Opposing Mainstream Physics - Swan001 (opposition) vs ATS

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

log in

join

posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by kthxbai
 




Since it isn't time that's changing, what causes the different rates that exist in the measurements.

The effects of gravitational gradients(?) on the physical processes of a timekeeping device.

Can you tell me what it is exactly that you disagree with about and why? Do you even have a clue as to what I've said in this thread?




posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 





at first I was addressing you about you bringing up the year and gps satellites

The duration of the period is not important. What matters is that regardless of what the displays might indicate due to improper calibration for the conditions, the clocks will experience contemporaneous periodicity.

If a GPS clock is not adjusted for orbit then the clock simply does not keep time accurately. It doesn't matter whether it's running too slowly or too quickly, it doesn't go off into the future or fall back into the past.

I'm left to wonder what exactly is meant by "change in the rate or flow of time".



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Get it? Relativity and stuff.
Yes, I get it.



Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
Lol pl chk with the us navy since Von Braun is no longer with us, the history of gps.
And, what is the US Navy supposed to tell us? That they calibrated the GPS clocks in the opposite direction predicted by relativity?



Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
If a GPS clock is not adjusted for orbit then the clock simply does not keep time accurately. It doesn't matter whether it's running too slowly or too quickly, it doesn't go off into the future or fall back into the past.
Here's an example:
GPS clock A is in orbit around the Earth.
GPS clock B is put in orbit around a black hole.
The latest satellite I read about has a design life of 15 years.
Let's say we modify the satellites so they have video cameras, and fire a de-orbiting thruster at the end of their life, at 15 years elapsed time, according to the clock on the satellite:

Clock A will fire a de-orbiting thruster in the year 2028 on NASA's calender
Clock B will fire a de-orbiting thruster in the year 2,002,028 on NASA's calender (If there still is a NASA and if it still uses the same calender).

Some people might consider what clock B has done as a form of future time travel, because within its 15 year life according to its clock, it has witnessed 2 million years worth of events according to NASA's clock. So it really depends on how you define "it doesn't go off into the future", because in some sense, the satellite around the black hole does.

For the satellite in orbit compared to a ground reference, the difference would be 38 microseconds a day times the number of days in 15 years....not quite as dramatic as the 2 million years in the black hole example, but just because the size of the difference is smaller, doesn't mean there isn't a difference. The 2 million years is just an arbitrary number for this example...if you change the orbit around the black hole you can change that amount of time.
edit on 5-3-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by ImaFungi
 





at first I was addressing you about you bringing up the year and gps satellites

The duration of the period is not important. What matters is that regardless of what the displays might indicate due to improper calibration for the conditions, the clocks will experience contemporaneous periodicity.

If a GPS clock is not adjusted for orbit then the clock simply does not keep time accurately. It doesn't matter whether it's running too slowly or too quickly, it doesn't go off into the future or fall back into the past.

I'm left to wonder what exactly is meant by "change in the rate or flow of time".


First of all im not 100% sure about what im saying
im trying to think about this stuff to its hard for me to grasp but this what I write is my best attempt at thinking what the deal is.

Ok so its thought all energy was "born" at the same instant, the big bang. this was the beginning of universal time, for the total universal system as a whole, this was the beginning. From there though every separate part and the macro structures the tiniest parts created were on their own trajectories, with their own angular momentum, and moment to moment interactions with other quanta in their given regions of space and time. Thus in order to "keep time", to know a steady rate of passing time, this can only be done relatively. Relative to other things in similar states of rest or reference frames and constant velocity. After the universe began, what can an observer that arises in the universe use to keep time? They can use a year, the distance in space and time the earth moves to travel around the sun, this is like those examples of the light clock, a second being the distance in space and time the particle took to travel between two mirrors. Because Einstein claimed light was a constant (and observations and experiments backed him up) it was thought to be able to be used as the perfect measuring stick, this is the way im sure the age of the universe was converted into years. He said (and it seems like it does) light is the fastest speed energy can go at in the universe, and when an interaction takes place to produce light in space, it is demanded to travel at that fast speed of the speed of light, this means that regardless of what velocity any observer is traveling, they have to know that the light is consistently traveling the speed it is forced to by nature. So if energy is added to the system of a light clock (clock with the photon bouncing between two mirrors) to make it go faster, the light clock is traveling more space in less time (then it was before it accelerated) thus relative to its previous measured position, it is experiencing time in a different manner. this is why the clocks on board the satellites experience time in a different manner, due to velocity at least. If we added a ton of energy to the earths orbit to make it revolve around the sun twice as fast as it currently does, would time be speeding up?

Heres my attempt of an example as to why doing more action, in an allotted time, is experiencing a relative duration of time, differently depending on velocity/reference frames:

You have an identical twin in every way, its a clone of you. there are an infinite number of playing cards face down in front of each of you, and you both can turn one over with the same speed and move onto the next and turn that one over. On average in 20 seconds you and your twin can both turn over 20 cards. You are both doing this on earth and that is the constant in the experiment. The sun pulses light every second and the experiment is how many cards can each twin flip over in 20 seconds. The trick is one twin will be doing this at constant earth time (physically possible, rate of action over an interval of time; 20 cards in 20 seconds), and the other twin will be doing this with the power of the speed of light. Im not good at math, but in 20 seconds if the earth twin flips over 20, then the speed of light twin can maybe flip over a million or so.

wouldnt you say the twin that can operate at light speed experienced time lapsing in a different manner relative to his twin, and relative to himself when he was not operating at the velocity of light?
edit on 5-3-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


Im a bit skeptical of the whole aging thing..which may be related to your points. ( I think there is a chance it may be the misunderstanding/ill-defining of what time actually is when making these calculations). Of course in this video it is hypothetical thought experiment attempting to highlight a truth of nature. Even that considering I would wonder if passengers on the train would feel the force of acceleration, and if that is unavoidable, then maybe natures way of protecting that speed limit is to decimate the human body far before it gets to the speed of light.




posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 





For the satellite in orbit compared to a ground reference, the difference would be 38 microseconds a day times the number of days in 15 years

Let's shift from a GPS sat to the ISS. A clock calibrated to be accurate on the ground is placed on the ISS. Naturally it will be inaccurate while in orbit. I'm told this is due to a difference in the rate of time. I have to ask what about the astronauts on board? They don't drift into the future or the past. The greater the duration of the time differential the greater the cumulative effect should be. Where are the communication delays beyond time for transmissions to travel? AFAIK there is no time drift between these two frames of reference. This leads me to believe the dilation observed is not real, only a calibration issue.



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


They don't drift into the future or the past.
Correct. They don't time travel. But they do return to Earth aged a bit more than us groundbound types. But there's really no way to demonstrate that.


Where are the communication delays beyond time for transmissions to travel?
They are there, and measurable, but not noticeable. Correcting form them is the reason for the GPS calibration...so the true travel time (and therefore distance) can be calculated by the receiver.
edit on 3/5/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


They don't drift into the future or the past.
Correct. They don't time travel. But they do return to Earth aged a bit more than us groundbound types. But there's really no way to demonstrate that.


Where are the communication delays beyond time for transmissions to travel?
They are there, and measurable, but not noticeable. Correcting form them is the reason for the GPS calibration...so the true travel time (and therefore distance) can be calculated by the receiver.
edit on 3/5/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


If you watch that video I posted above, it says the closer an observer travels to the speed of light the less they age, when compared to an amount of time passed on earth, traveling at a lesser speed.

So wouldnt the astronauts age less then on earth, because they are traveling relatively faster then us ( which means relatively closer to the speed of light)?

Does anyone know the deal with going in the opposite direction...as far as reducing velocity to a minimum ,absolute 0? Is this slowing down "the progression of time"? like how biological material is preserved when frozen in a way? (or unrelated?) if related at all, that concept could have to do with the energy/material components in a superconductor when at absolute 0, the way they behave in space and time is altered.



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 




They are there, and measurable, but not noticeable.

The cumulative time differential is measurable? There is a delay in transmission equal to the speed of light plus the daily differential multiplied by the number of days ISS has been in orbit?



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


I get your problem with all this and its a good one. You are saying, regardless of what people and clocks are doing right now, there is a steady moment of now that governs them all; moment to moment all objects in the universe that exist, exist. That is to say, you and phage and arb and I exist in the universal dimension of time of right now. And no matter how fast I run, or you walk, or phage flys, or arb travels to the nearest star. In this universe, there is a relation to us existing all at the same time. as long as we are still alive (that notion is what Einstein's theories are trying to overturn/overturned... i think simply because there was no way of an observer discovering or knowing the true absolute rate of time, so einstein had to create a system in which all forms of motion and energy levels moving in distances over relative measurements of time could be compared to one another given the specific variable).

So now does any of this come down to the perception of the observer? Does time slow down when im bored at work and it feels slow? Does time fly by when im having fun? Is my time measured by my cell division, my heartbeat, my rate of breathing, the rate of neuron firings in my brain, the amount of years my body is working? If I think 2 times faster then someone do I experience time differently?



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 





So wouldnt the astronauts age less then on earth, because they are traveling relatively faster then us ( which means relatively closer to the speed of light)?

I would think they would age more up there due to the stress caused by all those alien ships so many think they see flying around the ISS. But yes, I thought faster travel meant slower aging.

I'm not even sure that velocity itself is a factor in the process. All motion outside of thought experiments occurs within a gravitational field. I think the gravity may be the cause of altered physical process rates. Velocity in a gravity free environment MAY have no effect on process rates at all.



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 



You are saying, regardless of what people and clocks are doing right now, there is a steady moment of now that governs them all; moment to moment all objects in the universe that exist, exist.

YES, I think that's what I'm thinking! A universal moment of now.

What timing, I gotta go for now.



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


So wouldnt the astronauts age less then on earth, because they are traveling relatively faster then us ( which means relatively closer to the speed of light)?
You are only considering special relativity. The effects of general relativity must also be taken into account. This has been pointed out more than once.



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


There is a delay in transmission equal to the speed of light plus the daily differential multiplied by the number of days ISS has been in orbit?
Sorry. There is no change in the delay. That is determined by the distance alone. It is the measurement of that delay which becomes problematic because of the effects of time dilation on the orbital clocks. The only way to measure the delay is by knowing when the signal is transmitted. And there is the rub.



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 




I'm not even sure that velocity itself is a factor in the process.

It has to be. Unless you think the speed of light changes.



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation

reply to post by ImaFungi
 





So wouldnt the astronauts age less then on earth, because they are traveling relatively faster then us ( which means relatively closer to the speed of light)?

I would think they would age more up there due to the stress caused by all those alien ships so many think they see flying around the ISS. But yes, I thought faster travel meant slower aging.

I'm not even sure that velocity itself is a factor in the process. All motion outside of thought experiments occurs within a gravitational field. I think the gravity may be the cause of altered physical process rates. Velocity in a gravity free environment MAY have no effect on process rates at all.



I think velocity ( and gravity, which affects velocity) is the only factor in the process. No velocity for any object, no time. (I think thats why they say time didnt exist before the big bang, because there was no movement, no distinguishing between bits and events, no rates of change...but im not sure)

Say there is an exact replica of our solar system, and we calculate all the data in terms of the amount of time that exists in one earth revolution around the sun; how many milliseconds,how many seconds,how many minutes,how many hours, how many days, how many weeks how many months- a year

In the replica solar system (this thought experiment is screwed because in order for this to happen im sure it would have a lot of affects on other bodies and even its own orbit but lets just pretend it doesnt) earth is at the same distance (the 1st earth is; this earth in the replica follows the same exact orbit) away from the sun at all times in its orbit, yet it travels around the sun in half the time it currently takes,(6 months instead of 12) would time be going faster? Now we have one human who lives on the first earth for a year. and the same human lives on the second earth for a year. Would time really be different for the observer? Or is looking at time from the top down, not the same as looking at it from the tiny up? what can we use, but a clock of some sort, that uses a consistent atomic function. But now is the material of the atomic clock or any clock that can exist subject to change the way it physically behaves and is able to exist depending on certain conditions? Some of those conditions could be its orientation in regards to a massive object, or the velocity at which its parts are subjected to. Velocity is "is the rate of change of the position of an object, equivalent to a specification of its speed and direction of motion"; so relativity is really saying, matter behaves differently at a specific reference frame of rest then when it is moving through space at a significantly more rapid pace.
edit on 5-3-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 

Incorrect. The astrnauts will age less than the people on earth.
But maybe the stress level of watching ufos, makes them age more. Lol



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


So wouldnt the astronauts age less then on earth, because they are traveling relatively faster then us ( which means relatively closer to the speed of light)?
You are only considering special relativity. The effects of general relativity must also be taken into account. This has been pointed out more than once.



Ok yes, I figured that, yes I was only considering special relativity because I was a bit hung up on the proposals of traveling near the speed of light (i guess away from any large gravity fields) and relatively aging much less.

How exactly does the GR tie in? Does it have to do with bodies further from the surface of earth travel longer distances to rotate with the earth, and/or having to do with the constant acceleration?



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 




How exactly does the GR tie in?
The difference in gravitational potential puts the satellite in a different frame of reference from the surface.



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 

If you measure beta decay in orbit, it slows down indication the that time does slow down.





new topics
top topics
 
14
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join