Delta(tA)=Gamma(Delta(tB))
This means that a clock second on the A clock is worth (equal) to gamma*seconds on the B clock

Ken Seto wrote:
>
> Delta(tA)=Gamma(Delta(tB))
> This means that a clock second on the A clock is worth (equal) to gamma*seconds on the B clock

The first three seconds of the big bang...was dat second universal?

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

Le 14/05/2023 à 14:41, Ken Seto a écrit :
> Delta(tA)=Gamma(Delta(tB))
> This means that a clock second on the A clock is worth (equal) to gamma*seconds
> on the B clock

Be careful, you have to understand and explain things well.

What you write is probably true, but not very clearly stated.

There is no theory in the world where it is not so important to define
things well.

What should be done, but the art is difficult, is to re-write Einstein's
article on simultaneity and the setting of clocks, because he himself is
not at all clear on this.

Once the notion of simultaneity is well defined, and once the idea that it
is absolutely impossible to adjust two clocks is well understood, we can
then attempt to define the reciprocal chronotropy of inertial frames of
reference, i.e. the way in which each referential imposes on the
mechanisms of its clocks to really but reciprocally beat faster than the
clocks of the opposite referential.

This mechanism called relativity of chronotropy is astonishing by its
reciprocal effect.

But we should not be surprised, just as we are not surprised when two
walkers move away on a beach, mutually considering that the other is
getting smaller and smaller.

R.H.

On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 3:31:14 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
> Ken Seto wrote:
> >
> > Delta(tA)=Gamma(Delta(tB))
> > This means that a clock second on the A clock is worth (equal) to gamma*seconds on the B clock
> The first three seconds of the big bang...was dat second universal?

No, the simultaneity of two clocks in relative motion cannot be simultaneous unless they are in the same state of absolute motion. Obviously when the two clocks are expNDING FROM THE BB THEY ARE EXPANDING IN CURVED SPACE (THE AETHER) they cannot be accumulating clock seconds simultaneously because each clock second represents a different amount of absolute time.

In any case, Einstein's concept of simultaneity is wrong. Clock time cannot be simultaneous. Only absolute time can be simultaneous. Why? Because there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames.
>
>
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> and challenge
> the unchallengeable.

On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 9:55:41 AM UTC-4, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 3:31:14 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Ken Seto wrote:
> > >
> > > Delta(tA)=Gamma(Delta(tB))
> > > This means that a clock second on the A clock is worth (equal) to gamma*seconds on the B clock
> > The first three seconds of the big bang...was dat second universal?

No, the simultaneity of two clocks in relative motion cannot be simultaneous unless they are in the same state of absolute motion. Obviously when the two clocks are expending FROM THE BB THEY ARE EXPANDING IN CURVED SPACE (THE AETHER) they cannot be accumulating clock seconds simultaneously because each clock second represents a different amount of absolute time.
>
In any case, Einstein's concept of simultaneity is wrong. Clock time cannot be simultaneous. Only absolute time can be simultaneous. Why? Because there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames.
> >
> >
> > --
> > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> > and challenge
> > the unchallengeable.

Ken Seto wrote:
>
> On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 3:31:14 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Ken Seto wrote:
> > >
> > > Delta(tA)=Gamma(Delta(tB))
> > > This means that a clock second on the A clock is worth (equal) to gamma*seconds on the B clock
> > The first three seconds of the big bang...was dat second universal?
>
> No, the simultaneity of two clocks in relative motion cannot be simultaneous unless they are in the same state of absolute motion. Obviously when the two clocks are expNDING FROM THE BB THEY ARE EXPANDING IN CURVED SPACE (THE AETHER) they cannot be accumulating clock seconds simultaneously because each clock second represents a different amount of absolute time.
>
> In any case, Einstein's concept of simultaneity is wrong. Clock time cannot be simultaneous. Only absolute time can be simultaneous. Why? Because there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames.

I posted 'The Code' many times....maybe you missed it. I'll post it
again...

'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth'.

Now, let me deciper the code in your case..

"'In the beginning,..." is defined:

be·gin·ning
/b?'giniNG/
noun
the point in time or space at which something starts.
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+beginning

The first second is 'the point in time or space at which something
starts.'

that something is "...the heavens and the earth'." What is known today
as...the universe.

or, 'In the first second, God created the heavens and earth.'

Now you look up from the earth and what you see is the heavens.

A clock second...the first clock second..is in fact...an event.

Intervals did not occur yet...wait another second. too late.

> >
> >
> > --
> > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> > and challenge
> > the unchallengeable.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On Wednesday, May 17, 2023 at 10:17:08 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
> Ken Seto wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 3:31:14 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > Ken Seto wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Delta(tA)=Gamma(Delta(tB))
> > > > This means that a clock second on the A clock is worth (equal) to gamma*seconds on the B clock
> > > The first three seconds of the big bang...was dat second universal?
> >
> > No, the simultaneity of two clocks in relative motion cannot be simultaneous unless they are in the same state of absolute motion. Obviously when the two clocks are expNDING FROM THE BB THEY ARE EXPANDING IN CURVED SPACE (THE AETHER) they cannot be accumulating clock seconds simultaneously because each clock second represents a different amount of absolute time.
> >
> > In any case, Einstein's concept of simultaneity is wrong. Clock time cannot be simultaneous. Only absolute time can be simultaneous. Why? Because there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames.
> I posted 'The Code' many times....maybe you missed it. I'll post it
> again...
>
>
> 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth'.
>
>
> Now, let me deciper the code in your case..

It doesn't matter in the beginning or in the middle, a clock second will repreent a specific interval of absolute time at the rest frame of the clock..
The amount of absolute time a clock second represents is dependent on the absolute motion of the clock and it's location in the gravitational field.
>
>
>
> "'In the beginning,..." is defined:
>
>
>
> be·gin·ning
> /b?'giniNG/
> noun
> the point in time or space at which something starts.
> https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+beginning
>
> The first second is 'the point in time or space at which something
> starts.'
>
>
> that something is "...the heavens and the earth'." What is known today
> as...the universe.
>
>
>
> or, 'In the first second, God created the heavens and earth.'
>
>
>
> Now you look up from the earth and what you see is the heavens.
>
>
>
> A clock second...the first clock second..is in fact...an event.
>
>
>
> Intervals did not occur yet...wait another second. too late.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> > > and challenge
> > > the unchallengeable.
>
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> and challenge
> the unchallengeable.

Ken Seto wrote:

> It doesn't matter in the beginning or in the middle, a clock second will
> repreent a specific interval of absolute time at the rest frame of the
> clock.
> The amount of absolute time a clock second represents is dependent on
> the absolute motion of the clock and it's location in the gravitational
> field.

not true. In communism every day is a holiday. In capitalism everyday is a
day in hell. When you made them rich, in capitalism, they are going to
kill you, as they did recently. Fuck you and your capitalism.

they bombed your country with two atomic bombs, the capitalists. Because
they shit on you and your family, your country and your race.

Ken Seto wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, May 17, 2023 at 10:17:08 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Ken Seto wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 3:31:14 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > Ken Seto wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Delta(tA)=Gamma(Delta(tB))
> > > > > This means that a clock second on the A clock is worth (equal) to gamma*seconds on the B clock
> > > > The first three seconds of the big bang...was dat second universal?
> > >
> > > No, the simultaneity of two clocks in relative motion cannot be simultaneous unless they are in the same state of absolute motion. Obviously when the two clocks are expNDING FROM THE BB THEY ARE EXPANDING IN CURVED SPACE (THE AETHER) they cannot be accumulating clock seconds simultaneously because each clock second represents a different amount of absolute time.
> > >
> > > In any case, Einstein's concept of simultaneity is wrong. Clock time cannot be simultaneous. Only absolute time can be simultaneous. Why? Because there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames.
> > I posted 'The Code' many times....maybe you missed it. I'll post it
> > again...
> >
> >
> > 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth'.
> >
> >
> > Now, let me deciper the code in your case..
>
> It doesn't matter in the beginning or in the middle, a clock second will repreent a specific interval of absolute time at the rest frame of the clock.
> The amount of absolute time a clock second represents is dependent on the absolute motion of the clock and it's location in the gravitational field.

You don't see to understand the definition of the word...."interval".

1 · a period of time between events

The First second is not an "interval". The second second contains an
interval.

Every clock after the first second contains a universal interval of time
(absolute time).

First tick
then tock.

> >
> >
> >
> > "'In the beginning,..." is defined:
> >
> >
> >
> > be·gin·ning
> > /b?'giniNG/
> > noun
> > the point in time or space at which something starts.
> > https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+beginning
> >
> > The first second is 'the point in time or space at which something
> > starts.'
> >
> >
> > that something is "...the heavens and the earth'." What is known today
> > as...the universe.
> >
> >
> >
> > or, 'In the first second, God created the heavens and earth.'
> >
> >
> >
> > Now you look up from the earth and what you see is the heavens.
> >
> >
> >
> > A clock second...the first clock second..is in fact...an event.
> >
> >
> >
> > Intervals did not occur yet...wait another second. too late.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > > > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> > > > and challenge
> > > > the unchallengeable.
> >
> > --
> > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> > and challenge
> > the unchallengeable.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 5:41:43 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
> Delta(tA)=Gamma(Delta(tB))
> This means that a clock second on the A clock is worth (equal) to gamma*seconds on the B clock

There is a different clock second in space travel. It is contracted.

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 5:41:43 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
>> Delta(tA)=Gamma(Delta(tB))
>> This means that a clock second on the A clock is worth (equal) to
>> gamma*seconds on the B clock
>
> There is a different clock second in space travel. It is contracted.

absolutely true. I believe, the nazi khazars of "ukraine", could fuckup
*_the_entire_weapon_industry_of_america_*, in a mater of *_minutes_*. If
not even less. Send more military crap to nazi "ukraina". They love
"democracy". The one which is capitalist. LOL!!

they have a gay actor, playing both a "president" AND
*_a_military_expert_*.

*_Patriot_Defense_vs_Hypersonic_Missiles__*- Game Over (1)
https://brighteon.com/40a56a24-adf9-4e3c-ba91-53ed5f5e937a

On 5/18/2023 1:49 PM, Bobauk Rompaye wrote:
> mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 5:41:43 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> Delta(tA)=Gamma(Delta(tB))
>>> This means that a clock second on the A clock is worth (equal) to
>>> gamma*seconds on the B clock
>>
>> There is a different clock second in space travel. It is contracted.
>
> absolutely true. I believe, the nazi khazars of "ukraine", could fuckup
> *_the_entire_weapon_industry_of_america_*, in a mater of *_minutes_*. If
> not even less. Send more military crap to nazi "ukraina". They love
> "democracy". The one which is capitalist. LOL!!
>
> they have a gay actor, playing both a "president" AND
> *_a_military_expert_*.
>
> *_Patriot_Defense_vs_Hypersonic_Missiles__*- Game Over (1)
> https://brighteon.com/40a56a24-adf9-4e3c-ba91-53ed5f5e937a

Now you're finally grasping the humor in the situation. According to
you a "gay actor" is the one who is kicking the shit out of the
professional Russian leadership and military. Sort of puts a
different spin on what you mean by a "gay actor." Or are the Russians
in this story the real actors who are making believe they are real
military? Up is down, down is up with you. Do you often confuse
yourself, Comical Ruskie? What you write is confusing although so very
funny.

Here, have another large potato and get fatter and farter.

On 5/14/2023 5:41 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> Delta(tA)=Gamma(Delta(tB))
> This means that a clock second on the A clock is worth (equal) to gamma*seconds on the B clock

Think of counting in your hear, our tapping your fingers together. Time
can be kept in any dimension. Time is not, special...

whodat wrote:
>> *_Patriot_Defense_vs_Hypersonic_Missiles__*- Game Over (1)
>> https://brighteon.com/40a56a24-adf9-4e3c-ba91-53ed5f5e937a
>
> N̶o̶w̶ y̶o̶u̶'r̶e̶ f̶i̶n̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ g̶r̶a̶s̶p̶i̶n̶g̶ t̶h̶e̶ h̶u̶m̶o̶r̶ i̶n̶ t̶h̶e̶ s̶i̶t̶u̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶. A̶c̶c̶o̶r̶d̶i̶n̶g̶ t̶o̶ y̶o̶u̶
> a̶ "g̶a̶y̶ a̶c̶t̶o̶r̶" i̶s̶ t̶h̶e̶ o̶n̶e̶ w̶h̶o̶ i̶s̶ k̶i̶c̶k̶i̶n̶g̶ t̶h̶e̶ s̶h̶i̶t̶ o̶u̶t̶ o̶f̶ t̶h̶e̶

you fucking inbreed traitor immigrant, betraying your country, changing
your name, and *_moved_to_america_*. Watch your khazar gay actor, playing
"president", the *_worst_cocaine_scumbag_* I ever see. Never know the
*_cocaine_makes_you_this_bad_*. A short khazar gypsy *_asking_for_money_*.
Fuck yooo.

amazing they call the "patriot" for "weapons". Here comes the
proofs:

*_Ukraine_Update_May_18,_2023_*
https://bi%74%63%68ute,com/video/biT75ynAD59n

On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 4:50:35 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 14/05/2023 à 14:41, Ken Seto a écrit :
> > Delta(tA)=Gamma(Delta(tB))
> > This means that a clock second on the A clock is worth (equal) to gamma*seconds
> > on the B clock
> Be careful, you have to understand and explain things well.
>
> What you write is probably true, but not very clearly stated.
>
> There is no theory in the world where it is not so important to define
> things well.
>
> What should be done, but the art is difficult, is to re-write Einstein's
> article on simultaneity and the setting of clocks, because he himself is
> not at all clear on this.
>
> Once the notion of simultaneity is well defined, and once the idea that it
> is absolutely impossible to adjust two clocks is well understood, we can
> then attempt to define the reciprocal chronotropy of inertial frames of
> reference, i.e. the way in which each referential imposes on the
> mechanisms of its clocks to really but reciprocally beat faster than the
> clocks of the opposite referential.
>
> This mechanism called relativity of chronotropy is astonishing by its
> reciprocal effect.
>
> But we should not be surprised, just as we are not surprised when two
> walkers move away on a beach, mutually considering that the other is
> getting smaller and smaller.
>
> R.H.

Not the same effect. In the example, neither walker actually gets smaller. The Twin Paradox clearly illustrates that although each observer measures the other's clock as running slower, the travelling twin's clock IS running slower while the other twin's is NOT. While there is symmetry of measurement, there is asymmetry in the acceleration history, and acceleration is not included in the Lorentz transformation which predicts the symmetrical measurements. The only conclusion we can make is that measurements are illusions, and cannot be taken at face value.

On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 1:10:53 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
> Ken Seto wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, May 17, 2023 at 10:17:08 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > Ken Seto wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 3:31:14 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > Ken Seto wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Delta(tA)=Gamma(Delta(tB))
> > > > > > This means that a clock second on the A clock is worth (equal) to gamma*seconds on the B clock
> > > > > The first three seconds of the big bang...was dat second universal?
> > > >
> > > > No, the simultaneity of two clocks in relative motion cannot be simultaneous unless they are in the same state of absolute motion. Obviously when the two clocks are expNDING FROM THE BB THEY ARE EXPANDING IN CURVED SPACE (THE AETHER) they cannot be accumulating clock seconds simultaneously because each clock second represents a different amount of absolute time.
> > > >
> > > > In any case, Einstein's concept of simultaneity is wrong. Clock time cannot be simultaneous. Only absolute time can be simultaneous. Why? Because there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames.
> > > I posted 'The Code' many times....maybe you missed it. I'll post it
> > > again...
> > >
> > >
> > > 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth'.
> > >
> > >
> > > Now, let me deciper the code in your case..
> >
> > It doesn't matter in the beginning or in the middle, a clock second will repreent a specific interval of absolute time at the rest frame of the clock.
> > The amount of absolute time a clock second represents is dependent on the absolute motion of the clock and it's location in the gravitational field.
> You don't see to understand the definition of the word...."interval".
>
> 1 · a period of time between events
>
>
>
> The First second is not an "interval". The second second contains an
> interval.

It is you who don't understand the concept of the word second. A second is an interval of time.
>
>
>
> Every clock after the first second contains a universal interval of time
> (absolute time).
>
>
>
> First tick
> then tock.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "'In the beginning,..." is defined:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > be·gin·ning
> > > /b?'giniNG/
> > > noun
> > > the point in time or space at which something starts.
> > > https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+beginning
> > >
> > > The first second is 'the point in time or space at which something
> > > starts.'
> > >
> > >
> > > that something is "...the heavens and the earth'." What is known today
> > > as...the universe.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > or, 'In the first second, God created the heavens and earth.'
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Now you look up from the earth and what you see is the heavens.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > A clock second...the first clock second..is in fact...an event.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Intervals did not occur yet...wait another second. too late.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > > > > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> > > > > and challenge
> > > > > the unchallengeable.
> > >
> > > --
> > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> > > and challenge
> > > the unchallengeable.
>
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> and challenge
> the unchallengeable.

El jueves, 18 de mayo de 2023 a las 18:41:57 UTC-4, Tom Capizzi escribió:
> On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 4:50:35 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:

> >
> > But we should not be surprised, just as we are not surprised when two
> > walkers move away on a beach, mutually considering that the other is
> > getting smaller and smaller.
> >
> > R.H.

> Not the same effect. In the example, neither walker actually gets smaller.. The Twin Paradox clearly illustrates that although each observer measures the other's clock as running slower, the travelling twin's clock IS running slower while the other twin's is NOT. While there is symmetry of measurement, there is asymmetry in the acceleration history, and acceleration is not included in the Lorentz transformation which predicts the symmetrical measurements. The only conclusion we can make is that measurements are illusions, and cannot be taken at face value.

The fact is that what you call "illusions" do have physical consequences.

Take as an example a 3 m ladder. When you try to get that ladder throug a door in your house, the ladder measurements relative to the door become crucial in your capacity to enter the ladder into your house. Using one projection of the ladder on the door, the ladder does not fit. Using another projection, the ladder does fit. In both cases the ladder length has not changed at all.

On 5/18/2023 6:41 PM, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 4:50:35 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 14/05/2023 à 14:41, Ken Seto a écrit :
>>> Delta(tA)=Gamma(Delta(tB))
>>> This means that a clock second on the A clock is worth (equal) to gamma*seconds
>>> on the B clock
>> Be careful, you have to understand and explain things well.
>>
>> What you write is probably true, but not very clearly stated.
>>
>> There is no theory in the world where it is not so important to define
>> things well.
>>
>> What should be done, but the art is difficult, is to re-write Einstein's
>> article on simultaneity and the setting of clocks, because he himself is
>> not at all clear on this.
>>
>> Once the notion of simultaneity is well defined, and once the idea that it
>> is absolutely impossible to adjust two clocks is well understood, we can
>> then attempt to define the reciprocal chronotropy of inertial frames of
>> reference, i.e. the way in which each referential imposes on the
>> mechanisms of its clocks to really but reciprocally beat faster than the
>> clocks of the opposite referential.
>>
>> This mechanism called relativity of chronotropy is astonishing by its
>> reciprocal effect.
>>
>> But we should not be surprised, just as we are not surprised when two
>> walkers move away on a beach, mutually considering that the other is
>> getting smaller and smaller.
>>
>> R.H.
>
> Not the same effect. In the example, neither walker actually gets smaller. The Twin Paradox

The Twin Paradox is NOT time dilation (although time dilation is
involved in it)! Time dilation is observing a moving clock/clocks as it
flies by inertially ONLY. The twins paradox has three parts: The twin
leaves (this portion can be analyzed via time dilation), a
turnaround/acceleration event (which CANNOT use time dilation!) and a
return trip which can use time dilation. This would be like the beach
walker leaving, appearing tiny, turning around and returning. Except, of
course, nothing special happens at the turnaround of the beach walker so
on return is at the original height. Better analogs are the oft-repeated
car odometers on the Chicago-New York trip.

> clearly illustrates that although each observer measures the other's clock as running slower, the travelling twin's clock IS running slower while the other twin's is NOT.

As this is based on an incorrect understanding of the twin paradox/time
dilation, this is wrong.

> While there is symmetry of measurement, there is asymmetry in the acceleration history, and acceleration is not included in the Lorentz transformation which predicts the symmetrical measurements.

Time dilation does not involve acceleration, so the twin paradox does
not predict anything about observed clock rate.

> The only conclusion we can make is that measurements are illusions, and cannot be taken at face value.

Since you misunderstand the twin paradox, this is not true.

On Friday, 19 May 2023 at 17:54:28 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 5/18/2023 6:41 PM, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 4:50:35 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >> Le 14/05/2023 à 14:41, Ken Seto a écrit :
> >>> Delta(tA)=Gamma(Delta(tB))
> >>> This means that a clock second on the A clock is worth (equal) to gamma*seconds
> >>> on the B clock
> >> Be careful, you have to understand and explain things well.
> >>
> >> What you write is probably true, but not very clearly stated.
> >>
> >> There is no theory in the world where it is not so important to define
> >> things well.
> >>
> >> What should be done, but the art is difficult, is to re-write Einstein's
> >> article on simultaneity and the setting of clocks, because he himself is
> >> not at all clear on this.
> >>
> >> Once the notion of simultaneity is well defined, and once the idea that it
> >> is absolutely impossible to adjust two clocks is well understood, we can
> >> then attempt to define the reciprocal chronotropy of inertial frames of
> >> reference, i.e. the way in which each referential imposes on the
> >> mechanisms of its clocks to really but reciprocally beat faster than the
> >> clocks of the opposite referential.
> >>
> >> This mechanism called relativity of chronotropy is astonishing by its
> >> reciprocal effect.
> >>
> >> But we should not be surprised, just as we are not surprised when two
> >> walkers move away on a beach, mutually considering that the other is
> >> getting smaller and smaller.
> >>
> >> R.H.
> >
> > Not the same effect. In the example, neither walker actually gets smaller. The Twin Paradox
> The Twin Paradox is NOT time dilation (although time dilation is
> involved in it)! Time dilation is observing a moving clock/clocks as it
> flies by inertially ONLY.

And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden
by your bunch of idiots improper clocks keep
measuring improper t'=t in improper seconds.

On Friday, 19 May 2023 at 17:08:23 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> El jueves, 18 de mayo de 2023 a las 18:41:57 UTC-4, Tom Capizzi escribió:
> > On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 4:50:35 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> > >
> > > But we should not be surprised, just as we are not surprised when two
> > > walkers move away on a beach, mutually considering that the other is
> > > getting smaller and smaller.
> > >
> > > R.H.
>
> > Not the same effect. In the example, neither walker actually gets smaller. The Twin Paradox clearly illustrates that although each observer measures the other's clock as running slower, the travelling twin's clock IS running slower while the other twin's is NOT. While there is symmetry of measurement, there is asymmetry in the acceleration history, and acceleration is not included in the Lorentz transformation which predicts the symmetrical measurements. The only conclusion we can make is that measurements are illusions, and cannot be taken at face value.
> The fact is that what you call "illusions" do have physical consequences.

Sure, whole of your moronic physics is filled
with the consequences of the illusions of your
idiot guru.

Ken Seto wrote:
>
> On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 1:10:53 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Ken Seto wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, May 17, 2023 at 10:17:08 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > Ken Seto wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 3:31:14 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > Ken Seto wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Delta(tA)=Gamma(Delta(tB))
> > > > > > > This means that a clock second on the A clock is worth (equal) to gamma*seconds on the B clock
> > > > > > The first three seconds of the big bang...was dat second universal?
> > > > >
> > > > > No, the simultaneity of two clocks in relative motion cannot be simultaneous unless they are in the same state of absolute motion. Obviously when the two clocks are expNDING FROM THE BB THEY ARE EXPANDING IN CURVED SPACE (THE AETHER) they cannot be accumulating clock seconds simultaneously because each clock second represents a different amount of absolute time.
> > > > >
> > > > > In any case, Einstein's concept of simultaneity is wrong. Clock time cannot be simultaneous. Only absolute time can be simultaneous. Why? Because there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames.
> > > > I posted 'The Code' many times....maybe you missed it. I'll post it
> > > > again...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth'.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Now, let me deciper the code in your case..
> > >
> > > It doesn't matter in the beginning or in the middle, a clock second will repreent a specific interval of absolute time at the rest frame of the clock.
> > > The amount of absolute time a clock second represents is dependent on the absolute motion of the clock and it's location in the gravitational field.
> > You don't see to understand the definition of the word...."interval".
> >
> > 1 · a period of time between events
> >
> >
> >
> > The First second is not an "interval". The second second contains an
> > interval.
>
> It is you who don't understand the concept of the word second. A second is an interval of time.

You just made that up.

There is no definition in the world that states that.

I'm not going to ask you to point a link to that source of meaning
because you don't even know 'how to post a link'.!

You should commit harikari today.

inbetween intervals.
between now and tomorrow.

in be tween

> >
> >
> >
> > Every clock after the first second contains a universal interval of time
> > (absolute time).
> >
> >
> >
> > First tick
> > then tock.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "'In the beginning,..." is defined:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > be·gin·ning
> > > > /b?'giniNG/
> > > > noun
> > > > the point in time or space at which something starts.
> > > > https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+beginning
> > > >
> > > > The first second is 'the point in time or space at which something
> > > > starts.'
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > that something is "...the heavens and the earth'." What is known today
> > > > as...the universe.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > or, 'In the first second, God created the heavens and earth.'
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Now you look up from the earth and what you see is the heavens.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > A clock second...the first clock second..is in fact...an event.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Intervals did not occur yet...wait another second. too late.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > > > > > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> > > > > > and challenge
> > > > > > the unchallengeable.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > > > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> > > > and challenge
> > > > the unchallengeable.
> >
> > --
> > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> > and challenge
> > the unchallengeable.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

I'll go one step further...

Your statement that

"A second is an interval of time."

doesn't even exist anywhere on the Internet!!!!

Maybe, maybe....MAYBE you must be thinking of a Chineese Calendar Time.

Happy New Year! Its the year 4720!!!!!

the year of the rabbit!

Ken Seto is on Rabbit time...

is it a leap year or a ...leap month????

Hey, go do my fuckin laundry!

fishface.

Remember, before we bombed Japan twice, we FIRE bombed them all first.

we were making fried wise with your women and children.

What do you think we'll do to...CHINA?

No tickee, no China.

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Ken Seto wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 1:10:53 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > Ken Seto wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wednesday, May 17, 2023 at 10:17:08 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > Ken Seto wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 3:31:14 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > > Ken Seto wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Delta(tA)=Gamma(Delta(tB))
> > > > > > > > This means that a clock second on the A clock is worth (equal) to gamma*seconds on the B clock
> > > > > > > The first three seconds of the big bang...was dat second universal?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, the simultaneity of two clocks in relative motion cannot be simultaneous unless they are in the same state of absolute motion. Obviously when the two clocks are expNDING FROM THE BB THEY ARE EXPANDING IN CURVED SPACE (THE AETHER) they cannot be accumulating clock seconds simultaneously because each clock second represents a different amount of absolute time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In any case, Einstein's concept of simultaneity is wrong. Clock time cannot be simultaneous. Only absolute time can be simultaneous. Why? Because there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames.
> > > > > I posted 'The Code' many times....maybe you missed it. I'll post it
> > > > > again...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth'.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Now, let me deciper the code in your case..
> > > >
> > > > It doesn't matter in the beginning or in the middle, a clock second will repreent a specific interval of absolute time at the rest frame of the clock.
> > > > The amount of absolute time a clock second represents is dependent on the absolute motion of the clock and it's location in the gravitational field.
> > > You don't see to understand the definition of the word...."interval".
> > >
> > > 1 · a period of time between events
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The First second is not an "interval". The second second contains an
> > > interval.
> >
> > It is you who don't understand the concept of the word second. A second is an interval of time.
>
> You just made that up.
>
> There is no definition in the world that states that.
>
> I'm not going to ask you to point a link to that source of meaning
> because you don't even know 'how to post a link'.!
>
> You should commit harikari today.
>
> inbetween intervals.
> between now and tomorrow.
>
> in be tween
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Every clock after the first second contains a universal interval of time
> > > (absolute time).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > First tick
> > > then tock.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "'In the beginning,..." is defined:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > be·gin·ning
> > > > > /b?'giniNG/
> > > > > noun
> > > > > the point in time or space at which something starts.
> > > > > https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+beginning
> > > > >
> > > > > The first second is 'the point in time or space at which something
> > > > > starts.'
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > that something is "...the heavens and the earth'." What is known today
> > > > > as...the universe.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > or, 'In the first second, God created the heavens and earth.'
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Now you look up from the earth and what you see is the heavens.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > A clock second...the first clock second..is in fact...an event.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Intervals did not occur yet...wait another second. too late.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > > > > > > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> > > > > > > and challenge
> > > > > > > the unchallengeable.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > > > > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> > > > > and challenge
> > > > > the unchallengeable.
> > >
> > > --
> > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> > > and challenge
> > > the unchallengeable.
>
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> and challenge
> the unchallengeable.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.