Existence

Whilst I agree wholeheartedly - How can we convince ICANT of this without sending real twins off at near light speeds and then comparing their wrinkles?

Muon decay? Surely ICANT can't think that a subatomic particle somehow contains a functioning clock.

You may be overestimating ICANT here!!!ICANT thinks that the accuracy of an atomic clock is being adversely affected (in a way that exactly matches space-time curvature predictions) by the pull of gravity on the particles involved in the time keeping process.

Hi straggler, Lets examine the two clock I talked about the one in Bolder US and the one in Greenwich England.Those two atomic clocks are identical that means they were built in the same factory, with identical pulse rates. One went to Bolder and the other to Greenwich England.The gravatational field is stronger in Greenwich than in Bolder because of that the clock in Greenwich ticks 5 microseconds a year slower than the one in Bolder.If you were to transport either clock to the location of the other whether it be in Bolder or Greenwich they would tick the same because they are identical atomic clocks which are very accurate.The statement: "accurate to within one second every 3,700,000,000 years" is only true when the clocks stay at the same distance from the core of the Earth as they were constructed in.If you were to take the clock at Bolder and launch it into space to a GPS orbit the launched clock would tick another 37,800 ns/day faster.Does that mean that time passes faster in orbit than it does in Greenwich?No, it just means the gravatational field is weaker which causes the atom to pulse faster.Here is a gentleman that affirms the above statement.

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.

---

emphasis added.SourceCurt Renshaw does not have a Phd but his twin sons do.Here is another:

quote:

---

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.

---

emphasis added. SourceThe fact that the weaker gravatational field is responsible for the faster tick rate is what my argument is based upon. Which is an assumption. It is not fact.Could you explain what this 'time' the space-time curvature effects?Is this time streached, shrunk, or warped? The word duration late 14c is from old Fr.So how did I invent the term "duration"? I ain't that old.Duration is what is measured by the concept of time. OK.Since the two clocks are identical would you agree the clock at Bolder ticks faster due to the reduced strength of the gravatational field?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."

No ICANT. It means they measure time to that accuracy regardless of where they are. So if we build one clock at the top of a mountain and one at the bottom do you think they will stay in synch? Is "duration" a property of the universe? How do you meaure this "duration"...? Faster relative to what? A clock in a stronger gravitational field? Yes. But which clock measures "duration".........?

Hi crash, Dilation n 1. The act of expanding or the state of being expanded.
Source SourceAccording to these definitions what kind of object is time composed of that can be expanded, englarged or reduced in size? When was this experiment performed?
What was used to propell the rocket ship?I like this story best. You can read the entire paper,HereGod 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."

Why even bring up his sons' degrees?Curt Renshaw is a relativity denier. See the quote below from the same paper. (My emphasis added.)

quote:

---

Most importantly, however, it must be stressed again that time itself has not slowed down. Only the arbitrary units of measure with which we choose to mark time have slowed, whether atomic processes, frequency changes or molecular reactions. The distinction is important. In the relativistic model, clocks slowed down because time itself slowed down.

---

It should be clear that Curt a) claims that the time dilation effects are not due to relativity, and b) acknowledges that relativity does indeed predict that time is effected. But Curt denies that special relativity is real and accepts some contrary explanation for time dilation.Further, I also note from the paper that Curt acknowledges the difficulty in explaining the time dilation effect in the famous muon experiment, that pretty much conclusively shows that time and not just clocks are effected. He has only potential proposed explanations that appear to me to be nonsense.But given your own arguments, you aren't denying relativity are you? If not then you don't agree with Renshaw's conclusion. Only if you are also denying relativity do we need to actually pick apart Curt's work.As to your second point... This second source does not agree with Curt. They are using relativity and not whatever bonehead substitute Curt is using. None of us here disagree with anything in the above quote.

Hi Straggler, The only thing they are measuring is the arbirary units of measure someone has chosen to mark time. They will never have the same tick rate (be in sync), unless one of them has their tick rate recalibrated as is done prior to launch of the GPS clocks. What do you mean when you say "a property of the universe"?Duration is a period of existence in eternal existence and is measured in seconds, minutes, hours, days, years, and etc., which is a concept of man invented to represent what we call time. Since I used the clock at Bolder I had not changed clocks so I was refering to the twin clock at Greenwich. Still using the clocks at Bolder and Greenwich.The clock that is still in the reference frame in which it was constructed. The clock that is not in the reference frame in which it was constructed will be 5 microseconds a year off, as the clock has been moved from it reference frame and must be recalibrated to be 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 NoNuke, You probably right I am sure they never discussed anything or gave opinions on his work. Neither does Flandern agree with Einstein's SR and Gr. The GPS system uses the Lorentzian, not Einsteinian relativity.All the clocks in the system are in sync with one clock on earth.Sorry to burst your bubble on that one.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."

Time is a quality or aspect of spacetime, and in this case spacetime is what is dilating. We know this is the case because objects in motion not only experience time dilation, they experience spacial contraction along the axis of travel - they get shorter - and mass increase as a function of their velocity. These are all the result of how objects in fast motion warp spacetime. It continues to be performed with muons, with the result that muons, which like all particles have constant half-life, experience a longer half-life when they move at relativistic velocities. We've observed that electrons have a greater mass when they are accelerated to relativistic velocities.Offhand I don't know how they proved length contraction, but that happens, too. Funny, I guess, but clearly inaccurate - clock B passes fifty years; clock A is the one that only ages 8.

Because they're set to run slower than Earthbound clocks (according to their own frame of reference) so that they stay synchronized with clocks on Earth (according to our frame of reference.) Well, ok, but GR and SR are probably second only to evolution in the weight of unexpected experimental and observational confirmation of the theory. I mean, we can look and see all over the place where things in the universe behave relativistically.

I find this very interesting and would love to read more on it, from all I can find they use SR and GR to compensate for differences in clocks.Can you please provide me with your source for your statement above, thanks. a comparison of the twoHere is an interesting bit on gps ,although I cant say anything of its source, seems questionable, but still interesting comparison.Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.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 aspera

ICANT do you think that if we construct a clock in Greenwich and we construct an identical clock in Bolder that the two will stay in synch?

This appears to be true, but the clock corrections predicted by either method are the same. How does that bust my bubble?

Hi Straggler, The one in built in Bolder could not tick identical to the one in Greenwich without the tick rate being adjusted to match the one in Greenwich. Like the ones in the sattelite is adjusted before launch to match the one on Earth.Without a tick rate adjustment the one in Bolder would tick faster due to the weaker gravatational field.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."