JohnLesser Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 (edited) 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. Edited April 4, 2017 by JohnLesser -4
Strange Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 Questions? What does "rate" mean? And why is it a function of time? What evidence do you have for these equations? What does this have t do with time dilation? The immediate future is a Planck length away Do you mean Planck time? What evidence do you have that time is quantised?
JohnLesser Posted April 4, 2017 Author Posted April 4, 2017 (edited) What does "rate" mean? And why is it a function of time? What evidence do you have for these equations? What does this have t do with time dilation? Do you mean Planck time? What evidence do you have that time is quantised? 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. Edited April 4, 2017 by JohnLesser -1
Strange Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 These equations already exist, Can you provide a citation? Planck time and Planck length effectively being the same thing. Only if you are travelling at the speed of light, surely? tp can not dilate it is fractionally 0. What does "fractionally 0" mean? I took your advice and looked it up on Wikipedia. It is about 5.4 x 10-14 seconds, which isn't zero is it? What evidence do you have that time is not dilated? As you seem reluctant to provide any evidence or citations to support your case, I would suggest you read this as it seems to contradict much of what you claim: https://www.quora.com/Is-Planck-time-absolute-or-relative
JohnLesser Posted April 4, 2017 Author Posted April 4, 2017 (edited) Can you provide a citation? Only if you are travelling at the speed of light, surely? What does "fractionally 0" mean? I took your advice and looked it up on Wikipedia. It is about 5.4 x 10-14 seconds, which isn't zero is it? What evidence do you have that time is not dilated? 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. Edited April 4, 2017 by JohnLesser -1
Strange Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 Planck time is the evidence, Planck time is not evidence any more than years or seconds are. but if you want more a Photon takes a increment of time to reach your eye, the ''second'' photon arrives immediately. It depends on how far apart the photons are. And how do you quantify "immediately"? There is loads of citations on Wiki on Planck. I am not writing a paper, I am discussing it. I didn't ask for a citation for Planck but for your equations which you say "already exist". Where? Please discuss the affect if Planck time was used as the rate of time, I am quite sure relativity changes. It is not clear that it makes any difference. Why do you think using Planck units is different from using seconds? Very simply a Planck length is not contracted from 3.24cm. Planck time is not contracted/dilated from 1 second Do you have any evidence that Planck length and time are not contracted/dilated?
JohnLesser Posted April 4, 2017 Author Posted April 4, 2017 Planck time is not evidence any more than years or seconds are. It depends on how far apart the photons are. And how do you quantify "immediately"? I didn't ask for a citation for Planck but for your equations which you say "already exist". Where? It is not clear that it makes any difference. Why do you think using Planck units is different from using seconds? Do you have any evidence that Planck length and time are not contracted/dilated? 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 ?
Strange Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 The smallest increment of time we can measure is (tp). Please provide evidence that we can measure tp. Please provide evidence that this is the smallest increment we can measure. The immediate future is a very very small increment away ? Maybe, maybe not. We don't know. In GR time is (must be) continuous. There is no evidence it is quantised.
John Cuthber Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 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. How does that relate to the title of the thread and the fact that time dilation is an experimentally observed fact? 1
JohnLesser Posted April 4, 2017 Author Posted April 4, 2017 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. You are being intentionally obtuse, you know the evidence and know who Planck is and light/dx = tp Light is constant .
Strange Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 Twin 1 R(t)=tp Twin 2 R(t)=tp Did you mean [latex]t_n = t_{n-1} + t_p[/latex] ? Otherwise, you need to explain what you mean by R(t).
JohnLesser Posted April 4, 2017 Author Posted April 4, 2017 (edited) How does that relate to the title of the thread and the fact that time dilation is an experimentally observed fact? 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. Did you mean [latex]t_n = t_{n-1} + t_p[/latex] ? Otherwise, you need to explain what you mean by R(t). 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 Edited April 4, 2017 by JohnLesser
Strange Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 You are being intentionally obtuse, you know the evidence and know who Planck is and light/dx = tp 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. Light is constant . 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.
JohnLesser Posted April 4, 2017 Author Posted April 4, 2017 (edited) 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. 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. Edited April 4, 2017 by JohnLesser
John Cuthber Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 Quite clearly you do not understand. Time dilation is an experiment observed fact, however it is not correct and I will show why . OK There's clearly something I don't understand; it may be physics. It may be what particular mistake you have made. Perhaps you could say something useful rather than "you don't understand". After all, if I had understood I'd not have asked. Also, are you claiming this didn't happen or that it's not time dilation? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment The clocks ran at different rates.
JohnLesser Posted April 4, 2017 Author Posted April 4, 2017 OK There's clearly something I don't understand; it may be physics. It may be what particular mistake you have made. Perhaps you could say something useful rather than "you don't understand". After all, if I had understood I'd not have asked. Also, are you claiming this didn't happen or that it's not time dilation? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment The clocks ran at different rates. 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. -2
Lord Antares Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 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. I believe this is what he is trying to say: Planck time is the smallest unit of time which is available to us. If it is the smallest unit, then it cannot get any smaller, i.e. cannot get dilated into a smaller unit. This is what I believe he is referring to when he mentions increments. Increments of planck time I guess. But this makes no sense on so many different levels. Also, time dilation is an observed fact, so I cannot fathom how we would go on to prove this one. 1
Strange Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 If time was used at the rate of tp How is time "used"? there is no space or fractionally 0 space to dilate between increments. Please provide some evidence that time and space have increments (are quantised). Time is continuous, the constant speed of light shows the opposite How does it show that? On the other hand, the invariant speed of light is only possible because of time dilation and length contraction. Time dilation is an experiment observed fact, however it is not correct and I will show why . If it is observed, how can it not be correct? You think your idea beats reality? The main problem is 3.24cm. What is the significance of 3.24cm? Where does it come from? And why is it a problem? Can you please provide a link to this ? A link to what? R(t) = rate of time 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 believe this is what he is trying to say: Planck time is the smallest unit of time which is available to us. If it is the smallest unit, then it cannot get any smaller, i.e. cannot get dilated into a smaller unit. This is what I believe he is referring to when he mentions increments. Increments of planck time I guess. But this makes no sense on so many different levels. 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.
Lord Antares Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 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. Not only do we need evidence, but: 1) evidence points to the contrary (i.e. time dilation has been established) 2) Since time is relative, it is senseless to talk about the dilation of a unit of time. And how would a planck time unit get ''smaller'' anyway?
JohnLesser Posted April 4, 2017 Author Posted April 4, 2017 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. 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.
Strange Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 The link I asked for was the link to the calculation you provided. I was just trying to write your equation in a more natural / obvious way to make sure I had guessed correctly what you mean. 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 have only one question, which I have asked multiple times: PLEASE PROVIDE SOME EVIDENCE THAT TIME IS QUANTISED. the evidence is that there is no space between increments of the future becoming the ''now'' and then the ''now'' becoming the past. 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.
JohnLesser Posted April 4, 2017 Author Posted April 4, 2017 (edited) And how would a planck time unit get ''smaller'' anyway? 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 have only one question, which I have asked multiple times: PLEASE PROVIDE SOME EVIDENCE THAT TIME IS QUANTISED. 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. Edited April 4, 2017 by JohnLesser
Lord Antares Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 That's the point, a Planck unit cannot contract or dilate. You misinterpreted my sentence. How would you go on to dilate a planck time unit anyway? In its own frame of reference, planck time wouldn't have to be dilated, neither would any other unit. Time is not relative, it is only relative if you believe simultaneity to be true. This doesn't make sense to me.
JohnLesser Posted April 4, 2017 Author Posted April 4, 2017 You misinterpreted my sentence. How would you go on to dilate a planck time unit anyway? In its own frame of reference, planck time wouldn't have to be dilated, neither would any other unit. This doesn't make sense to me. 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.
Lord Antares Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 But you cannot dilate any unit of time from your reference. So planck time would never have to be dilated with GR anyway.
Recommended Posts