Time Dilation Experiments versus Disbelievers

[Ed Lake]

Experiments show that time runs slower for an object if that object is closer to the center of a gravitational mass. Likewise, time runs faster for an object if it is moved farther away from the center of a gravitational mass. The NIST (National Institute for Standards and Technology) CONFIRMED this was true by raising an atomic clock by just one foot and noting that the raised clock ran at a faster rate. They also stated: "This 'time dilation' can be quantified by comparing the tick rates of identical clocks that accompany the traveler and the stationary observer. Another consequence of Einstein’s theory is that clocks run more slowly near massive objects. In the range of speeds and length scales encountered in our daily life, relativistic effects are extremely small. For example, if two identical clocks are separated vertically by 1 km near the surface of Earth, the higher clock emits about three more second-ticks than the lower one in a million years.” Further info: https://www.nist.gov/publications/relativity-and-optical-clocks

The Hafele-Keaton experiments in 1971 CONFIRMED that both gravitational time dilation and velocity time dilation are a real, natural phenomenon. Joseph Hafele and Richard Keating first calculated how much time would be altered for them and four atomic clocks if they took commercial airplane trips around the world, first traveling eastward and then traveling westward. They then performed the actual experiments and compared their computed results to the actual results. They CONFIRMED that time dilation works just as Einstein predicted. Further info: http://xrm.phys.northwestern.edu/research/pdf_papers/1972/hafele_science_1972.pdf

Due to their height and velocity, GPS satellites show time passing at a different rate than ground clocks. Further info: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

There have been MANY other experiments CONFIRMING time dilation and how it works.

But some mathematicians on this forum endlessly argue that time CANNOT run slower or faster regardless of what the evidence says. They IMPLY that the NIST scientists were incompetent. They won’t even discuss the Hafele-Keating experiment because it conflicts with their beliefs. They appear to argue a theory that time dilation is just an “illusion” in spite of all the EVIDENCE.

LOGIC says (and Richard Feynman said), "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." Logically, therefore, the mathematicians are WRONG. Their beliefs disagree with experiments.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

Here's a cartoon I created to illustrate the situation: https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/s720x720/13995575_321415414861718_581134234051948421_o.jpg?oh=ceaf98f0cc3af72b6643d956282060fc&oe=5913F4D6

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Stupid Ed Monkey,
I think you would do well in an occupation in the field of One of the Various Religions

[Eckard B]

Am Dienstag, 21. Februar 2017 18:25:24 UTC+1 schrieb Ed Lake:
> Experiments show that time runs slower for an object if that object is closer to the center of a gravitational mass.

> The Hafele-Keaton experiments in 1971 CONFIRMED that both gravitational time dilation and velocity time dilation are a real, natural phenomenon.

> But some mathematicians on this forum endlessly argue that time CANNOT run slower or faster regardless of what the evidence says. They IMPLY that the NIST scientists were incompetent.

Really? Roberts of Fermilab wrote: "kenseto, Ed Lake, Pentcho Valev, Robert Winn, alsor, and mlwosniak all get it VERY WRONG".
Maybe, NIST provided compelling evidence for something that can be differently interpreted.
Could you please comment on my suggestion to choose a one-way definition of the speed of light in vacuum?

[Odd Bodkin]

I think you'll find that Ed Lake is a bit of a nutcase. The only
difference between Ed and Archimedes Plutonium is that AP publishes
posts on sci.physics about how busy he is and what he has to write,
while Ed posts the same kind of comments on his own blog.

Ed hates math, and so he calls all physicists who disagree with him
"mathematicians". He cannot read or understand math, and so he prefers
popularizations with colloquial but loose language, and then rants that
physicists who say the descriptions in popularizations is not carefully
accurate are accusing the popularization authors of deliberate lying.

Ed maintains that he has all-caps evidence that the speed of light as
measured by an observer will vary with the motion of the observer.
However, the only evidence he seems to be able to cite are articles that
he can find on the web that did not pass peer-review quality checks in
professional journals.

Ed has decided to write articles about time dilation without having ever
successfully read or understood either the original paper by Einstein on
the subject or for that matter ANY textbook material on the subject.

You can decide for yourself whether Ed is worth conversing with at any
depth.


--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Ed Lake]

On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 1:47:05 PM UTC-6, Eckard B wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 21. Februar 2017 18:25:24 UTC+1 schrieb Ed Lake:
> > Experiments show that time runs slower for an object if that object is closer to the center of a gravitational mass.
> > The Hafele-Keaton experiments in 1971 CONFIRMED that both gravitational time dilation and velocity time dilation are a real, natural phenomenon.
>
> > But some mathematicians on this forum endlessly argue that time CANNOT run slower or faster regardless of what the evidence says. They IMPLY that the NIST scientists were incompetent.
>
> Really? Roberts of Fermilab wrote: "kenseto, Ed Lake, Pentcho Valev, Robert Winn, alsor, and mlwosniak all get it VERY WRONG".

I don't know who "Roberts of Fermilab" is, but "Tom Roberts" wrote this about the NIST experiment in the "Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians?" thread:

"Using Cs clocks, it is QUITE CLEAR that time did not "slow down" for either one [#], but rather this is an artifact of the COMPARISON. In GR that artifact is generated by geometry."

and

"EVERY ONE of the experiments/measurements you cite is about SIGNALS RECEIVED FROM CLOCKS, and not about the clocks' intrinsic tick rates (as you claim). And for Cs133 clocks we KNOW they always advance 1 second for every 9,192,631,770 cycles of their hyperfine transition. So they DON'T "tick at different rates", they always tick at their usual (standard) rate."

He couldn't explain himself very well, but Tom Roberts also argued that Einstein "made a mistake and mis-spoke" when he wrote in his 1905 paper that "a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions."

Tom Roberts also seemed to believe the fact that the NIST clocks ticked at different rates had something to do with the speed of light and the fact that one of the clocks may have been an inch closer to the observer.

He stopped his posts before anything could be resolved. Mostly, it think it was because he didn't want to answer my questions.

> Maybe, NIST provided compelling evidence for something that can be differently interpreted.

Anything can be "differently interpreted," but Tom Roberts was clearly WRONGLY interpreting the NIST paper. I provided a link to their paper and quoted from it. Here's a direct link to their paper titled "Optical Clocks and Relativity": http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=905055

> Could you please comment on my suggestion to choose a one-way definition of the speed of light in vacuum?

I don't understand the question: "choose a one-way definition of the speed of light in a vacuum"? Are there different definitions? I don't recall seeing ANY definition. Or are you asking ME for a definition? I wouldn't even know where to begin. I've never thought about it before.

I see Wikipedia says this: "the one-way speed in one direction or the other is undefined (and not simply unknown), unless one can define what is 'the same time' in two different locations. To measure the time that the light has taken to travel from one place to another it is necessary to know the start and finish times as measured on the same time scale. This requires either two synchronized clocks, one at the start and one at the finish, or some means of sending a signal instantaneously from the start to the finish. No instantaneous means of transmitting information is known." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light

Do you have some problem with that definition?

The argument on this forum has been that many of the mathematicians believe that measuring the one-way speed of light is a simple task that is done every day. I argue that no one knows how to do it. They cite papers, but they are just misinterpreting something, because the papers say nothing about it. And the mathematicians are incapable of explaining anything.

Ed

[al...@interia.pl]

Sorry, Mr. bannanos,
but I know much more reliable 'theories' already.
For example: these made by Marks-Lenin-Stalin... A.Hitler,
also: Kine-Kunta, Barbarella, Startrek, etc.

[paparios]

The troll does not know how to read. There is a difference between time "run slower" or "tick slower" and time ACCUMULATES faster or slower. For instance, NIST clearly show this by writing: "the higher clock emits about three more second-ticks than the lower one in a million years". Look carefully as NIST is saying the clock will accumulate a total of three more ticks in a period of a million years.

This works similar to a car odometer, indicating different path lengths, between two cities A and B, while following different path between those cities. The odometer itself does not change its "ticking". What changes is the accumulated distance due to different paths.

[Ed Lake]

On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 3:39:45 PM UTC-6, paparios wrote:
> El martes, 21 de febrero de 2017, 14:25:24 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió:
> > Experiments show that time runs slower for an object if that object is closer to the center of a gravitational mass. Likewise, time runs faster for an object if it is moved farther away from the center of a gravitational mass. The NIST (National Institute for Standards and Technology) CONFIRMED this was true by raising an atomic clock by just one foot and noting that the raised clock ran at a faster rate. They also stated: "This 'time dilation' can be quantified by comparing the tick rates of identical clocks that accompany the traveler and the stationary observer. Another consequence of Einstein’s theory is that clocks run more slowly near massive objects. In the range of speeds and length scales encountered in our daily life, relativistic effects are extremely small. For example, if two identical clocks are separated vertically by 1 km near the surface of Earth, the higher clock emits about three more second-ticks than the lower one in a million years.” Further info: https://www.nist.gov/publications/relativity-and-optical-clocks
> >
> > The Hafele-Keaton experiments in 1971 CONFIRMED that both gravitational time dilation and velocity time dilation are a real, natural phenomenon. Joseph Hafele and Richard Keating first calculated how much time would be altered for them and four atomic clocks if they took commercial airplane trips around the world, first traveling eastward and then traveling westward. They then performed the actual experiments and compared their computed results to the actual results. They CONFIRMED that time dilation works just as Einstein predicted. Further info: http://xrm.phys.northwestern.edu/research/pdf_papers/1972/hafele_science_1972.pdf
> >
> > Due to their height and velocity, GPS satellites show time passing at a different rate than ground clocks. Further info: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
> >
> > There have been MANY other experiments CONFIRMING time dilation and how it works.
> >
> > But some mathematicians on this forum endlessly argue that time CANNOT run slower or faster regardless of what the evidence says. They IMPLY that the NIST scientists were incompetent. They won’t even discuss the Hafele-Keating experiment because it conflicts with their beliefs. They appear to argue a theory that time dilation is just an “illusion” in spite of all the EVIDENCE.
> >
> > LOGIC says (and Richard Feynman said), "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." Logically, therefore, the mathematicians are WRONG. Their beliefs disagree with experiments.
> >
> > Ed
>
> The troll does not know how to read. There is a difference between time "run slower" or "tick slower" and time ACCUMULATES faster or slower.

A clock that runs slower ticks slower and accumulates time slower. They're just different ways of saying the same thing.

> For instance, NIST clearly show this by writing: "the higher clock emits about three more second-ticks than the lower one in a million years". Look carefully as NIST is saying the clock will accumulate a total of three more ticks in a period of a million years.
>

Yes, one clock ticks slower than the other clock and therefore will accumulate seconds at a slower rate.

> This works similar to a car odometer, indicating different path lengths, between two cities A and B, while following different path between those cities. The odometer itself does not change its "ticking". What changes is the accumulated distance due to different paths.

The NIST article mentions no "different path lengths." They only mention a difference in altitude. You appear to be adding "paths" in order to justify some sort of BELIEF or mathematical construct that may have little to do with reality.

Ed

[paparios]

Nothing will convince the troll. A different altitude means at the very least the coordinate z has values z1 in the first measure and z2 in the second. This is enough to change the interval ds between the clocks and the measuring device. This is completely equivalent to have two different path between the clock display and the observer.

[John Heath]

A little add on to the Hafele Keating experiment. Yes the clocks ticked faster cause by less gravity at plane height for GR. Yes the clocks also were slowed a little by relative movement for SR , sort of. The east and west bound planes had different time dilation for SR. East bound plane had slowing of clock and west bound plane clock ran faster for SR. The equator is moving at 1000 miles per hour. According to test results SR time dilation is relative to the space around the earth not the earth itself. The space around the earth does not appear to be rotating with the earth. Movement relative the the gravitation field of the earth not earth itself would be another way to put it. The gravitational field around the earth does not have a reason to rotate with the earth other than a hint of frame dragging. The bottom line is walking east causes time to run slower and walking west causes time to run faster as we are already moving at 1000 miles per hour east at the equator when standing still.

[Tom Roberts]

On 2/21/17 2/21/17 11:23 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> Experiments show that time runs slower for an object if that object is closer
> to the center of a gravitational mass.

No, they don't actually show that. When you ignore essential aspects of the
experiments you fool yourself.

Experiments actually make COMPARISONS OF SIGNALS from clocks at different
altitudes in a gravitational field, and show that the SIGNAL from the lower
clock has a lower frequency than the SIGNAL from the upper clock.

In modern physics (here SR and GR) this is modeled as a geometrical projection,
not any clock "running slower", and not "time running slower".

Indeed, one cannot formulate a self-consistent theory in which
"time dilation" is actually clocks running slower, and which
also agrees with ALL the experiments (i.e. the ones that show
that SR and GR are valid models of the world we inhabit, within
their respective domains).

Yes, all too many popular articles on this discuss "clocks running slower",
because their authors are unwilling (or unable) to discuss the subtleties of the
ACTUAL theory -- General Relativity is HARD. Even the NIST authors and their
Science editors took this shortcut. I don't.

Tom Roberts

[John Heath]

Glad to see you are back. You disappeared from the radar for a while. Yes clocks on earth do not run slower if you are on earth. How ever if one is in space looking down earth clocks are running slow by just under 1 cycle per second at 1 GHz. If I sit on the sun and look at earth the earth clocks they are running too fast. You are splitting hairs yes/no.

[al...@interia.pl]

W dniu środa, 22 lutego 2017 03:51:52 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:

> Indeed, one cannot formulate a self-consistent theory in which
> "time dilation" is actually clocks running slower, and which
> also agrees with ALL the experiments (i.e. the ones that show
> that SR and GR are valid models of the world we inhabit, within
> their respective domains).

You are still talking nonsenses.

The standard classical math is self consistent.
And this theory provides perfectly everything...
including what you never mind in the boundary of the stupid model,
called as relativity, quantum physics, and any other.

SR/GR/QM is just another temporarily shit produced by the naive people;
identically: the geocentrism has been earlier,
and many other products of stupidity:
the religions, dogmatism, fanaticism (it's your domain), mythology, etc.

[Sylvia Else]

On 22/02/2017 2:24 PM, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu środa, 22 lutego 2017 03:51:52 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
>
>> Indeed, one cannot formulate a self-consistent theory in which
>> "time dilation" is actually clocks running slower, and which
>> also agrees with ALL the experiments (i.e. the ones that show
>> that SR and GR are valid models of the world we inhabit, within
>> their respective domains).
>
> You are still talking nonsenses.
>
> The standard classical math is self consistent.

That is not the entire test. It has to be consistent, yes, but it also
has to correctly describe how things behave, and in that respect it
fails - it predicts results that do not match what is found in experiments.

Sylvia.

[Poutnik]

Dne 21/02/2017 v 18:23 Ed Lake napsal(a):

1/
Logic, reasoning and thinking fails
in predictions of quantitative parameters.
Without math, they stopped being enough
when the modern science was founded.
Applied math, modelling the behaviour of nature must be used.

The math Newton invented to support physics
would make you sick.

BTW, there is hardly any mathematician in the group.
You generally confuse mathematicians
with physicists using ( successfully ) applied math
for modelling the behaviour of reality.


2/
Your own logic and Feynman quote convince you from the failure,
as the idea of slowing/speeding up time
fails to agree with experiments.

Remember various variants of classical luminoferous aether theories.
Each agreed with some of experiments, but disagreed with others.
So they were refuted. So is refuted your idea,
refuted by experiments with involved motion.

The time dilation has similarity with some aspects of Doppler effect.
The observed frequency of the source changes
if it moves wrt the observer.
But it does not mean the source frequency changed.

--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

[Eckard B]

Am Dienstag, 21. Februar 2017 22:29:46 UTC+1 schrieb Ed Lake:

> > Could you please comment on my suggestion to choose a one-way definition of the speed of light in vacuum?
>
> I don't understand the question: "choose a one-way definition of the speed of light in a vacuum"? Are there different definitions? I don't recall seeing ANY definition. Or are you asking ME for a definition? I wouldn't even know where to begin. I've never thought about it before.
>
> I see Wikipedia says this: "the one-way speed in one direction or the other is undefined (and not simply unknown), unless one can define what is 'the same time' in two different locations. To measure the time that the light has taken to travel from one place to another it is necessary to know the start and finish times as measured on the same time scale. This requires either two synchronized clocks, one at the start and one at the finish, or some means of sending a signal instantaneously from the start to the finish. No instantaneous means of transmitting information is known." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light
>
> Do you have some problem with that definition?

Yes. To me, Einstein's so called Poincaré synchronization is de facto a two-way definition that contradicts causality. Being therefore called a conventional one, it is obviously intended to provide a justification for using a formula that was found by Lorentz as to rescue the aether hypothesis.

Concerning Roberts, I found out from his phone number that he relates to Fermilab. While his collected evidence invites to detailed corrections and additions, I guess that leading experts might agree with his argument that SR is just a projection (from an arbitrarily chosen point of reference).

To me, it might be worth to investigate in which case SR is appropriate and in which case one-way theory is adequate. While gravitation is a force between two objects, length and time seem to be ubiquitous properties.

Who isn't aware of a current discussion at FQXi on the measured decrease of the mass of Urkilogram?

[Ed Lake]

On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 8:51:52 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 2/21/17 2/21/17 11:23 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > Experiments show that time runs slower for an object if that object is closer
> > to the center of a gravitational mass.
>
> No, they don't actually show that. When you ignore essential aspects of the
> experiments you fool yourself.
>
> Experiments actually make COMPARISONS OF SIGNALS from clocks at different
> altitudes in a gravitational field, and show that the SIGNAL from the lower
> clock has a lower frequency than the SIGNAL from the upper clock.
>

You should define what the word "SIGNALS" means in your context. The same with "frequency." It appears that you are simply saying that the frequency of the aluminum ion vibrations was slower when the clock was lower. The frequency of vibrations is how time is measured. Therefore time slowed down.

They raised an atomic clock by one foot and the time measured by the clock ran faster. Where are the "SIGNALS" you mention?

> In modern physics (here SR and GR) this is modeled as a geometrical projection,
> not any clock "running slower", and not "time running slower".
>
> Indeed, one cannot formulate a self-consistent theory in which
> "time dilation" is actually clocks running slower, and which
> also agrees with ALL the experiments (i.e. the ones that show
> that SR and GR are valid models of the world we inhabit, within
> their respective domains).
>
> Yes, all too many popular articles on this discuss "clocks running slower",
> because their authors are unwilling (or unable) to discuss the subtleties of the
> ACTUAL theory -- General Relativity is HARD. Even the NIST authors and their
> Science editors took this shortcut. I don't.
>
> Tom Roberts

So, all the scientists who write about time running slower are just unwilling or unable to see things your way? Are they all less intelligent than you? Or are they deliberately lying in order to challenge your beliefs?

What about the Hafele-Keating experiments? They did the calculations and then did the experiments to confirm the experiments. They confirmed that time sped up and slowed down. Where do your "SIGNALS" come into play in those experiments?

Ed

[rotchm]

On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 9:52:35 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 8:51:52 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:

> So, all the scientists who write about time running slower are
> just unwilling or unable to see things your way?

Speaking for myself, some are unwilling, some are unable. Some are just writing for their audience so are permitted to be sloppy, etc. We told you this already.

> Are they all less intelligent than you?

Most of them are less smarter than me.

> Or are they deliberately lying

They are either clueless, or just writing for their audience.
We explained all this to you many times already. Already forgotten?

> What about the Hafele-Keating experiments? They did the calculations
> and then did the experiments to confirm the experiments.
> They confirmed that time sped up and slowed down. Where do
> your "SIGNALS" come into play in those experiments?

Its a different exp! They moved clocks about (said, through spacetime) and reunited them & compared them as they coincided. No comparing "signals", just comparing clocks side by side.

[Ed Lake]

On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 12:59:41 AM UTC-6, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 21/02/2017 v 18:23 Ed Lake napsal(a):
> > Experiments show that time runs slower for an object if that object is closer to the center of a gravitational mass. Likewise, time runs faster for an object if it is moved farther away from the center of a gravitational mass. The NIST (National Institute for Standards and Technology) CONFIRMED this was true by raising an atomic clock by just one foot and noting that the raised clock ran at a faster rate. They also stated: "This 'time dilation' can be quantified by comparing the tick rates of identical clocks that accompany the traveler and the stationary observer. Another consequence of Einstein’s theory is that clocks run more slowly near massive objects. In the range of speeds and length scales encountered in our daily life, relativistic effects are extremely small. For example, if two identical clocks are separated vertically by 1 km near the surface of Earth, the higher clock emits about three more second-ticks than the lower one in a million years.” Further info: https://www.nist.gov/publications/relativity-and-optical-clocks
> >
> > The Hafele-Keaton experiments in 1971 CONFIRMED that both gravitational time dilation and velocity time dilation are a real, natural phenomenon. Joseph Hafele and Richard Keating first calculated how much time would be altered for them and four atomic clocks if they took commercial airplane trips around the world, first traveling eastward and then traveling westward. They then performed the actual experiments and compared their computed results to the actual results. They CONFIRMED that time dilation works just as Einstein predicted. Further info: http://xrm.phys.northwestern.edu/research/pdf_papers/1972/hafele_science_1972.pdf
> >
> > Due to their height and velocity, GPS satellites show time passing at a different rate than ground clocks. Further info: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
> >
> > There have been MANY other experiments CONFIRMING time dilation and how it works.
> >
> > But some mathematicians on this forum endlessly argue that time CANNOT run slower or faster regardless of what the evidence says. They IMPLY that the NIST scientists were incompetent. They won’t even discuss the Hafele-Keating experiment because it conflicts with their beliefs. They appear to argue a theory that time dilation is just an “illusion” in spite of all the EVIDENCE.
> >
> > LOGIC says (and Richard Feynman said), "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." Logically, therefore, the mathematicians are WRONG. Their beliefs disagree with experiments.
> >
>
> 1/
> Logic, reasoning and thinking fails
> in predictions of quantitative parameters.
> Without math, they stopped being enough
> when the modern science was founded.
> Applied math, modelling the behaviour of nature must be used.
>
> The math Newton invented to support physics
> would make you sick.
>
> BTW, there is hardly any mathematician in the group.
> You generally confuse mathematicians
> with physicists using ( successfully ) applied math
> for modelling the behaviour of reality.
>

I use the term "mathematicians" to apply to people who can only discuss physics and science in mathematical terms because they evidently only understand mathematics and mathematical terms, not physics or science.

>
> 2/
> Your own logic and Feynman quote convince you from the failure,
> as the idea of slowing/speeding up time
> fails to agree with experiments.
>

I listed and discussed the experiments that show time slowing down and speeding up, and you claim those experiments do not agree with those experiments? And you think you are making sense?

> Remember various variants of classical luminoferous aether theories.
> Each agreed with some of experiments, but disagreed with others.
> So they were refuted. So is refuted your idea,
> refuted by experiments with involved motion.
>

Again: I listed and discussed the experiments that show time slowing down and speeding up, and you claim those experiments do not agree with those experiments? And you think you are making sense?

> The time dilation has similarity with some aspects of Doppler effect.
> The observed frequency of the source changes
> if it moves wrt the observer.
> But it does not mean the source frequency changed.

I agree with this, but how does it apply to someone looking at two clocks and seeing that the lower clock runs/ticks slower than the upper clock? And how does it apply to someone who takes a clock with him on an airplane and verifies that his time and the clocks time slowed down due to their movement?

Ed

[Ed Lake]

On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 1:57:02 AM UTC-6, Eckard B wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 21. Februar 2017 22:29:46 UTC+1 schrieb Ed Lake:
>
> > > Could you please comment on my suggestion to choose a one-way definition of the speed of light in vacuum?
> >
> > I don't understand the question: "choose a one-way definition of the speed of light in a vacuum"? Are there different definitions? I don't recall seeing ANY definition. Or are you asking ME for a definition? I wouldn't even know where to begin. I've never thought about it before.
> >
> > I see Wikipedia says this: "the one-way speed in one direction or the other is undefined (and not simply unknown), unless one can define what is 'the same time' in two different locations. To measure the time that the light has taken to travel from one place to another it is necessary to know the start and finish times as measured on the same time scale. This requires either two synchronized clocks, one at the start and one at the finish, or some means of sending a signal instantaneously from the start to the finish. No instantaneous means of transmitting information is known." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light
> >
> > Do you have some problem with that definition?
>
> Yes. To me, Einstein's so called Poincaré synchronization is de facto a two-way definition that contradicts causality. Being therefore called a conventional one, it is obviously intended to provide a justification for using a formula that was found by Lorentz as to rescue the aether hypothesis.
>

I think the point is: Since there is no way to measure the one-way speed of light, we cannot be certain that light from every star in the universe isn't coming to us at a slightly different speed. And the mathematicians who have argued here that you can somehow measure one-way speed of light by timing the arrival of two different photons from the same source are full of crap.

> Concerning Roberts, I found out from his phone number that he relates to Fermilab. While his collected evidence invites to detailed corrections and additions, I guess that leading experts might agree with his argument that SR is just a projection (from an arbitrarily chosen point of reference).
>

Hmm. Okay. That suggests he works with particle physics, and the time dilation experiments aren't really particle physics experiments. And it might explain why he cannot accept that time moves slower. In particle physics they tend to avoid assumptions about what happened between observations. Did the clock run slower between observations, or did the first observation view a totally different clock than the second observation? Or maybe the time change was instantaneous and wouldn't have occurred if you hadn't looked at the clock a second time!

> To me, it might be worth to investigate in which case SR is appropriate and in which case one-way theory is adequate. While gravitation is a force between two objects, length and time seem to be ubiquitous properties.
>
> Who isn't aware of a current discussion at FQXi on the measured decrease of the mass of Urkilogram?

I would imagine that quite a few people are unaware of that. And anyone who thinks EVERYONE MUST BE aware of it is living in a fantasy world.

Ed

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Stupid Monkey Ed
Learn more Physics & Electrodynamics

[Ed Lake]

On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 9:09:49 AM UTC-6, rotchm wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 9:52:35 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 8:51:52 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
>
> > So, all the scientists who write about time running slower are
> > just unwilling or unable to see things your way?
>
> Speaking for myself, some are unwilling, some are unable. Some are just writing for their audience so are permitted to be sloppy, etc. We told you this already.
>

The fact that you told me your BELIEFS doesn't make our BELIEFS valid. Since you have no EVIDENCE to support your BELIEFS and OPINIONS, I reject your BELIEFS and OPINIONS. I'm only interested in facts and evidence. I was just pointing out that YOUR BELIEFS about why scientists do things has no logical or scientific value.

> > Are they all less intelligent than you?
>
> Most of them are less smarter than me.
>
> > Or are they deliberately lying
>
> They are either clueless, or just writing for their audience.
> We explained all this to you many times already. Already forgotten?
>

I had another big laugh over your BELIEFS. I hadn't forgotten. I just thought it would be fun for you to argue our BELIEFS once again. I shows that you have no facts and evidence, only BELIEFS.

>
> > What about the Hafele-Keating experiments? They did the calculations
> > and then did the experiments to confirm the experiments.
> > They confirmed that time sped up and slowed down. Where do
> > your "SIGNALS" come into play in those experiments?
>
> Its a different exp! They moved clocks about (said, through spacetime) and reunited them & compared them as they coincided. No comparing "signals", just comparing clocks side by side.

Okay. No one said it was the same experiment the NIST did. But, in addition to velocity time dilation, the Hafele-Keating experiments also involved gravitational time dilation just like the NIST experiment. What happened to the "signals"? And did the clocks run slower and faster during the experiments, or did they just magically adjust once the experiments were completed?

Ed

[John Heath]

For Doppler effect yes but for gravitational time dilation no as it will violate causation. A source puts out 1 GHz RF radiation. With Doppler effect continuously moving away there is always move space to hide the missing pulses in the ever increase space between source and observer of .99 GHz that was 1 GHz. However in the case of gravitational time dilation the distance between source and observer remains the same. Where are you going to hide the missing pulses without violating causation? The two clocks had to be running at different speeds or live with missing pulses that can not be explained without violating causality.

[Tom Roberts]

On 2/21/17 2/21/17 - 9:22 PM, John Heath wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 9:51:52 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
>> In modern physics (here SR and GR) this is modeled as a geometrical
>> projection, not any clock "running slower", and not "time running slower".

> Yes clocks on earth do not run slower if you are on earth. How ever if one is
> in space looking down earth clocks are running slow by just under 1 cycle per
> second at 1 GHz. If I sit on the sun and look at earth the earth clocks they
> are running too fast.

You missed my point entirely. If you are LOOKING at a distant clock, YOU ARE NOT
MEASURING THAT CLOCK, YOU ARE MEASURING SIGNALS FROM THAT CLOCK.

Those signals are an essential aspect of the physical situation;
they CANNOT be ignored. Indeed, both SR and GR model this as an
effect on how those signals are measured.

Gravity affects HOW YOU MEASURE THOSE SIGNALS, not how clocks tick. Ditto for
relative motion.

Interestingly, neither clocks nor light signals are affected
by either gravity or relative motion; what is affected is how
the clocks or signals are measured.

When you say "the clock runs slow", you are talking about the clock and nothing
else; that statement is wrong. Say instead "that clock is measured by this
observer to run slow", or "signals from that clock are measured by this observer
to run slow".

> You are splitting hairs yes/no.

No. This is an important concept in both SR and GR. They are both theories of
geometry, and both "time dilation" and "length contraction" are geometrical
effects essential to these theories. It is also important to realize that clocks
ALWAYS tick at their usual rate.

Tom Roberts

[Poutnik]

On 02/22/2017 04:10 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 12:59:41 AM UTC-6, Poutnik wrote:
>
> I use the term "mathematicians" to apply to people who can only discuss physics and science in mathematical terms because they evidently only understand mathematics and mathematical terms, not physics or science.

I would turn the table, as it is you who - as many others
before and after you - want to strip the math from physics,
to be able to talk about physics.

You do not understand the role of math in physics and science,
and I am afraid you never will.

It is a common trick of people not understanding X
to mark X as unnecessary garbage,
while marking the understood Y
as the only essential thing worthy to discuss.

Math models are the core of any physical theory
to *quantitatively* model and predict observed phenomena.
Describing the theories and observed behaviour via math
is much more compact and precise than verbose description.

It is like if you were complaining about the physicians
they can only discuss the medicine in Latin
as they obviously understand just Latin and not medicine.

As the math is Latin of science.

Tom Roberts, JanPB and rotchm know physics, science and their
methodologies very well. You criticize them
not from POW of better knowledge, but from POW of ignorance in physics.

>> 2/
>> Your own logic and Feynman quote convince you from the failure,
>> as the idea of slowing/speeding up time
>> fails to agree with experiments.
>

>> Remember various variants of classical luminoferous aether theories.
>> Each agreed with some of experiments, but disagreed with others.
>> So they were refuted. So is refuted your idea,
>> refuted by experiments with involved motion.
>>
>
> I listed and discussed the experiments that show time slowing down and speeding up, and you claim those experiments do not agree with those experiments? And you think you are making sense?

Do you know the difference between an idea and an experiment ?

Do you know the difference between the following statements ?
"An idea disagrees with experiments."
"Experiments disagrees with experiments."

The idea of time going slower or faster
may agree with some experiments where motion is not involved,
but does not agree with experiments where significant motion IS involved.

It DOES NOT mean experiments do not agree with other experiments.
It means some phenomena manifests itself in some experiments,
while does not in the others.

>> The time dilation has similarity with some aspects of Doppler effect.
>> The observed frequency of the source changes
>> if it moves wrt the observer.
>> But it does not mean the source frequency changed.
>
> I agree with this, but how does it apply to someone looking at two clocks and seeing that the lower clock runs/ticks slower than the upper clock? And how does it apply to someone who takes a clock with him on an airplane and verifies that his time and the clocks time slowed down due to their movement?

Similarity with some aspects does not mean it applies,
otherwise it would not be written in such a way.

It is illustration what you measure
need not to be what you think you measure.

[Poutnik]

On 02/22/2017 04:52 PM, John Heath wrote:

>
> For Doppler effect yes but for gravitational time dilation no as it will violate causation. A source puts out 1 GHz RF radiation. With Doppler effect continuously moving away there is always move space to hide the missing pulses in the ever increase space between source and observer of .99 GHz that was 1 GHz. However in the case of gravitational time dilation the distance between source and observer remains the same. Where are you going to hide the missing pulses without violating causation? The two clocks had to be running at different speeds or live with missing pulses that can not be explained without violating causality.

How do you understand "similarity in some aspects" ?

The illustrated similarity was meant as

"What you measure
may not necessarily be the same thing
as what you think you measure. "

( Especially if one is less than well educated in physics.)

[John Heath]

Yes clocks always run at their usual rate. But what that usual rate is depends on SR and GR. I will repeat my same argument to Poutnik.

[Ed Lake]

On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 9:59:55 AM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 2/21/17 2/21/17 - 9:22 PM, John Heath wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 9:51:52 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> In modern physics (here SR and GR) this is modeled as a geometrical
> >> projection, not any clock "running slower", and not "time running slower".
> > Yes clocks on earth do not run slower if you are on earth. How ever if one is
> > in space looking down earth clocks are running slow by just under 1 cycle per
> > second at 1 GHz. If I sit on the sun and look at earth the earth clocks they
> > are running too fast.
>
> You missed my point entirely. If you are LOOKING at a distant clock, YOU ARE NOT
> MEASURING THAT CLOCK, YOU ARE MEASURING SIGNALS FROM THAT CLOCK.
>
> Those signals are an essential aspect of the physical situation;
> they CANNOT be ignored. Indeed, both SR and GR model this as an
> effect on how those signals are measured.
>

But no one is looking at a "DISTANT clock." The NIST scientists are in a lab looking at clocks that are probably no more than three feet away.

You seem to be using "signals" as an obfuscation to avoid using the word "light." You seem to be arguing that the time dilation from the clocks that are both three feet away results from different lengths of the time it takes for light to travel from the digital readouts on the clocks to your eyes.

> Gravity affects HOW YOU MEASURE THOSE SIGNALS, not how clocks tick. Ditto for
> relative motion.
>
> Interestingly, neither clocks nor light signals are affected
> by either gravity or relative motion; what is affected is how
> the clocks or signals are measured.
>

What do these indented statements represent? Are they quotes from something else you have written?

HOW does gravity affect how we measure the "signals" (or light?) from the clocks? Please explain.

> When you say "the clock runs slow", you are talking about the clock and nothing
> else; that statement is wrong. Say instead "that clock is measured by this
> observer to run slow", or "signals from that clock are measured by this observer
> to run slow".
>
> > You are splitting hairs yes/no.
>
> No. This is an important concept in both SR and GR. They are both theories of
> geometry, and both "time dilation" and "length contraction" are geometrical
> effects essential to these theories. It is also important to realize that clocks
> ALWAYS tick at their usual rate.
>
> Tom Roberts

But the FACTS AND EVIDENCE in the experiments show that clocks tick at different rates. The EVIDENCE shows you are wrong, and you seem incapable of explaining how you can be right. You just make declarations.

The whole theory of relativity is based upon the FACT that time ticks at different rates in different frames of reference. You can't argue that Einstein was wrong while also arguing that his theory supports your beliefs.

Ed

[Poutnik]

On 02/22/2017 05:22 PM, John Heath wrote:

> Yes clocks always run at their usual rate. But what that usual
> rate is depends on SR and GR.

Their measured rate.

>
> For Doppler effect yes but for gravitational time dilation no

See my additional note in the other post.

> as it will violate causation. A source puts out 1 GHz RF radiation.
> With Doppler effect continuously moving away there is always
> move space to hide the missing pulses in the ever increase space
> between source and observer of .99 GHz that was 1 GHz. However
> in the case of gravitational time dilation the distance between
> source and observer remains the same. Where are you going to
> hide the missing pulses without violating causation? The two
> clocks had to be running at different speeds or live with missing
> pulses that can not be explained without violating causality.

If 2 runners get to the same destination
and their stopwatches show different run time,
either they were measuring time at different rate,
either their run time was different.

For the GR/SR it is analogical.

But instead of different time intervals
to get to the same space point,
there are different "proper-time" intervals
to get to the same space-time point.

Tom may correct me, as I am not an expert in GR.

[Poutnik]

On 02/22/2017 05:37 PM, Poutnik wrote:

>
> If 2 runners get to the same destination
> and their stopwatches show different run time,
> either they were measuring time at different rate,
> either their run time was different.
>
> For the GR/SR it is analogical.
>
> But instead of different time intervals
> to get to the same space point,
> there are different "proper-time" intervals
> to get to the same space-time point.

P.S.>
As the above runners made cross-country run
via slightly different paths via space,

so did clocks moved
via slightly different paths via space-time.

[Ed Lake]

On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 10:08:12 AM UTC-6, Poutnik wrote:
> On 02/22/2017 04:10 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 12:59:41 AM UTC-6, Poutnik wrote:
> >
> > I use the term "mathematicians" to apply to people who can only discuss physics and science in mathematical terms because they evidently only understand mathematics and mathematical terms, not physics or science.
>
> I would turn the table, as it is you who - as many others
> before and after you - want to strip the math from physics,
> to be able to talk about physics.
>

No one is stripping math from physics. The point is that mathematics can be "garbage in, garbage out." To make certain you are not just computing "garbage," you need to understand the LOGIC behind what is being calculated.

> You do not understand the role of math in physics and science,
> and I am afraid you never will.
>

Your opinions about me are meaningless as well as laughable, since it seems you do not understand the role of math in physics and science. You seem to believe that math IS physics and science.

> It is a common trick of people not understanding X
> to mark X as unnecessary garbage,
> while marking the understood Y
> as the only essential thing worthy to discuss.
>
> Math models are the core of any physical theory
> to *quantitatively* model and predict observed phenomena.
> Describing the theories and observed behaviour via math
> is much more compact and precise than verbose description.
>

But you need to use logic and observation and experiments to figure out how to construct the model. The observations, logic and experiments come first, THEN a mathematical model is constructed to TEST the logic with further experiments.

> It is like if you were complaining about the physicians
> they can only discuss the medicine in Latin
> as they obviously understand just Latin and not medicine.
>
> As the math is Latin of science.
>
> Tom Roberts, JanPB and rotchm know physics, science and their
> methodologies very well. You criticize them
> not from POW of better knowledge, but from POW of ignorance in physics.
>

I criticize them because they CANNOT EXPLAIN their BELIEFS. And it is well known that, if you cannot explain what you mean, then you probably do not fully understand the subject yourself.

>
> >> 2/
> >> Your own logic and Feynman quote convince you from the failure,
> >> as the idea of slowing/speeding up time
> >> fails to agree with experiments.
> >
> >> Remember various variants of classical luminoferous aether theories.
> >> Each agreed with some of experiments, but disagreed with others.
> >> So they were refuted. So is refuted your idea,
> >> refuted by experiments with involved motion.
> >>
> >
> > I listed and discussed the experiments that show time slowing down and speeding up, and you claim those experiments do not agree with those experiments? And you think you are making sense?
>
> Do you know the difference between an idea and an experiment ?
>
> Do you know the difference between the following statements ?
> "An idea disagrees with experiments."
> "Experiments disagrees with experiments."
>

"An idea disagrees with experiments" is the same as "a theory disagrees with experiments," so the idea/theory is WRONG.

Experiments can only disagree with experiments when one experiment is improperly executed. Scientists often perform experiment after experiment in search of a finding. Those experiments do not disagree with each other, they agree with the IDEA that the properly constructed experiment has not yet been found.

> The idea of time going slower or faster
> may agree with some experiments where motion is not involved,
> but does not agree with experiments where significant motion IS involved.
>

Please cite the experiments which DISAGREE with "the idea of time going slower or faster."

> It DOES NOT mean experiments do not agree with other experiments.
> It means some phenomena manifests itself in some experiments,
> while does not in the others.
>

Again, you need to explain what you mean and provide examples. Are you saying what I said above, that you sometimes need to perform experiment after experiment to find the right combination of tests to prove your objective?

>
> >> The time dilation has similarity with some aspects of Doppler effect.
> >> The observed frequency of the source changes
> >> if it moves wrt the observer.
> >> But it does not mean the source frequency changed.
> >
> > I agree with this, but how does it apply to someone looking at two clocks and seeing that the lower clock runs/ticks slower than the upper clock? And how does it apply to someone who takes a clock with him on an airplane and verifies that his time and the clocks time slowed down due to their movement?
>
> Similarity with some aspects does not mean it applies,
> otherwise it would not be written in such a way.
>
> It is illustration what you measure
> need not to be what you think you measure.

That requires further explanation. It is just gibberish as written. Are you claiming that the NIST doesn't know what they are doing, or are you claiming that Hafele and Keating didn't know what they were doing?

Ed

[Eckard B]

Am Mittwoch, 22. Februar 2017 16:25:15 UTC+1 schrieb Ed Lake:
> On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 1:57:02 AM UTC-6, Eckard B wrote:
> > Am Dienstag, 21. Februar 2017 22:29:46 UTC+1 schrieb Ed Lake:
> >
> > > > Could you please comment on my suggestion to choose a one-way definition of the speed of light in vacuum?
> > >
> > > I don't understand the question: "choose a one-way definition of the speed of light in a vacuum"? Are there different definitions? I don't recall seeing ANY definition. Or are you asking ME for a definition? I wouldn't even know where to begin. I've never thought about it before.
> > >
> > > I see Wikipedia says this: "the one-way speed in one direction or the other is undefined (and not simply unknown), unless one can define what is 'the same time' in two different locations. To measure the time that the light has taken to travel from one place to another it is necessary to know the start and finish times as measured on the same time scale. This requires either two synchronized clocks, one at the start and one at the finish, or some means of sending a signal instantaneously from the start to the finish. No instantaneous means of transmitting information is known." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light
> > >
> > > Do you have some problem with that definition?
> >
> > Yes. To me, Einstein's so called Poincaré synchronization is de facto a two-way definition that contradicts causality. Being therefore called a conventional one, it is obviously intended to provide a justification for using a formula that was found by Lorentz as to rescue the aether hypothesis.
> >
>
> I think the point is: Since there is no way to measure the one-way speed of light, we cannot be certain that light from every star in the universe isn't coming to us at a slightly different speed. And the mathematicians who have argued here that you can somehow measure one-way speed of light by timing the arrival of two different photons from the same source are full of crap.

When I read Einstein's 1905 paper on moving bodies, I looked in vain for his direct definition of the speed of light. Clearly, he referred to empty space and managed to arrive at Lorentz. Therefore he sonsidered a signal from A to B and return and "measured" the time of flight as the mean value forth and back. The famous von Essen of NIST criticised that E. did never perform measurements, just Gedankenexperimente. I agree with him. Every not insane experimenter with sound common sense would not determine the time of flight in the described matter if B moves relative to A.

Of course I have to explain why and to what extent SR does nonetheless work.

> > Concerning Roberts, I found out from his phone number that he relates to Fermilab. While his collected evidence invites to detailed corrections and additions, I guess that leading experts might agree with his argument that SR is just a projection (from an arbitrarily chosen point of reference).
> >
>
> Hmm. Okay. That suggests he works with particle physics, and the time dilation experiments aren't really particle physics experiments. And it might explain why he cannot accept that time moves slower. In particle physics they tend to avoid assumptions about what happened between observations. Did the clock run slower between observations, or did the first observation view a totally different clock than the second observation? Or maybe the time change was instantaneous and wouldn't have occurred if you hadn't looked at the clock a second time!

Any interpretation is based on a chosen point of reference. That's my message.

Again: To me, it might be worth to investigate in which case SR is appropriate and in which case one-way theory is adequate. While gravitation is a mutual force between two objects, length and time seem to be ubiquitous one-way properties even it sounds silly to speak of one-way definition in case of time and distance.

[Poutnik]

On 02/22/2017 05:53 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 10:08:12 AM UTC-6, Poutnik wrote:
>>
>> I would turn the table, as it is you who - as many others
>> before and after you - want to strip the math from physics,
>> to be able to talk about physics.
>>
>
> No one is stripping math from physics. The point is that mathematics can be "garbage in, garbage out." To make certain you are not just computing "garbage," you need to understand the LOGIC behind what is being calculated.

Yes, so if somebody criticizes the math of the theory,
he needs to learn the theory to understand the logic behind it.

>
>> You do not understand the role of math in physics and science,
>> and I am afraid you never will.
>>
>
> Your opinions about me are meaningless as well as laughable, since it seems you do not understand the role of math in physics and science. You seem to believe that math IS physics and science.

As your opinion about my believe failed, your statement is useless.
Math is not physics nor science,
similarly as Latin is not Medicine,
nor the cherry core is a cherry.

>
>> It is a common trick of people not understanding X
>> to mark X as unnecessary garbage,
>> while marking the understood Y
>> as the only essential thing worthy to discuss.
>>
>> Math models are the core of any physical theory
>> to *quantitatively* model and predict observed phenomena.
>> Describing the theories and observed behaviour via math
>> is much more compact and precise than verbose description.
>>
>
> But you need to use logic and observation and experiments to figure out how to construct the model. The observations, logic and experiments come first, THEN a mathematical model is constructed to TEST the logic with further experiments.

All of the above was done during 1905-1915 when theories were
developed, and in next 100 years, when improved.
Learn the theory, how they came to all of it.

>> It is like if you were complaining about the physicians
>> they can only discuss the medicine in Latin
>> as they obviously understand just Latin and not medicine.
>>
>> As the math is Latin of science.
>>
>> Tom Roberts, JanPB and rotchm know physics, science and their
>> methodologies very well. You criticize them
>> not from POW of better knowledge, but from POW of ignorance in physics.
>>
>
> I criticize them because they CANNOT EXPLAIN their BELIEFS. And it is well known that, if you cannot explain what you mean, then you probably do not fully understand the subject yourself.

They refute to explain it to you, as it is waste of their time,
You would not get it, as you freak out at simple math.

>>> I listed and discussed the experiments that show time slowing down and speeding up, and you claim those experiments do not agree with those experiments? And you think you are making sense?
>>
>> Do you know the difference between an idea and an experiment ?
>>
>> Do you know the difference between the following statements ?
>> "An idea disagrees with experiments."
>> "Experiments disagrees with experiments."
>>
>
> "An idea disagrees with experiments" is the same as "a theory disagrees with experiments," so the idea/theory is WRONG.
>
> Experiments can only disagree with experiments when one experiment is improperly executed. Scientists often perform experiment after experiment in search of a finding. Those experiments do not disagree with each other, they agree with the IDEA that the properly constructed experiment has not yet been found.
>

Hmm, you may not read properly, I will not repeat it the 3rd time.

>> The idea of time going slower or faster
>> may agree with some experiments where motion is not involved,
>> but does not agree with experiments where significant motion IS involved.
>>
>
> Please cite the experiments which DISAGREE with "the idea of time going slower or faster."

Find it, if you are really interested.

>

>> It DOES NOT mean experiments do not agree with other experiments.
>> It means some phenomena manifests itself in some experiments,
>> while does not in the others.
>>
>
> Again, you need to explain what you mean and provide examples. Are you saying what I said above, that you sometimes need to perform experiment after experiment to find the right combination of tests to prove your objective?

Your logic is weird. In history of science, it is seldom
that ALL experiments refute the wrong theory.

Only those experiment classes refute the theory
when manifest the phenomena, is is desribed by the theory
incorrectly, or not at all.

>>
>> Similarity with some aspects does not mean it applies,
>> otherwise it would not be written in such a way.
>>
>> It is illustration what you measure
>> need not to be what you think you measure.
>
> That requires further explanation. It is just gibberish as written. Are you claiming that the NIST doesn't know what they are doing, or are you claiming that Hafele and Keating didn't know what they were doing?
>

No, it is a gibberish as understood.

I am claiming you routinely misinterpret what you read,
and the formulations target their audiences.

[Poutnik]

On 02/22/2017 06:23 PM, Eckard B wrote:

> When I read Einstein's 1905 paper on moving bodies,
> I looked in vain for his direct definition of the speed of light.
> Clearly, he referred to empty space and managed to arrive at Lorentz.

Definition of speed of light is not part of SR.
SR is not theory of electrodynamics.

> Therefore he sonsidered a signal from A to B and return
> and "measured" the time of flight as the mean value forth and back.

This is not definition of speed of light.

It is a part of operational procedure
of the syncing clocks without relative motion.

> The famous von Essen of NIST criticised that E. did never perform measurements,
> just Gedankenexperimente. I agree with him.

It is foolish to expect theoretical physicist do experiments.
Neither Feynman nor Hawking did any experiment
related to their theories.

There were many others, who did.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 2/22/2017 10:27 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> HOW does gravity affect how we measure the "signals" (or light?) from the clocks? Please explain.

This is EXACTLY what is described in detail by general relativity.
This is ALSO what is confirmed in experiment.

Would you like a textbook reading recommendation?

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Ed Lake]

I think you need to understand the state of science in 1905. As I recall, one of Einstein's 1905 papers was the first paper to suggest the idea of a "photon" as a particle of light. Previously, it was evidently assumed that light was a constant wave from source to eyeball.

In 1905, the only thing they knew for certain about the speed of light was that it DID NOT COMBINE with the speed of the object emitting the light. They'd determined that by watching moving bodies in space and seeing that the speed of light didn't appear to change when the object (such as a moon) was moving away from the observer on Earth versus moving toward the observer on Earth.

So, because light didn't combine with movement, they assumed that light had a maximum speed. And they assumed that the speed of light that had been measured was that maximum.

No one actually attempted to measure the one-way speed of light. It was all done with LOGIC based upon other measurements.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

Okay, since Tom Roberts seems unable to explain his understandings about Time Dilation, I’ll explain MY understandings and ask him (and everyone else) to explain where I am wrong.

The NIST experiment and the Hafele-Keating experiments show that Time is a property of matter. Time appears to relate to particle spin and energy levels. Slowing down Time is equivalent to slowing down particle spin and energy levels.

In the NIST experiment, the nearly identical clocks were each based on the "ticking" of a single aluminum ion (electrically charged atom) as it vibrated between two energy levels at over a million billion times PER SECOND. That “ticking” directly relates to particle spin and “energy levels.” When a clock is raised, the energy levels increase because gravity has less effect on the “ticking” or “spin” and the clock ticks faster. Every atom in the clock is similarly affected, but it is only the aluminum ion atom that is used to measure time. And, of course, nothing outside of the clock is affected.

In an experiment where a clock is moving, the particle spin or vibration would conflict with the maximum speed of light (and time), which is also the maximum energy level. Every increase in velocity of the clock will result in a greater conflict with the maximum speed of light (and time) and energy level, and thus time and the clock will slow down proportionally. It’s identical to combining the speed of a spaceship with the speed of light. The faster the spaceship travels, the slower time and light must move within the spaceship because the maximum energy level, the maximum speed of light, and the maximum speed of time are fixed. (If the ship were to reach the maximum speed of light, time would stop and the ship would transform into waves of energy (or light) moving across the universe forever.)

Ed

[Odd Bodkin]

On 2/22/2017 12:21 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> Okay, since Tom Roberts seems unable to explain his understandings about Time Dilation, I’ll explain
> MY understandings and ask him (and everyone else) to explain where I am wrong.
>
> The NIST experiment and the Hafele-Keating experiments show that Time is a property of matter.

Excellent example of trying to invoke Cunningham's Law: The best way to
get the right answer on the Internet is not to ask a question, it's to
post the wrong answer.

Ed Lake does not seem to get that just because Ed has a different way of
(attempting to) to explain these experiments, does not mean that it is
either the ONLY way to explain these experiments or the sole way to
explain these experiments. Ed mistakenly believes that if an explanation
seems to be logical and consistent with the facts, then it MUST be the
correct explanation. This error has been pointed out to him repeatedly.
Ed's response is, if it is not the correct explanation, then WHAT IS
LOGICALLY WRONG with Ed's explanation? It does not occur to Ed that
there can be TWO logically sound explanations for the same observations,
but only one of them might still be true.

Ed has not taken the time or the trouble to learn the relativistic
explanation for these experiments, which not only provide a LOGICAL
understanding of what is happening here, but a NUMERICALLY ACCURATE
accounting for what is seen here.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 2/22/2017 12:09 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> I think you need to understand the state of science in 1905. As I recall, one of Einstein's 1905 papers
> was the first paper to suggest the idea of a "photon" as a particle of light. Previously, it was evidently
> assumed that light was a constant wave from source to eyeball.
>
> In 1905, the only thing they knew for certain about the speed of light was that it DID NOT COMBINE with the
> speed of the object emitting the light. They'd determined that by watching moving bodies in space and seeing
> that the speed of light didn't appear to change when the object (such as a moon) was moving away from the
> observer on Earth versus moving toward the observer on Earth.
>
> So, because light didn't combine with movement, they assumed that light had a maximum speed. And they assumed
> that the speed of light that had been measured was that maximum.
>
> No one actually attempted to measure the one-way speed of light. It was all done with LOGIC based upon other
> measurements.

Ed, you have wholesale manufactured a fictitious representation of the
actual state of affairs in 1905. It isn't even worth correcting, it's so
far off.

The only statement that was even CLOSE to being historically and
factually accurate was your last paragraph. While there have been many
measurements of the one-way speed of light of varying degrees of
precision (as all measurements are), it is true that the one-way speed
of light is UNIQUELY DETERMINED by two other measurements:
- The isotropy of the speed of light
- The two-way light speed

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Stupid Ed Monkey Gibbered

The NIST experiment and the Hafele-Keating experiments show that Time is a property of matter. Time appears to relate to particle spin and energy levels. Slowing down Time is equivalent to slowing down particle spin and energy levels.

More Gravity = More Red Shift = Lower Kinetic Energy = Slower Particle spin

Mass is equivalent to energy bound outside the system & not available to perform Work

Mass = Surface Area of Entropy

((2*G*M)/c^2)^3*4pi = Surface Area of entropy

[Mass GRAVITATES Causing (the passage of Time) to be Skewed]/(the radius in meters from the gravitating object )^2 = Curvature of space time in meters/second^2

(Space time )* Entropy = Gravitational acceleration
(Space time) * Energy = physical acceleration

[al...@interia.pl]

W dniu środa, 22 lutego 2017 04:31:22 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
> On 22/02/2017 2:24 PM, al...@interia.pl wrote:

> > W dniu środa, 22 lutego 2017 03:51:52 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
> >
> >> Indeed, one cannot formulate a self-consistent theory in which
> >> "time dilation" is actually clocks running slower, and which
> >> also agrees with ALL the experiments (i.e. the ones that show
> >> that SR and GR are valid models of the world we inhabit, within
> >> their respective domains).
> >

> > You are still talking nonsenses.
> >
> > The standard classical math is self consistent.
>
> That is not the entire test. It has to be consistent, yes, but it also
> has to correctly describe how things behave, and in that respect it
> fails - it predicts results that do not match what is found in experiments.
>
> Sylvia.

You don't know what you are talking about...

The Simpler test of your reliability:
show me the alternative math, which is superior to the classical - standard.

[paparios]

El miércoles, 22 de febrero de 2017, 15:21:53 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió:
> On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 10:27:15 AM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 9:59:55 AM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > On 2/21/17 2/21/17 - 9:22 PM, John Heath wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 9:51:52 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > >> In modern physics (here SR and GR) this is modeled as a geometrical
> > > >> projection, not any clock "running slower", and not "time running slower".
> > > > Yes clocks on earth do not run slower if you are on earth. How ever if one is
> > > > in space looking down earth clocks are running slow by just under 1 cycle per
> > > > second at 1 GHz. If I sit on the sun and look at earth the earth clocks they
> > > > are running too fast.
> > >
> > > You missed my point entirely. If you are LOOKING at a distant clock, YOU ARE NOT
> > > MEASURING THAT CLOCK, YOU ARE MEASURING SIGNALS FROM THAT CLOCK.
> > >
> > > Those signals are an essential aspect of the physical situation;
> > > they CANNOT be ignored. Indeed, both SR and GR model this as an
> > > effect on how those signals are measured.
> > >
> >
> > But no one is looking at a "DISTANT clock." The NIST scientists are in a lab looking at clocks that are probably no more than three feet away.
> >
> > You seem to be using "signals" as an obfuscation to avoid using the word "light." You seem to be arguing that the time dilation from the clocks that are both three feet away results from different lengths of the time it takes for light to travel from the digital readouts on the clocks to your eyes.
> >

Many people around here have explained to the troll, that even a feet difference in the altitude changes the interval and so the path the clock signals follow to reach the measuring device.

> > > Gravity affects HOW YOU MEASURE THOSE SIGNALS, not how clocks tick. Ditto for
> > > relative motion.
> > >
> > > Interestingly, neither clocks nor light signals are affected
> > > by either gravity or relative motion; what is affected is how
> > > the clocks or signals are measured.
> > >
> >
> > What do these indented statements represent? Are they quotes from something else you have written?
> >
> > HOW does gravity affect how we measure the "signals" (or light?) from the clocks? Please explain.
> >
> > > When you say "the clock runs slow", you are talking about the clock and nothing
> > > else; that statement is wrong. Say instead "that clock is measured by this
> > > observer to run slow", or "signals from that clock are measured by this observer
> > > to run slow".
> > >
> > > > You are splitting hairs yes/no.
> > >
> > > No. This is an important concept in both SR and GR. They are both theories of
> > > geometry, and both "time dilation" and "length contraction" are geometrical
> > > effects essential to these theories. It is also important to realize that clocks
> > > ALWAYS tick at their usual rate.
> > >
> > > Tom Roberts
> >
> > But the FACTS AND EVIDENCE in the experiments show that clocks tick at different rates. The EVIDENCE shows you are wrong, and you seem incapable of explaining how you can be right. You just make declarations.
> >
> > The whole theory of relativity is based upon the FACT that time ticks at different rates in different frames of reference. You can't argue that Einstein was wrong while also arguing that his theory supports your beliefs.
> >
> > Ed
>
> Okay, since Tom Roberts seems unable to explain his understandings about Time Dilation, I’ll explain MY understandings and ask him (and everyone else) to explain where I am wrong.
>
> The NIST experiment and the Hafele-Keating experiments show that Time is a property of matter. Time appears to relate to particle spin and energy levels. Slowing down Time is equivalent to slowing down particle spin and energy levels.
>

Wrong...As explained before to the troll, NIST results are predicted by GR. On the other hand, the same occurs with Hafele-Keating. What was compared there was the clock readings after the atomic clocks travel inside airplanes, with those of atomic clocks which were static at the ground. Comparing the spacetime coordinates (x,y,z,t) of the clocks, it should be evident the travelling clocks followed a different path as compared with the ground clocks. That difference in paths is what produced the difference in the clocks.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 2/22/2017 9:25 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> Hmm. Okay. That suggests he works with particle physics, and the time dilation experiments aren't really particle physics experiments.

This is such a clueless statement that I burst out laughing!

[rotchm]

On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 10:39:17 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 9:09:49 AM UTC-6, rotchm wrote:
>
> > Speaking for myself, some are unwilling, some are unable.
> > Some are just writing for their audience
>

> The fact that you told me your BELIEFS doesn't make our BELIEFS valid.
> Since you have no EVIDENCE to support your BELIEFS

I know many scientist that have published. They do tell me that they write for their audience. I too write for my audience. Depending of the audience, we use different words & expressions and different meanings. Like, i am unwilling to call it "geometric projection". I call it *the value obtained*.
Sometimes I call it "clocks run slow" , and sometimes I deny that "clocks run slow". There are no contradictions in there since those expressions have different meanings to different audiences. So I adapt to *their* lingo.

So, there is some of the evidence that some are "unwilling".
As for the "unable", you are evidence of that. You now got your evidence.

[Tom Roberts]

On 2/22/17 2/22/17 10:22 AM, John Heath wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 10:59:55 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
>> No. This is an important concept in both SR and GR. They are both theories
>> of geometry, and both "time dilation" and "length contraction" are
>> geometrical effects essential to these theories. It is also important to
>> realize that clocks ALWAYS tick at their usual rate.
>

> Yes clocks always run at their usual rate. But what that usual rate is
> depends on SR and GR.

No. Their usual rate is determined by the physical processes involved in their
timekeeping (aka ticking). Where they are located and how they might be moving
do not affect those processes at all. THAT'S THE POINT, which Einstein's first
postulate captured for SR (paraphrased into modern terms):

The laws of physics are the same in every inertial frame.

And in GR this is modified only slightly:

The laws of physics are the same in every locally inertial frame.

So a Cs133 atomic clock will always advance 1 second for every 9,192,631,770
cycles of its hyperfine transition. That _IS_ what we mean by "1 second".

> For Doppler effect yes but for gravitational time dilation no as it will
> violate causation.

Not true. Indeed you would have a hard time defining "causation" if clocks did
tick at different rates depending on their location.

> However in the case of gravitational time dilation the distance
> between source and observer remains the same. Where are you going to hide the
> missing pulses without violating causation?

You are VERY confused. There's never any need to "hide pulses". It's just that
the curvature of spaceTIME is involved, and affects the measurements of the
signals between clocks when they are compared. WHENEVER they are compared.

> The two clocks had to be running
> at different speeds or live with missing pulses that can not be explained
> without violating causality.

Nope. But you do have to study General Relativity to understand how this
actually happens.

Here's a non-mathematical introduction to the concepts of GR:
Gerouch, _General_Relativity_From_A_to_B_.

Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 2/22/17 2/22/17 10:27 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 9:59:55 AM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
>> If you are LOOKING at a distant clock, YOU
>> ARE NOT MEASURING THAT CLOCK, YOU ARE MEASURING SIGNALS FROM THAT CLOCK.
>>
>> Those signals are an essential aspect of the physical situation; they
>> CANNOT be ignored. Indeed, both SR and GR model this as an effect on how
>> those signals are measured.
>
> But no one is looking at a "DISTANT clock." The NIST scientists are in a lab
> looking at clocks that are probably no more than three feet away.

You REALLY should read what they write. In particular: "The two clocks are
located in different laboratories at NIST and connected by a 75-meter-long
optical fiber." It OUGHT to be obvious that the fiber is carrying SIGNALS.

It doesn't really matter -- if a 1 foot difference in altitude
is important, then so is your assumed 3-foot distance to the
observer.

Also, I know of no instrument that can compare or measure clocks
DIRECTLY; all available instruments measure signals. And all
clocks emit signals. It's just that YOU don't bother to think
this through and IGNORE ESSENTIAL ASPECTS of the experiment.

Moreover, of course, the scientists are not "looking at" these clocks, because
they are located in high vacuum vessels that are opaque [#]. They of course use
INSTRUMENTS that measure SIGNALS from the clocks (ions in this case). Moreover,
human eyes cannot see their SIGNALS.

This OUGHT to be a lesson for you: You ADDED a whole bunch of
stuff when you thought you were "reading" their paper. I repeat:
you REALLY need to learn how to read -- how to read accurately
and without adding your own GUESSES and FANTASIES to what is
actually on the page.

[#] for safety.

Your claims about this are mostly your own fabrication, not what the authors
wrote, not what they actually did, and not how SR and GR describe/model it.

> You seem to be using "signals" as an obfuscation to avoid using the word
> "light."

No. Your ability to interpret what I say is HOPELESS.

I said "signals" to be more general than merely light signals. The signaling is
the essence; light is one way of doing it, and electronic signals are another.

> You seem to be arguing that the time dilation from the clocks that
> are both three feet away results from different lengths of the time it takes
> for light to travel from the digital readouts on the clocks to your eyes.

NOT AT ALL. You REALLY need to learn how to read. This is purely YOUR OWN
FABRICATION -- I have never said anything remotely like that.

What I have actually said is this:

>> Gravity affects HOW YOU MEASURE THOSE SIGNALS, not how clocks tick. Ditto
>> for relative motion.
>>
>> Interestingly, neither clocks nor light signals are affected by either
>> gravity or relative motion; what is affected is how the clocks or signals
>> are measured.
>
> What do these indented statements represent? Are they quotes from something
> else you have written?

While I have certainly said similar things many times, these are just explaining
how this happens. I Indented them because they were peripheral to the main
discussion of that post.

> HOW does gravity affect how we measure the "signals" (or light?) from the
> clocks? Please explain.

OK. You asked for it. Here is how GR models this:

To compare the relative tick rates of two clocks A and B at different locations
requires that signals be sent from both clocks to an instrument that can compare
frequencies of the signals. Each signal must be a faithful representation of the
ticking of each clock. To calculate this comparison in GR:
1A form the displacement 4-vector between successive ticks of clock A;
this 4-vector is necessarily timelike, parallel to the 4-velocity of
clock A, with a magnitude equal to its tick interval.
2A parallel propagate that 4-vector along the signal path to the
measuring instrument.
3A The interval between ticks of this signal measured by the instrument
is computed by taking the dot product of the result of (2A) with the
4-velocity of the instrument.
1B,2B,3B as above but for clock B
4. The instrument compares 3A to 3B and determines the difference
between their frequencies.

In particular, note the magnitude of the 4-vector in 1A involves the metric at
the location of clock A when the signal was emitted, and the measured value in
3A involves the metric at the location of the instrument when the signal was
received. So the result 3A (3B), compared to the original signal 1A (1B), can be
different for two reasons:
a) the 4-velocities of clock and instrument are not parallel -- this is
"time dilation" in SR for clock and instrument at rest in different
inertial frames.
b) the metric can be different for the clock and the instrument -- this
is "gravitational time dilation" in GR for clock and instrument at
rest in a gravitational field.
"Cosmological time dilation" in GR involves both (a) and (b).

> But the FACTS AND EVIDENCE in the experiments show that clocks tick at
> different rates.

No, they don't actually show that. YOU ARE IGNORING ESSENTIAL ASPECTS OF THE
EXPERIMENTS, and it is those aspects that are actually affected, not the clocks
themselves.

> The EVIDENCE shows you are wrong,

No it does NOT. It shows that YOU ARE IGNORING ESSENTIAL ASPECTS OF THE EXPERIMENTS.

The _ACTUAL_ model of these experiments is GR. It behaves as I have said, not as
you claim, and it is extremely accurate in predicting the results of such
experiments.

> The whole theory of relativity is based upon the FACT that time ticks at
> different rates in different frames of reference.

No, it isn't. YOU GOT THIS COMPLETELY WRONG. YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT
RELATIVITY ACTUALLY IS. What you think is "FACT" is purely of your own
fabrication and is WRONG.

If clocks really did tick at different rates, as you suppose, SR and GR would
both be solidly refuted by the experiments, because they unequivocally predict
the geometrical effects I discussed above -- the effect would be doubled and
thus inconsistent with the measurements. Moreover, in SR it is completely
impossible to explain "mutual time dilation" as due to "clocks ticking slower",
but that symmetry of inertial frames is an essential aspect of SR. Neither
theory is actually refuted, which implies that their model of "clocks always
tick at their usual rate" is confirmed.

You REALLY need to learn how to read. You repeatedly demonstrate
that you cannot accurately read anything I write, or the NIST
papers, or Einstein's original 1905 paper. YOU get everything
wrong due to your poor reading comprehension skills. Work on
that before attempting to understand subtle concepts like
modern physics.

Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 2/22/17 2/22/17 9:25 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> Since there is no way to measure the one-way speed of light [...]

All too many people around here try to claim this. They are all wrong.

It is straightforward to measure the one-way speed of light. But doing that
requires the use of two clocks which must be synchronized, and the result you
obtain will depend in detail on how you chose to synchronize the two clocks.

[about me]

> That suggests he works with particle physics, and the time dilation

> experiments aren't really particle physics experiments. And it might explain
> why he cannot accept that time moves slower.

You really are clueless.

Yes, I work in particle physics. "Time dilation" is an ESSENTIAL part of
particle physics, and we often measure it and ALWAYS incorporate it in our
models of experiments. I have studied both GR and the experiments you attempt to
discuss and am also working on two gravitational experiments.

I do not accept "time moves slower" because IT IS WRONG:
A) the experiments do not actually show that -- YOU IGNORE ESSENTIAL
ASPECTS OF THEM and it is those aspects which are affected
B) No theory of modern physics includes "time moves slower"
C) it is not possible to construct a self-consistent theory that includes
"time moves slower" and also agrees with ALL the experiments.
Indeed nobody who has studied GR and understands both the relevant experiments
and the basics of the theory will accept "time moves slower".

Your ability to interpret what I write is HOPELESS. You REALLY need to learn how
to read: accurately, and without putting your own GUESSES and FANTASIES into

what is actually on the page.

Tom Roberts

[Sylvia Else]

What do you consider to be the standard classical math?

Sylvia.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu czwartek, 23 lutego 2017 04:17:45 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:

> So a Cs133 atomic clock will always advance 1 second for every 9,192,631,770
> cycles of its hyperfine transition. That _IS_ what we mean by "1 second".

A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. We mean by 1 second
something else.

[Eckard B]

Am Mittwoch, 22. Februar 2017 18:58:07 UTC+1 schrieb Poutnik:
> On 02/22/2017 06:23 PM, Eckard B wrote:
>
> > When I read Einstein's 1905 paper on moving bodies,
> > I looked in vain for his direct definition of the speed of light.
> > Clearly, he referred to empty space and managed to arrive at Lorentz.
>
> Definition of speed of light is not part of SR.

That's the fundamental deficit behind SR. Einstein operated in 1905 with a notion of speed that he didn't directly define. His indirect definition is his so called Poincaré synchronization which is the indispensable basis of SR.
The two postulates are then just a further confusing illustration of Aaron Bernstein's science fiction.

> SR is not theory of electrodynamics.

Of course. EEs don't need it.

> > Therefore he sonsidered a signal from A to B and return
> > and "measured" the time of flight as the mean value forth and back.
>
> This is not definition of speed of light.
> It is a part of operational procedure
> of the syncing clocks without relative motion.

Exactly. This method of synchronization is correct WITHOUT relative motion. It was used in practice. Einstein misused it by applying it nonsensically with A and B in motion relative to each other.

[Poutnik]

On 02/23/2017 09:35 AM, Eckard B wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 22. Februar 2017 18:58:07 UTC+1 schrieb Poutnik:
>> On 02/22/2017 06:23 PM, Eckard B wrote:
>>
>>> When I read Einstein's 1905 paper on moving bodies,
>>> I looked in vain for his direct definition of the speed of light.
>>> Clearly, he referred to empty space and managed to arrive at Lorentz.
>>
>> Definition of speed of light is not part of SR.
>
> That's the fundamental deficit behind SR. Einstein operated in 1905 with a notion of speed that he didn't directly define. His indirect definition is his so called Poincaré synchronization which is the indispensable basis of SR.
> The two postulates are then just a further confusing illustration of Aaron Bernstein's science fiction.

The current SR uses just one well founded postulate,
that has NO relation to the speed of light.
And its consequences well confirmed.

>> SR is not theory of electrodynamics.
>
> Of course. EEs don't need it.

EEs ?

>
>>> Therefore he sonsidered a signal from A to B and return
>>> and "measured" the time of flight as the mean value forth and back.
>>
>> This is not definition of speed of light.
>> It is a part of operational procedure
>> of the syncing clocks without relative motion.
>
> Exactly. This method of synchronization is correct WITHOUT relative motion. It was used in practice. Einstein misused it by applying it nonsensically with A and B in motion relative to each other.
>

That is nonsense, as mutually moving clocks cannot be synchronized as
direct SR consequence.
You must have read it incorrectly.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu czwartek, 23 lutego 2017 09:54:36 UTC+1 użytkownik Poutnik napisał:

> That is nonsense, as mutually moving clocks cannot be synchronized as
> direct SR consequence.

And heavier-than-air planes can never fly, poor idiot.
How about checking GPS?

[Eckard B]

Am Mittwoch, 22. Februar 2017 19:09:34 UTC+1 schrieb Ed Lake:

> > > > > I see Wikipedia says this: "the one-way speed in one direction or the other is undefined (and not simply unknown), unless one can define what is 'the same time' in two different locations. To measure the time that the light has taken to travel from one place to another it is necessary to know the start and finish times as measured on the same time scale. This requires either two synchronized clocks, one at the start and one at the finish, or some means of sending a signal instantaneously from the start to the finish.

Because the latter is impossible, one needs a sound idea how to, at least in principle, synchronize clocks without violating fundamental principles.

> > > > > Do you have some problem with that definition?
> > > >
> > > > Yes. To me, Einstein's so called Poincaré synchronization is de facto a two-way definition that contradicts causality. Being therefore called a conventional one, it is obviously intended to provide a justification for using a formula that was found by Lorentz as to rescue the aether hypothesis.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think the point is: Since there is no way to measure the one-way speed of light, we cannot be certain that light from every star in the universe isn't coming to us at a slightly different speed.

I disagree. It is not impossible to measure an one-way speed. Nonetheless, due to its huge value, measuring the distance of stars is only indirectly feasible.

> And the mathematicians who have argued here that you can somehow measure one-way speed of light by timing the arrival of two different photons from the same source are full of crap.

I don't know the word crap. Maybe, it doesn't fit well into science.

> > Any interpretation is based on a chosen point of reference. That's my message.
> >
> > Again: To me, it might be worth to investigate in which case SR is appropriate and in which case one-way theory is adequate. While gravitation is a mutual force between two objects, length and time seem to be ubiquitous one-way properties even it sounds silly to speak of one-way definition in case of time and distance.
>
> I think you need to understand the state of science in 1905. As I recall, one of Einstein's 1905 papers was the first paper to suggest the idea of a "photon" as a particle of light. Previously, it was evidently assumed that light was a constant wave from source to eyeball.
>
> In 1905, the only thing they knew for certain about the speed of light was that it DID NOT COMBINE with the speed of the object emitting the light.

Yes, I see them still correct on that Newton's emission theory is untenable.
Michelson (1881/1887) then disproved the idea of an aether wind. I see the maximal value c corresponding to other resonance frequencies except for the peculiarity that light doesn't propagate energy by means of a resonating carrier but it is perhaps resonating itself.

[Eckard B]

Am Donnerstag, 23. Februar 2017 09:54:36 UTC+1 schrieb Poutnik:
> On 02/23/2017 09:35 AM, Eckard B wrote:



> >> SR is not theory of electrodynamics.
> >
> > Of course. EEs don't need it.
>
> EEs ?

Electrical (and other) engineers.

> > Exactly. This method of synchronization is correct WITHOUT relative motion. It was used in practice. Einstein misused it by applying it nonsensically with A and B in motion relative to each other.
> >
>
> That is nonsense, as mutually moving clocks cannot be synchronized as
> direct SR consequence.
> You must have read it incorrectly.

No. I refer to the original paper "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper" Ann. Physics 1905, p. 891 ff.
Moving clocks can be directly synchronized at the moment the meet each other at the same location.

[Poutnik]

On 02/23/2017 10:38 AM, Eckard B wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 23. Februar 2017 09:54:36 UTC+1 schrieb Poutnik:
>> On 02/23/2017 09:35 AM, Eckard B wrote:
>
>>
>> EEs ?
>
> Electrical (and other) engineers.

I see. OTOH, both ( current ) Classical and Quantum electrodynamics
are SR aware.

Electrical engineers working on accelerators definitely need it.
Even classical colour CRT with SR manifests measurable SR effect
in electron beam bending ( bending less than classically ).

>

>> That is nonsense, as mutually moving clocks cannot be synchronized as
>> direct SR consequence.
>> You must have read it incorrectly.
>
> No. I refer to the original paper "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter
Körper" Ann. Physics 1905, p. 891 ff.
> Moving clocks can be directly synchronized at the moment the meet
each other at the same location.

That is special case.
They can, theoretically, even if practically there are obstacles.
But at the same time they start collecting desync bias.

It is used just for an illustrative gedanken.

It is not needed nor used (IMHO) in real experiments
for testing or working with the time dilation.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu czwartek, 23 lutego 2017 10:58:28 UTC+1 użytkownik Poutnik napisał:

> I see. OTOH, both ( current ) Classical and Quantum electrodynamics
> are SR aware.
>
> Electrical engineers working on accelerators definitely need it.

A lie, as expected from fanatic trash.

Whenever a relativist has to do something
for real insetead his usual symbol juggling
he uses pre-einsteinian assumptions and
procedures; engineers of course do the
same.

[Eckard B]

Am Donnerstag, 23. Februar 2017 10:58:28 UTC+1 schrieb Poutnik:

> > Electrical (and other) engineers.
>
> I see. OTOH, both ( current ) Classical and Quantum electrodynamics
> are SR aware.
>
> Electrical engineers working on accelerators definitely need it.

Engineers who are providing the technical means for experiments don't need using time dilation theory. They merely have to consider mass increase in their calculations.

> > No. I refer to the original paper "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter
> Körper" Ann. Physics 1905, p. 891 ff.
> > Moving clocks can be directly synchronized at the moment the meet
> each other at the same location.
>
> That is special case.
> They can, theoretically, even if practically there are obstacles.
> But at the same time they start collecting desync bias.

There is in (non-relativistic) theory no desynchronization.

> It is used just for an illustrative gedanken.
>
> It is not needed nor used (IMHO) in real experiments
> for testing or working with the time dilation.

Synchronization is often used and by no means just for illustrative gedanken. The assumption of a ubiquitous non-relativistic time is still most reasonable, logically as well as in practice. Not just Thomas Phipps Jr. and Lee Smolin are defending it theoretically.

> A wise man guards words he says,
> as they say about him more,
> than he says about the subject.

In that you are right.

[Poutnik]

On 02/23/2017 01:34 PM, Eckard B wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 23. Februar 2017 10:58:28 UTC+1 schrieb Poutnik:
>
>> > Electrical (and other) engineers.
>>
>> I see. OTOH, both ( current ) Classical and Quantum electrodynamics
>> are SR aware.
>>
>> Electrical engineers working on accelerators definitely need it.
>
> Engineers who are providing the technical means for experiments don't need using time dilation theory. They merely have to consider mass increase in their calculations.

There is no such thing as the time dilation theory.
But they use SR, even if just implicitly.

>
>
>> > No. I refer to the original paper "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter
>> Körper" Ann. Physics 1905, p. 891 ff.
>> > Moving clocks can be directly synchronized at the moment the meet
>> each other at the same location.
>>
>> That is special case.
>> They can, theoretically, even if practically there are obstacles.
>> But at the same time they start collecting desync bias.
>
> There is in (non-relativistic) theory no desynchronization.

I may do not get what you mean.

>
>> It is used just for an illustrative gedanken.
>>
>> It is not needed nor used (IMHO) in real experiments
>> for testing or working with the time dilation.
>
> Synchronization is often used and by no means just for illustrative gedanken.

Yes, but not by the mentioned way.

> The assumption of a ubiquitous non-relativistic time is still most
> reasonable, logically as well as in practice. Not just Thomas Phipps
> Jr. and Lee Smolin are defending it theoretically.

It is not, as non-relativistic theories are not in
in agreement with all relevant experiments by that or another way,
and not even GR would be, if what you say is true..

( Soon going offline (for Usenet) for the prolonged weekend,
in case of delayed replies. )

--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu czwartek, 23 lutego 2017 14:01:11 UTC+1 użytkownik Poutnik napisał:

> There is no such thing as the time dilation theory.
> But they use SR, even if just implicitly.

No, they don't. Engineers are reasonable
people, following common sense announced
as a set of prejudices by your idiot guru.

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

That's the fundamental deficit behind SR. Einstein operated in 1905 with a notion of speed that he didn't directly define. His indirect definition is his so called Poincaré synchronization which is the indispensable basis of SR.
The two postulates are then just a further confusing illustration of Aaron Bernstein's science fiction.

If SR was derived from Lorentz
I'm sure Einstein saw No point in specificity inserting 299792458 as it was assumed to be c from deriving it from the magnetic & Electric constants
SR is just bulk modulus & Wave speed formulas

[Eckard B]

Am Donnerstag, 23. Februar 2017 14:01:11 UTC+1 schrieb Poutnik:
> On 02/23/2017 01:34 PM, Eckard B wrote:

> >>

> >> Electrical engineers working on accelerators definitely need [SR].

> >
> > Engineers who are providing the technical means for experiments don't need using time dilation theory. They merely have to consider mass increase in their calculations.
>
> There is no such thing as the time dilation theory.
> But they use SR, even if just implicitly.

I would like to distinguish between mass increase which is undeniable and was already known before Einstein and Einstein's incorporation of Lorentz' fictitious time delay into SR.

Neiter I nor my students did use SR, not even implicitely.

> >> > No. I refer to the original paper "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter

> >> Körper" Ann. Physik 1905, p. 891 ff.

> >> > Moving clocks can be directly synchronized at the moment the meet
> >> each other at the same location.
> >>
> >> That is special case.
> >> They can, theoretically, even if practically there are obstacles.
> >> But at the same time they start collecting desync bias.
> >
> > There is in (non-relativistic) theory no desynchronization.
>
> I may do not get what you mean.

I don't use the notion desynchronization as to describe cumulative deviation of any clock from exact value of commonly agreed time.
I rather agree with Tom van Flandern on that Einstein's two-way synchronization is actually a desynchronization in the sense, it ascribes different references for time to locations that are moving relative to each other.

BTW, non-relativistic doesn't imply non-scientific. When Schrödinger managed to calculate the hydrogen atom, he ignore Einstein's Relativity. Non-relativistic quantum theory is serious.

> >> It is used just for an illustrative gedanken.
> >>
> >> It is not needed nor used (IMHO) in real experiments
> >> for testing or working with the time dilation.
> >
> > Synchronization is often used and by no means just for illustrative gedanken.
>
> Yes, but not by the mentioned way.

If clocks are not exact enough, it's common practice to synchronize them.
Modern clocks are radio-synchronized.

> > The assumption of a ubiquitous non-relativistic time is still most
> > reasonable, logically as well as in practice. Not just Thomas Phipps
> > Jr. and Lee Smolin are defending it theoretically.
>
> It is not, as non-relativistic theories are not in
> in agreement with all relevant experiments by that or another way,

This is not correct although many arguments by opponents of SR are wrong.
I guess Roberts is a bit closer to the truth: SR is just a monster due to referring to unrealistically chosen mutually excluding points of view. It might be redundant. See my posting on the definition of the speed of light in vacuum.

BTW, it was the late Michelson who called SR a monster.

[Ed Lake]

On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 3:24:20 AM UTC-6, Eckard B wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 22. Februar 2017 19:09:34 UTC+1 schrieb Ed Lake:
>
> > > > > > I see Wikipedia says this: "the one-way speed in one direction or the other is undefined (and not simply unknown), unless one can define what is 'the same time' in two different locations. To measure the time that the light has taken to travel from one place to another it is necessary to know the start and finish times as measured on the same time scale. This requires either two synchronized clocks, one at the start and one at the finish, or some means of sending a signal instantaneously from the start to the finish.
>
> Because the latter is impossible, one needs a sound idea how to, at least in principle, synchronize clocks without violating fundamental principles.
>
>

You don't need to use stars at astronomical distances to attempt to measure the one way speed of light. You could try measuring the speed of light emitted from the top of a building to the bottom of the same building. Supposedly, Pound and Rebka did it, but they just thought they measured red and blue shifting. They didn't actually measure the speed of light.

The problem, of course, is that a clock atop the building will tick faster and measure time as passing faster than a clock at the bottom of the building. The clocks cannot be synchronized unless one clock is RIGGED to tick at a FALSE rate.

Suppose you rigged the clock attached to the detector at ground level to tick at the same rate as the clock attached to the emitter at the top of the building. The clocks would then be "synchronous." In theory, couldn't you then measure the one way speed of light?

Ed

[Eckard B]

Am Donnerstag, 23. Februar 2017 15:10:35 UTC+1 schrieb David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller:
>> That's the fundamental deficit behind SR. Einstein operated in 1905 with a notion of speed that he didn't directly define. His indirect definition is his so called Poincaré synchronization which is the indispensable basis of SR.
>> The two postulates are then just a further confusing illustration of Aaron Bernstein's science fiction.
>
> If SR was derived from Lorentz

Derived is not the correct expression.

> I'm sure Einstein saw No point in specificity inserting 299792458 as it was assumed to be c from deriving it from the magnetic & Electric constants

At least he didn't leave a paper that is known to me from which we may conclude that he dealt with the value of c. He considered light propagating in the same manner as do acoustic waves for instance in air because already Maxwell, Michelson, Lorentz, and all others did so. He even admitted what he called an "apparent" contradiction (that worried his contemporaries).

> SR is just bulk modulus & Wave speed formulas

While I appreciate your effort to write understandable sentences, I have to admit being ignorant what you mean with bulk modulus and Wave speed formulas.

Over the last years of my teaching I got aware of on average decreasing ability of students to write down thoughts and facts in logically organized manner. On the other hand you seem to be elder than the generation of short messagists.

[Eckard B]

Mockers may misinterpret the sentence "Mors certa, hora incerta" as follows: It is absolutely sure, the clock doesn't show the correct time.

Rigging is definitely not a recommendable method of synchronization. I didn't deal with the PR experiment and will therefore abstain commenting on it so far.

[Ed Lake]

On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 10:23:48 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 2/22/17 2/22/17 10:27 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 9:59:55 AM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> If you are LOOKING at a distant clock, YOU
> >> ARE NOT MEASURING THAT CLOCK, YOU ARE MEASURING SIGNALS FROM THAT CLOCK.
> >>
> >> Those signals are an essential aspect of the physical situation; they
> >> CANNOT be ignored. Indeed, both SR and GR model this as an effect on how
> >> those signals are measured.
> >
> > But no one is looking at a "DISTANT clock." The NIST scientists are in a lab
> > looking at clocks that are probably no more than three feet away.
>
> You REALLY should read what they write. In particular: "The two clocks are
> located in different laboratories at NIST and connected by a 75-meter-long
> optical fiber." It OUGHT to be obvious that the fiber is carrying SIGNALS.

You REALLY should read what the NIST scientists wrote.

The two clocks connected by a 75-meter-long OPTICAL cable were used to measure VELOCITY time dilation. The abstract paragraph clearly says, "We observed time dilation from RELATIVE SPEEDS of less than 10 meters per second by comparing two optical atomic clocks connected by a 75-meter length of optical fiber."

The body of the article says:

"The two Al+ optical clocks were located in separate laboratories and were compared by transmitting the stable clock signal through a 75-m length of phase-stabilized optical fiber. To observe TIME DILATION DUE TO MOTION, we set the Al+ ion in the Al-Mg clock IN MOTION by applying a small static electric field that shifts the position of the ion slightly away from the null of the confining RF field (16). The ion is thereby subject to an RF electric field at fRF = 59MHz (Fig. 2) and undergoes harmonic MOTION. The ion velocity is adjusted by varying the applied static electric field. In the language of the twin paradox, the MOVING Al+ ion is the traveling twin, and its harmonic MOTION amounts to many round trips."

How can you so WILDLY misinterpret this?

>
> It doesn't really matter -- if a 1 foot difference in altitude
> is important, then so is your assumed 3-foot distance to the
> observer.
>
> Also, I know of no instrument that can compare or measure clocks
> DIRECTLY; all available instruments measure signals. And all
> clocks emit signals. It's just that YOU don't bother to think
> this through and IGNORE ESSENTIAL ASPECTS of the experiment.
>

Are you unfamiliar with TV? A TV camera takes 24 pictures per second. It can RECORD the digital readings on an atomic clock DIRECTLY. So can many other devices. You can set TV cameras or RECORDING devices next to BOTH clocks. And you can then make the comparisons at your leisure.

It appears YOU don't bother to think this through and IGNORE ESSENTIAL ASPECTS of the experiment.

> Moreover, of course, the scientists are not "looking at" these clocks, because
> they are located in high vacuum vessels that are opaque [#]. They of course use
> INSTRUMENTS that measure SIGNALS from the clocks (ions in this case). Moreover,
> human eyes cannot see their SIGNALS.
>

The clocks have digital displays which SHOW the time ticking at the local rate. There's an illustration of the digital display at this link: https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/10/99010-004-E79A90B6.jpg It comes from this Encyclopedia Britannica article: https://www.britannica.com/technology/atomic-clock

> This OUGHT to be a lesson for you: You ADDED a whole bunch of
> stuff when you thought you were "reading" their paper. I repeat:
> you REALLY need to learn how to read -- how to read accurately
> and without adding your own GUESSES and FANTASIES to what is
> actually on the page.
>
> [#] for safety.
>

Clearly, it is you who is misreading their paper and adding your GUESSES and FANTASIES to what is actually on the page.

> Your claims about this are mostly your own fabrication, not what the authors
> wrote, not what they actually did, and not how SR and GR describe/model it.
>

Your claims about this are mostly your own fabrication, not what the authors wrote, not what they actually did, and not how SR and GR describe/model it.

(SNIP repetitive nonsense)

>
> > The whole theory of relativity is based upon the FACT that time ticks at
> > different rates in different frames of reference.
>
> No, it isn't. YOU GOT THIS COMPLETELY WRONG. YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT
> RELATIVITY ACTUALLY IS. What you think is "FACT" is purely of your own
> fabrication and is WRONG.
>
> If clocks really did tick at different rates, as you suppose, SR and GR would
> both be solidly refuted by the experiments, because they unequivocally predict
> the geometrical effects I discussed above

You clearly do not understand relativity. What you think is "FACT" is purely of your own fabrication and is WRONG.

The experiments at the top of this thread SHOW that time ticks at different rates depending upon velocity and gravity. You appear to be RATIONALIZING ways to ignore this in order to believe as you want to believe.

(SNIP repetitive nonsense)

Ed

[Ed Lake]

On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 10:41:21 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 2/22/17 2/22/17 9:25 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > Since there is no way to measure the one-way speed of light [...]
>
> All too many people around here try to claim this. They are all wrong.
>
> It is straightforward to measure the one-way speed of light. But doing that
> requires the use of two clocks which must be synchronized, and the result you
> obtain will depend in detail on how you chose to synchronize the two clocks.
>

Those two clocks must also be relatively close to one another. And, due to time dilation, one clock must be "rigged" to tick at a false rate for its location so that it can be synchronous with the other clock. The arguments were about measuring the speed of light coming from stars. How would you synchronize a clock on earth with a clock on a distant star?

> [about me]
> > That suggests he works with particle physics, and the time dilation
> > experiments aren't really particle physics experiments. And it might explain
> > why he cannot accept that time moves slower.
>
> You really are clueless.
>
> Yes, I work in particle physics. "Time dilation" is an ESSENTIAL part of
> particle physics, and we often measure it and ALWAYS incorporate it in our
> models of experiments. I have studied both GR and the experiments you attempt to
> discuss and am also working on two gravitational experiments.
>
> I do not accept "time moves slower" because IT IS WRONG:
> A) the experiments do not actually show that -- YOU IGNORE ESSENTIAL
> ASPECTS OF THEM and it is those aspects which are affected
> B) No theory of modern physics includes "time moves slower"
> C) it is not possible to construct a self-consistent theory that includes
> "time moves slower" and also agrees with ALL the experiments.

"A" shows you are RATIONALIZING (a.k.a. "distorting") the facts to make them fit your beliefs.

"B" suggests that you dismiss Einstein's theories of Relativity as "NON-modern" theories.

"C" shows you ignore the NIST and Hafele-Keating experiments and many many other similar experiments.

(snip repetitive personal attacks)

Ed

[al...@interia.pl]

Show me first a nonstandard math, then I tell you what is a difference.

[Tom Roberts]

It occurred to me that people might not recognize how this relates to my
oft-stated description that "time dilation" is a geometrical projection.

In 1A and 3A the measured interval between ticks of the signal is computed by
taking the dot product of the signal's 4-vector with the 4-velocity of the
source or instrument. The 4-velocity of any pointlike object has two geometrical
meanings:
A) it is the tangent 4-vector to the object's worldline through
spacetime
B) it is a unit 4-vector along the time coordinate of the
instantaneously co-moving local inertial frame of the object
(i.e. the frame in which it is at rest).
Here (B) is relevant, and those dot products are simply the geometrical
projection of the signal's tick interval onto the time coordinate of the
appropriate locally inertial frame.

Note that this algorithm is quite general, it applies to both SR and GR, and it
includes all types of "time dilation".

This only applies to differential measurements, because the
metric and both 4-vectors can vary, and dot products inherently
occur at a point. To model something like the twin paradox, one
must perform this projection at each point along each twin's
worldline, and then integrate over their worldlines to compute
their elapsed proper times between meetings. As the metric is
inherent in those dot products, this procedure is usually
described as "integrating the metric over their worldlines".
For instance, this applies to the Hafele and Keating experiment.

Tom Roberts

[al...@interia.pl]

Sorry, babe, but You are just promoting pseudoscience.

The slow-down effect is physical - real,
and due to the effective speed decrease in a moving system.

Simply - the Einstein's light clock:

/\/\/\/\ -----> v

the light signal moves here still with a speed c,
but not along a straight line, hence the slow-down effect.

There is no any projective 4-dim pseudoscience necessary - this is just a naked fact in a... 2D-space already!

[Bret Noss]

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 2/22/17 2/22/17 - 10:23 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> To compare the relative tick rates of two clocks A and B at different
>> locations requires that signals be sent from both clocks to an

Totally irrelevant to anything. You mix signals, frequencies, pulses and
clocks tremendous illegally.

[Paul B. Andersen]

http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=905055
This strange statement make it seem that you believe the two
optical clocks in the experiment have digital displays,
and that it is the image of these digital displays that
are transmitted over the optical fibre.

But nobody can be _that_ stupid - or?

(And even if it were an image that was transferred,
is it then not a signal transferred over the optical fibre?)

>
> It appears YOU don't bother to think this through and IGNORE ESSENTIAL ASPECTS of the experiment.
>
>> Moreover, of course, the scientists are not "looking at" these clocks, because
>> they are located in high vacuum vessels that are opaque [#]. They of course use
>> INSTRUMENTS that measure SIGNALS from the clocks (ions in this case). Moreover,
>> human eyes cannot see their SIGNALS.
>>
>
> The clocks have digital displays which SHOW the time ticking at the local rate.

"- or ?" indeed! Good grief! :-D


--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Ed Lake]

Okay, while there ARE atomic clocks that have digital displays, the clock used by the NIST does not. I was talking about a hypothetical atomic clock with a digital display, not the actual clock used in the NIST experiment.

In the NIST gravitational time dilation experiment, only ONE clock is used to make the comparison between different altitudes. They got the data from it when it was at one height, then they raised it by 33 cm and got more data. Comparing the data, they confirmed that the clock ran faster at the higher altitude.

It's kind of difficult to use the actual clock in a discussion. A HYPOTHETICAL clock with the same capabilities PLUS a digital readout makes makes things easier to VISUALIZE. Granted, the human eye would not be able to see picoseconds or femtoseconds flashing by, but the human eye should be able to see femtoseconds and picoseconds accumulating as the difference between two clocks accumulates.

There's a working digital clock that tick off milliseconds at this link: http://flash-clocks.com/blog/?p=558

Ed

[RichD]

On February 23, Ed Lake wrote:
> I was talking about a hypothetical atomic clock with a digital display,
> not the actual clock used in the NIST experiment.

> A HYPOTHETICAL clock with the same capabilities PLUS a digital readout
> makes makes things easier to VISUALIZE.

In his paper, Einstein imagined a digital clock, with Roman numerals.
So I'd say his claims don't apply to modern laboratory techniques.

--
Rich
wondering why you can't buy a roman numeral calculator at Amazon

[Odd Bodkin]

On 2/23/2017 9:18 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> You don't need to use stars at astronomical distances to attempt to measure the one way speed of light.
> You could try measuring the speed of light emitted from the top of a building to the bottom of the same
> building. Supposedly, Pound and Rebka did it, but they just thought they measured red and blue shifting.
> They didn't actually measure the speed of light.

The speed of light is measured in a ground laboratory all the time at
the Advanced Photon Source. They measure the passages of pulses of light
near where they are created in wiggler magnets, and they measure again
the passages of the pulses several tens of meters away near the
experimental stations. Time of flight and knowing the distance between
these two pulse-sample points tells you the speed of light.

Good grief. Absolutely ZERO contact with the experimental data at hand.


--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Sylvia Else]

Until I know what you mean by "standard classical math", I cannot offer
something that I know to be different.

Sylvia.

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Stupid Ed Monkey wrote

Are you unfamiliar with TV? A TV camera takes 24 pictures per second. It can RECORD the digital readings on an atomic clock DIRECTLY. So can many other devices. You can set TV cameras or RECORDING devices next to BOTH clocks. And you can then make the comparisons at your leisure.

Ed,
Do you realize the clock they are monitoring is probably ticking at near the speed a cesium atom spins ?
It is not a normal Clock
They are probably just watching how two sine waves are drifting in and out of Phase from two fiber optic cables plugged directly into a very very expensive Oscilloscope.
You are a MORON or a very talented Troll

[Odd Bodkin]

On 2/22/2017 9:59 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 2/21/17 2/21/17 - 9:22 PM, John Heath wrote:
>> On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 9:51:52 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
>>> In modern physics (here SR and GR) this is modeled as a geometrical
>>> projection, not any clock "running slower", and not "time running
>>> slower".
>> Yes clocks on earth do not run slower if you are on earth. How ever if
>> one is
>> in space looking down earth clocks are running slow by just under 1
>> cycle per
>> second at 1 GHz. If I sit on the sun and look at earth the earth
>> clocks they
>> are running too fast.
>
> You missed my point entirely. If you are LOOKING at a distant clock, YOU

> ARE NOT MEASURING THAT CLOCK, YOU ARE MEASURING SIGNALS FROM THAT CLOCK.
>
> Those signals are an essential aspect of the physical situation;
> they CANNOT be ignored. Indeed, both SR and GR model this as an
> effect on how those signals are measured.
>

> Gravity affects HOW YOU MEASURE THOSE SIGNALS, not how clocks tick.
> Ditto for relative motion.
>
> Interestingly, neither clocks nor light signals are affected
> by either gravity or relative motion; what is affected is how
> the clocks or signals are measured.
>
> When you say "the clock runs slow", you are talking about the clock and
> nothing else; that statement is wrong. Say instead "that clock is
> measured by this observer to run slow", or "signals from that clock are
> measured by this observer to run slow".
>
>> You are splitting hairs yes/no.
>
> No. This is an important concept in both SR and GR. They are both
> theories of geometry, and both "time dilation" and "length contraction"
> are geometrical effects essential to these theories. It is also
> important to realize that clocks ALWAYS tick at their usual rate.
>
> Tom Roberts

Since this originated with Ed Lake, I'll just comment that Ed is not
actually considering the measurements actually performed. What he calls
"FACTS and EVIDENCE" [sic] are the words printed in popularizations
about the measurements. And so in response to comments about sloppy
language being (deliberately) used in popularizations, Ed's knee-jerk
response is whether we are accusing this of being FALSE "evidence"
deliberately manufactured by physicists with intent to deceive.

I think it's worth hammering on that choice of words in an article is
not scientific evidence of anything. What is actually measured in the
experiment itself, which Ed is blissfully unaware of, is the
experimental evidence.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 2/23/2017 6:34 AM, Eckard B wrote:
> Engineers who are providing the technical means for experiments don't need using time dilation theory.
> They merely have to consider mass increase in their calculations.

There's a LOT more to accelerator design that is dependent on SR than
you think.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu piątek, 24 lutego 2017 14:23:11 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:

> There's a LOT more to accelerator design that is dependent on SR than
> you think.

A lie. Of course.

[Eckard B]

Am Freitag, 24. Februar 2017 14:23:11 UTC+1 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> On 2/23/2017 6:34 AM, Eckard B wrote:
> > Engineers who are providing the technical means for experiments don't need using time dilation theory.
> > They merely have to consider mass increase in their calculations.
>
> There's a LOT more to accelerator design that is dependent on SR than
> you think.

Accelerator design was never my business. So I am ready to learn from you.

[Odd Bodkin]

In a newsgroup? I don't think so.
However, there's a really nice chapter in Techniques and Concepts of
High-Energy Physics, Vol. III (T. Ferbel, Ed.) by Andy Sessler, called
"Topics in the Physics of Particle Accelerators".

[kenseto]

The one-way speed of light can be measured as follows:
One-way Light Speed=(wavelength of the source)(incoming frequency)

The reason why they don't use this to determine light speed because it does not give constant c and thus violating SRT.

[Kevin Aylward]

"Ed Lake" wrote in message
news:a2a2d366-2f5d-4e20...@googlegroups.com...

> >
> > > You are splitting hairs yes/no.
> >
> > No. This is an important concept in both SR and GR. They are both
> > theories of
> > geometry, and both "time dilation" and "length contraction" are
> > geometrical
> > effects essential to these theories. It is also important to realize
> > that clocks
> > ALWAYS tick at their usual rate.
> >
> > Tom Roberts
>

> But the FACTS AND EVIDENCE in the experiments show that clocks tick at
> different rates. The EVIDENCE shows you are wrong, and you seem incapable
> of explaining how you can be right. You just make declarations.

>
> The whole theory of relativity is based upon the FACT that time ticks at

> different rates in different frames of reference. You can't argue that
> Einstein was wrong while also arguing that his theory supports your
> beliefs.
>
> Ed

>Okay, since Tom Roberts seems unable to explain his understandings about
>Time Dilation, I’ll explain MY understandings and ask him (and everyone
>else) to explain where I am
>wrong.


First, GR is ONLY a mathematical MODEL of what the universe is alleged to
be. Whether or
not the universe is truly physically "curved", and all that entails, is well
open to debate. My (limited) understanding of GR is that there are
alternative physical assumptions, that clearly have a different physical
interpretation. This is the view that gravity is due (as I understand it) to
momentum exchange of spin 2 gravitons, such that when the (beyond me) math
handle is churned, the same GR equations are produced. The idea
being that lengths are corrupted to give the appearance of curvature. If the
equations are the same, there appears little justification for making
statements such as "...you are wrong...this is what it means as to why
clocks read different...". I have no doubt Tom's GR explanation, ACCORDING
to GR as CURVATURE is absolutely correct, but I would certainly be
interested in how that particular explanation holds up, physically, if it is
indeed true that GR curvature is truly just an illusion and momentum
exchange is the "real" truth.

Once there are more than one set of physical assumptions with no internal
inconsistences, that generate the same equations, all bets to the "truth"
are off. Period.



-- Kevin Aylward
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/qm/index.html

[Ed Lake]

The NIST experiments didn't use cesium, they used aluminum ions which they considered to vibrate (or tick) at a more stable rate than cesium. Thus they could get higher accuracy when measuring time.

The point is, they could tell that the clock was "ticking" faster when they raised it 33cm and they could tell HOW MUCH faster it was ticking.

HOW can they tell how MUCH faster it was ticking? Evidently by measuring the two rates PER SECOND against a STANDARD SECOND set up in advance.

HYPOTHETICALLY you then have two clocks ticking off FEMTOSECONDS (quadrillionths of a second) at different rates - too fast for the human eye to detect. HYPOTHETICALLY, you can then set up a digital display which registers one additional femtosecond every time the DIFFERENCE between the two clocks is one additional femtosecond. That may not be too fast for the human eye to detect.

The method used in the NIST experiment is described beginning in column 1 on page 3 of the pdf file (page 1632 of the journal). It begins with these two sentences:

"Differences in gravitational potential can be detected by comparing the tick rate of two clocks. For small height changes on the surface of Earth, a clock that is higher by a distance Δh runs faster by df f0 ¼ gDh c2 ð2Þ where g ≈ 9.80 m/s2 is the local acceleration due to gravity (4). The gravitational shift corresponds to a clock shift of about 1.1 × 10−16 per meter of change in height."

While their clocks did not have digital displays, they had some way to measure the differences. Perhaps they did use a "a very very expensive Oscilloscope."

Whatever they used, they MEASURED time ticking at a PREDICTED faster rate when the time measuring equipment was raised 33cm.

They confirmed that time moves/ticks/runs FASTER at higher altitudes above the earth.
They confirmed that time moves/ticks/runs SLOWER at lower altitudes relative to the center of the earth.
They confirmed that the length of a SECOND is different at different altitudes.

And it is EVIDENCE that Time Dilation is REAL, not just an illusion.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

"Incoming frequency" is a RATE PER SECOND (or fraction of a second). If the length of a SECOND is not the same at the two points, then the measured "incoming frequency" will be incorrect.

Ed

[Tom Roberts]

On 2/24/17 2/24/17 7:23 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/22/2017 9:59 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:

>> [...]

>
> Since this originated with Ed Lake, I'll just comment that Ed is not actually
> considering the measurements actually performed. What he calls "FACTS and
> EVIDENCE" [sic] are the words printed in popularizations about the measurements.
> And so in response to comments about sloppy language being (deliberately) used
> in popularizations, Ed's knee-jerk response is whether we are accusing this of
> being FALSE "evidence" deliberately manufactured by physicists with intent to
> deceive.
>
> I think it's worth hammering on that choice of words in an article is not
> scientific evidence of anything. What is actually measured in the experiment
> itself, which Ed is blissfully unaware of, is the experimental evidence.

I agree with everything you said here.

Tom Roberts

[al...@interia.pl]

If You don't know any alternative math,
then you should stop to promote it.

Alternative math is just a pseudomath,
which is the pseudoscience proposed by imbeciles in the relativity,
quantum, cosmology, and other such fallacies, based on stupidity.

[Eckard B]

Am Freitag, 24. Februar 2017 16:21:29 UTC+1 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> On 2/24/2017 8:37 AM, Eckard B wrote:
> > Am Freitag, 24. Februar 2017 14:23:11 UTC+1 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> >> On 2/23/2017 6:34 AM, Eckard B wrote:
> >>> Engineers who are providing the technical means for experiments don't need using time dilation theory.
> >>> They merely have to consider mass increase in their calculations.
> >>
> >> There's a LOT more to accelerator design that is dependent on SR than
> >> you think.
> >
> > Accelerator design was never my business. So I am ready to learn from you.
> >
>

> there's a really nice chapter in Techniques and Concepts of
> High-Energy Physics, Vol. III (T. Ferbel, Ed.) by Andy Sessler, called
> "Topics in the Physics of Particle Accelerators".

As I expected, when calculating cyclotron frequency, they are using gamma as a factor of m. At least on the first glimpse, I didn't see any hint to time dilution and length contravtion. Thank you for the hint.

[Sylvia Else]

I notice that you're being evasive. It seems that you don't want to say
what you mean by "standard classical math", which is an expression
you've invented, so I cannot reasonably guess as to its meaning, to
avoid having to deal with any actual alternative.

Sylvia.

[kenseto]

We are talking about using the observer's clock second to measure frequency. If the source wavelength is assumed to be a universal constant then the incoming frequency times the universal constant wavelength of the source gives variable one-way speed of incoming light.

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

We are talking about using the observer's clock second to measure frequency. If the source wavelength is assumed to be a universal constant then the incoming frequency times the universal constant wavelength of the source gives variable one-way speed of incoming light.

e^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2

This says you will never be able to say (Verify) your "Universal constant" wavelength is not skewed

Just the same as MMX found no Aether drift velocity

[Ed Lake]

So, what you are really saying is that the findings reported in the NIST scientific article can be ignored if they don't agree with your beliefs. All you have to do is simply claim that the NIST phrased things incorrectly.

Here again is what they wrote in column 1 on page 3 of the pdf file (page 1632 of the journal):

"Differences in gravitational potential can be detected by comparing the tick rate of two clocks. For small height changes on the surface of Earth, a clock that is higher by a distance Δh runs faster by df f0 ¼ gDh c2 ð2Þ where g ≈ 9.80 m/s2 is the local acceleration due to gravity (4). The gravitational shift corresponds to a clock shift of about 1.1 × 10−16 per meter of change in height."

What do you think they meant if they didn't mean that "For small height changes on the surface of the Earth, a clock that is higher by a [given] distance runs faster"?

Do you think they really meant to say that the two clocks actually run at the same rate? Or do you think they really meant to say that no such comparison can be made because the clocks are in different "frames"?

Ed

[Bret Noss]

kenseto wrote:

>> "Incoming frequency" is a RATE PER SECOND (or fraction of a second).
>> If the length of a SECOND is not the same at the two points, then the
>> measured "incoming frequency" will be incorrect.
>
> We are talking about using the observer's clock second to measure
> frequency. If the source wavelength is assumed to be a universal
> constant then the incoming frequency times the universal constant
> wavelength of the source gives variable one-way speed of incoming light.

Good post. What is the speed of light of a standing wave light inside a
laser cavity?

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Ed Monkey gibbered

So, what Tom Roberts is really saying is that the findings reported in the NIST scientific article can be ignored if they don't agree with your beliefs. All you have to do is simply claim that the NIST phrased things incorrectly.

No, Mr Roberts is saying you have insufficient Cognition of Physics to understand what Tom Roberts is saying about Physics

cog·ni·tion
ˌkäɡˈniSH(ə)n/
noun
the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses.
synonyms: perception, discernment, apprehension, learning, understanding, comprehension, insight; More
a result of this; a perception, sensation, notion, or intuition.
plural noun: cognitions
synonyms: perception, discernment, apprehension, learning, understanding, comprehension, insight;

[Ed Lake]

The wavelength and frequency of light are closely related. The higher the frequency, the shorter the wavelength. Because all light waves ARE ASSUMED TO move through a vacuum at the SAME SPEED PER SECOND, the number of wave crests passing by a given point in ONE SECOND depends on the wavelength.

But, IF THAT ASSUMPTION IS FALSE because the length of a second is different for the emitter than for the observer, then the one-way speed of light is indeed "variable."

Is that the point you were trying to make?

Ed

[Ed Lake]

Ah! Okay! You're saying that if you and Tom Roberts do not agree with something said or written by someone else, all you need to do is claim the other person is not as intelligent as you are and is therefore automatically wrong.

Thanks for clearing that up. That's what I thought you were saying.

Ed

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Ed Monkey gibbered

The wavelength and frequency of light are closely related. The higher the frequency, the shorter the wavelength. Because all light waves ARE ASSUMED TO move through a vacuum at the SAME SPEED PER SECOND, the number of wave crests passing by a given point in ONE SECOND depends on the wavelength.

But, IF THAT ASSUMPTION IS FALSE because the length of a second is different for the emitter than for the observer, then the one-way speed of light is indeed "variable."

Is that the point you were trying to make?

Ed

Stupid know nothing Ed Monkey , go learn physics

https://youtu.be/rtlJoXxlSFE?list=PLyQSN7X0ro2314mKyUiOILaOC2hk6Pc3j

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/emcon.html#c1

[Odd Bodkin]

On 2/23/2017 10:11 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> Are you unfamiliar with TV? A TV camera takes 24 pictures per second. It can RECORD the
> digital readings on an atomic clock DIRECTLY. So can many other devices. You can set TV
> cameras or RECORDING devices next to BOTH clocks. And you can then make the comparisons
> at your leisure.

Ed, please. If an atomic clock had, say, a LED display, it would have a
counter with at least ten or eleven digits. Tens of seconds, seconds,
tenths of seconds, hundredths of seconds, thousands of seconds
(milliseconds), ten-thousandths of seconds, hundred-thousandths of
seconds, millionths of seconds (microseconds), and so on.

To a TV camera, any digit past the tenths of seconds digit is going to
be a blur.

The difference between the two clock's readings is going to be in the
nanosecond realm (billionths of seconds). You are not going to see ANY
difference in the nanoseconds digits on these displays on a TV camera,
because that digit as well as the seven or eight before it will be a
complete blur.

I cannot BELIEVE you are this dense about how the experiment is actually
DONE. I cannot believe that you actually think that all the experimenter
has to do is point a TV camera at the two clocks and record the time
readings on both and see the difference. And you call this "FACTS and
EVIDENCE"?????

[Odd Bodkin]

On 2/23/2017 10:11 AM, Ed Lake wrote:

> The clocks have digital displays which SHOW the time ticking at the local rate. There's an
> illustration of the digital display at this link:
> https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/10/99010-004-E79A90B6.jpg
> It comes from this Encyclopedia Britannica article: https://www.britannica.com/technology/atomic-clock

Ed, it is positively HYSTERICAL that you look at that picture in the
Encyclopedia Brittanica and believe that there is an actual digital
display that displays twelve digits past the decimal point for seconds.
That means a display that would update every trillionth of a second.

LCD refresh rates max out around 600 Hz, which for the numerically
illiterate is about a millisecond and a half, which for the even more
numerically illiterate is a billion times slower than what would be
needed to display trillionths of a second.

Never mind that a TV camera, with a frame rate of 24 Hz, cannot even
keep up with an LCD display that refreshes at 600 Hz.

So yes, Ed, here is a case where the picture in the encyclopedia which
you found in your "research" is clearly misleading, to the point of
being wrong. If you want to complain to the encyclopedia editors that
people are telling you that the editors are lying in their
representation of an atomic clock, feel free to do so. I'm sure they
might respond with a comment that the picture is not intended to be as
literally accurate as you took it to be.

So yes, Ed, you are a fool for believing what you find on the internet.
The internet is free. You get what you pay for. The fault for relying on
the quality of what you found there rests with you.

Finally, let me comment that the reason why you were so easily taken in
by this misleading image is that a) you have no common sense, and b) you
are numerically illiterate. If you had either one, then you would have
made a mental note IN AN INSTANT that this image cannot possibly be
genuinely accurate. Instead, you no doubt considered this illustration
"FACTS and EVIDENCE".

Again, let me just thank you for being so hysterically funny, whether
intentional or not. I'm sure you've given the editors of that journal
you submitted a paper to a good chuckle as well.