Notices
Results 1 to 49 of 49
Like Tree4Likes
  • 1 Post By AlexG
  • 1 Post By KJW
  • 2 Post By KJW

Thread: The Hafele-Keating Experiments and Clock Rates

  1. #1 The Hafele-Keating Experiments and Clock Rates 
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    The Hafele-Keating Experiments whereby atomic clocks were and are carried about in jet aircraft show variable times on such clocks depending on how the clocks are carried about.

    In a lower gravity atomic clocks tick faster - the opposite to pendulum clocks which slow down when there is a lower gravitational pull present: e.g. a pendulum clock on the Moon would tick more slowly than on Earth whereas an atomic clock on the Moon would tick faster than on Earth.

    In the case of the Hafele-Keating Experiments there are two effects. One of the effects is merely due to the lower gravity experienced by being in a high-flying jet aircraft. This causes the clock rate to increase.

    When the aeroplanes fly eastward they are traveling in the direction of earth's motion relative to the cosmos (fixed stars). This causes the clock rate to decrease.

    When the aeroplanes fly westward they are traveling against the earth's own motion relative to the cosmos. This causes the clock rate to increase.

    With all three phenomena observed with atomic clocks, what we find is a physical effect of gravity and inertia upon atomic clocks themselves. If we took up accurate pendulum clocks instead we would find that they slow down in the lower gravity of the aircraft but increase in rate when the planes fly eastward and decrease in rate when the planes fly westward - though as the effect is slight it might be harder to detect given the cruder nature of pendulum clocks. What is clear however is that pendulum clocks behave in the opposite way to atomic clocks.

    Hence the change in clock rates are due SOLELY to the effects of physical forces (gravity and inertia) upon clocks and so in no way whatsoever constitute proof for general relativity (GR). Rather, the GR interpretation has been imposed from outside upon the data.

    Atomic clocks do NOT provide an 'absolute measure' of SR&GR's relative time but are merely physical measurements of time subject to physical forces.

    Time itself is separate from the matter and space within it i.e. time is objective, ontologically distinct from matter and space.

    Newton saw this with his 'absolute time' for only in this way can we make sense of the world without logical paradoxes. (A pity then for his concept of absolute space which defect proved the hook for Einstein to attach to!)

    TFOLZO
    Last edited by TFOLZO; 02-11-2014 at 08:53 AM. Reason: Example added
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Administrator SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    350
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    In a lower gravity atomic clocks tick faster - the opposite to pendulum clocks which slow down when there is a lower gravitational pull present: e.g. a pendulum clock on the Moon would tick more slowly than on Earth whereas an atomic clock on the Moon would tick faster than on Earth.
    A pendulum clock only maintains accurate timing if the local acceleration of gravity is taken into account when adjusting the length of the rod the weight is attached to. It is a gravity driven device in other words, so a pendulum clock won't work at all if it is in free-fall, for instance. I don't see why one would use a pendulum as an example for measuring time at all, as one cannot realistically measure proper time using a pendulum.


    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    If we took up accurate pendulum clocks instead we would find that they slow down in the lower gravity of the aircraft but increase in rate when the planes fly eastward and decrease in rate when the planes fly westward
    My bold - citation needed. Why exactly do you think the pendulum would increase in rate when flown east and decrease in rate when flown west? What is the mechanism you think would cause this to happen?

    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    What is clear however is that pendulum clocks behave in the opposite way to atomic clocks.
    And water-wheel clocks (another gravity driven device) work differently too. So do sun-dials!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Dear SpeedFreek,

    I have not replied as yet as I have misplaced my Physics Dictionary - to look up "proper time" since I don't want to mislead you and frustrate everybody by using terminology in the wrong way. I hope you'll understand.

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Administrator SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    350
    Understanding the meaning of proper time is fundamental to the understanding of Special and General Relativity. For someone to come to a physics forum shouting out to everyone how they can show both SR and GR to be wrong, it is absolutely incredible to me that you do not already have an innate knowledge of the meaning of proper time. Surely you need a complete understanding of the theory you are arguing against, in order to remain credible?

    Your references to pendulum clocks in this thread severely undermine your credibility.

    Anyway, aside from any issues with measuring proper time, you still haven't answered as to why you think a pendulum clock would increase in rate when flown east and decrease in rate when flown west. What leads you to this particular conclusion?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Notions like "proper time" are weasel words invented to hide the fact...
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Understanding the meaning of proper time is fundamental to the understanding of Special and General Relativity. For someone to come to a physics forum shouting out to everyone how they can show both SR and GR to be wrong, it is absolutely incredible to me that you do not already have an innate knowledge of the meaning of proper time. Surely you need a complete understanding of the theory you are arguing against, in order to remain credible?

    Your references to pendulum clocks in this thread severely undermine your credibility.

    Anyway, aside from any issues with measuring proper time, you still haven't answered as to why you think a pendulum clock would increase in rate when flown east and decrease in rate when flown west. What leads you to this particular conclusion?
    ...that SR & GR lead inevitably to logical paradoxes.

    Pendulum clocks were all there were when Einstein concocted SR. That atomic clocks provide "proper time" whereas pendulum clocks do not is one more hidden prejudice of Einstein's that I have revealed here on this website.

    My McGraw-Hill Dictionary defined proper time as "the time measured by an ideal clock that is carried along with a specified particle and is based on the invariant timelike spacetime intervals between points along the particle's trajectory."

    However, there is no such thing as an ideal clock - not even the earth's rotation - hence the notion of "proper time" is an abstraction to hide the subjectivity of time characteristic of SR, an abstraction required to grant SR a scientific status that this otherwise subjectivist theory would not possess.

    All forms of clocks attempt to measure time, some better than others, but all the term "proper time" hides is the fact that in SR you only have subjective times because with SR time is subject to motion, hence "proper time" means the setting up of prejudicial fictions e.g. that only atomic clocks measure the true time.

    The reason for the pendulum clock to increase in rate flying eastward is that the gravity of the earth is augmented by the centrifugal force increase of traveling eastward, though I doubt that this has yet been shown. The mere fact that atomic clocks show an increase in rate when flying westward implies that pendulum clocks in a westward flight would slow down.

    The pendulum clock effect of flying eastward would be better demonstrated in rocket-ships taking off eastward and westward from earth, but unfortunately the shaking involved in departing the earth's atmosphere would tend to swamp the effect entirely since pendulum clocks are crude compared to atomic clocks.

    IOW there is no reason whatsoever to presume that atomic clocks somehow provide a sacrosanct measure of time. The Hafele-Keating experiments merely show that gravity and centrifugal force have effects upon clocks, THE EFFECT VARYING DEPENDING ON THE TYPE OF CLOCK. The forces and the motion and the type of clock however do not affect time itself which, rather, merely continues to flow uniformly and universally as Isaac Newton well understood. No justification exists for altering Newton's insight - and certainly not Einstein's paradox-generating SR-BS!

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Administrator SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    350
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    ...that SR & GR lead inevitably to logical paradoxes.
    I am unaware of any logical paradoxes in SR or GR. Care to elucidate?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    The separated travelled twins paradox.
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    I am unaware of any logical paradoxes in SR or GR. Care to elucidate?
    Two twins, the same age, are separated in that one stays on earth. The other travels around in a very fast spaceship near the speed of light (relative to earth which is "at rest"). After say 60 earth-years the travelled twin returns to earth. Whereas the earth-twin is now 60+ years old, the travelled twin is say still only 10 years old. The SR-based "reason" or 'cause' (?) for this is time dilation i.e. "the faster one travels the more time slows down."

    Now that may be very surprising but it is NOT the logical paradox. The logical paradox emerges when we consider the POV of the travelled twin!

    The travelled twin and those in the spaceship with him/her can consider themselves "at rest" while the earth is moving fast relative to the spaceship twin. Hence when the spaceship and earth meet up once more, we will have instead a 60+ year old spaceship twin meeting a 10 year old earthbound twin.

    The logical paradox is that the two situations are mutually incompatible and impossible i.e. a younger spaceship twin confronting an older earthbound twin versus an older spaceship twin confronting a younger spaceship twin - a physical impossibility unless you invoke Hugh Everett's Parallel-&-Daughter Universe theories.

    What is clear however is that SR's scenario and explanation is a con-job. Whichever twin is considered "at rest" automatically becomes the older of the two twins. The term "at rest" however merely invokes Einstein's "stationary system" from OEMBS, the absolute reference frame (ARF) = stagnant ether of Lorentz = Newton's absolute space.

    This is why SR is complete and utter BS and should be discarded from science altogether! Thank you for giving me this opportunity for demonstrating this, SpeedFreek!

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Senior Member MaxPayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    India
    Posts
    236
    When the 'spaceshipped' twin comes back he ll have to decelerate, and thus he will lose all the saved up time.
    Can this time contraction really happen? when you travel "slower and slower" with respect to your initial velocity, the reverse of time dilation could happen.
    At least this would ensure that we are still time bound.

    If this was the case the accelerated atomic clock would have automatically corrected itself to match it's earth surface counterpart upon landing. I don't think it ever happened.
    ┻━┻ ︵ヽ(`┤)ノ︵ ┻━┻
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Aaaah, that's an old trick you mention Max.
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxPayne View Post
    When the 'spaceshipped' twin comes back he ll have to decelerate, and thus he will lose all the saved up time.
    Can this time contraction really happen? when you travel "slower and slower" with respect to your initial velocity, the reverse of time dilation could happen.
    At least this would ensure that we are still time bound.

    If this was the case the accelerated atomic clock would have automatically corrected itself to match it's earth surface counterpart upon landing. I don't think it ever happened.
    The deceleration and acceleration are supposed to cause dilation in the manner of GR, whereas SR-induced time dilation is proportional only to the velocity. Since the length of the journey - and the time spent at a constant velocity - is independent of the actual velocity attained, and thus the effect of acceleration & deceleration-induced time dilation, the final deceleration will not reverse the SR-induced time dilation.

    Einstein in contrast tries to avoid the issue in his Naturwissenschaft article.

    Your suspicion is correct however Max. None of the alleged time dilations or 'corrections' occur in the physically real world.

    TFOLZO
    Last edited by TFOLZO; 02-16-2014 at 01:14 PM. Reason: Emphasize crucial point; bad grammar
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Senior Member MaxPayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    India
    Posts
    236
    Hi, tSOLzo

    * From the space twins point of view the earthly twin is moving faster through space, but it's just an illusion caused by assumption that a) he is at rest
    b) space is empty

    * Aren't we all moving relative to space even we are at "rest" on earth? The earth is moving through space but at a much slower pace than the spaceship. The time saved by the space twin is the difference between the time dilation caused by these two motion. Don't you think?
    ┻━┻ ︵ヽ(`┤)ノ︵ ┻━┻
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #11  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Good questions, Max!
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxPayne View Post
    Hi, tSOLzo

    1)* From the space twins point of view the earthly twin is moving faster through space, but it just an illusion caused by assumption that a) he is at rest
    b) space is empty

    2)* Aren't we all moving relative to space even we are at "rest" on earth? The earth is moving through space but at a much slower pace than the spaceship. The time saved by the space twin is the difference between the time dilation caused by these two motion. Don't you think?
    1) All we have is relative motion between the twins. The phrase "motion relative to space" is merely an abstraction hiding the meaning "motion relative to various objects conceived of as being mutually approximately at rest" - such as when I travel in a train past various houses, suburbs, bridges and variously moving cars.

    2) Hence the phrase "moving relative to space" is merely a metaphor since space itself is not matter, so that our motion is merely RELATIVE to other objects. If one conceives of space as a thing, relative to which something can move, then one falls into the idea of absolute space/absolute rest. Space offers no resting frame, whether linearly or rotationally. Newton's claim otherwise was his great error. Galileo did not make this error. In contrast, your average Einsteinian, or even better-than-average like Cincirob, is yet to understand what the issue is all about.

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #12  
    Senior Member MaxPayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    India
    Posts
    236
    If one conceives of space as a thing, relative to which something can move, then one falls into the idea of absolute space/absolute rest.
    Yes, that's very true.
    My line is thought was this, (Please me where I had gone wrong with it)
    To my best knowledge space is thought to have Higgs filed giving mass to every body moving slower than light.
    * Every body moves through this field hence we can assume that it is moving relative to Higgs field.
    * I think if we can stop moving relative to this field, we will not acquire any mass.????
    *Since there is a field there should be particles that convey's it. I could say that we are moving relative to these particles at least.
    Can't I?
    ┻━┻ ︵ヽ(`┤)ノ︵ ┻━┻
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #13  
    Administrator SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    350
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    Two twins, the same age, are separated in that one stays on earth. The other travels around in a very fast spaceship near the speed of light (relative to earth which is "at rest"). After say 60 earth-years the travelled twin returns to earth. Whereas the earth-twin is now 60+ years old, the travelled twin is say still only 10 years old. The SR-based "reason" or 'cause' (?) for this is time dilation i.e. "the faster one travels the more time slows down."

    Now that may be very surprising but it is NOT the logical paradox. The logical paradox emerges when we consider the POV of the travelled twin!

    The travelled twin and those in the spaceship with him/her can consider themselves "at rest" while the earth is moving fast relative to the spaceship twin. Hence when the spaceship and earth meet up once more, we will have instead a 60+ year old spaceship twin meeting a 10 year old earthbound twin.

    The logical paradox is that the two situations are mutually incompatible and impossible i.e. a younger spaceship twin confronting an older earthbound twin versus an older spaceship twin confronting a younger spaceship twin - a physical impossibility unless you invoke Hugh Everett's Parallel-&-Daughter Universe theories.

    What is clear however is that SR's scenario and explanation is a con-job. Whichever twin is considered "at rest" automatically becomes the older of the two twins. The term "at rest" however merely invokes Einstein's "stationary system" from OEMBS, the absolute reference frame (ARF) = stagnant ether of Lorentz = Newton's absolute space.

    This is why SR is complete and utter BS and should be discarded from science altogether! Thank you for giving me this opportunity for demonstrating this, SpeedFreek!

    TFOLZO
    No, this is why misguided and uninformed people come to forums like this and spout complete and utter BS which should be discarded. The experimental evidence for SR is overwhelming. We confirm time-dilation millions of times every day with the GPS system (which is very accurate and only works properly because it uses both SR and GR in its calculations), experiments on decay times in particle accelerators, experiments with the decay times of muons in the lab compared to the decay times of relativistic muons created in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays etc etc. Time dilation exists as predicted by SR, period.

    In the scenario you laid out above, somebody changed their frame of reference. Somebody went from not moving to moving AND THEY DID SOMETHING TO ACHIEVE THIS. What they did was to break the symmetry of the situation. The changed their frame of reference which means they know they cannot consider themselves to be the one that is "at rest". We have the travelling twin, who turned on his engines and blasted off into space, and we have the people of Earth, who.... did nothing.

    Is THAT what you are basing your objections to SR upon?! A lack of understanding of how the symmetry of a situation is broken?! Really?

    The twins paradox is only a paradox if you think someone blasting off in a spaceship and leaving Earth can consider themselves to be "at rest". Ludicrous.

    The paradox arises from incorrectly assuming an inertial frame whilst measuring the proper time on a clock that has changed its frame of reference. You are measuring the proper time on a clock that changed frame of reference and thus did not remain in the same frame of reference (unlike the people of Earth) throughout the experiment. Do it properly, understand where the asymmetry arises, and there is no paradoxical situation.

    Next...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #14  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    No, this is why misguided and uninformed people come to forums like this and spout complete and utter BS which should be discarded. The experimental evidence for SR is overwhelming.
    All evidence claimed in support of SR is massaged data, doctored to make it appear that SR is correct. There is no experimental evidence for length contraction and certainly none whatsoever for time dilation (whatever stupid muon decay papers may say).

    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    We confirm time-dilation millions of times every day with the GPS system (which is very accurate and only works properly because it uses both SR and GR in its calculations), experiments on decay times in particle accelerators, experiments with the decay times of muons in the lab compared to the decay times of relativistic muons created in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays etc etc. Time dilation exists as predicted by SR, period.
    Rubbish. The GPS system works by the Doppler Effect and clocks in space, clocks subject to inertial forces there (though only slight compared to gravity but they do alter clock rates). The muon-decay times are falsified because the path allowed for decay (in the atmosphere generated muon tests) is shorter for the high-altitude path i.e. not enough time is allowed for the muons to decay properly. I.e. the comparison is biased so that the 'explanation' is manufactured to be SR.

    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    In the scenario you laid out above, somebody changed their frame of reference. Somebody went from not moving to moving AND THEY DID SOMETHING TO ACHIEVE THIS. What they did was to break the symmetry of the situation. The changed their frame of reference which means they know they cannot consider themselves to be the one that is "at rest". We have the travelling twin, who turned on his engines and blasted off into space, and we have the people of Earth, who.... did nothing.
    What 'symmetry' you are writing of there is the supposed effect of time dilation due to GR (i.e. acceleration/deceleration/inertia). This is IRRELEVANT because the SR-induced time dilation is proportional to velocity and the length of time traveling in space. The supposed GR-effects cannot and do not cancel it out.

    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Is THAT what you are basing your objections to SR upon?! A lack of understanding of how the symmetry of a situation is broken?! Really?

    The twins paradox is only a paradox if you think someone blasting off in a spaceship and leaving Earth can consider themselves to be "at rest". Ludicrous.
    False! Because if there is no "at rest", no "stationary system" then time dilation does not occur because there is no zero reference point to begin with. This is the very heart of the paradox - that time dilation is nonsense because there is NO "at rest"!

    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    The paradox arises from incorrectly assuming an inertial frame whilst measuring the proper time on a clock that has changed its frame of reference. You are measuring the proper time on a clock that changed frame of reference and thus did not remain in the same frame of reference (unlike the people of Earth) throughout the experiment. Do it properly, understand where the asymmetry arises, and there is no paradoxical situation.

    Next...
    Einstein required the "at rest" (stationary system) in order to concoct his nonsensical theories. If there is no "at rest" there is no TD&LC therefore no SR either. Galilean Relativity rules, whatever blather-&-spam (BS) answers you try to throw at it! "Proper time" is an artificial construct involving an "ideal clock" which behaves only the way Einstein's wants it to, i.e. in a fantasy-world - instead of like a real clock which is meant to measure absolute time, however imperfectly.

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #15  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    The separated travelled twins paradox.
    Two twins, the same age, are separated in that one stays on earth. The other travels around in a very fast spaceship near the speed of light (relative to earth which is "at rest"). After say 60 earth-years the travelled twin returns to earth. Whereas the earth-twin is now 60+ years old, the travelled twin is say still only 10 years old. The SR-based "reason" or 'cause' (?) for this is time dilation i.e. "the faster one travels the more time slows down."

    Now that may be very surprising but it is NOT the logical paradox. The logical paradox emerges when we consider the POV of the travelled twin!

    The travelled twin and those in the spaceship with him/her can consider themselves "at rest" while the earth is moving fast relative to the spaceship twin. Hence when the spaceship and earth meet up once more, we will have instead a 60+ year old spaceship twin meeting a 10 year old earthbound twin.
    Is that the best you've got?

    Using your reasoning, I can set up the "Garden Path Paradox". Consider two paths between a bench seat and a duck pond. One path is straight and the other path detours via the children's play equipment. Walking along the straight path, one sees the other path at an increasing distance which eventually decreases until the two paths meet. Walking along the other path, one also sees the straight path at an increasing distance which eventually decreases until the two paths meet. The distance between the two paths is symmetric with respect to the whichever path is chosen, yet the length of the two paths are different.
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #16  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Is this duck-walk your only reply????
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Is that the best you've got?

    Using your reasoning, I can set up the "Garden Path Paradox". Consider two paths between a bench seat and a duck pond. One path is straight and the other path detours via the children's play equipment. Walking along the straight path, one sees the other path at an increasing distance which eventually decreases until the two paths meet. Walking along the other path, one also sees the straight path at an increasing distance which eventually decreases until the two paths meet. The distance between the two paths is symmetric with respect to the whichever path is chosen, yet the length of the two paths are different.
    Your simplistic analogy ignores the vital issues of TD&LC. It is TD&LC that create the logical paradoxes of SR. In this case we are dealing with TD - proof for which concept exists only in manufactured evidence.

    Before leading me (along with yourself) up the garden path, you need to go back to first principles and see that the derivation of SR is untenable and corrupt - and ignores the Doppler Effect right where it should be applied.

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #17  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    It is TD&LC that create the logical paradoxes of SR.
    No it doesn't. I put forward the three-dimensional version of the four-dimensional twin-clock "paradox", and the resolution is the same. One path is straight while the other path is curved and this explains the different lengths. And though I didn't mention it, I can construct three-dimensional versions of length contraction and time dilation and show that these are not paradoxical. The key is that we are dealing with four-dimensional spacetime, and this has a geometry.
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #18  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    This "key" that you talk glibly about...
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    No it doesn't. I put forward the three-dimensional version of the four-dimensional twin-clock "paradox", and the resolution is the same. One path is straight while the other path is curved and this explains the different lengths. And though I didn't mention it, I can construct three-dimensional versions of length contraction and time dilation and show that these are not paradoxical. The key is that we are dealing with four-dimensional spacetime, and this has a geometry.
    ...is merely a mathematical concoction derived from SR. It explains nothing - though it can be used in an ad hoc way to "even up" the times experienced by our two separated twins in order to hide the logical paradox and deceive the na´ve!

    If you want to convince me to think in 4-D spacetime you have to go back to the roots of SR and justify every step of Einstein's argument. For example, Einstein invokes a stationary system in his argument - yet claims that his SR theory does not require "absolutely stationary space." You cannot have it both ways - and cannot base yourself on claiming the existence of a stationary system (absolute rest) then suddenly discarding it when it no longer suits you - bringing it back yet again when facing another critic in a different situation. IOW, SR is not a scientific theory but a self-deluding contrived philosophical patch-up job - a religion for atheists in that it is held to tenaciously like religious beliefs in the face of clear evidence to the contrary!

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #19  
    Senior Member AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    161
    All evidence claimed in support of SR is massaged data, doctored to make it appear that SR is correct. There is no experimental evidence for length contraction and certainly none whatsoever for time dilation (whatever stupid muon decay papers may say).
    Nonsense. Just another relativity denier with no knowledge of physics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #20  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    IOW you haven't looked.
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Nonsense. Just another relativity denier with no knowledge of physics.
    You have either accepted it blindly from secondary/tertiary education or you one of those mathematics types that cling to it religiously. Genuine physics gives quite other answers - and some of these you will see emerge here in the Personal/Alternatives section.

    They will win because they are practical. SR is only "practical" if by that word one means the ability to manipulate people into confusion and passivity.

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #21  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    If you want to convince me to think in 4-D spacetime you have to go back to the roots of SR and justify every step of Einstein's argument.
    Why? The existence of the four dimensions of space and time is evident to all and doesn't require relativity. The only thing that relativity adds is the geometry. If three-dimensional space has a geometry, then why not four-dimensional spacetime? Maxwell's equations, which were obtained before relativity, imply the geometry of Minkowskian spacetime. Indeed, Lorentz transformations were derived on the basis of the invariance of Maxwell's equations.
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #22  
    Administrator SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    350
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    You have either accepted it blindly from secondary/tertiary education or you one of those mathematics types that cling to it religiously. Genuine physics gives quite other answers
    No, genuine physics experiments confirm the predictions of SR and GR. The atomic clocks in the Hafele-Keating experiment gained and lost time in the way predicted by SR and GR. The GPS satellite clock gains time in the way predicted by SR and GR. The muons created in the upper atmosphere take longer to decay than muons in the lab due to their relativistic speeds as predicted by SR. The same is true for ALL experiments performed in particle accelerators - they confirm the predictions of Special Relativity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #23  
    Senior Member AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    161
    You have either accepted it blindly from secondary/tertiary education or you one of those mathematics types that cling to it religiously
    Ah, yes, the curse of education. Dropped out of high school did you? It's so much easier to be a nutcase if you don't know anything.
    Jilan likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #24  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    You were trying to convince me of "4-D spacetime" KJW - but now you resort to doublethink!
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Why? The existence of the four dimensions of space and time is evident to all and doesn't require relativity. The only thing that relativity adds is the geometry. If three-dimensional space has a geometry, then why not four-dimensional spacetime? Maxwell's equations, which were obtained before relativity, imply the geometry of Minkowskian spacetime. Indeed, Lorentz transformations were derived on the basis of the invariance of Maxwell's equations.
    Three dimensions of space and one dimension of time are the conditions of our existence. They are NOT identical with 4-D spacetime by any stretch of the imagination. Spacetime is the artificial construct of Minkowski & Einstein whereby the two are "melded together", often with matter as well to make "spacetime-matter." These concepts are artificial - and this includes the "geometry of Minkowskian spacetime."

    Geometry applies to space only NOT TO TIME WHICH MERELY 'FLOWS' FORWARD. To apply geometry to spacetime is an SR-based baloney procedure unjustified by genuine science.

    Maxwell's equations do not imply Minkowskian spacetime. They work correctly in ordinary space and time. Where they are inadequate is in explaining the Doppler Effect. This is why Woldemar Voigt came up with his Doppler Equations applied to a crystal ether medium. Lorentz hijacked Voigt's Doppler equation to create the LTs. Voigt's Doppler Equations are correct - since they refer to light, not to space and time - and it is here where the correct answer to Einstein's SR-posturing is found. Light has a more complicated structure than seen hitherto in that any photon can potentially be detected at all possible wavelengths - a fact that you Einstein-preachers ignore at your peril since it is the secret behind the observation of light by observers at different speeds, not SR!

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #25  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    All experiments claimed to prove SR & GR are misinterpreted and twisted in order to support those theories. You want proof?
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    No, genuine physics experiments confirm the predictions of SR and GR. The atomic clocks in the Hafele-Keating experiment gained and lost time in the way predicted by SR and GR. The GPS satellite clock gains time in the way predicted by SR and GR. The muons created in the upper atmosphere take longer to decay than muons in the lab due to their relativistic speeds as predicted by SR. The same is true for ALL experiments performed in particle accelerators - they confirm the predictions of Special Relativity.
    In order to prove his nonsensical theories Einstein misinterpreted genuine discoveries in ways that favoured his own prejudices. The most notable example here is the Experiment of Fizeau. Einstein replaced Fizeau's experimentally-derived equations with his own BS-procedure, the latter alone leading to equations that never yield a result faster than light. Not so for Fizeau's own equations. I will have to post specifically on it, even though on a former website your genius+ colleague Cincirob was unable to justify Einstein's perverse procedure of replacing Fizeau's equations with his own "equivalent".

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #26  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    Three dimensions of space and one dimension of time are the conditions of our existence. They are NOT identical with 4-D spacetime by any stretch of the imagination.
    If you disregard the geometry, they actually are identical. Apart from the geometry, how is "three dimensions of space and one dimension of time" any different from four-dimensional spacetime? In particular, if you were mathematically describing a field that varies over space and time, how would the descriptions differ? In other words, in what way do the two viewpoints objectively differ?


    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    Spacetime is the artificial construct of Minkowski & Einstein whereby the two are "melded together"
    What Einstein and in particular Minkowski did was give spacetime a geometry. This made distances in space comparable to distances in time, thus providing a true unification between space and time.


    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    These concepts are artificial
    It's not artificial because it is physically measurable.


    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    Maxwell's equations do not imply Minkowskian spacetime.
    It does. The invariance to Lorentz tranformations implies Minkowskian geometry.


    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    Where they are inadequate is in explaining the Doppler Effect
    Relativity explains the Doppler effect.
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #27  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    One cannot disregard the geometry since the difference between 3-D space & 1-D time versus 4-D spacetime is FUNDAMENTAL
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    If you disregard the geometry, they actually are identical. Apart from the geometry, how is "three dimensions of space and one dimension of time" any different from four-dimensional spacetime? In particular, if you were mathematically describing a field that varies over space and time, how would the descriptions differ? In other words, in what way do the two viewpoints objectively differ?
    They differ fundamentally in that space and time are ontologically distinct. Space and time are not combined, their measures are entirely separate. Matter again is ontologically separate from both of them.

    So what is the relationship between them? It is indirect, 'prepositional' as it were.

    Matter moves in space which in turn is in time.

    Einstein flatly denies that by having matter control space & time and even having space-&-time control the movement of matter. Einstein's is a circular reasoning.

    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    What Einstein and in particular Minkowski did was give spacetime a geometry. This made distances in space comparable to distances in time, thus providing a true unification between space and time.
    This 'unification' is merely mathematical and is physically meaningless. Distances in space are entirely distinct from distances in time.

    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    It's not artificial because it is physically measurable.
    No, because no one physically measures spacetime. Rather, the spacetime 'distances' are calculated from manipulating various temporal and spatial observations according to the recipes of SR.

    Maxwell's equations cannot be blamed for SR and do not imply spacetime. Their ambiguity on the deeper nature of light hides something very different (next quote edited for clarity).
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    It does [...imply spacetime! (TFOLZO EDIT)]. The invariance to Lorentz tranformations implies Minkowskian geometry.
    Lorentz invariance merely means the invariance of law at the expense of the invariance of truth. It leads to ridiculous situations like clock A faster than clock B according to observer A, and clock B faster than clock A according to observer B, along with relativity-preaching wackos who claim that both of the two mutually-exclusive situations are to be found in our actual physical world!

    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Relativity explains the Doppler effect.
    Now you're starting to get nearer something important. In OEMBS, the Doppler Effect is subject to mathematical maltreatment at the end. When we consider mutually-moving observers observing a common light source (as found in OEMBS & RSGT) we have to consider the Doppler Effect there and then rather than ignore it where it is required, and then instead subjugate it to mathematics 10 pages later!

    As you will see, the Doppler Effect hides a hitherto-undiscovered quantum phenomenon - one that also solves the mystery of the 'arrow of time'!

    TFOLZO
    Last edited by TFOLZO; 02-17-2014 at 11:58 AM. Reason: edited to clarify KJW's words
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #28  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    One cannot disregard the geometry since the difference between 3-D space & 1-D time versus 4-D spacetime is FUNDAMENTAL
    I meant disregarding geometry in order to see that both have the same topology.


    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    They differ fundamentally in that space and time are ontologically distinct. Space and time are not combined, their measures are entirely separate.
    But if someone moves relative to me, then their motion in both space and time represents a combination of both that can't be avoided. If that moving observer carries a clock with them, then they are measuring a distance between points that are separated in both space and time. It is the speed of light in a vacuum that is the scaling factor between units of time and units of length.

    How does the ontological distinction manifest itself objectively? How can you say that this is fundamental and not simply perceptual. How does the one represent the ontological distinction mathematically? If I have a scalar field that varies over space and time, then I would represent this as . The variable is on equal footing with the variables.


    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    No, because no one physically measures spacetime. Rather, the spacetime 'distances' are calculated from manipulating various temporal and spatial observations according to the recipes of SR.
    A moving clock or ruler is a physical measurement of spacetime distances.


    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    Lorentz invariance merely means the invariance of law
    Lorentz invariance means the invariance of the hyperbolic quadratic form: . This very much implies a Minkowskian metric.


    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    It leads to ridiculous situations like clock A faster than clock B according to observer A, and clock B faster than clock A according to observer B, along with relativity-preaching wackos who claim that both of the two mutually-exclusive situations are to be found in our actual physical world!
    They are not mutually exclusive because different pairs of time intervals are being compared. But you only get to see that they are different pairs by considering the observations in spacetime.


    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    the Doppler Effect hides a hitherto-undiscovered quantum phenomenon
    I don't think so. It is just a consequence of time dilation combined with the time it takes light to travel the change in distance.
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #29  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    I meant disregarding geometry in order to see that both have the same topology.
    If 4-D spacetime and 3-D space & 1-D time have the same topology then topology is a trivial measure of the situation.

    Well when objects move they have to move in space and time!

    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    But if someone moves relative to me, then their motion in both space and time represents a combination of both that can't be avoided. If that moving observer carries a clock with them, then they are measuring a distance between points that are separated in both space and time. It is the speed of light in a vacuum that is the scaling factor between units of time and units of length.
    The speed of light is NOT the scaling factor; you may as well use sound if you are in the earth's atmosphere. If the speed of light were different from its present value, it would not change space and time themselves though the labels given to units of them would certainly vary.

    The point is, as Friedrich Engels said, to measure something you need something different from the thing to be measured. If space and time just reduce to one 'thing' (ultimately matter itself according to 'el cheapo' modern materialist philosophy) then there is NO difference. For example: this is what the three knuckleheads on the Relativistic Rolling Wheel don't understand - they have lost the difference between space and time so cannot conceive of how to measure the rolling wheel in a satisfactory way. They may regularly turn each other into 'intellectual roadkill' but no one can win that debate because there are no objective standards for judgment.

    The ontological distinction of space and time rests upon the fact that space and time, as well as matter, exist objectively.

    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    How does the ontological distinction manifest itself objectively? How can you say that this is fundamental and not simply perceptual. How does the one represent the ontological distinction mathematically? If I have a scalar field that varies over space and time, then I would represent this as . The variable is on equal footing with the variables.
    IOW objectivity (as opposed to Popperian 'intersubjectivity' e.g. Jesus is true & real because most of 'us' believe it) is a primary not a derivative attribute, hence time and space each possess objectivity in itself. It is not a mere perception of a human since it is necessary in order to properly understand the world. Children have a na´ve realist philosophy - based on mere perception of course - but it takes reflection on things as one grows older to understand that time and space have a 'reality' independent of matter e.g. that vacuum exists and that during sleep one loses consciousness of the passage of time.

    Even children have to theorize to understand the world. In contrast, making up theories that can only lead to logical paradoxes does not advance understanding.

    Lorentz invariance for example is a grave misconception of nature. Time is not 'equated' to space by multiplying by the square root of minus one! This is a mere mathematical trick - confusing appearance with substance - a mere '4-D' extrapolation of Pythagoras' Theorem!

    This is why modern physics is hamstrung - it thinks it can reduce the physical world to mathematics then make calculations that predict nonsensical paradoxical outcomes, then call it a great discovery!

    TFOLZO
    Last edited by TFOLZO; 02-17-2014 at 03:04 PM. Reason: Confused layout
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #30  
    Administrator SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    350
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    All experiments claimed to prove SR & GR are misinterpreted and twisted in order to support those theories. You want proof?

    In order to prove his nonsensical theories Einstein misinterpreted genuine discoveries in ways that favoured his own prejudices. The most notable example here is the Experiment of Fizeau. Einstein replaced Fizeau's experimentally-derived equations with his own BS-procedure, the latter alone leading to equations that never yield a result faster than light. Not so for Fizeau's own equations. I will have to post specifically on it, even though on a former website your genius+ colleague Cincirob was unable to justify Einstein's perverse procedure of replacing Fizeau's equations with his own "equivalent".

    TFOLZO
    That is NOT proof that the results of the experiments I mentioned (all of which have occured after Einstein's death) are misinterpreted in order to support SR and GR,

    Yes, I want proof that the results of the experiments I mentioned have been misinterpreted and twisted in order to support SR and GR. Go ahead and provide some, please.

    I want proof that the results of the Hafele-Keating experiment (and the repeated performances of this experiment since), all of which were consistent with the predictions of SR and GR, were misinterpreted and twisted in order to support SR and GR.

    I want proof that our experiments concerning relativistic muons created in the upper atmosphere, which conclude they have decay times consistent with the time-dilation predicted by SR (because they manage to reach the ground) when compared to the decay times of non-relativistic muons in the lab (which have decay times too short for them to reach the ground from the upper atmosphere when at relativistic speed), have been misinterpreted and twisted in order to support SR. Your previous explanation was too vague to make any sense. Please elucidate further.

    I want proof that taking into account the predictions of SR and GR for a GPS satellite orbit, and adjusting the on-board clock on the satellite to take this into account before sending it into orbit (which is what we did), in order for the GPS system to be accurate without having to perform those adjustments in each GPS device on Earth in order to avoid the GPS system losing accuracy by around 20km a day, is being misinterpreted or twisted to support SR and GR.

    Moderator note: Do not continue making statements that physicists are misinterpreting and twisting the results of their experiments to fit SR and GR, until you have addressed these points in detail.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #31  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Long Island, New York
    Posts
    55
    Here is an atomic clock from way back.



    I am sure you can mess with the rate of atomic clocks rather easily. Part of the reason is that certain experiments cannot be performed here no earth at all ever, because of the temperatures, and rays that permeate the planet. The natural ambient radiation of the planet forbid them.

    When you move the clock to a different place, or solar flares pop up, you are going get some strange results.

    You need at least three walls of steel with space (air) between each wall, or the equivalent, to block magnetic fields. Even weak magnetic fields.


    Sincerely,

    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #32  
    Administrator SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    350
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick Jr. View Post
    When you move the clock to a different place, or solar flares pop up, you are going get some strange results.
    Well it's funny how the 4 (modern - 2 rubidium and 2 caesium) atomic clocks on each of the 24 GPS satellites act strangely in exactly the way predicted by both SR and GR.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #33  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Long Island, New York
    Posts
    55
    I personally believe that the guys at RCA were getting to big for the universe. To claim the clock is more accurate then the stars is to presume that the internal workings of atom are superior to their surroundings. Almost like saying a child teaches his parents, or rules his parents. I am sure it is the other way around. It was quickly found that the atomic clock had quarks.


    Sincerely,

    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #34  
    Administrator SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    350
    And yet we have rigorously tested modern caesium clocks and evaluated them to be accurate to within less than a second every 138 million years.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #35  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Long Island, New York
    Posts
    55
    Einstein's experiments and predictions whether right or wrong. Can be easily proven, to be measuring the wrong phenomena on occasion.

    Ratios are amazing. Once you find the right ratios by experimentation, you can easily create a formula that will give you the right answers. Science was never about prediction, other then for fun or boasting. Science is about seeing what is right there in front of you. That means you have to go there and see it. That may be why we do not have science or a real space program anymore.

    Einstein and Steinmetz were mathematicians theorists. They looked at what was there and made some very cool formulas to calculate ratios. Be warned they are not always accurate or all seeing of the future. Because as I have mentioned they often are just mathematical ratios that have fit passed experiments.



    When light passes by large bodies in the universe it is going to bend the light or refract the light. Because of the varying density of the gases near these bodies. This would be the formula you would want to work out. The problem is that you have to take into consideration, temperature, atmospheric makeup, density of the gas, and anything else that might cause light to refract. Einstein's formula will get you in the ball park.


    Sincerely,

    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #36  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Long Island, New York
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    And yet we have rigorously tested modern caesium clocks and evaluated them to be accurate to within less than a second every 138 million years.
    To say that they are accurate to a second every 138 million years is not a scientific statement. What are you checking them with, the stars? A pendulum clock? Another atomic clock? This is my argument with modern science.


    Sincerely,

    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #37  
    Administrator SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    350
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick Jr. View Post
    To say that they are accurate to a second every 138 million years is not a scientific statement. What are you checking them with, the stars? A pendulum clock? Another atomic clock?
    So, you really don't know how they evaluate the accuracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick Jr. View Post
    This is my argument with modern science.
    What, that you don't understand how they do it?

    Perhaps you should do some research into the subject before arguing with it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #38  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Long Island, New York
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    So, you really don't know how they evaluate the accuracy?


    What, that you don't understand how they do it?

    Perhaps you should do some research into the subject before arguing with it.
    I understand what makes the atoms shake, and I understand what the atoms shaking effects. I can effect both through a planet. And perhaps not have it detected.

    The guys who were evaluating the first such devices, for fun were messing with them easily at a distance. No matter how you slice it, it is no more accurate then an electronics circuit. You must maintain the exact voltage at all times, your capacitors must not degrade, your copper or tungsten pathways must not age harden. It changes the ohms through the material as they get old.

    Did you ever see a Cuckoo clock shop, all at once upon the hour they all go off, it hasn't come any further then that. And each morning the clock repairman checks to see if the sunrise coincides with this clocks predictions.


    Sincerely,

    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #39  
    Administrator SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    350
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick Jr. View Post
    I understand what makes the atoms shake, and I understand what the atoms shaking effects. I can effect both through a planet. And perhaps not have it detected.
    Rest assured, nowadays we have means of detecting it.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick Jr. View Post
    The guys who were evaluating the first such devices, for fun were messing with them easily at a distance. No matter how you slice it, it is no more accurate then an electronics circuit. You must maintain the exact voltage at all times, your capacitors must not degrade, your copper or tungsten pathways must not age harden. It changes the ohms through the material as they get old.
    And nowadays we have ways to detect and adjust for these issues. Have you even read up on how a modern atomic clock is regulated?

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick Jr. View Post
    Did you ever see a Cuckoo clock shop, all at once upon the hour they all go off, it hasn't come any further then that.
    It has come a lot further than that.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick Jr. View Post
    And each morning the clock repairman checks to see if the sunrise coincides with this clocks predictions.
    Nowadays we understand that using the sunrise to regulate clocks is inaccurate, due to the way the Earth wobbles around its orbit. We have far more accurate clocks with which to ascertain how inaccurate measuring time by the sun actually is!

    Why not try referring to modern techniques, rather than using historical references?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #40  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Long Island, New York
    Posts
    55
    This is something that might make the way I was taught that radiation passes through matter, easier to fathom.

    As you know you can alter a substances vibration cycle using radiations of different types. But most never discuss how different frequency radiation alters the vibration pattern. This short movie offers the explanation, the way I was taught in school. I was taught that blue or ultraviolet light, took a straighter path through matter, then does red light, lets say through air as an example. Because we are dealing with a spiral path, it might end up being, what you yourself call or believe to be straighter. But if you were the object moving along the spiral path, the largest diameter spiral would seem the most straight path to you. It would apply the least amount of force to your body.

    In that movie each path is of the same length. I claim no wonder science here, just the old basics that were taught pre 1973. It is not a mystery as to why the smaller diameter path slows the progress of the brass bead, more then the large diameter spiral path. However if you realize why, and then you realize that the bead on the larger diameter spiral path is going to effect more atoms per given time period then the bead taking the smaller diameter path. Because it will be moving faster. Then that might make sense. That is the weakness of the atomic clock. It is powered by the universe not internally.

    You can shield it, and make it very accurate, but it requires many walls of protection, and can still fall prey to mother nature.





    Sincerely,

    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #41  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Long Island, New York
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Rest assured, nowadays we have means of detecting it.


    And nowadays we have ways to detect and adjust for these issues. Have you even read up on how a modern atomic clock is regulated?


    It has come a lot further than that.


    Nowadays we understand that using the sunrise to regulate clocks is inaccurate, due to the way the Earth wobbles around its orbit. We have far more accurate clocks with which to ascertain how inaccurate measuring time by the sun actually is!

    Why not try referring to modern techniques, rather than using historical references?
    If I slowly raised the voltage of the entire planet just a few volts, everything would run, but your clock would start to malfunction it would slow down. Not by much but some.

    I know the basics of timing circuits. I know the components are getting amazingly accurate, and still just as flimsy as ever.

    Sincerely,

    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #42  
    Administrator SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    350
    Well obviously nobody is raising the voltage of the entire planet.

    And none of this explains why, when we adjusted the clocks in the GPS satellites whilst they were on Earth to take into account the predictions for time dilation of SR and GR for their eventual orbits, in order to keep them in synchronisation with a clock stationary on the Earth, that the clocks on the satellites, once they were in orbit, do keep in synchronisation with a stationary clock on the ground...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #43  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Long Island, New York
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Well obviously nobody is raising the voltage of the entire planet.

    And none of this explains why, when we adjusted the clocks in the GPS satellites whilst they were on Earth to take into account the predictions for time dilation of SR and GR for their eventual orbits, in order to keep them in synchronisation with a clock stationary on the Earth, that the clocks on the satellites, once they were in orbit, do keep in synchronisation with a stationary clock on the ground...
    I am not putting down their usefulness. However it is just an electrical timing circuit.

    After 50 plus years of tinkering and experimenting with them, they should be darn accurate. Most of the credit goes to the trial and error lessons actually learned by just putting them up there, and seeing what happens. There has been billions spent on tests, tests on military planes and satellites, over the last half century.

    But it does not take much to affect them. Challenge the Russians or our Navy to set them.


    Sincerely,

    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #44  
    Administrator SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    350
    What on Earth is the point you are trying to make here, and how is it related to this discussion?!

    We have accurate atomic clocks. Full stop. We use them and they confirm the predictions of both SR and GR. Full stop. What more is there to say?

    Unless you are trying to say that these clocks are inaccurate due to the reasons you have given, but by the exact amount that is predicted by SR and GR, so we are misinterpreting their results as confirmation for SR and GR, then your comments are just cluttering up this discussion with red herrings.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #45  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    We have accurate atomic clocks - but they work the opposite way under the effect of inertial forces to pendulum clocks.
    We have accurate atomic clocks. Full stop. We use them and they confirm the predictions of both SR and GR. Full stop. What more is there to say?

    Unless you are trying to say that these clocks are inaccurate due to the reasons you have given, but by the exact amount that is predicted by SR and GR, so we are misinterpreting their results as confirmation for SR and GR, then your comments are just cluttering up this discussion with red herrings.
    IOW atomic clocks are physical objects and are subject to inertial and other forces, therefore they do not give an ideal measure of time, since our measures of time (e.g. the earth's rotation and revolution) have to be compared to create an accurate standard (e.g. Julian days). The differential behaviour of clocks under gravity alone excludes SR and GR as the explanations thereof for the simple reason that atomic clocks were not known in Einstein's time.

    An even simpler demonstration is that an equator-based atomic clock, subjected to a slightly lower gravitational pull, will tick slightly faster than a similar clock at one of the earth's poles - but this does NOT mean that time moves faster at the equator, nor is this explicable by the evasive claim that the difference is below the capability of normal human experience. The SR/GR-derived notion that different parts of the earth should experience different rates of time is merely part of SR's theoretical baggage, not a proven fact! This is why I am teasing out the unwarranted presumptions that Einstein introduced to create his theory.

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #46  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    We have accurate atomic clocks - but they work the opposite way under the effect of inertial forces to pendulum clocks.
    IOW atomic clocks are physical objects and are subject to inertial and other forces
    A pendulum explicitly depends on the acceleration (gravity), so it is naturally going to swing at different frequencies depending on the acceleration (gravity), even without consideration of relativity.

    You speak as if we don't know how an atomic clock works and therefore can't account for the "inertial and other forces" (if indeed these even do have any effect).

    So, I put it to you: Precisely how does "inertial and other forces" affect an atomic clock?
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #47  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Good points worthy of addressing KJW!
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    A pendulum explicitly depends on the acceleration (gravity), so it is naturally going to swing at different frequencies depending on the acceleration (gravity), even without consideration of relativity.
    Indeed - and I don't want to end up in digression on what SR would do to pendulum clocks!

    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    You speak as if we don't know how an atomic clock works and therefore can't account for the "inertial and other forces" (if indeed these even do have any effect).
    Atomic clocks are physical objects and thus NOT ideal clocks. When subject to inertial and other forces - other including gravitation - they undergo subtle changes in their rates, which the Hafele-Keating experiments undoubtedly revealed. Not being ideal clocks, when their rates change there has to be some physical reason for them to do so. We are offered two choices:
    1) The inertial and other forces alter the physical function of the clocks.
    2) The clocks vary because of SR/GR (i.e. Einstein's relativity) effects.

    Option 2) is a theoretical interpretation of an underlying fact - the fact being the differential rate of Hafele-Keating clocks. With option 1) there are numerous ways the physical function could be affected.

    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    So, I put it to you: Precisely how does "inertial and other forces" affect an atomic clock?
    Since nobody seems to have investigated this question - presumably because SR etc. has closed all debate and investigation on the issue - I can only surmise that the INCREASED forces acting on the clock traveling east - a "non-inertial situation" according to relativity jargon - causes a delay in the emission of the light or motion of the atoms involved. This force is relieved entirely if the clock is freed from gravitation entirely - e.g. the faster clock rates when traveling westward against the earth's motion, though the gravitational force of the earth is here NOT relieved entirely (as we know ourselves from having travelled in jet aircraft).

    That this is an easy and justifiable explanation to make is shown by the demonstration that certain forms of radioactive decay vary according to the time of year i.e. implying an effect associated with the earth's motion. This effect is only about 2-3% of the decay rate but has been shown to be a robustly statistically demonstrated phenomenon, as Jere Jenkins & Ephraim Fischbach* reveal. That macroscopic forces have microscopic even subatomic effects is demonstrated - but clearly these observations and new theories associated with them have not YET been applied to atomic clocks.

    Whatever the details however, option 1) does not lead to the paradoxical implications of two "different rates of time" nor the acceptance of TD&LC as explanations for either clock-rate changes or any other phenomenon. Hence option 1) constitutes a valid justification for further research.

    Thank you KJW for allowing me the opportunity to lay this situation out here!

    TFOLZO

    *See e.g. New Scientist No. 2891 (17 November 2012) pp. 42-45.
    Last edited by TFOLZO; 02-28-2014 at 05:20 AM. Reason: Reference needed
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #48  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    I don't want to end up in digression on what SR would do to pendulum clocks!
    No. A pendulum can't be used as a standard of time. This is because the period of a pendulum depends on the acceleration, and measuring the acceleration requires a standard of time.


    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    Atomic clocks are physical objects
    What clock isn't a physical object?


    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    and thus NOT ideal clocks.
    What's an "ideal" clock if it's not a physical object?


    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    When subject to inertial and other forces - other including gravitation - they undergo subtle changes in their rates, which the Hafele-Keating experiments undoubtedly revealed. Not being ideal clocks, when their rates change there has to be some physical reason for them to do so. We are offered two choices:
    1) The inertial and other forces alter the physical function of the clocks.
    2) The clocks vary because of SR/GR (i.e. Einstein's relativity) effects.

    Option 2) is a theoretical interpretation of an underlying fact - the fact being the differential rate of Hafele-Keating clocks. With option 1) there are numerous ways the physical function could be affected.
    And these just happen to affect the clock by the correct amount to agree with the prediction of relativity? What a coincidence!


    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    I can only surmise that the INCREASED forces acting on the clock traveling east - a "non-inertial situation" according to relativity jargon - causes a delay in the emission of the light or motion of the atoms involved. This force is relieved entirely if the clock is freed from gravitation entirely - e.g. the faster clock rates when traveling westward against the earth's motion, though the gravitational force of the earth is here NOT relieved entirely (as we know ourselves from having travelled in jet aircraft).
    But how does a force affect the frequencies associated with atoms? In considering this question, think about what the atoms themselves are experiencing. There may be some affect under extreme forces, but we're talking about minute differences in the forces, and it's the differences in the forces, not the forces themselves that must account for the observed changes in time.
    SpeedFreek likes this.
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #49  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    the square root of minus one! This is a mere mathematical trick - confusing appearance with substance
    Although this quote is taken out of context, I would like to point out that the square root of minus one is found in reality. For example, consider a direction that is rotated by 90░ about some axis. If this rotation is applied again, the direction is now opposite to the original direction, and thus we have the expression: . In other words, the 90░ rotation is related to the imaginary number . In fact, there is a connection between the rotations of angle about a given axis, and the complex numbers of the form . The point is that mathematical notions rarely occur directly in the physical realm, but are connected to the notions within the physical realm by isomorphic relationships. By understanding the isomorphic relationships, one can infer physical properties from the corresponding mathematical properties.
    Markus Hanke and SpeedFreek like this.
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •