|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 2/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Existence | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Straggler,
Straggler writes: So if I, sitting at my desk, want to very very precisely measure how long something takes which clock should I use and why? The one that was created in the IFR where you are and the event takes place. If it was created in a different frame and brought to the event the gravatational field would be different and thus the tick rate would be different. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
So you are saying that the only way to accurately measure the duration of a local event is with a local clock.
Is that right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
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. As I stated, this is almost right. A lack of complete understanding of the situation leads one to assume their faulty pronouncement is correct. First, "belief" is your realm in religion and has no place in a science discussion. But "understanding" more accurately informs the interpretation of the facts to arrive at the reality. Second, your distain for understanding the reality of this situation has led you to, again, make pronouncements that can only be described as foolish. Stop doing that, ICANT.
ICANT:
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. AZPaul3:
This is not correct. ICANT: 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'? Because in a cesium cascade clock the "tick rate" is not adjustable. It is the natural frequency of the cesium atom which is 9,192,631,770 cycles per second. In your source, the "tick rate", which is a bad choice of words in this case, is not adjustable either. The clocks tick at the same rate (1.12 x 1015 times per second). Raising one clock a few centimeters causes them to move out of phase with each other. They are both still measuring a "second", but the difference in altitude (the difference in the gravitational field) has caused a dilation of the "second" being measured.
AZPaul3:
ICANT: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: Again, your distain for understanding has caused you to quote mine completely out of context. You saw the words, "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" and assumed you had your piece of evidence without any understanding of what was being said and why. The longer cascade of the NIST-F1 (the observation time of about 1 second) is not the clock tick by which they measure time. It is a mechanism that allows the operators to more quickly and more accurately tune the microwave frequency that causes the cluster of cesium atoms to fluoresce at their natural frequency of 9,192,631,770 cycles per second. This frequency, not the bobbing up and down of the cluster in the fountain and whatever effect gravity may have on this observation time, this frequency of the fluorescence at 9,192,631,770 times per second is the tick/tock of the clock. This "observation time" limited by gravity (longer in Boulder, shorter in Greenwich) has no effect on the natural cycle of the cesium atom. The gravitational effect on the physical processes which produce the natural cesium frequency is time dilation, not the observation time to tune the microwaves.
I guess the folks that built the clock don't know what they are talking about. Quite the contrary. It is you with your distain for understanding that does not know what they are talking about. Back to the issue.
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. ICANT: If they are ticking at the same rate the same amount of duration of an event will be recorded by both clocks. That is just the issue ICANT. No, they do not. Time (the "second") is dilated between the two frames (Boulder and Greenwich). See Relativity of Simultaneity [aside] Just for those who may desire a more complete understanding, our species has defined the "second" as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium-133 atom. Wherever there is a properly tuned and functioning cesium clock, regardless of gravity position or acceleration, 9,192,631,770 cycles of the cesium atom is, by definition, a second. [/aside] ICANT, what the experiments with the clocks show, what your own sources have shown, is that time is relative between frames of reference. Those frames deeper in a gravity well or at higher acceleration will measure a "second" differently (note: not errantly) from those frames in lesser gravity or slower acceleration. This is time dilation. This is what General Relativity has predicted and it is precisely what these clocks and experiments have shown. Edited by AZPaul3, : Added reference Edited by AZPaul3, : additional explanation
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fearandloathing Member (Idle past 4175 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
Here is the straight dope on gps clocks and how relativity effects them, please read it as this is beginning to test my patience, Thanks
When you see something you don't agree with let me know exactly where and on what page, I promise you this is one of the most credible sources. I guess you don't want to call the air force as I did, I provided you # to do so yourself, This is the paper they said to get you to read, once again thanks Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given. "I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. Thompson Ad astra per aspera
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fearandloathing Member (Idle past 4175 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
ICANT writes: You remember what you did or what happened but that is only a memory. Tomorrow never comes as it is always today when it gets here. There is no past or future there is only now which is continual motion. On a slightly different note, thank god...LOLOL The light you see from stars in the sky are from the past, further away the star then the older the light we see is, I would say that is a good indication that the past once existed, in some ways, ie their light, it still does. This might be a flawed line of thought, but I felt the need to get off relativity a bit. , but please do go to here to see about the gps system and relativity, these are people who build the clocks. "I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. Thompson Ad astra per aspera
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Here is the straight dope on gps clocks and how relativity effects them... I'm posting the introduction, for those who don't want to download a 4+ MB pdf file:
quote: Hopefully that came out correct - The copy/paste from the pdf was a bit flaky. Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3455 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
ICANT writes: Why is it my fault when Physics took an everyday word meaning increase in speed and hyjacked it and added their meaning "a change in velocity." to it? I'm not sure... "Hyjacked?" What is that? Why does someone who is so particular about definitions not spell things correctly? "You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London "Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3455 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
ICANT...
What do you propose for the "eternal existence of the existence?" How does it happen that something comes from nothing? If some existence caused the existence of our existence then what caused that existence? And what caused that existence....... "You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London "Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Member (Idle past 3859 days) Posts: 346 From: France,Paris Joined:
|
First, sorry for the delay since I was changing ISP, I was cut off from the internet for some times. From now on I should be able to respond faster.
For the first point, others have already pointed out that clocks and other things in gps are adjusted according to relativity which posits that time is a dimension of spacetime. They don't use your "theory" about time. If you think your theory is the truth, you should be able to show with maths what your theory actually predicts and why relativity is wrong despite its accuracy. For the second point about lightning, here's what started the thread:
ICANT writes: The lightning bolt is a bunch of negative electrons and positive positrons getting together and doing their thing.
lyx2no writes: Lightning is not due to matter-antimatter annihilation.
ICANT writes: Why don't you start a thread and explain to me how negative electrons in the cloud and positive positrons under the cloud and on the ground does not generate the lightning bolt. You then followed this message with this:
ICANT writes: lyx2no writes: I don’t really see how lightning being due to electron-positron annihilation can be debated. The best I can expect is for ICANT to recant. But if there is an argument to be made I love to see it. What is there that I need to recant?
After having been proven wrong, you still have not recanted neither did you come back to this thread to dispute it's conclusions. You simply went on to ignore it.Moreover, now instead of admiting you were wrong, you're making it sound like you were seeking informations that have then been answered, which is plainly false. You were wrong about basic physics and were then corrected by others. Did you really think that noone would check on the thread to see your dishonesty? As for the third point, here is what Cavediver said at some point:
Cavediver writes: It is the life-history of an object (the series of points marking its x,y,z location at time t). You then responded with this from message 84:
ICANT writes: If x = begining to exist,And y = measurement of existence, And z = ceasing to exist. That would be the life-history of an object. Here we have cavediver using x,y and z as coordinates in space(3 dimensions). The x,y and z you use to answer are all coordinates in time (a single dimension). After a short exchange between us, I pointed out in message 98 this:
Son writes: But you first asked about the path of an object in SPACE-time. He responded using four coordinates (x,y,z,t) and you are responding as if he was speaking about a single dimension. How can we hope to have an honest debate when you can't even admit it when you are wrong about MIDDLE-school maths? Moreover, instead of addressing such basic things (yes, middle-school maths are basics), you're trying to cover your mistake with another word salad that had nothing to do with the post.Otherwise, how do you explain that you used x,y and z as points in time, if you had truly understood his post, you would have explained that to you (x,y,z) are irrevelant and would have used t1, t2 and t3. Did you really think that noone was able to recheck past messages? Contrary to oral debate, internet discussions leave traces and your usual tactics don't work there even though I'm sure they're very efficient in a church. Moreover, as a self-described chistian, shouldn't you try to be at least a little bit honest? I thought it was considered a sin to lie. Unless your christiannity is also a lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi fear,
fearand loathing writes: but please do go to here to see about the gps system and relativity, these are people who build the clocks. Did you read the article? If so what page refers to the timing of the clock or adjustments made to account for any of the things we have been talking about? The article is about GPS receivers you go in the store and buy and their specifications. Now if you can find where they discuss the effects gravity has on the clocks in the satellites point it out as I could not find it. Do you believe everything someone tells you? 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fearandloathing Member (Idle past 4175 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
I guess you didn't read it, or lack the intelligence to understand it is more likely, any relativistic correction made to the system, whether it be at the receiver or to the clocks on the satellite prove relativity. Why else would they have to be made, gravity alone is not the only reason.
I would trust the Air force, and The National Institute of Standards and Technology before any source you have provided, these are the people who build and operate the system, are they lying, by the way you asked someone else the same question. You simply do not understand,or refuse to admit your WRONG.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 831 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
You got something else spit it out. Yes, I do, ICANT. See, the thing is......time dilation has a different definition. Your simplistic view of cosmology and physics is hackneyed at best. Both subjects don't bode too well to laypersons who don't understand even the most basic concepts. This, coming from a high school dropout who has only a laypersons interest in either. Until you can grasp the basics, this discussion won't go very far (as we've already noticed). And until you are willing to actually learn without something blocking you from learning (you seem to have a priori and won't waiver from it), this discussion won't go very far. "What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Now if you can find where they discuss the effects gravity has on the clocks in the satellites point it out as I could not find it. "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 10^-10 relative to the earth’s geoid, to compensate for this effect." Found on pg. 8. Clocks tick faster for the satellites because they are further away from Earth's center of gravity than the clocks on the ground. These clocks are also adjusted by ground command from time to time to make up for these relativistic effects. This is required because the receiver is receiving time signatures from the satellites. The difference in the time signatures is used to calculate how far away the satellite is because the speed of light is constant. If the clocks in the satellites were not adjusted on a regular basis then GPS wouldn't work.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fearandloathing Member (Idle past 4175 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
OK chew on this about the ESA's GNSS system and let me know what you think.
Why include relativity? The theory of relativity (both special and general) teaches us that space and time are not absolute. A pair of events has a causal relation only if one is in the light cone of the other one. This has a lot of consequences on a GNNS Any relativistic correction added to any part of the system, including the receivers, prove it happens, gravity is not the only thing to account for , as you have now been shown by 2 independent, credible, operators of gps systems, shall I look for a Russian paper on their system? And thanks Taq, you posted before I could look back at it as I was finding this one. Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given. Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given. "I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. Thompson Ad astra per aspera
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024