Time dilation or a change of frequency ?

[Ned]

The Caesium atom was flew around the world and  it was claimed there was a time dilation . 

 

Isn't the time value a subjective arbitrary add on ? 

Isn't the objective answer there was a frequency change ? 

 

Edited September 20, 2022 by Ned

[iNow]

no

[Ned]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

no

So you are saying there was no change of frequency ? 

That's not what my google search is saying . 

It also says 

Special relativity indicates that, for an observer in an inertial frame of reference, a clock that is moving relative to them will be measured to tick slower than a clock that is at rest in their frame of reference. This case is sometimes called special relativistic time dilation. The faster the relative velocity, the greater the time dilation between one another, with time slowing to a stop as one approaches the speed of light (299,792,458 m/s). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation 

Isn't the objective correctness , the frequency will slow down to 0 cycles per second? 

Why is science in this theory trying to make time dependent to the caesium frequency ? 

I am sure if the caesium atom did not exist then time would flow as normal , independent of the Caesium . 

 

 

[iNow]

1 minute ago, Ned said:

So you are saying there was no change of frequency ? 

no

1 minute ago, Ned said:

Why is science in this theory trying to make time dependent to the caesium frequency ? 

It's not

[Ned]

Just now, iNow said:

no

 

Just now, iNow said:

no

That's contradiction , you are either saying there was a change of frequency or there wasn't , which one is your answer ? 

[iNow]

1 minute ago, Ned said:

you are either saying there was a change of frequency or there wasn't , which one is your answer ? 

neither

I'm saying neither of those things.  

[Ned]

Just now, iNow said:

neither

So you are agreeing in the subjective , there was a time dilation ? 

Please provide evidence that time is dependent to the caesium atom or admit you are making things up . 

 

[iNow]

Just now, Ned said:

So you are agreeing in the subjective , there was a time dilation ? 

No, that's not what I am doing. 

4 minutes ago, Ned said:

Please provide evidence that time is dependent to the caesium atom

Why would I do this? That's not what I'm saying. 

... as already clarified 8 minutes ago ... 

[Ned]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

No, that's not what I am doing. 

Then what are you doing ? You are not making any sense ! 

The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In 1971,^[1] Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele–Keating_experiment

They proved a change of frequency , this doesn't prove in anyway a change of time ! 

 

 

 

[iNow]

Just now, Ned said:

You are not making any sense ! 

How do you know?

Just now, Ned said:

They proved a change of frequency , this doesn't prove in anyway a change of time ! 

You should just stop. This is getting embarrassing for you. 

[Ned]

Just now, iNow said:

How do you know?

Because I have spoke to you several times and I do know you are quite knowledgeable . Time dilation is poor semantics , the whole section on Wikipedia needs taking down and worded correctly . In wording it correctly , they only need to change the word time to timing then explain why the timing isn't synchronised . 

[iNow]

1 minute ago, Ned said:

Time dilation is poor semantics

You should look to the math instead, then. Very clear. 

1 minute ago, Ned said:

they only need to change the word time to timing then explain why the timing isn't synchronised

But then it would no longer be accurate. 

[Ned]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

You should look to the math instead, then. Very clear. 

But then it would no longer be accurate. 

I've seen the math and that would be correct to synchonise timing between two devices that measure the rate of timing differently  . You are incorrect though , a time dilation infers a change of actual time as if the whole universe slows down for the observer. A timing dilation explains the process objective and correctly . It is very easy to discourse this subject and show that time is constant . Consider this , when an object approaches the near speed of light and the frequency of the Caesium slows down to almost zero , the rest of the universe measures timing at a normal rate proving the slow measure is incorrect . Speed d/t also proves there is no change of time , if two objects travel in opposite directions at the same speed , the distance the objects travel in a set amount of timing , is equal . 

10 mph = 10 mph 

Both objects experience exactly one hr . 

How do you explain that away with your time dilation ? 

 

[swansont]

54 minutes ago, Ned said:

The Caesium atom was flew around the world and  it was claimed there was a time dilation . 

 

Isn't the time value a subjective arbitrary add on ? 

Isn't the objective answer there was a frequency change ? 

 

There was a frequency change, so the accumulated time was different.

The amount of time difference depends on the duration of the trip; IOW both descriptions are true and valid. But it's objective, not subjective.

 

9 minutes ago, Ned said:

Consider this , when an object approaches the near speed of light and the frequency of the Caesium slows down to almost zero , the rest of the universe measures timing at a normal rate proving the slow measure is incorrect .

It's not incorrect. They frequencies disagree, and this is in accordance with the theory of relativity. Time (and frequency) are relative to the frame of reference in which they are measured.

[Ned]

37 minutes ago, swansont said:

There was a frequency change, so the accumulated time was different.

The amount of time difference depends on the duration of the trip; IOW both descriptions are true and valid. But it's objective, not subjective.

 

Ok, rewind slightly , isn't the time value added to the caesium atom , it has nothing to do with the caesium other than what we are defining ? 

Hence , a subjective value ! 

 

37 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

 

It's not incorrect. They frequencies disagree, and this is in accordance with the theory of relativity. Time (and frequency) are relative to the frame of reference in which they are measured.

You've added on , yes the frequencies disagree but time ''does not care'' that the frequencies disagree . Isn't it a fact that time is simply a measure of history ? Measured at 1.s of history per 1.s passed measure . As the present progresses , history is recorded . 

Timing and frequency are relative 

Quote

timing

/ˈtʌɪmɪŋ/

Learn to pronounce

 

noun

 

1. the choice, judgement, or control of when something should be done.

   "one of the secrets of cricket is good timing"

   • a particular point or period of time when something happens.

     plural noun: timings

     "the introduction of new signal timings"
   • (in an internal combustion engine) the times when the valves open and close, and the time of the ignition spark, in relation to the movement of the piston in the cylinder.[/quote]

      

     How is the movement of the ''frequency'' not timing ? 

      

     Don't you agree that the time value is actually mechanical timing ? 

      

     If not , why not ? 

      

     You admit a change of frequency , why is there a need to add on other values other than subjective use ? 

      

      

 

 

37 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

The amount of time difference depends on the duration of the trip; IOW both descriptions are true and valid. But it's objective, not subjective.

 

It's not incorrect. 

Here is one of my crappy diagram models that shows there is no time difference during the duration of the trip ! 9192631770Hz per second 

4,596,315,885Hz per second 

Edited September 20, 2022 by Ned

[iNow]

57 minutes ago, Ned said:

Here is one of my crappy diagram models

Objectively speaking?

[Ned]

19 minutes ago, iNow said:

Objectively speaking?

Sarcastically speaking ! I know my model is very accurate in its representation of timing . I'm still waiting for your reply on d/t , how can there be a difference in time when d/t proves the same amount of time (history) was experienced by both observers? 

10mph=10mph 

t1=t2'

vector x = vector x'

 

 

 

Edited September 20, 2022 by Ned

[iNow]

31 minutes ago, Ned said:

I know my model is very accurate in its representation of timing

Do you mean subjectively?

[Ned]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Do you mean subjectively?

No, it is an objective model ! The value of 0.5s per 1.s of course isn't accurate but that doesn't matter in the representation ! 

A person measuring time using timing that was a variant would have to declare a different amount of history which of cause would be total fallacy . 

Can you answer the d/t question now ? 

 

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Ned said:

Ok, rewind slightly , isn't the time value added to the caesium atom , it has nothing to do with the caesium other than what we are defining ? 

I don't know what "time value added to the cesium atom" means

1 hour ago, Ned said:

You've added on , yes the frequencies disagree but time ''does not care'' that the frequencies disagree . Isn't it a fact that time is simply a measure of history ? Measured at 1.s of history per 1.s passed measure . As the present progresses , history is recorded . 

Time positively cares about the frequency, since you "count the ticks" to tell what time is. More ticks means more time has elapsed. fewer ticks, less time.

 

 

[iNow]

12 minutes ago, Ned said:

The value of 0.5s per 1.s of course isn't accurate but that doesn't matter in the representation

So you agree your representation is unrepresentative gibberish? Thanks for confirming. 

[Ned]

17 minutes ago, swansont said:

I don't know what "time value added to the cesium atom" means

Time positively cares about the frequency, since you "count the ticks" to tell what time is. More ticks means more time has elapsed. fewer ticks, less time.

 

 

Before the 1950's a Caesium atom was just an atom with a frequency , then science defined a set frequency to equal a second . 

They could of used any set frequency , knowing the Caesiums frequency was dependent to climate control . 

That is what I mean by the time added value , sciences definition of a second . 

The irony is they defined the second to equal the caesiums frequency because the Earths rotation wasn't constant . 

They replaced one broken clock with another broken clock , knowingly the caesium was a volitile atom and variant before the time value was added . 

The problem with measuring time , is that the rate of history is really fast . The progression of the present is much faster than we measure time to begin with . 

I can prove this with a simple question , how fast can you count ? 

 

Edited September 20, 2022 by Ned

[iNow]

13 minutes ago, Ned said:

A person measuring time using timing that was a variant would have to declare a different amount of history which of cause would be total fallacy . 

Looks like you whiffed a bit on this swing. Would you like to try again, maybe next time using English? 

Just now, Ned said:

They replaced one broken clock with another broken clock

It sure looks like the only broken clock here is you, and sadly you're not even correct twice per day. 

1 minute ago, Ned said:

I can prove this with a simple question , how fast can you count ? 

Banana

[Ned]

16 minutes ago, iNow said:

So you agree your representation is unrepresentative gibberish? Thanks for confirming. 

That's not what I implied at all ! It represents it perfect . 

If you give me the correct percent of difference in the timing dilation of the Caesium then I could adjust the model with the correct value . 

However , it doesn't really matter because it shows what it is designed to show . 

15 minutes ago, iNow said:

Looks like you whiffed a bit on this swing. Would you like to try again, maybe next time using English? 

It sure looks like the only broken clock here is you, and sadly you're not even correct twice per day. 

Banana

I'm not going to reply to you if you continue to be rude and unscientific . Haven't you got your own forum to moderate ? 

I can count faster than time is presently measured but beleive me  time doesn't speed up or slow down if I count slower . 

What is frequency again ? A count if I'm not mistaken . 

Edited September 20, 2022 by Ned

[iNow]

6 minutes ago, Ned said:

If you give me the correct percent of difference in the timing dilation of the Caesium then I could adjust the model with the correct value

So in addition to all of your many other problems, your quote unquote "model" can't even accurately model the very thing it proposes to model? Wow... I'm sold! Where do I sign up! 

7 minutes ago, Ned said:

I can count faster than time

Can you also travel faster than space?!?