Is The Theory of Relativity Fatally Flawed?

[Paul T]

It's the effect of gravity on the pendulum.

Thanks, Marv.

Does it mean that time change when GF is moved from sea level to Denver? I mean: Is slowing down of GF ticking rate due to the change of gravitational acceleration somehow corresponds to time dilation in SR or gravitational shift in GR?

 

[MacM]

I take it as you don't have any links or papers supporting your claim. Can you explain why does GF run slower when you move it from sea level to Denver? What theory behind it?

I take it you would rather not address the issue. We know you know how a pendulum works.

In case you don't you might try playing with the Java Applet by changing the accelertion of gravity which is what happens when you go from sea level to Denver.

http://www.walter-fendt.de/ph11e/pendulum.htm

 

[Paul T]

I take it you would rather not address the issue. We know you know how a pendulum works.

In case you don't you might try playing with the Java Applet by changing the accelertion of gravity which is what happens when you go from sea level to Denver.

http://www.walter-fendt.de/ph11e/pendulum.htm

Please address the question I asked Marv in my previous post.

 

[geistkiesel]

However you can't do this. Nobody can. You can only prove that the ground is stationary relative to the ground. Or that the train is stationary relative to the train. You can't prove that one is 'really' stationary while the other is 'really' moving. It's a matter of choice. Most people would choose the ground because it's the most useful frame of reference, but there is absolutely no problem in assuming the train is stationary.
Once again, this has nothing to do with SR, GR, or Einstein. This is from before his time.

You know that you are wrong Persol. The link below is a proof that relative moion can be analyzed sucjh that the absolute velocity of the stho thos e contributing to the relative motion of inertial frames can easily be mesured and deected.
The link is from [post=721460]thread on disproving the silly postulate[/post]that you memorized at some point in your wasted SR education, or was the SR classes just execises in memorization?.
scroll down here to absolute velocity detected for a nice graphical representation assisting in the proof.

 

[MacM]

Please address the question I asked Marv in my previous post.

It is infact the claim in GR that gravity change alters time. I merely point out that gravity change affects different clocks differently. There is no evidence that such change therefore is actual time change but only process change by the clock marking an interval of time at a different frequency.

I might add that while EEP claims acceleration and gravity are equivelent, it has been posted that testing upto 10^18 g's had no affect on time pieces. I haven't found that test but that at least has been the claim.

If true then it certainly draws EEP into question regarding time.

 

[Paul T]

It is infact the claim in GR that gravity change alters time. I merely point out that gravity change affects different clocks differently. There is no evidence that such change therefore is actual time change but only process change by the clock marking an interval of time at a different frequency.

Does GR require GF clock to tick slower when you move it from sea level to Denver (higher location and lesser gravitational acceleration)? How much does the time change between the two places according to GR? Comparing to your argument that GF clock ticks slower on Denver (which is correct), how do you justify that GR fails as according to GR, the clock must tick faster on Denver?

I might add that while EEP claims acceleration and gravity are equivelent, it has been posted that testing upto 10^18 g's had no affect on time pieces. I haven't found that test but that at least has been the claim.

If you have not seen or read the report, do not assume that you know what that report all about.

 

[geistkiesel]

Persol, with due respect, my question was more to do with proving that the embankmet can be deemed as moving and the train deemed as stationary.

And i would think this could be proved at low velocities such as <100 kph.

I am not with my question really all that interested in time adilation and length cotraction as youhave said are too small to figure at these velocities.

However if SR can be seen to prove the embankment as moving and a train stationaru then maybe SR has some credence.
I would suggest that it is impossible to prove the train stationary and the embankment moving with out taking it to the realms of mere thought experiment.

Is there any way of proving the embankment is moving and the train stationary?

The thinking:
If it can't be at this velocity then how can it be proved for any other velocity?

QQ sure there is a way to tell if the ground is moving. Look at all the physics and all the events. Only the train accelerated in a mode that generated the train's contribution to the relative velocity wrt train and earth. Put accelerometers on train and embankment and compare readings.The earth has never been observed to generate relative velocity wrt acelerated trains. The earth orbiting motion has never been observed to contribute a cm/hr change or addition to relative veocity of frame and embankment. In fact a physical law would state that only those inertial frames other that the Ve, earth frame velocity, exhibit velocity measured as contributing to relative velocity of frame and earth.

Persol argued in one of his posts that the earth is accelerating all the time, right, but producing a contribution to relative velocity wrt train and frame? I don't think so.

And if you need a formal proof try . scrolling down to the absolute velocity detected platform.

Geistkiesel

 

[geistkiesel]

It is infact the claim in GR that gravity change alters time. I merely point out that gravity change affects different clocks differently. There is no evidence that such change therefore is actual time change but only process change by the clock marking an interval of time at a different frequency.

I might add that while EEP claims acceleration and gravity are equivelent, it has been posted that testing upto 10^18 g's had no affect on time pieces. I haven't found that test but that at least has been the claim.

If true then it certainly draws EEP into question regarding time.

It seems intuitively obvious that a grandfather clock can be affected by gravityand an atomic clock is well , intuitive that no affect can be measured. I remember seeing a pendukum like clock that had four weights located at the corners of a square attached to a frame that was suspended by a thin flat "wire". As the frame rotated in a plane, flat wrt the earth surface, the tension in the wire increased until the frame stopped rotating and reversed directions. The grandfather clock, the four weights clock, the atomic clock and my Casio might be affected by gravity, but I am not betting money that the affect, if not null, will result in identical deltas tees.
geistkiesel

 

[marv]

Thanks, Marv.

Does it mean that time change when GF is moved from sea level to Denver? I mean: Is slowing down of GF ticking rate due to the change of gravitational acceleration somehow corresponds to time dilation in SR or gravitational shift in GR?

Time itself cannot speed up or slow down, only the measurement. Gravity has a macro effect on a pendulem and a micro effect on even an atomic clock.

BTW Paul, do you also post on the FSB forum?

 

[Persol]

Time itself cannot speed up or slow down, only the measurement.

According to your and everyone elses definition of time, that means time is dilating.

 

[marv]

Persol, you continue to confuse a metric with a tangible.

• 'Second' is a metric.
• 'The ball fell in one second' is a metric in the context of a tangible reality.

A time metric, expressed or implied, has no meaning without some reality based context. The context has it's own reality regardless of relative observations.

The meteric "mile" means nothing by itself. "The tree is a mile down the road" has meaning because it's in context. Your concept of "mile" and mine may differ because of our relative observations, but that doesn't alter the real physical location of the tree.

How far down the ladder does it take to explain this?

 

[Paul T]

marv,

Time itself cannot speed up or slow down, only the measurement. Gravity has a macro effect on a pendulem and a micro effect on even an atomic clock.

Perhaps we need to refresh our memory on the reason I asked a series of questions with regard to GF clock slowing down due to the change of location on earth and time dilation or rather gravitational shift to be more precise. They were started by the following statement by MacM:

As pointed out affects of relativity on clocks is unclear. Compare the atomic clock and Grandfather Clock and you see that the affect on clocks not only vary with clock design but in this case actually has opposite affects.​

MacM said that the effect of relativity (GR) on clocks is unclear. His argument (given later) was that GF clock raised from sea level to a height (Denver) experiences slowing down of ticking rate, contrary to GR prediction for that situation where gravitation acceleration decreases so that the clock should tick faster. Of course, the slowing down of GF clock ticking rate due to the decrease of gravitational acceleration has nothing to do with GR. It slows down because that's how GF clock works; it relies on pendulum period which depends on gravitational acceleration. If the GF clock is carried to the orbit, the clock will even stop running. Does that tell us anything about GR? Another clock that works based on spring period will not suffer the slowing down ticking rate due to the change of location, simply because this clock (similarly as atomic clock) does not rely on gravitational acceleration to run.

The simple truth is, the slowing down of GF clock ticking rate indicates that the clock is just not suitable to be transported from place to place and still measuring time correctly. It tells us nothing about GR failure. Only an idiot would present an argument that because a GF clock ticks slower in Denver than when the same clock is at the sea level, therefore GR fails. A slightly more intelligent person (than MacM) would first recalibrate the GF clock against the correct time after it is transported to Denver from sea level. I believe those GF clocks pendulum is adjustable so that we can make it to tick faster or slower. Only and only if the clock has been calibrated to tick with the correct rate then some one would make an attempt to measure GR effect on the GF clock. Certainly, the adjustment would make the measurement for GR effect meaningless as he or she might adjust the clock to tick at the exact same pace as the clock at sea level and therefore nullified that very very tiny time (or measured time whichever you prefer) change related to gravitational shift. Again, due to the low accuracy of GF clock, nobody (except may be MacM who had performed the so-called Pasta POT experiment) would suggest that GF clock could measure the gravitational shift differences due to the change of location on earth from sea level to Denver.

As for your statement "Time itself cannot speed up or slow down, only the measurement", as Persol has said, depends on how you define time. Time is what you measured....certainly with the right clock. BTW, do you think one second in Denver is longer than one second in LA?

BTW Paul, do you also post on the FSB forum?

What is FSB? I suppose the answer is NO.

 

[MacM]

Does GR require GF clock to tick slower when you move it from sea level to Denver (higher location and lesser gravitational acceleration)? How much does the time change between the two places according to GR? Comparing to your argument that GF clock ticks slower on Denver (which is correct), how do you justify that GR fails as according to GR, the clock must tick faster on Denver?

The failure is obvious. Different mechanisims have different response to gravity. Your assumption that only atomic clocks are affected isolates the affect to one particular mechanisim or process. You are clearly referring to the affect on a process and not a change in time.

It is the "Idiot" that advocates absolute knowledge in this case. I have only said one of the two views is correct. You claim to know which one. I dare say you KNOW jackshit and simply expouse the golden rule as taught to you by others.

If you have not seen or read the report, do not assume that you know what that report all about.

Since you participated in that thread I know you saw the post. [post=720100]Here[/post]. Now if you have any knowledge about that report please post it.

 

[marv]

[a] clock that works based on spring period will not suffer the slowing down ticking rate due to the change of location, simply because this clock (similarly as atomic clock) does not rely on gravitational acceleration to run.

But there are micro gravitational effects, particularly relating to friction. As to atomic clocks, intuition tells me that there are similar - call them sub-atomic level - gravitational effects. Any particle with mass will be affected by gravity.

BTW, do you think one second in Denver is longer than one second in LA?

A "second" in Denver vs. LA is strictly a function of the preferred measuring device(s). "Time" itself is inconsequential.

As to the FSB forum, you wouldn't know it unless you perhaps owned one or more Ford Broncos. FSB=FullSizeBroncos, another passion of mine.

 

[Quantum Quack]

You are clearly referring to the affect on a process and not a change in time.

which is in some ways what all this debate is about.

Is time dilation just the slowing of atomic rates due to velocity, or as MacM has stated in the above quote. Time dilation created by an effect on a process and not a change in time it self.

Shit man heating water means time would contract for the water would it not? Also freezing a man in a cryo genic chamber slows that mans tick rate some what hey? [ha]

But is freezing a man creating time dilation? I don't think so......it simply slowing the atomic rate down.
So altitude effects atomic rate, velocity effects atomic rate, does this mean we have to invoke the complication of SR's rather neat time dilation and length contraction solution or do we just go with the slowing of atomic rate solution instead.

So is SR and unecessary complication to a rather simple pheno?

 

[Persol]

A "second" in Denver vs. LA is strictly a function of the preferred measuring device(s). "Time" itself is inconsequential.

So yet again, how do you define time in a manner which is useful?

 

[Persol]

Is time dilation just the slowing of atomic rates due to velocity, or as MacM has stated in the above quote. Time dilation created by an effect on a process and not a change in time it self.

Time is defined by the distance (in time) between two specific events... be this a vibration, a tick, or the emission of a neutron. When every known/measurable process experiences this effect, I'd certainly call that time dilation.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Time is defined by the distance (in time) between two specific events... be this a vibration, a tick, or the emission of a neutron. When every known/measurable process experiences this effect, I'd certainly call that time dilation.

Persol if you could bear with me a little on this iw ill try to explain why I see a very important distinction between time dilation adn atomic slowing perspectives.

If we assume time dilation in the classical Einstien/Minkowski sense this requires that time is not absolute, That the NOW of our object is undefinable.
If we assume just atomic slowing then time can be deemed absolute and the NOW becomes uniform for all object s universally.

By taking the Einstien approach we have to declare absolute time obsolete but to take a simple atomic slowing approach absolute time is still a valid proposition.

If my clock was governed by the temperature of a glass of water that was placed outside, it woudl obviously fluctuate in it's tick rate due to the changes in atomic rate of the water. Is this time dilation in the Einstienian SR sense? I would suggest not.

If velocity of an object of mass causes the atomic rate to slow down then why would this be any diffeent to the temperature of my water?

We have enough data I guess to know that atomic slowing occurs with altitude [gravity] and velocity. I wont argue as to the validity of that data and assume that it is reasonably correct, however aI would argue the notion that time slows when in fact it is only the atomic rate that slows.

if one takes the Atomic slowing approach nearly 99% of the complications SR has created, all the thought experiments etc are no longer needed.
The student of physics doesn't have to bend over backwards to accomodate a theory that is so counter to common sense or intuition it gives people a big ache in the head.

Ok......so Maybe I should ask:

Why should I accept that time dilation exists when simple atomic slowing explains it much easier and more logically?

 

[marv]

I saw an example of length dilation in a catalog once. It was called a fisherman's yardstick. Actually, it was a foot long, but each successive "inch" was progressively shortened so that what should have been the twelfth inch was actually the thirty-sixth!

Of course, it was a joke item. But it also points out that too often we see what we want to see, myself included. Witness the flying saucer sightings and reports of alien abduction. Nonsensical, but believed by some people because they want to believe them. But a concept held so tightly eventually, if proven wrong, becomes a millstone around the neck.

IMHO, Einstein's position on time, space and mass provide more grist for science fiction writers than substance for serious scientific inquiry. But his excellent and deserved reputation in other matters is such that it borders on heresy to fault any of his theories.

We should remember that the Earth is no longer a land covered with a great hemisphere with holes letting the light of heaven shine through. Nor does the sun orbit the Earth. Nor is the earth the center of the universe. Nor does our galaxy constitute the universe, a concept held into the early twentieth century.

We are simply a tiny speck orbiting a tiny speck close to the outer edges of a tiny speck within a group of tiny specks, like dust in a ray of sunlight. There is so much to be learned.

I'll get out of my secular pulpit now.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I saw an example of length dilation in a catalog once. It was called a fisherman's yardstick. Actually, it was a foot long, but each successive "inch" was progressively shortened so that what should have been the twelfth inch was actually the thirty-sixth!

I bet it is often given as a present by the wife to her husband and not just to measure fish either.......