The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place.

Geometry sets out form certain conceptions such as "plane," "point," and "straight line," with which we are able to associate more or less definite ideas, and from certain simple propositions (axioms) which, in virtue of these ideas, we are inclined to accept as "true." Then, on the basis of a logical process, the justification of which we feel ourselves compelled to admit, all remaining propositions are shown to follow from those axioms, i.e. they are proven. A proposition is then correct ("true") when it has been derived in the recognised manner from the axioms. The question of "truth" of the individual geometrical propositions is thus reduced to one of the "truth" of the axioms. Now it has long been known that the last question is not only unanswerable by the methods of geometry, but that it is in itself entirely without meaning. We cannot ask whether it is true that only one straight line goes through two points. We can only say that Euclidean geometry deals with things called "straight lines," to each of which is ascribed the property of being uniquely determined by two points situated on it. The concept "true" does not tally with the assertions of pure geometry, because by the word "true" we are eventually in the habit of designating always the correspondence with a "real" object; geometry, however, is not concerned with the relation of the ideas involved in it to objects of experience, but only with the logical connection of these ideas among themselves.

It is not difficult to understand why, in spite of this, we feel constrained to call the propositions of geometry "true."

Something is "true" if it agrees with the laws of physics and has been demonstrated to be "true" by experiments. 

An observer is anyone who casts a mathematical net over time and space, establishing conventions to describe locations in space and points in time.

All in all, there is a plethora of different possible observers - each with a specific way of imposing mathematical order onto the world. The differences lie not only in the different location of the observers, or their different motions, but in the infinity of variations that is possible for conventions of how to choose space and time coordinates. In fact, in our definition, the term "observer" is equivalent to that of "space-time-coordinate system", or just "coordinate system".

Here is another term you don't understand: "closing speed". Closing
speed is defined as comparing the speed of A with the speed of B in reference frame C (in which neither A nor B is stationary). An observer would NOT use the term "closing speed" to talk about a photon hitting the observer. If you tried to do that, A would be the photon, B the observer and this takes place in B's frame where B is stationary in B's own frame. So the 'closing speed' would be the speed of the photon (c) plus the speed of B in B's frame (0 by definition) so we get c+0=c.

No, it does NOT. Because no radar gun actually measures the speed of the light arriving at the oncoming car -- how could it???? -- IT IS NOT AT THE CAR. It is your FANTASY that this is so, and your FANTASY is wrong."

The closing speed has been checked in many experiments and is always c. The closing speed in Einstein's little scenario is c for both the man on the train, and the man on the embankment.

So both the guy ON the train and the guy ON the embankment/station next to him (ideally right on top of him) have the same experience of having the flashes arrive simultaneously. That has to be true, or else causality would suffer.

 

The radar gun emits pulses at a frequency of 1,500,000,000 Hz.  The pulses that come back from the speeding car are at a frequency of 1,500,000,150 Hz.

The baseball problem is similar, except that the pulses that come back from the baseball are at a frequency of say 1,500,000,120 Hz.

The question: What PHYSICALLY happened to cause the pulses to return at a higher frequency than the frequency at which they were emitted?

Well, Ed, then I guess it's a good thing that nobody first tried to develop a "sonar gun" to detect speeders by aiming a sound chirp at them, since obviously THAT would not work at all, right?

The problem with sound waves (sonar) is that they are neither fast enough nor precise enough to measure velocities of really fast moving objects.  The whole system fails if an object is going faster than sound.  Nothing can go faster than light, so (radar) light (radio frequency) photons are used to measure the speed of very fast moving objects.

Since sound travels faster through water than through air, submarines use sonar to locate objects.  I remember a lot of WWII movies where everyone listens to sonar pings hitting the hull of the submarine, and everyone gives a sigh of relief as the pings get farther and farther apart, indicating the the enemy ship is moving away from the submarine.

The fact that the radio photons return at a higher frequency than the frequency at which they were emitted by the radar gun does not show that the radio photons arrived at the oncoming car at c+v.  They may have arrived at c.  The first photon may have arrived at c and was sent back at c.  Then the second photon may have arrived at c and was also sent back at c.  What changed was the amount of time between the emission of each pulse and the re-sending of that pulse.  The pulses were sent back at a faster rate than they were originally emitted because they were received at a faster rate.   

as he became president, Bush managed to spend [Bill] Clinton’s surplus of international goodwill in astonishingly short order. He ditched Kyoto, the anti-ballistic missile treaty, the germ warfare protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the International Criminal Court, and the land mine treaty.

Bush is good at make-believe.  He says what he has to say.  But he gives tax cuts to his supporters, throws business to his cronies, quietly guts environmental protections, and leaves millions of children behind.  He calls himself a compassionate conservative.  That's the biggest lie of all.

The right-wing media racket let Bush get away with it.  When the mainstream media dares to tell the truth about Bush, they're called biased.

Mexico Agrees to Pay for Trump’s Psychiatric Care

First, there is a transmitter, which creates a signal (called a carrier wave) at a specific frequency (of whichever band the radar is designed for). We will use as an example 1.5 Ghz, which means that one and a half billion sine wave pulses are created every second. This signal is not modulated like a signal from a radio station would be.   

This signal is radiated out toward your car. As the signal spreads out, its strength gets weaker and weaker. ... Various radar guns have different spread patterns, but a block away, the pattern may be about 30 feet in diameter. ... If your car passes through any part of the 30-foot diameter circle (actually, cone), the signal will hit it.

A tiny fraction of this energy that is reflected in all directions, happens to be reflected back in the exact direction of the originating radar gun.

There is a phenomenon called the Doppler shift, which causes the frequency of any signal radiated from an object (including a reflected signal) to be shifted by a very specific amount. The size of this frequency shift is dependent on the speed of the moving vehicle, and on almost nothing else.

For a car going 100 mph (toward the radar gun), this only represents a frequency shift (increase) of our original signal to 1.500000150 Ghz, a VERY tiny change. ...  So we get an resulting output (difference) signal of about 150 Hz for the 100 mph car. Lower speeds give lower (difference) frequency. Every frequency corresponds uniquely with a specific speed, virtually exactly proportional to vehicle speed.

 1,500,000,150 Hz
-1,500,000,000 Hz
-------------------
                   150 Hz

Since the difference frequency is virtually directly proportional to the target vehicle speed, a simple circuit converts the 150 Hz signal into a readout of 100 mph.

The equation is f(reflected)=f(source) * Sqr.Rt((c+v)/(c-v)), where c is the velocity of light, and v is the velocity of your car.

But I don't know how to use that equation in my arguments.  I'd need someone else to use it in a meaningful argument first.

I also found a web site explaining how radar guns are also used by baseball fans to measure how fast the pitcher is throwing his "fast ball."



The principles are exactly the same as for police radar guns.

He [Hermann Carl Vogel] then went to the Polytechnical School in the city of Dresden, before he enrolled in natural science at the Universit of Leipzig in 1863. By 1865, he was an astronomical assistant at the Leipzig Observatory before he went for his Ph.D. at the University of Jena which he graduated in 1870 when he was the director of the Bothkamp Observatory by recommendation from astronomer Karl Christian Bruhns to whom he was an assistant and his professor Johann Karl Friedrich Zoellner. Here he and his school chum Wilhelm Oswald Lohse (1845 - 1915) began taking photographic images of the spectrum of stars by 1871 when they also found the Sun's rotational period by the Doppler effect of shifted wavelength. To a person who doesn't know what those lines on the spectrum means, it's of no use, but to a person who knows what elements those lines represent, seeing those familiar lines shifted even slightly to the blue or the red side of the spectrum is noticeable. By 1874, he was working at the new Astrophysical Observatory in Potsdam. (AOP) By 1882, he was the director of AOP till his retirement in 1907. By 1888, he and Julius Scheiner were producing such accurate spectral wavelength shift readings that it was made into a paper, "The Determination of Radial Velocities of Stars by Spectrographic Observation". Many others had tried photographic spectroscopy, but he was the first to determine how to do so accurate-enough that he can determine the radial velocities of stars.

By November, the Frederick City Police Department made it official: Dr. Bruce Edwards Ivins had deliberately killed himself. With Ivins’s death, proving his guilt before a court of law would not be possible, and we realized that doubt would always linger in some minds. But the totality of evidence could not be ignored: Ivins was the anthrax mailer and a serial killer. His motive? For those who investigated the attacks, we are in agreement: the troubled anthrax vaccine and the looming potential of shutting down anthrax research at USAMRIID, bringing an end to his professional life’s work, coupled with an increasingly troubled mind pushed him to murder, using the weapon he understood best. But personally, I do not think he anticipated killing postal workers, and when he did, he stopped mailing his deadly letters.    

 
I keep wanting to relate this endless disagreement to the science arguments I'm currently having with mathematicians.  When I talk with the mathematicians it seems that each one has his own unique understanding of Relativity and how light works.  That's what makes it so difficult to resolve the arguments.  I'll be arguing with "rotchm" or "tjrob137" and a half dozen others will join in with their own bizarre arguments.

But, it's going to be interesting to see how well Scott Decker's book sells.  Is anyone (other than the True Believers and conspiracy theorists) still interested in the case?  While there have been lots of other books about the case (including 2 by me), Scott's book is the first book written by an insider in the investigation.  I hope it does well.  I certainly found it to be a fascinating read.    

I wrote a review for it on the Amazon site.  Of course, I screwed it up.  The first line of the review was:

This is the first book about the biggest FBI investigation in history, written by someone on the inside, Scott Decker, who was in charge of the scientific investigation.

Is not the speed of any observer zero (wrt his frame)?

It depends upon what you are measuring.  If you are in a lab with the windows closed, then yes, your speed is THEORETICALLY zero.

Are you saying that if you then open the windows, your speed magically  changes from zero to some other value????

No, I'm saying that before you opened the window you had NOTHING to use to determine if you were moving or not.  You had no capability of determining if you were moving or not.  It's Einstein's First Postulate.

When you opened the window, you HAD ways to determine if you were moving or not.

Evidently, this cannot be stated in mathematics.  In mathematics, a formula is a formula, and what can be done in the real world is irrelevant. That is why we cannot agree.  You are talking mathematics.  I am talking about reality.

Yes I did have something to use to determine my speed: MY RF.
Speed (as position) is ALWAYS relative to a given RF.
Speed is contingent to an RF, else 'speed' doesnt make sense  (and undefined). This is basic stuff ed, which you should know. In experimental physics, we always use RF's (coordinates, coordination procedures)

In my (constricted) RF, the Sun is getting closer & closer to me. 

Yes, my speed is v wrt the sun's RF (syn: as measured by the sun)

In *my* RF, my position is always x'=0, thus my speed wrt my RF is always 0.

But the sun is coming towards *me*, so I will "get home".

In my frame, when I measure the SoL, I still get c.
In the frame of the Sun, the *closing speed* between
the light & me is c + v. Closing speed is not the speed of "something"; it refers to the rate of change of the distance between the "two things"; its NOT the SoL.

 

Joking about a “deep topic” or “dangerous topic” is a way of talking about it, examining it in a way that doesn’t scare us, numb us, and rob us of our joy in life. Jokes allow us to dwell on the incomprehensible without dying from fear or going mad. Laughter and joke telling are a way to speak of the unspeakable.

As the great American philosopher Joan Rivers succinctly put it, “If you can laugh at it, you can live with it.”

Historical evidence indicates that the ancient Greeks had been collecting jokes and putting them into “jokebooks” or “jestbooks” since the time of Philip II of Macedon (382–336 BCE). Like all good things that originated in Greece, the tradition of jokebooks migrated to Italy in the time of Caesar Augustus (63 BC–14 CE), and it is said that a scholar named Melissus compiled approximately 150 joke anthologies. Unfortunately, only one book of humor from ancient Roman times has survived. The Philogelos, or Laughter-Lover is a collection of 264 jokes put together in the fourth or fifth century CE. The jokes in the collection are brief and to the point, but happily they still have a certain cachet. For example: “How shall I cut your hair?” a barber asked a customer. “In silence!” replied the wag. And: How does a man with bad breath commit suicide? He puts a bag over his head and asphyxiates himself!

Logic: The Art of Reasoning (Inductive Reasoning: Moving from a Particular to a General)

Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson are on a camping trip. In the middle of the night Holmes wakes up and gives Watson a nudge. “Watson,” he says, “look up in the sky and tell me what you see.”

“I see millions of stars, Holmes,” says Watson.

“And what do you conclude from that, Watson?”

Watson thinks for a moment. “Well,” he says, “astronomically, it tells me that there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets. Astrologically, I observe that Saturn is in Leo. Homologically, I deduce that the time is approximately a quarter past three. Meteorologically, I suspect that we will have a beautiful day tomorrow. Theologically, I see that God is all powerful, and we are small and insignificant. Uh, what does it tell you, Holmes?”

“Watson, you idiot! Someone has stolen our tent!”

In physics, & "higher' science, 'understanding' relates to the capacity of applying the models and *calculating*, predicting, the outcome of exps. [experiments]
We 'understand the math' or we can work out the implications of the model.
Thats whats meant by 'understanding'.

Then, there is the word 'interpretation', which is more what YOU call 'understanding'.  Interpretations in physics is irrelevant and obsolete; "shut up & calculate" as the famous quote from Mermin. This is because, 'interpretations' wont change the model, wont change the math. Therefore, interpretations' are useless *in physics*. Yes, in early years of physics, or for the lay, interpretations can help them develop an 'understanding' and mental image of the situations. But further down the line, the lay gets to understand that 'interpretations' are irrelevant, and drops such options. You havent crossed that line and are still stuck at 16th century science so to speak.

Thinking about foundations pays off in the long run. David Mermin once summarized a popular attitude towards quantum theory as “Shut up and calculate!”. We suggest an alternative slogan: “Shut up and contemplate!”

• Lucien Hardy and Robert Spekkens, "Why Physics Needs Quantum Foundations" (2010)

mathematicians versus scientists versus philosophers

Revealed: 50 million Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach

It's possible that if I were on Facebook, I could find some true experts on the anthrax attacks of 2001 and Time Dilation to talk with.  But, I tend to think that such people also have "better things to do."  My primary interest is in writing, and writing is mostly a solitary activity.  Facebook looks like a trap where you wander around in a crowded world looking for someone with the same interests as you have.  I have to allocate my time to fit my current mood and interests.  I don't have much time left for wandering the world to find someone to exchange small talk and gossip with.  And that also means I very rarely encounter Trolls.

I completed the course on Space, Time & Einstein at the WorldScienceU.com site.  The basic principles of time dilation and the constancy of the speed of light are very familiar to me and required learning nothing new.  I think I fully understand them.  Here's one of the comments I wrote explaining my view of time dilation:

I think I understand time dilation okay. If I'm on a rocket ship traveling near the speed of light, where time is slowed down to 1/10th what it is back on earth, everything will still SEEM normal aboard the ship. The clock will seem to keep normal time. I'll still need a haircut every month (more or less). If a woman aboard gets pregnant, she'll still have a 9 month gestation period.

AND, if I had a magical "simultaneous viewer" device aboard that could show me the eastern horizon back on earth as it was happening at MY time rate, I'd see the sun rise every 2 hours and 24 minutes.

AND, if the people back on earth also had a magical "simultaneous viewer," the parents of the pregnant woman aboard would have to wait 90 months for the child to gestate and be born. And, if they could see the clock we have aboard the spaceship, they'd see it was moving at 1/10th the rate of the clocks they have.

However, there was one video (Module #8) that contained a section that was really puzzling for me, and, evidently, also very puzzling for a lot of other students.  So, I played it over and over until I could spot the exact sentence where Professor Greene lost me.  Then I looked at all the comments by the other students to see if any of them could clarify anything.  (My outdated computer software prevents me from getting any direct feedback from Professor Greene.)  Eventually, I realized the problem was all the result of a confusing choice of words used by Prof. Greene.  Am I right?  I dunno.  But, I've finished the only course I see of interest.  I'll just check the student comments from time to time to see if anyone clarifies anything further for me. 

Another area of very heavy thinking last week involved me trying to figure out exactly what Professor Greene was talking about in the on-line course about Space, Time & Einstein on the WorldScienceU.com web site.  I understand time dilation, okay, I think.  To confirm it, I created a new web page about it HERE.  The idea is that if I can explain it to others and get them to understand, that means I also understand it.  I think just about anyone should be able to understand my explanation.  I may add some drawings, if I can find the time.

I want to make it clear before continuing that Professor Greene is not teaching anything that other physics professors aren't also teaching.  The only difference is the Professor Greene's course and lectures are on-line where I can easily access them.

I soon realized what bothered me about "Module #8" back then.  Prof. Greene was breaking Time down into "quanta," i.e., into moments, like the individual frames of a movie.  And he was viewing time as a mathematician would view time.  Plus, the lecture concludes with Professor Greene saying that, "What this collectively tells us is that the traditional way we think about reality - the present is real, the past is gone, the future is yet to be - that is without any real basis in physics.  What we are really learning from these ideas is that the past, the present and the future are all equally real."

If you believe that, then you can also argue that everything we see may be equally unreal - from a mathematician's point of view.

It's unbelievable how many wrong conclusions you have here.

It's unbelievable that someone would write such a comment without specifying which "conclusions" are "wrong" and what the FACTS and EVIDENCE say are the CORRECT "conclusions." Do you have only PERSONAL OPINIONS?

Since all of your conclusions were only personal opinions, you wouldn't want anything else.

Stationary Emitter

Moving Emitter

Is the Doppler effect for light different, depending on whether the source is moving or the receiver?

If it were, we would have a way to define absolute motion - we could define, using only the laws of physics (more concretely, of light propagation) whether or not the source, or the receiver, or any other object is at rest or not. This is in sharp contrast with the basic tenets of special relativity, which state that there is no absolute motion, and that the physical laws do not allow us to determine a state of absolute rest.

Whether Einstein's 1905 light postulate is true or false depends on whether light pulses bunch up in front of the moving source or not:

http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_static.gif

http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_source_blue.gif

Light pulses don't bunch up - bunching up obviously violates the principle of relativity. The speed of light VARIES with the speed of the source, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Pentcho, if I am stationary and the source of light is stationary and emits one light photon toward me every second at 299,792 kilometers per second (kps), that means there will be 299,792 kilometers between each photon that I detect and I will detect one photon arriving every second.

If, however, the source is traveling at 100,000 kilometers per second (kps) toward me and away from you (and we are both stationary), then there will be 199,792 kilometers between each photon that I detect (the photons "bunch up" and I detect more than one per second), and there will be 399,792 kilometers between each photon that you detect (the photons are "spread out" and you detect fewer than one per second).  But each photon still travels at 299,792 kps.

That is depicted in the two illustrations you provided.  The blue.gif shows that the photons are closer together than in the static.gif.  But the photons still travel at c.

The speed of light does NOT vary with the speed of the source, the FREQUENCY at which the photons arrive at the observer varies with the speed of the source AND the direction in which it is traveling. 

March 20, 2018 - This morning I did my income taxes, so I don't have to worry about that chore anymore.  And, I see that all the people on Google's Science, Physics & Reality discussion forum are doing today is arguing personal beliefs and theories among themselves.  There has been no response from "trjrob137" regarding my dissection and debunking of his March 17 comment and email to me.  He hasn't responded via email, and it appears he hasn't posted anything at all since then to the Google forum.  Maybe he spent the past three days digesting what I wrote.  But, until he does reply, I'm going to assume that that argument has ended, and so have all the debates I was involved with there.

So, I'm free to work on some scientific paper or a book.  I think about writing a paper when I am in the middle of an argument, but I think about writing a book when the arguments are over.  I'll have to wait to see which direction I will take, but it appears I cannot think about it until I get the confirmations that my tax forms were accepted by the IRS and by my state.  Until then, I'll probably just stare at the computer screen and think about where to begin.

Ah!  I was just notified that the IRS accepted my federal forms.

I was also thinking I should show this image:

Viewed properly in the context of their times, the last forty-four presidents all pursued policies that they believed would make for a better America tomorrow. The Trump presidency is about Trump. Period. Full stop. He says so himself all the time, but because he mixes it in with lines about how he loves everyone and what a terrific job he will do, millions of Americans believe he is at one with them even though he is not even at one with himself.

Trump has also lived a life of thumbing his nose at conventions and law enforcement, learning lessons as a boy from his father, Fred, whose business partner was an associate of the Gambino and Genovese crime families. He has long been in deep with mobsters, domestic and foreign, along with corrupt union bosses and assorted swindlers.

Not many people go so far as to support the Ku Klux Klan, as Trump’s father, Fred, was doing in 1927 when New York City police arrested him during a violent demonstration.

Trump himself has reduced his life philosophy to a single word—revenge.

“I love getting even,” Trump advised in one of his books, adding “go for the jugular, attack them in spades!” Repeatedly he has said in talks and in his books that destroying the lives of people he considers disloyal gives him pleasure.

His entire life Trump has been a con artist. In The Art of the Deal he brags about deceptions that enriched him. He has boasted about not paying banks that loaned him billions of dollars. He conned thousands of people desperate to learn what Trump said were the secrets of his success into paying up to $35,000 to attend Trump University. In a promotional video, Trump said his university would provide a better education than the finest business schools with a faculty he personally picked. Lawsuits forced Trump’s testimony and documents that showed that there were no secrets he shared with the “students.” The faculty never met Trump. These professors turned out to be fast-food managers and others with no experience in real estate, the focus of the “university.” Because of the lawsuits, Trump paid back $25 million to the people he conned so the scam would not follow him into the White House.

How can it be that millions of people do not see Trump for what he is—a narcissistic, ill-informed, thieving old blowhard?

Donald Trump is not the political disease afflicting America, he is a symptom. That millions of people voted for a narcissistic, know-nothing con artist who has spent his entire life swindling others while repeatedly urging followers to commit criminal acts of violence against his critics reveals more about America than about Trump.

They don't really demonstrate anything about "time", because that is NOT what they are measuring.

They did not measure "the rate of time", they measured FREQUENCY DIFFERENCES of SIGNALS BETWEEN THE CLOCKS."

Had you bothered to actually READ THEIR REPORT (in Nature Physics, linked to the LA Times article), you would KNOW that the authors never mentioned "difference in time" or "difference in clock tick rates". For instance, in the caption to Fig. 1 they specifically mention "Frequency of the transportable Sr clock as seen by the INRIM Cs fountain clock" -- they are using words in precisely the way I advocate. That figure explicitly shows the fiber-optic link between them, so it is QUITE CLEAR that they are comparing SIGNALS BETWEEN THE CLOCKS."

Yes, "tjrob137" constantly writes about one clock "seeing" another clock, which makes no sense at all.  And he found a sentence in the Italian article which uses a clock "as seen by" another clock to justify all his claims.

As best as I can figure, he believes the clocks tick at the same rate at the top of the mountain as at the bottom (see #5 in my list of The 10 Dumbest Beliefs in Physics), and it is the speeding up (the blue-shifting) of the "signal" that is sent down the mountain for comparison that accounts for the difference in clock rates.  But, I'd already explained to him that the "signals" can have no affect on the experiment.  So, evidently I needed to explain that to him again - in some different way.

The more I thought about it, the more it seemed like this needs to be the subject of a scientific paper.  And I also needed to create some illustrations to help me explain the situation.

According to what I read in the articles about the Italian experiment, time ticks at a faster rate at the top of the mountain than at the bottom.  In other words, seven ticks of an atomic clock at the top of a mountain when compared to seven ticks of an identical atomic clock at the bottom of the mountain can be depicted as seen in Illustration #1 below.

Illustration #1

According to "tjrob137," however, a clock at the top of a mountain ticks at the same rate as a clock at the bottom of the mountain.  So, in Illustration #2 below we have 7 ticks of the clock at the bottom of the mountain and at the top of the mountain with  equal intervals between the 7 ticks.

"Tjrob137" evidently believes that the signals sent down the mountain are affected by gravity and speed up as they descend, so when someone at the bottom of the mountain compares the two clock tick rates it merely appears that there is a shorter interval between ticks atop the mountain.  It simply looks like Illustration #1 above while the clocks actually tick like Illustration #2.

The problem with that belief is that it is not logical.  If the signal for each tick speeds up as it descends, the amount of time that is removed from between ticks will always be the same.  The same amount of gravity is applied to each signal, and the same amount of time is required for each tick to descend.  So, if the clocks are ticking at the same rates as in Illustration #2 above, the only actual difference will be how long it takes for the signals to travel from the top of the mountain to the bottom at the speed of light.  After that, all signals will arrive with the same intervals as observed at the top of the mountain.  Illustration #3 below shows in red the travel time interval of time being observed at the bottom of the mountain for the first tick signal to arrive due to the speed of light.  Plus the illustration shows that although the signals are delayed, the interval between signals once they arrive are the same duration they were at time of transmission. 

IF some speeding up of signal times could somehow magically cause the results seen in Illustration #1, we'd get the situation shown in Illustration #4 below:

In physics, "time is what clocks measure" [[according to] Einstein and others], for the simple reason that in any experiment that involves time, a clock is used to measure it.  No experiment measures time, they all measure clocks or signals between clocks.

#8.  Light travels as waves.

#4.  The speed of light is always measured to be the same by the emitter and all outside observers, regardless of their own velocity.

rotchm
JanPB
tjrob137 (his first post in this thread)
danco
Paparios and
Paul B. Anderson

What is the CAUSE of clocks ticking at different rates when the velocity is different and/or when gravity is different?

In physics the CAUSE of ANYTHING is unknown.

That’s because you mathematicians took over physical development  and invented all sorts of non-existing mathematical objects (such as: virtual particles (force messengers), extra dimensions, spacetime,  curvature in spacetime, length contraction, time dilation....etc) to explain the physical universe. Once you done that there is no way to go back to find the CAUSE of ANYTHING.
Fortunately I think I found the PHYSICAL CAUSE OF EVERYTHING in my book in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf

Except for the "time dilation" part and the recommendation to read his book,  Ken Seto and I seem to be mostly in agreement.  There are others who also seem to agree with me sometimes, but then they say something that I totally disagree with.   It reminds me of the cartoon I created a long time ago:


Everyone agrees that something or someone is wrong, but they totally disagree on what is right.  Each has his own theory.  And, of course, so do I.  But I do not fit into the cartoon because I would be arguing that "mainstream scientists are RIGHT in what they believe.  They are correct when they do experiments which confirm that time ticks at different rates in different locations where gravity and velocity are different.  And the people I am arguing with disagree, but we cannot find the right words to define our disagreement because they only understand mathematics and cannot discuss anything except in mathematical terms.

And, two more messages just appeared in the "Those LYING Scientists" thread.  Fortunately, neither was addressed to me.  I've got an hour and a half to reply to the six messages addressed to me before it will be lunchtime and time for me to head to the gym for a workout.  Sigh.  I really need to get out of this situation so that I can do my taxes and maybe start writing a book.  

To me, all movement is relative to the point where the Big Bang occurred.

Making allowances for your unfamiliarity with the relevant concepts from cosmology, it's true that one can define a cosmological time in a way that corresponds to what you said, but it would be expressed by saying that we can define all movement in terms of the local frames of reference at any given point in which the radiation reaching that point from the big bang is the same frequency in all directions.  This gives an unambiguous definition of motion, and indeed this is used for some astronomical and cosmological studies.  However, it remains true that local inertial coordinate systems are perfectly reciprocal.

You just demonstrated your lack of understanding of cosmology.  The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is the same in all directions because it formed about 378,000 years AFTER the Big Bang.  It is from the time when hydrogen atoms first formed.  Photons emitted when an atom forms do not go in any specific direction, they are emitted RANDOMLY in EVERY direction.  So, the CMB tells us NOTHING about the direction to the point where the Big Bang occurred.

And a person in a [reference] frame where the sun is stationary sees the plane moving at 66000 mph and the ball comes down many THOUSANDS of feet from where it went up, so he knows that Person-2 is wrong :-)

But since he knows astronomy, he knows that the earth is moving around the sun at 30 km/second.  And since he also knows the First Postulate, he understands that motion is purely relative, as Galileo proclaimed centuries ago.

the velocity of an object is NOT a law of physics.

He came to realize that since all the laws of physics remain the same whether you’re at rest or in steady motion, the speed of light has to be constant as well. No one can catch up with a light beam. But if the speed of light is identical for all observers, something else has to give: absolute time and space. Einstein concluded that the cosmos has no universal clock or common reference frame. Space and time are “relative,” flowing differently for each of us depending on our motion.

Hmm.  I've concluded that the cosmos does have a universal clock and a common reference frame.  It is the point where the Big Bang occurred.  At that point, time ticks at its maximum rate, and all motion in the universe is relative to that point.

It greatly simplifies and helps make sense of everything.  But nothing can be accomplished by arguing about it with the people on the Google forum.   I just need to write more papers about it - maybe a book.  And, if someone can explain to me where I'm wrong, I'd like them to do so.  Just don't argue that I'm wrong because I do not understand the mathematics, and do not argue that I'm wrong because I appear to disagree with Einstein.  If I'm wrong, only experiments can show that I'm wrong.
 


And, as far as I know, all experiments say I'm right, although there are definitely a lot of people who will claim that that there are experiments which show I am wrong, but they have never actually cited any such experiments much less tried to explain how the experiment shows I'm wrong. 

Hmm.  This isn't the comment I set out to write.  It's more like a demonstration of the famous quote from

The NIST experiment involved building atomic clocks that could detect the difference in the rate of time at one level versus 1 foot above that level.  The experiment was successful.

The Italian experiment involved building portable atomic clocks that could be used to measure the height of an object by measuring the difference in the rate of time at the base of the object versus the rate of time at some higher point on the object.  The experiment was successful.

The Hafele-Keating experiments involved using atomic clocks to measure the difference in the passage of time between a relatively stationary atomic clock at the US Naval Observatory and four clocks that were moved by transporting them around the world on commercial aircraft.  The experiment was successful.  

All three experiments were designed to confirm Einstein's theories that time runs at different rates in different frames of reference.

The question:  If the above sentence is NOT true, what WERE the experiments designed to do?       

They are neither true nor untrue because they are meaningless.
This is because the expressions "time runs at different rates" are not defined; we cant know the meaning of something if we haven't given it a definition. And relativity does NOT say "time runs at different rates". Relativity says, for instance,  t' = (t - xv/c²)g. Then *authors* personally voice this as "time runs at different rates".

Stupid Stupid Ed.

These experiments indicate either of the following.  <shrug>

1)  Time ticks at different rates at different altitudes while measuring the same value in the speed of light.  <shrug>

Or

2)  Measurement of time ticking rate depends on the local value of the speed of light which can be different at different altitudes.  In reality, time does not dilates, but the speed of light varies while satisfying the null results of the MMX that show the speed of light is isotropic in constancy locally.  <shrug>

The self-styled scientists bet on the first case, and all subsequent experiments never looked for latter case.  After all, the calibration reference of these experiments is the Cs atomic clock which depends on temperature and the local value of the speed of light itself.  <shrug>

Clock time ticks at different rates but all the processes of nature do no operate of clock time--they operate of absolute time. However there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frame and that’s why we invented the LT to predict the tick rate of a moving  clock.