Important Astronomy - No elliptic orbit and relativity break through

[Debed]

The Earth is rotating at a speed of 24 hrs per cycle but this information is relative to how fast we count .

If I was to count twice as fast , the earth would be rotating at a speed of 48 hrs a cycle .

If I was to count twice as slow , the earth would be rotating at a speed of 12 hrs a cycle .

Still believe in science when they believe in time dilation ?

They don't even understand relativity !

No thing can travel faster than the speed of light ?

The speed light travels is 1 second per cycle , if I count twice as fast , I have just travelled twice as fast as the speed of light .

Sure, things can travel faster than light.
As in the visible spectrum of humans.
For example, Cherenkov radiation does this.
And humans have a defined standards for what a second is.

Second - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Debed]

You see not because unbounded light as to enter your eyes , you see because our minds are connected by ''space-time'' (Quantum Mainframe Server) to everything within the frame .

Your eye lids are essentially an obstruction .

If you are in a dark room you can still see the walls , the darkness you see is the walls and of course there is the absence of unbounded light but not the absence of the QMS .

Shine a laser pen at a wall and you will see the red dot on the wall , no light required to enter your eyes because you are already connected via the QMS .

You can take a tape measure and measure the dot in its exact location , you could even draw a circle around the dot so when you turn the light on you can see that your measure wasn't fake .

The QMS allows for space to be transparent to unbounded light and sight , rather than opaque .

Try to detect a frequency/wave length emitted from a red object of about 750nm and you will find there isn't one . That's because the object is red and can be measured to be red in its exact geometrical position .

Additionally when we place a blue object in shade , the blue does not change frequency and redshift as the physics would require if present science was correct on how we see .

The Sun is out here today , there is blue box in a shadow in my living room , I can see the box is just less illuminated , there is no change of frequency/wavelength even though there is a less magnitude of light in the shadow .

The blue box is not emitting a frequency/wavelength of ~450nm , I know this because I couldn't detect this using equipment .

We can create a 450nm carrier signal and detect it !

100% blind people can not see. So QMS theory needs to explain that.

 

[TheBox]

100% blind people can not see. So QMS theory needs to explain that.

Blind people cannot see because there's a defect in the bio-logical system that obstructs the neurological system from processing the information .
In simple terms even with their eye lids open , they are still closed .

 

[TheBox]

Sure, things can travel faster than light.
As in the visible spectrum of humans.
For example, Cherenkov radiation does this.
And humans have a defined standards for what a second is.

Second - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I am well aware of the definitions of a second , your link missed out a degree of motion on a sundial , a distance the earth rotates relative to the sun which was about ~0.288...miles=1's , but I have not done the exact calculation for a while .

True realism definition of a second is : Any abstract constant value relative to the agreement of the observers .

So what this means is that if we halved the frequency of the Caesium Atom , that could still be used for the value of a second .

See my friend the correct definition of time is : Time is a product of timing .

added- If observers disagree on time (timing) , they are disagreeing on the abstract constant value . There is never a time dilation , only a disagreement .

For example you claim your second is half the frequency of my second using the Caesium Atom . We can both agree that my second is two of your seconds and then both times equal the same duration of timing .

 

[Debed]

I am well aware of the definitions of a second , your link missed out a degree of motion on a sundial , a distance the earth rotates relative to the sun which was about ~0.288...miles=1's , but I have not done the exact calculation for a while .

True realism definition of a second is : Any abstract constant value relative to the agreement of the observers .

So what this means is that if we halved the frequency of the Caesium Atom , that could still be used for the value of a second .

See my friend the correct definition of time is : Time is a product of timing .

added- If observers disagree on time (timing) , they are disagreeing on the abstract constant value . There is never a time dilation , only a disagreement .

For example you claim your second is half the frequency of my second using the Caesium Atom . We can both agree that my second is two of your seconds and then both times equal the same duration of timing .

Your time would be over when only half a day has gone by, though.
So your measurement of time would be incorrect.

 

[Debed]

Blind people cannot see because there's a defect in the bio-logical system that obstructs the neurological system from processing the information .
In simple terms even with their eye lids open , they are still closed .

“If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”​

― Albert Einstein

 

[TheBox]

Your time would be over when only half a day has gone by, though.
So your measurement of time would be incorrect.

You should reread what I wrote
If observers disagree on time (timing) , they are disagreeing on the abstract constant value . There is never a time dilation , only a disagreement

The speed of rotation does not change , the person measuring 1/2 the rate would measure 48 hrs in a day instead of 24 .

 

[Debed]

You should reread what I wrote
If observers disagree on time (timing) , they are disagreeing on the abstract constant value . There is never a time dilation , only a disagreement

The speed of rotation does not change , the person measuring 1/2 the rate would measure 48 hrs in a day instead of 24 .

The point still stands that there is a way to measure what a second is, so whether you are counting fast or slow does not matter.

 

[TheBox]

The point still stands that there is a way to measure what a second is, so whether you are counting fast or slow does not matter.

Hmm, there is multiple ways the second can be measured but all measures remain abstract .

Anyway it was nice chatting , I am going to quit science because it is just a waste of my own life .

They can try to fix all the broken science without my help .

 

[TheBox]

The point still stands that there is a way to measure what a second is, so whether you are counting fast or slow does not matter.

By the way , the smallest measure of time is a nano-second and any observer in the Universe has to agree on the measure because it is absolute and the smallest possible measure . There can be no argument about a nano-second because there is never a ''time dilation'' . A nano-second only uses two adjoined points of space A and B or (x0,y0,z0,)+(x0,y0,z0,)=(x1,y0,z0,) .

A nano-second is a product of the timing of a light clock , where light travels back and forth between points . There is never an angular path like Einstein's ''incorrect'' famous light clock experiment because there is no space between the two points .


If you want to calculate the ''speed'' of the ebb and flow of a nano second , you'll need to break down the speed of lights distance per second , shortening the distance , 299,792,458 meters .

For example 299,792,458 meters/ 2 = 149,896,229m/0.5 second

You'll need to break this down all the way to approx 1/10th of a mm , then you will have pretty much the speed of time .


(x0,y0,z0,)+(x0,y0,z0,)=(x1,y0,z0,) *10=1mm is my approximation which is as close as we can get without being ridiculous .

A nano-second proves there is never a time dilation and science is incorrect .

Speed also proves there is never a time dilation and science is incorrect .

If two observers are travelling at the same constant speed d/t , there can be no disagreement on the speed of time . I can do the train carriage malarkey with this , but not really required .

 

[TheBox]

The point still stands that there is a way to measure what a second is, so whether you are counting fast or slow does not matter.

I will finish off time ,

the secret is that time does not progress at 1.s per change of history , history is continuous like my prior provided ''math'' . Time progresses from point to point with no spacing between change , 1's is a massive space between changes .

x=Δ(x0,y0,z0,)=(x0,y0,z0,)+(x0,y0,z0,)=(x1,y0,z0,)

Δ(x0,y0,z0,)≠9 192 631 770 Hz=d/t=3.5cm (might have been 2.5cm spacing between caesium and detector ,can't quite recall now) .

P.s Change the constant temperature of the Caesium atom and that changes the frequency too .

 

[TheBox]

The point still stands that there is a way to measure what a second is, so whether you are counting fast or slow does not matter.

Just to finish off time .

Frequency is the amount of repeat occurrences over an amount of time .

When https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele–Keating_experiment

did the time dilation experiment all frequencies were measured using a clock .

First clock 9 192 631 770 Hz/1.s

Second clock example 8 192 631 770 Hz/1.s

Do you see the problem with that ?

You can't then define 1.s is equal to the frequency because we already know the occurrences of the new proposed clock aren't constant like our previous clock .

 

[TheBox]

“If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”​

― Albert Einstein

The point still stands that there is a way to measure what a second is, so whether you are counting fast or slow does not matter.

 

[Debed]

Just to finish off time .

Frequency is the amount of repeat occurrences over an amount of time .

When https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele–Keating_experiment

did the time dilation experiment all frequencies were measured using a clock .

First clock 9 192 631 770 Hz/1.s

Second clock example 8 192 631 770 Hz/1.s

Do you see the problem with that ?

You can't then define 1.s is equal to the frequency because we already know the occurrences of the new proposed clock aren't constant like our previous clock .

Take care and have fun.
Best of luck in your future adventures.