No, … it is not proven!
Introduction inserted later – 3.JUL.2019
Scientific facts and their interpretation.
With this good example, you can once again see what I like to call the self-proclaimed Einstein Inquisition and call it collective ignorance.
They are quite intelligent people who let me know time and time again through destructive comments that they do not want to believe what I say and are not willing to reinterpret information that contradicts their “trained beliefs” and because of lack of knowledge, therefore cannot argue constructively.
I had to delete destructive comments once again.The last one asked me to explain where my own evidence is, which proves and substantiates my claims. But I have to keep up with it and answer:
I only interpret the academically correct facts, I only contradict the obsolete interpretation of the facts under today’s knowledge and argue not only out of pure faith, as my opponents, but the reader can check with his own mind what would be right or wrong.For it is by no means contradicted by the scientific findings, but merely the interpretation, where knowledge is absent, the insight is in a dead end and gives us riddles that do not continue.
So I’m always offering a new alternative approach with a higher probability of reviewing the known academically confirmed facts.So you don’t need to just believe, you can only know for yourself what you’re just called science. And obviously some of my opponents still have to practice that.
So my answer to the question: “Is it proving … ???”
Time is not a thing that moves and therefore can neither faster nor slower, only clocks can.
It cannot be proved and has never been proven, but a difference in the compared clocks was found in the tests, whereupon the concrete facts were then equated with a measurement of time.But time cannot be measureddirectly (read more).
Given that there is an alternative to interpreting the facts differently, equality is no longer tenable today.Because if the distances can vary, then the time required is also variant and this contradicts the consistency of the speed of light.
The obsolete notion that “time canstretch” is not possible, given the one-way nature of the time dimension, because time does not have two degrees of freedom to change direction.It would then also be logically consistent that time cannot cause the curvature of space because it lacks the antolls of a bidirectional variable, but can only be equated with the static Planck’s unit of length.
Because time is not only stretched, but the whole thing must also be undone after the process of stretching, it is absurd that the time coordinate must have a static character on the one hand in order to be able to determine a precise finite spatial position and on the other hand, a two-way variant spatial infinite character is given in which space could bend.
All applied mathematical practices use inadmissibly a bidirectional variance of time, which demands each equation and causes the values to run in a different direction, but this is inadmissible in the absence of freedom of the choice of direction, e.g. from positive forward do not turn negatively backwards.Thus, a variant size of time makes any physical process unpredictable because asolic, and thus any repetition of a process is illusory, because no reliable law can develop if time is not as quantified as the way.
So stretching time was a misinterpretation of the causes, but the findings gained is still correct only the cause now has a different name.Because whether time dilation or track contraction cause the whole thing, our clocks don’t matter.
Therefore, it is only proven the clock under certain conditions faster or.can go slower. But time is never affected, only some things are shorter than you think, only women experience it when they have to clean the toilet, when a man went to pee.
And whoever comes earlier did not have such a long way.Therefore, I always compare things to a bridge over the valley with the swamp of the occult notion of time. You can find out more about this from my blog.
Read Nicolas N茅gniez’s commentary and then read on under the question: What can you tell me about the muon paradox?
because Nicolas would have liked to have been told by a concrete example.
With this answer I only quoted my blog;
What is a 4D movement, what keeps it so stable at the speed of light and what causes the length contraction?
What does this ultimately have to do with the quantum of action?