I Can Slow Down Time!

[antoine]

WOW! I have just discovered that I can slow down time and the experiment I performed shows I am correct. 

 

I started the experiment by looking for a way to measure time.  I decided that I would count numbers to equal the amount of time passed. 

 

I firstly counted to ten, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 

 

I then ran the experimental measurement several times

 

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10

 

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10

 

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10

 

I then discovered that if I counted quicker, time was to speed up. 

 

I then discovered that if I counted slower , time was to slow down. 

 

 

Where do I report my discovery? 

 

[sanctus]

LOOOL

If we had a Funny claims forum I would say there, lacking it strange claims is fine :D

[antoine]

LOOOL

 

If we had a Funny claims forum I would say there, lacking it strange claims is fine :D

LOl, I thought I would try some   Reverse Psychology leads to scientific enlightenment.   It becomes more serious if I apply the above and use the Caesium standard. Science is saying the exact same thing as above with time dilation. Not so funny or silly anymore  hey? 

Edited August 17, 2017 by antoine

[Buffy]

Nah, this one is *totally* Silly.

 

 

In a rocket ship I soar, I explore the ocean floor, but you know, I'll never go unless you come along, :phones:

Buffyzo

[antoine]

Nah, this one is *totally* Silly.

 

 

In a rocket ship I soar, I explore the ocean floor, but you know, I'll never go unless you come along, :phones:

Buffyzo

IT is not silly at all .  Read my second post and decide for yourself what you and science is doing incorrectly. 

Edited August 17, 2017 by antoine

[antoine]

Ok, let me remove the reverse psychology

 

WOW! I have just discovered that I can slow down time and the experiment I performed shows I am correct. 

 

I started the experiment by looking for a way to measure time.  I decided that I would count numbers to equal the amount of time passed. 

 

I firstly counted to 9,192,631,770 

 

I then ran the experimental measurement several times

 

9,192,631,770 

 

9,192,631,770 

 

9,192,631,770 

 

I then discovered that if I counted quicker, time was to speed up. 

 

I then discovered that if I counted slower , time was to slow down. 

 

p.s an identical silly claim to the first post.

 

added diagram - 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 17, 2017 by antoine

[Maine farmer]

LOl, I thought I would try some   Reverse Psychology leads to scientific enlightenment.   It becomes more serious if I apply the above and use the Caesium standard. Science is saying the exact same thing as above with time dilation. Not so funny or silly anymore  hey? 

How far can this gag run?  Surely you know that you don't even need a cesium clock to count time more consistently than a human counting.

[exchemist]

How far can this gag run?  Surely you know that you don't even need a cesium clock to count time more consistently than a human counting.

Don't feed the troll. :)

[antoine]

How far can this gag run?  Surely you know that you don't even need a cesium clock to count time more consistently than a human counting.

Of course I know that, you will tell me from my first post that I can't change the speed of time by counting fast or slow.  I think you miss the point .  Science says by counting fast or slow that time slows down or speeds up.  Think about this and you will realise it is far from a gag. I can count therefore I am. 

 

added- 

 

''I am'' an atomic clock detector

 

I firstly count 9,192,631,770  while at relative rest

 

 

I then count 9,192,631,000 while in relative motion

 

I am counting at different speeds . 

Edited August 18, 2017 by antoine

[antoine]

Don't feed the troll. :)

Your one liners are so tiresome, I do not observe you being objective over my precise logic .   

[Buffy]

Science says by counting fast or slow that time slows down or speeds up.

 

No it doesn't say that, because:

 

I am counting at different speeds.

Excellent disproof of your assertion! Congratulations! :cheer:

 

 

The hurrier I go, the behinder I get, :phones:

Buffy

[antoine]

 

No it doesn't say that, because:

 

 

Excellent disproof of your assertion! Congratulations! :cheer:

 

 

The hurrier I go, the behinder I get, :phones:

Buffy

Excellent disproof of ''your'' assertion of Albert Einsteins thoughts on time dilation.   I intentionally put that in that disproves my assertion the same it disproves Einstein,  my notion is the exact same notion as time dilation. 

 

All observers anywhere in the Universe in any inertia reference frame experience 1.855e+43 tP's/second because c is constant.  My clock is very accurate.

 

In time dilation theory and the Lorentz length contraction, this is not accounted for, the shorter slower time being exactly that, a short measurement that has not travelled 1.855e+43 tP's/second . 

 

 

If we set the speed of time by using Δt==c  we have synchronous time always and all observers count at the same speed and values always. 

 

So if instead of using the Caesium clock to measure time, if two observers were to use Planck light clocks, both observers at relative rest or in relative motion measure time to be synchronous.  The atomic clocks aboard your aeroplanes being shown to be malfunctioning and a variate measuring device,  by both the Planck light clocks constant tick frequency remaining synchronous.  

Edited August 19, 2017 by antoine

[antoine]

No answer is the validation of the truth. 

[antoine]

You win , being ignorant and ignoring me will make me see sense in that this forum is pointless for me .  I request a ban and will not return as a sock.  I have also requested all other science forums ban me that I am on, I have wasted my life trying to correct science with no gratitude or even proper listeners. 

 

Thank you for at least not being a-holes and allowing me to post on here, but will no discussion I am wasting my time . 

 

I wish you good day and good luck in the future, 

 

Regards 

 

Steve

[antoine]

Still not banned, huh!

 

Ok, as you have not banned me I can only continue.  I understand my notions are ''scary'' notions to the scientific community.   It is not my fault that my notions are very axiom notions, I did not create these notions they are a part of the universe, I just observed this and tried to explain this. 

I do not even like the idea of my own notions, I do not want to mess anything up.  BUT these notions are truthful so how am I suppose to ignore this? 

[scherado]

No answer is the validation of the truth.

.

Did you intend to violate this. You gave quite a precise violation.

 

Argument From Silence

 

I suppose congratulations are appropriate.

Edited September 21, 2017 by scherado

[exchemist]

Dear oh dear, banned AGAIN today from sciforums, as a new sockpuppet. Dylan this time.