Strange

I guess I (and others) are failing to make the point... Yes, the measured time varies because of relativity. But the time taken does not depend on movement inside the muon. Randall has repeatedly said (wrongly) that all "clocks" (things that measure time) do so by using motion. For example, there is no significant movement in an atomic clock; and what movement there is, introduces errors rather than being the mechanism for measuring time. (I, of course, stand to be corrected by any experts who may be reading!) The muon is an even more extreme example; it has no moving parts or any internal structure. A stationary muon will decay after approximately 20 us. There is no motion and yet the muon is able to "measure" time. So the "mechanics" of the muon cannot be affected by movement or by gravity, and yet it can still be used to demonstrate time dilation. This could also be a good example of Pauli's "not even wrong". Something based on so many errors cannot really be shown to be either right or wrong.

I have not read all the other responses fully, but I think the important point about muons is they act as (crude) clocks by decaying after some known time (within a range). And that this decay time is not driven by movement - ie. there are no moving parts within the muon that count down the time until it decays. So the observed time dilation in the decay cannot be due to "mechanical" effects as in a pendulum clock or a quartz crystal oscillator. In other words, we need motion to observe the muons but their "internal clock" does not use motion (there being nothing to move). I assume this means that you are saying that the time dilation will be exactly the same as predicted by relativity? In which case, how do we distinguish your theory from relativity? We need some experimental test to see which one is right and which wrong (or, rather, which is more accurate).

There isn't really a single definition that can be used in all cases. It is a man-made concept and does not map precisely on to the gradual variations and complexity we see in the world.

We can trace the expansion of the universe back to a hot, dense state about 13.8 billions years ago. The universe has been expanding and cooling since then. We do not have any theories that are valid before that early hot, dense state. There are some speculations about the universe being "created", or rebounding from an earlier collapse, or being infinitely old, or ... None of these have any evidence (yet) and so are not scientific theories. The trouble is, you are basing much of your argument on inaccurate popular science descriptions, rather than what science tells us. Any comments on the rate at which a pendulum swings on the moon versus time dilation?

I imagine multiple factors will change the shape of the meniscus (if that is what you are talking about) but I can't see how it would change the volume in any significant way (just make it more difficult to calculate, perhaps). But colour is irrelevant.

Ah, I see.

! Moderator Note OK. Thread closed

I'm sure that is very clever, but I have no idea what it means in the the context of time travel or ageing!

No.

I don't know if anyone has done that (and a quartz crystal would not be accurate enough to measure the effects of time dilation). But we can measure time dilation due to changing speed and gravity right here on Earth. So I'm not sure what your point is.

! Moderator Note Duplicate thread

That implies that if you travelled backwards in time, you would get younger (and, presumably, if you travelled forwards in time, you would age more rapidly). While it is an unusual approach to the concept of time travel, it could be an interesting idea for a science fiction story. It would place serious constraints on how far forward or back in time you could travel: only within your own lifetime.

You say it is a "proven fact of physics". Why don't you calculate the effects and see if you are correct? There are two different effects here, one is the fact that the period of a pendulum is dependent on the force of gravity: [math]T = 2 \pi \sqrt \frac{L}{g}[/math]. As you can see, that means the pendulum will swing about 2.5 times slower on the moon than on Earth. But ... This is not time dilation. This is purely the effect of the force of gravity on a mechanical system. So, for example, an atomic clock or a quartz oscillator will not run 2.5 times slower on the moon than the Earth. (This would have caused obvious effects for communication with astronauts if so.) If you calculate gravitational time dilation on the Moon: [math] t_0 = t_f \sqrt{1 - \frac{2GM}{rc^2}} [/math] You will find that clocks will actually run faster; not by much, about 0.2 seconds / year (from memory). So, once again, your guesswork is wrong. Well, the behaviour of muons is one way of measuring time. Which does not involve movement, or anything man-made. They are another way of showing you are wrong, in other words. But you have not provided a new theory that allows anything to be calculated or solved. Which means your "theory" is (a) untestable (and therefore not scientific) and (b) useless. It is just a measurement (like length), so there is nothing to refute.

You don't have a theory. Just some vague claims, many of which are factually incorrect (although you seem to have ignored all the attempted corrections. That is not a theory. It sounds crudely accurate but is too vague to be useful. You need to provide something quantitatively testable (ie mathematics). There is no evidence for that. I'm not sure what it means for energy to be in motion. energy is just a property of things. You are mixing up crude, pre-scientific measures of time (days and years) with modern cosmology which does not use them, so I'm not sure what the point is. True. But hard to see the relevance (like many of other points) 1. They aren't 2. You don't have a theory. If you do, what can it predict? False. This is so false, I can only assume it is a deliberate lie. I'm not sure it is our job to teach you basic physics in your thread about your personal "theory". But if you insist: time is a dimension: an independent measurement used in conjunction with three spatial measurements to locate events relative to one another: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime This thread is for you to present your idea, not to interrogate others. Why? We have two correct theories of how gravity works. And in the future we may have others. I'm not sure you understand what science is.

! Moderator Note I assume this is some sort of (bad) joke. If you actually have something to discuss, report this post with an explanation.

You can modify the analogy that way. Or use left and right socks. Or any sort of matched pairs. The difference is that in that classical analogy (either studiot's or your modified version) one of the coins is a head and the other is a tail, we just don't know which until someone looks. In the quantum world, the "coin" is not defined as being either head or tail until the measurement is made.

Just goes to show that having a high IQ (whatever that means) does not protect one from idiotic beliefs. There are plenty of Nobel Prize winners who have believed ridiculous things, for example. Feel free to show some evidence that: 1. There are full writing systems that predate merchants' records of accounts/goods 2. That there is a Hebrew letter derived from a symbol meaning tent pegs. I look forward to seeing this. So this god made everyone speak different languages after the tower of Babel, but then should have made magic translations into every language? That makes no sense. Why didn't she just make everyone speak the same language? And it clear that there are errors in the various translations (as well as human choices about which bits to include and exclude) so they were not done by a god with infinite power. The modern language is, of course, very different from the ancient language. I doubt a speaker of modern Aramaic could read Ancient Aramaic without studying it as a special subject. After all, different dialects of modern Aramaic are not mutually comprehensible.

Ignoring the fact that you have just been told, by someone with some expertise, that this is not true of atomic clocks... You claim that different types of clock will be affected differently by gravity: do you have any EVIDENCE of this?

But the math (ie the scientific theory) gets the correct result. All you have is baseless claims it is wrong. You need to provide some evidence. We have internal clocks that measure time. You need to stop making baseless (and incorrect) claims and provide some evidence. If you want to meet your friend there then you will need to specify the time. If you are going to make false statements like this, there isn’t much hope for this thread. In other words, a crude way of specifying the time. So you admit you were wrong. Are you saying that the universe sprang into existence with the appearance of being 14 billion years old when mankind appeared? It seems more rational to think the universe existed and evolved for 14 billion years as the evidence shows.

! Moderator Note You need to present your argument here. Not just provide links.

One possible conclusion from the Big Bang model is that the universe was created at time 0 so I don't see how this is contradictory to a belief in a god that created the universe. (But as that has nothing to do with science, we should ignore it really) This is not true. In fact, the more accurate clocks are, the less movement is involved. We can measure gravitational time dilation here on Earth, so there is no doubt it is a real effect. You have not proved anything. You have just made a series of claims based on a serious lack of knowledge. Gravitational time dilation is not caused by gravitational force. It is coursed by differences in gravitational potential. You could have two clocks both experiencing 1g (Earth gravity) but at different gravitational potential and therefore showing gravitational time dilation. Yes. This is what is called "gravitational time dilation". The thing you claim doesn't exist. If you want to argue that this is a "mechanical" effect caused by the difference in gravity then you need to show that all processes will be affected identically. Can you show, in mathematical detail, that the swing of a pendulum will be affected by exactly the same amount as an atomic clock (which does not involve and motion)? And that will be exactly the same amount as chemical reactions, atomic decay and every other process? No, I don't think so.

! Moderator Note You have been told multiple times not to keep posting links to your erroneous spreadsheet. This thread is closed.

! Moderator Note You claim that special relativity is wrong. Therefore your incorrect "theory" belongs in Speculations. There is over a century of scientific results confirming special relativity. You could start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity Or: https://homepages.abdn.ac.uk/nph120/Cosmol/specrel.pdf Or: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html Or many other sources of information. On the other hand, we have a complete absence of evidence from you. ! Moderator Note Unless you provide some convincing evidence that the theory of relativity is wrong, this thread will be closed.

! Moderator Note You need to show that to be the case, not just assert it. (You should also clean up your notation; for example C and c are the same thing, but it looks like G and g are different.)

! Moderator Note As this seems to be a discussion of what it means to"exist" or be "real", I have moved this to Philosophy. However, as argo is now just repeating the same claims as before with no further explanation of justification, it is closed. Do NOT open another thread on this subject.