Brian Greene informs the scientific community that, according to Einstein's special relativity, the moving clock is running slow and the stationary clock is running fast:

https://youtu.be/Q1y3YnPgaY4?t=1157

This is a lie (there is no time dilation), but note that this also contradicts the logic of special relativity. "Moving clock slow, stationary clock fast" is non sequitur - it does not follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates.

What follows from Einstein's 1905 postulates? Here is the valid deduction:

If two clocks are in relative motion, either clock is slow as judged from the other clock's system.

This is quite different from what Brian Greene teaches, isn't it? Needless to say, the scientific community couldn't care less about the difference. In an ideology, truth does not matter:

"This paper investigates an alternative possibility: that the critics were right and that the success of Einstein's theory in overcoming them was due to its strengths as an ideology rather than as a science. The clock paradox illustrates how relativity theory does indeed contain inconsistencies that make it scientifically problematic. These same inconsistencies, however, make the theory ideologically powerful...The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse...The triumph of relativity theory represents the triumph of ideology not only in the profession of physics bur also in the philosophy of science." Peter Hayes, The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox https://tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02691720902741399

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 8:11:46 AM UTC-4, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Brian Greene informs the scientific community that, according to Einstein's special relativity, the
> moving clock is running slow and the stationary clock is running fast:
>
> https://youtu.be/Q1y3YnPgaY4?t=1157

Your claim is false, a lie. He is NOT informing the scientific community, he is vulgarizing for the masses.
It even says it in the description of the vid... "theatrical journey".

> This is a lie

You are the one lying here.

Why do Brian Greene and all other high priests in the Einstein cult, Einstein included, abuse the logic of special relativity? Because the valid deduction ("either clock is slow as judged from the other clock's system") doesn't, but the non sequitur ("moving clock is slow, stationary clock is fast") does imply TIME TRAVEL INTO THE FUTURE - the miracle (idiocy) that converted Einstein into a deity:

Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")." http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf

More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 6:39:57 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
> On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 8:11:46 AM UTC-4, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > Brian Greene informs the scientific community that, according to Einstein's special relativity, the
> > moving clock is running slow and the stationary clock is running fast:
> >
> > https://youtu.be/Q1y3YnPgaY4?t=1157
> Your claim is false, a lie. He is NOT informing the scientific community, he is vulgarizing for the masses.
> It even says it in the description of the vid... "theatrical journey".
>
> > This is a lie
>
> You are the one lying here.

Oh, the vulgarity, ....

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 12:05:38 PM UTC-4, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 6:39:57 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
> > On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 8:11:46 AM UTC-4, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > > Brian Greene informs the scientific community that, according to Einstein's special relativity, the
> > > moving clock is running slow and the stationary clock is running fast:
> > >
Brian is just a parrot mimicking other mainstream physicists who wrongly interpret special relativity. In fact, Lorentz Transformation only tells that the time of the moving frame is shorter than the time of the stationary frame. The mainstream physicists immediately think that the shorter time means a slow clock, which is totally wrong because a clock uses its recorded number of cycles divided by a fixed frequency to get its clock time while in special relativity frequency is not the same when observed from different reference frame. In fact, in special relativity, clock time is still absolute as shown in the following:

Let's call the space and time satisfying Lorentz Transformation "relativistic space" and "relativistic time", and the time measured with a physical clock "clock time". For a cesium clock, the clock time is always counted as the number of cycles divided by a constant k. In special relativity, the number of cycles is the product of relativistic time and frequency.

For a clock moving relative to the observer:

N' = t'f' = t'/T'
Tc' = N'/k
k = 9192631770

For the clock stationary with the observer,

N = tf = t/T
Tc = N/k

where N, N' are the counted numbers of cycles of the moving clock and the stationary clock respectively, f, f' are the frequencies of the corresponding clocks, t, t' are the relativistic times of the corresponding reference frames, T, T' are the periods of the corresponding clocks, Tc, Tc' are the clock times of the corresponding clocks.

According to Lorentz Transformation, the relationship between t and t' is:

t' = γ(t - vx/c^2) = γ[t - v(vt)/c^2] = γt(1 - v^2/c^2) = t/γ < t

where x = vt is the coordinate of the moving clock in the stationary frame.

Since period is an interval of relativistic time, it should follow Lorentz Transformation as well:

T' = T/γ < T

Thus, we have:

Tc' = N'/k = t'f'/k = (t'/T')/k = [(t/γ)/(T/γ)]/k = (t/T)/k = tf/k = N/k = Tc

That is, the clock time of the moving clock is always the same as the clock time of the stationary clock, which means, clock time is independent of the reference frame, absolute, completely different from relativistic time. Therefore, relativistic time is not clock time but an artificially defined meaningless time.

We know all what we can observe are the changes of the statuses of physical processes, which are the products of relativistic time and relativistic changing rate in special relativity. The relativistic changing rate is similar to the frequency of a clock shown above that becomes faster in the moving frame so that the relativistic effects of the relativistic time and relativistic changing rate of a physical process on the moving reference frame cancel each other in the product to make the product always the same as the corresponding one on the stationary reference frame. Therefore, special relativity itself tells us that the relativistic effects can never be observed in any physical process, and all so-called experimental proofs of relativistic effects are misinterpretations of other effects, nothing to do with special relativity.

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 7:22:37 PM UTC-7, xs...@nacgeo.com wrote:
> On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 12:05:38 PM UTC-4, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 6:39:57 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 8:11:46 AM UTC-4, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > > > Brian Greene informs the scientific community that, according to Einstein's special relativity, the
> > > > moving clock is running slow and the stationary clock is running fast:
> > > >
> Brian is just a parrot mimicking other mainstream physicists who wrongly interpret special relativity. In fact, Lorentz Transformation only tells that the time of the moving frame is shorter than the time of the stationary frame. The mainstream physicists immediately think that the shorter time means a slow clock, which is totally wrong because a clock uses its recorded number of cycles divided by a fixed frequency to get its clock time while in special relativity frequency is not the same when observed from different reference frame. In fact, in special relativity, clock time is still absolute as shown in the following:
>
> Let's call the space and time satisfying Lorentz Transformation "relativistic space" and "relativistic time", and the time measured with a physical clock "clock time". For a cesium clock, the clock time is always counted as the number of cycles divided by a constant k. In special relativity, the number of cycles is the product of relativistic time and frequency.
>
> For a clock moving relative to the observer:
>
> N' = t'f' = t'/T'
> Tc' = N'/k
> k = 9192631770
>
> For the clock stationary with the observer,
>
> N = tf = t/T
> Tc = N/k
>
> where N, N' are the counted numbers of cycles of the moving clock and the stationary clock respectively, f, f' are the frequencies of the corresponding clocks, t, t' are the relativistic times of the corresponding reference frames, T, T' are the periods of the corresponding clocks, Tc, Tc' are the clock times of the corresponding clocks.
>
> According to Lorentz Transformation, the relationship between t and t' is:
>
> t' = γ(t - vx/c^2) = γ[t - v(vt)/c^2] = γt(1 - v^2/c^2) = t/γ < t
>
> where x = vt is the coordinate of the moving clock in the stationary frame.
>
> Since period is an interval of relativistic time, it should follow Lorentz Transformation as well:
>
> T' = T/γ < T
>
> Thus, we have:
>
> Tc' = N'/k = t'f'/k = (t'/T')/k = [(t/γ)/(T/γ)]/k = (t/T)/k = tf/k = N/k = Tc
>
> That is, the clock time of the moving clock is always the same as the clock time of the stationary clock, which means, clock time is independent of the reference frame, absolute, completely different from relativistic time. Therefore, relativistic time is not clock time but an artificially defined meaningless time.
>
> We know all what we can observe are the changes of the statuses of physical processes, which are the products of relativistic time and relativistic changing rate in special relativity. The relativistic changing rate is similar to the frequency of a clock shown above that becomes faster in the moving frame so that the relativistic effects of the relativistic time and relativistic changing rate of a physical process on the moving reference frame cancel each other in the product to make the product always the same as the corresponding one on the stationary reference frame. Therefore, special relativity itself tells us that the relativistic effects can never be observed in any physical process, and all so-called experimental proofs of relativistic effects are misinterpretations of other effects, nothing to do with special relativity.

Here it's "space contraction".

I think you're just pointing out that what's Galilean is Lorentzian.

There's still that "SR is locally so", though, it just needs be that
it's always currently and instantaneously evaluated the geodesy,
here it's already so that GR derives SR not the other way around,
that this is GR and SR derived in it not STR and GTR derived in it.

So, there's still space contraction from general relativity, besides
that "SR is local" and follows instead.

This does show up and is measurable in the surrounds of accelerators.
Also it pretty well defines how atomic clocks work in acceleration.

I.e. these days the "true units of the theory" are often dimensionless
with respect to "the new units of the measure". It simplifies Lienard-Wiechert,
that's about the only reason for it.

People these days have the poor experience of having to redo entire derivations
of all mathematical physics to arrive at what are some of the usual historical
derivations, and what for example makes space contraction with relativity.

People with multiple-worlds intepretation are sorely misinformed.

On Saturday, September 24, 2022 at 11:52:39 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 7:22:37 PM UTC-7, xs...@nacgeo.com wrote:
> > On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 12:05:38 PM UTC-4, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 6:39:57 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
> > > > On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 8:11:46 AM UTC-4, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > > > > Brian Greene informs the scientific community that, according to Einstein's special relativity, the
> > > > > moving clock is running slow and the stationary clock is running fast:
> > > > >
> > Brian is just a parrot mimicking other mainstream physicists who wrongly interpret special relativity. In fact, Lorentz Transformation only tells that the time of the moving frame is shorter than the time of the stationary frame. The mainstream physicists immediately think that the shorter time means a slow clock, which is totally wrong because a clock uses its recorded number of cycles divided by a fixed frequency to get its clock time while in special relativity frequency is not the same when observed from different reference frame. In fact, in special relativity, clock time is still absolute as shown in the following:
> >
> > Let's call the space and time satisfying Lorentz Transformation "relativistic space" and "relativistic time", and the time measured with a physical clock "clock time". For a cesium clock, the clock time is always counted as the number of cycles divided by a constant k. In special relativity, the number of cycles is the product of relativistic time and frequency.
> >
> > For a clock moving relative to the observer:
> >
> > N' = t'f' = t'/T'
> > Tc' = N'/k
> > k = 9192631770
> >
> > For the clock stationary with the observer,
> >
> > N = tf = t/T
> > Tc = N/k
> >
> > where N, N' are the counted numbers of cycles of the moving clock and the stationary clock respectively, f, f' are the frequencies of the corresponding clocks, t, t' are the relativistic times of the corresponding reference frames, T, T' are the periods of the corresponding clocks, Tc, Tc' are the clock times of the corresponding clocks.
> >
> > According to Lorentz Transformation, the relationship between t and t' is:
> >
> > t' = γ(t - vx/c^2) = γ[t - v(vt)/c^2] = γt(1 - v^2/c^2) = t/γ < t
> >
> > where x = vt is the coordinate of the moving clock in the stationary frame.
> >
> > Since period is an interval of relativistic time, it should follow Lorentz Transformation as well:
> >
> > T' = T/γ < T
> >
> > Thus, we have:
> >
> > Tc' = N'/k = t'f'/k = (t'/T')/k = [(t/γ)/(T/γ)]/k = (t/T)/k = tf/k = N/k = Tc
> >
> > That is, the clock time of the moving clock is always the same as the clock time of the stationary clock, which means, clock time is independent of the reference frame, absolute, completely different from relativistic time. Therefore, relativistic time is not clock time but an artificially defined meaningless time.
> >
> > We know all what we can observe are the changes of the statuses of physical processes, which are the products of relativistic time and relativistic changing rate in special relativity. The relativistic changing rate is similar to the frequency of a clock shown above that becomes faster in the moving frame so that the relativistic effects of the relativistic time and relativistic changing rate of a physical process on the moving reference frame cancel each other in the product to make the product always the same as the corresponding one on the stationary reference frame. Therefore, special relativity itself tells us that the relativistic effects can never be observed in any physical process, and all so-called experimental proofs of relativistic effects are misinterpretations of other effects, nothing to do with special relativity.
> Here it's "space contraction".
>
> I think you're just pointing out that what's Galilean is Lorentzian.
>
> There's still that "SR is locally so", though, it just needs be that
> it's always currently and instantaneously evaluated the geodesy,
> here it's already so that GR derives SR not the other way around,
> that this is GR and SR derived in it not STR and GTR derived in it.
>
> So, there's still space contraction from general relativity, besides
> that "SR is local" and follows instead.
>
> This does show up and is measurable in the surrounds of accelerators.
> Also it pretty well defines how atomic clocks work in acceleration.
>
> I.e. these days the "true units of the theory" are often dimensionless
> with respect to "the new units of the measure". It simplifies Lienard-Wiechert,
> that's about the only reason for it.
>
> People these days have the poor experience of having to redo entire derivations
> of all mathematical physics to arrive at what are some of the usual historical
> derivations, and what for example makes space contraction with relativity..
>
> People with multiple-worlds intepretation are sorely misinformed.

Yup, just Lienard-Wiechert, doesn't do any good for Yukawa.

The dimensionless units of course are what makes the properties
for what people think "atoms" are, "matter".

That telescope out of the kinetic energy equation,
not just its "dominant term", ..., what foolish SR-ians
set their clocks, with.

On Saturday, September 24, 2022 at 11:52:39 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 7:22:37 PM UTC-7, xs...@nacgeo.com wrote:
> > On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 12:05:38 PM UTC-4, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 6:39:57 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
> > > > On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 8:11:46 AM UTC-4, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > > > > Brian Greene informs the scientific community that, according to Einstein's special relativity, the
> > > > > moving clock is running slow and the stationary clock is running fast:
> > > > >
> > Brian is just a parrot mimicking other mainstream physicists who wrongly interpret special relativity. In fact, Lorentz Transformation only tells that the time of the moving frame is shorter than the time of the stationary frame. The mainstream physicists immediately think that the shorter time means a slow clock, which is totally wrong because a clock uses its recorded number of cycles divided by a fixed frequency to get its clock time while in special relativity frequency is not the same when observed from different reference frame. In fact, in special relativity, clock time is still absolute as shown in the following:
> >
> > Let's call the space and time satisfying Lorentz Transformation "relativistic space" and "relativistic time", and the time measured with a physical clock "clock time". For a cesium clock, the clock time is always counted as the number of cycles divided by a constant k. In special relativity, the number of cycles is the product of relativistic time and frequency.
> >
> > For a clock moving relative to the observer:
> >
> > N' = t'f' = t'/T'
> > Tc' = N'/k
> > k = 9192631770
> >
> > For the clock stationary with the observer,
> >
> > N = tf = t/T
> > Tc = N/k
> >
> > where N, N' are the counted numbers of cycles of the moving clock and the stationary clock respectively, f, f' are the frequencies of the corresponding clocks, t, t' are the relativistic times of the corresponding reference frames, T, T' are the periods of the corresponding clocks, Tc, Tc' are the clock times of the corresponding clocks.
> >
> > According to Lorentz Transformation, the relationship between t and t' is:
> >
> > t' = γ(t - vx/c^2) = γ[t - v(vt)/c^2] = γt(1 - v^2/c^2) = t/γ < t
> >
> > where x = vt is the coordinate of the moving clock in the stationary frame.
> >
> > Since period is an interval of relativistic time, it should follow Lorentz Transformation as well:
> >
> > T' = T/γ < T
> >
> > Thus, we have:
> >
> > Tc' = N'/k = t'f'/k = (t'/T')/k = [(t/γ)/(T/γ)]/k = (t/T)/k = tf/k = N/k = Tc
> >
> > That is, the clock time of the moving clock is always the same as the clock time of the stationary clock, which means, clock time is independent of the reference frame, absolute, completely different from relativistic time. Therefore, relativistic time is not clock time but an artificially defined meaningless time.
> >
> > We know all what we can observe are the changes of the statuses of physical processes, which are the products of relativistic time and relativistic changing rate in special relativity. The relativistic changing rate is similar to the frequency of a clock shown above that becomes faster in the moving frame so that the relativistic effects of the relativistic time and relativistic changing rate of a physical process on the moving reference frame cancel each other in the product to make the product always the same as the corresponding one on the stationary reference frame. Therefore, special relativity itself tells us that the relativistic effects can never be observed in any physical process, and all so-called experimental proofs of relativistic effects are misinterpretations of other effects, nothing to do with special relativity.
> Here it's "space contraction".
>
> I think you're just pointing out that what's Galilean is Lorentzian.
>
> There's still that "SR is locally so", though, it just needs be that
> it's always currently and instantaneously evaluated the geodesy,
> here it's already so that GR derives SR not the other way around,
> that this is GR and SR derived in it not STR and GTR derived in it.
>
> So, there's still space contraction from general relativity, besides
> that "SR is local" and follows instead.
>
> This does show up and is measurable in the surrounds of accelerators.
> Also it pretty well defines how atomic clocks work in acceleration.
>
> I.e. these days the "true units of the theory" are often dimensionless
> with respect to "the new units of the measure". It simplifies Lienard-Wiechert,
> that's about the only reason for it.
>
> People these days have the poor experience of having to redo entire derivations
> of all mathematical physics to arrive at what are some of the usual historical
> derivations, and what for example makes space contraction with relativity..
>
> People with multiple-worlds intepretation are sorely misinformed.

There are other worlds of people that contact is for.
If this universe dies does the multiverse?

Mitchell Raemsch