"Arrives" at now? They are only in now.
Both clocks exist simultaneously when they are synchronized before the experiment. Both clocks exist simultaneously when they are compared after the experiment.
And we find that one clock has seen the passage of more time than the other.
I'm not sure if you're trying to avoid that fact, or just too dense to grasp it.
Mechanical clocks only measure mechanical relativity from a frequency standard. I guess what I said wasn't simple enough.
The usual clock is measuring the rotation of the earth and the relative position of the sun.
A usual clock does not measure the rotation of the earth and the relative position of the sun, unless your idea of a usual clock is a sun dial.
A usual clock is a mechanical or electronic process that occurs at a predictable rate. Whether it be the motion of a pendulum, the charging of a capacitor, or the vibration of a crystal, we measure time by observing a physical process that has a regular duration.
Moving a clock from Alberta to BC means the clock is in a different location relative to the sun. It doesn't mean if you are with it that you are now an hour older. Nor would you be a day younger if you traveled east to west until you met up with the sun again. You are measuring a mechanical relativity.
You have only changed your relative position to the sun. Mechanically the clock has timed what it always times.
We're not talking about time zones here. Duh.
Synchronize the two clocks in Alberta. Move one to BC. Check them again. They're still synchronized. Why? Because the one clock's trip to BC was so slow relative to the speed of light that the v/c terms in the time dilation equations become so close to zero as to make time dilation unmeasurable for such a short trip.
An atomic clock is a clock that uses an electronic transition frequency in the microwave, optical, or ultraviolet region of the electromagnetic spectrum of atoms as a frequency standard for its timekeeping element.
So the question would be if an atomic clock itself were traveling at a different rate of speed relative to the frequency standard being used would their be a time difference to one that were traveling at a constant speed? I think the answer is yes. The variation would be dependent upon the difference in speed and it's duration. Why? Because the faster the clock goes the slower the electronic transition period appears to it.
Yes, there's a time difference. Yes, the difference would be dependent on the difference in speed. No, you're not going to be able to dismiss this as a quirk of how atomic clocks work.
yes. One had more ticks along the way because it measured more ticks. If the Earth started rotating faster and one clock was set to measure the standard rotation and the other the rotation of the earth the one measuring the rotation of the Earth would have more ticks. Now I am changing the standard by which they measure speed which is why they will read differently.
You are arguing that ... duuuurrr maybe the physicists don't understand how clocks work. In an experiment that's been thoroughly scrutinized by the entire physics community and repeated several times since.
You can read about the famous atomic clock airplane experiment here:
It is worth pointing out that they accounted for the rotation of the earth. They sent one plane east and one plane west. Due to the rotation of the earth, the clock on the eastbound plane is moving faster than the clock on the ground, and the clock on the westbound plane is moving slower than the clock on the ground. This allowed them to calculate the dilation due to both velocity and gravity, and found that (surprise!) time dilation due to velocity is what they predicted and the time dilation due to gravity is also what they predicted. Win for relativity, epic fail for flat-earthers.
Another thing to point out is that the experiment has been repeated and verified with higher precision since the original.
Time, described as a dimension, is erroneous. There can be the apparency of a dimension of time by the definition of "dimension" if one views it in vast spatial dimensions because one is looking at something that is now but originated millions of years ago. Trying to perceive all things in space at once would give one the idea of a time dimension, for instance, we are looking at stars as they existed not as they are, so we can plot a time dimension because the light that originated at a specific location a million years ago still exists at a different location light years away. But in actuality, each point in space only represents "now" and the laws of physics for this universe predict the next now.
Time as a "dimension" is a kind of philosophical idea that's not important to the issue under discussion.
What's important is this: the idea that there's a single absolute time reference that is equally valid from every frame of reference has been proven false. It's a conclusion you can't avoid once you accept the fact that the speed of light is the same from whatever frame of reference you observe it from.
Yes, I am sure there are proofs of all sorts.
...but you think the scientists doing the experiments must be doing it wrong, because the results disagree with your assumptions, right? Kind of like how the church knew better than Galileo?
Gravity? Another erroneous assumption - apparently the only thing that travels faster than the speed of light. It's associated with mass. The larger and more dense the mass the greater the gravity - or so it goes.
Why do I say it travels faster than the speed of light? Well, if the sun were to disappear all the planets of the solar system would spin off into chaos at the same time. Light would not have reached Pluto by that time. So all would appear normal until the light passed by but of course they would have started spinning off long before that.
General Relativity addresses the "speed of gravity problem". The proposition that gravity isn't a projected force at all but rather a curvature of space caused by mass is a premise that even people who don't know anything about modern physics are aware of, so I'm sure you've probably heard of it.
The curvature of space has been observed by the effects of stars on passing light, and observational evidence supports General Relativity very strongly.
I don't know what would happen if the mass of the sun were to instantaneously vanish, and neither do you, and it's an event that in itself would defy the laws of physics so I doubt there would be a way to discuss it intelligently anyway.
I can't discuss General Relativity because I simply don't know much about it. Neither do you. I'd think that Toadbrother, and maybe Bonam, have actually studied General Relativity, but I doubt anybody else here has read more than the odd article about it.
Measured by the finest atomic clocks, no doubt. So a particle speeds up. If the Earth suddenly sped up our clocks measuring it would be behind time. If we calibrated it to the new speed then it would read the same "ticks". If a particle sped up and is being measured by other particles the particles measuring it would be behind time and appear to record a longer duration because they are measuring changes in their relation to the speed of the particle.
Inane, and irrelevant. The longer lifespans of rapidly moving particles aren't measured by little clocks strapped to them, or a clock on the wall, they're measured by how far they travel in a particle accelerator.
Which tells me nothing.
It tells me that reason can be used to understand the universe. We need correct definitions of what we are observing. The wind is not a spirit brushing your face and tussling your hair, for instance. Now all that Poe said is that space and duration exist simultaneously. Of course, the error is we assume that matter is in a continuum of past, present and future just moving along through space. So physics has wandered off into quantum mechanics and string theory, hobbs-bosun and odds bodkins. Which is fine but one should once in awhile review fundamental conclusions taken as truth.
That matter exists in space and time, where space is the thing that matter exists in, and matter is what exists in space, and time is a continuum of space and matter.
I think the most important one that needs improvement is space but time is the weirdest one and that is probably because of a lack of a good definition of space.
That is right. We only have two theories, Newton's theory of Gravity and Einstein's theory of relativity. It is interesting that Newton's theories are still used in calculating space travel - it, as you say, covers every real-world situation.
Newton's laws work fine for NASA because planets and objects in our solar system and anything that we put into space has a velocity relative to earth that is very slow compared to the speed of light.
I said that Newton's laws cover *virtually* every real-world situation. They work fine for cars and baseballs and even rocket ships, but they don't cover things that astronomers are observing, and they don't cover things that physicists can make happen when they fire up their cyclotrons.
Mark McCutcheon's theory of expansion is interesting. I've read it and at the time physicists outright rejected it. I haven't read if they are giving it any serious consideration or have totally debunked it.
A lot of alternate theories
to modern physics have been presented over the years and simply been found lacking
Well, stupid is another one of those relative things. Didn't you find that physicists were puzzled by the physical universe and had contrived all manner of mathematical formula to predict how it is constructed and what we should find from our current theories?
And all these predictions can be tested. And if they're wrong, we figure out why. Some of the biggest scientific advances in history have resulted from experiments that produced results that were different from what were expected. (was the Michelson-Morley experiment a failure?)
Stupid doesn't mean wrong. Stupid is a function of how you react to being wrong.
Once again good definitions are important. You have obviously rejected other people's definitions and concepts. Unfortunately, for proof, it requires, a better definition than an animal. No such animal exists. So you would have to change your definition of life as "animated matter" to "that which animates matter". You may be able to make some progress from there. Ultimately, that which animates matter has been left undefined, to my knowledge so far.
I have no idea what you're trying to say.
As for mental telepathy, it is heavily frowned upon. We would not be able to tell each other lies if that were possible. It must be considered impossible if we are to remain "animals" (one of the lies we like to tell each other).
All thoughts you have are of course your own from your understanding of the concept and definition of an animal which you have read somewhere from some brilliant animal with more synapses and neurons than you have. I doubt you would come to that conclusion left to your own devices but the "brilliant" animal has more degrees than you do and thus more resources to try and figure these things out for you, which you can then read and learn all about.
We're animals is a much more sensible conclusion than thinking we're somehow magically different from animals. I don't need some animal with a PhD to tell me that. You've decided otherwise because some other long-dead animal wrote some nonsensical book telling you so.
Nevertheless, once in a while, if we are really good friends with someone, we really like them, and they like us, we have moments of mindsync. The brilliant animal explains these things for you as well. Since they happen so infrequently and there is no apparent volition on the part of individuals (animals)no possibility of considering one animal has read another animal's mind should be considered. It is mere coincidence. How could we remain animals and play animal otherwise unless we accept certain lies as truth? And what of our crimes??? I'm certain you don't want all the gory details of other people's lives, nor they of yours.
So, to summarize... "nobody has ever managed to demonstrate mental telepathy, but I'm sure it's real!"
I'm not going to say mental telepathy is impossible. What I am going to say is that if somebody can demonstrate that it actually exists, we'll be able to find an explanation of how it happens. If that involves some completely new field of science that doesn't even exist right now, so be it.
The good thing about being a Christian is that there can always be another lie.
Not sure if that was intentional or not, but that was laugh-out-loud funny. Yes, always plenty more lies coming for Christians.
Once you have convinced yourself that you are an animal and that's the end you cannot change your mind because there is nothing to change your mind for you - there is nothing.
Not sure what you're trying to say. I need Jesus to tell me I'm not an animal, but since I don't believe in Jesus nothing can convince me otherwise?
That's too bad. Admittedly, it is a convincing lie when all the former lies have been exposed as such. It's a dead end though since it ends all lies.
Hope that helps.
I think your magic book is one of the primary sources of widely-believed lies that have been exposed over the years.