Three Experiments Challenging SRT

[Masterov]

Finally I wish to point out that CYCLONES in the SOUTHERN hemisphere SPIN CLOCKWISE; while those in the NORTHERN hemisphere SPIN COUNTERCLOCKWISE. That is due to the earth's spin interacting via FRICTION (the CORIOLIS effect) with the air masses moving FROM THE POLES in the initial horizontal wind steams which THEN become 'cyclonic' in their respective spin direction depending on which pole the mass came from. See? The Coriolis effect IS A VERY important factor in both the earth and sun surface/flow dynamics which we can observe in the wider picture which produces sunspots/waves etc on the sun.

Coriolis effect has nothing to do with it.
No Coriolis effect twists cyclones in different hemispheres in different directions, and the pressure gradient.

At sunset the air pressure fall, and the morning rising slowly.
For this reason, there is a gradient of atmospheric pressure along the parallels, which drives the wind to the West, along the equator.
Second (latitudinal) gradient along the meridians, over a lowering of solar light from the equator to the poles.
Since this gradient is directed in the Northern and Southern hemispheres in opposite directions, and twist cyclones in different directions.
==========

Эффект Кориолиса тут ни при чём.
Не эффект Кориолиса закручивает циклоны в разных полушариях в разные стороны, а градиент давления.

С заходом Солнца атмосферное давление резко падает, а утром медленно растёт.
По этой причине возникает градиент атмосферного давления вдоль параллелей, который гонит ветер на Запад, вдоль Экватора.
Второй (широтный) градиент вдоль меридианов, вызван падением солнечной освещённости от экватора к полюсам.
Поскольку этот градиент направлен в Северном и в Южном полушариях в противоположных направлениях, то и закручиваются циклоны в разных направлениях.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

At sunset the air pressure fall, and the morning rising slowly.
For this reason, there is a gradient of atmospheric pressure along the parallels, which drives the wind to the West, along the equator.
Second (latitudinal) gradient along the meridians, over a lowering of solar light from the equator to the poles.
Since this gradient is directed in the Northern and Southern hemispheres in opposite directions, and twist cyclones in different directions.

Except if it were due to the position of the Sun the alignment would vary throughout the year and align with the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn at particular times of the year. Instead the direction of cyclones/hurricanes is aligned with the equator, which shows it is due to a rotation effect, not the position of the Sun.

See, simple reasoning is enough to show you're mistaken. Too bad you're incapable of it.

 

[Lakon]

.. For the actual twin paradox, where the travelling twin stops and returns to Earth, the thing that makes the difference is that they have to accelerate to turn around and start returning. Their idea of simulateity (and consequently their idea of how old their twin on Earth is "now") can change very dramatically between before and after they accelerate, while the Earth twin's idea of simultaneity never changes because they never accelerate. That's why the Earth bound twin can simply and safely use relativity's time dilation formula to calculate how old the travelling twin will be when he returns, but the travelling twin cannot do the same: the travelling twin accelerated and switched from one inertial frame to another with a different definition of simultaneity, and if he wanted to calculate how old his twin on Earth would be when he returned, he would need to account for that.

One problem I'm having is who decided who is travelling and who is at rest. If the travelling twin returned to earth he would actually be younger because he was travelling and earthbound one was at rest, right ?

But doesn't this fly in the face of relatiivity itself ? Who decided who is at rest ? Between the two of them, there's only their relative motion, right ?

Let's remove the 'at rest' earth for the moment. Let's say they were both in seperate ships in a region where for all practical purposes, only they existed. Then, regardless of who is accelerating, the only real and perceptable difference between them would be their distance to each other. If one accelerated, it could equally be said that he didn't but the other one did. Is that right ? If so, extrapolating this back to one being on the earth again, why is one's time actually dilated and not the others ?

PS - I removed the rest of your post only because the above issue is the one I wanted to deal with at the moment.

Edited: older / younger

 

[origin]

Masterov seems to have an answer to everthing. He is very consistent too, the answers are always wrong.

 

[Masterov]

Instead the direction of cyclones/hurricanes is aligned with the equator, which shows it is due to a rotation effect, not the position of the Sun.

In that case, when the Earth is at rest, and the sun revolves around the Earth (the Coriolis effect is absent), the weather on Earth has changed little.
=======================

В том случае, когда Земля покоится, а Солнце вращается вокруг Земли (эффект Кориолиса отсутствует), погода на Земле мало изменится.

 

[Masterov]

Masterov seems to have an answer to everthing. He is very consistent too, the answers are always wrong.

Everthing?
I do not know that word.

 

[OnlyMe]

One problem I'm having is who decided who is travelling and who is at rest. If the travelling twin returned to earth he would actually be younger because he was travelling and earthbound one was at rest, right ?

But doesn't this fly in the face of relatiivity itself ? Who decided who is at rest ? Between the two of them, there's only their relative motion, right ?

Let's remove the 'at rest' earth for the moment. Let's say they were both in seperate ships in a region where for all practical purposes, only they existed. Then, regardless of who is accelerating, the only real and perceptable difference between them would be their distance to each other. If one accelerated, it could equally be said that he didn't but the other one did. Is that right ? If so, extrapolating this back to one being on the earth again, why is one's time actually dilated and not the others ?

PS - I removed the rest of your post only because the above issue is the one I wanted to deal with at the moment.

Edited: older / younger

Re-read przyk's explanation and think about the acceleration. The twin that does experience acceleration knows he/she has changed inertial frames and is the twin who had some velocity relative to the starting point. The twin who stayed at home or in a spaceship without accelerating, knows he/she remained in the same inertial frame of reference.

If you do not include acceleration they cannot know who was moving relative to their initial frame of reference, but they also can never meet up again to compare their clocks.

Under real conditions both are moving and have some velocity. The question is which one experienced a greater velocity during the time of the trip.

 

[RealityCheck]

Except if it were due to the position of the Sun the alignment would vary throughout the year and align with the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn at particular times of the year. Instead the direction of cyclones/hurricanes is aligned with the equator, which shows it is due to a rotation effect, not the position of the Sun.

See, simple reasoning is enough to show you're mistaken. Too bad you're incapable of it.

Hi AN.

The straightforward reply was enough to show his mistaken take on that. Why the need to add that personal disparagement when the reply was more than sufficient to imply his error. Even some of the greatest scientists have 'brain farts', remember? There's no call to bring nastiness into an already clear answer (especially since you are a mod and should set an example, irrespective of the provocation from someone who may be having a 'brain fart' episode).

I would very much enjoy and appreciate your posts (whether as mod or ordinary member) a lot more shorn of the gratuitous personal insults.

That goes for everybody (I don't discriminate!) .....even me!........I try hard to resist the temptation to 'let fly', not always totally successfully, but I do not make a 'habit' of insulting etc. It never helps anyone, let alone the reputation of/respect for science/scientists.

Here's hoping! Cheers.

 

[RealityCheck]

Hi Masterov.

Coriolis effect has nothing to do with it.
No Coriolis effect twists cyclones in different hemispheres in different directions, and the pressure gradient.

At sunset the air pressure fall, and the morning rising slowly.
For this reason, there is a gradient of atmospheric pressure along the parallels, which drives the wind to the West, along the equator.
Second (latitudinal) gradient along the meridians, over a lowering of solar light from the equator to the poles.
Since this gradient is directed in the Northern and Southern hemispheres in opposite directions, and twist cyclones in different directions.
==========

Эффект Кориолиса тут ни при чём.
Не эффект Кориолиса закручивает циклоны в разных полушариях в разные стороны, а градиент давления.

С заходом Солнца атмосферное давление резко падает, а утром медленно растёт.
По этой причине возникает градиент атмосферного давления вдоль параллелей, который гонит ветер на Запад, вдоль Экватора.
Второй (широтный) градиент вдоль меридианов, вызван падением солнечной освещённости от экватора к полюсам.
Поскольку этот градиент направлен в Северном и в Южном полушариях в противоположных направлениях, то и закручиваются циклоны в разных направлениях.

Just as a fire causes a wind to spring up from all directions incoming to the region of lower pressure and the hot combustion products/air rises in a vertical column updraught, the cooler air comes towards the hotspot where the sun is directly overhead and heating the land/ocean immediately beneath, causing the warm air to rise as the cooler inrush FROM ALL HORIZONTAL DIRECTIONS (east AND west, AS WELL AS north AND south!). Irrespective of whether the sun arced eastwards or westwards, that part of the 'moving hotspot' thermo-dynamics/atmos-dynamics would still occur even without all the other complicating factors I mentioned already.

So when starting from a 'still air' conditions, it doesn't matter about the sun moving west or not, it only matters that the region of land/water beneath it at any one stage is heated and the cooler inrush from all sides pushes up the hot air and so inducing horizontal winds to come into base region of the hot air column/updraught.

Naturally, if there is already a PREVAILING wind due to the seasonal patterns/swirls already covered in our pole to tropics and coriolis effect air movements, then the solar heating and all-round inrush caused by that at any one point over the earth will merely add its own complication to the whole dynamics/wind streams, updraughts, cyclones, swirls, turbulence etc etc.

I can't make it any clearer than that, mate.

Perhaps it's time to drop this off-topic subject now that you have your answer to the question: "Why does the wind/s blow?"

The Main topic of this thread is interesting and important enough that it should remain uncluttered by these off-topic excursions which may be properly canvassed further in their own new threads?

In that case, when the Earth is at rest, and the sun revolves around the Earth (the Coriolis effect is absent), the weather on Earth has changed little.
=======================

В том случае, когда Земля покоится, а Солнце вращается вокруг Земли (эффект Кориолиса отсутствует), погода на Земле мало изменится.

Actually, there will be the difference that the coriolis effect will NOT complicate the weather/winds, as I just described above.





I'm sorry, I have run out of time and will be going to Sydney for the next few days. So good luck till we speak again, Masterov, everyone!

Cheers!

 

[przyk]

One problem I'm having is who decided who is travelling and who is at rest. If the travelling twin returned to earth he would actually be younger because he was travelling and earthbound one was at rest, right ?

No, motion is relative, so there is no standard for saying one of them was really at rest and one of them was really the one moving. What makes the difference is that one of the twins accelerated while the other remained inertial.

Let's remove the 'at rest' earth for the moment. Let's say they were both in seperate ships in a region where for all practical purposes, only they existed. Then, regardless of who is accelerating, the only real and perceptable difference between them would be their distance to each other. If one accelerated, it could equally be said that he didn't but the other one did. Is that right ?

No. Motion is relative in SRT, but acceleration is not. It is absolute. One of the twins is the one really accelerating and they would have various ways of knowing it: they're the one who had to turn their rocket booster on, for example, and they're the one who would feel the pseudo-gravitational forces in their rocket which they could measure with an accelerometer.

In line with some of what I've been telling you earlier, the transition from an inertial to an accelerating frame is not a symmetry in physics. It is possible to express physical laws in an accelerating coordinate system, and they don't take the same form as they do in an inertial system.

 

[Masterov]

I can't make it any clearer than that...

This is because you do not understand the nature of the winds.
But you do not worry: you are not alone.
Moreover, anyone who considers himself a scientist, the answer to this question is not known.

They do not understand the simplest things, but impose (arrogantly, cavalierly and haughtily) their stupid opinion. This is all very reminiscent of the medieval Inquisition, when the parrots and crazy to mutter and to harp memorized religious dogma, and burned those who refused with them to parrot.
=========================

Это потому, что вы не понимаете природу ветров.
Но вы не расстраивайтесь: вы в этом не одиноки.
Более того, все, кто считает себя учёным, ответа на этот вопрос не знают.

Они не понимают самых простых вещей, но при этом навязывают своё глупое мнение в очень сложном. Всё это очень напоминает средневековую инквизицию, когда попугаи и кликуши талдычили заученные религиозные догмы, и сжигали тех, кто не желал вместе с ними попугайничать.

Perhaps it's time to drop this off-topic subject now that you have your answer to the question: "Why does the wind/s blow?"

The Main topic of this thread is interesting and important enough that it should remain uncluttered by these off-topic excursions which may be properly canvassed further in their own new threads?

I would like to discuss the matter any further, but arguments of my opponents ended.
My opponents have nothing to say to me.

I remind you of my questions:

(1.)
Lorentz transformations describe the visual coordinates.
For example: LT describes the visual coordinates of the stars and galaxies that we see in the sky. But we know that the light from the stars and galaxies go to us thousands or millions of years can be. We understand that the actual coordinates of the stars and galaxies differ from the visual coordinates.

But Einstein's theory confessors dont see this distinction.


(2)
SRT-doctrines argue that acceleration do change the physical properties of matter, and it leads to slower time?

1. What are these physical properties of matter?
Confessors of Einstein's theory refuse to call these physical properties of matter.

2. Assume that the acceleration can result to time dilation.
One would assume that the braking do time acceleration.
But braking is no different from the acceleration.
The difference has in the direction and in the terminology.

If the acceleration do time dilation, then what do time-acceleration, to return time to its original state?
____________

My opponents are silent, as guerrillas in the Gestapo.
My attempts to get them to say vainly.

Maybe you force SRT- lobbyists to answer questions?

===============

Я хотел бы обсудить тему дальше, но у моих оппонентов аргументация закончилась.
Моим оппонентам нечего возразить мне.

Я напомню вам мои вопросы:

(1.)
Преобразования Лоренца описывают визуальные координаты.
Например: LT описывает визуальные координаты звёзд и галактик, которые мы видим на небе. Но мы-то знаем, что свет от этих звёзд и галактик к нам шел тысячи или миллионы лет может быть. Мы понимаем, что реальные координаты звёзд и галактик отличаются от визуальных координат.

Но исповедники теории Эйнштейна навязывают нам визуальные координаты в качестве реальных координат.


(2)
Исповедники SRT утверждают, что ускорение изменяют физические свойства материи, и это приводит к замедлению времени?

1. Каковы же эти физические свойства материи?
Исповедники теории Эйнштейна отказываются называть эти физические свойства материи.

2. Предположим, что ускорение может привести к замедления времени.
Можно было бы предположить, что торможение ускорит время.
Но торможение ничем не отличается от ускорения.
Разница лишь в направлении и в терминологии.

Если ускорение замедляет время, то что же ускорит его, чтобы вернуть время в исходное состояние?

 

[Lakon]

I remind you of my questions:

(1.)
Lorentz transformations describe the visual coordinates.
For example: LT describes the visual coordinates of the stars and galaxies that we see in the sky. But we know that the light from the stars and galaxies go to us thousands or millions of years can be. We understand that the actual coordinates of the stars and galaxies differ from the visual coordinates.

But Einstein's theory confessors dont see this distinction.


(2)
SRT-doctrines argue that acceleration do change the physical properties of matter, and it leads to slower time?

1. What are these physical properties of matter?
Confessors of Einstein's theory refuse to call these physical properties of matter.

2. Assume that the acceleration can result to time dilation.
One would assume that the braking do time acceleration.
But braking is no different from the acceleration.
The difference has in the direction and in the terminology.

If the acceleration do time dilation, then what do time-acceleration, to return time to its original state?
____________

My opponents are silent, as guerrillas in the Gestapo.
My attempts to get them to say vainly.

Maybe you force SRT- lobbyists to answer questions?

przyk and OnlyMe thank you for your responses (#930 and #927) which I'm still contemplating although I'm probably out of my league (in a physics education, anyway).

I think .. I suspect .. that the stumbling blocks that I'm coming across, or will probably come across soon, are the issues raised by Masterov, above. Because absent of the melodrama and the ad hominem, it appears to me he does raise some interresting, fundamental questions, and has been doing so all along.

I can't tell you guys what to do, but it sure would be good to see a response to his above post, in terms that I might understand, and of course, without the needless tit for tat.

 

[przyk]

I think .. I suspect .. that the stumbling blocks that I'm coming across, or will probably come across soon, are the issues raised by Masterov, above. Because absent of the melodrama and the ad hominem, it appears to me he does raise some interresting, fundamental questions, and has been doing so all along.

I can't tell you guys what to do, but it sure would be good to see a response to his above post, in terms that I might understand, and of course, without the needless tit for tat.

Masterov's questions are based on numerous misconceptions about relativity that he seems uninterested in correcting, and even outright denial in some cases. For your benefit more than his:

(1.)
Lorentz transformations describe the visual coordinates.
For example: LT describes the visual coordinates of the stars and galaxies that we see in the sky. But we know that the light from the stars and galaxies go to us thousands or millions of years can be. We understand that the actual coordinates of the stars and galaxies differ from the visual coordinates.

But Einstein's theory confessors dont see this distinction.

Lorentz transformations do not represent "visual" coordinates. The significance of the coordinates related by Lorentz transformations is that they are coordinates in which all the most fundamental known laws of physics take the same form - i.e. the Lorentz transformation is a symmetry in modern physics. They do not necessarily represent what an observer literally sees and in that sense are not "visual". If Masterov wants to know how things appear in relativistic scenarios, that's given by different equations that take into account the delay between when light is emitted by or reflected off a source and when it reaches an observer or detector. For example, the apparent or "visual" time dilation that an observer will literally see when looking at a fast moving object is given by the relativistic Doppler effect. It has also been pointed out that there is not really such a thing as "physical" coordinates because all coordinate systems are man made inventions, and there is only the question of which coordinate systems are the most practical for solving problems and studying and understanding physics. All of this has been explained multiple times where Masterov could see it.

(2)
SRT-doctrines argue that acceleration do change the physical properties of matter, and it leads to slower time?

1. What are these physical properties of matter?
Confessors of Einstein's theory refuse to call these physical properties of matter.

2. Assume that the acceleration can result to time dilation.
One would assume that the braking do time acceleration.
But braking is no different from the acceleration.
The difference has in the direction and in the terminology.

If the acceleration do time dilation, then what do time-acceleration, to return time to its original state?

Masterov's questions, as far as they are comprehensible, are based on a misconception. From the perspective of any inertial frame, SR effects such as time dilation are related to and dependent on velocity, not acceleration. The physical cause of it will depend on the exact nature of the system, but because all of physics is Lorentz symmetric the result will always be the same.

Things are different in accelerating frames (i.e. from the perspective of an accelerating observer), so for example in an accelerating frame there is an additional contribution to the time dilation of distant objects that increases with both the magnitude of the acceleration itself and the distance from the observer. If Masterov wants the "name" of this effect, it is nowadays called "gravitational time dilation". But this effect in SRT isn't so much a physical effect as an artefact of an accelerating observer's changing concept of simultaneity.


From a very basic foundational point of view, relativity just asserts that the Lorentz transformation is a symmetry of physics, and everything else is just a matter of what can be derived from that. When Masterov says that relativity does not make physical sense and cannot be correct, he is effectively asserting that the Lorentz transformation cannot be a symmetry of any physical theory. This is unambiguously disproved by the numerous examples of Lorentz symmetric theories in modern physics. If the best, most accurately tested laws of physics are all Lorentz symmetric - which is currently the case - then relativity is true basically by definition.

 

[Masterov]

then relativity is true basically by definition.

Einstein are genius at all times and he are right always (by definition).

przyk, you offer a ridiculous arguments.

...all of physics is Lorentz symmetric...
...Lorentz transformation is a symmetry...
When Masterov says that relativity does not make physical sense and cannot be correct, he is effectively asserting that the Lorentz transformation cannot be a symmetry...
of any physical theory. This is unambiguously disproved by the numerous examples of Lorentz symmetric
If the best, most accurately tested laws of physics are all Lorentz symmetric...

Yes, Lorentz transformation is a symmetry.
So what?
What does that prove?
Mathematics have a lot of formulas that can be symmetric for some transformations. But this symmetry does not turn these formulas into laws of physics.

If Masterov wants the "name" of this effect, it is nowadays called "gravitational time dilation".

Oh! "Gravitational time dilation"?
Excellent!
Tell us how gravity is prevent to grow old one of the twins?
And how does this relate to the Lorentz transformations?
And (by operation of the symmetry of the Lorentz transformation, and by equality of inertial frames of reference), both twins will see the equality time slowing each other.

1. This is impossible, because it violates the principle of causality. If the first sees time dilation of the second, then the second owe to see the time acceleration of the first. (Equality of inertial frames of reference will be broken.)

2. If everything is the same (inertial frames are equivalent), then: why one of two grow old faster?

 

[Lakon]

Einstein are genius at all times and he are right always (by definition).

przyk, you offer a ridiculous arguments.

Yes, Lorentz transformation is a symmetry.
So what?
What does that prove?
Mathematics have a lot of formulas that can be symmetric for some transformations. But this symmetry does not turn these formulas into laws of physics.Oh! "Gravitational time dilation"?
Excellent!
Tell us how gravity is prevent to grow old one of the twins?
And how does this relate to the Lorentz transformations?
And (by operation of the symmetry of the Lorentz transformation, and by equality of inertial frames of reference), both twins will see the equality time slowing each other.

1. This is impossible, because it violates the principle of causality. If the first sees time dilation of the second, then the second owe to see the time acceleration of the first. (Equality of inertial frames of reference will be broken.)

2. If everything is the same (inertial frames are equivalent), then: why one of two grow old faster?

Hi Masterov. In the line I have highlighted, above, did you mean 'prevent' or 'present' ?

Edited last line - I meant "mean" not "mead"

 

[OnlyMe]

Hi Masterov. In the line I have highlighted, above, did you mead 'prevent' or 'present' ?

He did mean prevent.

The issue he is questioning is that gravity dilates time, separately from the time dilation associated with SR and velocity.. An example is that an atomic clock runs slower on the surface of the earth than it does on a sattelite. The first GPS sattelites demonstrated this, after launch the rate of the atomic clock(s) in GPS sattelites, had to be adjusted by an amount predicted by GR and SR — how much slower it ran before launch per GR and grabity and how much faster they ran after launch per SR and their velocity in orbit... In the case of GPS sattelites the GR or affect of gravity is greater than the SR or affect of its velocity in orbit.

How both gravity and velocity affects the rate that our best clocks run at was predicted by both GR and SR long before they could be accurately tested. That affect is what is referred to as time dilation.

Mastervo, denies that time dilation occurs. So his question was ment to refute relativity. Many people have trie to explain time dilation and even refer to tests. He has consistently called these attempts lies and propaganda.

 

[Lakon]

He did mean prevent.

The issue he is questioning is that gravity dilates time, separately from the time dilation associated with SR and velocity.. An example is that an atomic clock runs slower on the surface of the earth than it does on a sattelite. The first GPS sattelites demonstrated this, after launch the rate of the atomic clock(s) in GPS sattelites, had to be adjusted by an amount predicted by GR and SR — how much slower it ran before launch per GR and grabity and how much faster they ran after launch per SR and their velocity in orbit... In the case of GPS sattelites the GR or affect of gravity is greater than the SR or affect of its velocity in orbit.

How both gravity and velocity affects the rate that our best clocks run at was predicted by both GR and SR long before they could be accurately tested. That affect is what is referred to as time dilation.

Mastervo, denies that time dilation occurs. So his question was ment to refute relativity. Many people have trie to explain time dilation and even refer to tests. He has consistently called these attempts lies and propaganda.

So his question is "tell us how gravity prevents one of the twins from growing old" ?

Anyway, whatever, I'm sure he will clarify.

BTW, I too, well .. not deny time dilation, but have been trying to understand it for years, and have been unsuccessful in this endeavour. Which is strange, because when I turn my mind to any area of interest in whicch I have no experience, or which might be completely novel to me, I usually have little difficulty in coming to terms with a good understanding of it.

Not so with time dilation. I honestly feel like banging my head against the wall every time I reach the point where we are (or I am) right now in this thread.

 

[OnlyMe]

So his question is "tell us how gravity prevents one of the twins from growing old" ?

Anyway, whatever, I'm sure he will clarify.

BTW, I too, well .. not deny time dilation, but have been trying to understand it for years, and have been unsuccessful in this endeavour. Which is strange, because when I turn my mind to any area of interest in whicch I have no experience, or which might be completely novel to me, I usually have little difficulty in coming to terms with a good understanding of it.

Not so with time dilation. I honestly feel like banging my head against the wall every time I reach the point where we are (or I am) right now in this thread.

Set aside the whole debate around SR and GR concerning time dilation, which tends to lead into the mathematical descriptions and abstract hypotheticals.

Classically time is nothing more than how an individual sees or experiences change and uses a clock as a standard to compare the rate of change, of events that do not occur simultaneously.

If you can see and accept this much, it should not be difficult to also see that two people (observers) who are separated by some distance, will "see" or experience events in a different order or as happening at a different rate when compared to the clock or watch they hold in hand. Everything we experience of the world, is time delayed. It does not all originate with something that happens right now, relative to where we stand. We count the seconds between the flash of a lightening strike and the sound of thunder to know how far away the lightening strike was from where we are.

In a similar way, two observer's separated by some distance will see the world differently, in it's most simple form this is relativity.

Again setting aside the advanced physics and just looking at everyday experience, though it was predicted by the mathematics and its conceptual projection, of both GR and SR, it has been shown experimentally that the rate that our clocks tick at does change when the clock is moved, both the speed or velocity and how high above the earth or how strong gravity is, changes the way the clock works.... And in doing so it change how "we" measure time..., because the clock is our ruler for comparing the rate of change.

If you set your watch at sea level and then travel to the top of a high mountain, the watch will run at a different rate, but you will still count each tick of the second hand as one second. Your experience of time has thus been time dilated, by the change in the rate that the clock ticks at. The clock still defines how we measure change though we know that it is affected by its environment.

Time dilation is nothing more than how both velocity and where in a gravitational field an event takes place, affects the rate that change takes place. We use clocks to measure the rate of change and all clocks we have, are affected by both velocity and gravity, consistent with the ways predicted by GR and SR.

 

[Masterov]

Hi Masterov. In the line I have highlighted, above, did you mead 'prevent' or 'present' ?

Dilation flow of time.
Time dilation.

 

[Masterov]

The first GPS sattelites demonstrated this, after launch the rate of the atomic clock(s) in GPS sattelites, had to be adjusted by an amount predicted by GR and SR — how much slower it ran before launch per GR and grabity and how much faster they ran after launch per SR and their velocity in orbit... In the case of GPS sattelites the GR or affect of gravity is greater than the SR or affect of its velocity in orbit.

Don't tell us tales!
No one has ever seen a measurements, which were obtained by GPS-satellites, and that would confirm the existence of relativistic effects.
All that you have said, is based on rumor and speculation.