Opposing Mainstream Physics - Swan001 (opposition) vs ATS

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by DenyObfuscation

 

Don't you find it interesting that the clocks behave as accurately predicted by relativity?
The variation in time corresponds to the calculated value, else the GPS system would not work.

Yes, I do find it interesting but honestly I may not understand enough about what that really means. Maybe I'm arguing against something that isn't being implied by time dilation.

It would seem to me that if two atomic clocks were synchronized on Earth and one were placed on the Moon, they would not stay in sync. The clock on the Moon would not experience different time from the Moon would it? The Moon would still orbit the Earth at the same rate as before. The clock would still experience(?) day and night just as any other object on the Moon would. The clock would not disappear into the future or fall into the past just because it's now improperly calibrated for the conditions as a timekeeping device.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation

It would seem to me that if two atomic clocks were synchronized on Earth and one were placed on the Moon, they would not stay in sync.

Correct. Because they would be in different frames.

The clock would not disappear into the future or fall into the past just because it's now improperly calibrated for the conditions as a timekeeping device.

Ah. I think I see what you are getting at. The clock is improperly calibrated as a timekeeping device on Earth but it's just fine for the Moon. Yes time is operating at a different rate on the Moon.

That is the point with the whole GPS discussion. Maybe a brief explanation of the system would help. The system works like this. Each satellite transmits packets of information. The key information in that packet is the one that says "I'm sending this packet now", the timestamp. This is important because the receiver uses that timestamp to calculate the distance between it and the satellite (for obvious reasons). Now, if that satellite's clock were calibrated to the rate of time passage on the surface it would not keep the correct time when it was in orbit. Its timestamp would become more and more and more inaccurate relative to the surface and therefore useless. So, in order to keep that from happening the clock is set to run slower on the surface. Now, once in orbit, because of the ability to calculate the appropriate difference before launch, the clock in orbit actually is synchronized with the clock on the surface because, on the surface it was set to run slower.

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Tired light? I'm talking about photon interaction with space's zero point energy. Surely you are not suggesting that photon interaction laws conveniently ceases when one looks up at distant galaxies?

Too lazy to look it up even when I give you an exact search term? OK lazy bones:

Tired Light

Tired light is a class of hypothetical redshift mechanisms that was proposed as an alternative explanation for the redshift-distance relationship.

And your statement was:

I also say, "redshift from other galaxies is not caused by general rush-away-from-each-other movement...

So you're not denying the redshift, you're saying it's not caused by a "rush-away-from-each-other movement" or more correctly the "metric expansion of space" as others have pointed out, but by something else, and even if you don't realize it, your hypothesis is a form of a "tired light" hypothesis and you're not the first to think of it, it's an idea which has been explored thoroughly, with some of the main contradictions to observation noted here:

Errors in Tired Light Cosmology

There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects which is not observed. The Compton shift in particular does not work.

And the translation of "degrade a photon's energy" for you non technical folks, is "cause redshift". That's just the first on the list. I suggest you read the whole list of problems with the idea.



DenyObfuscation, in case you missed my question:

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
I think it would show that the clock would show that the difference is in timekeeping, not time.

How can you tell the difference between timekeeping with a cesium atomic clock, and time?

If I understand why you think there is a difference maybe I can explain better...but I don't understand why you think there's a difference between timekeeping and time in this case. Please explain. How could you determine if there was a difference?

reply to post by Phage

In my example the clocks were calibrated for Earth. When one is placed on the Moon it will no longer tick at the same rate as the clock on Earth. Even though it displays a different time, it's still in the same time.

I get what you're saying about the sats. I understand why they have to be calibrated as they are. Still I believe that's a matter of mechanics of timekeeping, not time variance.

I don't get what you mean by

Yes time is operating at a different rate on the Moon.

If you were on the Moon watching the Earth rotate, how long would it take to see one full rotation?

How does it work with a geosynchronous satellite? Regardless of how it's calibrated, it's still going to make one revolution per day with respect to the stars isn't it?

reply to post by DenyObfuscation

If you were on the Moon watching the Earth rotate, how long would it take to see one full rotation?

You mean if you were timing it with a clock on the Moon? I'm not sure. You'd have to take the orbital velocity of the Moon into account as well as the reduced gravity. But unless it balanced out just right, it wouldn't be 24 hours. But whatever it was it wouldn't amount to much difference.

How does it work with a geosynchronous satellite? Regardless of how it's calibrated, it's still going to make one revolution per day with respect to the stars isn't it?

One orbit per one rotation of Earth, yes. The flow of time isn't really relevant. It's orbital mechanics that synchronizes them, not time.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

If I understand why you think there is a difference maybe I can explain better...but I don't understand why you think there's a difference between timekeeping and time in this case. Please explain.

Timekeeping is only as accurate as the device keeping the time.

I view one year as real. If an atomic clock were calibrated to sync with a clock that remained on Earth and then suspended at 100,000 feet for one year, the clock was suspended for one year regardless of what the inaccurate display reports. Does this help? I really want to know about this.

great thread
too many attackers though

scientific theory is NOT proof

will reply more, just wanted to put this in "my ats"

reply to post by ModernAcademia

great thread too many attackers though

Interesting theory. What is the correct number of attackers? Do you have proof for your theory?

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

If I understand why you think there is a difference maybe I can explain better...but I don't understand why you think there's a difference between timekeeping and time in this case. Please explain.

Timekeeping is only as accurate as the device keeping the time.

I view one year as real. If an atomic clock were calibrated to sync with a clock that remained on Earth and then suspended at 100,000 feet for one year, the clock was suspended for one year regardless of what the inaccurate display reports. Does this help? I really want to know about this.

@7:00 mins .... though the whole video may help...

I think all of this has to do with the only means we have of keeping time is by using energy/matter in some way, and these things are intimately connected to their orientations, velocities, rotations, regularities, orbits in space and time. So it is relevant if an event occurs exactly 1 time per second, and if that time keeper is accelerated it would be able to do a little more (in space) in 1 second. So time is relative to acceleration I think, Im not sure about the effects of a time keeping device at constant velocities, I guess that would just be the devices regular time...idk...

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
Timekeeping is only as accurate as the device keeping the time.

I view one year as real. If an atomic clock were calibrated to sync with a clock that remained on Earth and then suspended at 100,000 feet for one year, the clock was suspended for one year regardless of what the inaccurate display reports. Does this help? I really want to know about this.

Yes I think it helps. In relativistic terms, what you seem to be saying is that your reference frame is the preferred one. According to relativity, there is no preferred reference frame.

However, we can measure something called the CMB or cosmic microwave background. While this is not a preferred reference frame under relativity, one could take a view of it as sort of the closest thing to a "rest" reference frame as you can get. Conceivably, we could put a probe in a low gravity position at rest with respect to the CMB, and claim the clock placed there is the correct time (which contradicts relativity to make that claim, so this is just for the purpose of illustration). So this would mean that your perception of a year is incorrect, because it is your clock here on Earth that runs at the "wrong" rate. It's slowed down by the Earth's velocity relative to the CMB, and also by Earth's gravity. So what you think of as a year as being real, actually is not.

To illustrate this point, put the same type of clock on the moon, on Mars, and on other planets and moons....they will all run at different rates from each other due to their different gravity, and less noticeably, due to their different velocities relative to the CMB. The only clock not affected by these different gravities or different velocities, is the clock we put on the probe which is at rest relative to the CMB.

Now, relativity doesn't say that one clock is right and all the others are wrong, but hopefully you get the idea, that all clocks affected by velocities and gravitational fields respond to those velocities and fields, and the Earth is no better than any other location to determine what's "real".

But these time differences are so small that we generally don't have to worry about them, except in cases where they matter, like GPS.

Originally posted by swan001
It's been a time now that physics is my favourite hobby. But now I'm about to introduce a new model. So I am wondering how strong really are some sides.

Ready? Okay. I'll form the opposition to root concepts (particle existence, observation of dark energy) - just to see how strong they are.

I, as the oppostion, say, "quarks don't exist". Prove me wrong.

If not quarks what then? Do you accept that atoms exist? Do you accept that electrons exist? Do you accept that electrons have negative charge? Do you accept that atoms are made of more then just electrons? Do you accept protons and neutrons exist? Do you accept protons have positive charge and neutrons are neutral? K,now are protons and neutrons solid elementary fundamental particles, or are they composed of elementary fundamental particles? If you can show that they are fundamental and have no constituents then there is obviously no reason to say they have constituents, however if protons and neutrons are not fundamental, does that mean they have constituents? QCD : en.wikipedia.org... .. is the theory on how quarks (if they exist) interact. to create the stable particles neutron and protons in the nucleus of an atom, I dont know enough but it is interesting how neutrons are not very stable outside of the atom, yet there are so many that exist in atoms, does this mean they all formed at the same instant and immediately coupled with a proton? Gluons are elementary particles which are like the Photon in the EM interaction, gluons are the force carrier in protons and neutrons between quarks and that is some of the idea behind QCD and how protons and neutrons and atoms exist and are stable

I also say, "redshift from other galaxies is not caused by general rush-away-from-each-other movement, as many galaxies actually move towards one another and even collide. Instead, redshift is caused by photon interaction with space itself". Prove me wrong.

it is thought/observed that a majority of galaxies we view are redshifted (meaning traveling away from us, and if we were on one of those other galaxies, it would seem like the galaxies we viewed majoritaly were redshifted away from us). I dont know much about redshift, but it seems to have to do with the increased spatial distance between a light emitting object due to the "expansion of the intergalactic universe" causes the light that is emitted to have its wavelength "stretched" into the less energetic red spectrum. That spatial expansion type is different from red shifting from local objects like stars in our galaxy. Again, dont know much about this personally. Do you propose that the universe is not expanding? Do you think the majority of galaxies are accelerating away from one another?

I finally say, "if virtual particles exists even in total vacuum, how come the CERN is never picking them up? " Prove to me quantum model is the right one.

I think they do detect them in experiments, they are only detectable by proxy (relation) thus their name virtual, and I personally think they are more a math description then an actual physical particle. Free neutron decay for example, I think the virtual W boson isnt a phyical particle entity, but more of a symbol on a road map or treasure map, which specifies a next step or incoming event. the W boson, in my mind, is a transitional 'bundle' of energy at a certain space and time (definition of particle?), in the decaying neutron context, this bundle of energy is left hanging, due to the neutron decaying into a proton, a neutron has more mass then a proton, so the extra mass is left hanging as the W boson, which virtually immediately turns into an electron and an antineutrino... maybe it is something about the magnetic field they are in, the gravity field, something which does not allow the configuration of mass/energy emitted by the decaying neutron to remain a stable W boson, but it seems under those conditions nature demands the existence of an electron and antineutrino to come from that event.

reply to post by swan001

I don't get it...

If I am looking back at a clock on earth as I accelerate away from it at the speed of light, the clock back on earth appears frozen because the light from the clock is keeping up with me. The clock on earth is still ticking at the same speed as my clock on the ship. The people of earth are still moving thru time at the same rate as I. The image of the clock outside my window is frozen, not the actual passage of events back on earth.

So why do we hold that when I return the time elapsed is different for Earthers than me?

Sorry for the dumb down in a smart thread, maybe someone can explain that for me...

reply to post by intrptr

Relativity (special, in this case) tell us that due both to your acceleration and your velocity time will flow at a slower rate for you because once you start accelerating away from Earth you are putting yourself into a different frame of reference.

From the point of view of us, left behind, you will age less. From your point of view, we will age more.

Meaning my time dialated and slowed my time relative only to me down.

Also time dialatikn is real and exactly measured in relation to gravity and velocity, it is even used by us todY, google gps and how it works, this will provide a better explanation than I probably can, I am not a very patient or apt teacher, I am the doing type.

reply to post by inverslyproportional


I don't have the patience either, or the energy to really detail what I want to get across. But, everytime the word 'time' is used in science I can just as easily replace it with 'energy slowing or speeding up'. Your explanation of GPS doesn't prove that 'time' is a tangible force when I can still say that the speed of the satellites is slowing down it's mechanisms that measure time.

I'll try this and see if it makes any sense:

We have trillions of very precise clocks in a warehouse. These clocks also keep track of the date. Don't ask me how but we manage to set the timers on the clocks so that they will all start running on January 1st at exactly 1 p.m. in the year 1,002,013.

Now, we run a string from planet earth to another planet that would take us a million years normal speed to get to. We use that million years to set the precision clocks ten feet apart all along that string.

CLICK! All of the clocks start running, so when the first clock on earth shows 10 a.m., we know that the last clock a million miles away is showing the exact same time.

Now, we jump in a rocket and fly at or near the speed of light right alongside the string of clocks. We look at the onboard clock and it shows we've been flying for ten minutes, but when we use our high powered camera and take a picture of the clocks on the string we find that 800,000 YEARS have gone by.

So, what would be the most logical explanation for the difference in the time shown on our onboard clock as opposed to the clocks just outside our rocket? That we altered time itself, or that the speed of the ship slowed down the energy that runs our onboard clock, along with the atoms that make up us and everything on the rocket?

In no way am I claiming to be right. I'm just saying that 'time' isn't even real. Speed is all about the increase and/or decrease of energy being used.

reply to post by jiggerj

So, what would be the most logical explanation for the difference in the time shown on our onboard clock as opposed to the clocks just outside our rocket?

That would depend upon what you base your logic. Basing it on personal experience is not valid in this case.

That we altered time itself, or that the speed of the ship slowed down the energy that runs our onboard clock, along with the atoms that make up us and everything on the rocket?

The "energy" that runs the clock is the frequency of vibration of atoms. That doesn't change a whole lot. But using your logic, why does a clock run faster when it is in orbit than it does on Earth surface? But when brought back to Earth it runs at the "normal" rate?

reply to post by swan001


First off swann, wanderful thought experiment, and very well thought out, sadly wrong though , sorry.

Same star same scenario, your first mistake was thinking somehow time dilation woukd care about the timing of the star, as if setting the clocks to it woukd stop it from happening, it would not.

What woukd happen is, when the ship began accelerating, and approached C, the world outside the window woukd speed up, as their time slowed down, their clock woild still tick the same rate, only the star would go faster and faster, jot stay at the same rate as the clock.

When the ships came back together and checked the clocks, the one that accelerated would be behind the one that stayed stationary, relative to the ship that accelerated.

Hope this helped, though if you woukd simply read up on the way gps works, and the fact that fime dilation had to be compensated for in the satellites or it woild not be possible for it to work, will explain all this very nicely.

Einstein didnt submit it as a theory because there was a chance it was wrong or somthing, he did it like that because everyone kust submit it as a theory, it isnt like I can introduce the law of anything, just because I want to, nor cannt make that distinction, onky the scientific community at large after my theory has been out through the ringer, can make that determination. This was your mistake, and is both born and evidenced by your lignorance of the scientifoc method.

Not trying to be down on you here, or even mean, I am just a direct person, that doesnt have time to pander to those who or are ignorant, and intentionally dont try to learn.

If the reason for this thread is for you to learn, I can give you a couple of very good rescources to think about for future reference. My fave is. Www.physlink.com, this place is amazing, and has many rescources for the learned and the learning alike. As well as links and scourxes to even more that isnt available there.

For future reference, if you want to put this to experts that you feel are better qualified to explain these things, than anons on a conspiracy site, they have an ask the experts section, with credentialled scientists in the particular field your asking about.

They also have a few tests you can take to see how your knowledge stacks up. Very sweet for us in the know to test our kmowledge base, and a great measure for areas you need more study in.

As far as your trying to push the limits, well gl and hapoy hunting, it cant hurt to try, but I assure you, many many many others have already said all your assertions before and they are always found wanting..............sorry bro.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


You got me, a random guy on a forum has it all down, and all the people that have spent entire lifetimes testing this never thought to try it with differnt types of time pieces, so it must be, somehow the clocks workings know it is not now stationary on the frojnd so they decide to work differently. Is that the response you want? It isnt correct, but I cant decide what you chose to believe.

As far as my quote you took out of contex, I was attempting to explain, as it seems to ke, you were implying that t. Clock being elecated changed its workings, not the fact it was farther from the source of fravity changing its time relative to the world around it.

As I have already stated, I am not a patient or apt teacher, I told you to read about gps, as it will gice yiu all the info you need, but since you didnt I cannot help you, as I am not patient, and quickly lose patience, especially when talking to a wall.

Well this thread seems to be well taken care of already.

Below contain my sentiments and also some of the 'proofs'

1) Science doesn't work by saying "Prove me wrong" then smiling with the idea that unless you personally can be convinced, then that makes your statements correct. It most certainly does not.
2) You cannot be against the mainstream and make big statements unless you have read and understood the evidence that you are against. There are some very very simple ideas that come up in physics that are simple but despite their simplicity are better and more convincing than the evidence put forward by many a against the mainstream scientific proponent.

Example

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

that one page gives some rather simple but nice evidence on where some of the 'number of active quarks and number of quark colours' comes from in a manner even a child understands.

So please sir, explain this data... in your model.

3) Galaxies move in all directions, the point is that distant galaxies seem to have a net redshift. No one ever said all galaxies are moving away from us. The objects in the local group certainly are not all redshifted as pointed out.

4) CERN doesnt 'pick up' signals from virtual particles that spontaneously come into existence because such an process of detection would be an example of violation of conservation of both energy and momentum. Virtual particles in vacuum are supposed to be manifestations of the energy-time uncertainty principle. Conservation of energy and momentum must be obeyed at all times also. The concept that you can some how detect these particles not only requires there to be matter, but also that the virtual particle interacts... this is were the statements "why arn't we detecting them all the time" invalid.

Example working... the W and Z bosons when produced in accelerators have a half-life typically of 10^-25s, at the speed of light this means the range is about a 0.3 Femto m, Can we direct image? well no, unless we can find an exotic device to measure such small ranges. (not sure one exists given its smaller than the size of an atom) If the particle moves slower... you have even less chance. Also, vacuum does not exist in the lab, and if you are to detect it directly you are requiring the virtual particle to be produced within an atom... sorry but... by my reckoning (maybe naive) that makes it impossible to 'prove' but very possible to say exactly why we dont see them... by the rules of the OP that is at least some 'proof' of why we do not see them and why not seeing them does not disprove the existence.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


Ok, I think I see your misunderstanding now, and so can give you a great answer which I think you are overlooking.

There is not ONE time Nd we are all in it, time is relative to each individual, we dont all share the same time, and neither do any 2 objects or bodies in different frames of reference. To an observer on the moon, 24 hours would still be exactly 24 hours, even though for an observer one earth your idea of 24 hours on the moon would be more like 23 hours and 59 minutes, the time dilation caused by the earths gravity is greater than that caused by the moon , since the moon only exerts 1/5 the earths gravity.

Just remeber, there is no one universal fits all time, it is differnt for every object not In the reference frame of the observer, any change in velocity or mass, changes time on a small scale at slow speeds and gravity, and larger scales at higher speeds and gravities. As every object will be moving slightly faster or slower, or be closer to or farther away from the gravity well than eachother, they will all suffer from different time flows, even though on the scale of everyday life on earth, this is so small, it is only noticeable at extreme precision measurments.

Hope that helped

Originally posted by Phage
But using your logic, why does a clock run faster when it is in orbit than it does on Earth surface?

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

I thought the clock ran slower in orbit? The faster the clock moves, the slower time goes, right?

But when brought back to Earth it runs at the "normal" rate?

Because speed is no longer affecting (slowing) the rate of which the energy is used to run the clock.