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.

 

Opposing Mainstream Physics - Swan001 (opposition) vs ATS

page: 10
14
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by CranialSponge
Velocity is purely relative, isn't it ?
Therefore, there really is no true frame of reference to measure time dilation, IMO.

Hence, human perception is time, time is human perception.

And that's my perception of this subject.


It doesn't matter which frame of reference you use. You get the same answer either way. In fact, if you DON'T get the same answer from the muon's or observer's point of view, you did it wrong, it's a convenient double check.

Hence, it's not perception, it's the law.

Behold!




posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 



Your problem is, we have countless materialistic ways of measuring time, but none of these things are time in and of themselves, so you say; when a clock gets broken time doesnt stop, and when a clock runs a little slower time isnt slowing down. Ok, that is true, but do you propose that there is an absolute time keeping mechanism graspable and knowable that is not made of material/energy moving in space and time? Arent things which are material/energy subject to ( certain physical) changes when they are traveling at different relative velocities in space ( when they are accelerated or decelerated)?



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


I hope you're only asking me these questions in an effort to direct my thinking because I'm leery of my own view at the moment.


at first I was addressing you about you bringing up the year and gps satellites, when I thought of that last unrelated question which was meant for anyone to address.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Is a muon, an electron that is traveling with greater velocity then average electrons? Or no matter how fast you accelerate an electron to it wont become a muon, it requires a greater net energy (such as a collision, of matter, resulting in the energy of their rest masses, along with their momentum before colliding,) and out of this collision for a little while, fat electrons are made?


Muons and electrons are both leptons, but a muon is its own thing. Way more massive than an electron, for one thing. Muons decay into electrons and neutrinos. Electrons don't decay.

Useful if simplistic link
edit on 4-3-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
Unfortunately this doesn't help me because I don't fully understand the process and certainly not that level of math. I'll look it up though and get what I can.
The prelaunch adjustments are on the order of 38-39 microseconds a day. This is the net result of two offests as Phage explained on page 1:
-an offset of about 45-46 microseconds a day for gravitational effects, and
-an offset in the opposite direction of about 7 microseconds a day resulting from orbital velocity.

You can find more detail and some of the math in this link: GPS and relativity


What do you believe to be the best definition for frame of reference? What I've read hasn't seemed to help so far.
I know you asked phage, but in special relativity it's easy, inertial frames of reference have relative motion. In other words, one frame is moving with respect to the other. In general relativity, it gets more complicated.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

Thanks, I'll check that out.


I know you asked phage, but in special relativity it's easy, inertial frames of reference have relative motion. In other words, one frame is moving with respect to the other. In general relativity, it gets more complicated.

How would this apply to the case in which both clocks are motionless relative to each other, the only difference being that little bit in altitude? Please don't say GR, I'm running out of hair to pull out.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Is a muon, an electron that is traveling with greater velocity then average electrons? Or no matter how fast you accelerate an electron to it wont become a muon, it requires a greater net energy (such as a collision, of matter, resulting in the energy of their rest masses, along with their momentum before colliding,) and out of this collision for a little while, fat electrons are made?


Muons and electrons are both leptons, but a muon is its own thing. Way more massive than an electron, for one thing. Muons decay into electrons and neutrinos. Electrons don't decay.

Useful if simplistic link
edit on 4-3-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)


If electrons are collided with 'something' they dont decay into other particles? If a muon is its own thing,how can it decay into other things (if its composed of no others)? So muons are created when there is a specific type of 'large' pool of local energy after a subatomic collision and that pool swirls into what looks like a big electron for a tiny tiny bit of time until it decays into an electron and neutrino?



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
How would this apply to the case in which both clocks are motionless relative to each other, the only difference being that little bit in altitude? Please don't say GR, I'm running out of hair to pull out.
OK I won't say it, but I don't have to, since you already did.


I'm extremely impressed that you even cited the previous reference about the tiny difference in altitude, which shows some good understanding on your part of how complicated it can get to define, especially without using math. This is where math can come in handy.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

Am I correct in my assumption that the dilation observed with that small difference in altitude is caused by the slight difference in gravity which in turn affects the rate of decay in the atoms? I don't think I've read that but have probably just assumed that to be the case.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 

You are correct sir.

Don't ask for the math though, I don't have it.
Good on the concept though and I understand it works very well.


Wait...no.
The rate of decay is not affected relative to the elevated clock. But it's not decay that is measured anyway.
The rate of the "flow" of time changes.

edit on 3/4/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 



Your problem is, we have countless materialistic ways of measuring time, but none of these things are time in and of themselves, so you say; when a clock gets broken time doesnt stop, and when a clock runs a little slower time isnt slowing down. Ok, that is true, but do you propose that there is an absolute time keeping mechanism graspable and knowable that is not made of material/energy moving in space and time? Arent things which are material/energy subject to ( certain physical) changes when they are traveling at different relative velocities in space ( when they are accelerated or decelerated)?

Bravo. You and DenyO are at least trying to seperate time and space.
For gps , to compensate clocks, for the observed discrepancies, as mentioned in earlier posts, is all well and good, but to interpret the observed discrepancies to suit GR is erroneous.
It is as if, there is an unwritten law in the mainstream, " Thou shall not attempt to prove einstein wrong ", and if you do, " Thou shall be ostracized "



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 




but to interpret the observed discrepancies to suit GR is erroneous.

That is not what is done. You have it backwards.
GR (and less important, SR) determines the adjustment that is made. Do you think it is nothing but coincidence that the calculated offset works?

edit on 3/4/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

Am I correct in my assumption that the dilation observed with that small difference in altitude is caused by the slight difference in gravity which in turn affects the rate of decay in the atoms? I don't think I've read that but have probably just assumed that to be the case.
Yes, except that to be clear, what was actually used in the aforementioned experiment were optical clocks, based on quantum logic spectroscopy of an Al+ ion, which is not the same as atomic decay.
edit on 4-3-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 




but to interpret the observed discrepancies to suit GR is erroneous.

That is not what is done. You have it backwards.
GR (and less important, SR) determines the adjustment that is made. Do you think it is nothing but coincidence that the calculated offset works?

edit on 3/4/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

No you have it backwards. Nothing has been calculated from gr.
Its an empirical means, and sure enough one can come up with an empirical formulae to
apply to these sitiuations.
I am a pilot too, you know.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 


No you have it backwards. Nothing has been calculated from gr.

If you claim that you don't know how the GPS system works and was designed. It was known that relativity would have to be accounted for so it was. Before launch.


I am a pilot too, you know.
And?

edit on 3/4/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 


I am a pilot too, you know.
And?
I thought you pilots would want to know when another pilot has overturned general relativity?



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

Well it does make thermalling easier.

Did you hear the one about how many pilots it takes to change a light bulb?

Just one. He holds the bulb and the universe revolves around him.

Get it? Relativity and stuff.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 


No you have it backwards. Nothing has been calculated from gr.

If you claim that you don't know how the GPS system works and was designed. It was known that relativity would have to be accounted for so it was. Before launch.


I am a pilot too, you know.
And?

edit on 3/4/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Lol pl chk with the us navy since Von Braun is no longer with us, the history of gps.



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 02:17 AM
link   
I'm sorry Swan but it's clear that you do not even understand the content of the theories you're criticizing well enough to criticize them. Deep inelastic scattering of nuclei and the failure of the tired light hypothesis to explain time dilation of distant events offer two direct, experimental refutations of the points you propose. Your problems with relativity stem from your own misunderstanding of it. There's no simpler way to state this stuff. Your ideas are old, tested, and wrong.



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 



Your problem is, we have countless materialistic ways of measuring time, but none of these things are time in and of themselves, so you say; when a clock gets broken time doesnt stop, and when a clock runs a little slower time isnt slowing down. Ok, that is true, but do you propose that there is an absolute time keeping mechanism graspable and knowable that is not made of material/energy moving in space and time? Arent things which are material/energy subject to ( certain physical) changes when they are traveling at different relative velocities in space ( when they are accelerated or decelerated)?


YES!!!


Great summation and approach!

To direct some thinking in others to expand on the ideas and concepts, and at the risk of Deny's impending self inflicted baldness
, expand on the idea and consider what effects exist and how they vary. Since it isn't time that's changing, what causes the different rates that exist in the measurements.

(asking Phage to not give the answer just yet
)



edit on 5-3-2013 by kthxbai because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join