Time at a distance revisited still again

I think what is going on is that you believe time and it's measurement is relative to C when in fact time is not, it is merely a clock.

That the clock reads differently is to do with differences in it's motion due to altered forces acting on it.

The time is identical in both scenarios, all that changes is the physical condition during time, so yes one might be younger in theory, but that is merely a result of the situation, nothing whatsoever to do with temporal differences.

What answers do you hope to find?
There are none.. Except you can play with temporal theory in your head.
If you have a specific question to do with theory, perhaps try presenting a theory of agenda.

D.

Thank you Dav for that valiant attempt but if at all feasible do please clarify

I had been led to believe that after any initial acceleration no forces act upon my clock or Arty's

Forgive me Dav but specifically what time in which two scenarios

Do you mean to say that after takeoff I should consider Martys' clock still reading 12:00

I presume by "one" you mean the "moving" object, Arty or myself. Yet suppose you and I are identical twins: If I don't stop to chat with Marty but instead fire my retros, upon my return my clock still reads 12:00 but yours reads 12:10. I'm younger than you

Again Dav, forgive me. I'm sure you're making perfect sense to many but what is the result of which situation and to what temporal differences do you make reference

Maybe you're right about that but maybe (a) somebody else will respond with a more acceptable answer (that is, to me anyhow) or (b) There's still a problem or two about relativity, not entirely resolved. I understand for instance, that some maintain there must actually be a zero state of motion to which all other can be referenced

That's all I'm given by which to play

I can't be more specific, sorry. But I was hoping for some further insight from those better equipped to comment

(Better equipped than I of course, Dav, I'm quite sure you're qualified in every other respect)

I will just number your quotes, for efficiency.

1.
The expansion of the universe is removed at any rate since that applies either in only one direction or all directions at the same moment.
The speed of light is the maximum rate of velocity of particulate material, extrapolated as a result of numerous studies considering mass and density of the majority of all creation. Yet incorrect slightly.. At least in what I have learned, so perhaps not from where you sit, but that is by the by (spelling).

The clock alters, universal constants do not, except in their usual way, tapering however they do, bending that would require more than light years, though hops across fields would prove differently, I think not so vastly though.

2.
Forces do alter it, cause and effect provide a stasis field due to the law of relative reaction. Mass is generated, it must go somewhere. It nominally falls upon kinetic energy or weight, perhaps noticed as G force or similar.. there will be vast forces in the EM and/or sub EM spectrum.. Not to mention light accumulation upon your vessel.

3.
The scenarios are any scenario for the purposes of my statement, say an orbital difference of ,.0001 second in any two subjects.

4.
For the purposes of this, I have no agenda, so refrain from pondering that, it sways logic to presume outcome.

5.
Temporal differences, yes, sorry, I just deployed a nugget there, I meant to apply a basic truth for some reason.. I refer to temporal exit of universal constants... If you use clocks, use them where you are, the intricacies of difference equate to nil. I suppose I foolishly ruin your endeavor, my sincere apologies, your calculations with regards to specific readings mean nothing to me, due to not actually reading that with an intent to re-learn potential possibilities, it becomes a bit back and forth, for me.. Unless there is a definite conclusion required.

6. And on.. No Dale, sorry, There are those better equipped to discuss ship to ship specifics than me.

Hmm..
Hmm..

D.

Forgive me once more Dav but apparently you're so far ahead of me there's no possible means of communication although thank you most kindly for the effort

If it's no secret however I'm wondering if you might reveal something about yourself; age, nationality, ed., work, family, ambitions, motives, etc. Dare I guess India, seeming to offer a more philosophical approach than the strict physics to which I'm accustomed for a discussion of this sort

In any case you might enlist someone to translate your thoughts into the sort of ordinary English required by our Typical Blockhead (me) whereupon I'd be most happy to respond if at all possible

Incidentally for the benefit of old folks like myself, esp those busy or lazy, it would be helpful if you could cut and paste each comment to which you separately reply, thereby minimizing the requirement to continually scroll

I see no need to divulge information about that kind of thing online, never really did.. I see I am a human being on earth as the others. I know most apes disagree, but that's also 'by the by'.

But to clarify, the universes motion is irrelevant, as is C, because of that factor of universal containment. No major alteration in anything except the motioned object takes place, so the large and fancy endeavor to figure out which is less or greater in temporal terms amounts merely to a slight aging factor at worst.

I am certainly not ahead of you Dale.. That is not the situation.

D.

I can well understand. Many of us, including my own offspring, are terrified of possible repercussions. However what's the apparent downside to such harmless revelations

Maybe even moreso

Sory Dav but was that a typo

That's reassuring if not even flattering. However in such a thread one ordinarily expects responses either clearly agreeing or disagreeing and explaining exactly why, using everyday terms in an order encouraging easier perception of the relationship amongst separate phrases and how specifically they relate to the OP

I mean no rebuke

I will copy paste then, yes I get your point.
I do see your point about the statement being a bit condensed and dissimilar, though I am programmed to accept the state of things and splitting it all up and applying weight of value to sections of relativity is somewhat the endeavor to skew the facts.

RE: the apes, no I enjoy calling them it because they name call at me often.

What do you suppose rain man meant by ruining the fark? Take a long hard look dude.

D.

Then I look forward Dav to your next posting. However please don't spend much effort on side issues nor be disappointed if I can't always intelligently reply

I'm disappointed though and suppose you are also, with the lack of response so far, makes me suspect I haven't made myself clear either

I will mosey along and let you continue your endeavors, perhaps someone will appease your desire to have a more suitable conversation about temporal specifics....

What was it?

Can anyone tie it all up in a nice knot with proper explanation of directionality with regards to stasis factors and what not?........

That's really a good q, Dav, perhaps I should better summarize my position

I'll do so if I can be forgiven for wandering a bit astray: Don't you find certain aspects of relativity--time dilation being one--intuitionally very difficult to account for

But if I understand

…..correctly, then I shouldn't be concentrating on time dilation as an example of relativistic changes in a moving object but should include also for instance foreshortening and mass increase. Thus further detail--in most unsatisfactory form:

http://able2know.org/topic/187965-1

Wherein you might see where I have actually attempted to do do but with very unsatisfactory results, I was attacked mercilessly

I do not find it difficult to account for, all the molasses in the world would make any moving object appear to slow.. Even the rate of waves frequencies.



Sorry about that, I today see that maybe I am coming across as an ignorant spectator.. Perhaps I said entirely the wrong thing.

Regards

Dav.

Sorry if wasn't entirely clear. Since space isn't like molasses we'd assume it puts up no resistance at all to the photon so therefore we can wonder what limits its v to c

No need to apologize

Not to me

Not at all. I understand there are some limitations as I presume as ESL, you're doing your best

I will drop it there, but I reserve a slightly different opinion vis a vie the first quote.

With regards ESL, I guess at what you mean and yes it is somewhat limiting, though also has it's benefits, it is quite difficult to word the facts as you see them to people when they must follow the same line of logic in their minds... I think what I believe will be proven in the end. But I do not read up much, perhaps I am of a branch of some thinkers that I have not read of, my own ignorance I suppose, but I am solitary.

Been a pleasure talking.
Thank you for your time.
Dav.

Not at all, thank you for your interest

Disappointed though about the lack of response so far..Maybe the a2k fellas just don't entertain this kind of thinking

Or maybe our thoughts--mine anyhow--don't deserve that much attention

Well I am certain that the mountain has the stars closest to itself, so never mind.

Good luck.

Well thank you Dav, your support welcomed as a causeway of perspicuous infinitude in this otherwise recrudescent thrall of dysphoric cognition