Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

I didn't copy and paste anything, all from memory. The light clock and time dilation is lecture 1 on special relativity and all you need is Pythagoras (plus the concept of the finite speed of light). Go look it up and follow the derivation yourself, it's easy and interesting.

You don't seem to get the basic idea that there is no "real second" versus "measured second". You can take a stationary clock at sea level to be a convenient common standard but that is no more "real" than the one in space.

Clocks are not magical objects they are just physical processes that are very regular (by design). Your heart is also a kind of clock but one that changes based on various factors. A fast observer ages slower relative to a stationary one because just as the physical process that makes the clock tick is observed to happen slower, so are all the physical processes that make your heart beat, your muscles twitch, your cells grow etc. etc. etc.

"Time" isn't slower, physical processes are (both those that make you age and those that clocks use to measure time intervals).

 

? So thought Newton, but relativity has proved that wrong. Just reading a book by Lee Smolin, and there's a beguiling argument that time is back on the agenda and wasn't, necessarily, started at the Big Bang. Time runs at light speed though, and the nearer you get to that the nearer you get to catching time up, which sounds counter-intuitive but has been proven with atomic clocks on probes.

Truth is though, until we really sort out what is going on at a quantum level we'll never understand what time is and how to manipulate it.

 

Einstein's work is why we have not reconciled quantum and classical mechanics, because Relativity is not actually right many think.

I always have and consider time nothing but a human construct that has nothing to do with the universe and space being x,x, and z coordinates and nothing more. Relativity has bound space and time into a fabric, a fabric the science actually disproves at the same time. You can't bend coordinates in empty space, regardless of all the thoeries it is still entirely fanciful thinking

It's why I have big issues with relativity.

Gravity is coupled to its sources, by Newton and Einstein so no gravity can exist without a mass to create it. So, if the sun disappeared, we are told by relativity we can expect 8 minutes of gravitational effect after the sun disappears from space, this is saying that gravity will exist for 8 minutes without it's source mass. This is because of the limiting fiction of the speed of light.

 

The answer for gravity is somewhere in quantum mechanics waiting to be discovered, it has something to do with how quarks make up molecules and the EM in molecule atom formation.

There is no gravity particle imo, it's interaction of particle fields, depending on how the quarks are set up in the beginning, so that the universe is not just a clump of matter.

No this is not based on any scientific study, just rambling

 

I just thought I'd take a leaf from your book My bad.

"Time" isn't slower you are right, but with one distinction, the clock is slower because of a mechanical change, a physical one to the clock, not to relative perception or actual procession, it is just that clock, end of. If an astronaut was with the clock and he measured time using something else, like a water clock, that time difference may not be there along with the atomic clock. The very make up of an atomic clock is the reason why it slows as it speeds up

My issue is not with the physical processes of clocks that move v clocks that don't Astro. I can agree on your comments with how relativity applies but disagree on how it applies to the physical world.

My issue is with relativists claiming this is proof of relativity, when that is actually making no sense whatsoever.
As Hawking claimed with his living longer nonsense, this is how relativists think. It is flawed.

The speed of light is a limiting fiction unfortunately and Newton and Einstein's work both show this to be true, Einstein violates his own Special Relativity with his own field equations. See my reply to Donga above. You can't have it both ways. You cannot claim that nothing is faster than light and yet say gravity cannot exist without it's source masses. It's an epic contradiction

 

Yes it does. There is nothing special about the physics of an atomic clock vs a water clock vs a light clock.

And your perception is always aligned with your own clock: if the atomic clock is 10% slower than another observer's then the water clock is 10% slower and the light clock is 10% slower and your brain functions/processing of the information is 10% slower.

 

If I am flying trough space and I have an atomic clock it will physically slow down, no theory, it is a physical consequence of atoms traveling at that velocity.
If at the same time I have a water clock, there is nothing physical to suggest that clock will also slow down by the same amount, only relativity, the procesion of water may change, but the "time" difference may be different to the atomic clock, so if the water clock shows a differnt change in time than the atmoic clock even if both slow down, then relativity is speleegh

In Relativity all inertial reference frames are just as valid as any other reference frame, so a paradox is created, seeing as reference frames are no different, as both people travel away from each other at say near the speed of light, by relativity principle both people should age less, but really the one travelling at near the speed of c is the one who exeriences change, it may not be ageing less, it means nothing more than their atomic energy mass increases, the rest is philospphy and mathematics

 

@astroturfnaut

I guess the point I am trying to make is this.

There was absolutely no need for Special Relativity theory to sort out the GPS system. It's not as if I think Special Relativity is bunk, just parts of it, as is parts of General Relativity.

E= mc2 is what you need. The equation gives you the atomic mass, and we know from observations that atomic mass affects radiative cycles of the atoms used in the atomic clock, therefor we can mathematically model how atomic mass increase will affect the radiative cycles by mere observation and confirmation by mathematical models. GPS Sat clocks are set to tick over a second with less radiative cycles. Job done, no need to even get into the whole inertial frame of reference stuff at all, which is why I say GPS does not support Special Relativity on the whole whatsoever


Here is the wiki on "time dilation"
"An accurate clock at rest with respect to one observer may be measured to tick at a different rate when compared to a second observer's own equally accurate clocks. This effect arises neither from technical aspects of the clocks nor from the fact that signals need time to propagate, but from the nature of spacetime itself."

I have just explained how it is actually related to the physical makeup of the atomic clock so the wiki is bunk right from the outset.

Objects don't "age differently" according to the mathematics, the atoms those things are made of gain in mass, that is the only physical measurable real difference between a stationary object and a fast moving one.

 

So. No Higgs boson, then?

 

I honestly have no idea mate and if I thought that I'd want some seriously good ****ing argument before I brought it before you for cross examination

Isn't it all based on 2 extra photons in the sensor data? As the particles do not live long enough to reach the sensors?

 

I mean the mere fact that a lot of theoretical astrophysics is based on the philosophy of Special Relativity is really funny, in a tragic way.

They have created a whole universe that does not exist except in the philosophy and the mathematics that fleshed it out. Again Einstein said himself he's not down with black holes, and he's the Relativists' God ffs

No black holes mean star formation is also wrong, same equations create both. Accretion thoery also falls apart. Of course any evidence that supports this is just labeled "a mystery" and is put away to be forgotten.

 

If your hypothesis predicts dilation only applies to atoms then you need to explain many more things such as

1. Why is the dilation the exact amount predicted by the light clock experiment, yet
2. Why does the light clock (which is not atomic) experience time dilation at all
3. How do you account for the observation of time dilation for atmospheric muons (again not atomic)?

 

You keep confusing special and general relativity. Special is to do with relative velocity. Gravity, black holes etc are from general relativity.

 

"If your hypothesis predicts dilation only applies to atoms then you need to explain many more things such as"
First of all I am really just thinking out loud here it's not really even a hypothesis mate because I am just questioning the validity of Relativists claiming space time is real because atomic clocks tick slower

1. Why is the dilation the exact amount predicted by the light clock experiment, yet?
I do not know how a light clock works

2. Why does the light clock (which is not atomic) experience time dilation at all
I do not know how a light clock works

3. How do you account for the observation of time dilation for atmospheric muons?
I am not aware of that I would have to read it,

If you try claim those questions came out of your head and not that you rushed off to find some things, I'll "believe you".

But fair is fair, they are valid questions and I would need to do some reading before attempting to answer those, the reading may in fact resolve my original questions anyway.

 

actually, that's not a million miles away from the string theory proposition of gravity. Only problem with string theory is that practically none of it is currently scientifically provable. But, as Hawking, Susskind et al say, it appears to be to only show in town. Then again, the theories re black holes have changed so much in 40 years it's hard to know what to believe.

 

Yes they are off the top of my head, they are very famous and basic ideas of special relativity.

A light clock is a very simple clock where you have a ray of light that bounces between two mirrors, so each time it hits a mirror it "ticks". So when the clock is stationary the light bounces straight up and straight down between the mirrors. The time between ticks is the distance between the mirrors divided by the speed of light.

Now imagine the clock moving at high speed sideways. The light bouncing between the mirros now travels "diagonally" because as it leaves the bottom mirror it travels towards the top mirror, but the top mirror is quickly moving horizontally. It forms a traingle where the veritical distance is the distance between the mirrors in the stationary case, the horizontal distance is the distance the top mirror travels between ticks (the velocity of the mirror x the time between ticks). The light has to travel along the hypotenuse so you use Pythagoras to calculate the length of the hypoteneuse, which is obviously larger than just the distance between the mirrors (and the increase in distance depends on the horizontal speed of the mirrors).

So since light travels at a constant speed, but the distance it travels has now increased, the time between ticks is longer - time dilation.

You can also imagine the limit of the mirrors moving horiztonally at the speed of light (not possible but just an interesting limiting case) - the clock would never tick because the mirror is moving away from the light at the speed of light so it never catches up.

 

The only thing I know is its about vibrating strings, I never even looked at it. It's just a an assumption from the various bits and pieces I've read. Doesn't take a genius, quarks make everything up, and seeing as everytihng is not a clump of molecules then the variation in quark arrangements dictate everything possible beyond that.

Primer fields though debatable, and interesting, plus a vacuum always has something in it, even if we take the particles that pop in and out of existence faster than we can detect @Red Hadron Collider I am of the opinion there is no such thing as actual completely empty space in the universe

 

Give me a chance to answer your questions ****y, I hope the light clock is not Einstein's experiment though and is in fact some modern empirical study?

 

Also if they were off the top of your head Astro you'd have come out with it right away several posts earlier instead of coming back half an hour later with your 3 questions
#doesntaddup

 

Nasa 'will send humans to Mars in the near future'
Nasa's John Grunsfeld says:

please log in to view this image

These observations are giving us a much better view that Mars has resources that are useful to future travellers... I think we will send humans in the near future to Mars... to be able to live on the surface, the resources are there.

He says you could even make rocket fuel from some of the substances found on Mars, but the discovery of water is critical.

As a romantic and a child of the 60's, Gagarin/Apollo/Skylab/etc, this is the best news I've heard for a long time, although it's 35 years too late. I hope the world can combine in this project, which will employ engineers (and develop young talent) and boost economies. Time to dream again.