Existence

I agree, I hope I can maybe learn a little more also.

---

"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.

Really? You are now the expert on physical definitions as well? The last time I checked in, you were asking for an explanation of time. You really have progressed. Given that your claims are essentially a denial of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, and thus the entirety of Quantum Field Theory and Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, I'm intrigued beyond measure to understand the mathematics and physics with which you intend to replace these stalwarts of the last 100 years of physics. Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Man's concept of time is the duration between events.

Well, the obvious is that you are ignoring Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction. Was this deliberate?

Now that's just cruel.
Funny, but cruel.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Hi cavediver, Duration is constant, as it is the duration of an event or the duration between events which exist in existence.Now lets see what some others have to say about SR and the speed of light.

quote:

---

Contrary to the assertion of Special Relativity, the speed
of light is not always constant relative to a moving observer.

---

From the same paper the conclusions:

quote:

---

CONCLUSIONS
The strong evidence is that the constancy of the speed of
light is wrong. The speed of light is not always c relative
to a moving observer (receiver). Instead, the speed of light
is always c relative to the chosen inertial (isotropic light
speed) frame. A crucial experiment using GPS has been
proposed to verify this claim. This isotropy of light speed
relative to the chosen frame is strongly supported by the
one-way Sagnac effect. It is clear from the GPS range
equation that the motion of the observer during the signal
transit time implies that the speed of light relative to a
moving observer is not isotropic and clearly differs from c
due to the receiver motion. This is also evidenced by the
JPL space probe equations described by Moyer.
In other words, the Sagnac effect is not due to rotational
motion. Contrary to Ashby’s claims, the Sagnac effect is
caused by any motion of the observer or receiver relative
to the chosen inertial frame.

---

A7OcrDKlowJ:www.worldnpa.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_3053.pdf+Conducting+a+Crucial+Experiment+of+the+Constancy+of+the+Speed+of+Light+Using+GPS&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgpwM1J_oUqlPYHxFv9KHCUzqXgHxnQnjZrZk9pppTXdURxpqz_YyxyZwUrjaIehu7mqXIfmsl0sxmqj1byKHc2mrwmSZKv2tidyzpEDKhUYIiaB6TpM17bfPb9md8SLRpZKCrO&sig=AHIEtbSDwCLtciS2YjN4gMXcyF123KwA9w]-->SourceGod 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."

OK. So we have two clocks. One constructed in, and residing in, Bolder. One constructed in, and residing in, Greenwich. Both of them are constructed identically to be accurate to within one second every 3.7 billion years. I have the precise readout from each of these clocks side by side on the computer screen in front of me (in Madrid).If I want to very very precisely measure how long something takes (i.e the duration) which clock should I use and why? So how do identically accurate clocks measure different durations for the same event?

Hi NoNukes, So your definition of time is duration between events.How do you measure time?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."

No, they did not say that. They said they had to adjust the clock's output signals to account for differences due to ... tada ... time dilation.That is because "correct time" does not exist. "Correct" according to who? Where? Even on the planet surface the measurment of time differs depending on the gavitational field. No one can say one is "correct" while all others are errant. There is no "correct" time, just differences that need to be accounted for between frames. And every physicist, clock maker, navy and astonomer in the world disagrees with you. Do you ever wonder why?

Hi Paul, You might be right.But I found this in the NIST papers.

quote:

---

(3) Gravitational frequency shift. A clock at rest in a lower gravitational potential runs slower relative to coordinate time than if it were at rest in a higher potential. This is called the gravitational red shift. Thus, standard clocks closer to the earth run slower
than standard clocks farther away, since the gravitational potential becomes more negative

3                                         

closer to the earth. Clocks on GPS satellites run faster than clocks at rest on the earth’s surface. Thus GPS satellite clock frequencies need to be adjusted by a fraction of about -5.3 x l0^-10. relative to the earth’s geoid, to compensate for this effect.

---

I guess you did not read it the last time I presented it to you.That does not say anything about time slowing down.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."

The quoted paragraph doesn't say anything about time not advancing faster in the satellite either.Only the relative clock rates as observed from a ground clock frame are important, so the details of why the clocks in the satellite frame must be slowed down are not be discussed. Since nobody is in the satellite, the state of time in the satellite is irrelevant. Only the satellite clock rate as observed by ground observers is relevant.The description in the quoted paragraph is accurate regardless of the reason why the satellite clock is observed to run fast by earth observers. Accordingly, such statements do not contradict general relativity.

Ah, yes, of course... Wang, that hero of modern physics who has overturned the entirety of 20th Century physics with his observations. Oh, sorry, you mean *that* Wang, the idiot engineer who no-one has ever heard of, who thinks he has something interesting to say but is unfortunately clueless about Special Relativity, and whose sole purpose is to provide idiots like ICANT with the ability to drag up "papers" from da internetz *conclusively proving* that all of modern physics is wrong Can one be this stupid naturally, ICANT, or does it take years of study?

But the line above it does:

quote:

---

( 2 ) Second-older Doppler shift. A clock moving with respect to an ECIF runs slower
relative to coordinate time in that ECIF than if it were at, rest in the ECIF. This is the
time dilation effect due to the magnitude of the relative velocity, sometimes called the
second-order Doppler effect.

---

I guess you did not read it the last time you presented it to you.Or are you cherry picking your evidence?

This is the main reason I haven't participated in this topic for a while, I have posted over 20 times and haven't been able to make any progress.He tries to use evidence that has been provided for him to look at as proof he is right by cherry picking the bits he thinks support his position, while ignoring what he either doesn't understand, or refuses to admit it proves him wrong.This whole topic would make a great paper on the science of denial. It is sad and pathetic that he has been provided evidence from so many people from different backgrounds and no one has even once supported him, that speaks volumes about his ideas. He should've never brought relativity into this topic, that doomed it from start.

---

"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 agree.But I'll quote this piece of evidence again, as I find it risible that ICANT has repeatedly refused to acknowledge that actual testing proves his ideas false.