Existence

By exactly the amount predicted by GR for gravitational time dilation which makes the prediction without considering the structure of the clock in any way. Isn't that a bit peculiar?So you believe that says nothing about what happens if gravity is increased rather than being reduced? How do you not understand that you are claiming that gravity can increase or decrease the clock rate by increasing or decreasing the force on the atoms. Is there something special about the force of gravity at sea level?Once the clock in orbit is synchronized with the earth bound clock, what do you claim happens to its clock rate if the orbital clock is returned to earth without further adjustment, ICANT? Haven't we discussed a similar scenario with clocks in Boulder and Greenwich?I note that you have again ignored the SR portion of my post. I assume that your refusal to consider the effects of special relativity on your argument are deliberate.

A vanishingly small percentage of the people on earth can follow the math underlying general relativity.Cavediver already warned about the frustration of arguing university/graduate level physics with someone who either does not grasp or rejects concepts from high school physics. You'll probably feel better about yourself if you stop posting before you start into the name calling.The only reason GR is even an issue in this thread is because ICANT has said that it undermines his position re existence.

I'm not sure that's even the case. ICANT is different from even other fundamentalists in that he creates this entire cosmology as a mishmash of misunderstood physics concepts and his own unique interpretation of English translations from Biblical texts. I've never seen quite this level of self-manufactured bullshit from anyone else. Plenty of them will deny this scientific theory or that physics model, I just haven't been exposed to anyone else who does all that and then tries to mangle together their own model to replace science.The worst part is that many people probably find it convincing. Many of the really important and complicated concepts in physics (like relativity) don;t make intuitive sense - you need a lot of mathematics to show why things are the way they are. That means people will initially respond with incredulity - and that leaves them open to be convinced by any alternative that "sounds" better than real physics. ICANT is great at using real physics words in ways they were never intended and quote-mining real physicists such that I'm sure he could convince quite a few people that he's on the right track and the real physicists are all atheists who want to shirk their responsibility to God or some other such nonsense. Most people simply aren't sufficiently competent in physics (or most sciences for that matter) to recognize their own incompetence.

No, he just argues.I assure you, he had manufactured absolutely nothing about physics prior to this thread. As soon as you, or someone else on our side, used physics to argue with something ICANT said, ICANT knew that he had to argue against physics with whatever sources he could find.He's not doing any of this on his own; it's just that if we say it, he has to produce an argument that we're wrong. Otherwise he's going to Hell.

I dont think name calling is ever productive, although I sit here and do it, I just dont post it. I really dont know what else to post anyway, I feel I have provided a ton of credible data, complete with links and even a phone number to the USAF unit that operates the gps system, what more could you ask for??My biggest shortcoming in life is I have a hard time letting go/ shutting up,it's got me in trouble many times. This whole topic is why I started the " why we dont believe in science" topic, which didn't really go anywhere, but I really didn't expect to hear anything from the creationist camp on it either.

---

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. ThompsonAd astra per asperaNihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

The experimental results that clearly demonstrate that clocks tick at different rates dependent on their position within a gravitational field. The time it takes for light to travel a meter. Use whatever units you want to. Why don't you look up the units for frequency. Last I checked, frequency is measured in Hz which is cycles/second. Everything depends on time. It is an integral part of the universe. Can you name a single event that does not have a time component? It occurs at a specific rate in a specific environment. Rate is measured in time. Or do you really think that a car will completely lack rust and then be completely rusted in less than a Plank second? The velocity of the pendulum is measured in distance/time. The oscillations of the pendulum are measured in cycles/time. Time exists whether man is there to measure it or not.

Yes and no. If you are in the spaceship with the cesium clock you will record the same number of oscillations per second as you did on Earth.Let's say you synch up two cesium clocks. You devise a way to precisely measure the number of oscillations per second so you will be able to measure any changes in the frequency of the clock. You send one clock up into space along with someone who can measure the oscillations per second. You let the spaceship stay up for a month or so, and then bring it back down to Earth.So what are the observations? The clocks are now out of synch. The clock that went up into space is ahead of the clock that remained on the Earth. When you compare notes on the actual measurements of the oscillations you will find that they were the same from the time the clock was on the Earth, while it was in space, and on the return trip.How do you explain this? [qs]The reduced gravity will make the clock tick faster because of less force exerted upon the atoms.[/quote]False. The oscillations stay the same.

Hi Taq, Where does the second come from? Would it rust out whether the duration of that event is measured or not? Then you should have no problem in giving a definition for the time that is streached in dilation.Can you present one?You guys keep harping about my understanding of time dilation and not one of you have given a definition of what is being dilated.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."

The second, as a unit, is an arbitrarily agreed upon segment of time that can be defined by quite a few phsyical events such as the speed of light, oscillation of a cesium atom, etc. No matter what our units are the speed of light is the same (in a vacuum), as is the rate of oscillations within a cesium atom. Of course. It just so happens that the rate of chemical reactions are consistent so they could, conceivably, be used as a timer if you wanted. The passage of time, no matter the definition as measured by physical interactions, is relative between frames of reference. I defined it in my example with the satellite with the atomic clock.ABE: If you want very precise definitions of time, then here are a couple:One second is the amount of time it takes light to travel 299,792,458 meters in a vacuum. It is also the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. Take your pick, they are both the same amount of time.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This reminds me of trying to explain rainbows to my niece when she was a child....but why, followed by an explanation...but why....ect. She simply did not have the ability to understand the answers so would've kept asking why til she got bored.I realize this situation is different, it is simply denial...but it seems like It has degenerated to using the " but why "argument to try and support the position. also 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. ThompsonAd astra per asperaNihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

Yes we have. You;re just either too stupid to have comprehended a simple definition, or you're purposefully ignoring everything anyone else says."Time" is a continuum in which events occur sequentially in the direction of increasing entropy.It can be measured just like the spacial dimensions can, and the standard SI unit for a measurement of time is the "second." Time is related to the spacial dimensions, and in fact all four (width, length, height, and time, usually denoted by the variables x, y, z, and t) are unified into what is called "spacetime." Time, like space, is relative to an observer. While a given event (say, the nuclear decay of a radioisotope) will always be constant for an observer in the same inertial frame of reference, an observer in a different frame of reference will record a different rate of change, and this is universal for all measurements of time (whether through an accurate mechanical clock, a swinging pendulum, nuclear decay, the oscillation of a quartz crystal, etc), with the differences measured in different frames of reference matching exactly the predictions of relativity regardless of the method used to measure the time elapsed.We've said as much multiple times.

Hi fear,

quote:

---

Finally the above also illustrates that time dilation is a perceived rather than an actual phenomenon.

​

It should be noted that by comparison the Lorentz-Einstein transformation equations(2) do not clearly specify what frame of reference is selected and why, nor what the position of the observer is in relation to the object he observes, nor, for that matter, what the age is of the observed historic image of the object etc.

​

Finally Einstein's theory expects one to embrace the illogical concept that the flow of time varies throughout the universe. In so doing his explanation raises more questions than it answers. Besides, "time waits for no man", no matter how fast or how far he travels.

---

Source

quote:

---

PROBLEM:

​

Robert and Eka are 20 years old when Robert decides to go on a round trip to a planet 20 light years away. He travels at a velocity of .8c How old are the twins when Robert returns? Also what will Eka observe, as compared to Robert, during his actual trip?

---

The solution to the problem can be found HereFor the discussion of THE TWIN PARADOX look Here.For a discussion of Time dilation fact or fiction look Here.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."

Good day ICANT, There are plenty of relativity crackpots on the internet. And yes, J. L. Gaasenbeek is one of them. For future reference, if you need to find more relativity deniers, here is a list of physics cranks. But be prepared to defend their work if you cite them.http://www.crank.net/gravity.htmlNonetheless, Gaasenbeek does not agree with you.

quote:

---

This example clearly illustrates that the apparent reality as seen by a given observer is unique to that observer in that a second observer, who is positioned in a different location, will see a different set of events even though both are observing the same actual set of events.

---

In other words, Gaasenbeek agrees that observers in different frames will observe different aging rates and different sets of events. He just thinks that those perceptions are false observations resulting from the travel time of light. On the other hand, you seem to think that apparent time dilation effects are all about clocks frequencies changing.So, no Gaasenbeek does not agree with you. He has his own nonsense theory that is nothing like your own.I note in passing that Gaasenbeek is a mechanical engineer and not a physicist. The typical mechanical engineer curriculum includes even less advanced physics than does the curriculum of the typical electrical engineer. Perhaps you can cite the work of some actual scientists who have alternate theories to SR and GR. There are some out there. [qs=ICANT]

quote:

---

PROBLEM:

​

Robert and Eka are 20 years old when Robert decides to go on a round trip to a planet 20 light years away. He travels at a velocity of .8c How old are the twins when Robert returns? Also what will Eka observe, as compared to Robert, during his actual trip?

---

Gaasenbeck's analysis does not illustrate anything except relativity denial. Of course if you ignore length contraction and time dilation you are going to get the answer that both twins are the same age.How does Gaasenbeck explain the mu-meson experiment results? By making stuff up.http://www.heliwave.com/gaasenbeek/spap5.html

quote:

---

As expected, the reason Ives and Stilwell arrived at the wrong conclusion is similar to the reason Rossi and Hall concluded that time dilation exists. If one is not familiar with the helical particle wave concept the only other possible "explanation" is the concept of time dilation.

---

Of course the helical particle wave theory is just more of Gaasenbeek's own crank work, accepted by nobody serious.

A creationist is having trouble comprehending the finer points of Relativity!?Gee, what are the odds?

Hi NoNukes, He agrees that time does not streach. Where did he mention observers, observing different aging rates?He did use a illustration of people at at an event where some would hear a sound before they saw the action that caused the sound. But that has nothing to do with aging rates. So why don't you explain step by step where Gaasenbeck went wrong with his explanation.BTW Crank Dot.Net says:

quote:

---

Crank Dot Net is intended for entertainment purposes only. Don't get mad, it's all in good fun. Whenever possible, quotes from the featured sites themselves are used as a description, so that sites are not misrepresented.

​

Not all Web sites featured on Crank Dot Net are indeed the work of cranks. Some are fringe science material, some are humor and parody. It is ultimately up to the astute reader to decide for themselves. In particular, sites marked as parody, fringe, or bizarre are not cranky.

---

You propably right no one should look at any other ideas since the elite already has all the answers tied up in a neat little package, since you can overlook all the problems as they are not taught. Because to question the dogma of the elite is to risk their wrath.Why don't you take Gassenbeek's papers and refute them as I can find no place anyone has done that yet.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."