EINSTEIN, AETHER, EMISSION THEORY

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:34:09 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message

Of course it is Henry, it contains nothing and you cannot
have degrees of nothing. Any fields exist everywhere or
nowhere.

that's the old belief....

The complete absence of matter is the definition
of "vacuum" while "fields" are attributes of that
empty space. There cannot be degrees of "complete
absence" and either space supports some attribute
or it doesn't.

Strange things happen George.

The definition remains what I said.

A sees Q at rest and P and B moving to the right at
the same speed U. As calculated by A, the speed of
the light from P is vPA while that from Q is vQA and
similarly for vPB and vQB for observer B.

Using Maxwell's Equations, A finds vPA = vQA, so call
that v.

That is the local speed in the immediate vicinity of the measuring
apparatus.

No, the equations do not include the distance from
the apparatus so it is the speed no matter where
the light is in the vacuum.

Not so George.

Yes so Henry, learn how to read an equation.

B finds that vPB = vQB, call that v'. While
we can draw no conclusion as yet about the relation
between v and v', both observers agree that the speed
of the light from the two sources is the same.

...and they conclude wrongly...

No, their calculation from Maxwell's Equations is
correct. Whether that accurately modesl reality is
a different question, I am showing you only why the
_equations_ are not compatible with ballistic theory.

George, measurements of the two constants HERE tell us nothing about the
velocity of light emitted by Sirius, relative to us.

Don't try to change the subject Henry, _any_ given
value of the constants tell us the speed of light
from BOTH sources has the SAME value at the SAME
location. Maxwell's Equations CANNOT be compatible
with ballistic theory.

....and this is a major reason why he was wrong....

He wasn't wrong, the maths has been checked by many
thousands of people, the conclusion follows from
Maxwell's Equations.

All of the above is pure maths which you should be
able to follow, or you can find the derivations all
over the net.

..and it's all wrong....

Sorry Henry, you need to learn basic maths, it is
all correct and unarguable, if ballistic theory is
correct then at least one of Maxwell's equations
must be incorrect.

OWLS has never been measured ...

It has but we are not talking about measurement, we
are discussing whether the _equations_ are usable in
ballistic theory and I have demonstrated that they
are not. The _equations_ say the speed is the same
regardless of what happens in reality.

Velocity is always relative to a reference.

Yes, the rest frame of the observer in the case of
Maxwell's Equations.

Not so..

Yes so.

..Maxwell derived them for the rest frame of the absolute aether.

Wrong again, that was his philosophy but the aether
does not appear in the equations.

Naturally.
If it appeared at all it would be represented by a statement, not an
equation...
Maxwell didn't include it because the general assumption was that light
speed
was automatically referenced to the absolute aether rest frame.

No, he couldn't include it because there is no such
speed in the equations. Perhaps you should find out
what the equations are before trying to talk about
them.

It builds on it and redicts SR as you can see above.
It is all just pure maths.

You simply measure the properties of the apparatus.

Don't try to change the subject, we are talking only
about the equations and pure maths. The two-observer
situation above leads to exactly the same conclusions
as the single-observer case but adds the invariance
of the speed as a derivation.

Are you always going to accuse me of changing the subject when I prove you
wrong, George?

You didn't, the two-observer case is identical to what
I said and agrees with my point, which is why you are
now trying to change the subject again, we are discussing
whether Maxwell's _Equations_ are compatible with ballistic
theory, not measurements.

bull...

You need to learn more maths Henry.

...give me another lesson about star magnitudes george...

I may have to, my figures are all correct.



See my other reply, post your values if you think
mine are wrong.

Consider the simple equation y = k * x. Let x
be a sine wave and so is y. Now make k slightly
dependent on x such as k = 1 + 0.1x. You will
find that y will have terms in x^2. Apply a
sine wave for x again and you discover y has a
component at twice the frequency. Such tiny
non-linearities are crucial in RF design and
if space was non linear that way, it would
produce harmonics.

That happens..but their amplitude is too small to worry about.

Then fields do not affect light.

How do you know?

You just said the effect was too small to worry about
hence there is a negligible deviation from linear
behaviour.

Yes, and for a perfect vacuum it is close to 377 ohm.

In pure vacuum, that's the impedance contributed to the vacuum by the
field
that is used to measure the impedance.

No, impedance is a constant of proportionality that
relates the quantities described as fields. Since, as
explained above, a non-zero field cannot alter the
value of that constant without introducing non-linearity
and hence harmonics, the measured value is also the
vacuum value.

IMPEDANCE OF PURE VACUUM CANNOT BE MEASURED.

Says the layman. It is 377 ohms.

That value is a result of the measurement itself.

ROFL, of course Henry, that is what physics is all about.


Without the fields attributed to the apparatus, there is no value.

Wrong, the equations require that fields are an
attribute of space itself.

...the three spatial equivalents are...1) a line on a ruler, 2) the


NO....

Yes...

I notice you snipped the hard bit..

When an argument becomes "Yes it is / No it isn't"
there is no point in continuing. You have stated
your view and I have stated mine. We can agree that
clocks measure a single value so there is at least
one doimension, you have offered no evidence that a
second exists. Until you do, there is nothing for me
to refute.

TIME flows.

No, our perception of "now" progresses through time.

If it flows at different 'rates' in different circumstances - AS
DEMANDED BY GR -

Wrong again, GR (and SR) say that "now" progresses
along the worldline of an object at the _same_ rate
but that geometrical _projection_ onto _other_
worldlines (e.g. a remote clock) creates an apparent
difference in the rates.

then ther must be a second time dimension....

That would be a logical conclusion but your premises
are both wrong.

...but I realise there is no point in trying to educate a relativist.

Thre is no point trying to convince me using baseless
assertions driven by religious conviction. If you could
show experimental evidence to back up your claim, that
would be a different matter.

That's all this debate will ever be Henry, it is
pure philosophy speculating about an opinion. If
you want to change it to science, publish the
design for an instrument that measure the gradient
and gives repeatable results when built and used
by different users.

George, I have merely stated that for time to FLOW, as it obviously
does,

It doesn't, just as a ruler doesn't 'flow'. Our
perception of "the present" appears to move forward
in time like a finger sliding along a ruler reading
off distance.

Yes, that's a good way to look at it....we are all moving along the time
axis...BUT AT WHAT RATE, GEORGE?

"Rate" is the relation of other physical properties
to the number of the ruler. Relate location to the
value and you get speed for example.

Think of your life as a piece of string
with a length of about 80 units. At any point on that
string, you remember events at lower distances but
can only guess events beyond that point and you call
the point "now".

Good....

There is nothing to talk about until you produce some
_experimental_ evidence for the existence of this extra
dimension. To give you a hint, note that many forces
are inverse square suggesting we live in three spatial
dimensions. If we lived in four, the forces would be
inverse cube as the relationship of the area of the
surface of a hypersphere to its radius. Translate that
into two time dimensions and that's the sort of evidence
you need to produce.

George, GR says the rate of 'timeflow' changes in different gravity
potentials...

No it doesn't, it says if you project the markings on
one ruler perpendiculary onto another identical ruler
which lies at an angle to the first, the markings will
not match up, and tells you the ratio of the spacing
of the projected markings onto the local ones.

How does it define 'rate of timeflow'.

Please answer...don't snip....

I won't snip, it is a sensible question. There is no
such concept as 'rate of timeflow' in GR or SR, the
definition is the ratio caused by the geometric
project of one ruler's markings onto the other.

Maybe not...but that's what Einstein tried to do...associate different
rates of time flow with physical quantities.

No he didn't, that's a common mistake laymen make.

It won't waste my time explaining it again, you
have often said you aren't interested in SR, but
think about the "life-string" above and imagine
lots of such strings for different people like
a plate of spaghetti that has almost but not quite
been combed parallel.


Spaghetti flow.......

No, just a static plate of the stuff, no flow. In
this view your life is a rigid unchanging helix of
some length wrapped round the worldline of the Earth
and "now" is just some point along the line. Everyone
else will find out how long it is once you die.

The really interesting philosophical point, which you
miss because you choose not to understand SR, is what
happens in the twins paradox when they meet up. If
you apply the idea that "now" has some physical
significance, like a bright point moving along your
worldline, then the "now points" for the twins start
together, diverge, then return, but stay-at-home's
"now" is following a little behind traveller's. That
was the basis of a number of sci-fi stories where
are area could be "moved forward in time" and became
inacessible but it shows a similar failure to understand
the concept. The astronauts who went to the Moon had
their "now" points moved forward a few microsends IIRC
but they are still part of the world. The idea of "now"
flowing alomng the line doesn't work. Do you follow or
is that too subtle for you?

(It would make a neat animation but sadly it is wrong.)

You will find many examples from the past but Newton
defined "absolute space" as part of basis for the
Principia and then went on to produce the equations
of motion which were Galilean Invariant and had no
hint of absolute motion in them.

Motion is not absolute...

Exactly, but Newton belived in absolute space so a
change in absolute location would be absolute velocity.
However his Equations of Motion do not reflect that and
in the same way Maxwell's Equations do not contain an
aether even though his philosophy imagined one.

I am a true relativists, George. ..

No Henry, you are a true philosopher, nothing
more.

George

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 13:10:54 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .


B finds that vPB = vQB, call that v'. While
we can draw no conclusion as yet about the relation
between v and v', both observers agree that the speed
of the light from the two sources is the same.

...and they conclude wrongly...

No, their calculation from Maxwell's Equations is
correct. Whether that accurately modesl reality is
a different question, I am showing you only why the
_equations_ are not compatible with ballistic theory.

George, measurements of the two constants HERE tell us nothing about the
velocity of light emitted by Sirius, relative to us.

Don't try to change the subject Henry, _any_ given
value of the constants tell us the speed of light
from BOTH sources has the SAME value at the SAME
location. Maxwell's Equations CANNOT be compatible
with ballistic theory.

Naturally!
MEs require a 'medium'....Ballistic theory specifically describes how light
behaves in the complete absence of any kind of medium.

Most light in the universe spends 99.999999..% of its time in empty space.



Sorry Henry, you need to learn basic maths, it is
all correct and unarguable, if ballistic theory is
correct then at least one of Maxwell's equations
must be incorrect.

OWLS has never been measured ...

It has but we are not talking about measurement, we
are discussing whether the _equations_ are usable in
ballistic theory and I have demonstrated that they
are not. The _equations_ say the speed is the same
regardless of what happens in reality.

In a medium...
The measuring apparatus provides such a medium even in otherwise empty space..


..Maxwell derived them for the rest frame of the absolute aether.

Wrong again, that was his philosophy but the aether
does not appear in the equations.

Naturally.
If it appeared at all it would be represented by a statement, not an
equation...
Maxwell didn't include it because the general assumption was that light
speed
was automatically referenced to the absolute aether rest frame.

No, he couldn't include it because there is no such
speed in the equations. Perhaps you should find out
what the equations are before trying to talk about
them.

It is obvious what the equations relate to....the behavior of EM IN A REFERENCE
MEDIUM.


Don't try to change the subject, we are talking only
about the equations and pure maths. The two-observer
situation above leads to exactly the same conclusions
as the single-observer case but adds the invariance
of the speed as a derivation.

Are you always going to accuse me of changing the subject when I prove you
wrong, George?

You didn't, the two-observer case is identical to what
I said and agrees with my point, which is why you are
now trying to change the subject again, we are discussing
whether Maxwell's _Equations_ are compatible with ballistic
theory, not measurements.

What measurements? there haven't been any measurements of OWLS from a moving
source.



No, impedance is a constant of proportionality that
relates the quantities described as fields. Since, as
explained above, a non-zero field cannot alter the
value of that constant without introducing non-linearity
and hence harmonics, the measured value is also the
vacuum value.

IMPEDANCE OF PURE VACUUM CANNOT BE MEASURED.

Says the layman. It is 377 ohms.

That value is a result of the measurement itself.

ROFL, of course Henry, that is what physics is all about.


Without the fields attributed to the apparatus, there is no value.

Wrong, the equations require that fields are an
attribute of space itself.

....until the WDT is reached....whereupon fields become fagmented and holes of
genuine 'nothingness' form....

When an argument becomes "Yes it is / No it isn't"
there is no point in continuing. You have stated
your view and I have stated mine. We can agree that
clocks measure a single value so there is at least
one doimension, you have offered no evidence that a
second exists. Until you do, there is nothing for me
to refute.

TIME flows.

No, our perception of "now" progresses through time.

Same thing basically...except you need an absolute time scale for your
approach.

If it flows at different 'rates' in different circumstances - AS
DEMANDED BY GR -

Wrong again, GR (and SR) say that "now" progresses
along the worldline of an object at the _same_ rate
but that geometrical _projection_ onto _other_
worldlines (e.g. a remote clock) creates an apparent
difference in the rates.

There you are!....an 'apparent difference in rates' ...seen by ONE observer.

How does 'now' move at two differently observed rates?

Tell me Geprge, what unit do you use to describe the 'rate at which 'now' moves
along a worldline' ?

then ther must be a second time dimension....

That would be a logical conclusion but your premises
are both wrong.

Your statement is circular and nonsensical.

...but I realise there is no point in trying to educate a relativist.

Thre is no point trying to convince me using baseless
assertions driven by religious conviction. If you could
show experimental evidence to back up your claim, that
would be a different matter.

I can't see the problem.
......the slope of a hill is legitimately quoted as metres/metre. Similarly TIME
has a gradient of (or moves at) seconds/second.

That's all this debate will ever be Henry, it is
pure philosophy speculating about an opinion. If
you want to change it to science, publish the
design for an instrument that measure the gradient
and gives repeatable results when built and used
by different users.

George, I have merely stated that for time to FLOW, as it obviously
does,

It doesn't, just as a ruler doesn't 'flow'. Our
perception of "the present" appears to move forward
in time like a finger sliding along a ruler reading
off distance.

Yes, that's a good way to look at it....we are all moving along the time
axis...BUT AT WHAT RATE, GEORGE?

"Rate" is the relation of other physical properties
to the number of the ruler. Relate location to the
value and you get speed for example.

Well, you can say that any differential (dy/dx) describes a rate of one
variable wrt another. But in the case of TIME, the other variabe is also
clearly 'time'.

Think of your life as a piece of string
with a length of about 80 units. At any point on that
string, you remember events at lower distances but
can only guess events beyond that point and you call
the point "now".

Good....

There is nothing to talk about until you produce some
_experimental_ evidence for the existence of this extra
dimension. To give you a hint, note that many forces
are inverse square suggesting we live in three spatial
dimensions. If we lived in four, the forces would be
inverse cube as the relationship of the area of the
surface of a hypersphere to its radius. Translate that
into two time dimensions and that's the sort of evidence
you need to produce.

George, GR says the rate of 'timeflow' changes in different gravity
potentials...

No it doesn't, it says if you project the markings on
one ruler perpendiculary onto another identical ruler
which lies at an angle to the first, the markings will
not match up, and tells you the ratio of the spacing
of the projected markings onto the local ones.

George, GR says that if two cars take different routes between 'spacetime
points A and B their 'time odometers' will read differently....but it doesn't
explain why their real clocks still read the same.

How does it define 'rate of timeflow'.

Please answer...don't snip....

I won't snip, it is a sensible question. There is no
such concept as 'rate of timeflow' in GR or SR, the
definition is the ratio caused by the geometric
project of one ruler's markings onto the other.

If you use the rulers that represent the two time axes..yes... space doesn't
come into this....

This is what I tried to tell you some days ago but you didn't listen.

I said a difference in time flow is analogous to a difference in the slope of
two hills....It's like tilting one time axis away from 90 deg wrt another.

Maybe not...but that's what Einstein tried to do...associate different
rates of time flow with physical quantities.

No he didn't, that's a common mistake laymen make.

It won't waste my time explaining it again, you
have often said you aren't interested in SR, but
think about the "life-string" above and imagine
lots of such strings for different people like
a plate of spaghetti that has almost but not quite
been combed parallel.


Spaghetti flow.......

No, just a static plate of the stuff, no flow. In
this view your life is a rigid unchanging helix of
some length wrapped round the worldline of the Earth
and "now" is just some point along the line. Everyone
else will find out how long it is once you die.

I think you are trying to say that psychological time flow can differ from
absolute time flow.
My answer is that the latter requires time axes at right angles , ie., dt1/dt2
= 1, dt1.dt3 = 1, dt2/dt3 = 1
Humans have natural biological clocks - or 'timeflow detectors' . These are
pretty accurate but certainly not perfect...they still work when we're
asleep...
I say consciousness is associated with time flow between two time subdimensions
and that the gradient between the two is not always unity.....

The really interesting philosophical point, which you
miss because you choose not to understand SR, is what
happens in the twins paradox when they meet up.

haven't missed any point.

When they meet up they are exactly the same age.

If you apply the idea that "now" has some physical
significance, like a bright point moving along your
worldline, then the "now points" for the twins start
together, diverge, then return, but stay-at-home's
"now" is following a little behind traveller's. That
was the basis of a number of sci-fi stories where
are area could be "moved forward in time" and became
inacessible but it shows a similar failure to understand
the concept. The astronauts who went to the Moon had
their "now" points moved forward a few microsends IIRC
but they are still part of the world. The idea of "now"
flowing alomng the line doesn't work. Do you follow or
is that too subtle for you?

Its logical flaw is obvious.
Neither clocks nor rods change in any way as a result of a speed change.
The twins are separated during a common absolute time interval and age at the
same rate.

Now here is now everywhere. The absolute rate of time flow is universal. 1
second/second.

(It would make a neat animation but sadly it is wrong.)

You will find many examples from the past but Newton
defined "absolute space" as part of basis for the
Principia and then went on to produce the equations
of motion which were Galilean Invariant and had no
hint of absolute motion in them.

Motion is not absolute...

Exactly, but Newton belived in absolute space so a
change in absolute location would be absolute velocity.
However his Equations of Motion do not reflect that and
in the same way Maxwell's Equations do not contain an
aether even though his philosophy imagined one.

I am a true relativists, George. ..

No Henry, you are a true philosopher, nothing
more.

George


Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

On Sep 23, 5:44 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

[...nothing of consequence...]

What does the "T" in DSc(T) mean?

Is this another forged degree?

"Henri Wilson" isn't in the alumni lists for ANU, you know.

And why are you a member of the American Shih Tzu Club?
Or is that the Asian Triathlon Confederation?
Maybe the Algonquin Sports Therapy Clinic?

Jerry

Henri Wilson's Lies
(1)Fakes Diploma (2)Uses Deceptive Language (3)Fakes Program
(4)Intentionally Misquotes (5)Snips (6)Accuses Others of Lying
1 http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...ri/diploma.htm
2 http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus.../deception.htm
3 http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...rt_aurigae.htm
4 http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...ri/history.htm
5 http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...enri/snips.htm
6 http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...ri/accuses.htm

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 13:10:54 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..


B finds that vPB = vQB, call that v'. While
we can draw no conclusion as yet about the relation
between v and v', both observers agree that the speed
of the light from the two sources is the same.

...and they conclude wrongly...

No, their calculation from Maxwell's Equations is
correct. Whether that accurately modesl reality is
a different question, I am showing you only why the
_equations_ are not compatible with ballistic theory.

George, measurements of the two constants HERE tell us nothing about the
velocity of light emitted by Sirius, relative to us.

Don't try to change the subject Henry, _any_ given
value of the constants tell us the speed of light
from BOTH sources has the SAME value at the SAME
location. Maxwell's Equations CANNOT be compatible
with ballistic theory.

Naturally!

Finally, you learned something :-)

MEs require a 'medium'

No they don't.

....Ballistic theory specifically describes how light
behaves in the complete absence of any kind of medium.

So do Maxwell's equations.

Most light in the universe spends 99.999999..% of its time in empty space.

Nope, it is in the ISM or IGM as the dispersion
measure shows.

Sorry Henry, you need to learn basic maths, it is
all correct and unarguable, if ballistic theory is
correct then at least one of Maxwell's equations
must be incorrect.

OWLS has never been measured ...

It has but we are not talking about measurement, we
are discussing whether the _equations_ are usable in
ballistic theory and I have demonstrated that they
are not. The _equations_ say the speed is the same
regardless of what happens in reality.

In a medium...

Nope, in vacuo.

The measuring apparatus provides such a medium even in otherwise empty
space..

Nonsense, it provides the medimu for sound passing
through the metalwork of the instrument.

..Maxwell derived them for the rest frame of the absolute aether.

Wrong again, that was his philosophy but the aether
does not appear in the equations.

Naturally.
If it appeared at all it would be represented by a statement, not an
equation...
Maxwell didn't include it because the general assumption was that light
speed
was automatically referenced to the absolute aether rest frame.

No, he couldn't include it because there is no such
speed in the equations. Perhaps you should find out
what the equations are before trying to talk about
them.

It is obvious what the equations relate to....

It is, but you will need to first read the equations
to find out. Apparently you haven't done that yet.

the behavior of EM IN A REFERENCE
MEDIUM.

Wrong.

Don't try to change the subject, we are talking only
about the equations and pure maths. The two-observer
situation above leads to exactly the same conclusions
as the single-observer case but adds the invariance
of the speed as a derivation.

Are you always going to accuse me of changing the subject when I prove
you
wrong, George?

You didn't, the two-observer case is identical to what
I said and agrees with my point, which is why you are
now trying to change the subject again, we are discussing
whether Maxwell's _Equations_ are compatible with ballistic
theory, not measurements.

What measurements?

I said "not measurements". Are you having reading
difficulties again?

there haven't been any measurements of OWLS from a moving
source.

Yet again Henry, that is what Sagnac does.

No, impedance is a constant of proportionality that
relates the quantities described as fields. Since, as
explained above, a non-zero field cannot alter the
value of that constant without introducing non-linearity
and hence harmonics, the measured value is also the
vacuum value.

IMPEDANCE OF PURE VACUUM CANNOT BE MEASURED.

Says the layman. It is 377 ohms.

That value is a result of the measurement itself.

ROFL, of course Henry, that is what physics is all about.


Without the fields attributed to the apparatus, there is no value.

Wrong, the equations require that fields are an
attribute of space itself.

...until the WDT is reached..

There is no threshold in your equations and
dispersion due to the frequency dependence of
the refractive index happens along the whole
light path.

..whereupon fields become fagmented and holes of
genuine 'nothingness' form....

Gibberish.

When an argument becomes "Yes it is / No it isn't"
there is no point in continuing. You have stated
your view and I have stated mine. We can agree that
clocks measure a single value so there is at least
one doimension, you have offered no evidence that a
second exists. Until you do, there is nothing for me
to refute.

TIME flows.

No, our perception of "now" progresses through time.

Same thing basically...except you need an absolute time scale for your
approach.

Nope, our perception is based on our memories of the
past which of course are the events on our worldline,
but it is only a perception of a flow, it has no
physical reality.

If it flows at different 'rates' in different circumstances - AS
DEMANDED BY GR -

Wrong again, GR (and SR) say that "now" progresses
along the worldline of an object at the _same_ rate
but that geometrical _projection_ onto _other_
worldlines (e.g. a remote clock) creates an apparent
difference in the rates.

There you are!....an 'apparent difference in rates' ...seen by ONE
observer.

How does 'now' move at two differently observed rates?

'Now' doesn't move at any rate, it is the label
we apply to points on the line but really what
you have is a long line, not a point that moves.

Tell me Geprge, what unit do you use to describe the 'rate at which 'now'
moves
along a worldline' ?

then ther must be a second time dimension....

That would be a logical conclusion but your premises
are both wrong.

Your statement is circular and nonsensical.

My statement is true, however this is a complex
subject and you may not follow. The book "About
Time" by Paul Davies is quite interesting as might
appeal to you as it is philosophically based.

...but I realise there is no point in trying to educate a relativist.

Thre is no point trying to convince me using baseless
assertions driven by religious conviction. If you could
show experimental evidence to back up your claim, that
would be a different matter.

I can't see the problem.
.....the slope of a hill is legitimately quoted as metres/metre. Similarly
TIME
has a gradient of (or moves at) seconds/second.

That is your assertion, mine is that the correct
model is a simple ruler with no slope. I am sure
we can agree there is a minimum of one dimension
so your problem (or task if you prefer) is to provide
_experimental_ evidence for the existence of a
second.

That's all this debate will ever be Henry, it is
pure philosophy speculating about an opinion. If
you want to change it to science, publish the
design for an instrument that measure the gradient
and gives repeatable results when built and used
by different users.

George, I have merely stated that for time to FLOW, as it obviously
does,

It doesn't, just as a ruler doesn't 'flow'. Our
perception of "the present" appears to move forward
in time like a finger sliding along a ruler reading
off distance.

Yes, that's a good way to look at it....we are all moving along the time
axis...BUT AT WHAT RATE, GEORGE?

"Rate" is the relation of other physical properties
to the number of the ruler. Relate location to the
value and you get speed for example.

Well, you can say that any differential (dy/dx) describes a rate of one
variable wrt another. But in the case of TIME, the other variabe is also
clearly 'time'.

I can write dx/dt or dx/dt or even express motion
as the time when to pass certain places and write
dt/dx but there is still no need for any second
time dimension.

George, GR says the rate of 'timeflow' changes in different gravity
potentials...

No it doesn't, it says if you project the markings on
one ruler perpendiculary onto another identical ruler
which lies at an angle to the first, the markings will
not match up, and tells you the ratio of the spacing
of the projected markings onto the local ones.

George, GR says that if two cars take different routes between 'spacetime
points A and B their 'time odometers' will read differently....but it
doesn't
explain why their real clocks still read the same.

You have nicely grasped what SR says, now just
realise that the 'time odometers' _are_ real
time, there is no absolute background time
against which they can be compared.

How does it define 'rate of timeflow'.

Please answer...don't snip....

I won't snip, it is a sensible question. There is no
such concept as 'rate of timeflow' in GR or SR, the
definition is the ratio caused by the geometric
project of one ruler's markings onto the other.

If you use the rulers that represent the two time axes..yes... space
doesn't
come into this....

Right, you are comparing one observer's time
against that of another.

This is what I tried to tell you some days ago but you didn't listen.

I said a difference in time flow is analogous to a difference in the slope
of
two hills....It's like tilting one time axis away from 90 deg wrt another.

Not quite, there isn't a flow, you are considering
just a ratio of the measurements of two intervals.

Maybe not...but that's what Einstein tried to do...associate different
rates of time flow with physical quantities.

No he didn't, that's a common mistake laymen make.

It won't waste my time explaining it again, you
have often said you aren't interested in SR, but
think about the "life-string" above and imagine
lots of such strings for different people like
a plate of spaghetti that has almost but not quite
been combed parallel.


Spaghetti flow.......

No, just a static plate of the stuff, no flow. In
this view your life is a rigid unchanging helix of
some length wrapped round the worldline of the Earth
and "now" is just some point along the line. Everyone
else will find out how long it is once you die.

I think you are trying to say that psychological time flow can differ from
absolute time flow.

No, I am saying psychological time appears to flow
but it is an illusion created by our experience
due to the one-way behaviour of memory. If we could
remember the future as easily as the past, we would
see "now" as just a pint on the line and the
illusion of a flow would dissapear.

The physics is limited to a simpler statement, there
is no such thing as absolute time, flowing or
otherwise. The one and only physical form of time is
what you understood as 'time odometers' above.

My answer is that the latter requires time axes at right angles , ie.,
dt1/dt2
= 1, dt1.dt3 = 1, dt2/dt3 = 1
Humans have natural biological clocks - or 'timeflow detectors' . These
are
pretty accurate but certainly not perfect...they still work when we're
asleep...
I say consciousness is associated with time flow between two time
subdimensions
and that the gradient between the two is not always unity.....

The really interesting philosophical point, which you
miss because you choose not to understand SR, is what
happens in the twins paradox when they meet up.

haven't missed any point.

When they meet up they are exactly the same age.

No, their 'time odometers' differ even if they
were the same before parting. If there was a
"now" point that progressed along their worldlines
then their "now"s wouldn't coincide after the trip
but what happens is that before hand their 10th
birthdays might coincide while after reunion one's
40th might coincide with the other's 41st. The lines
have an existence but not "now".

If you apply the idea that "now" has some physical
significance, like a bright point moving along your
worldline, then the "now points" for the twins start
together, diverge, then return, but stay-at-home's
"now" is following a little behind traveller's. That
was the basis of a number of sci-fi stories where
are area could be "moved forward in time" and became
inacessible but it shows a similar failure to understand
the concept. The astronauts who went to the Moon had
their "now" points moved forward a few microsends IIRC
but they are still part of the world. The idea of "now"
flowing alomng the line doesn't work. Do you follow or
is that too subtle for you?

Its logical flaw is obvious.
Neither clocks nor rods change in any way as a result of a speed change.

Clocks act as 'time odometers' as you put it above,
they don't need to change to give different readings
between two spacetime locations if the paths differ.

The twins are separated during a common absolute time interval and age at
the
same rate.

Now here is now everywhere. The absolute rate of time flow is universal. 1
second/second.

Asserting religious beliefs doesn't get you anywhere.
The various experiments we have discussed, the MMX,
Sagnac, Fizeau, Ives and Stilwell and the like, are
all directly compatible with the 'time odometer'
concept with the geometry giving you the ratio of
clock reading rates. Together with particulate light
there is no need for any medium.

Alternatively it can be compatible with 'absolute time'
but then you have to introduce Lorentz's physical rod
contraction as well as clock slowing and "relativistic"
mass increase, for which you need an aether, hence you
get LET and wave-based light. I am always amused that
a quirk of history means that "relativistic mass
increase" doesn't occur in relativity, it is just a
convenient combination of mathematical terms, but it is
an essential physical effect in aether theory. Maybe we
should call it "aetherial mass increase" :-)

George