On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 10:06:39 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 16:10:56 UTC+2, wrote:
>
> > Well, good luck. Scientists work with experiments and evidence.
> Oh, do they, or maybe they're only asserting they do?

They publish the results of their experiments, so that others can repeat
the experiments or find some reason to challenge the results.

No one has challenged time dilation, except to simply disagree with it
because they cannot BELIEVE it. They cannot DEMONSTRATE that it
is incorrect. Their BELIEFS mean nothing when EXPERIMENTS show
that their BELIEFS are WRONG.

> Can you point any experiment demonstrating the incorrectness
> of GPS clocks?

GPS clocks are "correct" because they tick at the same rate as clocks
on earth. They are only "incorrect" for their location. And there is
no one at that location who cares about that.

> 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.

That appears to be a crazy attack on Einstein because Einstein doesn't
agree with what YOU BELIEVE. Who cares what you believe if many
EXPERIMENTS show that Einstein is correct?

Ed

On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 10:30:33 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 17:18:25 UTC+2, 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.

Okay, I should have said that "a CORRECT cesium atomic clock will cycle
9,192,631,770 times per second whether there is an observer next to it or not."

A scientist can ADJUST such a clock to be INCORRECT. They can then put that
INCORRECT clock in orbit where it will be INCORRECT for its location, but it
will be a "CORRECT" match to an cesium atomic clock on the ground.

Ed

On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 17:41:53 UTC+2, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 10:06:39 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 16:10:56 UTC+2, wrote:
> >
> > > Well, good luck. Scientists work with experiments and evidence.
> > Oh, do they, or maybe they're only asserting they do?
> They publish the results of their experiments, so that others can repeat
> the experiments or find some reason to challenge the results.
>
> No one has challenged time dilation, except to simply disagree with it
> because they cannot BELIEVE it.

In the meantime in the real world, however, INCORRECT
GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
always did. And, somehow, you didn't point any experiment
demonstrating they're really INCORRECT. Is it possible
that your BELIEFS they are INCORRECT - are wrong?

> > Can you point any experiment demonstrating the incorrectness
> > of GPS clocks?
> GPS clocks are "correct" because they tick at the same rate as clocks
> on earth. They are only "incorrect" for their location. And there is
> no one at that location who cares about that.

Oh, what a pity:(. Looks as if there is nobody to support the
claim that they are "INCORRECT" somehow:(
So, can you point any experiment demonstrating this
incorrectness?

> Who cares what you believe if many
> EXPERIMENTS show that Einstein is correct?

And, precisely, those EXPERIMENTS showing that
GPS equipment is INCORRECT - are ...?

On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 17:51:52 UTC+2, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 10:30:33 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 17:18:25 UTC+2, 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.
> Okay, I should have said that "a CORRECT cesium atomic clock will cycle
> 9,192,631,770 times per second whether there is an observer next to it or not."

And this experiment showing that GPS is INCORRECT - is?
Sorry, Ed, there is no. You're asserting and waving your
arms - for a COMPLETE idiocy.

On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 10:55:28 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 17:41:53 UTC+2, wrote:
> > On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 10:06:39 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 16:10:56 UTC+2, wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well, good luck. Scientists work with experiments and evidence.
> > > Oh, do they, or maybe they're only asserting they do?
> > They publish the results of their experiments, so that others can repeat
> > the experiments or find some reason to challenge the results.
> >
> > No one has challenged time dilation, except to simply disagree with it
> > because they cannot BELIEVE it.
> In the meantime in the real world, however, INCORRECT
> GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
> always did. And, somehow, you didn't point any experiment
> demonstrating they're really INCORRECT. Is it possible
> that your BELIEFS they are INCORRECT - are wrong?
> > > Can you point any experiment demonstrating the incorrectness
> > > of GPS clocks?
> > GPS clocks are "correct" because they tick at the same rate as clocks
> > on earth. They are only "incorrect" for their location. And there is
> > no one at that location who cares about that.
> Oh, what a pity:(. Looks as if there is nobody to support the
> claim that they are "INCORRECT" somehow:(
> So, can you point any experiment demonstrating this
> incorrectness?
> > Who cares what you believe if many
> > EXPERIMENTS show that Einstein is correct?
> And, precisely, those EXPERIMENTS showing that
> GPS equipment is INCORRECT - are ...?

There are no experiments showing that "GPS equipment is
incorrect" because the word "incorrect" would mean that there
is something "wrong." There is nothing "wrong" with the GPS
system.

Clocks on GPS satellites are BUILT to tick at the same rate as
clocks on earth WHEN the clock is in orbit on the satellite.
When such a clock is on earth, it ticks slower than clocks that
are used on earth. When such a clock is in orbit, it ticks at the
same rate as clocks that are used on earth.

There is nothing "wrong" or "incorrect" if the clock is BUILT
to work that way.

Ed

On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 18:10:06 UTC+2, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 10:55:28 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 17:41:53 UTC+2, wrote:
> > > On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 10:06:39 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 16:10:56 UTC+2, wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Well, good luck. Scientists work with experiments and evidence.
> > > > Oh, do they, or maybe they're only asserting they do?
> > > They publish the results of their experiments, so that others can repeat
> > > the experiments or find some reason to challenge the results.
> > >
> > > No one has challenged time dilation, except to simply disagree with it
> > > because they cannot BELIEVE it.
> > In the meantime in the real world, however, INCORRECT
> > GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
> > always did. And, somehow, you didn't point any experiment
> > demonstrating they're really INCORRECT. Is it possible
> > that your BELIEFS they are INCORRECT - are wrong?
> > > > Can you point any experiment demonstrating the incorrectness
> > > > of GPS clocks?
> > > GPS clocks are "correct" because they tick at the same rate as clocks
> > > on earth. They are only "incorrect" for their location. And there is
> > > no one at that location who cares about that.
> > Oh, what a pity:(. Looks as if there is nobody to support the
> > claim that they are "INCORRECT" somehow:(
> > So, can you point any experiment demonstrating this
> > incorrectness?
> > > Who cares what you believe if many
> > > EXPERIMENTS show that Einstein is correct?
> > And, precisely, those EXPERIMENTS showing that
> > GPS equipment is INCORRECT - are ...?
> There are no experiments showing that "GPS equipment is
> incorrect" because the word "incorrect" would mean that there
> is something "wrong." There is nothing "wrong" with the GPS
> system.

Exactly. On the other hand, if these clocks indicating
your "time dilation" can't be used in a serious measurement
system (which GPS surely is) - doesn't it mean that
there is something wrong with them?

>
> Clocks on GPS satellites are BUILT to tick at the same rate as

What a surprise - clocks are BUILT. To tick at some rate
we want them to. Well, well, who would think?

> clocks on earth WHEN the clock is in orbit on the satellite.
> When such a clock is on earth, it ticks slower than clocks that
> are used on earth. When such a clock is in orbit, it ticks at the
> same rate as clocks that are used on earth.
>
> There is nothing "wrong" or "incorrect" if the clock is BUILT
> to work that way.

I absolutely agree. So, there is nothing incorrect about
GPS clocks, keeping indicating t'=t, just like all serious
clocks (BUILT ones) always did.

On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 8:51:52 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> > 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.
>
> It's constantly disputed on this forum.

Sure, that's why I specified "no competent person". But you have to be careful, because what I stated above is not what you typically state. I'm carefully specifying a system of reference and then describing events in terms of that system. This is how actual physicists talk. In contrast, most people in this forum (including you) make assertions without specifying your reference system, which is why you endlessly dispute each other, because you are referring to different reference systems. To illustrate, note the following:

> > 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.
>
> "Momentarily co-moving inertial reference system"? Who said anything about
> anything "co-moving" OR "momentarily co-moving"???

Anyone is free to make use of any reference system they like. The comment above is stating a fact about a specified reference system for a given object at a given moment, namely, the essentially unique reference system in terms of which the object is at rest (at least momentarily) and the laws of physics take their simple homogeneous and isotropic form. These are called standard inertial reference systems. These systems are particularly useful because they exploit the symmetry of nature expressed by the Lorentz invariance of all physical laws. These are the reference systems to which Einstein is always referring in his 1905 paper, i.e., systems in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good (in the low speed limit). They apply globally in the original special theory, but in the general theory it is shown that they apply only locally.

It is on this latter subject that you disagree with all the textbooks, not the former subject, so there's no value in you compiling lists of time dilation experiments (unless you just enjoy arguing about the semantics with nitwits on this forum).

On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 1:05:36 PM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 18:10:06 UTC+2, wrote:
> > On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 10:55:28 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 17:41:53 UTC+2, wrote:
> > > > On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 10:06:39 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 16:10:56 UTC+2, wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Well, good luck. Scientists work with experiments and evidence.
> > > > > Oh, do they, or maybe they're only asserting they do?
> > > > They publish the results of their experiments, so that others can repeat
> > > > the experiments or find some reason to challenge the results.
> > > >
> > > > No one has challenged time dilation, except to simply disagree with it
> > > > because they cannot BELIEVE it.
> > > In the meantime in the real world, however, INCORRECT
> > > GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
> > > always did. And, somehow, you didn't point any experiment
> > > demonstrating they're really INCORRECT. Is it possible
> > > that your BELIEFS they are INCORRECT - are wrong?
> > > > > Can you point any experiment demonstrating the incorrectness
> > > > > of GPS clocks?
> > > > GPS clocks are "correct" because they tick at the same rate as clocks
> > > > on earth. They are only "incorrect" for their location. And there is
> > > > no one at that location who cares about that.
> > > Oh, what a pity:(. Looks as if there is nobody to support the
> > > claim that they are "INCORRECT" somehow:(
> > > So, can you point any experiment demonstrating this
> > > incorrectness?
> > > > Who cares what you believe if many
> > > > EXPERIMENTS show that Einstein is correct?
> > > And, precisely, those EXPERIMENTS showing that
> > > GPS equipment is INCORRECT - are ...?
> > There are no experiments showing that "GPS equipment is
> > incorrect" because the word "incorrect" would mean that there
> > is something "wrong." There is nothing "wrong" with the GPS
> > system.
> Exactly. On the other hand, if these clocks indicating
> your "time dilation" can't be used in a serious measurement
> system (which GPS surely is) - doesn't it mean that
> there is something wrong with them?

You make no sense. The clocks on GPS satellites are BUILT to tick
at a different rate than normal clocks. GPS satellite clocks are built to
tick at the same rate that normal clocks on the ground tick when the
GPS satellite clock is orbiting at 14,000 kilometers per hour at an
altitude of 20,000 kilometers. When a GPS clock is on the ground, it
ticks SLOWER than normal clocks.

> >
> > Clocks on GPS satellites are BUILT to tick at the same rate as
> What a surprise - clocks are BUILT. To tick at some rate
> we want them to. Well, well, who would think?
> > clocks on earth WHEN the clock is in orbit on the satellite.
> > When such a clock is on earth, it ticks slower than clocks that
> > are used on earth. When such a clock is in orbit, it ticks at the
> > same rate as clocks that are used on earth.
> >
> > There is nothing "wrong" or "incorrect" if the clock is BUILT
> > to work that way.
> I absolutely agree. So, there is nothing incorrect about
> GPS clocks, keeping indicating t'=t, just like all serious
> clocks (BUILT ones) always did.

Nonsense. You totally misunderstand. Normal clocks are BUILT
to tick at a NORMAL rate. GPS clocks are BUILT to tick at a SLOWER
THAN NORMAL RATE. When the GPS clock is put in obit, THEN it
will tick at the "NORMAL RATE" because it will tick FASTER when it
is in orbit than it did when it was on the ground.

Ed

On 6/20/2022 11:18 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> 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.

Locally, and in a frame in which the clock is stationary.

> If there is an observer next to it, the time becomes the "proper
> time" for that observer.

Clocks always measure their own proper time.
>
> 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.

And the first clock will measure ONE second in the time it takes the
second clock to measure TWO seconds.

This is relative motion and time dilation according to Einstein.
>
> 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.

Now, that is the traveling twin gedanken, and that happens due to the
turnaround (acceleration). Time dilation as in the 1905 paper works
only when both clocks are inertial. Obviously a turnaround isn't inertial.

> 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.

More accurately, the clock with the shorter path through spacetime
experiences more time.

> The clock that moved will show less ELAPSED time has passed.

Because it took a longer path through spacetime. But this is the twins
gedanken, not simple relative motion.

> The clock that
> didn't move will still show the "proper time."

Its own proper time, not "the" proper time. The moving clock shows
*its* own 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

Not my mumbo jumbo, it is what's in every book on physical mechanics.
And it's physics, not "mumbo jumbo". As I said, if physics is mumbo
jumbo to you, you need to LEARN.

> just makes things confusing to YOU by adding in
> unnecessary complications.

I have added nothing. Nature already has those "complications". It's all
in books on relativity, and is college freshman mechanics. I'm not
confused, you are. You even admitted freshman mechanics is "mumbo jumbo"
to you.
>
> Ed

On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 1:51:59 PM UTC-5, Al Coe wrote:
> On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 8:51:52 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > It's constantly disputed on this forum.
> Sure, that's why I specified "no competent person". But you have to be careful, because what I stated above is not what you typically state. I'm carefully specifying a system of reference and then describing events in terms of that system. This is how actual physicists talk. In contrast, most people in this forum (including you) make assertions without specifying your reference system, which is why you endlessly dispute each other, because you are referring to different reference systems. To illustrate, note the following:
> > > 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.
> >
> > "Momentarily co-moving inertial reference system"? Who said anything about
> > anything "co-moving" OR "momentarily co-moving"???
> Anyone is free to make use of any reference system they like. The comment above is stating a fact about a specified reference system for a given object at a given moment, namely, the essentially unique reference system in terms of which the object is at rest (at least momentarily) and the laws of physics take their simple homogeneous and isotropic form. These are called standard inertial reference systems. These systems are particularly useful because they exploit the symmetry of nature expressed by the Lorentz invariance of all physical laws. These are the reference systems to which Einstein is always referring in his 1905 paper, i.e., systems in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good (in the low speed limit). They apply globally in the original special theory, but in the general theory it is shown that they apply only locally.
>
> It is on this latter subject that you disagree with all the textbooks, not the former subject, so there's no value in you compiling lists of time dilation experiments (unless you just enjoy arguing about the semantics with nitwits on this forum).

I sometimes enjoy arguing with people on this forum because it forces me to
explain the same things in dozens of different ways. When you explain Time
Dilation in a dozen different ways, you are viewing the same things from a dozen
different angles. The more angles you view something from, the better you can
understand everything you see.

I don't enjoy arguing with people who cannot write clearly. To me, most of your
latest comment above is gibberish. If someone uses a "reference system" such
as the earth, and explains how a rocket ship moves away from the earth on its
way to Alpha Centauri, I have no problem with that. But, if they use the rocket
ship as a frame of reference and start talking about how the earth is moving away
from the rocket ship, then I say they are just talking mathematical nonsense. It
has nothing to do with REALITY. And, like Einstein, I'm only interested in understanding
the REALITY of the universe around us, and how things work.

Ed

On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 21:22:52 UTC+2, det...@outlook.com wrote:

> > I absolutely agree. So, there is nothing incorrect about
> > GPS clocks, keeping indicating t'=t, just like all serious
> > clocks (BUILT ones) always did.
> Nonsense. You totally misunderstand. Normal clocks are BUILT
> to tick at a NORMAL rate.

And GPS clocks are - as well - BUILT to tick at the NORMAL rate.
All clocks are, and they always were. Being built and being
adjusted is completely NORMAL for a clock, and insisting
otherwise is very stupid. There is nothing extraordinary in
GPS clocks - that they're built and adjusted makes them
no way special - and, of course, they indicate t'=t, just like all
serious clocks always did.

On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 2:29:54 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> On 6/20/2022 11:18 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > 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.
> Locally, and in a frame in which the clock is stationary.

I'm talking about REALITY, not about mathematical models.

> > If there is an observer next to it, the time becomes the "proper
> > time" for that observer.
> Clocks always measure their own proper time.

If two clocks are side by side and one measures minutes to be longer
than the other, one or both of them are WRONG. If "clocks always
measure their own proper time," then "proper time" has no meaning
IN REALITY.

> >
> > 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.
> And the first clock will measure ONE second in the time it takes the
> second clock to measure TWO seconds.

Yes.

>
> This is relative motion and time dilation according to Einstein.

It is time dilation according to Einstein. "Relative motion" requires qualifications.

> >
> > 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.
> Now, that is the traveling twin gedanken, and that happens due to the
> turnaround (acceleration). Time dilation as in the 1905 paper works
> only when both clocks are inertial. Obviously a turnaround isn't inertial..

You are discussing mathematics. I am discussing REALITY. When discussing
MATHEMATICS, you cannot cope with changing speeds, acceleration and
turnaround complications. When discussing REALITY, changing speeds,
acceleration and turnarounds just mean that the amount of time dilation will
vary during all those factors. That makes it difficult to do the math, but it
is what happens in REALITY.

> > 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.
> More accurately, the clock with the shorter path through spacetime
> experiences more time.

More accurately, the clock that moved at the greater percentage of the speed
of light will show that less time has passed than the clock that moved
at the lower percentage of the speed of light.

> > The clock that moved will show less ELAPSED time has passed.
> Because it took a longer path through spacetime. But this is the twins
> gedanken, not simple relative motion.

That depends upon your definition of "simple relative motion."

> > The clock that
> > didn't move will still show the "proper time."
> Its own proper time, not "the" proper time. The moving clock shows
> *its* own 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
> Not my mumbo jumbo, it is what's in every book on physical mechanics.
> And it's physics, not "mumbo jumbo". As I said, if physics is mumbo
> jumbo to you, you need to LEARN.

I'm not interested in learning mumbo jumbo. I'm just interesting in
learning how the universe works IN REALITY, not in mathematical models.

You have one mathematical model to explain light when it seems to travel
as a wave, and you have a different mathematical model to explain light
when it seems to travel as a particle. THAT IS STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IN REALITY, light is a particle that has oscillating electric and magnetic
fields which give it some wave-like properties. The fact that mathematicians
cannot cope with that is why I look at REALITY, not just at the mathematics..

> > just makes things confusing to YOU by adding in
> > unnecessary complications.
> I have added nothing. Nature already has those "complications". It's all
> in books on relativity, and is college freshman mechanics. I'm not
> confused, you are. You even admitted freshman mechanics is "mumbo jumbo"
> to you.

Right. I'm trying to separate the REALITY of Relativity from the mumbo jumbo
of Quantum Mechanics in order to understand how the universe works IN REALITY.

Ed

On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 21:29:54 UTC+2, Volney wrote:

> Clocks always measure their own proper time.

Sorry, stupid Mike, having GPS we can be absolutely sure
that clocks generally ignore your "proper time" idiocy.

On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 22:05:48 UTC+2, det...@outlook.com wrote:

> If two clocks are side by side and one measures minutes to be longer
> than the other, one or both of them are WRONG.

If they are not side by side and one measures minutes to be longer
than the other - it's the same. Of course, brainwashed morons may insist
it's not wrong and it's proper. But the clocks BUILT by sane people are
avoiding that.

On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 3:03:29 PM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 21:22:52 UTC+2, wrote:
>
> > > I absolutely agree. So, there is nothing incorrect about
> > > GPS clocks, keeping indicating t'=t, just like all serious
> > > clocks (BUILT ones) always did.
> > Nonsense. You totally misunderstand. Normal clocks are BUILT
> > to tick at a NORMAL rate.
> And GPS clocks are - as well - BUILT to tick at the NORMAL rate.

NO! THEY ARE NOT!!! They are built to measure a SECOND as being
LONGER than how a SECOND is measured by all normal clocks.

When on the ground, the clocks do NOT measure a second to be
of the same duration. When the GPS clock is in orbit, the clocks
will measure a second to be of the SAME duration.

> All clocks are, and they always were. Being built and being
> adjusted is completely NORMAL for a clock, and insisting
> otherwise is very stupid. There is nothing extraordinary in
> GPS clocks - that they're built and adjusted makes them
> no way special - and, of course, they indicate t'=t, just like all
> serious clocks always did.

You can keep spouting that nonsense over and over, but it just
shows you do not understand how GPS clocks work to
compensate for Time Dilation.

Read the article at this link, it might help you understand:
https://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/pogge.1/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

Ed

On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 3:17:08 PM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 22:05:48 UTC+2, wrote:
>
> > If two clocks are side by side and one measures minutes to be longer
> > than the other, one or both of them are WRONG.
> If they are not side by side and one measures minutes to be longer
> than the other - it's the same.

NOT IF IT IS DONE ON PURPOSE IN ORDER TO SOLVE A PROBLEM!

Ed

On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 22:17:16 UTC+2, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 3:03:29 PM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 21:22:52 UTC+2, wrote:
> >
> > > > I absolutely agree. So, there is nothing incorrect about
> > > > GPS clocks, keeping indicating t'=t, just like all serious
> > > > clocks (BUILT ones) always did.
> > > Nonsense. You totally misunderstand. Normal clocks are BUILT
> > > to tick at a NORMAL rate.
> > And GPS clocks are - as well - BUILT to tick at the NORMAL rate.
> NO! THEY ARE NOT!!! They are built to measure a SECOND as being
> LONGER than how a SECOND is measured by all normal clocks.

Screaming won't help. Yes, they are. We always build clocks
to count a second during a second.

> > All clocks are, and they always were. Being built and being
> > adjusted is completely NORMAL for a clock, and insisting
> > otherwise is very stupid. There is nothing extraordinary in
> > GPS clocks - that they're built and adjusted makes them
> > no way special - and, of course, they indicate t'=t, just like all
> > serious clocks always did.
> You can keep spouting that nonsense over and over, but it just
> shows you do not understand how GPS clocks work to
> compensate for Time Dilation.

You can keep spouting this nonsense over and over, and
GPS clocks will in the meantime keep measuring t'=t,
just like all serious clocks always did.

On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 22:21:44 UTC+2, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 3:17:08 PM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 22:05:48 UTC+2, wrote:
> >
> > > If two clocks are side by side and one measures minutes to be longer
> > > than the other, one or both of them are WRONG.
> > If they are not side by side and one measures minutes to be longer
> > than the other - it's the same.
> NOT IF IT IS DONE ON PURPOSE IN ORDER TO SOLVE A PROBLEM!

Yes, also if it is done on purpose in order to solve a problem.
Actually, humans are always doing things on purpose to solve
problems.

On 6/20/2022 4:05 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 2:29:54 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>> On 6/20/2022 11:18 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> 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.
>> Locally, and in a frame in which the clock is stationary.
>
> I'm talking about REALITY, not about mathematical models.

This IS reality. As in physics (not math). A Cs clock sitting there,
measuring seconds. Someone local to it will confirm it is accurate. Fly
by it at 0.5c, or view it from a gravity well, and it will be seen
ticking at the wrong rate. So I added the requirement "locally, and in
a frame where the clock is stationary." Is that too hard to understand?
>
>>> If there is an observer next to it, the time becomes the "proper
>>> time" for that observer.

>> Clocks always measure their own proper time.
>
> If two clocks are side by side and one measures minutes to be longer
> than the other, one or both of them are WRONG.

In this type of physics gedanken discussion, clocks are ideal, they are
accurate by definition. If something ticks at the wrong rate, it is not
a clock, as far as physics is concerned, even if it looks like a clock.
So for your two devices which look like a clock, one or both are NOT
clocks (in physics).

> If "clocks always
> measure their own proper time," then "proper time" has no meaning
> IN REALITY.

Wrong, clocks, which are ideal in physics, measure their own proper
time. Things that look like clocks but aren't clocks, don't. Of course
in the real world, any physical clock has a margin of error in
measurement but it is assumed the error is smaller than other
measurement errors. If not, the measurement is invalid, and that "clock"
isn't useful as a clock.
>
>>>
>>> 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.
>> And the first clock will measure ONE second in the time it takes the
>> second clock to measure TWO seconds.
>
> Yes.
>
>>
>> This is relative motion and time dilation according to Einstein.
>
> It is time dilation according to Einstein. "Relative motion" requires qualifications.

No additional qualification needed. In the frame of the first, the
second is moving at +v. In the frame of the second, the first is moving
at -v. That is Galileo's relative motion. (Einstein not even needed for
that!)
>
>>>
>>> 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.
>> Now, that is the traveling twin gedanken, and that happens due to the
>> turnaround (acceleration). Time dilation as in the 1905 paper works
>> only when both clocks are inertial. Obviously a turnaround isn't inertial.
>
> You are discussing mathematics. I am discussing REALITY.

This IS reality (physics). I didn't even mention math. This is done all
the time in things like muon storage rings, or CERN, where things go
round and round back to the origin, even if there are many bending
magnets (curving is acceleration) so that it's almost a circle. One
"twin" is a muon in the storage ring, the other a stationary muon at the
origin.

> When discussing
> MATHEMATICS, you cannot cope with changing speeds, acceleration and
> turnaround complications.

I didn't even mention mathematics. Physics is what copes with changing
speed/turnarounds/acceleration.

> When discussing REALITY, changing speeds,
> acceleration and turnarounds just mean that the amount of time dilation will
> vary during all those factors. That makes it difficult to do the math, but it
> is what happens in REALITY.

REALITY can be predicted with the correct physics formulas. But solving
those formulas will mean doing the math. The whole purpose of physics is
to find and create accurate models of what nature is doing, to MATCH
reality, but those models often have loads of math. Since you appear to
be frightened of math, physics may not be for you.
>
>>> 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.
>> More accurately, the clock with the shorter path through spacetime
>> experiences more time.
>
> More accurately, the clock that moved at the greater percentage of the speed
> of light will show that less time has passed than the clock that moved
> at the lower percentage of the speed of light.

That makes no sense, since there are three (or more) velocities
involved, and any one of them can be chosen to be 0 if the correct frame
is chosen.
>
>>> The clock that moved will show less ELAPSED time has passed.
>> Because it took a longer path through spacetime. But this is the twins
>> gedanken, not simple relative motion.
>
> That depends upon your definition of "simple relative motion."

Not my definition, Einstein's. Or Galileo's. It means inertial motion
with no acceleration. It means the two can meet each other at most
once, since there is no return. Time comparison is done with a signal
of some sort. Consider a distant galaxy moving away and we're
monitoring a sodium line. The remote sodium is both a clock (sends
light with a constant known frequency at the source) and the signal source.
>
>>> The clock that
>>> didn't move will still show the "proper time."

>> Its own proper time, not "the" proper time. The moving clock shows
>> *its* own 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
>> Not my mumbo jumbo, it is what's in every book on physical mechanics.
>> And it's physics, not "mumbo jumbo". As I said, if physics is mumbo
>> jumbo to you, you need to LEARN.
>
> I'm not interested in learning mumbo jumbo.

On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 7:27:46 AM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:

> > SR makes predictions of the *values* of the instruments (observations).
> > Here, 18 & 30. And 18<30. That is all.
>
> You don't seem to have understood that if 18<30 does not mean that 27<3

Your logic is flawed; Knowing 18<30 does not imply that one knows if 27<3.

> Do you know what decomposition is?

Irrelevant to the discussion.
SR predicts 18 & 30.
And we know 18<30. That is all.
> 18=Tr1+Tr2=9+9
> 30= To1+To2=27+3

All irrelevant.

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

That Word salad won't change the fact that SR predicts 18 & 30, and that 18<30.

> Because speaking of time dilation or length contraction,

Word salad.

Le 21/06/2022 à 00:22, rotchm a écrit :

> Word salad.

LOL.

Et c'est à moi que l'on dit ça?

Tu n'a pas du beaucoup lire Hachel, toi.

Ou alors tu es franchement malade.

R.H.

On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 12:39:39 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> > Anyone is free to make use of any reference system they like. The comment above is stating a fact about a specified reference system for a given object at a given moment, namely, the essentially unique reference system in terms of which the object is at rest (at least momentarily) and the laws of physics take their simple homogeneous and isotropic form. These are called standard inertial reference systems. These systems are particularly useful because they exploit the symmetry of nature expressed by the Lorentz invariance of all physical laws. These are the reference systems to which Einstein is always referring in his 1905 paper, i.e., systems in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good (in the low speed limit). They apply globally in the original special theory, but in the general theory it is shown that they apply only locally.
>
> If someone uses a "reference system"...

Why do you refer to reference systems in quotes?

> such as the earth...

The earth isn't a reference system. The earth is momentarily at rest in an inertial reference system, but of course it is not at rest in terms of the inertial reference system in which the sun (for example) is at rest.

> and explains how a rocket ship moves away from the earth on its
> way to Alpha Centauri, I have no problem with that.

Great... with the above corrections and clarifications. Remember, an object is not a reference system. For example, the moon's distance from the earth doesn't change (much), and yet the moon is moving at high speed in terms of the inertial reference system in which the earth is at rest.

> But, if they use the rocket ship as a frame of reference and start talking about how
> the earth is moving away from the rocket ship, then I say they are just talking
> mathematical nonsense.

No, they are stating plain facts. For example, a rocket may be at rest in terms of the Sun's co-moving inertial reference system, and of course the earth is moving at high speed in terms of that system, so the earth is moving away from the rocket in terms of the Sun's reference system, which happens to also be the rocket's reference system. These are plain irrefutable facts.

It's important to keep in mind that a statement such as "they are just talking mathematical nonsense" is not a substantive comment, i.e., it has no cognitive content. The meaning and physical significance of inertial reference systems has been thoroughly understood for over 400 years, and indeed it forms the basis of the principle of relativity, which consists of the assertion that all the laws of physics take exactly the same simple form when expressed in terms of any standard inertial reference system. The entire Scientific Revolution, beginning in the 1600s and continuing until today, was based on that insight.

On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 22:37:32 UTC+2, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 3:22:58 PM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 22:17:16 UTC+2, wrote:
> > > On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 3:03:29 PM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 21:22:52 UTC+2, wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > I absolutely agree. So, there is nothing incorrect about
> > > > > > GPS clocks, keeping indicating t'=t, just like all serious
> > > > > > clocks (BUILT ones) always did.
> > > > > Nonsense. You totally misunderstand. Normal clocks are BUILT
> > > > > to tick at a NORMAL rate.
> > > > And GPS clocks are - as well - BUILT to tick at the NORMAL rate.
> > > NO! THEY ARE NOT!!! They are built to measure a SECOND as being
> > > LONGER than how a SECOND is measured by all normal clocks.
> > Screaming won't help. Yes, they are. We always build clocks
> > to count a second during a second.
> > > > All clocks are, and they always were. Being built and being
> > > > adjusted is completely NORMAL for a clock, and insisting
> > > > otherwise is very stupid. There is nothing extraordinary in
> > > > GPS clocks - that they're built and adjusted makes them
> > > > no way special - and, of course, they indicate t'=t, just like all
> > > > serious clocks always did.
> > > You can keep spouting that nonsense over and over, but it just
> > > shows you do not understand how GPS clocks work to
> > > compensate for Time Dilation.
> > You can keep spouting this nonsense over and over, and
> > GPS clocks will in the meantime keep measuring t'=t,
> > just like all serious clocks always did.
> Why do you keep ignoring the link to the article OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY
> has about "Real-World Relativity: The GPS Navigation System"?

Because
1)I generally don't care about mumbling lies of
a bunch of fanatics idiots.
2)there is nothing there denying that the clocks
of GPS are synchronized (with the precision of
an acceptable error), i.e. measuring t'=t, like
all serious clocks always should.

See, Ed - Newton's clocks were pendulums. They couldn't
indicate t'=t if they weren't intentionally built to do so,
could they?
Nothing has changed. The Shit was trying to force
a change by persuading their doggies (like you) that
building clocks this way is INCORRECT. And it
didn't succeed, even you didn't really believe such
a nonsense, not to mention sane people of GPS staff.

> I use it as a reference. You IGNORE it. Why?

See above.

On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 23:35:58 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 6/20/2022 4:05 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 2:29:54 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> >> On 6/20/2022 11:18 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> >>> 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.
> >> Locally, and in a frame in which the clock is stationary.
> >
> > I'm talking about REALITY, not about mathematical models.
> This IS reality. As in physics (not math). A Cs clock sitting there,
> measuring seconds.

No, stupid Mike, this is a dream. As in physics. The reality is
GPS, where the clocks are counting ~9,192,631,774.

On 2022-06-20 11:27:43 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

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

You don't seem to understand that if 18 < 30 that DOES mena that 18 < 30.

Mikko