Philosophy ILP style

How is that done? :-k

See the final section of this.

The duration of a second is the same on the spaceship and on earth : 9,192,631,770 cycles of the hyperfine structure transition frequency of caesium-133 atoms. That’s the definition of a second.

I mean that everything that happens on the ship is consistent with the time shown on the clock. The aging of the people, the rusting of the metal, the functioning of the electronics, the lifecycle of the bacteria or fruit-flies, etc.

It’s not like the clock is broken is some way or it’s the only thing affected.

I don’t think that is legit logic.

In the end they are saying (with 3 observers) that whoever has the fastest watch is the one not moving. That is presuming something - that in the universe there is an absolute still where watches always run as fast as possible.

If it occurred as that scenario suggests - it would prove that there is an absolute reference.

Merely by looking at their watches - how would they know that the third observer wasn’t still as observer’s 1 and 2 passed by but as different speeds (2 traveling at twice the speed of 1). Observers 2 and 3 would still show a duration of 1.5 but observer 1 should show a markedly less duration - perhaps .75 or something - because observer 1 would be traveling twice as fast in an absolute frame. Because his watch did not show time dilation - “he must have been traveling slower with respect to universe/absolute stillness”.

So something is wrong with his explanation.

You want to go to a planet 21 light years away.

You predict it will take just over 42 years to make the round-trip at 0.99c.

Get in your ship. Instantly accelerate to 0.99c. Fly. Instantly stop. Have a picnic. Instantly accelerate to 0.99c. Fly back. Instantly stop.

Check earth calendar. It shows that you have been gone for over 42 years.

The clock and calendar on your ship shows that it took just over 3 years to fly there and 3 years to fly back. You only aged 6 years. Your cat, which was on board to keep you company, only aged 6 years.

Right. And if we define the word “second” to mean “the time it takes a sweep hand to move 6 degrees”, then the duration of a second on my clock and the duration of a second on your clock are the same. And right now my clock is showing I’m 300 years old.

Okay, we both have clocks based on some physical process.

Where did this come from and how does it follow from what you just wrote?

Conventional clocks can only record periods of 12 hours, some 24 hours.

It takes light 21 years to get there, and 21 years to get back, but you claim you made the trip in 6 years. You are saying you traveled at 7c. You are saying that you are 7 times faster than light. You are saying that you can make the round trip 7 times in the amount of time it takes light to make the trip once.

If a clock doesn’t agree with the speed of light then it did not keep accurate time. Period!

You can wave your hands and scream all you want to that you trust your clock, and look I didn’t get any wrinkles, and my cat is still alive, but the bottom line is that you are claiming to have traveled 7 times faster than light!

No. It still took 42 years based on the original reference point and based on that original reference point the speed of travel was 0.99c.

You are claiming you traveled 42 light years in 6 years. That is the speed of 7c.

What do you mean “based on that original reference point?”

It is 42 light years in distance round trip. Your clock says 6 years. That is the speed of 7c.

If it was 10 feet in distance round trip, and your clock said you made the trip in 1 second, then your speed was 10 ft/sec.

It is speed, which is distance/time. It has nothing to do with cats or wrinkles!

_
Time is an experience… everything is a by-product of something else ad-infinitum.

What happened as time progressed is people misunderstood, or intentionally misrepresented basic measurements of distance and time.

They ignored the standards, and created their own BS. Other people flocked around them like they were some great movie star. They printed it in papers, played it on the news, brainwashed (I mean taught) people at the University, etc…

After a while, anyone who claims they are FOS is labeled an outcast! Outrageous!

It’s like the old story about telling something to somebody, which in turn tells it to someone else, and they tell it to someone else. In the end, the story is nothing like it was originally told.

Dare you be the one to claim the last person’s tale was BS, that’s not how it was originally told. You’d be labeled a witch and burned at the stake! LOL

I mean that you can’t switch arbitrarily from one frame of reference to another. The measured time and distance depends on fast you are moving. The planet looks 3 light years away at 0.99c.

So how do you account for the experimental results?

Looks has nothing to do with it.

The distance was measured with light, which is the same as clocks and rulers. If you took meter sticks and measured it, it would be 299,792,458 x 60 x 60 x 24 x 365.25 x 42 meters round trip. That is the distance roundtrip, measured with rulers.

The time it takes light to make the trip is 42 years, as measured by the stay at home clock, which is the standard duration of time, when speaking of “light years.”

Frame of reference is BS! It has nothing to do with the actual measured distance, and actual measured time for light to make the trip.

This is not perception, or illusion, or “how you see it,” it is MEASURED STANDARDS, AS DEFINED! The speed of light is DEFINED, and creates a standard Meter, based on the standard second.

Your claimed speed of “.99c” at the beginning of the trip is putting the cart before the horse. The speed of your trip, according to your watch was 7c, not .99c.

…my summation of existence itself.

Using your method of measuring distance and time, you mean? If they calculate distance and time like you do, in their results, then their results are BS, like yours are!

Your BS results match a BS theory perfectly! LOL

No.

How do YOU, with YOUR method of measurement, account for the experimental results?

This for example:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2 … experiment

Again, changing clock rates are not keeping accurate time, whether it’s atomic clocks or a $1 digital clock you buy at the Dollar store. If the clock disagrees with the speed of light it is absolutely wrong.

Time is not what a clock reads. Clocks can change rates. If a clock changes rate it did not keep accurate time.

Having two synchronized atomic clocks on Earth, that are known to keep accurate time, and sending one on a trip and checking it’s time when it returns is a test of how accurate the clock keeps time if sent on a trip.

If the traveling clock reads anything different than the stay at home accurate clock, then the clock that went on a trip did not keep accurate time.

The ONLY way for that traveling clock to go out of synch with the stay at home clock is for it to have changed rate. If it changed rate it did not keep accurate time. Period!