Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: KrzYma

The frequency doesn't change at all according to Einstein. Both clocks still call 9192631770 vibrations as 1 second. Both clocks are identical. So what changes with that meter?? Well gravity does but that's not going to effect cesium. So we can rule out that they are vibrating different do to gravity.

So what could it be well the stronger the gravity the slower time moves forward but only if you can compare it to another frame of refrence. A person in that frame of refrence won't even notice and any test they run things will appear the same. What this test does is compare 2 frames of refrence and we see a difference. Eistine explains why for example in satellites for GPS we set them at 10.22999999543 MHz on the ground so that they’ll run at exactly 10.23 MHz in orbit. Whatever theory has to explain why this works.

So the differences in gravity has an effect slowing our clock. We understand time dilation Einstein used space time to explain it. To remove spacetime from the equation you need to replace it with something that works equally as well.

a reply to: dragonridr

I know what the theory says, I asked because Arbitrageur said and I quote

Frequency is cycles per second and if all else is equal, when NIST lowers their optical clock 1 meter in their lab, the frequency or cycles per second is lower fitting the definition of time dilation, time is slower.

well... time is not a physical property, time is just a name for counting periodic events, it can not slow down or does anything else because it is just a concept, same like good or bad or height or depth or gravity.
Yes I said that, gravity is a concept. There are mechanism affecting matter, things fall we see that, but it is not a self contained force like the electric force.

The name gravity is however a good name to operate with so I will use it.
The cesium atoms vibrate different frequencies in different gravity.
Gravity does affect the atoms.

The frequency of the vibration changes due to difference in gravity.
Or why the GPS is set to be 0,00000000457 off ...

Gravity is affecting mater, gravity can not affect time because time is counting and not a physical thing.
In denser gravity atoms resonate at different frequencies.
Forget TIME !

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: KrzYma
So the differences in gravity has an effect slowing our clock. We understand time dilation Einstein used space time to explain it. To remove spacetime from the equation you need to replace it with something that works equally as well.

Yes, that's how it works with Einstein's theory and yes it's not good enough to just say relativity is wrong and forget time...you hit the nail on the head, when you said you need to replace it with something.

The concept apparently isn't outrageous to theoretical physicists like Nima Arkani Hamed who talks about investigating whether time may be emergent, but even though he thinks it's an idea worth exploring, he admits they are a long way from having anything to replace time or to show convincingly how it's emergent.

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: dragonridr
Forget TIME !

Sorry but "forget time" is not a model. As I've said it's not my position that relativity is "right", just that it's supported by experiments so it's a good model, and it IS my position that you don't throw out the best model you have unless you have something better to replace it, which I'm assuming based on the lack of mathematical rigor in your "forget time" statement is something you lack.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

the "problem" with Nima Arkani Hamed and actually with all the mathematics is as follows...

2 - 5 + 3 = 0

this is valid and true,
but it is not valid in the real world.

if you have 2 people in a room and 5 people go out of the room, 3 new people need to go into the room, so the room is empty !

I like this example, because it shows that math is not the solution for everything and even the equation is right, it is not achievable in the real physical world.

a reply to: KrzYma

You make a lot of claims in your posts, but they are a) unsupported by any evidence and b) refuted by actual experiment.

Care to explain the merit of posting them?

a reply to: KrzYma
So you believe negative numbers are an abstract concept, and such do not want to believe a theory which actually extends way beyond such mathematics...

You also believe gravity is purely abstract along with time, as it is just a counting thing.


Great start here and also pointless trying to prove anything at all... since you know... negative numbers are not always an unphysical or abstract concept. You did know that right?

I go with GetHyped and have said it before to you, you make claims and statements without any evidence, even small or reasonable evidence would be good, but you do not even bring that. Not only that but you ignore actual scientific experiment, refuting evidence by calling the main stream essentially stupid... not how science is done really

a reply to: ErosA433

Of course negative number are useful, if you miss something for example.
I had 3 apples and someone stole them, now I've got -3 apples.
But the thief could not steal 5 apples from me because there was just 3.

You guys using negative energy and temporary particles for one reason only, to fit the equation.

About proving something... Prove to me time exists as physical substance in the Universe and is not just counting things.

Here my prove for time being a concept based on counting....
listen carefully !!

1 second
2 seconds
3 seconds
4 seconds
...


The evidence that the so called gravity is affecting matter at subatomic level is any GPS satellite...
And NIST of course !
I know you use it to prove relativity right, but this relativity is just interpretation.
A wrong one, telling us time can slow down...
You can slow down counting the time, sure, but time o itself does not exist as physical entity


And you are mistaken, I'm not calling anyone stupid, I assume you think that about me though,
What I'm saying is that some mainstream interpretations of the reality and the concepts behind it are WRONG.

a reply to: KrzYma



Start at 6:15

a reply to: KrzYma

Yes, everyone else is wrong, the entire scientific community, all of the technology we use that works because of the predictions of the model of relativity, all of the experimental data... it's all wrong.

But you, lonely internet warrior, you are right, and for no other reason than because you say so.

*facepalm*

a reply to: GetHyped

You are not listening to what he is saying, you are not discussing his points. He is not claiming what you are deriding him for.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: KrzYma

Yes, everyone else is wrong, the entire scientific community, all of the technology we use that works because of the predictions of the model of relativity, all of the experimental data... it's all wrong.

All of the technology we use, and the vast amount of experimental data we have, are based on the Lorentz equations, which were derived prior to relativity by Lorentz and others. That's why the equations are not called the Einstein equations.

The adoption of relativity was more of a philosophical choice than it was the result of scientific experimentation, since there are very few experiments that differentiate Einstein from Lorentz. I am being a bit of a broken record here, but the Bell's theorem tests actually indicate that Lorentz (and my more recent modification) may be a better representative of nature than relativity.

a reply to: DanielKoenig

YES...
clock 1 still, clock 2 moving...

why is the moving clock running slower ?
because the path for the light travels longer distance.
But just if you compare it to the not moving reference of frame.
For the moving clock however (clock 2), it is standing still in his frame and the other clock (clock 1) is moving, right?
Motion is relative, right ?

Well.. wrong.

This picture here shows the clocks from a third perspective, the observer outside both frames.
You, as the third observer, the "god's eye", decide and tell what clock is moving.

Eliminate yourself from the picture and you see as followed..

1 (perspective of clock 1)... There is a clock moving and it counts slower then me
2 (perspective of clock 2)... There is a clock moving and it counts slower then me

this is cool because it tells you, that every single particle in the Universe has it's own frame of reference...
And it is also always running slower than the others...


Why did I said it is wrong ?

Motion is a comparison of the position, to say something moves you need to compare its position relative to something else.
You measure it once, you measure it twice... and you have the speed.
So... if you take out all there is and compare just two things, motion may seem relative, but if you take the reality, the whole Universe into this,
there is just absolute motion against all the background.

So... do I move or does the Universe moves around me ??

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: KrzYma

Yes, everyone else is wrong, the entire scientific community, all of the technology we use that works because of the predictions of the model of relativity, all of the experimental data... it's all wrong.

But you, lonely internet warrior, you are right, and for no other reason than because you say so.

*facepalm*

Nikolaus Kopernikus once said, you are all wrong, the Earth is not the center of the Universe the Sun is...
Even that has been to be wrong
Charles Darwin once said, we are not made from the hand of an God, we are a result of an evolution..

I'm just questioning what is told to be going on....

a reply to: KrzYma

In reality things are actually exactly moving as they are, so as you said, well, in truth one of the light clocks, or both of the light clocks would be moving, but they would be moving at different velocities.

If two light clocks were in motion with each other side by side, they would see the light zig zagging.

If two clocks have different velocities relative to one another (through space)(in proximity), recording via reference frame, this doesnt mean the reference frame of recording is motionless, as evidence by the difference between an object headed toward in through our solar system toward earth from the solar systems tail, and an object heading in through the solar system heading towards earth through the solar systems front of direction traveling.

clock A traveling 5 mph. clock b traveling 100 mph. clock c traveling 1000 mph. In reference to what? the reference is traveling what mph in reference to what?

Well if these clocks are on earths surface, and then tossed off the earths surface, when they are riding the earth they are traveling at the speed of earth, the earth measuring reference frame. But I guess eventually they get far enough away and due to a few factors, their relative velocities through 'solar system and interstellar space' the earth, clock a, clock b, clock c,

obviously, for me to have given those initial speeds, they must be traveling different speeds, but what would be the case of letting go of the clock, shooting it into the air, already the need to shoot it with a rocket gives it imediate a jolting change of velocity.

so all the while the rocket with clock a is heading up (oh and ait just is a little push 5 feet off the ground at 5ph, so the clock for some time had an extra component of velocity? the earth + its upward velocity into the air?

so eventually things are shot up way into the atmosphere and orbit, clocks, and their velocity was measured from time of take off to time of breaching enough sky, and during that time the earth was moving in some direction through solar and interstellar space, and the rocket with clock was not necessarily moving that direction, and it was traveling at the velocity of earth, and shot up off the earth so with earth velocity and then extra lift velocity in some other direction then earth is traveling,

then earth is spinning, and the gravity field surrounding earth that keeps the moon toward earth, is spinning, so little clocks shot up can stay in orbit, so now they are traveling some relation of velocity to earth, and earths spinning, and different orbit shells, so different objects circle around the same earth but require larger rings to do it, like a olympic running track if the start/finish line was straight across, the inner track is fastest.

originally posted by: DanielKoenig

If two light clocks were in motion with each other side by side, they would see the light zig zagging.

I guess this is a situation, thats not necessarily true. If there was that light clock was possible on earth, even though it is theorized earth is in motion, we would not see the light zig zagging, if it was sitting outdoors at night on a table or the ground, two large mirrors, and light reflecting back and forth between.

I guess that might be an interesting aspect, because light always naturally dissipates, and I wonder if that had to do with earths motion.

originally posted by: KrzYma
I like this example, because it shows that math is not the solution for everything and even the equation is right, it is not achievable in the real physical world.

Who said math was the solution for everything? The equations only represent things but the things they represent can be quite real and you need negative numbers for some things. For example the computer, tablet, laptop or cell phone you're using to post here was likely powered by or had the battery charged by alternating current. The voltage oscillates from positive to negative values at something like 50 or 60 times a second depending on where you live, and it's very real whether you believe the equations or not.

So the irony is, you're using positive and negative voltages as a means to make your post criticizing negative numbers and you're using electronics technology developed by mainstream science to say mainstream science is wrong, when your post showing up at other people's computers all over the world contradicts your claim.

a reply to: KrzYma
I see a bunch of words, but where's your model that will predict the results observed when NIST moves around their optical clocks? I have yet to see from you anything that can predict what they are observing. Your words seem to match up with what Richard Feynman describes from 5:10 to 5:34 in this video, is he describing your idea?



In case you have doubts, when he says that's a good theory, the reason everybody laughs is because it's supposed to be obvious satire, not because it's a good theory.

I haven't studied DelbertLarson's absolute model yet but it seems like you might be suggesting something along the same lines, and yet you attack DelbertLarson. At least he has proposed a model, but if you don't have any proposed model that's better than what you're criticizing, your words are useless. In previous discussions he even suggested the possibility of an experiment to evaluate if length contraction occurs more like relativity predicts or more like his theory predicts. If someone wants to suggest relativity is wrong, having a model that would show a different experimental result would be a good place to start, so rather than attacking DelbertLarson you should be taking lessons on the approach. This is not to say whether his theory is right or wrong, just that it's a lot more meaningful to say "here's the model I think is right and here's how it predicts a different experimental result than predicted by relativity, now let's do the experiment and see which is right". That could be useful, but just saying "it's wrong" is not useful to anybody if you can't express your objections in terms of observations or experiments.

originally posted by: DanielKoenig
a reply to: KrzYma

Start at 6:15

The ideas in that video are on the right track, but one thing it says is such a common misconception that I have to comment on it.

"Let's imagine constructing a clock with a beam of light bouncing between two mirrors. Whenenver the light strikes the bottom plate, time advances." That sounds wrong to me, time is advancing continuously, which is what the animation shows, so the animation doesn't match the narration, but the next point is what bugged me more.

"The advantage of using this kind of clock is we can be sure the observer who looks at the clock will see the timing mechanism, the beam of light". We can't be sure of that at all. We see it in the animation as we do in Star Trek where we see what look like laser beams firing between ships, but actually we can't see beams of light unless they reflect off of something, like for example dust. Then when the beam of light hits a dust particle, we see the reflection off the dust particle, but looking at a side view of the beam as in the video animation it wouldn't be seen unless it was reflecting off of dust or something.

originally posted by: KrzYma
I'm just questioning what is told to be going on....

No you're not just questioning, you're saying the relativity model of time dilation is wrong, yet you have offered no alternate model which predicts what's observed in experiment like the NIST clocks, so how can you expect anybody to take your objections seriously? You can't.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I haven't studied DelbertLarson's absolute model yet but it seems like you might be suggesting something along the same lines, and yet you attack DelbertLarson.

I attack his model ?? Where ??
I didn't mentioned it at all, if I attack, then the misconception about Time being some physical entity you can do something with or do something to it.

So the irony is, you're using positive and negative voltages as a means to make your post criticizing negative numbers and you're using electronics technology developed by mainstream science to say mainstream science is wrong, when your post showing up at other people's computers all over the world contradicts your claim.

WHAT ??

I hope you know that there is no such thing as negative energy, right ?
We say positive and negative voltage by definition only.
Negative is actually the pole with excess of the electrons so if you count, there is more electrons than on the positive side.

If you talk about minus and plus voltage and numbers in electricity, think of it as direction of flow, not that the energy is negative...
There is no negative energy or negative space or negative timeflow.

About the mirror light clock in the video...

We can't be sure of that at all. We see it in the animation as we do in Star Trek where we see what look like laser beams firing between ships, but actually we can't see beams of light unless they reflect off of something, like for example dust. Then when the beam of light hits a dust particle, we see the reflection off the dust particle, but looking at a side view of the beam as in the video animation it wouldn't be seen unless it was reflecting off of dust or something.

I agree with you on that 100%

you're saying the relativity model of time dilation is wrong, yet you have offered no alternate model which predicts what's observed in experiment like the NIST clocks,

I did, some few hundred pages back I said how charges combine and create denser field that slows down the propagation of magnetic field, which result in light bending and that's also true for slowing clock.

I repeat for you>

Electric field propagates without any delay unlike the magnetic field that propagates with C.
Displacing a charged particle changes the electric field instantaneously,
magnetic field is the result of that change, "re-configuring" the EM field.
More charges make the field denser,
electron (minus) and proton (plus) is density of 2 with net electric charge of zero.
If they combine you get a neutron that again decays shortly.
Denser field result in slower propagation of the magnetic field.
This causes the so called light bending or "gravitational lensing"
A WAVE that has a width propagates slower on one side then on the other side of the wave causing the wave to be bend in the direction of the gradient of the density field.

All this, is well documented by observations and experiments as you know, although interpreted differently in some cases or some facts ignored..

originally posted by: KrzYma
I attack his model ?? Where ??
I didn't mentioned it at all, if I attack, then the misconception about Time being some physical entity you can do something with or do something to it.

Yes you have your own unique ideas about time which I still find you have not expressed quantitatively. Yes you could say time involves counting but you seem to miss the rate of counting in your description.

"So the irony is, you're using positive and negative voltages as a means to make your post criticizing negative numbers... "

WHAT ??

I hope you know that there is no such thing as negative energy, right ?

I say voltages, and you want to talk about energy, or maybe you have reading comprehension problems if you think I was talking about energy when I said "voltages". You may as well go back to talking about 5 people leaving a room with only three people in it if you just want to ignore the relevance of negative numbers.

I agree with you on that 100%

That's unusual, I better re-read what I said and check for typos

I repeat for you>

Electric field propagates without any delay unlike the magnetic field that propagates with C.
Displacing a charged particle changes the electric field instantaneously,
magnetic field is the result of that change, "re-configuring" the EM field.
More charges make the field denser,
electron (minus) and proton (plus) is density of 2 with net electric charge of zero.
If they combine you get a neutron that again decays shortly.
Denser field result in slower propagation of the magnetic field.
This causes the so called light bending or "gravitational lensing"
A WAVE that has a width propagates slower on one side then on the other side of the wave causing the wave to be bend in the direction of the gradient of the density field.

All this, is well documented by observations and experiments as you know, although interpreted differently in some cases or some facts ignored..

This is a model? OK then show me how to use it to make predictions.

I'll show you a rough method of calculating the difference in clock rates that NIST observed at a 1 meter height difference.
For the lower clock they can use the second formula here:

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...


For the upper clock 1 meter higher the calculation will be almost the same except the R value, distance from the center of the Earth will be 1 meter greater, and g, local gravitational acceleration will be slightly less at the higher altitude.

If you plug those numbers in, as it says below the formula, both calculations will show time dilation of approximately 1 part in a billion, which is the amount of time dilation on Earth's surface compared to a distant point in space far from Earth's surface. But if you carry the calculations out to enough decimal places, you can calculate a small difference in the time dilation because of the small differences in R and g and that's what NIST measured and experimentally confirmed. Doing the actual calculations gets a little more involved than this simplified explanation but this is the general idea.

I don't even know where to start doing these calculations with your "model", how does it predict what NIST measured, or does it?

a reply to: KrzYma


What you are describing for the electric field is not consistent with present electrodynamic theory. Electric fields are not believed to move faster than light, at least not in our labs. However if you instead would refer to the electrostatic potential that would be another matter entirely. If you write Maxwell's equations in terms of the electrostatic (phi) and vector (A) potentials you will see that only derivatives of A and phi enter into the equations, not A and phi directly. Hence, if we add a constant to either or both of A and phi then the same equations hold. Further, we can add specific functions to A and phi and the same equations still hold. Since physics depends on the fields, and not the potentials, there is no effect on the physics when we do this. This process of adding such functions to the potentials is called a gauge transformation. And there is a specific gauge, the Coulomb gauge, wherein changes to phi occur instantaneously. If your model (or thoughts) would involve the potential rather than the field you could therefore be on more solid theoretical ground. I have an aether theory that does just that, and I hope to get it in viewable form someday. It is already up on my website and my YouTube channel, but rules here prohibit me linking to those sites.

As for derogatory comments, I don't believe I've seen them from you, although there have been others who have made them. But by all means, please feel free to do so! The old adage in Hollywood was "I don't care what they say about me, just make sure they spell my name right". I think that holds in science too. If we could just get #delbertlarsonisanidiot trending on twitter it would be great, as it would perhaps spark interest. The important thing is to get the discussions going.

It is the silence that kills.

Another thought I would like to have your opinion on:
If the Universe is a wave which collapses as soon as "the observer" shows up, is that maybe what happened instead of the big bang? The birth of the observer the possibility wave collapsed and the material world was born.
...maybe more philosophical than physics, but pretty, right?