There cannot be an infinite amount of time between two points in time.

I was responding to your exact words, and saying my impression of them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, I can't imagine how you could have been any more wrong unless you thought you saw a Shakesepeare sonnet in there! You also bulk-quoted, so I don't know what part, exactly, you thought you saw that in.

In any case, I ask again: do you have any intention of addressing the questions/concerns I raised? Ya know, the things in my post that you know are important because I bolded them?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you don't know the term "hypersurface", unless you know it in another language, then you really shouldn't be doing this kind of physics; it's that simple. You should find it in any textbook on the subject.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My point was that the term is theory specific. I wanted to get the specific theory you were invoking. Then I could tell where you were coming from in the light of the observational facts I am discussing. Generally accepted observations and data are the same for all theories.

 

I quoted the line I was responding to when I said that.

I guess I didn't share your opinion of what was important. If you want, take this opportunity to say which of the bolded parts you feel is so important to the thread.

 

You mean this:

Nowhere in that statement is a claim about the absolute-ness of science. Sounds like you are looking to attack science rather than addressing the particular theory. I will say, though, that as theories go, that one is pretty solid. So you will need to present a good argument if that's what you intend this thread to be addressing.

Then tell me what you think was important! I asked you to state, clearly, the thesis of the thread! You recognize that your OP was unclear: FIX IT!

Huh? My post had two fully bolded sentences in it. You can't even address them both -- you want me to pick one? It looks to me like you've given up and switched to trolling. What you said before was a version of the Crackpot Battle Cry: "Science is dogmatic! If you were more open-minded, you'd agree with me!" Typically, switching to that mode indicates you've given-up actually trying to argue your point, which in turn means I probably hit the nail on the head as to what your point was -- you just don't want to discuss it anymore.

 

Perhaps I should have bolded this in the several places I said it:

In regard to the OP, if we agree that it is factual that there is an observed variance to time measurements by clocks in relative motion, then the next step, which I first mentioned in post #10, and several times thereafter, was to ask what we know physically about why that is.

I'll keep my eye on the thread, and respond to any posts that address that stated purpose.

 

the simplist answer is there is no edge, distant d, from a gravity source where 1/d^2 is zero. I.e. any clock in the universe is in at least a weak gravity field and the local gravity slows the clock rate of "ticking." You replied to all recent posts but mine. Why? It is at: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/th...two-points-in-time.143419/page-2#post-3254967 I didn't intended to offend. Just your posts/ POV / needed some corrections or at least critical comments.

 

Thanks, that is true. What about the "how" of clocks slowing down or speeding up relative to each other? Is that something we just don't know yet? Any thoughts?

See post #38.

 

Special Relativity has many confirmations. I mentioned one* of the first - increase of mass seen in Lawrence's early cyclotron. The force bending the trajectory of the charged particle into a circle goes as vB (and other factors not important here as charge is invariant with speed) - the product of velocity and magnetic field strength.

The acceleration towards the center goes as mv^2/ r but the radius r remained constant after the initial "spiraling out" as B was in creased. The B required if mass remained constant goes as v is linear in v. but that v ceases to significant increase as v approaches C, the speed of light. Yet Lawrence observed that the B required to keep the charged particle going around at radius r continued to increase (each time it passed thru the RF field in the small gap between his two hollow "D-shaped" chambers).

I.e. vB proportional to mv^2 /r or B proportional to mv for the constant circle size would be come B proportional to C, a constant, if the mass m were not increasing but he needed to keep increasing the B linearly with the energy gain of the particle confirming E = mc^2.

* Back in2005 with full details in reply to an "SR doubter" here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/th...prepair-its-funeral.47887/page-21#post-860253

 

As per previous comments, you said so many things that seemed like they were important (otherwise, why even say them?), but again, clocks measure time so if clocks record different times, it means different times passed for them.

As with the first part of your OP, that issue is straightforward and has little connection to what you spent most of the OP discussing. At this point, you are dodging your own post!

Restated:

As said/as per Relativity, clocks don't speed up or slow down, time does (or, rather, is frame dependent). It isn't a "we don't know yet" situation: we do know (to a high degree of scientific certainty) - that your premise is flawed.

 

It's called, "geometry".

 

I had missed 38 so went and looked. It seems I missed post 39 too, which was:

Here in post 39 Russ Waters also tells arfa brain of his confusion, but that was redundant as In post 32 I had already said:

" Many do confuse time with clocks. For example from post 30:
arfa brane in post 30 said: "... No, because we have to measure time in discrete intervals, we require a clock and we can't construct a clock that measures infinitely small intervals.
Billy T's argument is flawed because you can't divide a single wavelength (the clock base) and still have discrete intervals; you need a large enough part of each single wave in the periodic waveform (whatever it is) that you have a transition. Ergo, all clocks are digital."

Billy T in post 32: "Yes clocks are digital but time is not. Even Newton knew that. He clearly stated that the "t" in his equations was NOT the same as any thing indicted by a clock, not even the astronomical clock, we say gives "sidereal time" but an "absolute mathematic time" (I can dig up a quote) Or in modern terminology, a mathematical parameter that is not digital, but analogue.
To summarize: I was not dividing a single wave length of an atomic clock, but a continuous analogue time interval."

 

Quantum Wave isn't really interested in physics beyond his own irrelevant musings on reality. This might be interesting to you. The following is the first component of the metric.

dTau^2 = (1-2M/r)dt^2
Or
dTau = (1-2M/r)^1/2 dt

dTau is the proper tick rate in the local proper frame with coordinates 2M/r_shell and dt is the bookkeeper tick rate at boundary. Far away at rest in flat spacetime. A boundary condition associated with Schwarzschild coordinates. At boundary is where the proper tick rate is 1 which is the maximal tick rate on the spacetime manifold. If you want to compare the local proper tick rates between different coordinates on the spacetime manifold [the entire weak field and strong field universe] then you can do this.

dTau1/dTau2 = (1-2M/r1)^1/2 / (1-2M/r2)^1/2

In the weak field universe r is very large [far away] from M so the value 1-2M/r is essentially 1. So the tick ratio dTau1/dTau2 is essentially 1 to some infinitesimal such as the delta associated with clock tick rates for the GPS. This becomes an interesting way to look at the spacetime curvature in local proper frames. In the weak field local proper frames are essentially flat over large segments of an objects natural path and even in the strongest field around black holes there are segments of the path which are flat. Those segments are equivalent to a segment found at boundary. If you use the logic path you can use this as a proof that the local speed of light doesn't vary over natural paths in the universe. Also the frame dependent remote coordinate speed of light doesn't vary from the local speed of light until the the r becomes much smaller 2M/r_small. However large the segment is determines how large the local proper laboratory frame can be before the effects of gravity need to be accounted for in most experiments. The GPS is such an interesting experiment because we have to account for the infinitesimal deltas between the satellite and earth clocks since light travels ~ 1/3 meter per nano tick. So the average tick rate in the universe is 1. LOL.

 

Bruce, quick clarifications;
-When you say "essentially 1", that's still microseconds per day, on a similar order of magnitude as GPS corrections, right?

-It all depends on where the reference clock is located and how the other clocks are distributed. If "they" decide to locate the reference clock hovering just above a black hole, the "average tick rate" of the other clocks will be much, much faster.

 

For the GPS the correction is 4.4453E-10 second which equals ~ 38,407 nanosecond per day. I call that an infinitesimal. That's what I mean by essentially 1. Probably could be stated in a clearer fashion.

 

Yes it does. In a couple of posts now I have suggested that at some distance from earth the gravitational slowing can equal the velocity of orbit slowing so one can defined a second meaning to "geosynchronous orbit" that has nothing to do with Earth's spin rate. At GPS distance the gravitational effect it greater than the orbit velocity effect so GPS clocks run fasters than earth clocks do. (Both are slowed but gravity slows more than GPS orbit speed does.)

For example (just a guess) a clock on the moon in much weaker gravity might not be slowed as much as GPS orbit clock is. I'm too lazy to see if this "2nd "geosynchronous orbit" is a real possibility by calculation.

 

Yes, it does seem that there must be such an orbit. Consider the following three scenarios:

One extreme:
A clock orbiting just above the surface of the earth would be moving very fast relative to a clock sitting on the surface of the earth. Yet both clocks would be at about the same place in the gravity field, so the orbiting clock would clearly be MORE time dilated than the clock sitting on the surface.

Other extreme:
A clock orbiting extremely high above the surface of the earth would be moving very slowly relative to a clock sitting on the surface of the earth. Yet the orbiting clock would be much higher in the gravity field, so the orbiting clock would clearly be LESS time dilated than the clock sitting on the surface.

Somewhere in between:
So there must be someplace in between those two extremes where the clocks would tick at the SAME rate. Note that I am only considering the gravity of the earth, not the moon, etc., and I am neglecting the rotation of the earth for the clock on the surface (as if it is sitting on one of the poles).

 

Oh great, just what we need. Another crank.

See Zeno's paradox, then see if you can catch up.

No, wrong question. So you don't know what a differential is. Farsight? RealityCheck? I smell a SPAZ attack coming on.

Are you claiming knowledge of physics? Because you just flunked the math section of the entrance exam.

I already stated Zeno's paradox. Who you clowning, bro?

First learn Zeno's paradox, then pass the SATs, then you can worry about your faculty duties much much later. Small bites first sonny boy.

Well isn't that just remarkably idiotic.

Correction: science and math are beyond the cranks, because they flunked out. So who cares about about their opinions, and why the hell are they trolling here?

All you bums need to go find some other site that will rub your noses in your mess. I mean, since you crave the disciplining so much.

 

Gawd.