Seattle
Valued Senior Member
You are
The little things I mentioned that is new science!
- Thread starter theorist-constant12345
- Start date
No, I think he just wants his genius recognized for claiming that light is not a thing, but dark is. (As he mentioned, they made fun of Tesla, too!)
It is no misconception by me, look at the diagrams, consider the physical process, it is self explanatory.
Both light clocks on the earth and moon will show exactly 1 light second per second, both atomic clocks on the earth and moon will show a difference in the corresponding beats.
Example - Earth 10 beats of the atomic clock to 1 light second,
Moon 5 beats of the atomic clock to 1 light second.
Space ship and the laser 1 light second,
Your clock does not work.
Both clocks will show exactly the same time. This has been proven in dozens of experiments.
When your imaginings conflict with reality, reality wins.
Clocks don't show (or measure, or anything else) light-seconds.
You are incorrect on this one , I can take a caesium clock up a mountain in a stationary reference frame, compared to the lower altitude clock it will beat different, my light clocks do not alter.
The light clock is a constant and the caesium clock is not.
Oh but my circular clock and 299 792 458 m diameter of the clock does though.
Again, that has been disproven several times.
As I mentioned before, this is a common misconception in people who don't understand relativistic time dilation.
I understand it and you are wrong your clock is not a constant, it is broke, gravity effects the constant of the beats, are you denying this now has been proven in the keating experiment?
Are you denying that on the moon the caesium clock would beat differently to the one on earth?
Definitely! It also affects that "light clock" you were talking about. Result - the atomic clock always matches the light clock.
The Keating experiment showed that the clock slows down relative to time on the ground. It also showed that accurate clocks will all match each other - as long as they are in the same reference frame.
It would indeed. So would your "light clock." That is what you do not understand.
Let me get this right , you have just stated that yes a caesium clock would indeed have different beats tot he one on earth, you also say so will the light clock, my clock happens to be the light from the sun passing by both the moon and the earth clock, I count 1 light second at a constant rate unchanged to your beating waste of time keepers.
If its beating and it changes beats how is that a constant time keeper?
Exactly. The most accurate clock in the world will always measure light to be moving at the same speed no matter where it is.
No, you don't. Nor would an astronaut on the ISS. They are moving at different speeds and are at different gravitational potentials, so they will all measure different times (AND will all see light moving at the same speed, c.) Here's an explanation from one such astronaut, ISS science officer Ed Lu:
================
After our 6 months in space, we will have actually aged slightly less than everyone else on the ground because of an effect called time dilation. It isn't by much (about 0.007 seconds), but it is one side benefit of flying in space! For a little change of pace, I decided to write this letter for the physicists and engineers out there. The beginning part is more general, but if you haven't studied university level physics some of the details may be a bit obscure. Hopefully though you'll still find this interesting, and who knows, maybe it will inspire you to learn more about relativity!
As Einstein first figured out, the concepts of length, energy, mass, and time all depend on how fast you are moving. The reason is the observed experimental fact that no matter how fast you are moving, if you measure the speed of light you always get the same value (this is another way of saying you can't measure your own absolute speed, but rather only relative to something else). Think about two different people who are each moving at different speeds while each simultaneously measures the speed of a light beam. They will each measure the same speed of light, even though they themselves are moving relative to one another. The only way this can be possible is if one's standards of both length and time (what you use when you measure speed) depend on your relative speed. In fact, if you stand on the ground and watch somebody else fly past, you will say that their clocks are moving slower and that they have shrunk. The speed of time depends on your relative speed. This effect is called time dilation. Similarly, the length of an object (along the direction of motion) also shrinks. These effects are really small for speeds much less than the speed of light (300,000 km/sec), which is why nobody ever noticed it before the beginning part of the 20th century. This result has been verified thousands of times with thousands of different experiments since then and is now considered an established fact. But what I started to wonder was if it is possible for me to observe a relativistic effect using a simple experiment (and no elaborate hardware) up here. After all we are moving at what is by everyday standards really fast (18,000 MPH). The problem is that by relativistic standards we are still moving incredibly slow, only about 3E-5 times the speed of light (this number is usually referred to as beta). For small beta, the time dilation effect that causes clocks to move slower goes as beta squared over 2, or about 5E-10,which is a really, really small effect.
===============
No.
A light second is unit of distance not time.
A light second is a unit of distance that is always constant to 1 second. I think you miss the point.
No, I don't "miss the point".
Clocks do not measure light seconds.
Light seconds are a unit of distance.
Clocks measure time.
''As Einstein first figured out, the concepts of length, energy, mass, and time all depend on how fast you are moving.''
No they don't , it is relative to size and not speed. Time in a void does not exist but exists when occupied by matter, what you have is more interference, relative to the observer in there own passing of time it relatively means nothing and is just gibberish.
Clocks measure the movement of their own device, not time.