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?

El domingo, 19 de junio de 2022 a las 12:10:21 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> 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?

What you have not realized, for years now, is that "time dilation" is a comparison between two clocks A and B. For instance, in the Tokio Skytree experiment (testing the gravitational redshift) the comparison was between a clock at the top of the 450 m tower and a clock located at the base of the tower. Hafele Keating compared the elapsed time of flying atomic clocks with the elapsed time of the ground not moving atomic clock.

Therefore, your assertion "time does run at different rates for an object depending upon an object's speed and its proximity to a gravitational mass" is at the very least incomplete.

On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 9:10:21 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com 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.

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.

On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 9:10:21 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> Over the years, I've accumulated a list of 12 major Time Dilation
> experiments which CONFIRM that Time Dilation is REAL, and that
> time does run at different rates for an object depending upon an
> object's speed and its proximity to a gravitational mass.
>
> Here's the link: http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html
>
> Here's the list of experiments:
> 1. Hafele-Keating
> 2. NIST Optical Clocks and Relativity
> 3. Geodesy and Metrology experiment (measuring altitude by time difference)
> 4. Muon experiments
> 5. University of Maryland
> 6. Japanese Mitaka to Norikura
> 7. Briatore and Leschiutta
> 8. National Physical Laboratory - 1996
> 9. Van Baak - 2005
> 10. National Physical Laboratory - 2010
> 11. Van Baak - 2016
> 12. Tokyo Skytree - 2020
>
> Is there anyone here who seriously claims that Time Dilation
> has NOT been fully verified by these experiments?

Rate differences are too small to measure...
Our gravity is low and so is our motion.
Wait for space travel to measure slow rate.

Mitchell Raemsch

On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 12:31:27 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> El domingo, 19 de junio de 2022 a las 12:10:21 UTC-4, escribió:
> > 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?
> What you have not realized, for years now, is that "time dilation" is a comparison between two clocks A and B. For instance, in the Tokio Skytree experiment (testing the gravitational redshift) the comparison was between a clock at the top of the 450 m tower and a clock located at the base of the tower. Hafele Keating compared the elapsed time of flying atomic clocks with the elapsed time of the ground not moving atomic clock.
>
> Therefore, your assertion "time does run at different rates for an object depending upon an object's speed and its proximity to a gravitational mass" is at the very least incomplete.

A much longer "assertion" would more likely just confuse the issue.
If you believe the "assertion" is "incomplete," why don't you give us
what you BELIEVE is a "complete" statement?

Ed

Ed Lake wrote:
>
> Over the years, I've accumulated a list of 12 major Time Dilation
> experiments which CONFIRM that Time Dilation is REAL, and that
> time does run at different rates for an object depending upon an
> object's speed and its proximity to a gravitational mass.
>
> Here's the link: http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html
>
> Here's the list of experiments:
> 1. Hafele-Keating
> 2. NIST Optical Clocks and Relativity
> 3. Geodesy and Metrology experiment (measuring altitude by time difference)
> 4. Muon experiments
> 5. University of Maryland
> 6. Japanese Mitaka to Norikura
> 7. Briatore and Leschiutta
> 8. National Physical Laboratory - 1996
> 9. Van Baak - 2005
> 10. National Physical Laboratory - 2010
> 11. Van Baak - 2016
> 12. Tokyo Skytree - 2020
>
> Is there anyone here who seriously claims that Time Dilation
> has NOT been fully verified by these experiments?

Of course time dilation is real, but what is never mentioned is
that Time Dilatiion runs as different rates for different objects.

(not that
time runs at different rates for an different objects)

It is that ..Time Dilatiion runs as different rates for different
objects.

Time Dilation is...inconsistent.

To put it simply, sometime it dilatates, sometimes it doesn't.

Does any of those on dat list mentioned WHEN time dilatated????

In otherwords, do an experiment...all of them using the same object.

Will they all get the same result?

They will discover that
sometime it dilatates, sometimes it doesn't.

Time Dilation is...inconsistent.

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

El domingo, 19 de junio de 2022 a las 15:01:45 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 12:31:27 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:

> > What you have not realized, for years now, is that "time dilation" is a comparison between two clocks A and B. For instance, in the Tokio Skytree experiment (testing the gravitational redshift) the comparison was between a clock at the top of the 450 m tower and a clock located at the base of the tower. Hafele Keating compared the elapsed time of flying atomic clocks with the elapsed time of the ground not moving atomic clock.
> >
> > Therefore, your assertion "time does run at different rates for an object depending upon an object's speed and its proximity to a gravitational mass" is at the very least incomplete.
> A much longer "assertion" would more likely just confuse the issue.
> If you believe the "assertion" is "incomplete," why don't you give us
> what you BELIEVE is a "complete" statement?
>

A more complete expression is:

Time dilation is the difference in the elapsed time between events, as measured by two clocks. It is either due to a relative velocity between them (special relativistic "kinetic" time dilation) or to a difference in gravitational potential between their locations (general relativistic gravitational time dilation).

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. "

>
> 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"???

Ed

On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 1:20:53 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com 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.
> >
> > 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?
> Rate differences are too small to measure...
> Our gravity is low and so is our motion.
> Wait for space travel to measure slow rate.

What the experiments DO is measure "rate differences" using atomic clocks.
All that space travel would do is make it more difficult to compare clocks.

Ed

On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 2:11:47 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> El domingo, 19 de junio de 2022 a las 15:01:45 UTC-4, escribió:
> > On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 12:31:27 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
>
> > > What you have not realized, for years now, is that "time dilation" is a comparison between two clocks A and B. For instance, in the Tokio Skytree experiment (testing the gravitational redshift) the comparison was between a clock at the top of the 450 m tower and a clock located at the base of the tower. Hafele Keating compared the elapsed time of flying atomic clocks with the elapsed time of the ground not moving atomic clock.
> > >
> > > Therefore, your assertion "time does run at different rates for an object depending upon an object's speed and its proximity to a gravitational mass" is at the very least incomplete.
> > A much longer "assertion" would more likely just confuse the issue.
> > If you believe the "assertion" is "incomplete," why don't you give us
> > what you BELIEVE is a "complete" statement?
> >
> A more complete expression is:
>
> Time dilation is the difference in the elapsed time between events, as measured by two clocks. It is either due to a relative velocity between them (special relativistic "kinetic" time dilation) or to a difference in gravitational potential between their locations (general relativistic gravitational time dilation).

Hmm. I disagree with that. Time dilation is a difference in the RATE OF TIME at
two different locations. A "difference in elapsed time" is not time dilation. It is
the RESULT of time dilation when measuring "elapsed time" in two different locations
where speed and/or gravity are different.

Ed

El domingo, 19 de junio de 2022 a las 15:20:42 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 2:11:47 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > El domingo, 19 de junio de 2022 a las 15:01:45 UTC-4, escribió:
> > > On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 12:31:27 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> >
> > > > What you have not realized, for years now, is that "time dilation" is a comparison between two clocks A and B. For instance, in the Tokio Skytree experiment (testing the gravitational redshift) the comparison was between a clock at the top of the 450 m tower and a clock located at the base of the tower. Hafele Keating compared the elapsed time of flying atomic clocks with the elapsed time of the ground not moving atomic clock.
> > > >
> > > > Therefore, your assertion "time does run at different rates for an object depending upon an object's speed and its proximity to a gravitational mass" is at the very least incomplete.
> > > A much longer "assertion" would more likely just confuse the issue.
> > > If you believe the "assertion" is "incomplete," why don't you give us
> > > what you BELIEVE is a "complete" statement?
> > >
> > A more complete expression is:
> >
> > Time dilation is the difference in the elapsed time between events, as measured by two clocks. It is either due to a relative velocity between them (special relativistic "kinetic" time dilation) or to a difference in gravitational potential between their locations (general relativistic gravitational time dilation).
> Hmm. I disagree with that. Time dilation is a difference in the RATE OF TIME at
> two different locations. A "difference in elapsed time" is not time dilation. It is
> the RESULT of time dilation when measuring "elapsed time" in two different locations
> where speed and/or gravity are different.
>

Wrong, since to compare two clocks you have to either have both clocks (the stationary and the moving clock) at the same place and time (like Hafele Keating) or have one clock sending signals to the other clock (like the Tokio tower experiments). In both cases, the comparison is made only at one location.

On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 2:04:59 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> >
> > Over the years, I've accumulated a list of 12 major Time Dilation
> > experiments which CONFIRM that Time Dilation is REAL, and that
> > time does run at different rates for an object depending upon an
> > object's speed and its proximity to a gravitational mass.
> >
> > Here's the link: http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html
> >
> > Here's the list of experiments:
> > 1. Hafele-Keating
> > 2. NIST Optical Clocks and Relativity
> > 3. Geodesy and Metrology experiment (measuring altitude by time difference)
> > 4. Muon experiments
> > 5. University of Maryland
> > 6. Japanese Mitaka to Norikura
> > 7. Briatore and Leschiutta
> > 8. National Physical Laboratory - 1996
> > 9. Van Baak - 2005
> > 10. National Physical Laboratory - 2010
> > 11. Van Baak - 2016
> > 12. Tokyo Skytree - 2020
> >
> > Is there anyone here who seriously claims that Time Dilation
> > has NOT been fully verified by these experiments?
> Of course time dilation is real, but what is never mentioned is
> that Time Dilatiion runs as different rates for different objects.
>
> (not that
> time runs at different rates for an different objects)
>
> It is that ..Time Dilatiion runs as different rates for different
> objects.
>
> Time Dilation is...inconsistent.
>
> To put it simply, sometime it dilatates, sometimes it doesn't.
>
> Does any of those on dat list mentioned WHEN time dilatated????
>
> In otherwords, do an experiment...all of them using the same object.
>
> Will they all get the same result?
>
> They will discover that
> sometime it dilatates, sometimes it doesn't.
>
> Time Dilation is...inconsistent.

You make no sense. The "objects" being used in ALL the time dilation
experiments are TWO ATOMIC CLOCKS. Nothing else can MEASURE or
DISPLAY the very very TINY effect that velocity and altitude have on objects
at the speeds and altitudes we can achieve with today's technology.

One of the astronaut twins was in space for over a year, while the other twin
was mostly on the ground. As a result, one twin aged 5 MICROSECONDS
more than his twin. Only an atomic clock can measure microseconds.

Ed

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.

Ed Lake wrote:
>
> On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 2:04:59 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Ed Lake wrote:
> > >
> > > Over the years, I've accumulated a list of 12 major Time Dilation
> > > experiments which CONFIRM that Time Dilation is REAL, and that
> > > time does run at different rates for an object depending upon an
> > > object's speed and its proximity to a gravitational mass.
> > >
> > > Here's the link: http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html
> > >
> > > Here's the list of experiments:
> > > 1. Hafele-Keating
> > > 2. NIST Optical Clocks and Relativity
> > > 3. Geodesy and Metrology experiment (measuring altitude by time difference)
> > > 4. Muon experiments
> > > 5. University of Maryland
> > > 6. Japanese Mitaka to Norikura
> > > 7. Briatore and Leschiutta
> > > 8. National Physical Laboratory - 1996
> > > 9. Van Baak - 2005
> > > 10. National Physical Laboratory - 2010
> > > 11. Van Baak - 2016
> > > 12. Tokyo Skytree - 2020
> > >
> > > Is there anyone here who seriously claims that Time Dilation
> > > has NOT been fully verified by these experiments?
> > Of course time dilation is real, but what is never mentioned is
> > that Time Dilatiion runs as different rates for different objects.
> >
> > (not that
> > time runs at different rates for an different objects)
> >
> > It is that ..Time Dilatiion runs as different rates for different
> > objects.
> >
> > Time Dilation is...inconsistent.
> >
> > To put it simply, sometime it dilatates, sometimes it doesn't.
> >
> > Does any of those on dat list mentioned WHEN time dilatated????
> >
> > In otherwords, do an experiment...all of them using the same object.
> >
> > Will they all get the same result?
> >
> > They will discover that
> > sometime it dilatates, sometimes it doesn't.
> >
> > Time Dilation is...inconsistent.
>
> You make no sense. The "objects" being used in ALL the time dilation
> experiments are TWO ATOMIC CLOCKS. Nothing else can MEASURE or
> DISPLAY the very very TINY effect that velocity and altitude have on objects
> at the speeds and altitudes we can achieve with today's technology.
>
> One of the astronaut twins was in space for over a year, while the other twin
> was mostly on the ground. As a result, one twin aged 5 MICROSECONDS
> more than his twin. Only an atomic clock can measure microseconds.
>
> Ed

Okay, then everyone at that list can do the experiment all 'at the same
time',
with two clocks.

Will they all get the same result?

Do you have to wait a year to see a 5 micosseconds?

Is that like around one second every other month?

When does the one second happen? in two months?

or at the end of the year?
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 2:26:51 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> El domingo, 19 de junio de 2022 a las 15:20:42 UTC-4, escribió:
> > On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 2:11:47 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > > El domingo, 19 de junio de 2022 a las 15:01:45 UTC-4, escribió:
> > > > On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 12:31:27 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > >
> > > > > What you have not realized, for years now, is that "time dilation" is a comparison between two clocks A and B. For instance, in the Tokio Skytree experiment (testing the gravitational redshift) the comparison was between a clock at the top of the 450 m tower and a clock located at the base of the tower. Hafele Keating compared the elapsed time of flying atomic clocks with the elapsed time of the ground not moving atomic clock.
> > > > >
> > > > > Therefore, your assertion "time does run at different rates for an object depending upon an object's speed and its proximity to a gravitational mass" is at the very least incomplete.
> > > > A much longer "assertion" would more likely just confuse the issue.
> > > > If you believe the "assertion" is "incomplete," why don't you give us
> > > > what you BELIEVE is a "complete" statement?
> > > >
> > > A more complete expression is:
> > >
> > > Time dilation is the difference in the elapsed time between events, as measured by two clocks. It is either due to a relative velocity between them (special relativistic "kinetic" time dilation) or to a difference in gravitational potential between their locations (general relativistic gravitational time dilation).
> > Hmm. I disagree with that. Time dilation is a difference in the RATE OF TIME at
> > two different locations. A "difference in elapsed time" is not time dilation. It is
> > the RESULT of time dilation when measuring "elapsed time" in two different locations
> > where speed and/or gravity are different.
> >
> Wrong, since to compare two clocks you have to either have both clocks (the stationary and the moving clock) at the same place and time (like Hafele Keating) or have one clock sending signals to the other clock (like the Tokio tower experiments). In both cases, the comparison is made only at one location.

Okay. That's just another argument about wording. You don't measure elapsed time
in TWO different locations, in ONE location you measure elapsed time as measured
by two different clocks which are or were in two different locations.

But, I suppose you'll find some fault with that wording, too.

Ed

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, so that when that
clock is in space it will tick at the SAME CORRECT rate as regular
clocks on the ground.

Ed

On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 12:12:18 PM 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. Again: No. One. Disputes. This.
>
> It's constantly disputed on this forum.

Sure, but when I say "no one disputes it" I'm referring to competent physicists, as I specified (twice) above. And even when people in this group post denials of it, we need only remind them that the "length of a second" is variable in the sense that one second of proper time along a given path occurs in different amounts of coordinate time in terms of standard inertial reference systems with respect to which it is moving, and in terms of the unique stationary coordinates in a gravitational field. As soon as they are reminded of this, they do not dispute it. They merely prefer to focus exclusively on the next paragraph:

> > 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 reference 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.

El domingo, 19 de junio de 2022 a las 15:49:59 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 2:26:51 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > > Hmm. I disagree with that. Time dilation is a difference in the RATE OF TIME at
> > > two different locations. A "difference in elapsed time" is not time dilation. It is
> > > the RESULT of time dilation when measuring "elapsed time" in two different locations
> > > where speed and/or gravity are different.
> > >
> > Wrong, since to compare two clocks you have to either have both clocks (the stationary and the moving clock) at the same place and time (like Hafele Keating) or have one clock sending signals to the other clock (like the Tokio tower experiments). In both cases, the comparison is made only at one location.

> Okay. That's just another argument about wording. You don't measure elapsed time
> in TWO different locations, in ONE location you measure elapsed time as measured
> by two different clocks which are or were in two different locations.
>
> But, I suppose you'll find some fault with that wording, too.
>

Words have meanings. The usual way of performing time dilation experiments, like Hafele-Keating, is:

1) Syncronize the clocks. To do that you have to have both clocks A and B, at the same location in space and time.
2) Move clock B to a certain place, at a certain speed and then return to meet again clock A.
3) At the location of clock A, compare the elapsed times of both clocks A and B. The clock B will show less elapsed time than clock A. That indicates clock B experienced time dilation while moving.

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

There's an on--line computer for calculating velocity time dilation at
this link: https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224059993

Someone in orbit may travel 17,000 mph which is 7.6 kilometers per second.
That means that 1 second for the person in orbit will be 1.0000000003213
seconds for the person on the ground.

Someone would have to travel 259,628 kilometers per second before
on second for him will be 2 seconds for someone on the ground.

Ed

On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 3:07:15 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> El domingo, 19 de junio de 2022 a las 15:49:59 UTC-4, escribió:
> > On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 2:26:51 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
>
> > > > Hmm. I disagree with that. Time dilation is a difference in the RATE OF TIME at
> > > > two different locations. A "difference in elapsed time" is not time dilation. It is
> > > > the RESULT of time dilation when measuring "elapsed time" in two different locations
> > > > where speed and/or gravity are different.
> > > >
> > > Wrong, since to compare two clocks you have to either have both clocks (the stationary and the moving clock) at the same place and time (like Hafele Keating) or have one clock sending signals to the other clock (like the Tokio tower experiments). In both cases, the comparison is made only at one location.
>
> > Okay. That's just another argument about wording. You don't measure elapsed time
> > in TWO different locations, in ONE location you measure elapsed time as measured
> > by two different clocks which are or were in two different locations.
> >
> > But, I suppose you'll find some fault with that wording, too.
> >
> Words have meanings. The usual way of performing time dilation experiments, like Hafele-Keating, is:
>
> 1) Syncronize the clocks. To do that you have to have both clocks A and B, at the same location in space and time.
> 2) Move clock B to a certain place, at a certain speed and then return to meet again clock A.
> 3) At the location of clock A, compare the elapsed times of both clocks A and B. The clock B will show less elapsed time than clock A. That indicates clock B experienced time dilation while moving.

Okay. We are in FULL AGREEMENT on that.

Ed

Le 19/06/2022 à 22:15, Ed Lake a écrit :
> On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 3:07:15 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
>> El domingo, 19 de junio de 2022 a las 15:49:59 UTC-4, escribió:
>> > On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 2:26:51 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
>>
>> > > > Hmm. I disagree with that. Time dilation is a difference in the RATE OF
>> TIME at
>> > > > two different locations. A "difference in elapsed time" is not time
>> dilation. It is
>> > > > the RESULT of time dilation when measuring "elapsed time" in two different
>> locations
>> > > > where speed and/or gravity are different.
>> > > >
>> > > Wrong, since to compare two clocks you have to either have both clocks (the
>> stationary and the moving clock) at the same place and time (like Hafele Keating)
>> or have one clock sending signals to the other clock (like the Tokio tower
>> experiments). In both cases, the comparison is made only at one location.
>>
>> > Okay. That's just another argument about wording. You don't measure elapsed
>> time
>> > in TWO different locations, in ONE location you measure elapsed time as
>> measured
>> > by two different clocks which are or were in two different locations.
>> >
>> > But, I suppose you'll find some fault with that wording, too.
>> >
>> Words have meanings. The usual way of performing time dilation experiments, like
>> Hafele-Keating, is:
>>
>> 1) Syncronize the clocks. To do that you have to have both clocks A and B, at
>> the same location in space and time.
>> 2) Move clock B to a certain place, at a certain speed and then return to meet
>> again clock A.
>> 3) At the location of clock A, compare the elapsed times of both clocks A and B.
>> The clock B will show less elapsed time than clock A. That indicates clock B
>> experienced time dilation while moving.

No.

That's not exactly what it means.

>
> Okay. We are in FULL AGREEMENT on that.

Not to me.

> Ed

R.H.

On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 3:29:18 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 19/06/2022 à 22:15, Ed Lake a écrit :
> > On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 3:07:15 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> >> El domingo, 19 de junio de 2022 a las 15:49:59 UTC-4, escribió:
> >> > On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 2:26:51 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> >>
> >> > > > Hmm. I disagree with that. Time dilation is a difference in the RATE OF
> >> TIME at
> >> > > > two different locations. A "difference in elapsed time" is not time
> >> dilation. It is
> >> > > > the RESULT of time dilation when measuring "elapsed time" in two different
> >> locations
> >> > > > where speed and/or gravity are different.
> >> > > >
> >> > > Wrong, since to compare two clocks you have to either have both clocks (the
> >> stationary and the moving clock) at the same place and time (like Hafele Keating)
> >> or have one clock sending signals to the other clock (like the Tokio tower
> >> experiments). In both cases, the comparison is made only at one location.
> >>
> >> > Okay. That's just another argument about wording. You don't measure elapsed
> >> time
> >> > in TWO different locations, in ONE location you measure elapsed time as
> >> measured
> >> > by two different clocks which are or were in two different locations..
> >> >
> >> > But, I suppose you'll find some fault with that wording, too.
> >> >
> >> Words have meanings. The usual way of performing time dilation experiments, like
> >> Hafele-Keating, is:
> >>
> >> 1) Syncronize the clocks. To do that you have to have both clocks A and B, at
> >> the same location in space and time.
> >> 2) Move clock B to a certain place, at a certain speed and then return to meet
> >> again clock A.
> >> 3) At the location of clock A, compare the elapsed times of both clocks A and B.
> >> The clock B will show less elapsed time than clock A. That indicates clock B
> >> experienced time dilation while moving.
> No.
>
>
> That's not exactly what it means.
> >
> > Okay. We are in FULL AGREEMENT on that.
> Not to me.

If you disagree, why don't you state what you disagree with AND what
you believe instead?

Ed

On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 9:10:21 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> Over the years, I've accumulated a list of 12 major Time Dilation
> experiments which CONFIRM that Time Dilation is REAL, and that
> time does run at different rates for an object depending upon an
> object's speed and its proximity to a gravitational mass.
>
> Here's the link: http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html
>
> Here's the list of experiments:
> 1. Hafele-Keating
> 2. NIST Optical Clocks and Relativity
> 3. Geodesy and Metrology experiment (measuring altitude by time difference)
> 4. Muon experiments
> 5. University of Maryland
> 6. Japanese Mitaka to Norikura
> 7. Briatore and Leschiutta
> 8. National Physical Laboratory - 1996
> 9. Van Baak - 2005
> 10. National Physical Laboratory - 2010
> 11. Van Baak - 2016
> 12. Tokyo Skytree - 2020
>
> Is there anyone here who seriously claims that Time Dilation
> has NOT been fully verified by these experiments?

I say instead it's space contraction (alternate mechanism).

Le 19/06/2022 à 22:34, Ed Lake a écrit :

>> >> 1) Syncronize the clocks. To do that you have to have both clocks A and B, at
>>
>> >> the same location in space and time.
>> >> 2) Move clock B to a certain place, at a certain speed and then return to
>> meet
>> >> again clock A.
>> >> 3) At the location of clock A, compare the elapsed times of both clocks A and
>> B.
>> >> The clock B will show less elapsed time than clock A. That indicates clock B
>> >> experienced time dilation while moving.
>> No.
>>
>>
>> That's not exactly what it means.
>> >
>> > Okay. We are in FULL AGREEMENT on that.
>> Not to me.
>
> If you disagree, why don't you state what you disagree with AND what
> you believe instead?

I explained a hundred times what was really going on.

The problem is that we live in a crazy world.

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

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

I recall the question:

1) Syncronize the clocks. To do that you have to have both clocks A and
B, at
the same location in space and time.

ABSOLUTLY.

2) Move clock B to a certain place, at a certain speed and then return to
meet
again clock A.

ABSOLUTLY.

3) At the location of clock A, compare the elapsed times of both clocks A
and B.

Absolutly. Exemple v=0.8c. A=30 seconds. B=18 sec.

> The clock B will show less elapsed time than clock A.

Here is the dramatic conceptual error.

> That indicates clock B experienced time dilation while moving.

No. Time elasticity. Not dilation. It is not the same concept.

When the watches move away, they reciprocally turn less quickly.

BUT when they approach each other they really turn faster.

That's what I've been trying to explain to physicists for decades, and
that's what they seem unable to understand.

The t'=t/sqrt(1-v²/c²) equation is false.

It is not the same thing to approach a watch and to move away from it
(explanation by the relativistic Doppler effect).

What I have an infinite difficulty in making physicists understand is
that this longitudinal Doppler effect is NOT a visual effect, but a real
effect.

On the way to the watch:
1. For A: A spins for 27 seconds, while B spins for 9 seconds. This is
REAL. There is NO apparent Doppler effect. The Doppler effect is real.

2. For B. B obviously spins by 9 seconds (otherwise it's nonsense), but
she sees A actually spin by only 3 seconds.
This effect is NOT a Doppler effect (I say it again, and say it again).
It's real.

On return.
A spins for only 3 seconds and sees B arrive, which spins in 9 seconds.

B spins in 9 seconds, and sees A who REALLY spins 27 seconds.

Everything is played in direct vision.

There is no speed of light to consider.

The speed of approach of light is always infinite in the longitudinal
direction.

And that, I'm not sure we can hear quickly.

The problem comes from there, and all the paradoxes and actual
misunderstandings come from there.

> Ed

R.H.

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

All I want to know Mr. Ed is, if it takes a year (365 days) to record 5
MICROSECONDS, then
WHEN did the 1 MICROSECONDS happen? It has to a number between 1 and
364.

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