US $50,000.00 To a Relativist Proving this Challenge Invalid!

Check this out (from the site):

You cannot go from 2x=x to 2=1 since dividing by x is dividing by zero (as 2x-x=0, x=0) and results in zero over zero.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

acho que tem a ver com a deformacao do espaco

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Quantum Quack,

In my opinion, time is always constant and is never relative. Let's not forget that clocks do not measure time, they only measure the speed of specific physical reactions. If there are specific physical reactions that are inert, or completed isolated, from other internal or external interactions, then a clock measuring those reactions can also be said to be measuring time. However, how can anyone say that a specific physical reaction is not being influenced by internal or external forces? For example, can anyone really say that none of the physical or electrical components of an atomic clock which is travelling through a gravitational field are not influenced by that field?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

idiot,

hvelapery sheidzleba!

 

MacM hasn't commented on his work.

See you are indeed wrong again.

Now go collect your $50K.

 

MacM I found someone who said he was wrong. Of course he was on a different forum. Here is a link to A thread I posted on another forum read what they said.

I go by the name Abstruse there.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=57763

They moved the thread to Debunking but I originally posted it in the general physics part of the forum and then they locked it. So it sure looks like some scientists are very quick to reject new ideas and they are quick to label people as heretics.

 

We have proven that Gravity as we know it will influence an Atomic clock. When we take two Identical Atomic Clocks together at sea level and take one of the clocks to a high altitude say orbit and then bring it back to the clock at sea level they reflect different times.

 

Right and when you take an atomic clock and a theoretically accurate pendulum grandfather clock and synchronize and calibrate them at sea level and then move them to Denver, Colorado, the atomic clock increases tick rate and the GF clock slows down. Both clocks are subject to external influences and neither can be shown to be measuring time but only marking time at some frequency.

Changing the frequency of such measurements does not change time itself but only our measurement of it.

 

HeHe. You might go back there with my "Relative Velocity" requires concurrent tick rates of clocks and the debacle that that causes with time dilation, on that forum. It got me banned.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

[post=738437]Post[/post]

 

About the clock, could the effect be explained by the fact that the curviture of space is less at a higher altitued due to space being less and less distorted the further you get away from the Earth?

 

I think you missed the point. The two clocks react oppositely to the change in gravity (GR). So which clock if any should you use to claim Relavistic affects of time and not just meaurement changes of time?

So which clock tells you your aging?

 

Both depending on your location.

Time is only reletive to the observer.

I

I would guess it would be the clock that was taken to a high altitude and returned to sea level.

The clock at sea level is the frame refference. What is measured is the effect of gravity on the clock.

 

Which clock do you propose supports the theory of Relativity. One speeds up the other slows down?

 

Hahaha, MacM...what's a silly idea again. Didn't we discuss about this before? You haven't gotten any idea about it, have you? I guess not. Poor MacM. Think again. I am not even interested to give any further comment on this post.

 

We actually notice that your comments have no scientific merit and fail to address this most obvious quirk in the assumptions being made regarding SRT and GR.

 

Starman,

I'm just implying that an atomic clock that is moving through a gravitational field may be influenced by that field as well.

 

Mac, do you believe terms 'gravitational field' and 'gravitational force' or attraction
mean the same thing? I don't. To me, a gravitational field is like a magnetic field, it
exists whether it is acting on an object that inters that field or not, say like the
magnetic field between two powerful magnetics that are separated by one meter.
A steel ball placed halfway between the two magnetics (or gravitationally equal planets) would feel little force from either, but it would still be within each's field.
A grandfather clock would feel no gravitational force if placed in a 'neutral' area
between planets, but the fields would still exist and affect the tick rate of the atomic
clocks. The 'intensity' of the field would be relative to the strength of the sources (planets
or magnets) but would have nothing to do with the measured force of gravity on an
object in that location. I therefore believe clock rates are determined by the intensity
of the gravitational field they are in and acceleration, say by a rocket engine, has not
been proven to have the same affect on clock rates. Mechanically, g-forces due to
gravity and acceleration from a rocket engine may be equivalent, but I question whether the effects on time are the same. JMHO.

 

Nor would I. I'm sure we see the field differently but the force only exists on an object placed in the field.

True to some extent but you have to recall that the tidal forces between such fields could be enormous and actually pull mass apart while only a theoretical Lagrange point would be neutral.

Again I think you should recall that the tidal forces could be great while the net force toward either massive object was balanced for the mass at a Lagrange point. i.e - an atom caught between binary black holes, etc.

As to the affects on clocks I would agree. Now one must decide what it is that is changing. If Relativity doesn't predict that all clocks change equally then we are not talking about clocks actually measuring time but are merely marking time intervals with a frequency and it is this measurement process that is changing and not time perse'.

I would be inclined to agree that it is actaully still an unknown. I would repeat that the changing tick rate of an atomic clock still doesn't prove that time has changed but that only our mearurement has changed.

 

The clock that is taken to a high altitude speeds up. The clock at sea level remains constant as a frame reference.

If both clocks are affected by the experiment then that would have to do with dimensional space effected by an homogenous field.

The clock that supports SR is the one taken to a high altitude?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Starman:

You still missed the issue. BOTH clocks are moved to the higher elevation. One slows down the other speeds up.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Indeed.