Eric 5

Klaynos. I have looked up some of the references that you suggested, to show me that indeed there can exist a 1D or 0D object. I am going to comment on the first reference and then when I have a responses from you regarding my comments then I will discuss the next one. The reason for doing it this way is it keeps the whole discussion simple by preventing miscommunication on exactly with report or reference we would be talking about. So just to make this crystal clear, I am stating that from the definitions that I have read in regards to the terms: OBJECT, ZERO and DIMENSION, I could not see that it is possible for a 1D or 0D object to physically exist. You have stated in post (#24) that you could give examples of a 1D and 0D object. Your examples were “a semiconductor quantum wire” and “electron constriction” I defined these and other related terms and posted them on this thread showing that these items were not 1D or 0D OBJECTS. You then posted some references that would help clear this up for me. So now I will comment on the first reference which can be found at the following address. http://www.eng.yale.edu/reedlab/publications/26%20QDot%20PRL.pdf In this research paper much is said about what the title states which is “Observation of Discrete Electronic States in a Zero-Dimensional Semiconductor Nanostructure” Now in this paper the term dimension is not specifically defined, which means that in order for anyone to find out what they mean when the term dimension is used, all anybody has to do is look in a standard dictionary. This is a given. Nobody who is using a term whose definition can be found in a standard dictionary would need to state exactly which definition of any term they using. It is the responsibility of the reader to define the term he is unsure of or would like a more complete definition of. Unless otherwise stated, we have to assume that when someone is using a word, that this person is using this word in the way it is defined in a standard dictionary. So, after reading this paper and using the many definitions of dimension that are stated in a standard dictionary. I still have not been convinced that there exists a physical object that is 1D or 0D. The pictures of nanostructures containing quantum dots are not 1D or 0D. From the pictures it is obvious that these objects are at least 2D. They have height and width, and the tops of these structures it is seen they have depth. So that adds up to 3D. I would like to hear your response to this, and then I will comment on the next paper that you referred me to. I would also suggest that you look up the terms dimension and object. Then you can decide for yourself if there can exist a 1D or 0D object. I have not viewed all of the references that you posted regarding this topic of 1D and 0D objects, so if you know of one of these references that gives a specialized definition of dimension and object than please refer me to that one, otherwise I will be left with using the standard definition of dimension and object on the rest of the papers and I will have to give you the same comment I gave about the first paper. So, if no other paper that you referred to me has a specialized definition of dimension and object then it would be pointless to read the rest of the papers using the definitions that are stated in any standard dictionary, since this would lead anyone to the same conclusion that a 1D or 0D object could not physically exist. You define dimension and object and then decide if it is possible to have a 1D or 0D object physically exist.

You use any reference book that you like. You give me a definition of time that is being used in the idea of time dilation. What definition of time are you using when you read about time dilation. I have stated that I do not agree that this thing called time is in fact a thing, and that it can be slowed down. I have stated that time is just a consideration, and this statement is from reading many definitions of time and from observations of the world around me. I have asked many people to give me their definition of time, and not one person has stated that it is a physical thing. YOU or ANYONE reading this thread that do not agree that time is nothing more then a consideration can put this whole issue to rest by stating what definition of time they are using when they read about time dilation. A definition of TIME, not length, or distance or what ever else. Give a definition of TIME. In case you have not noticed, there has not been a definition of TIME given that supports the idea that this time thing can be physically slowed down. Plain and simple, put this issue to rest and show me that I am mistaken by just giving me YOUR definition of TIME that you are using when you read about time dilation. Swansont! You state a definition of time, and stop avoiding the issue. What definition of time are you using when you read about time dilation? I say time is a mere consideration based on the many definitions of time that I have read, and from direct observation of the world around me. If you disagree, please state a definition of TIME that supports your viewpoint. ANY standard definition of TIME from any standard dictionary used by physicists, scientists, professors, students. What is the definition of time that you are working off of that supports your viewpoint? Reaper! Please state your definition of time that you are working from that backs up your viewpoint on time dilation. I have asked you before to give a definition of time, and you have avoided the request. Lets see if you can give a definition. Plain and simple, you give a definition of time that you are using when you read about time dilation. The ball is in your court, you can put this to rest once and for all, can you do it? Just a definition of time is all I am asking of you, or anyone who agrees with you.

Alright, now we are getting somewhere. In any of this literature have you ever seen mentioned how this physical matter that has experienced contraction ( a shortening of length) ever regains its original size? If physical matter really does contract, then physical forces are at work. A physical force would act on this matter to make it shorter, and a physical force would have to bring it back to its original shape. I have never seen or heard any explanation of how this occurs. I would think that a complete explanation of this phenomenon would include at least a mention of the physical matter going back to its original shape, but it is not even mentioned. So if we are to take this seriously as a real occurrence, then why are we, the readers, left with only a partial explanation. Don’t you think that in order to be true to the field of research and science that if you are going to explain an experiment or phenomenon that you should not leave out any pertinent details, as in this real occurrence of matter being contracted. Why explain the first part of the phenomenon, and leave the second part un-mentioned. Look, just by being on this science forum tells me that you are inquisitive and want to know more about the world around you, so were you ever curious as to how exactly this phenomenon of matter contracting occurred? Don’t you want to really know the ins and outs of how this could be possible? This type of occurrence begs further investigation because of the incomplete explanation. Anyway, I am making this too long, I really want to keep this short and to the point. I would like to ask your opinion or thoughts on what you think is actually occurring to make this phenomenon possible? Strictly thoughts, I am not looking for right or wrong answers, just your thoughts. I have raised some questions in the above post (#14) which I would like to explore. I have asked these questions of others that I know and they either refuse to answer them or don’t really know. It seems strange that those that say that matter does contract through this phenomenon can't or will answer questions like these when asked. So many scholars and professors talk about this subject and still no one knows. Seems strange that it is still such a mystery, don’t you think? I would like to talk about this with you or anyone about these questions, forums were made for this kind of talk. I do not want you think that you have to defend your view on this, that would be missing the whole point of just expressing our thoughts on the whole topic. I am not going to treat any communication on this topic as an attack on my view either. I think that there are a lot of gaps in our understanding of this topic and so it invites open communication from any viewpoint. I would like to see what your thoughts are on this. Thanks for your previous honest viewpoint.

What does Special Relativity say regarding an accelerated clock? That would be the best place to go and get that questioned answered. I would also like to retract the following: "If you say that accelerated bodies appear to shorten to an observer that is at rest relative to the moving body, then that would be correct according to the Theory of Special Relativity" I should not tell you what is correct to think about anything. I will only ask questions of anybody on this forum to clarify any misunderstanding I might have of their statement, and if their statement is a personal comment or opinion on anything, I will then add my comment or opinion. I will not tell anyone what is right or wrong. If I see that there might be something stated as fact by someone, and I disagree, I will refer this someone to the reference that I got my information from regarding the topic, or ask that someone for the reference that they are getting their facts from. Either way, I will try and clarify any misunderstanding through references, and definition of terms if necessary. So, I Just wanted to clarify what you meant when you said that two distinct things happen. Did you mean they actually happen? If so, then my questions regarding this occurrence that I posted in the above post (#14) still apply. If not, then fine.

Honestly, I had no intensions of appearing to have completely ignored your post. I just wanted to find out the meaning of these terms since I was unfamiliar with them. From the references that I used to define these terms I could not come to the conclusion that Electron Confinement and Quantum Dots are 1D or 0D objects or that it is physically possible for a 1D or 0D object to exist. I paid much attention to your post with the sole purpose of trying to learn something. So before this gets out of hand, if it is possible, can you point me to a reference that you are using that would show the definition of object and dimension that you are using to show that it is possible for a physical object to have only 1 or 0 (zero) dimensions. It is obvious that if I am using one set of definitions for these terms and you are actually using a different set of definitions we will never be on the same page and so never be able to rationally discuss this topic. Again, I apologize if I came across as totally ignoring your post, that was not my intension. I do want to learn more about this topic, as I am sure others are as well, so I am willing to cooperate, get involved and learn. So I would appreciate any help you or anyone on this post can give. You would not only be making things more clear for me, but would be clearing things up for anyone else who might misunderstand what you were really trying to say. Thank You.

O.K. I am willing to learn. Since I was unfamiliar with the terms: electron confinement and quantum dots, I looked up these terms on wikipedia and found the following: Quantum dot From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "A quantum dot is a semiconductor whose excitons are confined in all three spatial dimensions. As a result, they have properties that are between those of bulk semiconductors and those of discrete molecules. Researchers have studied quantum dots in transistors, solar cells, LEDs, and diode lasers. They have also investigated quantum dots as agents for medical imaging and hope to use them as qubits. Some quantum dots are commercially available." Unless I have misread this, it seems that a quantum dot is a semiconductor. Semiconductor From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "A semiconductor is a solid material that has electrical conductivity in between that of a conductor and that of an insulator; it can vary over that wide range either permanently or dynamically.[1] Semiconductors are tremendously important in technology. Semiconductor devices, electronic components made of semiconductor materials, are essential in modern electrical devices. Examples range from computers to cellular phones to digital audio players. Silicon is used to create most semiconductors commercially, but dozens of other materials are used as well." I looked up electron confinement on wikipedia and other reference books that I have on hand and did not find such a term, but I did find quantum confinement. I know this is not electron confinement, so if you have a definition for electron confinement then by all means let me know. Anyway, this is the definition for quantum confinement per wikipedia. Quantum Confinement in Semiconductors: "In an unconfined (bulk) semiconductor, an electron-hole pair is typically bound within a characteristic length called the Bohr exciton radius. If the electron and hole are constrained further, then the semiconductor's properties change. This effect is a form of quantum confinement, and it is a key feature in many emerging electronic structures. Other quantum confined semiconductors include: quantum wires, which confine the motion of electrons or holes in two spatial dimensions and allow free propagation in the third. quantum wells, which confine the motion of electrons or holes in one dimension and allow free propagation in two dimensions." This definition states that quantum confinement is an action or state of being of an electron or hole that can occur in a semiconductor under special conditions. It defines how an electron or (electron) hole is managed under these certain conditions. So in this definition quantum confinement is not describing an object. For those of you who do not know what an electron hole is you should look up the term for yourself to get a full understanding. But I will give the definition that wikipedia gave. Hole From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "Electron hole, in physics and electronics, the absence of an electron in the valence band." As far as the definition for electron, this is a basic definition from wikipedia. Electron From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "The electron is a fundamental subatomic particle that carries a negative electric charge. It is a spin ½ lepton that participates in electromagnetic interactions, its mass is approximately 1 / 1836 of the proton. Together with atomic nuclei (protons and neutrons), electrons make up atoms. Their interaction with adjacent nuclei is the main cause of chemical bonding." Subatomic particle From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "A subatomic particle is an elementary or composite particle smaller than an atom. Particle physics and nuclear physics are concerned with the study of these particles, their interactions, and non-atomic matter. Subatomic particles include the atomic constituents electrons, protons, and neutrons. Protons and neutrons are composite particles, consisting of quarks. A proton contains two up quarks and one down quark, while a neutron consists of one up quark and two down quarks; the quarks are held together in the nucleus by gluons. There are six different types of quark in all ('up', 'down', 'bottom', 'top', 'strange', and 'charm'), as well as other particles including photons and neutrinos which are produced copiously in the sun. Most of the particles that have been discovered are encountered in cosmic rays interacting with matter and are produced by scattering processes in particle accelerators. There are dozens of subatomic particles." As far as electrons being spherical, I personally have never seen an electron up close, but all diagrams and picture representations that I have seen of an electron were spherical. Please let me know of a better representation of an electron if there is one. In case you were curious as to what a particle is: particle [edit] Etymology From Latin particula ‘small part, particle’, diminutive of pars ‘part, piece’. [edit] Noun particle (plural particles) A body with very small size; a fragment. (physics) An elementary particle or subatomic particle. (linguistics) A word that has a particular grammatical function but does not obviously belong to any particular part of speech, such as the word to in English infinitives. This is by no means a complete definition of particle, so for a complete understanding of the term particle please grab your dictionary. But anyways, if there is a different definition for electron according to quantum mechanics, please inform me. Like I stated at the beginning of this post I am willing to learn more. As far as a 1D or 0D object existing, I did not see evidence of such an object from the two terms that you presented (electron confinement and quantum dots) If there is an object that is only 1D or 0D, I have not come across such an object in my studies. I am always trying to understand more of the world around me, so if you have any reference to a 1D or 0D object please let me know. Thank you. P.S I looked up the word object in a dictionary and could not see how any object could only be 1D or 0D. In fact, I defined the word zero (0) and the word dimension.... well you try and explain how this could be an object. 0D object is a contradiction of terms.

That is all fine as a definition of needs and activities of those organisms that are already alive. But what is it that animates the matter that comprise these organisms? That gets at the heart of the question of what is life or alive. What is the quality or property that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter? Mooeypoo is right. What definition of involution are you using? I just looked in the "American Heritage College dictionary and did not find a definition of involution that fits the context in which you are using it. Also, the question I would have to ask you is, "What is doing this experiencing of existence? One other thought. Don't you find it ironic that those that are alive are trying to find out what it means to be alive? Maybe a good start would be to examine what makes us alive and aware of being alive, and then tackle the bigger question of what makes everything else alive.

You know john, all of my long explanations that I have done on this thread stating that I do not see how time dilation is physically possible according to how time is defined in standard reference books, could have been simplified by asking people to go to a standard dictionary and define the term time. So my only answer to you is to define the term time and then re-read your reference on time dilation. Thank you. If you do not like “dictionary.com” then use a different source. Please feel free to use a dictionary that you are comfortable with. Just define the term. Thank You. I do not see that you have presented any definition of time from a standard dictionary. Please define the term time and then we can talk. Thank you. P.S. Good luck with that flame war. I have not seen anyone post, or quote a standard reference of the term time according to a standard dictionary. If you would like, you can do so. Thank You. If you really want to know what an observer is, look up the word observer in a dictionary. Simple as that.

Go to your dictionary and read the all definitions of length, and time. Then see if that is what you meant to say.

Reaper. Please go to a standard dictionary and look up the word time. Look at all the definitions and then decide if time is a physical thing or not. John, go look at the term time in a standard dictionary. Please define all the definitions. After doing this, please re-read your reference on time dilation. The "dialationists" as you call them, have not given a definition of time according to a standard dictionary, so there is no way to tell what their idea of time is. Until the you personally define the term time by using a standard dictionary, you will not have a full understanding of the term time.

This information can be found on wikipedia regarding quantum wire and nanotubes. Quantum wire conduct electrons. Quantum wire is made of nanotubes. Nanotubes are cylindrical. Cylindrical means it is 3D. So your quantum wire is 3D. As for your 0D object, electrons are spherical, in order for an object to constrict a sphere it would have to be 3D. If anything is a physical object it is made of electrons. Electrons are 3D, so all objects would be 3D. This something? Give an example.

Originally Posted by Norman Albers I described a possible vacuum physics state where light and matter waves do not travel "sideways" . In the interior, nearer to the event horizon of a black hole, the construction of transverse (sideways on a sphere) waves is strongly absorbing, not propagating. This is like curled-up dimensions, no? Norman, lets keep this simple. Do you believe that dimensions, any dimension you want, are real physical things? If so, please explain what these dimensions are made of. I have read many books on string theory and not one author of these book has stated the physical properties of any dimension, and that includes the first three spatial dimensions that we are familiar with. Which dimension is a radial spaghetti stick? Energy in what form? Is this energy a flow (moving) or a solid (condensed)?

Those things that you experience, sense, or perceive are either those things that are physical, (the world outside of you) or those things that you think about or imagine, (the "world" inside your mind). There is no neither. Are you saying that time is an oscillation? Distance is a measurement between points whether real or imagined. Distance, like time is just a measurement and not a thing. Distance is a measurement between points. Time is the measurement of the motion of objects between points. Time is a measurement of motion, it is not a thing that exists on its own. I will ask you again. Do you think time is a physical thing, or a concept?

We can measure what this force (gravity) does in the physical universe. We may not know what exactly causes this force (gravity), but we see its effects. The term of gravity was given to this force that is observable. The force of gravity was existing before man existed and before he gave it a name. What was time before man existed and gave it a name? Nobody needs a device to measure gravity to know that it is there. The presence of gravity has an effect on everything in its sphere of influence. Gravity exists without being measured. What is time when it is not being measured? Without a clock what is this thing called time? What does a clock measure? How does anyone know this time thing exists without a clock? Tell me what time is. You have two options. Either time is a form of energy, or time is a consideration. Which do you think?

Originally Posted by Eric 5 I am not going to believe in Time dilation. Leave beliefs to the field of religion and the mysterious. No data in the physical sciences should be dependent on belief. The confirmed data in the physical sciences is observed empirical data. Data that was achieved through the application of exact measurements, not data that was confirmed with such an ambiguous, undefined, mystery as the definition of time. Facts speak for themselves. I am not going to believe in time dilation being an actual physical occurrence, because that is not how science is conducted. Maybe you can tell me the relationship of how this thing called time, is measured by a clock. A clock is a physical object, what physical thing is it measuring? Time is either an energy form, (energy that flows, or energy that is condensed, as in matter) Or time is a concept. Which is it?

Physics has no standard definition of time? Are you going to tell me that measurements in the nanoseconds have no standard definition. Is time a physical thing? Or is time a human mind thing? When physics states that a time dilation occurred what definition of time are they using? A dilation of what exactly. What kind of science is this? Sounds like if there is no good working definition of time, then there can be no absolute measurements that use time as a measurement especially as small as a nanosecond. There is a lot of mystery related to time! How do clocks measure this mystery? “Time has been left behind and considered metaphysical, something that is beyond our physical perception and hence we cannot fully understand it” Now time could be considered metaphysical. It is beyond our physical perception yet we can measure it in nanoseconds. The field of physics does not fully understand time yet can measure this thing down to the nanosecond. You tell me that physics does not fully understand time and yet you want me to trust their findings when they say that they measured this thing down to the nanosecond. Like a nanosecond is some real thing. A nanosecond of what? Very little progress has been done on the most fundamental cornerstone of time dilation, yet much is said about how time dilation has been tested and observed. They tell us that time dilation data is irrefutable, but just don’t ask them exactly what they are measuring. You want me to believe what I am told, and ignore what I see. Have you ever heard the expression “Who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes.?” This applies to the idea of time dilation. “In philosophy there are several points of view” What about physics? So far you have said that time is: 1. A mystery. 2. Could be metaphysical. 3. Beyond our understanding 4. Cannot be fully understood. 5. Very little progress has been done in the field of time. What other subject in the physical sciences do you know of that is this undefined like this? With all this mystery behind the subject of time, how am I to trust any results that use this mystery as a reference? A dilation of what? That is your opinion. I don’t mean to be rude, but I have spent a lot of time and energy on this forum discussing my observation that time dilation cannot physically occur, and this is what I get for a good solid definition of time. Is this what is being measured in time dilation? Is this what is being measured in time dilation? What is the connection to time dilation? What definition of time are they using when they tell us that time dilation occurred? They do not have an exact definition of time. If time is such a mystery to the physicist then why not just call it a mystery. A mystery dilation sounds more to the point according to your explanation of time. Who is doing the believing here? You just finished telling me that no one knows what time is, yet say that time dilation is a physical occurrence. A dilation of what? From what you have stated so far time is a mystery. You would have to be the one who is trying to ignore the facts that physics has no definition of time that fit’s the idea that a clock can measure it. Let alone a dilation of it. The facts state that time is a mystery to the field of physics. Yet you want to believe that time dilation occurs. “The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge.” Daniel J Boorstin “What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.” Bertrand Russell The above is a quote that eloquently states how people will accept data without much scrutiny or skepticism if that data hints at what they want to believe is true. Time dilation is a dilation of what? What is physically occurring that causes a time dilation to register on a man made device known as a clock.

Yes that looks loke the same book. This is the book Einstein wrote. Any other book not written by him or under his guidance are just an interpretation. This is the book Einstein wrote. It is simple and to the point. Exhaustive text on the subject are just interpretations of what Einstein wrote. Making it more complicated does not make it more true or workable. "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Albert Einstein The book states that time appears to move slower. Einstein mentions clocks on trains. No specific clocks, just clocks. Einstein did not care to say what kind of clock because that is beside the point. The point is that because the speed of light is the same in all reference frames, moving or stationary, the only factor that can introduce a change in two clocks moving in two different reference frames, is the time it takes light to travel to the observer. The light from the clock near the observer will get to that observer more quickly than the light coming from a clock further away. In all the experiments of time dilation according to Special Relativity, there is supposed to be an observer near one clock and one that is further away that is moving relative to the observer. Just by the fact that there is a greater distance between the two clocks from the observers viewpoint means that the time it takes for light to reach the observer from the distant clock will be different from the time it takes light to reach the observer from the closer clock. When the observer looks at both clocks simultaneously, the light from the further clock will be carrying information that is “old” compared to the clock near by. Any light from the distant clock will be that light that was reflected off the clock and had to travel a distance. While that bit of info from that reflection is traveling it carries info of a past event. “Time” has carried on and things have changed since that light left the distant object. The data that an observer receives from this distant object cannot be considered what is actually occurring at the distant object at the time of receiving the data. Here is an example. Two of the same guns with two of the same type of ammunition. One gun is ten feet away from a target, the other gun is one hundred feet away from the target. Both guns are fired at the same time, the bullet from the closer gun will always reach the target first. Why? Is the further gun slower? Did the further bullet travel slower? No. The distance is greater. Now apply this to observing two clocks. To the observer light from the closer clock will reach him sooner that light from the further clock. If he then assumes that he further clock is slower, he is mistaken. It is not time that went slower, it was that there was a greater distance for the light to travel. Read the book. Look at chapter 8 entitled “on the idea of time in physics” It agrees with what I am saying. It is all relative to the speed of light from an object to an observer. Janus, please tell me what your idea of time is that fit’s the concept that time can physically slow down a clock.

I am not going to believe in Time dilation. Like swansont said, "this is science. Empirical evidence that back up (or contradict) established therories are what need to be discussed." John, tell me, time is either a consideration, or a physical form of energy (energy that is flowing or condensed as in matter.) Which is it? You tell me what your definition of time is that allows it to be measured by the man made device called a clock. Also, have you noticed that no one on this thread has mentioned that my definitions of time and clocks are wrong. No one has taken issue with my definitions of time and clocks that back up my observation of why time dilation cannot physically occur. The ball is in your court.

Is this really the way you try and give evidence of what you believe to be a physical occurrence? It is not at all scientific. I guess I am supposed to just take your word for it that time dilation is an actual physical occurrence. How could anyone deny your explicit evidence that you just put forth? It appears that you are trying to have me get off topic and defend myself from your inappropriate comment. What was your point? Does it ever occur to you that this is a forum that is open to everyone who wants to discuss their observations and questions about physics, and that in order for this forum to function and provide a place to openly discuss various topics, everyone should behave in a manner that is respectful and professional. Remember, you are setting an example to others on the attitude of this forum. I am going to assume that this forum is not your creation, and you are just a guest here. If you want this forum to remain as a good place to discuss and share your observations with others on physics, keep the unprofessional comments to yourself. What you say and how you say it are a reflection on you. With that said I will respond. This is a physics forum. I am sure that I am not the first person that has been on this forum that disagrees with the idea that time dilation is a physical occurrence. This topic should be a piece of cake for someone on this forum to resolve. Yet no one can even give a good definition of time that provides a hint that time dilation is physically possible. So far the only statement that was made in defense of time dilation is, time is not physical. That’s it?! Can anyone do better? How about you iNow? Can someone show me the evidence of time dilation as a physical occurrence? In case you haven’t noticed, no one has provided any reference to a report that shows irrefutable evidence of time dilation actually occurring. The report ( The Hafele–Keating experiment) that swansont said provided accurate data on time dilation actually occurring was found to be inaccurate. Swansont has not provided any other report to show evidence of time dilation. Can you provide any evidence. You and Swansont say that it is available, well then show me. I have provided my observations of what time and clocks are that go along with my viewpoint of why time dilation cannot physically occur. No one, including you, has provided any working definitions of time and clocks that agree with the idea that time dilation can physically occur. You can settle this whole debate if you can provide evidence that time dilation can occur. At least give me your definition of time and clocks that can make time dilation seem physically plausible. Can you do that? You may find me annoying, but that is because I am being persistent in getting some evidence of time dilation being a physical occurrence. I don’t settle for just being told the evidence exist. No evidence of time dilation or definitions of time have been provided to back up the idea that time dilation is a physical occurrence. Go ahead and lets see what you can provide that is meaningful to this topic of time dilation, give it your best shot.

Swansont. The reference articles that you directed me to in order to back up your viewpoint, I found flaws in, or other reports that refute the reports you referred me to. I show you a report that says the Hafele-Keating experiment was not accurate, and ask you which of the two reports are we to believe? All you have to say is “the peer reviewed one.” No mention of which one, or where I can find this peer reviewed one. Your answer does not show me any evidence of this experiment. Do you want to prove your point or not? Be specific in your answers. Why are you being so vague? Do you assume I can read your mind? Also, if you knew of a better test, then why did you allow this dialog to continue to use an inaccurate report as long as it did? You knew of a better test and said nothing until I find the report inaccurate. Why not just state the better test earlier? Does this "peer reviewed" report really exist?

Reaper! Get off the sidelines and into the game. What do you have to say about all of this? Talk to me. State your opinion. Maybe you and swansont can team up and give a good definition of time that supports the idea of time dilation. Come on reaper, don't be shy, join in the fun. I would welcome another player in all of this. The following is a quote found on your post: "[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." Time is a concept. I agree. Concepts do not experience time dilation. If you have something to say about time dilation please say it.

Originally Posted by Eric 5 I am not going to transcribe the book that Einstein wrote, but I will tell you to read it. Anyone familiar with Special Relativity will tell you that it is based on events that occur simultaneously and how they appear to an observer. After coming this far in our dialog, only to find out that you do not have a firm grasp on what the concept of time dilation is, I can see why you have the belief in time dilation as an actual physical occurrence. It is too bad that I am now just finding this out, I would have spent more time pointing you to the book that started this concept. I have mentioned this book previously in this thread, I will do this again since I would like you to get the proper understanding of what Special Theory of Relativity says about time dilation. Oh, please. I do have the proper understanding of what SR says about time dilation. Simultaneity for an observer is presented as a concept of SR, but there is nothing that states that measurements have to continually occur at the same time. The measurements that occur at the beginning and end of the experiment happen simultaneously. Wow! Read the book by Einstein. Look up the definition of Special Relativity in any science reference book. What you are stating is not what the standard definition of Special Relativity is. What you are stating is not in agreement with what Einstein wrote in his book. Have you read the book RELATIVITY. THE SPECIAL AND THE GENERAL THEORY.? Yes/no? This report from kelly contradicts what you are saying. So we are left with two reports that contradict each other. We will have to take both reports at face value since neither one of us personally conducted the experiments, or were present when the tests were conducted. So now we are put in the position of either choosing a side based on what we want to believe, or the one that follows what happens in the real physical universe according to the laws of nature. Remember the laws of nature are not a theory. Time dilation is based on a theory. In order for time dilation to tip the scale in its favor it needs to be backed up by data that is irrefutable. Right now, the idea of time dilation is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I say that time is a considerstion, and clocks are nothing more than man made machines that only run according to how man engineered them to run. This agrees with the idea that time dilation is not physical occurance in the physical universe. The kelly report backs this up. You have not stated what you think time is or how you think clocks measure this thing that you said is not physical. This leaves a lot to be desired, and opens the door to interptations and arbitraries. The introduction of an arbitrary into a problem or solution invites the further introduction of arbitraries into problems and solutions. You have not defined the terms of time or clocks that backs up the idea that time dilation is even possible in physical reality. Go ahead and tell everyone that reads this what your definition of time is. "And that makes you oh-for-three. I'll give you a foul-tip on the first one, since I am not claiming time is physical.” The above is a quote of what you said. You say that time is not physical, so what is it? I would like to state right here and now that during this dialog you have said what time is not, but have not said what it is. Your choices are time is a real physical thing, or it is a concept. Which is it? Your definition of time is the foundation of your arguement. Define your terms please.

Which dimension is a radial spaghetti stick? Energy in what form? Is this energy a flow (moving) or a solid (condensed)?

Alright, having this discussion with you has been quite a research journey, much is being uncovered because of you. We are both making long posts that are saturated with information. I appreciate all that you wrote in your most recent post, and am willing to respond to each point that you mentioned if required, but I am going to try and keep my post short and to the point. I want to stick to the basics of this topic. Your answers to the last two comments hit at the core of this debate. Originally Posted by Eric 5  Anyways, my point is still this: 1. Time is not a real physical thing, time is a consideration. 2. Clocks do not measure an energy called time. Clocks are a man-made device that work in such a way that man has designed them to operate. 3. Time dilation is the appearance of clocks moving slower, time dilation does not in reality occur. Your reply to this was, “And that makes you oh-for-three. I'll give you a foul-tip on the first one, since I am not claiming time is physical.” You say time is not physical, so what is it? It is either a real physical thing, or imagined, a concept. If time is not a physical thing, then what are these man made machines called clocks, measuring? Originally Posted by Eric 5  So far in our discussion of this topic you have not stated how time is a real physical thing. You have not stated how a clock is anything more then a machine designed to assign a number to a pre-engineered motion, or the or preexisting activity of an object. You have not shown any evidence of how in any time dilation tests, both clocks were observed simultaneously, as stated in the Special Theory of Relativity. Your response, “Where in the theory of special relativity does it state that the clocks have to be observed simultaneously?” I am not going to transcribe the book that Einstein wrote, but I will tell you to read it. Anyone familiar with Special Relativity will tell you that it is based on events that occur simultaneously and how they appear to an observer. After coming this far in our dialog, only to find out that you do not have a firm grasp on what the concept of time dilation is, I can see why you have the belief in time dilation as an actual physical occurrence. It is too bad that I am now just finding this out, I would have spent more time pointing you to the book that started this concept. I have mentioned this book previously in this thread, I will do this again since I would like you to get the proper understanding of what Special Theory of Relativity says about time dilation.The book: RELATIVITY. THE SPECIAL AND THE GENERAL THEORY. ISBN 0-517-025302 Definition per the: DICTIONARY OF SCIENTIFIC LITERACY. ISBN 0-471-53214-2 Space-Time--- “Einstein’s SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY states that space and time are interrelated. For example, the rate of the flow of time depends on the state of motion of the observer. A clock on a moving laboratory appears to be ticking more slowly than a set of identical clocks distributed throughout a stationary laboratory. Another example: Two events or occurrences at two different locations can be seen to be occurring simultaneously by one observer but will not be seen as not occurring simultaneously by a moving observer.” This is why I kept asking how were the clocks observed in these time dilation tests. According to Special Relativity, both the moving clock and the stationary clock need to be compared simultaneously. One of the clocks have to be moving relative to a stationary clock, and both clocks have to be observed simultaneously. You can’t look at one clock and then later look at a different clock and say there was a time dilation. Comparing two clocks, each comparison done at different times, to prove time dilation would make no sense. I tried to find the exact paper that you wanted me to read on the Hafele-Keating experiment. I found a web site that contained the paper, but getting access to the paper required an access number that I do not have. You could post the web site address if you want me to read what you read, but… In looking for this paper I did find a research site that states that the Hafele-Keating experiment is invalid. So now who are we to believe? Here is what the web site said. The REAL result of the Hafele-Keating experiment [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Relativity XVIII ] [ FAQ ] “Posted by alen on June 01, 2003 at 07:25:38: The website linked below indicates that the result of the Hafele-Keating experiment was severely flawed. An engineer, A.G. Kelly, obtained the original 1971 test report from the United States Naval Observatory, on which the 1972 paper was based, and discovered that the original results actually did not support the result computed in the 1972 paper. The great problem with the experiment was the drift rates of the caesium clocks. They were anything from 2 to 9ns per hour, and the rates could vary by as much as 4ns. This could mean an uncertainty of as much as 300ns in a test supposed to produce a result of only 40 to under 300ns. The clocks were not all equally stable, and averaging could not make the test more reliable. One clock, serial no 120, was so poor that A.G. Kelly says "That erratic clock had contributed all of the alteration in time on the Eastward test and 83% on the Westward test, as given in the 1971 report". He says that, if this clock had been ignored, the East and West results would have been "within 5ns and 28ns of zero". Even more clearly, the most stable of the four clocks, no 447, by itself constituting a better experiment than all the clocks together, indicated, as an overall result of the test, zero kinematic time accumulation. For what it is worth, if the experiment indicated anything, it indicated, via clock 447, that accelerated clocks, moving between events by different spacetime paths, do not accumulate any time difference when they are brought together again. Such a result, if it were dependable, would rather indicate that the proper times in all reference frames accumulate at the same rate, independently of space-time paths, and thus support a view that the SR 'proper time' is a universal time rate that is the same for all reference frames.” Here is the web address. http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum/relboard/messages18/88.html I have to thank you for helping me find another nail to put in the coffin to the myth of time dilation being a real physical occurrence.