swansont Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 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. The rate of biological processing of information is not at the limit of any fundamental law of physics. It's irrelevant to the discussion, unless you can show in detail that it is not.
JohnLesser Posted April 4, 2017 Author Posted April 4, 2017 Practically zero is not zero. This is no defense for the argument. You need to explain this, in detail, with context. because it makes no sense. Plack time is simply a convenient unit. Fractionally 0 the Planck distance measurement is the only measurement close enough to 0 that I could use to explain the problem. The next increment of time is only an instant way, there is no space between increments of Photons that enter your eyes to update information. The rate of biological processing of information is not at the limit of any fundamental law of physics. It's irrelevant to the discussion, unless you can show in detail that it is not. Not biological process, the speed of light and the distance between photons that you receive.
swansont Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 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. No mention of entropy in the link. Entropy is not measured in Hz, which is the output of an atomic clock signal. Otherwise, I have no idea what you mean by "output of the Caesium"
JohnLesser Posted April 4, 2017 Author Posted April 4, 2017 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... I am sorry if I am ambiguous.
swansont Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 I did not understand your example or what you was trying to say sorry. You claimed that "time ... is only relative if you believe simultaneity to be true" Which is an incorrect statement. Absolute simultaneity is NOT part of relativity.
JohnLesser Posted April 4, 2017 Author Posted April 4, 2017 No mention of entropy in the link. Entropy is not measured in Hz, which is the output of an atomic clock signal. Otherwise, I have no idea what you mean by "output of the Caesium" Quote me if I am wrong, when we measure the frequency of the Caesium it is the radiation the Caesium is emitting that we measure the rate of?
swansont Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 Fractionally 0 the Planck distance measurement is the only measurement close enough to 0 that I could use to explain the problem. Why not the Planck distance divided by 10? Or by 100? Or by 10^50?
JohnLesser Posted April 4, 2017 Author Posted April 4, 2017 You claimed that "time ... is only relative if you believe simultaneity to be true" Which is an incorrect statement. Absolute simultaneity is NOT part of relativity. I do not know what you mean by absolute simultaneity. If my understanding is correct , simultaneity is that observers times run at different rates in different inertia reference frames?
swansont Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 Quote me if I am wrong, when we measure the frequency of the Caesium it is the radiation the Caesium is emitting that we measure the rate of? The measurement tells you the frequency of the emitted/absorbed radiation. Measured in Hz. Frequency and rate are not substitutes for each other, but in any event, that's not the units of entropy (which in the appropriate units of energy/Temperature)
JohnLesser Posted April 4, 2017 Author Posted April 4, 2017 Why not the Planck distance divided by 10? Or by 100? Or by 10^50? Because a Plank length is distance fractionally adjoined to 0 point space, or 0 point energy if you prefer.
Strange Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 I do not know what you mean by absolute simultaneity. If my understanding is correct , simultaneity is that observers times run at different rates in different inertia reference frames? No, that is not what simultaneity means.
swansont Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 3.24cm is the distance between Caesium emit and detector. What is a "Caesium emit"? Do you mean the Caesium atoms? The distance between them and the detector varies with the device. In a beam device with a hot-wire detector, they strike it. The distance is zero. In a fountain frequency standard, the distance depends on the vacuum system and the optics one uses. In the Cs fountain I helped build, I think it was closer to 6 or 7 cm.
JohnLesser Posted April 4, 2017 Author Posted April 4, 2017 The measurement tells you the frequency of the emitted/absorbed radiation. Measured in Hz. Frequency and rate are not substitutes for each other, but in any event, that's not the units of entropy (which in the appropriate units of energy/Temperature) I understand they are not substitutes, however we still measure the output. We know outputs can change by change of S., I understand Entropy is generally associated with thermodynamics. Would you agree that the rate of change observed in the Caesium output, (time dilation) is a change in the rate of output? No, that is not what simultaneity means. Then please explain? What is a "Caesium emit"? Do you mean the Caesium atoms? The distance between them and the detector varies with the device. In a beam device with a hot-wire detector, they strike it. The distance is zero. In a fountain frequency standard, the distance depends on the vacuum system and the optics one uses. In the Cs fountain I helped build, I think it was closer to 6 or 7 cm. How can you have different distances? that can not work out right. -1
John Cuthber Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 How can you have different distances? that can not work out right. Yet it did. When your theories disagree with reality, it is not because reality has made a mistake. 4
JohnLesser Posted April 4, 2017 Author Posted April 4, 2017 Yet it did. When your theories disagree with reality, it is not because reality has made a mistake. That did not really answer the question, different distances would be a variant to begin with, how do you expect to measure time correctly without using constants? The constant speed of light proves no time dilation and not the other way around like you all think. c/dx is constant and a very accurate clock.
Strange Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 Then please explain? 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.) 1
John Cuthber Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 That did not really answer the question, different distances would be a variant to begin with, how do you expect to measure time correctly without using constants? The constant speed of light proves no time dilation and not the other way around like you all think. c/dx is constant and a very accurate clock. Who cares? By your own acknowledgement your hypothesis doesn't agree with the real world- so it's wrong. You can stop now.
JohnLesser Posted April 4, 2017 Author Posted April 4, 2017 (edited) Who cares? By your own acknowledgement your hypothesis doesn't agree with the real world- so it's wrong. You can stop now. Huh? I think the twins speak the whole of truth and I have not said my hypothesis doe's not agree with the real world. Quite the opposite. Time is much faster than 1 second a second based on the frequency of output of the Caesium atom. 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.) Hmmm different to what I read, but ok I understand. A simple question, how far away is the immediate future from 0? Added : Can anyone on this forum displace 0 without leaving a past geometrical position or past chronological position? It doe's not matter at what speed you try to displace zero, you can not displace it without leaving a past. This one piece of logic not being any magic, but being a fact. This is why we can't have a real time dilation. I believe this logic can not be challenged by anybody in the Universe and shows by the statements evident truth and postulate, that time dilation can not occur in the way we think it occurs. The forum regs will not like to try and answer this, I predict ridicule before an answer or no answers at all. Edited April 4, 2017 by JohnLesser
StringJunky Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 That did not really answer the question, different distances would be a variant to begin with, how do you expect to measure time correctly without using constants? The constant speed of light proves no time dilation and not the other way around like you all think. But that's the point: time and distance have to change in order to keep c at It's value. That's why it's called a constant.
JohnLesser Posted April 4, 2017 Author Posted April 4, 2017 (edited) But that's the point: time and distance have to change in order to keep c at It's value. That's why it's called a constant. Huh? no it doe's not. Time and distance have to be constant to measure a constant. Time dilation is nothing to do with time and length, time dilation is a change in output rate. You may call it a time dilation but it certainly is not a contraction of space or time. Imagine the Caesium is 0 in the statement. How does ''something'' emit without leaving an immediate past? 0. the dot is the emitted, there is a past distance travelled. Understand it doe's not matter how fast the dot travels, time will pass for 0 continuous. I do not believe continuous can have a frequency? Understand the rate of Photons ''hitting'' things is also continuous . There is no space between packets, relative to not being in shadow of course. continuous kənˈtɪnjʊəs/ adjective 1. forming an unbroken whole; without interruption. Edited April 4, 2017 by JohnLesser
swansont Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 How can you have different distances? that can not work out right. And yet it does work. This is not the place for a tutorial on how atomic clocks are built. But the distance won't matter, since these kinds of clocks don't measure the frequency of the radiation emitted, they measure the state distribution, which is related to the frequency difference between the microwave source and the atoms. Understand the rate of Photons ''hitting'' things is also continuous . There is no space between packets, relative to not being in shadow of course. Spectacularly wrong. You can attenuate light to the point that you detect single photons, well-separated in time. Because a Plank length is distance fractionally adjoined to 0 point space, or 0 point energy if you prefer. Baldly asserted nonsense.
JohnLesser Posted April 4, 2017 Author Posted April 4, 2017 Well regardless of that, do you have any thoughts on the so far undisputed logic? -2
swansont Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 Well regardless of that, do you have any thoughts on the so far undisputed logic? Undisputed? You have half a dozen people disputing your "logic" 2
JohnLesser Posted April 4, 2017 Author Posted April 4, 2017 (edited) Undisputed? You have half a dozen people disputing your "logic" Take note of my earlier predictions where I predicted the post would not be answered or I would be ridiculed. As adults we discuss things, A simple question, how far away is the immediate future from 0? Added : Can anyone on this forum displace 0 without leaving a past geometrical position or past chronological position? It doe's not matter at what speed you try to displace zero, you can not displace it without leaving a past. This one piece of logic not being any magic, but being a fact. This is why we can't have a real time dilation. I believe this logic can not be challenged by anybody in the Universe and shows by the statements evident truth and postulate, that time dilation can not occur in the way we think it occurs. The forum regs will not like to try and answer this, I predict ridicule before an answer or no answers at all. Or do I get more warning points because you can't ever hope to win a debate on that piece of logic? I think that's called wrapped up in a titanium nut shell. Edited April 4, 2017 by JohnLesser
Lord Antares Posted April 5, 2017 Posted April 5, 2017 Well regardless of that, do you have any thoughts on the so far undisputed logic? It cannot be disputed because it makes no sense. If I asked you to dispute the statement: ''time travel at the nearest so far planck speed of zero'', you couldn't, because the sentence doesn't represent a coherent thought. You have been told NUMEROUS times that all this talk about ''going into the past'', ''displacing zero'', ''leaving the past'', etc. doesn't mean anything. In order for something to be eligible for disputation, it needs to follow a logical structure. Then, someone can point out the flaw in the logic. You cannot dispute that which contains no logic in the first place.
Recommended Posts