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.

 

Ask any question you want about Physics

page: 328
72
<< 325  326  327    329  330  331 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2017 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur


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.


As if that will perturb the EU fanatics.




posted on Jul, 18 2017 @ 11:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

once again atomic clocks essentially measure the freq of the local oscillator. yes or no ?
so the time on the moon runs slower. yes or no?
pendulum clock will measure slower time. yes or no?
will the pendulum swing at the null point? yes or no?
does the atomic clock show erroneous faster time in lesser gravity. yes or no?
we will discuss further after you answer the above



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 12:13 AM
link   

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.


Imagine if eternally only absolutely nothing existed. No matter/no energy/no particles. Only nothing nothing nothing. Eternally. Guaranteed eternally for eternal infinite time for not a single speck of existence to exist.

That would be easy to imagine absolute space right.(kinda maybe).

Just 'black/dark' nothingness, in every direction (maybe)?

3 pure, empty, wallless, stuffless, dimensions.

Just actually, absolutely, purely, nothing. Only nothing.

(to imagine this nothing, imagine if for a moment in this nothing you popped into existence in a space ship, and then you were the only non nothing to exist in this pure absolute real space of 3 d nothing: and then you can just drive around, in a single direction for infinite forevers and never see another thing and never reach a wall or end)


Ok. Now in some sense, this actual real absolute space, must exist. Defaultly. Why wouldnt it, how couldn't it (but dont try to argue that if you feel the urge to...you shouldn't, but if you do, not yet, put that on the back burner) (how could a 3d arena of pure nothing not exist: either that is all that exists (i.e my above thought experiment), or something exists, in/in relation/on this 3d nothing space (i.e. what appears to be the case of our awareness of the universe).

Now the thing is, because gravity, waves, ""space-time"" (which is just trying to make a system of including the effects of gravity, waves, curvature, slowing or speeding up what would be pure measurements of velocity over nothing space, but since its not nothing space, the proximitys of gravity, (aether, space) are intimately linked with the recorded functions of time (objects relational velocity)) curvature, as you claim, the apparent appearance of an aether, of a substantial space, because there must be substance in between and surrounding the sun and earth for them to orbit, when we point to the black dark between the moon and earth and sun and pluto, we are not pointing at that pure nothing 3d empty space.

That pure nothing 3d empty space must always be there, it is everywhere, it is just that substance is 'on top of it...in it'.

So, a universe with aether, a universe where what appears to be that 3d pure empty space, is actually full of 3d/4d substance waves (which operate in such a manner that masses/bodies ride these waves like surfers), is then, 'the universes absolute space',

if absolute simply means, true. Its more of topography, 3d/4d topography.

Think of an ocean shore with its waves.

Each wave may be slightly bigger or larger than the one before and after it, and they each have subtle unique characteristics, they start to break and tube different areas different times.

Would you call this the absolute topography of the sea surface space? If you could record and catalogue and simulate in real time the actual shape and mass and force and breaks of each wave?

So the universe is full of 3d/4d wave topography, gravity wave. That is its absolute space, as in, the true actuality of the 3d/4d area of the universe. (just as the true actual 3d/4d (2d) of earths absolute spatial surface can be represented with contour maps and such. Unlike earths rocky and mountainous surface, the space between the bodies of the solar system and outside of it, is motive/dynamic. Ala, ocean wave analogy.


Can we accurately real time model the mass and force and shape and breaks of the gravity waves (space time curvature) which is in and surrounds the solar system like we can the contour of a mountainous region of earth, like a video camera can very well relay the real time absoluteness of the spatial condition of the surface of the waves breaking near the ocean shore? is this not what newtons and einsteins equations do quite well?

The thing is.

1) absolute space is and always will be: that first mentioned infinite pure nothing eternal in all directions 3d empty nothing space.

2) the universe is many types of substances interacting (and appears to be...quite friggin large) and this universe, exists in some location of the '1)' and in this universe, its absolute space is 'every single non nothing', every particle, every matter, every energy, every movement. Every single particle, electron, quark, photon, "that substance which makes up that which curves which allows the planets to orbit the sun, and the sun to orbit the super massive black hole' (gravity medium particulate) makes up the contour, the 3d/4d real time topography of the universe.

Now, one thing might be, the fact of an underlying pure actually absolutely nothing space, may play some role in the actions of materials.
It may be that (and this is something I used to try to pry and prod about), it may be obvious that this is the case, and it may be exactly this which is termed 'vacuum', that the universe has 'holes'. The universe defined as electrons, quarks, photons, etc. etc. muons, preons, gravity medium particles, etc. + absolute pure nothing space (1))

That the network of stuff (electrons, quarks, photons.. etc.) as a network, as a connected system, has, 'holes', 'pockets', and these holes and pockets are, actually pure absolutely really nothing. Pure 0. 0 matter. 0 energy. Spatial regions, sections of 3d, of 0 matter, 0 energy.

Could we imagine a perfectly, s'cuse the metaphor, a perfectly airtight universe? If (1)) (pure nothing space) was akin to air, could we imagine if the universal system of substance, the network interrelation and intermingleness of substance (quark, electron, photon, gravity medium particle) was so densely and compactly connected, that not a single planck length of pure absolute nothing space was inside the 3d/4d system of universe?

edit on 19-7-2017 by DanielKoenig because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: DanielKoenig


In absolute theory, space and time have nothing at all to do with any material entities or any non-material energy entities (such as photons). Space is represented by three orthogonal axes, and time is simply the parameter that orders events. Your thoughts concerning the perfectly empty space are close to this concept, but even when you put stuff into such a space the absolute theory entities "space" and "time" remain the same.

Einstein changed all that. And yes, his equations do predict experimental results. But setting gravity aside for the moment, the absolute theories (mine and Lorentz's) also agree with all experimental results. Further, Einstein (in his EPR paper) proposed an experiment to either prove relativity or quantum mechanics wrong, with an underlying assumption of an objective reality. Tests showed quantum mechanics to correctly predict results, and rather than setting relativity aside the opinion became that Einstein was wrong in EPR and that objective reality should be set aside for non-local phenomena. Given that, I believe that despite the success of the relativistic math in many instances, that Einstein was right in EPR and that we should reconsider the absolute theories.



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 10:03 PM
link   

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...

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.


so the time on the moon runs slower. yes or no?


Time passes about 0.66 parts per billion faster on the Moon than on Earth
That's 66 billionths of one percent faster


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.


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.


does the atomic clock show erroneous faster time in lesser gravity. yes or no?
we will discuss further after you answer the above
It shows faster time in lesser gravity consistent with the predictions of relativity, so I wouldn't call it erroneous.



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 11:02 PM
link   

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...

NIST IS MISTAKEN



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.
Are you talking abut freq? and does the freq increase in conditions of time dilation?




so the time on the moon runs slower. yes or no?


Time passes about 0.66 parts per billion faster on the Moon than on Earth
That's 66 billionths of one percent faster
actually time runs slower as shown by the period of the pendulum, whereas the atomic clock is wrong


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.
clearly atomic clock is wrong


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.
there is no point in this universe where gravity is zero


does the atomic clock show erroneous faster time in lesser gravity. yes or no?
we will discuss further after you answer the above
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



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 12:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hyperboles
there is no point in this universe where gravity is zero
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
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
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:

physics.ucr.edu...

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."
Likewise, since the Apollo spacecraft was in freefall toward the sun, ditto.


originally posted by: Hyperboles
clearly atomic clock is wrong
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.

edit on 2017720 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 12:22 AM
link   
hi,

What exactly is gravity?

I've read your fascinating thread but it seems to me that there are a lot of complicated answers on here, when the reality is actually much, much simpler.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 12:33 AM
link   
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.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 12:39 AM
link   

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.


Indeed!

1. No

2. Very true.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 03:40 AM
link   

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.


" duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation"

How are those periods counted? Something couldn't be found with a period of 1? Why was that 9,192,631,770 chosen to be equal to 1 second? Because that times 60 equaled a minute. A second is semi abstract concept, because there is no one pure thing that defines it, I guess. Are these times calibrated upwards and/or downwards? Like year, minutes, seconds. Or Planck time



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 03:46 AM
link   

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.


asking about pendulums relation to time, time keeping and gravity, is sketchy in the same way as asking if 'time is running slower on a very windy plain' because when you set the pendulum the wind continuously blew the pendulums arm keeping it in place keeping it from swinging.

This is all talking then about how physical elements/phenomenon effect physical elements/phenomenon and throwing the concept of time/time keeping somewhere in the mix.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 05:22 AM
link   

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.
we are not arguing about the accuracy here.
simply if the period of pendulum is greater on the moon, the time flow is slower. any school kid can tell that.
so if atomic clock runs faster there, is it not obvious that it is wrong?



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 06:02 AM
link   

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.


That must be a definition at certain conditions. I.e., at a certain gravitational point and in a particular reference frame.


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.


At zero gravity the end of the pendulum should go around in a circle at constant velocity. In any gravitational field, once the maximum gravitational potential energy (the potential energy at "the top") is less than the maximum kinetic energy (the kinetic energy at "the bottom") then it goes around instead of going back and forth, but the velocity is not uniform if there is non-zero gravity. The pendulum could come to a stop (infinite period) if the maximum possible gravitational potential energy equals the maximum kinetic energy, and that would be a point of unstable equilibrium. But that point is not when little g goes to zero. When little g goes to zero you get to uniform circular motion instead of having velocity changes.

Of course that just adds to your point that pendulums are not good time pieces, and I agree with that. My point is that we should question all of our time pieces. Do they really tell time? Or are the affected by their environment so that they fail us?

edit on 20-7-2017 by delbertlarson because: Changed "velocity reversals" to "velocity changes".



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 06:53 AM
link   
This is quite frankly one are the largest displays of either... a) trolling or b) scientific ignorance I have seen on ATS

The period of a pendulum is determined by the constraints of a compound mechanical system, as a simple harmonic oscillator by classical mechanics. The equilibrium point of the pendulum is along the vector of gravity. Harmonic oscillators appear to exhibit a restoring force when displaced from its equilibrium point. In the case of a pendulum this force is the tangential property of tension vs the pull of gravity, allowing it to swing.

It swings back and forth by the transference of gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy, and back again.

The time required to do a complete oscillation in the case of a pendulum is T ~ 2PI sqrt(L/g) where L is the length of the pendulum from its pivot point and the mass off the bob at the end. g here is the local acceleration due to gravity. The reason why it is not exactly equal to this equation is because of friction, air resistance and the mass of the pendulum line.

Right a pendulum clock keeps time assuming that gravity and the length of its line is not changing, it is an instrument to measure the passage of time based entirely on that assumption, it is a measurement of the properties of a mechanical system, NOT the fundamentals of the passage of time.

An atomic clock behaves completely differently and it is clear that you do not understand the difference or care to educate yourself enough to.

It works based upon atomic physics and probes an intrinsic property of an atomic system. Electrons may make transitions between energy levels and they do so with well defined lifetimes. In an atomic clock the target atom is vaporised and cooled and put into an atomic fountain where, in free fall, it is excited by either microwave, RF or UV, by matching the excitation source to that of a single hyperfine atomic shell energy, electrons may be placed into that shell. The atoms then decay and you measure the time of that occurrence. In effect the tick of the clock is the frequency of that transition, and this can be made extremely high, meaning the clock ticks very quickly, and the accuracy of those ticks is very high.

So what defines the period of one second? Well ultimately it was calibrated to be relative to Ephemeris Time, on the basis that the orbit of the Earth around the sun to be used as an astronomical standard. Basically turns out that 9 192 631 770 number is the what gives the period of one second.

Now, the point of all this is is as follows.
The atomic clock ticks upon the fundamental properties of the atom. In which the only thing that effects the measurement are controlled except gravity. Those are the temperature of the atoms, and the frequency and width of the transition. These are controlled via cooling and atomic species selection.

So the only thing to change the tick of the clock is gravitation, but it is not an intrinsic property of the device, but of the universe itself. THAT is the difference between the atomic clock and the pendulum.

It is a subtle but important difference. So the only thing that can affect the tick of the atomic clock is the local passage of time as defined by relativity. THUS the atomic clock is a better fundamental probe of the passage of time in comparison to a pendulum which is a crude mechanical device better at telling the user what the local acceleration of gravity is, and not really what the passage of time is.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

I disagree. if the atomic clock or a crystal oscillator clock is freq based, the freq of local oscillator will increase in conditions of time dilation and hence a erroneous readout of faster time in lesser gravity



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

I disagree. if the atomic clock or a crystal oscillator clock is freq based, the freq of local oscillator will increase in conditions of time dilation and hence a erroneous readout of faster time in lesser gravity



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

I disagree. if the atomic clock or a crystal oscillator clock is freq based, the freq of local oscillator will increase in conditions of time dilation and hence a erroneous readout of faster time in lesser gravity



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

I disagree. if the atomic clock or a crystal oscillator clock is freq based, the freq of local oscillator will increase in conditions of time dilation and hence a erroneous readout of faster time in lesser gravity



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

I disagree. if the atomic clock or a crystal oscillator clock is freq based, the freq of local oscillator will increase in conditions of time dilation and hence a erroneous readout of faster time in lesser gravity



new topics




 
72
<< 325  326  327    329  330  331 >>

log in

join