Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Bjarne]

The point is that you are writing gibberish based on your ignorance of special relativity.

Wrong: The clock on Mercury ticks at the same rate as any other clocks.

A clock ticks relative slower the deeper into a gravitational field you get.
Mercury’s orbit lies deeper into the gravitionel field of the Sun, - as the orbit of the earth, - hence the clock in the orbit of Mercury will always and from any observer tick slower as a clock in the orbit of the Earth.
RC honestly so long you haven’t understood this simple point (that my 7 years old daughter easy can understand) it is fruitless to discuss further with you.
So still (accroding to general relativity) we have a point RC.
People living at mercury do indeed need more brain washed “dark matter” to keep the Sun in Orbit of the MW.

Wrong: My clocks never lose any hours. That is what special relativity states. I am travelling at the same velocity as the clock, thus no time dilation.

And this is why I wrote “lost”

When I look at the clock on Mercury, it is ticking slower.

This is lesson one, - for 1½ years old cows, - where after they have understood the basic point.
Yes, when I look at the clock on Mercury, it is ticking slower.
Let us treat this scientific and say the way you; “look at the clock at Mercury” - is; - that you get a signal from a atomic clock on Mercury now, and notice the time at the clock of mercury, - at the same time you start a stop watch on Earth. (Now we are only speaking special relativity).
After exactly one orbit of Mercury you again get a new signal from that planet - and you can easy see that the atomic clock on that planet have “lost”, let’s say 1 second. (Notice **“”**)

A Man living on Mercury would see the exact same, the atomic clock have really “lost” one second, - relative to a similar clock on the Earth, measuring the same event.

So either must the distance of Mercury be shorter, (as earth-distances) or the speed of Mercury orbit must be relativistic larger, - seen from seen from the perspective of Mercury, as well as understood from the perspective of the Earth.

Any protest so far?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Bjarne, you ask me to stick to the point. But what IS the point? Do you have a point at all? You obviously only have a very hazy idea of how relativity works, and you dream up all kinds of silly scenarios, asking us to explain them to you.

Now, if you don't like our answers, then stop this silly question game, just explain your point.

What is it you think you have discovered?
How is it supposed to work?

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

For instance:

So either must the distance of Mercury be shorter, (as earth-distances) or the speed of Mercury orbit must be relativistic larger, - seen from seen from the perspective of Mercury, as well as understood from the perspective of the Earth.

What is "the distance of Mercury"? The distance to what? And why do you insist that relativistic time dilation affects distances?

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne, you ask me to stick to the point. But what IS the point? Do you have a point at all? You obviously only have a very hazy idea of how relativity works, and you dream up all kinds of silly scenarios, asking us to explain them to you.

Now, if you don't like our answers, then stop this silly question game, just explain your point.

What is it you think you have discovered?
How is it supposed to work?

Hans

General as well as special relativity do have consequence that should have the potential to heal the brain damage derailed dark matter idea.

It can’t be a surprise to anyone that clocks really ticks slower on board on satellites, space stations as well on board of Mercury, - or on board on a muon.

Atomic clocks on board these places will tell the exact same truth valid both for people living at these satellites (etc.) as well for us living here on Earth or anywhere else, receiving data from such devises.

Regarding the Mercury example; both gravity difference as well as larger speed is causing time to tick slower (SR + GR)

This mean; a clock (people) onboard at Mercury, (or at the space a muon station etc) … impossible can agree that the speed of the Sun, - or - the distance of the MW, - is the same as we understand it (measure it) from the earth perspective..

People living on Mercury (as well as we and everybody else receiving data from the clock on mercury) would agree that it take less time for the Sun to orbit the MW, compared to time-measurement done at the Earth.

Seen from the perspective of Mercury (or satellite muon etc…) either speed around the MW must be relative larger as on Earth, or distance round the MW relative shorter (proportional to the time dilation valid for the other traveler relative to the Earth) …

It is also obviously that both larger orbit speed of the Sun, - and relative shorter radius of the MW, - in both cases would require stronger gravity to keep the Sun in orbit of the MW.

People living at Neptune, would on the other hand say; that time is ticking faster (at Neptune) compared to the earth, and therefore from that perspective it require less gravity (“dark matter”) to keep the Sun in orbit, compared to here on earth.

This should make it clear to everybody (especially to cows) ; that something must be wrong to the brain damage idea that exactly we, - here on the planet earth, - should be in the exact position to determinate how much so called (brain damage) dark matter the Universe contains.

• People living at Mercury would say there must be more dark matter as people of the Earth believe in..
• People living at Uranus would say less.
• A stupid Brian dead muon would say a hell lot more like humans on Earth believe.
• But an observer far away from our turbulent Universe, not affected with speed of planets, stars, galaxies, clusters, or the orbit around the Universe, ( or orbit of multi-universes) - what would he say, - ? (!)

Mother cow claims such observer would say; NO DARK MATTER at all.

As you see the faster an object moves (relative to slower objects) the slower a clock is ticking.

This has consequences according to speed or distance as just mentioned and therefore secondary also to the silly “Dark matter” idea.

This same principle also applies to; “an outsider”, wich mean; a clock that not is affected by any motion - or as little motion as possible.

From such perspective we could very well be; the “muon-principle” - moving with a hell fast speed, and therefore our watches are already ticking extremely slow, compared to an outsider.

You know instead of "outside" I prefer to call it; "from an absolute reference frame". - I am not so extreme today (because you don't like the expression) .
Well it is also not necessary, - you can follow the track yourself, and see where you possible ends up.

We are moving FAST …. and one day so fast that; BAAAAAANNNGGG

As you (at least) (hopefully) (should) be able to see Hans, - is; - that; Dark Matter = a brain dead relativistic illusion, - therefore we have no right to; dark matter blab la blab la bla, - rather we should bla blab blab la la about ; - relativistic illusions..

There are plenty of these…

That’s the point Hans…

How is it supposed to work?
Hans

We have been through that
Matter, you body, gravity NOTHING would exist without speed.
Matter sucks / absorbs space.
Speed pushes that process.
Matter consumes space, and therefore is distances the factor that is stretching.
A longer meter stick = shorter distance.
I wrote above; speed or distance, must change.
The answer = distance, is where the camel is buried. .

 

[Daylightstar]

Bjarne, this is how your posts come across:

 

[Reality Check]

Wrong: The clock on Mercury ticks at the same rate as any other clocks.

That is what I said. The clock on Mercury ticks at the same rate as any other clocks in Special Relativity.
We are looking at SR because all you have mentioned is velocities.

Of course a clock on Mercury will tick slower (just like the clocks on Jupiter will tick faster) than clocks on Earth because of the difference in the gravitational field. This tiny effect has nothing to do with whatever you fantasy you are imagining now.

...
Any protest so far?

Since this is your usual display of ignorance - no.

 

[MRC_Hans]

General as well as special relativity do have consequence that should have the potential to heal the brain damage derailed dark matter idea.

Bjarne, hasn't your mother taught you that it is antisocial to call other people brain damaged?

It can’t be a surprise to anyone that clocks really ticks slower on board on satellites, space stations as well on board of Mercury, - or on board on a muon.

I don't know if it surprises anyone, but yes, it is a fact.

Regarding the Mercury example; both gravity difference as well as larger speed is causing time to tick slower (SR + GR)

It does, although the real difference is so small that you wouldn't know how to measure it.

This mean; a clock (people) onboard at Mercury, (or at the space a muon station etc) … impossible can agree that the speed of the Sun, - or - the distance of the MW, - is the same as we understand it (measure it) from the earth perspective..

Of course we could agree. We would know exactly why there is a difference between our clocks, and how big it is. No problem at all. Remember the GPS satellites? Their clocks are off due to speed, but we know this and can compensate for it. No problem at all.

People living on Mercury (as well as we and everybody else receiving data from the clock on mercury) would agree that it take less time for the Sun to orbit the MW, compared to time-measurement done at the Earth.

Yes.

Seen from the perspective of Mercury (or satellite muon etc…) either speed around the MW must be relative larger as on Earth, or distance round the MW relative shorter (proportional to the time dilation valid for the other traveler relative to the Earth) …

Well, yes, if they did not know about SR, and if they only measured distances by time, they would get a different result.

It is also obviously that both larger orbit speed of the Sun, - and relative shorter radius of the MW, - in both cases would require stronger gravity to keep the Sun in orbit of the MW.

No. Absolutely not, and this is where you go wrong. I already mentioned it earlier: How time is from an observer's point of view has no influence on the sun, or the galaxy. The sun moves at the speed it does, and at the distance from the galactic centre it does, regardless of how somebody observes it.

People living at Neptune, would on the other hand say; that time is ticking faster (at Neptune) compared to the earth, and therefore from that perspective it require less gravity (“dark matter”) to keep the Sun in orbit, compared to here on earth.

And since the sun cannot be in more than one place, this is obviously wrong.

This should make it clear to everybody (especially to cows) ; that something must be wrong to the brain damage idea that exactly we, - here on the planet earth, - should be in the exact position to determinate how much so called (brain damage) dark matter the Universe contains.

• People living at Mercury would say there must be more dark matter as people of the Earth believe in..
• People living at Uranus would say less.
• A stupid Brian dead muon would say a hell lot more like humans on Earth believe.
• But an observer far away from our turbulent Universe, not affected with speed of planets, stars, galaxies, clusters, or the orbit around the Universe, ( or orbit of multi-universes) - what would he say, - ? (!)

No. All this will only happen to stupid people who talk to cows, and don't know how to do simple math.

Scientists, however, know and understand SR and GR, and have no problem calculating how things would look from an outside observer.

Also, people who don't talk to cows realize that these differences in relativistic time are so small that they don't matter: The sun orbits the galaxy at a speed of 0.0008 c. This means that the time dilation factor is less than a microsecond per second. It makes absolutely no difference to out calculation of dark matter.

You know instead of "outside" I prefer to call it; "from an absolute reference frame". - I am not so extreme today (because you don't like the expression)

Nice. It also makes you look marginally less silly, because there IS no absolute reference frame.

Think of this: If there is an absolute reference frame, then light must move according to that, right?

OK, we can test that (and we have). We are on a spaceship that travels through the galaxy at a speed of 250km/s. This spaceship is called Earth. In fact it also circles the sun at about 50km/s, so at times it travels about 300km/s. That is actually 1/1,000 c. So we can send an electromagnetic signal forward in our direction of movement, and measure its velocity (pretty simple, any reasonably competent radio amateur can do this). At the same time we can send a similar signal backwards, and measure its speed. Now, if EM waves were moving in an absolute reference frame, these two signals would be moving at different speeds: We would find that the forward signal moved at 0.999c and the backward signal moved at 1.001c, relative to us. This is quite a significant difference, and not difficult to measure.

As I say, that experiment has been made. In fact it is often done in universities as an exercise, so it has been done many, many times.

Guess what the result is, every time? The beams have exactly the same velocity.

And this proves that there is no absolute reference frame.

I have told you this many times, in different contexts, and I would appreciate if you would pay attention.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

That is what I said. .

You have replied to a quote-mistake...

I did NOT wrote these words; below , - you did.

Wrong: The clock on Mercury ticks at the same rate as any other clocks.

 

[Paul]

You have replied to a quote-mistake...

I did NOT wrote these words; below , - you did.

Which explains why that part of the post wasn't nonsense.

 

[Reality Check]

You have replied to a quote-mistake...

I did NOT wrote these words; below , - you did.

Wrong: The clock on Mercury ticks at the same rate as any other clocks.

I see - you made a quote-mistake...

Originally Posted by Bjarne
Wrong: The clock on Mercury ticks at the same rate as any other clocks.

The text in bold is my text tak you mistakenly included as your text.

And of course I (and physics!) agree with it: The clocks on Mercury tick away at 1 second per second.

 

[Bjarne]

Of course we could agree. We would know exactly why there is a difference between our clocks, and how big it is. No problem at all. Remember the GPS satellites? Their clocks are off due to speed, but we know this and can compensate for it. No problem at all.
Hans

The problem is that you ignore that because it is a fact that time is unique in all reference frames (due to both SR + GR) the law of gravity as you know it at the Earth can’t be the same at Mercury, or at the surface of the Sun, or at a satellite, or from the perspectives of an muon, - or in billion other reference frames , - but only apply for the Earth.
Each time you enter a new reference frame the gravity-constant "G" MUST change. – This should not surprise you, but is seems you are not aware.

Bjarne
Seen from the perspective of Mercury (or satellite muon etc…) either speed around the MW must be relative larger as on Earth, or distance round the MW relative shorter (proportional to the time dilation valid for the other traveler relative to the Earth) …
Hans
Well, yes, if they did not know about SR, and if they only measured distances by time, they would get a different result.

It is so simple Hans; there are no reasons to wrap it into unnecessary mysterious nonsense as necessary.
We are already dealing with the result of GR and SR, - which mean time is not the same.
We KNOW the clock on Mercury (etc..) ticks slower than here. This is starting point.

This give intelligent cow’s one option; distances MUST change proportional, also even you and RC obviously disagrees.

Here is the cow logic :
If we (the solar system) moves 100 second (around the MW) multiplied with 250 km/s (the orbit speed of the MW) – we have moved a distance = 25000 km.
The clock on Mercury counts the same event, - but the clock of Mercury is compared to the clock here “losing” time (let’s of simplicity reason say) it losing 1 second per 100 s.
Hence, - either Mercury must have moved faster around the MW as the Earth, - which we can ignore since then also light on Mercury must be faster as c.
The last (cow logic) option is the distance Mercury have travelled around the MW is not 25000 km, - but only 99% of that distance, - which mean seen from the perspective of Mercury distances are shorter than at the Earth.

From any reference frame observe a event, for example a falling stone towards the Earth appears to happen with the same speed, even though time and distance not are the same.
(From a overall perspective there would be differences.)

Since everybody probably agree that ADG (acceleration due to gravity) (and all other kind of speed) seen from a Mercury perspective must be the same as on Earth, we can easy conclude that because distances in the MW not is the same (e.g.; for Mercury or a muon satellites etc) – the law of gravity (e.g; from the Milkyway) is also not the same.

Bjarne
It is also obviously that both larger orbit speed of the Sun, - and relative shorter radius of the MW, - in both cases would require stronger gravity to keep the Sun in orbit of the MW.
Hans
No. Absolutely not, and this is where you go wrong. I already mentioned it earlier: How time is from an observer's point of view has no influence on the sun, or the galaxy. The sun moves at the speed it does, and at the distance from the galactic centre it does, regardless of how somebody observes it.

I agree that the Sun and the reality on the Sun don’t care with the reality of a muon.
BUT the reality of the muon is ALSO TRUE.
The reality on the Earth is ALSO true.
The reality on Neptune is also true.

Since TIME and DISTANCES all these places are different, the law of gravity cannot be the same and therefore only valid in our own reference frame here on Earth, and not even other places in our own solar system, since motion definition not are the same.

To solve this we must at least change the gravity constant “G” each time we enter a new reference frame, and off course accept that distances always are changing proportional with time..

Think of this: If there is an absolute reference frame, then light must move according to that, right?
OK, we can test that (and we have). We are on a spaceship that travels through the galaxy at a speed of 250km/s. This spaceship is called Earth. In fact it also circles the sun at about 50km/s, so at times it travels about 300km/s. That is actually 1/1,000 c. So we can send an electromagnetic signal forward in our direction of movement, and measure its velocity (pretty simple, any reasonably competent radio amateur can do this). At the same time we can send a similar signal backwards, and measure its speed. Now, if EM waves were moving in an absolute reference frame, these two signals would be moving at different speeds: We would find that the forward signal moved at 0.999c and the backward signal moved at 1.001c, relative to us. This is quite a significant difference, and not difficult to measure.

First at all, my mission is NOT to claim that the speed of light is changing in different ref-frames.
I agree "c" ALWAYS is 300.000 km/s
BUT light it is NOT traveling the same “”DISTANCE”” seen from an overall perspective.
Example;
You can measure the time a photon takes to reach the Moon, - let say 1 second.
Let’s now assume a muon also would measure that distance.
Now it would only take 1/10 of a s. for the photon to reach earth, seen form the muon-perspective.
Which natural means that the muon only can accept that the distance to the moon is 38,000 km away, - not 380,000 km , but since also time for the muon is 10 times slower the speed is still 300,000 km/s. So seen from a muon, the photon would reach a distance that is 3 million km/s per our second.

As I say, that experiment has been made. In fact it is often done in universities as an exercise, so it has been done many, many times.

Guess what the result is, every time? The beams have exactly the same velocity.

Hans doesn’t matter how big a cake you have, - you can always share it in 300,000 pieces.
In the same way so soon time is “lost”, - distance is “winning” that “lost” back – which mean that the meter stick just gets proportional longer.
This doesn’t contradict ANYTHING - So what?

And this proves that there is no absolute reference frame.

No it doesn’t, it only proves that c is always 300,000 km/s in all reference frames.

This means that the time dilation factor is less than a microsecond per second. It makes absolutely no difference to out calculation of dark matter.

It shows something is wrong with some peoples understanding of relativity.
The laws of nature are not the same everywhere unless we are willing to change “G” all the time. Which in fact mean that the law of gravity (GM/r^2) not is the same by you feed as it is by your nose.
Don’t under-estimate this.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Bjarne, this will be the last time I waste time trying to explain this to you. Either you don't want to understand, or there is a reason you think cows are smarter than people.

The problem is that you ignore that because it is a fact that time is unique in all reference frames (due to both SR + GR) the law of gravity as you know it at the Earth can’t be the same at Mercury, or at the surface of the Sun, or at a satellite, or from the perspectives of an muon, - or in billion other reference frames , - but only apply for the Earth.
Each time you enter a new reference frame the gravity-constant "G" MUST change. – This should not surprise you, but is seems you are not aware.

The law of gravity IS the same, everywhere. Newton's old law of gravity fails in these reference frames, and that is exactly the reason we need SR/GR. Once they are added, the law becomes universal.

We are already dealing with the result of GR and SR, - which mean time is not the same.

Yes, Bjarne, that is the beauty of the theory of relativity: Time IS the same, everywhere, we just pass through it at different speeds.

distances MUST change proportional, also even you and RC obviously disagrees.

No, they don't. And we don't disagree we are just using different ways of explaining this. Both ways are evidently passing over your head.

Here is the cow logic :
If we (the solar system) moves 100 second (around the MW) multiplied with 250 km/s (the orbit speed of the MW) – we have moved a distance = 25000 km.

Cows may be limited to measure distances by passing of time, but humans are not. If you measure the orbit of Mercury by parallax, you will get the same result, whether you are on Earth, Mercury, or on your muon.

I agree that the Sun and the reality on the Sun don’t care with the reality of a muon.

BUT the reality of the muon is ALSO TRUE.
The reality on the Earth is ALSO true.
The reality on Neptune is also true.

They are all the same reality. They just look different. Bjarne ... how to put in a way you might understand? .... OK, go out to your pet cow. Stand in front of it and look (take a picture if your memory is not so good). Now go to the back end of the cow (that's usually the smelly part), and look. Do they look alike? No. Is it the same cow? Yes.

Everything has the same reality, but it is perceived differently.

Since TIME and DISTANCES all these places are different, the law of gravity cannot be the same and therefore only valid in our own reference frame here on Earth, and not even other places in our own solar system, since motion definition not are the same.

Wrong.

First at all, my mission is NOT to claim that the speed of light is changing in different ref-frames.

Yes, that is a necessary implication if you claim the existence an absolute reference frame:

Either the speed of light is always c as observed in the absolute reference frame, which means that it will be observed to vary in local reference frames.

Or the speed of light is always c in local reference frames, which means it must vary in the absolute reference frame.

There are only these two options, if an absolute reference frame is to exist.

However, we can observe that the speed of light is always c, no matter which reference frame it comes from. Therefore we can conclude that there is no absolute reference frame.

I agree "c" ALWAYS is 300.000 km/s
BUT light it is NOT traveling the same “”DISTANCE”” seen from an overall perspective.

Yes, it does.

Example;
You can measure the time a photon takes to reach the Moon, - let say 1 second.
Let’s now assume a muon also would measure that distance.
Now it would only take 1/10 of a s. for the photon to reach earth, seen form the muon-perspective.
Which natural means that the muon only can accept that the distance to the moon is 38,000 km away, - not 380,000 km , but since also time for the muon is 10 times slower the speed is still 300,000 km/s. So seen from a muon, the photon would reach a distance that is 3 million km/s per our second.

No. This comes from your wrong idea that distance is changed by time dilation; it is not. I can see by your explanation above why you think it is so, but you are wrong. It is quite possible, from the reference frame of the muon, to measure both the distance to the moon and the speed of the photon correctly.

However, I'm afraid that this is a little to complicated to explain, on cattle level, so I guess you'll just have to take my word for it, unless you want to do some serious reading on the subject.

I'm sorry, but as long as your basic understanding of physics is so incomplete, relativity and cosmology will simply be beyond you.

- Now you can insert your usual nonsense about brain washing and other insults, but .... it won't make you right. In fact, even in the unlikely case that mainstream science was indeed mistaken, you would still be wrong, because your claims are contradicted by observation, and even have internal contradictions.

Hans

 

[Paul]

As Bjarne seems oddly attached to the muon as an example, I think it is appropriate to as a simple, unambiguous, easily answered question:

Bjarne, what is the lifetime of a muon?

 

[Bjarne]

However, we can observe that the speed of light is always c, no matter which reference frame it comes from. Therefore we can conclude that there is no absolute reference frame.

No, - distance deformation is the key to understand how the property of space "can repeat itself" again and again, also even though distances in the end are shortening extremely much.
In the same way that; it doesn’t matter if you every day bake a smaller and smaller cake, - you would always be able to share it with you family.

Yes, Bjarne, that is the beauty of the theory of relativity: Time IS the same, everywhere, we just pass through it at different speeds.

This is a clumsy way to express the simple fact that a clock on Mercury or on the Sun, or on a fast moving satellite, or on board of a muon, (etc..) - simply is ticking slower relative to a clock on Earth.

They are all the same reality. They just look different. Everything has the same reality, but it is perceived differently.

You cannot limit simple fact to some kind of refrain, - or just based it on a a certain reality, - and ignore others, - as was these only subjective perceptive illusions.

We are talking about realities real for any observer, not only for you and the Earth.

If you were living on Mercury your clock would REALLY tick slower as a clock on Earth. It would not just be something wrong with your perception etc.

Therefore you would REALLY orbit the MW in less time as a person living on the Earth.
Simply because you physical atomic clock would prove this.

Denying, twisting or escaping such FACT and the CONSEQUENCE of it, - is simply escapism.

The size of the MW can impossible be the same, - when viewed from the perspective of both Mercury and from an Earth perspective.
The size MUST change relativistic.

How to put in a way you might understand? .... OK, go out to your pet cow. Stand in front of it and look (take a picture if your memory is not so good). Now go to the back end of the cow (that's usually the smelly part), and look. Do they look alike? No. Is it the same cow? Yes

Hans honestly, when I refer to cow logic it is always when the point is cow logic crystal clear, even for a brian damage cow concrete brian.

I can see you are far beyond that level, - and in fact more focused on cow smell and **** that you obviously not self have understood, whereby you therefore obviously also not can explain the point to other, and of course hence obviously also not explain in a cow logic simple way.

Probably because it is nothing about it, except brain spin you not have understood yourself.

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough”. Albert Einstein

 

[DeathDart]

Dark Energy is the Conservation of Gravity

I know that analogy's are passe in science, you are too mature for that.

What if why galaxies repel each other is because gravity is conserved.

Imagine if gravity were a rubber sheet stretched across a bowl that was completely full of water. The sheet could represent space without mass.

A small marble is placed in the center of the bowl. the volume that the marble sinks into the bowl is offset exactly by a small rise of the rubber sheet above the lip of the bowl at the edges of the bowl.

What if why galaxies repel each other is because gravity is conserved. That matter creates as much energy that repels matter, as it does which attracts matter.

The repelling part may be very far away, and very weak. But a galaxy might push on another galaxy.

 

[Toke]

I am pretty sure that if there were a pattern like that to gravity it would have been noticed by now.

 

[DeathDart]

I am pretty sure that if there were a pattern like that to gravity it would have been noticed by now.

The timescale might be a problem.

Waiting to see what happens next.

 

[Toke]

The timescale might be a problem.

Waiting to see what happens next.

There are quite a lot of interlocked calculations involved, I really doubt you could have a different law of gravity without somebody noticing on some other scale.

 

[MRC_Hans]

No, - distance deformation is the key to understand how the property of space "can repeat itself" again and again, also even though distances in the end are shortening extremely much.
In the same way that; it doesn’t matter if you every day bake a smaller and smaller cake, - you would always be able to share it with you family.



This is a clumsy way to express the simple fact that a clock on Mercury or on the Sun, or on a fast moving satellite, or on board of a muon, (etc..) - simply is ticking slower relative to a clock on Earth.


You cannot limit simple fact to some kind of refrain, - or just based it on a a certain reality, - and ignore others, - as was these only subjective perceptive illusions.

We are talking about realities real for any observer, not only for you and the Earth.

If you were living on Mercury your clock would REALLY tick slower as a clock on Earth. It would not just be something wrong with your perception etc.

Therefore you would REALLY orbit the MW in less time as a person living on the Earth.
Simply because you physical atomic clock would prove this.

Denying, twisting or escaping such FACT and the CONSEQUENCE of it, - is simply escapism.

The size of the MW can impossible be the same, - when viewed from the perspective of both Mercury and from an Earth perspective.
The size MUST change relativistic.


Hans honestly, when I refer to cow logic it is always when the point is cow logic crystal clear, even for a brian damage cow concrete brian.

I can see you are far beyond that level, - and in fact more focused on cow smell and **** that you obviously not self have understood, whereby you therefore obviously also not can explain the point to other, and of course hence obviously also not explain in a cow logic simple way.

Probably because it is nothing about it, except brain spin you not have understood yourself.

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough”. Albert Einstein

The very simple answer to you, Bjarne, is: You haven't got a clue.


Hans

 

[Reality Check]

As Bjarne seems oddly attached to the muon as an example, I think it is appropriate to as a simple, unambiguous, easily answered question:

Bjarne, what is the lifetime of a muon?

I agree - this is a really simple question that even Bjarne (or his pet cow or even his grandmother!) should be able to answer.

So Bjarne, what is the lifetime of a muon?