|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Existence | |||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
ICANT writes: If you are saying the clock that was moved to Bolder US would tick at the same rate as the one at Bolder due to the reduced gravitational field that exists at Bolder then I would agree. Even if the gravitational field were the same at Bolder and Greenwich and at every place along the travel path, the clocks would not agree. Yet each clock would accurately reflect the time duration experienced by the respective clock. The 'moving' clock does not measure the duration 'wrong'. If you accompanied either clock, you would age according to the clock you accompanied rather than according to the clock.
ICANT writes: Would that mean the clock in the satellite experienced a shorter duration than the clock on Earth? No, they experienced the same amount of time one just measured it wrong. That's simply not correct ICANT. Your posts indicate that you have no understanding of the implications of general or special relativity. If your argument relies on this issue, and I don't know that to be the case, then you lose. Perhaps you should drop this line of argument and move on to another point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
ICANT writes:
The clock in Greenwich is identical to the one in Bolder, which means if they were side by side their tick rate would match. If you built one identical to the one in Greenwich and then transported it to Bolder the tick rate would match. You are missing the point that both clocks are to be started while in Greenwich. Go back and read the Straggler's proposed experiment. The tick rates would not match during the transportation of one clock to Boulder due to special relativity effects. The motion of the clock during transport would cause the tick rate during transport to be different from that of the clock remaining in Greenwich. If you were in a vehicle with the transported clock, you would age at a rate consistent with the clock in that vehicle.
ICANT writes: If I am wrong then you should have no problem refuting the two preceeding quotes. I don't dispute either quote. Neither one is relevant to the point I say you are wrong about. And your words regarding the elevation of Boulder are not relevant either. I specifically said that I was describing effects that occur regardless of differences in elevation. I quote myself below.
NN writes: Even if the gravitational field were the same at Boulder and Greenwich and at every place along the travel path, the clocks would not agree. And in fact, you seem to be mistaken regarding what issue I said you were wrong about. Let me present my correction of you in context.
NoNukes writes: ICANT writes:
Would that mean the clock in the satellite experienced a shorter duration than the clock on Earth? No, they experienced the same amount of time one just measured it wrong. That's simply not correct ICANT. Clearly, I said that you are wrong when you say that the difference in tick rates due to special or general relativity means that one clock or the other is giving a false measurements of duration. The sources that you've quoted do not address that point. Thus they are irrelevant. You can identify time dilation effects in some situations. You have no clue what the significance of those effects really is. Time dilation has nothing to do with clocks not properly measuring duration. Time dilation effects clocks, biological processes, and everything else that is a function of time duration in exactly the same way because time dilation effects time itself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
ICANT writes:
Curt Renshaw does not have a Phd but his twin sons do. 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: 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...
ICANT writes: Here is another:
quote:emphasis added. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
ICANT writes:
Neither does Flandern agree with Einstein's SR and Gr. The GPS system uses the Lorentzian, not Einsteinian relativity. This appears to be true, but the clock corrections predicted by either method are the same.
Sorry to burst your bubble on that one. How does that bust my bubble?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
ICANT writes:
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. How do you explain dilation effects that occur because of constant relative motion between frames, i.e. from special relativity? That cannot be a gravitational effect. It would occur in a uniform gravitational field or in the absence of any gravitational field. How do you explain that gravitational time dilation affects other processes in exactly the same rate? All types of clocks and all processes show exactly the same effect including clocks that don't rely on atomic vibrations. For example, atomic decay rates show the same effect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
ICANT writes: Therefore the GPS synchronization has to be done in the Inertial frame of the earthbound clock using constancy of c. This is just wrong. Perhaps you are reading Flandern as saying this. The effects of GR and SR are well known as are the orbits of the satellites. The corrections could, in theory, be applied in any of a number of ways. You cannot tell the difference between SR and LR in this way. The theories would provide equivalent corrections. By the way, the GPS clocks are not completely in synch. At least some of the relativistic calculations are made at the receiver. Some of the relativistic effects vary with time. Relativity in the Global Positioning System
quote: In fact, the GPS clocks were not originally synchronized by taking into account the GR effects:
quote: Perhaps you should rethink your interpretation of Flandern's article. Another problem with your gravity 'slows the tick rate' theory is the equivalence principle. A clock accelerating at the rate of acceleration due to gravity in Boulder in empty space would experience the same tick rate as the clock in Boulder. So gravity cannot be the cause of clock slowing.
ICANT writes: As the Earth is rotating, and the Sagnac effect is to large for the GPS and the clocks to be synchronized in the rotating frame. This is complete nonsense. The Sagnac effect depends on the location of the GPS receiver, and thus, the correction cannot be performed at the satellite clock. The Sagnac effect is smaller than other relativistic corrections.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
granpa writes: gravitation time dilation is proportional to gravitational potential not gravitation field strength. Yes, that's right. I did err on that point. Edited by NoNukes, : yyy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
ICANT writes:
So I am not alone when I question the so-called theories of Einstein. I could find more but his contemporaries seemed best. So called theory eh? Actually given the controversial nature of the theory, and the fact that theory is over 90 years old, Einstein's contemporaries might not be the best people to quote. Some of Einstein's contemporaries doubts may well have been well founded. The math was difficult to follow, and the experimental validation, limited. Even Eddington's eclipse observations could have been questioned. You don't have those same reasons to doubt Einstein these days. The predictions of general relativity have been subjected to numerous test since back in the day. Eddington's experiment has been repeated numerous times.
ICANT writes: Pari Spolter, in her book "Gravitational Force of the Sun" Pari Spolter??? You've got to be kidding. Her book is pure nonsense. It's absolutely hilarious that you would cite her book. Here's an excerpt from a debate between Pari Spolter and Paulo Correa regarding some physics from "Gravitational Force of the Sun". Note Spolter's opinion of Newton's work... http://www.aetherometry.com/...of_Science/spolter_debate.php
quote: Here's a bit from here response to Correa's rebuttal
quote: I'm not going to quote Correa's rebuttal, but the above is completely laughable. If you don't understand why, I recommend you read the rebuttal for yourself. From a book review that includes the quote you provided. Challenging Einstein - A Review and Comments on Pari Spolter's Mathematical and Scientific Forensic
quote: Really? No theory of gravity will explain items 1-7. Newton's theory is good enough to explain 8-10 (assuming "precision" really means "precession") which means Einstein's theory does as well. Einstein's theory also does not predict the date Easter falls on each year or explain why Pluto is not a planet. So maybe we should dump it. Not. You are not alone, ICANT. But you haven't cited great company. You probably should have stuck with Flandern or some other proponent of LET.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
ICANT writes: quote:emphasis mine. I would interpert that to say the closer to the earth the slower the frequency. I could be wrong. I note that ICANT is no longer responding to my posts. That's not a problem and in fact is quite reasonable. ICANT has plenty of other detractors to respond to. Nonetheless, it is pretty easy to demonstrate that ICANT is wrong. The magnetic field does not have the effect he claims. Earth's magnetic field is not a simple function of distance from the earth. It's strength varies with longitude and latitude both on the surface of the earth and in space around the earth, even at constant distance from earth. So, the fact that the clock rate could be influenced by magnetism does not produce the result that "the closer to the earth the slower the frequency" as ICANT suggests. In reality, the cesium clocks are shielded from the influence of magnetism. http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/cesium.html
quote: The CS atom generates a frequency of 9,192,631,770 per second. To determine time using this frequency, the CS frequency is divided down to something easier to work with (e.g. 5 or 10 Megahertz [Mhz]). We determine the time by counting those subdivided pulses. One way of correcting the clock is to include a frequency synthesizing circuit in the divider to compensate for general relativity effects. Obviously, this correction method can only work for constant, pre-known relativisitic effects. Counting the cycles gives us the time. It is merely necessary to add or subtract from the count in order to correct the time. What is not done is adjusting the frequency generated by the cesium atoms. In fact every attempt is made to keep that frequency constant. The temperature is maintained at a constant value. Of course that gravity is not being manipulated to synchronize the clocks. Nobody knows how to do that.
The GPS satellite clock and the earthbound clock has to match. If they don't the system will not work. The clocks don't have to match. It is enough that we know the degree of mismatch. As someone has already explained, what is done currently is that the clocks are periodically synchronized. For that reason it is no longer easy to measure the relativistic effects by analyzing the satellite clocks. Some additional correction for relativistic effects is done at the receiver. For example, the Sagnac-Effect varies with receiver position and must be performed at the receiver. For those who are fascinated by relativity denial, Conservapedia has an article full of such rantings. The author seems to think relativity is some kind of liberal plot. http://conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity
quote: The article includes a list of 35 easily debunkable reasons why Andy Schlafly thinks Einstein is a fraud. From 'Counterexamples to Relativity' footnotes.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
ICANT writes: Hi NoNukes, Sorry about the neglect. No apology necessary. You are busy.
ICANT writes: They both agree that unaffected by a external magnetic fields such as the gravity of earth the frequency will be 9,192,631,770 Hz. You've made a fundamental error here. Gravity is not a magnetic field. A reference that talks about the effect of magnetic fields does nothing to confirm an effect from gravitational fields. Thus your interpretation is wrong. The quote you provided says nothing about the effect of gravity. Magnetic fields affect cesium clocks because the clock is based on the energy difference between states of a cesium atom in a magnetic field. Stray magnetic fields interfere with the mechanism for detecting the characteristic frequency. Gravitational fields would not have the same affect. As per the source I provided, atomic clocks are shielded from magnetic fields and are maintained in a temperature controlled environment. So in their own frame of reference, they generate a frequency of 9,192,631,770 Hz.
My little Tom Tom is not smart enought to figure out the differences from 4 or 5 different satellites. If it does not get the same time stamp from each GPS clock it will not be able to figure out where it is at on the ground. ICANT, you cannot just make up facts. You have no idea what your li'l Tom Tom is capable of. And regardless of what you think the Tom Tom does, you've been shown multiple sources indicating that some relativity corrections are performed at the receiver.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
crashfrog writes: I think by "not alone" he's referring to the engineers referred to in the quote, the ones who doubted that GR corrections would need to be made - not his own beliefs. That is certainly what was meant. But I think ICANT is essentially alone. He has a fairly unique denial pattern. ICANT does not agree with those engineers. ICANT believes that some kind of gravitational effect works on clocks to produce a slowing exactly at the rate predicted for gravitational time dilation. Those engineers in the article the would not have expected the effect ICANT acknowledges. Apparently ICANT does not accept the time dilation predicted by Special Relativity due to relative motion between frames. Although I haven't seen an explicit statement of that, he does reject the twin paradox as being a mere thought experiment, and he hasn't really addressed the relativistic mu-meson decay experiments.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
ICANT writes: , CANT don't believe time can be dilated. Yes, of course. You believe that gravity slows a cesium atom clock by exact amount to match the time dilation effect predicted by GR. But you seem to deny that relative motion has an effect on clocks or time. Is that correct? So what's your explanation for the observed longer half-life of muons traveling at velocities approaching the speed of light relative to the observer? As best I can tell your position on GR is that gravity produces an effect is on clocks but not time, while your position on SR is complete denial of any effect at all. I think that is a fairly unique combination.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
ICANT writes: Hi NoNukes,
NoNukes writes: You believe that gravity slows a cesium atom clock by exact amount to match the time dilation effect predicted by GR. No. I believe that the further away from the center of the earth a cesium clock is the faster the frequency will be. That is one of the reasons the clock has to be offset before launch to match the clock on the ground. ICANT, you have said several times that gravity affects the clock rate of a cesium clock. Here's one example from message 245 :
ICANT writes: Gravity alone will change the frequency. And if I am not mistaken temperature can also change the frequency. Here's a second example from message 166
ICANT writes: Without a tick rate adjustment the one in Bolder would tick faster due to the weaker gravatational field. A third example:
ICANT writes: The fact that the weaker gravatational field is responsible for the faster tick rate is what my argument is based upon. Your own words indicate that you believe that the gravitational field is the cause of the clock rate changes. I'm baffled as to why you are denying that now?
ICANT writes: NoNukes writes: But you seem to deny that relative motion has an effect on clocks or time. Is that correct? I do not deny that motion has an effect on clocks. Good. Now explain how relative motion effects the frequency of a cesium atomic clock or any other process such as radioactive decay, or the time it takes light to travel one meter as observed in a different reference frame. You cannot possibly blame that on gravity or magnetism. I'd also ask that you respond to one of us with your explanation of the mu-meson experiment that has been cited several times. You appear to be ducking the question. Edited by NoNukes, : Add tag.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
ICANT writes: So no gravity does not make the clock frequency or tick rate be slower. The reduced gravity will make the clock tick faster because of less force exerted upon the atoms. By exactly the amount predicted by GR for gravitational time dilation which makes the prediction without considering the structure of the clock in any way. Isn't that a bit peculiar? So you believe that says nothing about what happens if gravity is increased rather than being reduced? How do you not understand that you are claiming that gravity can increase or decrease the clock rate by increasing or decreasing the force on the atoms. Is there something special about the force of gravity at sea level? Once the clock in orbit is synchronized with the earth bound clock, what do you claim happens to its clock rate if the orbital clock is returned to earth without further adjustment, ICANT? Haven't we discussed a similar scenario with clocks in Boulder and Greenwich? I note that you have again ignored the SR portion of my post. I assume that your refusal to consider the effects of special relativity on your argument are deliberate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
fearandloathing writes:
What frustrates me to no end is the denial in the face of overwhelming evidence, I feel one should at least have a basic grasp on a theory before you are going to deny it, and then be prepared with evidence/data to support it. A vanishingly small percentage of the people on earth can follow the math underlying general relativity. Cavediver already warned about the frustration of arguing university/graduate level physics with someone who either does not grasp or rejects concepts from high school physics. You'll probably feel better about yourself if you stop posting before you start into the name calling. The only reason GR is even an issue in this thread is because ICANT has said that it undermines his position re existence.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024