|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Existence | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
So according to that the satellite clocks are adjustable and are adjusted to keep the exact time the clock on earth does. And they have to do so by adjusting the definition of time. These numbers are way off, but they have to redefine an hour as taking 61 minutes instead of 60. This is because time moves more quickly for the satellites compared to an observer on the surface of the Earth. Even with this internal correction the time on the satellites has to be constantly reset by ground control. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
ICANT don't believe time can be dilated. Dilated meaning streached or expanded. You can not streach time like you can bubble gum.
Then what word should we use for the observed fact that time moves at different rates in different frames of reference?
So could you give me a definition of the time that you are streaching when you talk about time dilation? We could use the amount of time it takes for light to travel one meter. The oscillation of cesium has been mentioned before. Pretty much any physical interaction that depends on time would be applicable. For example, the rate at which iron is oxidized by free oxygen could be used. The rate at which a specific pendulum swings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
What makes you think it does?
The experimental results that clearly demonstrate that clocks tick at different rates dependent on their position within a gravitational field.
So what do you use to determine the length of that duration? The time it takes for light to travel a meter. Use whatever units you want to.
Are you saying the frequency of the cesium is time? Why don't you look up the units for frequency. Last I checked, frequency is measured in Hz which is cycles/second.
But nothing depends on time. Everything depends on time. It is an integral part of the universe. Can you name a single event that does not have a time component?
But iron oxidizing is not time. It occurs at a specific rate in a specific environment. Rate is measured in time. Or do you really think that a car will completely lack rust and then be completely rusted in less than a Plank second?
The rate a specific pendulum swings is not time but it is used to measure man's concept of time. The velocity of the pendulum is measured in distance/time. The oscillations of the pendulum are measured in cycles/time. Time exists whether man is there to measure it or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
I then said as you quoted: I believe that the further away from the center of the earth a cesium clock is the faster the frequency will be. Yes and no. If you are in the spaceship with the cesium clock you will record the same number of oscillations per second as you did on Earth. Let's say you synch up two cesium clocks. You devise a way to precisely measure the number of oscillations per second so you will be able to measure any changes in the frequency of the clock. You send one clock up into space along with someone who can measure the oscillations per second. You let the spaceship stay up for a month or so, and then bring it back down to Earth. So what are the observations? The clocks are now out of synch. The clock that went up into space is ahead of the clock that remained on the Earth. When you compare notes on the actual measurements of the oscillations you will find that they were the same from the time the clock was on the Earth, while it was in space, and on the return trip. How do you explain this?
[qs]The reduced gravity will make the clock tick faster because of less force exerted upon the atoms.[/quote] False. The oscillations stay the same.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Where does the second come from? The second, as a unit, is an arbitrarily agreed upon segment of time that can be defined by quite a few phsyical events such as the speed of light, oscillation of a cesium atom, etc. No matter what our units are the speed of light is the same (in a vacuum), as is the rate of oscillations within a cesium atom.
Would it rust out whether the duration of that event is measured or not? Of course. It just so happens that the rate of chemical reactions are consistent so they could, conceivably, be used as a timer if you wanted.
Then you should have no problem in giving a definition for the time that is streached in dilation. The passage of time, no matter the definition as measured by physical interactions, is relative between frames of reference. I defined it in my example with the satellite with the atomic clock. ABE: If you want very precise definitions of time, then here are a couple: One second is the amount of time it takes light to travel 299,792,458 meters in a vacuum. It is also 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 caesium 133 atom. Take your pick, they are both the same amount of time. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Dilation is the streaching or expanding of an object. A concept can not be dilated. Then what word should we use to describe the observed fact that objective measurements of time differ between frames of reference where there is a difference in gravity or velocity between frames of reference? Perhaps it would help if we describe what time dilation looks like, and why it got that name. Let's say that you are parked in a space ship near a black hole. Someone gets into an airplane, starts up the propeller, and flies towards the event horizon of the black hole. You watch the airplane from the space ship. Your observations from the space ship: As the airplane approaches the event horizon you notice that the propeller goes slower, and slower, and slower, until it appears to almost stop moving (along with the entire airplane) as it nears the event horizon. The plane never crosses the event horizon in the time you observe it, nor over the next few years. The observations made by the airplane pilot: The pilot notices nothing out of the ordinary. The speed of the propeller never changes, the airplane itself never slows down, and the pilot moves right past the event horizon in short order. So why is there a difference in the observations? Relativity. The passage of time is different between frames of reference. From the spaceship, it appears that time is being stretched so that everything slows down. That is time dilation. If you don't like this description or the use of "dilation" then please come up with a different word to describe these observations.
We were talking about time dilation and I presented Gassenbeek's argument against time dilation. And we showed why his argument is not valid. He's a crackpot.
Are you saying the observed and actual aging rate are the same. The aging rate is the same. The passage of time is different between the two frames of reference. For the twin in the spaceship not as much time has gone by compared to the twin who stayed on earth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
I have no idea what to call something that does not exist. If this is your position then perhaps you should discuss the science instead of arguing semantics.
What observations? The GPS satellites have been put forth. They demonstrate relativistic effects quite nicely, and you continue to ignore it. There is also the Hafele-Keating experiment. From the wiki page:
quote: A thought experiment is not something that is observed it is the imagination of the mind. It was meant to illustrate the reasons that "dilation" is used to describe relativity.
Lets say we go to a concert by a 50's band. There is no sound system only the instruments to make the music. You have a front row seat and I have a back row seat. You are sitting close to the base drum so as you can see the mallet strike the batter drum head before you hear the sound. From my viewpoint I hear the sound before I see the mallet strike the batter drum head. Is that because of time dilation? Or is it because the sound reaches me before the visual picture reaches me? First off, everyone would see the mallet strike before the sound waves reached them. This is because the propogation of light is faster than the propogation of sound in our atmosphere. This is not time dilation. Also, each of is sitting down in the same arena so we are both in the same inertial frame of reference. How does this relate to the GPS satellite example or the Hafele-Keating experiment?
That puts him in good company then such as Newton and Einstein. No, it doesn't. I think you are confusing "crack pot" with "verified theories".
But calling him a crackpot does not show why his math or his conclusions is wrong. He is a crackpot because his he keeps pushing false conclusions and bad math on an internet website.
I pull out my space cycle that I built in another thread and accelerate away from my wife at 1/2 c towards a planet that is exactly 1 light year including original acceleration to the half way point around the planet. She is 6 months younger than I am. I travel for two years which puts me 1 light year away half way into my turning around with no reduction in speed. The image of my turn around is 1 light year away from my wife so by the time the image of my turn around reachers her I am half way back. So she can observe all of my trip out but only half of my return trip which will seem to her that I am traveling at c when I am only traveling at 1/2 c. So she would view my out bound trip as 2 years and my return trip as 1 year, because she would miss half the return trip, because I was half way back when she saw my turn around. Thus we both would age 4 years during the trip. The travel time would not be the same for both of you. Your wife would witness a 4 year trip. You would experience a shorter trip due to time dilation. You and your wife would be much closer in age after your trip. ABE: Here is a decent website with a nice chart. C-ship: The Dilation of Time At 0.5c, a day to you would be 1.15 days to your wife, the difference being 0.15 days. Multiply that by 4 and by 365, the number of days that you are traveling at 0.5c, and you get 219 days. Your wife would actually age 219 days more than you during the journey. You would actually experience a shorter trip by 219 days than what your wife observed from Earth. If you are exactly 6 months apart, you would arrive back at Earth to find that your wife is now older than you by a few weeks. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
I am traveling at 1/2 c it takes exactly 2 years to reach the middle of my turn around without slowing down. Your wife will witness a 2 year trip, but using the same clock she is using you will observe a much shorter trip. This difference in the passage of time increases as your velocity increases. If you are travelling at 0.99c a travel distance of one light year will take about 51 days by the clock used by the traveller. This has all been confirmed by the Hafele-Keating experiment that I linked to before.
Time did not dilate the clock just slowed down due to less gravatational force exerted on the mechanism, and returned to normal when returned to earth. It has nothing to do with the gravitational force on the clock mechanism. Time ticks at different rates in different interial frames. This was confirmed in the Hafele-Keating experiment where both planes flew at the same altitude. The clocks went out of synch based on which direction they flew (east vs. west) compared to the stationary clock on Earth. The plane flying with the rotation of the Earth did not show as much time dilation as the plane flying against the rotation of the Earth. The effect of altitude is removed from this experiment.
Time does not run faster only the mechanism measuring time runs faster. False. Time itself moves faster.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Then explain where the math is wrong. You left out the Lorentz transform for each inertial frame.
So explain why the math says my spacebike trip would take a total of 1460.97 solar days to complete the trip yet I would make the trip in 1241.97 solar days. It's called relativity. You know, that thing we have been telling you about in this thread. Your clock ticks at a slower rate when you travel at 0.5c compared to your wife's inertial frame. This is because light HAS TO BE the same speed for all inertial frames. This means that our clocks tick at different rates and our rulers change length in order for light to be the same speed for all observers. A constant speed of light is more than a good idea. It is the law.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Duration is constant, as it is the duration of an event or the duration between events which exist in existence. Evidence please. Please show that the duration of events is the same for all inertial frames.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Now show where the math is wrong and why I should include it. Your math is wrong because differences in velocities cause a difference in the passage of time by any measure. We have shown you the equations to use in order to include this observed reality in your calculations. So why don't you include it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Why not address the issues rather than show what a jackass you are? We have, multiple times. We have pointed you to the equations that you need to use in order to measure the passage of time in each frame of reference. You refuse to use them. I even gave you a reference to a real world experiment where these equations were used to accurately predict the time dilation on two planes and an Earth based clock. The equations work, and time dilation is a real observation. So why do you continue to leave them out of your equations? Stubborness?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
I use the concept that man came up with called time to measure duration. Then your only complaint is that we call it time dilation instead of duration dilation?
So if I want to know the duration it takes a man to run 100 yards I use what is called a stop watch. When the man starts I start the watch and when he crosses the finish line I stop the watch and look at the dial which displays the duration of that event. So let's use this example to explain what is happening with duration dilation. Before the two stop watches go off on separate journeys the coaches sit down and time the same races. They find that they their results match very closely, to within a few microseconds. From this they know that both of the stop watches are working the same. One of these coaches takes a spaceflight with his team. The other coach promises to watch their progress from Earth using the infinitely powerful and accurate telescope spoken of before. When the Earthbound coah takes a peak on the team in the space ship they are travelling at 0.5c. He times a few 100 meter dashes and records them. When the team gets back from their space trip the two coaches sit down and compare numbers. What do they find? To their surprise, the Earthbound coach thinks that the spacers were running slower than they were on Earth. The coach from the space ship vehemently disagrees. They sit down to compare numbers. In each and every case the Earthbound coach recorded times that were 1.15 times slower than the space ship coach recorded. The coach on the space ship would record 10.00 flat while the Earthbound coach would record 11.5 seconds. This is WAY MORE than the discrepancies seen between the stop watches seen on Earth. Since you have already agreed that stop watches are an accurate way to measure duration, then I can only assume that this example meets your criteria for duration dilation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Show me where my math is wrong. NoNukes did a fine job of that. You forgot to add in duration dilation for the traveller due to the constant speed of light.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024