Dark Energy

[ricmat]

Newton had false humility, and a streak of dishonesty where intellecual credit was concerned. But his brilliance is still accepted.

So did you know Newton personally? No, probably not. But assuming that what you say above is true…

At least Newton, despite his brilliance, recognized humility as a virtue.

“Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue.” — François duc de la Rochefoucauld

 

[hecd2]

Even Newton had some humility. Of course, he wasn’t up to your level of intellect.

Still smarting over the fact that I pointed out that you were preferring the ‘work’ of two cranks who claim to have revolutionised every element of modern physics to the work of all the physicists of the last 400 years who have gradually built the edifice of modern science? The humble thing from you would have been to say “Oh - I hadn’t read the website thoroughly, you’re right”, instead of which you insisted on sticking up for their nonsensical ideas beyond all reason.

Look, I might not be a humble person, I am proud and I am not ashamed of it (so accusing me of it is no skin off my nose). For me, justified pride is a virtue. But, I have never claimed, nor ever will claim that I have done any revolutionary science. In the field of science, I am a follower, not a leader, but I have done my homework, I do know my stuff, and I am prepared to confront the dilettantes and cranks. I will never be one who claims to have single-handedly revolutionised physics - now that is hubris.

Oh - and by the way - if you think that Newton was a meek humble man, you really don’t know very much about him.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[SoCalRC]

So did you know Newton personally? No, probably not. But assuming that what you say above is true…

What an odd thought, you know he is humble through a single quote, but it is silly for me to form an opinion after having read, quite literally, every known word he penned.

Yes, I was referring to hypocricy!

-jjf

 

[ricmat]

Still smarting over the fact that I pointed out that you were preferring the ‘work’ of two cranks who claim to have revolutionised every element of modern physics to the work of all the physicists of the last 400 years who have gradually built the edifice of modern science? The humble thing from you would have been to say “Oh - I hadn’t read the website thoroughly, you’re right”, instead of which you insisted on sticking up for their nonsensical ideas beyond all reason.

I admit that I hadn’t read their paper about their theory of everything. They have a lot of articles on their site and I haven’t read all of them. I don’t believe you did either – you just read enough to find a “smoking gun” (i.e. the theory of everything) - but not enough to really try to understand what they were saying about the other things - about which their claims are much less “ambitious”.

How arrogant of them, to think they had a theory of everything

My posts were mainly oriented toward their hypotheses about the following (from memory, I haven’t been to their site for a while):

a) That there are electrical currents flowing through space. “Modern” physicists don’t believe that this is possible.

b) That the planets are not electrically neutral (charge wise). Again, modern physicists don’t believe this is possible.

Item a) explains the features of e.g. the shapes of remnants of nova. Easily explained, easily demonstrated (in a smaller scale of course) in the lab using standard plasma physics (which is the physics of high temp charged and moving particles). “Modern” physicists invoke magnetic fields to explain the features. And where do the magnetic fields come from - well, they don’t explain that. They CANT explain that without resorting to currents flowing in space, which violates a). Which they know is impossible.

Item b) explains many recent events which “surprised” NASA scientists, such as the “volcanic” activity on IO, and “hot” poles for the gas giants. Current flows from planet to moon (or vice versa) support this view quite easily. While “modern” physics resorts, as always to gravity somehow being responsible.

The view of today’s modern physics is that gravity is the only game in town, and it must somehow be force fit to explain everything. THAT’S where I have a problem with dark matter. If we observe something, well, gravity MUST be responsible for it. And if there isn’t enough stuff to account for that much gravity, then there MUST be more stuff. Voila - DARK MATTER! Yeah, that’s it, we’ll call it DARK MATTER!! And if we assume enough of it, the theory works mathematically, SO I’M RIGHT! HOT DOG!!! I’ve just proved that dark matter actually exists, and it is absolutely real. Nobel prize, here I come.

hecd2 - I’m just a lowly engineer, and retired at that. I’m not actually quibbling with your physics, except to say that it might not accurately represent reality (which seems like a safe bet since nobody has gone outside the galaxy to retrieve any dark matter, and probably never will). But I’ve been around long enough to know that things we once knew we now know to be false. So I encourage you to consider the remote possibility that you might be wrong about what you think is right.

It’s a good thing that the Wright brothers didn’t need to publish in a peer reviewed science magazine. Of course, they were engineers and not physicists

Look, I might not be a humble person, I am proud and I am not ashamed of it (so accusing me of it is no skin off my nose). For me, justified pride is a virtue. But, I have never claimed, nor ever will claim that I have done any revolutionary science. In the field of science, I am a follower, not a leader, but I have done my homework, I do know my stuff, and I am prepared to confront the dilettantes and cranks. I will never be one who claims to have single-handedly revolutionised physics - now that is hubris.

I think a civil debate between you and the electric universe guys would be very interesting.

BTW - another thing to keep in mind is that all the famous science guys - none of them were right 100% of the time. You only need to be right on one thing - and the other crank stuff you promoted is conveniently forgotten. I think that possibility still exists for the electric universe guys.

Oh - and by the way - if you think that Newton was a meek humble man, you really don’t know very much about him.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

I don’t know if Newton was meek and humble or not. The quote I posted may have been humility, or false humility as SoCalRC believes. But in my book, from best to worst the scale is as follows:

1. Humility.
2. False humility.
3. Pride.
4. Proud to be proud [sorry ]

Well, in any case, good luck with your theory, papers, the peer review committee, etc.

 

[ricmat]

What an odd thought, you know he is humble through a single quote, but it is silly for me to form an opinion after having read, quite literally, every known word he penned.

Yes, I was referring to hypocricy!

-jjf

No, you are potentially right. Perhaps Newton’s humility was actually false humility. And perhaps his writings (all of them even) don’t represent the man. We’ll never know.

I’ve got good news for you, and bad news for you.

First the good news. At the rate you’re going, you’ll be in first place in the pride competition soon.

Now the bad news. Pride is bad.

I know, “how odd.” [My you really like that phrase don’t you.]

 

[hecd2]

I admit that I hadn’t read their paper about their theory of everything. They have a lot of articles on their site and I haven’t read all of them. I don’t believe you did either – you just read enough to find a “smoking gun” (i.e. the theory of everything) - but not enough to really try to understand what they were saying about the other things - about which their claims are much less “ambitious”.

Wrong. I read every single word on their website. There wasn’t that much of it after all - and apart from the low-rent regurgitation of Alfven’s work, it was all utter garbage. Now, you are not a physicist, so there is no shame in being taken in by stuff like that in the first place, but there is shame is sticking by it now you know better.

a) That there are electrical currents flowing through space. “Modern” physicists don’t believe that this is possible.

Well electrical currents flow in plasmas, but because plasmas are hugely conductive they are quasi-neutral, and currents flow to keep them so.

b) That the planets are not electrically neutral (charge wise). Again, modern physicists don’t believe this is possible.

There can be charges in the atmosphere, but there is no evidence for the bulk of planets to be significantly charged - that would be very easy to measure

Item a) explains the features of e.g. the shapes of remnants of nova. Easily explained, easily demonstrated (in a smaller scale of course) in the lab using standard plasma physics (which is the physics of high temp charged and moving particles). “Modern” physicists invoke magnetic fields to explain the features. And where do the magnetic fields come from - well, they don’t explain that. They CANT explain that without resorting to currents flowing in space, which violates a). Which they know is impossible.

This is utter garbage - the shapes of planetary nebulae are well known to rely partly on magnetohydrodynamics - the effect of magnetic fields on charged particles in plasmas where the magnetic fields are caused by the flow of the charged particles and the magnetic field of the core remnant.

Item b) explains many recent events which “surprised” NASA scientists, such as the “volcanic” activity on IO

,
I’m sorry, you think volcanic activity is caused by electrostatics?

and “hot” poles for the gas giants. Current flows from planet to moon (or vice versa) support this view quite easily. While “modern” physics resorts, as always to gravity somehow being responsible.

This is so wrong I’d need a separate post to deal with it - I haven’t time for now, but basically you are setting up strawmen - physicists don’t explain the aurora by gravity you know.

The view of today’s modern physics is that gravity is the only game in town, and it must somehow be force fit to explain everything.

Strawman

THAT’S where I have a problem with dark matter. If we observe something, well, gravity MUST be responsible for it. And if there isn’t enough stuff to account for that much gravity, then there MUST be more stuff. Voila - DARK MATTER! Yeah, that’s it, we’ll call it DARK MATTER!! And if we assume enough of it, the theory works mathematically, SO I’M RIGHT! HOT DOG!!! I’ve just proved that dark matter actually exists, and it is absolutely real. Nobel prize, here I come

.Well why don’t you suggest an alternative explanation for the observations in all those papers I posted that does not involve gravity and stands up to computational scrutiny. You’re an engineer - your bridge has got to be shown to stand. Hand waving won’t do it.

hecd2 - I’m just a lowly engineer, and retired at that. I’m not actually quibbling with your physics, except to say that it might not accurately represent reality (which seems like a safe bet since nobody has gone outside the galaxy to retrieve any dark matter, and probably never will). But I’ve been around long enough to know that things we once knew we now know to be false. So I encourage you to consider the remote possibility that you might be wrong about what you think is right.

I might - all I have ever said is that the evidence for dark matter is very strong.

BTW - another thing to keep in mind is that all the famous science guys - none of them were right 100% of the time.
No but they weren’t cranks.

I don’t know if Newton was meek and humble or not. The quote I posted may have been humility, or false humility as SoCalRC believes. But in my book, from best to worst the scale is as follows:

1. Humility.
2. False humility.
3. Pride.
4. Proud to be proud [sorry ]

Do you think I care what your scale is?

Well, in any case, good luck with your theory, papers, the peer review committee, etc.

I haven’t got a personal theory. Too humble for that.

Alec
Proud to be proud

 

[ricmat]

Wrong. I read every single word on their website.

They had hundreds of articles in their archives.
I doubt that you read them all.

Well electrical currents flow in plasmas, but because plasmas are hugely conductive they are quasi-neutral, and currents flow to keep them so.

There can be charges in the atmosphere, but there is no evidence for the bulk of planets to be significantly charged - that would be very easy to measure

So what did the measurements show?

This is utter garbage - the shapes of planetary nebulae are well known to rely partly on magnetohydrodynamics - the effect of magnetic fields on charged particles in plasmas where the magnetic fields are caused by the flow of the charged particles and the magnetic field of the core remnant.

How could this be well known (to be true)?

magnetic field of the core remnant…and where does THAT magnetic field come from then?

I’m sorry, you think volcanic activity is caused by electrostatics?
This is so wrong I’d need a separate post to deal with it - I haven’t time for now, but basically you are setting up strawmen - physicists don’t explain the aurora by gravity you know.

No, that’s not what I meant. The things initially reported as volcanic activity have been SHOWN to be exchanges of electrically charged particles between planet and moon.

Strawman .Well why don’t you suggest an alternative explanation for the observations in all those papers I posted that does not involve gravity and stands up to computational scrutiny. You’re an engineer - your bridge has got to be shown to stand. Hand waving won’t do it.

Ahh… now we get to the heart of the matter. This isn’t about you versus me. On the surface (and a bit deeper) it seems that you just can’t stand anybody disagreeing with you. You are saying that if I (that is me particularly, or other posters particularly) can’t disprove you, then you must be right.

Because you know more about the modern physics explanation of this than I do, does not in itself make you right. There are smarter people than you around (no, really, I’m not kidding, they do exist). Some of those people will disagree with you. No, really, I’m not kidding.

As I said in a post a long time ago, and far far away, YOU WIN!!! I have no horse in this race, so to say your horse is faster than mine is…well, meaningless.

No but they weren’t cranks.

In retrospect what we remember is their achievements. We forget about their failures. Many of these failures (theories) seem highly crank-like based on what we know today.

Do you think I care what your scale is?

No, I don’t think you care, and I actually don’t care that you don’t care. But then you don’t care much for religion, or Catholicism, or God either (or maybe I’m misreading you and your site). That actually bothers me much more. For someone to have the talent to understand the beauty of the workings of the universe (or at least the theories of how it works) and not appreciate the author of it all…what a waste.

But as I said, YOU WIN!!!

 

[hecd2]

Ahh… now we get to the heart of the matter. This isn’t about you versus me. On the surface (and a bit deeper) it seems that you just can’t stand anybody disagreeing with you.

Not if their disagreement is as incredibly poorly founded as yours was - disagree with me and give me good reason for your disagreement, and you’ll find I am likely to accept that you were right and I was wrong.

You are saying that if I (that is me particularly, or other posters particularly) can’t disprove you, then you must be right.

Well the discussion has been between you and me, not me and someone else. And you are the one who introduced these guys into the thread, and claimed that they were about to revolutionise cosmology; and you are the one who reopened the discussion after it seemed finished. What I did was to point out that they are selling snake-oil, and pressed you on it when you stuck by them. But the key point is that it’s not just you or other posters who can’t use these guys’ theories’ to explain various observed phenomena in ways that stand up to quantitative scrutiny - they can’t either. So why on earth should I or anyone else give them a moment’s credence?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[ricmat]

Not if their disagreement is as incredibly poorly founded as yours was - disagree with me and give me good reason for your disagreement, and you’ll find I am likely to accept that you were right and I was wrong. Well the discussion has been between you and me, not me and someone else. And you are the one who introduced these guys into the thread, and claimed that they were about to revolutionise cosmology; and you are the one who reopened the discussion after it seemed finished. What I did was to point out that they are selling snake-oil, and pressed you on it when you stuck by them. But the key point is that it’s not just you or other posters who can’t use these guys’ theories’ to explain various observed phenomena in ways that stand up to quantitative scrutiny - they can’t either. So why on earth should I or anyone else give them a moment’s credence?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Hecd2 - my suggestions were only that these guys had some interesting ideas, and had a record of successful predictions. You can browse through their site and find them if you wish. Their site architecture makes it difficult to copy links to their pages. As you pointed out, they did have an article in which they made some rather ambitions claims, but I never referred to that article (in fact I hadn’t actually seen that one).

I also stated that I was not an apologist for them (I’m not qualified to do that), and many times stated that I thought that a debate between them and you would be extremely interesting. If this were to happen, then we could all decide who to give credence to.

But beating up on me as their proxy doesn’t make you right and them wrong!

As I said many times, if dark matter really exists, I can live with that. If it doesn’t exist I can live with that too. I don’t have a horse in this race, my future does not depend on the outcome. My pride will not suffer either way

Let’s assume for the moment that the current evidence is overwhelmingly in your favor. Your pride won’t let you accept that there is even the slightest chance that you might actually be wrong. That’s a fundamental flaw for a scientist.

 

[CoG]

Bobzills

Why does a clock change with velocity?

Here is a visualization that helps.

physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/LightClock/

You will note that the speed of light is constant and is not affected by the condition of any moving object, or a number of moving objects moving together. A number of objects moving together at the same velocity is considered to be in a frame.

If you take two mirrors and view them from the side such that light goes from left to right and right to left then light will travel back and forth at the same rate in both directions.

If you now take and move both mirrors to the right, the speed of light does not change but the distance for the light to travel in the right direction will increase with velocity of the mirrors. The distance for the light to travel to the left will decease. The change is due to the change of position of the mirrors. If the mirrors are moving at the speed of light then the light, because it is limited to the speed of light, will never reach the mirror on the right.

Even on a simple pendulum clock, the rate of the clock will slow down. The mass of objects increases with velocity. The increase of mass slows down the rate of any clocking function that has mass as the basis of time keeping.

Each and every case of any clock you can find the physical change that takes place due to velocity.

As I stated before, the reality of time is past, present, and future. For Relativity to be correct about changes in time, it must show a change of reality.

I am sorry about those that were taught that time is relative and refuse to listen to reality.

Relativity is a not a theory that even considers absolutes but is does not rule out absolutes.

If you have a relative number system with one number –2 and another number +4 a relative number system can only tell you 6, it does not recognize 0.

The relationships of Relativity are correct and will always prove to be correct but they are limited to clocks and relatives not absolutes.

The time to the Big Bang is absolute for all observers in the universe. For us the Big Bang, creation, is the absolute. The transition outward from the Big Bang is absolute time.

I wonder why no one on here has posted anything that shows my view wrong. I guess science has become an art of personal attack.

 

[CoG]

SoCalRC

That is actually a complex question, but you can get a glimpse with a simple answer. Imagine a different kind of clock.

As you can see from my last post the answer is simple.

If you agree that clocks slow down with increasing velocity then where is there the results of clocks slowing down with physical change and time itself changing. It seems to me that you agree that the change of clocks in Relativity is the result of physical change and not a change of real time.

If not can you please show how both are taking place and not showing up in the math. If this is an effect of light clocks or mass clocks why is that not accounted for in the math?

 

[CoG]

SoCalRC

Seriously, you’ve now declared perhaps the most “successful” (in secular scientific terms) idea in ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES (Einstein’s paper first intorducing the concepts we now refer to as ‘Special Relativity’ (it is ‘special’, because it only concerns an inertial frame of reference)) a mistake.

Why? Because you seemingly want to reassert a hypothesis of absolute time. Fine, introduce it, apply it to predict experimental outcome or use it to explain previously accumulated experimental data.

I have been trying to introduce and show how time is the result of our transition outward from the Big Bang. I have shown that a transition outward from the Big Bang accounts for the change from the initial start of the universe to the present. I have shown that such a transition accounts for the observation of redshift of distant objects. I have shown the mechanism of redshift and CMB are one and the same. I have shown the nature of dimensions and how this transition outward from the Big Bang qualifies as an independent dimension. I have shown that the relationship of movement in the spatial dimension with respect to time is a relationship of independent dimensions, velocity. I have given you the simple accepted math that indicates the nature of time to the spatial dimensions and how it treats time as another dimension. That math shows that the rate of change in the time dimension is equal to the speed of light.

If you think I am wrong and you people would get over the personal attacks and respond to the ideas, it should be easy to show that any of these ideas are incorrect.

 

[CoG]

Deconi
Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut, it is nice to know about someone that has also been out in the cold.
Deconi

Seems a long time ago now that I wrote an argument that the propagating speed of gravity had greater velocity than lightspeed, using observed data at the time, accepted theories and common sense! The simple conclusion was either it was true, or lightspeed was not constant at its known speed. Basically suggesting that lightspeed was much faster than we think!

As you may guess I have some ideas about this topic. I do not think it would be of any positive to go into it here and now.

 

[bobzills]

Here is a visualization that helps.

physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/LightClock/

…
As I stated before, the reality of time is past, present, and future. For Relativity to be correct about changes in time, it must show a change of reality.

I am sorry about those that were taught that time is relative and refuse to listen to reality…

First you propose this link and then you say that you are sorry about those who were taught that time is relative. Well, scrolling down and looking through the site that you yourself have recommended, we read:
"The characteristic feature of Galileo’s Spacetime was the set of horizontal slices representing “planes of simultaneity”. On a given plane, all of its events are simultaneous. This is the notion of Absolute Time, in which all observers agree on the elapsed-time between two given events. In the particular case of “zero elapsed-time”, all observers agree that the events on a given horizontal plane are simultaneous.
Einstein’s extension of the Principle of Relativity to all physical laws requires us to abandon Galileo’s Spacetime—in particular, its universal “planes of simultaneity”—that is, the notion of Absolute Time. "

 

[CoG]

hecd2

Look, I might not be a humble person, I am proud and I am not ashamed of it (so accusing me of it is no skin off my nose). For me, justified pride is a virtue. But, I have never claimed, nor ever will claim that I have done any revolutionary science. In the field of science, I am a follower, not a leader, but I have done my homework, I do know my stuff, and I am prepared to confront the dilettantes and cranks. I will never be one who claims to have single-handedly revolutionized physics - now that is hubris.

I am sorry that you do not feel that you have any ability to make new discoveries that would revolutionize science. I think that view will change when you get more life experience and obtain a real feel for science.

When you do, I think you will find the most difficult part is trying to present the ideas in a simple manner and in finding words that do not confuse the concept you are trying to present. Almost all words carry meanings beyond definitions.

The statement of yours tells me more about why you have opposition to new ideas outside of the accepted.

As I have tried to say before and maybe not too well is that I agree you are well schooled in what you know but that you are also limited by just what you know.

I realize that going into some of the basic concepts is outside of you area but it is obvious that pride is keeping you from digging deeper. You and most other people in science think that these basic questions have been answered, not so.

I am sorry that we can not have a civil discussion.

 

[CoG]

Bobzills

First you propose this link and then you say that you are sorry about those who were taught that time is relative. Well, scrolling down and looking through the site that you yourself have recommended, we read:
"The characteristic feature of Galileo’s Spacetime was the set of horizontal slices representing “planes of simultaneity”. On a given plane, all of its events are simultaneous. This is the notion of Absolute Time, in which all observers agree on the elapsed-time between two given events. In the particular case of “zero elapsed-time”, all observers agree that the events on a given horizontal plane are simultaneous.
Einstein’s extension of the Principle of Relativity to all physical laws requires us to abandon Galileo’s Spacetime—in particular, its universal “planes of simultaneity”—that is, the notion of Absolute Time. "

The view point presented is that of clocks and not reality. You need to get over the idea that clocks tell real time. If clocks indicated real time then a moving clock that slowed down could not return to any present that it left from.

A perfect example of this is the GPS system. All clocks on the GPS satellites run at a different rate than clocks on the surface of the earth and yet they never leave the present and move into the past or future.

Simultaneity

If all objects or all places in the spatial dimension are an equal time from the Big Bang and the transition from the Big Bang is the time dimension, it should be possible to show that “Now” must be the same throughout the spatial universe.

Absolute “Now” and relative “Now” are the foundations and the difference between the Theory of Absolutes and the Theory of Relativity. Just as Einstein used a thought experiment for relative “Now” or simultaneity, let us consider the same type of thought experiment for Absolute “Now”.

Four strobe lights L1, L2, L3, and L4 of the same design are synchronized to flash at the same time. The four lights and observer M1 are placed at point (A). Two of the lights L1 and L2 are then moved an equal distance from point (A). Both lights L1 and L2 should be moved at a slow rate. Both L1 and L2 should also be moved in the same manner to prevent a difference in flash rate that could be cause by the movement or rate of movement. If the lights are moved correctly observer M1 still at point A will see lights L1 and L2 flash at the same time. Lights L1 and L2 may move around point A at an equal distance forming a circle of simultaneity. This may be repeated to produce an infinite number of concentric circles. It may then be seen that any action anywhere on the same circle is simultaneous.

Lights L3 and L4 may be used to repeat the same experiment but they should be moved at a high rate of speed. Again all movement should be of the same manner. Lights L3 and L4 will also produce the same circles but their flash rate will be later then L1 and L2 when on the same circle. The difference in time may be calculated using the formulas of relativity using the difference of the rate of movement.

If we now move to a new location and repeat the experiment we will produce another set of concentric circles of simultaneity. The second set of concentric circles will overlap the first set of concentric circles. If any circle of simultaneity intersects another circle of simultaneity both circles must be simultaneous. It is therefore shown that all locations in space are simultaneous thus agreeing with the Theory of Absolutes.

 

[wildleafblower]

… the Theory of Absolutes.

Humm. Are you the author of Plan Theory?
SECTION III
CHAPTER NINE
THE SPECIAL THEORY OF ABSOLUTES
3108.info/pth/pthc9.htm as
PLAN THEORY CHAPTER NINE as

And, please tell me what you specifically don’t agree with on this link.
teslasociety.com/einstein.htm
http://www.teslasociety.com/einstein.htm

 

[CoG]

Wildleafblower;

Humm. Are you the author of Plan Theory?
SECTION III
CHAPTER NINE
THE SPECIAL THEORY OF ABSOLUTES
3108.info/pth/pthc9.htm as
3108.info/pth/pthc9.htm as

I know nothing of this concept and cannot see what the point is of the theory. Reality consists of all that exist, seen or unseen known or unknown. There is only one absolute, God, all else that exists is relative to Him. Being a simple person, I accept the reason why God made us. That reason is to know love and serve Him here and to be happy with Him in heaven. This is the only theory of absolutes that I know. I believe that science is one way of knowing God. Science is a search of the connections for the source of all things. All I am doing here is pointing out what I see.

And, please tell me what you specifically don’t agree with on this link.
teslasociety.com/einstein.htm
teslasociety.com/einstein.htm

“Both space and time are no longer absolutes.”

This is not a conclusion of Einstein’s. If you will go back and read the theory, you will see that the statement is that his theory did not need absolutes.

As I pointed out before no relationship of relatives requires absolutes and does not provide any knowledge about absolutes.

Special Relativity is correct and can not and should not be extended beyond its scope.

There is only one small error in the theory. Very, very few know the nature of time today and Einstein knew nothing about the nature of time. He made the mistake to think that the function of clocks indicated time.

Clocks only are correct when they are not influenced by other physical functions. A clock in space away from gravity and without spatial motion keeps track of real time.
It would be great if we had clocks that started with the Big Bang and kept track of the passage of time to the present day…. Wait a minute we do have such a clock. The CMB is a clock that started around the time of the Big Bang and we can still look at it today. We know that the frequency of this clock changes with time. This CMB clock tells us that it started about 15 billion years ago. We also know this clock is the same everywhere in the universe because it shows the same time in all directions. Do you think that maybe the present now is the same everywhere in the universe?

“All motion can be measured only in relation to the observer who performs the measurement. Time and position are all relative to the observer: hence the theory has been called Einstein’s relativity.”

Don’t you think it makes more sense to consider that the condition of the observer affects the way he sees time and space. Light going between objects always goes at the same rate. That rate does not change because there are other objects taking the same path. Only your personal experience is altered. When you go to sleep you do not claim that time stopped. Why would anyone even consider that time itself changed when they are changing their condition of motion?

 

[bobzills]

When you go to sleep you do not claim that time stopped. Why would anyone even consider that time itself changed when they are changing their condition of motion?

When you go to sleep, you can have a video recording of the clock on your table and it will show the same movement as it does when you are awake.

 

[CoG]

Bobzills;

When you go to sleep, you can have a video recording of the clock on your table and it will show the same movement as it does when you are awake.

Just as you know that you do not keep correct time and look for some method that is better at keeping time it is necessary to look for a clock or a method that agrees with reality.

Since it is obvious that clocks do not always agree with the reality of past, present, or future (real time) we can look for a clock or method of knowing real time.

All clocks that we know about are tied to some physical function and are therefore affected by physical changes. We may thank Einstein for giving us the answer. The Special Theory of Relativity gives us the relation of clock rate to velocity. All clocks will tick the fastest at zero velocity and decrease with velocity.

We may use zero velocity as a measure of real time that will have universal agreement and calculate any condition to zero velocity to get real time.