justafool @zeccano@qoto.org

@freemo
and with those atomic or now optical clocks, they say they only loose a second in a billion years.. the thing is, how would you know?
The physical processes may be changing in the atomic scale, slowing, speeding up and there would be no way to know..
When they make an atomic clock and say its the most accurate... but by the standard of what BETTER clock can they say this?

@freemo Ok, chooks fine.
Here is an interesting thing about any measurable effect on atomic clocks with altitude.
(ill pick up the stuff about your mountain holiday later, when I can digest the info)
So, GPS atomic clocks are adjusted to tick at a slower rate than the master clocks on earth.
But, whats happening exactly with GR's claim about clocks are running faster with more altitude?
Is it TIME running faster? or just the clock malfunctioning?
The atomic processes occur at a different rate because they are not under the same physical conditions, less gravity, so the atomic radiation is a hight frequency.
Cesium atom frequency is 9,192,631,770 cycles per second, and that rate is now what is defining how long a second is.
(no longer defined by dividing solar cycles into smaller segments)
But TIME in the fullest sense is NOT about atoms vibrations. Its just an accurate way to count rhythmically.
So my statement is: When they have a clock in space running faster, its not needing adjustment due to TIME changing up there, buy only because the atomic process reacts differently to the physical effects of differing gravity. If you could build a clock that was demonstrably un- effected by gravity, then there would not need to be any fiddling with the clocks on the GPS would there?
Time has not changed with gravity only clocks change.
The clocks malfunction under differing gravity. Time is not affected by gravity or motion.

@freemo OK getting more interesting, thanks for responding, i appreciate it. But now my wife will kill me if I dont go sort out the chickens and go the the shop. its 10am here.

@freemo Good, thanks, now for how long did you stay on that mountain top with the clock?
And am I right, you used a helicopter?

@freemo Yes, I am very interested in seeing some data on your clock test. But as you cant provide just now, at least you can do me the favor of calculating quickly what einsteins equations say the time difference will be between say, sea level and the top of grand teton?
later, please do that some pics of your notes and findings, and post them here, or alternatively send to my email. zeccano@protonmail.com

@freemo Aslo, being pedantic, I must ask the location of your master stationary clock, and which mountain you went to exactly? Dropped by Helicopter?
Have a guess as to the discrepancy you got, it must be in the back of your mind, all that effort and you forget what you discovered? And it was so interesting that you did similar experiments several times? So do tell what was the difference in time? One more thing I need to know, from the location of the stationary clock, how did you get to the mountain? by car? or did you also have free access to that helicopter as well as a bunch of clocks and plenty of free time from your electrical engineering studies... you should understand why i need to check a few things, i dont meet many people (none till you actually) that have personally tested einsteins theory.

@freemo What was the altitude of the master clock, and the altitude of the mountain location, and what discrepancy did you record? Considering relativity, what was your calculated discrepancy?

@freemo As you are not a Physicist, where did you obtain a master atomic clock and several mobile atomic clocks from?
You need the master obviously, and you need more than one to take to the mountain, and another as a control piece....
So how loaned you these clocks, personally? Which mountain?

You are aware of course that atomic clocks are NOT that accurate, right? Two IDENTICAL atomic clocks sitting side by side in a lab, WILL NOT stay in sync.
A mobile atomic clock is not considered very accurate at all compared to a fixed clock.
ALL the master and copies around the world need TUNING and adjusting all the time... so how the hell could you discover anything at all about General relativity's claim that time goes faster at altitude, when you had to move and transport that several clocks all about the countryside, with is going to fuck up their timing, considering we are trying to measure two tenths of sweet fuck all?
Is the ANY experiment ever done to support einstein that does not involve a practically near zero result, or is happening on the other side of the universe? Any?

@freemo What test exactly did you conduct?

@freemo You are having way too much trouble over what Im saying here.
Im NOT trying to suggest any hypothesis, I dont want to propose any laws of physics.
ALL I am saying is that einsteins hypothesis is error from start to end, and contains math errors, so his equation is also crap.
Therefore it not possible that an experiment is really supporting these errors. Like 2+3 = 19 is not a good start in a physics paper, the paper is going to be worthless.

@freemo Einstein came up with his math equation by adding up the number of stray cats in Berlin, then multiplying by a number that his gardner thought up ( a number between one and one hundred) and then taking the square root of the result, and dividing it by the speed of light. There, that''s actually the way einstein developed his equation.
Since you didnt know this before, I thought I should explain it to you.
Now that you know the truth, maybe you can understand why I am suspicious of any claim that some test has verified his equation.
So when I explain that you CAN get a correct or near to correct looking result, that resembles reality, it DOES NOT MEAN that you were right.

And there are ALWAYS other explanations for any experiment, you dont get to chose your favorite one and claim that its the correct one. (while being also ignorant about the other possibilities)

Do einsteins equations provide answers that are more accurate than the classical physics we had before? NO, no they dont.

Precession of Mercury's orbit, GPS, and curvature of spacetime causing light o curve around the sun, and atomic clocks on planes, are all tricks of science fraud.

Incidentally all these observations require those difficult things, "words" and rhetoric in order to explain.

@freemo You are no scientist are you?
I CAN explain why all apparent confirmations of relativity are either fraudulent or errors of interpretation. But you wont believe me. Why? Because YOU will counter my explanation of the physical experiments USING the hypothesis itself!.

I may be wrong, but didn't einstein write a paper? you know with meaningless words, mental gymnastics, and people read it, and consider whether it was a valid scientific work?
Now you come along and say, "" I dont want to think" Words and ideas make my head hurt.
Just show me the shiny bouncing ball, that good enough.
I can show you David Copperfield making a Boeing 747 disappear on live TV!
There is evidence enough for you.

As I said before, you dont have the mind for this discussion.
Ill wait till someone else comes along.

@freemo And I repeat, your "tested and proven"" method is not reliable and is never accepted by sicence as the way forward. Simply because you can never PROVE anything absolutely, you can only positively prove some idea wrong with a test.
And there are always more than one interpretation of any result of any experiment. That's why we MUST examine the hypothesis, this is the scientific method.
If this were no so, they we would never need the peer review process would we? ( which is full of problems anyway)

@freemo
No worries, Im never tactful. I dont see any point in mincing words to be PC. There is too much of that. But when I make a statement, such as Einstein is wrong, I can explain exactly why he is wrong. Ive been doing this for several years, and never had anyone be able to shoot me down with rational, logical argument.

@freemo Says Dr freemo, who recently said I was talking out of my arse. And dont be so sensitive. You cant help not being capable of explaining what you believe.

@freemo
Sorry to bother you with this. I can see its way, way over your head. Ill wait till someone with the power of discernment comes along, then engage in some meaningful discourse. Bye.

@freemo
What experiment that supports Special Relativity have you personally done?
Which part of "the experiments are either fraud or done incorrectly" dont you understand?

What use is doing the same wrong thing many times and getting the same wrong answer?

Are you sure you even went to high school?
Degrees? in what? Fast food technology? Hairdressing?

@freemo
I claim that millions of tiny invisible fairies with Casio watches, carry the light we call the Moon, across the night sky every evening. (with occasional changes)
I therefore PREDICT that they will do it again tonight!

There. this is adequate example of sound science according to you definition.
I need to chuck in a bit of math, maybe divide the weight of the moon by the carrying capacity of the fairies, deducted from the fact that they ARE carrying the moon, so we KNOW it has to be correct.. so, about 64 million fairies, prove me wrong!

@freemo

Its false.
Nothing is going to shrink or get heavier just because its moving.
At any speed, for any observer.
Any claimed experimental evidence is either incorrectly done, or fraud.

@freemo
You need to step back one step.
With an hypothesis, one presents a collection of ideas and combines them so as to encapsulate a new understanding of some observation or proposal.

AFTER that, the author needs to propose a way to test the conclusions to see if they agree with experiment.

BUT, even if they agree with experiment, that DOES NOT mean the concepts are necessarily correct.

Now listen carefully. in this thread, I only want to discuss the hypothesis, to see if its sensible.

I propose its not rational, has many errors.
Therefore the conclusions must on necessity be wrong.

After we see that einsteins theories are wrong, we can then re examine any claimed experimental evidence to see why it apparently supports his wrong theories.

This is the correct way to do science.