Well, well, well. I see the great physicist Yuriy not only can't defend relativity he doesn't even know highschool physics. Funny he has no fancy formulas and numbers to throw around and quote. Pendulum: T = 2 * Pi (L/g)<sup>1/2</sup> Where T is period of the pendulum, L is length of the pendulum and g is the gravitational acceleration. It really doesn't take much to see that, knowing that the gravity force at Death valley is higher than the gravity force in Denver, making g smaller at higher altitude, T gets larger (Hint:The clock slows down). GPS clocks speed up. So how is it that GR is changing time? It isn't is it? It has affected only a process not time. Clocks are process and do not measure time. At best clocks only sub-divide time intervals. The rate of such subdivision is a process and would not alter the core property of time itself. Your are only affecting your measurement scale, changing the hands on the clock, not time itself. See how simple the world really is when you pull your head out of the sand. If atomic clocks increase and granfather clocks decrease. I suspect without much effort I can design a clock which would be neutral to you GR and show no time change what so ever. Come on Yuriy. I told you, you lack the moxy to undue me. Call me whatever you want. I am smarter than you and I know that hurts. So when you trash me guess what that is doing to yourself.
I have never said any such thing. I said LR was initially an ether based theory. But I have also said the concept of properties of an ether have changed since the theory was first developed. Now where in there have I stated I believed ether was resting and filling anything. Those are your words not mine. Certainly according to Lorentz Relativity, further there are currently hundreds of such observations in the universe Which have not yet been found any resolution. that means we may in fact actually be seeing exactly tht. Note such morion is proper motion and not line of sight illusions which studies show only covers about 1/2 % of such observations. You are babbeling here. I correctly said v = > c is not prohibited by Lorentz Relativity. That naturally means the Velocity Addition Formula must be false. The VAF is an SRT mathematical feature. I don't care what mathematical manipulations yougo throught to develope it for Relativity. LR has no such arbitrary mathematical limit. Try sticking to the facts and don't call in features of SR to claim to disprove LR. Stick around Yuriy. You might actually find me in error on something one day but one thing for sure it will not be a lie. You might also start to learn something and actually start to think. Now wouldn't that be a surprise. This is not Russia. We have freedom of speech here (BTW: It doesn't cover slander and libel). Just be prepared to have your false assertions crammed right backdown your throat. You have yet to post any legitimate objection to anything in this thread. Now does a grandfather clock speed up or slow down at higher altitude. _________________ Your answer here. Does an Atomic clock speed up or slow down at higher altitude? __________________Your answer here. When you finish answering my question you can then write a brief explanation exactly how it is that GR has affected time. We look forward to your thesis.
Encyclopedia:"General Relativity (GR) predicts a time delay which becomes progessively larger when the photon passes nearer to the Sun. Observing radar reflections from a planet just before and after it will be eclipsed by the Sun, shows this effect." "GR does not affect time" is lie. Only stupid one can say:"I suspect without much effort I can design a clock which would be neutral to you GR and show no time change what so ever."
Just a question, Yuriy. Would a light clock run faster in a location with less gravity compared to a location with higher gravity?
I do fully agree with you, Yuriy. Thanks. EDIT: I just thought I should add: I am not fully convinced of the truthfullness of the equivalence principle, but I will keep trying to learn more to add to my meager knowledge.
I really can't play here because I have not studied enough physics but I have a question for you guys. I stumbled across articles saying the GPS calibration was disproving the theory of a constant speed of light. The articles hurt my head and I have no opinion whether they are right or not; but they brought me back to another question that I had earlier and never saw a decent answer for: What the hell is blue shifted light if it is not normal light moving at faster than the speed of light?
Is this gravitational redshift you mention non-relativistic? If so, how is it calculated? And why does it occur? Please explain. In what sense? Link to evidence for this statement, please. SR works fine referenced to the Earth's axis (if you like). And if you take your GF clock into space, it stops working completely. What does that tell us? That time doesn't exist any more? No, MacM. This has nothing to do with GR. It has to do with how the mechanism of the GF clock works. It is referenced to the local gravitational field strength. On the other hand, an atomic clock is independent of the gravitational field, so it operates correctly with altitude change, whereas the GF clock does not. The only reason one would build a clock is to measure time. Some clocks measure it more accurately than others, and so they are better clocks. Your clocks whose processes are easily affected by extraneous influences are simply not good clocks. Why aren't they good? Because they don't measure time very well. The best clocks are the ones which do not measure processes + time, but just time alone. *yawn* Another useless fiat declaration.
I really do not understand your post. Where have I ever said the redshift was not relavistic. I haven't. Indeed I state clearly just the opposite. As to how it is calculated. That is also specified and you probably know without even having to explore and retrive such information, where I would be forced to go find validation for the process. Since I have never claimed it was not relavistic I see no reason to be sent on another wild goose chase on the issue. If you disagree that the affect occurs or with the purpose of function of such adjustment as stated in the Official Calibration link then perhaps there is an issue to discuss but that then becomes your liability to show their error and not my responsibility to validate their stated process. James R, I have recently told you I am through being chased around retriving material which in this case particularily has been already specifically cited and referenced. It is already in my post by Page and Paragraph of the official GPS links cited. Let me suggest you simply click on those referances and read the official presentation regarding that issue. But for general description purposes, the GPS system uses precalculated affects to offset relavistic affects which require consideration (which doesn't include relative velocity between clocks) to synchronize clocks, eliminating "Relativity of Simultaneity" from the system. Gee where have I heard of that technique before. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Thought I was told that is impossible. In any case the result of that is the UTC or "Coordinated Universal Time" system as officialy described and employed by GPS. It should be noted that the GPS orbit clock is very much an example of my "B's" "A" monitor clock in the two clock time dilation series of discussion. Simple. The system is based on ECI. An arbitrary inertial referance to the axis of the earth and not to the actual earth bound surface clock where there is relative motion between the clocks in consideration. The reason being that there is no observed affect from that relationship and hence no requirement to make any allowance or adjustment for such an affect. The system used (an LR principle, not SR principle) is based on, and it is shown that the reciprocity created in the SRT view doesn't exist in reality and it is inapproriate to create it artifically by using the SR relationship between clocks. That is the orbit clock does not see the earth clock runnning slower due to relative velocity. There are no relative velocity between clocks calculations or adjustments, yet the clocks operate in unison, perfectly timed just as I have claimed they should be in my analysis of such relationships where I synchronized clocks using timers and shifted calibration techniques to show that fact. Your request is bogus. They most certainly do not make a presentation of GPS as a challenge to Relativity. They infact mention Relativity at every opportunity. But the fact that the descriptions of what adjustments they are making and why leaves out any consideration of the SRT view of relative motion between clocks. The system operates, and is so stated, by creating a theoretical clock at the pole of earth. The ECI referance point. And then operating the entire system on Universal Time. Where SR rejects any concept of a preferred referance frame and requires reciprocity such that we could consider the orbit clock at rest and the earth and hence earth clock as in motion; which would require that the velocity component calibration be reversed (and the system would fail), the proceedure used assumes the LR concept of using a preferred frame and where no reciprocity can be considered. It just happens that the LR view works and fits observation, the SR view of no preferred frame fails. Simple as that. There is no evidence of the SR "No preferred frame" view in the GPS system. If SR were a physically required and valid view the GPSystem (using only LR) would not work. Not only is the SR view of no preferred frames but recipocally equivelent frames not required in reality, any attempt to employ that view in the calibration and operation of such a system would cause the system to fail. I don't know how much more clear the issue can be made. One does not need to stand up and scream SRT is false. They simply ignore the referance frame used in SRT with respect to relative motion between observers. That is let Relativity slip silently into the night and not make an issue of the observed physical realities discovered by operating the system. You bet. And that is the point SR and LR mathematics are virtually identical. So while you can say SR is being used and works you are trying to sweep the issue under the rug. The fact is the relativity being used is LR not SR because of the deliberate selection of a preferred frame of operation wherein the reciprocity mandated by SR using "No preferred frame" would require that earth clocks be seen running slow from the orbit clocks view. Since that SR affect is not calibrated for, nor compensated for in any way and is not seen, the SR view that this must occur is invalid. That makes LR valid and SR invalid. Both LR and SR use the same (1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>(<sup>1/2</sup> formula but the differance in the theories is the predictions of the affects on clocks. LR says the earth clock is not going to run slower because relativity requires a preferred frame and the affect becomes unidirectional. SR requires reciprocity where both clocks slow equally based on observer view. The view from the GPS system show that the SR prediction of the earth clock running slow from the orbit clock view does not occur. It tells us just exactly what I have said "Clocks" do not measure time. they sub-divide a time interval as a mechanism process. Relativity affects the process of measure and not the underlying time. It is nothing more than when my batteries get low and my timex looses time, to understand I am not aging any differently. That is a wholly unjustified position. You cannot assume the atomic clock is operating correctly. You can only show that it's process is affected by gravity. You have not shown that that in any way represents an alteration of time. And you of course are prepared to show conclusively just how exactly your clock is such a clock and that its tick rate is based on real time and that the ouside enfluence of gravity is changing time and not the ticking process of the clock. Sorry you are a joke here James R. This portion of your challenge ignores completely the findings of the LR vs SR dispute. GPS operates on LR and would fail on SR. The question of if LR shows actual time change is still in question. But if it does. I most certainly am prepared (and have historically agreed) to accept that it does. i.e. - I have said and repeat here that under LR conditions time dilation may be real. Aging may be affected. That however remains unproven. That aslo means the Velocity Addition Formula and the prohibitions on v = > c is void. I am in agreement to accept Lorentzian Relativty and have always been. But not SR and that position is supported by how the GPS functions. Unfortunately this response shows your lack of scientifc judgement and not mine.
by James R: "On the other hand, an atomic clock is independent of the gravitational field, so it operates correctly with altitude change, whereas the GF clock does not." ============================================================= That statement sounds a little confusing, James R, are you trying to say the clock is independent of the gravitational field, but time is not? Why would the clock speed up if it is independent of the gravitational field? How would the clock know 'time' had changed in the gravitational field?
OK, Yuriy, so the light clock runs faster in lower gravity and slower in high gravity. Light clocks measure the speed of light, correct? Is that why a black hole emits no light, because the gravity is so high that light no longer travels?
The issue here is really quite simple. It is only the desire of some to dodge the bullet that it is being subjected to so much diversion. The issue of clocks being affected by relativity goes unchallenged. The fact that GPS clocks are precalibrated for certain relavistic affects goes unchallenged. What the issue is about is the false claim that GPS clocks prove or even use SRT in their operation. They do not. That is absolutely clear by definition. SR prohibits preferred referance frames and a system of relative velocity between observers is the result. That causes whatever affects one observer must also affect the other observer when you switch frames of observation. i.e. - Both clocks may be seen to run slow or become dilated as a matter of the observers perspective. That as I have maintained creates physical impossibilities, which others here try to hide claiming that it is only counter intuitive and that the problem is my and others that agree with me, including some very intelligent scientist, is our ignorance and lack of understanding of Relativity. Well, nice bases to hide behind perhaps but certainly not a scientific response to the challenges being made. Now cutting through all that and getting down to the facts. LR uses the same mathematical formula (actually it is more appropriate to say it the other way around. Einstien took Lorentz mathematics and has used them in his version of Relativity.) LR is based on preferred frames. That is you can no longer claim either observer may be at rest. One is at rest and the other is in motion. That result in simular affects of SR; however, the advantage is it doesn't allow for the reversability of the affect. You can no longer claim that i.e. - the clock in orbit sees the earth clock run slow. FACTS: 1 - GPS uses a preferred frame of view and does not uses the earth clock as its reference frame. It uses ECI or the axis of the earth as its referance. Relative velocity between the clocks is not a consideration. That makes it an LR system not SR system, even though some of the same mathematics may be seen. There remain several very important differences however, 2 - Because it is based on the LR choices of frames you can no longer claim the earth clock runs slow from the orbits view. 3 - The fact that the orbit clock in GPS does not see the earth clock run slow means the SR predicted affect is not real. 4 - In LR there is no arbitrary v = > c limit. 5 - #4 means Velocity Addition Formula develped by Einstien does not apply to the real universe. Now for a change it would be nice to see Relativists here start from the top and show in any fashion that GPS does not operate on LR principles by its assumption of an absolute preferred referance frame. We can then go from there.
Dear 2inquisitive, 1."Light clocks measure the speed of light, correct?" If they are "clocks" they measure the time flow, not a speed of anything. If they are measuring speed of light, why you call them "clocks"? 2. "Is that why a black hole emits no light, because the gravity is so high that light no longer travels?" Gravity affects not time , or space: gravity affects space-time continuum's metrics. Therefore, all effects that are defined by metrics will suffer changes. In black holes the metrics is so changed that space-time continuum does not contain world lines comming out of that black holes, only comming in it. That absolutely does not mean that something stopes moving, or reaches c, or any other stupid phenomena that are prohibited in our World outside black holes. That is it. Is it "imaginable" or it is out of "common sense", etc - it does not matter, because if black holes exist, they will be described as GRT says. The problem is GRT does not answers on quastion: "Do black holes exist?" That is matter of experiment, the Nature should tell us do they exist or do not. Many believe that Nature does, personally I do not see any unavoidable proof. Let us wait till we will get such a proof...
(1) Yuriy, I am referring to a light clock as used in Special Relativity exercises. It uses the time light takes to cross a certain number of meters to define the second or fraction thereof. Remember, the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per SECOND. When you say a light clock runs faster in lower gravity locations than it does in higher gravity locations, I see that as proof that the speed of light varies according to its location in the universe, its location in different gravity fields. Do you still agree that a light clock runs faster in lower gravity areas? EDIT: left out a word
And none of what you said, or your links said, actualyl says anything relevant. The GPS clocks are precalibrated due to relativity calculations. The GPS clocks function as expected. This is evidence that the equations work. The rest of your post is yet again complaining about the twin paradox, although I doubt you even realize it. And? Why do you consider this a problem? This in and of itself would not make an LR system. There is this thing called negligable error. You may want to investigate it. Yet again you are arguing against hundreds of experiments... without any hint of proof on your side.
You see, contrary to Relativity theory, I think gravity is the key to the universe, not light. A photon or EM wave is a vibration or 'wave' propagating through the gravitational field, varying in speed according to the intensity of the field. Newton's inverse square law calculates this intensity. A simple fairytale according to Einstein. But I do not believe Einstein got it right. Just my humble, uneducated opinion, but the GPS data led me to such thoughts in the first place.
2inquisitive, it would be a very strange clocks. I never read any serious research on SRT based upon such measurement of time. Especially in GRT, where base of length and world line of light would change under action of gravity. Or in some media, where speed of light is different than c. But anyway, if they indeed are measuring the real time, the gravity will act on them as GRT says.
In my simple little hypothesis, light would slow slightly as it traveled through an increasingly more intense gravitational field near the surface of the Earth, not because it was absorbed and re-emitted as it traveled throught the atmosphere. No problems to explain why light is not 'shifted' as it travels a moving atmosphere, such as high wind velocity, only refraction effects would be seen. In fact, all particles would 'vibrate' faster in lower gravity increasing aging, and vibrate slower in higher gravitational fields decreasing aging and slowing atomic clock rates also. The understanding of physics might have to change just a wee bit to accept my little hypothesis though, huh? I'm holding my breath.
