Existence

,Yes, of course.You believe that gravity slows a cesium atom clock by exact amount to match the time dilation effect predicted by GR. But you seem to deny that relative motion has an effect on clocks or time. Is that correct?So what's your explanation for the observed longer half-life of muons traveling at velocities approaching the speed of light relative to the observer?As best I can tell your position on GR is that gravity produces an effect is on clocks but not time, while your position on SR is complete denial of any effect at all. I think that is a fairly unique combination.

Believe it or don't, but it happens. It has to happen, because the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers regardless of their velocity.

Hi Taq, What makes you think it does? So what do you use to determine the length of that duration? Are you saying the frequency of the cesium is time? But nothing depends on time. Everything depends upon existing. Time is a concept of man that he invented to measure these physical interactions that you are talking about. But iron oxidizing is not time.The rate a specific pendulum swings is not time but it is used to measure man's concept of time.So I ask again. Can you give me a definition of the time that is being streached by dilation?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi NoNukes, No.I believe that the further away from the center of the earth a cesium clock is the faster the frequency will be. That is one of the reasons the clock has to be offset before launch to match the clock on the ground.There is also an onboard frequency synthesizer built into the clock to tune the frequency of the satellite clock. I do not deny that motion has an effect on clocks.Duration which is measured by the concept of time invented by man is more constant than the speed of light. Clocks are affected by the gravity of Earth probably by the gravity of the sun, and by motion.Duration which is measured by the concept of time invented by man is not affected by anything.I will get to the muons after further study.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi crash, Can you even define the time that you say streaches?Is time something physical that can be streached like bubble gum?If time is not physical how do you streach it?Question:Where in the universe is light traveling in a vacuum?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Time is the reason things don't happen all at once. When time passes more slowly for one reference frame than for another, we say that time is being "stretched." The use of the word "stretch" is metaphorical; people intuitively understand time as being elastic so it makes sense to talk about it like it's literally made of elastic. But, again, that's just a metaphor. Almost everywhere. It's generally only as it passes through transparent materials that the speed of light is measurably different from its speed in a vacuum.

You can believe that, but it's wrong. The frequency of cesium oscillation - in its reference frame - is identical regardless of where in space it is.We only have to correct orbiting clocks because we want them to synchronize with non-orbiting clocks on Earth. We live on Earth, obviously, so this is where we want to tell time, so we want clocks in orbit, in a different reference frame, to synchronize with clocks in the Earth's reference frame.So, we slow them down by treating slightly more oscillations of cesium atoms in space as "one second", compared to the number of oscillations of cesium atoms on Earth defined as one second. No, that's exactly wrong. The speed of light is the same for all observers regardless of their speed. This is fundamentally true. For this to be true, however, time, length, and mass have to be relative to your reference frame. Hence "general relativity".

ICANT, you have said several times that gravity affects the clock rate of a cesium clock. Here's one example from message 245 : Here's a second example from message 166 A third example: Your own words indicate that you believe that the gravitational field is the cause of the clock rate changes. I'm baffled as to why you are denying that now? Good. Now explain how relative motion effects the frequency of a cesium atomic clock or any other process such as radioactive decay, or the time it takes light to travel one meter as observed in a different reference frame. You cannot possibly blame that on gravity or magnetism.I'd also ask that you respond to one of us with your explanation of the mu-meson experiment that has been cited several times. You appear to be ducking the question. Edited by NoNukes, : Add tag.

Hi NoNukes,Re-read your question. I said NO I do not believe that.I then said as you quoted: I believe that the further away from the center of the earth a cesium clock is the faster the frequency will be.So no gravity does not make the clock frequency or tick rate be slower. The reduced gravity will make the clock tick faster because of less force exerted upon the atoms.Now which one of my statements you quoted disagrees with that statement?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi crash, That is not a definition of time.Time is what measures the duration between events or of events themselves.So give me a definition of time.You say it streaches so you must know what it is that can be streached. If 70% of the universe is made up of dark energy and 25% is made up of dark matter with the other 5% made up of all the stuff we see how can there be a vaccum?If the universe is 100% energy and matter there is no vaccum. Light has to travel through those to get to where it is going.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Those percentages refer to the mass of the Universe, you retarded simpleton! c is a Universal constant, it's defined by the speed of light in a vacuum, as opposed to through a medium like an atmosphere.You're such an idiot ICANT. You read popular science articles that dumb down physics and then you interpret the plain-English words to match your own beliefs, using your interpretation as if it was the actual mathematics behind physics.You don't know the first thing about cosmology. You cant even get the basics right. You don't understand c. You don't understand expansion or the Big Bang. You don;t understand relativity. You certainly don't understand gravity, or time. I wouldn't trust you to be able to do basic acceleration calculations that High School students do every day - because you substitute the actual physics definition of acceleration with your own!You won't listen to laypersons. You wont listen to physics professors. You think you know more than everyone in the field who ever lived, despite having never once performed any of the experiments these fields are based on. You appeal to the authority of popular science books and then dismiss those same authorities when their answers become inconvenient for you. You redefine terms to create an entirely new field of "ICANT Physics," called so because using your definitions and understandings ICAN'T predict a goddamned thing about anything ever because every answer will come out wrong!I cannot even express how utterly wrong you are, from "lightning is an antimatter reaction" to "the gravity affects the clock but not time" to "that's not time, it's duration!"Pimply-faced High School children are more proficient in physics than you are - and infinitely more intellectually honest to boot.

Hi F&L,
As others have pointed out, you've been a bit unfair to me Having done the maths (albeit a long time ago - I'm in a different branch of fizzix now) it's a bit difficult for me not to accept its validity - a scientific theory isn't something you "believe" in after all.And that's the problem with ICANT -hecant do the maths - through laziness, ignorance or sheer bloody-mindedness for all I know - and so doesn't see the inevitability of the conclusions. His only reply is his usual word salad which can be used to "prove" anything - after all, that's how it works in the field he considers to be his speciality!

Yes, I apologize, I made a poor assumption.What frustrates me to no end is the denial in the face of overwhelming evidence, I feel one should at least have a basic grasp on a theory before you are going to deny it, and then be prepared with evidence/data to support it.

---

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. ThompsonAd astra per asperaNihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

Time is the duration between events. Or, as I said - time is the reason things don't happen all at once. Yes - it's time. These figures refer to the mass within the universe and its composition, not the universe itself. The universe is made of spacetime. The mass within the universe is 5% visible matter and the rest is some combination of dark matter and dark energy. But the universe doesn't contain all that much mass so there's plenty of room for there to be no mass; i.e. a vacuum. The universe is not 100% energy and matter.

You have to understand - ICANT believes that any degree of agreement with us - even agreeing that cancer is bad or the sky is blue - is the first step on the road to atheism and damnation.