Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
    To whatever distance you wish to travel, the same amount of gravitational disturbance will be felt. Whether that is spread out over a slow burn and launch or (as with practical launches) packed into one massive initial thrust makes no difference to the sum total of gravitational disturbance. I think that, with the twins paradox, the whole thing can be studied as a case of gravity affecting clocks.
    You're not getting what I'm saying. Let's consider this - one twin starts out our experiment in orbit around the Earth. At the start, he and his twin are the same age. They look identical, and each would agree that he's lived for the same number of years. When we start the experiment, we accelerate the twin that has been orbiting, at exactly one g. For the whole trip, he experiences exactly one g of acceleration, although his speed has increased to close to light speed, then slowed down to zero, then accelerated back towards Earth at one g, and again slowed down at one g so that he comes back into an orbit of the Earth, and that's the end of our experiment. During the trip, the traveling twin kept a regular 24-hour schedule. He regulated his day by his clock, and his body clock agreed with the clock on the wall. At the end of the trip, the Earth twin had experienced 20 years. Every day of that is accounted for. And at this time, the traveling twin experienced ten years. Every day was a normal day to him, ten years' worth of them. The twins also have apparently aged according to these clocks and logs. One twin looks ten years older than the other.

    And it's not like I'm the only one saying this. There are plenty of vastly more qualified people saying exactly what I'm saying. Where do you think I get my material?
    Well, there are various kooks and cranks who say Einstein was wrong. Prominent physicists get letters from them all the time, which is not surprising given that some proportion of our population is out of touch with reality. However, I'm curious where you get your material. I thought you were making it up as you go. A link would be appreciated.

    Gravity does not affect time. It affects clocks.

    I don't know how much simpler it can get.
    A clock is just a physical process that we've exploited to keep track of time. Atomic resonance is a physical process, but also so is metabolism. If all physical processes are affected by relativity (which is implied by your saying that all clocks are affected), then you'd have to agree that the traveling twin aged less. You've boxed yourself into a corner here.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Jukia View Post
      I for one do not know, but I would appreciate it if you would tell me. Please provide citations to the scientific literature.
      OK.

      Originally posted by DavisBJ View Post
      We measure time with clocks. If you were put in an isolated container and asked to determine how much time passes between two events, you would need to “time it” – that is, use a clock. Unknown to you, the container you are in may be freely falling in a strong gravitational field, or it may be floating far from any appreciable sources of gravity. For you, unable to compare with anything outside your container, could you tell if the clocks you have were not measuring time the same as they were at some time earlier?
      This question is of no relevance to the conversation. The changes in gravity affect atomic clocks to a degree predicted by relativity. There is no reason to say that the abstract, intangible noun, time, is affected. You might as well try to convince us that gravity affects love.

      Originally posted by Frayed Knot View Post
      You're not getting what I'm saying. Let's consider this - one twin starts out our experiment in orbit around the Earth. At the start, he and his twin are the same age. They look identical, and each would agree that he's lived for the same number of years. When we start the experiment, we accelerate the twin that has been orbiting, at exactly one g. For the whole trip, he experiences exactly one g of acceleration, although his speed has increased to close to light speed, then slowed down to zero, then accelerated back towards Earth at one g, and again slowed down at one g so that he comes back into an orbit of the Earth, and that's the end of our experiment. During the trip, the traveling twin kept a regular 24-hour schedule. He regulated his day by his clock, and his body clock agreed with the clock on the wall. At the end of the trip, the Earth twin had experienced 20 years. Every day of that is accounted for. And at this time, the traveling twin experienced ten years. Every day was a normal day to him, ten years' worth of them. The twins also have apparently aged according to these clocks and logs. One twin looks ten years older than the other.
      OK. If you can get relativity to predict that the atomic clock will run slower for the flying twin under these conditions, I will predict no significant difference between the age of the twins on return.

      Well, there are various kooks and cranks who say Einstein was wrong. Prominent physicists get letters from them all the time, which is not surprising given that some proportion of our population is out of touch with reality. However, I'm curious where you get your material. I thought you were making it up as you go. A link would be appreciated.
      Why not just tell me why I'm wrong rather than looking for someone else to call wrong?

      A clock is just a physical process that we've exploited to keep track of time. Atomic resonance is a physical process, but also so is metabolism. If all physical processes are affected by relativity (which is implied by your saying that all clocks are affected), then you'd have to agree that the traveling twin aged less. You've boxed yourself into a corner here.
      You've boxed your straw man into a corner.

      Originally posted by Stripe View Post
      One way to falsify Einstein's idea is to show that different types of clocks are affected to different degrees by gravity.
      Where is the evidence for a global flood?
      E≈mc2
      "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

      "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
      -Bob B.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
        Correct. One way to falsify Einstein's idea is to show that different types of clocks are affected to different degrees by gravity.
        We've been here before. I agree - that would be one way to falsify Einstein's theory. Were you aware that people have been trying to falsify it, in various ways, for nearly 100 years, and so far it's withstood every test with shining colors?

        Instead of saying "different types of clocks," I think it would be better to say "the rate of different physical processes." That's what it gets down to, wouldn't you agree? Besides Cesium clocks, there are several other physical processes that we can observe running at different rates due to relativity. For example, particle accelerators like the Tevatron at Fermilab, and the new Large Hadron Collider, send subatomic particles speeding at significantly close to the speed of light and then smash them together. The behavior of these particles at that speed has to be accounted for, because time has slowed down for them.

        So if you are aware of some information that would cast doubt on relativity affecting all physical processes the same, and therefore would falsify relativity, then if that were confirmed, it would be a shoo-in for a million dollars and a free trip to Stockholm.

        Since that has not been done, and you're refusing to cite your sources, I have no choice but to withhold acceptance of these ideas of yours. I don't believe it. But I can change my mind if I have good evidence.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Frayed Knot View Post
          But I can change my mind if I have good evidence.
          Don't hold your breath. (s)Tripe has yet to even show an elementary understanding of relativity for someone who argues so vehemently against it (which he does so because of his religious beliefs).

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Frayed Knot View Post
            Were you aware that people have been trying to falsify it, in various ways, for nearly 100 years, and so far it's withstood every test with shining colors?
            Einstein's theories of relativity confirmed by NASA

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
              This question is of no relevance to the conversation. The changes in gravity affect atomic clocks to a degree predicted by relativity. There is no reason to say that the abstract, intangible noun, time, is affected. You might as well try to convince us that gravity affects love.
              But if “time” is the thing that clocks measure, and they change how long they say a “second” is under a gravitational field, why not say that the clocks are still measuring time, but it is the time itself that has been altered? If you say time has not changed, then you must have some invariant reference to measure it against to show that it has not been altered by the gravity. What is that reference?
              ** Enyart is impressed by Job saying the stars in the Belt of Orion are gravitationally bound.

              And ... Enyart is also impressed by Job saying the stars in the Belt of Orion are NOTgravitationally bound.

              Which shows Enyart doesn’t understand what Job was actually saying about Orion at all. **

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Frayed Knot View Post
                We've been here before. I agree - that would be one way to falsify Einstein's theory. Were you aware that people have been trying to falsify it, in various ways, for nearly 100 years, and so far it's withstood every test with shining colors?

                Instead of saying "different types of clocks," I think it would be better to say "the rate of different physical processes." That's what it gets down to, wouldn't you agree? Besides Cesium clocks, there are several other physical processes that we can observe running at different rates due to relativity. For example, particle accelerators like the Tevatron at Fermilab, and the new Large Hadron Collider, send subatomic particles speeding at significantly close to the speed of light and then smash them together. The behavior of these particles at that speed has to be accounted for, because time has slowed down for them.

                So if you are aware of some information that would cast doubt on relativity affecting all physical processes the same, and therefore would falsify relativity, then if that were confirmed, it would be a shoo-in for a million dollars and a free trip to Stockholm.

                Since that has not been done, and you're refusing to cite your sources, I have no choice but to withhold acceptance of these ideas of yours. I don't believe it. But I can change my mind if I have good evidence.
                Or you could just calm down and have a simple conversation.

                The only clocks that can measure time accurately enough to show the effects of gravity are all of one general type - atomic.

                Originally posted by Dr.Watson View Post
                Don't hold your breath. (s)Tripe has yet to even show an elementary understanding of relativity for someone who argues so vehemently against it (which he does so because of his religious beliefs).
                Hi, Watties.

                Figured out how an aquifer can retain its pressure for 2 million years yet?
                Originally posted by DavisBJ View Post
                But if “time” is the thing that clocks measure, and they change how long they say a “second” is under a gravitational field, why not say that the clocks are still measuring time, but it is the time itself that has been altered? If you say time has not changed, then you must have some invariant reference to measure it against to show that it has not been altered by the gravity. What is that reference?
                I don't think you have the foggiest clue what you're talking about.

                Gravity affects clocks. To say that changing a clock means you're changing time is irrational.
                Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                E≈mc2
                "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                -Bob B.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                  Gravity affects clocks. To say that changing a clock means you're changing time is irrational.
                  Not at all, if by “time” I mean that thing that clocks measure. In dismissing what I said, you side-stepped my question. Gravity changes clocks. But you don’t think gravity changes time. If you move to a place where the clocks are being affected by gravity, how do you know time has not been changed as well? So far your answer is to sneer and not address that point. I say that time has changed, and for evidence I will examine clocks. If they uniformly have altered, yet they operate on different principles, then I say the common thing that has changed is the time they are all measuring. Now you tell why time has not changed, and explain how you can verify that.
                  ** Enyart is impressed by Job saying the stars in the Belt of Orion are gravitationally bound.

                  And ... Enyart is also impressed by Job saying the stars in the Belt of Orion are NOTgravitationally bound.

                  Which shows Enyart doesn’t understand what Job was actually saying about Orion at all. **

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by DavisBJ View Post
                    Now you tell why time has not changed, and explain how you can verify that.
                    Because that is what he believes. He will never provide an explanation. He will continue to misrepresent both science and his god.
                    "Against stupidity, the gods themselves fight in vain", G. Smiley

                    "Send money, guns and lawyers..." W. Zevon

                    "If it is possible for something to happen, that is evidence that it did happen." Stripe on TOL

                    "There but for fortune...", P. Ochs

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by DavisBJ View Post
                      Not at all, if by “time” I mean that thing that clocks measure. In dismissing what I said, you side-stepped my question. Gravity changes clocks. But you don’t think gravity changes time. If you move to a place where the clocks are being affected by gravity, how do you know time has not been changed as well? So far your answer is to sneer and not address that point. I say that time has changed, and for evidence I will examine clocks. If they uniformly have altered, yet they operate on different principles, then I say the common thing that has changed is the time they are all measuring. Now you tell why time has not changed, and explain how you can verify that.
                      What is the use of saying that gravity also affects time?

                      Your questions are of no value.

                      Originally posted by Jukia View Post
                      Because that is what he believes. He will never provide an explanation. He will continue to misrepresent both science and his god.
                      More nonsense from Julia. If you can't keep up with the conversation, feel free to just read along.
                      Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                      E≈mc2
                      "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                      "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                      -Bob B.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                        What is the use of saying that gravity also affects time?

                        Your questions are of no value.
                        Ok, since you won’t answer, your assertion that time is invariant is on a par with the invisible undetectable white elephant that I keep in my room. You can’t prove me wrong, and I can trivially dismiss any challenge to my claim about my elephant.
                        ** Enyart is impressed by Job saying the stars in the Belt of Orion are gravitationally bound.

                        And ... Enyart is also impressed by Job saying the stars in the Belt of Orion are NOTgravitationally bound.

                        Which shows Enyart doesn’t understand what Job was actually saying about Orion at all. **

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by DavisBJ View Post
                          Ok, since you won’t answer, your assertion that time is invariant is on a par with the invisible undetectable white elephant that I keep in my room. You can’t prove me wrong, and I can trivially dismiss any challenge to my claim about my elephant.
                          It is you making the assertion that an intangible noun is variant. I simply say that gravity does not affect time. Instead gravity affects clocks. Clocks are physical entities that we can look at and get readings from. When I test my idea I look at real things and give answers according to physical reality. When you share your idea you look at exactly the same things, get exactly the same results and then claim a non-physical entity is what explains everything. You are the one claiming the invisible white elephant!

                          Now, did you have anything to say that is not nonsense?
                          Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                          E≈mc2
                          "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                          "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                          -Bob B.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                            It is you making the assertion that an intangible noun is variant. I simply say that gravity does not affect time. Instead gravity affects clocks. Clocks are physical entities that we can look at and get readings from. When I test my idea I look at real things and give answers according to physical reality. When you share your idea you look at exactly the same things, get exactly the same results and then claim a non-physical entity is what explains everything. You are the one claiming the invisible white elephant!
                            But you adamantly refuse to say how you show that time was not altered. Time is the interval between events. If that interval changes under the influence of gravity, then by definition, time has changed. You can say it has not changed for the rest of your life, but so saying just puts that invisible elephant in your room, unless you can establish the claim empirically.
                            ** Enyart is impressed by Job saying the stars in the Belt of Orion are gravitationally bound.

                            And ... Enyart is also impressed by Job saying the stars in the Belt of Orion are NOTgravitationally bound.

                            Which shows Enyart doesn’t understand what Job was actually saying about Orion at all. **

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Stripe View Post

                              More nonsense from Julia. If you can't keep up with the conversation, feel free to just read along.
                              sorry Stripe. I have asked several times for citations to the literature for your claims. You are unable to provide. Ergo, more unfounded misrepresentations from Stripe.

                              And to make sure you understand "Ergo = therefore" and "unfounded misrepresentations" = you are just another liar for Jesus. I would suggest it was simple ignorance but I have read enough of your posts to know you are not ignorant.
                              "Against stupidity, the gods themselves fight in vain", G. Smiley

                              "Send money, guns and lawyers..." W. Zevon

                              "If it is possible for something to happen, that is evidence that it did happen." Stripe on TOL

                              "There but for fortune...", P. Ochs

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by DavisBJ View Post
                                But you adamantly refuse to say how you show that time was not altered.
                                You are making the claim. You show the evidence. I make a simple claim. Gravity affects clocks - and guess what?! When we place clocks into different gravity environments, they are indeed affected!

                                Claim ratified.

                                You make the extra claim that time is also affected. You want to make supernatural claims - you show evidence for them.

                                Good luck with that.

                                Time is the interval between events. If that interval changes under the influence of gravity, then by definition, time has changed.
                                Show us evidence for that. Show us that it is not simply the clock being affected.

                                You can say it has not changed for the rest of your life, but so saying just puts that invisible elephant in your room, unless you can establish the claim empirically.
                                Quit putting the burden of proof for your claim upon me.

                                Originally posted by Jukia View Post
                                sorry Stripe. I have asked several times for citations to the literature for your claims. You are unable to provide. Ergo, more unfounded misrepresentations from Stripe.


                                Jokia.

                                And to make sure you understand "Ergo = therefore" and "unfounded misrepresentations" = you are just another liar for Jesus. I would suggest it was simple ignorance but I have read enough of your posts to know you are not ignorant.
                                And you've offered nothing but nonsense. Feel free to grow up and start offering something of value any time you like.

                                Merry Christmas.
                                Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                                E≈mc2
                                "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                                "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                                -Bob B.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X