Le 19/06/2022 à 22:12, Ed Lake a écrit :
> Someone would have to travel 259,628 kilometers per second before
> on second for him will be 2 seconds for someone on the ground.

This is true and false at the same time.

If the object passes transversely, yes.

But if the displacement is not transverse, it is false.

This is what Dr. Hachel calls the longitudinal relativistic Doppler
effect.

For him this Doppler effect is NOT only visual, but real.

The three expected effects on times, lengths (or distances), and
wavelengths are real.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?lVXK8H0fisvPycwIBspxYnJ1VTE@jntp/Data.Media:1>

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?lVXK8H0fisvPycwIBspxYnJ1VTE@jntp/Data.Media:2>

R.H.

--
"Mais ne nous trompons pas.
Il n'y a pas que de la violence avec des armes : il y a des situations de
violence."
Abbé Pierre.
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=lVXK8H0fisvPycwIBspxYnJ1VTE@jntp>

On Sunday, 19 June 2022 at 21:55:55 UTC+2, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 2:39:48 PM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, 19 June 2022 at 21:11:47 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> >
> > > Time dilation is the difference in the elapsed time between events, as measured by two clocks.
> > And, as anyone can check in GPS, it doesn't exist. Common sense
> > was warning your idiot guru.
> So, you are saying that all the experiments are wrong?
>
> GPS demonstrates that time dilation DOES exist. They have to
> BUILD a clock that ticks at an INCORRECT rate

It's nothing but your opinion that the rate is INCORRECT,
and obviously GPS staff is not sharing it. Neither I do.

That's The Shit: you believe it's telling you how nature works,
but instead it has persuaded you that the synchronization of
clocks is INCORRECT, becuse it doesn't match a vision of an
insane halfbrain. A real pity so many people are buying such
crap; but, well, it happens.

On Sunday, 19 June 2022 at 22:07:15 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:

> Words have meanings. The usual way of performing time dilation experiments, like Hafele-Keating, is:
>
> 1) Syncronize the clocks. To do that you have to have both clocks A and B, at the same location in space and time.
> 2) Move clock B to a certain place, at a certain speed and then return to meet again clock A.
> 3) At the location of clock A, compare the elapsed times of both clocks A and B. The clock B will show less elapsed time than clock A. That indicates clock B experienced time dilation while moving.

In the dreams of Giant Guru and his insane minions.
Not in real GPS.

On 2022-06-19 21:22:46 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> 3) At the location of clock A, compare the elapsed times of both clocks
> A and B.
> Absolutly. Exemple v=0.8c. A=30 seconds. B=18 sec.
>> The clock B will show less elapsed time than clock A.
>
> Here is the dramatic conceptual error.

So the point of disagreement is whether 18 is less than 30.

Mikko

Le 20/06/2022 à 10:36, Mikko a écrit :
> On 2022-06-19 21:22:46 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
>
>> 3) At the location of clock A, compare the elapsed times of both clocks
>> A and B.
>> Absolutly. Exemple v=0.8c. A=30 seconds. B=18 sec.
>>> The clock B will show less elapsed time than clock A.
>>
>> Here is the dramatic conceptual error.
>
> So the point of disagreement is whether 18 is less than 30.
>
> Mikko

Nooo!
The problem is not there.
The problem, I repeat it, it is that the men think that when one observes
a body moving at relativistic speed, his time passes less quickly than
ours.

This is both true if we consider chronotropy, but at the same time false
if we consider the totality of things.

When the body moves away, yes, its time seems to pass more slowly.

But it's the opposite if he approaches.

There is therefore time elasticity and not simply time dilation.

Obviously, at first, whoever reads me will think that I am wrong. Then in
a second step, seriously rereading what I write, he will say to himself:
"He is not mistaken, he is right, but it is nothing other than an
application of the Doppler effect" .

But then again, the reader will not "completely" understand what I am
trying to tell him.

R.H.

On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 10:49:25 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 20/06/2022 à 10:36, Mikko a écrit :
> > On 2022-06-19 21:22:46 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
> >
> >> 3) At the location of clock A, compare the elapsed times of both clocks
> >> A and B.
> >> Absolutly. Exemple v=0.8c. A=30 seconds. B=18 sec.
> >>> The clock B will show less elapsed time than clock A.
> >>
> >> Here is the dramatic conceptual error.
> >
> > So the point of disagreement is whether 18 is less than 30.
> >
> > Mikko
> Nooo!
> The problem is not there.
> The problem, I repeat it, it is that the men think that when one observes
> a body moving at relativistic speed, his time passes less quickly than
> ours.
>
> This is both true if we consider chronotropy, but at the same time false
> if we consider the totality of things.

In the meantime in the real world, however, evil and INCORRECT
GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
always did.

Le 20/06/2022 à 10:53, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> In the meantime in the real world, however, evil and INCORRECT
> GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
> always did.

No, that is not correct.

We must abandon the Newtonian idea of ​​absolute time, of absolute
duration.

The first idea to abandon (the most difficult) is that of an isochronous
marker. This idea, it seems that today's men are still unable to abandon
it.

They certainly abandoned the idea of ​​a relative time, that is to say
a relative chronotropy, based on the second degree sqrt(1-v²/c²) but
incredibly, they still did not UNDERSTAND and ADMITTED that the concept of
simultaneity is the complete reverse of what they say. This concept IS
absolute by change of frame of reference (provided we meet in the same
place) and IS relative by positional change in the SAME frame.

So when you write t'=t, it's wrong.

But if you write t'=t/sqrt(1-v²/c²) like them, it's also wrong.

We must write t'=t(1+cosµ.v/c)/sqrt(1-v²/c²).

That is to say that it is necessary to take into account the longitudinal
Doppler effect and not only the transverse Doppler effect.

I repeat again, this effect is not a VISUAL, or APPARENT effect. It is a
real effect.

Esse is perceived.

The real is what I see.

It is the false belief in a standard speed of light according to its
direction that poses the problem and leads and will lead to more and more
paradoxes until we finally understand things.

It is the transverse speed of light which is equal to c, and which is
constant whatever the observing reference frame.

But when we observe starlight, the flux is longitudinal. We see the
universe live-live.

That, the human being still does not seem ready to understand it.

So I continue to play Cassandre.

R.H.

On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 11:12:04 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 20/06/2022 à 10:53, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> > In the meantime in the real world, however, evil and INCORRECT
> > GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
> > always did.
> No, that is not correct.

Maybe not correct, but real and true.
> We must abandon the Newtonian idea of ​​absolute time, of absolute
> duration.

Who are your "we"? Maybe they must; GPS staff
somehow didn't.
And the idea wasn't Newtonian. There is a whole
world outside your precious physics.

On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 4:49:25 AM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 20/06/2022 à 10:36, Mikko a écrit :
> > On 2022-06-19 21:22:46 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
> >
> >> 3) At the location of clock A, compare the elapsed times of both clocks
> >> A and B.
> >> Absolutly. Exemple v=0.8c. A=30 seconds. B=18 sec.
> >>> The clock B will show less elapsed time than clock A.
> >>
> >> Here is the dramatic conceptual error.
> >
> > So the point of disagreement is whether 18 is less than 30.
> >
> > Mikko
> Nooo!
> The problem is not there.
> The problem, I repeat it, it is that the men think that when one observes
> a body moving at relativistic speed, his time passes less quickly than
> ours.

Irrelevant. Word salad. 18<30 and that is all. Simple.

> This is both true if we consider chronotropy, but at the same time false
> if we consider the totality of things.

Salad. 18<30. Simple.

> When the body moves away, yes, its time seems to pass more slowly.

How does this negate 18<30 ?
Again, word salad.

SR makes predictions of the *values* of the instruments (observations).
Here, 18 & 30. And 18<30. That is all.

No need to use the words 'time dilation', 'slow', etc. Keep it real & simple.

Le 20/06/2022 à 12:52, rotchm a écrit :
> On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 4:49:25 AM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 20/06/2022 à 10:36, Mikko a écrit :
>> > On 2022-06-19 21:22:46 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
>> >
>> >> 3) At the location of clock A, compare the elapsed times of both clocks
>> >> A and B.
>> >> Absolutly. Exemple v=0.8c. A=30 seconds. B=18 sec.
>> >>> The clock B will show less elapsed time than clock A.
>> >>
>> >> Here is the dramatic conceptual error.
>> >
>> > So the point of disagreement is whether 18 is less than 30.
>> >
>> > Mikko
>> Nooo!
>> The problem is not there.
>> The problem, I repeat it, it is that the men think that when one observes
>> a body moving at relativistic speed, his time passes less quickly than
>> ours.
>
> Irrelevant. Word salad. 18<30 and that is all. Simple.
>
>> This is both true if we consider chronotropy, but at the same time false
>> if we consider the totality of things.
>
> Salad. 18<30. Simple.
>
>> When the body moves away, yes, its time seems to pass more slowly.
>
> How does this negate 18<30 ?
> Again, word salad.
>
> SR makes predictions of the *values* of the instruments (observations).
> Here, 18 & 30. And 18<30. That is all.
>
> No need to use the words 'time dilation', 'slow', etc. Keep it real & simple.

You don't seem to have understood that if 18<30 does not mean that 27<3

But you can't understand yourself.

Do you know what decomposition is?

18=Tr1+Tr2=9+9

30= To1+To2=27+3

If you look closely (be careful, it will go very quickly):
27>9 is true.

But 3>9 is wrong.

This is why I prefer to speak of elasticity of lengths and times.

Because speaking of time dilation or length contraction, of the
sqrt(1-v²/c²) type, is only true for transverse displacements.

The rest is a human problem of arrogance and stupidity: "We don't want a
bad guy like Hachel to open his muzzle".

It is a universal behavior.

R.H.

On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 12:52:36 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:

> SR makes predictions of the *values* of the instruments (observations).

And, as anyone can check in GPS, the *values* of the
real instruments are different. You may insist that if these
instruments and the reality were correct the prophecies
of your guru would fulfill; you're not the first bunch of idiots
surprised by incorrect reality.

On 6/20/2022 1:57 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Sunday, 19 June 2022 at 21:55:55 UTC+2, det...@outlook.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 2:39:48 PM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 19 June 2022 at 21:11:47 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
>>>
>>>> Time dilation is the difference in the elapsed time between events, as measured by two clocks.
>>> And, as anyone can check in GPS, it doesn't exist. Common sense
>>> was warning your idiot guru.
>> So, you are saying that all the experiments are wrong?
>>
>> GPS demonstrates that time dilation DOES exist. They have to
>> BUILD a clock that ticks at an INCORRECT rate
>
> It's nothing but your opinion that the rate is INCORRECT,
> and obviously GPS staff is not sharing it. Neither I do.

So janitor, if the definition of a second is exactly 9,192,631,770
cycles of a certain Cs frequency, setting a GPS satellite clock to
9,192,631,774.1 cycles per tick is not an incorrect setting? Is it
because you believe 9,192,631,770 = 9,192,631,774.1 or something?

And obviously, the "GPS staff", by setting the tick rate to
9,192,631,774.1 is ignoring the GPS specifications to set the tick rate
to 9,192,631,774.1 instead of the correct rate of 9,192,631,770?
>
> That's The Shit: you believe it's telling you how nature works,
> but instead it has persuaded you that the synchronization of
> clocks is INCORRECT, becuse it doesn't match a vision of an
> insane halfbrain. A real pity so many people are buying such
> crap; but, well, it happens.
>
>
You are still very, very confused.

On 6/20/2022 5:23 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 11:12:04 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 20/06/2022 à 10:53, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>>> In the meantime in the real world, however, evil and INCORRECT
>>> GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
>>> always did.
>> No, that is not correct.
>
> Maybe not correct, but real and true.
>
>> We must abandon the Newtonian idea of ​​absolute time, of absolute
>> duration.
>
> Who are your "we"? Maybe they must; GPS staff
> somehow didn't.
> And the idea wasn't Newtonian. There is a whole
> world outside your precious physics.

Kꙮꙮkfight!!!

On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 4:22:48 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 19/06/2022 à 22:34, Ed Lake a écrit :
>
> >> >> 1) Syncronize the clocks. To do that you have to have both clocks A and B, at
> >>
> >> >> the same location in space and time.
> >> >> 2) Move clock B to a certain place, at a certain speed and then return to
> >> meet
> >> >> again clock A.
> >> >> 3) At the location of clock A, compare the elapsed times of both clocks A and
> >> B.
> >> >> The clock B will show less elapsed time than clock A. That indicates clock B
> >> >> experienced time dilation while moving.
> >> No.
> >>
> >>
> >> That's not exactly what it means.
> >> >
> >> > Okay. We are in FULL AGREEMENT on that.
> >> Not to me.
> >
> > If you disagree, why don't you state what you disagree with AND what
> > you believe instead?
> I explained a hundred times what was really going on.
>
> The problem is that we live in a crazy world.

That seems to mean that you do not understand it.

>
> And that in this world, everyone contaminates everyone (including the
> greatest physicists themselves) and that everyone believes they are
> authorized to play the puppet.

And only YOU know what is really going on?

>
> What saddens me here, on the other hand, is that the question is extremely
> well put, but that no one in the world, himis me, knows how to answer it
> without answering the wrong way.

"himis me"? Does that mean "except me"? Only YOU understand the world?

>
> I recall the question:
> 1) Syncronize the clocks. To do that you have to have both clocks A and
> B, at
> the same location in space and time.
> ABSOLUTLY.
> 2) Move clock B to a certain place, at a certain speed and then return to
> meet
> again clock A.
> ABSOLUTLY.
> 3) At the location of clock A, compare the elapsed times of both clocks A
> and B.
> Absolutly. Exemple v=0.8c. A=30 seconds. B=18 sec.
> > The clock B will show less elapsed time than clock A.
> Here is the dramatic conceptual error.
> > That indicates clock B experienced time dilation while moving.
> No. Time elasticity. Not dilation. It is not the same concept.

It appears "Time elasticity" is something you made up.

>
> When the watches move away, they reciprocally turn less quickly.
>
> BUT when they approach each other they really turn faster.
>
> That's what I've been trying to explain to physicists for decades, and
> that's what they seem unable to understand.

Well, good luck. Scientists work with experiments and evidence.
You seem to have no interest in such things.

>
> The t'=t/sqrt(1-v²/c²) equation is false.
>
> It is not the same thing to approach a watch and to move away from it
> (explanation by the relativistic Doppler effect).
>
> What I have an infinite difficulty in making physicists understand is
> that this longitudinal Doppler effect is NOT a visual effect, but a real
> effect.
>
> On the way to the watch:
> 1. For A: A spins for 27 seconds, while B spins for 9 seconds. This is
> REAL. There is NO apparent Doppler effect. The Doppler effect is real.
>
> 2. For B. B obviously spins by 9 seconds (otherwise it's nonsense), but
> she sees A actually spin by only 3 seconds.
> This effect is NOT a Doppler effect (I say it again, and say it again).
> It's real.
>
> On return.
> A spins for only 3 seconds and sees B arrive, which spins in 9 seconds.
>
> B spins in 9 seconds, and sees A who REALLY spins 27 seconds.
>
> Everything is played in direct vision.
>
> There is no speed of light to consider.
>
> The speed of approach of light is always infinite in the longitudinal
> direction.
>
> And that, I'm not sure we can hear quickly.
>
> The problem comes from there, and all the paradoxes and actual
> misunderstandings come from there.

It appears the problems come from your inability to correctly translate
English into French, or whatever language is your native language.

Ed

On 6/19/2022 3:12 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 1:04:46 PM UTC-5, Al Coe wrote:
>> On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 9:10:21 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>>> Over the years, I've accumulated a list of 12 major Time Dilation
>>> experiments which CONFIRM that Time Dilation is REAL, and that
>>> time does run at different rates for an object depending upon an
>>> object's speed and its proximity to a gravitational mass.
>> Every competent physicist knows that, in terms of the essentially unique stationary temporal foliation near a large spherical massive body (corresponding to the Schwarzschild time coordinate), the rate of proper time (dtau/dt) for an object along any given path is different depending on the speed and the elevation of the object. That's what it means to say that clocks run at different rates depending on speed and elevation. No competent person disputes this, so all your years of accumulating lists of experimental evidence of this has been pointless. Again: No. One. Disputes. This.
>
> It's constantly disputed on this forum. Yesterday, Volney posted this:
>
> "It may be your opinion the length of a second is variable, but actual
> scientists have defined a second to be 9,192,631,770 cycles of a certain
> frequency of a Cs atom. Variable length seconds make as little sense as
> variable length meters or variable mass kilograms. "

That is the PROPER time, the clock used must be comoving and local to
the observer. Different observers on different paths can have different
values for their own proper times because the proper time of one is NOT
the proper time of the other, because the second observer's clock was
NOT comoving and local to the first observer (because it was comoving
and local to the second observer!
>
>>
>> However, it is also true that, in terms of the momentarily co-moving inertial reference system of each object, we always have dtau/dt = 1, regardless of the object's state of motion or elevation. This is an expression of the principle of relativity (for the motion part) and the principle of equivalence (for the gravitational part). This is the empirically verified scientific fact that you (Ed) deny, but all the experiments on your list are perfectly consistent with this fact. So, again, your list is pointless. It merely confirms what every competent physicist has told you.
>
> I don't deny things that are meaningless to me. Your mumbo-jumbo comment
> is meaningless to me. "Momentarily co-moving inertial reference system"? Who
> said anything about anything "co-moving" OR "momentarily co-moving"???

"Co-moving" with X simply means stationary as far as X is concerned
(zero velocity in X's reference frame). A second observer will see them
moving together, side by side, which is where the word "co-moving" comes
from!

"Momentarily co-moving" implies acceleration or something involved. It
means that for an instant of time ("momentarily"), X sees the object as
momentarily stationary. Think of a ball thrown straight up. It is
moving away from the thrower at first (vertical distance z increasing),
but it is accelerating to earth due to gravity. At some instant, the
thrower sees the ball stop moving away from him (z=0) and then start
falling down back toward him (z decreasing). At that instant when the
ball stopped rising and started falling, it was momentarily co-moving
with the thrower (as someone in space would see them, rotating with
earth and moving with earth around the sun etc., moving together)

This is a standard description of mechanics. If these terms are
confusing to you (you call them mumbo-jumbo), you need to LEARN.

On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 4:48:51 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 2:44:06 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > Ed Lake wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 2:04:59 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > Ed Lake wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Over the years, I've accumulated a list of 12 major Time Dilation
> > > > > > experiments which CONFIRM that Time Dilation is REAL, and that
> > > > > > time does run at different rates for an object depending upon an
> > > > > > object's speed and its proximity to a gravitational mass.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here's the link: http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here's the list of experiments:
> > > > > > 1. Hafele-Keating
> > > > > > 2. NIST Optical Clocks and Relativity
> > > > > > 3. Geodesy and Metrology experiment (measuring altitude by time difference)
> > > > > > 4. Muon experiments
> > > > > > 5. University of Maryland
> > > > > > 6. Japanese Mitaka to Norikura
> > > > > > 7. Briatore and Leschiutta
> > > > > > 8. National Physical Laboratory - 1996
> > > > > > 9. Van Baak - 2005
> > > > > > 10. National Physical Laboratory - 2010
> > > > > > 11. Van Baak - 2016
> > > > > > 12. Tokyo Skytree - 2020
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is there anyone here who seriously claims that Time Dilation
> > > > > > has NOT been fully verified by these experiments?
> > > > > Of course time dilation is real, but what is never mentioned is
> > > > > that Time Dilatiion runs as different rates for different objects.
> > > > >
> > > > > (not that
> > > > > time runs at different rates for an different objects)
> > > > >
> > > > > It is that ..Time Dilatiion runs as different rates for different
> > > > > objects.
> > > > >
> > > > > Time Dilation is...inconsistent.
> > > > >
> > > > > To put it simply, sometime it dilatates, sometimes it doesn't.
> > > > >
> > > > > Does any of those on dat list mentioned WHEN time dilatated????
> > > > >
> > > > > In otherwords, do an experiment...all of them using the same object.
> > > > >
> > > > > Will they all get the same result?
> > > > >
> > > > > They will discover that
> > > > > sometime it dilatates, sometimes it doesn't.
> > > > >
> > > > > Time Dilation is...inconsistent.
> > > >
> > > > You make no sense. The "objects" being used in ALL the time dilation
> > > > experiments are TWO ATOMIC CLOCKS. Nothing else can MEASURE or
> > > > DISPLAY the very very TINY effect that velocity and altitude have on objects
> > > > at the speeds and altitudes we can achieve with today's technology.
> > > >
> > > > One of the astronaut twins was in space for over a year, while the other twin
> > > > was mostly on the ground. As a result, one twin aged 5 MICROSECONDS
> > > > more than his twin. Only an atomic clock can measure microseconds.
> > > >
> > > > Ed
> > > Okay, then everyone at that list can do the experiment all 'at the same
> > > time',
> > > with two clocks.
> > > Will they all get the same result?
> > > Do you have to wait a year to see a 5 micosseconds?
> > >
> > > Is that like around one second every other month?
> > >
> > > When does the one second happen? in two months?
> > >
> > >
> > > or at the end of the year?
> >
> > There's an on--line computer for calculating velocity time dilation at
> > this link: https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224059993
> >
> > Someone in orbit may travel 17,000 mph which is 7.6 kilometers per second.
> > That means that 1 second for the person in orbit will be 1.0000000003213
> > seconds for the person on the ground.
> >
> > Someone would have to travel 259,628 kilometers per second before
> > on second for him will be 2 seconds for someone on the ground.
> >
> > Ed
> All I want to know Mr. Ed is, if it takes a year (365 days) to record 5
> MICROSECONDS, then
> WHEN did the 1 MICROSECONDS happen? It has to a number between 1 and
> 364.

364 divided by 5 equals 72.8. So, every 72.8 days that Scott Kelly spent
in orbit meant that his brother Mark, on the ground, aged 1 MILLIsecond more
than Scott.

Here's an article about it: https://www.space.com/33411-astronaut-scott-kelly-relativity-twin-brother-ages.html

I wrote microseconds when I meant milliseconds. A microsecond is
one millionth of a second. A millisecond is one thousandth of a second.
So Mark aged a thousand times faster than what I wrote.

Ed

On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 5:14:54 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 19/06/2022 à 22:12, Ed Lake a écrit :
> > Someone would have to travel 259,628 kilometers per second before
> > on second for him will be 2 seconds for someone on the ground.
> This is true and false at the same time.
>
> If the object passes transversely, yes.
>
> But if the displacement is not transverse, it is false.

Time dilation has nothing to do with the direction of travel. It is just
about your speed relative to a different speed.

Someone traveling at 259,628 kilometers per second toward the
earth, away from the earth, or at right angles to the earth will age
at 1/2 the rate as someone on earth.

Ed

On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 12:57:34 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, 19 June 2022 at 21:55:55 UTC+2, wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 2:39:48 PM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Sunday, 19 June 2022 at 21:11:47 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> > >
> > > > Time dilation is the difference in the elapsed time between events, as measured by two clocks.
> > > And, as anyone can check in GPS, it doesn't exist. Common sense
> > > was warning your idiot guru.
> > So, you are saying that all the experiments are wrong?
> >
> > GPS demonstrates that time dilation DOES exist. They have to
> > BUILD a clock that ticks at an INCORRECT rate
> It's nothing but your opinion that the rate is INCORRECT,
> and obviously GPS staff is not sharing it. Neither I do.
>
> That's The Shit: you believe it's telling you how nature works,
> but instead it has persuaded you that the synchronization of
> clocks is INCORRECT, becuse it doesn't match a vision of an
> insane halfbrain. A real pity so many people are buying such
> crap; but, well, it happens.

Here's a link that explains how GPS satellites work:
https://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/pogge.1/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

"Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative motion."

"A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day.

"The combination of these two relativitic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)!"

"The engineers who designed the GPS system included these relativistic effects when they designed and deployed the system. For example, to counteract the General Relativistic effect once on orbit, the onboard clocks were designed to "tick" at a slower frequency than ground reference clocks, so that once they were in their proper orbit stations their clocks would appear to tick at about the correct rate as compared to the reference atomic clocks at the GPS ground stations."

Ed

Le 20/06/2022 à 16:31, Ed Lake a écrit :
> On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 5:14:54 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:

> Time dilation has nothing to do with the direction of travel.

No.

You, you say that "time dilation has nothing to do with the direction of
travel".

And (in reality) it's false.

> Ed

R.H.

On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 15:48:42 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 6/20/2022 1:57 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Sunday, 19 June 2022 at 21:55:55 UTC+2, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> >> On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 2:39:48 PM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, 19 June 2022 at 21:11:47 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Time dilation is the difference in the elapsed time between events, as measured by two clocks.
> >>> And, as anyone can check in GPS, it doesn't exist. Common sense
> >>> was warning your idiot guru.
> >> So, you are saying that all the experiments are wrong?
> >>
> >> GPS demonstrates that time dilation DOES exist. They have to
> >> BUILD a clock that ticks at an INCORRECT rate
> >
> > It's nothing but your opinion that the rate is INCORRECT,
> > and obviously GPS staff is not sharing it. Neither I do.
> So janitor, if the definition of a second is exactly 9,192,631,770
> cycles of a certain Cs frequency,

Then, stupid Mike, anyone can write another definition.
But there is no need for that, because the definition
making the rate 9,192,631,774.1 correct [in a GPS
satellite] has been written for centuries.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/second

On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 16:10:56 UTC+2, det...@outlook.com wrote:

> Well, good luck. Scientists work with experiments and evidence.

Oh, do they, or maybe they're only asserting they do?
Can you point any experiment demonstrating the incorrectness
of GPS clocks?
That's The Shit: you believe it's telling you how nature works,
but instead it has persuaded you that the synchronization of
clocks is INCORRECT, becuse it doesn't match a vision of an
insane halfbrain. A real pity so many people are buying such
crap; but, well, it happens.

On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 9:12:58 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> On 6/19/2022 3:12 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 1:04:46 PM UTC-5, Al Coe wrote:
> >> On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 9:10:21 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> >>> Over the years, I've accumulated a list of 12 major Time Dilation
> >>> experiments which CONFIRM that Time Dilation is REAL, and that
> >>> time does run at different rates for an object depending upon an
> >>> object's speed and its proximity to a gravitational mass.
> >> Every competent physicist knows that, in terms of the essentially unique stationary temporal foliation near a large spherical massive body (corresponding to the Schwarzschild time coordinate), the rate of proper time (dtau/dt) for an object along any given path is different depending on the speed and the elevation of the object. That's what it means to say that clocks run at different rates depending on speed and elevation. No competent person disputes this, so all your years of accumulating lists of experimental evidence of this has been pointless. Again: No. One. Disputes. This.
> >
> > It's constantly disputed on this forum. Yesterday, Volney posted this:
> >
> > "It may be your opinion the length of a second is variable, but actual
> > scientists have defined a second to be 9,192,631,770 cycles of a certain
> > frequency of a Cs atom. Variable length seconds make as little sense as
> > variable length meters or variable mass kilograms. "
>
> That is the PROPER time, the clock used must be comoving and local to
> the observer. Different observers on different paths can have different
> values for their own proper times because the proper time of one is NOT
> the proper time of the other, because the second observer's clock was
> NOT comoving and local to the first observer (because it was comoving
> and local to the second observer!

You are complicating something that is really very simple. A cesium atomic
clock will cycle 9,192,631,770 times per second whether there is an observer
next to it or not. If there is an observer next to it, the time becomes the "proper
time" for that observer.

A different cesium atom clock that is moving 259,628 kilometers per second
faster than the first clock will measure ONE second in the time it takes the first
clock to measure TWO seconds. It makes no difference if there is anyone
around to make it their "proper time" or not.

You only need an observer when you want to COMPARE tick rates. And that is
typically done by starting with the two clocks together in front of the observer,
then moving one of the clocks away at high speed and then bringing the two clocks
back together again. When the two clocks are together again, the clock that
was moved will show less time has passed than the clock that wasn't moved.
The clock that moved will show less ELAPSED time has passed. The clock that
didn't move will still show the "proper time."

> >
> >>
> >> However, it is also true that, in terms of the momentarily co-moving inertial reference system of each object, we always have dtau/dt = 1, regardless of the object's state of motion or elevation. This is an expression of the principle of relativity (for the motion part) and the principle of equivalence (for the gravitational part). This is the empirically verified scientific fact that you (Ed) deny, but all the experiments on your list are perfectly consistent with this fact. So, again, your list is pointless. It merely confirms what every competent physicist has told you.
> >
> > I don't deny things that are meaningless to me. Your mumbo-jumbo comment
> > is meaningless to me. "Momentarily co-moving inertial reference system"? Who
> > said anything about anything "co-moving" OR "momentarily co-moving"???
> "Co-moving" with X simply means stationary as far as X is concerned
> (zero velocity in X's reference frame). A second observer will see them
> moving together, side by side, which is where the word "co-moving" comes
> from!
>
> "Momentarily co-moving" implies acceleration or something involved. It
> means that for an instant of time ("momentarily"), X sees the object as
> momentarily stationary. Think of a ball thrown straight up. It is
> moving away from the thrower at first (vertical distance z increasing),
> but it is accelerating to earth due to gravity. At some instant, the
> thrower sees the ball stop moving away from him (z=0) and then start
> falling down back toward him (z decreasing). At that instant when the
> ball stopped rising and started falling, it was momentarily co-moving
> with the thrower (as someone in space would see them, rotating with
> earth and moving with earth around the sun etc., moving together)
>
> This is a standard description of mechanics. If these terms are
> confusing to you (you call them mumbo-jumbo), you need to LEARN.

Your mumbo jumbo just makes things confusing to YOU by adding in
unnecessary complications.

Ed

On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 16:40:07 UTC+2, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 12:57:34 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, 19 June 2022 at 21:55:55 UTC+2, wrote:
> > > On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 2:39:48 PM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, 19 June 2022 at 21:11:47 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Time dilation is the difference in the elapsed time between events, as measured by two clocks.
> > > > And, as anyone can check in GPS, it doesn't exist. Common sense
> > > > was warning your idiot guru.
> > > So, you are saying that all the experiments are wrong?
> > >
> > > GPS demonstrates that time dilation DOES exist. They have to
> > > BUILD a clock that ticks at an INCORRECT rate
> > It's nothing but your opinion that the rate is INCORRECT,
> > and obviously GPS staff is not sharing it. Neither I do.
> >
> > That's The Shit: you believe it's telling you how nature works,
> > but instead it has persuaded you that the synchronization of
> > clocks is INCORRECT, becuse it doesn't match a vision of an
> > insane halfbrain. A real pity so many people are buying such
> > crap; but, well, it happens.
> Here's a link that explains how GPS satellites work:
> https://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/pogge.1/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

And still it's nothing but your opinion that the rate is INCORRECT,
and obviously GPS staff is not sharing it. Neither I am.

>
> "Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative motion."
>
> "A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day.
>
> "The combination of these two relativitic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)!"

It should, I agree. To help itself to fulfill - The Shit has announced
it will be INCORRECT otherwise. But the dreadful "INCORRECT"
curse didn't work and what should happen hasn't happened.
It happens.

On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 9:59:00 AM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 20/06/2022 à 16:31, Ed Lake a écrit :
> > On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 5:14:54 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> > Time dilation has nothing to do with the direction of travel.
> No.

In English, "No" could mean you AGREE that "Time dilation has nothing to do
with the direction of travel."

>
> You, you say that "time dilation has nothing to do with the direction of
> travel".
>
> And (in reality) it's false.

Your English is very bad. What is false? And WHY do you believe it is "false"?

Ed

On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 17:18:25 UTC+2, det...@outlook.com wrote:

> You are complicating something that is really very simple. A cesium atomic
> clock will cycle 9,192,631,770 times per second whether there is an observer
> next to it or not.

Unfortunately, having GPS we can call it: it's ~9,192,631,774
for a GPS satellite, and your brilliant theory is just another
theory killed by incorrectness of the reality. What a pity.