Question about gravity
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 22 Mar 2010 13:10 On Mar 22, 12:10 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 21, 5:06 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. > > That depends. If it's ticking slower at the same rate as other clocks > of different constructions and design principles, and all the rates of > those clocks are as predicted by relativity, then I'd say what's going > on is what relativity says is going on. > I would like to see an experiment where the clock on the airplane is not an atomic clock. Or the clock in the GPS satellite is not an atomic clock. Another experiment would be to place an atomic clock and other types of clocks into a centrifuge like the one astronauts train in. If the clocks tick at different rates this would be evidence of Aether Displacement. > It seems highly unlikely that different clocks and processes would all > slow by the same amount, and at the amount predicted by relativity, if > it were something else entirely that was affecting the clocks -- > unless a coherent and quantitative theory of that something else were > put forward, and that theory could explain HOW MUCH clocks should be > expected to slow down and why it should be that much. > I would expect most biological entities you could place into a centrifuge similar to the one used to train astronauts where you could detect the change in the biological processes would be killed. Is the death of the biological entity evidence its aging process did not slow down at the rate at which the atomic clock ticks in the centrifuge? My fundamental belief is time has nothing to do with the rate at which any clock ticks. Clocks tick based upon physical processes. The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is determined by the physical environment in which it exists. Nothing to do with time. 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. Has time changed?
From: mpc755 on 22 Mar 2010 13:22 On Mar 22, 1:10 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 22, 12:10 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 21, 5:06 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. > > > That depends. If it's ticking slower at the same rate as other clocks > > of different constructions and design principles, and all the rates of > > those clocks are as predicted by relativity, then I'd say what's going > > on is what relativity says is going on. > > I would like to see an experiment where the clock on the airplane is > not an atomic clock. Or the clock in the GPS satellite is not an > atomic clock. Another experiment would be to place an atomic clock and > other types of clocks into a centrifuge like the one astronauts train > in. > > If the clocks tick at different rates this would be evidence of Aether > Displacement. > > > It seems highly unlikely that different clocks and processes would all > > slow by the same amount, and at the amount predicted by relativity, if > > it were something else entirely that was affecting the clocks -- > > unless a coherent and quantitative theory of that something else were > > put forward, and that theory could explain HOW MUCH clocks should be > > expected to slow down and why it should be that much. > > I would expect most biological entities you could place into a > centrifuge similar to the one used to train astronauts where you could > detect the change in the biological processes would be killed. > > Is the death of the biological entity evidence its aging process did > not slow down at the rate at which the atomic clock ticks in the > centrifuge? > > My fundamental belief is time has nothing to do with the rate at which > any clock ticks. > > Clocks tick based upon physical processes. The rate at which an atomic > clock ticks is determined by the physical environment in which it > exists. Nothing to do with time. > > 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. > > Has time changed? In Einstein's train gedanken if the Observer on the train and the Observer on the embankment are able to view each other's clocks for a period of time they will both conclude the clock on the train ticks slower. So, is time slower on the train? Of course not. The atomic clock on the Earth pings the GPS satellite in geostationary orbit above the atomic clock on the Earth. The atomic clock on the GPS satellite receives pings from the atomic clock on the Earth every second as determined by the clock on the Earth. Since the atomic clock in the GPS satellite exists under less aether pressure than the similar clock on the Earth the GPS satellite atomic clock ticks faster. What is a second as determined by the Observer in the GPS satellite? The second as determined by the atomic clock on the GPS satellite or the pings the GPS satellite receives from the atomic clock on the Earth? http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter2/2-1/second.html " The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. It follows that the hyperfine splitting in the ground state of the caesium 133 atom is exactly 9 192 631 770 hertz, nu(hfs Cs) = 9 192 631 770 Hz. At its 1997 meeting the CIPM affirmed that: This definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K." More correct: This definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K at sea level.
From: PD on 22 Mar 2010 13:23 On Mar 22, 12:10 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 22, 12:10 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 21, 5:06 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. > > > That depends. If it's ticking slower at the same rate as other clocks > > of different constructions and design principles, and all the rates of > > those clocks are as predicted by relativity, then I'd say what's going > > on is what relativity says is going on. > > I would like to see an experiment where the clock on the airplane is > not an atomic clock. Or the clock in the GPS satellite is not an > atomic clock. Another experiment would be to place an atomic clock and > other types of clocks into a centrifuge like the one astronauts train > in. G. Gwinner, Experimental Tests of Time Dilation in Special Relativity, Mod. Phys. Lett. 1, 20, no. 11 (2005), pg 791. > > If the clocks tick at different rates this would be evidence of Aether > Displacement. Agreed, but they don't. Already have experimental evidence in the can. Since you've actually put this forward as a clear prediction of AD, you've established that there is experimental evidence counter to AD. > > > It seems highly unlikely that different clocks and processes would all > > slow by the same amount, and at the amount predicted by relativity, if > > it were something else entirely that was affecting the clocks -- > > unless a coherent and quantitative theory of that something else were > > put forward, and that theory could explain HOW MUCH clocks should be > > expected to slow down and why it should be that much. > > I would expect most biological entities you could place into a > centrifuge similar to the one used to train astronauts where you could > detect the change in the biological processes would be killed. > > Is the death of the biological entity evidence its aging process did > not slow down at the rate at which the atomic clock ticks in the > centrifuge? Don't be an idiot. > > My fundamental belief is time has nothing to do with the rate at which > any clock ticks. > > Clocks tick based upon physical processes. Yes, indeed. Various ones. > The rate at which an atomic > clock ticks is determined by the physical environment in which it > exists. Nothing to do with time. Both can have an effect, and both are seen to have an effect. The effect that is due to relativity is separable from the other effects, with clever experimental design. This has been measured, and confirms the predictions of relativity. > > 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. > > Has time changed?
From: mpc755 on 22 Mar 2010 13:41 On Mar 22, 1:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 22, 12:10 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 22, 12:10 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 21, 5:06 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. > > > > That depends. If it's ticking slower at the same rate as other clocks > > > of different constructions and design principles, and all the rates of > > > those clocks are as predicted by relativity, then I'd say what's going > > > on is what relativity says is going on. > > > I would like to see an experiment where the clock on the airplane is > > not an atomic clock. Or the clock in the GPS satellite is not an > > atomic clock. Another experiment would be to place an atomic clock and > > other types of clocks into a centrifuge like the one astronauts train > > in. > > G. Gwinner, Experimental Tests of Time Dilation in Special > Relativity, Mod. Phys. Lett. 1, 20, no. 11 (2005), pg 791. > Most of the experiments I see listed have to do with light, pions, muons and other processes which would not be physically different than the rate at which a caesium atom 'ticks'. All of the experiments which supposedly show 'time dilation' are all 'ticking' based upon the aether pressure in which they exist. > > > > If the clocks tick at different rates this would be evidence of Aether > > Displacement. > > Agreed, but they don't. Already have experimental evidence in the can. > Since you've actually put this forward as a clear prediction of AD, > you've established that there is experimental evidence counter to AD. > > > > > > It seems highly unlikely that different clocks and processes would all > > > slow by the same amount, and at the amount predicted by relativity, if > > > it were something else entirely that was affecting the clocks -- > > > unless a coherent and quantitative theory of that something else were > > > put forward, and that theory could explain HOW MUCH clocks should be > > > expected to slow down and why it should be that much. > > > I would expect most biological entities you could place into a > > centrifuge similar to the one used to train astronauts where you could > > detect the change in the biological processes would be killed. > > > Is the death of the biological entity evidence its aging process did > > not slow down at the rate at which the atomic clock ticks in the > > centrifuge? > > Don't be an idiot. > > > > > My fundamental belief is time has nothing to do with the rate at which > > any clock ticks. > > > Clocks tick based upon physical processes. > > Yes, indeed. Various ones. > > > The rate at which an atomic > > clock ticks is determined by the physical environment in which it > > exists. Nothing to do with time. > > Both can have an effect, and both are seen to have an effect. The > effect that is due to relativity is separable from the other effects, > with clever experimental design. This has been measured, and confirms > the predictions of relativity. > > > > > 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. > > > Has time changed? > >
From: mpc755 on 22 Mar 2010 13:43
On Mar 22, 1:41 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 22, 1:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 22, 12:10 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 22, 12:10 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 21, 5:06 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. > > > > > That depends. If it's ticking slower at the same rate as other clocks > > > > of different constructions and design principles, and all the rates of > > > > those clocks are as predicted by relativity, then I'd say what's going > > > > on is what relativity says is going on. > > > > I would like to see an experiment where the clock on the airplane is > > > not an atomic clock. Or the clock in the GPS satellite is not an > > > atomic clock. Another experiment would be to place an atomic clock and > > > other types of clocks into a centrifuge like the one astronauts train > > > in. > > > G. Gwinner, Experimental Tests of Time Dilation in Special > > Relativity, Mod. Phys. Lett. 1, 20, no. 11 (2005), pg 791. > > Most of the experiments I see listed have to do with light, pions, > muons and other processes which would not be physically different than > the rate at which a caesium atom 'ticks'. > > All of the experiments which supposedly show 'time dilation' are all > 'ticking' based upon the aether pressure in which they exist. > When you show the experiment where the Observer in a GPS Satellite determines one year has passed based upon measurements against the stars and this correlates to the time as determined by the atomic clock on the GPS Satellite then you may have something. Until then, all you are doing is 'atomic clock' time tests. > > > > > If the clocks tick at different rates this would be evidence of Aether > > > Displacement. > > > Agreed, but they don't. Already have experimental evidence in the can. > > Since you've actually put this forward as a clear prediction of AD, > > you've established that there is experimental evidence counter to AD. > > > > > It seems highly unlikely that different clocks and processes would all > > > > slow by the same amount, and at the amount predicted by relativity, if > > > > it were something else entirely that was affecting the clocks -- > > > > unless a coherent and quantitative theory of that something else were > > > > put forward, and that theory could explain HOW MUCH clocks should be > > > > expected to slow down and why it should be that much. > > > > I would expect most biological entities you could place into a > > > centrifuge similar to the one used to train astronauts where you could > > > detect the change in the biological processes would be killed. > > > > Is the death of the biological entity evidence its aging process did > > > not slow down at the rate at which the atomic clock ticks in the > > > centrifuge? > > > Don't be an idiot. > > > > My fundamental belief is time has nothing to do with the rate at which > > > any clock ticks. > > > > Clocks tick based upon physical processes. > > > Yes, indeed. Various ones. > > > > The rate at which an atomic > > > clock ticks is determined by the physical environment in which it > > > exists. Nothing to do with time. > > > Both can have an effect, and both are seen to have an effect. The > > effect that is due to relativity is separable from the other effects, > > with clever experimental design. This has been measured, and confirms > > the predictions of relativity. > > > > 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. > > > > Has time changed? > > |