JohnLesser

I do not know what you mean by absolute simultaneity. If my understanding is correct , simultaneity is that observers times run at different rates in different inertia reference frames?

Quote me if I am wrong, when we measure the frequency of the Caesium it is the radiation the Caesium is emitting that we measure the rate of?

I am sorry if I am ambiguous.

Fractionally 0 the Planck distance measurement is the only measurement close enough to 0 that I could use to explain the problem. The next increment of time is only an instant way, there is no space between increments of Photons that enter your eyes to update information. Not biological process, the speed of light and the distance between photons that you receive.

You are incorrect, we see things in their past geometrical position, things are in motion, for every action there is an equal action of updated Quanta information. We receive this updated information continuous.

I did not understand your example or what you was trying to say sorry.

Researching the internet and asking .

How can the very science you use be delusional? See other post for answer

3.24cm is the distance between Caesium emit and detector. Yes we would need a very accurate clock such as a light clock , I think the problem would be getting something to count so fast.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Lavoisier Nothing is ever lost or gained, equilibrium has an exchange rate, hf/s , photons in, photons out. You measure the output of the Caesium, it's entropy rate.

It does when the past is updated almost immediately by light and entropy changes at the rate of c.

It is a shame I can't upload this drawing. Do you understand sight? we see things in their past? The past updates at c in your mind . That is the evidence time is in increments, very small increments from one wave packet to the next. The past updates in your mind at a constant rate of c.

I am not to sure what you mean, Planck time shows us why there can't be a ''time'' dilation, we are our own culprits by adding 3.24cm which is a present measurement . Then you truly understand this if you can easily write that equation. The rate of time (entropy) is much faster than using seconds, the rate of time is the speed of c, entropy changes at the speed of c. Gain and loss = hf/S

You can't go on to dilate a Planck time unit that is the whole point, there is no spacial distance to dilate. It is practically adjoined to 0.

That's the point, a Planck unit cannot contract or dilate. Time is not relative, it is only relative if you believe simultaneity to be true. A Planck rate of time is constant. It is invariant for all observers because the speed of c/dx is constant always. I am in speculation, ok, if you want me to prove time is a quantity we will need to discuss rate of entropy such as time dilation which is really a measurement of the rate of entropy. We measure an entropy dilation. What do you think of that speculative suggestion , please be objective and think about it.

The link I asked for was the link to the calculation you provided. Please slow down there is a lot of questions you have asked then ask other questions before I have had ''time'' to answer the first questions. I can only type so fast lol. ''OK, so you are saying that the rate of time = the Planck unit, correct? By this I assume you are saying that time is quantised and increases in steps of the Planck unit, correct? If so, please provide some evidence that this is the case.'' Correct and correct. the evidence is that there is no space between increments of the future becoming the ''now'' and then the ''now'' becoming the past. Photons travel a distance indeed, but the time it takes for the ''second'' wave packet to hit your eyes is almost negligible.

Clocks run at different rates if you are measuring time incorrectly. A very accurate clock could measure the smallest increment of time passed. Bare in mind we measure time passed and never forward time. At the moment we measure time and have a space of 3.24cm between emitter and detect. The space is not really there when considering time. The immediate future is almost instant in becoming the past. There is no space between increments of time. We can measure time at a much faster rate than a second, if we did this , then time dilation then fails. 9,192,631,770 hertz (Hz = cycles/second) is really slow compared to Planck time.

If time was used at the rate of tp , there is no space or fractionally 0 space to dilate between increments. Time is continuous, the constant speed of light shows the opposite and time can not dilate. c/dx=tp Twin 1 R(t)=tp Twin 2 ®t=tp Neither twin has the ''space'' of 3.24cm to manufacture a time dilation. Still need that link please. added - I am not an artist but I have had ago of drawing it for you . However I am unable to upload it asks for url.

Quite clearly you do not understand. Time dilation is an experiment observed fact, however it is not correct and I will show why . The main problem is 3.24cm. Can you please provide a link to this ? I did it generalised . R = rate I defined the parameters so surely you must understand it. R(t) = rate of time

You are being intentionally obtuse, you know the evidence and know who Planck is and light/dx = tp Light is constant .

Strange, I do not want ignorant of your post, but you really are not thinking clearly why a Planck length and Planck time is evidence. The smallest increment of time we can measure is (tp). Please answer this one question before I continue in answering your post. The immediate future is a very very small increment away ?

Planck time is the evidence, but if you want more a Photon takes a increment of time to reach your eye, the ''second'' photon arrives immediately. There is loads of citations on Wiki on Planck. I am not writing a paper, I am discussing it. Please discuss the affect if Planck time was used as the rate of time, I am quite sure relativity changes. I suspect the thread will go quiet .... Very simply a Planck length is not contracted from 3.24cm. Planck time is not contracted/dilated from 1 second 3.24cm and anything between A and B points exists in the present.

Rate is how often something occurs Time is a function of entropy These equations already exist, Planck time and Planck length effectively being the same thing. The evidence is on Wiki, you can look up Planck. tp can not dilate it is fractionally 0.

Twin 1 R(t)=tp Twin 2 R(t)=tp Where R is rate and t is time and tp is Planck time. The immediate future is a Planck length away Questions? P.s I will show ''you'' who the smartest cookie in the jar is.

Again very presumptuous in saying you don't think I understand. They were very contradictory and telling lies about time dilation , it was not my communication skills or listening skills.