Anyone really good at maths and knows this calculation?

I quoted a quote , I did not say that . I perhaps quoted too much of the quote.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wrong, science told me that if i took a Caesium clock up a mountain, effectively less gravity, the clock would change.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Again, I notice an avoidance of the actual points of truths which I mention, effectively science has 1 second equal to a distance, by when changing to a new clock they did not make a variant and kept it at an invariant to the original second.

solution - one tenth of a billionth of a meter is equal to 1 second or 1 beat on an atomic clock is equal to 1 second.

Reason - time is almost instantaneous.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ok, look at this diagram, it represents an object at distance approaching you that starts outside your vanishing point, I ask you to time it.

Firstly you can not see the object, you have no means to time the object at this stage. You can not time the space, you effectively would only be timing your time in a space watching a space waiting for the object to enter your line of sight.

(hence why the big bang and an expanding space is bs).

Science is really contracted when they consider what time is.

 

Well you got it wrong. If you take a caesium clock to a higher gravity area or if you accelerated to a high velocity you will not detect any change in your clock - that is what relativity tells us. Relativity also tells us that an observer in a different frame would see a change in the rate of your clock relative to their clock.
It is a bit subtle so I don't expect you to understand.

 

Wrong.

 

Wrong, my clock remains at my starting point, the new clock I take a flight around the world or up a mountain, the comparison will show a change against the two clocks , we can both conclude that the clock design is not a constant and a useless device to record time and both look for a new improved constant to time, time.
I have told you before, perceived image is making several axiom paradoxes, axiom paradoxes that when thought about in detail start to sway towards the new idea on my set of reality scales.

Yes I am judging science, yes I am prosecuting science, and yes your defence lawyers can not defend this.

I await any sort of defence about time not being originated from the origin of motion relative to the Sun, firstly you would have to deny sun dials and so on, in my eyes you have offered no defence and I am sorry I can not even become the defence and help you because I would also be speechless in a reply because the truth is hard to disprove.

 

The prosecution doesn't know the case, the laws nor does what it says make any sense.

 

Point proved, science can offer no defence to the truths I mentioned.

 

So what is the new idea on your set of reality scales? How can we understand your new idea? Does your new idea describe time in a useful way?

 

So you mean I was correct because I said that only the comparison will show a difference. The person on the ground will see no change on their clocks rate and the person on the plane will see no change in the rate of their clock either.

Only an ignorant person would conclude that.

You are very ignorant of how the universe works so your ideas are not worth anything at all.

Judging from a postion of ignorance is a really really bad idea.

Time did not originate from the movement of the earth. The units that we measure time were originally based on the movement of the earth. Now the basic unit of time is based on the caesium clock.[/QUOTE]

 

On one side of my scales on the pans, I have science book 1, the traditional present science with some uses
on the adjacent pan I have science book 2, a content involving science book 1 but looking at the real values and truths.
How can you understand the idea, simply be truly objective and break your learnt programming , forget what you know and consider things from different angles gaining different perceived views that start to show axioms, does it describe time in a useful way, yes, it describes real time and not made time. Science currently has the speed of light faster than time itself.
Ideas like this open up a new future in science, the not discovered will be discovered, people think science is at a dead end, science has not even begun yet.

 

You're not going to rewrite science by not understanding science, tc. No one here thinks science is at a dead end btw.

 

[/QUOTE]

''Only an ignorant person would conclude that.''

Wrong, any person with half a brain cell would conclude this, a person looks at both atomic clocks from a 3rd person view and knows the clocks are not time itself relative to the 3rd person, the 3rd person would also argue that light was a better constant in a vacuum, and whilst you were messing around with your delusional clocks, I timed both clocks by using a vacuum and light and recorded no change of either time of either clock, concluding gravity and motion was cause of effect of emittance change of the clocks, by energy/force displacement,
I conclude if you turned the cargo deck of the plain into a vacuum and used a light vacuum clock and the Caesium clock, our more reliable vacuum clocks would show no change in time/timing of any observer in any reference frame compared to the dis-functioned Caesium clock.

 

You can not rewrite science, you have to keep science 1 it has gone to far, to much made to fit that is needed now, but science 2 will open up new doors.

 

Science 1 - observe, mimic then quantify.

 

You misunderstand - I want to know what "the real values and truths" that you speak of are.

Please provide an answer as to what "the real values and truths" are in your scenario of "a flight around the world or up a mountain". Are you able to do that?

 

Science 2 is bs so far.

 

Yes I misunderstood , the true values of the Keating experiment are in the simplest terms showing that if you keep moving in life or live at altitude , that you will live a fraction longer.

 

The truth can not be bs , it is all about perceived image of the truth, and when the truth is pointed out you try to deny it.