It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# Opposing Mainstream Physics - Swan001 (opposition) vs ATS

page: 9
14
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 05:58 PM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
No, it does not, according to special relativity. This may seem somewhat bizarre, but infact the cardinal ordering of events doesn't necessarily remain the same, unless there is some causality link between them. In the case of a car crash in London and one in New York, the ordering of these events may depend on your frame of reference:

You don't seem to be following. That's not what is being stated by me in any way, shape or form.

It's the cardinality of events within a single entity, not in the entire universe of all entities. You are trying to overgeneralize it in order to make a point that you don't have.

If you had taken a moment to think about it instead of trying to attack me, you may have realized that.

I'm not the enemy here. Take a moment, breathe, think, then perhaps you will have the "aha" moment and appreciate what you have stumbled upon.

posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 06:04 PM

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation

I see a distinction without a difference. I don't think time is something that CAN be.measured. The passing of time is all we can measure. An improperly calibrated clock does not indicate a change in time anymore than turning a clock back is time travel.

Think of it as "what is being measured". You are measuring the passage of cycles between one cardinal occurrence involving a singularity and an other cardinal occurrence involving a singularity. The occurrences themselves determine time, the counting of the cycles measures the time, or the passage of time.

I probably should have paid more attention to the discussion going on before interjecting as my interjection seems to have been taken out of context and applied to other concepts that were being discussed that it isn't associated with.

It's a bit of a tangent to the conversation yet still applicable to the general subject area, if that is helpful in any way in disentangling the concept that I'm offering up.

posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 06:14 PM

No sorry, mistype on my part, still getting used to this phone, its predictive text messes me up a lot, its why my posts are so full of misspellings ane the like, I keep having to delete and fix, and then I just give up and let it fly..

It should have read infinitely scaled. As in no upward or downward limits, as far as micro to quatum, and micro to macro are concerned.

As it appears that, anecdotal eveidence, points to this at present, but it is stilk an unknown, we justbarent there yet, maybe in another 100 years, those on ats on the quantum net will be mental melding this with eachother, and wandering how we ever got by without tuis common knowledge.

At present though, it is all conjecture, and not a lot of facts, as this is all relatively new still, and questions about it are just now being addressed by the mainstream science community. Time will tell, sadly I dont think most of us will be around to find out.

posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 06:17 PM

It's not "time" that's changing, it's the "passage of time" that is changing.

In what way is the passage of time changing? Can you give an example to help me understand exactly what you're saying?

posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 06:27 PM

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation

I see a distinction without a difference. I don't think time is something that CAN be.measured. The passing of time is all we can measure. An improperly calibrated clock does not indicate a change in time anymore than turning a clock back is time travel.

Holy cow, we have done went and did it now, you are a scary fast learner. And correct, very nice.

Also of note, is somthing kinda weird associated with this, for example rain drops condense and fall to the ground, but there is nothing that says they couldnt rise from the ground to the sky then disperse, it just doesnt happen that way, we are not sure why yet, but it is perfectly within the laws we kjow and understand at present for this to be able to happen, as both take the same amount of time energy and material to happen. Both are equally likely, but one always happens and the other doesnt for some reason, we arent sure why yet, but we are learning fast.

posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 06:30 PM

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation

It's not "time" that's changing, it's the "passage of time" that is changing.

In what way is the passage of time changing? Can you give an example to help me understand exactly what you're saying?

Sure, just as Phage stated with the light entering the black hole, the light doesn't speed up, the measurement of the light changes, it changes in wavelength. The passage of the light changes, not the amount of energy, just the measurement of it.

Think of the classic thought experiment of relativity. A person is on a vessel moving at the speed of light and he moves while on the vessel. Relative to the vessel, his speed can be calculated (by measuring the passage of time as he moves from one place to another) and he has a velocity. However, someone who isn't on the vessel may see him as moving faster than the speed of light even though he isn't relative to his location, he's just leisurely strolling. The passage of time is how his velocity is measured. For the person observing, that time is absolutely miniscule although for him, that time may be several seconds (the passage of time that is).

When we discuss "time", we don't really discuss time at all, we discuss the passage of time, the measurement of it.

I can see a change taking place in the theoretical physics world where time itself (in the ordinal sense), as opposed to the passage of it or the measurement of it, will be concentrated on more. Those who are able to grasp the concept now will be able to much more quickly gain the understanding needed for the conversations that are to come.

It seems I went a bit tangential before everyone was ready for the tangent and it's being tied back to previous points made by various posters. I should have clarified a little better to have prevented that from happening, but, alas, I cannot travel through the passage of time in reverse order.... just yet

posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 06:31 PM

Originally posted by kthxbai
I'm not the enemy here.
Here is what you said:

Time doesn't change, the perception of (or measurement of) time can vary
DenyObfuscation was asking if different time measurement (say in GPS satellites was one topic) could be a measurement issue due to the calibration of the clocks. I have been trying to explain that it's not a measurement issue, but time is actually slower on the Earth clocks than in the GPS clocks, yet the above statement by you seems to contradict what I've been saying. So I wouldn't use the word "enemy", but you have chosen to express a distinction contrary to my claim there isn't one. I can hardly say you're agreeing with me when you say something that's the opposite of the point I've been trying to make, and there was already enough confusion about this already.

Originally posted by kthxbai
I probably should have paid more attention to the discussion going on before interjecting as my interjection seems to have been taken out of context and applied to other concepts that were being discussed that it isn't associated with.

posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 06:34 PM

Holy cow, we have done went and did it now, you are a scary fast learner. And correct, very nice.

I thought the post you're referring to is consistent with what I've been trying to say in this thread since my initial question.

As far as gravity is concerned aren't raindrops quite a bit heavier than vapor?

posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 06:36 PM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by kthxbai
I'm not the enemy here.
Here is what you said:

Time doesn't change, the perception of (or measurement of) time can vary
DenyObfuscation was asking if different time measurement (say in GPS satellites was one topic) could be a measurement issue due to the calibration of the clocks. I have been trying to explain that it's not a measurement issue, but time is actually slower on the Earth clocks than in the GPS clocks, yet the above statement by you seems to contradict what I've been saying. So I wouldn't use the word "enemy", but you have chosen to express a distinction contrary to my claim there isn't one. I can hardly say you're agreeing with me when you say something that's the opposite of the point I've been trying to make, and there was already enough confusion about this already.

Originally posted by kthxbai
I probably should have paid more attention to the discussion going on before interjecting as my interjection seems to have been taken out of context and applied to other concepts that were being discussed that it isn't associated with.

Actually, I didn't read your posts, so it had nothing at all to do with anything you were saying.
I didn't say I was agreeing with you, I merely stated I wasn't the enemy. I haven't read your posts other than those that were directed at and attacking of me, so it really had nothing to do with what you were talking about.

Several conversations can exist at a single time in a given thread, it's not linear at all. In fact, those are the best conversations that can be had at times, and sometimes they may overlap, but they don't have to.

You have taken my post out of context and applied it toward your own conversation and it really didn't apply to whatever you may have been talking about.

... I forgive you.

posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 07:31 PM

I need to slow things down to manageable speeds if you don't mind.

Let's look at the clocks on GPS sats. I understand they must be calibrated to keep time with "earthtime". They will be inaccurate on the ground. My belief is they are affected mechanically by gravity and their velocity within the effects of Earth's gravity and this must be accounted for, I get that. What I can't understand is how this is viewed as a change in the rate of time when for example it still takes one year for the sats to make one trip around the Sun. The sat transmits data for one year during that time regardless of the accuracy of the clock.

To me it seems the only issue is calibration for the purpose of synchronized communication necessitated by the conditions in which the sat is operating. Nothing to do with time itself or the rate of passage of time. These clocks seem to be extremely sensitive to altitude and motion. If this can affect them as Arb pointed out,

In a series of experiments described in the September 24 issue of Science, researchers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in Boulder, Colo., registered differences in the passage of time between two high-precision optical atomic clocks when one was elevated by just a third of a meter or when one was set in motion at speeds of less than 10 meters per second.

www.scientificamerican.com...

Then I sincerely ask, were these clocks in a different frame of reference from each other? Is that what this comes down to? It seems reasonable to me that launching these clocks into orbit is just an exaggeration of this effect.

posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 07:59 PM

My belief is they are affected mechanically
The clocks are not mechanical. The prelaunch adjustments made to them are accurate because the calculations used rely on relativity. If other effects were at play the accuracy would not be as high as it is.

Then I sincerely ask, were these clocks in a different frame of reference from each other?
Yes.

It seems reasonable to me that launching these clocks into orbit is just an exaggeration of this effect.
Yes.

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

posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 08:24 PM
"Time.... is but a perception created from the limitations of the human brain... and nothing more." ~ CranialSponge

Who needs mathematical equation when you've got a philosophical statement that sums it all up into one concise little crux, erasing all the theoretical chaos and confusion in one fell swoop ?

posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 08:30 PM

Originally posted by kthxbai

Sure, just as Phage stated with the light entering the black hole, the light doesn't speed up, the measurement of the light changes, it changes in wavelength. The passage of the light changes, not the amount of energy, just the measurement of it.

No, no, the energy changes, thus the change in wavelength and frequency. What it can't do is go faster. The energy of the photons in the light is "h nu". As the energy goes up, h is constant, so nu goes up and lambda goes down, and Bob's your uncle. The light is gaining energy as it falls into the hole from the gravitational potential.

posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 08:31 PM

Originally posted by CranialSponge

Who needs mathematical equation when you've got a philosophical statement that sums it all up into one concise little crux, erasing all the theoretical chaos and confusion in one fell swoop ?

posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 08:35 PM

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
. What I can't understand is how this is viewed as a change in the rate of time when for example it still takes one year for the sats to make one trip around the Sun. The sat transmits data for one year during that time regardless of the accuracy of the clock.

It would help maybe to get more into the purpose of calibration on the GPS, is this to send signals at specific times in specific directions? Which has to do with clocks aboard the satellite being equal to earth time?

The reason the Year is not important, is because im sure these clocks are accurate to the second and beyond, so in the course of a year if there is a difference in the time running of the clocks, ya know a year is a long time, milliseconds can add up. So is it thought that the clock on the satellite (if not accounted for) is different, because of its velocity?

A unrelated question... If you were on a space ship traveling a constant velocity in space, and the space ship started slowly accelerated, but at a consistent pace and did so until it was traveling many times faster then the starting velocity, would a passenger experience this constant increase in force or be able to tell the increase in velocity, if it was so incrementally tiny that the next velocity up would immediately be the constant velocity and so on (compared to warp speed constant velocity to many times that in 10 seconds)? if they were not strapped in would they be attracted to the back of the ship? if there were 3 passengers one at the back, one at front, one in middle of the ship would they feel the same amount of force? I think Einstein once compared the force of gravity to acceleration or a mass acceleration (I know classical force F=ma) So can the earth be imagined like that space ship constantly accelerating and we are all just being stuck to the back?

posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 08:41 PM

Originally posted by kthxbai
You have taken my post out of context and applied it toward your own conversation and it really didn't apply to whatever you may have been talking about.
Frankly I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make between time, the passage of time, and the measurement of time using atomic clocks in ANY context.

posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 08:44 PM

The clocks are not mechanical.

Noted but what would the correct word be?

The prelaunch adjustments made to them are accurate because the calculations used rely on relativity. If other effects were at play the accuracy would not be as high as it is.

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.

What do you believe to be the best definition for frame of reference? What I've read hasn't seemed to help so far.

posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 08:55 PM

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by CranialSponge

Who needs mathematical equation when you've got a philosophical statement that sums it all up into one concise little crux, erasing all the theoretical chaos and confusion in one fell swoop ?

I think you completely missed the entire point of the quote...

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.

posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 09:01 PM

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by CranialSponge

Who needs mathematical equation when you've got a philosophical statement that sums it all up into one concise little crux, erasing all the theoretical chaos and confusion in one fell swoop ?

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?

posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 09:06 PM

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.

new topics

top topics

14