On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 8:03:52 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> El sábado, 28 de mayo de 2022 a las 16:18:41 UTC-4, escribió:
> > On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 1:46:28 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
>
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > It is not that simple. The moving clock follows a path through spacetime and that path is shorter (the moving clock ticks at the same rate the stationary clock but the spacetime path of the moving clock is SHORTER). This is basic spacetime geometry.
>
> > If so, it is IDIOTICALLY WRONG. A moving clock follows a path that is LONGER
> > than the path of a stationary clock. The path of a truly stationary clock has a
> > length of ZERO.
> Well, that is no the case. Read for example the solution of the twin paradox, available with spacetime graphs at https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparadox.html
>
> In the (t,x) spacetime graph of the Earth twin (the left graph), the traveling twin follows a path trip of three lightyears undertaken at a speed of 3/5 c (giving a relativistic factor γ = 5/4) in both directions and with a "turnaround time" of negligible duration.
>
> However, when the twins reunite, the path the traveling twin took an elapsed time of 8 years, while the Earth twin took an elapsed time of 10 years.

So what? That web page says, "In this case the Earth-bound twin (EBT) finds that it takes
the traveling twin (TT) five years to reach the destination and five years to return for
a total of ten years. During this time the TT's clocks run slow by a factor of 1/γ = 4/5
so that the TT ages by eight years, four years on each leg of the journey, and is,
therefore, two years younger at the reunion."

The difference in "elapsed time" is due to the fact that time ran slower for the
traveling twin. "the TT's clocks run slow by a factor of 1/γ = 4/5 "

How can you not understand that?

Ed

On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 9:10:06 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> > > The speed of light has a value c in every such system BECAUSE the speed of
> > > light is measured PER SECOND, and the LENGTH OF A SECOND VARIES depending
> > > upon the speed at which you are moving.
> > You are being blatantly self-contradictory. You have conceded many times that relativistic time dilation is not only far too small to account (by itself) for the invariance of the speed of light, it is also in the wrong direction, since the same time dilation applies both to approaching toward and receding from the light (c+v and c-v).
>
> c+v and c-v have NOTHING to do with time dilation.

Look up above in your previous quote, where you claimed the speed of light has the value c in every inertial system because the length of a second varies. When you say “the length of a second varies depending on speed”, you are referring to time dilation, right? And when you say time dilation results in the speed of light being c in every inertial frame, you are trying to explain why the speed of light is c rather than c+v or c-v for a system moving toward or away from the light at speed v, right?

So, now that I’ve explained to you what you said, and assuming you meant what you said, look again at my reply, which points out that you yourself have already conceded that time dilation cannot account for why the speed of light has the value c in terms of every inertial reference system. There, I say again: You are being blatantly self-contradictory.

> The speed of light is NOT the same in "every system of inertial coordinates."

Again, you contradict yourself. Look up above at your previous message, where you conceded, regarding inertial reference systems, that “The speed of light has a value c in every such system…”.

> The speed of light IS A REFERENCE system.

No, it isn't. Speeds are defined in terms of reference systems, so obviously a speed is not a reference system, and a reference system is not a speed. Also, per above, the speed of light in vacuum is c in terms of every inertial reference frame, thereby conclusively debunking all your beliefs. Agreed?

> Since nothing can go faster than the speed of light, all other speeds
> are a PERCENTAGE of the speed of light.

That makes no sense at all. Remember, the reason nothing goes faster than light in terms of any inertial reference system is that light has the same value in terms of every inertial reference system, which you have agreed… and then denied… and then agreed…. and then denied… and so on. Also, each time you agree, you explain it by invoking time dilation, and then you deny time dilation has anything to do with it, and then you re-assert it, and then you deny it, and then you re-assert it… and so on.

> The speed of my refrigerator depends upon what you are comparing
> that speed against. If it is relative to the wall, its speed is zero. If it
> is relative to a refrigerator on the North Pole, my refrigerator is moving
> at about 700 mph as the earth spins on its axis.

But you contradict yourself yet again, because your whole claim is that the speeds of things do not depend on the frame of reference. Remember, you said it was the dumbest idea to think that object A is moving relative to object B, and then object B is moving relative to object A. But now you are agreeing that “the speed depends on what you are comparing that speed against”. And when I point this out, you will deny it, and then later you will re-assert it, and then deny it, and then re-assert it… and so on.

> If it is relative to a refrigerator on the North Pole, my refrigerator is moving
> at about 700 mph as the earth spins on its axis.

Be careful. You keep wanting to define velocities relative to objects, but your example shows the problem with that: How fast is your refrigerator approaching, or receding from, the refrigerator at the north pole? The answer is that the distance between those two refrigerators is not changing, so you need to ask yourself what you actually mean when you say that your refrigerator is moving at 700 mph relative to the one at the North Pole. What you actually mean is: Your refrigertator is moving at 700 mph in terms of an inertial reference system (system of coordinates) in which the refrigerator at the north pole is stationary. The crucial point is that there is more to a reference system than just a single object. That’s why scientists say that velocities are defined in terms of reference systems.

You’re agreed that you can define a reference system in which the North Pole is at rest, and you can also define a reference system in which your kitchen is at rest, and another in which the Sun is at rest, and another in which object A is at rest, and another in which object B is at rest, and so on. So all your earlier remarks, in which you vociferously denied all this, were blatantly wrong. Agreed?

> The speed of my refrigerator relative to the speed of light is zero, IF
> the light you are talking about is from the light bulb inside my
> refrigerator.

Again, you contradict yourself, because you’ve agreed that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the source. Of course, you’ve also denied this… then agreed with it… then denied it… and so on.

> At the same time, however, my refrigerator is moving at about 700 mph
> as the earth spins on its axis, and at 67,000 mph as the earth orbits the
> sun, and at 486,000 mph as the sun orbits the center of the Milky Way
> galaxy. So, my refrigerator is moving at over 500,000 mph relative to some
> stationary point in space. That is about 0.10006922855945% of the
> speed of light at that stationary point in space.

You’re confused. The motion around the center of the galaxy is less than a third of our speed in terms of the isotropic frame of the cosmic background radiation, which is over 0.1% of the speed of light. This finally brings you back to what I explained you were meaning originally, i.e., you are asserting that the local frames in terms of which the CMBR radiation is isotropic are “absolute rest”. But then you denied this, and now you are agreeing to it, and I have no doubt that in your next message you will deny it… and so on.

Again, the existence of the CMBR isotropic frame doesn't in any way negate the fact that we can (and do) define systems of reference in a variety of way, and the fact that local inertial reference frames are reciprocally related by Lorentz transformations, which entail length contraction, time dilation, and the relativity of simultaneity. Agreed?

> If Object-A is moving faster than Object-B…

In terms of what system of reference? The local isotropic CMBR frame? Or your kitchen’s frame? Or the inertial frame in which the North Pole is at rest? Or in which the Sun is at rest? Or in which A is at rest? Or in which B is at rest? (What is "object A" is the sun?).

> you cannot simply decide that that also means that Object-B is moving
> faster than Object-A…

In terms of what system of reference? Obviously in terms of your kitchen’s reference system your refrigerator has velocity 0 and the refrigerator at the north pole is moving rapidly, but in terms of the system of reference in which the north pole is stationary that refrigerator has velocity 0 and your refrigerator is moving rapidly. You already agreed to this… but of course you also denied it… and then agreed with it… and then denied it… You seem very conflicted about all this.

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 1:17:42 AM UTC-3, 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.

Sad to see how the topic of this thread has derailed, because relativists can't stand to THINK beyond the fucking
1905 paper.

Now, it turned into a discussion of the twins' paradox, speed of light and similar subjects again and again and again.

And this happens when people, indoctrinated to the core with SR, can't think beyond their noses.

Pathetic show of fossilized minds, stuck in the doctrines of a cult.

Nobody seems to be capable to discuss the concept of time in the quantum world or in the entire universe.

It's a pity, but a predictable behavior. There is a narrative, consolidated for decades, and there is not any intellectual capability
at this forum to discuss things that are detached from such narrative, which provides a comfort zone for mentally weakened snowflakes.

Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 1:17:42 AM UTC-3, 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.
>
> Sad to see how the topic of this thread has derailed, because relativists can't stand to THINK beyond the fucking
> 1905 paper.
>
> Now, it turned into a discussion of the twins' paradox, speed of light and similar subjects again and again and again.
>
> And this happens when people, indoctrinated to the core with SR, can't think beyond their noses.
>
> Pathetic show of fossilized minds, stuck in the doctrines of a cult.
>
> Nobody seems to be capable to discuss the concept of time in the quantum world or in the entire universe.
>
> It's a pity, but a predictable behavior. There is a narrative, consolidated for decades, and there is not any intellectual capability
> at this forum to discuss things that are detached from such narrative, which provides a comfort zone for mentally weakened snowflakes.

Now you sound like Einstein talking about...other people.

--
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:
>
> Ed Lake wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> How longer? 2 seconds longer??

1 and 3/4ths longer?

I get it. It's a number between one and two, right?

1.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999?
longer?

i still gots room for more 999999999999999999999...

--
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:
>
> Ed Lake wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> > > >
> >
> > > > 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.
>
> According to The Code: 'In the beggining, God created the heavens and the earth.'
>
> ...which means there is a direct relationship heavens (energy) and the earth (mass).
>
> The operative words are "and the", meaning jointly, together with, including, part of each other....(if you know English)

To put it simply, the universe (and everything in it was created at the same time as our Earth. Both are in the Now.

Now then, Now now.

Another thing...
if you ask Google what is the age of the earth today, you get the number 4.543 billion years.

But that number was derived in..1953.

1953???? You mean to tell me no progress has been made in Science since 1953????

Maybe it is now allowed for you to think pass 4.543 billion years.

You need permission. From who??? CRANKS?

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

On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 11:17:01 AM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 12:32:11 PM UTC-3, wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 4:32:41 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > It bothers me big time when people CAN'T QUOTE EXACTLY what the cretin published in 1905.
> > >
> > > This is an excerpt of the 1923 English translation of the fucking paper. It clearly states:
> > >
> > > 1) Postulate I: All laws of physics, electrodynamics and optics hold good (for SMALL values) in all the
> > > frames of reference (INERTIAL FRAMES).
> > Wow! It really takes an INSANE person to declare something is from Einstein's
> > 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" when there is nothing like it
> > in that paper. It's just CRAP that you made up!
> >
> > Here's a link to Einstein's paper: https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
> > >
> > > 2) Postulate II: Light VELOCITY (a 3D vector) is CONSTANT (definite value) while propagating in FREE SPACE,
> > > INDEPENDENTLY of the motion of THE EMITTING BODY!
> > More made up crap.
> > >
> > > Postulate II CLEARLY assert that c velocity in vacuum IS CONSTANT and independent of ANY REFERENCE FRAME!
> > No. Postulate 2 in English is "light is always propagated in empty space
> > with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the
> > emitting body."
> >
> > Velocity c is NOT a "constant" since it is a speed PER SECOND and
> > the length of a second will vary if the speed or gravity changes.
> >
> > And Einstein's Second Postulate says NOTHING about "any reference frame.."
> > It is only about the state of motion of THE EMITTING BODY.
> > >
> > > You all should stick to the original presentation that the cretin did..
> > >
> > > The value of c IS CONSTANT and INDEPENDENT of any frame of reference (moving or not). Is it clear enough?
> > It is clear you do not know what you are talking about.
> > >
> > > Here is the copy&paste excerpt of the English translation (1923). If you want, the ORIGINAL version in German is available online.
> > > Just search enough and you'll find it.
> > >
> > > ************************************************
> > > They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of
> > > electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.
> > >
> > > We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”)
> > > to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently
> > > irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a DEFINITE velocity c
> > > which is INDEPENDENT of the state of motion of the emitting body.
> > >
> > > These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of
> > > moving bodies based on Maxwell’s theory for stationary bodies.. The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will
> > > prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an “absolutely stationary space”
> > > provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic
> > > processes take place.
> > > ************************************************
> > > This is on PAGE ONE OF:
> > >
> > > ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
> > > By A. EINSTEIN
> > > June 30, 1905
> > That is a correct version. So why do you claim versions you made up
> > are the correct version?
> >
> > Ed
> I try to not take offense to your claim that I, on purpose, MODIFIED the 1923 English translation of the 1905 paper.
> And the above is because I consider myself a VERY HONEST PERSON!. And doing such stupidity is UNTHINKABLE for me.
> Being almost 68 years old, one of the few things of which I'm proud of is MY HONESTY, intellectual and in any other area of life.
>
> I think that you misunderstood the initial part of the post, where I inserted my OWN COMMENT within the quoted text. I did that
> for the sake of CLARITY, nothing else.
>
> As a proof, I copied and paste THE ENTIRE SECTION from the PDF files, at the end of my post, without a single modification.
>
> If you didn't like my clarifications, like inserting (a 3D vector) after Einstein's "light velocity" or CONSTANT before Einstein's
> "definite value", then IT IS YOUR PROBLEM, Ed (or whichever your name is)..
>
> When you were attacked by the pack of hyenas many months ago (Bodkin in particular), I wrote a post DEFENDING your persona
> against those vile attacks. I'm starting to regret my action by then.
>
> Don't ever try to comment SHIT about me again.
>
> For me, you can keep your understanding of relativity (WRONG ONE) and keep posting RIDICULOUS CLAIMS.
>
>
> Even when not a relativist, my understanding of it (in particular the 1905 paper) IS ABSOLUTE. I master the meaning
> of every single comment that THE CRETIN wrote, with help of many. I even compared 1:1 the German to English translation,
> and I parsed and correlated the fucking paper with the one of Lorentz, one year before. I wrote several posts, showing HOW
> AND FROM WHERE Einstein plagiarized Lorentz, in particular on the topics around the electron.
>
> I never found at any of your posts something posing intellectual depth.
>
> I'm done with you, and I have no use for you. Keep playing with your relativity.
>
> That's final.

Sorry. When I come on this forum, I just already know how certain people
think, like Paparios, tjrob137 and Odd Bodkin. Most others are people whose
past arguments I do not remember. So, when they have an argument that
makes no sense, I respond to all of them in basically the same way.

When you posted this AS Einstein's Second Postulate, it was clear that is
is NOT what Einstein wrote: "Postulate II: Light VELOCITY (a 3D vector) is
CONSTANT (definite value) while propagating in FREE SPACE,
INDEPENDENTLY of the motion of THE EMITTING BODY!"

But arguing about this has caused me to do some rethinking. That's
why I'm on this forum: to discuss Relativity with others who may disagree
with me, in hopes that my own thinking may be clarified in the process.

Ed

El domingo, 29 de mayo de 2022 a las 12:53:22 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 8:03:52 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:

> > > > It is not that simple. The moving clock follows a path through spacetime and that path is shorter (the moving clock ticks at the same rate the stationary clock but the spacetime path of the moving clock is SHORTER). This is basic spacetime geometry.
> >
> > > If so, it is IDIOTICALLY WRONG. A moving clock follows a path that is LONGER
> > > than the path of a stationary clock. The path of a truly stationary clock has a
> > > length of ZERO.
> > Well, that is no the case. Read for example the solution of the twin paradox, available with spacetime graphs at https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparadox.html
> >
> > In the (t,x) spacetime graph of the Earth twin (the left graph), the traveling twin follows a path trip of three lightyears undertaken at a speed of 3/5 c (giving a relativistic factor γ = 5/4) in both directions and with a "turnaround time" of negligible duration.
> >
> > However, when the twins reunite, the path the traveling twin took an elapsed time of 8 years, while the Earth twin took an elapsed time of 10 years.

> So what? That web page says, "In this case the Earth-bound twin (EBT) finds that it takes
> the traveling twin (TT) five years to reach the destination and five years to return for
> a total of ten years. During this time the TT's clocks run slow by a factor of 1/γ = 4/5
> so that the TT ages by eight years, four years on each leg of the journey, and is,
> therefore, two years younger at the reunion."
>
> The difference in "elapsed time" is due to the fact that time ran slower for the
> traveling twin. "the TT's clocks run slow by a factor of 1/γ = 4/5 "
>
> How can you not understand that?
>

I understand that completely, unlike you. If you look the graph again you will notice that it has a triangular form. The traveling twin follows two linear trajectories through the x axis (reaching x=3 light years and then back to Earth, x=0).

Therefore, the traveling twin follows through spacetime a path which appear to be larger than the path the twin at Earth follows (which is the t axis where x=0). However tha path through spacetime of the traveling twin takes 8 years, while the Earth twin takes 10 years to the point where they both meet again.

Notice also how periodically (once per year) the Earth twin sends messages to the traveling twin (for instance at the first aniversary Earth twin sends a message which is received by the traveling twin when he has traveled 2 years, follow the red lines). Notice how the rate of those messages becomes shorter when the traveling twin is coming back to Earth. The blue lines are the yearly messages the traveling twin sends back to Earth.

As the traveling twin speed is v=3/5 c, he reaches the turning point (at 3 light years) after 4 years of traveling.

All this exercise uses only Special Relativity and the Lorentz equations.

Ed Lake wrote:
>
> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 8:03:52 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > El sábado, 28 de mayo de 2022 a las 16:18:41 UTC-4, escribió:
> > > On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 1:46:28 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> >
> > > > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > > It is not that simple. The moving clock follows a path through spacetime and that path is shorter (the moving clock ticks at the same rate the stationary clock but the spacetime path of the moving clock is SHORTER). This is basic spacetime geometry.
> >
> > > If so, it is IDIOTICALLY WRONG. A moving clock follows a path that is LONGER
> > > than the path of a stationary clock. The path of a truly stationary clock has a
> > > length of ZERO.
> > Well, that is no the case. Read for example the solution of the twin paradox, available with spacetime graphs at https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparad
> >
> > In the (t,x) spacetime graph of the Earth twin (the left graph), the traveling twin follows a path trip of three lightyears undertaken at a speed of 3/5 c (giving a relativistic factor γ = 5/4) in both directions and with a "turnaround time" of negligible duration.
> >
> > However, when the twins reunite, the path the traveling twin took an elapsed time of 8 years, while the Earth twin took an elapsed time of 10 years.
>
> So what? That web page says, "In this case the Earth-bound twin (EBT) finds that it takes
> the traveling twin (TT) five years to reach the destination and five years to return for
> a total of ten years. During this time the TT's clocks run slow by a factor of 1/γ = 4/5
> so that the TT ages by eight years, four years on each leg of the journey, and is,
> therefore, two years younger at the reunion."
>
> The difference in "elapsed time" is due to the fact that time ran slower for the
> traveling twin. "the TT's clocks run slow by a factor of 1/γ = 4/5 "
>
> How can you not understand that?
>
> Ed

I understand it is only a ...web page.

I understand the web page owner said: "...the opinions expressed here are my own..."

and the webpage owner is also an ...Outlaw, meaning a criminal, blackhat, outcast, etc

https://polycentric.cpp.edu/images/ex-centric/daily_pics/picture_of_day_640x480_744.jpg

One's persons opinion????

FUCK HIM!

TAKE THAT GUITAR AND SHOVE IT UP HIS FUCKIN ASS!!!

Maybe Ed Lake you need to Learn English...

opinion: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

The Starmaker (the smartest guy in the room)

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

On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 12:20:58 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 9:10:06 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > The speed of light has a value c in every such system BECAUSE the speed of
> > > > light is measured PER SECOND, and the LENGTH OF A SECOND VARIES depending
> > > > upon the speed at which you are moving.
> > > You are being blatantly self-contradictory. You have conceded many times that relativistic time dilation is not only far too small to account (by itself) for the invariance of the speed of light, it is also in the wrong direction, since the same time dilation applies both to approaching toward and receding from the light (c+v and c-v).
> >
> > c+v and c-v have NOTHING to do with time dilation.
> Look up above in your previous quote, where you claimed the speed of light has the value c in every inertial system because the length of a second varies. When you say “the length of a second varies depending on speed”, you are referring to time dilation, right? And when you say time dilation results in the speed of light being c in every inertial frame, you are trying to explain why the speed of light is c rather than c+v or c-v for a system moving toward or away from the light at speed v, right?

No. When I discuss c+v and c-v it is nearly always a discussion of radar
guns. Radar guns emit photons at c and when those photons hit a
moving target, they hit at c+v or c-v, depending on which direction the
target is moving. It has nothing to do with time dilation. It has to do
with the frequency of the photons that are returned to the radar gun
from the target.

>
> So, now that I’ve explained to you what you said, and assuming you meant what you said, look again at my reply, which points out that you yourself have already conceded that time dilation cannot account for why the speed of light has the value c in terms of every inertial reference system. There, I say again: You are being blatantly self-contradictory.

I was talking about the speed of PASSING light. It relates to Einstein's
example, from one of his books, which described how light is measured
on a body moving away from the sun at a constant speed of 1,000 kps.

> > The speed of light is NOT the same in "every system of inertial coordinates."
> Again, you contradict yourself. Look up above at your previous message, where you conceded, regarding inertial reference systems, that “The speed of light has a value c in every such system…”.
> > The speed of light IS A REFERENCE system.
> No, it isn't. Speeds are defined in terms of reference systems, so obviously a speed is not a reference system, and a reference system is not a speed. Also, per above, the speed of light in vacuum is c in terms of every inertial reference frame, thereby conclusively debunking all your beliefs. Agreed?

Okay. I guess you cannot say that light is a "reference system" if there
is no known way to compare your speed to that "reference system."

I was just trying to debunk the idea that all motion is relative, and if
A is moving at 100 kps relative to B, then B is also moving at 100 kps
relative to A. That is nonsense. We know who is moving faster because
one of them had to ACCELERATE to get to the higher speed.

> > Since nothing can go faster than the speed of light, all other speeds
> > are a PERCENTAGE of the speed of light.
> That makes no sense at all. Remember, the reason nothing goes faster than light in terms of any inertial reference system is that light has the same value in terms of every inertial reference system, which you have agreed… and then denied… and then agreed…. and then denied… and so on. Also, each time you agree, you explain it by invoking time dilation, and then you deny time dilation has anything to do with it, and then you re-assert it, and then you deny it, and then you re-assert it… and so on.

Okay, there is no way to measure your speed relative to the speed of light,
so while you speed may be some percentage of the speed of light, there
is no way to calculate that percentage.

> > The speed of my refrigerator depends upon what you are comparing
> > that speed against. If it is relative to the wall, its speed is zero. If it
> > is relative to a refrigerator on the North Pole, my refrigerator is moving
> > at about 700 mph as the earth spins on its axis.
> But you contradict yourself yet again, because your whole claim is that the speeds of things do not depend on the frame of reference. Remember, you said it was the dumbest idea to think that object A is moving relative to object B, and then object B is moving relative to object A. But now you are agreeing that “the speed depends on what you are comparing that speed against”. And when I point this out, you will deny it, and then later you will re-assert it, and then deny it, and then re-assert it… and so on.

The speed of things does not depend upon the frame of reference because
the frame of reference does not represent REALITY. It is something picked
as a reference purely for doing mathematics.

> > If it is relative to a refrigerator on the North Pole, my refrigerator is moving
> > at about 700 mph as the earth spins on its axis.
> Be careful. You keep wanting to define velocities relative to objects, but your example shows the problem with that: How fast is your refrigerator approaching, or receding from, the refrigerator at the north pole? The answer is that the distance between those two refrigerators is not changing, so you need to ask yourself what you actually mean when you say that your refrigerator is moving at 700 mph relative to the one at the North Pole. What you actually mean is: Your refrigertator is moving at 700 mph in terms of an inertial reference system (system of coordinates) in which the refrigerator at the north pole is stationary. The crucial point is that there is more to a reference system than just a single object. That’s why scientists say that velocities are defined in terms of reference systems.

Okay.

>
> You’re agreed that you can define a reference system in which the North Pole is at rest, and you can also define a reference system in which your kitchen is at rest, and another in which the Sun is at rest, and another in which object A is at rest, and another in which object B is at rest, and so on. So all your earlier remarks, in which you vociferously denied all this, were blatantly wrong. Agreed?

I don't define "reference systems." Mathematicians do that. I was
trying to describe how the motion of all those systems affects time.

> > The speed of my refrigerator relative to the speed of light is zero, IF
> > the light you are talking about is from the light bulb inside my
> > refrigerator.
> Again, you contradict yourself, because you’ve agreed that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the source. Of course, you’ve also denied this… then agreed with it… then denied it… and so on.
> > At the same time, however, my refrigerator is moving at about 700 mph
> > as the earth spins on its axis, and at 67,000 mph as the earth orbits the
> > sun, and at 486,000 mph as the sun orbits the center of the Milky Way
> > galaxy. So, my refrigerator is moving at over 500,000 mph relative to some
> > stationary point in space. That is about 0.10006922855945% of the
> > speed of light at that stationary point in space.
> You’re confused. The motion around the center of the galaxy is less than a third of our speed in terms of the isotropic frame of the cosmic background radiation, which is over 0.1% of the speed of light. This finally brings you back to what I explained you were meaning originally, i.e., you are asserting that the local frames in terms of which the CMBR radiation is isotropic are “absolute rest”. But then you denied this, and now you are agreeing to it, and I have no doubt that in your next message you will deny it… and so on.
>
> Again, the existence of the CMBR isotropic frame doesn't in any way negate the fact that we can (and do) define systems of reference in a variety of way, and the fact that local inertial reference frames are reciprocally related by Lorentz transformations, which entail length contraction, time dilation, and the relativity of simultaneity. Agreed?

I wasn't relating anything to the CMBR. The CMBR cannot be stationary.
When I try to find a "stationary" point in our universe, I usually refer to
the point of the Big Bang. And then mathematicians argue that there
is no "point of the Big Bang," since they believe space exists only between
objects. There can be no space into which the universe is expanding.
>
> > If Object-A is moving faster than Object-B…
>
> In terms of what system of reference? The local isotropic CMBR frame? Or your kitchen’s frame? Or the inertial frame in which the North Pole is at rest? Or in which the Sun is at rest? Or in which A is at rest? Or in which B is at rest? (What is "object A" is the sun?).
> > you cannot simply decide that that also means that Object-B is moving
> > faster than Object-A…
>
> In terms of what system of reference? Obviously in terms of your kitchen’s reference system your refrigerator has velocity 0 and the refrigerator at the north pole is moving rapidly, but in terms of the system of reference in which the north pole is stationary that refrigerator has velocity 0 and your refrigerator is moving rapidly. You already agreed to this… but of course you also denied it… and then agreed with it… and then denied it… You seem very conflicted about all this.

Richard Hertz wrote:

> I consider myself a VERY HONEST PERSON!.

Someone once said...'...honesty is taken as an index of stupidity.'

So, in certain circles...you cannot be trusted.

You cannot be a cop,
because who can trust a cop who doesn't take money?

You cannot be a politician.

You cannot be a woman..

You cannot...

the list is too long!

There are three doors..
one door has a million dollars
behind the door...

two doors have no lock on it
only one door has a lock.

Which door would you open?

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

On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 1:42:22 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Ed Lake wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > How longer? 2 seconds longer??
> 1 and 3/4ths longer?

When I want to calculate time dilation I usually use the calculator at this
link: https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224059993

If you simply click on "Execute" and use the numbers that are already
in the boxes, the results show that 1 second for someone traveling
at 200,000 kps is 1.3423847008414 seconds for someone who is
stationary relative to that traveler. And the traveler is traveling at
66.71281903963% of the speed of light.

Ed

On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 12:51:05 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 1:42:22 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > Ed Lake wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > How longer? 2 seconds longer??
> > 1 and 3/4ths longer?
> When I want to calculate time dilation I usually use the calculator at this
> link: https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224059993
>
> If you simply click on "Execute" and use the numbers that are already
> in the boxes, the results show that 1 second for someone traveling
> at 200,000 kps is 1.3423847008414 seconds for someone who is
> stationary relative to that traveler. And the traveler is traveling at
> 66.71281903963% of the speed of light.
>
> Ed

Measurements are never accurate. It is the central QM principle
or the Uncertainty principle. We don't have exact light speed
and never will. It is a collective average measurement instead.
If you calculate with that light speed you get another average order.

Mitchell Raemsch

On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 2:10:25 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> El domingo, 29 de mayo de 2022 a las 12:53:22 UTC-4, escribió:
> > On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 8:03:52 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
>
> > > > > It is not that simple. The moving clock follows a path through spacetime and that path is shorter (the moving clock ticks at the same rate the stationary clock but the spacetime path of the moving clock is SHORTER). This is basic spacetime geometry.
> > >
> > > > If so, it is IDIOTICALLY WRONG. A moving clock follows a path that is LONGER
> > > > than the path of a stationary clock. The path of a truly stationary clock has a
> > > > length of ZERO.
> > > Well, that is no the case. Read for example the solution of the twin paradox, available with spacetime graphs at https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparadox.html
> > >
> > > In the (t,x) spacetime graph of the Earth twin (the left graph), the traveling twin follows a path trip of three lightyears undertaken at a speed of 3/5 c (giving a relativistic factor γ = 5/4) in both directions and with a "turnaround time" of negligible duration.
> > >
> > > However, when the twins reunite, the path the traveling twin took an elapsed time of 8 years, while the Earth twin took an elapsed time of 10 years.
>
> > So what? That web page says, "In this case the Earth-bound twin (EBT) finds that it takes
> > the traveling twin (TT) five years to reach the destination and five years to return for
> > a total of ten years. During this time the TT's clocks run slow by a factor of 1/γ = 4/5
> > so that the TT ages by eight years, four years on each leg of the journey, and is,
> > therefore, two years younger at the reunion."
> >
> > The difference in "elapsed time" is due to the fact that time ran slower for the
> > traveling twin. "the TT's clocks run slow by a factor of 1/γ = 4/5 "
> >
> > How can you not understand that?
> >
> I understand that completely, unlike you. If you look the graph again you will notice that it has a triangular form. The traveling twin follows two linear trajectories through the x axis (reaching x=3 light years and then back to Earth, x=0).
>
> Therefore, the traveling twin follows through spacetime a path which appear to be larger than the path the twin at Earth follows (which is the t axis where x=0). However tha path through spacetime of the traveling twin takes 8 years, while the Earth twin takes 10 years to the point where they both meet again.
>
> Notice also how periodically (once per year) the Earth twin sends messages to the traveling twin (for instance at the first aniversary Earth twin sends a message which is received by the traveling twin when he has traveled 2 years, follow the red lines). Notice how the rate of those messages becomes shorter when the traveling twin is coming back to Earth. The blue lines are the yearly messages the traveling twin sends back to Earth.

That has to do with the speed of light. It has nothing to do with time dilation.
If you are moving away from a light source, signals transmitted to you once
per year from the source reach you at less than once per year. If you are moving
toward the light source, signals transmitted once per year from the source will
reach you more frequently than once per year.

That has nothing to do with time dilation. It has to do with the distance
the signals have to travel to reach you.

Ed

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > I consider myself a VERY HONEST PERSON!.
>
> Someone once said...'...honesty is taken as an index of stupidity.'
>
> So, in certain circles...you cannot be trusted.
>
> You cannot be a cop,
> because who can trust a cop who doesn't take money?
>
> You cannot be a politician.
>
> You cannot be a woman..
>
> You cannot...
>
> the list is too long!
>
> There are three doors..
> one door has a million dollars
> behind the door...
>
> two doors have no lock on it
> only one door has a lock.
>
> Which door would you open?

Of course, the door with the lock on it has the million dollars behind
the door...

Still, which door would you open?

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

On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 3:05:28 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 12:51:05 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 1:42:22 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ed Lake wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > How longer? 2 seconds longer??
> > > 1 and 3/4ths longer?
> > When I want to calculate time dilation I usually use the calculator at this
> > link: https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224059993
> >
> > If you simply click on "Execute" and use the numbers that are already
> > in the boxes, the results show that 1 second for someone traveling
> > at 200,000 kps is 1.3423847008414 seconds for someone who is
> > stationary relative to that traveler. And the traveler is traveling at
> > 66.71281903963% of the speed of light.
> >
> > Ed
> Measurements are never accurate. It is the central QM principle
> or the Uncertainty principle. We don't have exact light speed
> and never will. It is a collective average measurement instead.
> If you calculate with that light speed you get another average order.

The measurements are accurate enough to use in experiments.
I have a web page of time dilation experiments, all of which use
atomic clocks in order to be as accurate as possible.

The link: http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html

When doing time dilation experiments, you do not need to measure
the speed of light. You just need TWO very accurate clocks. If you
are measuring VELOCITY time dilation, one clock is with the traveler
and the other is with the person who is not traveling. When measuring
GRAVITATIONAL time dilation, one clock is at some high altitude and
the other clock is at a lower altitude.

When measuring the speed of light, they use an atomic clock to time
how long it takes for light to travel from the emitter to a mirror and
then back the the receiver next to the emitter.

Ed

On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 12:42:33 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> I was talking about the speed of PASSING light. It relates to Einstein's
> example, from one of his books, which described how light is measured
> on a body moving away from the sun at a constant speed of 1,000 kps.

But in the passage you’re referring to, Einstein explicitly refers to c-v as what one might expect the speed of light to be relative to someone receding from the sun (and of course, by the same token, one might expect c+v if approaching), and then he explains that, actually, the same ray of light moves at speed c, both relative to the sun and relative to the frame of the receding object. In your attempts to explain this, you habitually attribute it to the different length of a second, which refers to time dilation. But then I explain that time dilation (by itself) cannot account for this. It requires the relativity of simultaneity (not to mention length contraction) as well.

> Okay. I guess you cannot say that light is a "reference system" if there
> is no known way to compare your speed to that "reference system."

Right, and the reason there is “no known way” is called the principle of relativity, according to which the speed of light (in vacuum) has the value c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates. In fact, all the laws of physics take the same form in terms of every such system, so there's no physical way, locally, of singling out one of them as “absolute rest”. Of course, if we like, we can choose the isotropic CMBR frame, on cosmological grounds, but that doesn’t negate the local principle of relativity and the equivalence of every local system of inertial coordinates for the formulation of physical laws, and it doesn’t negate the fact that local inertial coordinate systems are reciprocally related by Lorentz transformations, which entail length contraction, time dilation, and the relativity of simultaneity.

> I was just trying to debunk the idea that all motion is relative, and if
> A is moving at 100 kps relative to B, then B is also moving at 100 kps
> relative to A. That is nonsense. We know who is moving faster because
> one of them had to ACCELERATE to get to the higher speed.

No, what you're describing is just “dead reckoning”, using the history of acceleration to determine the current position and velocity of an object, but that is only relative to the position and velocity at the start of your dead reckoning. To claim that this gives absolute position and velocity, you need to track the history of each object all the way back to some initial state that you define as the state of zero position and zero velocity. But this just brings you back again to the isotropic CMBR frame, if you apply dead reckoning all the way back to the big bang. But, again, this does not negate any of the facts that I’ve explained to you, and it still leaves you with all your beliefs being conclusively debunked.

> Okay, there is no way to measure your speed relative to the speed of light,
> so while you speed may be some percentage of the speed of light, there
> is no way to calculate that percentage.

You’re still confusing the choice of units with the choice of reference frame. Velocities can only be quantified in terms of a specified system of coordinates… by definition. Now, once you have specified a system of coordinates, you can easily determine the velocity of any entity (including a pulse of light) in terms of those coordinates.

> The speed of things does not depend upon the frame of reference because
> the frame of reference does not represent REALITY. It is something picked
> as a reference purely for doing mathematics.

Your reasoning is faulty, because some quantities are inherently coordinate-dependent, and velocity is one of those quantities, just as are momentum and energy. It makes no sense to regard “speed” as some kind of absolute primitive quantity, independent of a system of reference.

> I don't define "reference systems."

Right, and that's your fundamental problem, because the quantities you are interested in discussing, such as positions and speeds and accelerations, etc., are all defined in terms of reference systems. Without defining what reference system you are referring to, your words are meaningless.

> I wasn't relating anything to the CMBR.

Well, the isotropic CMBR frame is the only context in which you could salvage any semblance of rationality in the things you are saying. If indeed you are not talking about the cosmological CMBR frame, then there is nothing rational at all about what you are saying.

> The CMBR cannot be stationary.

Again, it isn’t that the CMBR is stationary (that doesn’t even make sense), it is that, at any location in the universe, there is a unique trajectory through time for which the frequency of the impinging CMBR is maximally isotropic (the same in all directions). This yields what can be regarded as the cosmological “absolute rest” foliation. You see, if you applied your dead reckoning all the way back to the big bang, this is the absolute speeds you would get. But you reject this, so you are back to talking pure nonsense.

> I'm going to have to find a better way to describe things.

Well, that is true, but more importantly, you need to first understand the things you are trying to describe.

> I need to do some re-thinking.

Great, and I commend you for recognizing this.

El domingo, 29 de mayo de 2022 a las 16:09:50 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 2:10:25 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:

> > > How can you not understand that?
> > >
> > I understand that completely, unlike you. If you look the graph again you will notice that it has a triangular form. The traveling twin follows two linear trajectories through the x axis (reaching x=3 light years and then back to Earth, x=0).
> >
> > Therefore, the traveling twin follows through spacetime a path which appear to be larger than the path the twin at Earth follows (which is the t axis where x=0). However tha path through spacetime of the traveling twin takes 8 years, while the Earth twin takes 10 years to the point where they both meet again.
> >
> > Notice also how periodically (once per year) the Earth twin sends messages to the traveling twin (for instance at the first aniversary Earth twin sends a message which is received by the traveling twin when he has traveled 2 years, follow the red lines). Notice how the rate of those messages becomes shorter when the traveling twin is coming back to Earth. The blue lines are the yearly messages the traveling twin sends back to Earth.

> That has to do with the speed of light. It has nothing to do with time dilation.
> If you are moving away from a light source, signals transmitted to you once
> per year from the source reach you at less than once per year. If you are moving
> toward the light source, signals transmitted once per year from the source will
> reach you more frequently than once per year.
>

It sure does. In the graph, the time dilation relationship is provided by the grey lines of the graph.

> That has nothing to do with time dilation. It has to do with the distance
> the signals have to travel to reach you.

See above

On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 3:42:33 PM UTC-4, det...@outlook.com wrote:

> The speed of things does not depend upon the frame of reference

Yes it does. This is because speed is defined via a frame of reference.
Position, times, speeds, are all defined by using a specified reference system

> because the frame of reference does not represent REALITY.

Yes it does represent reality. In physics, a reference system is an actual physical system.
The definition of speed has an operational definition meaning that it uses physical devices.
Didn't you know this?

> I don't define "reference systems." Mathematicians do that.

And physicists also Define reference systems. The operationally defined them.

El domingo, 29 de mayo de 2022 a las 15:05:28 UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com escribió:
> On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 12:51:05 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 1:42:22 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ed Lake wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > How longer? 2 seconds longer??
> > > 1 and 3/4ths longer?
> > When I want to calculate time dilation I usually use the calculator at this
> > link: https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224059993
> >
> > If you simply click on "Execute" and use the numbers that are already
> > in the boxes, the results show that 1 second for someone traveling
> > at 200,000 kps is 1.3423847008414 seconds for someone who is
> > stationary relative to that traveler. And the traveler is traveling at
> > 66.71281903963% of the speed of light.
> >
> > Ed
> Measurements are never accurate. It is the central QM principle
> or the Uncertainty principle. We don't have exact light speed
> and never will. It is a collective average measurement instead.
> If you calculate with that light speed you get another average order.
>
> Mitchell Raemsch
We actually know that measurements are an inherently uncertain process long before Heisenberg and the advent of Quantum Mechanics, as every texbook on error analysis will tell you.

El domingo, 29 de mayo de 2022 a las 19:10:15 UTC-5, rotchm escribió:
> On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 3:42:33 PM UTC-4, det...@outlook.com wrote:
>
> > The speed of things does not depend upon the frame of reference
> Yes it does. This is because speed is defined via a frame of reference.
> Position, times, speeds, are all defined by using a specified reference system
> > because the frame of reference does not represent REALITY.
> Yes it does represent reality. In physics, a reference system is an actual physical system.
> The definition of speed has an operational definition meaning that it uses physical devices.
> Didn't you know this?
> > I don't define "reference systems." Mathematicians do that.
> And physicists also Define reference systems. The operationally defined them.
I simply don't know how is it possible that there are people so stupid they can't understand that. Velocity is dr/dt and it is clear that it involves measurements made in reference frames. It shows how stupidity is wispread.

On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 7:45:38 PM UTC-7, Aldo wrote:
> El domingo, 29 de mayo de 2022 a las 15:05:28 UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com escribió:
> > On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 12:51:05 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> > > On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 1:42:22 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Ed Lake wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > > > How longer? 2 seconds longer??
> > > > 1 and 3/4ths longer?
> > > When I want to calculate time dilation I usually use the calculator at this
> > > link: https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224059993
> > >
> > > If you simply click on "Execute" and use the numbers that are already
> > > in the boxes, the results show that 1 second for someone traveling
> > > at 200,000 kps is 1.3423847008414 seconds for someone who is
> > > stationary relative to that traveler. And the traveler is traveling at
> > > 66.71281903963% of the speed of light.
> > >
> > > Ed
> > Measurements are never accurate. It is the central QM principle
> > or the Uncertainty principle. We don't have exact light speed
> > and never will. It is a collective average measurement instead.
> > If you calculate with that light speed you get another average order.
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> We actually know that measurements are an inherently uncertain process long before Heisenberg and the advent of Quantum Mechanics, as every texbook on error analysis will tell you.

That is my point. PI cannot be measured beyond a few digits.
But why would science have to be so uncertain in principle?

Mitchell Raemsch

On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 02:10:15 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:

> Yes it does represent reality. In physics, a reference system is an actual physical system.

No it doesn't. In physics a reference system is some gedanking
of some insane maniac.

El domingo, 29 de mayo de 2022 a las 23:16:29 UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com escribió:
> On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 02:10:15 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
>
> > Yes it does represent reality. In physics, a reference system is an actual physical system.
> No it doesn't. In physics a reference system is some gedanking
> of some insane maniac.
The person who you are responding has extensively pointed out that reference frames are very concrete things, obvious existence in the real world, search by yourself its definition using your favourite search engine.

El domingo, 29 de mayo de 2022 a las 22:23:58 UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com escribió:
> On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 7:45:38 PM UTC-7, Aldo wrote:
> > El domingo, 29 de mayo de 2022 a las 15:05:28 UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com escribió:
> > > On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 12:51:05 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 1:42:22 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ed Lake wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How longer? 2 seconds longer??
> > > > > 1 and 3/4ths longer?
> > > > When I want to calculate time dilation I usually use the calculator at this
> > > > link: https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224059993
> > > >
> > > > If you simply click on "Execute" and use the numbers that are already
> > > > in the boxes, the results show that 1 second for someone traveling
> > > > at 200,000 kps is 1.3423847008414 seconds for someone who is
> > > > stationary relative to that traveler. And the traveler is traveling at
> > > > 66.71281903963% of the speed of light.
> > > >
> > > > Ed
> > > Measurements are never accurate. It is the central QM principle
> > > or the Uncertainty principle. We don't have exact light speed
> > > and never will. It is a collective average measurement instead.
> > > If you calculate with that light speed you get another average order.
> > >
> > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > We actually know that measurements are an inherently uncertain process long before Heisenberg and the advent of Quantum Mechanics, as every texbook on error analysis will tell you.
> That is my point. PI cannot be measured beyond a few digits.
> But why would science have to be so uncertain in principle?
>
> Mitchell Raemsch
The reason is simple, science is made by humans and humans are intrinsically imperfect.