@zeccano
Then you are incorrect and oulking that out of your butt. Its been done cou tkess times and oroven to be the case. Hell ive personally dont relativity experiments and co firmed them to be true.

If you think that is the case prove it with an experiment or propose an experiment that someone else coukd do to prove you correct.

The experimental evidence overwhelmingly disagrees with you. In fact a lot of thinga in the world would not be able to work if we dont account for relativity.q

@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.

@zeccano
Dont be a condescending jerk, it wont serve you well on qoto, with me or the others.

Usually when people dont have a leg to stand on they resort to personal attacks. Shows a lot about your position really.

@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.

@zeccano Fair I should have been more tactful. After just talking to a flat earther for most of the day to hear you say something is false that can be tested and proven and has been sounded absurd. I should have been more tactful in my wording of that.

@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)

@zeccano The "interpretation" are little more than mental models, they arent the theory. The theory is that when something accelerates or changes its distance to some large mass time dialates by a very specific amount.

You are claiming it doesn't (correct)?

So the way to prove you have the superior answer isnt through any logical gymnastics, it would be through and experiment or a criticism of existing experiments that might explain how/why they are erroneous.

If you feel you can do that im all ears.

@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.

@zeccano Yes I am a scientist.

I have no need to use einsteins words or gymnastics for anything. He defined a very specific equation that defines how we expect things to behave. So far all the experiments show it to be true. Which means you need to either disprove those experiments by showing why they are failed experiments, or device your own.

You can play on words all you want, try to insult people and act childish in a vain attempt to look like you have some position of strength.

ITs all just noise until you actually say what you propose and exactly how one can test it.. until then your just wasting air on insults with no content.

hell you didnt even get to the point where you share any actual ideas, nothing with which to counter, and your already lashing out with personal attacks.

If anything it appears you are the one who doesnt have the mind for holding civil or productive conversations.

@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.

@zeccano Tricks of science fraud? Then how do you explain the fact that when ive conducted the tests myself personally they matched einsteins predictions perfectly.. How would this be possible if it was fake?

@freemo What test exactly did you conduct?

@zeccano Several over the years. A good example of one we can easily discuss is taking an atomic clock to different altitudes then comparing against a reference clock later.

The difference matched those predicted by einstein very closely.

@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?

@zeccano Well this was an experiment did several times over, it wasnt a single trip. But for the most impressive trip was when we took one up to the grand teton's Two-peak mountain.

I have access to a lot of hardware, and did the experiment many times with different hardware. At first it was loaned hardware, later hardware I owned and use for my EE work (unrelated to these experiments). So luckily I had ready access to several atomic clocks for a few years before selling them since I no longer need it for the work I do currently.

As for the accuracy, the accuracy and maximum deviation is known and easily confirmed. The variation is extremly small much.

Moreover if this were simply random deviation, a fine (though incorrect) assumption then it would be easy to distiguish. A random variance would be the same and inconsistent between trips at high altitutde and low. In both cases it would deviate in either direction.

Even if this wasnt true and there were some effect that made speeding up and slowing down as a mechanical problem specifically due to air pressure or something, then we would still expect that the results would not match exactly with the predictions of SR. Yet in every test, dozens of times, the results were always nearly exactly what you expect according to SR/GR

None of your dismissal or explanations seem to be able to explain away this.

@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?

@zeccano My science labs and notebooks are in my USA home, I'm currently in my europe home. So I dont currently have my lab notes on me. However you'd be better served looking at actual peer reviewed papers done under scrutiny. My results were the same, but it was done more for fun and personal validation than anything, and of the thousands of actual journal papers will go into far more detail for you.

I can take pictures of my lab notebook if your curious though next time im at that home, but again the peer-reviewed data here is going to use even more expensive equipment and controls anyway.

You were the one who seems to think you can disprove his theory despite the fact that everything we do appears to agree with it...

Its been over a day now, if you think you have some way of disproving his equation as accurate im all ears...

@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

@zeccano So basically it depends how much detail you want to go into what equation you use. Here is the simple equation for just the gravity and its effect on time dilation. That is good enough to understand the experiment I did but keep in mind if you want more accuracy then you would do a few things extra

1) calculate in the time dilation due to the slight velocity difference between the two clocks, this isnt hard but it also is a less significant part of the math and it works if its left off too, just not as accurately.

2) instead of modeling the mass of the earth as uniform (which is easier and usually good enough) you can actually measure the strength of gravity where you are. By doing so you can get really hyper accurate results, which are what most studies do.

In our case lets stick with the simpler and less accurate equation just so you can understand it.. it looks like this

\(t_0 = t_f \sqrt{1 - \frac{2GM}{rc^2}} \)

If you want to see how to calculate an approximation for G at a particular altitude then you can use this:

https://www.vcalc.com/equation/?uuid=9eed23e3-ec77-11e5-9770-bc764e2038f2

Now just need to look up the height of the mountain I was on as well as my home's altitude where the control clock was set and we can get the numbers.

@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?

@zeccano No helicopter, it was a jeep equiped with snow tracks. was a 2 week trip.

@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.

@zeccano enjoy

@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?

@zeccano
You are really graping at straws.

Two ways we know. First, the clocks remain in sync. Error is random so if they were less accurate than stated we would see sub nanosecond drift over short time periods.

Second if the issue you suggest was simply clock error then the error woukd be random and not be in near exact agreement with einsteins equation every single time and in every experiment.

@freemo Great, This is all good info for me.
And yes, I'm not skilled at math, however the stupid questions I asked you, being as how you are the only person I have come across that personally tested something, are the questions I would ask a professor during a lecture on this subject. I really dont trust people in general, and the weirder the claim, the more I am skeptical. Ill push as hard against authority whether it be from government or science, because there is no such thing as a incorruptible in any human endevour.
So we have confirmed differences in your clocks. And the differences are withing the reasonable error margin according to einsteins equation.
Which is just based on Lorentz work.
Now my question is:
Considering that a correct result from math calculation is not necessarily meaning that the hypothesis is correct, (it just means the equation is able to mimic fairly closely the results we get from direct measurements) .. then its not unreasonable to suggest that this affect of clock discrepancy is due simply because gravity effects the atomic process in the clock, and its not time that changing but just a local force preventing the clock from functioning normally.
After all, the equation does not involve any "spacetime", its the same basic equation that Lorentz developed for time and distance and mass changes due to relative velocity.

It has nothing to do with Einstein's GR field equations.
So how come a velocity equation is able to be used directly in a problem that has nothing to do with motion?

So is there something I missed here?

And Im talking with another guy on a forum, who says that spacetime is only a curved model of reality, its non euclidian , so things dont fall freely like they do in eculidian space.
But how come everything we see here ion earth s euclidean, but it somehow changes a few miles up? How high do you have to go above earth to find the place where euclidean stops and curved spacetime starts?
If everything is non Euclidean, then 99 % of all physics and astronomy, cosmology is wrong.
We calculate the distance to stars and the positions of stars according to Euclidean geometry and laws, so all these results are totally wrong. Even the example of starlight being curves as it passes the sun as in Eddington's experiment relies totally on euclidean geometry which is wrong.
So what the deal with spacetime?
It seems to me to be much more likely that everything is exactly how it appears, its all Euclidean.

What is the actual reason to consider that out there it could be totally different than here, whats the rationality behind the concept of non Euclidean space? Why would anyone decide its a good idea? We see no evidence for it, that made people realize that it just cant be Euclidean? Did we?

It all came from only math, right?

@zeccano If your really serious about learning this stuff here is what I recommend: Follow through the einstein thought experiments, the same one he used to derive his experiments.

I know since you dont know math this may seem overwhelming, but youd be surprised. For special relativity the math to understand it is actually **really** simple math beleive it or not. The thought experiment is also pretty simple to understand.

I think I see why this all may seem unreliable to you, you think it all came from just math, it didnt, it came from real world observable things, the math came later from simple thought experiments.

How would you feel about taking a go at understanding this for real, from the ground up? I promise it isnt too hard.

@freemo Funny, but its because I one day decided that I had the interest to understand more about things I read when I was younger, namely a National Geographic article about he wonders of Einsteins theories, (from the 1960's) that I read the English translation of Einsteins theory on Special Relativity, his 1905 paper. Then I watched every video of every lecture from the main USA universities, most involved a series of lecture videos, specifically on SR.
I also watched all the informational videos available that try to explain the theory using very nice graphics.

After ALSO reading some critical reviews of the theory, from dissident scientists, I had to decide what was correct and was must be mistake, as the two were not in agreement.
That made me go back to the 1905 paper, again, to pull it apart in detail, so that I was sure I understood it clearly.
Not being a math guy, ant it being too late for me to start, (im 64) I figured that this being a subject of Physics, it must first be explainable as physical principals, then after a satisfactory physical model is presented, the math was later developed.
The math must conform to the physical claims, we cant do physics from a math base, then look for observational evidence. The claim is that science works by first an observation then the search for an explanation followed by testing the proposed solution under varying conditions with math to support the claim, am I correct?

So with the theory of SR, exactly when EInstein proposed his thought experiment involving a light clock on a carriage, I had a problem with his model.

I made a short video explaining the problem I found. Take a look and get back to me if you want.

https://vimeo.com/295270284

@zeccano So watched your video, the fundemental problem in the video is you assume that if the laser is stationary when it is fired, and then accelates and start moving after that this would be the same as firing a laser while under constant motion.. it wouldnt. You cant just ignore the velocity when it is fires and then account for it once the photon is in motion, it doesnt work that way.

To understand why replace the mirror with two children sitting across an aisle on a bus and photon with a ball. If the bus is going really fast down a high way and one kid throws a ball to the other, how will the ball move? will it miss the other kid completely because of the velocity of the bus or will it hit its target? Obviously it would hit its target, as long as the bus isnt accelerating.

A photon is no different in this regard and thus why your video is debunked.

@freemo The laws of Physics dissagre with your assesment of my video.
A ball has mass and is influenced by inertia. A quanta of light, a photon has no mass therefore can never possess inertia.
Even Einstein stated clearly that light is unaffected by the motion of the source. No physicist will support the notion that a photon can be compared kinetically to a physical balls motion.
It is irrivalent that the light source may be under constant motion or under no otion or accelerating motion, once the photon leaves the source, the further motions of the source dont play any part.
and the inertia of the source can not be passed on to the massless photon for the reason already stated. The photon is going to go in the direction that the laser source is pointing, and not possess any of the lasers sideways motion.
You have not debunked my video.

@zeccano The idea that a quanta of light has no mass is incorrect. There are two types of mass every object has one is called rest mass, the other is called inertial mass or relativistic mass. Usually if we talk about mass it is the relativistic mass.

The mass of light is therefore relative to its frequency, higher frequency light has more energy and since energy is equivelant to mass, has more mass.

moreover, again, experiments demonstrate all this. So while I can understand that you **think** it is wrong, and you **think** you can disprove it, becaiuse all experiments prove it to be true we know you are wrong. So instead of wasting time on an idea proven to be wrong its far better to try to understand how it must be true.

@freemo no, no no, You dont get to call in another more recent claim of einstein to prove his first paper was correct.
The 1905 paper never mentions of or proves anything about light having mass, because we have not developed that theory yet!
That's what the paper is trying to explain. You dont have relativistic anything until Einstein proves it first!
You cant use the hypothesis to prove the same hypothesis,, that circular reasoning.
You are calling on a theory of e=mc2 as support for the hypothesis that e=mc2 rests on.
Not science. Not rational not logical.

@zeccano it doesnt matter how recent the claim is, thats just nonsense and makes no sense. It is a claim that is experimentally proven thats all that matters.

In every place where it is predicted we would need special relativity equations, we do, and when we apply them it gives the correct answer. There are countless examples of that.

You can say its wrong all you want but you cant get around the fact that it works, and is needed to make a ton of technology work at all, something that is tested every day in practical ways around the world and proven.

You can say its all wrong all you want but considering it is experimentally proven in countless ways you cant really gripe.

Still waiting on your explanation for the gravity clocks, you havent had one you notice that is acceptable.

@freemo Simple, the lorentz equation is not linear, same as the force of gravity, so its a close enough representation of the effects that gravity is having on the physical processes in that atomic clock at different altitudes. The clock is NOT time, its just a oscillating physical process, affected by gravity. Clocks are affected, time is not, because time is a concept, not a thing.

@zeccano That makes no sense, why would one an equation simple for being non-linear be expected to approcimate exactly the time difference expected.

The equations tell a specific number of seconds that is expected to be off by.

@freemo The non linear equations give a plotted curve that resemble the curve of the force of gravity measured at different altitudes. That all.
its not difficult to come up with such a non linear equation.
From the curve, or from the equation of course we get the same result as physical measurements.
Does not mean that space is curved, or that time can change with height.

@zeccano So even if the shape of the equations resembled the blot of gravity (it actually doesnt and has a different shape) that wouldnt explain why you'd get exactly 420 ns as an answer out of the equation for a certain input rather than some other number...

Thats not how equations work. I think your own lack of math knowledge is really blinding you to what would be a simple problem to understand otherwise.

I can teach you if you want.

@freemo I would like to know more about math, but I really dont have the time, i can now almost see the light at the end of the big tunnel, and I still have other stuff to do. I have a garden, chooks, and do woodwork which are more important to me than this, or advanced math.
I am considering the fact that the equations give results that match measurements, and the two curves are not a close enough match too provide those results, and will ponder and research this for a while.
But other that this one point of yours, that the results match reality, I dont think you have given a solid enough explanation for the reasons. None of the theory behind any of the experiments is without problems, and you have not been able to explain HOW they could get the equations so right when their hypothesis is problematic. You always just skip past the hypothesis and past the experiments and focus on the equations.
Light does not follow the source is one instance.
If I wave my laser about the sky it seems to be keeping up with the motion of my laser pointer, but the first laser photon is long gone in the direction that the laser was pointing at that instant, and has been replaced by countless billions more, each moving in a straight line coinciding with the direction of the pointer at the moment the photon was generated.