Existence

So the divisions of a solar day are time?The length of a solar day is not constant. How does this affect your definition.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Hi NoNukes, I don't think others are fools because they believe in something whether it is true or not.I do believe a person that does not question everything and keep an open mind is a fool.In theology nothing is proven it is received by faith.In science nothing is proven it is received by faith.A theory can have hundreds of experiments that point to it being accurate. It only takes one experiment to falsify a theory.Or at least that is what is supposed to be the case. But science has turned into a religion or reverted back to the occult because now a theory is not falsifiable. It makes no difference how many experiments produces contrary evidence.The people that I have presented that disagrees with the establishment (religion that has deified Einstein are called stupid idiots and told they do not know what they are talking about.Example from Hatch's paper Relativity and GPS.SR requires requires that c is always isotropic with respect to the observer.The Sagnac effect is the result of a non-isotropic speed of light that happens when my GPS receiver is in my car moving with respect to the ECEF.That puts the Sagnac effect in direct conflict with SR which is supposed to be enough to falsify SRT.But since God Einstein said SR is true then it has to be true.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, Why do I need to accept your offer.The message you made that offer to was one that asked for the math to be shown in error.The message you are replying to in the above quote asks for the math to be shown to be in error.Remember my journey is from the start at 1/2 c and I never slow down making a wide u turn with the half way point at the center of that u turn.If the speed of light can not be changed and I am travling at exactly 93,000 mps (I got cruise control on) it will take exactly 1460.97 solar days to complete the trip to travel 2 light years.So where is the math in error?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.Those are the divisions that man invented, to measure duration of events or between events.Time is a concept invented by man. It makes no difference.

quote:

---

The unit of time, the second, was defined originally as the fraction 1/86 400 of the mean solar day. The exact definition of "mean solar day" was left to astronomical theories. However, measurement showed that irregularities in the rotation of the Earth could not be taken into account by the theory and have the effect that this definition does not allow the required accuracy to be achieved. In order to define the unit of time more precisely, the 11th CGPM (1960) adopted a definition given by the International Astronomical Union which was based on the tropical year. Experimental work had, however, already shown that an atomic standard of time-interval, based on a transition between two energy levels of an atom or a molecule, could be realized and reproduced much more precisely. Considering that a very precise definition of the unit of time is indispensable for the International System, the 13th CGPM (1967) decided to replace the definition of the second by the following (affirmed by the CIPM in 1997 that this definition refers to a cesium atom in its ground state at a temperature of 0 K):

​

The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom.

---

SourceMakes no difference whether the fraction 1/86 400 of the mean solar day is used or 9 192 631 770 periods of the atom is used, in the end they have to match the rotation of the earth.The ancients had a novel way of what a day was. They had a 12 hour light period from sunup until sundown, and a dark period from sundown to sunup. Each had 12 hours regardless of the what the duration between the events was.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."

Do you know how many times you have ignored this evidence?
It has been presented to you by several people, several times.
I guess you have to ignore it, else your god dies.

And when we present evidence that Hatch is wrong you ignore it.A second problem with your explanation is regardless of whether there are some valid criticisms of SR and GR, the particular thing you are objecting to, namely time dilation, has been demonstrated experimentally. Yet you ignore that.You cite known crackpots. I can understand your refusal to accept that they are wrong merely because we call them crackpots, but then you remain completely silent when evidence that those crackpots really are wrong is presented.I find accusations of 'Einstein worship' particularly insulting when they come from you.The sole criteria that you use to accept or reject scientific evidence is that the evidence disagrees with you. You cite Hatch, but then ignore both experimental evidence and papers written by experts that say Hatch is flat out wrong. Given your lack of a scientific background, we know that you have no objective reason to accept one expert's opinion over that of another. You simply reject anything that doesn't support ICANT's own theory.Is there something in the Bible that is contradictory to Special Relativity in some way? Edited by NoNukes, : Expand to include Einstein worship.

Because I don't want the conditions to change mid explanation. This message is fine.

A concept that you won't explain. You say that the divisions of a solar day are not time. Apparently a mean solar day is also not time, nor is a day as defined by the ancients.Let's revisit these definitions after our "math error" discussion.

Hi Panda, How can you ignore something that does not exist.I did ignore the Hafele-Keating experiment reference but I did not ignore any evidence.

quote:

---

7. Conclusions

​

The H & K tests prove nothing. The accuracy of the clocks would need to be two orders of magnitude better to give confidence in the results. The actual test results, which were not published, were changed by H & K give the impression that they confirm the theory. Only one clock (447) had a failry steady performance over the whole test period; taking its results gives no difference for the Eastward and the Westward tests.

---

You can read the entire paper Here

quote:

---

It is generally considered that one of the most crucial experiments in support of the special theory of relativity is the Hafele-Keating experiment1. Four atomic clocks were flown around the world and then compared with the master clock in Washington, D.C. However, the original paper did not publish the raw data. Dr. Keating has been kind enough to permit us to analyze the raw data. We have found that an entirely different interpretation of the experimental data, which supports the universal time postulate on the velocity of light2, is perfectly consistent with the experimental data obtained by Hafele and Keating. Thus, one of the essential experimental supports of the relativistic theory of time dilation is shown to be invalid. Instead, the original data provide additional strongsupport3 of the reality of the universal time postulate on the velocity of light.

---

HereThat should be enough to get the crank, idiot, stupid posts flying.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,

quote:

---

Time is an observed phenomenon, by means of which human beings sense and record changes in the environment and in the universe. A literal definition is elusive.

---

SourceMan has been trying to define time since the day was declared in Genesis 1:5. Many much more educated than you and I have pondered 'what is time' for thousands of years and will continue to try to find that elusive definition after we have departed this life.In the meantime I like my definition:Time is a concept that man invented to measure duration of events and duration between events.At the present the international community has declared that one second elapses during the occurrence of exactly 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom. This is what is used at present to measure duration of events and duration between events.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."

You're really digging for anything to suit your worldview, eh ICANT? You just pulled a definition from a fucking technology business website.

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

I know how you ignore something that does exist - you claim that is doesn't exist.

quote:

---

The H & K tests prove nothing.

---

And you do know that it has been repeated several times, using far more accurate equipment?
Hmm...actually, you probably don't know.

quote:

---

Because the experiment was reproduced by increasingly accurate methods, there has been a consensus among physicists since at least the 1970s that the relativistic predictions of gravitational and kinematic effects on time have been conclusively verified. Criticisms of the experiment did not address the subsequent verification of the result by more accurate methods, and have been shown to be in error.

---

Well, now you can ignore multiple pieces of evidence in one disingenuous swoop.
The Hafele-Keating experiment has been successfully repeated multiple times.A.G. Kelly may have had reason to question the results of the first experiment.
But he went silent when more accurate technology was used.
The only people that make the mistake of cherry-picking an out-of-date report are people like you. I have yet to see you stop.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

In this post, I am going to attempt to answer ICANT's challenge to identify the error in his answer to the space ship thought experiment in Message 307. Hopefully, even if this discussion does not convince ICANT, it will be useful as an example for others interested in special relativity.ICANT's thought experiment is below. Taq's answer was ICANT's analysis summarized from his post in Message 352 is below: As a first point, I want to point out that ICANT's math accurately reflects the duration of the trip as measured by the wife. As the wife would testify, the 2 light year round trip at 0.5c would take 4 years (2 light years/0.5c) or 1430.9688 mean solar days.ICANT's asks, "If the speed of c is constant how could I close the gap between our ages?", so I feel free to invoke the constancy of the speed of light. I will do so on several occasions.For the purpose of this problem, we will postulate that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant 299,792,458 meter/second. In fact the meter is defined so that this value is true.In order to highlight ICANT's errors, I am going to add some additional equipment to the space cycle. First, let's provide a heart rate monitor on ICANT's cycle that outputs a sound blip for each one of the cyclist's heartbeats.Secondly let's include on the space cycle, the light pinger apparatus pictured and described below: In the above device, a pulse of light travels back and forth between the two mirrors. The mirrors are maintained 1 meter apart. Since the light pulse travels up and down between the two mirrors, the length of a round trip from top mirror to bottom mirror and back to the top is exactly 2 meters. A counting device attached to the photocell (not shown) beeps once for every 149,896,229 times that the light pulse returns to the top mirror and is detected by the photo cell.This is the first instance in which I invoke the constancy of the speed of light. Simple arithmetic shows that the light pinging device will beep exactly once per second. In fact, because of the constancy of the speed of light, the light pinger is actually an accurate timing device.I also propose that both ICANT and his wife have heart rates of 60 beats per minute or 1 beat per second. (We could use any timed biological process in place of the heart rate).Since some people believe that length contraction is real, we will mount the light pinger on ICANT's handlebars such that the light path of the pinger is oriented perpendicular to the direction of travel. Accordingly, the length of light pinger's light path is not contracted. For people who think length contraction is ridiculous Einstein worship and does not exist, you don't care about the orientation of the light pinger?The original statement of the problem says some confusing things about acceleration of the space cycle. For the purposes of my discussion I'm going to ignore any relativistic effects due to changes in speed. We will instead assume that the round trip for the space cycle, (at least from the wife's perspective) is two one light year legs, with each leg traversed at a constant speed of 0.5c.I don't think any of these additions/changes fundamentally change the problem as posed by ICANT, but I am open to discuss any objections to my changes.Let's first examine the space cyclist's perspective on things at the half-way point on the first leg. We will examine 10 seconds worth of time on the cycle.ICANT says that his space cycle is on cruise control and moves at 0.5c. While moving at this constant speed, the space cyclist has no sensation of motion due to moving away from his wife at 0.5c. In fact, ICANT (the space cyclist) and his wife may jointly be moving around in the galaxy at some huge velocity, while the Milky Way galaxy itself races towards a collision with the Andromeda Galaxy. Nonetheless, none of this motion is felt by ICANT on his space cycle.When ICANT examines the heart monitor for 10 seconds, he observes an indication of 10 ICANT heartbeats, produced at one beat per second. When he observes the light clock, it appears as shown below: In other words The clock looks to ICANT exactly as it did before ICANT began accelerating to the cruising velocity of 0.5C away from his wife.The light pulse travels a round trip path of 2 meters between the mirrors. We invoke the constant speed of light for a second time. During each second, the light pulse travels 299,792,458 meters between the mirrors, thus making a count of 149,896,229, two meter round trips in the light pinger. Accordingly the light pinger produces one beep for each second. ICANT's heart beats once for every beep of the light pinger and he observes such on the heart monitor.In the next message I'll describe what the half-way point looks like from the wife's point of view. I'd appreciate any feedback regarding any apparent errors in this part. In particular, I'd wecome hearing any of ICANT's objections.Edited by NoNukes, : grammar plus clarify halfway point.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This is a good example of the light pulse/mirror clock. I presented this in my 4th post or so, should've shown it like this instead of only providing the link. Hope this example helps a little.Thanks for your explanations, I hope to get a better grasp on the math.

---

"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.

I like your clocks much better than the ones I'm using. I already regret not putting the "pinger" at the bottom mirror.There really isn't a lot of math involved.