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.

 

Magnetic Reconnection – Why Einstein Was Wrong

page: 3
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

First, time doesn't speed up in a gravitational field, it slows down.
Second, you're more or less admitting a distortion of space-time when you say the increasing gravity affects the passage of time. That's very similar to the notion you previously rejected, when you said that


Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
I will suscribe to the view that gravity being a consequence of space geometry is totally absurd.
Gravity alters time but i doubt it bends space

You are trying to separate space and time, but they aren't separate in relativity, that's why we call it space-time. The model of relativity this thread is bashing works pretty well if you do that:


In classical mechanics, the use of Euclidean space instead of spacetime is appropriate, as time is treated as universal and constant, being independent of the state of motion of an observer. In relativistic contexts, however, time cannot be separated from the three dimensions of space, because the observed rate at which time passes for an object depends on the object's velocity relative to the observer and also on the strength of intense gravitational fields, which can slow the passage of time.
Relativity doesn't allow you to separate space and time, at least not if you want to use a model that makes predictions that agrees with observations. And since you admit gravity is affecting the passage of time you are in fact admitting it's bending space-time. Your only problem seems to be assuming space and time are separate. If you admit gravity slows down time, you have no reason to separate space and time, the math won't work if you try to do that.


But I don't see how admitting that somehow invalidates gravity and the gravitational observations we make that are consistent with relativity.


Thanks, but i don't agree. Gravity speeds up time and does not distort space.
GR is essentially a hypothesis or a mathematical entity and should be regarded as merely a rheory and not as a fact
till experimentally verified.

My research calculations and experimental results point contrary to what you have put forth.
But then again i amalso involking the realms of interdimensionality.




posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
GR is essentially a hypothesis or a mathematical entity and should be regarded as merely a rheory and not as a fact
till experimentally verified.

My research calculations and experimental results point contrary to what you have put forth.
But then again i amalso involking the realms of interdimensionality.
I agree GR is a theory, however time dilation has been experimentally verified according to GR:

Hafele and Keating Experiment

"During October, 1971, four cesium atomic beam clocks were flown on regularly scheduled commercial jet flights around the world twice, once eastward and once westward, to test Einstein's theory of relativity with macroscopic clocks. From the actual flight paths of each trip, the theory predicted that the flying clocks, compared with reference clocks at the U.S. Naval Observatory, should have lost 40+/-23 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and should have gained 275+/-21 nanoseconds during the westward trip ... Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and gained 273+/-7 nanosecond during the westward trip, where the errors are the corresponding standard deviations. These results provide an unambiguous empirical resolution of the famous clock "paradox" with macroscopic clocks."

J.C. Hafele and R. E. Keating, Science 177, 166 (1972)
If you have research calculations and experimental results showing the opposite effect of time speeding up in a gravitational field, then we have a big discrepancy to resolve with the Hafele and Keating Experiment. Why aren't scientists working to resolve this discrepancy? Did you let them know about it? I don't personally have any results other than the experiments of others, like Hafele and Keating, to rely on. All their math is shown at that link, but I don't see any interdimensional calculations, was that their mistake? If their experiment was wrong, show us how you know that, it seems on topic since the OP is trying to disprove general relativity.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


We came with in 20 degrees, or more specifically:

sites.google.com...

He should be aware that the maximum solar latitude attained by the Ulysses probe was 80.2 degrees. So to imply Ulysses sought out the electric current (or magnetic field strength) directly over the Sun’s poles is inaccurate. Also such currents may be field-aligned and not produce toroidal magnetic structures. Alfvén stated that the exact location of current paths and structure was yet to be determined.


I've linked this page in these forums many many times, and it has information that refutes everything you claim.

edit on 12-3-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
light isnt bent by gravity,,.,, but by passing through plasma

The universe is literally one giant fractal ball of plasma.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 
We came with in 20 degrees, or more specifically:

sites.google.com...

He should be aware that the maximum solar latitude attained by the Ulysses probe was 80.2 degrees.
According to my math, 90 degrees - 80.2 degrees = 9.8 degrees, or about 10 degrees as I said.

If we only came within 20 degrees your source would say the maximum solar latitude was 70 degrees.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


You're right, for some reason I transposed percent (ie. 80 from 100) in stead of a right angle.

However, that doesn't change the rest of what Scott said in his reply, which means there's plenty of room for those currents to exist.

I personally prefer Jurgen's model, in which case the inflow would not have been detectable anyways.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

]If you have research calculations and experimental results showing the opposite effect of time speeding up in a gravitational field, then we have a big discrepancy to resolve with the Hafele and Keating Experiment. Why aren't scientists working to resolve this discrepancy? Did you let them know about it? I don't personally have any results other than the experiments of others, like Hafele and Keating, to rely on. All their math is shown at that link, but I don't see any interdimensional calculations, was that their mistake? If their experiment was wrong, show us how you know that, it seems on topic since the OP is trying to disprove general relativity.



Thanks. I haven't followed up on any1 else's research at all. Are Hafele & co contactable, I wouldn't know.
All I can disclose to them at the moment is some inkling to that effect on the link in my signature.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
Thanks. I haven't followed up on any1 else's research at all. Are Hafele & co contactable, I wouldn't know.
All I can disclose to them at the moment is some inkling to that effect on the link in my signature.
That was in 1971 my friend, and it's no longer just research. I just presented that study because the results are unambiguous and clearly laid out.

If you wanted to contact someone today, you would talk to the people in charge of GPS. Now it's a practical application of General relativity, instead of just research:

Global Positioning System


The effect of gravitational frequency shift on the GPS due to general relativity is that a clock closer to a massive object will be slower than a clock farther away. Applied to the GPS, the receivers are much closer to Earth than the satellites, causing the GPS clocks to be faster by a factor of 5×10^(-10), or about 45.9 μs/day. This gravitational frequency shift is noticeable.....

To compensate for the discrepancy, the frequency standard on board each satellite is given a rate offset prior to launch, making it run slightly slower than the desired frequency on Earth; specifically, at 10.22999999543 MHz instead of 10.23 MHz. Since the atomic clocks on board the GPS satellites are precisely tuned, it makes the system a practical engineering application of the scientific theory of relativity in a real-world environment.
So it's not just research anymore, it's real-life GPS and if you ever tried it, you'd know it actually works. If we didn't make this correction, it would quickly get off by several kilometers, and if we made the opposite "correction" that your research suggests, it would become inaccurate by kilometers even faster.

So in light of this correction from 10.23 MHz to 10.22999999543 MHz for the satellites and the fact that GPS works, I think you have to acknowledge your notion of time speeding up in a gravitational field is wrong. If your notion was correct, GPS wouldn't work when we lower the frequency of the satellites' clocks the way we do, we would instead have to increase the frequency of the satellites' clocks.


Originally posted by mnemeth1
You're right, for some reason I transposed percent (ie. 80 from 100) in stead of a right angle.

However, that doesn't change the rest of what Scott said in his reply, which means there's plenty of room for those currents to exist.

I personally prefer Jurgen's model, in which case the inflow would not have been detectable anyways.
Thanks for the clarification.

Well if we ever did measure electron inflows within 10 degrees of the pole, I can see how that could support the electric sun theory. But I fail to see how brownian motion by itself can support the theory without that. I have no problem with some electrons entering the sun through brownian motion, but what I do have a problem with is saying that could be a power source when there's still a net outflow of electrons.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I have tried to stay out of this, but feel I should express my opinion.

The Hafele and Keating Experiment is very impressive when read about, and does seem to demonstrate that Quantum mechanics theory is correct about time slowing as we approach the speed (or is it velocity) of light. This all depends on believing that the frequency put out by cesium does not vary under certain circumstances. There however, is always that annoying problem of repeating laboratory tests in the field. I think it i more than reasonable to consider that it isn't the flow, or rate of time that is changing, but the measured emission frequency of cesium electrons.

Magnetic lines of flux are an important part of the functioning of an atomic clock. The clocks used in the test were shielded as much as possible from this effect, but the portable clocks did not have consistent drift, and the data they collected is questionable.

astrojan.hostei.com...

In order for such claims to be taken as good evidence, this test should have been done by others, many times, before this was considered valid, but it hasn't been, at least as far as my google searches have shown. I vaguely remember looking into this as some time in the distant past.

What I question is whether or not the magnetic shielding could have cause the irregular drift of the clocks. Could the accuracy of an atomic clock depend on the natural frequencies of the Earth's magnetic field?

The problem of measuring electrical charge and current flow coming off of the sun is the enormous values that are being dealt with. There is the enormous difference of the vacuum of deep space, the enormous temperature, the enormous gravity, and an enormous confluence of numerous other forces. In fact the word enormous isn't enormous enough for the circumstances.

Everything changes vastly with scale. Current models are simply not applicable to the problem. The first step would be considerable advances in mathematics.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
Thanks. I haven't followed up on any1 else's research at all. Are Hafele & co contactable, I wouldn't know.
All I can disclose to them at the moment is some inkling to that effect on the link in my signature.
That was in 1971 my friend, and it's no longer just research. I just presented that study because the results are unambiguous and clearly laid out.

If you wanted to contact someone today, you would talk to the people in charge of GPS. Now it's a practical application of General relativity, instead of just research:

Global Positioning System


The effect of gravitational frequency shift on the GPS due to general relativity is that a clock closer to a massive object will be slower than a clock farther away. Applied to the GPS, the receivers are much closer to Earth than the satellites, causing the GPS clocks to be faster by a factor of 5×10^(-10), or about 45.9 μs/day. This gravitational frequency shift is noticeable.....

To compensate for the discrepancy, the frequency standard on board each satellite is given a rate offset prior to launch, making it run slightly slower than the desired frequency on Earth; specifically, at 10.22999999543 MHz instead of 10.23 MHz. Since the atomic clocks on board the GPS satellites are precisely tuned, it makes the system a practical engineering application of the scientific theory of relativity in a real-world environment.
So it's not just research anymore, it's real-life GPS and if you ever tried it, you'd know it actually works. If we didn't make this correction, it would quickly get off by several kilometers, and if we made the opposite "correction" that your research suggests, it would become inaccurate by kilometers even faster.

So in light of this correction from 10.23 MHz to 10.22999999543 MHz for the satellites and the fact that GPS works, I think you have to acknowledge your notion of time speeding up in a gravitational field is wrong. If your notion was correct, GPS wouldn't work when we lower the frequency of the satellites' clocks the way we do, we would instead have to increase the frequency of the satellites' clocks.


Originally posted by mnemeth1
You're right, for some reason I transposed percent (ie. 80 from 100) in stead of a right angle.

However, that doesn't change the rest of what Scott said in his reply, which means there's plenty of room for those currents to exist.

I personally prefer Jurgen's model, in which case the inflow would not have been detectable anyways.
Thanks for the clarification.

Well if we ever did measure electron inflows within 10 degrees of the pole, I can see how that could support the electric sun theory. But I fail to see how brownian motion by itself can support the theory without that. I have no problem with some electrons entering the sun through brownian motion, but what I do have a problem with is saying that could be a power source when there's still a net outflow of electrons.


Since we have no ability to measure brownian motion in space, and we can barely do it here on the ground, there is no way to know if there are more electrons flowing into the sun or not.

Since we don't know the answer to that question, it should be assumed that there is a net inflow based on all the other obvious evidence.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

So in light of this correction from 10.23 MHz to 10.22999999543 MHz for the satellites and the fact that GPS works, I think you have to acknowledge your notion of time speeding up in a gravitational field is wrong. If your notion was correct, GPS wouldn't work when we lower the frequency of the satellites' clocks the way we do, we would instead have to increase the frequency of the satellites' clocks.

.


Ah the gps....
Am also a pilot so i am familiar with the contraption
Mine is not a notion but an experimental fact.
Don't forget the gps satellite are in motion relative to the gps receiver.
Put a clock on a geo sat and one directly under it on the earth and then observe the time difference.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Since we have no ability to measure brownian motion in space, and we can barely do it here on the ground, there is no way to know if there are more electrons flowing into the sun or not.

Since we don't know the answer to that question, it should be assumed that there is a net inflow based on all the other obvious evidence.
I agree that brownian motion, by itself, is difficult to measure. However, that is not what's being claimed:

sites.google.com...


Juergens’ model implies that the outer surface of the heliosphere is the collector of the necessary current stream from the nearby region of our galaxy. Inside the heliopause (within the "solar wind" plasma) the movement of electrons would consist of a "drift current" moving inward toward the Sun superimposed on a vastly stronger "Brownian (random) motion" and therefore be difficult to measure. For a summary of Juergens’ computation see Appendix C of The Electric Sky.
It is the "Drift current" mentioned there by Don Scott that would be measurable, even if it's superimposed on a vastly stronger brownian motion. Why can the drift current be measured? Because it's not random. The reason the brownian motion is hard to measure is because it's random. So it's actually the drift current we need to measure, not the brownian motion.


Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
Ah the gps....
Am also a pilot so i am familiar with the contraption
Mine is not a notion but an experimental fact.
If it's not a notion but experimental fact please post the experimental fact or a link to it.

Don't forget the gps satellite are in motion relative to the gps receiver.
Put a clock on a geo sat and one directly under it on the earth and then observe the time difference.
What does that prove? You still have the clock in the satellite moving faster then the clock on the ground causing time dilation in the satellite clock relative to the ground clock, right? The velocity of the geosynchronous satellite is greater than the velocity of the point on the ground as this illustration clearly shows:



You still have time dilation on the ground clock because it's in a stronger gravitational field. The gravitational time dilation is the stronger effect with most satellites as it is with a geostationary satellite. Both the velocity and gravitational effects on time dilation for a geostationary satellite are plotted here::

www.thescienceforum.com...

The x axis is radius from center of earth.
The y axis is proper time added to satellite (second) per earth (equator) second from earth-equator's reference frame.
Green is gravitational time dilation
Blue is velocity time dilation
Red is total time dilation
And Brown is r=earth's radius

So it's the red line you need to look at for the net effect of the two different time dilation factors at work, that explain the time difference. And as you can see the gravitational time dilation is the dominant factor, though the velocity time dilation does have a small effect which only partially offsets the gravitational time dilation.


edit on 13-3-2011 by Arbitrageur because: fixed tags



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Since we have no ability to measure brownian motion in space, and we can barely do it here on the ground, there is no way to know if there are more electrons flowing into the sun or not.

Since we don't know the answer to that question, it should be assumed that there is a net inflow based on all the other obvious evidence.
I agree that brownian motion, by itself, is difficult to measure. However, that is not what's being claimed:

sites.google.com...


Juergens’ model implies that the outer surface of the heliosphere is the collector of the necessary current stream from the nearby region of our galaxy. Inside the heliopause (within the "solar wind" plasma) the movement of electrons would consist of a "drift current" moving inward toward the Sun superimposed on a vastly stronger "Brownian (random) motion" and therefore be difficult to measure. For a summary of Juergens’ computation see Appendix C of The Electric Sky.
It is the "Drift current" mentioned there by Don Scott that would be measurable, even if it's superimposed on a vastly stronger brownian motion. Why can the drift current be measured? Because it's not random. The reason the brownian motion is hard to measure is because it's random. So it's actually the drift current we need to measure, not the brownian motion.


Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
Ah the gps....
Am also a pilot so i am familiar with the contraption
Mine is not a notion but an experimental fact.
If it's not a notion but experimental fact please post the experimental fact or a link to it.

Don't forget the gps satellite are in motion relative to the gps receiver.
Put a clock on a geo sat and one directly under it on the earth and then observe the time difference.
What does that prove? You still have the clock in the satellite moving faster then the clock on the ground causing time dilation in the satellite clock relative to the ground clock, right? The velocity of the geosynchronous satellite is greater than the velocity of the point on the ground as this illustration clearly shows:



You still have time dilation on the ground clock because it's in a stronger gravitational field. The gravitational time dilation is the stronger effect with most satellites as it is with a geostationary satellite. Both the velocity and gravitational effects on time dilation for a geostationary satellite are plotted here::

www.thescienceforum.com...

The x axis is radius from center of earth.
The y axis is proper time added to satellite (second) per earth (equator) second from earth-equator's reference frame.
Green is gravitational time dilation
Blue is velocity time dilation
Red is total time dilation
And Brown is r=earth's radius

So it's the red line you need to look at for the net effect of the two different time dilation factors at work, that explain the time difference. And as you can see the gravitational time dilation is the dominant factor, though the velocity time dilation does have a small effect which only partially offsets the gravitational time dilation.


edit on 13-3-2011 by Arbitrageur because: fixed tags


I did mention the link in one of my previous post on hafele & Co.
So all the satellites are effectively looking a wee bit in the future that hasen't happened yet , since their clocks run faster, paradoxical isn't it



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 


Or most likely this is a result of instrumentation drift, and not the effects of gravity or acceleration on time.

It seems that a study could be made to analyze calibration data for these clocks, and possible we could learn a thing of two from the results. I would be surprised if this hasn't already been done.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
I did mention the link in one of my previous post on hafele & Co.
So all the satellites are effectively looking a wee bit in the future that hasen't happened yet , since their clocks run faster, paradoxical isn't it
Wait, so now you're admitting that time slows down in a gravitational field rather than speeding up as you claimed earlier?

Yes time dilation can lead to a sort of time travel, it is fascinating, but I wouldn't say it's future hasn't happened yet, everything is happening in the present in the respective time frame and is observed from another time frame as predicted by Einstein's model. The predictions can lead to some fascinating results, like the twin paradox, etc.

And in the case of the GPS satellites, we "cheated" by slowing down the clocks on the satellites so they won't run faster. But yes if the clocks were all equally calibrated, they would run faster on the satellites.


Originally posted by poet1b
It seems that a study could be made to analyze calibration data for these clocks, and possible we could learn a thing of two from the results. I would be surprised if this hasn't already been done.

NIST monitors GPS broadcasts constantly and they even make the calibration data available online, here:

NIST GPS Data Archive
www.nist.gov...

It's pretty interesting stuff if you're into calibration. I wasn't able to pull up data within roughly the last week but data from earlier in March came right up.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 05:01 AM
link   
Where's Michio Kaku when you need him?

Unsubstantiated claims by an unknown author. That's something to take with a grain of salt....

A2D



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 05:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


No I.m not admitting that at all. According to my results, time speeds up in gravity



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


No I.m not admitting that at all. According to my results, time speeds up in gravity
You said you use GPS. GPS works because time slows down in gravity. And so far that's the only result you've shared, is that you use GPS.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Such a study would take a massive amount of time.

However, at first glance I see that there are negative offsets of satellite times verses UTC. It doesn't explain very precisely if this is a direct offset from UTC, or a rate of offset from previous data. From the way it is described, it is most likely a direct offset, because all the positives would mean a continuous increase in offset. which would be incompatible with calibration and metrology methods. The average is overall positive, but negative values would indicate that other effects are in play. You would have to look at standard deviation. There is also a considerable chance that environmental conditions besides speed and distance from the Earth effect the calibration of the clocks in orbit.

If you are moving slower than everything else on average, then it appears that time is moving faster, and if you are moving faster than everything else, it appears that time is moving slower. This doesn't change the speed that everything else is moving, only the observational reference. This also is influenced by your minds ability to process data. If you are able to perceive the changes in position fast enough, and calculate the changes in position as they are happening, then your perspective of the speed of change, time, would not change.

This is a bit off topic, but relevant to our ability to measure current and potential of the Suns magnetic fields.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


No I.m not admitting that at all. According to my results, time speeds up in gravity
You said you use GPS. GPS works because time slows down in gravity. And so far that's the only result you've shared, is that you use GPS.


Ah yes the GPS works, so does my FE and AG machine



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join