Experiment could prove The Theory of General Relativity wrong...

reply to post by Phage

It is differences in those frames of reference which cause differences in time.

But its only the perception of time as it appears to the observer. If you perceived something to arrive sooner, or take longer, than it actually took, that doesn't change the over all fact that it took precisely the same amount of time that it took to get there.

An object, unobstructed through its course, moving 100 miles per hour, will take 1 hour to travel 100 miles.

It doesn't matter how much light is around the object, or how much light is absent. Light doesn't dictate time, it travels through it. If light affects the speed of the object, then it is no longer traveling 100 mph, and thus, the theory becomes flawed.

Thus, an intergalactic trip of 500 billion light years that takes mere moments for the voyager, also takes mere moments for anyone observing the object in motion. Even if they think it took longer.

[edit on 26-2-2010 by Snarf]

Originally posted by Snarf

But its only the perception of time as it appears to the observer. If you perceived something to arrive sooner, or take longer, than it actually took, that doesn't change the over all fact that it took precisely the same amount of time that it took to get there.

Well if I am not wrong here that is the whole point of an atomic clock, to remove the human/perception component of tracking time. I am sure someone knows more on that subject than me.

Originally posted by Snarf
It doesn't matter how much light is around the object, or how much light is absent. Light doesn't dictate time, it travels through it.

I think relativity accounts for that. Light exist within the space-time continuum. Although I am not sure what that is constructed of...

Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne
You are correct however in that if you could increase the number of electrons in the wire, you would in fact increase it's mass because an electron is not a mass-less particle and does have atomic weight, albeit very small.

Not trying to knock your theory, just shedding a different light on it.

~Namaste

That is called static electricity. A material can have either an abundance of electrons, or a lack of electrons, a negative or positive charge.

That would mean a negative charged material will be heavier than the same object that is positively charged, because there exists more electrons in the material, and the electrons are attracted to the nucleus and gravity at the same time (weighing it down).

I was thinking that a wire with electricity running through it has an abundance of electrons, compared to if it didn't have electricity running through it.

Also, electrons have mass and are moving, so there is extra energy (like kinetic) in the electron while it is temporary attracted to the nucleus in its passing.

Also, if an electron has mass, and an electron can easily move through a material, that would mean when you spin a material with said abilities like a toy top, the electrons will experience centrifugal force outward, and other forces (like kinetic).

I believe all objects act like they are filled with water. The water being the electrons. As you move the object, the electrons splash around.

So now imagine a hollow toy top with water in it, spinning. What happens to the water? Outward and upward movement right?

Ah, I play around with too many theories to talk about just the electron theory.

reply to post by Snarf

The apparent bending of light has nothing to do with time dilation. Light has no effect on the speed of an object.

They are two separate effects predicted by relativity and they are both proven to occur.

Time is relative to the frame of reference of the observer.

[edit on 2/26/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by broli
That's also quite a low speed. Can you imagine the effect of this had it been spinning at millions of RPM. Or even higher, nearing the speed of light like in a circular particle accelerator. I believe this effect can also give rise to anti gravity.

Antigravity Patent 6960975

reply to post by Snarf


Humans did not invent time. Time is the progression of events, from one causation to the next. The earth spins, and it changes state.

I like to ponder this quite a bit, actually. For instance, from the "Matrix" school of thought, you could consider that our quantum particles are "change of state" particles, communicating back to the "Universal Wavefront" (or the screen that reality is displayed on) that we have moved or changed state. Like a movie playing on a massive screen issued holograpically from a hidden dimension.

Of course, that is a fairly flighty idea. But it helps me to contemplate what time is.

I have often wondered....could all of history, both past and present, happened simultaneously, and due to things like gravitational effect we are experiencing in a chronological order?

For example, mass increases gravitational effect, which slows time, or the progression of one effect to the next effect (the change of state). The speed with which this progression happens depends on things like gravitational effect in the area, speed of motion, etc. In deep space, where there is no matter present, this is the true representation of how the change of state phenomena (time) is executed. Time, likely, would move along much, much faster in the absence of energy and mass.

However, in a very large galaxy, you have vast amounts of energy, lots of speed (galaxy's move at an extreme speed, as do solar systems), and tons of matter. The time dilation effect, in the local system, would likely be immense, relative to the utter lack of time dilation in deep space.

If one were to consider the possibility of such items as "tachyons", which theoretically move inversely with time, it makes it even a little more exciting.

Such as, perhaps in reality all of every happened simultaneously, relative to the speed with which time, or changes of state, occur in the absence of gravitational effect. Perhaps we only percieve time to occur in the way it is because we are in a region where gravitaional lensing, etc, occurs.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I was thinking of a theory similar to that. TIME should be included in the calculation.

For instance, imagine you have a line of people that are passing objects from one place to another in a chain with their hands. Imagine also that no point in time can one person pass two objects at the same time, they can only pass one object with both hands.

Say these objects weigh 10lbs, and the people weigh 100lbs. This would mean no person will ever weigh more than 110lbs while passing one object at a time, in their hands.

However, this depends on your observation rate of TIME. Like a camera and the shutter speed.

With a fast shutter speed it will appear like one object is being passed at a time, but with a slow shutter speed it will appear like people are passing multiple objects at one time. So the slow shutter speed camera itself will observe people weighing more than 110lbs because the camera is observing multiple objects being passed at "once".

For all we know, we could have a slow shutter speed in our minds.

reply to post by Shark_Feeder

Well if I am not wrong here that is the whole point of an atomic clock, to remove the human/perception component of tracking time. I am sure someone knows more on that subject than me.

Thats just the problem - there was no one monitoring the clocks. The whole experiment (in my opinion) wreaked of contamination.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Humans did not invent time. Time is the progression of events, from one causation to the next. The earth spins, and it changes state.

What we call time - is a concept that we invented. If "time" is the progression of events, from 1 to the next, then we can say that no matter what, time is constant. It doesn't change.

So how can gravity make our measurement of 1 second turn into 0.10 of a second (those are made up numbers, but you get my point)

No matter how dense it is, it is only bending light, giving the illusion of one object in space appearing in two spots at the same time. The perception

But if time is constant, then it can't be defined as our perception of it, because if we perceive 5 minutes as 5 years, the CONSTANT remains the same that only 300 seconds went by.

reply to post by Snarf


That does bring up an interesting point. How do you judge an experiment on perception if the parameters of the experiment allow for no observation.

I am sure there is a way around this but it is an interesting paradox.

Originally posted by boaby_phet
nice one!

ive thought for years, that alot of einstiens stuff although brilliant, is most likely wrong ...we have to remember his theorys are old and based upon outdates science, scince then their have been many more things discovered, some that obey his rules and some that doesnt..

the problem i have is that scientists use all his theorys to try and come to their own answers, which is pretty closed minded imo .

not to be incendiary, but i know i dont understand most of the equations i see him covering chalkboards with in pictures, and im pretty sure you dont either.

i think its a core... value? of science, to have certain staples ripped out every now again, or even torn apart.

if one gets over the disapproval of have something 'you' considered concrete disrupted, then it becomes a good thing.

as they say, knowledge is power.

reply to post by Snarf


I agree. I believe it is possible that moving faster has an effect on the actual operation of the clock, and not an effect on time itself.

reply to post by Shark_Feeder

That does bring up an interesting point. How do you judge an experiment on perception if the parameters of the experiment allow for no observation.

and it is within this that i arrive at my biggest problem with the theory of relativity.

It reminds me of an old south park episode

If you are interested, watch it here

Instead of the "intellectuals" arriving at the conclusion you just did of "interesting, how do we combat this" they instead say "well, we're right, Einstein isnt wrong, you are, because you don't have a degree in....critical thinking...."



[edit on 26-2-2010 by Snarf]

reply to post by ALLis0NE


In this line of thought, i would be interested to see if there is a way that the smallest unit of time, or the smallest change of state, that there is. For example, if we consider the movie analogy, what amount of time, relative to its own location, would it take for one frame of "state" to change to another frame of "state"? What is the frame speed of the universal projector?

You know, there was that recent announcement that measurements initially inidicate that the universe could be a holograph.

reply to post by Snarf


Yes, you are correct. we cannot assume finite measuring capability with our limited capability. We are limited by our ability to detect and compile our already limited sensory input.

But to say that we invented time is to mistate it entirely. We just invented a way to parse and measure it.

It would be like saying we invented space just because someone came up with a ruler and was able to measure it.

In the aforementioned "Holographic Universe" theory, we are all in a 2d construct that we believe to be 3d due to perception. Space, like time, would then be illusory.

[edit on 26-2-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]

reply to post by Snarf

Oh. The experiments were faked. All of them. The adjustments to the clocks on the GPS satellites and software corrections are all for show? Or is it just a big lie? There is no difference between the passage of time in the satellites and on Earth's surface? It's all just part of a conspiracy to ensure that Einstein's theory is upheld?

You reject the evidence which has been verified and duplicated. How convenient.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

You know, there was that recent announcement that measurements initially inidicate that the universe could be a holograph.

Please don't take this as a flame...because its honestly not, but this kind of thinking isnt scientific theory. Its just...thinking. Its .... creative thinking. Yes, its POSSIBLE, but, so is a planet that has fat sumo's that can stuff themselves into skinny bamboo poles and swim through a mile of water.

If the universe is infinite, so are the possibilities. This i believe.

But plausible is what im after. And i believe that Scientific theory agrees. It has to be plausible.

The definition of a scientific theory is that scientific theories must be falsifiable.

Proposing a "theory" that cannot be measured, observed, or proven false OR true, is not a theory. Its just fantasy.

Oh. The experiments were faked. All of them. The adjustments to the clocks on the GPS satellites and software corrections are all for show? Or is it just a big lie? There is no difference between the passage of time in the satellites and on Earth's surface? It's all just part of a conspiracy to ensure that Einstein's theory is upheld?

From Phage.


I don't know. I can't tell because the "Experiment" wasn't conducted in a manner congruent with the definition of a scientific theory.

Thats why i said it needs redone with more thought given to the "how" and less emphasis on "we have to prove this RIGHT so Einstein isnt wrong!"

And it hasn't been verified. The OUTCOME is verified, indeed. But the process to reach said outcome is a "Mystery".

If you want to call relativity a possibility, fine. But its NOT a scientific theory, unless you want to change the definition of a S.T. to fit this cause.

If thats the case, one might as well be the Pope changing the rules for sainthood to allow mother Theresa to become a Saint.

Too many people have turned Einstein into some kind of God that they worship with out wondering why. And, like you just did in your last post, they retort with angry words and "holier than thou" attitudes whenever someone says "umm, you aren't following your OWN RULES"


[edit on 26-2-2010 by Snarf]

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

In this line of thought, i would be interested to see if there is a way that the smallest unit of time, or the smallest change of state, that there is. For example, if we consider the movie analogy, what amount of time, relative to its own location, would it take for one frame of "state" to change to another frame of "state"? What is the frame speed of the universal projector?

My theory is that the "universal projector" would run at the speed of light so to speak.

But that really just sounds good in my head .

Originally posted by Snarf
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

You know, there was that recent announcement that measurements initially inidicate that the universe could be a holograph.

Please don't take this as a flame...because its honestly not, but this kind of thinking isnt scientific theory. Its just...thinking. Its .... creative thinking.

I wouldn't be so quick to say there is no basis in science, that check out this thread. Specifically read the article.

Is our world a giant hologram?

From the Source Article...

When the black hole has gone, all the information about the star that collapsed to form the black hole has vanished, which contradicts the widely affirmed principle that information cannot be destroyed. This is known as the black hole information paradox. Bekenstein's work provided an important clue in resolving the paradox.

He discovered that a black hole's entropy - which is synonymous with its information content - is proportional to the surface area of its event horizon. This is the theoretical surface that cloaks the black hole and marks the point of no return for infalling matter or light.

Theorists have since shown that microscopic quantum ripples at the event horizon can encode the information inside the black hole, so there is no mysterious information loss as the black hole evaporates.

Crucially, this provides a deep physical insight: the 3D information about a precursor star can be completely encoded in the 2D horizon of the subsequent black hole - not unlike the 3D image of an object being encoded in a 2D hologram.

Susskind and 't Hooft extended the insight to the universe as a whole on the basis that the cosmos has a horizon too - the boundary from beyond which light has not had time to reach us in the 13.7-billion-year lifespan of the universe.

Not claiming any proof here, but the idea has a base in physics. Not to mention the attention of several scientists(at least).

double post

[edit on 26-2-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]

Originally posted by Snarf
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

You know, there was that recent announcement that measurements initially inidicate that the universe could be a holograph.

Please don't take this as a flame...because its honestly not, but this kind of thinking isnt scientific theory. Its just...thinking. Its .... creative thinking. Yes, its POSSIBLE, but, so is a planet that has fat sumo's that can stuff themselves into skinny bamboo poles and swim through a mile of water.

If the universe is infinite, so are the possibilities. This i believe.

But plausible is what im after. And i believe that Scientific theory agrees. It has to be plausible.

The definition of a scientific theory is that scientific theories must be falsifiable.

Proposing a "theory" that cannot be measured, observed, or proven false OR true, is not a theory. Its just fantasy.

I am not proposing a theory that cannot be measured or observed or proven false. I don't take that as a flame. I take it as aNirvana Fallacy, a Negative Proof Fallacy and you seem to focus inappropriately on the aside that i offered, rather than anything else.

The "Holographic Universe" is only meant as a "tie in" to what i was talking about. I didn't invent the measurement, i didn't write the paper, and i didn't make the claim. I am only repeating a recent discovery, and trying to apply context to it.