|
Author
|
Topic: Existence
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
|
Message 154 of 1229 (615586)
05-14-2011 12:50 PM
|
Reply to: Message 149 by Straggler
05-14-2011 8:23 AM
|
|
Re: Time
Hi straggler,
Straggler writes: So your argument is based on clocks that are accurate to within one second every 3,700,000,000 years measuring the time wrongly? 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. Source Curt 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. Source The fact that the weaker gravatational field is responsible for the faster tick rate is what my argument is based upon.
Straggler writes: 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. 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?
Straggler writes: You on the other hand have invented this term "duration" 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.
Straggler writes: Only if you want simplicity at the expense of accuracy. 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."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 149 by Straggler, posted 05-14-2011 8:23 AM | | Straggler has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
|
|
Message 156 of 1229 (615593)
05-14-2011 1:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 150 by crashfrog
05-14-2011 11:50 AM
|
|
Re: Time
Hi crash,
crashfrog writes: 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. Dilation n 1. The act of expanding or the state of being expanded.
Source Dilation n
Dilation is a similarity transformation in which a figure is enlarged or reduced using a scale factor 0, without altering the center.
Source According to these definitions what kind of object is time composed of that can be expanded, englarged or reduced in size?
crashfrog writes: I.e. the Twin Paradox When was this experiment performed? What was used to propell the rocket ship? I like this story best.
The Twin Paradox Consider the example commonly referred to as "The Twin Paradox." In this example, we have two twin brothers, each maintenance technicians, who have signed on to travel with two clocks A and B, and to maintain the clocks and the ships on which they respectively travel. Clock A is sent with its passenger on a long journey to the star Vega at a velocity approaching the speed of light. Clock B and its technician (much to his disappointment) stay on Earth. The experiment continues for over fifty years, when, one day, clock A and its passenger return. Before the earthbound technician opens the door to greet his brother, he notices that the readout for clock B indicates that only eight years have passed. The earthbound technician (who has in fifty years grown very jealous of his traveling brother), claims he is too old and weak to be able to release the door latch, and leaves his brother in the capsule, which sinks to the ocean floor. You can read the entire paper, 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."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 150 by crashfrog, posted 05-14-2011 11:50 AM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
|
|
Message 158 of 1229 (615598)
05-14-2011 2:12 PM
|
Reply to: Message 155 by Straggler
05-14-2011 12:59 PM
|
|
Re: Time
Hi Straggler,
Straggler writes: No ICANT. It means they measure time to that accuracy regardless of where they are. The only thing they are measuring is the arbirary units of measure someone has chosen to mark time.
Straggler writes: 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? 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.
Straggler writes: Is "duration" a property of the universe? How do you meaure this "duration"...? 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.
Straggler writes: Faster relative to what? A clock in a stronger gravitational field? Yes. Since I used the clock at Bolder I had not changed clocks so I was refering to the twin clock at Greenwich.
Straggler writes: But which clock measures "duration".........? 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."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 155 by Straggler, posted 05-14-2011 12:59 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
|
|
Message 159 of 1229 (615607)
05-14-2011 4:58 PM
|
Reply to: Message 157 by NoNukes
05-14-2011 2:10 PM
|
|
Re: Renshaw vs relativity
Hi NoNuke,
NoNuke writes: Why even bring up his sons' degrees? You probably right I am sure they never discussed anything or gave opinions on his work.
NoNuke writes: 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. 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."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 157 by NoNukes, posted 05-14-2011 2:10 PM | | NoNukes has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
|
|
Message 165 of 1229 (615626)
05-14-2011 10:01 PM
|
Reply to: Message 163 by Straggler
05-14-2011 5:30 PM
|
|
Re: Time
Hi Straggler,
Straggler writes: 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? 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."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 163 by Straggler, posted 05-14-2011 5:30 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
Re: Renshaw vs relativity
Hi fear,
fearandloathing writes: Here is an interesting bit on gps ,although I cant say anything of its source, seems questionable, but still interesting comparison. Same site. Look under gravity and the twins paradox 11 paragraphs down. 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 162 by fearandloathing, posted 05-14-2011 5:29 PM | | fearandloathing has seen this message but not replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
|
|
Message 168 of 1229 (615675)
05-15-2011 4:18 PM
|
Reply to: Message 167 by Straggler
05-15-2011 9:10 AM
|
|
Re: Time
Hi Straggler,
Straggler writes: So we have two clocks. One constructed in, and residing in, Bolder. One constructed in, and residing in, Greenwich. Both of them are constructed identically to be accurate to within one second every 3.7 billion years. But the two clocks "tick" at different rates. Yes they tick different rates because of the effect of the gravatational fields they reside in.
Straggler writes: Why adjust Bolder to agree with Greenwich rather than vice versa? If you adjust the Greenwich clock tick to the tick of the Bolder clock they would both be at a tick rate higher than one at sea level. But in reality it makes no difference as long as the aim is to have the clock ticks match. You just have to decide what measurement of time you are going to use.
Straggler writes: Indeed. But if I want to measure this "duration" quantity of yours which is distinct from time which of the two clocks should I use? Existence, exists. Duration is a segment of Existence. That duration is measured by the concept man figured out using the rotation of the earth in relation to the sun. But let me be clear duration is a memory, it is in the past as you cannot have the memory of the duration unless it is completed. There is no duration in the present or the future. The presence is existence and the future has not happened yet.
Straggler writes: How do I measure this quantity "duration" you keep referring to? (which effectively amounts to an absolute time - whether you realise this or not) You can measure the duration of an event anyway you desire and you can desiginate any numbers you desire to represent what that time is as it is only a concept of man and is oblivious of existence. Example, a 1/4 mile drag race. The car is sitting in the staging area the lights begin to stage and the light goes green, a automatic timer starts, the car leaves the start line and crosses the finish line the timer stops and displays the lapse time or duration of the race. This duration cannot be displayed until the race is over. Now what concept of time do you want to use to measure that duration? If you use the standard measurement which is the division of one rotation of the Earth in relation to the sun. Then you could say the duration of the race was 3.7 seconds. But you would have to determine what you was going to use to represent the length of that duration. The measurement that is normally used is the concept of time invented by man to measure duration which is stated in seconds, minutes, hours, days and etc. But you can use anything you want. 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 167 by Straggler, posted 05-15-2011 9:10 AM | | Straggler has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
Re: Time
Hi hooah,
hooah writes: I could be wrong (very wrong, actually), but it seems as though ICANT doesn't grasp that time is relative. What kind of an object is time that it can be relative to something? 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: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
Re: Time
Hi fear,
fearandloathing writes: Time is a part of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change such as the motions of objects. Well I believe that time which is a concept of man is part of the measuring system used to sequence events, measure events, intervals between them. In other words to measure the duration of any of those. But everybody else here believes time is a property of the universe, not something you measure with.
fearandloathing writes: In common usage, existence is the world we are aware of through our senses, and that persists independently without them. Existence is everything that exists whether we know it exists or not. So I think I agree with your definition.
fearandloathing writes: These definitions are taken from wiki, they seem pretty straight forward. I just cant understand where the confusion about them comes from. The confusion comes from the argument that time is a product of the universe (dimension) that exists in the universe which can not exist until time exists which has to have space to exist in. Great logic. 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 169 by fearandloathing, posted 05-15-2011 4:37 PM | | fearandloathing has seen this message but not replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
Re: Time
Hi hooah,
hooah writes: I could be wrong (very wrong, actually), but it seems as though ICANT doesn't grasp that time is relative. Relative to what? 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."
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 178 by hooah212002, posted 05-16-2011 12:57 AM | | ICANT has seen this message but not replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
Re: Time
Hi fear,
fearandloathing writes: I think it is more that he believes in Lorentzian relativity, and not GR/SR as Einstein saw it. If I am wrong then please correct me ICANT, as I am trying to grasp the confusion here and see the topic move forward. I believe that an atom will pulse at different rates due to the distance they are from the attracting gravatational field. I believe the tick rate of an atom can be changed by excitement. I believe that time is a part of the measuring system that is a concept of man to measure duration and is based upon a complete revolution of the Earth in relation to the sun. Man has created clocks that measure the length of duration of events as well as intervals between events, which is marked by seconds, minutes, hours and etc.. Which brings me back to the OP. There is existences. God claimed to be all that exists. Anything that could produce the universe had to be all that has ever existed, all that exists today, and everything that will exist in the future. Energy and matter cannot be created. They can switch back and forth. The universe in which we live has to exist in existence. Because if there was no-existence there is no mechanism for existence to begin to exist. Or at least no one has presented one so far. If string theory is correct there had to be existence in which the branes banged together. If Hartley/Hawking instanton is correct there had to be existence in which the instantton poped into existence and turned into our universe. If there was a singularity which expanded into our universe there had to be existence for it to exist in. Without existence nothing can 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."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 172 by fearandloathing, posted 05-15-2011 5:06 PM | | fearandloathing has seen this message but not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 189 by NoNukes, posted 05-16-2011 5:06 PM | | ICANT has not replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
Re: Time
Hi hooah,
hooah writes: I don't understand your question, since I don't view time as an object. Well if it is not an object how does it dilate?
hooah writes: I will answer by saying this: the faster you go, the slower time goes. And you know that for a fact? because...
hooah writes: *if you were to orbit the event horizon of a black hole, just far enough so as not to get sucked in, but just close enough so as to have the gravity sling you around near light speed, time would relatively, and for all intents and purposes, come close to a halt. You would not personally feel these effects. You would age normally and notice nothing......until you flew back to earth. When was this carried out as a physical experiment? Last I heard it was a thought experiment.
hooah writes: Does that make sense? It makes perfect sense as to what you believe according to what you have posted in the past. But it makes no sense to someone who believes in universal duration in existence that man has invented the concept of time to measure duration by. 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: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
Re: Time
Hi fear,
fearandloathing writes: Time is not an object, it is a system of measurement. I agree.
fear writes: I am sitting in front of my computer, moving 0 mph, I disagree. You are never moving at 0 mph. You are in constant motion, makes no difference what you are doing.
"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 174 by fearandloathing, posted 05-15-2011 5:19 PM | | fearandloathing has seen this message but not replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
|
|
Message 185 of 1229 (615759)
05-16-2011 1:43 PM
|
Reply to: Message 175 by AZPaul3
05-15-2011 7:16 PM
|
|
Re: Time
Hi Paul,
AZPaul3 writes: Well, this is almost right if one understands why. If the tick rate is affected by the gravity field in which it resides what difference does it make what someone understands or believes. It either has an effect or does not have an effect.
AZPaul3 writes: If you adjust the Greenwich clock tick to the tick of the Bolder clock they would both be at a tick rate higher than one at sea level. This is not correct. If the tick rate is effected at 0.1 millimetre in difference in elevation of the clocks in the same lab, why wouldn't they be different than one at sealevel when they are ticking at the frequency for over 5,000'? Source AZPaul3 writes: The clocks you are speaking of are cesium-cascade clocks. They "tick" at the same rate regardless of anything. 9,192,631,770 ticks per second. The clock at Boulder is a NIST-F1 Cesium Fountain Atomic Clock. The precision of the clock is limited only by the gravity field it resides in.
quote:
The result is an observation time of about one second, which is limited only by the force of gravity pulling the atoms to the ground.
Source I guess the folks that built the clock don't know what they are talking about.
AZPaul3 writes: So our clock in Boulder is "ticking" at the exact same rate as the clock in Greewich: 9,192,631,770 ticks per second. The difference is that the "second" is dilated between the two locations by the effect of gravity. And both are correct. If they are ticking at the same rate the same amount of duration of an event will be recorded by both clocks. 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 175 by AZPaul3, posted 05-15-2011 7:16 PM | | AZPaul3 has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
Re: Time
Hi fear,
fearandloathing writes: Here is a fairly simple explanation with the math to support it, although I believe we might be at an impasse. In order not to post a bunch of redundant links and re-stating what others have already said, it might be best to agree to disagree Lets say the stationary clock is an atomic clock operating as the one found Here You then put this clock in motion giving the illusion to a stationary observer shown in your picture. Is the atoms traveling the same distance in the moving clock as they are in the stationary clock? The clock could not operate if the atoms do not go straight up and straight down. Thus your thought experiment produces an optical illusion not reality.
fearandloathing writes: The point I was trying to make is that my speed/velocity is relative to the observer. But you are moving at over 500,000 mph whether anyone observes that movement or not. Eternal existence, exists whether you observe it or not. Duration exists in that eternal existence whether man measures it or not. It does not change speeds. Regardless of what you might think you observe. I view existence as eternal. Duration is the interval between events, and length (duration) of events in eternal existence. This duration is a reality that can be measured. Man invented a concept called time which is dependent on the revolution of the Earth in relation to the sun with which to measure that duration. Duration is a constant and can not be altered by any force. The only thing that can be altered is our concept of time changing what we say the measurement of that duration is. We can change what represents a second, minute, hour etc., but we can not change duration or eternal existence. I go with Newton's source William Charleston, even though he used time instead of duration. 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."
|
™ Version 4.2