Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights
From: BURT on 13 Mar 2010 19:57
On Mar 13, 4:43 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 7:41 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 13, 4:30 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 13, 7:28 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > AD is the most correct unified theory to date.
>
> > > > My theory can stand the tests of the future. I challenge that yours
> > > > cannot.
>
> > > > Togetherness replaces Unification.
>
> > > If you own a battery operated clock and it begins to tick slower has
> > > time changed or do you replace the batteries?
>
> > Please. Every clock is not broken that measures its own time slower
> > flow rate.
> > You cannot get rid of the two aether rates behind slowing time for
> > energy.
>
> > Mitch Raemsch
>
> It is a very simple question you seem to be refusing to answer. If a
> battery operated clock begins to tick slower has time changed?
>
> If not, why not and why is this any different to a clock in a GPS
> satellite ticking faster than a comparable clock which remains on the
> surface of the Earth?
>
> The answer is there is no difference. The battery operated clock is
> physically ticking slower because of the physical state of the
> battery. The atomic clock in the GPS satellite physically ticks faster
> because of the decrease in the aether pressure in which it exists.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Go shake an atomic clock mpc.

Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 13 Mar 2010 22:00
On Mar 13, 7:56 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 7:25 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 13, 7:18 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 12, 11:42 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 13, 2:16 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 12, 11:11 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 13, 2:07 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 12, 11:00 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Mar 13, 1:53 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Mar 12, 10:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Mar 13, 1:19 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 12, 7:56 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > T1:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > M'-------->
> > > > > > > > > > > > -\
> > > > > > > > > > > > --\
> > > > > > > > > > > > ---\
> > > > > > > > > > > > ----\
> > > > > > > > > > > > -----M
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > T2:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > -----M'-------->
> > > > > > > > > > > > -----|
> > > > > > > > > > > > -----|
> > > > > > > > > > > > -----|
> > > > > > > > > > > > -----|
> > > > > > > > > > > > -----M
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > T3:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > ----------M'-------->
> > > > > > > > > > > > ---------/
> > > > > > > > > > > > --------/
> > > > > > > > > > > > -------/
> > > > > > > > > > > > ------/
> > > > > > > > > > > > -----M
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > There is no difference between the clocks being directly across from
> > > > > > > > > > > > each other and one clock approaching, and then being directly across
> > > > > > > > > > > > from, and then moving past the other clock.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > > > If two ships flow through space at near light speed next to each other
> > > > > > > > > > > light will be left behind as it has to  travel accross space to the
> > > > > > > > > > > next ship. Each will see the other ship slightly behind because light
> > > > > > > > > > > gets left behind in space.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > > > > > > > Light travels at 'c' with respect to the aether. It might be more
> > > > > > > > > > informative to discuss the light from lightning strikes on the train
> > > > > > > > > > at A' and B' and on the embankment at A and B. Let's assume the train
> > > > > > > > > > is full of flat bed cars and the lightning strikes occur above the
> > > > > > > > > > flat bed cars on the train at A' and B'. Let's also assume the
> > > > > > > > > > lightning strike occur above A and B on the embankment.
>
> > > > > > > > > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
> > > > > > > > > > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places"-
> > > > > > > > > > Albert Einstein
>
> > > > > > > > > > This means the aether is more at rest with respect to the embankment
> > > > > > > > > > than the aether is at rest with respect to the train. The light
> > > > > > > > > > travels from A and B to M and the light travels from A and B to where
> > > > > > > > > > M' is when the light reaches M'. The light travels from where A' and
> > > > > > > > > > B' were with respect to the Earth at the time of the lighting strikes
> > > > > > > > > > to M'. Measuring to A' and B' on the train in order to determine how
> > > > > > > > > > far the light travels to M' does not accurately reflect how far the
> > > > > > > > > > light traveled in nature from the lightning strikes at A' and B' to
> > > > > > > > > > M'. A' and B' have moved with respect to the aether between the time
> > > > > > > > > > of the lightning strikes and the time the light reaches M'.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > Light flows through space pushed by time. Space has its own aether
> > > > > > > > > that is the main "push" to matter behind all of physics. The strength
> > > > > > > > > of gravity does not require this aether to push. Since space flow push
> > > > > > > > > is what God is doing in physics. The rest of the pushes are from
> > > > > > > > > space's aether.
>
> > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > > > > > 'Time' is not a physical force capable of 'pushing'. Time is a
> > > > > > > > concept. The rate at which a clock 'ticks' has nothing to do with
> > > > > > > > time. The pressure associated with the aether determines the rate at
> > > > > > > > which a clock ticks.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > Time is a physical thing otherwise it wouldn't be in physics. Its
> > > > > > > order is most important. You cannot exclude the most important mpc.
>
> > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > > > I am explaining what physically occurs in nature in order to cause
> > > > > > atomic clocks to tick at different rates. An atomic clock ticks based
> > > > > > upon the aether pressure in which it exists.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > You are dismissed for not seeing that time and its slowing are real.
> > > > > I suppose you are looking for a hole in the wall?
>
> > > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > The rate at which an atomic clock ticks has nothing to do with time..
> > > > Take the twins paradox for example. One twin fires off in a space
> > > > ship. The space ship is traveling fast enough that the pressure
> > > > associated with the aether is greater on the clock on the space ship
> > > > then it is on the clock which remains on the Earth. The clock in the
> > > > space ship 'ticks' slower. Let's say after ten years the twin in the
> > > > space ship arrives back on the Earth. As far as the twin who remained
> > > > on the Earth is concerned ten years have passed and it is March 2020.
> > > > As far as the twin on the space ship is concerned nine years have
> > > > passed and it is March 2019. Is the twin who left and returned on the
> > > > space ship going to insist it is March 2019 and convince all of the
> > > > people on the Earth it is March 2019, or is the twin who left and
> > > > returned on the space ship going to decide it is March 2020? The twin
> > > > who left and returned on the space ship is going to change the date on
> > > > their calendar. Time is a concept.
>
> > > > If you have a battery operated clock and it starts to tick slower has
> > > > time changed, or do you replace the batteries? You replace the
> > > > batteries because you understand what is physically occurring in
> > > > nature to cause your clock to tick slower.
>
> > > > The twins will set their clocks to tick at the same rate by
> > > > determining the aether pressure in which both clocks will exist. Since
> > > > both twins understand it is the associated aether pressure which
> > > > physically occurs in nature to cause the atom in the atomic clocks to
> > > > oscillate at different rates the twins will set their clocks to tick
> > > > accordingly. The twins understand it is the pressure associated with
> > > > motion with respect to the aether and the pressure associated with the
> > > > aether displaced by massive objects (gravity) which causes the atom to
> > > > oscillate at a certain rate. When the twin in the space ship returns
> > > > both the clock on the space ship and the clock which remains on the
> > > > Earth will state the same time.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > You cannot divorce time from a clock. There are two rates that come
> > > together for matter. This is the smartest concept.
>
> > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> ============
>
> > I am divorcing time as a dimension. Time is a concept. The rate at
> > which a clock ticks has nothing to do with time.
>
> Time is a *concept* to a person hit by a bullet moving
> 1 metre per second.
>
> A person hit by a bullet moving 300 metres per second doesn't
> conceptualise much about time because there are more pressing
> concerns.
>
> If  the two above mentioned victims only disagreed on the TIME taken
> for the bullet to move  one metre, can we also conclude
> the blood from a bullet wound is only a concept.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem#Applications
>
> Sue...
>


If a battery operated clock begins to tick slower has time changed?


>
>
> > If you own a battery operated clock and it begins to tick slower has
> > time changed?
>
> > No, time has not changed. You replace the batteries. You 'know' time
> > has not changed because you understand what has occurred physically in
> > nature in order to cause the clock to tick slower. The same is true
> > for an atomic clock. The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is
> > dependent upon the aether pressure in which it exists.
>
>

From: mpc755 on 13 Mar 2010 22:31
On Mar 13, 7:56 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 7:25 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 13, 7:18 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 12, 11:42 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 13, 2:16 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 12, 11:11 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 13, 2:07 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 12, 11:00 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Mar 13, 1:53 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Mar 12, 10:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Mar 13, 1:19 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 12, 7:56 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > T1:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > M'-------->
> > > > > > > > > > > > -\
> > > > > > > > > > > > --\
> > > > > > > > > > > > ---\
> > > > > > > > > > > > ----\
> > > > > > > > > > > > -----M
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > T2:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > -----M'-------->
> > > > > > > > > > > > -----|
> > > > > > > > > > > > -----|
> > > > > > > > > > > > -----|
> > > > > > > > > > > > -----|
> > > > > > > > > > > > -----M
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > T3:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > ----------M'-------->
> > > > > > > > > > > > ---------/
> > > > > > > > > > > > --------/
> > > > > > > > > > > > -------/
> > > > > > > > > > > > ------/
> > > > > > > > > > > > -----M
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > There is no difference between the clocks being directly across from
> > > > > > > > > > > > each other and one clock approaching, and then being directly across
> > > > > > > > > > > > from, and then moving past the other clock.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > > > If two ships flow through space at near light speed next to each other
> > > > > > > > > > > light will be left behind as it has to  travel accross space to the
> > > > > > > > > > > next ship. Each will see the other ship slightly behind because light
> > > > > > > > > > > gets left behind in space.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > > > > > > > Light travels at 'c' with respect to the aether. It might be more
> > > > > > > > > > informative to discuss the light from lightning strikes on the train
> > > > > > > > > > at A' and B' and on the embankment at A and B. Let's assume the train
> > > > > > > > > > is full of flat bed cars and the lightning strikes occur above the
> > > > > > > > > > flat bed cars on the train at A' and B'. Let's also assume the
> > > > > > > > > > lightning strike occur above A and B on the embankment.
>
> > > > > > > > > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
> > > > > > > > > > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places"-
> > > > > > > > > > Albert Einstein
>
> > > > > > > > > > This means the aether is more at rest with respect to the embankment
> > > > > > > > > > than the aether is at rest with respect to the train. The light
> > > > > > > > > > travels from A and B to M and the light travels from A and B to where
> > > > > > > > > > M' is when the light reaches M'. The light travels from where A' and
> > > > > > > > > > B' were with respect to the Earth at the time of the lighting strikes
> > > > > > > > > > to M'. Measuring to A' and B' on the train in order to determine how
> > > > > > > > > > far the light travels to M' does not accurately reflect how far the
> > > > > > > > > > light traveled in nature from the lightning strikes at A' and B' to
> > > > > > > > > > M'. A' and B' have moved with respect to the aether between the time
> > > > > > > > > > of the lightning strikes and the time the light reaches M'.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > Light flows through space pushed by time. Space has its own aether
> > > > > > > > > that is the main "push" to matter behind all of physics. The strength
> > > > > > > > > of gravity does not require this aether to push. Since space flow push
> > > > > > > > > is what God is doing in physics. The rest of the pushes are from
> > > > > > > > > space's aether.
>
> > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > > > > > 'Time' is not a physical force capable of 'pushing'. Time is a
> > > > > > > > concept. The rate at which a clock 'ticks' has nothing to do with
> > > > > > > > time. The pressure associated with the aether determines the rate at
> > > > > > > > which a clock ticks.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > Time is a physical thing otherwise it wouldn't be in physics. Its
> > > > > > > order is most important. You cannot exclude the most important mpc.
>
> > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > > > I am explaining what physically occurs in nature in order to cause
> > > > > > atomic clocks to tick at different rates. An atomic clock ticks based
> > > > > > upon the aether pressure in which it exists.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > You are dismissed for not seeing that time and its slowing are real.
> > > > > I suppose you are looking for a hole in the wall?
>
> > > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > The rate at which an atomic clock ticks has nothing to do with time..
> > > > Take the twins paradox for example. One twin fires off in a space
> > > > ship. The space ship is traveling fast enough that the pressure
> > > > associated with the aether is greater on the clock on the space ship
> > > > then it is on the clock which remains on the Earth. The clock in the
> > > > space ship 'ticks' slower. Let's say after ten years the twin in the
> > > > space ship arrives back on the Earth. As far as the twin who remained
> > > > on the Earth is concerned ten years have passed and it is March 2020.
> > > > As far as the twin on the space ship is concerned nine years have
> > > > passed and it is March 2019. Is the twin who left and returned on the
> > > > space ship going to insist it is March 2019 and convince all of the
> > > > people on the Earth it is March 2019, or is the twin who left and
> > > > returned on the space ship going to decide it is March 2020? The twin
> > > > who left and returned on the space ship is going to change the date on
> > > > their calendar. Time is a concept.
>
> > > > If you have a battery operated clock and it starts to tick slower has
> > > > time changed, or do you replace the batteries? You replace the
> > > > batteries because you understand what is physically occurring in
> > > > nature to cause your clock to tick slower.
>
> > > > The twins will set their clocks to tick at the same rate by
> > > > determining the aether pressure in which both clocks will exist. Since
> > > > both twins understand it is the associated aether pressure which
> > > > physically occurs in nature to cause the atom in the atomic clocks to
> > > > oscillate at different rates the twins will set their clocks to tick
> > > > accordingly. The twins understand it is the pressure associated with
> > > > motion with respect to the aether and the pressure associated with the
> > > > aether displaced by massive objects (gravity) which causes the atom to
> > > > oscillate at a certain rate. When the twin in the space ship returns
> > > > both the clock on the space ship and the clock which remains on the
> > > > Earth will state the same time.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > You cannot divorce time from a clock. There are two rates that come
> > > together for matter. This is the smartest concept.
>
> > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> ============
>
> > I am divorcing time as a dimension. Time is a concept. The rate at
> > which a clock ticks has nothing to do with time.
>
> Time is a *concept* to a person hit by a bullet moving
> 1 metre per second.
>
> A person hit by a bullet moving 300 metres per second doesn't
> conceptualise much about time because there are more pressing
> concerns.
>
> If  the two above mentioned victims only disagreed on the TIME taken
> for the bullet to move  one metre, can we also conclude
> the blood from a bullet wound is only a concept.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem#Applications
>
> Sue...
>

If two bullets are fired from the same distance and one bullet is
traveling at 1 meter per second and the other bullet is traveling at
300 meters per second then the two bullets will not hit the person at
the same instant. There will be a period of time which elapses between
the first bullet striking the person and the second bullet striking
the person. How much time elapses is the concept.

What I am referring to in terms of the concept of time is the rate at
which a clock ticks is not time.

If a battery operated clock begins to tick slower has time changed?

There are two clocks next to the person being struck by the bullets.
One is a battery operated clock which is ticking slower than a second
clock because the battery is about to die. The first bullet strikes
the person and then the second bullet strikes the person. According to
the electric clock, five seconds have passed between the first bullet
striking the person and the second bullet striking the person.
According to the battery operated clock three seconds have passed. How
much time has passed between the first bullet and the second bullet
striking the person? If there were only the battery operated clock
which is ticking slow because of the dying batter then would three
seconds have passed in reality between the first bullet and the second
bullet if this were the only clock available for the person to read?

What if the bullets were fired so far apart that a week passes between
the first bullet and the second bullet striking the person. Let's say
the battery operated clock is the only clock the person being struck
by the bullet has access to. Let's say the battery operated clock is
so close to dying that only three seconds tick off between the first
and second bullets. As the person lay on his bed with the first bullet
hole in them they see the Sun rise and set, rise and set, seven times
between before the second bullet strikes them. Only three seconds tick
off the battery operated clock in this time.

The police show up and discuss with the shot person how much time had
passed between the first and second bullets striking them. Now, the
person was in bed for a week and saw the Sun rise and set seven times
between the first shot and the second shot but only three seconds
ticked off on the battery operated clock. Does the person insist three
seconds passed between being struck by the first and second bullets?

No, the rate at which a clock ticks has nothing to do with time.

You are skiing for the day up around 12000ft and drink a plastic
bottle of water. With the bottle empty and the cap on you put the
empty bottle in your back pack. At the end of the day you drive to the
airport which is at sea level. When you get to the airport you see
your bottle is squashed. Is there less air molecules in the bottle or
has the air pressure on the bottle changed? If you did not understand
air pressure and insisted there was actually less air in the bottle
would you be correct?

Just because you do not understand it is the aether pressure on the
atomic clock which causes it to tick at different rates does not mean
time has changed.
From: BURT on 13 Mar 2010 23:30
On Mar 13, 4:01 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 13 Mar, 00:23, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 8, 6:35 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 7 Mar, 02:51, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:651a713d-7ae4-4048-bafb-f1b3219ee4fc(a)v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > > On 6 Mar, 12:47, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > This should make perfect sense to you. If a clock is running 2%
> > > > >> > slower, then it is running 2% slower regardless of distance. But if,
> > > > >> > as a result of running 2% slower, it falls behind 6 minutes after
> > > > >> > running a certain amount of time, then it will fall behind 12 minutes
> > > > >> > after running for twice as long.
>
> > > > >> Agreed.
>
> > > > >> The question now is, if we agree that both clocks suffer time dilation
> > > > >> in this way, then when they return to the start point, how do they
> > > > >> each reconcile the fact that (after accounting for the effects of
> > > > >> acceleration) it ought to be the other clock which is slow, when in
> > > > >> fact one clock (the one that went furthest from the start point) will
> > > > >> be slower than the other? And a third clock, left at the start point,
> > > > >> will be running ahead of both?
>
> > > > >> _________________________
> > > > >> They know that the operations were not symmetric. Only one clock remained
> > > > >> in
> > > > >> the same inertial reference frame throughout. The other two clocks spent
> > > > >> different amounts of time in at least 3 different inertial reference
> > > > >> frames.
> > > > >> Everybody can see this is true, and so nobody expects that the clocks
> > > > >> will
> > > > >> remain synchronised.
>
> > > > > Yes, but the important question here is whether they agree *after* the
> > > > > effects of acceleration are taken into account. I mean, if we said
> > > > > that each travelling clock slows by 2% when moving away from the start
> > > > > point at a certain speed, then by rights both travelling clocks should
> > > > > slow equally. Yes?
>
> > > > As I understand your thought experiment, no.
>
> > > > In SR, time dilation is a function of relative speed and the time for which
> > > > they are moving at the speed. It is not a function of accleration.
>
> > > > A doesn't move. B moves at speed v for time t, and its clock will read x
> > > > behind A. C moves at speed v for time 2t, and its clock will read 2x behind
> > > > A.
>
> > > The question is this. We'll deal with only the outbound trip (in other
> > > words, the clocks are on the move, but time 't' has not yet elapsed,
> > > so there has been no further acceleration). I agree with your answer
> > > above, as it concerns A's frame.
>
> > > The question is, from the frame of B, what will the slowdown be on
> > > clock C, *after* having accounted for the increased distances between
> > > them (i.e. having accounted for the increased propagation delays). It
> > > seems to me that the natural answer is to say "4%".- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > The clocks change when accelerating and decelerating in space. Time
> > decelerates and accelerates when there is a change in speed in space.
>
> As far as I know, there is never an "acceleration of time" under any
> circumstances.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Slow down in space and leave gravity behind and time increases in flow
over you. There is a fastest time if time slows down.

Mitch Raemsch
From: Sue... on 14 Mar 2010 00:54
On Mar 13, 10:31 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 7:56 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 13, 7:25 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 13, 7:18 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 12, 11:42 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 13, 2:16 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 12, 11:11 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 13, 2:07 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Mar 12, 11:00 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Mar 13, 1:53 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Mar 12, 10:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 13, 1:19 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 12, 7:56 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > T1:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > M'-------->
> > > > > > > > > > > > > -\
> > > > > > > > > > > > > --\
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ---\
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ----\
> > > > > > > > > > > > > -----M
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > T2:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > -----M'-------->
> > > > > > > > > > > > > -----|
> > > > > > > > > > > > > -----|
> > > > > > > > > > > > > -----|
> > > > > > > > > > > > > -----|
> > > > > > > > > > > > > -----M
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > T3:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------M'-------->
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > --------/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > -------/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ------/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > -----M
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no difference between the clocks being directly across from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > each other and one clock approaching, and then being directly across
> > > > > > > > > > > > > from, and then moving past the other clock.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > If two ships flow through space at near light speed next to each other
> > > > > > > > > > > > light will be left behind as it has to  travel accross space to the
> > > > > > > > > > > > next ship. Each will see the other ship slightly behind because light
> > > > > > > > > > > > gets left behind in space.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Light travels at 'c' with respect to the aether. It might be more
> > > > > > > > > > > informative to discuss the light from lightning strikes on the train
> > > > > > > > > > > at A' and B' and on the embankment at A and B. Let's assume the train
> > > > > > > > > > > is full of flat bed cars and the lightning strikes occur above the
> > > > > > > > > > > flat bed cars on the train at A' and B'. Let's also assume the
> > > > > > > > > > > lightning strike occur above A and B on the embankment.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
> > > > > > > > > > > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places"-
> > > > > > > > > > > Albert Einstein
>
> > > > > > > > > > > This means the aether is more at rest with respect to the embankment
> > > > > > > > > > > than the aether is at rest with respect to the train. The light
> > > > > > > > > > > travels from A and B to M and the light travels from A and B to where
> > > > > > > > > > > M' is when the light reaches M'. The light travels from where A' and
> > > > > > > > > > > B' were with respect to the Earth at the time of the lighting strikes
> > > > > > > > > > > to M'. Measuring to A' and B' on the train in order to determine how
> > > > > > > > > > > far the light travels to M' does not accurately reflect how far the
> > > > > > > > > > > light traveled in nature from the lightning strikes at A' and B' to
> > > > > > > > > > > M'. A' and B' have moved with respect to the aether between the time
> > > > > > > > > > > of the lightning strikes and the time the light reaches M'.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > > Light flows through space pushed by time. Space has its own aether
> > > > > > > > > > that is the main "push" to matter behind all of physics.. The strength
> > > > > > > > > > of gravity does not require this aether to push. Since space flow push
> > > > > > > > > > is what God is doing in physics. The rest of the pushes are from
> > > > > > > > > > space's aether.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > > > > > > 'Time' is not a physical force capable of 'pushing'. Time is a
> > > > > > > > > concept. The rate at which a clock 'ticks' has nothing to do with
> > > > > > > > > time. The pressure associated with the aether determines the rate at
> > > > > > > > > which a clock ticks.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > Time is a physical thing otherwise it wouldn't be in physics. Its
> > > > > > > > order is most important. You cannot exclude the most important mpc.
>
> > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > > > > I am explaining what physically occurs in nature in order to cause
> > > > > > > atomic clocks to tick at different rates. An atomic clock ticks based
> > > > > > > upon the aether pressure in which it exists.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > You are dismissed for not seeing that time and its slowing are real.
> > > > > > I suppose you are looking for a hole in the wall?
>
> > > > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > > The rate at which an atomic clock ticks has nothing to do with time.
> > > > > Take the twins paradox for example. One twin fires off in a space
> > > > > ship. The space ship is traveling fast enough that the pressure
> > > > > associated with the aether is greater on the clock on the space ship
> > > > > then it is on the clock which remains on the Earth. The clock in the
> > > > > space ship 'ticks' slower. Let's say after ten years the twin in the
> > > > > space ship arrives back on the Earth. As far as the twin who remained
> > > > > on the Earth is concerned ten years have passed and it is March 2020.
> > > > > As far as the twin on the space ship is concerned nine years have
> > > > > passed and it is March 2019. Is the twin who left and returned on the
> > > > > space ship going to insist it is March 2019 and convince all of the
> > > > > people on the Earth it is March 2019, or is the twin who left and
> > > > > returned on the space ship going to decide it is March 2020? The twin
> > > > > who left and returned on the space ship is going to change the date on
> > > > > their calendar. Time is a concept.
>
> > > > > If you have a battery operated clock and it starts to tick slower has
> > > > > time changed, or do you replace the batteries? You replace the
> > > > > batteries because you understand what is physically occurring in
> > > > > nature to cause your clock to tick slower.
>
> > > > > The twins will set their clocks to tick at the same rate by
> > > > > determining the aether pressure in which both clocks will exist. Since
> > > > > both twins understand it is the associated aether pressure which
> > > > > physically occurs in nature to cause the atom in the atomic clocks to
> > > > > oscillate at different rates the twins will set their clocks to tick
> > > > > accordingly. The twins understand it is the pressure associated with
> > > > > motion with respect to the aether and the pressure associated with the
> > > > > aether displaced by massive objects (gravity) which causes the atom to
> > > > > oscillate at a certain rate. When the twin in the space ship returns
> > > > > both the clock on the space ship and the clock which remains on the
> > > > > Earth will state the same time.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > You cannot divorce time from a clock. There are two rates that come
> > > > together for matter. This is the smartest concept.
>
> > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > ============
>
> > > I am divorcing time as a dimension. Time is a concept. The rate at
> > > which a clock ticks has nothing to do with time.
>
> > Time is a *concept* to a person hit by a bullet moving
> > 1 metre per second.
>
> > A person hit by a bullet moving 300 metres per second doesn't
> > conceptualise much about time because there are more pressing
> > concerns.
>
> > If  the two above mentioned victims only disagreed on the TIME taken
> > for the bullet to move  one metre, can we also conclude
> > the blood from a bullet wound is only a concept.
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem#Applications
>
> > Sue...
>
> If two bullets are fired from the same distance and one bullet is
> traveling at 1 meter per second and the other bullet is traveling at
> 300 meters per second then the two bullets will not hit the person at
> the same instant. There will be a period of time which elapses between
> the first bullet striking the person and the second bullet striking
> the person. How much time elapses is the concept.
>
> What I am referring to in terms of the concept of time is the rate at
> which a clock ticks is not time.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_pendulum_clock

See the four weights that have mass just like a bullet,
and the spring that stores energy just like gun powder.



>
> If a battery operated clock begins to tick slower has time changed?

The battery is not what establishes the period of modern clocks.
It is still a resonator that stores energy and accelerates mass.

<<XY, tuning fork 3–85 kHz length-width flexure
The dominant low-frequency crystal, as it is smaller than other
low-frequency cuts, less expensive, has low impedance and
low Co/C1 ratio. The chief application is the 32.768 kHz RTC crystal.
Its second overtone is about six times the fundamental frequency.[36]
>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_oscillator


>
> There are two clocks next to ...

No point in reading a thought experiment about clocks
you have no understanding of. Write a scenario that
considers how clocks work, rather than how you ?think? they
work. Then you might have something to discuss.

Torsion pendulum
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/301/lectures/node139.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem#Applications

When the winner of a drag race finishes with more fuel
than the looser, then time has changed.

Sue...


> One is a battery operated clock which is ticking slower than a second
> clock because the battery is about to die. The first bullet strikes
> the person and then the second bullet strikes the person. According to
> the electric clock, five seconds have passed between the first bullet
> striking the person and the second bullet striking the person.
> According to the battery operated clock three seconds have passed. How
> much time has passed between the first bullet and the second bullet
> striking the person? If there were only the battery operated clock
> which is ticking slow because of the dying batter then would three
> seconds have passed in reality between the first bullet and the second
> bullet if this were the only clock available for the person to read?
>
> What if the bullets were fired so far apart that a week passes between
> the first bullet and the second bullet striking the person. Let's say
> the battery operated clock is the only clock the person being struck
> by the bullet has access to. Let's say the battery operated clock is
> so close to dying that only...
>
> read more »

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282
Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights