLY VARIABLE factor was REMOVAL of Earth GRAVITY EFFECT on satellite clock tick RATE...effectively, its 'TIMING' RATE INTERVALS were 'compressed' such that MORE TICKS occurred compared to the Earth-bound clock.

Or, obversely, Gravity effect on Earth-bound clock 'dilates' ITS 'TIMING' RATE INTERVALS.

So ONLY cycling 'tick' MOTION/CHANGE of mass/energy was dilated/compressed, NOT some 'time' entity.
True, but additionally if the clocking device....traveling at velocities approaching that of EM Waves, dilation occurs. What this shows is the relationship between GRAVITY & VELOCITY of ELECTRO-MAGNETISM as it affects the dilation of mass.
Yes, that is the Einstein "Equivalence Principle" effects re 'ACCELERATION' in SR/GR. :)
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2019
Calling interplanetary craft, anyone in there JD!
This chronometer has to be corrected for its motion and it's vicinity of planetary and solar gravitational fields
that, Da Schneib as these are unknown gravitational fields
that as we cannot or are unable to measure


In what f***ing language does that make any sense?

If you find this difficult
Wait till space mariners are out of radio contact visiting our nearest stars
With no means of synchronising their onboard chronometer with Greenwich
because
when we are to far away, as in light years in other words our chronometers have to consistently tell accurate unvarying time in all environments 24, 7, 52 weeks a year for millennia, JD
where one second is synchronised with our earth based chronometer bolted to Earth's mantle
Even as we are visiting our Andromedian neighbours in the Andromeda galaxy
https://www.youtu...V0EoJJY8
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2019
Having watched the bitch of trolls eliminate more than half the measurable quantities we have, I am content to watch the blathering and make an amusing comment now and again.

No wonder they don't "believe in" science.

There's no science being discussed here at all. This is philosophy, and when it denies the evidence of our senses and memory, it's useless- more navel gazing. Derridism at its finest.
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2019
1. So where does the idea/concept of Time come from and why?
It's not the idea or concept we're discussing. You're changing the subject to philosophy. We have no better answer than we do for distance. So basically you're avoiding the fact we directly sense and remember distance and time. Without the evidence of our senses, everything is meaningless- you're avoiding the question. You're asserting solipsism, which is barren.

Ask a philosophical question, get a philosophical answer.

None of your other questions are any more worth answering than that one.
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2019
If you want a definition of time that's not solipsism, try the operational definition: time is what clocks measure, just as distance is what rulers measure. Otherwise you're off into the never-never land of solipsistic philosophy and might as well go flying with Peter Pan.

Having eliminated distance and duration, it's intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that you have no possibility of understanding physics or any other science for that matter.
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2019
If there is no time, how can two events at the same distance and direction but different times be differentiated? Do you claim they're the same event? Is today's sunrise the same event as yesterday's? Funny, they look different to me.

Galloping mountains again.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2019
This song has very special meaning for me -

https://www.youtu...bv2ZKOto
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2019
To put it more bluntly, you remember lighting a candle. Now it's all gone (except the stub). Where did it go? If there's no time, how did it change? If there's no distance, what does "it's shorter" mean?

This is silliness. If you want to talk philosophy go talk on a philosophy site- this one is for physics. And admit that there is an underlying reality which our senses represent to us. If you don't you are useless on this site.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2019
Da Schneib

1 /5 (2)
20 hours ago
What you do with these is go around behind their back and lie about them every chance you get.

https://phys.org/...html#jCp
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2019
You keep saying that like it has anything to do with physics.

It doesn't. It's sociology, and how I deal with people who lie about me.

Don't lie about me and I won't lie about you.

Paybacks are a bitch. So are you. One of a bitch of trolls.

If you want to try to get serious, stop trying to troll. Admit you lied.

Go listen to The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald.

At seven pm a main hatchway caved in, he said
Fellas, it's been good t'know ya
According to you seven PM doesn't exist.

I will admit that I also like Lightfoot. Have you ever listened to Jim Croce?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2019
Da Schnitzophrenic describes the passing of Events, such as a candle that has burnt down, and then thinks that the candle burnt down as a response to something called Time, instead of the physical cause of Matter burning due to the flame that was applied to it. Cause and effect with nothing to do with Time or dilation of Time.
Poor Da Schnitzophrenic can't tell his arse from his elbow.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2019
Here's one of my favorites:

https://www.youtu...rMeYnOmM
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2019
Still waiting for the "events" of an oscillating waveform as used in certain clocks. I don't see an "event;" I see a continuous waveform.

I can't even imagine what it means to say cause and effect have nothing to do with time; the cause is in the past, the effect in the future or present. "Past," "future," and "present" have no meaning without time.

Like I said, philosophical solipsism. Barren.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2019
As mentioned repeatedly. Time is a state of Mind that was conceived for the purpose of explaining the daily event of sunrise to sunrise and the darkness in between. Early sentient humans, with all the ferocity of their natural curiosity, were determined to come to grips with this daily event that could not go for long without causing a problem as to when would the sun come up and when it would go down so that the hunters/gatherers would not be caught outdoors when the predators were about. They all needed to be in their caves at twilight for protection.
At first light they would go outdoors to hunt and fish and the daily chores to prepare for winter.
They later realised that they could put a straight pole into the ground and another laying lengthwise with one end touching the vertical stick, and by watching the shadow of the vertical stick, determine how long it took for the shadow to reach the stick laying on the ground. That was the very first Timepiece. Cause and effect.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2019
Here's another one:

https://www.youtu...jNBjqR-c

Now tell me how time doesn't exist.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2019
But what about the waveforms? You seem to have lost focus. You understand we have measured the atomic elements in distant stars with them, and the movements of those stars, right? All impossible without time.

I note as well that you appear to have first denied, then asserted, cause and effect.

Why is this? You caught in a contradiction. You can have cause and effect, or you can deny them.

Make up your itty bitty mind.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2019
The early travelers learned to use that method also as their journey took them to places far away that were unfamiliar. Once they arrived they put up their 2 wooden poles and watched as the pole cast a shadow as the Sun moved across the sky, indicating an Event.

As they became mariners, they learned to steer by the Stars at night, where the positions of the Stars indicated the 4 directions of North, East, West and South. In the daylight they could tell when the Sun was about to go down by looking toward the West. Cause and effect.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2019
Seems to me you're trying to redefine "event." It looks like a continuous waveform to me. Unless you "believe" the Earth could stop its rotation or its orbit.

This is one of the Velikovsky deniers, with Earth orbiting Saturn and Venus careening around the Solar System, without any physics to support these wild nutjob assertions without any evidence.

Ephemerides *actually work*. They're published every year.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2019
Meanwhile, you have no answer for continuous waveforms.

Nutjob physics without quantification. Solipsistic philosophy. Disproven millenia ago.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2019
Products of the human mind

The Antikythera mechanism (/ˌæntɪkɪˈθɪərə/, /ˌæntɪˈkɪθərə/) is an ancient Greek analogue computer[1][2][3][4] used to predict astronomical positions and eclipses for calendar and astrological purposes decades in advance.[5][6][7] It could also be used to track the four-year cycle of athletic games which was similar to an Olympiad, the cycle of the ancient Olympic Games.[8][9][10]
The artefact was retrieved from the sea in 1901, and identified on 17 May 1902 as containing a gear wheel by archaeologist Valerios Stais,[11] among wreckage retrieved from a wreck off the coast of the Greek island Antikythera.[12][13] The instrument is believed to have been designed and constructed by Greek scientists and has been variously dated to about 87 BC,[14] or between 150 and 100 BC,[5] or to 205 BC,[15][16] or to within a generation before the shipwreck, which has been dated to approximately 70-60 BC.[17][18]
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2019
-contd-
Antikythera
The device, housed in the remains of a 34 cm × 18 cm × 9 cm (13.4 in × 7.1 in × 3.5 in) wooden box, was found as one lump, later separated into three main fragments which are now divided into 82 separate fragments after conservation works. Four of these fragments contain gears, while inscriptions are found on many others.[19][20] The largest gear is approximately 14 centimetres (5.5 in) in diameter and originally had 223 teeth.[21]
It is a complex clockwork mechanism composed of at least 30 meshing bronze gears. A team led by Mike Edmunds and Tony Freeth at Cardiff University used modern computer x-ray tomography and high resolution surface scanning to image inside fragments of the crust-encased mechanism and read the faintest inscriptions that once covered the outer casing of the machine.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2019
What's any of this got to do with atomic clocks?

You might as well compare daisies with hawks. Category error, idiot fake philosopher troll.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2019
-contd-
Antikythera
Detailed imaging of the mechanism suggests that it had 37 gear wheels enabling it to follow the movements of the Moon and the Sun through the zodiac, to predict eclipses and even to model the irregular orbit of the Moon, where the Moon's velocity is higher in its perigee than in its apogee. This motion was studied in the 2nd century BC by astronomer Hipparchus of Rhodes, and it is speculated that he may have been consulted in the machine's construction.[22]
The knowledge of this technology was lost at some point in antiquity, and technological works approaching its complexity and workmanship did not appear again until the development of mechanical astronomical clocks in Europe in the fourteenth century.[23] All known fragments of the Antikythera mechanism are kept at the National Archaeological Museum in Athens, along with a number of artistic reconstructions/replicas of how the mechanism may have looked and worked.[24]
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2019
There's your "Time". A timepiece built by the Greeks. A big improvement over the 2 pole method to tell/explain/measure the duration of an Event.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2019
What's any of this got to do with atomic clocks?

You might as well compare daisies with hawks. Category error, idiot fake philosopher troll.

say Da Schnitzophrenic

LOL You've lost. Get over it and stop trolling.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2019
What's any of this got to do with atomic clocks?

You might as well compare daisies with hawks. Category error, idiot fake philosopher troll.


Perhaps you didn't read the part that states the Antikythera is a computer.
And, It is a complex clockwork mechanism composed of at least 30 meshing bronze gears.
An ancient timepiece, designed and manufactured through the human mind's efforts. Cause and effect.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2019
Ho Hum going back to my movie. ta
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2019
Typical troll. Post a non-sequitur and declare victory.

Simple stuff: what's time? What a clock measures.
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2019
Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

The Babbage Engine
Charles Babbage, computer pioneer, designed the first automatic computing engines
invented computers The first Babbage Engine was completed in London in 2002, 153 years after it was designed. Difference to the original drawings of 8,000 parts
The only difference between a Babbage Engine
and
a conventional computer
is
a Babbage Engine uses protons and electrons constructing metal gears where these electrons move as gears as the gears are 0 and 1s
where as
a conventional computer uses protons and electrons constructing semiconductors where these electrons move in the material directly as the 0 and 1s

Essentially, there is no difference between a Babbage Engine and semiconductor computer
both
involve physical movement of electrons to achieve the desired effect
for example, the Hall effect is the physical drift of electrons
Electrons and photons are physical subject to gravitation
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2019
Time is a metaphysical entity

It would be thought anyone who grasps relativism
would be able to grasp this concept known as Time
when the Neanderthals were out foraging for dinosaurs
where it took 10 men one day to bring down a dinosaur
then
along comes a Neanderthal Einstein
who invents the first bow and arrow
from that moment in Time
those 10 men
can bring down 10 dinosaurs in a day
so, Da Schneib
what
previously took 10 rising and setting of the sun in the sky, now only takes one rising and setting of the sun in the sky
the concept in these Neanderthals minds of Time is born
as
can be clearly seen
Time is simply a concept, a mathematical divisor
of
how long tasks are perceived to take place
Time is not a physical entity
Time is a metaphysical entity
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2019
What's any of this got to do with atomic clocks?

You might as well compare daisies with hawks. Category error, idiot fake philosopher troll.


What have atomic clocks got to do with anything from YOUR viewpoint of TIME? They're just time markers you can't see as opposed to the tick tock of hands on a clock. We get it schneibo, you need unseen markers or you can't make your case about the unseeable 4th dimension you label TIME.

You're a flunkie whose brain has by now been totally drained of what little it ever knew about the Laws of Physics in the first place. You're off on all these meta-physical rants as you try establishing even the smallest credibility rating you had as an embedded Physorg Moderator, try a different retirement career.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2019
Atomic clocks measure time by counting peaks in the wave. I asked before whether you think those are "events." You didn't answer, @Benni.

Maybe you should rethink that.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2019
So-called "atomic clocks" actually use masers and lasers, to generate an extremely stable frequency, microwave or light depending on the technique. This is generated not from a single atom, but from a large collection of them, as anyone who knows anything about masers or lasers should expect. These generate EM waves of exceptional purity which means they are monochromatic, i.e. single frequency. The wave peaks are then measured and counted.

The exact length of a second, in the SI system of measurement, is determined by a certain number of these peaks. Since they are monochromatic, and monophasic, which is implied in a maser or laser, this is an exceptionally accurate means of defining time.

The wave is continuous so there isn't any way of defining an "event."

Got any response, @Benni?
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2019
Atomic clocks measure time by counting peaks in the wave. I asked before whether you think those are "events." You didn't answer, @Benni. Maybe you should rethink that.
....no.

They count by measuring the energy gain/loss cycle when electrons jump between orbital positions.

When the gain/loss cycle initiated by a photon of a specific frequency causes an electron to go through an orbital position cycle, there is an expenditure of kinetic energy to make the electron MOVE the distance between orbital positions. Each "tick tock" on the clock is recorded during this energy gain/loss cycle. The rate the atomic clock goes through this cycle depends on the element being used.

Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2019
So-called "atomic clocks" actually use masers and lasers, to generate an extremely stable frequency, microwave or light depending on the technique. This is generated not from a single atom, but from a large collection of them, as anyone who knows anything about masers or lasers should expect. These generate EM waves of exceptional purity which means they are monochromatic, i.e. single frequency. The wave peaks are then measured and counted.

The exact length of a second, in the SI system of measurement, is determined by a certain number of these peaks. Since they are monochromatic, and monophasic, which is implied in a maser or laser, this is an exceptionally accurate means of defining time.

The wave is continuous so there isn't any way of defining an "event."

Got any response, @Benni?


You're trying hard to get there via Copy & Paste which explained nothing about the mechanics that makes the "clock" work, so I did above what you didn't know how to do.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2019
No, @Benni. That's how the waves are generated. Not how they're measured.

You'd know that if you actually knew any physics. And what "gain/loss cycle?" You're just making shit up. More physics troll mythology.

Lasers and masers work by coherence. That's a property of bosons. For example, photons. The fact that there are millions or billions of atoms in the substrate means there are no individual events that correlate to the peaks of the light waves.

You're now twisting in the wind.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2019