## User Tag List

1. Originally Posted by Stripe
Flipper - I see no need to "get" relativity. There is no need to insist that anything other than the clock is being affected when you take it up a mountain.

It does not matter if the clock is highly accurate and not overly susceptible to gravitational effects or if it is inaccurate and very susceptible. Relativity simply is not a necessary consideration.
The world of physics begs to differ.

As I understand it, one of the great things about Einstein's relativity equations is that they allow you to make pretty accurate predictions regarding the effects of time dilation. You can calculate very accurately what effect a gravity differential between two frames of reference will have on two clocks using the equations for general relativity. You can also calculate fairly precisely what the effect of velocity will be on time dilation between two frames of reference using the equations for special relativity.

So let's say you were right and that time isn't relative due to gravitational differentials - the differences between a high clock and a low clock isn't due to the curvature of space time but is rather some as-yet-unexplained other effect of gravity.

The general relativity equations predict the time differences extremely accurately regardless. You can calculate (and then observe) the difference due to gravity between a clock on the ground and a clock on a jet plane that is flying at a set altitude and velocity.

However, Einstein's theory of special relativity predicts that velocity differences between frames will also create time dilation effects. So the clock on the plane is traveling at a constant altitude and speed away (or towards) your clock on the ground, and using the equations of special relativity, we can predict what the relative dilation will be.

Now remember, we have already accounted for the gravitational difference.

So this specific experiment has already been carried out a number of times and each time, the time dilation effects for both general and special relativity has been predicted and the results were found to be in agreement with the predictions.

If you remove gravity as a factor, we still find that time is relative when velocities are different between two frames of reference. Explain that.

Also, if you're looking for a non-clock-related test of general relativity, the Gravity Probe B experiment is a pretty good example. General relativity predicts that large bodies warp space/time around them. Using 4 ultra-sensitive gyroscopes, the Gravity Probe B experiment was able to measure this effect and found that it agreed with predictions to within one percent.

Which makes sense again, when we look at both general and special relativity. Special relativity says that light's speed in a vacuum is always constant (an observation that has stood up to experimental testing), yet we see that large objects are able to refract and bend light moving through the vacuum of space (another prediction of general relativity). These observations can both be true if we accept that space/time is being warped by gravity.

If Newton's concept of gravity and time as an absolute measure were correct, you might expect Newtonian mechanics to be effective at predicting the amount of deflection a light beam would encounter due to massive gravity.

As it happens, this is not the case.

2. Originally Posted by Stripe
There is no need to add the qualifier.
Yes, there is. It makes my statement true.

Originally Posted by Stripe
The clock on the hill showed a different time to the one off the hill. That difference can be attributed to the effect of gravity upon the clock.

Do you not agree with Phy that gravity can and does affect different things to different degrees. Thus your claim that "brainwaves and heartbeats, thoughts and emotions, would all be equally affected" is demonstrably wrong, not to mention completely bizarre. How can gravity affect thoughts and emotions?

Did you really just say that?

....

Dude, how heavy is your happiness?
Re-read what I wrote, but this time make an effort to understand it.

Your thoughts and emotions are physical processes, just like your heart beat, and the oscillations of cesium emissions. They are therefore subject to the same time dilating effects of gravity as the atomic clock is. There's nothing magical about an atomic clock that makes it particularly susceptible to the effects of relativity. You would get the same results with an extremely accurate mechanical clock.

(Often times it helps to assume at least some intelligence in your debate opponent. Obviously I don't think happiness has mass outside of the physical components from which it is constructed. Fun to mock, perhaps, but you pretty much look like an idiot.)

Originally Posted by Stripe
Thus your claim that "brainwaves and heartbeats, thoughts and emotions, would all be equally affected" is demonstrably wrong
I'd love to see your demonstration. I agree with ThePhy.

And, as Flipper brings up, how do you explain special relativity when gravity is taken out of the picture? (Not to imply that you've actually explained anything about the observations thus far)

3. Originally Posted by Stripe
There is no need to add the qualifier. The clock on the hill showed a different time to the one off the hill. That difference can be attributed to the effect of gravity upon the clock.

Do you not agree with Phy that gravity can and does affect different things to different degrees. Thus your claim that "brainwaves and heartbeats, thoughts and emotions, would all be equally affected" is demonstrably wrong, not to mention completely bizarre. How can gravity affect thoughts and emotions?

Did you really just say that?
He meant that they'd all be slowed down or sped up an equal amount. You'd have to try quite hard not to understand that if you had any idea what you were talking about.

4. Originally Posted by dan1el
You'd have to try quite hard not to understand that if you had any idea what you were talking about.
QFE.

5. Originally Posted by ThePhy
But what you are saying now is significantly different than what you have already admitted was wrong in your first post in this thread. You said that the two clocks would be affected in “much the same way” by a change in gravity. In fact they would be affected dramatically differently.
The two clocks are affected in the same way, by gravity

The two clocks are not affected to the same degree, by gravity.

An apple falling to the ground and the moon orbiting the Earth are related in a similar way. They are both gravity driven effects, but the resulting observations are different due to the different physical setups.

This is simple physics, uh, ThePhy. What does that name mean, anyway?

6. Originally Posted by Flipper
As I understand it, one of the great things about Einstein's relativity equations is that they allow you to make pretty accurate predictions regarding the effects of time dilation. You can calculate very accurately what effect a gravity differential between two frames of reference will have on two clocks using the equations for general relativity. You can also calculate fairly precisely what the effect of velocity will be on time dilation between two frames of reference using the equations for special relativity.
The exact same calculations are possible by assuming that gravity is affecting the clock.

7. Originally Posted by ThePhy
Do you understand what Einstein's theories really do say?
Is the relativity of time relevant to the relativity of speed?

Originally Posted by Flipper
Presumably you must be talking about Bizarro Einstein.

The regular one entitled the second section of the first part of his paper on special relativity "On the Relativity of Lengths and Times".
And?

8. Originally Posted by Johnny
Yes, there is. It makes my statement true.
It is an attempt to make your position logically valid. There is no need to add complication to the assumption that gravity affects the clock.

Your thoughts and emotions are physical processes
How heavy is your happiness? What makes a husband love his wife? What chemicals are necessary for a good idea?

just like your heart beat, and the oscillations of cesium emissions. They are therefore subject to the same time dilating effects of gravity as the atomic clock is.
But the observations do not support this idea.

ThePhy has already pointed out that gravity exerts effects upon devices to different extents. One is perfectly justified in accepting the influence of gravity as being responsible for the differing observations (PREDICTION: a heartbeat and an atomic clock are not affected to the same degree by a change in gravity). No relativity necessary.

There's nothing magical about an atomic clock that makes it particularly susceptible to the effects of relativity. You would get the same results with an extremely accurate mechanical clock.

But there has been a lot of effort made to ensure that an atomic clock is not susceptible to the conditions. The day you find a way to hide the effects of gravity on an atomic clock you be sure and tell us, OK?

(Often times it helps to assume at least some intelligence in your debate opponent. Obviously I don't think happiness has mass outside of the physical components from which it is constructed. Fun to mock, perhaps, but you pretty much look like an idiot.)
So you'll have the studies done that show us where happiness comes from?

I'd love to see your demonstration.
A water clock and an atomic clock will not be affected to the same degree by a change in gravity.

I agree with ThePhy.
Well, that's interesting. That only leaves you with whom to disagree!

9. Stripe,

I'm done arguing relativity with you for now. You clearly have large gaps in your understanding of the subject and I lack both the knowledge and time to identify and fill those gaps for you. Suffice it to say that there are literally volumes of free information on the internet regarding both the experimental and mathematical basis for both special and general relativity -- all of which support the position I have been arguing during the course of our conversation. Hopefully others with a more complete understanding of relativity and a little more patience with your ignorance will pick up the conversation, though I doubt they will have any more success (certainly not for their lack of effort).

As to the physiologic basis for emotions, you will not find any experimental support for the notion that emotions, thoughts, etc. are anything more than physiologic processes. I, however, have a world of medical literature at my disposal for taking the counter position. I can think of about 30 things more interesting and fruitful than holding your hand through the literature only to end up with you throwing science out the window for whatever pet idea you've imagined up for today.

10. Originally Posted by Johnny
Stripe,

I'm done arguing relativity with you for now.

11. Originally Posted by Stripe
The two clocks are affected in the same way, by gravity

The two clocks are not affected to the same degree, by gravity.

An apple falling to the ground and the moon orbiting the Earth are related in a similar way. They are both gravity driven effects, but the resulting observations are different due to the different physical setups.

This is simple physics, uh, ThePhy.
Right, simple physics. Your choice of a falling apple and the moon orbiting the earth is instructive, since both of those are governed by exactly the same law. Put the apple at the moon’s orbital distance and speed, and it would follow the path the moon does.

As already shown, this is exactly what is not true between a gravity clock and a cesium clock. Put in a similar situation of reduced gravity, one will give results highly discordant with the other.
What does that name mean, anyway?
That is exactly right.

12. Originally Posted by Stripe
The exact same calculations are possible by assuming that gravity is affecting the clock.
Um, no they aren't. Quite aside from the applied assumption that physicists are unable to calculate and therefore account for the effects of general relativity before doing the experiment, it has been also done with multiple clocks at the same altitude. If they're at the same altitude, perhaps you can explain how gravity affects them differently?

Furthermore, relativistic time dilation has been measured in particle accelerators where very concentrated beams of particles are accelerated to very high speeds across flat trajectories and exceed their observed decay rates at rest over relativistically predictable distances. I would like to to know how you could account for that with gravity.

Similar time dilation effects have been observed in the constant rain of muon particles caused by interactions in the upper atmosphere. Scientists have observed the decay time for such a particle at sea level. Yet detectors track a much larger number of muons than their particle decay rates should allow.

The excess of particles is explained by relativistic time dilation - they are traveling close to the speed of light and from our perspective of their frame of reference, time passes much slower.

So now its my turn.

First, explain the results above in terms of gravity.

Second, why don't you explain to us in a bit more detail how gravity works on atomic clocks and what the key differences are between your explanation and that of general and special relativity?

13. Originally Posted by Lighthouse
And?
And what? You could read the paper online for yourself1 and decide whether you think Einstein was talking about the relativity of time.

1 Hypothetically speaking, anyway. We both know you won't.

14. Originally Posted by Flipper
Well both special and general relativity require relative time.
So they are both wrong? I always knew that Tesla and Newton have more sense.

So, lets go back to the begining, before the Clintonesque double talk started.

Originally Posted by fool # 12
The clock being a day ahead dosn't mean that it's in the future.
I would agree. And that is the point of the OP. The clock is not in a different time. Or is fool wrong? He isn't.

Originally Posted by Jokia
Thats like making an arbitrary distinction between length and the measurement of length. There is no quantitative difference between the measurement of time and the passage of time..
So, which one of you is right?

They aren't the physical manifestations of a phenomena called "time", they're just mechanical devices constructed to represent a human idea.
That isn't what Jukia said. So you agree with fool?

15. Originally Posted by Flipper
And what? You could read the paper online for yourself1 and decide whether you think Einstein was talking about the relativity of time.

1 Hypothetically speaking, anyway. We both know you won't.

Not the issue at all. The issue is that it is not necessary for time to be relative in order for speed to be relative. Or for temperature to be relative. Or for anything else to be relative for that matter.

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)