Re: Anyone can apply for a warrant over allegations of a serious offence

On 23 Dec, 04:16, Nigel Oldfield <wmcriticalestop...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

It is not a 'max to zero' relationship between speed and time (i.e no
speed does not equal no time).

No, but 'zero movement in space' appears to equal 'zero movement in
time'.

Well, I trust that 'fact' is in the paper? It will not be today I get
to look.

No, the paper doesn't make that explicit, although it would be the
natural conclusion. I should qualify it by saying that I'm referring
to the zero movement of matter specifically.

Well, firstly, nothing is totally still, unless at AZ ... and no one
has been there.

Indeed.



Btw the paper is only 7 pages, and not "heavy" in any respect - it
just quickly outlines the issue.

I am working.

No need to rush; time isn't going anywhere. Ha! ;)



Time passes (measurably), even if you are stationary (relative to the
clock).

But how does time pass measurably? What do you measure it with?

The clock.

The clock is merely a mechanical device with some perceived regular
iteration.

Not perceived, provable.

How so?



It does not measure *movement* of time - indeed it relies
on time to stay still.

?

This is why clocks lose calibration relative to each other when one
clock travels at speed. Try and get your head round it, and it soon
becomes obvious that clocks measure something other than movement in
the 4th dimension.



The very fact that a clock that is moving at speed falls out of
alignment with a clock kept stationary surely proves that the clock is
not measuring movement in time - it is measuring something else

The clock is based on the atomic decay of the nuclide, which is
invariable (within the relativistic limits).

But by the fact alone, the rate of decay *isn't* invariable.

It is, experimentally.

I think you'll find it is only invariable provided that there is no
movement in the 4th dimension. If the clock is moving at speed, the
rate of decay changes relative to a stationary observer (and therefore
the rate is not "constant" in any universal, meaningful sense at all).



Whatever
the clock is measuring, it is founded upon the assumption that time is
a constant, when in fact it is a variable -

The passage of time is not constant, it is relative to the observer
and another.

Indeed, then by that fact alone clocks do not measure movement in the
4th dimension. The 'passage of time', whatever it's conceptual nature,
is not synonymous with movement in the 4th dimension.



and movement in time is
thus completely imperceptible to the clock.

Of course and yet the measured, elapsed, times are different - hard to
accept eh?

Not hard to accept at all.



You will be doubting the limit of the speed of light next ;)

Doubting it's limit?



What is changing, is the relative passage of time.

But the question is *upon what* is our assumption that we are
constantly moving forward in the 4th dimension founded?

If you view time as the 4th dimension, yes.

The passage of time is, simply, different at the two different speeds
- measurably.

We agree on that for sure. The question is whether the human
perception of the "flow of time" is synonymous with movement in the
4th dimension. My contention is that it is not.



Relativity is a bitch ... try some QM ;)

Lol. I must admit I don't know a great deal about QM, and the few half-
hearted attempts in the past to wrestle with it have left me utterly
confounded, mainly because I don't understand the complex maths
involved (and haven't yet had the inclination to learn the maths).

No need to any more than in relativity. Experiments have been done.

I guarantee you, no one has done an experiment that proves the 4th
dimension constantly moves forward.



Paper soon.

You mean you haven't looked yet? Anyone who can hear the phrase "time
stands still on earth", and not look at the material provided, cannot
possibly take science seriously! ;)

Well, It does not ;)

Any more refs?

I found this, which I'm just reading now:
http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Wharton_Wharton_Essay.pdf?phpMyAdmin=0c371ccdae9b5ff3071bae814fb4f9e9
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Anyone can apply for a warrant over allegations of a serious offence
    ... The clock is merely a mechanical device with some perceived regular ... not measuring movement in time - it is measuring something else ... The passage of time is, simply, different at the two different speeds ... No need to any more than in relativity. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Anyone can apply for a warrant over allegations of a serious offence
    ... clock travels at speed. ... not measuring movement in time - it is measuring something else ... movement in the 4th dimension. ... then by that fact alone clocks do not measure movement in the ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Any theory that yields a twin paradox must be dubbed bullshit
    ... clock synchronization procedures lead to different one-way ... speeds of objects, any procedure for measuring speeds is ... equivalent to a clock synchronization procedure. ... Measuring one way speed of light can be done with a single clock. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Galilean relativity
    ... You have seemed to agree that a clock could actually ... And if the speeds are NOT the same in each ... >> directions as measured in a moving frame S'. ... But if you have a clock in a MOVING frame measuring that ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: How to measure one-way light speed.
    ... inclusive of speeds higher than c. ... measuring light speed, we can safely use the measurement from A to B ... -one clock is sufficient ... Assumption of isotropy -> isotropy. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)