Arrow of Time II
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Inertia still lying for Einstein
Next: Doctrine of need
From: Hayek on 28 Jun 2010 04:53 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On Jun 26, 8:29 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> Well, even though I probably know more physics than you [...] >> Since I have formal training in the subject and you don't, I rather much >> doubt that. > ----------------------------------------------------- > > But you are more than a little uncertain about that, aren't you > Woofster? It is the only argument he has. Just leave him that. :-) Uwe Hayek. > RLO > http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/menu.html > > -- We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion : the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history. -- Ayn Rand I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. -- Thomas Jefferson. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 28 Jun 2010 14:29 On Jun 27, 11:57 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Nope. Thirty years ago lots of my ideas would be publication worthy, but > every one of mine that I have investigated has been done sometime between > the mid 70's and the last decade. --------------------------------------------------- So you could've been a contender, but lacked the will? Training? Literacy? > > that you can't remember, or that you never stepped foot in the library. Most > likely the former, given your age. ----------------------------------------------- Whenever possible I used the carrels in the Suzzallo Library. RLO Discrete Scale Relativity
From: Mitchell Jones on 28 Jun 2010 21:11
In article <0MGdnVOA4aOS47rRRVn_vwA(a)giganews.com>, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Mitchell Jones wrote: > > ***{Time is that which is measured by a standard clock and by every > > other clock which has been designed to match the readings of a standard > > clock. The acceptance of this definition is, for example, why a clock > > intended to be used in a GPS satellite is designed to lose 38 > > microseconds per day when at sea level: the goal is that it match the > > readings of a standard clock on the ground, while it is in orbit. Since > > it will speed up by 38 microseconds per day when placed in orbit, it has > > to lose 38 microseconds per day while on the ground. > > Some of this is correct. But note that to an observer on a GPS satellite, the > satellite's clock does not measure standard time; nor does a ground clock. > You are implicitly assuming that earth is a VERY special place, in that only > clocks on its surface correctly display "time" -- that's an OUTRAGEOUSLY > parochial view. ***{Your opinion that I view the world from an extremely backward and limited perspective is noted. What I'm saying is that we need to select a standard of time and stick to it, so that our measurements of time will be comparable. It is only the fact that humans are presently limited to the vicinity of Earth that forces us to use a standard clock situated here. If human civilization extended throughout the galaxy, there would be no reason in principle to not use a standard clock located somewhere out in the Cygnus spiral arm, or even in the galactic halo for that matter. I'm also saying that the non-mathematical, natural-language gobbledygook used by Einstein to intrerpret the mislabeled "time dilation" equations is not, in fact, representative of what humans actually do in the real world. It is, for example, ludicrous for relativists to constantly cite GPS as an example supporting Einstein's ridiculous, non-mathematical, natural-language interpretive framework--a framework which explicitly and repeated denies that time advances at the same rate throughout the universe--when in order to make GPS work they have been forced to rely on the very premise that they deny--which means: (a) they set the clocks in the CPS satellites to keep pace with standard clocks on the ground; and (b) they use the very equations which, in their non-mathematical, natural-language ravings, they claim refute Newtonian absolute time, to set the clocks and thereby bring them into compliance with the Newtonian framework. You guys can't have it both ways. You can't continue to claim, in your non-mathematical, natural-language statements, that time is what a local clock that has not been "set" measures, when in the only real-world applications where you have encountered the opportunity to act in accordance with that definition, you have been forced to abandon it and set your clocks to agree with clocks in different locations! It's time to walk Einstein's talk, or else to concede that his talk was bullshit. Let me be very specific. It has been known for centuries--long before Einstein--that various factors operated to cause clocks to disagree with one another. During the heyday of mechanical windup clocks, for example, wear might cause the internal spring to weaken, slowing the clock down. An accumulation of dust, or oil, or moisture in a humid climate, or rust, or dust mites crushed by the gears, might cause internal friction to increase. Such things could also cause a mechanical clock to run more slowly. On the other hand, if the accumulation occurred due to disuse--e.g., if the clock sat in a box for a year for some reason--then a resumption of use might gradually wear off the accumulated rust, etc., from the gears, and the clock would gradually, progressively, speed back up again. Because such facts were well known, mechanical clocks were built with designed-in features which allowed them to be "set." Here is the way it worked: (1) You would compare your clock to a clock known to be "correct" (meaning that it showed good agreement with the accepted standard for that time zone) and, if they did not agree, you would use the knobs provided on the back to set the hands on the face of your clock to match those on the face of the other clock. (2) After a sufficient time had passed, you would again compare your clock to a clock known to be correct, and if the readings no longer matched, you would use a thumbwheel on the back of your clock to adjust its speed. If your clock had gained time relative to the standard clock, you would adjust the thumbwheel in the direction of the "S" engraved next to it, in order to slow it down; and if your clock had lost time, you would adjust the thumbwheel in the other direction, toward the "F," to speed it up. The above-described clock-setting procedure was based on the Newtonian concept of absolute time, which stipulated that time advances at a constant rate throughout the universe. Why accept such a stipulation? Because clocks that have not been set are useless. An appointment to meet Bill at the coffee shop at 2 pm means nothing unless the two of you are willing to accept the premise that time advances at the same rate at different locations. Why must you do that? Because you are going to be at different locations until the appointed time, of course. Unfortunately, when Einstein noticed that experimentally derived equations indicated that clocks would be affected by the velocity at which they were moving and by the gravitational intensity where they were located, he apparently failed to recognize that they still would have to be set to agree with clocks at different locations, or else insurmountable practical obstacles would arise. GPS is the perfect example of that. It is a case where both the velocity and gravitational effects are present, and where, as a practical matter, the GPS clocks must still be set to agree with clocks on the ground, or else hideously costly workarounds must be invoked to avoid doing so. The solution that has been adopted is to set the GPS clocks so that they agree with clocks on the ground--which means, in effect, to accept the Newtonian concept of absolute time. That means the engineers who implemented the GPS system chose to treat the effects of velocity and gravitational intensity in exactly the same way that their predecessors 150 years ago treated an accumulation of rust on the gears: they concluded that the clock rates were being affected by extraneous factors, and that the solution was to set them, thereby forcing them to agree despite the operation of those extraneous factors. Do you see the difference between the interpretation of the engineers and that of Einstein? Here, let me spell it out: they acted on the premise that gravitational intensity and velocity differences were affecting the clock rates, rather than on the premise that gravitational intensity and velocity differences were causing time to advance at a different rate in the GPS orbits than on the ground. How are those interpretations different? Simple: they chose to "set" the GPS clocks, to bring them into agreement with clocks on the ground. The implication: if a GPS clock gained 38 microseconds per day, it was WRONG. Note very explicitly that if, as Einstein's theory required, time was advancing at a different rate in the GPS orbits than on the ground, then an accurate clock would say so. That would mean an accurate clock in a GPS orbit would gain 38 microseconds per day, relative to an identical clock on the ground. And,of course, if a clock is accurate, you don't have to set it, now do you? :-) However, the reality was different: these clocks had to be set, for the same reason clocks that got out of step with standard clocks were set in Newton's time: because people couldn't use clocks to coordinate their activities, if the clocks did not agree. That reality is the cold, hard fact which supports the edifice of Newtonian absolute time, and which will continue to support it, in whatever time and places men may roam, whether "reletivists" like it or not. Does that mean that it is only things which ordinary people would label as "clocks" which have their rates affected by velocity and gravitational intensity? No, all of the entities and processes accepted by mainstream science appear to be so affected. But the fact remains: the only sane way to conceive of the situation is to acknowledge that it is the rates of change of those physical processes which are affected by velocity and gravitational intensity, not the rate of advancement of time itself. We cannot stubbornly cling to the Einsteinian dogma that it is not the speeds of processes which change, but the rate of advancement of time itself, for the simple yet sufficient reason that clocks which haven't been set are next to useless in the real world. Moreover, and this is important: the loss of utility by a clock that hasn't been set does not depend on the nature of the factors that have caused it to fall out of agreement with a standard clock. It doesn't make a tinker's damn whether Bill's clock disagrees with Sam's because of rust on its gears, or because Bill is circling the Earth in a GPS satellite. Either way, Bill can't keep an appointment to speak to Sam by radio at 2 pm, unless they both are relying on clocks that have been set. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > The implication: time advances at the same rate throughout the universe, > > by definition. > > You will find it impossible to follow through on that notion. In particular, > there is no global notion of "time" in GR. All one can find is the proper > times of individual objects, observers, and trajectories, or time coordinates of > various coordinate charts. NONE of those can be extended to the "entire > universe" [*]. NONE of those has any justification to claim to be "universal > time" -- each is valid only LOCALLY. ***{That's a required statement for persons such as yourself--i.e., for proponents of the non-mathematical, natural-language interpretive framework of "GR." The reality, however, is that clocks which have not been set to agree with a common standard cannot be used to coordinate human activities. It doesn't matter whether the activities that are to be coordinated are in a tiny village in Africa, or across an interstellar civilization: individual A cannot meet individual B at time T, if their clocks do not agree. It makes no difference whether they get to the appointed location at the appointed time by donkey or by starship. Note, specifically, that I am NOT denying the validity of the process-rate equations--i.e., the equations which are labeled "time dilation" equations within the ridiculous, non-mathematical, natural-language interpretative framework of GR. Those equations were designed to give good agreement with experimental results, and they do so. Thus they are appropriate and above-board in all respects. What they tell us, however, is that causal processes, including clocks, advance at rates which in part depend on their local velocities and gravitational intensities. What they do NOT tell us that time itself advances at variable rates depending on those considerations. For the reasons already given, we have to set our clocks so that they agree with a common standard, else they become virtually useless. --Mitchell Jones}*** > [*] Except in exceptionally simple manifolds that cannot possibly > model the world we inhabit. > > Your notion of a "universal time" is also in conflict with an important > observation about the world we inhabit: all physics is local. A "universal > time" would be irrelevant -- physical phenomena would progress according > to their usual rates in local conditions, ignoring any sort of "universal time". ***{Yup. Back in 1880 a mechanical clock, left to its own devices, might begin to run slow, due to the gradual accumulation of rust on its gears. It would, as you say, "progress according to its usual rate in local conditions, ignoring any sort of 'universal time.' " However, people even back in those allegedly more primitive times were able to recognize what supposedly "modern" relativists do not: that a clock left to its own devices and allowed to progress at its usual rate in local conditions, ignoring any sort of 'universal time,' was next to useless. Clocks aren't children, Tom. We don't need to let them "develop self-esteem" by "expressing their individuality." If we do that, most of their usefulness is lost. What we have to do, instead, is force them into agreement with one another by whatever means that may require. If that flies in the face of Einsteinian dogma, too bad. Engineers are going to continue to use Newtonian absolute time whether you and your blinkered cohorts like it or not, Tom. The principle that forces them to do that even has an acronym: KISS--"Keep it simple, Stupid." --Mitchell Jones}*** > > Absolute time--time that advances at the same rate throughout the > > universe--is the only concept of time that works in the real world. > > Not true. It may work in YOUR everyday life, and your rather simplistic > notions ***{Your view that my opinions are "simplistic"--i.e., that I ignore the complexities of an issue--is noted. --MJ}*** > of how that extends to the rest of the universe, but it does not > work in GR. But then, GR has no need for any such global notions, > because all physics is local. ***{The engineers who designed our communications systems must not know any physics, then, since they operate on the naive belief that nodes separated by vast distances are going to routinely have to talk with one another! Hey, why don't you find some guy in the International Space Station, get him to agree that you will both use clocks that have never been set, and which only by random chance will agree with one another, and make an appointment to speak to him again by radio in a few months! I'll bet he stands you up! :-) --MJ}*** > > If the relativists don't like that, let 'em howl. > > It's not just "relativists" that "don't like" your attempt to do science by > assertion, it is every scientist who ever lived. You must develop a theory, > not just make disconnected statements about how you THINK the world works, or > about how you HOPE it does. ***{Your expert opinions about my thought processes are noted, and have been placed in the appropriate receptacle. --MJ}*** > And you must then TEST that theory. Such armchair > theorizing worked for Aristotle; nobody accepts it today.... ***{That's pretty funny, since your words are a perfect description of what you are doing. :-) --Mitchell Jones}*** > > The reality is that their precious GPS would not work, if clocks in the > > GPS satellites were not designed to advance at the same rate as > > standard clocks on the ground. > > This is true (once stated properly, which you did not ***{By "stated properly," of course, you mean "stated in such a way as to obscure the fact that this procedure flies in the face of the hysterically preposterous, non-mathematical, natural-language verbiage known as the "Theory of Relativity." --MJ}*** > ). Of course that's why > the GPS was designed as it was, with rate offsets in the satellite clocks. But > there is no notion of "absolute time" here, ***{Not overtly, of course. You guys have been looking down in haughty disdain from your government-funded academic sinecures for a hundred years, sneering at anyone who overtly questioned your transparently preposterous nonsense, punishing them in any way available to you, labeling their opinions as "parochial," or "simplistic," or "ignorant," or with whatever other pejoratives came to mind. Result: almost no one has dared to stand up to you, including the engineers you had to hire to make your schemes work. But the fact that they did not, for the most part, openly question your ridiculous dogma, did not prevent them from setting their clocks--which means: they behaved in accordance with the notion that time advances at a constant rate throughout the universe, even while, by their verbal utterances or by the nodding of their heads, they seemed to be agreeing with you. And they will continue to set their clocks, because the KISS principle forces them to do it, and eventually, if mankind survives--by no means a sure bet--the truth will out. Someone will say, "Why are we all spouting this nonsense, while doing the opposite?" At that point, your ridiculous house of cards will come tumbling down. --MJ}*** > it's just that the GPS approach is the > simplest and most straightforward way to construct locally-Minkowski > coordinates in a region near earth, using atomic clocks both on the ground and in > satellites. ***{Men are going to set their clocks as long as men exist, and that fact will, at all places and times, imply that you guys are totally, completely, and utterly wrong, whether anyone bothers to say so or not. --MJ}*** > It is not the only way.... ***{No, it's just the right way. Doing things the wrong way is always an option. You can, for example, remain standing in front of an onrushing truck and get gelatinized, or you can step aside. It's your call. --MJ}*** > > Result: they are hoist by their own petard. > > No. The problems and inconsistencies are all yours. ***{Wrong again. --MJ}*** > Tom Roberts ***************************************************************** If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility that you are in my killfile. --MJ |