Strange

You could define a universal time like that. But it is still an arbitrary choice, and still observer dependent. So for example, two twins could decide to meet at a certain time (empty-zillion ticks later). Twin1 arrives at the meeting point and a day later Twin2 arrives. Twin1 says "where were you? It was empty-zillion o'clock yesterday!' And Twin2 says, "no, it is now: look at my watch". (Apart from the practical problems of counting transitions, the fact the big bang is a process not an event, there was no hydrogen for about 380,000 years, etc) Yes they do. That is pretty much what defines the speed of sound in a material: the rigidity and density of the material.

So, on the one hand, we have a mathematical theory of gravitation that makes very accurate predictions. All of these are consistent with experiment. On the other hand we have your guess, with no ,mathematics and way of testing it. Sorry, but I think I will stick with the science. But thanks anyway.

Once it is no longer accelerating (i.e. no force is being applied) then the opposite corners will be move at the same speed (if that is what you mean by "same time").

There is no universal now. Yes. The movement of the stick travels at the speed of sound in the stick.

Simultaneity is about whether two events happen at the same time or not. Imagine you see two lighting flashes to your left and right. You could find out how far away they are and use that to work out if they happened at the same time or not. Now, it turns out, because of the invariance of the speed of light, two observers may not agree about simultaneity. So, for example, you might say that flash A and flash B happened at the same time. But another observer, moving relative to you, might say that A happened before B. And a third observer might say that A happened after B. That is relativity of simultaneity. (And maybe you shouldn't claim to be such an expert in future.)

The signal would be transmitted at the speed of sound in the material.

No, that is not what simultaneity means.

This is completely incoherent.

Because it is funny?

If only we had an expert on atomic clocks we could ask ...

Please show where you found this number of the Internet.

Where did you get that from?

Yes, please: Where does 3.24 cm come from? Clearly you are never going to admit you are wrong, so the best we can hope to do is get a better understanding of your delusions.

Why? We don't see by receiving individual photons. And even if we do, that is just about our perceptions. It doesn't say that time is quantised.

Did I say "always"? Babies (and animals ... and adults) can be content when they are awake. The important point is they don't have to learn this.

Not really. It is to understand all the masses that affect the orbits of a number of stars (I think they look at 6 stars in detail). As well as to check that the predictions of GR match what we see. It depends on the coordinate system used. I'm afraid that the details of that paper are beyond my understanding so you are on your own here.

That is why physics uses math. Absolutely. That is why gravitational lensing is useful for mapping dark matter.

Of course, I was wrong. Doh.

Why not? It is just a unit, like seconds or fortnights. There is nothing "magic" or special about it. The only invariant there is c. So dx and dt are (must be) variable. That is what I asked. I asked for evidence that time is "quantised" i.e. that it proceeds in steps or increments. I am not aware of any such evidence, so you have the chance to correct and educate me. Wrong. It is 1.6 x 10-35 m not zero. And there is no reason it cannot appear dilated from another frame of reference. And there is also no reason why there cannot be distance of 0.5 Planck lengths. Or 1/1,000th of a Planck length. You are assigning magical properties to a unit of measurement. No it doesn't. Unless you have some evidence. Just repeating it doesn't make it true. What is this 3.24cm you keep going on about? Where does that come from? The equation does not represent reality (as far as I know - but feel free to present some evidence).

I was just trying to write your equation in a more natural / obvious way to make sure I had guessed correctly what you mean. I have only one question, which I have asked multiple times: PLEASE PROVIDE SOME EVIDENCE THAT TIME IS QUANTISED. That is not evidence. It is an assertion. In other words, it is something you claim to be true. Now you need to provide evidence that time proceeds in increments.

How is time "used"? Please provide some evidence that time and space have increments (are quantised). How does it show that? On the other hand, the invariant speed of light is only possible because of time dilation and length contraction. If it is observed, how can it not be correct? You think your idea beats reality? What is the significance of 3.24cm? Where does it come from? And why is it a problem? A link to what? 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. I also believe that is what he is trying to say (in his usual incoherent way). But, we need some evidence to support this claim.

Babies can be obviously content when they are awake. If they are sleeping peacefully, then they are probably content. If they are screaming in pain or having a nightmare, then probably not.

I am not being obtuse. I am trying to you to explain why you think that using Planck units makes any difference. And why you think that if you use Planck units that it somehow avoids time dilation. What does that mean? Do you mean "the speed of light is constant"? If so, that is true but not very relevant. Perhaps what you really mean is that the speed of light is the "invariant" (i.e. the same for all observers). If so, that is exactly why time dilation occurs, even if you define the speed of light as 1 Planck length per Planck time.

Did you mean [latex]t_n = t_{n-1} + t_p[/latex] ? Otherwise, you need to explain what you mean by R(t).

Please provide evidence that we can measure tp. Please provide evidence that this is the smallest increment we can measure. Maybe, maybe not. We don't know. In GR time is (must be) continuous. There is no evidence it is quantised.