Perhaps chinglu can also tell everyone if time existed before the solar system and the "master clock", aka planet earth orbiting the sun, did?
Chinglu, I note you continue to ignore this ..
Please define what a clock is/does
It has been put to you many times, initially by RW, and a reply should be simple. Not only that, but absolutely necessary.
But so far, you ignore this. This is VERY telling.
Perhaps chinglu can also tell everyone if time existed before the solar system and the "master clock", aka planet earth orbiting the sun, did?
Indeed. You see, so far, he has not been able to meet the most basic, fundemental issues. Why bother with more complex ones ?
When something is tainted at the source .. it is tainted.
I posted this list a week or so ago, but with the continuing nonsense from chinglu and others not being able to face the reality of what's happening here, I think its time to do it again........
Tests of SR/GR:
Cryogenic Optical Resonators : http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/...prl78_4741.pdf
Non-Stationary Optical Cavities : http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/...xiv0510169.pdf
Lorentz Invariance : Special relativity passes key test - physicsworld.com
Time Dilation in Satellites : http://www.quantum.physik.uni-mainz...._861(2007).pdf
Length Contraction in Heavy Ion Colliders : http://home.broadpark.no/~ccsernai/Csernai-textbook.pdf
Relativistic Lorentz Force Tests : The effects of the Aharonov-Bohm type as tests of the relativistic interpretation of electrodynamics
Anisotropy of Inertial Mass Tests : An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Time dilation in mu-mesons : Measurement of the Relativistic Time Dilation Using
Length contraction in free electron Lasers : What is SR, how is it generated and what are its properties?
Length contraction in Penrose-Terrell Rotations : Can You See the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction?
Penning Traps : Antimatter tests of Lorentz violation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tests of SR/GR:
Universality of Gravitational Red Shift : http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/...2-PRL10401.pdf
Gravitational Potential at Short Distances : http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/...2-PRL10401.pdf
Tests of Lorentz Invariance : http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...005-5Color.pdf
Gravitational Red Shift / Pound-Rebka : http://luth2.obspm.fr/IHP06/lectures...avRedshift.pdf
Light Deflection within the Solar System/Shapiro Delay : [astro-ph/0302294] The Measurement of the Light Deflection from Jupiter: Experimental Results
Lunar Laser Ranging to test Nordvedt Effect : Phys. Rev. 169, 1017 (1968): Equivalence Principle for Massive Bodies. II. Theory
Hafele-Keating Experiment for Time Dilation : Around-the-World Atomic Clocks: Predicted Relativistic Time Gains
Thirring-Lense Effect : http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture03007.html
Geodetic Effect : Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 221101 (2011): Gravity Probe B: Final Results of a Space Experiment to Test General Relativity
Orbital Decay through Gravitational Waves in Binary Pulsar System PSR J-0737-3039 : Tests of General Relativity from Timing the Double Pulsar
Needless to say all of these tests confirmed the predictions of the theory of relativity to varying, but very high degrees. No violations of any laws of relativity have ever been observed in empirical experiments and continue on
Also, worth noting that QED [Quantum ElectroDynamics] , are in perfect alignment with QED.
Modern day Electronic technology would be impossible to operate without SR/GR.
SR/GR are the basis and main pillars of our modern world and are indispensable.
Can you explain exactly why my definitions are invalid. Let's start by you and your dude defining time.
I have made it clear. We measure time according to some predictable event in the universe like say the rotation of the earth. GPS within epsilon adheres to this standard.
Now, it is on you folks to define time that is not connected to the earth's rotation.
If you use an arbitrary frequency, I will point out that experiments prove that a light pulse coming out of a gravity well becomes more blue. Therefore, gravity, for some reason, changes the frequency of any given signal. So, an frequency measuring device will fail as an acceptable time device.
Yet, all the while the signal changed frequency, the rotation of the earth remained constant.
Well, perhaps you can explain your clock in an accelerating universe that claims the universe is an absolute x billions years old. What clock did these astronomers use? Now, how did they relate this clock to the earth's revolution around the sun?
Make an effort to answer.
Hey I heard MMX proves SR. Yet, I posted a paper from IOP that shows MMX cannot detect sagac because of the round trip light travel. Since MMX cannot refute GPS, then MMX is not null.
Hence, since MMX is false, then SR is false. This is by logical contraposition. If SR is true, then MMX is true. So, if MMX is false, then SR is false.
Also, GPS claims to prove SR's time dilation since the satellite is moving relative to the earth. Yet, the earth is moving relative to the satellite. SR therefore claims the earth clock should be time dilated, yet that is false, so, SR is wrong.
Hey I heard MMX proves SR. Yet, I posted a paper from IOP that shows MMX cannot detect sagac because of the round trip light travel. Since MMX cannot refute GPS, then MMX is not null.
Hence, since MMX is false, then SR is false. This is by logical contraposition. If SR is true, then MMX is true. So, if MMX is false, then SR is false.
YEAH YEAH SURE....blah blah blah blah...[1[ I don't believe you posted anything, [2] Whatever you post, it would not be from a reputable site, [3] If you are correct get it peer reviewed, [4] They laughed at Galileo [you are not Galileo, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown, [5] You are in pseudoscience .
You see, in order for you to claim that my definitions do not respond to fundamental issues, you must have some definition that satisfies your yet undisclosed "fundamental issues".
Let's assume this "fundamental issue" regarding clocks that you all claims exists.
Then state the age of the universe in terms of this "standard".
Let's see. I can't find any science on your part that refutes my post.
You are a troll.
This si the fundemental issue I refer to; you have been asked a simple question long ago by RW so that the discussion can proceed on that basis, and you haven't provided a simple straight forward answer. That simple question is;
Please define what a clock is / does.
I'm not interested in all the other noise. Can you provide a simple response to this, yes or no ?
Your posts [all of them] have been refuted over 42 pages now especially at post 822...Which makes you a liar and a fraud.
Again.....
[1] If you are correct, show me some observational and/or experimental evidence.
[2] Get your stuff peer reviewed..
[3] Why are you in pseudoscience?
When you can do all the above, I'll nominate you for the Nobel, OK????
Now stop embarrassing yourself and answer the questions, show some observational and/or experimental evidence, and follow the scientific method....Or forever languish in pseudoscience wallowing in your dung.
The question asked the definition of "clock", not "time". And that it isn't even the definition of "time".I do not know how many times I can say this.
Time for humans is defined according to the earth's rotations.