Existence

Hi Rahvin, GR predicts it.Are you saying GR is wrong? The attracting force that gravity has on the object being the atom in the clock.What is the difference in energy and force?I will let you define it anyway you care too. Again I don't have a model. Why is it my fault when Physics took an everyday word meaning increase in speed and hyjacked it and added their meaning "a change in velocity." to it?It would be a lot less confusing if Physics had invented their own words and gave them the definitions they desired them to have, rather than hyjacking existing words and applying their meaning to them.They could at least do as in the Hebrew language and change the words by adding prefixes or suffixes, for them to mean different things.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."

Hi Rahvin, Are you saying that if I drop an apple from 3' it can not fall to the floor without spacetime being warped? Then I suppose this fellow is wrong as well as several others that I have read their papers.

quote:

---

2. What relativistic effects on GPS atomic clocks might be seen?

​

General Relativity (GR) predicts that clocks in a stronger gravitational field will tick at a slower rate. Special Relativity (SR) predicts that moving clocks will appear to tick slower than non-moving ones. Remarkably, these two effects cancel each other for clocks located at sea level anywhere on Earth. So if a hypothetical clock at Earth’s north or south pole is used as a reference, a clock at Earth’s equator would tick slower because of its relative speed due to Earth’s spin, but faster because of its greater distance from Earth’s center of mass due to the flattening of the Earth. Because Earth’s spin rate determines its shape, these two effects are not independent, and it is therefore not entirely coincidental that the effects exactly cancel. The cancellation is not general, however. Clocks at any altitude above sea level do tick faster than clocks at sea level; and clocks on rocket sleds do tick slower than stationary clocks.

​

For GPS satellites, GR predicts that the atomic clocks at GPS orbital altitudes will tick faster by about 45,900 ns/day because they are in a weaker gravitational field than atomic clocks on Earth's surface. Special Relativity (SR) predicts that atomic clocks moving at GPS orbital speeds will tick slower by about 7,200 ns/day than stationary ground clocks. Rather than have clocks with such large rate differences, the satellite clocks are reset in rate before launch to compensate for these predicted effects. In practice, simply changing the international definition of the number of atomic transitions that constitute a one-second interval accomplishes this goal. Therefore, we observe the clocks running at their offset rates before launch. Then we observe the clocks running after launch and compare their rates with the predictions of relativity, both GR and SR combined. If the predictions are right, we should see the clocks run again at nearly the same rates as ground clocks, despite using an offset definition for the length of one second.

---

SourceGuess what? With the adjustments prior to launch we observe the predictions are correct.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."

Hi fear, The first one I had not seen. The NASA site I have read many articles there.But my argument is from past notes, arguments and research. Nice paper, to add to my collection. My argument is that time is not a dimension or property of the universe.The universe has duration in eternal existence which can be measured by time.In Genesis 1:5 God defined a light period as day and a dark period as night. He declared that the light period He created the Heavens and the Earth in along with the history of that light period found in Genesis 2:4-4:24 which had ended with the darkness found at Genesis 1:2 that darkness ended with the light of the second day. God declared that first light period and dark period as day one. Because there was no day before that day.Time is a concept of man which he invented to measure duration in existence. Time is based on the rotation of the earth in relation to the sun. A complete revolution of the earth equals one day which man has divided up into hours, minutes and seconds etc.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."

What are you measuring "duration" in ICANT? Did they? What were they measuring "duration" in? ICANT do you really think the predictions General Relativity makes about gravitational time dilation are remotely comparable to your dodgy ticker that is incapable of accurately measuring time?Buy a new clock!! Equivalence is one of the key principles that General relativity is founded upon. Gravity as Acceleration For Dummies

Hi Straggler, In "ETERNAL EXISTENCE" as that is the only place duration can exist.Without existence there is no duration. Eternal Existence. I know I am getting old and forgetful but where did I mention time dilation?I did present information in Message 137 which said:

quote:

---

General Relativity (GR) predicts that clocks in a stronger gravitational field will tick at a slower rate.

---

Nothing about time elapsing slower, only that the clock ticks slower the closer it is to he gravitational field of the Earth. Which means if it is in orbit around the Earth it will tick faster than one on Earth.But the clock ticking faster does not make duration shorter as duration keeps the same pace whatever that pace is.We determine that pace by the revolution of the Earth in relation to the sun. If man so desired a day could have a duration of 48 hours, each hour being 120 minutes in duration and each minute being 120 seconds of duration.But the duration of one revolution of the Earth would not change, it would be the same as it is represented as 24 hours of duration, each hour being 60 minutes of duration and each minute being 60 seconds of duration. Why?I don't need a new clock. All I have to do is move the slider that will change the pulse rate to the proper position and it will keep perfect time.I am just trying to point out that the tick rate being changed by the clock being placed in a gravitational field that is weaker than it is where the clock was created does not speed duration up.It only changes the rate of the tick of the clock. That is the reason the clock has to be preset before launch to compensate for the weaker gravitational field, to be in sync with the clock on earth.

quote:

---

In this paper we will demonstrate that the slowing of clocks placed in motion or lowered into a gravitational well can be explained utilizing only the principle of equivalence and conservation of energy. It is clear from this description that the effective slowing of these clocks has no effect on time itself, but only upon the instrumentation or processes by which we choose to measure time.

---

SourceCurt Renshaw does not have a Phd but his twin sons do. There are those who disagree concerning the principles of equivalence.

quote:

---

Einstein now suggested that this circumstance would justify the assumption that gravitational acceleration is in all respects equivalent to the observer being accelerated instead (in the opposite direction) in the absence of gravity:

---

SourceSeems like an assumption was involved.But regardless of any of that.The atomic clock on Earth would tick slower due to the force exerted upon the pulse of the atom by gravity, than the atomic clock in a satellite orbiting the earth with less force exerted by gravity.The orbiting clock would be affected by the weaker gravitational field so the clock would tick faster but it would also be affected by the motion of the clock in orbit slowing the tick.Both have to be caculated and the clock tick adjusted prior to launch due to the effect of the position of the clock.Since you did not answer this question I will ask it again.If you were to move the atomic clock in Greenwich England to Bolder Co., would it still tick slower or would they tick the same?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 apple falls because spacetime is warped! That's one of the major points of relativity! Gravity doesn't "cause" a warping of spacetime when something falls - gravity is a warping of spacetime caused by mass, and that warping causes the effects we observe like objects that fall. He's not wrong - you just (as usual) don;t understand what he's saying, or why those effects are observed.Gravity affects clocks because it actually warps spacetime.When we talk about time dilation effects, we are actually talking about the real amount of time experienced by those under the dilation effects compared to an outside observer being different. If you were to move close enough to the speed of light, or be caught in a sufficiently strong gravitational field, for a year and then came back to Earth, you would have literally experienced a different amount of time than the rest of us.It's not about "energy," it's about speed and the warping of spacetime.Spacetime is like a blanket being stretched out. When you put a mass on a point of the blanket, it causes a distortion - the mass sinks into the blanket to a degree that corresponds with the amount of mass the object has. Very similarly, the presence of an amount of mass at a point in spacetime distorts spacetime. If the object is spinning, it can even "twist" the four dimensions of time and space.One of the major aspects of relativity is that space and time are related, that time is a dimension of the Universe just like the spacial ones. That you're claiming any sort of evidence pertaining to relativity and simultaneously claiming that time is not a dimension of the Universe is laughable - the two concepts are mutually exclusive. If you accept that relativity is an accurate model, then you accept that time is a dimension of the Universe. If you don;t accept that time is a dimension of the Universe, then you do not accept relativity, end of story.

ICANT how are you determining that the two clocks measured the same duration? What are you measuring "duration" in? If you built two perfectly identical exceptionally accurate clocks in Greenwich UK, started them both ticking at exactly the same point and then transported one of them to Bolder US they would indeed show very small differing times as having elapsed since starting due to relatavistic effects.Do you dispute this?

ICANT how are you determining that the two clocks measured the same duration? What are you measuring "duration" in? If you built two perfectly identical exceptionally accurate clocks in Greenwich UK, started them both ticking at exactly the same point and then transported one of them to Bolder US they would indeed show very small differing times as having elapsed since starting due to relatavistic effects.Do you dispute this?

Hi Rahvin, Actually the apple falls because I stop supporting it's weight. The apple is attracted to the floor by gravity or your warped spacetime whatever you want to call it.So the apple is heavier than air and the air or space whichever you want to call it underneath the apple is not resistant enough to keep the apple from falling. If I was holding the apple in my hand but the apple was resting on a table at the same time and I let go of the apple it would go nowhere. So the statement "General Relativity (GR) predicts that clocks in a stronger gravitational field will tick at a slower rate." is correct.Would a clock on Earth be in a stronger gravitational field than one in orbit in a satellite?Would that mean that the only difference in the clocks would be the rate of the tick of the clock?Would this rate of tick exist because of the difference in the strength of the gravitational field exerted on each clock?Wouldn't that be the case whether gravity warped spacetime or not. I don't see where he is talking about time dilation.He simply states that, "General Relativity (GR) predicts that clocks in a stronger gravitational field will tick at a slower rate."There is no mention of that being because of time dilation. Only that the gravitational field is responsible for the rate of the tick of the clock. Last time I checked the speed of light was not possible to be reached by mankind.Is there a physical experiment proving that I would be younger than those left on Earth.It is a physical impossibility to reach eternal existence by a natural man. The article says nothing about speed or warping of spacetime. He does mention a moving clock.The article says, "General Relativity (GR) predicts that clocks in a stronger gravitational field will tick at a slower rate."The clock will tick slower the stronger the gravitational field the clock exists in.The article also says that, "(SR) predicts that moving clocks will appear to tick slower than non-moving ones."So the clock in the satellite will tick slower than the one on the ground due to movement.So the adjustment has to take into account the effect both GR, and SR has on the clock for the two clocks to be in sync when one is launched on the sattelite. If you had a blanket streached on a quilting frame and placed a bowling ball on it, the bowling ball would gravitate to the center of the blanket. If the bowling ball was spinning it would burn a hole in the blanket.So what are you trying to say?

quote:

---

In physics, spacetime (or space—time, space time) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single continuum. Spacetime is usually interpreted with space as being three-dimensional and time playing the role of a fourth dimension that is of a different sort from the spatial dimensions.

---

SourceI believe that space and time are related as space has to have its duration in existence. Duration is what is measured with our concept of time.If time is one of the dimensions of the universe, how does the universe exist in time?Wouldn't all four dimensions have to exist in something besides itself? Why do I have to accept that time is a dimension of the universe? So I have to accept all or nothing.Why?Isn't General Relativity based upon the assumption of Special Relativity being fact?Has not Special Relativity come under great question since 2009 becaue of the advent of Quantum Mechanics?Wasn't this one of Einsteins questions and the reason for a 1935 paper Einstein and his colleagues Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen. wrote, "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?"Which reminds me of the over-quoted concern about its chanciness ("God does not play dice").Now if GR is absolute fact as you seem to believe then I and many others may be completely out of our tree.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."

Hi Straggler, The only thing anything can exist in is existence itself.If one clock measures a minute according to its ticks and the other clock measures 3/4's of a minute according to its ticks one clock would be considered wrong or both could be wrong.But lets say the clock on Earth was checked with the other clocks on earth and found to be in sync with them then it would be correct. If that was the one that measured a minute as 60 seconds according to it's ticks then the clock that measured a minutes as 45 seconds would be wrong.Would that mean the clock in the satellite experienced a shorter duration than the clock on Earth? No, they experienced the same amount of time one just measured it wrong.(The duration represented in seconds is for illustration only and not accurate to actual difference in the clocks) I have no idea what relatavistic effects you are talking about.If you are saying the clock that was moved to Bolder US would tick at the same rate as the one at Bolder due to the reduced gravatitonal field that exists at Bolder then I would agree.Wouldn't it have been easier to say 'yes' to answer the question I asked?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."

Even if the gravitational field were the same at Bolder and Greenwich and at every place along the travel path, the clocks would not agree. Yet each clock would accurately reflect the time duration experienced by the respective clock. The 'moving' clock does not measure the duration 'wrong'. If you accompanied either clock, you would age according to the clock you accompanied rather than according to the clock. That's simply not correct ICANT.Your posts indicate that you have no understanding of the implications of general or special relativity. If your argument relies on this issue, and I don't know that to be the case, then you lose. Perhaps you should drop this line of argument and move on to another point.

Hi NoNukes, You need to read what I have said before you tell me I am wrong.In Message 125 I stated: The clock in Greenwich is identical to the one in Bolder, which means if they were side by side their tick rate would match. If you built one identical to the one in Greenwich and then transported it to Bolder the tick rate would match.Since they are identical they do not have the same tick rate due to the gravitational field in which the one in Greenwich resides. It ticks 5 microseconds a year slower than the one in Bolder.Please explain why the clocks would not have the same tick rate sitting side by side. Is the gentleman quoted below wrong?

quote:

---

2. What relativistic effects on GPS atomic clocks might be seen?

​

General Relativity (GR) predicts that clocks in a stronger gravitational field will tick at a slower rate. Special Relativity (SR) predicts that moving clocks will appear to tick slower than non-moving ones. Remarkably, these two effects cancel each other for clocks located at sea level anywhere on Earth. So if a hypothetical clock at Earth’s north or south pole is used as a reference, a clock at Earth’s equator would tick slower because of its relative speed due to Earth’s spin, but faster because of its greater distance from Earth’s center of mass due to the flattening of the Earth. Because Earth’s spin rate determines its shape, these two effects are not independent, and it is therefore not entirely coincidental that the effects exactly cancel. The cancellation is not general, however. Clocks at any altitude above sea level do tick faster than clocks at sea level; and clocks on rocket sleds do tick slower than stationary clocks.

​

For GPS satellites, GR predicts that the atomic clocks at GPS orbital altitudes will tick faster by about 45,900 ns/day because they are in a weaker gravitational field than atomic clocks on Earth's surface. Special Relativity (SR) predicts that atomic clocks moving at GPS orbital speeds will tick slower by about 7,200 ns/day than stationary ground clocks. Rather than have clocks with such large rate differences, the satellite clocks are reset in rate before launch to compensate for these predicted effects. In practice, simply changing the international definition of the number of atomic transitions that constitute a one-second interval accomplishes this goal. Therefore, we observe the clocks running at their offset rates before launch. Then we observe the clocks running after launch and compare their rates with the predictions of relativity, both GR and SR combined. If the predictions are right, we should see the clocks run again at nearly the same rates as ground clocks, despite using an offset definition for the length of one second.

---

SourceIn Message 140 I quoted Curt Renshaw

quote:

---

In this paper we will demonstrate that the slowing of clocks placed in motion or lowered into a gravitational well can be explained utilizing only the principle of equivalence and conservation of energy. It is clear from this description that the effective slowing of these clocks has no effect on time itself, but only upon the instrumentation or processes by which we choose to measure time.

---

SourceCurt Renshaw does not have a Phd but his twin sons do. If I am wrong then you should have no problem refuting the two preceeding quotes.Better yet why don't you just go ahead and refute the entire paper, "The Effects of Motion and Gravity on Clocks and an Examination of the Twin Paradox"And while you are at it you might as well refute "What the Global Positioning System Tells Us about Relativity", at Meta Research.The sources for both are given with the quotes from their works.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."

You are missing the point that both clocks are to be started while in Greenwich. Go back and read the Straggler's proposed experiment.The tick rates would not match during the transportation of one clock to Boulder due to special relativity effects. The motion of the clock during transport would cause the tick rate during transport to be different from that of the clock remaining in Greenwich.If you were in a vehicle with the transported clock, you would age at a rate consistent with the clock in that vehicle. I don't dispute either quote. Neither one is relevant to the point I say you are wrong about. And your words regarding the elevation of Boulder are not relevant either. I specifically said that I was describing effects that occur regardless of differences in elevation. I quote myself below. And in fact, you seem to be mistaken regarding what issue I said you were wrong about. Let me present my correction of you in context. Clearly, I said that you are wrong when you say that the difference in tick rates due to special or general relativity means that one clock or the other is giving a false measurements of duration. The sources that you've quoted do not address that point. Thus they are irrelevant.You can identify time dilation effects in some situations. You have no clue what the significance of those effects really is. Time dilation has nothing to do with clocks not properly measuring duration. Time dilation effects clocks, biological processes, and everything else that is a function of time duration in exactly the same way because time dilation effects time itself.

So your argument is based on clocks that are accurate to within one second every 3,700,000,000 years measuring the time wrongly? Well General Relativity, based on time being an intrinsic property of the universe, can predict the effects of space-time curvature (i.e. gravity) on time to a degree of startling experimentally verified accuracy.You on the other hand have invented this term "duration" which apparently is a measure of existence, isn't the same as time but is measured in seconds and then constructed an argument which depends on the most accurate clocks being unable to keep time remotely accurately. Only if you want simplicity at the expense of accuracy.

No, they actually experienced different amounts of time. GR affects time, not clocks. We know this because we can measure the effects of GR time dilation on things that aren't clocks.I.e. the Twin Paradox - you and your twin brother have by definition the same age. He heads off on a near-lightspeed journey to Alpha Centauri and back. As your brother buzzes the control tower at constant near-lightspeed on the way out, you look in the ship's window and he looks out. You spot his ship clock ticking slower than yours. He sees your tower clock ticking slower than his. You're both right relative to your own frame of reference. You age 10 years waiting for his return; he ages only 2 during the trip. It's not because GR added a bunch of extra days to his calendar, it's because you're both in different inertial reference frames, so time passes differently for the two of you. His frame was accelerating and near-lightspeed. Your frame was stationary the whole time. As a result, time passes different for the two of you and you can't mutually agree on what events between your two frames were simultaneous, or in what order they happened. Since clocks measure time, it's easiest to see the effects on clocks, but GR isn't something that happens to clocks, it's something that happens to time.