about Bob's article on absolute or relative time

[Lighthouse]

The intent was not to convince you. The intent was to give us common terms on which to speak (if you were so inclined to actually refute any aspect of that video).

I see.

Well, you can understand my thinking there, though, right? Seeing as how I have had evolutionists offer me drawings of what transitional fossils should look like as an attempt to convince me evolution is true.

It does. An atomic clock is actually a highly accurate digital clock. A standard digital clock usually uses oscillations of electricity or in a quartz crystal to keep time, whereas an atomic clock uses oscillations of electrons in cesium. Find a standard digital clock accurate enough to measure the effect at such low gravitational fields or velocities and you will see the effect there as well. The reason atomic clocks are used is because their accuracy allows us to see such a minute change at everyday velocities and in everyday gravitational fields, not because the effect only occurs with an atomic clock.

So why didn't gravity effect my cell phone clock when I was in CO?

 

[Lighthouse]

I also have a related question...

 

[Johnny]

Well, you can understand my thinking there, though, right? Seeing as how I have had evolutionists offer me drawings of what transitional fossils should look like as an attempt to convince me evolution is tru

Fair enough.

So why didn't gravity effect my cell phone clock when I was in CO?

It did (it affected you too) -- on the order of billionths of a second. In the famous commercial airliner experiment which put atomic clocks at the height of about 35,000 feet for two trips around the world, the gravitational change with that altitude only resulted in a 144 nanosecond (billionth of a second) gain in the clocks. Your ordinary wrist watch or cell phone clock isn't that accurate. That's why atomic clocks are commonly cited. You'd have to be in an extremely strong gravitational field before your wristwatch would start picking it up (likewise for special relativity you'd have to be traveling at very significant speeds).

 

[Stripe]

Exactly. For each individual clock, a unique correction factor must be used because each clock is affected differently (even when they are subject to the same changing variable).

So .. lemme get this straight. Two atomic clocks supposedly measuring the relativistic difference between two gravity conditions must first be correlated to eliminate the individuality of their timekeeping ability?

How are you going to manage that?

This is not the case with relativity. Every clock is affected to the same degree.

Prove it. How can you test for the effect of gravity upon an atomic clock when you will not even admit that the observation of its effects has anything to do with gravity?

Gravity has nothing to do with special relativity (to which I am clearly referring). The effect is still present even when gravity is accounted for, or in zero gravity situations.

There is no such thing as a zero gravity condition. The "effect" you are talking about is the mathematical synchronisation of the two clocks which is done in order to preserve the universal constant as a universal constant.

There is no reason to hold onto this constant.

Two different clocks will experience the exact same time dilating effects under the same conditions, regardless of their mechanism of action of the clocks. The lorentz transformation describes the degree in which all clocks will measure time at a given velocity, not just atomic clocks. This is demonstrated by the numerous studies calculating muon decay, pion lifetimes, kaon lifetimes, atomic resonance frequencies, as well as a number of other techniques which, despite the varying mechanism for keeping time, all show the changes in time plotted along the same lortenz curve. In other words, at the same velocities, two clocks operating by different mechanisms demonstrate the exact same change in time. This is in contrast to the clock examples you provided earlier, which are all simply reduced to a physical force acting on a mechanical clock thereby decreasing its accuracy.

Do you have a link to these numbers?

The invariance of the speed of light is a postulate on which special relativity rests, it isn't a product of special relativity. And anyways, isn't that something we can measure? We can find luminous objects in space we are moving away from at extremely high velocities. Why not just measure the speed of light incoming from those objects? And given modern technologies, can't we measure changes in the speed of light in the lab?

Sure. And don't those observations show that the speed of light can change? How is it that we tell whether a star is moving towards or away from us, again? I can show the speed of light changing given a glass of water. :idunno:

Do you think you think generations of brilliant physicists have neglected to consider your objections?

:idunno: Maybe. So?

 

[Stripe]

Create twin particles with known decay times. Send one whirling around at the speed of light. The other one, store stationary. Which particle will decay first? If it's just clocks that are off, then both particles should decay at the same time relative to a stationary clock. However, if time is truly passing slower for one particle, then the one whirling around will far "outlive" the stationary one according to a stationary clock. Agreed?

"Whirling around" what? :idunno:

The changes in speed and gravity will affect one particle and not the other. Those differences can be measured. Those differences can be measured on any two processes that are otherwise identical. The differences will always be related (you call this a Lortenz curve, though I'm not sure why). You say the Lotenz curve is produced by the effects of relativity. It is far more reasonable to say that the Lortenz curve is produced by the effects of gravity especially when we do not know how gravity affects atomic processes.

Do you not agree that when we have a set of unexplained observations that it is far more scientific to use propoes one explanation rather than two?

 

[dan1el]

Anyway, the fact remains, the passage of time did not slow down or speed up. It remained constant.

You wouldn't notice the change. There are two main reasons for this. Firstly, there's no way in hell you'll measure a difference of nanoseconds with your cell phone. One nanosecond is 0.000 000 001 seconds, in case you didn't know.

Secondly, and much more importantly, you'd be slowed down as well, so even if your phone did come with an atomic clock, you couldn't have noticed the change.

Edit: I just read the rest of your posts too. You obviously haven't understood much of what has been said.

 

[Stripe]

You wouldn't notice the change. There are two main reasons for this. Firstly, there's no way in hell you'll measure a difference of nanoseconds with your cell phone. One nanosecond is 0.000 000 001 seconds, in case you didn't know.

Secondly, and much more importantly, you'd be slowed down as well, so even if your phone did come with an atomic clock, you couldn't have noticed the change.

Edit: I just read the rest of your posts too. You obviously haven't understood much of what has been said.

EDIT: I just read your post and it's obvious you don't understand the challenge LH is making. If there is a conversation between two people at different altitudes then the conversation is never going to take different amounts of time for each party.

If you're going to insist that is only because the differences are too small to notice then you're not engaging in the discussion.

There are many "clocks" people can look at that will always record the same passage of time for both parties. They both look at the same sun. It will rise and set the same amount of times for both parties no matter the duration or the gravitational difference. The fact that two atomic clocks might record a different amount of time is only evidence that gravity has affected one clock to a greater extent.

Suggesting that time has been warped is nonsensical.

 

[Johnny]

I just read your post and it's obvious you don't understand the challenge LH is making. If there is a conversation between two people at different altitudes then the conversation is never going to take different amounts of time for each party.

If you're going to insist that is only because the differences are too small to notice then you're not engaging in the discussion.

There are many "clocks" people can look at that will always record the same passage of time for both parties. They both look at the same sun. It will rise and set the same amount of times for both parties no matter the duration or the gravitational difference. The fact that two atomic clocks might record a different amount of time is only evidence that gravity has affected one clock to a greater extent.

I just read your post and it's obvious you don't have the first clue about relativity. The sun is outside of both observer's inertial frames, and thus both observers will always agree on where the sun is. What they won't agree on is how long it took to get there, because they are experiencing time differently. So one observer might say "It took 24 hours for the sun to make a round trip!", while another might say "What? I only measured 4 hours!". (Obviously that time difference is grossly exaggerated for the sake of conversation)

For the record, it's much much easier to speak in terms of special relativity (i.e. velocity effecting time) rather than general relativity. Our brains are ill-equipped to picture the curvature of space-time, but we handle velocity and the speed of light much better.

Going backwards in time (to your previous reply to me) --

In other words, a wall clock, a digital clock, and a water clock will all be affected differently by the same change in gravity.

So? For every case we are capable of making adjustments to account for those changes in degree of effect.

Exactly. For each individual clock, a unique correction factor must be used because each clock is affected differently (even when they are subject to the same changing variable)

So .. lemme get this straight. Two atomic clocks supposedly measuring the relativistic difference between two gravity conditions must first be correlated to eliminate the individuality of their timekeeping ability?

No, you misunderstood me. I am saying that each clock, such as a water clock, or a mechanical clock would keep time differently under increased gravity -- but they are all off by their own unique measure. There is no predicting how much differently they would keep time because that would depend on how they were built and what sort of physical structure they had. This is contrasted to general / special relativity where every clock is off by the same measure under any given gravitational field or velocity.

This is not the case with relativity. Every clock is affected to the same degree.

Prove it. How can you test for the effect of gravity upon an atomic clock when you will not even admit that the observation of its effects has anything to do with gravity?

I already cited several papers in support of my position. Each clock is off according to the Lorentz curve, no matter which clock scientists chose to use. Again, this is exactly NOT what we would see if it were just a matter of gravity physically affecting the clocks. In that case we would expect each clock off by it's own measure, depending on the mechanism of the clock. Plotting out different clocks would result in a scatter plot, not the curve that the Lorentz transformation predicts.

Gravity has nothing to do with special relativity (to which I am clearly referring). The effect is still present even when gravity is accounted for, or in zero gravity situations.

There is no such thing as a zero gravity condition.

There is such thing as a net zero-gravity situation. Gravity is merely acceleration towards a massive body. That acceleration can be reduced to 0 by creating a situation in which there is net acceleration in the opposite direction. That's why our satellites don't fall to earth.

The "effect" you are talking about is the mathematical synchronisation of the two clocks which is done in order to preserve the universal constant as a universal constant.

No, that's not the "effect" I'm talking about. I'm talking about the dissynchrony of clocks at different velocities. Unless you've got a serious amount of physics under your belt, you have no idea what equations are even involved here, nor would you have the faintest idea how to manipulate them. I hardly thing you should be handing out lessons as to exactly what mathematics is involved and what is done in the equations.

Two different clocks will experience the exact same time dilating effects under the same conditions, regardless of their mechanism of action of the clocks. The lorentz transformation describes the degree in which all clocks will measure time at a given velocity, not just atomic clocks. This is demonstrated by the numerous studies calculating muon decay, pion lifetimes, kaon lifetimes, atomic resonance frequencies, as well as a number of other techniques which, despite the varying mechanism for keeping time, all show the changes in time plotted along the same lortenz curve. In other words, at the same velocities, two clocks operating by different mechanisms demonstrate the exact same change in time. This is in contrast to the clock examples you provided earlier, which are all simply reduced to a physical force acting on a mechanical clock thereby decreasing its accuracy.

Do you have a link to these numbers?

If I referenced the papers would you be able to look them up?

The invariance of the speed of light is a postulate on which special relativity rests, it isn't a product of special relativity. And anyways, isn't that something we can measure? We can find luminous objects in space we are moving away from at extremely high velocities. Why not just measure the speed of light incoming from those objects? And given modern technologies, can't we measure changes in the speed of light in the lab?

Sure. And don't those observations show that the speed of light can change? How is it that we tell whether a star is moving towards or away from us, again? I can show the speed of light changing given a glass of water.

Those observations show that the speed of light is absolutely constant in a vacuum (I had left vacuum out of my previous comment and took it that you understood that basic concept). We can tell whether a star is moving towards or away by its Doppler shift, the light is still reaching us at c. The speed of light changes appears to change within a glass of water because (a) its path is not straight and (b) there is some absorption and re-emission occurring. The speed of light in the vast empty void between the atoms in a glass of water remains, however, constant. So once again, do you believe that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum?

Do you think you think generations of brilliant physicists have neglected to consider your objections?

Maybe. So?

So your arrogance is astounding. Do you see a trend here? You believe you have more insight than most of the worlds biologists, geologists, and now physicists.

"Whirling around" what?

A particle accelerator, obviously.

The changes in speed and gravity will affect one particle and not the other. Those differences can be measured. Those differences can be measured on any two processes that are otherwise identical.

And in practical terms, how does that make a particle "live" longer and why is this exactly what is predicted (to less than a % accuracy) by the equations which mandate that time itself must change? Do give me some answers!

The differences will always be related (you call this a Lortenz curve, though I'm not sure why).

No, no it won't. If you take a wall clock with poorly made plastic gears and heavy arms, and then a water clock, and subject them to a new gravitational field, are you suggesting that both clocks will be off by the same factor?

Do you not agree that when we have a set of unexplained observations that it is far more scientific to use propoes one explanation rather than two?

Yes. However general relativity explains dozens of phenomena (and makes testable predictions about these dozens of phenomena which have been verified time and time again) which would otherwise be unexplainable by Newton's ideas of gravity. It does not just explain the "clocks", those are but one small part of general relativity.

 

[Stripe]

I just read your post and it's obvious you don't have the first clue about relativity. The sun is outside of both observer's inertial frames, and thus both observers will always agree on where the sun is. What they won't agree on is how long it took to get there, because they are experiencing time differently. So one observer might say "It took 24 hours for the sun to make a round trip!", while another might say "What? I only measured 4 hours!". (Obviously that time difference is grossly exaggerated for the sake of conversation)

That's because they're looking at different clocks affected by gravity. They disagree on the time their watches record, but they also have other references that indicate, very surely, that time is not affected. The sun as a common reference proves definitively that the two observers are intrinsically linked to the same time.

Dividing sections of the universe up into "inertial frames" has no meaning other than to section off the reading on one clock from the reading on another. This allows relativists to uphold the idea that time is running slower in one location. But the point is that these frames are unnecessary if one simply assumes that one clock is wrong.

I do understand why relativity has developed the way it has. I just see how it is irrelevant to the physical universe.

I already cited several papers in support of my position. Each clock is off according to the Lorentz curve, no matter which clock scientists chose to use. Again, this is exactly NOT what we would see if it were just a matter of gravity physically affecting the clocks. In that case we would expect each clock off by it's own measure, depending on the mechanism of the clock. Plotting out different clocks would result in a scatter plot, not the curve that the Lorentz transformation predicts.

Can you provide the numbers for this?

There is such thing as a net zero-gravity situation. Gravity is merely acceleration towards a massive body. That acceleration can be reduced to 0 by creating a situation in which there is net acceleration in the opposite direction. That's why our satellites don't fall to earth.

Doesn't help you test something in zero gravity to have it in balanced gravity. What evidence do you have that "net zero" and "zero" are the same thing to an atomic clock?

If I referenced the papers would you be able to look them up?

Probably not. :nono:

Those observations show that the speed of light is absolutely constant in a vacuum (I had left vacuum out of my previous comment and took it that you understood that basic concept). We can tell whether a star is moving towards or away by its Doppler shift, the light is still reaching us at c. The speed of light changes appears to change within a glass of water because (a) its path is not straight and (b) there is some absorption and re-emission occurring. The speed of light in the vast empty void between the atoms in a glass of water remains, however, constant. So once again, do you believe that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum?

That would be a mathematical constant. I can accept this "constant" speed of light as a standard against which to measure things.

So your arrogance is astounding. Do you see a trend here? You believe you have more insight than most of the worlds biologists, geologists, and now physicists.

I do? :idunno:

A particle accelerator, obviously.

Obviously

And in practical terms, how does that make a particle "live" longer and why is this exactly what is predicted (to less than a % accuracy) by the equations which mandate that time itself must change? Do give me some answers!

I do not know how gravity and velocity affect a particle to make it "tick" more slowly or quickly. But to make the observations and then to assume that velocity and gravity are affecting the particle is a far more reasonable step than to insist that relativity is doing it.

No, no it won't. If you take a wall clock with poorly made plastic gears and heavy arms, and then a water clock, and subject them to a new gravitational field, are you suggesting that both clocks will be off by the same factor?

No. But one will respond at a rate that can be predicted by the other. The two graphs they produce could be normalised in order to make them map on top of each other.

Yes. However general relativity explains dozens of phenomena (and makes testable predictions which have been verified time and time again) which would otherwise be unexplainable by Newton's ideas of gravity. It does not just explain the "clocks", those are but one small part of general relativity.

Assuming that gravity affects clocks rather than assuming relativity affects clocks would change a few terms in the equations, but none of the results, accuracy, predictability or usefulness.

 

[pozzolane]

For the record, it's much much easier to speak in terms of special relativity (i.e. velocity effecting time) rather than general relativity. Our brains are ill-equipped to picture the curvature of space-time...

Ill-equipped - very true! However, in Stripes and LH's case, their stubborn inability to even attempt to understand reminds me of my friend's dad's motto for home renovations. "Just use a bigger hammer".

They don't have the equipment to reason nor do they wish to identify what it is they are missing.

 

[pozzolane]

I believe that Lighthouse is substantially correct in the assertion that drew this response. What, specifically, is wrong with what he has posted?

I just used that one post. If you want more examples, read all of his other ones. What LH said was understandable for layman terminology. However, he's wishing to engage in a debate to debunk relativity while using loose terms and definitions. Stripe does the same so I extend the same comment to him too.

 

[dan1el]

However, he's wishing to engage in a debate to debunk relativity while using loose terms and definitions.

Don't forget his cell phone!

 

[pozzolane]

However, one question remains, how do you get a particle that isn't light to move at the speed of light?

ZOMG!!! Are you implying that this would be an impossible feat because mass would become infinite at that speed?...All the while trying to debunk that very same theory!?

Now if relativity was bunk (E =/= M*C²), then all you would have to do was send it (that particle) out into space with a compact, yet powerful, rocket or something. By my calculations, the speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s. At a modest rocket acceleration...let's guess 500 m/s² (a very modest assumption considering space is a vacuum, and the force required would be really small since the mass of this particle is small also). That would mean you would only have to get the rocket to burn for about 6.9 days. That might seem like a long time for a rocket, but I'm sure NASA could work something out.

 

[andrewh]

I just used that one post. If you want more examples, read all of his other ones. What LH said was understandable for layman terminology. However, he's wishing to engage in a debate to debunk relativity while using loose terms and definitions. Stripe does the same so I extend the same comment to him too.

I have read his other posts and indeed I do not agree with his position on the matter of relativity. My understanding, I think, is in line with yours and Johnny's - time is a physical quantity that indeed "speeds up and slows down". So I am agreeing that general relativity is saying that time itself is influenced by gravitational fields. Therefore when people say that gravity "slows down clocks" but not time itself, they are not accurately reflecting what the theory asserts.

 

[pozzolane]

I have read his other posts and indeed I do not agree with his position on the matter of relativity. My understanding, I think, is in line with yours and Johnny's - time is a physical quantity that indeed "speeds up and slows down". So I am agreeing that general relativity is saying that time itself is influenced by gravitational fields. Therefore when people say that gravity "slows down clocks" but not time itself, they are not accurately reflecting what the theory asserts.

It's not so much the disagreement in itself that I find vexing for both LH and Stripe. If they could show with reason, mathematics, and/or experiment that time is indeed not a physical quantity, subject to the laws of physics, and demonstrate relativity to be wrong, then by all means I would love to hear it/see it. It's that they think it acceptable to deny scientific achievement merely on the grounds of their own lack of understanding and or religious views. And in Stripes case, he throws a hissy fit when confronted and told he's not being scientific in his argumentation. As though he can change the definition at whim so he may wear his little badge of "arm-chair scientist".

Aside, I agree with you and Johnny. And a :thumb: to the both of you for your contributions in this talk.

 

[pozzolane]

Maybe. So?

So your arrogance is astounding. Do you see a trend here? You believe you have more insight than most of the worlds biologists, geologists, and now physicists.

And let's not forget that he's the worlds leading geotechnical engineering expert (specifically in underwater landslides, and unsaturated soil mechanics).

 

[pozzolane]

I do not know how gravity and velocity affect a particle to make it "tick" more slowly or quickly. But to make the observations and then to assume that velocity and gravity are affecting the particle is a far more reasonable step than to insist that relativity is doing it.

Just for Stripey

Special Relativity in 5 mins.

 

[eveningsky339]

ZOMG!!! Are you implying that this would be an impossible feat because mass would become infinite at that speed?...All the while trying to debunk that very same theory!?

Now if relativity was bunk (E =/= M*C²), then all you would have to do was send it (that particle) out into space with a compact, yet powerful, rocket or something. By my calculations, the speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s. At a modest rocket acceleration...let's guess 500 m/s² (a very modest assumption considering space is a vacuum, and the force required would be really small since the mass of this particle is small also). That would mean you would only have to get the rocket to burn for about 6.9 days. That might seem like a long time for a rocket, but I'm sure NASA could work something out.

NASA has built probes which burn for several days using ion engines. Considering their light weight and the incredible efficiency of an ion engine (at least compared to tons upon tons of LOX), the speed of light is attainable with today's technology.

 

[pozzolane]

NASA has built probes which burn for several days using ion engines. Considering their light weight and the incredible efficiency of an ion engine (at least compared to tons upon tons of LOX), the speed of light is attainable with today's technology.

:thumb:

There ya go LH. Get to it man! Conduct your experiment using the assumptions I laid out for you, and ES339's insight on rocket technology.

 

[Stripe]

...If they could show with reason, mathematics, and/or experiment that time is indeed not a physical quantity, subject to the laws of physics, and demonstrate relativity to be wrong...

1. A physical quantity is something that is real. I can show you ten apples, but I cannot show you ten seconds. The closest I can come is to watch a clock and count to demonstrate what we mean when we say ten seconds. If you think there is a thing called "Ten seconds" that people can collect and keep in jars then the burden of proof is on you.

2. I am not interested in showing that relativity is wrong. I am interested in showing that it is only a set of mathematical constructs that do not force a physical nature upon the universe.