Satellites see into the future?

Possibly there is no time dilation when going faster than the
rest of us.
Since when does the future come into the result.
Time goes slower so people live longer.
But that is only an observer event that is an illusion.
Time is the same for everyone any only goes forward.

Originally posted by sirnex

LMFAO... says the guy who's been here a total of four months.

Your too funny!

Actually, I've been here a lot longer than that, it's a new login.

Yes, let's ignore the whole Quasar issue and claim "time dilation" still exists.

Got caught there, reading vanFlandern, eh? Whoops! Where's your claims that the GPS constellation not compensating for dilation now? Come on, you can do it. Admit you read some crap and didn't understand it. Once you can embrace the fact that GPS has to compensate for it, we'll move on to the muon issue.

Better yet, get your lips off Einsteins ass, it's a nearly 100 year old physics model that's being proven wrong with such research.

What's really funny is that I'm morally sure you don't understand Newtonian physics, much less can you comment in an informed fashion on modern physics. Want to try a high school level problem?

Too be honest, I've never heard of any of those. Like I said, quick easy simple google search will enlighten the pants off ya.

Odd, since van Flandern is the only guy that seems to be claiming that GPS doesn't compensate for time dilation. I'm betting if pressed to it, you won't be able to post a link to the guy you were citing without it being van Flandern or someone quoting him.

edit to add: I notice you do more dancing around points and running away from them than addressing them. We're all still waiting for you to explain why *every* measurement of time on a satellite changes ever so slightly. You were big into "whipping" until pressed for a mechanism to explain it, then you ran off from your little cut and paste circular logic paragraph.

Next you went off on the GPS constellation not compensating for gravitational and acceleration dilation, quoting someone you wouldn't name, most likely vanFlandern, then when you got caught on THAT one, you stop bringing it up.

Sad, really.


[edit on 14-5-2010 by Bedlam]

reply to post by Bedlam


Hey, I'll get back to you tonight.

Just wanted to point out again that 28 year study on 900 quasars disproving time dilation.

Don't worry, I do have links and sources and not from whatever those other people you keep claiming they are from that I've never heard of till you mentioned them.

In the mean time, can you point me to any research papers showing a fundamental unit of time that has been measured?

[EDIT TO ADD]

Oh yea, found a great paper on the whole muon issue you keep raising.

[edit on 14-5-2010 by sirnex]

Originally posted by sirnex

Just wanted to point out again that 28 year study on 900 quasars disproving time dilation.

It's interesting, I'll give you that. I don't buy Hawking's black hole argument either. The issue with quasars, of course, is that they're going to find we're in a Machian universe instead of a deSitter universe, otherwise Mach drives wouldn't work so well.

In the mean time, can you point me to any research papers showing a fundamental unit of time that has been measured?

All 'fundamental units' are defined pretty much the same way - someone picks a value you can reproduce accurately in a lab and calls that the defining characteristic of the unit.

As such, no one "measures" a fundamental unit, other than to make a calibration standard.

reply to post by Bedlam

It's interesting, I'll give you that. I don't buy Hawking's black hole argument either. The issue with quasars, of course, is that they're going to find we're in a Machian universe instead of a deSitter universe, otherwise Mach drives wouldn't work so well.

Quasar observations are causing quiet a lot of problems with the current standard model. They show no signs of time dilation, redshift doesn't match up with brightness as it should, then there is the whole quasars being connected by bridges of matter to a host galaxy but the current dismissive argument is that every single one is just a chance coincidental alignment.

I find it more than just interesting. They list only three possibilities, the primordial black holes, redshift being wrong, or the big bang theory is wrong. They dismiss the other two, and they don't want to admit the last option. I don't get why though as science is about moving forward in discovery. If something new shows something previously held true as wrong, then the new should be accepted.

Here is that article on Muons link

Here is an article with Roger Penrose saying current physics is wrong. link

I'm kicking myself in the ass because I can't remember that guy's name nor can I find the article. I've never heard of those other people you mentioned though and none of the names sound remotely familiar. I wish I could find the article, but it's been over a year now and that article is what made me really start thinking more deeply about 'time'.

All 'fundamental units' are defined pretty much the same way - someone picks a value you can reproduce accurately in a lab and calls that the defining characteristic of the unit.

As such, no one "measures" a fundamental unit, other than to make a calibration standard.

How is measuring a sequential cycle by arbitrarily giving it a start and end point akin to a fourth dimension of temporal travel? Clocks don't measure a fourth dimension of temporal travel, they measure the sequential cycles of the Earth/Sun system through assigning arbitrary points in there and calling it a fourth dimension of temporal travel.

It really sounds like we *should* be able to argue that the Earth is the center of the universe because we can observationally perceive it to be so.

Originally posted by sirnex
Quasar observations are causing quiet a lot of problems with the current standard model. They show no signs of time dilation, redshift doesn't match up with brightness as it should, then there is the whole quasars being connected by bridges of matter to a host galaxy but the current dismissive argument is that every single one is just a chance coincidental alignment.

I think they're going to find the brightness is off, they really ARE tied to the host galaxy, and their distances are miscalculated due to the brightness miscalculation, therefore the time dilation isn't what they thought it should be because their initial assumptions are off.

But then, in a Machian universe, there isn't any systematic inflation, either. Some here and there is permitted, just not cosmos wide. That's going to be the explanation for the diverging orbital anomalies in Pioneer and Voyager. And dark matter. And you heard it here first.

I find it more than just interesting. They list only three possibilities...

My vote's for redshift, but I'm no cosmologist.

Here is that article on Muons link

Oh, he's wrong. Sorry. His argument about the muon decay time vs production altitude being circular is incorrect. He didn't understand the experimental setup. The production height isn't popped out of someone's arse. The original experiment involved measuring the muon detection rate at the top of Mt Washington vs the rate at the bottom, over a long period of time. That gave them 6000 feet of distance delta, pretty rigidly fixed. If you know the lifetime for a muon in your reference frame at 'rest', you can take the difference in altitude as a flight time and calculate the dilation, it matches.

You can do the same thing in a particle accelerator as well, you know that the muons are coming out of the target due to impact, then being accelerated into the ring. You can measure the lifetime of the muons in the ring. You also know the acceleration and the rest frame lifetime, and calculate the dilation. It shows up there too.

Oh, and for the classical muon experiment, it doesn't matter how you calculate the thing, either from the muon's POV where it looks like you have length contraction, or the rest frame POV where it looks like time dilation, the answers will agree. If they don't you've done the maths wrong, it's a crosscheck.

Here is an article with Roger Penrose saying current physics is wrong.

Hell, by definition it's wrong, I'd say. It's always evolving. When they get past the current morass of details and find the next slate-clearing truth, it'll be gravy time. It'll come soon enough.

Note that Penrose didn't say it was all incorrect, just not entirely right.

"My own view is that quantum mechanics is not exactly right, and I think there’s a lot of evidence for that. It’s just not direct experimental evidence within the scope of current experiments."

"But, you see, quantum mechanics has a lot of experimental support, so you’ve got to go along with a lot of it. "

Just wait until everyone finds out that Einstein and von Neumann solved a lot of the unified theory issues back in the late 30's to early 40's and the government did a coverup job that makes the development of the fusion bomb look like an open source Linux development project.

I'm kicking myself in the ass because I can't remember that guy's name nor can I find the article. I've never heard of those other people you mentioned though and none of the names sound remotely familiar. I wish I could find the article, but it's been over a year now and that article is what made me really start thinking more deeply about 'time'.

There's a group of people that think it doesn't have to be dealt with in GPS, Flandern was a big proponent of that but there are others, they all tend to cite each other as proof. Here is another nice site with a lot of jumping off points, it's not maintained much anymore so some of the links don't work now. Skip to near the end, it's the last major block, labeled "Relativity Theory Isn't Working In The GPS."

I've put this string in about four times now - eventually the editor will stick it in and leave it. The ATS post editor won't let you put in wayback links, apparently, and does a chop job on it if I try to just post it as text to cut and paste. Sorry. It was a good article. I can't figure out how to get the forum to do the link to it correctly, though.

How is measuring a sequential cycle by arbitrarily giving it a start and end point akin to a fourth dimension of temporal travel? Clocks don't measure a fourth dimension of temporal travel, they measure the sequential cycles of the Earth/Sun system through assigning arbitrary points in there and calling it a fourth dimension of temporal travel.

It really sounds like we *should* be able to argue that the Earth is the center of the universe because we can observationally perceive it to be so.

You asked how a fundamental unit was measured in the lab. You did so regarding time, but it's the same for any of them - we pick a (generally) easily reproduced exemplar and that's 1.00 of the unit.

Oh, and for a finite but unbounded universe, ANY point you pick is the center of the universe. It's all relative.

[edit on 14-5-2010 by Bedlam]

[edit on 14-5-2010 by Bedlam]

[edit on 14-5-2010 by Bedlam]

reply to post by Bedlam

I think they're going to find the brightness is off, they really ARE tied to the host galaxy, and their distances are miscalculated due to the brightness miscalculation, therefore the time dilation isn't what they thought it should be because their initial assumptions are off.

I don't get how from the first quasar observed in the 1950's to now that they would have the brightness all screwed up just for quasars and nothing else int he universe. That's a pretty long time, and then a study comes out showing not even a single hint at all in time dilation. The time dilation issue itself doesn't even have to do with their brightness or distance, it's the rate the light pulses are given off that are indicating no time dilation at *any* distance.

But then, in a Machian universe, there isn't any systematic inflation, either. Some here and there is permitted, just not cosmos wide. That's going to be the explanation for the diverging orbital anomalies in Pioneer and Voyager. And dark matter. And you heard it here first.

The dark matter thing was made up because observations were beginning to invalidate the BBT. There isn't enough observed mass for the BBT to accurately describe the universe, thus the need for dark matter/energy. I also personally think plasma cosmology more accurately describes what's going on the the pioneer and voyager probes. link

My vote's for redshift, but I'm no cosmologist.

As far as I know, redshift is our strongest indicator of an expanding universe, if that get's thrown out as inaccurate, then we lose a big part of the puzzle. We no longer can accurately tell the distances between stars out past 400LY. This also would pose a big problem with the BBT.

Oh, he's wrong.

Can you explain further and provide sources to back up the explanation? What you just said seems to be the exact thing he was arguing against.

Hell, by definition it's wrong, I'd say. It's always evolving. When they get past the current morass of details and find the next slate-clearing truth, it'll be gravy time. It'll come soon enough.

Note that Penrose didn't say it was all incorrect, just not entirely right.

"My own view is that quantum mechanics is not exactly right, and I think there’s a lot of evidence for that. It’s just not direct experimental evidence within the scope of current experiments."

"But, you see, quantum mechanics has a lot of experimental support, so you’ve got to go along with a lot of it. "

Just wait until everyone finds out that Einstein and von Neumann solved a lot of the unified theory issues back in the late 30's to early 40's and the government did a coverup job that makes the development of the fusion bomb look like an open source Linux development project.

Personally, I think we're going to figure out that the whole QM thing isn't what we currently think it is, which is why it seems so counter-intuitive to us.

There's a group of people that think it doesn't have to be dealt with in GPS, Flandern was a big proponent of that but there are others, they all tend to cite each other as proof. Here is another nice site with a lot of jumping off points, it's not maintained much anymore so some of the links don't work now. Skip to near the end, it's the last major block, labeled "Relativity Theory Isn't Working In The GPS."

I've put this string in about four times now - eventually the editor will stick it in and leave it. The ATS post editor won't let you put in wayback links, apparently, and does a chop job on it if I try to just post it as text to cut and paste. Sorry. It was a good article. I can't figure out how to get the forum to do the link to it correctly, though.

I'll see if I can locate that article you were talking about. I did look up that Flandern guy you were talking about and I certainly agree that a lot of what I read that he proposes is just way out there and nuts. Definitely not the guy from my article, if I can find the damn thing.

You asked how a fundamental unit was measured in the lab. You did so regarding time, but it's the same for any of them - we pick a (generally) easily reproduced exemplar and that's 1.00 of the unit.

Point is, measuring a sequential cyclical event and calling it a fourth dimension of temporal travel just seems pure hogwash to me. We're not measuring a 'thing called time', we're measuring the rate of a sequential cycle, the Earth/Sun system and placing arbitrary start/stop points in there and every pass of these points is ticked off as, one year, one day, one hour, etc. That's not time, that's counting.

Oh, and for a finite but unbounded universe, ANY point you pick is the center of the universe. It's all relative.

I personally don't believe the universe is finite. I see no reasonable argument that it *should* be, especially now with the BBT in such disarray. I think we're going to figure out that the CMB isn't just background radiation, but it's also indicative of a larger structure of galaxies beyond the scope of our technology at this moment. We've pushed the 'age' of the universe further back a few times with advancements in technology, I see no reason such a pushing back in age would stop with further advances. It would also explain the dark flow, which they say is indicative of a larger structure beyond what we can currently see as there should be no preferred flow like that.

[edit on 15-5-2010 by sirnex]

Originally posted by djbj597922
If this is actually true then why can't the satellites that have been in space for years and years see into the future???

First of all, how would you define "seeing into the future"? If you mean an actual image of the future, then it's obvious that for reaching that, photons should be able to go faster than themselves, which is kind of a problem. Everything you see right now is in the past, as it takes photons two nanoseconds to travel a foot (30.18 cm) and for your eyes and brain to process the image into something you could understand quite a lot longer. That's the reason, why satellites cannot even see the present time, as no-one can. The future? Nope.

In case that you mean any observation method possible as "seeing into the future", things start becoming a bit more complicated. The definition of observation itself dictates that there must be something to observe, but if something has not happened yet, then the observer itself must be in the future as well, sending us information about the things observed, which is more or less absurd. There might be circumstances where the quantum time (Planck units) could be observed in some anomalistic way, using other spatial dimensions, but since I am both lacking the education and brain for such thought patterns, I'd say that we're quite stuck with observing the past for now.


[edit on 15-5-2010 by Ufomies]

Originally posted by sirnex

As far as I know, redshift is our strongest indicator of an expanding universe, if that get's thrown out as inaccurate, then we lose a big part of the puzzle.

There's .. ah ... at least some experimental evidence that's been interpreted to mean that we're not in a deSitter universe but it's tied to a project I can't discuss, so consider it to be anecdotal crap pulled out of my butt. If you're in a Machean universe instead of a deSitter universe, then the cosmological constant can be either zero, or other than "constant". Non-uniform expansion plays hell with cosmology.

Can you explain further and provide sources to back up the explanation? What you just said seems to be the exact thing he was arguing against.

Give me a day or two to get it hacked together. I'm sort of behind on home/work and I'll be back at the customer site Thursday, so I'm sort of limited in time. It didn't help that I dicked off all yesterday on ATS.

What he was arguing about was that the formation height used in the equation was defined by the predicted dilation, and the dilation was determined by the formation height, so the calculations were circular. He thought that muons should be formed at a higher altitude.

What he was ignoring or didn't know about was that the initial determination of the dilation was made without reference to formation height. They used a two-gate counter to calculate the average speed, and measured the long term average muon density at 6000 feet and simultaneously at sea level just below (at Mt Washington, fwiw). There's a lot more of them at 6000 feet ASL. The difference is that some number of them have decayed by the time they get to ground level.

You know the distance delta between the two measuring instruments, that's fixed by the mountain. You know the average speed, because you measured it. You know how long it should take a non-relavistic muon to decay, because you've measured that, too. You know the muon density at the top, and at the bottom. That gives you all the numbers you need to calculate the halflife.

When you do, you find that the muons last longer than they should, by quite a bit. And if you take the speed number you already had, and plow it into the dilation equation, voila! what you end up with is that the new halflife is exactly equal to the non-relativistic halflife, dilated by just as much as you expected by the speed!

His other argument seems to be that it's due to "distance contraction" from the muon's POV, not time dilation from the rest frame's POV, but the issue is, they're exactly the same. Either way you calculate it, it's the same. And one of the rules of doing this sort of thing is that ANY valid frame of reference has to produce the results that it should in the circumstance, so you can usually calculate the other frame of reference for a check to see if you've done your maths right.

However, it's all moot, because if his argument is that we don't know at what altitude they're produced, it doesn't really matter. It's also been tested in a particle accelerator. If you make muons by banging particles into a target, then sweep the resulting muons into an acceleration ring, you will also find that the generated muons decay at the rate you'd expect due to time dilation. And you know *exactly* where you made these.
[

reply to post by Bedlam


In regards to the muons experiment, and the other information you've provided; I think Kaku did a nice job discussing the issues, in an easily understandable manner, in the 4th part of his BBC series Time by Michio Kaku - Cosmic Time.

Google Video Link

[edit on 5/16/10 by redmage]

reply to post by Bedlam


Sorry I haven't replied, I've been meaning to, but I've been busy with a rather lengthy reply in another thread putting down an old foe of mine. I'll get around to replying to this tomorrow morning.

I wonder theoretically though maybe very not probable, whether or not interactions of particles in the building blocks of matter energy and all that is can be calculated. And in the calculations could interactions be reverse calculated to show the state in which they were in a while ago. And if it can be calculated to show its current position and past position, it would seem logical that one could determine a future position. Using nothing more than logic and pattern recognition.

If calculations were drastically faster than they are now in 2010, and sensory applications are far more superior, could we in theory calculate the current state of our surroundings, and reverse calculate to see into the past, then use prediction to see into the future?

I see this as an actual way of time travel that makes sense. Although, the future that was calculated would only be in fact a calculation and limited only to the way in which the computer could calculate. As same for viewing the past. Only as good as the computer and the programmer.

reply to post by sirnex


That's ok, I didn't have any time the last two days to deal with it either. I hate mechanical design work, when it's all "squinchy" and you've got no room to maneuver.

Military gear sucks sometimes.

reply to post by djbj597922


The Astronaut would be .2 seconds younger 'BIOLOGICALLY" than he would have been had he stayed on earth. A New satellite cannot see into the future, and the satellites that have been up there 'for years' would simply be physically younger than one that had been sitting on earth.

If an astronaut went into space travelling at an appreciable percentage of light speed , an independent observer would see him slowing down . This is because he is actually travelling through time faster than the observer.

If we take as an example, a velocity that dilates time to half its normal flow, we could imagine that as the traveller performs a task which takes him 1 second, the observer would only see half the action in his second.

The Traveller's second has been stretched. His second takes 2 of the observers seconds to complete. Looked at the other way though we see that the Traveller was able to get through 2 Observer seconds in 1 of his...

Now understand that in the real world, the Observer is the Universe. That means that to all intents and purposes, the Traveller has travelled forward in time; he is 1 second younger than he should be.

Here's the kicker... Movement speeds time!