On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 11:14:28 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> El viernes, 27 de mayo de 2022 a las 10:08:49 UTC-4, escribió:
>
> > Read my paper "What is Time?" https://vixra.org/pdf/1602.0281v2.pdf
> > Time is particle spin. Every atom is a tiny clock made from smaller clocks.
> > The particles spin at a specific rate. Motion and gravity slow that rate.
> >
> > Find a location where particles spin at their fastest rate and you have found
> > a stationary point in empty space.
> >
> > Ed
> Nature is what it is. We humans (being a part of Nature) do not have the ability to exactly know how and why Nature does its stuff. We have created "PHYSICAL MODELS" of how WE think Nature works, but none of those models (while quite successful) are (or represent) Nature.
> We do not really know what time it is. Our best current human time operational model is that time is what a clock reads.
> In Nature there are no "clocks" and there are no "meters" and also there are no "frames of reference". All of those are a product of our human thoughts and observations.
> Newton saw an apple falling to the ground and got F=ma as a model of his observation.
> All physical models are a result of human thoughts and observations and there is no total warranty that any of those models is completely correct. We know Newtonian Mechanics is not correct for large masses and speeds. We know General Relativity is not correct for atomic sizes. We know Quantum Mechanics is not correct for large masses, etc, etc.

We don't know WHY all electrons in a location oscillate at the same
frequency, but countless experiments show they do. The same with
virtually all particles. So, "why" is not important.

We also KNOW from experiments that time slows down when a clock
is moving fast. And we know WHY.

According to Einstein, electrons gain mass when they are moved.
That results in the electron's oscillation frequency slowing down.
The more mass the electron accumulates, the slower it will "tick"
as a clock. If the electron could be moved to the speed of light,
time would stop for it. But it would also have to have the mass of
countless galaxies.

It's all explained in Einstein's 1905 paper "On The Electrodynamics
of Moving Bodies." You should try reading it.

Ed

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 10:33:54 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 1:32:27 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Spam reported.
> I incite others to do the same.

Can't do better than that crotch?
The measuring device must have the property it measures.
A clock must possess the time it measures. And all clocks are in motion.

Den 27.05.2022 19:35, skrev Richard Hertz:
>
> Months ago, I had a serious discussion with Paul Andersen about this matter.
> I put a link from the PTB Institute (Germany), where there was an official page written by this "separate group" within
> the PTB. They claimed that UTC/TAI clocks at BIMP (and any other standard body) SHOULD be adjusted at the level
> of 10E-18 seconds (attoseconds), having in mind the effect of changes due to THE HEIGHT at which every atomic clock
> in the world was located.
>
> When confronted with the evidence of the PTB website, Paul just dissapeared. His usual M.O. when he can't reply.
>
> Now, you find the thread, if interested. Just search this site using "Hertz Andersen PTB UTC TAI".
>
> I'm not going to do it for you.

So I will do it for you:

Den 14.10.2021 20:11, skrev Richard Hertz:
>
> Excerpt from the German PTB site (Read the OP in this thread, at any case):
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Due to the relativistic time dilatation caused by the earth's gravitational potential, the SI second could only be realised by atomic clocks at sea level if no corrections were applied.

October 17, 2021 Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
> Den 16.10.2021 18:51, skrev Richard Hertz:
>>
>> What is funny (or sad) for me that Paul, the relativist, is willing to state that the German PTB site is wrong,
>> as well as the entire staff of serious and meticulous Germans involved in this subject, because HE IS RIGHT
>> and an entire official agency is WRONG!
>
> The following statement is plain wrong!:
> "Due to the relativistic time dilatation caused by the earth's
> gravitational potential, the SI second could only be realised
> by atomic clocks at sea level if no corrections were applied."
>
> I have a hard time believing that this is written by
> a "scientists at the German PTB " as you claim.
>
> So either it is written by a scientist who is extremely
> bad in expressing himself, or you have translated
> a German statement wrongly, or it is written by a journalist
> (or similar) who has tried to paraphrase a statement he
> didn't understand.
>
> I think the latter is the most probable.
> It could be a very sloppy paraphrase of a statement like
> the following (which is correct, if poorly stated):
>
> "Due to the relativistic time dilatation caused by the earth's
> gravitational potential, the UTC second could only be realised
> by SI-clocks at sea level if no corrections were applied."
>
> See below how the correction should be.
>
>>> On Saturday, 16 October 2021 at 15:17:15 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since the UTC is a theoretical time which simultaneous
>>>> in the ECI frame is the same everywhere, independent
>>>> of its altitude, (like GPS-time), no SI clock will
>>>> stay in synch with UTC unless it is at the geoid.
>>>> The point is that a clock showing UTC does NOT advance one
>>>> second per second unless it is on the geoid.
>>>>
>>>> To stay in synch with UTC a clock at altitude h
>>>> must advance ≈(1 - gh/c²) seconds per second.
>>>> That's not a SI-clock.
>
> -------------
>
> The following statements of mine are simple facts
> which no scientist at the German PTB will dispute:
>
> The frequency of the photon associated with the hyperfine transition in the Cs atom in ground-state is 9192631770 Hz BY DEFINITION.
>
> So a Cs clock based on this definition will always advance one second per second.
>
> On the geoid, at the top of Mont Everest, in a satellite, on the Moon - you name it. The clock will run at its normal rate.
>
> Case closed.
>

And stays closed.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 4:30:42 PM UTC-3, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 11:14:28 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > El viernes, 27 de mayo de 2022 a las 10:08:49 UTC-4, escribió:
> >
> > > Read my paper "What is Time?" https://vixra.org/pdf/1602.0281v2.pdf
> > > Time is particle spin. Every atom is a tiny clock made from smaller clocks.
> > > The particles spin at a specific rate. Motion and gravity slow that rate.
> > >
> > > Find a location where particles spin at their fastest rate and you have found
> > > a stationary point in empty space.
> > >
> > > Ed
> > Nature is what it is. We humans (being a part of Nature) do not have the ability to exactly know how and why Nature does its stuff. We have created "PHYSICAL MODELS" of how WE think Nature works, but none of those models (while quite successful) are (or represent) Nature.
> > We do not really know what time it is. Our best current human time operational model is that time is what a clock reads.
> > In Nature there are no "clocks" and there are no "meters" and also there are no "frames of reference". All of those are a product of our human thoughts and observations.
> > Newton saw an apple falling to the ground and got F=ma as a model of his observation.
> > All physical models are a result of human thoughts and observations and there is no total warranty that any of those models is completely correct. We know Newtonian Mechanics is not correct for large masses and speeds. We know General Relativity is not correct for atomic sizes. We know Quantum Mechanics is not correct for large masses, etc, etc.
> We don't know WHY all electrons in a location oscillate at the same
> frequency, but countless experiments show they do. The same with
> virtually all particles. So, "why" is not important.
>
> We also KNOW from experiments that time slows down when a clock
> is moving fast. And we know WHY.
>
> According to Einstein, electrons gain mass when they are moved.
> That results in the electron's oscillation frequency slowing down.
> The more mass the electron accumulates, the slower it will "tick"
> as a clock. If the electron could be moved to the speed of light,
> time would stop for it. But it would also have to have the mass of
> countless galaxies.
>
> It's all explained in Einstein's 1905 paper "On The Electrodynamics
> of Moving Bodies." You should try reading it.
>
> Ed

I didn't know that you were a relativist but, anyway, you are mixing SR with QM/QFT/QED.

1) That particles gain mass with inertial motion is a concept abandoned long time ago. First rank physicists like Okun
wrote about this nonsense in several papers, during a decade in the '90s. Physicists has endorsed this position for decades.
Even Einstein, 40 years later, dismissed this result as non-physical and void of meaning.

2) As of today, an electron is considered "a very tiny ripple in the quantum field" (a wave in the QF that has mass provided by
the Higgs boson).

3) That atoms (and their electrons) gain energy, so the hyperfine transitions change their frequency is MOSTLY produced by ROTATION
instead of linear motion. Angular momentum has to be conserved, as a law, so atoms are more energized at the ground level than
1000 meters above Earth (straight up). This is because ROTATION (without linear motion) forces that angular velocity decrease as
you gain height, if you want to be at the same x,y,z coordinate above ground.

Don't confuse this with orbital motion, which has to satisfy Hamiltonian in order to gain an stable orbit (like GPS satellites).

NOBODY wanted to explore this non-relativistic explanation, because einstenians have a fossilized mind, stuck with SR & GR.

Newton-Maxwell theories can explain this effect, IF IT IS TRUE (which I doubt, because are many variables and parameters involved).

Relativity can't provide an explanation to this phenomena, which seems to happen even with centimeters of difference in height. Also,
relativity is based on OLD PHYSICS, which NEGATES quantum physics body of knowledge. Both fields are DIVORCED.

On Friday, 27 May 2022 at 20:26:12 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 2:11:36 PM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
> > and trying to pretend he knows something.
> > Tell me, poor stinker, what is your definition of
> > a "theory" in the terms of Peano arithmetic?
> > See: if a theorem is going to be a part of a theory,
> > it has to be formulable in the language of the
> > theory. Do you get it? Or are you too stupid even for
> > that, poor stinker?
> You already asked this and is off topic here. Learn some respect.

Sorry, poor stinker, you'll get as much respect from me as
you're offering to others.

Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 2:23:23 AM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Richard Hertz wrote:
> > >
> > > Once upon the time, a cretin wrote a paper that had an assertion about time
> > > which was bought by generations of followers who worshiped him:
> > >
> > > "Time is what my clock shows", wrote the imbecile. And from that, he
> > > developed a fairy tail about time and length, which plagiarized a prior paper
> > > from Lorentz, which dismissed the expression of time as non-linear undesired
> > > result of his pursuit of length contraction due to inertial motion.
> > >
> > > But actually, I never read about any scientific attempt to define time, in the
> > > following 100 years. This is because time is an auxiliary variable to describe
> > > motion, and only has any value as a relative interval or duration. Not an
> > > absolute mark with physical meaning.
> > >
> > > Do the following experiment:
> > >
> > > Sit and do nothing, except the mental effort trying to capture the pass of
> > > time. If possible, do it in a quiet room with nothing moving. You can have
> > > a clock, either analog or digital.
> > >
> > > Do the following:
> > >
> > > I) Mark a timestamp, and just allow things happens. You can move or
> > > be still.
> > >
> > > Do you feel the pass of time? Check the elapsed timestamp. Did it feel
> > > real?
> > > Now try to focus on the pass of time for one hour (set an alarm).
> > > Once the alarm goes off, what did you experienced? Did you feel the pass
> > > of time? Really? By the second or by the minute?
> > >
> > > Think about what time was for you in these experiments.
> > >
> > > II) Now repeat I) but looking at the clock all the time, sensing (but not counting)
> > > every second as you observe the clock.
> > >
> > > Once a time duration of the experiment (as measured by your clock), think
> > > about time and if you felt that it was passing.
> > >
> > > Did the pass of time had ANY MEANING to you?
> > >
> > > Probably not. Then ask yourself WHAT THE FUCK TIME IS.
> > >
> > > For some cretins, time is the fourth dimension of the aberration called
> > > spacetime.
> > >
> > > According to these cretins, you HAVE BEEN TRAVELING in the fourth dimension, moving but not moving.
> > >
> > > Does it make any sense to you? Of course not.
> > >
> > > But more than 50,000 cretins made a living with this shit in the last 100 years.
> > >
> > > You don't feel an IMBECILE yet? Well, keep thinking until you really start
> > > to be mad about this shit.
> > >
> > > Then, when you're mad enough, you become A NORMAL PERSON.
> > >
> > > It is worth the effort to BE AWAKE.
> > >
> > > Congratulations.
> > Time does not move...so how can it pass?
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> > and challenge
> > the unchallengeable.
>
> You move through time, even when you don't realize it.
>
> And mathematics models this motion, which has been helpful for centuries to develop a technical tool
> to get practical results of such models, like letting you know where you are if you have data about original
> position, velocity (3D vector) and time duration since start.
>
> You can make a graph with your motion through time flow, which is separated from position (not the spacetime shit).
>
> You realize that time passed because the surrounding environment changed.
>
> It happens even if you remain sat outdoors, because Earth rotates and light and climate changes.
>
> Time is not an illusion. You, and everyone else, have an expiration date, and a beginning.
>
> Every living form perceives the flow of time.

Yeah, I can tell by looking at the gorillas at the zoo how interested
they are in in the flow of time for them...

--
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 wrote:
>
> Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> > Once upon the time, a cretin wrote a paper that had an assertion about time
> > which was bought by generations of followers who worshiped him:
> >
> > "Time is what my clock shows", wrote the imbecile. And from that, he
> > developed a fairy tail about time and length, which plagiarized a prior paper
> > from Lorentz, which dismissed the expression of time as non-linear undesired
> > result of his pursuit of length contraction due to inertial motion.
> >
> > But actually, I never read about any scientific attempt to define time, in the
> > following 100 years. This is because time is an auxiliary variable to describe
> > motion, and only has any value as a relative interval or duration. Not an
> > absolute mark with physical meaning.
> >
> > Do the following experiment:
> >
> > Sit and do nothing, except the mental effort trying to capture the pass of
> > time. If possible, do it in a quiet room with nothing moving. You can have
> > a clock, either analog or digital.
> >
> > Do the following:
> >
> > I) Mark a timestamp, and just allow things happens. You can move or
> > be still.
> >
> > Do you feel the pass of time? Check the elapsed timestamp. Did it feel
> > real?
> > Now try to focus on the pass of time for one hour (set an alarm).
> > Once the alarm goes off, what did you experienced? Did you feel the pass
> > of time? Really? By the second or by the minute?
> >
> > Think about what time was for you in these experiments.
> >
> > II) Now repeat I) but looking at the clock all the time, sensing (but not counting)
> > every second as you observe the clock.
> >
> > Once a time duration of the experiment (as measured by your clock), think
> > about time and if you felt that it was passing.
> >
> > Did the pass of time had ANY MEANING to you?
> >
> > Probably not. Then ask yourself WHAT THE FUCK TIME IS.
> >
> > For some cretins, time is the fourth dimension of the aberration called
> > spacetime.
> >
> > According to these cretins, you HAVE BEEN TRAVELING in the fourth dimension, moving but not moving.
> >
> > Does it make any sense to you? Of course not.
> >
> > But more than 50,000 cretins made a living with this shit in the last 100 years.
> >
> > You don't feel an IMBECILE yet? Well, keep thinking until you really start
> > to be mad about this shit.
> >
> > Then, when you're mad enough, you become A NORMAL PERSON.
> >
> > It is worth the effort to BE AWAKE.
> >
> > Congratulations.
>
> Time does not move...so how can it pass?

Let me explain what "pass of time" means...

"Time is what my clock shows"

That means, if somebody tells you
it is half pass seven..
that means your clock
changed numbers from
1-30.

half past seven means
7,
1234567891011121314..30

the numbers of your clock
changed numbers
when it reached
30
it is pass the time of 7 by 30 minutes.

But only the numbers on the clocked have changed.

Time don't pass or move.

"Time is what my clock shows"

'half pass seven is what my clock shows'

Time has not passed.
Only the mumbers
have passed from
1-30.

Boy how time flies!

WAIT WAIT. TIME DOESN'T FLY.

THAT'S JUST AN EXPRESSION!

DON'T GET CARRIED AWAY...

sit on a hot stove.

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

El viernes, 27 de mayo de 2022 a las 15:30:42 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 11:14:28 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > El viernes, 27 de mayo de 2022 a las 10:08:49 UTC-4, escribió:
> >
> > > Read my paper "What is Time?" https://vixra.org/pdf/1602.0281v2.pdf
> > > Time is particle spin. Every atom is a tiny clock made from smaller clocks.
> > > The particles spin at a specific rate. Motion and gravity slow that rate.
> > >
> > > Find a location where particles spin at their fastest rate and you have found
> > > a stationary point in empty space.
> > >
> > > Ed
> > Nature is what it is. We humans (being a part of Nature) do not have the ability to exactly know how and why Nature does its stuff. We have created "PHYSICAL MODELS" of how WE think Nature works, but none of those models (while quite successful) are (or represent) Nature.
> > We do not really know what time it is. Our best current human time operational model is that time is what a clock reads.
> > In Nature there are no "clocks" and there are no "meters" and also there are no "frames of reference". All of those are a product of our human thoughts and observations.
> > Newton saw an apple falling to the ground and got F=ma as a model of his observation.
> > All physical models are a result of human thoughts and observations and there is no total warranty that any of those models is completely correct. We know Newtonian Mechanics is not correct for large masses and speeds. We know General Relativity is not correct for atomic sizes. We know Quantum Mechanics is not correct for large masses, etc, etc.

> We don't know WHY all electrons in a location oscillate at the same
> frequency, but countless experiments show they do. The same with
> virtually all particles. So, "why" is not important.
>

Our "human thought" model of an electron is as follows: The electron is a subatomic particle whose electric charge is negative one elementary charge. Electrons belong to the first generation of the lepton particle family, and are generally thought to be elementary particles because they have no known components or substructure. The electron has a mass that is approximately 1/1836 that of the proton. Quantum mechanical properties of the electron include an intrinsic angular momentum (spin) of a half-integer value, expressed in units of the reduced Planck constant, ħ. Being fermions, no two electrons can occupy the same quantum state, in accordance with the Pauli exclusion principle. Like all elementary particles, electrons exhibit properties of both particles and waves: they can collide with other particles and can be diffracted like light. The wave properties of electrons are easier to observe with experiments than those of other particles like neutrons and protons because electrons have a lower mass and hence a longer de Broglie wavelength for a given energy.

> We also KNOW from experiments that time slows down when a clock
> is moving fast. And we know WHY.
>

Actually that is completely nonsense. Moving clocks do tick at the same frequency of a stationary clock (ie 1 tick per second) but the frequency tick reading of the moving clock, when measured from the stationary clock, is lower.

> According to Einstein, electrons gain mass when they are moved.

That is also nonsense. Speed does not affect an object mass but it affects its momentum (and energy).

> That results in the electron's oscillation frequency slowing down.
> The more mass the electron accumulates, the slower it will "tick"
> as a clock. If the electron could be moved to the speed of light,
> time would stop for it. But it would also have to have the mass of
> countless galaxies.
>

Complete nonsense.

> It's all explained in Einstein's 1905 paper "On The Electrodynamics
> of Moving Bodies." You should try reading it.
>

There is nothing in Einstein's 1905 paper asserting your nonsense!!!

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 4:49:38 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 27.05.2022 19:35, skrev Richard Hertz:
> >
> > Months ago, I had a serious discussion with Paul Andersen about this matter.
> > I put a link from the PTB Institute (Germany), where there was an official page written by this "separate group" within
> > the PTB. They claimed that UTC/TAI clocks at BIMP (and any other standard body) SHOULD be adjusted at the level
> > of 10E-18 seconds (attoseconds), having in mind the effect of changes due to THE HEIGHT at which every atomic clock
> > in the world was located.
> >
> > When confronted with the evidence of the PTB website, Paul just dissapeared. His usual M.O. when he can't reply.
> >
> > Now, you find the thread, if interested. Just search this site using "Hertz Andersen PTB UTC TAI".
> >
> > I'm not going to do it for you.
> So I will do it for you:
>
>
> Den 14.10.2021 20:11, skrev Richard Hertz:
> >
> > Excerpt from the German PTB site (Read the OP in this thread, at any case):
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Due to the relativistic time dilatation caused by the earth's gravitational potential, the SI second could only be realised by atomic clocks at sea level if no corrections were applied.
>
>
>
> October 17, 2021 Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >
> > Den 16.10.2021 18:51, skrev Richard Hertz:
> >>
> >> What is funny (or sad) for me that Paul, the relativist, is willing to state that the German PTB site is wrong,
> >> as well as the entire staff of serious and meticulous Germans involved in this subject, because HE IS RIGHT
> >> and an entire official agency is WRONG!
> >
> > The following statement is plain wrong!:
> > "Due to the relativistic time dilatation caused by the earth's
> > gravitational potential, the SI second could only be realised
> > by atomic clocks at sea level if no corrections were applied."
> >
> > I have a hard time believing that this is written by
> > a "scientists at the German PTB " as you claim.
> >
> > So either it is written by a scientist who is extremely
> > bad in expressing himself, or you have translated
> > a German statement wrongly, or it is written by a journalist
> > (or similar) who has tried to paraphrase a statement he
> > didn't understand.
> >
> > I think the latter is the most probable.
> > It could be a very sloppy paraphrase of a statement like
> > the following (which is correct, if poorly stated):
> >
> > "Due to the relativistic time dilatation caused by the earth's
> > gravitational potential, the UTC second could only be realised
> > by SI-clocks at sea level if no corrections were applied."
> >
> > See below how the correction should be.
> >
> >>> On Saturday, 16 October 2021 at 15:17:15 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Since the UTC is a theoretical time which simultaneous
> >>>> in the ECI frame is the same everywhere, independent
> >>>> of its altitude, (like GPS-time), no SI clock will
> >>>> stay in synch with UTC unless it is at the geoid.
> >>>> The point is that a clock showing UTC does NOT advance one
> >>>> second per second unless it is on the geoid.
> >>>>
> >>>> To stay in synch with UTC a clock at altitude h
> >>>> must advance ≈(1 - gh/c²) seconds per second.
> >>>> That's not a SI-clock.
> >
> > -------------
> >
> > The following statements of mine are simple facts
> > which no scientist at the German PTB will dispute:
> >
> > The frequency of the photon associated with the hyperfine transition in the Cs atom in ground-state is 9192631770 Hz BY DEFINITION.
> >
> > So a Cs clock based on this definition will always advance one second per second.
> >
> > On the geoid, at the top of Mont Everest, in a satellite, on the Moon - you name it. The clock will run at its normal rate.
> >
> > Case closed.
> >
>
> And stays closed.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/

LOL!

I see your DEFINITIONS (Cs hyperfine transition, speed of light, etc.) and I raise my bet to the Hubble's constant.

About 74.03±1.42 Km/s/Mpc (NASA Hubble 2019)
About 67.74±0.46 Km/s/Mpc (ESA Planck Mission 2015)

Let's DEFINE Ho = 70.0000 Km/s/Mpc. Problem solved.

NEXT!

On Fri, 27 May 2022 17:11:27 -0700 (PDT), Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl>
wrote:

>The electron is a subatomic particle whose electric charge is negative one elementary charge. Electrons belong to the first generation of the lepton particle family, and are generally thought to be elementary particles because they have no known components or substructure. The electron has a mass that is approximately 1/1836 that of the proton. Quantum mechanical properties of the electron include an intrinsic angular momentum (spin) of a half-integer value, expressed in units of the reduced Planck constant, ?. Being fermions, no two electrons can occupy the same quantum state, in accordance with the Pauli exclusion principle. Like all elementary particles, electrons exhibit properties of both particles and waves: they can collide with other particles and can be diffracted like light. The wave properties of electrons are easier to observe with experiments than those of other particles like neutrons and protons because electrons
>have a lower mass and hence a longer de Broglie wavelength for a given energy.

teach me, teach me, How To Cut and Paste!!!

http://clearlyexplained.com/electrons/index.html!

https://www.nuclear-power.com/nuclear-power/reactor-physics/atomic-nuclear-physics/fundamental-particles/what-is-electron-properties-of-electron/mass-and-charge-of-electron/

The wave properties of electrons are easier to observe with
experiments than those of other particles like neutrons and protons
because electrons have a lower mass and hence a longer de Broglie
wavelength for a given energy.
Electron - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Electron

teach me, teach me, How To Cut and Paste!!!!

All cut and paste from here???
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron

teach me, teach me, How To Cut and Paste!!!!

Is there a Cut and Paste book for Dummies???

teach me, teach me, How To Cut and Paste!!!!

You too can look like a Genius with How To Cut and Paste for Dummies!

teach me, teach me, ...

Wat a bunch of funkin phonies!

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

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 1:36:05 AM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote:
> On Fri, 27 May 2022 17:11:27 -0700 (PDT), Paparios <mr...@ing.puc.cl>
> wrote:
>
>
> >The electron is a subatomic particle whose electric charge is negative one elementary charge. Electrons belong to the first generation of the lepton particle family, and are generally thought to be elementary particles because they have no known components or substructure. The electron has a mass that is approximately 1/1836 that of the proton. Quantum mechanical properties of the electron include an intrinsic angular momentum (spin) of a half-integer value, expressed in units of the reduced Planck constant, ?. Being fermions, no two electrons can occupy the same quantum state, in accordance with the Pauli exclusion principle. Like all elementary particles, electrons exhibit properties of both particles and waves: they can collide with other particles and can be diffracted like light. The wave properties of electrons are easier to observe with experiments than those of other particles like neutrons and protons because electrons
> >have a lower mass and hence a longer de Broglie wavelength for a given energy.
> teach me, teach me, How To Cut and Paste!!!
>
> http://clearlyexplained.com/electrons/index.html!
>
>
>
> https://www.nuclear-power.com/nuclear-power/reactor-physics/atomic-nuclear-physics/fundamental-particles/what-is-electron-properties-of-electron/mass-and-charge-of-electron/
> The wave properties of electrons are easier to observe with
> experiments than those of other particles like neutrons and protons
> because electrons have a lower mass and hence a longer de Broglie
> wavelength for a given energy.
> Electron - Wikipedia
> en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Electron
>
>
>
> teach me, teach me, How To Cut and Paste!!!!
>
>
> All cut and paste from here???
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron
>
>
> teach me, teach me, How To Cut and Paste!!!!
>
>
> Is there a Cut and Paste book for Dummies???
>
>
> teach me, teach me, How To Cut and Paste!!!!
>
>
> You too can look like a Genius with How To Cut and Paste for Dummies!
>
>
> teach me, teach me, ...
>
>
>
>
> Wat a bunch of funkin phonies!
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
> the unchallengeable.

Paparios would never plagiarize. He's a relativist, and also a Chilean EE with a PhD in Engineering.

By the way, a PhD in engineering is an absurd anglo-saxon invention to squeeze money from morons.

Engineers don't do Philosophy.

https://tu-dresden.de/ing/maschinenwesen/fsr/fuer-studierende/diplom-vs-bachelor?set_language=en

Le 27/05/2022 à 19:09, Python a écrit :
> Wozniak. You forgot libels and insults though.

Jean-Pierre, please...

A little modesty and good manners...

For which I thank you in anticipation.

R.H.

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:11:29 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> El viernes, 27 de mayo de 2022 a las 15:30:42 UTC-4, escribió:
> > On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 11:14:28 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > > El viernes, 27 de mayo de 2022 a las 10:08:49 UTC-4, escribió:
> > >
> > > > Read my paper "What is Time?" https://vixra.org/pdf/1602.0281v2.pdf
> > > > Time is particle spin. Every atom is a tiny clock made from smaller clocks.
> > > > The particles spin at a specific rate. Motion and gravity slow that rate.
> > > >
> > > > Find a location where particles spin at their fastest rate and you have found
> > > > a stationary point in empty space.
> > > >
> > > > Ed
> > > Nature is what it is. We humans (being a part of Nature) do not have the ability to exactly know how and why Nature does its stuff. We have created "PHYSICAL MODELS" of how WE think Nature works, but none of those models (while quite successful) are (or represent) Nature.
> > > We do not really know what time it is. Our best current human time operational model is that time is what a clock reads.
> > > In Nature there are no "clocks" and there are no "meters" and also there are no "frames of reference". All of those are a product of our human thoughts and observations.
> > > Newton saw an apple falling to the ground and got F=ma as a model of his observation.
> > > All physical models are a result of human thoughts and observations and there is no total warranty that any of those models is completely correct. We know Newtonian Mechanics is not correct for large masses and speeds. We know General Relativity is not correct for atomic sizes. We know Quantum Mechanics is not correct for large masses, etc, etc.
>
> > We don't know WHY all electrons in a location oscillate at the same
> > frequency, but countless experiments show they do. The same with
> > virtually all particles. So, "why" is not important.
> >
> Our "human thought" model of an electron is as follows: The electron is a subatomic particle whose electric charge is negative one elementary charge.. Electrons belong to the first generation of the lepton particle family, and are generally thought to be elementary particles because they have no known components or substructure. The electron has a mass that is approximately 1/1836 that of the proton. Quantum mechanical properties of the electron include an intrinsic angular momentum (spin) of a half-integer value, expressed in units of the reduced Planck constant, ħ. Being fermions, no two electrons can occupy the same quantum state, in accordance with the Pauli exclusion principle. Like all elementary particles, electrons exhibit properties of both particles and waves: they can collide with other particles and can be diffracted like light. The wave properties of electrons are easier to observe with experiments than those of other particles like neutrons and protons because electrons have a lower mass and hence a longer de Broglie wavelength for a given energy.
> > We also KNOW from experiments that time slows down when a clock
> > is moving fast. And we know WHY.
> >
> Actually that is completely nonsense. Moving clocks do tick at the same frequency of a stationary clock (ie 1 tick per second) but the frequency tick reading of the moving clock, when measured from the stationary clock, is lower.

You definitely have problems with English. You are saying the same
thing I just said.

> > According to Einstein, electrons gain mass when they are moved.
> That is also nonsense. Speed does not affect an object mass but it affects its momentum (and energy).

And, according to Einstein E=mc2, which means there is a direct relationship
between mass and energy.

> > That results in the electron's oscillation frequency slowing down.
> > The more mass the electron accumulates, the slower it will "tick"
> > as a clock. If the electron could be moved to the speed of light,
> > time would stop for it. But it would also have to have the mass of
> > countless galaxies.
> >
> Complete nonsense.
> > It's all explained in Einstein's 1905 paper "On The Electrodynamics
> > of Moving Bodies." You should try reading it.
> >
> There is nothing in Einstein's 1905 paper asserting your nonsense!!!

A quote from page 11:

------------ quote -----------
If one of two synchronous
clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to
A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest
the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be 1/2 tv2/c2 second slow. Thence we
conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very
small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under
otherwise identical conditions.
--------- end quote -----

A couple quotes from page 22:

-------- quote 1 -------
We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an electron
moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K along the axis
of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, it is clear that the energy
withdrawn from the electrostatic field has the value
RXdx. As the electron is
to be slowly accelerated, and consequently may not give off any energy in the
form of radiation, the energy withdrawn from the electrostatic field must be put
down as equal to the energy of motion W of the electron.

----------quote 2 -------------
Thus, when v = c, W becomes infinite. Velocities greater than that of light
have—as in our previous results—no possibility of existence..
--------- end quotes --------------

Ed

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 3:11:59 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 4:30:42 PM UTC-3, wrote:
> > On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 11:14:28 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > > El viernes, 27 de mayo de 2022 a las 10:08:49 UTC-4, escribió:
> > >
> > > > Read my paper "What is Time?" https://vixra.org/pdf/1602.0281v2.pdf
> > > > Time is particle spin. Every atom is a tiny clock made from smaller clocks.
> > > > The particles spin at a specific rate. Motion and gravity slow that rate.
> > > >
> > > > Find a location where particles spin at their fastest rate and you have found
> > > > a stationary point in empty space.
> > > >
> > > > Ed
> > > Nature is what it is. We humans (being a part of Nature) do not have the ability to exactly know how and why Nature does its stuff. We have created "PHYSICAL MODELS" of how WE think Nature works, but none of those models (while quite successful) are (or represent) Nature.
> > > We do not really know what time it is. Our best current human time operational model is that time is what a clock reads.
> > > In Nature there are no "clocks" and there are no "meters" and also there are no "frames of reference". All of those are a product of our human thoughts and observations.
> > > Newton saw an apple falling to the ground and got F=ma as a model of his observation.
> > > All physical models are a result of human thoughts and observations and there is no total warranty that any of those models is completely correct. We know Newtonian Mechanics is not correct for large masses and speeds. We know General Relativity is not correct for atomic sizes. We know Quantum Mechanics is not correct for large masses, etc, etc.
> > We don't know WHY all electrons in a location oscillate at the same
> > frequency, but countless experiments show they do. The same with
> > virtually all particles. So, "why" is not important.
> >
> > We also KNOW from experiments that time slows down when a clock
> > is moving fast. And we know WHY.
> >
> > According to Einstein, electrons gain mass when they are moved.
> > That results in the electron's oscillation frequency slowing down.
> > The more mass the electron accumulates, the slower it will "tick"
> > as a clock. If the electron could be moved to the speed of light,
> > time would stop for it. But it would also have to have the mass of
> > countless galaxies.
> >
> > It's all explained in Einstein's 1905 paper "On The Electrodynamics
> > of Moving Bodies." You should try reading it.
> >
> > Ed
> I didn't know that you were a relativist but, anyway, you are mixing SR with QM/QFT/QED.

No. I'm fully aware that Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are totally
irreconcilable. And it is clear why. Prof. Lee Smolin explains it best in his
book "Einstein’s Unfinished Revolution: The Search for What Lies Beyond the Quantum."

He says, "quantum mechanics is merely '"a theory of subsystems of the universe.'"
And "the theory is wrong. It is highly successful, but incomplete."

Relativity, on the other hand, explains the workings of the universe around us,
but, so far, it cannot be used to explain the workings of atoms and particles.

>
> 1) That particles gain mass with inertial motion is a concept abandoned long time ago.

No one said anything about "inertial motion." If a body gains mass by moving faster and faster,
the motion cannot be inertial.

(snip)
> Relativity can't provide an explanation to this phenomena, which seems to happen even with centimeters of difference in height. Also,
> relativity is based on OLD PHYSICS, which NEGATES quantum physics body of knowledge. Both fields are DIVORCED.

Relativity is about the Universe around us. Quantum Mechanics is about
tiny sub-systems within the universe. If you try to apply Quantum Mechanics
to the universe around us, the result is TOTAL NONSENSE.

Relativity is about REALITY. Quantum Mechanics is about averages and
percentages. It's about mathematics. It works, but it doesn't describe reality.

Ed

El sábado, 28 de mayo de 2022 a las 10:16:39 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:11:29 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:

> > > We also KNOW from experiments that time slows down when a clock
> > > is moving fast. And we know WHY.
> > >
> > Actually that is completely nonsense. Moving clocks do tick at the same frequency of a stationary clock (ie 1 tick per second) but the frequency tick reading of the moving clock, when measured from the stationary clock, is lower.

> You definitely have problems with English. You are saying the same
> thing I just said.

No... you wrote above "time slows down when a clock is moving fast". In fact, nothing physical can affect the ticking of the constant speed moving clock. The ticking rate THERE continues to be 1 tick/second. The measurement of the ticking THERE, when measured HERE, is what apears to be slow (that is a geometrical projection of the moving time coordinate onto the stationary time coordinate).

> > > According to Einstein, electrons gain mass when they are moved.

> > That is also nonsense. Speed does not affect an object mass but it affects its momentum (and energy).

> And, according to Einstein E=mc2, which means there is a direct relationship
> between mass and energy.

But E=mc2 is the expression of the energy of a mass AT REST (that is when v=0). For a moving mass, the formula is E^2=p^2c^2 + m^2c^4 where p is the momentum (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy-momentum_relation).

> > > It's all explained in Einstein's 1905 paper "On The Electrodynamics
> > > of Moving Bodies." You should try reading it.
> > >
> > There is nothing in Einstein's 1905 paper asserting your nonsense!!!
> A quote from page 11:
>
> ------------ quote -----------
> If one of two synchronous
> clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to
> A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest
> the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be 1/2 tv2/c2 second slow. Thence we
> conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very
> small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under
> otherwise identical conditions.
> --------- end quote -----
>

That quote is talking about the ELAPSED TIME between events and that has nothing to do with the clock proper ticking.

> A couple quotes from page 22:
>
> -------- quote 1 -------
> We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an electron
> moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K along the axis
> of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, it is clear that the energy
> withdrawn from the electrostatic field has the value
> R Xdx. As the electron is
> to be slowly accelerated, and consequently may not give off any energy in the
> form of radiation, the energy withdrawn from the electrostatic field must be put
> down as equal to the energy of motion W of the electron.
>
> ----------quote 2 -------------
> Thus, when v = c, W becomes infinite. Velocities greater than that of light
> have—as in our previous results—no possibility of existence.
> --------- end quotes --------------
>

Again, these quotes have nothing to do with the fact that the rest mass does not increase with speed. What it increases is the energy you have to provide to the moving mass in order to reach larger speeds (and that energy goes to infinity when you try to reach the speed of light).

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 9:50:43 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> El sábado, 28 de mayo de 2022 a las 10:16:39 UTC-4, escribió:
> > On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:11:29 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
>
> > > > We also KNOW from experiments that time slows down when a clock
> > > > is moving fast. And we know WHY.
> > > >
> > > Actually that is completely nonsense. Moving clocks do tick at the same frequency of a stationary clock (ie 1 tick per second) but the frequency tick reading of the moving clock, when measured from the stationary clock, is lower.
>
> > You definitely have problems with English. You are saying the same
> > thing I just said.
> No... you wrote above "time slows down when a clock is moving fast". In fact, nothing physical can affect the ticking of the constant speed moving clock. The ticking rate THERE continues to be 1 tick/second. The measurement of the ticking THERE, when measured HERE, is what apears to be slow (that is a geometrical projection of the moving time coordinate onto the stationary time coordinate).

Okay, you definitely have problems with English. When a clock is caused to
MOVE FASTER, it is NOT a "constant speed moving clock." The faster it moves,
the slower it ticks. Yes, it still ticks 1 tick/second, but a SECOND IS LONGER.

The faster you move, the longer your seconds become. It's called "Time Dilation."
You don't notice any difference, but if you can somehow compare the length of
your seconds to the length of second for something moving slower, there will
be a difference.

> > > > According to Einstein, electrons gain mass when they are moved.
>
> > > That is also nonsense. Speed does not affect an object mass but it affects its momentum (and energy).
>
> > And, according to Einstein E=mc2, which means there is a direct relationship
> > between mass and energy.
> But E=mc2 is the expression of the energy of a mass AT REST (that is when v=0). For a moving mass, the formula is E^2=p^2c^2 + m^2c^4 where p is the momentum (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy-momentum_relation).

So what? I was merely pointing out that there is a relationship between
mass and energy.

You wrote "Speed does not affect an object mass but it affects its momentum (and energy)."

If speed affects an objects energy, it also affects the object's mass. E=mc2

> > > > It's all explained in Einstein's 1905 paper "On The Electrodynamics
> > > > of Moving Bodies." You should try reading it.
> > > >
> > > There is nothing in Einstein's 1905 paper asserting your nonsense!!!
> > A quote from page 11:
> >
> > ------------ quote -----------
> > If one of two synchronous
> > clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to
> > A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest
> > the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be 1/2 tv2/c2 second slow. Thence we
> > conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very
> > small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under
> > otherwise identical conditions.
> > --------- end quote -----
> >
> That quote is talking about the ELAPSED TIME between events and that has nothing to do with the clock proper ticking.

Don't you understand English at all????

"a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly" is NOT about elapsed time!
It says the clock at the equator ticks slower than the clock at the pole.

> > A couple quotes from page 22:
> >
> > -------- quote 1 -------
> > We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an electron
> > moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K along the axis
> > of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, it is clear that the energy
> > withdrawn from the electrostatic field has the value
> > R Xdx. As the electron is
> > to be slowly accelerated, and consequently may not give off any energy in the
> > form of radiation, the energy withdrawn from the electrostatic field must be put
> > down as equal to the energy of motion W of the electron.
> >
> > ----------quote 2 -------------
> > Thus, when v = c, W becomes infinite. Velocities greater than that of light
> > have—as in our previous results—no possibility of existence.
> > --------- end quotes --------------
> >
> Again, these quotes have nothing to do with the fact that the rest mass does not increase with speed. What it increases is the energy you have to provide to the moving mass in order to reach larger speeds (and that energy goes to infinity when you try to reach the speed of light).

You are TALKING NONSENSE. "Rest mass" cannot be "rest mass" if
the body is moving faster and faster and is NOT AT REST.

Ed

El sábado, 28 de mayo de 2022 a las 11:36:43 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 9:50:43 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:

> > No... you wrote above "time slows down when a clock is moving fast". In fact, nothing physical can affect the ticking of the constant speed moving clock. The ticking rate THERE continues to be 1 tick/second. The measurement of the ticking THERE, when measured HERE, is what apears to be slow (that is a geometrical projection of the moving time coordinate onto the stationary time coordinate).

> Okay, you definitely have problems with English. When a clock is caused to
> MOVE FASTER, it is NOT a "constant speed moving clock." The faster it moves,
> the slower it ticks. Yes, it still ticks 1 tick/second, but a SECOND IS LONGER.
>

It is you who can't read English. Einstein's 1905 paper relates to Special Relativity, where there are AT REST bodies and MOVING AT CONSTANT SPEED bodies (that is what the speed v is, ie the speed of the moving body relative to the at rest body).

The moving clock has been built identical to the at rest clock (they are both the same design). Speed can't affect the physics the clock uses to tick at 1 tick per second. For example a GPS atomic clock is set to tick at 10.22999999543 MHz before launching. When the GPS clock is orbiting (at a hight of 22000 km) the GPS atomic clock is still ticking at 10.22999999543 MHz (see section 3.3.1.1 in https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200L.pdf).. Signals emitted by the GPS satellite arrive to the ground ticking at 10.23 MHz (that is at the ground the ticking of the GPS clock is measured to be higher!!!!).

> The faster you move, the longer your seconds become. It's called "Time Dilation."
> You don't notice any difference, but if you can somehow compare the length of
> your seconds to the length of second for something moving slower, there will
> be a difference.

Nonsense. The faster you move your personal seconds continue to tick at 1 second per second (an egg continues to cook in 5 minutes).
Time dilation is the difference in the elapsed time as measured by TWO clocks.

> > > And, according to Einstein E=mc2, which means there is a direct relationship
> > > between mass and energy.

> > But E=mc2 is the expression of the energy of a mass AT REST (that is when v=0). For a moving mass, the formula is E^2=p^2c^2 + m^2c^4 where p is the momentum (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy-momentum_relation).

> So what? I was merely pointing out that there is a relationship between
> mass and energy.

No you were asserting (without any knowledge) that mass increases with higher speeds!!!!

> You wrote "Speed does not affect an object mass but it affects its momentum (and energy)."
>
> If speed affects an objects energy, it also affects the object's mass. E=mc2

Wrong. The invariant mass, rest mass, intrinsic mass, proper mass, or in the case of bound systems simply mass, is the portion of the total mass of an object or system of objects that is independent of the overall motion of the system. More precisely, it is a characteristic of the system's total energy and momentum that is the same in all frames of reference related by Lorentz transformations. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariant_mass for details.

> > > > There is nothing in Einstein's 1905 paper asserting your nonsense!!!

> > > A quote from page 11:
> > >
> > > ------------ quote -----------
> > > If one of two synchronous
> > > clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to
> > > A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest
> > > the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be 1/2 tv2/c2 second slow. Thence we
> > > conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very
> > > small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under
> > > otherwise identical conditions.
> > > --------- end quote -----
> > >
> > That quote is talking about the ELAPSED TIME between events and that has nothing to do with the clock proper ticking.

> Don't you understand English at all????
>
> "a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly" is NOT about elapsed time!
> It says the clock at the equator ticks slower than the clock at the pole.

Nonsense. You should read it again. It clearly says (see above): "If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A". There are TWO clocks. One of them is moved at constant speed in a closed trajectory (a circle). Therefore, what they compared after the clock A returns to its initial point is the ELAPSED time of the moving clock compared with the elapsed time of the not moving clock!!!!

> > > A couple quotes from page 22:
> > >
> > > -------- quote 1 -------
> > > We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an electron
> > > moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K along the axis
> > > of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, it is clear that the energy
> > > withdrawn from the electrostatic field has the value
> > > R Xdx. As the electron is
> > > to be slowly accelerated, and consequently may not give off any energy in the
> > > form of radiation, the energy withdrawn from the electrostatic field must be put
> > > down as equal to the energy of motion W of the electron.
> > >
> > > ----------quote 2 -------------
> > > Thus, when v = c, W becomes infinite. Velocities greater than that of light
> > > have—as in our previous results—no possibility of existence.
> > > --------- end quotes --------------
> > >
> > Again, these quotes have nothing to do with the fact that the rest mass does not increase with speed. What it increases is the energy you have to provide to the moving mass in order to reach larger speeds (and that energy goes to infinity when you try to reach the speed of light).
> You are TALKING NONSENSE. "Rest mass" cannot be "rest mass" if
> the body is moving faster and faster and is NOT AT REST.
>
> Ed

El sábado, 28 de mayo de 2022 a las 1:07:29 UTC-4, Richard Hertz escribió:

> Paparios would never plagiarize. He's a relativist, and also a Chilean EE with a PhD in Engineering.
>
My degrees are:
1) Bachelor in Electrical Engineering.
2) Electrical Engineer.
3) Master of Applied Sciences in Electrical Engineering.
4) Doctor of Phylosophy in Electrical Engineering.

> By the way, a PhD in engineering is an absurd anglo-saxon invention to squeeze money from morons.

Actually, a PhD degree is a mandatory requisite to be a professor in any university of the world.

El sábado, 28 de mayo de 2022 a las 1:07:29 UTC-4, Richard Hertz escribió:
He's a relativist, and also a Chilean EE with a PhD in Engineering.
>
> By the way, a PhD in engineering is an absurd anglo-saxon invention to squeeze money from morons.
>
> Engineers don't do Philosophy.
>
A Doctor of Philosophy (PhD, Ph.D., or DPhil; Latin: philosophiae doctor or doctor philosophiae) is the most common degree at the highest academic level awarded following a course of study. PhDs are awarded for programs across the whole breadth of academic fields. Because it is an earned research degree, those studying for a PhD are required to produce original research that expands the boundaries of knowledge, normally in the form of a dissertation, and defend their work before a panel of other experts in the field. The completion of a PhD is often a requirement for employment as a university professor, researcher, or scientist in many fields. Individuals who have earned a Doctor of Philosophy degree may, in many jurisdictions, use the title Doctor (often abbreviated "Dr" or "Dr.") with their name, although the proper etiquette associated with this usage may also be subject to the professional ethics of their own scholarly field, culture, or society.

On Saturday, 28 May 2022 at 18:12:57 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:

> The moving clock has been built identical to the at rest clock (they are both the same design). Speed can't affect the physics the clock uses to tick at 1 tick per second. For example a GPS atomic clock is set to tick at 10..22999999543 MHz before launching. When the GPS clock is orbiting (at a hight of 22000 km) the GPS atomic clock is still ticking at 10.22999999543 MHz

No it is not. It is 10.23, both measured HERE and measured THERE.

> On 28 may 2022 at 10:16:39 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> Find a location where particles spin at their fastest rate and you have found
> a stationary point in empty space.

Every spinning object obviously spins at one revolution per revolution, so we can't meaningfully compare its spin rate with itself, we must compare rates of spin, or, equivalently, clock rates, or mass-spring oscillations rates, etc., for entities with different trajectories to find which trajectory gives the fastest rate. But this requires us to be able to compare the rates of clocks with different trajectories, which leads to a problem:

Consider a region far from large gravitating bodies. To compare the rates of clocks for different trajectories, one method is to construct two rows of clocks, sliding past each other in opposite directions. The clocks in each row are mutually at rest and inertially synchronized with each other. Now, according to relativity, the elapsed time on each clock as it passes consecutive clocks of the other row is less than the difference of the readings of those clocks as they pass. Thus your proposed method of determining absolutely stationary points doesn't work, because each clock in each row runs slow in terms of the clocks in the other row.

Of course, it IS possible to find a "cosmologically stationary" trajectory at any location, but not by comparing the local rates of clocks. Rather, we can examine the frequency of the radiation from the big bang arriving from all spatial directions, and choose the trajectory that makes the frequency the same in all directions (isotropic).

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 7:50:43 AM UTC-7, Paparios wrote:
> Moving clocks tick at the same frequency of a stationary clock (ie 1 tick per second)

At best that's an empty tautology, since it is just asserting that a clock ticks once per tick, just as every object spins one revolution per revolution. This would be true in a Newtonian universe as well, so it doesn't tell us anything about the time dilation effects in special and general relativity.

> the frequency tick reading of the moving clock, when measured from the stationary
> clock, is lower.

As explained above, it doesn't make sense to talk about measuring the rate of one clock using a relatively moving clock, you must compare the rate of a clock with a system of clocks, and of course when this is done, we do indeed find that each of two relatively moving clocks runs slow in terms of inertial coordinates (system of inertially synchronized clocks) in which the other clock is at rest.

> that is a geometrical projection of the moving time coordinate onto the stationary
> time coordinate).

You're just referring to passive transformations, which don't tell us anything about the physics. The effects of relativity involve active transformations. It is very important to grasp this if you want to understand relativity.

> > According to Einstein, electrons gain mass when they are moved.
>
> Speed does not affect an object mass...

Well, the point about the slowing of proper time being related to relativistic mass (energy) increase is essentially correct, as you can see from considering (for example) the oscillation frequency of a mass-spring system in terms of different systems of coordinates.

> But E=mc2 is the expression of the energy of a mass AT REST (that is when v=0).

Well, yes, but if the mass is oscillating in a direction perpendicular to the direction of v, it's oscillating about rest in the direction of oscillation, and the applicable "rest mass" for computing the oscillation rate is the relativistic mass.

> That quote is talking about the ELAPSED TIME between events and that has
> nothing to do with the clock proper ticking.

Oh my goodness, that's not true at all. The elapsed proper time between events obviously has to do with the proper ticking (duh), and of course the relations between elapsed times are given by the integrated time dilation effect. If we square both sides of the time dilation equation dtau = sqrt[1-(dx/dt)^2]dt we get (dtau)^2 = (dt)^2 - (dx)^2, which gives the integrated proper time along any path.

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 11:12:57 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> El sábado, 28 de mayo de 2022 a las 11:36:43 UTC-4, escribió:
> > On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 9:50:43 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
>
> > > No... you wrote above "time slows down when a clock is moving fast". In fact, nothing physical can affect the ticking of the constant speed moving clock. The ticking rate THERE continues to be 1 tick/second. The measurement of the ticking THERE, when measured HERE, is what apears to be slow (that is a geometrical projection of the moving time coordinate onto the stationary time coordinate).
>
> > Okay, you definitely have problems with English. When a clock is caused to
> > MOVE FASTER, it is NOT a "constant speed moving clock." The faster it moves,
> > the slower it ticks. Yes, it still ticks 1 tick/second, but a SECOND IS LONGER.
> >
> It is you who can't read English. Einstein's 1905 paper relates to Special Relativity, where there are AT REST bodies and MOVING AT CONSTANT SPEED bodies (that is what the speed v is, ie the speed of the moving body relative to the at rest body).
>
> The moving clock has been built identical to the at rest clock (they are both the same design). Speed can't affect the physics the clock uses to tick at 1 tick per second. For example a GPS atomic clock is set to tick at 10..22999999543 MHz before launching. When the GPS clock is orbiting (at a hight of 22000 km) the GPS atomic clock is still ticking at 10.22999999543 MHz (see section 3.3.1.1 in https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200L.pdf). Signals emitted by the GPS satellite arrive to the ground ticking at 10.23 MHz (that is at the ground the ticking of the GPS clock is measured to be higher!!!!).
> > The faster you move, the longer your seconds become. It's called "Time Dilation."
> > You don't notice any difference, but if you can somehow compare the length of
> > your seconds to the length of second for something moving slower, there will
> > be a difference.
> Nonsense. The faster you move your personal seconds continue to tick at 1 second per second (an egg continues to cook in 5 minutes).
> Time dilation is the difference in the elapsed time as measured by TWO clocks.
> > > > And, according to Einstein E=mc2, which means there is a direct relationship
> > > > between mass and energy.
>
> > > But E=mc2 is the expression of the energy of a mass AT REST (that is when v=0). For a moving mass, the formula is E^2=p^2c^2 + m^2c^4 where p is the momentum (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy-momentum_relation).
>
> > So what? I was merely pointing out that there is a relationship between
> > mass and energy.
> No you were asserting (without any knowledge) that mass increases with higher speeds!!!!
> > You wrote "Speed does not affect an object mass but it affects its momentum (and energy)."
> >
> > If speed affects an objects energy, it also affects the object's mass. E=mc2
> Wrong. The invariant mass, rest mass, intrinsic mass, proper mass, or in the case of bound systems simply mass, is the portion of the total mass of an object or system of objects that is independent of the overall motion of the system. More precisely, it is a characteristic of the system's total energy and momentum that is the same in all frames of reference related by Lorentz transformations. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariant_mass for details.
> > > > > There is nothing in Einstein's 1905 paper asserting your nonsense!!!
>
> > > > A quote from page 11:
> > > >
> > > > ------------ quote -----------
> > > > If one of two synchronous
> > > > clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to
> > > > A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest
> > > > the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be 1/2 tv2/c2 second slow. Thence we
> > > > conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very
> > > > small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under
> > > > otherwise identical conditions.
> > > > --------- end quote -----
> > > >
> > > That quote is talking about the ELAPSED TIME between events and that has nothing to do with the clock proper ticking.
>
> > Don't you understand English at all????
> >
> > "a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly" is NOT about elapsed time!
> > It says the clock at the equator ticks slower than the clock at the pole.
> Nonsense. You should read it again. It clearly says (see above): "If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A". There are TWO clocks. One of them is moved at constant speed in a closed trajectory (a circle). Therefore, what they compared after the clock A returns to its initial point is the ELAPSED time of the moving clock compared with the elapsed time of the not moving clock!!!!

Okay. Your basic problem is that you cannot comprehend that "elapsed time" is
merely a comparison of accumulated times. And the way you "accumulate time"
is by counting seconds. You start a stop watch, and one minute later you stop
the stop watch. You have accumulated 60 seconds.

If you are moving, it takes longer to accumulate 60 seconds than if you are
stationary. The "elapsed time" is 60 seconds for both clocks. You seem
to understand that, but you cannot understand that WHILE the accumulations
were being performed, one clock was ticking slower than the other clock.

Einstein stated that in the quote I provided about clocks at the equator. CLOCKS
TICK SLOWER AT THE EQUATOR THAN AT ONE OF THE POLES. You ignore
that quote and only look at the part that involves ELAPSED time.

How can you not understand that, if the "elapsed times" are different between
a moving clock and a stationary clock, that is BECAUSE the moving clock ticked
slower that the stationary clock?

Is it because you FALSELY BELIEVE that, if Clock-A is moving and Clock-B
is stationary, you can mathematically reverse them and FALSELY ASSUME that
Clock-A is stationary and Clock-B is moving, thereby making only the ELAPSED
TIME important?

I consider that to be the DUMBEST belief in physics.

Einstein's Second Postulate says it is STUPID. "Light is always propagated in empty
space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the
emitting body. " That means that light is emitted from "Stationary Points in Space,"
and when you have "stationary points in space" that means that all other speeds
are relative to those "stationary points in space."

Ed

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 11:38:28 AM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> > On 28 may 2022 at 10:16:39 UTC-4, wrote:
> > Find a location where particles spin at their fastest rate and you have found
> > a stationary point in empty space.
> Every spinning object obviously spins at one revolution per revolution, so we can't meaningfully compare its spin rate with itself, we must compare rates of spin, or, equivalently, clock rates, or mass-spring oscillations rates, etc., for entities with different trajectories to find which trajectory gives the fastest rate. But this requires us to be able to compare the rates of clocks with different trajectories, which leads to a problem:
>
> Consider a region far from large gravitating bodies. To compare the rates of clocks for different trajectories, one method is to construct two rows of clocks, sliding past each other in opposite directions. The clocks in each row are mutually at rest and inertially synchronized with each other. Now, according to relativity, the elapsed time on each clock as it passes consecutive clocks of the other row is less than the difference of the readings of those clocks as they pass. Thus your proposed method of determining absolutely stationary points doesn't work, because each clock in each row runs slow in terms of the clocks in the other row.

No. According to Einstein's Second Postulate, the speed of light is
relative to stationary points in EMPTY SPACE. And all other speeds
are relative to the speed of light. https://vixra.org/pdf/2204.0016v2.pdf

You are arguing what I consider to be the DUMBEST belief in physics,
that if Body-A is moving relative to Body-B, you can also consider
Body-B to be moving relative to Body-A. NO, YOU CAN'T!!!!!
If Body-A is moving at 1% of the speed of light, and Body-B is
moving at 2% of the speed of light, YOU CANNOT simply ignore
that fact and mathematically reverse speeds.

Ed

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 10:35:40 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:

> You are arguing what I consider to be the DUMBEST belief in physics,
> that if Body-A is moving relative to Body-B, you can also consider
> Body-B to be moving relative to Body-A. NO, YOU CAN'T!!!!!
> If Body-A is moving at 1% of the speed of light, and Body-B is
> moving at 2% of the speed of light, YOU CANNOT simply ignore
> that fact and mathematically reverse speeds.

Ed, this statement alone displays your complete ignorance of relativity. This is basic stuff and you have badly misinterpreted what Einstein and others have said.

You have never actually read a textbook, this much is clear...

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 10:35:40 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> > Consider a region far from large gravitating bodies. To compare the rates of clocks for different trajectories, one method is to construct two rows of clocks, sliding past each other in opposite directions. The clocks in each row are mutually at rest and inertially synchronized with each other. Now, according to relativity, the elapsed time on each clock as it passes consecutive clocks of the other row is less than the difference of the readings of those clocks as they pass. Thus your proposed method of determining absolutely stationary points doesn't work, because each clock in each row runs slow in terms of the clocks in the other row.
>
> No. According to Einstein's Second Postulate, the speed of light is
> relative to stationary points in EMPTY SPACE.

Speeds can only be quantified in terms of a specified system of reference, and when Einstein said light moves in vacuum at the definite speed c he carefully specified that this statement applies to the speed of light expressed in terms of a system of reference in which the equations of mechanics (and electrodynamics) hold good. As he said, "in a vacuum light is propagated with the velocity c with respect to a definite inertial system K, and according to the principle of special relativity this applies to every inertial system".

> If Body-A is moving at 1% of the speed of light...

In terms of what system of reference? The speed of light is c in terms of every inertial reference system (see above), and every body is at rest in terms of one inertial system of reference, and it is moving at 99% of the speed of light in terms of another inertial system, and so on. You seem to think, contrary to the principle of relativity, that there is a unique local inertial system of reference. You are mistaken, as Newton and Galileo already knew. The principle of relativity is that the equations of physics take the same form in terms of every inertial reference system.

> and Body-B is moving at 2% of the speed of light...

In terms of what system of reference? Remember, the speed of light has the same value c in terms of every inertial reference system (see above). Speeds can only be quantified in terms of a specified system of reference.