Jump to content
Science Forums

xyz

Members
  • Content Count

    537
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by xyz

  1. Well I am just going to leave this forum and wish you good day. I have not once asked to learn science or feel I need to know much more about science as I have done self studying for several year. I know very well what your time dilation is, I also know what it isn't. I find it strange that in a strange claims section, that you are basically threatening me with a ban if I dont stop making strange claims, quite ironic with the section title. I am going to tell you that you are wrong also. You are right that the Caesium atom changes rate, you admit the caesium rate is not ti
  2. Clearly you can not ''see'' past your subjective education and in essence, you was ''programmed'' to learn in the fear of failure in school grades. You quite clearly have this strange imaginary reality that you believe to be the absolute. I will ask you two questions and if your given answer is yes to both questions, then nothing else is needed and you should ''see'' the true reality of the Universe. 1. If you leave me on a journey and return sometime later , you are away from me for equally as long as I away from you . YES or NO 2. The Caesium rate is not time . YES
  3. Clearly you are a ''troll'', changing content and saying things I have not even said . which I have quoted in bold in the above. ''An accurate clock is accurate no matter what speed it goes at. An accurate clock seems to run slower (to a ground based observer) when it is in orbit. This is because time passes more slowly, relative to the ground. '' An accurate clock is one that is constant, the Caesium clock is not a constant, it has a variable rate due to motion . Time does not pass more slowly relative to the ground, the rate of the caesium atom in motion is slower than a Caesium a
  4. Ahhh, I wondered when somebody would mention the totally incorrect light clock and ''zig zagging'' beams, there is no zig zag and easily provable. Do you own a laser? Shine the laser at the floor vertically, then add a reflective medium such has smoke otherwise you see no beam, now move the laser keeping it vertical and notice the laser beam remains vertically aligned. Also notice the floor gives no reflective ray of the laser beam.. Now add a mirror on the floor , a horizontal plain, then the observer affect of the mirror has a reflective beam . However it remains a vertical beam unle
  5. Yes there was a contradiction, you have just not realised the realisation of your own words. ''Caesium rate" is not time. Time is time. '' Realise what you are saying here, think objectively and you may just find some realism. Realise the point that time does not ''care'' what rate the clock is ticking at.
  6. I am rejecting it on very simple reasoning, If you left me and returned, we both spend an exact equal amount of time away from each other, if you can not ''see'' why this true, then I can only presume in some sort of mass brain washing/control by whoever, whatever. It is more than obvious I am correct, I have tried with simple questions which are and have been not directly answered. A short cut through time, meaning a length contraction , you can't short cut through time. Time is adjoined, there is no gaps or spaces, the next increment of time instantaneous follows the previous
  7. You started off do well with this post but then faded half way through. "''''Caesium rate" is not time. Time is time. Anything you build that can measure time will slow down relative to a stationary observer,'' CORRECT ''whether it is based on a cesium standard, a different standard, a mechanical timekeeper, a chemical timekeeper - anything. Cesium based clocks slow down. Rubidium based clocks slow down. We know this for a fact because both are used on GPS satellites. '' CORRECT ''This is not because "clocks don't work when they go fast" - this is because time itself is r
  8. added post seem's how awal likes light so much I will ask you all the question by using Photons. A photon travels away from (A) to ( :cool: a mirror and reflects back again from ( :cool: to (A). The distance between (A) and ( :cool: is 299 792 458 m and the distance has no medium. How much time is the Photon and (A) apart? My fast track calculation says (A) is away from the Photon for 2.s The Photon is away from (A) for 2.s does anyone disagree? Because the constant speed of light shows why there cant be a time dilation or a younger returning twin.
  9. You keeping repeating this rubbish that is nothing to do with time. I don't mean to sound rude Awal but do you have mental issues or English is not your native language? Because I am talking about ''apples'' and you are talking about ''pairs'' ''Because the consistency of the speed of light is what shows that it's totally impossible for objects that are in motion relative to each other to measure the same values for lengths in time and space.'' What on earth are you talking about?, I am talking about time. You reply with unrelated ''gibber''. This - ''An hour in the w
  10. Of course you completely ignore what I am saying as per normal. The only relevant answer I needed from you was - ''From you wife's perspective you are away for one hour '' Very good awal we are getting somewhere in helping you understand simple time values. So how long away is the husband from the wife awal? and why do you keep mentioning light and c when we are discussing time?
  11. Time dilation is a contraction of frequency/wavelength. light is not time, why do you keep insisting that the Caesium rate is time? Why do you think that the slowing down of a frequency means time slows down? The frequency of time is adjoined is it not, a constant with no spacing? i.e _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ added- may i remind you that the caesium and its rate exist in space- time. Are you neglecting Minkowski and Einsteins space-time the interwoven continuum? I do not believe that XYZ and the Caesi
  12. You assume a lot Awal , not once though do you reply with thinking about what I have said. Meaningless ''bollox'' is not remotely a discussion. But out of everyone on here, I deem you should be clever enough to understand. So please no more this that and the other, think Awal. Forget relativity for one minute if you can ! You put ''How long are you away from your wife? Very slightly less than one hour because of the distance between the two points being slightly less than one mile and the time it takes to travel that distance being slightly reduced compared to or
  13. If you mean rejection in the sense that I reject bogus information then indeed yes. I reject anything that is subjective without foundation. If you mean it in some sort of weird way, then not at all. I couldn't care less if anyone listens but I am not ignorant so will reply to posts from members. But it is ignorant and arrogant of most to not ''listen'' and only hear their subjective education. People replying are not thinking.
  14. huh? I have not mentioned invisible or disappearing twins. You are completely ignoring objective reasoning and not thinking about what I have said at all. pffff wasted breathe.
  15. I suppose I had better correct your misinterpretation of time travel also. Try this, walk down the road looking ahead, you see your future position ahead of you because of the clear line of sight. turn around and look at your where you come from, you see your past position, however make a return journey, you are again looking at your future position , a past position you came from. The present travels with you always. The present remains in your past position and the present remains in your future position. present_________________________you______________________________
  16. Huh? you are reading with ambiguity. You emit a Photon from (A) emitter to ( :cool: detector , the photon takes 1 second to arrive at detector. Relative to the Photons speed, the Photon has relatively travelled 1 second of space-time. In a second experiment you do not emit a Photon from (A) to ( :cool: , however the distance, i.e space time, remains there with no photon travelling through it , i.e darkness Time exists with no light. In xyzt there is no light mentioned Do any of you actually interpret the single interwoven manifold correctly?
  17. None of you seem to understand the difference in reality and imagination. Your thinking is wrong , believe me. Of course they meet up because the returning twin comes back. I think you miss the ''picture'' completely. Time travel is not possible. Let me take this really really slow, I do not mean to sound rude but most of you seem to be slow on the uptake. Let me start with a short distance and an easy question to see what level your education is. You travel to the shop which is exactly 1 mile along the road from your house. You walk at a constant 2 mph all t
  18. I have a question for you. You say you send a single photon packet from 0, I see you need to explain the distance, which exists whether you send the photon or not . .?
  19. Time is only more fluid and dynamic if we consider it to be ''light'' orientated, but if we consider the very essence of space, an empty volume of time , then it is relatively easy to 'see' that matter and energy occupy this empty volume of time, allowing us to create timing relative to time. Time existing as the stationary reference frame with a value of 0 or infinite that we are relatively timing ourselves in comparison too. Consider a blank piece of paper, the blankness representing time, now imagine a few dots moving around the blankness, this allows for timing in time.
  20. You are incorrect and this is what I am trying to point out to you, please ''listen''. I will use your own example, ''If you had a twin, and he went to the ISS for a year and came back, he would be .01 seconds younger than you'' So you are saying time runs slower for the astronaut , ok let us do the two time lines Earth twin time line = ___________________________________________________________________________________1 year space twin time line=______________________________________________________________________________<1 year twins meet time line
  21. Quite clearly you miss the point and your not getting it, timing runs slower on GPS, the GPS and the astronauts are in time. Ok lets try to get you to ''see'' this . You and I are twins, you leave Earth and return several years later to meet me. Do you agree we both meet in the present? the now.
  22. arr you finally got it, exactly , the twin returns in the present because time did not run slower for the twin who left. If time did run slower then the twin would return behind our timeline, in the past, which is would be plainly stupid to think.
  23. Sometimes I really think you do not understand. Acceleration is not mentioned, you are not ''listening'' to the very simple logical argument. Let me ask you something Awal, if you was my twin and you left on a journey to another galaxy, then returned to me in my present, you and I are in the same present, you left and we both experienced the same amount of time passed to return to each others present. Can you understand that Awal? The reason Awal, if time ran slower for you, you would return in my past and we would never see each other again. Look at it this way, say I experience
  24. I will explain in this separate post what ''you'' are actually doing. You are measuring the rate of the Caesium atom relative to time. The time of 1's is independent of the Caesium atom or rate, 1.s will pass by even if the rate of the Caesium was 0. Time is constant , there is no gaps in continuous time line. see below example of time time = ___________________________________________________________________________ Increments of time are adjoined, the next increment instantly follows the previous increment.
  25. A very good and honest post, that is exactly what I am saying. ''If you mean that we should not confuse our measurement of a thing, with the thing itself, that is a perfectly reasonable statement.'' When measuring the rate of the Caesium atom, that is what we are doing, measuring the rate of the Caesium , most forums and members seem to think the thing we measure is time based on a change in matter and energy rate. However that is not so, the Caesium and the Caesium rate exist in time. I do have a ''theory'' what time actually is, but I find it difficult to put into words. To ex
×
×
  • Create New...