Misconceptions in Relativity

Well Quantum field theory is tested in particle accelerators. It's major experimental success occured in the tests performed on it in the 70s, 80s and early 90s. For instance its predictions of the W and Z bosons, as well as various decay rates and scattering for quarks.The best evidence for General Relativity is the binary pulsar system PSR B1913+16 and studying what is called its periapsis precessions.

There is no real evidence that inertial motion can be detected. All experiments designed to test if it can be detected have continuously ruled it out to a higher and higher degree and there is no experimental evidence of the aether. For the trajectories of the particles in the magnetic fields, as well as their trajectories around the accelerator. Also for the dynamics of the magnetic fields themselves.

Please explain to me how one can measure time without referring to it.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.

I'm rather annoyed that my thread has become so polluted. This "discussion" is at the level of trying to argue for a heliocentric solar system, an oblately spherical earth, or the historicity of the Apollo programme. It shouldn't be necessary...Smooth Operator is making statements that are so out-there, they make many cranks and loons look vaguley sensible - denying that GPS uses SR and GR, denying that accelerators need to use SR, claiming that the Dirac Sea has something to do with attempts to mix aether and SR - this is so stupid that it requires ignoring, not engaging.

Maybe this will help: Relativity in Rotating Frames: Relativistic Physics in Rotating Reference Frames edited by Dr, Guido Rizzi, Professor of Physics and Dr. Matteo Luca Ruggiero at Politecnico di Torino (Polytechnic University of Turin), Italy with contributing articles from 23 Professors of Physics from around the world.Read it. It extensively describes both the theory of relativity and the Sagnac effect in detail in relation to synchronization of GPS satellites and other phenomena. Relativity and the Sagnac effect ARE NOT mutually exclusive concepts. If so show me how. And you wonder why people tell you that you are full of shit. I have provided with scientific peer reviewed articles by subject matter experts in the physics fields and you choose to ignore them. This shows your lack of credibility and gullibility to accept any crap from non-scientific sources you find on the internet. Ditto. They are not mutually exclusive concepts. This is like saying that because Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation does not mention Galileo's free fall experiment w/ gravity than all of Newton's laws are bogus.Go get an education at a real college and stop believing every conspiracy theory that comes off the internet. I don't know what dime dilation is (is that putting dimes on a railroad track to strech them)? Oh, you mean time dilation? Well, isn't that your whole argument that the Sagnac effect is causing time dilation-like effect that must be taken into account to synchronize the GPS clocks as opposed to Einstein's theories of relativity? If not what the heck are you talking about?Physicists around the world and engineers of the GPS satellite system take into account both the GR/SR (gravitational induced time dilation) and the Sagnac effect (errors in synchronization caused by rotating frames of reference in this case the Earth) to synchronize the clocks on these satellites to determine accurate positions. If you have a problem with this, go tell the US Navy, US Air Force and the Satellite Engineering Research Corporation, which helped develop the original GPS and follow-on applications, that they are wrong (I would love to be a fly on the wall why I see them laugh you out of the facility). Here is a PP presentation by Dr. Robert Nelson, PhD in Physics, writer of several textbooks on satellite communications and director of the Satellite Engineering Research Corporation in Bethesda, MD for you (pictures, charts and short bullets might be easier for you to swallow): Practical Relativistic Timing Effects in GPS and GalileoUm, you did not read the article in its entirity did you? How about this (I will highlight): The author clearly illustrates the logical fallacy in stating that the Sagnac affect implies anisotropic light speeds. You in your stubborn tenacity just choose to ignore it. Ok, a non-peer reviewed article by a former physics professor who was opposed by the entire physics community on his views on relativity. You will always have an oddball out of the bunch that will oppose the status-quo. Not to say that he was not a good scientist but sometimes even scientists can be wrong on his research/findings.Again, tell the designers and current developers of the GPS system that they should not be taking the time-dilation effects of relativity into effect to synchronize there satellites. Ok, either you are being facetious, you are an internet troll just trying to get attention or you are an idiot LOL, whatever bub. If you can’t provide any evidence of your own to counter my evidence, than I am writing you off as an ignorant, gullible idiot. I tried being nice but evidently this is lost on you. Have a nice life and have fun with your delusions.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

cavediver responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

One of the great paradoxes of relativity is that while you are in the changing gravitic field, you don't experience time any differently. That is, one second still seems to take just as much time as it did before.

---

​

That's not so much paradox as tautology, unless I'm missing what you mean.

---

What I'm referring to is the fact that from another frame of reference, you will appear to be going faster or slower, depending on the relative motion between you. But despite that observation, you don't feel as if you are taking more or less time. In the twin paradox, the moving twin doesn't feel like he's experiencing time more slowly than the twin who stays at home. Conversely, the twin who stays at home doesn't feel like he's experiencing time more quickly than the twin who goes on the trip. And yet, there is a difference in the way the two have experienced time. That's the idea I was going for.Each frame of reference thinks it is experiencing time "correctly."

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

I apologize cavediver. I am not going to engage Smooth Operator any more as I think he is a troll seeking attention.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Exactly - I just wonder what experiencing time "incorrectly" would look like

No apology necessary You and SG manage to remain calm in a way I can barely remember

Smooth Operator responds to me:

quote:

---

Please look at the atomis clock. It has more mechanical parts than than the regular one. Ofcourse it can be slowed down due to aether and gravity.

---

Huh? You're not seriously claiming that because the clock has a mechanical "On" switch, that means its method of measuring time is mechanical?Question: Is the functioning of your computer mechanical or electrical? That is, in your computer chip are "gates." They control the flow of electricity. Is this gate mechanical?Now, there is no ether, but there is gravity. So thank you for agreeing that clocks are affected by gravity just as relativity theory predicts. Again, it is affecting the clock not by changing the way it functions but rather by changing the way time flows.

quote:

---

Yes, and that field has been acting on the clock's mechanism.

---

But if you are with the clock, you do not experience time any differently. By your logic, you as an external observer to the clock would notice that the clock was slowing down...unless you're saying that the human sense of time is also mechanically affected.

quote:

---

How exactly do you know that?

---

By the very experiment I just described to you: The clock's method of measuring time is not mechanical and therefore is invariant under mechanical shifts such as gravitational fields pulling on it or acceleration.Suppose you have a photon generator and a detector. You can measure how much time it takes for a photon to leave the generator and reach the detector. You set up an electronic trigger so that when a photon is detected, it triggers the release of the next photon. You have created a kind of clock. Since you know how much time it takes for one photon to travel the distance, by counting the number of photons that have been released, you can calculate how much time has passed.Now, suppose we make two of these contraptions, one of which we leave here on the ground and one of which we send on a journey through space and gravity. When the clock that made the journey returns, we find that it hasn't counted as many photons as the one that stayed here on the ground. And yet, this setup is invariant under motion. The motion of the clock does not change the distance between the generator and detector, right? Be careful as that is a bit of a trick question.Suppose you have this clock sitting right in front of you, not moving. Suppose you have the distance between the generator and the detector set to 1 m. The time it takes for the photon to go from the generator to the detector is 1/c seconds.Now, suppose the clock is moving away from you at a speed of 1 m/s. From the frame of reference of the clock, nothing has changed. The detector is still exactly 1 m away from the generator and thus it still takes 1/c seconds for the photon to travel from the generator to the detector. And from the frame of reference of the clock, that photon has traveled only one meter.But from your frame of reference here, with the clock moving away from you, the distance the photon has actually travelled more than one meter. Assuming that the generator/detector alignment is perpendicular to the path of motion, the photon will have traveled 1.4 meters. If we assume that the generator/detector alignment is parallel to the path of motion, the photon will have traveled two meters.So how much time did it take for the photon to reach the detector from the generator from your frame of reference? Well, since it traveled more than 1 meter, it must have taken longer since a photon can only travel one meter in 1/c seconds. And, indeed, that is precisely what we see: Time is flowing more slowly in the moving clock than it is in the stationary one. We see the photon physically moving more slowly, taking more time to travel the distance.But remember, from the photon's point of view, nothing has changed. It is still taking precisely 1/c seconds to go from the generator to the detector and it is travelling a distance of precisely 1 m.This is relativity. But notice, we haven't put gravity in this equation in any way (or at the very least, we are assuming a constant and equal gravitational field for both clocks.) If there are gravitic effects, they should make our result deviate from the expected results from simple motion.That's why we can measure the change in gravitational flow of time by the use of the clock experiment. We can account for the relativistic effects of motion upon the flow of time, but when we see that the actual results are different, we conclude that gravity is affecting the flow of time, too.

quote:

---

Maybe because it doesn't happen?

---

Except it does. We can directly measure it. Are you saying there is something wrong in the experiments that were done that measured it?

quote:

---

Or it is the effect of gravity and the aether?

---

There is no ether. There is gravity, however, and it is affecting the clock, but not by affecting the mechanism. Instead, it is affecting time itself. Our photon clock is not affected by mechanical means. It can only be affected by changes in time and space itself. So adding gravity to the mix and finding that it introduces a discrepancy beyond that of simple motion, we necessarily conclude that gravity changes time and space.

quote:

---

If you have seen an atomic clock, you'd see it's pretty crude.

---

Did you not see your own picture? You really think an oscilliscope is crude?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

cavediver reponds to me:

quote:

---

I just wonder what experiencing time "incorrectly" would look like

---

It's just like in the movies cuz everybody knows that movies would never distort the laws of physics for effect. When Peter Parker goes into "bullet time," he can physically experience time moving slower.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

My favourite moment is in Lost, where Hurley looks at his hand and expects it to start fading, Back to the Future style

Since you have not been supplying anything more than unsupported assertions I have to sympathize with cavediver. You are just cluttering up this thread.Please create your own thread. Make an opening post that offers your counter relativity views with support for them. I'll promote it even if the quality isn't all that create, just make some effort beyond what you have done so far.Do not post to this thread again or you will start to receive suspensions.

quote:

---

Since you have not been supplying anything more than unsupported assertions I have to sympathize with cavediver. You are just cluttering up this thread.
Please create your own thread. Make an opening post that offers your counter relativity views with support for them. I'll promote it even if the quality isn't all that create, just make some effort beyond what you have done so far.

​

Do not post to this thread again or you will start to receive suspensions.

---

First of all I don't like you. You are a liar. I can't stand liars. I have supported my claims by scientific articles. So I don't care if you suspend or ban me.In the mean time, I will make my own topic. Good day to you.

Funny you should say that. I read recently that 20% of the U.S. population are geocentricists (if that's the word). Ask Smooth Operator on the new thread he has started, and you'll find he's one. I kid you not!Attention Required! | CloudflareYou'll soon be missing the relative sanity of Buzsaw and ICANT.