Time dilation busted!

[JohnLesser]

But you cannot dilate any unit of time from your reference. So planck time would never have to be dilated with GR anyway.

I am not to sure what you mean, Planck time shows us why there can't be a ''time'' dilation, we are our own culprits by adding 3.24cm which is a present measurement .

 

 

I was just trying to write your equation in a more natural / obvious way to make sure I had guessed correctly what you mean.

 

Then you truly understand this if you can easily write that equation.

 

 

 

It is not clear that it makes any difference. Why do you think using Planck units is different from using seconds?

 

 

The rate of time (entropy) is much faster than using seconds, the rate of time is the speed of c, entropy changes at the speed of c.

 

Gain and loss = hf/S

[Strange]

That's the point, a Planck unit cannot contract or dilate.

 

 

Why not? It is just a unit, like seconds or fortnights. There is nothing "magic" or special about it.

 

 

 

It is invariant for all observers because the speed of c/dx is constant always.

 

The only invariant there is c. So dx and dt are (must be) variable.

 

 

 

am in speculation, ok, if you want me to prove time is a quantity

 

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.

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.

 

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.

I am not to sure what you mean, Planck time shows us why there can't be a ''time'' dilation,

 

No it doesn't. Unless you have some evidence. Just repeating it doesn't make it true.

 

 

we are our own culprits by adding 3.24cm which is a present measurement .

 

What is this 3.24cm you keep going on about? Where does that come from?

 

 

 

Then you truly understand this if you can easily write that equation.

 

The equation does not represent reality (as far as I know - but feel free to present some evidence).

[JohnLesser]

 

 

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).

It is a shame I can't upload this drawing.

 

Do you understand sight? we see things in their past? The past updates at c in your mind .

 

That is the evidence time is in increments, very small increments from one wave packet to the next.

 

The past updates in your mind at a constant rate of c.

Edited April 4, 2017 by JohnLesser

[Strange]

That is the evidence time is in increments, very small increments from one wave packet to the next.

 

 

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.

[swansont]

Time is a function of entropy

 

 

Back this up.

The smallest increment of time we can measure is (tp).

 

The smallest time we can currently measure is significantly longer then the Planck time. The Planck time, as with the other Planck units, is the time scale at which quantum gravity is needed.

[JohnLesser]

 

. It doesn't say that time is quantised.

It does when the past is updated almost immediately by light and entropy changes at the rate of c.

[swansont]

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.

 

You would need a very precise clock to do this. It's not a question of accuracy. But it is well beyond the current ability to measure.

 

I have no idea why you think 3.24 cm has significance, or that it comes into play in an atomic clock.

 

The Cs-133 frequency doesn't have a lot to do with the precision of these clocks; we can measure fractions of an oscillation when we compare clocks. The best optical frequency standards today are at the 10^-18 level of precision if they run for a day. There are time interval measurements you can do at even greater precision.

[JohnLesser]

 

 

Back this up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Lavoisier

 

 

Nothing is ever lost or gained, equilibrium has an exchange rate, hf/s , photons in, photons out.

 

 

You measure the output of the Caesium, it's entropy rate.

[Strange]

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.

Edited April 4, 2017 by Strange

[JohnLesser]

 

You would need a very precise clock to do this. It's not a question of accuracy. But it is well beyond the current ability to measure.

 

I have no idea why you think 3.24 cm has significance, or that it comes into play in an atomic clock.

 

The Cs-133 frequency doesn't have a lot to do with the precision of these clocks; we can measure fractions of an oscillation when we compare clocks. The best optical frequency standards today are at the 10^-18 level of precision if they run for a day. There are time interval measurements you can do at even greater precision.

3.24cm is the distance between Caesium emit and detector.

 

Yes we would need a very accurate clock such as a light clock , I think the problem would be getting something to count so fast.

Edited April 4, 2017 by JohnLesser

[Strange]

3.24cm is the distance between Caesium emit and detector.

 

 

Where did you get that from?

[JohnLesser]

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.

How can the very science you use be delusional?

 

See other post for answer

[swansont]

 

 

Time is not relative, it is only relative if you believe simultaneity to be true.

Absolute simultaneity is excluded by relativity, so this is the opposite of correct.

[JohnLesser]

 

 

Where did you get that from?

Researching the internet and asking .

[iNow]

The past updates at c in your mind .

(snip)

The past updates in your mind at a constant rate of c.

Nope, and repeating it doesn't magically mean it's true.

 

Whether saltatory or not, the mean conduction velocity of an action potential ranges from 1 meter per second (m/s) to over 100 m/s, and, in general, increases with axonal diameter. See here

[Strange]

Researching the internet and asking .

 

 

Please show where you found this number of the Internet.

[iNow]

Why is this being allowed to continue... again?

[Strange]

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

[Arete]

Yes, please: Where does 3.24 cm come from?

 

The answer is clearly 42. Duh

[Strange]

Why is this being allowed to continue... again?

 

Because it is funny?

[JohnLesser]

 

 

Absolute simultaneity is excluded by relativity, so this is the opposite of correct.

I did not understand your example or what you was trying to say sorry.

[swansont]

 

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.

 

 

Practically zero is not zero. This is no defense for the argument.

I am not to sure what you mean, Planck time shows us why there can't be a ''time'' dilation, we are our own culprits by adding 3.24cm which is a present measurement .

You need to explain this, in detail, with context. because it makes no sense.

 

Plack time is simply a convenient unit.

[JohnLesser]

Nope, and repeating it doesn't magically mean it's true.

 

Whether saltatory or not, the mean conduction velocity of an action potential ranges from 1 meter per second (m/s) to over 100 m/s, and, in general, increases with axonal diameter. See here

You are incorrect, we see things in their past geometrical position, things are in motion, for every action there is an equal action of updated Quanta information. We receive this updated information continuous.

[Strange]

You are incorrect, we see things in their past geometrical position, things are in motion, for every action there is an equal action of updated Quanta information. We receive this updated information continuous.

 

 

This is completely incoherent.

[iNow]

You are incorrect, we see things in their past geometrical position

Of course, and that's not what I objected to. Your comments on the velocity of thought propagation were badly wrong, hence that's where I focused my reply. Ho hum... Edited April 4, 2017 by iNow