Le 21/06/2022 à 09:45, Mikko a écrit :
> 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

You don't seem to understand my immense genius, the adoration given to me
by the rest of the human species, my great physical and intellectual
beauty.

In short, you are stupid.

There are idiots.

What is surprising is that the idiot never wants to admit that he is an
idiot, so he continues his bullshit.

Well, I'm still trying to explain.

Which of Peter or Paul moves faster between Paris and Marseille?

Peter takes five hours, Paul takes seven hours.

Peter moved the fastest.

I am able to understand it: intellectual life is beautiful.

Except that: do you really think I am busting my balls teaching such
bullshit?

You are sick.You don't seem to understand my immense genius, the adoration
given to me by the rest of the human species, my great physical and
intellectual beauty.

In short, you are stupid.

There are idiots.

What is surprising is that the idiot never wants to admit that he is an
idiot, so he continues his bullshit.

Well, I'm still trying to explain.

Which of Peter or Paul moves faster between Paris and Marseille?

Peter takes five hours, Paul takes seven hours.

Peter moved the fastest.

I am able to understand it: intellectual life is beautiful.

Except that: do you really think I am busting my balls teaching such
bullshit?

You are sick.

R.H.

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> ...
>
> What is surprising is that the idiot never wants to admit that he is an
> idiot, so he continues his bullshit.

This is true, and applies 200% to you Richard.

> [snip fallacious analogy]

Le 21/06/2022 à 12:27, Python a écrit :
> This is true,

Merci mon Jean-Pierre d'amour.

Maintenant que tu as compris que 30<18 et tu as compris que celui qui
revient et qui a 18 ans,
a vieilli moins vite que celui qui a 30 ans.

Et qu'au contraire celui qui a 30 ans, a vieilli plus vite que celui qui
a 18.

Je commençais à désespérer de vous voir vous bloquer devant une
formulation aussi triviale.

Tout n'est peut-être pas perdu.

Mais maintenant, la claque!

Tout le monde s'est mis à penser que le phénomène était constant, et
donc que le rapport était constamment de 30/18 sur tout le parcours.

Bref que constamment, l'un des deux jumeaux vieillissait plus vite que
l'autre sous ce rapport.

C'est faux. Il n'y a d'ailleurs JAMAIS de rapport (30/18).

Le rapport à v=0.8c (par exemple) n'est pas celui-là, mais 3 à
l'aller, et 0.3333 au retour.

Même si à la fin, on a bien 30 d'un côté, et 18 de l'autre.

30/18, c'est une MOYENNE, un total.

Pas ce qui s'est constamment passé en chemin.

Ton erreur est que tu te bases sur ce que j'appelle la chronotropie.

Ce n'est pas mal en soi, mais tu oublies l'anisochronie.

Bref, comme tout le monde, tu fais de la physique à vau-l'eau.

Et tu mélanges tout.

R.H.

R.H.

Le 21/06/2022 à 12:27, Python a écrit :
> This is true,

Merci mon Jean-Pierre d'amour.

Maintenant que tu as compris que 30<18 et tu as compris que celui qui
revient et qui a 18 ans,
a vieilli moins vite que celui qui a 30 ans.

Et qu'au contraire celui qui a 30 ans, a vieilli plus vite que celui qui
a 18.

Je commençais à désespérer de vous voir vous bloquer devant une
formulation aussi triviale.

Tout n'est peut-être pas perdu.

Mais maintenant, la claque!

Tout le monde s'est mis à penser que le phénomène était constant, et
donc que le rapport était constamment de 30/18 sur tout le parcours.

Bref que constamment, l'un des deux jumeaux vieillissait plus vite que
l'autre sous ce rapport.

C'est faux. Il n'y a d'ailleurs JAMAIS de rapport (30/18).

Le rapport à v=0.8c (par exemple) n'est pas celui-là, mais 3 à
l'aller, et 0.3333 au retour.

Même si à la fin, on a bien 30 d'un côté, et 18 de l'autre.

30/18, c'est une MOYENNE, un total.

Pas ce qui s'est constamment passé en chemin.

Ton erreur est que tu te bases sur ce que j'appelle la chronotropie.

Ce n'est pas mal en soi, mais tu oublies l'anisochronie.

Bref, comme tout le monde, tu fais de la physique à vau-l'eau.

Et tu mélanges tout.

R.H.

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> [snip bullshit in French]

Abuse reported for posting in French in an English-speaking newsgroup.

Le 21/06/2022 à 13:58, Python a écrit :
>
> Abuse reported for posting in French in an English-speaking newsgroup.

Méchant!

R.H.

On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 8:38:29 AM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 21/06/2022 à 13:58, Python a écrit :
> >
> > Abuse reported for posting in French in an English-speaking newsgroup.

> Méchant!

That is not a discussion in relativity.
And it is purposely in the wrong language.

Thus, spam reported.
I incite others to do the same.

Le 21/06/2022 à 14:52, rotchm a écrit :
> On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 8:38:29 AM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 21/06/2022 à 13:58, Python a écrit :
>> >
>> > Abuse reported for posting in French in an English-speaking newsgroup.
>
>> Méchant!
>
> That is not a discussion in relativity.
> And it is purposely in the wrong language.
>
> Thus, spam reported.
> I incite others to do the same.

Snifffff....

R.H.

On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 4:35:58 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:

(snip repetitive arguments)

> > 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> You may think it's stupid, but that was found through experiment.
> There are some properties of light which cannot be explained by the wave
> model, and other properties which cannot be explained by the photon
> model. Again, that was found by experiment. Like it or not, light has
> properties of both.

YES, THAT'S MY POINT! You can only visualize light as TWO DIFFERENT
MODELS. In reality, light is NOT two different models. IN REALITY, light
consists of photons that have oscillating electric and magnetic fields.
> >
> > IN REALITY, light is a particle that has oscillating electric and magnetic
> > fields which give it some wave-like properties.
> You mean oscillating magnetic and electric field can be modeled as
> particles sometimes.

No, I'm NOT TALKING ABOUT MATHEMATICAL MODELS. I'm talking about
photons IN REALITY. Reality is what is defined by EXPERIMENTS. Experiments
show that light consists of individual photons. THERE ARE NO WAVES. There
are just oscillating electric and magnetic fields in the photon. Scientists have
performed experiments to confirm this. Mathematician physicists CANNOT
accept that, since they cannot develop ONE mathematical model that can truly
explain how photons work. So, THEY DENY REALITY and endlessly argue that
"light sometimes acts like a particle and sometimes acts like a wave," and they
use separate mathematical models for each situation.

The problem is that when scientists discuss reality, the mathematician physicists
will always argue that "photons cannot oscillate" and they'll start babbling about
their two mathematical models, REFUSING to discuss REALITY.

>
> > The fact that mathematicians
>
> WHAT mathematicians?
> > cannot cope with that is why I look at REALITY, not just at the mathematics.
> Your opinion that light is oscillating particles is just your opinion,
> and just doesn't work for many physics situations.
> >
> >>> 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
> Hey, you are the one who says light is photons only, that IS quantum
> mechanics! Don't like QM, don't bring up photons. However for most
> mechanical relativity type discussions, QM doesn't really matter.
> > in order to understand how the universe works IN REALITY.
> Physics is all about creating models, models which represent reality as
> accurately as possible. If our models are correct, we can accurately
> predict what the universe works.

Yes. You just need to understand the LIMITATIONS of your mathematical
models. Those LIMITATIONS are best demonstrated by your INABILITY
to create a SINGLE mathematical model for light.

Ed

On 6/21/2022 6:18 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 21/06/2022 à 09:45, Mikko a écrit :
>> 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
>
> You don't seem to understand my immense genius, the adoration given to
> me by the rest of the human species, my great physical and intellectual
> beauty.
>
The laughter you hear is not adoration by the rest of humanity, it is
people laughing at you and your bizarre ideas.

Remember, the only purpose you cranks have here is to provide
entertainment for the rest of us.

I find fools who declare themselves to be geniuses to be particularly
amusing. The "geniuses" in these newsgroups are the stupidest "geniuses"
ever!

> Well, I'm still trying to explain.
>
> Which of Peter or Paul moves faster between Paris and Marseille?
>
> Peter takes five hours, Paul takes seven hours.
>
> Peter moved the fastest.

Not necessarily. What if Paul took a longer route at a higher speed?

On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 6:47:01 PM UTC-5, Al Coe wrote:
> On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 12:39:39 PM UTC-7, 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?

Because you create artificial "reference systems" PRIMARILY for
purposes of doing mathematics.

>
> > 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.

In other words, from the point of view of someone on Earth, the moon
is moving in an orbit around the Earth. The Earth appears stationary, but
IN REALITY the Earth is in an orbit around the sun. HOWEVER, if you want
to do mathematics, you must PRETEND that the earth is "at rest" in some
"inertial reference system."

> > 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 IS NOT A "FACT" that "the earth is moving away from the rocket."
It is only "a fact" that you can incorrectly view things that way if you
have some mathematical reason for doing so.

The problem is: Such a view has NOTHING TO DO WITH REALITY.

>
> 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.

It's also important to keep in mind what Einstein meant when he stated:
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain;
and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

Ed

On 6/20/2022 11:06 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> 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?

Peer review and attempts to reproduce the experiments would catch that.

Remember, part of the scientific method is experiments and evidence. If
they only assert they do, they aren't scientists, are they.

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

Of course! The prototype GPS satellite, NTS-2, launched on 23 June
1977. It was launched with a remote control switch, controlling the Cs
clock divisor. It was initially in "Newton" mode, where the clock
divisor was 9,192,631,770, just like every other Cs clock in the world,
since the second was defined as 9,192,631,770 cycles = 1 second. The
downlink frequency transmitted by the satellite was 10.23 MHz, and no
corrections were made to account for general relativity. Earth stations
measured the frequency being incorrect by +443.1 parts per 10^12, which
was out of specifications. After 20 days, they set the switch to
"Einstein" mode, meaning the time dilation corrections predicted by
general relativity are accounted for. This meant the Cs divisor was set
to 9,192,631,774.1, making the downlink transmitted frequency being
10.22999999543 MHz at the satellite. It was determined the frequency
now differed from prediction by -1.9 parts per 10^12. The switch was
never set back to "Newton", all later satellites did not have any
switch, and used a divisor of 9,192,631,774.1, as general relativity
predictions were confirmed.

Janitor, I know there is some sort of flaw in your brain where you think
the results are exactly backwards, so I fully expect another flawed
response to this, because you think t'=t, since you apparently think
1/9192631774.1=1/9192631770.

On Tuesday, 21 June 2022 at 16:43:38 UTC+2, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 12:42:29 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 22:37:32 UTC+2, 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.
> So, Ohio State University and all the others who explain how the
> GPS system works are just "a bunch of fanatics idiots"?

OSU obviously is. All the others not necessarily.

> Only YOU
> know the "truth"?

Of course not. Even your OSU is not likely going to deny
that GPS clocks are synchronized (i.e. measuring t'=t),
and anyone can check it him- or herself.

> > 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.
> Are you a robot? You always come back to the same silly argument.
> It's like you cannot think. All you can do is recite memorized slogans.
>
> There's no point in arguing with someone who thinks anyone
> who disagrees with him is a "fanatics idiot."

Nobody is forcing you to. The clocks of GPS will keep
measuring t'=t anyway.
At least you've changed your mind about their incorrectness.
Most of The Shit believers don't have enough consciousness
even for that.

Den 19.06.2022 18:10, skrev Ed Lake:
> 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?

https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Le 21/06/2022 à 16:22, Volney a écrit :

>> Which of Peter or Paul moves faster between Paris and Marseille?
>>
>> Peter takes five hours, Paul takes seven hours.
>>
>> Peter moved the fastest.
>
> Not necessarily. What if Paul took a longer route at a higher speed?

On voit les dégâts causés dans les forums anglo-saxons par des fous qui
reprochent qu'on n'y parle pas assez anglo-saxons.

Si c'est pour parler en anglais, je veux bien.

Mais là, je préfère parler la langue de mes ancêtres.

R.H.

On Tuesday, 21 June 2022 at 17:30:09 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 6/20/2022 11:06 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Peer review and attempts to reproduce the experiments would catch that.
>
> Remember, part of the scientific method is experiments and evidence.

Or, at least, some scientiosts (actually, only physicists)
are asserting it is a part of their method.
> If
> they only assert they do, they aren't scientists, are they.

Well, yes, they are, stupid Mike.

> > Can you point any experiment demonstrating the incorrectness
> > of GPS clocks?
>
> Of course! The prototype GPS satellite, NTS-2, launched on 23 June
> 1977. It was launched with a remote control switch, controlling the Cs
> clock divisor. It was initially in "Newton" mode, where the clock
> divisor was 9,192,631,770,

Stupid Mike, it's not any "Newton mode", it's worshipped by
your bunch of idiots ISO standard, announced in 1968 (afair).

> general relativity are accounted for. This meant the Cs divisor was set
> to 9,192,631,774.1

So, the experiment shows it's a correct value or shows it's
an incorrect value?

On Tuesday, 21 June 2022 at 18:05:20 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 19.06.2022 18:10, skrev Ed Lake:
> > 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?
>
> https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf

In the meantime in the real world - forbidden and announced by
your bunch of idiots as incorrect GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t,
just like all serious clocks always did.

On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 11:05:20 AM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 19.06.2022 18:10, skrev Ed Lake:
> > 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?
>
> https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf

Your paper is about a FICTITIOUS universe where only two objects
exist. The 12 experiments listed above took place in our REAL universe
where countless objects exist and the speed of light is the highest
speed that is possible, which means all other speeds can be viewed
as a percentage of the speed of light.

Ed

On 2022-06-21 17:02:19 +0000, Ed Lake said:

...
> and the speed of light is the highest
> speed that is possible, which means all other speeds can be viewed
> as a percentage of the speed of light.

The "which means" is not right. Even if something could move faster
than light its speed could be expressed as a percentage of the speed
of light: "The particle we found moved at 105% of c."

What makes it possible and sensible to express speeds as a percentage
of light speed is that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same in
every place, at all times, and for all observers.

Mikko

On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 10:26:47 AM UTC-7, Mikko wrote:
> On 2022-06-21 17:02:19 +0000, Ed Lake said:
>
> ...
> > and the speed of light is the highest
> > speed that is possible, which means all other speeds can be viewed
> > as a percentage of the speed of light.
> The "which means" is not right. Even if something could move faster
> than light its speed could be expressed as a percentage of the speed
> of light: "The particle we found moved at 105% of c."
>
> What makes it possible and sensible to express speeds as a percentage
> of light speed is that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same in
> every place, at all times, and for all observers.
>
> Mikko

FTL aether energy does not exist.

On Tuesday, 21 June 2022 at 19:02:23 UTC+2, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 11:05:20 AM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > Den 19.06.2022 18:10, skrev Ed Lake:
> > > 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?
> >
> > https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
> Your paper is about a FICTITIOUS universe where only two objects
> exist. The 12 experiments listed above took place in our REAL universe
> where countless objects exist and the speed of light is the highest
> speed that is possible

where forbidden by your insane religion as "incorrect" GPS
clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always
did.

On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 7:37:12 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> > > If someone uses a "reference system"...
> >
> > Why do you refer to reference systems in quotes?
>
> Because you create artificial "reference systems" PRIMARILY for
> purposes of doing mathematics.

Correction: Reference systems are used to describe phenomena in a physically meaningful way. Without defining what reference system you are using, you cannot give any meaningful descriptions of events. So, I ask again, why do you refer to reference systems in quotes?

> such as the earth...
Correction: The earth is not 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. 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.

> In other words, from the point of view of someone on Earth, the moon
> is moving in an orbit around the Earth. The Earth appears stationary, but
> IN REALITY the Earth is in an orbit around the sun. HOWEVER, if you want
> to do mathematics, you must PRETEND that the earth is "at rest" in some
> "inertial reference system."

Correction: There are no pretenses involved in the sciences of kinematics and dynamics. Things like positions and velocities and accelerations, etc., are all defined in terms of specified systems of reference. The descriptions of the position, velocity, and acceleration of an object obviously depend on what system of reference we are using. The insight of the principle of relativity is that there is a class of reference systems, call inertial reference systems, in which the laws of physics take exactly the same simple form, so we can apply the usual laws of physics in terms of any one of these systems of reference. That's why we don't need to try to figure out which one (if any) is "truly" at rest. They are all equally valid as far as the laws of physics are concerned.

> It IS NOT A "FACT" that "the earth is moving away from the rocket."

Right, that's a meaningless assertion, because it doesn't specify a system of reference. The following statements are both true: (1) in terms of the inertial reference system in which the earth is at rest, the rocket is moving, and (2) in terms of the inertial reference system in which the rocket is at rest, the earth is moving.

You see, you missed the point of the explanation, because in the example I gave the rocket is at rest in the reference system of the Sun, and the earth is moving in that reference system (which you do not deny), so you have admitted that indeed the earth is moving in terms of the reference system of the rocket, which is the same as the reference system of the sun. To deny that the earth is moving in the reference system of the rocket, you must deny that the earth is moving in the reference system of the sun... which you (I presume) do not deny. Understand?

> It is only "a fact" that you can incorrectly view things that way if you
> have some mathematical reason for doing so.

That sentence makes no sense. Again, we use systems of reference (no quotation marks) to describe things clearly and unambiguously.

It's important to keep in mind that any 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.

> It's also important to keep in mind...

By saying "also" you are agreeing with the above, and hence you are conceding that your statements have no cognitive content. That's the main thing for you to realize, so you can start trying to type things that actually have cognitive content, rather than just repeating slogans.

On June 20, det...@outlook.com wrote:
>>>> 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.
>
> Why do you keep ignoring the link to the article OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY
> has about "Real-World Relativity: The GPS Navigation System"?
>
> https://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/pogge.1/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
> I use it as a reference. You IGNORE it. Why? Because it does not agree
> with your SILLY BELIEFS?
Where does it say "a second on earth is longer than a second in space"?

> Other articles say the same thing,

Name one anywhere who supports your SILLY BELIEF that "a second on earth
is longer than a second in space."

--
Rich

On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 12:26:47 PM UTC-5, Mikko wrote:
> On 2022-06-21 17:02:19 +0000, Ed Lake said:
>
> ...
> > and the speed of light is the highest
> > speed that is possible, which means all other speeds can be viewed
> > as a percentage of the speed of light.
> The "which means" is not right. Even if something could move faster
> than light its speed could be expressed as a percentage of the speed
> of light: "The particle we found moved at 105% of c."

But nothing CAN move faster than the speed of light. So, you are
just being argumentative.

>
> What makes it possible and sensible to express speeds as a percentage
> of light speed is that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same in
> every place, at all times, and for all observers.

No, it's NOT the same for OBSERVERS. It is ONLY the same for EMITTERS.
An observer moving at v will encounter oncoming light as arriving at c+v.
That has been confirmed by MANY experiments. It is the BASIS for how
police radar guns work.

Here's a list of 8 of those experiments:

1. The Sagnac Effect
2. Pulsars
3. Mirrors on the Moon
4. GPS
5. Eclipses of Io
6. Radar Guns
7. The Michelson-Gale Experiment
8. The Kennedy-Thorndike Experiment

I have a web page where you can learn more about those experiments.
It's at this link: http://www.ed-lake.com/Variable-Speed-of-Light-Experiments.html

Ed

On 6/20/2022 11:01 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> 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, [setting a GPS satellite clock to 9,192,631,774.1 cycles per tick is not an incorrect setting?]
>
> Then, stupid Mike, anyone can write another definition.

But nobody will use that. Unless "anyone" is ISO, the organization
which standardizes such things, so a second in a lab in Japan is the
same as the second in the US. Because Cs clocks are readily available.

> 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.

There were GPS satellites centuries ago, janitor? Who wrote about GPS
satellites centuries ago?

> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/second

Nothing about centuries-old GPS satellites there. Do you think you can
waste my time chasing nonsense links?

Of course, centuries ago, if someone had a Cs clock set to 1 second per
9,192,631,774.1 Cs cycles, it would be better than any other clock they
had at the time, losing just 38 microseconds/day, but we both know
that's just bad science fiction.

Meanwhile, ISO decided the second was 9,192,631,770 Cs cycles, since a
Cs clock is much better than the previous standard of a wobbly rock, and
9,192,631,770 cycles matched the "old" second the closest, so older work
won't be inaccurate by more than the wobbliness of that rock and can
still be used.

Meanwhile, scientists figured out that to get a GPS satellite to appear
(on Earth) as if its onboard clock was ticking at 9,192,631,770
cycles/second, it had to be set to 9,192,631,774.1 cycles/tick. Which
made it transmit at 10.22999999543 MHz, but received (on earth) at 10.23
MHz.

This was clearly demonstrated way back in 1977. A satellite was launched
with a switch set to "Newton", which meant all Cs clocks everywhere,
even the one on board, tick at 9,192,631,770 cycles per second. It
didn't work. When set to "Einstein", so that it ticked at
9,192,631,774.1 cycles per tick, it worked correctly and appeared on
earth as if it ticked at 9,192,631,770 cycles/second. And everyone was
happy. Except some janitor in Poland, who grumbles about it every time
he has to scrub a shit stain in a toilet