On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 1:10:20 PM UTC-6, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> "Gary Harnagel" wrote in message
> >
> > Notice if there is no ether...it does not follow that lightspeed cannot be
> > c+v for any observer.
> >
> >The MMX cannot determine that because the source and detector are at rest
> >wrt each other - DUH! Other experiments have determined that c is invariant.
>
> Well..its not quite so simple.
>
> Measuring the SOL in different inertial frames requires moving clocks.
> Clocks are calibrated by the SOL. Its circular because clocks are assumed to
> tick invariantly by the POR.

Clock ticks are n't "invariant.." They measure "proper" time.

> Its clear that Lorentz Invariance is an accurate description of
> observations. However, the correctness of the LT doesn't depend on the
> axioms of SR.

Of course it doesn't. The LT is a description of reality, not a caise of it.

> Because the two axioms of SR cannot be verified independently, due to their
> circular nature, there are other axioms that can also result in the LT.

They are not circular, and they can be confirmed experimentally.

> Indeed, one consistent alternative is the Lorenzt Ether Theory. However, it
> is strongly noted that an ether of Lorenz's understanding isn't a
> requirement or claimed, any Lorentz Invariant background field will do.
> Lorentz clearly wasn't aware of modern massless quantum fields.
>
> So, The POR states that the rate of clock ticks must be independent of
> inertial frame. However, directly, measuring clocks ticks of inertial
> frames shows they, apparently do change.
>
> SR resolves this apparent conflict by claiming that this is an illusion,
> such that clocks are actually experiencing more time (different path in
> "space-time"). That is, time is covereved at a different rate, say 100s/s..
>
> The alternative is simply that clocks do indeed tick slow when moving
> through a background field, such that the same Lorentz invariance of a
> velocity unobservable, but actually existing background field.
>
> Why does this matter?
>
> Well... it eliminates the nonsensical block universe consequence of SR
>
> Lee Smolin:
>
> "...And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously
> for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of
> special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made
> time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there
> waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a
> logical and metaphysical dead end…”
>
> That is, SR states that the future is deterministic, Quantum Mechanics says
> it isn't.
>
> It also eliminates magic. The SR worldview states that a true empty universe
> has physical characteristics. This is also nonsensical. X, T and c are
> clearly meaningless in such a universe. There are no clocks and rulers in
> such a universe to verify such a metaphysical claim.
>
> Its clear that this universe is no where empty, thus attributing an
> invariant SOL to an emergent property of Quantum Fields eliminates this
> magic.
>
> ..and where it is also noted from...
>
> Professor (UK head of department) of Physics at Cambridge, David Tong (Adams
> prize winner) has a YouTube general audience lecture on QFT:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg
>
>
> 0:31 - "...What are we made of...what are the fundamental building
> blocks of nature...?"
>
> 19:30 - "... so there is spread something throughout this room, something
> we call the electron field..its like a fluid that fills ..the entire
> universe..and the ripples of this electron fluid..the waves of this fluid
> get tied into little bundles of energy, by the rules of quantum
> mechanics..and these bundles of energy are what we call the particle the
> electron....and the same is true for every kind of particle in the
> universe..."
>
> Pretty much an ether in denial.... we are made of the stuff...it always
> moves with us :-)

The ether you're talking about is the zero point field. What Tong is talking
about reminds me of string theory, which I prefer over his udea.

On Monday, 9 October 2023 at 04:34:46 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> Clock ticks are n't "invariant.." They measure "proper" time.

Enchanting the reality won't save your Shit.
Anyone can check GPS, 2xno. Common sense
was warning your idiot guru.

"Gary Harnagel" wrote in message
news:4da19488-6f30-4204-aaf3-3d14b609b207n@googlegroups.com...

On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 1:10:20 PM UTC-6, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> "Gary Harnagel" wrote in message
> >
> > Notice if there is no ether...it does not follow that lightspeed cannot
> > be
> > c+v for any observer.
> >
> >The MMX cannot determine that because the source and detector are at rest
> >wrt each other - DUH! Other experiments have determined that c is
> >invariant.
>
> Well..its not quite so simple.
>
>> Measuring the SOL in different inertial frames requires moving clocks.
>> Clocks are calibrated by the SOL. Its circular because clocks are assumed
>> to
>> tick invariantly by the POR.

>Clock ticks are n't "invariant.." They measure "proper" time.

Sure they are. Its fundamental to the axioms of SR. According to SR, clocks
tick at the same rate irrespective of inertial velocity, that is, clock
ticks are invariant with respect to inertial velocity.

Clock tick *rates*, never change, according to the POR, thus clock tick
rates are invariant. That's what "invariant" means.

>> Its clear that Lorentz Invariance is an accurate description of
>> observations. However, the correctness of the LT doesn't depend on the
>> axioms of SR.

>Of course it doesn't. The LT is a description of reality, not a caise of
>it.

That's not the point, the statement isn't a claim that the LT is a cause of
SR, it is a statement that the axioms of SR may be wrong yet the LT still
remains valid.

A cause of the LT might well be a background field.

>> Because the two axioms of SR cannot be verified independently, due to
>> their
>> circular nature, there are other axioms that can also result in the LT.

>They are not circular, and they can be confirmed experimentally.

Nope, the two axioms cannot be confirmed independently of each other.

The two postulates of SR are clearly circular. This is obvious.
Unfortunately, its also clear from the literature, that many have missed
this.

The POR states that the laws of physics are independent of inertial frame.
This means that clock tick rates must be independent of inertial frame.

The POR requires a definition of time to know that clocks satisfy it. Time
is defined by clock tick rates.

The SOL also requires a definition of time, that is it relies on clock tick
rates being *assumed* to be independent of inertial frame.

That is, all measurements to confirm the invariance of the SOL, must use
clocks. However, its impossible to independently measure the tick rates of
clocks, without referring back to the SOL. Thus the SOL and clock tick rates
are inherently interlocked. They can both change together, and still achieve
the same results.

Its well known that SOL, Length and Time are locked together by
*definition*. Because they are interdependent, one can arbitrarily co vary
any of them and not change the results.

Indeed its now well accepted that The Lorentz Ether Theory is an alternative
approach to the LT. Indeed, it was discovered prior to SR. It is entirely
consistent. There is no experimentally way, within a specific domain, to
distinguish them.

This is not a claim that the LET is correct, however, it *proves* that
axioms contradictory the the SR axioms still result in the same LT
description of observations.

The reason *WHY* this is possible, is precisely *BECAUSE* the axioms are
"DEPENDANT" on each other. LET and SR both work because their axioms,
whilst consistent, depend on each other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory.

SR claims that there is this entity "space-time", that is "time" that exists
*independent* of clocks, such that clocks can travel through this "time" at
different rates, say 100 secs/sec, thus accounting for clock reading
different on "different paths in space-time".

However, its quite impossible to determine that this "time" can be travelled
through at different rates, without having a method, other than clocks, to
determine just what this magical thing "time" is.

Its the elephant in the room that most ignore in complete ignorance of the
problem. In SR "time" and "clocks" cannot be the same, yet its impossible to
define one without the other, thus time and clocks form a circular
definition.

Unless time can be defined independently of clocks, its impossible to know
that the apparent measured slow clock tick rates of inertial clocks are not
because the clocks are indeed physically slowing down in a background,
rather than travelling through time "space-time" at a faster rate as
demanded by SR.

Clocks read different on inertial trips. To explain this *requires*
independent definitions of time and clocks.

Unfortunately, many just haven't cottoned on to the slight of hand of time
being defined by clocks and clocks defining time....

However, feel free to describe an experiment that *simultaneously* shows the
invariance of the SOL AND the invariance of clocks ticks with inertial
frames.

The reality is, if there is invariance for both, SR results, if not, among
others, LET results.

The problem with the SR *model*, is that it assigns physical characteristics
to truly empty space. This is magic, as noted here:

https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/misc/Geometry&Relativity.html

Indeed, the major issues with Relativity's concept of time is noted here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time

....as noted in the Lee Smolin quote

"...And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously
for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of
special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made
time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there
waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a
logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."

Today, its trivially obvious, that Einstein's two axioms formed a stop gap,
blind "as if" behavioural model. Time and space cannot be the result of a
physically empty geometric construct, that is the magic of the emperors new
clothes

Space:

Space is the concept that is used to account for the fact that real
physical, measurable objects do not all merge into one object. It expresses
the fact that there are discrete, separate objects that can be identified
from other objects. Without individual physical objects, space does not
exist. That is, “space” is how separation of physical objects is accounted
for.

Time:

Time is the concept that is used to account for the fact that real physical,
separate measurable objects change their state such as position and
momentum. If no individual mass-energy objects changes their state,
including the quantum vacuum, time does not exist. That is, “time” is how
change of a physical object’s state is accounted for.

Time and Space cannot exist in a physically empty universe, thus the claim
that the SOL in vacuum, exists is nonsensical. Of course, there is no where
in the universe that is empty.

The properties of space and time must be an emergent phenomena of real
physical objects, such as quantum fields. I have no idea of the details, but
I don't hold to magic.

Kevin Aylward

-- https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html - General Relativity
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/ SuperSpice Simulation
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html - Electronics

On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 12:39:18 PM UTC-6, Kevin Aylward wrote:
>
> "Gary Harnagel" wrote in message
> news:4da19488-6f30-4204...@googlegroups.com...
>
> On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 1:10:20 PM UTC-6, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> >
> > "Gary Harnagel" wrote in message
> > >
> > > Notice if there is no ether...it does not follow that lightspeed cannot
> > > be c+v for any observer.
> > >
> > > The MMX cannot determine that because the source and detector are at rest
> > > wrt each other - DUH! Other experiments have determined that c is
> > > invariant.
> >
> > Well..its not quite so simple.
> >
> > Measuring the SOL in different inertial frames requires moving clocks.
> > Clocks are calibrated by the SOL. Its circular because clocks are assumed
> > to tick invariantly by the POR.
>
> > Clock ticks are n't "invariant.." They measure "proper" time.
>
> Sure they are. Its fundamental to the axioms of SR. According to SR, clocks
> tick at the same rate irrespective of inertial velocity, that is, clock
> ticks are invariant with respect to inertial velocity.

You're conflating "invariance" with "proper."

> Clock tick *rates*, never change, according to the POR, thus clock tick
> rates are invariant. That's what "invariant" means.

Clocks exhibit time dilation, thus time is not invariant.

> > > Its clear that Lorentz Invariance is an accurate description of
> > > observations. However, the correctness of the LT doesn't depend on the
> > > axioms of SR.
>
> > Of course it doesn't. The LT is a description of reality, not a caise of
> > it.
>
> That's not the point, the statement isn't a claim that the LT is a cause of
> SR, it is a statement that the axioms of SR may be wrong yet the LT still
> remains valid.
>
> A cause of the LT might well be a background field.

That is irrelevant. As Mermin said, "Shut up and calculate."

> > > Because the two axioms of SR cannot be verified independently, due to
> > > their
> > > circular nature, there are other axioms that can also result in the LT.
> >
> >They are not circular, and they can be confirmed experimentally.
>
> Nope, the two axioms cannot be confirmed independently of each other.
>
> The two postulates of SR are clearly circular. This is obvious.
> Unfortunately, its also clear from the literature, that many have missed
> this.
>
> The POR states that the laws of physics are independent of inertial frame..
> This means that clock tick rates must be independent of inertial frame.

And that's where you go flying off into wrongland.

> The POR requires a definition of time to know that clocks satisfy it. Time
> is defined by clock tick rates.
>
> The SOL also requires a definition of time, that is it relies on clock tick
> rates being *assumed* to be independent of inertial frame.

YOU are the only one assuming that :-))

> That is, all measurements to confirm the invariance of the SOL, must use
> clocks. However, its impossible to independently measure the tick rates of
> clocks, without referring back to the SOL. Thus the SOL and clock tick rates
> are inherently interlocked. They can both change together, and still achieve
> the same results.

This violates the historical record. You must be a historian.

"God is omnipotent, but even He cannot change the past. That is why He
created historians." -- Anonymous

> [Remainder of message deleted because of a basic misunderstanding
of time in SR]

On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 03:28:02 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> Clocks exhibit time dilation, thus time is not invariant.

Not in the world we inhabit, only in your
gedanken delusions.

On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 12:37:20 AM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak lied:
>
> On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 03:28:02 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>
> > Clocks exhibit time dilation, thus time is not invariant.
>
> Not in the world we inhabit,

What do you mean "we", denial-breath?

> only in your gedanken delusions.

https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale

https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2022/02/jila-atomic-clocks-measure-einsteins-general-relativity-millimeter-scale

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04349-7

On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:11:23 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 12:37:20 AM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak lied:
> >
> > On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 03:28:02 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > > Clocks exhibit time dilation, thus time is not invariant.
> >
> > Not in the world we inhabit,
> What do you mean "we", denial-breath?

Me, you, Pat Dolan, Tom Roberts. The
real world. The one with the real GPS
clocks. I know, the're not real for you,
denial-breath. Well, I don't care.

> > only in your gedanken delusions.
> https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale
>
> https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2022/02/jila-atomic-clocks-measure-einsteins-general-relativity-millimeter-scale
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04349-7

And in the meantime in the real world, forbiden
by your insane bunch, "improper" GPS and TAI
clocks keep measuring real time.

On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 13:11:23 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 12:37:20 AM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak lied:
> >
> > On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 03:28:02 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > > Clocks exhibit time dilation, thus time is not invariant.
> >
> > Not in the world we inhabit,
> What do you mean "we", denial-breath?

As usual a relativist fantasist in denial of the facts.
Look up Harmonic Oscillator. This fundamental classical understanding
of all resonant systems shows that since 1660 theoretical physicists
have known that resonating systems respond to an increase in mass or
weight with a lowering of the resonant systems natural frequency.
As observed in caesium clocks at different altitudes.
No need for delusional BS from relativists.

> > only in your gedanken delusions.
> https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale
>
> https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2022/02/jila-atomic-clocks-measure-einsteins-general-relativity-millimeter-scale
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04349-7

On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:01:46 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:

> Look up Harmonic Oscillator. This fundamental classical understanding
> of all resonant systems shows that since 1660 theoretical physicists
> have known that resonating systems respond to an increase in mass or
> weight with a lowering of the resonant systems natural frequency.
> As observed in caesium clocks at different altitudes.

Dumbotron,

Atomic clocks are not mechanical clocks.

On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:10:01 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:01:46 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
>
> > Look up Harmonic Oscillator. This fundamental classical understanding
> > of all resonant systems shows that since 1660 theoretical physicists
> > have known that resonating systems respond to an increase in mass or
> > weight with a lowering of the resonant systems natural frequency.
> > As observed in caesium clocks at different altitudes.
> Dumbotron,
>
> Atomic clocks are not mechanical clocks.

Yes your holiness, I forgot...atoms are not resonant systems 🤣😂

On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:22:53 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:10:01 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:01:46 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> >
> > > Look up Harmonic Oscillator. This fundamental classical understanding
> > > of all resonant systems shows that since 1660 theoretical physicists
> > > have known that resonating systems respond to an increase in mass or
> > > weight with a lowering of the resonant systems natural frequency.
> > > As observed in caesium clocks at different altitudes.
> > Dumbotron,
> >
> > Atomic clocks are not mechanical clocks.
> Yes your holiness, I forgot...atoms are not resonant systems 🤣😂

They do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force, crank.

On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:31:26 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:22:53 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:10:01 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:01:46 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> > >
> > > > Look up Harmonic Oscillator. This fundamental classical understanding
> > > > of all resonant systems shows that since 1660 theoretical physicists
> > > > have known that resonating systems respond to an increase in mass or
> > > > weight with a lowering of the resonant systems natural frequency.
> > > > As observed in caesium clocks at different altitudes.
> > > Dumbotron,
> > >
> > > Atomic clocks are not mechanical clocks.
> > Yes your holiness, I forgot...atoms are not resonant systems 🤣😂
> They do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force, crank.

Prove it.
Oh! Let me guess...your proof that atoms resonant frequencies do not
resonate at different frequencies will be..that the caesium atoms don’t
tick at different speeds at different altitudes.

On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:13:43 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:31:26 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:22:53 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:10:01 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:01:46 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Look up Harmonic Oscillator. This fundamental classical understanding
> > > > > of all resonant systems shows that since 1660 theoretical physicists
> > > > > have known that resonating systems respond to an increase in mass or
> > > > > weight with a lowering of the resonant systems natural frequency.
> > > > > As observed in caesium clocks at different altitudes.
> > > > Dumbotron,
> > > >
> > > > Atomic clocks are not mechanical clocks.
> > > Yes your holiness, I forgot...atoms are not resonant systems 🤣😂
> > They do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force, crank.
> Prove it.
> Oh! Let me guess...your proof that atoms resonant frequencies do not
> resonate at different frequencies will be..

This is not what I said. You are lying. Again. Keep on frothing.

On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 15:42:40 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:13:43 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:31:26 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:22:53 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:10:01 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:01:46 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Look up Harmonic Oscillator. This fundamental classical understanding
> > > > > > of all resonant systems shows that since 1660 theoretical physicists
> > > > > > have known that resonating systems respond to an increase in mass or
> > > > > > weight with a lowering of the resonant systems natural frequency.
> > > > > > As observed in caesium clocks at different altitudes.
> > > > > Dumbotron,
> > > > >
> > > > > Atomic clocks are not mechanical clocks.
> > > > Yes your holiness, I forgot...atoms are not resonant systems 🤣😂
> > > They do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force, crank.
> > Prove it.
> > Oh! Let me guess...your proof that atoms resonant frequencies do not
> > resonate at different frequencies will be..
> This is not what I said. You are lying. Again. Keep on frothing.

You said atoms “ do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force”
Where’s your evidence they don’t ?

On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 8:23:05 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 15:42:40 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:13:43 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:31:26 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:22:53 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:10:01 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:01:46 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Look up Harmonic Oscillator. This fundamental classical understanding
> > > > > > > of all resonant systems shows that since 1660 theoretical physicists
> > > > > > > have known that resonating systems respond to an increase in mass or
> > > > > > > weight with a lowering of the resonant systems natural frequency.
> > > > > > > As observed in caesium clocks at different altitudes.
> > > > > > Dumbotron,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Atomic clocks are not mechanical clocks.
> > > > > Yes your holiness, I forgot...atoms are not resonant systems 🤣😂
> > > > They do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force, crank.
> > > Prove it.
> > > Oh! Let me guess...your proof that atoms resonant frequencies do not
> > > resonate at different frequencies will be..
> > This is not what I said. You are lying. Again. Keep on frothing.
> You said atoms “ do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force”
> Where’s your evidence they don’t ?
Basic QM. Something that you are clearly ignorant of based on the imbecilities you have been posting, LuLu.

On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 16:29:50 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 8:23:05 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 15:42:40 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:13:43 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:31:26 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:22:53 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:10:01 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:01:46 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Look up Harmonic Oscillator. This fundamental classical understanding
> > > > > > > > of all resonant systems shows that since 1660 theoretical physicists
> > > > > > > > have known that resonating systems respond to an increase in mass or
> > > > > > > > weight with a lowering of the resonant systems natural frequency.
> > > > > > > > As observed in caesium clocks at different altitudes.
> > > > > > > Dumbotron,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Atomic clocks are not mechanical clocks.
> > > > > > Yes your holiness, I forgot...atoms are not resonant systems 🤣😂
> > > > > They do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force, crank.
> > > > Prove it.
> > > > Oh! Let me guess...your proof that atoms resonant frequencies do not
> > > > resonate at different frequencies will be..
> > > This is not what I said. You are lying. Again. Keep on frothing.
> > You said atoms “ do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force”
> > Where’s your evidence they don’t ?
> Basic QM. Something that you are clearly ignorant of based on the imbecilities you have been posting, LuLu.

Basic QM? Since when is a theoretical assumption by QM ...an observation?

On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 8:38:41 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 16:29:50 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 8:23:05 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 15:42:40 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:13:43 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:31:26 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:22:53 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:10:01 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:01:46 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Look up Harmonic Oscillator. This fundamental classical understanding
> > > > > > > > > of all resonant systems shows that since 1660 theoretical physicists
> > > > > > > > > have known that resonating systems respond to an increase in mass or
> > > > > > > > > weight with a lowering of the resonant systems natural frequency.
> > > > > > > > > As observed in caesium clocks at different altitudes.
> > > > > > > > Dumbotron,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Atomic clocks are not mechanical clocks.
> > > > > > > Yes your holiness, I forgot...atoms are not resonant systems 🤣😂
> > > > > > They do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force, crank.
> > > > > Prove it.
> > > > > Oh! Let me guess...your proof that atoms resonant frequencies do not
> > > > > resonate at different frequencies will be..
> > > > This is not what I said. You are lying. Again. Keep on frothing.
> > > You said atoms “ do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force”
> > > Where’s your evidence they don’t ?
> > Basic QM. Something that you are clearly ignorant of based on the imbecilities you have been posting, LuLu.
> Basic QM? Since when is a theoretical assumption by QM ...an observation?

Dumbotron

The functionality of atomic clocks confirms QM. It is refreshing to see that you are as crank about QM as you are about relativity. Keep it up, dumbfuck!

On 10/10/23 8:28 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> Clocks exhibit time dilation, thus time is not invariant.

[I presume that by "invariant" you intend the usual
meaning in physics: invariant under change of
coordinates.]

Your claim here is far too imprecise to be either true or false; it
depends on what you mean by "time":

If you mean the value displayed by a specific clock at a specific event
(point) in spacetime, that _IS_ invariant under change of coordinates
(because it is completely independent of coordinates).

If you mean the time coordinate of a given coordinate system, that _IS_
invariant under change of coordinates (a coordinate system is a
diffeomorphism from a region of the manifold to a region of R^4 --
using other coordinates does not affect the mapping of the given
coordinate system).

If you mean the elapsed proper time along the path of a specific clock,
that _IS_ invariant under change of coordinates (because it is
completely independent of coordinates).

If you mean how coordinate systems each map their time coordinate to the
time displayed on a given clock, that is not invariant under change of
coordinates. This is where "time dilation" occurs (and is the only place
it occurs).

Tom Roberts

On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 21:17:42 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 10/10/23 8:28 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > Clocks exhibit time dilation, thus time is not invariant.
> [I presume that by "invariant" you intend the usual
> meaning in physics: invariant under change of
> coordinates.]
>
> Your claim here is far too imprecise to be either true or false; it
> depends on what you mean by "time":
>
> If you mean the value displayed by a specific clock at a specific event
> (point) in spacetime, that _IS_ invariant under change of coordinates
> (because it is completely independent of coordinates).
>
> If you mean the time coordinate of a given coordinate system, that _IS_
> invariant under change of coordinates (a coordinate system is a
> diffeomorphism from a region of the manifold to a region of R^4 --
> using other coordinates does not affect the mapping of the given
> coordinate system).
>
> If you mean the elapsed proper time along the path of a specific clock,

Nobady cares about your delusional elapsed proper time.
Even you're not THAT stupid, and your clock/s are
indicating one of zone times.

On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 1:17:42 PM UTC-6, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> On 10/10/23 8:28 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > Clocks exhibit time dilation, thus time is not invariant.
>
> [I presume that by "invariant" you intend the usual
> meaning in physics: invariant under change of
> coordinates.]
>
> Your claim here is far too imprecise to be either true or false; it
> depends on what you mean by "time":
>
> If you mean the value displayed by a specific clock at a specific event
> (point) in spacetime, that _IS_ invariant under change of coordinates
> (because it is completely independent of coordinates).

In this scenario, an observer in S' reads a clock in S as he passes, yes?
Of course, he reads what and observer in S reads.

> If you mean the time coordinate of a given coordinate system, that _IS_
> invariant under change of coordinates (a coordinate system is a
> diffeomorphism from a region of the manifold to a region of R^4 --
> using other coordinates does not affect the mapping of the given
> coordinate system).

That seems very similar to the one above. They are basically not
very interesting results. Sort of like tautologies.

> If you mean the elapsed proper time along the path of a specific clock,
> that _IS_ invariant under change of coordinates (because it is
> completely independent of coordinates).

So one of two observers in S' read the clock in S at t1 and t2, so of course
he gets the proper time, t2 - t1; however, they must be read at times t1' and
t2' which are different from t1 and t2 and different from t2' - t1', introducing
your next option:

> If you mean how coordinate systems each map their time coordinate to the
> time displayed on a given clock, that is not invariant under change of
> coordinates. This is where "time dilation" occurs (and is the only place
> it occurs).
>
> Tom Roberts

Yes, of course, this is the interesting one. Aylward referred to this, which you
have dubbed a possible definition of invariant:

> Clock tick *rates*, never change, according to the POR, thus clock tick
> rates are invariant. That's what "invariant" means.

But he conflates the definition of the passage proper time in S with the
passage of time in S', perspective from the moving system and vice versa:

> > Measuring the SOL in different inertial frames requires moving clocks.
> > Clocks are calibrated by the SOL. Its circular because clocks are assumed
> > to tick invariantly by the POR.

He appears to be badly confused and I doubt if your input was particularly
helpful to him. Heck, it took me a while to figure out how to respond,
correctly, I hope :-)

BTW, have you been following the "discussion" about Weber equation on a
different thread?

Gary

On Thursday, 12 October 2023 at 06:48:31 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 10/11/2023 11:23 AM, Lou wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 15:42:40 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:13:43 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:31:26 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:22:53 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:10:01 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Atomic clocks are not mechanical clocks.
> >>>>> Yes your holiness, I forgot...atoms are not resonant systems 🤣😂
> >>>> They do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force, crank.
> >>> Prove it.
> >>> Oh! Let me guess...your proof that atoms resonant frequencies do not
> >>> resonate at different frequencies will be..
> >> This is not what I said. You are lying. Again. Keep on frothing.
> >
> > You said atoms “ do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force”
> > Where’s your evidence they don’t ?
> Where is YOUR evidence that atoms in atomic clocks DO resonate based on
> mass/gravitational force?

And where is YOUR evidence that setting to 9 192 631 774 is
setting to 9 192 631 770, stupid Mike?

On Thursday, 12 October 2023 at 05:48:31 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 10/11/2023 11:23 AM, Lou wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 15:42:40 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:13:43 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:31:26 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:22:53 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:10:01 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Atomic clocks are not mechanical clocks.
> >>>>> Yes your holiness, I forgot...atoms are not resonant systems 🤣😂
> >>>> They do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force, crank.
> >>> Prove it.
> >>> Oh! Let me guess...your proof that atoms resonant frequencies do not
> >>> resonate at different frequencies will be..
> >> This is not what I said. You are lying. Again. Keep on frothing.
> >
> > You said atoms “ do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force”
> > Where’s your evidence they don’t ?
> Where is YOUR evidence that atoms in atomic clocks DO resonate based on
> mass/gravitational force?

I don’t think anyone can actually see what’s happening inside the
caesium atom as it is sitting on the ground or in a satelitte. It’s all
theoretical conjecture for any theory. But my “evidence” is reference on:
Force, gravity, gravitational potential etc for theory
And reference on Nuclear magnetic resonance, descriptions
of how caesium clocks operate, spectral lines of elements, PMT’s,
etc . And of course information on harmonic oscillators and everyday
observations of resonating systems in nature or technology including spring
based harmonic oscillators, vibrating structures and engines etc.
I doubt you could ever supply any observational evidence of your wristwatch
speeding up as you take the elevator up to your penthouse.

On Friday, 13 October 2023 at 03:08:53 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 10/12/2023 5:24 AM, Lou wrote:
> > On Thursday, 12 October 2023 at 05:48:31 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >> On 10/11/2023 11:23 AM, Lou wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 15:42:40 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:13:43 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:31:26 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:22:53 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:10:01 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>>>> Atomic clocks are not mechanical clocks.
>
> >>>>>>> Yes your holiness, I forgot...atoms are not resonant systems 🤣😂
>
> >>>>>> They do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force, crank.
>
> >>>>> Prove it.
> >>>>> Oh! Let me guess...your proof that atoms resonant frequencies do not
> >>>>> resonate at different frequencies will be..
>
> >>>> This is not what I said. You are lying. Again. Keep on frothing.
> >>>
> >>> You said atoms “ do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force”
> >>> Where’s your evidence they don’t ?
>
> >> Where is YOUR evidence that atoms in atomic clocks DO resonate based on
> >> mass/gravitational force?
> >
> > I don’t think anyone can actually see what’s happening inside the
> > caesium atom as it is sitting on the ground or in a satelitte.
> So you admit that you have no evidence for your "resonance" claims.

No Volney. I’m trying to get you to realise that you have no evidence
to prove that external force cannot change natural frequencies of
atomic resonance. As observed in Caesium atoms whose natural
resonant frequency slows down when subjected to additional
force due to either acceleration or gravitational force.
Notice I have endless amounts of evidence to back up my claim
You have none to disprove it.
> Plus, as I stated, resonance would go proportional to force (inverse r
> squared) while GR effects are proportional to potential (inverse r).
>

Only if you ignore basic physics. The Force on the atoms which slows
down its natural resonant frequency is also referred to
as gravitational potential.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/gpot.html

Even Albert recognised the connection between
resonant frequency and g potential. His mistake was to
think it was due to his delusional theories of relativity.

On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 1:00:11 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> The Force on the atoms which slows
> down its natural resonant frequency is also referred to
> as gravitational potential.

Force and potential are two different things, pathetic imbecile

On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 11:01:17 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 1:00:11 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> > The Force on the atoms which slows
> > down its natural resonant frequency is also referred to
> > as gravitational potential.
> Force and potential are two different things, pathetic imbecile

How deep can you get into a gravity time well?
Light does not slow down as c so it does not obey
escape speed leaving gravity. It is c constant.
The atom responds to escape velocity instead.
Voyagers are slowing down because of that.
Light isn't...