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.
Readers digest version: EU has no math/quantitative predictions and the people attracted to it seem to be those averse to math. So I tend to feel sorry for EU proponents instead of wanting to punch them, they're missing a lot of interesting things by not knowing math and how real science is verified using math.
originally posted by: delbertlarson
Earlier I had mentioned about how time was an abstraction. I have updated the InfoGalactic article to clarify this issue. You can see the discussion of abstraction in the first portion of the introductory section.
originally posted by: Hyperboles
a reply to: Arbitrageur
once again atomic clocks essentially measure the freq of the local oscillator. yes or no ?
We actually define a second this way.
The second is 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.
so the time on the moon runs slower. yes or no?
That's 66 billionths of one percent faster
Time passes about 0.66 parts per billion faster on the Moon than on Earth
pendulum clock will measure slower time. yes or no?
What kind of question is that? If you push on it with your hand maybe it will swing, but if there's no net gravity in any direction to make it swing, it's not going to swing because of gravity. As little g (local acceleration of gravity) approaches zero, the period of the pendulum approaches infinity.
will the pendulum swing at the null point? yes or no?
It shows faster time in lesser gravity consistent with the predictions of relativity, so I wouldn't call it erroneous.
does the atomic clock show erroneous faster time in lesser gravity. yes or no?
we will discuss further after you answer the above
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
originally posted by: Hyperboles
a reply to: Arbitrageur
once again atomic clocks essentially measure the freq of the local oscillator. yes or no ?
physics.nist.gov...
clearly atomic clock is wrong
We actually define a second this way.
The second is 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.
Are you talking abut freq? and does the freq increase in conditions of time dilation?actually time runs slower as shown by the period of the pendulum, whereas the atomic clock is wrong
so the time on the moon runs slower. yes or no?
That's 66 billionths of one percent faster
Time passes about 0.66 parts per billion faster on the Moon than on Earth
pendulum clock will measure slower time. yes or no?
On the moon's surface the period of the pendulum is increased by about 146% compared to Earth's surface, a huge difference, especially compared to a change of only 66 billionths of one percent with the atomic clock.
What kind of question is that? If you push on it with your hand maybe it will swing, but if there's no net gravity in any direction to make it swing, it's not going to swing because of gravity. As little g (local acceleration of gravity) approaches zero, the period of the pendulum approaches infinity.
will the pendulum swing at the null point? yes or no?
It shows faster time in lesser gravity consistent with the predictions of relativity, so I wouldn't call it erroneous.yes its erroneous all right
does the atomic clock show erroneous faster time in lesser gravity. yes or no?
we will discuss further after you answer the above
So what value for little g (local acceleration of gravity) does your model calculate for the Apollo spacecraft traversing the null point between the Earth and moon, and in what direction is the net acceleration?
originally posted by: Hyperboles
there is no point in this universe where gravity is zero
What number do you plug in for g where the Apollo spacecraft reaches the null point between the Earth and moon, and in what direction is the acceleration, and how did you calculate that? It can't be in the direction of the moon or the Earth because those little g's cancel each other out. If you say there's acceleration in the direction of the sun, you have to remember that the Earth, moon and Apollo spacecraft traveling between them are all in freefall toward the sun, thus we must consider Einstein's happiest thought:
originally posted by: Hyperboles
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Period T of pendulum is proportional to 1 / underoot l/g where l is length of pendulum and g is accel due to gravity. we all learnt this in school and just forgot about it. so T is greater at equator, ie the pendulum slows down at equator due to lesser gravity
Likewise, since the Apollo spacecraft was in freefall toward the sun, ditto.
In 1920 Einstein commented that a thought came into his mind when writing the above-mentioned paper he called it ``the happiest thought of my life'':
"The gravitational field has only a relative existence... Because for an observer freely falling from the roof of a house - at least in his immediate surroundings - there exists no gravitational field."
Making a claim like that in contradiction to mainstream science with no supporting argument is, well, unsupported. Moreover if the pendulum clock was right, there would have been a 146% frequency shift in Neil Armstrong's voice frequency and his radio frequency when he was on the moon, and there wasn't, so that observation alone may not prove the atomic clock is right but it definitely proves the pendulum clock is wrong, at least by any model I can think of and I have yet to see anything resembling a model from you.
originally posted by: Hyperboles
clearly atomic clock is wrong
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: Jc333
If you know the answer it seems you should be posting the answer instead of asking the question. However, thinking you know the answer, and being able to prove that is the right answer to a lot of skeptical scientists are likely two very different things.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
The second is 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.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
What kind of question is that? If you push on it with your hand maybe it will swing, but if there's no net gravity in any direction to make it swing, it's not going to swing because of gravity. As little g (local acceleration of gravity) approaches zero, the period of the pendulum approaches infinity.
we are not arguing about the accuracy here.
originally posted by: [post=22474648]Arbitrageur
Making a claim like that in contradiction to mainstream science with no supporting argument is, well, unsupported. Moreover if the pendulum clock was right, there would have been a 146% frequency shift in Neil Armstrong's voice frequency and his radio frequency when he was on the moon, and there wasn't, so that observation alone may not prove the atomic clock is right but it definitely proves the pendulum clock is wrong, at least by any model I can think of and I have yet to see anything resembling a model from you.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
The second is 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.
We actually define a second this way.
will the pendulum swing at the null point? yes or no?
What kind of question is that? If you push on it with your hand maybe it will swing, but if there's no net gravity in any direction to make it swing, it's not going to swing because of gravity. As little g (local acceleration of gravity) approaches zero, the period of the pendulum approaches infinity.