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.
Originally posted by djbj597922 I believe our satellites can see our realities future not other realities futures.
Yes, that's exactly how I used to think, but the pool analogy is Newtonian one. Think in terms of "quantum theory" and that whole analogy needs to be re-worked. Have you checked out the thread on quantum here? Everyone should, you still may hold your position on this topic, however, the whole subject will fascinate you, I guarantee it.
Originally posted by Bedlam
reply to post by sirnex
How odd that GPS actually works as designed, then.
I guess I can stop having to consider the effects of time delays in circuits, too, how handy.
Originally posted by sirnex
Of course they still work as they should.
We're accounting for gravitational influences acting upon the satellites. Just like a clock on Earth isn't measuring 'time' as it's only measuring the positions of the sun and rate of rotation of a planet.
An object in orbit is influenced by variable gravity when going in and out of weak to strong fields, giving the appearance of a "time dilation effect" No such dilation has actually occurred and all that has occurred is the confirmation of gravities variable nature.
Since they work by measuring "time" very very closely, it's a wonder that they work, since according to you, there is no time.
I haven't seen too many clocks that measure the sun's position, with the exception of a sun dial.
Nope, the value of the gravitic field at a point influences the rate at which time passes. Other things do as well, such as acceleration.
I think you have a terminology/concept confusion going on between "time of day" "absolute time" and "duration". Don't go all time-cubey over it.
Originally posted by sirnex
No, your right.... Gravity would have no influence on an atomic clock whipping in and out of weak to strong gravitational influences making it measure the rate of oscillation differently than a stationary clock on Earth under a constant rate of gravitational force.
The first clock *was* a sundial. That was THE first thing used to "measure time". All other clocks invented after that are based off that same principle and unit of measure. We check the accuracy of a water, sand, candle time piece with a sun dial. We can make a mechanical representation or a digital representation. Yet, in the end every clock is based off the principles of a sun dial and the mechanics behind it.
No, your right.... Gravity would have no influence on an atomic clock whipping in and out of weak to strong gravitational influences making it measure the rate of oscillation differently than a stationary clock on Earth under a constant rate of gravitational force.
I think you're over imagining the "whipping in and out" part - do you envision that as causing the atomic clock to mis-measure due to vibration or something? What is your view of the mechanism that somehow causes EVERY measurement of duration made to equally mis-measure? Other than by "whipping"?
Oddly, not only do I have a number of "time of day" clocks that do not follow the measurement of the slant angle of sunlight in order to develop their "digital representation" of the time of day, but work with many a clock signal on electronic designs, none of which use a sunlight measurement either. So the "principle" and "mechanics" are quite a bit different.
You seem very stuck on this inappropriate "whipping" image as somehow explaining why, say, decay rates of radioactive materials also change. Or, why, say, the decay rate of accelerated muons change. Perhaps they're whipped.
Originally posted by sirnex
I'm also curious if you can't possibly grasp a simple concept. All semantics aside, do you really think gravity has no influence on an atomic clock...
Clock B is moving/whipping (however you want to argue the semantics of it) in and out of variable gravitational forces.
*sigh* and my all time favorite *facepalm*
If the history of time keeping is beyond your comprehension, then may I suggest google as a start point on your road of discovery?
Yikes, there you go with semantics again. I really do love people who resort to semantics when they can't refute a point.
I notice you're still not addressing it. What change in the clock do you consider that "moving/whipping/prancing/cavorting" "in and out of variable gravitational forces" is causing, so that any form of time measurement has exactly the same change?
Note that the clock does NOT have to "move/whip/dance" in and out of "variable gravitational forces" to do this.
May I suggest you try addressing the issue? I am quite familiar with the history of timekeeping, however, you seem to be fixated on your faux concept of all time being related to the day/night cycle and somehow a Swiss con job to sell watches to actually deal with anything that requires an answer.
The concept of the measurement of duration somehow seems beyond you. I assure you, that thing you're connecting to the internet with is full of clocking signals and trace routes that had to be done just so with respect to the flight time of signals, none of which have jack to do with sundials, the date, a Mayan calendar, or the day of the week.
Your entire premise seems a sort of bizarre quibble. It is entirely demonstrable that time dilation exists. GPS has to account for it. You can't refute it - your entire argument here seems to be a few emoticons and an appeal to "whipping in and out" without any sort of rational statement as to what you think the mechanism for the dilation is, or how it affects ANY timekeeping measurement in the same way in that circumstance. I'm quite sure you'll do the same again in response to this, and you'll try to dodge once more.
But then, the past doesn't exist for you, right? So no doubt it'll seem just as clever and fresh when you do so again.
There’s also a possibility that the explanation could be even more far-reaching, such as that the universe is not expanding and that the big bang theory is wrong. Or, quasars may not be located at the distances indicated by their redshifts, although this suggestion has previously been discredited. Although these explanations are controversial, Hawkins plans to continue investigating the quasar mystery, and maybe solve a few other problems along the way.
Originally posted by sirnex
No, your right.... Gravity would have no influence on an atomic clock whipping in and out of weak to strong gravitational influences making it measure the rate of oscillation differently than a stationary clock on Earth under a constant rate of gravitational force.
Your talking about rates as being equal to time. Computers don't clock things by time, they clock things with a quartz oscillator, how about you learn how something works before you attempt to use it in your argument?
GPS doesn't account for time dilation.
Originally posted by sirnex
Again, I gave you a simple experiment. Did you perform it, or were you still at school around 12pm today? Was wondering where you went off to.
Wow - it's like I was able to predict you'd say the same thing...again. And once more, you fail to find any refutation or explanation of WHY it would "measure the rate of oscillation" differently - other than of course your ever present "whipping" comment.
Ah, but you insist there is no such thing as duration, right? Other than by some sundial thing. Which was where I first started gigging you with the obvious, and this was one of the examples I first used, now you're finally responding with something other than your same old cut and paste whipping statement. At last, some response that wasn't obviously from a bot.
Well, first off they don't have to clock with a quartz oscillator although most do. And, hey, a similar oscillator is used to run that digital clock you swear is using a sundial inside.
Yes, I understand them quite well, been designing with them for some 21 years now, which is one of several reasons I find you amusing.
Duration exists, it has jack to do with sundials or water clocks or whatnot, and we use it all the time in really practical applications - one is the computer you're in front of, as well as pretty much any digital circuit that runs at any speed.
It also varies with gravitational fields and with accelerated frames of reference. That's also true, and demonstrable, although you're no doubt going to paste your little whipping paragraph again, once more without any sort of thought.
You could not be more incorrect. Well, let me restate that, you are equally as incorrect there as you are in your other statements on the thread.
Originally posted by sirnex What part of gravitational influence are you having trouble with? How many more times do I have to listen to you stupidly exclaim I haven't given any possible reasons why an atomic clock in orbit would not work the same as one stationary?
Ah, ignore the quasar study and vehemently thump your foot down and scream YES IT DOES. Cute.
While I wish I could equally resort to such childish antics, I'll reserve that for some other time.
BTW, have you bothered looking up time does not exist yet? If you can bother yourself for just five minutes you'll find a nice article where the person who deals with GPS's admits it doesn't correct for time dilation. Heh... time dilation, what a silly term!
Originally posted by sirnex
You enjoy your dying physics my simple minded friend. Maybe someday you will mature enough to realize how uneducated you sounded in this thread. Never forget, science changes and the Earth is not the center of the universe.
Considering you weren't even aware of the fact that the GPS constellation compensates for time dilation (three sources of it, in fact), I'm not too worried about your opinion. Hey, let me know when you get around to reading the pile of links I posted, we can work up to muon decay rates after you take the first step.
Go enjoy conservapedia and Tom van Flandern though, you might also stop by Ken Adachi's, it's just as accurate.