Summations Only

Hi oni, From your quote:1. 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.2. 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.When you reduce the effect of GR's 45,900 ns/day by the effect of
SR's 7,200 ns/day you get a net increase of 38,700 ns/day.3. Rather than have clocks with such large rate differences, the satellite clocks are reset in rate before launch to compensate for these predicted effects.This adjustment is made by..4. In practice, simply changing the international definition of the number of atomic transitions that constitute a one-second interval accomplishes this goal.The transition rate is not changed but the definition of the number of atomic transition in a second is changed and called an offset.Therefore the clock on the satellite will run 38,700 ns/day faster than the clock on the surface of the Earth.The changing of the length of a second does not change the transitions of the atomic clock.So what was the point you were trying to make?Time is not a dimension of the universe.Time is a concept of mankind that was invented to measure the duration between events in existence.Which brings us back to existence or non-existence.We exist as does the universe.Either the universe has existed in some form of matter or energy in infinite eternity.ORThe universe had a begining to exist in and from non-existence.God Bless,

Hi Son,And because Einstein believed the universe had 4 dimensions that makes it a fact.Is that what you are saying?God Bless,

That the clocks will read the same time. The adjustments are made because the observer on the ground will see the clock on the satellite running slower. It was pretty clear. That's silly. For that to be true Einstein's equations would have to be wrong and our entire understanding of the universe and modern day physics would have to be wrong, and that's just not the case simply because you're having trouble grasping the concepts.- Oni

Hi No, Isn't that called diffusion of light?God Bless,

Einstein proved time was a dimension. The math doesn't lie. The equations make predictions and are confirmed. This is probably the most evidenced of all theories in science and is the basis for modern day physics.- Oni

Hi ICANT, No, those things are not called diffusion. I have described refraction and reflection.But let's pretend that you have properly labeled those phenomena. Of what relevance would that be to the discussion? Is the trajectory of light always a straight line? Are trajectories objects? Is it some kind of fallacy of grammar to discuss a non-object such as a trajectory or a potential trajectory being altered?Of course not. Pretending that they are is just one way of turning an article about physics into an article about semantics and just dismissing the semantics. If you don't like the phrase "time dilation" call it something else, but relabeling does not make reality go away.

Hi oni, How will the observer on the ground see the clock on the satellite runing slower?He/she can't see that far.The data received from the clock on the satellite has been adjusted by 38,700 ns/day to the offset that was accomplished by redefining the second produced by the clock on the satellite.The clock on the satellite does not keep the same time as the clock on the ground. It still runs +38,700 ns/per day compared to the clock on the ground.The only adjustments that was made is that the number of transitions in a second has been changed for the clock on the satellite.We used to have wind up clocks that had a slot in the back with a little lever showing. You could move the lever towards F and the clock would tick faster or towards the S and the clock would tick slower. The atomic clock does not work that way.God Bless,

Complete and utter nonsense. There is no changing of the international definition of a second involved. I know what you are trying to say. But what you are actually saying is completely inaccuate. But this is just silly and pointless denial. It isn't even accurate. How do you use time to measure a duration? Why isn't duration the concept? And even were your statements correct true, they do no mean that time cannot have serve roles than the one initially concevied for it.For example, we can specify a time for your next dental appointment. What duration does that appointment time represent? Absolutely none at all. Instead that time would mark the instant (time coordinate) at which you are scheduled to appear for an event some would consider unpleasant. Yes, we can calculate durations using that coordinate as one of the end points. But the appoint time itself is not a duration.ABE:It's just like you to bust on a poster for saying "see" instead of "discern" or some other verb, and then to make completely inaccurate descriptions of physics in your own posts. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : irritation

No, he's just pointing out that you can find the information you said you couldn't find, in a book you said you owned: So Son was just pointing at quotes from that book that he thought would help. NoNukes I think gave a more general pointer. I think you both drifted from the original point being raised - but nobody was claiming that Einstein verba, ergo verum est (I can't speak Latin so that's probably horribly wrong).Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

You keep claiming this. And yet, you aren't able to articulate a reason for it to be valid.There is still a simple test available, you can continue whenever you're ready. You don't have to understand higher math, or the foundation of relativity (GR or SR), or how GPS systems work. This test is really very general and basic. There's not too much to it. I'm pretty sure the concept is used in grade school science classes. Maybe highschool.

quote:

---

Time is a dimension.
You can prove me wrong... just describe the x, y, z location of any physical thing without implying a time component.
I will provide two different time components... one making your location description correct, and one making it false.

​

If you can describe the location of a thing at x, y, z that is completely independant of time... that is, the object is always there regardless of the time... I will concede that time is not a dimension of our universe.
If I'm able to describe time components when that location is correct, and when it is false... then I will be right and time will be a dimension of our universe.

​

Message 382

---

You seem to have stopped replying to this exercise and merely returned to claiming that time is not a dimension... and then getting lost in the maths and concepts of SR and GR.I can think of a few reasons why:1. You are trolling: Message 3582. You are not able to think of any physical thing that does not depend on time. Therefore, you actually do know that time is a dimension, but you won't say so because you think that being wrong on this idea is detrimental to something you hold as an extremely high priority to yourself (I don't know what, or why). Since this test is basic, it's difficult to hide from. The maths and concepts of SR and GR are more complicated, so you think there's a better chance to find a place to hide there.3. You've decided that the test itself is at fault, therefore all the results are irrelevent. If so, we can discuss the test itself, why the 3 spatial dimensions are required (in basic terminology), and why the 4th temporal dimension is required in the same basic way. Kind of like what is done in Message 436.4. You have a lot of people posting to you, and you have to make some cuts because you're only one man. It's okay, the test won't disappear or anything. Feel free not to respond for months or years even, if needed. Sometimes I can get impatient... but that's my problem, not yours.

---

You keep coming back to this, ending your posts with it and such... as if it's a big important point or something.
What do you think it means?I mean, it's wrong.. and it's been shown to be wrong. But I really don't even see why it matters?
Let's say it's totally correct. You're awesome and these are the only two options possible. What does that mean? Anything? Is there some fantastic truth of the ages you think this proves? Do you think this somehow shows that God exists or that the Bible is true or something like that?Or is it simply "if this is true, then ICANT's pet theories about the universe are correct, and ICANT can sleep well at night"? Even though it doesn't really have anything to say about anything larger than you having a smile on your face? We do have a humour thread, if that's what you're looking for...I just don't see why you're defending any of this and constantly returning to that one point anyway. Is there a reason?

No, of course it doesn't.However the fact that a theory which assumes time is a physically real dimension (the quotations from the man who made the theory should be strong enough evidence of that) is also supported by all experimental evidence, to the stage that it is the single most confirmed theory in physics, does suggest, quite strongly, that it is a fact.

We're well off at this point I think were currently on a tangent of a tangent of the main topic of the thread!

As I understand it, the thrust of the thread is that physics is best understood by people who know diddly-squat about the topic.

I'd like to call it pseudo-trolling. He's just looking for slow pitches to swing at...Here's my assessment of ICANT from about 18 months ago, from Message 427:

quote:

---

So he's not really this stupid but he is pulling our leg?

He's playing dumb and banking on you not fullfilling his unreasonable requests (but still, he's not really that smart).

​

Recall that he loves to claim that he's been posting something here for X-timeframe and nobody has shown where he's wrong yet. When they do show he's wrong, he backs up the goalpost a bit and plays dumb like he doesn't understand why he's already refuted.

​

The least he could have done is to put a smiley face in there.

​

No, no, no. That would break the illusion of sincerity and then he wouldn't get replies to defend himself against.

​

Unless your saying he is deliberately lying being intellectually dishonest and an insufferable troll.

​

Sort of, but not really. ICANT is *old*. He's happy with just tricking himself into maintaining the beliefs he's always had. (recall that he loves to claim that he figured this thing out when he was a kid and nobody's proved him wrong yet). He doesn't expect to convince anyone else, he just wants his position to be able to withstand any attack. If that means playing dumb to avoid a direct refutation then so be it.

​

He gets his jollies from appearing to all the world to be as dumb as a stump?

​

I figured this all out while debating my grandfather at his kitchen table. When its his turn to make a point, everybody better shut up and listen to him because its serious business and he has something important to say. When its your turn to make your point, its all fun and games and he jokes about whatever your saying and doesn't really pay attention much. Especially if its going to show he's wrong or make him rethink something. Its the same tactic ICANT uses.

​

Why would anyone do this? Does the man have no pride?

​

He does it to reinforce his beliefs. He's already got them a priori, now he'll put them up against the onslaught and when they survive and nobody's proved him wrong (because of the dishonesty he employs), then he can remain victorious and feel comfortible in holding a belief that he hasn't seen refuted yet in all these years

---

And this is from the thread Straggler linked to earlier, from over 3 years ago, Message 310

quote:

---

Do you have scientific evidence that time is a property of the Universe?
If so I would like to see it.

​

I want scientific evidence not somebody said so.

​

How can I show you scientific evidence that somebody did not say?

​

You'll deny anything scientific that goes against your pet theory anyway and glorify any psuedo-science that supports it. Plus, you use Hawking's "say so" when it suits your pet theory and deny others' when it doesn't.

​

Sorry ICANT, but I don't want to play your game.

---

Hi Son, So time is streached which you call time dilation.The folks that work with the atomic clock at Bolder has a paper NIST Cesium Fountains — Current Status and Future Prospects
S.R. Jefferts, T.P. Heavner, T.E. Parker, J.H.Shirley
NIST — Time and Frequency DivisionIn which they state.

quote:

---

The frequency of a clock is shifted by about
δ f/f = +1X10^-16 of height above the geoid.

---

They also said:

quote:

---

While the fountain produces proper time within its laboratory, all clocks are subject to frequency shifts due to both velocity and the local gravitational potential.

---

So the higher from the geoid the clock is placed the faster the fountain clock runs.That tells me that the 38,700 ns/day is caused by the clock being higher from the geoid. In other words it is higher in a weaker gravatational potential than the clock on the Earth's surface and because of that gains 38,700 ns/day over the clock on the Earth's surface.In a paper Global Position System Receivers and Relativity
by Neil Ashby and Marc Weiss of
Time and Frequency Division
Physics Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and TechnologyThey make the following statement.

quote:

---

Gravitational frequency shift. A clock at rest in a lower gravitational potential runs slower relative to coordinate time than if it were at rest in a higher potential.

---

Maybe these people have no idea what they are talking about, but I doubt it as they work with the real atomic clocks at Bolder.God Bless,