Yoru still wrong about time....

[Thermos aquaticus]

You mock the' truth that is before your yes?

Funniest thing I have read this month from someone who lacks self awareness.

 

[james blunt]

I think that gibberish is all you are capable of, at least on this thread. If gibberish is the best you can do, there is no need to post.

Now , relating to time, is the infinite spacial continuum of no-thing, nothingness.
Now is the unchanging constant, relative underlay, to the relativistic space-time overlay . This overlay, being specifically ''electromagnetic'' spacial fields and bodies.

 

[Milton Platt]

Now , relating to time, is the infinite spacial continuum of no-thing, nothingness.
Now is the unchanging constant, relative underlay, to the relativistic space-time overlay . This overlay, being specifically ''electromagnetic'' spacial fields and bodies.

I think you must just be a troll.

 

[james blunt]

I think you must just be a troll.

On what sort of evidence do you assume that unwarranted suspicion?

No doubt, you are trying to ''pick at'' my mind for 'free' information.

 

[Milton Platt]

On what sort of evidence do you assume that unwarranted suspicion?

No doubt, you are trying to ''pick at'' my mind for 'free' information.

On the evidence that your posts are consistently incoherent.
I doubt your mind has any worthwhile information to "pick".

 

[james blunt]

Funniest thing I have read this month from someone who lacks self awareness.

I can see the 'people' are trying to get some sort of angry reaction out of me by attempting to mock me in such way. I will wish you good day sir if you can't have a reasonable discussion.

 

[james blunt]

On the evidence that your posts are consistently incoherent.
I doubt your mind has any worthwhile information to "pick".

What would you like to know?

 

[Milton Platt]

What would you like to know?

Provide supporting evidence for your claims about the universe.

 

[james blunt]

Provide supporting evidence for your claims about the universe.

Which claims would that be sir ? I claim nothing.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I can see the 'people' are trying to get some sort of angry reaction out of me by attempting to mock me in such way. I will wish you good day sir if you can't have a reasonable discussion.

A reasonable discussion would be one where you don't make stuff up.

 

[james blunt]

A reasonable discussion would be one where you don't make stuff up.

Make stuff up ?

I point out logic, your choice whether you stick to your subjective logic or my objective logic. It does not bother me either way , whether ''you'' evolve or not past the subjective virus.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Make stuff up ?

For example, you claimed that moving a cesium clock caused energy to be put into the oscillation of the atoms which resulted in the clock ticking at a different rate. That is something you made up.

 

[james blunt]

For example, you claimed that moving a cesium clock caused energy to be put into the oscillation of the atoms which resulted in the clock ticking at a different rate. That is something you made up.

Heat up a caesium, measure the frequency . Then come back and tell me that entropy plays no part.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Heat up a caesium, measure the frequency .

Putting an atomic clock in an airplane and flying it to 30k feet in the temperature controlled cabin does not heat it up.

 

[james blunt]

Putting an atomic clock in an airplane and flying it to 30k feet in the temperature controlled cabin does not heat it up.

It changes the entropy . When it is in motion it gains less energy from the ''invisible'' field it is traversing through, therefore less output .
Consider the Doppler affect, when an object is traversing towards the light source the surface wave is more compressed , so the object takes on more energy by the laws of thermodynamics, In the reverse direction it takes on less energy because the surface wave is decompressed.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

It changes the entropy .

Again, that is something you made up.

When it is in motion it gains less energy from the ''invisible'' field it is traversing through, therefore less output .

Then we have your make believe field.

Consider the Doppler affect, when an object is traversing towards the light source the surface wave is more compressed , so the object takes on more energy by the laws of thermodynamics, In the reverse direction it takes on less energy because the surface wave is decompressed.

The cesium clock is not taking on photons.

 

[james blunt]

Again, that is something you made up.



Then we have your make believe field.



The cesium clock is not taking on photons.

A change of frequency is a change of entropy output. Quite clearly you are not thinking straight on the subject.
If you take a drop of water out of a full glass of water, does the entropy change inside the glass volume?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

A change of frequency is a change of entropy output.

The frequency of the oscillation in the cesium atoms does not change in the airplane's frame of reference.

 

[james blunt]

The frequency of the oscillation in the cesium atoms does not change in the airplane's frame of reference.

You mean it is not noticed don't you ? Logically if it didn't change , there would't be this discussion.
In reality time dilation semantics suck big time and Einstein was not that smart. You may think he is the ''bomb'' because of the bomb, but when it comes to what time is etc, he had no idea in reality .

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

You mean it is not noticed don't you ? Logically if it didn't change , there would't be this discussion.
In reality time dilation semantics suck big time and Einstein was not that smart. You may think he is the ''bomb'' because of the bomb, but when it comes to what time is etc, he had no idea in reality .

And there we are with more made up stuff.