Ned

You still haven't answered the d/t question because you know the answer is ''incriminating'' . I am right , I have shown I'm right .

I have offered several proofs that demonstrates the caesiums change of frequency isn't a change of time . In doing so I question what can a change of frequency mean if not a change of time and my conclusion is as mentioned . I don't want to upset you but the only time that exists is the present because all other versions of time are nothing more than a record of history . Any position along your straight line presently exists in the present and simultaneously exists with yourself . I am not fixated on the Caesium , I know all particles are subject to affects of temperature which just goes to show how irrelevant the caesium frequency is in regards to time . You also missed the point I made about climate control being able to change the frequency , which is suggestive climate control of the Caesium can control time based on present understanding . Yes the temperature is accounted for in the experiment but they didn't account for field energy differences or length contractions . The atomic clock if I remember correctly , has a 3.24cm gap between the Caesium and the detector , a well positioned atomic clock in transit would experience a length contraction which would slow down the frequency .

Space-time , space and time are three different independent subjects . I'm not lying , perhaps you lack understanding and need something clarifying of the model ? You have also avoided the d/t question which also is a part of the model . I'm going off for a bit now but will say that Einstein was correct about the twins ageing differently in the twin paradox . Although they both experienced the same amount of time (history) , the travelling twin aged less because their frequency of decay was slower than the twin at rest . The results of the Caesium clock I believe show that decay or ageing has a frequency rather than a time dilation .

Space is a different subject , please do not divert from the subject . My model accurately demonstrates there is no change of time in time dilation theory .

That's not what I implied at all ! It represents it perfect . If you give me the correct percent of difference in the timing dilation of the Caesium then I could adjust the model with the correct value . However , it doesn't really matter because it shows what it is designed to show . I'm not going to reply to you if you continue to be rude and unscientific . Haven't you got your own forum to moderate ? I can count faster than time is presently measured but beleive me time doesn't speed up or slow down if I count slower . What is frequency again ? A count if I'm not mistaken .

Before the 1950's a Caesium atom was just an atom with a frequency , then science defined a set frequency to equal a second . They could of used any set frequency , knowing the Caesiums frequency was dependent to climate control . That is what I mean by the time added value , sciences definition of a second . The irony is they defined the second to equal the caesiums frequency because the Earths rotation wasn't constant . They replaced one broken clock with another broken clock , knowingly the caesium was a volitile atom and variant before the time value was added . The problem with measuring time , is that the rate of history is really fast . The progression of the present is much faster than we measure time to begin with . I can prove this with a simple question , how fast can you count ?

No, it is an objective model ! The value of 0.5s per 1.s of course isn't accurate but that doesn't matter in the representation ! A person measuring time using timing that was a variant would have to declare a different amount of history which of cause would be total fallacy . Can you answer the d/t question now ?

Sarcastically speaking ! I know my model is very accurate in its representation of timing . I'm still waiting for your reply on d/t , how can there be a difference in time when d/t proves the same amount of time (history) was experienced by both observers? 10mph=10mph t1=t2' vector x = vector x'

Ok, rewind slightly , isn't the time value added to the caesium atom , it has nothing to do with the caesium other than what we are defining ? Hence , a subjective value ! You've added on , yes the frequencies disagree but time ''does not care'' that the frequencies disagree . Isn't it a fact that time is simply a measure of history ? Measured at 1.s of history per 1.s passed measure . As the present progresses , history is recorded . Timing and frequency are relative Here is one of my crappy diagram models that shows there is no time difference during the duration of the trip ! 9192631770Hz per second 4,596,315,885Hz per second

I've started a thread on the semantics of time dilation in the physics section . Wish me luck .

I've seen the math and that would be correct to synchonise timing between two devices that measure the rate of timing differently . You are incorrect though , a time dilation infers a change of actual time as if the whole universe slows down for the observer. A timing dilation explains the process objective and correctly . It is very easy to discourse this subject and show that time is constant . Consider this , when an object approaches the near speed of light and the frequency of the Caesium slows down to almost zero , the rest of the universe measures timing at a normal rate proving the slow measure is incorrect . Speed d/t also proves there is no change of time , if two objects travel in opposite directions at the same speed , the distance the objects travel in a set amount of timing , is equal . 10 mph = 10 mph Both objects experience exactly one hr . How do you explain that away with your time dilation ?

Because I have spoke to you several times and I do know you are quite knowledgeable . Time dilation is poor semantics , the whole section on Wikipedia needs taking down and worded correctly . In wording it correctly , they only need to change the word time to timing then explain why the timing isn't synchronised .

Then what are you doing ? You are not making any sense ! They proved a change of frequency , this doesn't prove in anyway a change of time !

So you are agreeing in the subjective , there was a time dilation ? Please provide evidence that time is dependent to the caesium atom or admit you are making things up .

That's contradiction , you are either saying there was a change of frequency or there wasn't , which one is your answer ?

So you are saying there was no change of frequency ? That's not what my google search is saying . It also says Isn't the objective correctness , the frequency will slow down to 0 cycles per second? Why is science in this theory trying to make time dependent to the caesium frequency ? I am sure if the caesium atom did not exist then time would flow as normal , independent of the Caesium .

The Caesium atom was flew around the world and it was claimed there was a time dilation . Isn't the time value a subjective arbitrary add on ? Isn't the objective answer there was a frequency change ?

Thank you for your explanation and my claim is to have advanced physics and present understanding based on previous giants work . However , everytime I try to point out errors in these incomplete works , I get closed down because simply people aren't understanding . However , you won't let me run a thread explaining these errros because science ''can't be wrong'' . Additionally everytime I try to run an unanswered science question thread , they also get shut down . I can't advance previous giants works if I'm never going to be allowed to explain the errors or explain the advanced findings . I'm trying to explain to you and science that science already has all the answers but they just haven't linked it all together to answer the unanswered questions . Often science has very poor semantics . I'll start a thread in physics section asking a question , I'll keep it simple .

I understand this and if present math represented what I discuss then I'd be using that . However, present math already has uses that aren't the uses I am explaining . What I am explaining has no units because it is new and we haven't given it a unit this far . Magnitude is dynamic in my discussion , don't forget I brought a new force into the ''equation'' , a conservation of energy force . F=? this far . Science can't answer my questions so how can their present math support unanswered questions ? It can't

Religious people beleive in subjective stories of a God , you don't have to be religious to believe in a God if you apply science 𝚿/V Any form of God would require wavefunction to think , here is what God looks like . Fear not , physics created God , God created us .

I do give mathematical justification but I guess you and others don't understand it . I never got chance mention the Casimir effect, I was closed down when the conversation had just begun . The physics comes before the maths always and nobody here is attempting to understand . You said previously , '' I'm an actual physicist and I do not agree with your assessment. Using terminology from physics is a necessary but insufficient condition for doing actual physics. Actual physics requires equations (derived from physics principles, not pulled out of one's ass)''. Some of your present physics isn't correct , how do you explain that then ? Use broken physics to derive physics ? No offense but you probably believe space is expanding and before the big bang nothing existed , not even space . Science isn't perfect and has errors and unanswered questions . I have answered unanswered question that science could not provide me with answers , maths is an add on to the physics .

I came up with an experiment to test for an Aether which was closed down . You had no idea whether or not the experiment would of worked or not . I based that on the Casimir effect . I attempt to provide math then get told its gibberish , I get no help in trying to correct the math . I thought my drawings were self explanatory , they were labelled . That's the problem see, new science and terminology doesn't necessary conform to established physics because it doesn't have too . I think this forum really missed out when I posted about the neurolgical reference frame (The mind) and the thread was closed .

I'm well aware of what objective and subjective means but thank you for showing others . I do not make stuff up in my head , I can envision most physics and actually draw the process . I've a good understanding of present physics and insome areas present physics isn't totally objective . I have pointed out these errors on several occasions but of course they'd rather continue with subjectiveness . I'm humble and don't know everything but what I present is actual physics .

I don't understand where your forum allows for advancement of science then and/or new notions . Most of the questions I ask and I am trying to find an answer to, doesn't presently have an answer . None of you answer my questions because you don't know the answer ! You aren't allowing for any sort of new terminology , I don't get how this suppose to be a discussion forum when discussion isn't been allowed . I learnt the words and meaning off google, then used my own mind to think about those words . My ideas are objective , it is just people must be failing to understand ! What about new science , new terminology , proofs that overturn existing science ?

Math :