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.

 

Roll over Einstein: Pillar of physics challenged

page: 31
142
<< 28  29  30    32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
Cessium atomic clocks do not take into account the internal clock of all constituents of this universe.
And did you already explain how to make cesium clocks do that? Or are you just saying cesium clocks are useless? I don't understand.




posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 


Under Relativity, time dilation is a predictable and quantifiable effect -- i.e., Einstein said it would be a real effect, and when experiments are done, that effect is found to be exactly as Einstein predicted.

You don't seem to be arguing that time dilation isn't real, but you seem to be saying that the CAUSE of time dilation is not as Einstein described -- which is that it is a function of a gravitational field. You are arguing that Einstein was wrong about the cause even though his calculations correctly predicted the effect, as proven by later experiments using atomic clocks (Einstein didn't have the luxury of testing his hypothesis in this way before publishing his ideas -- he relied solely on the math).

You seem to be arguing that time dilation is real, but is an effect of some other mechanism, and NOT due to gravitational fields. So, if time dilation is an effect of some mechanism other than what Einstein described, then:

- Please identify that mechanism,
- Explain how that mechanism affects time, and
- Show how that mechanism can accurately predict the magnitude of time dilation under various circumstances.


edit on 10/20/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
You don't seem to be arguing that time dilation isn't real, but you seem to be saying that the CAUSE of time dilation is not as Einstein described -- which is that it is a function of a gravitational field.
Dilation means slow down.

AR is claiming that time speeds up in a gravitational field, rather than slowing down, did I get that right AR?



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
AR is claiming that time speeds up in a gravitational field, rather than slowing down, did I get that right AR?


It means expanding and stretching. I suppose (according to Relativity) time would either slow down OR speed up, depending if we were moving toward or away from a gravitational field. It would only stretch (dilate) in correlation with the INCREASE in a gravitational field. I guess "dilation" isn't accurate an accurate term when talking about the effects on time when a gravitational field DECREASES.

=
=
=

One thing I don't seem to get about these "Einstein Critics" on this board: Einstein did NOT formulate his theories by making a real-world observation then try to explain that observation afterward. He formulated his theories out of his mind, and then only AFTER those theories were published were those observations made that were correctly predicted by Einstein.

For example, he never observed the bending of light by a gravitational filed -- he only predicted it by using math. It wasn't until years later that someone observed light bending (in an exact magnitude as predicted by Einstein's math). Einstein never observed clocks running more slowly as a gravitational field increased. It was only a prediction he made using math. It wasn't until ultra-precise atomic clocks became available years later that Einstein's ideas of time dilation were proven to be correct.

It's not like he shoehorned a theory into fitting known observations. The theory came first and the observations came afterward. THAT'S the sign of a successful theory. There are people who would love to make a name and career of themselves and prove that these observations don't match up with his predictions, but nobody has been able to do so.




edit on 10/20/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Under Relativity, time dilation is a predictable and quantifiable effect -- i.e., Einstein said it would be a real effect, and when experiments are done, that effect is found to be exactly as Einstein predicted.


Einstein remains vindicated, though he was wrong.
My expt data and visible proof invalidate all expts done to maintain status quo on GR.



You seem to be arguing that time dilation is real, but is an effect of some other mechanism, and NOT due to gravitational fields. So, if time dilation is an effect of some mechanism other than what Einstein described, then:

- Please identify that mechanism,
- Explain how that mechanism affects time, and
- Show how that mechanism can accurately predict the magnitude of time dilation under various circumstances.


edit on 10/20/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)


Time dilation is real but opp to GR. Gravity speeds up time.
It can be quantifiable and predicted, but I do not wish to publish the mechanism
to be av in the public domain as yet.
Though you could derive these from the graph on my link



posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

It's not like he shoehorned a theory into fitting known observations. The theory came first and the observations came afterward. THAT'S the sign of a successful theory. There are people who would love to make a name and career of themselves and prove that these observations don't match up with his predictions, but nobody has been able to do so.

edit on 10/20/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)


True but the observations were wrongly interpreted to suit the theory.
So does that make the theory successful? Unfortunately not.



posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
It can be quantifiable and predicted, but I do not wish to publish the mechanism
to be av in the public domain as yet.
So, to paraphrase:

You are saying Einstean is wrong, we are all wrong and you are right.
We are asking "How do you know that?"
Your reply is "I'm not gonna tell you (yet)".

When you are ready to tell us, then perhaps we might be able to evaluate your claim.
But until then, you seem like a logical enough person to understand why nobody will take you seriously, amirite?



posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 06:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Read the line below the 2 lines , you decided to paraphrase on.



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Not being a Physics major instead a nature philosopher as was Issac Newton and Albert Einstine, both not having any education in there specific fields of experties, and I offer up some logistical physics you may want to contemplate as to excceding the speed of light
Given you had a lazer beam and fired it verticaly and given light never stops, then to this equation then add, given the said light projeted is stationary upon earths surface, then at a point some hundreds of miles high would it not then be exceeding the speed of light given its being sweeped round by earths rotational speed of some 26.333

You dont have to be a scientest to hold a masters in Quantum Atomic optics



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by bulla
 


As soon as light leaves its source, it travels in a straight line at c. As light leaves the Earth, it doesn't "sweep" with the Earth's rotation. It heads off into space in a straight line at c.



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by bulla
 


As soon as light leaves its source, it travels in a straight line at c. As light leaves the Earth, it doesn't "sweep" with the Earth's rotation. It heads off into space in a straight line at c.


All I have to say, define a "straight line". In GR, this is totally negotiable. There is a geodesic line, and a bunch of other lines. I never did take a proper GR class, though. With that caveat, I can imagine that a rotating massive body can wreak havoc on the space time around it. The light wouldn't even follow a straight line unless it was shot precisely radially from a spherical object e.g. Earth.



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

All I have to say, define a "straight line". In GR, this is totally negotiable. There is a geodesic line, and a bunch of other lines.


We're talking about photons here. A straight line in GR is always a geodesic. Photons always follow a straight line through spacetime... it just so happens that spacetime is often curved.



I never did take a proper GR class, though. With that caveat, I can imagine that a rotating massive body can wreak havoc on the space time around it. The light wouldn't even follow a straight line unless it was shot precisely radially from a spherical object e.g. Earth.


I've never taken a proper GR class, either.
With that caveat...I'm not sure what you mean by that last sentence. Why wouldn't light follow a straight line?



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


Given the projection is one of a continious nature, are you then implying I would then visualize a sheet of light



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by bulla
 


Either I'm getting dense (which is possible...I'm tired, from working myself to the point of brain death the past week) or no one I talk to can speak coherently, because I have no idea what that means.

I'm beginning to think it's me.

Either way...can you rephrase that? Preferably in kindergarten-level English.



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by bulla
Given you had a lazer beam and fired it verticaly and given light never stops, then to this equation then add, given the said light projeted is stationary upon earths surface, then at a point some hundreds of miles high would it not then be exceeding the speed of light given its being sweeped round by earths rotational speed of some 26.333
With all due respect to CLprime and buddhasystem, you know I value your comments but I'm not sure you really gave bulla the clearest explanation.

At least, I think this is clearer:
math.ucr.edu...

3. Shadows and Light Spots

Think about how fast a shadow can move. If you project the shadow of your finger using a nearby lamp onto a distant wall and then wag your finger, the shadow will move much faster than your finger. If your finger moves parallel to the wall, the shadow's speed will be multiplied by a factor D/d where d is the distance from the lamp to your finger, and D is the distance from the lamp to the wall. The speed can even be much faster than this if the wall is at an angle to your finger's motion. If the wall is very far away, the movement of the shadow will be delayed because of the time it takes light to get there, but the shadow's speed is still increased by the same ratio. The speed of a shadow is therefore not restricted to be less than the speed of light.

Others things that can go FTL include the spot of a laser that has been aimed at the surface of the Moon. Given that the distance to the Moon is 385,000 km, try working out the speed of the spot if you wave the laser at a gentle speed. You might also like to think about a water wave arriving obliquely at a long straight beach. How fast can the point at which the wave is breaking travel along the beach?

This sort of thing can turn up in Nature; for example, the beam of light from a pulsar can sweep across a dust cloud. A bright explosion emits an expanding spherical shell of light or other radiation. When this shell intersects a surface, it creates a circle of light which expands faster than light. A natural example of this has been observed when an electromagnetic pulse from a lightning flash hits an upper layer of the atmosphere.

These are all examples of things that can go faster than light, but which are not physical objects. It is not possible to send information faster than light on a shadow or light spot, so FTL communication is not possible in this way. This is not what we mean by faster than light travel, although it shows how difficult it is to define what we really do mean by faster than light travel.
Physical objects and photons can't go faster than light, but some things which are not physical objects can (and we never claimed they couldn't).



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Technically, the actual rule is that information cannot travel faster than light.

The issue here, though (as far as I understood it), is that the rotation of the Earth would be added to the speed of the laser beam. Which isn't the case. Light (that is, each individual photon of light) travels in a straight line according to all reference frames. This doesn't form a straight line out from the surface of the Earth - it forms a spiral. The spiral propagates straight out at the speed of light - even to observers on the surface of the Earth, given the occurrence of time dilation in their reference frame, which, of course, exists to ensure such constancy.



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by bulla
Given the projection is one of a continious nature, are you then implying I would then visualize a sheet of light
It only appears continuous, but it's actually discrete. the light is a collection of photons.

None of the photons ever exceed the speed of light.

But when you shine the laser at the moon's surface and move the laser, each photon is being sent at a slightly different angle. These angles result in large displacements by the time you reach the moon. Therefore the series of impacts of the photons with the moon's surface travel faster than light, but a series of impacts is not an object or a photon. No real object or photon ever went faster than light.
edit on 28-10-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

It only appears continuous, but it's actually discrete. the light is a collection of photons.

None of the photons ever exceed the speed of light.


This is the essence of my explanation.



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 

I think the moon surface example is simpler because it avoids unnecessary complications, and a straight line approximation will suffice.



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Indeed it does. Wish I had thought of it.




top topics



 
142
<< 28  29  30    32 >>

log in

join