Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
35 online now:
Faith, PaulK (2 members, 33 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,981 Year: 19,017/19,786 Month: 1,437/1,705 Week: 243/446 Day: 41/98 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The one and only non-creationist in this forum.
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1152
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005


Message 511 of 558 (682022)
11-29-2012 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 506 by ICANT
11-29-2012 12:44 PM


Re: travel through time
ICANT writes:

quote:
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.
Source

Neither of the above has time streaching or shrinking.


There is no point discussing anything until we get past this extremely basic point.

General Relativity predicts that clocks are altered via the distortion of time.
It makes no sense to quote a source saying that General Relativity predicts something and then say there is no mention of the distortion of time, as the mentioning of temporal distortion is implicit in "General Relativity". General Relativity is about, the whole theory is centred around the idea that spacetime is curved.

This would be like quoting a reference saying:
"Maxwell's theory predicts light will warm a surface"
and then saying there is no mention of an electric field, when Maxwell's theory is about electric fields.

Or:
"The Alvarez hypothesis predicts a layer of Iridium deposits in the KT-layer"
and then saying there is no mention of a meteorite, when Alvarex hypothesis is about the impact of a meteorite.

Do you understand what I'm saying? There's no point saying "X" is mentioned when "X" is part and parcel of the theory being mentioned.

Edited by Son Goku, : Formatting.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 506 by ICANT, posted 11-29-2012 12:44 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 514 by ICANT, posted 11-29-2012 3:48 PM Son Goku has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 512 of 558 (682023)
11-29-2012 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 510 by ICANT
11-29-2012 2:30 PM


Re: Attempt number 123...
I am not going to make further attempts to explain GR to you until you make some attempt to understand. I'm all out of spoons. All the information you need has been made available to you.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 510 by ICANT, posted 11-29-2012 2:30 PM ICANT has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17451
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 513 of 558 (682025)
11-29-2012 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 510 by ICANT
11-29-2012 2:30 PM


Re: Attempt number 123...
ICANT writes:

Is the atomic clock at Bolder Colorado set to operate at 9,192,631,770 oscillations per second?


You remind me of the schoolboy joke: Which is heavier, a pound of feathers or a pound of gold? The knee-jerk answer is that they weigh the same but the trick is the fact that a pound of feathers has sixteen ounces while a pound of gold only has twelve.

So, is a pound of feathers heavier than a pound of gold?

Well, that depends on which is different, the ounce or the pound. Is a pound a pound and gold has bigger ounces? Or is an ounce an ounce and feathers have more of them? Or are both different?

My answer to your question would be that the number of oscillations is the same. It's the size of the seconds that differs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 510 by ICANT, posted 11-29-2012 2:30 PM ICANT has acknowledged this reply

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6259
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 514 of 558 (682034)
11-29-2012 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 511 by Son Goku
11-29-2012 2:32 PM


Re: travel through time
Hi Son,

SonGoku writes:

There is no point discussing anything until we get past this extremely basic point.

I agree that we are at an impass.

I believe the following.

1. The second is defined as 9,192,631,770 oscillations of the caesium-133 atom?

2. The atomic clock at Bolder Colorado is set to operate at 9,192,631,770 oscillations per second?

3. The atomic clock in a GPS satellite does not have 9,192,631,770 ocsillations in the same amount of duration that the clock in Bolder Colorado does? It runs faster than the earthbound clock by 38,700 ns/per day.

4. What has to be done to insure that the duration experienced by the earthbound clock is represented by the clock in the satellite?

The clock in the satellite has to have an offset to be able to measure the same duration as the earthbound clock.

5. The signal between the clock on the satellite and the receiver on the ground may be curved due to the velocity the satellite is traveling and the velocity of the receiver on and with the Earth..

Which of these do I have wrong?

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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 511 by Son Goku, posted 11-29-2012 2:32 PM Son Goku has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 515 by onifre, posted 11-29-2012 10:50 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 522 by Taq, posted 11-30-2012 12:02 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 524 by Son Goku, posted 11-30-2012 1:09 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1242 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 515 of 558 (682110)
11-29-2012 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 514 by ICANT
11-29-2012 3:48 PM


Re: travel through time
I believe the following.

It doesn't matter what you believe, the point here is what have you learned from Son - who is a theoretical physicist - that you continue to quenstion and try to contradict!

You need to accept and acknowledge what he, an expert in the field, is telling you, and as he said, get past the extremely basic point about time.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 514 by ICANT, posted 11-29-2012 3:48 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 516 by NoNukes, posted 11-30-2012 9:02 AM onifre has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 516 of 558 (682151)
11-30-2012 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 515 by onifre
11-29-2012 10:50 PM


Re: travel through time
You need to accept and acknowledge what he, an expert in the field, is telling you, and as he said, get past the extremely basic point about time.

It's not even a matter of accepting what Son says as being reality. It is instead a matter of accepting that Son is right about what the theory General Relativity says, regardless of whether ICANT ends up believeing that General Relativity is actually correct.

But ICANT refuses to even get to that point. As a result when he reads a paper saying that GR causes result X, he substitutes his nonsense in place for "GR" and then claims that the paper says something completely different from what the author intended.

ICANT did the same thing in our past discussion of Special Relativity. He came up with his own goofy interpretation of what Einstein's postulates were, and attempted to use that interpretation to demonstrate that Special Relativity was inconsistent with Einstein's postulates.

There is simply no fix for that kind of bull headedness. The best that can be done is to bring it to light and to them move on. I don't think ICANT appreciates how his behavior on this issue under cuts his credibility on other subjects, but others do.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 515 by onifre, posted 11-29-2012 10:50 PM onifre has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 517 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-30-2012 10:06 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 517 of 558 (682161)
11-30-2012 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 516 by NoNukes
11-30-2012 9:02 AM


Re: travel through time
I don't think ICANT appreciates how his behavior on this issue under cuts his credibility on other subjects, but others do.

Nor does he appreciate the scope of the opportunity he has here; to discuss GR directly with people who understand it and are willing to go baby-steps through it with him.

Thank god all the rest of us benefit from reading their posts and they're not just a waste of time the measure of the duration it took.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 516 by NoNukes, posted 11-30-2012 9:02 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 518 by hooah212002, posted 11-30-2012 10:59 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 113 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 518 of 558 (682163)
11-30-2012 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 517 by New Cat's Eye
11-30-2012 10:06 AM


Re: travel through time
to discuss GR directly with people who understand it and are willing to go baby-steps through it with him.

Is GR/SR beginner level physics, though? Shouldn't one understand physics (and the high level maths that go along with it) before jumping into GR and SR?


"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 517 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-30-2012 10:06 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 519 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-30-2012 11:10 AM hooah212002 has responded
 Message 520 by NoNukes, posted 11-30-2012 11:15 AM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 519 of 558 (682166)
11-30-2012 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 518 by hooah212002
11-30-2012 10:59 AM


Re: travel through time
Is GR/SR beginner level physics, though? Shouldn't one understand physics (and the high level maths that go along with it) before jumping into GR and SR?

I think the fundamental concept behind relatively (spacetime has pliable dimensions) can be grasped at a fairly low level of education and without much understanding of physics nor knowledge of math... if you're willing.

But anything can be failed to be understood on purpose.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 518 by hooah212002, posted 11-30-2012 10:59 AM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 525 by Son Goku, posted 11-30-2012 1:41 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 530 by hooah212002, posted 11-30-2012 4:07 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 520 of 558 (682167)
11-30-2012 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 518 by hooah212002
11-30-2012 10:59 AM


Re: travel through time
Is GR/SR beginner level physics, though? Shouldn't one understand physics

No, they are not beginner level physics.

The concpets associated with at least an introduction to special relativity is easily within the grasp of high school students. No math higher than algebra is required. It is certainly possible to grasp the basic concepts with an even smaller level of science background.

Understanding general relativity is a bit more of an undertaking. Understanding some of the basic predictions of the theory is certainly within the grasp of a high school student.

But no one should be surprised to find that you cannot understand the universe with only sixth grade math.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 518 by hooah212002, posted 11-30-2012 10:59 AM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8101
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 521 of 558 (682174)
11-30-2012 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 508 by ICANT
11-29-2012 1:42 PM


Re: travel through time
Does the clock on the satellite tick faster than the clock on Earth due to the fact it is higher in the gravatational field?

Time itself moves at different speeds at different positions in the gravitational field.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 508 by ICANT, posted 11-29-2012 1:42 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8101
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 522 of 558 (682176)
11-30-2012 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 514 by ICANT
11-29-2012 3:48 PM


Re: travel through time
The second is defined as 9,192,631,770 oscillations of the caesium-133 atom?

Yes, in a non-accelerating frame from reference. This doesn't apply to the satellite since there is a difference in acceleration due to gravitational equivalence. If you are in the same frame of reference as the clock then the second is defined as you describe. If two clocks are in different frames of reference then they will have different amounts of oscillations per unit of time as observed from each frame of reference.

The atomic clock at Bolder Colorado is set to operate at 9,192,631,770 oscillations per second?

The other way around. The second is defined as those many oscillations. Cesium can not oscillate at any other rate in a given frame of reference. Scientists are not adjusting the rate at which the cesium atom oscillates.

What has to be done to insure that the duration experienced by the earthbound clock is represented by the clock in the satellite?

The basic laws of physics are what governs the rate of oscillations. That ensures that the clocks are the same both on the ground and in orbit.

The signal between the clock on the satellite and the receiver on the ground may be curved due to the velocity the satellite is traveling and the velocity of the receiver on and with the Earth..

I think you are starting to catch on.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 514 by ICANT, posted 11-29-2012 3:48 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 523 by NoNukes, posted 11-30-2012 12:50 PM Taq has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 523 of 558 (682185)
11-30-2012 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 522 by Taq
11-30-2012 12:02 PM


Re: travel through time
The basic laws of physics are what governs the rate of oscillations. That ensures that the clocks are the same both on the ground and in orbit

Roughly speaking here is what occurs. The frequency of the radiation emitted by the cesium atom (let's stop saying that cesium atoms vibrate) gets divided down to something like five or ten megahertz using a frequency divider circuit. This lower frequency is what is actually used as timing.

The frequency divider circuit includes a counter. By changing the starting value (offset) for the counter, we can adjust the 5-10Mhz frequency generated by the atomic clock and its circuitry.

In order produce a time signal that is at the same rate as the ground signal as measured in the ground reference frame, we can change the offset supplied to the satellite clock circuitry so that relativistic effects are countered. But as you have indicated, we don't have a crank to adjust the cesium frequency unless we resort to changing the satellite's orbit.

The overall result is pretty funky, and we probably have not actually discussed it completely in this thread:

Just as you stated, an observer on the satellite would measure the cesium frequency in the satellite clock to be the same value that the ground observer would measure for the ground clock. Each would measure the same 9+ gigaherts value. However, if the ground observer measured the satellite frequency, he would conclude that the cesium frequency on the satellite was higher than for his clock. That seeming conflict is the result of time proceeding at different rates in the two different locations.

However, that 9 billion hz signal is not the actual clock signal. The clock signal is the 5-10Mhz lower frequency. Let's assume 5Mhz. After the clocks are synchronized, the satellite observer would measure his own clock rate to be something less than 5Mhz. However if the ground observer measured the satellite's clock signal, he would find that the signal measured exactly 5Mhz, the same as he masures for his ground clock. Again, the seeming contradiction is resolved by noting that time itself proceeds at different rates in the different locals.

Of course the above neglects some other relativistic effects. We have ignored the rotation of the earth, and the fact that the satellite orbit is an elipse which creates time varying gravitational and velocity effects. In a real GPS system, the receivers can be moving too.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 522 by Taq, posted 11-30-2012 12:02 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 528 by Taq, posted 11-30-2012 3:14 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1152
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005


Message 524 of 558 (682193)
11-30-2012 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 514 by ICANT
11-29-2012 3:48 PM


Re: travel through time
Okay, let's make this really simple.

Do you agree that General Relativity says that spacetime is curved?

I'm not asking if you think spacetime is curved, just if you think General Relativity says it is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 514 by ICANT, posted 11-29-2012 3:48 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 529 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 11-30-2012 3:59 PM Son Goku has responded

  
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1152
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005


(5)
Message 525 of 558 (682199)
11-30-2012 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 519 by New Cat's Eye
11-30-2012 11:10 AM


Re: travel through time
I think the fundamental concept behind relatively (spacetime has pliable dimensions) can be grasped at a fairly low level of education and without much understanding of physics nor knowledge of math... if you're willing.

Absolutely, I explained General Relativity to my uncles once, all of whom wouldn't have finished what you lads call high school, using a kitchen table cloth as spacetime.

However ICANT doesn't even refuse to understand the theories themselves. Instead, like with a lot of the creationists, we don't really ever get into arguments about the actual science, but instead get drawn into stupid discussions about what a webpage actually says or having him reference a site or a book stating exactly what we say as if it supports his argument.

Silly things like somebody linking to an article discussing a dinosaur fossil found in Europe, let's say, only to have the creationist poster say that there was no reference to Europe at all, only to France. Which starts the chain of posts:
"France is in Europe, AAARRRGGHHH!!!!"

I'm always reminded of a discussion here years ago with IamJoseph, where this had reached the point where people were posting things like
"You can stand on the surface of the Earth right? You agree with that, right?"

In short, we don't discuss the experimental support for a theory and whether it's actually strong enough, but instead spend three hundred posts trying to get somebody to agree to the possible validity of the concept of experimental evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 519 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-30-2012 11:10 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 526 by Straggler, posted 11-30-2012 1:50 PM Son Goku has acknowledged this reply
 Message 527 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-30-2012 2:00 PM Son Goku has acknowledged this reply
 Message 531 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 11-30-2012 4:31 PM Son Goku has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019