It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Your reading comprehension and cognitive ability score has been demoted. The site is elsewhere arguing against creationism, not for it.
originally posted by: Dolour
@Arbitrageur: a creationism site, really?
wow, you seem to be running out of "valid mainstream arguments"...
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Your reading comprehension and cognitive ability score has been demoted. The site is elsewhere arguing against creationism, not for it.
originally posted by: Dolour
@Arbitrageur: a creationism site, really?
wow, you seem to be running out of "valid mainstream arguments"...
When did I ever argue against information from mainstream scientists? Tom Bridgman is mainstream, but he was referring to the work of others in the field of Astrophysics, starting with Pannekoek and Rosseland.
originally posted by: Dolour
Since your amoungst the First ones to argue against info from such sources, you have to grant others the Same liberty.
Reliable source plx.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: Nochzwei
GR says if a clock in the lab is lowered by 1 meter, it should tick more slowly. It does.
The opposite of GR would be that the clock speeds up if lowered 1 meter (I guess, though not sure if this is what you mean by opposite). It doesn't do that.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I think it's safe to say that 1922-1924 pre-dates any of these electric universe guys like Wal Thornhill and Don Scott. I think it's also safe to say that the claim mainstream astronomers don't consider the effects of electric charge on astrophysical objects is a myth, or you could say a lie promoted by the EU proponents such as Don Scott in his book "Electric Sky", p53.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist
I didn't say anything about GPS in that post, I was referring to the experiment I cited a few pages back and similar experiments using optical clocks which are moved up and down in a lab. It's independent of GPS, though the GPS system does account for the same effects on a larger scale
You clearly don't understand either paper.
originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
As the papers show, GR isn't necessary to account for those effects.
In that part of the paper he's consistent with the mainstream view, that they do cancel at a particular altitude between the ISS and GPS satellites, as seen in this graph where the blue line crosses the horizontal axis:
originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: Arbitrageur
The Flandern paper talks about both GR and SR, and how they are self-canceling under Einstein's flavor of relativity. I'm confused about how that doesn't apply here.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
But at the end of the paper where he's apparently attempting to challenge mainstream interpretation he only talks about special relativity.
Am talking about the universe's own time and not man's chronometer time. Now they should try this expt using a light source. As the light source is moved up, the freq of light will increase, though the power drawn for the light source will also increase
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: Nochzwei
GR says if a clock in the lab is lowered by 1 meter, it should tick more slowly. It does.
The opposite of GR would be that the clock speeds up if lowered 1 meter (I guess, though not sure if this is what you mean by opposite). It doesn't do that.
I don't think so.
originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
Well, isn't it implied that LR can account for the findings of GR?
There is a physicsforums thread about this topic. LR was an alternative to SR, which Einstein talked about in 1907. This is why Van Flandern's paper is written the way it is, comparing LR to SR.
If the values can be computed under a unified theory, such as LR, they can also account for the results of GR.
Einstein downplayed the differences in his 1907 summary of their papers; not surprisingly SR became then known as the theory of Einstein and Lorentz. See also the first collection of papers on SR [1].
Concerning a generalization to accelerated reference systems, I'm not aware of such an attempt by Lorentz; instead he wrote a book on "The Einstein Theory of Relativity" in order to explain it.
They used optical atomic clocks which are the only type accurate enough so far to detect such small clock speed changes, when the clock is moved up less than one meter, and they use light, from a laser:
originally posted by: Nochzwei
Am talking about the universe's own time and not man's chronometer time. Now they should try this expt using a light source. As the light source is moved up, the freq of light will increase, though the power drawn for the light source will also increase
Of course the higher frequency is more energetic, there's really no question about this so I'm not sure I understand what point you're trying to make.
Now physicists are developing new optical atomic clocks which could be about 100 times more precise than microwave-based ones. They operate in a similar manner, but use laser light instead of microwaves. Laser light has a much higher frequency and hence gives much better timing resolution and much faster transmission of data.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
[
Of course the higher frequency is more energetic, there's really no question about this so I'm not sure I understand what point you're trying to make.
Now physicists are developing new optical atomic clocks which could be about 100 times more precise than microwave-based ones. They operate in a similar manner, but use laser light instead of microwaves. Laser light has a much higher frequency and hence gives much better timing resolution and much faster transmission of data.