Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Aspects of time

1 view
Skip to first unread message

LeoK

unread,
Feb 22, 2004, 10:23:21 PM2/22/04
to
Hi

Place a super slow hourglass and a atomic clock on our moon
after syncronizing these with two similar types of clocks
on our earth.

When reading the changes of the two hourglasses and the
two atomic clocks. You will find that the hourglass on
the moon of course is slower than the hourglass on earth.

And the atomic clock on the moon is faster than the
corresponding atomic clock on earth. (Proof: GPS NAVSTAR.)
(Indirectly proven.)

Means time according to a hourglass is slower on the moon.
And time according to a atomic clock is faster on the moon.
And both types of clocks compared with earth time clocks.

So "my" question is: Is time faster or slower on our moon
compared to time on earth?

What should Einstein say about these SR/GR effects?

And don't say a hourglass isn't a clock. It is actually a clock.

Does this mean that SR/GR effects only is given by atomic clocks?
And SR/GR effects can't be showed with hourglasses. Why so, really?

I know that the precision of a hourglass is not the best of clocks,
but I think we can take the formal question here with this note
in mind.

What is time really and can we trust in time?
LeoK

Sam Wormley

unread,
Feb 22, 2004, 11:06:36 PM2/22/04
to
LeoK wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Place a super slow hourglass and a atomic clock on our moon
> after syncronizing these with two similar types of clocks
> on our earth.
>
> When reading the changes of the two hourglasses and the
> two atomic clocks. You will find that the hourglass on
> the moon of course is slower than the hourglass on earth.
>
> And the atomic clock on the moon is faster than the
> corresponding atomic clock on earth. (Proof: GPS NAVSTAR.)
> (Indirectly proven.)
>
> Means time according to a hourglass is slower on the moon.
> And time according to a atomic clock is faster on the moon.
> And both types of clocks compared with earth time clocks.

Bzzzt--the rate of time flow changes due to the different
gravitational potential and atomic clocks are excellent
devices to measure the flow of time.

Atomic clocks work in free fall (Proof: GPS NAVSTAR.)...
Hour glasses do not! The are designed to work only within a
range of gravitational potential. They aren't even accurate
to one percent... obviously not capable of measuring
relativistic effects.

Uncle Al

unread,
Feb 23, 2004, 10:15:55 AM2/23/04
to
LeoK wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Place a super slow hourglass and a atomic clock on our moon
> after syncronizing these with two similar types of clocks
> on our earth.
>
> When reading the changes of the two hourglasses and the
> two atomic clocks. You will find that the hourglass on
> the moon of course is slower than the hourglass on earth.

Bullshit. If so, you are using the hourglass as a gravimeter and not
as a clock.

> And the atomic clock on the moon is faster than the
> corresponding atomic clock on earth. (Proof: GPS NAVSTAR.)
> (Indirectly proven.)

Faster for not being in so deep a gravitational well, slower for being
on the moving platform vs. the surface of the Earth. You'd better do
the calculations to find out. Looks to Uncle Al that the balance of
GR vs. SR at the lunar surface is not a slam dunk as it is for a GPS
satellite in free fall.

<http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashby/index.html>
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
Relativity in the GPS system



> Means time according to a hourglass is slower on the moon.
> And time according to a atomic clock is faster on the moon.
> And both types of clocks compared with earth time clocks.

"Az di bobe vot gehat beytsim volt zi geven mayn zeyde."
Do you have two grandfathers?

[snip bullshit conclusion]

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

Greysky

unread,
Feb 23, 2004, 12:42:51 PM2/23/04
to

"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:40397C45...@mchsi.com...

> LeoK wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > Place a super slow hourglass and a atomic clock on our moon
> > after syncronizing these with two similar types of clocks
> > on our earth.
> >
> > When reading the changes of the two hourglasses and the
> > two atomic clocks. You will find that the hourglass on
> > the moon of course is slower than the hourglass on earth.
> >
> > And the atomic clock on the moon is faster than the
> > corresponding atomic clock on earth. (Proof: GPS NAVSTAR.)
> > (Indirectly proven.)
> >
> > Means time according to a hourglass is slower on the moon.
> > And time according to a atomic clock is faster on the moon.
> > And both types of clocks compared with earth time clocks.
>
> Bzzzt--the rate of time flow changes due to the different
> gravitational potential and atomic clocks are excellent
> devices to measure the flow of time.

Not really. Most atomic clocks have totaly lousy close in precision due to
the high noise characteristics of the circuitry - dance for joy if your
atomic clock has even -65 DbC close in phase noise. A double oven, SC cut
quartz crystal oscillator can have -120 Dbc phase noise with dome effort and
a lot of money. It all depends on what you want to measure...time is much
smoother for quartz than it is for cesium.

Big Bird

unread,
Feb 23, 2004, 3:40:44 PM2/23/04
to
LeoK <*@*.chello.se> wrote in message news:<Kme_b.1320$EV2.7257@amstwist00>...

> Hi
>
> Place a super slow hourglass and a atomic clock on our moon
> after syncronizing these with two similar types of clocks
> on our earth.
>
> When reading the changes of the two hourglasses and the
> two atomic clocks. You will find that the hourglass on
> the moon of course is slower than the hourglass on earth.
>
> And the atomic clock on the moon is faster than the
> corresponding atomic clock on earth. (Proof: GPS NAVSTAR.)
> (Indirectly proven.)
>
> Means time according to a hourglass is slower on the moon.
> And time according to a atomic clock is faster on the moon.
> And both types of clocks compared with earth time clocks.
>
> So "my" question is: Is time faster or slower on our moon
> compared to time on earth?
>
> What should Einstein say about these SR/GR effects?
>
> And don't say a hourglass isn't a clock. It is actually a clock.


No, it is not in the generality in which you are claiming here: An
hourglass that is lying on its side, for example, is not a clock. The
reason for this is that he hourglass is designed to work in a certain
particular environment in which there is a certain particular
grevitational field in a certain particular direction. Operative term:
"direction".

Imagine that you ensure that your hourglasses always point in the same
direction. If the one on the moon is fixed with respect to the
surface, then the one on earth will have to be turned from upright to
sideways to upside-down to sideways back to upright over the course of
a month. During this time it will show all kinds of sand-flow
(including "backwards") and in the whole average will have measured no
time passing at all.

An hourglass is not a clock. Period. An houglass *in a gravitational
field of a given strength and direction* is a (reasonable
approximation to a) clock.

In the exact same vein, your atomic clock requirs a certain operating
environment -- for example it requires electricity to run and the
atomic clock on the moon will in fact register no passing of time at
all because there's no electrical outlet there to plug it into. You
may think that this is a trivial concern, but it is as much a matter
of ensuring the appropriate environment as providing the hourglass
with 1g of gravity in the right direction.

There are many ways to build clocks, and any new idea you have will
have to agree with all the other clocks in measuring every time
interval in every coordinate system or otherwise you have violated its
operating environment somewhere.


> Does this mean that SR/GR effects only is given by atomic clocks?
> And SR/GR effects can't be showed with hourglasses. Why so, really?


It is found by any observer who employs a clock -- not a "stopped
clock", a "rigged clock", a "backwards running clock" or any such
thing.

> I know that the precision of a hourglass is not the best of clocks,
> but I think we can take the formal question here with this note
> in mind.
>
> What is time really and can we trust in time?


Until Einstein, everybody imagined that they knew what time was and
that it was generally agreed upon what it was. It took an Einstein to
note (and point out) that "time" is by no means something that
everybody necessarily agrees upon, unless some procedure can be
established by which everybody can measure time by themselves for
themselves.

So for practical purposes he took time to be "whatever a clock
measures" because he figured that it was universally agreed upon what
a *clock* is. I doubt he imagined someone would claim that an
hourglass that is lying on its side or freely falling (or otherwise in
a different gravitational field from the one it was calibrated in)
would constitute a valid clock.

Old Man

unread,
Feb 23, 2004, 8:53:46 PM2/23/04
to
"LeoK" <*@*.chello.se> wrote in message
news:Kme_b.1320$EV2.7257@amstwist00...

LeoK spews mundane nonsense. The post Newton GTR / SR
effects on hour glass and atomic clock are identical, but the
equivalence principle tells you that, in gravitational free fall, an
hour glass cannot function as a clock. The are no land slides
or water falls in free space. [Old Man]


Carlos L

unread,
Feb 25, 2004, 10:39:24 PM2/25/04
to
LeoK <*@*.chello.se> wrote in message news:<Kme_b.1320$EV2.7257@amstwist00>...

Hi LeoK

Very suggestive your thoughts and questions about 'time'.
Here is *my* point of view:
(Note: I'm trying myself to understand the issue; so forgive me if I
profit the occasion to analyse some details and I result a bit
boring).
First, I agree with you that we must "take the formal question". The
precision of atomic clocks is contingent and is not the fundamental
issue to choose them or not as time standards for the description of
Physics. For example we can imagine a civilization that has developed
a sophisticated technique to extract high time resolution out of
pendulum clocks but doesn't know how to handle atoms to make precise
clocks out of them.
Next, nobody can claim that the rate of ticking of atomic clocks is a
phenomenon *completely* understood for which all possible physical
influences are known (and can be accounted/corrected for). For example
it can not be ascertained that 'when two identical atomic clocks (at
rest relative to each other and under identical gravitation conditions
but not too close in space to one another) are synchronized and
checked to remain so during a small time interval, they will remain
"indefinitely" in sync'. Because we must always admit the possibility
that yet unknown phenomena or uncontrollable physical influences (e.g.
different local vacuum energy?, different showers of neutrinos?,...)
can desynchronise them. (I am of course not referring to the *random*
de-synchronization that is expected to occur due to the accumulation
of quantum fluctuations that would manifest itself macroscopically in
a measurable way after long periods of observation. Such random
de-sync would not be the problem since it could be averaged out).
Therefore there is *in theory* nothing fundamental that imposes the
necessity in Physics to choose atomic clocks as time standards. We
could *in theory* use quartz clocks, spring watches or, why not,
vacuum sealed pendulum clocks or hourglasses to define the time unit
and standard. (Well, of course, under free fall these last clocks
wouldn't work unless we fix a massive basement to them). But these
pendulum or hourglass clocks are not practical not only because they
are not accurate enough for many experiments but because they are too
much affected by known external conditions and/or local conditions
(e.g. by gravitation). But in theory that should not disqualify them
as alternative time standards because we know the precise laws of the
significant phenomena that affect their rate (e.g.
gravity/acceleration, temperature, etc,...) and we could either (1)
correct their readings for those known influences and obtain time
readings that would (except for accuracy) be similar in all
environments to those of atomic clocks, or (2) forget about all
corrections and redefine our physical laws accommodating them to the
new time standard of a pendulum clock and the "relativity of
position". Doing so we would of course obtain very complicated
physical laws for most phenomena, (some sort of epicycles), but we
could build an internally consistent "physics" that makes correct
predictions. Actually quite a few of today's positivist physicists,
that defend that Physics must only be concerned with making good
predictions and not with interpretations, would be delighted to be the
gurus of this new mathematically sophisticated "physics" in which for
example the duration of an Earth's astronomical day would depend on
the position of observation, being significantly shorter (less number
of pendulum periods) if you are on the top of a mountain (with your
clock by your side) instead of at sea level. *For practical purposes*
this is not the case in mainstream Physics that has adopted a time
standard based on caesium clocks that are affected only in a very
small proportion by gravitation gradients as small as those of our
mountains. But strictly speaking, if we give credit to some physicists
that dare pronounce themselves on the subject, it is correct to
interpret the gravitational red shift as a consequence of the "fact"
that atomic clocks run relatively faster on the mountain than at sea
level (or in other words, it could be experimentally proven that our
astronomical day is slightly longer for the mountain observer).
Considering your first question, "Is time faster or slower on our moon
compared to time on earth?" I would answer:
Strictly speaking, your question has no meaning because, for
mainstream Physics, 'time' is only what an official clock (next to you
and at rest) reads. But if we rephrase your question like this: "Is
the duration of all physical phenomena (after correcting for known
physical influences affecting their rate) the same when measured from
the moon as when measured from the earth ? my guess is that *it is
not* due to the influence of gravitation also on atomic clocks as said
above.
Your second question: "Does this mean that SR/GR effects only is given


by atomic clocks? And SR/GR effects can't be showed with hourglasses.

Why so, really?".
Well, since the time variable that enters our physical laws
corresponds by definition to the readings either of official (atomic)
clocks or of other clock mechanisms that have been synchronized with a
standard clock (and known to remain in sync with it under the
pertinent experimental circumstances), then it is trivial that an
hourglass in sync with an official clock will also show the
relativistic effects. If we instead had defined as our time standard
the readings of some other apparatus that are not always (and/or not
everywhere) proportional to the readings of an atomic clock then we
would obtain different expressions for the laws of that "physics" for
which perhaps the word "relativistic" would never had been coined, but
the underlying reality (i.e. its consequences in our world and our
bodies) would of course be the same whether we describe it one way or
another.
And referent to your million $ question: "What is time really and can
we trust in time?" here are my two cents:
First I think that the concept of "time" in Physics needs some
clarification. For me, 'time is an ordering of events'. By "ordering"
I understand creating a list of all the pertinent events of a system
in which a unique number is assigned (or "assignable" at least in
principle, perhaps giving some functions) to every event so that we
can know if its number is bigger or smaller than that of any other
event of the set. We now need a definition of 'event' that is
consistent with such concept of time. My idea of a basic type of event
is: 'a given set of the space positions of *all* the material entities
of the system under consideration in which to each material entity
corresponds only one position'. For example: a set of the positions of
all the elementary particles together with a map of the radiation
(field) that constitute the physical system. (A similarity can be
found with a frame of a movie-film that also contains space-location
information). I also think that it is possible and useful to allow for
different types of events and use the type that adapts better to the
physical description under consideration. For example, an alternative
type of event to be used in other contexts could perhaps be 'a set of
all the temperatures of all the material constituents of a physical
system (i.e. something like a field of temperatures).
It seems important that the concept of "event" that is agreed, does
not contain any connotations related with movement in space or with
physical change because otherwise the definition would be circular
since the concept of 'time' that we are trying to define is itself a
concept that pretends to describe change and movement. But I see no
problem, in theory, to remove from the concept of event any
association with change since it is just a matter of increasing our
number of "film frames" until we are satisfied that all the pertinent
information of our system is included in static frames (e.g. if there
is some information related with change in what we intend to single
out as a *single event*, we just "divide" that multi-pseudo-event in
two or more actual events, and so on).
In this scenario it must be clear that 'no two events have the same
associated number and therefore no two events can be called
simultaneous'. That concept of event is therefore equivalent to the
intuitive concept that we call "instant". Simultaneity is a concept
that must be applied only to sub-events. A "sub-event" can be defined
as 'a given set of the space positions of *some* (but not all) of the
material entities of the system under consideration'. Two sub-events
are simultaneous if they both appear as subsets of the same given
event.
To complete the 'timing' of a physical system and make it operative
for Physics, not only its events must be singled out, but a unique
number must be associated to each event. This is done by adding a
clock to the physical entities that constitute our system and
assigning to each event some characteristic quantity (reading) of the
sub-event "clock" of each event.
The assertion "Time is absolute" made by Newton and assumed explicitly
or intuitively by everybody until the paradigm shift of special
relativity (SR) can here be understood as the belief that any event of
the system "Universe" can be ordered adequately in relation to any
other event in such a way that a consistent description of all the
physical world can be made without violating causality. Causality is
not violated if any physical phenomena (e.g. some information of
contiguous events) can be fully deduced from the knowledge of events
of *only lower order* in the ordered sequence of events.

I myself, and many others, think that "Time is absolute" and that SR
has made a mess of Physics, (but this post is already too long and I'm
tired so I will argue that, when possible, in another post).

Best regards
Carlos L.
http://personales.ya.com/carlosla/model/

Len Gaasenbeek

unread,
Feb 26, 2004, 5:25:03 PM2/26/04
to

To Carlos,

The problem relativists created is that they contend that when a clock runs
slow, that the rate at which time flows in the clock's immediate vicinity
will be slowed down . When you think about it, the two phenomena have
nothing to do with each other since they do not obey
"the law of cause and effect", i.e. one doesn't follow from the other.

I recently bought an antique barometer and wanted to adjust it so it showed
the correct barometric pressure. To this end I went to a store that sold
barometers to record what they showed the local barometric pressure to be.
To my dismay I found that no two store barometers showed the same reading.

I concluded from this, not that the barometric pressure was different at
various locations in the store, but that the store barometers were
inaccurate.

Since there is no such thing as perfection in this world, it follows that no
clock will keep perfect time. Consequently, even the best of clocks will
lose or gain a few seconds in a million years. Next if you shake these
clocks, change their velocity, temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure
(vacuum), atmospheric gas mixture and gravitational field and vibration in
which they operate, these same clocks will become even less accurate.

The flow of time on the other hand is constant no matter what, since by
definition we do not allow for short or long seconds. That is to say, a
second is a second is a second! Not only that, but the flow of time is
constant and the same throughout the universe, whether there is a person to
observe it or not.

To a child peek-a-boo is reality, not a game. Grown-ups on the other hand
know,
that just because you can no longer see a person, that doesn't mean that
he/she ceased to exist.

Since relativistic physics is built on a fallacy it leads to all kinds of
silly notions, conclusions and observations. Similarly, you can't count to
ten if you believe that the number 7 doesn't exist or only exists some of
the time, no matter how hard you try.

That is why I maintain that relativistic physics is a religion rather than a
science, because it not only is unscientific and illogical, but also
because it is based on faith instead of reality.
And we all know that you can't argue about a man's faith, because it is
based on the way he feels rather than reason. (We all have a rational AND
an emotional half, which cause us to think and behave the way we do.)

Enjoy, Len.
................................................

"Carlos L" <carl...@lix.intercom.es> wrote in message
news:ac68ac75.0402...@posting.google.com...

Patrick Powers

unread,
Feb 27, 2004, 7:36:28 AM2/27/04
to
"Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message news:<lr2dnQHo2Yo...@prairiewave.com>...

> LeoK spews mundane nonsense. The post Newton GTR / SR
> effects on hour glass and atomic clock are identical, but the
> equivalence principle tells you that, in gravitational free fall, an
> hour glass cannot function as a clock. The are no land slides
> or water falls in free space. [Old Man]

Ho ho. Attach one end of a rope to an end of the hourglass, the other
end to a pivot. Set hourglass in circular motion. A clock!

Tom Potter

unread,
Feb 27, 2004, 11:38:40 PM2/27/04
to
"Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message news:<lr2dnQHo2Yo...@prairiewave.com>...

Considering the
" supermassive black hole stretching, tearing apart and partially gobbling
up a star...",
recently reported in the news,
it appears that there are "land slides"
" in free space", or else one has to
be much more specific about what "free space" is.

The fact of the matter is
that times in the sense of change
are exponential changes in populations,
and these changes are quantized using the
dimensionally correct time of the
time periods associated with some body (A clock).

In other words,
the exponential decay of a pendulum
is quantized by a periods count of the pendulum.
The decal of the pendulum is time in
the sense of aging, whereas the pendulum period
is the dimensional time of physics.

The clocks that use the time period
of some oscillating system as its' unit
must in the end, be mapped against
long term exponential changes that occur
such as black holes eating stars,
and the heat death of the universe.

The master (Exponential) clocks end up eating
all of the time period clocks.

Furthermore, time periods are bidirectional,
and it is the exponential clocks
that dictate the direction of time.

Time period clocks are easier to count (Quantize)
but they do not provide time direction,
and thus all of the time data.

Note that the count and direction of
exponentials clock can by quantized
if the unit populations that are changing
are counted, and furthermore
if the steps are not exactly exponential,
when mapped against time period time,
that time period time could be bumpy,
or that factors affecting the population environment
are variable.

--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us

Carlos L

unread,
Feb 28, 2004, 6:12:16 PM2/28/04
to
"Len Gaasenbeek" <gaas...@rideau.net> wrote in message news:<103ssp6...@corp.supernews.com>...

> To Carlos,
>
> The problem relativists created is that they contend that when a clock runs
> slow, that the rate at which time flows in the clock's immediate vicinity
> will be slowed down . When you think about it, the two phenomena have
> nothing to do with each other since they do not obey
> "the law of cause and effect", i.e. one doesn't follow from the other.

Interesting thought Len. I agree with you only in part. From one point
of view, I think that the SR logic is internally consistent when it
contends what you say. After all, the SRists believe (1st postulate)
that all the laws of Physics are the same in whatever inertial frame
and therefore when, to account for the constancy of the speed of
light, they assume that the clocks of a moving inertial frame run
slower than ours they must also admit that all their local (to the
"moving" frame) physical processes (e.g. the aging of the travelling
twin, the baking time of their cakes,...) do also run slower according
to our clocks. Otherwise doing the numbers we would conclude that in
the "moving" reference frame they must be finding laws of physics
different from ours.
Parenthesis: The SRists must (and do) admit that it can not in good
logic be just "an appearance" but "a reality" that when our clocks
read 30' the moving cake is insufficiently baked compared to the ones
we also started to bake at the 'synchronization epoch' t = t' = 0.

But according to what most of us expect from Physics, SR has a feeble
point there, because it gives no clue about "why" all the physical
processes of the "moving" frame slow down at the same rate. They at
most say vague things like "the relativity of time is an intrinsic
property of nature that is not the duty of Physics to comprehend.
Physics is concerned with predictions and not with explanations". I
think that the SRists are not completely stupid and they realize that
if they attempt to give *physical* reasons (e.g. of cause and effect)
to explain why the physical processes of the moving frame slow down at
the same rate, they must invoke objective physical properties of space
affecting all the phenomena. They would next have to admit that the
(real) relativistic effects affecting the moving systems are due to
the specific way in which that physical space acts on bodies that move
relative to it. That would be admitting "absolute space" and therefore
they would have to admit that if the clocks of S' go slower than those
of S it must happen that the clocks of S go faster than those of S'
(and not also slower as they pretend to convince us with the peculiar
logic of "relativism"). But then the trick of setting ad hoc the
clocks to explain the constancy of the speed of light would work only
for one moving inertial frame but not for all and so all their card
castle would fall down.

> I recently bought an antique barometer and wanted to adjust it so it showed
> the correct barometric pressure. To this end I went to a store that sold
> barometers to record what they showed the local barometric pressure to be.
> To my dismay I found that no two store barometers showed the same reading.
>
> I concluded from this, not that the barometric pressure was different at
> various locations in the store, but that the store barometers were
> inaccurate.
>
> Since there is no such thing as perfection in this world, it follows that no
> clock will keep perfect time. Consequently, even the best of clocks will
> lose or gain a few seconds in a million years. Next if you shake these
> clocks, change their velocity, temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure
> (vacuum), atmospheric gas mixture and gravitational field and vibration in
> which they operate, these same clocks will become even less accurate.

Agreed that there are no perfect clocks if by this we mean that 'no
two "identical" physical clocks will keep in sync for ever'.

> The flow of time on the other hand is constant no matter what, since by
> definition we do not allow for short or long seconds. That is to say, a
> second is a second is a second! Not only that, but the flow of time is
> constant and the same throughout the universe, whether there is a person to
> observe it or not.

Hmmm, I don't subscribe those words (although perhaps we are both
defending the same basic idea of "absolute time" except for
secondary-importance attributes). I think that the best meaning that
we can give to "the flow of time" is: 'what a given physical clock
(our standard) reads' In that respect I can agree that it is
"constant". But, as I see it, the important attribute of "absolute
time" is just the possibility to synchronize all the clocks of any
physical system in such a way that any event is assigned the same
number (time) by all the clocks (independently of their location and
state of movement). (By "the same number" we can actually understand
numbers whose spread is less than the error bar of our clocks). But as
long as the numbering (and therefore the order) of the events is the
same for all observers we can change our minds about the most adequate
time standard and change all our previous clocks (that gave a sequence
of numbers t) by another type of clocks that (compared to the first
set) read for example Log[t] instead of t.

> To a child peek-a-boo is reality, not a game. Grown-ups on the other hand
> know,
> that just because you can no longer see a person, that doesn't mean that
> he/she ceased to exist.
>
> Since relativistic physics is built on a fallacy it leads to all kinds of
> silly notions, conclusions and observations. Similarly, you can't count to
> ten if you believe that the number 7 doesn't exist or only exists some of
> the time, no matter how hard you try.
>
> That is why I maintain that relativistic physics is a religion rather than a
> science, because it not only is unscientific and illogical, but also
> because it is based on faith instead of reality.

Agreed. For example the "*relative* time dilation between
relatively-moving clocks" can not be considered to have been
satisfactorily confirmed by experiments. The Hafele-Keating experiment
is very controversial. The Ives & Stilwell experiment can probably be
interpreted as a *real* slow down of the clocks (or atom-oscillations)
when they move at very high speeds relative to the physical space
(aether, vacuum, or whatever name), or more precisely when the
absolute speeds of the emitter and the observer are very different.

> And we all know that you can't argue about a man's faith, because it is
> based on the way he feels rather than reason. (We all have a rational AND
> an emotional half, which cause us to think and behave the way we do.)
>
> Enjoy, Len.


Best regards
Carlos L.
http://personales.ya.com/carlosla/model/EVE12/Eve12.htm

Carlos L

unread,
Feb 29, 2004, 1:13:19 AM2/29/04
to
carl...@lix.intercom.es (Carlos L) wrote in message news:<ac68ac75.0402...@posting.google.com>...

> LeoK <*@*.chello.se> wrote in message news:<Kme_b.1320$EV2.7257@amstwist00>...
> > [snip of things already commented in an earlier post]
> > [...]

> > What is time really and can we trust in time?
> > LeoK

Continuing with what I was trying to clarify (mainly to myself) in my
first post in this thread, I am convinced that Physics admits a
consistent description based on "absolute Time". In other words, I
think that all the "reality" of our physical Universe can in principle
be thought as an ordered sequence of events (i.e. some sort of 3D film
frames, each with all the physical entities of the Universe) in such a
way that all observers (whatever their location and/or movement) can
have a local clock that assigns to the events the same number (and
therefore the same order) as do all other observers. That implies
that all observers will agree about which events (or which sub-events)
come first and which after, and about which sub-events are
simultaneous. It is actually that what is meant in general with the
assertion "causality is not violated" (and that is what I want to
subscribe by the moment and not the stronger assertion that I made in
my earlier post).
But even assuming that the physical Universe can be modelled by a "3D
movie-film" (i.e. with absolute time), when we set forth to its
description, we have to face the problem that "we" (its observers)
form part of it and can not just view it "from outside" and simply
proceed to assign increasing numbers to each of the frames (events) of
the 3D movie. Nevertheless, to visualize which kind of clocks must
possess the various observers so that they agree about the timing
(numbering) of the (common by definition) events, it can help to
"imagine" that there actually exists a privileged external observer EO
that has no problems with the description (because he can visualize
all the information in each film-frame and the correct order of the
frames) and guarantees that a consistent description (for all our
local observers) is possible if we are wise enough to set our clocks
to time the events in the right way. (That is just a mental exercise
recommended to some veteran relativists that no longer feel free to
think of Space and Time from the good old conceptual mathematical
point of view but only as measurable quantities of a real observer,
forgetting that a theory is after all a model written in a paper using
well defined mathematical constructs, like Space and Time, that don't
care about SR and can be thought classically).
If the premises of the model are valid (i.e. if a description based on
such concept of absolute Time is possible) then, in principle, to
simplify the problem of synchronization, the best solution would be to
have a *single clock* in the whole physical Universe. That single
clock could be anywhere in space and could have any type of movement
(for the EO it would appear in all the film-frames but not necessarily
always in the same place). The single clock could in principle be any
physical mechanism that outputs in a tape ever increasing rational
numbers. The more numbers per day the better. If the numbers being
output are proportional to some *basic physical quantity* of a basic
phenomenon of nature "measured" automatically by the clock there will
be more chances that the final description (i.e. the laws of Physics)
is simple. (E.g. that "basic" physical quantity could perhaps be the
accumulated number of beats output by *a given* caesium clock, or the
accumulated number of radians of some cyclic adequate astronomical
observation related with the Earth rotation on its axis, etc,...).
The next problem in this scenario of a single Universal clock is to
provide the time readings to any observer whatever his movement and
his place in the "Universe". And this is the delicate point that will
make the description (based on absolute time) succeed or fail. And I
am not referring to the technical difficulties of linking the
Universal clock with signals (e.g. light signals, space ship
messengers, particles, or whatever) to every post of observation, but
to the theoretical problem. The only chance to succeed is to make the
one and only correct prediction about the exact delay that must be
attributed to the signals of each link. That implies *guessing* the
good theories of Physics that describe correctly the velocity of the
pertinent signals in every media that the signals will cross. The "one
way" delay of the signal is the one that has to be correctly deduced
from the theory (Measuring the "two way" delay and dividing it by two
can not be trusted a priori).
Alternately, to provide the time readings to all the observers,
instead of sending signals we could, in the vicinity of the Universal
clock, synchronize other identical clocks with it and then transport
these to the other posts of observation. In this case, the only chance
to succeed with the "Absolute Time description" is to make the good
corrections in the transported clocks to compensate for the physical
perturbations (e.g. speed, gravitational fields,...) that have
affected their basic "mechanism" during their journeys.
The problem in both alternatives is that the exact influences
affecting the signals or the transported clocks must be *guessed* and
implemented into a good operative theory. (The theory need not be a
TOE but a it has to be a correct theory of the pertinent phenomena
related with those signals or clock transports). The *guess* of the
theory will of course be suggested by experimental observations made
with yet non-guaranteed clocks but we must be aware that it can not a
priori be assumed that a physical law describing crude experiments
made with non-guaranteed/non-compensated clocks can directly be as
such incorporated into the sought "correct" theory. It would be
circular reasoning to do that.

Now, my thesis is that SR 'hasn't got right' the issue of
synchronization of relatively moving clocks and is therefore very far
from visualizing the possibility to reincorporate absolute time to
Physics. The wrong track was taken when, to reconcile the experimental
facts (1) light speed is independent is independent of the velocity of
the source, with (2) we measure the same "lab-speed of light" in
vacuum whatever the velocity of our lab relative to the stars, it was
believed that the *only* possible solution was the imaginative theory
(SR) of Einstein in spite of its controversial logic. Unfortunately
some of the predictions made by SR (like those related with the
collision of high speed particles) happened to be much more accurate
than those of Newton's mechanics, and the rest of the story is (also)
well known: an endless 100-year discussion between the defenders of
positivism (SRists) and the defenders of traditional logic and
physical causes. But I am convinced that there is at least another
possible way to reconcile both experimental facts (1) and (2) without
resorting to the "relativity of time": It is always given for granted
that a very brief emission of light once it leaves the emitter
(whether we think of it as a bunch of photons or as a classical
disturbance of the medium) can be characterised as a "body of stuff"
that remains basically together and therefore remains well localized
in space during all its journey to the detector. (I am aware that,
even in vacuum, the mainstream theories actually allow for a
"relatively small" gradual widening of the wave packet due to
statistical indeterminacy considerations, but that is not the widening
that I will refer to). According therefore to mainstream theories if
the supposedly localized light-stuff reaches and triggers a detector
that is at rest in the lab at lab time t, it will happen that, if we
have a second detector moving fast in the lab but passing at time t
next to the first detector, we will observe that it is also triggered
by the light stuff when the lab clock reads t (i.e. at the "3 bodies
space coincidence event" (2 detectors + 1 small "body" of light)).
But then, to account for the constancy of the velocity of light, SR
needs to assume that, in the reference frame of the moving detector, a
clock fixed to this detector, when it passes next to the lab
rest-detector (at the "3 bodies space coincidence event") it will not
show a reading t but a different reading t' (related with t in the
well known ad hoc way such that it can be observed that in both
reference frames the speed of light is c).
If instead (as I have defended many times with no success), it is
assumed: (a) that the light pulse once it leaves the emitter spreads
"completely", like the fragments of an explosion, into bits of a great
plurality of speeds; (b) that each bit (or better, each group of bits
of a given speed) carries with it (i.e. implements in it) at its
specific speed, all the information of the emission (frequency,
polarization, intensity,...), (c) that the physical detectors are only
triggered by "bits" whose speed relative to them is c, then it will
happen that the moving detector is not triggered during the "3 bodies
space coincidence event" but earlier or later (depending of whether it
is moving away or towards the emitter) and it can now be supposed that
the clock of the moving detector is also reading t when it passes
next to the first detector (safeguarding therefore the possibility of
a classical description based on absolute time) . In addition, the
constancy of the velocity of light is also preserved but now it must
be understood as asserting that "the speed of light is always c
relative to the physical detectors, and therefore every inertial
reference frame will measure a speed of light in vacuum equal to c *as
long as its detectors are at rest in such frame*" (I think that it is
only that what the experiments have yet shown. I am not aware that any
light *lab-timing arrival* experiment has been yet made with detectors
of big lab speed).

Best regards
Carlos L.
http://personales.ya.com/carlosla/model/EVA6/Eva6.htm

dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)

unread,
Feb 29, 2004, 2:10:35 AM2/29/04
to
Dear Carlos L:

"Carlos L" <carl...@lix.intercom.es> wrote in message

news:ac68ac75.04022...@posting.google.com...


> carl...@lix.intercom.es (Carlos L) wrote in message
news:<ac68ac75.0402...@posting.google.com>...
> > LeoK <*@*.chello.se> wrote in message
news:<Kme_b.1320$EV2.7257@amstwist00>...
> > > [snip of things already commented in an earlier post]
> > > [...]
> > > What is time really and can we trust in time?
> > > LeoK
>
> Continuing with what I was trying to clarify (mainly to myself) in my
> first post in this thread, I am convinced that Physics admits a
> consistent description based on "absolute Time". In other words, I
> think that all the "reality" of our physical Universe can in principle
> be thought as an ordered sequence of events (i.e. some sort of 3D film
> frames, each with all the physical entities of the Universe) in such a
> way that all observers (whatever their location and/or movement) can
> have a local clock that assigns to the events the same number (and
> therefore the same order) as do all other observers.

This is not true if the events are separated in space also. If two stars
go nova, different observers will possibly see the sequence in a different
order, or even simultaneous.

There is no evidence of absolute time in this Universe, with the tools at
hand.

David A. Smith


Bilge

unread,
Feb 29, 2004, 6:58:43 AM2/29/04
to
Carlos L:

>But according to what most of us expect from Physics,

Apparently, what you expect is to completely fail to understand
a physical theory and still have it make sense.

>SR has a feeble point there, because it gives no clue about "why"
>all the physical processes of the "moving" frame slow down at the
>same rate.

Sure it does, and anyone who sat down with a textbook and studied
it a little bit would know the answer. There's really no excuse for
someone who's been told the answer countless times and still posts
the same, lame diatribe.


Gregory L. Hansen

unread,
Feb 29, 2004, 9:03:05 AM2/29/04
to
In article <ac68ac75.04022...@posting.google.com>,

Carlos L <carl...@lix.intercom.es> wrote:
>"Len Gaasenbeek" <gaas...@rideau.net> wrote in message
>news:<103ssp6...@corp.supernews.com>...

>But according to what most of us expect from Physics, SR has a feeble


>point there, because it gives no clue about "why" all the physical
>processes of the "moving" frame slow down at the same rate. They at
>most say vague things like "the relativity of time is an intrinsic
>property of nature that is not the duty of Physics to comprehend.
>Physics is concerned with predictions and not with explanations". I
>think that the SRists are not completely stupid and they realize that
>if they attempt to give *physical* reasons (e.g. of cause and effect)
>to explain why the physical processes of the moving frame slow down at

You seem to think space and time "really" have a Galilean character, and
that any apparant deviation from that character is something that must be
explained, while Galileo's invariance of length and universality of time
under transformations is something to just be accepted as a matter of
faith, with no explanation needed. Have you never wondered why separated
clocks in different states of motion *should* stay synchronized?

A *physical* explanation would not be an explanation, but rather a
recasting of the problem in terms of postulates that you don't feel a need
to question, and perhaps that it never occurred to you could be
questioned. But what is the foundation for the assumption of a universal
time? Experimental? "I don't care what the data looks like, that's just
the way things are"?

--
"A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any hypothesis agree
with the phenomena. This will please the imagination but does not advance
our knowledge." -- J. Black, 1803.

Androcles

unread,
Feb 29, 2004, 9:38:55 AM2/29/04
to
In re your simulation:
See:
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/actual_data.htm

Androcles

"Carlos L" <carl...@lix.intercom.es> wrote in message
news:ac68ac75.04022...@posting.google.com...

Androcles

unread,
Feb 29, 2004, 10:02:01 AM2/29/04
to

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:Jfg0c.6537$h23.3133@fed1read06...

Assuming the novae are simultaneous and equidistant from the observer, then
the observer O will see them as simultaneous, O' will not.
O''-------------*A--------------- *B------------------O'
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\/
O
The distance from all observers to the nearest novae is 100 LY, and so is
the distance between the novae.
O'' sees A 100 years before B
O sees A at the same instant as B
O' sees A 100 years after B
By any sensible definition of simultaneity, this must be so.
Do you claim that the rumble of thunder and the flash of lightning are not
simultaneous events because you see one before you 'observe' (hear) the
other?
Do you claim it necessary that a signal be sent to the novae and returned
before it can be percieved?


> There is no evidence of absolute time in this Universe, with the tools at
> hand.
>
> David A. Smith

There is no direct evidence of bright green flying elephants ever laying
eggs in this Universe, but how else could they exist and multiply?
Do you still beat your wife?
There is no evidence of relative time in this Universe, it is intuitive that
time is absolute, therefore you have the burden of proof.
Your argument is as silly as my elephants.
Androcles


Androcles

unread,
Feb 29, 2004, 10:12:53 AM2/29/04
to

"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:c1srep$d4g$2...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...

> In article <ac68ac75.04022...@posting.google.com>,
> Carlos L <carl...@lix.intercom.es> wrote:
> >"Len Gaasenbeek" <gaas...@rideau.net> wrote in message
> >news:<103ssp6...@corp.supernews.com>...
>
> >But according to what most of us expect from Physics, SR has a feeble
> >point there, because it gives no clue about "why" all the physical
> >processes of the "moving" frame slow down at the same rate. They at
> >most say vague things like "the relativity of time is an intrinsic
> >property of nature that is not the duty of Physics to comprehend.
> >Physics is concerned with predictions and not with explanations". I
> >think that the SRists are not completely stupid and they realize that
> >if they attempt to give *physical* reasons (e.g. of cause and effect)
> >to explain why the physical processes of the moving frame slow down at
>
> You seem to think space and time "really" have a Galilean character, and
> that any apparant deviation from that character is something that must be
> explained, while Galileo's invariance of length and universality of time
> under transformations is something to just be accepted as a matter of
> faith, with no explanation needed. Have you never wondered why separated
> clocks in different states of motion *should* stay synchronized?

Have you ever wondered why they should not, and more to the point, can you
show they do not?
It is intuitive that they should.
I hand the burden of proof to you to show otherwise.

>
> A *physical* explanation would not be an explanation, but rather a
> recasting of the problem in terms of postulates that you don't feel a need
> to question, and perhaps that it never occurred to you could be
> questioned. But what is the foundation for the assumption of a universal
> time? Experimental? "I don't care what the data looks like, that's just
> the way things are"?

I certainly do question Enstein's second postulate, and his conclusion
derived from it : "Thence we conclude that a balance-clock [or ceasium
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. "
Ergo you have not proved time is anything other than absolute.
Do not claim GPS clocks are in any way "under otherwise identical
conditions", they are passing through the Earth's magnetic field.


> --
> "A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any hypothesis agree
> with the phenomena. This will please the imagination but does not advance
> our knowledge." -- J. Black, 1803.

Black was right.
Space and time REALLY have a Galilean character, the clock at the pole
doesn't tick at a different rate to one at the equator, and relativity is an
imagination.
Androcles

Carlos L

unread,
Feb 29, 2004, 11:36:15 AM2/29/04
to
dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in message news:<slrnc43pvg....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>...

> Carlos L:
>
> >But according to what most of us expect from Physics,
>
> Apparently, what you expect is to completely fail to understand
> a physical theory and still have it make sense.
>
> >SR has a feeble point there, because it gives no clue about "why"
> >all the physical processes of the "moving" frame slow down at the
> >same rate.
>
> Sure it does, and anyone who sat down with a textbook and studied
> it a little bit would know the answer.

The readers will judge if that is true.

> There's really no excuse for
> someone who's been told the answer countless times and still posts
> the same, lame diatribe.

Please give me references of having been told the answer just one
single time. I actually never had realised before that "SR has a
feeble point in giving no clue about why all the physical processes of


the moving frame slow down at the

same rate" until Len Gaaseenbeck suggested that to me. I have never
posted any opinion before on that specific issue.

Carlos L.
charlesla@(c+v=c)jazzfree.com remove the nonsense from the address

Len Gaasenbeek

unread,
Feb 29, 2004, 12:02:08 PM2/29/04
to
To all,

When I look at a tree I look at something mother nature created without any
input from me.
When I consider "the flow of time" it is a concept man invented without any
help from mother nature.

The problem is that some people look upon a concept as if it was a real
thing like a tree.
But just because I can think of a thing, that doesn't make it so. Or, to
put it differently, a concept is just in my mind, whereas a tree is
something that is actually there for everyone to look at.

The concept of time was invented and defined by man to keep track of events.
It allows one to meet a friend tomorrow, at noon, at the local pub. It
tells people when to go to work and when to go home etc. But when all is
said and done, the concept of time was originated and defined by man to give
order to his life, that's all.

This being the case, once you agree on its definition, time is invariant for
it to work for all at all times. This makes the concept of time dilation
unreasonable and unworkable because it contradicts the very concept of time
as defined by man for use by man.

As far as mother nature is concerned, not only does the concept of time mean
nothing to her since it was invented by man, but the concept of man-made
time doesn't affect her master plan in any way shape or form because it
isn't part of the REAL world.

One day I talked to a Chinese friend about retirement. We were both looking
forward to it. I mentioned that I would have to watch my weight, if I was
within reach of the refrigerator all day, instead of just at night. She
looked at me and said: you look fine to me, what are you worried about?

It suddenly dawned on me that traditionally in China only the affluent
people were fat since they could afford to eat more than they needed to
survive. Consequently, to be fat was a status symbol which people looked up
to. (This is why Chinese Buddha's are fat as compared to Indian or Japanese
Buddha's et al.)

So I smiled and replied: you are right, it is all in the way you look at it.
My problem is not that I am fat, but that I was born in the wrong country.

Now here we have an example of an actual body which looks the same to all
observers in real terms. Yet conceptually I look unhealthy to a Canadian
but healthy and affluent to a Chinese.
So here we have an example of two different concepts for one reality.

Now we all agree that the way I look remains the same no matter who looks at
me.
Relativists on the other hand maintain that the way you look at things makes
them the way they are. For example, depending on how you look at light, an
observer can turn it into a string of moving light particles or into a
light-wave.

Similarly, relativists agree that fast travelling people don't age more
slowly, as measured by their own clock, than the stationary observer who
stayed at home. Yet relativists also maintain that after the travellers get
back, they will have aged less than the people who stayed home.

So there it is; in reality an object is either white or black. Relativists
on the other hand maintain that a body can be both white and/or black,
depending on who is looking at it.

MINDSET

To be born a Protestant
In Northern Ireland
Is to hate all Catholics
And be hated in return.

To be born a Protestant or Catholic
In Canada
Is to love one another
As fellow Christians.

If our mindset is one of
Ignorance, greed and hatred
We not only cause others to suffer
But will make our own life a misery.

Conversely if we practice kindness an honesty
We can even face personal misfortune
With a peaceful heart because
We will love and trust others
As we love ourselves.

Len Gaasenbeek, 1996
Revised, 1998 and 2000.

Enjoy, Len.
...........................................................

Gregory L. Hansen

unread,
Feb 29, 2004, 2:40:09 PM2/29/04
to
In article <Qjn0c.1073$Wh....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>,

Experiment shows they don't, so "it is intuitive" is obviously not doing
the job.

What is the significance of "it is intuitive"? Do you mean that you
knowingly select an arbitrary set of postulates that you feel comfortable
with? Do you mean that nature is constrained to work the way you think
it should work? What makes "it is intuitive" proof or evidence or
rationale for anything?

>>
>> A *physical* explanation would not be an explanation, but rather a
>> recasting of the problem in terms of postulates that you don't feel a need
>> to question, and perhaps that it never occurred to you could be
>> questioned. But what is the foundation for the assumption of a universal
>> time? Experimental? "I don't care what the data looks like, that's just
>> the way things are"?
>
>I certainly do question Enstein's second postulate, and his conclusion
>derived from it : "Thence we conclude that a balance-clock [or ceasium
>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. "
>Ergo you have not proved time is anything other than absolute.
>Do not claim GPS clocks are in any way "under otherwise identical
>conditions", they are passing through the Earth's magnetic field.

There is extensive theory concerning the effects of magnetic fields on
atoms. You don't have to guess, you can calculate the effects for
yourself.

>
>> --
>> "A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any hypothesis agree
>> with the phenomena. This will please the imagination but does not advance
>> our knowledge." -- J. Black, 1803.
>Black was right.
>Space and time REALLY have a Galilean character, the clock at the pole
>doesn't tick at a different rate to one at the equator, and relativity is an
>imagination.
>Androcles

You're more than 100 years out of date. Lorentz assumed that space and
time really have a Galilean character, but in 1904, to make theory match
experiment he had to propose an aether that interacted with matter in a
way that changes the lengths and times that we measure, and does so in a
way that results in a principle of relativity and a speed of light that
will be measured as the same in all inertial frames even if we say it
really isn't the same. If space and time REALLY have a Galilean
character, we'd have to say they really have a Galilean character even if
they don't act like it.

So do you have something more besides "it is intuitive"? Or should we
just take your word for it?

--
"The polhode rolls without slipping on the herpolhode lying in the
invariable plane." -- Goldstein, Classical Mechanics 2nd. ed., p207.

Androcles

unread,
Feb 29, 2004, 5:02:19 PM2/29/04
to

"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:c1tf6p$jg0$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...

Name one. Don't just handwave, produce the evidence (and I don't mean a
thought experiment, either).


>
> What is the significance of "it is intuitive"? Do you mean that you
> knowingly select an arbitrary set of postulates that you feel comfortable
> with? Do you mean that nature is constrained to work the way you think
> it should work? What makes "it is intuitive" proof or evidence or
> rationale for anything?

What makes your assertions a rationale for anything?
So far that's all you've given. I rely on only one postulate, not two.
What do you need two for?

>
> >>
> >> A *physical* explanation would not be an explanation, but rather a
> >> recasting of the problem in terms of postulates that you don't feel a
need
> >> to question, and perhaps that it never occurred to you could be
> >> questioned. But what is the foundation for the assumption of a
universal
> >> time? Experimental? "I don't care what the data looks like, that's
just
> >> the way things are"?
> >
> >I certainly do question Enstein's second postulate, and his conclusion
> >derived from it : "Thence we conclude that a balance-clock [or ceasium
> >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. "
> >Ergo you have not proved time is anything other than absolute.
> >Do not claim GPS clocks are in any way "under otherwise identical
> >conditions", they are passing through the Earth's magnetic field.
>
> There is extensive theory concerning the effects of magnetic fields on
> atoms. You don't have to guess, you can calculate the effects for
> yourself.

I'm not guessing. I'm asking you for proof. You are the one making
assertions.
You are just trying to steer away from the issue, sputtering about
'experiments show', but you have no experiments, do you?


"Thence we conclude that a balance-clock [or ceasium 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. " doesn't
work, does it?
The wonderful theory that can make predictions falls flat on its face at the
first hurdle, right?


> >
> >> --
> >> "A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any hypothesis agree
> >> with the phenomena. This will please the imagination but does not
advance
> >> our knowledge." -- J. Black, 1803.
> >Black was right.
> >Space and time REALLY have a Galilean character, the clock at the pole
> >doesn't tick at a different rate to one at the equator, and relativity is
an
> >imagination.
> >Androcles
>
> You're more than 100 years out of date. Lorentz assumed that space and
> time really have a Galilean character, but in 1904, to make theory match
> experiment he had to propose an aether that interacted with matter in a
> way that changes the lengths and times that we measure, and does so in a
> way that results in a principle of relativity and a speed of light that
> will be measured as the same in all inertial frames even if we say it
> really isn't the same. If space and time REALLY have a Galilean
> character, we'd have to say they really have a Galilean character even if
> they don't act like it.

Lorentz was trying to prop up the aether theory, and MMX killed it.
MMX is entirely compatible with the velocity of light being source
dependent.
Hence time and space is Galilean.

>
> So do you have something more besides "it is intuitive"? Or should we
> just take your word for it?

Take Michelson's word for it. It was his experiment, after all. Don't take
Einstein's word, unless you want to visit Antarctica with a ceasium clock
under your arm. I'll hold the other one for you, just pay my airfair to
Belize, I could use a vacation in the sun.


> --
> "The polhode rolls without slipping on the herpolhode lying in the
> invariable plane." -- Goldstein, Classical Mechanics 2nd. ed., p207.

"Humanity is acquiring all the right technology for all the wrong
reasons." - R. Buckminster Fuller

Androcles


Carlos L

unread,
Feb 29, 2004, 8:27:43 PM2/29/04
to
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message news:<c1srep$d4g$2...@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...

> In article <ac68ac75.04022...@posting.google.com>,
> Carlos L <carl...@lix.intercom.es> wrote:
> >"Len Gaasenbeek" <gaas...@rideau.net> wrote in message
> >news:<103ssp6...@corp.supernews.com>...
>
> >But according to what most of us expect from Physics, SR has a feeble
> >point there, because it gives no clue about "why" all the physical
> >processes of the "moving" frame slow down at the same rate. They at
> >most say vague things like "the relativity of time is an intrinsic
> >property of nature that is not the duty of Physics to comprehend.
> >Physics is concerned with predictions and not with explanations".
> > [...]

>
> You seem to think space and time "really" have a Galilean character, and
> that any apparant deviation from that character is something that must be
> explained, while Galileo's invariance of length and universality of time
> under transformations is something to just be accepted as a matter of
> faith, with no explanation needed.

Good points; but probably I didn't express myself clearly and
thoroughly enough and I think that you are misunderstanding me.
I am not sure what you mean by Galilean "character" but: I do not
believe in a Galilean invariance of physical laws (i.e. in Galilean
relativity) because I believe in a preferred reference frame (in which
the aether can be considered at rest), but I do believe in the
Galilean addition of velocities because I believe that a description
based on the "universality of time" (as you call it) is possible. I of
course believe in experiments and particularly in those of collisions
between high speed particles that disprove Newtonian mechanics (at
those speeds). I believe that the properties of space (aether)
determine the behaviour of physical clocks and all other processes
related with change and movement in some (logically) related way. I
admit the possibility that clocks that move relative to the local
aether or that are located in different gravitational potentials
(different aether parameters) get out of sync with those in other
states (of movement and gravitation). Therefore I do not think that
the "universality of time under transformations is something to just
be accepted as a matter of faith, with no explanation needed". What I
believe is that if we make the right compensations for those local
influences in the rate of the pertinent clocks we can obtain a
description based on absolute time (in which all the observers agree
in the order of all the events).

> Have you never wondered why separated
> clocks in different states of motion *should* stay synchronized?

Yes. Their local aether would have the same parameters.



> A *physical* explanation would not be an explanation, but rather a
> recasting of the problem in terms of postulates that you don't feel a need
> to question, and perhaps that it never occurred to you could be
> questioned.

A physical explanation is a description in terms of simpler and more
fundamental postulated laws or/and entities. I don't care about the
"reality" of those basic entities but just about the power and
simplicity of the new description. Science has progressed mainly
thanks to "explanations". (Dalton's atomic theory and (Bernoulli,
Maxwell, Boltzmann,...)'s kinetic theory of gases are within my
favourites).

> But what is the foundation for the assumption of a universal
> time? Experimental? "I don't care what the data looks like, that's just
> the way things are"?

See above.
Best regards.
Carlos L.
http://personales.ya.com/carlosla/model/EVE12/Eve12.htm

Gregory L. Hansen

unread,
Feb 29, 2004, 8:53:50 PM2/29/04
to
In article <Fjt0c.368$XS....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>,

The question that your request immediately brings to mind is, how can you
be so confident of your position when it's obvious that you've never
gotten your butt to a library to see if any data supports it? Let me see
what I have laying around at home...

Kyoshima, et. al., "Velocity measurement of fast ions by Doppler shift
of light emitted from ions passed through thin foil", NIM 147, 547-550
(1977).

The data fit a relativistic analysis.

Klein, et. al., "Measurement of the transverse Doppler shift using a
stored relativistic 7Li+ ion beam", Zeitschrift für Physik A, 342, 455-461
(1992).

Transverse Doppler shift is a relativistic effect, it's a direct measure
of time dilation.

Kretzschmar, "Dopper spectroscopy on relativistic particle beams in the
light of a test theory of special relativity", Zeitschrift für Physik A,
342, 463-469 (1992).

Durbin, et. al., "The lifetimes of the pi+ and pi- mesons", Physical
Review 88, 179 (1952).

Lorentz time dilation was seen, and corrected for to find the center of
mass lifetimes.

Jaseja, et. al, "Test of special relativity or of the isotropy of space by
use of infrared masers", Physical Review 133, A1221 (1964).

Basically another Michelson-Morley experiment.

Atzmon and Nussinov, "Testing special relativity with SN 1987-a neutrino
pulses", Physics Letters B 328, 103-108 (1994).

Trying to determine whether the speed of the neutrinos was the speed of
light plus some fraction of the speed of the source.

Hils and Hall, "Improved Kinnedy-Thorndike experiment to test special
relativity", Physical Review Letters 64, 1697 (1990).

Filippas and Fox, "Velocity of gamma rays from a moving source", Physical
Review 135, B1071, 1964.

Alvager, et. al., "Test of the second postulate of special relativity in
the GeV region", Physics Letters 12, 260 (1964).

Brecher, "Is the speed of light independent of hte velocity of the
source?", Physical Review Letters 39, 1051 (1977).

Looking at x-ray measurements of binary stars, which overcome the
extinction problems that invalidate visible light measurements.

Greene, Dewey, Kessler, "Test of special relativity by a determination of
the Lorentz limiting velocity: Does E=mc^2?", Physical Review D 44, R2216
(1991).

I'm getting tired of typing.

>
>
>>
>> What is the significance of "it is intuitive"? Do you mean that you
>> knowingly select an arbitrary set of postulates that you feel comfortable
>> with? Do you mean that nature is constrained to work the way you think
>> it should work? What makes "it is intuitive" proof or evidence or
>> rationale for anything?
>
>What makes your assertions a rationale for anything?
>So far that's all you've given. I rely on only one postulate, not two.
>What do you need two for?

Which postulate is that?

My assertions, in themselves, aren't a rationale for selecting one set of
postulates over another. I'm telling you why *you* don't have a rationale
for selecting your set of postulates over others. You're demanding
explanations for postulates when you don't even realize that you don't
have explanations of your own.

>
>>
>> >>
>> >> A *physical* explanation would not be an explanation, but rather a
>> >> recasting of the problem in terms of postulates that you don't feel a
>need
>> >> to question, and perhaps that it never occurred to you could be
>> >> questioned. But what is the foundation for the assumption of a
>universal
>> >> time? Experimental? "I don't care what the data looks like, that's
>just
>> >> the way things are"?
>> >
>> >I certainly do question Enstein's second postulate, and his conclusion
>> >derived from it : "Thence we conclude that a balance-clock [or ceasium
>> >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. "
>> >Ergo you have not proved time is anything other than absolute.
>> >Do not claim GPS clocks are in any way "under otherwise identical
>> >conditions", they are passing through the Earth's magnetic field.
>>
>> There is extensive theory concerning the effects of magnetic fields on
>> atoms. You don't have to guess, you can calculate the effects for
>> yourself.
>
>I'm not guessing. I'm asking you for proof. You are the one making
>assertions.
>You are just trying to steer away from the issue, sputtering about
>'experiments show', but you have no experiments, do you?

I haven't studied the GPS system in detail, I don't know the design of the
clocks or the effects of magnetic fields on them. But it does seem a bit
of a stretch to suggest the magnetic effects accidently coincide with
theoretical predictions.

Is gravitational redshifting also due to the effects of the Earth's
magnetic field?

>"Thence we conclude that a balance-clock [or ceasium 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. " doesn't
>work, does it?

>The wonderful theory that can make predictions falls flat on its face at the
>first hurdle, right?

I don't know what you're talking about or where that quote came from.

>> >
>> >> --
>> >> "A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any hypothesis agree
>> >> with the phenomena. This will please the imagination but does not
>advance
>> >> our knowledge." -- J. Black, 1803.
>> >Black was right.
>> >Space and time REALLY have a Galilean character, the clock at the pole
>> >doesn't tick at a different rate to one at the equator, and relativity is
>an
>> >imagination.
>> >Androcles
>>
>> You're more than 100 years out of date. Lorentz assumed that space and
>> time really have a Galilean character, but in 1904, to make theory match
>> experiment he had to propose an aether that interacted with matter in a
>> way that changes the lengths and times that we measure, and does so in a
>> way that results in a principle of relativity and a speed of light that
>> will be measured as the same in all inertial frames even if we say it
>> really isn't the same. If space and time REALLY have a Galilean
>> character, we'd have to say they really have a Galilean character even if
>> they don't act like it.
>
>Lorentz was trying to prop up the aether theory, and MMX killed it.
>MMX is entirely compatible with the velocity of light being source
>dependent.
>Hence time and space is Galilean.

The only reason MMX killed the Maxwellian aether is because it
contradicted expectations from earlier experiments. The MMX does not
stand alone in that analysis.

MMX is compatible with the velocity of light being source dependent, but
it's also compatible with relativity. And it's not the only experiment
ever done that concerns these issues.

>
>>
>> So do you have something more besides "it is intuitive"? Or should we
>> just take your word for it?
>Take Michelson's word for it. It was his experiment, after all. Don't take
>Einstein's word, unless you want to visit Antarctica with a ceasium clock
>under your arm. I'll hold the other one for you, just pay my airfair to
>Belize, I could use a vacation in the sun.

I don't actually know whether Michelson held the opinion you ascribe to
him, but Michelson's data now is only of historical interest.
--
"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
-- Benjamin Franklin

Gregory L. Hansen

unread,
Feb 29, 2004, 9:12:58 PM2/29/04
to
In article <ac68ac75.0402...@posting.google.com>,

Well, Lorentz's aether theory matches the relevant data. I have other
reasons for preferring relativity, I suppose you could call them
aesthetic. To wit: Lorentz's aether has a hypothetical rest frame that
drops out of calculations of electrodynamics; it's surplus metaphysics.
The unification of electrical and magnetic forces and the requirement of
electromagnetic radiation -- it's not just an accident that an
accelerated electron will radiate, if the principle of relativity
were true then it would be unthinkable that it should not radiate.
Lorentz's theory is a theory of electromagnetism while relativity concerns
all forces, and the strong and weak nuclear forces seem to accord with it.

I know people say general relativity is well supported by the data, but I
don't actually know if the data would select GR versus a
Galilean-covariant Newtonian gravity with a finite speed of gravity. I
don't know if anyone has even studied it, and it's sort of beyond me at
the moment to develop predictions from that model for comparison. Biswas
has produce special relativistic Newtonian gravity, but not Galilean that
I know of. But it would be interesting to be able to compare theory and
predictions and say yes, gravity is definitely relativistic, we've ruled
out Galilean space and time.

>
>> Have you never wondered why separated
>> clocks in different states of motion *should* stay synchronized?
>
>Yes. Their local aether would have the same parameters.
>
>> A *physical* explanation would not be an explanation, but rather a
>> recasting of the problem in terms of postulates that you don't feel a need
>> to question, and perhaps that it never occurred to you could be
>> questioned.
>
>A physical explanation is a description in terms of simpler and more
>fundamental postulated laws or/and entities. I don't care about the
>"reality" of those basic entities but just about the power and
>simplicity of the new description. Science has progressed mainly
>thanks to "explanations". (Dalton's atomic theory and (Bernoulli,
>Maxwell, Boltzmann,...)'s kinetic theory of gases are within my
>favourites).

Well, I hope I've given some idea above of why special relativity can be
considered "power and simplicity". Aether theories always seem sort of ad
hoc to me, but Maxwell's equations can be derived just from Coulomb's law
and special relativity.

>
>> But what is the foundation for the assumption of a universal
>> time? Experimental? "I don't care what the data looks like, that's just
>> the way things are"?
>
> See above.
> Best regards.
> Carlos L.
> http://personales.ya.com/carlosla/model/EVE12/Eve12.htm


--
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it. "
-- Gene Spafford, 1992

Androcles

unread,
Mar 1, 2004, 6:28:52 AM3/1/04
to

"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:c1u53e$s4v$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...

You are making that up. You know nothing about me. As it happens, I am no
longer able to get to a library easily, I have an arthritic ankle, but I
used to visit CMU in Pittsburgh frequently. As to my confidence, I've
studied a great deal more than you imagine, and your attempted flaming is
not working.

Let me see
> what I have laying around at home...
>
> Kyoshima, et. al., "Velocity measurement of fast ions by Doppler shift
> of light emitted from ions passed through thin foil", NIM 147, 547-550
> (1977).
>
> The data fit a relativistic analysis.

Is tin foil a vacuum then?

> Klein, et. al., "Measurement of the transverse Doppler shift using a
> stored relativistic 7Li+ ion beam", Zeitschrift für Physik A, 342, 455-461
> (1992).
>
> Transverse Doppler shift is a relativistic effect, it's a direct measure
> of time dilation.

Really?
t =1/(nu), therefore
tau = 1/(nu')

tau = (x-vt)*beta (beta = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
and
nu' = nu [ 1-cos(phi).v/c * beta ]

Transverse, you said. So phi = pi/2, cos (pi/2) = 0,
nu' = (nu) v/c * beta
tau = 1 / [(nu) v/c * beta ]
tau = 1 / [(1/t) v/c * beta ] = (x-vt)*beta
t / [ v/c ] = (x-vt) ?

I'm getting bored with titles. Pick the one you like the best and post it
here, we'll analyze it. Or are you offering a proof of how many titles you
have that you think show anything?

> >
> >
> >>
> >> What is the significance of "it is intuitive"? Do you mean that you
> >> knowingly select an arbitrary set of postulates that you feel
comfortable
> >> with? Do you mean that nature is constrained to work the way you think
> >> it should work? What makes "it is intuitive" proof or evidence or
> >> rationale for anything?
> >
> >What makes your assertions a rationale for anything?
> >So far that's all you've given. I rely on only one postulate, not two.
> >What do you need two for?
>
> Which postulate is that?

The one I rely upon is the PoR. You know, the one Einstein uses then changes
after he's used it.


>
> My assertions, in themselves, aren't a rationale for selecting one set of
> postulates over another. I'm telling you why *you* don't have a rationale
> for selecting your set of postulates over others.

That's just another assertion.

> You're demanding
> explanations for postulates when you don't even realize that you don't
> have explanations of your own.

Not at all, YOU don't even realize that all you are doing is making is
assertion after assertion. Waving a list of titles isn't any kind of
evidence or making assertions isn't evidence. Copy and paste the experiment
you like the best and we'll analyze it.

That has nothing to do with time. A rock thrown in the air slows and falls
back, unless it achieves escape velocity. I asked you for evidence of time
dilation.


Here's a bit of a stretch :

> >"Thence we conclude that a balance-clock [or ceasium 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. "
doesn't
> >work, does it?
>
> >The wonderful theory that can make predictions falls flat on its face at
the
> >first hurdle, right?
>
> I don't know what you're talking about or where that quote came from.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
It's Einstein's. I thought you were an avid library fan. I have a paper copy
of
"Electrodynamics" at home, but since it is evident you've never read
anything about how relativity came into being, you can find it at that web
page.

Sure, and there are other observations that clearly show light is source
dependent.
You just haven't read them.


>
> >
> >>
> >> So do you have something more besides "it is intuitive"? Or should we
> >> just take your word for it?
> >Take Michelson's word for it. It was his experiment, after all. Don't
take
> >Einstein's word, unless you want to visit Antarctica with a ceasium clock
> >under your arm. I'll hold the other one for you, just pay my airfair to
> >Belize, I could use a vacation in the sun.
>
> I don't actually know whether Michelson held the opinion you ascribe to
> him, but Michelson's data now is only of historical interest.

Oh.... I see. Well, relativity is only of historical interest, too.

> --
> "Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
> -- Benjamin Franklin

"The English are inveterate gamblers, drink as much beer as their wages will
permit, are devoted to bawdy jokes, and use probably the foulest language in
the world." - George Orwell

He was fucking right, too.
Androcles


Gregory L. Hansen

unread,
Mar 1, 2004, 10:26:51 AM3/1/04
to
In article <K7F0c.3121$X%.800@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>,

Then you shouldn't need to ask.

>
> Let me see
>> what I have laying around at home...
>>
>> Kyoshima, et. al., "Velocity measurement of fast ions by Doppler shift
>> of light emitted from ions passed through thin foil", NIM 147, 547-550
>> (1977).
>>
>> The data fit a relativistic analysis.
>Is tin foil a vacuum then?

Nope. And the ions didn't stay in the foil, either.

>
>> Klein, et. al., "Measurement of the transverse Doppler shift using a
>> stored relativistic 7Li+ ion beam", Zeitschrift für Physik A, 342, 455-461
>> (1992).
>>
>> Transverse Doppler shift is a relativistic effect, it's a direct measure
>> of time dilation.
>Really?

Yep.

>t =1/(nu), therefore
>tau = 1/(nu')
>
>tau = (x-vt)*beta (beta = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>and
>nu' = nu [ 1-cos(phi).v/c * beta ]
>
>Transverse, you said. So phi = pi/2, cos (pi/2) = 0,
>nu' = (nu) v/c * beta
>tau = 1 / [(nu) v/c * beta ]
>tau = 1 / [(1/t) v/c * beta ] = (x-vt)*beta
>t / [ v/c ] = (x-vt) ?

Uh... those don't look right to me. I'm not even sure which observables
you're describing there.

Galilean Doppler shifting is given by

w' = w (1 - (v/c) cos(theta))

Relativistic Doppler shifting is given by

w' = w(1 - (v/c) cos(theta))/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

with w being radians per second. So transverse Doppler shifting, with
theta=pi/2 as you said, would be

w'/w = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

The only difference between the two is the factor 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), and
that factor comes from the time dilation effect on the frequency of a
moving source.

>> I'm getting tired of typing.
>>
>I'm getting bored with titles.

Well, I really wasn't sure what you wanted.

>Pick the one you like the best and post it
>here, we'll analyze it. Or are you offering a proof of how many titles you
>have that you think show anything?

Some how I have the feeling that the details of any particular experiment
would not be important to the discussion. But Doppler shifting is fine.

>> >> What is the significance of "it is intuitive"? Do you mean that you
>> >> knowingly select an arbitrary set of postulates that you feel
>comfortable
>> >> with? Do you mean that nature is constrained to work the way you think
>> >> it should work? What makes "it is intuitive" proof or evidence or
>> >> rationale for anything?
>> >
>> >What makes your assertions a rationale for anything?
>> >So far that's all you've given. I rely on only one postulate, not two.
>> >What do you need two for?
>>
>> Which postulate is that?
>
>The one I rely upon is the PoR. You know, the one Einstein uses then changes
>after he's used it.

Oh, he doesn't change it. It's just not enough by itself. Galilean
relativity also has the postulate of a uniform time that's invariant under
transformations. Or equivalently, that lengths are invariant under
transformations.

...

>> >"Thence we conclude that a balance-clock [or ceasium 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. "
>doesn't
>> >work, does it?
>>
>> >The wonderful theory that can make predictions falls flat on its face at
>the
>> >first hurdle, right?
>>
>> I don't know what you're talking about or where that quote came from.
>
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
>It's Einstein's. I thought you were an avid library fan. I have a paper copy
>of
>"Electrodynamics" at home, but since it is evident you've never read
>anything about how relativity came into being, you can find it at that web
>page.

Can't read everything, can't remember random quotes from everything I have
read, and physics doesn't have sacred scripture.

I see now, from the context, that he's talking about the time dilation of
a moving clock due to the rotation of the Earth, and not about weird
gravitational effects.

So, uh... what point were you trying to make?

[...]

>> >Lorentz was trying to prop up the aether theory, and MMX killed it.
>> >MMX is entirely compatible with the velocity of light being source
>> >dependent.
>> >Hence time and space is Galilean.
>>
>> The only reason MMX killed the Maxwellian aether is because it
>> contradicted expectations from earlier experiments. The MMX does not
>> stand alone in that analysis.
>>
>> MMX is compatible with the velocity of light being source dependent, but
>> it's also compatible with relativity. And it's not the only experiment
>> ever done that concerns these issues.
>
>Sure, and there are other observations that clearly show light is source
>dependent.
>You just haven't read them.

And I might never read them, unless someone cites a few.

>> >> So do you have something more besides "it is intuitive"? Or should we
>> >> just take your word for it?
>> >Take Michelson's word for it. It was his experiment, after all. Don't
>take
>> >Einstein's word, unless you want to visit Antarctica with a ceasium clock
>> >under your arm. I'll hold the other one for you, just pay my airfair to
>> >Belize, I could use a vacation in the sun.
>>
>> I don't actually know whether Michelson held the opinion you ascribe to
>> him, but Michelson's data now is only of historical interest.
>
>Oh.... I see. Well, relativity is only of historical interest, too.

There's a large enough body of data that any given experiment like
Michelson and Morley's, or even a whole class of experiments, could
disappear with little effect.

>
>> --
>> "Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
>> -- Benjamin Franklin
>"The English are inveterate gamblers, drink as much beer as their wages will
>permit, are devoted to bawdy jokes, and use probably the foulest language in
>the world." - George Orwell
>
>He was fucking right, too.

That may well be true.


--
"Are those morons getting dumber or just louder?" -- Mayor Quimby

Jim Greenfield

unread,
Mar 1, 2004, 7:16:49 PM3/1/04
to
carl...@lix.intercom.es (Carlos L) wrote in message news:<ac68ac75.0402...@posting.google.com>...
> LeoK <*@*.chello.se> wrote in message news:<Kme_b.1320$EV2.7257@amstwist00>...
>
I myself, and many others, think that "Time is absolute" and that SR
> has made a mess of Physics, (but this post is already too long and I'm
> tired so I will argue that, when possible, in another post).
>
> Best regards
> Carlos L.
> http://personales.ya.com/carlosla/model/

If time is passing at a different rate on the mountain, than the
earth's center (due to gravitational difference), then the mountains
will "fly away" eh!!
Both are travelling the same orbit, so if time is different for both,
then they MUST part company. As I have yet to observe this phenomenon,
I will stick to the more logical conclusion: that Relativity is
hogwash.

Jim G

Len Gaasenbeek

unread,
Mar 2, 2004, 7:53:51 AM3/2/04
to
To Jim,

Hear, hear!

Len.
..............................................
"Jim Greenfield" <greenf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c4afb26.04030...@posting.google.com...

Androcles

unread,
Mar 2, 2004, 11:11:46 AM3/2/04
to

"Jim Greenfield" <greenf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c4afb26.04030...@posting.google.com...

That was a conclusion I reached a long tem ago, Jim. I went a step further,
though, and pinpointed where the error lies and what the next step in
Astronomy is. It is quite revolutionary, since stars revolve.-)

http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/index.html
Androcles


Carlos L

unread,
Mar 2, 2004, 11:47:40 AM3/2/04
to
greenf...@hotmail.com (Jim Greenfield) wrote in message news:<3c4afb26.04030...@posting.google.com>...

> carl...@lix.intercom.es (Carlos L) wrote in message news:<ac68ac75.0402...@posting.google.com>...
> > LeoK <*@*.chello.se> wrote in message news:<Kme_b.1320$EV2.7257@amstwist00>...
> >
> I myself, and many others, think that "Time is absolute" and that SR
> > has made a mess of Physics, (but this post is already too long and I'm
> > tired so I will argue that, when possible, in another post).
> >
> > Best regards
> > Carlos L.

>

> If time is passing at a different rate on the mountain, than the
> earth's center (due to gravitational difference), then the mountains
> will "fly away" eh!!
> Both are travelling the same orbit, so if time is different for both,
> then they MUST part company. As I have yet to observe this phenomenon,
> I will stick to the more logical conclusion: that Relativity is
> hogwash.
>
> Jim G

If I understand you correctly you are interpreting that for SR the
speed of any object, in whatever frame of reference, is "given" by its
proper time and that therefore the mountains and the Earth's centre
have a different speed (e.g. along the Earth's orbit) and they should
fly apart. Fortunately SR does not go so far to say that and it also
assumes that the speed of any object in a given reference frame is
"given" by the clocks of that frame (and not of the objects).
On the other hand, when (like all pre-SR physicists) I think that
"Time is absolute" I'm *not* meaning that we can find some *natural*
mechanism that always (in whatever location or movement) oscillates at
the same rate (compared to an identical mechanism) and say: "eh!!
There it is, the Absolute time!!". I instead think that *any* given
process can change its rate when occurring in other locations (or in
general under other physical influences). I see no problem with that.
I only say that we can in theory (if we are wise enough) always
compensate for those physical perturbations (e.g. speed, gravitational
fields,...) of our clocks and synchronize them ad hoc so that any
observer assigns the same order to any event. I agree here with Len
Gaasenbeek's point of view that ‘the flow of time' (including absolute
time), is a man invented concept.

Best regards
Carlos L
http://personales.ya.com/carlosla/model/

Androcles

unread,
Mar 2, 2004, 1:19:24 PM3/2/04
to

"Carlos L" <carl...@lix.intercom.es> wrote in message
news:ac68ac75.04030...@posting.google.com...

SR (or rather it's creator, Einstein himself) says
" Thence we conclude 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. "

Note carefully that this is a measure of time, not of a case of a slow
clock. (There is a footnote that precludes pendulum clocks, and the clocks
are 'precisely' similar. )

This would mean that over a few million years the poles would be leading the
equator by six months and we'd have to go to the opposite side of the sun to
visit Antarctica, and about as far as the rovers "Spirit" and "Opportunity"
are right now to cross the Atlantic. Fortunately airline pilots still use
Galilean calculations or the Earth would look like the rings of Saturn,
which happen to be flat. Relativists need to join the Flat Earth Society,
they have a lot in common.
Of course they have a cop-out, GR cancels the SR effect and we are back to a
Galilean world with Newtonian Mechanics operating as they always have.


> On the other hand, when (like all pre-SR physicists) I think that
> "Time is absolute" I'm *not* meaning that we can find some *natural*
> mechanism that always (in whatever location or movement) oscillates at
> the same rate (compared to an identical mechanism) and say: "eh!!
> There it is, the Absolute time!!". I instead think that *any* given
> process can change its rate when occurring in other locations (or in
> general under other physical influences). I see no problem with that.
> I only say that we can in theory (if we are wise enough) always
> compensate for those physical perturbations (e.g. speed, gravitational
> fields,...) of our clocks and synchronize them ad hoc so that any
> observer assigns the same order to any event. I agree here with Len
> Gaasenbeek's point of view that 'the flow of time' (including absolute
> time), is a man invented concept.

Yeah, right. The days don't have sunrise and sunset in that order, because
if it were reversed they'd be nights, and its all in our imagination anyway.
I only imagine that I'm hungry when its 'time' for dinner, I only imagine
I'm tired when its 'time' to sleep'. All of existence is in my imagination,
you are a figment of my imagination, I've never seen you and it is the
computer that produces the words I see on the screen with your name under
them.
Len's imagination isn't balanced by logic, he thinks clocks represent time,
not just measure it.
Androcles.

YBM

unread,
Mar 2, 2004, 3:48:58 PM3/2/04
to
Androcles wrote:
[...]

> SR (or rather it's creator, Einstein himself) says
> " Thence we conclude 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. "
> Note carefully that this is a measure of time, not of a case of a slow
> clock. (There is a footnote that precludes pendulum clocks, and the clocks
> are 'precisely' similar. )
>
> This would mean that over a few million years the poles would be leading the
> equator by six months and we'd have to go to the opposite side of the sun to
> visit Antarctica, and about as far as the rovers "Spirit" and "Opportunity"
> are right now to cross the Atlantic.

Is there a competition of some kind for the best fumble of all times or
something ?

David Evens

unread,
Mar 2, 2004, 11:13:45 PM3/2/04
to

Perhaps Androcles' meds ran out.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Jim Greenfield

unread,
Mar 3, 2004, 3:45:51 AM3/3/04
to
"Androcles" <jp006...@antispamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<ue41c.6978$bQ2....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...

> "Carlos L" <carl...@lix.intercom.es> wrote in message
> news:ac68ac75.04030...@posting.google.com...
> > greenf...@hotmail.com (Jim Greenfield) wrote in message
> news:<3c4afb26.04030...@posting.google.com>...
> > > carl...@lix.intercom.es (Carlos L) wrote in message
> news:<ac68ac75.0402...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > LeoK <*@*.chello.se> wrote in message
> news:<Kme_b.1320$EV2.7257@amstwist00>...
> > > >
> I myself, and many others, think that "Time is absolute" and that SR
> > > > has made a mess of Physics, (but this post is already too long and I'm
> > > > tired so I will argue that, when possible, in another post).
> > > >
> > > > Best regards
> > > > Carlos L.
>
> > Yeah, right. The days don't have sunrise and sunset in that order, because
> if it were reversed they'd be nights, and its all in our imagination anyway.
> I only imagine that I'm hungry when its 'time' for dinner, I only imagine
> I'm tired when its 'time' to sleep'. All of existence is in my imagination,
> you are a figment of my imagination, I've never seen you and it is the
> computer that produces the words I see on the screen with your name under
> them.
> Len's imagination isn't balanced by logic, he thinks clocks represent time,
> not just measure it.
> Androcles.

Comment on time "position fix"???
At exactly midnight, as close as we can agree now using atomic or
whatever, take an angle on the position of a VERY distant galaxy. 6
"hours" later (90degrees of rotation), select another..... (or
several, but they must be at largest possible view). Over time, if the
rotation or orbit of the earth alters (or our galaxy/group) the
direction of these selected targets shouldn't alter, with their
angles/directions compared. Our "clocks" here, could then be
corrected....????????????? This work, or have I f* up?

Jim G

Androcles

unread,
Mar 3, 2004, 5:37:55 AM3/3/04
to

"Jim Greenfield" <greenf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c4afb26.04030...@posting.google.com...

Careful... If you do this 18 days time we'll be at the equinox, the sun will
be peaking over the horizon everywhere, and it will be hard to spot the
galaxies.
Then consider the Earth will advance in its orbit by 1/4 of a day, which is
close to 1/4 of a degree. Maybe you need a radio galaxy.

> Over time, if the
> rotation or orbit of the earth alters (or our galaxy/group) the
> direction of these selected targets shouldn't alter, with their
> angles/directions compared.

I'm afraid they will. The Earth's orbit is elliptical, roughly 91,000,000
miles from the sun at perihelion and 94,000,000 at aphelion. So you'll see
(if you had instruments accurate enough) a slight change in the enclosed
angle between two galaxies. Not only that, but the Earth and the Moon both
revolve about a common centre, so the Earth wobbles around a point that is
just below the surface - then there is precession, the tilt of the Earth
changes just like a gyroscope that is slowing down, and also nutation, which
is a wobble on that too. The precession seem to be about 25,000 years per
cycle. This is the most probable cause of the onset of ice ages, which have
positive feedback. The more snow that falls, the higher the albedo of the
Earth, the more sunlight is reflect back into space, the cooler it gets and
more snow falls. That is somewhat counterbalanced by plant life (including
plankton) which doesn't do as well, less CO2 is taken out of the
atmosphere to be converted to wood or peat bogs, and the CO2 helps trap the
heat (greenhouse effect). Burning the world's coal and oil reduces the total
oxygen, increases the total CO2, that traps the heat, the ice will melt, sea
levels will rise and Florida will do an Atlantis on us and sink beneath the
waves.

> Our "clocks" here, could then be
> corrected....????????????? This work, or have I f* up?
>
> Jim G

Our clocks don't control time. In one sense, some units of time are the work
of man, and this probably what confuses Len. The week, the hour, the minute
and the second are all human divisions. Time itself is measured by the year,
that is the important standard. Leap seconds can be added to the year, along
with leap days (we've just had one), and the position of the earth in its
orbit, relative to the frame of reference the constellations provide, is the
measure of time. That is why I said that if anything so absurd as time at
the pole advancing beyond time at the equator were to occur, such that
100,000,000 years passed at the equator while 100,000,000.5 years passed at
the poles, then the poles would be half the Earth's orbit ahead of the
equator. So Einstein was spouting nonsense, as usual.
Anyway, we can use caesium clocks at the pole and the equator right now, and
he was just plain wrong. There are some bozos that think he was right
because he could pull mathematical stunts on them that they don't
understand.
Androcles


rsm...@york.ac.uk

unread,
Mar 3, 2004, 6:55:06 AM3/3/04
to
YBM <ybm...@nooos.fr> wrote in message news:<4044f3ab$0$24656$79c1...@nan-newsreader-02.noos.net>...

> Androcles wrote:
> [...]
> > SR (or rather it's creator, Einstein himself) says
> > " Thence we conclude 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. "
> > Note carefully that this is a measure of time, not of a case of a slow
> > clock. (There is a footnote that precludes pendulum clocks, and the clocks
> > are 'precisely' similar. )
> >
> > This would mean that over a few million years the poles would be leading the
> > equator by six months and we'd have to go to the opposite side of the sun to
> > visit Antarctica, and about as far as the rovers "Spirit" and "Opportunity"
> > are right now to cross the Atlantic.

LOL!