|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 2/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: ICANT'S position in the creation debate | |||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Are you saying that my clock that was built in the earth frame and then put into orbit is not effected by earth's gravity if I am sitting in the satellite with it, (keeps perfect time) but if I am on the ground it does effect it (runs fast}?
Wherever it is, if you are sitting there with it, the clock keeps perfect time. If you are moving relative to it, and/or in a stronger or weaker gravitational field, it will run slow or fast relative to another clock that you are sitting with. It is affected by the Earth's gravity (and the gravity of all objects in the Universe, although most of those effects are negligible.)
ell that to two entangled particles. Their information is communicated instantly, no matter how far apart they are. That is why Einstein called it "spooky action at a distance". We don't fully understand that yet… but it's not a thing with mass traveling faster than light. Nor is it time running backward for anything. And it's not covered in relativity, which does not work completely when applied to subatomic particles.
try googling "pulitzer prize). Isn't that what you would get for the greatest story of the decade even if it was science fiction. We're not discussing science fiction. We're discussing people who claim to have found serious problems with relativity when analyzing conditions found in our solar system and for macroscopic objects. If someone found such a problem no, they wouldn't get the Pulitzer prize. What prize woudl they receive?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
If relativity is right, and the amount of travel is enough to see time-dilation (remember, it's a tiny, tiny effect at non-relativistic speeds), those clocks will no longer be in sync. Doesn't the clocks tick different if one clock is at sea level and one at 29,000' above sea level. Yes, a little bit. And they tick differently when they are moving relative to whoever is observing them.
Flying clocks around the world in planes is *exactly* the same as putting them in orbit. Not quite as the ones in orbit are a bit higher and effected a little more by gravity. It still is exactly the same effect, but the size of the effect is smaller.
The clocks in orbit WILL show a different time from a clock on the ground. Not the ones in the GPS satellites. Right, because the real clocks in the GPS satellites have been adjusted to compensate. Now we're discussing the clock that you introduced, a hypothetical clock that is on a GPS satellite but has not been adjusted. That clock will show a different time from the one on the ground. An observer on the ground will observe the clock on the satellite running a little faster than any clock he has on the ground. An observer on the satellite will observe clocks on the ground running a little slower than any un-adjusted clock he has on the satellite. This isn't theory, these are facts that we observe in the world around us. The theory of relativity is an explanation of these facts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Ignore this, Jon, it's complete crap. There is no communication whatsoever, FTL or STL. It is "simple" quantum statistics. ICANT's bullshit is equivalent to claiming that coins must communicate with each other in order for them to generate a normal distribution approximation.
Well I certainly don't understand it. My one exposure to a course in QM was in the early 70's, and I've forgotten most of it. But whatever it may be, it's irrelevant to the idea of macroscopic objects or subatomic particles moving faster than light.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
So my clock or any atomic clock in a satellite at 11,000 miles that has not been adjusted to be in sync with the earth clock will be running 38,000 ns faster per day. This is because of gravity and motion affecting the tick of the atom. Is that correct? Yes.
I actually thought we were discussing spacetime and it's existence. If it existed what it was. The question I raised was concerning:
Perhaps readers who are not familiar with the current impossibility of reconciling relativity and quantum theory, may be visiting this site expecting to find an answer to the question "what is space-time?". Alas, there is no answer. Yes, I was wrong about what this sub-discussion is about. It includes your claim that someone would win a Pulitzer prize for figuring out what spacetime is. Obviously you got the wrong prize name, and you're frantically trying to avoid admitting it. Just as you are avoiding admitting your errors about Kant, about Godel, and that loonburger's page to which you linked. You still have not faced the fact that all the support you have for the claim, that nobody knows what spacetime is, is an anonymous Internet posting by someone who appears to have made a serious mistake. See Message 477. Why should we accept his claim, when other professionals (including at least one participating in this thread) claim otherwise? You still have not answered the "why are they right" part of my "Who says, and why are they right?" question. The scientists at the strings conference were posed a totally different question, so their responses are irrelevant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
So what makes these two clocks report a different time? Distortions of spacetime.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
So what causes those distortions? Interesting question. AFAIK we don't know the answer yet. But whether or not we know the answer, spacetime is an aspect of the universe that exists and can be measured objectively. Time exists independent of Man's definitions, and runs at different rates depending on the state of the observer and the observed. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Lets speed up that other 0.1% so we are traveling at the speed of light. You don't get to travel at the speed of light. You can't speed up that 0.1%. You can speed up almost to it, but you cannot ever reach it no matter what kind of spaceship you envision.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
The clocks in space are not moving relative to the surface of the Earth, but they ARE in a weaker gravitational field and they ARE moving really quick The clocks on the GPS satellites are moving relative to the Earth's surface, quite significantly. No GPS satellites are in geosynchronus orbit. They are at 20,200 km (geosynchronous orbit is at 42,164 km) and the period is 11 hrs 58 min (half the sidereal day period of a geosynchronous orbit). The orbital speed is about 42,164 km/hr whereas the Earth's surface is moving (due to rotation) at 1,674 km/hr at the equator and zero km/hr at the poles.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
So gravity and velocity has nothing to do with it then. I thought you were asking the next question, how do gravity and velocity distort spacetime. Gravity and velocity have everything to do with it.
Time does not exist except when man uses the concept of time to measure duration/existence. Existence does not speed up or slow down for anything it just is. In a discussion, repeating refuted claims from pages ago is not addressing the issue. We've pointed out that existence is observed to speed up and slow down. If you claim that existence does not, then you are wrong. How do you account for the observed facts?
You don't get to travel at the speed of light. You can't speed up that 0.1%. You can speed up almost to it, but you cannot ever reach it no matter what kind of spaceship you envision. Why not? Well, since you have mass when you are not moving relative to your reference frame, as you approach the speed of light your mass will increase and nothing can push hard enough on you to compensate for that increase in mass. Ever seen E = mc2? Increased energy is increased mass. This is seen every day in particle accelerators. Why does this happen? AFAIK again we don't know, but it a fundamental and observed property of the universe. That is, if your theory is that it doesn't exist then your theory is wrong. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I will agree there is no time. If there is no space what is that expanding between things in the universe? He meant there is no one thing which is time, and there is no one thing which is space. There is one thing which is both.
The clock on the mountain runs faster because of less gravity. The clock in the satellite runs faster because it has less gravity and has the added effect of orbiting the earth. The duration/existence is the same regardless of whether the clock runs fast or slow. The clocks run faster or slower because gravity and velocity change the duration/existence. There is no other way to do it. "Because it has gravity" is not an answer. What formula relates the two, and why? What aspect of reality is it that changes the transition frequency of cesium atoms? What changes for muons traveling close to the speed of light so that they exist so much longer? Your nutjob pal with the piling-up energy with no source and destination and with no effect on orbits is no help here. Relativity has an answer: the duration/existence exists independent of observers, and is changed. This is consistent with literally tens of thousands of widely varied observations. Your "theory" is not. Edited by JonF, : No reason given. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I am told it is a property of the universe. Which is a concept of man. The Universe is a concept of Man???? Do tell.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
add that the ship is traveling towards the earth at 150,000 m/s you have light traveling at 450,000 m/s Since the maximum speed of light is 300,000 m/s something is wrong with the theory. Would you care to explain what that problem is to me? You have misunderzstood the small amount of relativity that has been explained here, and you don't have a clue about the vast majority of thetheory. One of the facts explained early on in all treatments of relativity is the fact that you can't add one velocity to another and come out with an exactly right answer. Most of the time you're close enough … but when you are dealing with velocities that are a significant fraction of the speed of light, you need to use the correct formula: V = (v1+v2)/(1+(v1*v2/c2) where V is the total velocity you measure, v1 is your velocity, v2 is the velocity of the thing you are measuring, and c is the speed of light. Tjis formula has been experimentally verified over and over agian. Try v1 = 150,000 and v2 = c, and see what you come out with. Are you talking about something that is observed with the natural eye? Yes, as much as anything ever is. We don't believe the math without experimental testing.The problem is your abysmal ignorance.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024