|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 0/368 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Existence | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
ICANT writes:
The people that build the NIST-F1 says this of the clock.
quote: Limited only by the force of gravity. ICANT, your source does not prove your point at all. The article says that the 'observation time' is limited by the force of gravity. The observation time is not the length of a second as measured by the clock. The observation time is the time the cesium atoms spend in the microwave cavity which is a part of the detector for picking out the frequency. Longer observation times simply make the clock work better by making it easier to tune into the hyperfine frequency rather than other spurious unrelated frequencies. But the size of the observation time has nothing to do with the hyperfine frequency generated by the cesium atoms. The frequency generated would be the same if the observation time were doubled. From the same source.
quote: Congrats on your citation of Hatch. You've finally quoted a non-crack pot. Some scientists do subscribe to the Lorentz Ether Theory explanation of special relativity. About the only thing controversial in the paper is Hatch's claim that SR and LET can be distinguished experimentally. Under LET, the twin paradox still exists, although its explanation is a little different. You'll need to stop denying that phenomenon if you want to hang your hat on LET.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi NoNukes,
NoNukes writes: ICANT, your source does not prove your point at all. Then please explain my point to me. I thought my point was that the stronger the force of gravity was the slower the clock would run. Which would mean that the weaker the force of gravity was the faster the clock would run. If we put the atomic clock in a GPS satellite and make no adjustments to the clock frequency it will be observed to run faster than the clock on the ground. It does not say anything about it affecting time and making time past slower the stronger the gravity force is. Gravity affects the mechanism not the passage of duration that is measured with our concept of time.
NoNukes writes: You'll need to stop denying that phenomenon if you want to hang your hat on LET. Why do I have to hang my hat on anything? 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
ICANT writes: Then please explain my point to me. I thought my point was that the stronger the force of gravity was the slower the clock would run. Yes, I understand that to be your point. But the reference does not even address that issue. You are confusing 'observation time' with the clock rate. Do you understand what 'observation time' means in the context of the reference? Increased observation time increases clock stability, but not clock rate.
Which would mean that the weaker the force of gravity was the faster the clock would run. The reference indicates that the 'observation time' is limited by gravity. The implication is that higher gravity results in shorter observation times. If your confused thinking were correct, then gravity would have the opposite effect on clock rate than the one you are claiming. But of course that is wrong. You simply misread the reference.
If we put the atomic clock in a GPS satellite and make no adjustments to the clock frequency it will be observed to run faster than the clock on the ground. Assuming that you are observing from the ground, you are correct. But the issue is simply not addressed in the reference; at least not in the part you quoted. And let's be clear about one other point. Cesium clocks generate a frequency of 9,192,631,770 Hz. That frequency is not adjustable. If it were, then we could not define time based on the frequency without specifying every other influencing variable.
Why do I have to hang my hat on anything? Because you are the one citing the Hatch's paper. The Hatch's conclusion is based on LET. If LET is wrong, then his statements based on LET are unsupported. And as has been pointed out, experiments show that Hatch's prediction was wrong. If LET and SR can be distinguished experimentally as Hatch claims, then his prediction based on LET is wrong, and he has failed to disprove SR/GR. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi NoNukes,
NoNukes writes: Assuming that you are observing from the ground, you are correct. But the issue is simply not addressed in the reference; at least not in the part you quoted. And let's be clear about one other point. Cesium clocks generate a frequency of 9,192,631,770 Hz. That frequency is not adjustable. If it were, then we could not define time based on the frequency without specifying every other influencing variable. Did you miss reading this in Message 235:
quote:Source page 3 Emphasis mine. Rates of clocks in GPS are adjusted (as they are for International Atomic Time) to match the rate that clocks would run on the geoid of the earth. GPS time is thus defined relative to an earth-centered inertial coordinate system (an ECIF), but the rate is set to match the rate at which clocks would run on the geoid. Thus, standard clocks closer to the earth run slower than standard clocks farther away, since the gravitational potential becomes more negative closer to the earth. Clocks on GPS satellites run faster than clocks at rest on the earth’s surface. Thus GPS satellite clock frequencies need to be adjusted by a fraction of about -5.3 x lo-’’ relative to the earth’s geoid, to compensate for this effect. Now I could be mistaken when I say the clocks on GPS satellites frequencies are adjusted to match the clock on the earth's surface. I may also be mistaken when I say the clocks on GPS satellites if not adjusted will tick faster than the clock on the earth's surface. I may also be mistaken when I say the rates of clocks in GPs are adjusted to match the rate that clocks would run on the geoid of the earth. I may be mistaken when I say that gravity is responsible for the difference in the frequency rate of the clock on the surface of the earth and the clock on the GPS satellite. I may be mistaken when I say that gravity affects the frequency of the clocks but does not make time pass faster because the clocks frequency runs faster. But if I am wrong then the people that built the GPS system who wrote the article quoted is wrong.
NoNukes writes: Because you are the one citing the Hatch's paper. The Hatch's conclusion is based on LET. If LET is wrong, then his statements based on LET are unsupported. But his conclusion is based on MLET. Now as to some of his statements.
quote: The Sagnac effect disproves SR. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
ICANT writes: Hi NoNukes,
NoNukes writes: Assuming that you are observing from the ground, you are correct. But the issue is simply not addressed in the reference; at least not in the part you quoted. And let's be clear about one other point. Cesium clocks generate a frequency of 9,192,631,770 Hz. That frequency is not adjustable. If it were, then we could not define time based on the frequency without specifying every other influencing variable. Did you miss reading this in Message 235:
For satellites in GPS orbits, the fractional frequency offset needed to compensate for this is approximately +8.3 x relative to the rate of clocks on the earth’s geoid. The clock rate is not adjusted by adjusting the atomic frequency. We've discussed this already.
But if I am wrong then the people that built the GPS system who wrote the article quoted is wrong. Do the people in the article say anything about adjusting the frequency of the microwave radiation emitted by the cesium atom? No they don't. The adjustment must be made elsewhere (e.g. in the frequency divider that produces the 5 or 10MHz frequency) or by adding an amount to the accumulated count.
ICANT writes:
The Sagnac effect disproves SR. At least that's what Hatch claims. But it does not appear that the predictions of the theory Hatch supports matches the experimental results that confirm GR. Something is wrong with Hatch's analysis. I have no clue what. Edited by NoNukes, : fix tags
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi NoNukes,
NoNukes writes: The clock rate is not adjusted by adjusting the atomic frequency. We've discussed this already. You have asserted many things. In Message 316 You said:
quote: What hyperfine frequency are you talking about being tuned? This statement from my original source a couple of paragraphs down:
quote:Source What is the need to control the resonance frequency of the ceslum if is not adjustable? Why does the ceslum atom have a need to be excited by a microwave frequency for if the frequency can not be changed? Why are some of the atoms not used because they have the wrong frequency?
NoNukes writes: Cesium clocks generate a frequency of 9,192,631,770 Hz. That frequency is not adjustable. If it were, then we could not define time based on the frequency without specifying every other influencing variable. quote: If the frequency of 9,192,631,770 Hz. is a perfect measurment of duration, why does leap seconds have to be added to the atomic clocks at irregular intervals to synchronize the clock with the earths rotation?
NoNukes writes: At least that's what Hatch claims. But it does not appear that the predictions of the theory Hatch supports matches the experimental results that confirm GR. Something is wrong with Hatch's analysis. I have no clue what. The Sagnac effect has nothing to do with Hatch's theory or his predictions. The GPS satellite is in motion and my GPS receiver in my dash is in motion.
quote:Source The Sagnac effect is the result of a non-isotropic speed of light. SR says the speed of light is always isotropic with respect to the observer. The 2 can not co-exist. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
The Sagnac effect is the result of a non-isotropic speed of light. The Sagnac effect is not the result of a non-isotropic speed of light, because the speed of light is the same for all observers - i.e., it is isotropic. The Sagnac effect can not be the result of something that is impossible, by definition. The Sagnac effect is the result of special relativity, not a contradiction of it, and it's caused by the rotation of the light path with reference to the stationary detector system. The light path and detector are in different inertial reference frames, so it is a natural consequence of SR that an interference effect is produced. The Sagnac effect confirms SR, it doesn't contradict it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
ICANT writes: Hi NoNukes,
quote: I did not just assert this. I backed it up with a quote from your source.
What hyperfine frequency are you talking about being tuned? Yikes. You should be able to answer this question yourself. The special frequency that forms the basis of the cesium clock is emitted by the transition between two hyperfine ground level energy states in a cesium atom. The difference in energy levels corresponds to a frequency of 9,192,631,770 hertz. Cesium atoms can have other energy states, and transitions between them can generate other frequencies. A proper clock must tune out the unwanted frequencies and tune into the proper one.
ICANT writes: What is the need to control the resonance frequency of the ceslum if is not adjustable? Why does the ceslum atom have a need to be excited by a microwave frequency for if the frequency can not be changed? Why are some of the atoms not used because they have the wrong frequency? Hopefully you can now answer all of these questions yourself. The operation of the clock is explained very well in your reference.
ICANT writes: NoNukes writes: Cesium clocks generate a frequency of 9,192,631,770 Hz. That frequency is not adjustable. If it were, then we could not define time based on the frequency without specifying every other influencing variable. If the frequency of 9,192,631,770 Hz. is a perfect measurment of duration, why does leap seconds have to be added to the atomic clocks at irregular intervals to synchronize the clock with the earths rotation? This question has absolutely nothing to do with the accuracy of clocks or relativity. From the wikipedia article on leap seconds
quote: ICANT writes: The Sagnac effect has nothing to do with Hatch's theory or his predictions. True.
Sagnac effect is the result of a non-isotropic speed of light and arises any time an observer or measuring instrument moves with respect to the frame chosen as the isotropic light-speed frame. And it is here that the Sagnac effect runs into trouble with the special theory. The special theory by postulate and definition of time synchronization requires that the speed of light always be isotropic with respect to the observer. And this is where the special theory is in errorthe Sagnac effect illustrates that error. And this is merely what Hatch believes to be true. I see that another poster has addressed this better than I can.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi NoNukes,
NoNukes writes: Cesium atoms can have other energy states, and transitions between them can generate other frequencies. A proper clock must tune out the unwanted frequencies and tune into the proper one. This is the reason I asked the question as I wanted your answer. The assertion I was refering to was what you said in Message 320:
NoNukes writes: The clock rate is not adjusted by adjusting the atomic frequency. We've discussed this already. So if atoms can have other energy states those that have a different frequency than the one set by international decree as representing a second could be chosen in the GPS clock to represent a second with the tick rate equal to the earthbound clock. The tick rate of the GPS clocks and the earthbound clock has to match for the GPS system to work. Then the Sagnac effect has to be accounted for which is done in the GPS receiver in my car, for it to tell me where I am at, and what speed I am traveling.
NoNukes writes: If the frequency of 9,192,631,770 Hz. is a perfect measurment of duration, why does leap seconds have to be added to the atomic clocks at irregular intervals to synchronize the clock with the earths rotation? This question has absolutely nothing to do with the accuracy of clocks or relativity. But it has everything to do with what 'time' is. 9,192,631,770 Hz is not time as some have asserted neither is it a second. 9,192,631,770 Hz is what has been agreed upon as a second by the international community. Making the second a concept invented by mankind to measure duration of events or between events.
NoNukes writes: And this is merely what Hatch believes to be true. Actually it agrees with: Michelson's paper of 1904: Relative motion of Earth and Ether.Sagnac's experiment. Which disproves relativity. The Michelson Gale experiment (1925). Their data show clearly that cm, is not a Universal Constant. Is the speed of c constant? 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi crash,
crashfrog writes: The Sagnac effect is the result of special relativity, not a contradiction of it, and it's caused by the rotation of the light path with reference to the stationary detector system. What stationary detector system? There is nothing in the universe that is stationary, everything is in constant motion. The Sagnac effect is the result of the GPS satellites movement and the movement of the GPS receiver on the ground. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
What stationary detector system? In the Sagnac interferometer. You do understand what the Sagnac effect is, right?
The Sagnac effect is the result of the GPS satellites movement and the movement of the GPS receiver on the ground. Oh, no, in fact, you don't. No, the Sagnac effect is the interference that results when a ring laser system is rotated.
quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
ICANT writes: So if atoms can have other energy states those that have a different frequency than the one set by international decree as representing a second could be chosen in the GPS clock to represent a second with the tick rate equal to the earthbound clock. No, they cannot be used. The hyperfine frequency is chosen because it is particularly stable. The suggestion that it is a random choice out of all the possible frequencies emitted by the cesium atom is inane. But more importantly, it misses the point. You cannot adjust one cesium clock to match another cesium clock by tuning in a different emission/absorption spectrum line produced by cesium.
Then the Sagnac effect has to be accounted for which is done in the GPS receiver in my car, for it to tell me where I am at, and what speed I am traveling. So what? I believe I've already acknowledged this point. Remember the discussion about your l'il Tom Tom? This is of no relevance at all. What is relevant is what causes the effect.
9,192,631,770 Hz is not time as some have asserted neither is it a second. 9,192,631,770 Hz is what has been agreed upon as a second by the international community. I believe you really mean that 9,192,631,770 cycles of the cesium hyperfine microwave radiation is not one second. This line of argument going nowhere. You are simply reiterating your belief that clocks can slow or speed up but that time cannot appear to be slower as viewed in another reference frame. But none of your description regarding the definition of a second is incompatible with GR or SR. It's totally irrelevant. All clocks and all processes show time dilation phenomena of the same magnitude when the clocks are in relative motion with regards to each other even without the influence of a gravitational field. I'm not sure what you would predict happens in that situation.
Michelson's paper of 1904: Relative motion of Earth and Ether. Sagnac's experiment. Which disproves relativity. Before Einstein's paper was even published? Your claim is highly dubious. Please support this claim.
The Michelson Gale experiment (1925). Their data show clearly that cm, is not a Universal Constant. That's not how the experiment is described in Wikipedia. Why don't you provide a reference for your statement that the experiment disproves SR and we can discuss it. Michelson—Gale—Pearson experiment - Wikipedia
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi crash,
crashfrog writes: You do understand what the Sagnac effect is, right? It seems like I understand it a little better than you do. In fact you can't even read your own quote.
crashfrog writes: emphasis added. No, the Sagnac effect is the interference that results when a ring laser system is rotated.
quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect This is talking about an interferometer that the experiment can be run in that the Sagnac effect is manifest in. The cause of the Sagnac effect is the fact when I am using my GPS I am not in the same frame as the clock in Boulder which is the chosen isotropic light-speed frame. All the GPS atomic clocks in the satellites are tuned to tick with the atomic clock in Boulder, which makes the clock in Boulder in the isotropic light-speed frame. The special theory requires that the speed of light always be isotropic with respect to the observer. Since I am not in that frame I am in a non-isotropic speed of light frame. The adjustments have to be made in the software in the GPS receiver that is in my car to account for this before it can tell me where I am and what speed I am going. Mr Hatch that I have quoted upthread is responsible for much of that software as well as the Hatch filter. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
This is talking about an interferometer that the experiment can be run in that the Sagnac effect is manifest in. Well, right. And the reason that it manifests in a Sagnac interferometer - and not, say, a hot cup of tea - is because the Sagnac effect is a consequence of the optical path and the detector being in different reference frames due to the ring system being in rotation, and a Sagnac interferometer is just such a device that has a rotating optical path and a stationary detector system.
All the GPS atomic clocks in the satellites are tuned to tick with the atomic clock in Boulder, which makes the clock in Boulder in the isotropic light-speed frame. Well, no. None of the GPS clocks in the satellites are ticking at the same rate as the clock in Boulder, they're ticking a little bit faster because the clock in Boulder - indeed all clocks on the Earth's surface - are experiencing time dilation. The clocks in the satellites are brought back into synchronization by the very simple trick of treating a second in orbit as longer than one on Earth.
Since I am not in that frame I am in a non-isotropic speed of light frame. Regardless of your frame of reference, the speed of light is the same for all observers. This is both a fundamental mathematical conclusion of the Maxwell equations - which you have not refuted - and an observation that has been made many hundreds of thousands of times with the same result each time. The Sagnac effect is a consequence of special relativity; it's not a contradiction of it.
The adjustments have to be made in the software in the GPS receiver that is in my car to account for this before it can tell me where I am and what speed I am going. The adjustments have to be made as a function of the fact that you're experiencing time dilation as a result of living on the Earth's surface, and the Sagnac effect as a result of living on a rotating planet. Time dilation affects the relative rates of clocks on Earth and in space, and the Sagnac effect affects the frequency of transmissions between satellites and the Earth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi NoNukes,
NoNukes writes: No, they cannot be used. The hyperfine frequency is chosen because it is particularly stable. The suggestion that it is a random choice out of all the possible frequencies emitted by the cesium atom is inane. But more importantly, it misses the point. You cannot adjust one cesium clock to match another cesium clock by tuning in a different emission/absorption spectrum line produced by cesium. However the clocks are tuned, adjusted, manipulated, or controled they tick at the same rate as the clock on the ground.
NoNukes writes: But none of your description regarding the definition of a second is incompatible with GR or SR. It's totally irrelevant. All clocks and all processes show time dilation phenomena of the same magnitude when the clocks are in relative motion with regards to each other even without the influence of a gravitational field. I'm not sure what you would predict happens in that situation. I know you believe time dilates so why don't you explain what Taq failed to explain to me. In Message 307 to Taq I stated:
quote: Taq informs me the time would not be the same for both of us because of time dilation. In Message 314 to Taq I stated:
quote: So if time dilation is true explain to me how I can experience less than 4 years if c is constant.
NoNukes writes: Why don't you provide a reference for your statement that the experiment disproves SR and we can discuss it. You can find the information 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."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024