Question about gravity
in [Physics]
|
From: BURT on 21 Mar 2010 18:10 On Mar 21, 3:06 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 21, 2:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 8:16 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 20, 12:17 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 19, 8:14 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > mpc755 kirjoitti: > > > > > > >> If you choose not understand what causes your battery operated clock to > > > > > >> tick slower then has time change? > > > > > > Nope. And I can even measure that this is not a case. I could for example > > > > > compare how often I have to shave my beard and myriad other things to the > > > > > clock progression. > > > > > Instead of shaving your beard you are in a space ship and you measure > > > > where you are relative to the distant stars. > > > > > You are in a space ship orbiting the Earth. The associated aether > > > > pressure on the atomic clock in the space ship is less than a > > > > comparable clock on the Earth and the atomic clock in the space ship > > > > ticks faster than the comparable clock on the Earth. > > > > > Your space ship is in a geo-synchronous orbit and orbits at the same > > > > rate at which the Earth spins. > > > > > You stay in the space ship for one complete orbit around the Sun. You > > > > are in as close to the exact same position with respect to the distant > > > > stars as you were when the experiment began. > > > > > From your view of the surrounding distant stars, the Earth and the Sun > > > > you determine 365 and 1/4 days have passed. This is in exact agreement > > > > with the atomic clock on the Earth. > > > > > You started the experiment on January 1st 2009. > > > > > You have two atomic clocks on the space ship. One was altered to > > > > remain in sync with the atomic clock on the Earth. The other atomic > > > > clock was not altered. The altered atomic clock says 365 and 1/4 days > > > > have passed since the beginning of the experiment. The unaltered > > > > atomic clock on the space ship says 370 days have passed since the > > > > beginning of the experiment. > > > > > What day is it and how much time has passed since the beginning of the > > > > experiment? > > > > > It is January 1st 2010 and one year has passed since the beginning of > > > > the experiment. The unaltered atomic clock was not modified to tick > > > > according to the aether pressure it exists in. > > > > > Do you insist it is January 6th 2010 because that is what the > > > > unaltered atomic clock states the time to be? If so, how do you > > > > account for the fact that you have not yet passed the point in orbit > > > > around the Sun where you were on January 1st 2009 and in fact you are > > > > as close to the exact same point in orbit relative to the Sun based on > > > > your measurements against the distant stars as you were on January 1st > > > > 2009 as you are going to be? How is it not January 1st 2010? > > > > One complete orbit of the Sun by the Earth is one year, regardless of > > > the rate at which an atomic clock ticks. > > > This is what Spaceman thought, too. Then again, he thought the product > > of two negative numbers was a negative number. > > I realize when you watch a battery operated clock start to tick slower > you think time is actually changing. > > You have a clock with a paddle for the second hand. You drop the clock > off the side of a boat. The further and further the clock drops into > the ocean the slower it 'ticks', as determined by a clock on the boat. > The clock 'ticks' slower because of the increase in the hydrostatic > pressure on the paddle. > > Since you refuse to believe in the existence of water you insist time > changes. > > You have an atomic clock on the space station. You 'drop' the clock > off the 'side' of the space station. The further and further the clock > 'drops' towards the Earth the slower it 'ticks', as determined by a > clock on the space station. The clock 'ticks' slower because of the > increase in the aether pressure on the clock. > > Since you refuse to believe in the existence of aether you insist time > changes.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Time is only a constant for light. Mitch Raemsch
From: BURT on 21 Mar 2010 18:18 On Mar 21, 3:10 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 21, 3:06 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 21, 2:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 20, 8:16 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 20, 12:17 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 19, 8:14 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > mpc755 kirjoitti: > > > > > > > >> If you choose not understand what causes your battery operated clock to > > > > > > >> tick slower then has time change? > > > > > > > Nope. And I can even measure that this is not a case. I could for example > > > > > > compare how often I have to shave my beard and myriad other things to the > > > > > > clock progression. > > > > > > Instead of shaving your beard you are in a space ship and you measure > > > > > where you are relative to the distant stars. > > > > > > You are in a space ship orbiting the Earth. The associated aether > > > > > pressure on the atomic clock in the space ship is less than a > > > > > comparable clock on the Earth and the atomic clock in the space ship > > > > > ticks faster than the comparable clock on the Earth. > > > > > > Your space ship is in a geo-synchronous orbit and orbits at the same > > > > > rate at which the Earth spins. > > > > > > You stay in the space ship for one complete orbit around the Sun. You > > > > > are in as close to the exact same position with respect to the distant > > > > > stars as you were when the experiment began. > > > > > > From your view of the surrounding distant stars, the Earth and the Sun > > > > > you determine 365 and 1/4 days have passed. This is in exact agreement > > > > > with the atomic clock on the Earth. > > > > > > You started the experiment on January 1st 2009. > > > > > > You have two atomic clocks on the space ship. One was altered to > > > > > remain in sync with the atomic clock on the Earth. The other atomic > > > > > clock was not altered. The altered atomic clock says 365 and 1/4 days > > > > > have passed since the beginning of the experiment. The unaltered > > > > > atomic clock on the space ship says 370 days have passed since the > > > > > beginning of the experiment. > > > > > > What day is it and how much time has passed since the beginning of the > > > > > experiment? > > > > > > It is January 1st 2010 and one year has passed since the beginning of > > > > > the experiment. The unaltered atomic clock was not modified to tick > > > > > according to the aether pressure it exists in. > > > > > > Do you insist it is January 6th 2010 because that is what the > > > > > unaltered atomic clock states the time to be? If so, how do you > > > > > account for the fact that you have not yet passed the point in orbit > > > > > around the Sun where you were on January 1st 2009 and in fact you are > > > > > as close to the exact same point in orbit relative to the Sun based on > > > > > your measurements against the distant stars as you were on January 1st > > > > > 2009 as you are going to be? How is it not January 1st 2010? > > > > > One complete orbit of the Sun by the Earth is one year, regardless of > > > > the rate at which an atomic clock ticks. > > > > This is what Spaceman thought, too. Then again, he thought the product > > > of two negative numbers was a negative number. > > > I realize when you watch a battery operated clock start to tick slower > > you think time is actually changing. > > > You have a clock with a paddle for the second hand. You drop the clock > > off the side of a boat. The further and further the clock drops into > > the ocean the slower it 'ticks', as determined by a clock on the boat. > > The clock 'ticks' slower because of the increase in the hydrostatic > > pressure on the paddle. > > > Since you refuse to believe in the existence of water you insist time > > changes. > > > You have an atomic clock on the space station. You 'drop' the clock > > off the 'side' of the space station. The further and further the clock > > 'drops' towards the Earth the slower it 'ticks', as determined by a > > clock on the space station. The clock 'ticks' slower because of the > > increase in the aether pressure on the clock. > > > Since you refuse to believe in the existence of aether you insist time > > changes.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Time is only a constant for light. > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Light only slows in time not in its constant speed but it is in a contracted metric. Light moves always at one speed that is slowed by gravity but still remains constant. There is a constant in speed for light but time slow creates slowness of the constant. Mitch Raemsch
From: Inertial on 21 Mar 2010 19:17 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:f7893079-d000-4681-9884-bfac1acf5942(a)d37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 20, 8:48 am, "Peter Webb" > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: >>> > No, I did not say that. I said empty space has properties, even where >> >> it has no matter in it, which is the meaning of "empty space". >> >>> So empty space is just a different nmae for the aether....Right? >> >> ______________________________________________ >> Well, you can define the word "aether" however you like. >> >> But in normal parlance, no, they are definitely not the same thing. > > What is the difference? Both empty space and the aether has > curvature, permittivity and permeability. So you think aether is not an actual substance, and just another name for empty space? Then you agree with Einstein. >> >> The aether was originally something that somehow "waved" to produce the >> wave >> like properties of light. In SR, that is not true of "empty space". > > So what is light in SR? It is light > How does light travel in empty space? However it travels. SR is not a theory about how light propagates. SR doesn't care if light is particles, or waves, or something else >> The aether post-Maxwell but prior to Einstein had an additional property, >> in >> that it had a rest frame. Empty space has no rest frame. > > The aether has rest frame In theories like LET, yes. There is no aether in SR. It says nothing about aether. If you are using 'aether' as a synonym for empty space, then there is no rest frame for it, because it has no motion. It is empty. > but no observer is at rest in the aether. Of course they can be, if there is such a thing as an aether. If you are using 'aether' as a synonym for empty space, then talking about motion, or rest, wrt it is nonsense. > Empty space also has rest frame No .. it doesn't have motion so has no rest frame. It makes no sense to talk about whether empty space is in motion or not. > but no observer is at rest in empty > space. If you are using 'aether' as a synonym for empty space, then talking about motion, or rest, wrt it is nonsense. > BTW SR's inertial frame is the rest frame of empty space. SR does not have a single 'inertial frame'. >> Post SR the ether has disappeared from mainstream physics, except as a >> vestigial and poetic term. > > No the ether remains in SR.... Nope. No aether in SR.. unless you are using the name 'aether' for 'empty space'. In which case it isn't anything .. it is empty space. > an SR observer claims all the unique > properties of the empty space (the aether). Empty space has the properties of empty space. That tautology says nothing useful. >> So if by "aether" you mean any of the meanings historically associated >> with >> it, the answer is "no", it is not the same as empty space. > > Yes it is....empty space is just a different name for the aether. 'aether' is just another name for empty space. It is not longer an entity.. it is a LACK of an entity
From: Inertial on 21 Mar 2010 19:19 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:57058832-83f4-455a-8385-d1543b3644fc(a)q15g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 20, 11:12 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mar 20, 7:31 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: [snip] >> > Yes....Only if empty space is just another name for the aether. If >> > empty space means void of any enitity then it cannot have any >> > property. >> >> No, sorry, Ken. If that's what you thought empty space meant -- devoid >> of all physical properties -- then you were simply mistaken. > > i didn't say that empty space is devoid of physical properties. I said > that if empty space is void of any enitity then it cannot have any > property. So it is *not* devoid of properties.. it just doesn't have any? BAHAHaaaaa
From: BURT on 21 Mar 2010 19:33
On Mar 21, 4:19 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > news:57058832-83f4-455a-8385-d1543b3644fc(a)q15g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...> On Mar 20, 11:12 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mar 20, 7:31 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > [snip] > > >> > Yes....Only if empty space is just another name for the aether. If > >> > empty space means void of any enitity then it cannot have any > >> > property. > > >> No, sorry, Ken. If that's what you thought empty space meant -- devoid > >> of all physical properties -- then you were simply mistaken. > > > i didn't say that empty space is devoid of physical properties. I said > > that if empty space is void of any enitity then it cannot have any > > property. > > So it is *not* devoid of properties.. it just doesn't have any? > > BAHAHaaaaa How long does space stay empty? Mitch Raemsch |