Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] EvC Forum active members: 88 (8843 total)
 Current session began: Page Loaded: 06-23-2018 2:06 PM
242 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Post Volume:
 Total: 834,176 Year: 8,999/29,783 Month: 1,246/1,977 Week: 384/380 Day: 49/42 Hour: 1/7

 Rew Prev 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 ... 82 Next FF
Author Topic:   Existence
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5878
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.2

 Message 181 of 1229 (615724) 05-16-2011 1:30 AM Reply to: Message 174 by fearandloathing05-15-2011 5:19 PM

Re: Time
Hi fear,

 fearandloathing writes:Time is not an object, it is a system of measurement.

I agree.

 fear writes:I am sitting in front of my computer, moving 0 mph,

I disagree.

You are never moving at 0 mph. You are in constant motion, makes no difference what you are doing.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
 This message is a reply to: Message 174 by fearandloathing, posted 05-15-2011 5:19 PM fearandloathing has acknowledged this reply

Straggler
Member (Idle past 188 days)
Posts: 10198
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006

 Message 182 of 1229 (615742) 05-16-2011 8:35 AM Reply to: Message 168 by ICANT05-15-2011 4:18 PM

Re: Time
ICANT writes:

 Straggler writes:So we have two clocks. One constructed in, and residing in, Bolder. One constructed in, and residing in, Greenwich. Both of them are constructed identically to be accurate to within one second every 3.7 billion years. But the two clocks "tick" at different rates.

Yes they tick different rates because of the effect of the gravatational fields they reside in.

OK. So lets say that I have the readout from each of these clocks side by side on the computer screen in front of me.

If I want to very very precisely measure how long something takes which clock should I use and why?

 This message is a reply to: Message 168 by ICANT, posted 05-15-2011 4:18 PM ICANT has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 202 by ICANT, posted 05-17-2011 3:58 PM Straggler has responded

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 35 days)
Posts: 3181
Joined: 08-12-2009

 Message 183 of 1229 (615743) 05-16-2011 8:57 AM Reply to: Message 180 by ICANT05-16-2011 1:23 AM

Re: Time
 Well if it is not an object how does it dilate?

What do you mean? Do you know what is meant by time dilation? It's not like dilated pupils or a woman dilating during labor. It's a wee bit different.

 And you know that for a fact?

It's a basic part of relativity, ICANT.

 Last I heard it was a thought experiment.

Orbiting a black hole? Yes, that is a thought experiment. I used it as an example of how to approach the speed of light (WHICH I SAID IN MY POST THAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO).

 It makes perfect sense as to what you believe according to what you have posted in the past.

These are hardly constituted as my "beliefs", ICANT. They are facts that have the maths to back them up. They have been proven to be factual.

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
 This message is a reply to: Message 180 by ICANT, posted 05-16-2011 1:23 AM ICANT has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 197 by ICANT, posted 05-17-2011 11:59 AM hooah212002 has responded

fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 1950 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011

 Message 184 of 1229 (615747) 05-16-2011 11:11 AM Reply to: Message 180 by ICANT05-16-2011 1:23 AM

Re: Time
 Icant writes:Well if it is not an object how does it dilate?

Here is a fairly simple explanation with the math to support it, although I believe we might be at an impasse. In order not to post a bunch of redundant links and re-stating what others have already said, it might be best to agree to disagree

time dilation

 ICANT writes:I disagree.You are never moving at 0 mph. You are in constant motion, makes no difference what you are doing.

The point I was trying to make is that my speed/velocity is relative to the observer. It all depends on what you are using to reference my movement, in relation to the surface of the earth I can be not moving. If you look at it from another way the earth is turning, or orbiting,or our solar system is moving in the galaxy, or even the galaxy is moving in relation to other galaxies. Having said this I ask you,

What is my true velocity??

Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. Thompson

 This message is a reply to: Message 180 by ICANT, posted 05-16-2011 1:23 AM ICANT has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 186 by ICANT, posted 05-16-2011 3:29 PM fearandloathing has responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 5878
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.2

 Message 185 of 1229 (615759) 05-16-2011 1:43 PM Reply to: Message 175 by AZPaul305-15-2011 7:16 PM

Re: Time
Hi Paul,

 AZPaul3 writes:Well, this is almost right if one understands why.

If the tick rate is affected by the gravity field in which it resides what difference does it make what someone understands or believes. It either has an effect or does not have an effect.

AZPaul3 writes:

 If you adjust the Greenwich clock tick to the tick of the Bolder clock they would both be at a tick rate higher than one at sea level.

This is not correct.

If the tick rate is effected at 0.1 millimetre in difference in elevation of the clocks in the same lab, why wouldn't they be different than one at sealevel when they are ticking at the frequency for over 5,000'? Source

 AZPaul3 writes:The clocks you are speaking of are cesium-cascade clocks. They "tick" at the same rate regardless of anything. 9,192,631,770 ticks per second.

The clock at Boulder is a NIST-F1 Cesium Fountain Atomic Clock.

The precision of the clock is limited only by the gravity field it resides in.

quote:
The result is an observation time of about one second, which is limited only by the force of gravity pulling the atoms to the ground.
Source

I guess the folks that built the clock don't know what they are talking about.

 AZPaul3 writes:So our clock in Boulder is "ticking" at the exact same rate as the clock in Greewich: 9,192,631,770 ticks per second. The difference is that the "second" is dilated between the two locations by the effect of gravity. And both are correct.

If they are ticking at the same rate the same amount of duration of an event will be recorded by both clocks.

God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
 This message is a reply to: Message 175 by AZPaul3, posted 05-15-2011 7:16 PM AZPaul3 has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 213 by AZPaul3, posted 05-17-2011 5:53 PM ICANT has responded Message 214 by fearandloathing, posted 05-17-2011 6:31 PM ICANT has not yet responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 5878
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.2

 Message 186 of 1229 (615764) 05-16-2011 3:29 PM Reply to: Message 184 by fearandloathing05-16-2011 11:11 AM

Re: Time
Hi fear,

 fearandloathing writes:Here is a fairly simple explanation with the math to support it, although I believe we might be at an impasse. In order not to post a bunch of redundant links and re-stating what others have already said, it might be best to agree to disagree

Lets say the stationary clock is an atomic clock operating as the one found Here

You then put this clock in motion giving the illusion to a stationary observer shown in your picture.

Is the atoms traveling the same distance in the moving clock as they are in the stationary clock?

The clock could not operate if the atoms do not go straight up and straight down.

Thus your thought experiment produces an optical illusion not reality.

 fearandloathing writes:The point I was trying to make is that my speed/velocity is relative to the observer.

But you are moving at over 500,000 mph whether anyone observes that movement or not.

Eternal existence, exists whether you observe it or not. Duration exists in that eternal existence whether man measures it or not. It does not change speeds. Regardless of what you might think you observe.

I view existence as eternal. Duration is the interval between events, and length (duration) of events in eternal existence. This duration is a reality that can be measured. Man invented a concept called time which is dependent on the revolution of the Earth in relation to the sun with which to measure that duration.

Duration is a constant and can not be altered by any force. The only thing that can be altered is our concept of time changing what we say the measurement of that duration is. We can change what represents a second, minute, hour etc., but we can not change duration or eternal existence.

I go with Newton's source William Charleston, even though he used time instead of duration.

God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
 This message is a reply to: Message 184 by fearandloathing, posted 05-16-2011 11:11 AM fearandloathing has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 187 by frako, posted 05-16-2011 3:39 PM ICANT has responded Message 188 by fearandloathing, posted 05-16-2011 4:17 PM ICANT has responded

frako
Member
Posts: 2771
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010

 Message 187 of 1229 (615765) 05-16-2011 3:39 PM Reply to: Message 186 by ICANT05-16-2011 3:29 PM

Re: Time
 I view existence as eternal.

There is a problem with that because it is impossible for exsistance to reach our point in this eternity, because it has to pass an infinite number of points to get to us and it is impossible to do so.

my solution to the problem is that there are an infinite number of reality happening at the same time every possible version happening all the time, so that every point in exsistance has a version that is identical to ours.

Edited by frako, : No reason given.

 This message is a reply to: Message 186 by ICANT, posted 05-16-2011 3:29 PM ICANT has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 198 by ICANT, posted 05-17-2011 12:08 PM frako has responded

fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 1950 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011

 Message 188 of 1229 (615767) 05-16-2011 4:17 PM Reply to: Message 186 by ICANT05-16-2011 3:29 PM

Re: Time
 ICANT writes:you are moving at over 500,000 mph whether anyone observes that movement or not

How fast is the Earth spinning? 0.5 km/sec

How fast is the Earth revolving around the Sun? 30 km/sec

How fast is the Solar System moving around the Milky Way Galaxy? 250 km/sec

How fast is our Milky Way Galaxy moving in the Local Group of galaxies? 300 km/sec

Your speed is a little off if you are referring to speed of our orbit, its 66,622.1765 mph.

My point is all of these are correct, it all is relative to the observer and what he uses as a reference point., If we can agree on this then we can maybe discuss how this simple truth can also relate to time.

I guess when it comes down to it, far as existence goes, I think, therefore I am, works well for me

Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. Thompson

 This message is a reply to: Message 186 by ICANT, posted 05-16-2011 3:29 PM ICANT has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 199 by ICANT, posted 05-17-2011 12:24 PM fearandloathing has not yet responded

NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10698
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.9

 Message 189 of 1229 (615775) 05-16-2011 5:06 PM Reply to: Message 179 by ICANT05-16-2011 1:04 AM

Re: Time
 ICANT writes:I believe that an atom will pulse at different rates due to the distance they are from the attracting gravatational field. I believe the tick rate of an atom can be changed by excitement.

How do you explain dilation effects that occur because of constant relative motion between frames, i.e. from special relativity? That cannot be a gravitational effect. It would occur in a uniform gravitational field or in the absence of any gravitational field.

How do you explain that gravitational time dilation affects other processes in exactly the same rate? All types of clocks and all processes show exactly the same effect including clocks that don't rely on atomic vibrations. For example, atomic decay rates show the same effect.

 This message is a reply to: Message 179 by ICANT, posted 05-16-2011 1:04 AM ICANT has not yet responded

fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 1950 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011

 Message 190 of 1229 (615787) 05-16-2011 7:09 PM Reply to: Message 159 by ICANT05-14-2011 4:58 PM

Re: Renshaw vs relativity
 ICANT writes:The GPS system uses the Lorentzian, not Einsteinian relativity.

I have just got off the phone with http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/ , you are wrong. They use GR/SR which includes Lorentzian equations concerning velocity. Feel free to call or E-mail them to confirm what I have Just learned. I suggest you call 719 567 3191, as this was the number given to me that I received this answer from.

It seems to me that your sources for your above statement were cherry picking.

There is a paper/book on this that the National Institute of Standards and Technology put out...NIST1385 , march 1999 that details exactly how they arrive at their calculations, it was put out to answer the claims you make. Seems you might be a little late in this line of reasoning.

Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. Thompson

 This message is a reply to: Message 159 by ICANT, posted 05-14-2011 4:58 PM ICANT has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 192 by ICANT, posted 05-17-2011 12:30 AM fearandloathing has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member

 Message 191 of 1229 (615788) 05-16-2011 7:09 PM Reply to: Message 171 by ICANT05-15-2011 5:05 PM

Re: Time
 What kind of an object is time that it can be relative to something?

Objects are never relative to each other, their characteristics are. And it's already been explained to you what time is; it's a characteristic of spacetime.

 This message is a reply to: Message 171 by ICANT, posted 05-15-2011 5:05 PM ICANT has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 196 by ICANT, posted 05-17-2011 11:31 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 5878
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.2

 Message 192 of 1229 (615803) 05-17-2011 12:30 AM Reply to: Message 190 by fearandloathing05-16-2011 7:09 PM

Re: Renshaw vs relativity
Hi fear,

 fearandloathing writes:you are wrong. They use GR/SR which includes Lorentzian equations concerning velocity.

It wouldn't be the first time.

Doesn't Gr require each clock to have it's own reference frame?

The clocks in the GPS satellites have to be in sync for my GPS to work.

Therefore the GPS synchronization has to be done in the Inertial frame of the earthbound clock using constancy of c.

As the Earth is rotating, and the Sagnac effect is to large for the GPS and the clocks to be synchronized in the rotating frame.

God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
 This message is a reply to: Message 190 by fearandloathing, posted 05-16-2011 7:09 PM fearandloathing has not yet responded

 Replies to this message: Message 193 by NoNukes, posted 05-17-2011 8:08 AM ICANT has not yet responded

NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10698
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.9

 Message 193 of 1229 (615823) 05-17-2011 8:08 AM Reply to: Message 192 by ICANT05-17-2011 12:30 AM

Re: Renshaw vs relativity
 ICANT writes:Therefore the GPS synchronization has to be done in the Inertial frame of the earthbound clock using constancy of c.

This is just wrong. Perhaps you are reading Flandern as saying this.

The effects of GR and SR are well known as are the orbits of the satellites. The corrections could, in theory, be applied in any of a number of ways. You cannot tell the difference between SR and LR in this way. The theories would provide equivalent corrections.

By the way, the GPS clocks are not completely in synch. At least some of the relativistic calculations are made at the receiver. Some of the relativistic effects vary with time.

http://www.emis.de/journals/LRG/Articles/lrr-2003-1/

quote:
The net correction for clock offset due to relativistic effects that vary in time is

[ equation removed ]

This correction must be made by the receiver; it is a correction to the coordinate time as transmitted by the satellite. For a satellite of eccentricity , the maximum size of this term is about 23 ns. The correction is needed because of a combination of effects on the satellite clock due to gravitational frequency shift and second-order Doppler shift, which vary due to orbit eccentricity.

In fact, the GPS clocks were not originally synchronized by taking into account the GR effects:

quote:
After the Cesium clock was turned on in NTS-2, it was operated for about 20 days to measure its clock rate before turning on the synthesizer. The frequency measured during that interval was +442.5 parts in 1012 compared to clocks on the ground, while general relativity predicted +446.5 parts in 1012. The difference was well within the accuracy capabilities of the orbiting clock. This then gave about a 1% verification of the combined second-order Doppler and gravitational frequency shift effects for a clock at 4.2 earth radii.

Perhaps you should rethink your interpretation of Flandern's article.

Another problem with your gravity 'slows the tick rate' theory is the equivalence principle. A clock accelerating at the rate of acceleration due to gravity in Boulder in empty space would experience the same tick rate as the clock in Boulder. So gravity cannot be the cause of clock slowing.

 ICANT writes:As the Earth is rotating, and the Sagnac effect is to large for the GPS and the clocks to be synchronized in the rotating frame.

This is complete nonsense. The Sagnac effect depends on the location of the GPS receiver, and thus, the correction cannot be performed at the satellite clock. The Sagnac effect is smaller than other relativistic corrections.

 This message is a reply to: Message 192 by ICANT, posted 05-17-2011 12:30 AM ICANT has not yet responded

 Replies to this message: Message 194 by granpa, posted 05-17-2011 8:11 AM NoNukes has responded

granpa
Member (Idle past 146 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 10-26-2010

 Message 194 of 1229 (615824) 05-17-2011 8:11 AM Reply to: Message 193 by NoNukes05-17-2011 8:08 AM

Re: Renshaw vs relativity
gravitation time dilation is proportional to gravitational potential not gravitation field strength.
 This message is a reply to: Message 193 by NoNukes, posted 05-17-2011 8:08 AM NoNukes has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 195 by NoNukes, posted 05-17-2011 9:33 AM granpa has not yet responded

NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10698
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.9

 Message 195 of 1229 (615828) 05-17-2011 9:33 AM Reply to: Message 194 by granpa05-17-2011 8:11 AM

Re: Renshaw vs relativity
 granpa writes:gravitation time dilation is proportional to gravitational potential not gravitation field strength.

Yes, that's right. I did err on that point.

Edited by NoNukes, : yyy

 This message is a reply to: Message 194 by granpa, posted 05-17-2011 8:11 AM granpa has not yet responded

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)
 Rew Prev 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 ... 82 Next FF