about Bob's article on absolute or relative time

[pozzolane]

Wow! I'm impressed or at least I would have been had the rest of your post conveyed an understanding that this summary implies.

Your response barely warrants a reply in kind. Clearly you do not understand that this objection is hardly well thought out in light of the theory of relativity. And is more objection based on ignorance and personal incredulity, than a good grasp of that in which it attempts to refute.

In what way has that point been refuted?

Honestly if that was not sufficient for you, than there is no hope that anything else will be. You need to spend some time in honest study of relativity with which you are so eager to discredit.

Johnny just got through conceding that very point, although while denying it at the same time, which has been the pattern for this entire discussion including the quote of Johnny that you provided.

Johnny did no such thing. It was a clear and consise (as can be) refutation of the weak objection from your idol.

No one has refuted the point! In fact, if you think it has, I believe that you don't understand Bob's argument.

I already proved I understand Bob's objection by summarizing it for you. Something you claimed I could not do. The only other obvious explanation is your complete and utter lack of understanding of relativity. But don't feel too special, because most people don't understand relativity. It's just most people are honest enough to admit such and do not foolishly (and arrogantly) try to discredit it.

You're clearly new here and so I'll over look this little bit of foolishness.

So what is this? Some type of appeal to authority? I didn't realize that you are right just because your join date reads earlier than mine. Your level of smug could set off the H₂S sensor on a gas meter.

 

[dan1el]

I reject it because I know the theory, and it's demonstrably false to anyone who can clearly see.

Keeping your little cell phone example in mind, I find it hard to believe that you understand relativity to any measurable degree.

No, not all knowledge can be derived from common sense, but common sense can certainly show things to either be clearly obviously true, or clearly obviously false.

In our day-to-day lives, common sense often coincides with the laws of physics. However, that does in no way imply that physical laws have to comply with our common sense. Since the effects of relativity are negligible given regular conditions, there's no reason our common sense should be equipped to pass judgment on them.

Common sense can basically show that things do or do not go against common sense. The universe doesn't really care about what we consider common sense, though.

Then why is it no one wants to admit the possibility that gravity was effecting the clocks themselves, and not time?

Because you wouldn't expect different timing mechanisms to be offset equally if that were the case.

Common sense dictates that gravity effects motion and weight. And therefore nothing will work the same in differing gravity fields. This leads to the conclusion that a clock reading differently in space than on Earth is not enough evidence to support the idea that time itself is effected by gravity.

Now, it could be possible that that is why they acted the way they did, but it is not a certainty, because it could very well be that the clocks were effected by the difference in gravity.

If you do the calculations and correct for how gravitational forces affect (not effect, by the way) the mechanism, you'd still be left with an error that is unaccounted for without relativity. This error would be equal for all mechanisms.

Of course, the other issue is that in order to be effected by gravity something must have a degree of mass. So, how much mass does time have? If the answer is none, then common sense dictates that it cannot be effected by gravity.

WELL DUH, MORON. By saying that gravity only works between masses, you're basically saying that you're assuming classical physics and neglecting relativity. As pointed out, if gravity only acted on objects with mass, it wouldn't affect light.

You are, yet again, showing that you have indeed not understood the theory.

 

[Lighthouse]

Historically, the theory of general relativity was devised long before we ever built any clocks accurate enough to measure everyday relativistic effects. It's not as if Einstein saw the effect of gravity on clocks and devised some wacky theory to explain it. Quite the opposite, in fact. Einstein's theory was a description of gravity, and time dilation was just an untestable prediction at the time of his theory. Decades later when atomic clocks came on the scene, we finally had clocks accurate enough to test his prediction -- and he was right. The clocks measured time exactly as Einstein's theory predicted they would.

So, you're saying that Einstein's theory was based on absolutely nothing then.

For absolutely no reason whatsoever Einstein assumed time would be effected by gravity. Is that what you're telling me?

Of course physicists have considered that gravity is affecting the clock itself. That's about the first thing anyone considers when they first hear about relativity. It's the most basic of objections, but it holds no merit. It neither explains nor predicts the phenomena to any reasonable extend, and it implies that a single gravitational field will effect different clocks differently. This is not supported by experimental observation.

1. Thank you for admitting that it's a reasonable objection, at least at first.
2. Explain why it would effect different clocks differently. I mean, these are atomic clocks, right? Are the atoms different? Are they not the same size, weight, mass and density?

No, the universe plays by its own rules. But the laws of physics are our best attempt to describe these universal rules, whereas "common sense" is just whatever we happen to intuitively believe based on our rather limited experience.

Common sense dictates that if you are moving while tossing a ball into the air and catching it that the ball is moving forward as well, or arcing. What we perceive is not such though, is it? For it appears the ball is only moving up and down. So, common sense is not based on our five senses.:nono:

Of course a clock reading in differently in space is not, alone, enough evidence. Maybe the gears don't work in zero-g, maybe the parts don't function the same, etc. Don't you think that has been considered? What happens when we have two different clocks operating on two different mechanisms spitting out the same result? That is exactly NOT what we would expect if it were just a matter of mechanical issues with clocks.

Are they, or are they not, atomic clocks?

See, your common sense got you in trouble already. Light has no mass, yet it is affected by gravity. Our experience of time is intrinsically tied to the speed of light and light's path through space -- gravity affects this.

Care to prove that light has no mass? I mean, I can certainly believe that it's mass is not that which we can measure at this time, and certainly cannot be recognized by the human eye. But it is affected by gravity and acts differently in an environment than in space. So it is also affected by gases.

I rather suspect that you know little or nothing about quantum mechanics. Unlike some of the more saintly types here, I don't have the time or patience to try to teach someone who thinks I'm stupid.

No, you're just a coward.

And I didn't say you were stupid. Only that you don't think all the way through. You stop at some point and just accept things. That's a bad place to be.

I do suggest that you read a bit about the topic. Here, I did a Google search on "quantum mechanics non-intuitive". Try a few of these:

http://staff.science.nus.edu.sg/~parwani/htw/c2/node98.html
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Physics/8-01Physics-IFall1999/VideoLectures/detail/embed34.htm
http://lilith.gotdns.org/~victor/writings/0029qm.pdf

The Wikipedia article on quantum mechanics may also be helpful.

Have a nice day!

Edit, for clarification:
i am not talking about the various "interpretations" of QM, but the specific predictions of the theory, and teh observed experimental results. The Stern-Gerlach experiment (and the photon equivalent) is a good example.

I don't see how that first link goes against logic at all.

I'm not watching nearly an hour of a class.

The third link is too long. I've got too much to do today. I'm not going to read en entire .pdf on the subject. This is a web forum. The idea is too keep things short. Of course, if you weren't too scared to talk about it this wouldn't be an issue.

And, like the first link, how is the wiki article illogical, exactly? I don't see it.

 

[pozzolane]

So, you're saying that Einstein's theory was based on absolutely nothing then.

Of course it's not. I'm not sure how you do it, Lighthouse, but with each post you further demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of even simple scientific philosophy (such as the scientific method itself). Congratulations, you've reached yet another level of stupid. And yes, I have full intentions of being rude to you and any other posters who express such contemptable arrogance on a subject for which they clearly know nothing.

For absolutely no reason whatsoever Einstein assumed time would be effected by gravity. Is that what you're telling me?

Of course no one said any such thing. Or even implied any such thing. The course of events and observations that Einstein made which led to his developing the theory of relativity is easily accessable by anyone who chooses to be slightly less lazy than a handfull of posters here and actually attempt to learn a little bit about the subject under discussion. Einstein made some observations regarding light and it's velocity and discovered that there were some discrepencies regarding that current times theories on gravity. When Newton discovered his F=MA, he had an embarrassing secret. He still knew nothing of why or how gravity worked, but he could accurately calculate its force. Einstein realized that under Newtons model, should the sun suddenly cease to exist, the first thing noticed would be the sudden change in gravitational effects. This didn't correlate well to his observation that the speed of light was like a universal speed limit, and that nothing could act faster than light. So he (Einstein) knew that Newton had something wrong.

Time and distance dialation is only a prediction made by Einsteins theory. If they were found to be wrong, then his entire theory would be completely falsified. But it was not. When the technology was suffiently advanced, experiments with atomic and cesium clocks showed that Einsteins predictions based on his formulas were incredibly accurate.

Common sense dictates that if you are moving while tossing a ball into the air and catching it that the ball is moving forward as well, or arcing. What we perceive is not such though, is it? For it appears the ball is only moving up and down. So, common sense is not based on our five senses.

That's actually pretty much correct. Depending on the observer, the ball is still travelling at the same speed, but, according to one observer, the ball travels a further distance. Because we know that the ball's speed remains constant, and the distant cannot be agreed upon, we also know that neither would the time be agreeable. And hence, time is relative to velocity for both of the observers.

Care to prove that light has no mass?

Care to prove that it does? You seem so interested in science, why don't you actually do some.

 

[Lighthouse]

Of course it's not. I'm not sure how you do it, Lighthouse, but with each post you further demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of even simple scientific philosophy (such as the scientific method itself). Congratulations, you've reached yet another level of stupid. And yes, I have full intentions of being rude to you and any other posters who express such contemptable arrogance on a subject for which they clearly know nothing.

Then explain to me exactly what led Einstein to this idea when he had no way of testing it...

Of course no one said any such thing. Or even implied any such thing. The course of events and observations that Einstein made which led to his developing the theory of relativity is easily accessable by anyone who chooses to be slightly less lazy than a handfull of posters here and actually attempt to learn a little bit about the subject under discussion. Einstein made some observations regarding light and it's velocity and discovered that there were some discrepencies regarding that current times theories on gravity. When Newton discovered his F=MA, he had an embarrassing secret. He still knew nothing of why or how gravity worked, but he could accurately calculate its force. Einstein realized that under Newtons model, should the sun suddenly cease to exist, the first thing noticed would be the sudden change in gravitational effects. This didn't correlate well to his observation that the speed of light was like a universal speed limit, and that nothing could act faster than light. So he (Einstein) knew that Newton had something wrong.

How, exactly, did this go against the idea that c was constant, or that nothing acted faster than light?

Time and distance dialation is only a prediction made by Einsteins theory. If they were found to be wrong, then his entire theory would be completely falsified. But it was not. When the technology was suffiently advanced, experiments with atomic and cesium clocks showed that Einsteins predictions based on his formulas were incredibly accurate.

At no point have I argued that time and distance would appear to act differently at differing speeds. However, I still see no reason to expect either to even appear to change in differing gravitational fields.

I also see no reason that this would falsify every detail of the theory of relativity.

That's actually pretty much correct. Depending on the observer, the ball is still travelling at the same speed, but, according to one observer, the ball travels a further distance. Because we know that the ball's speed remains constant, and the distant cannot be agreed upon, we also know that neither would the time be agreeable. And hence, time is relative to velocity for both of the observers.

How would the time not be agreeable?

Care to prove that it does? You seem so interested in science, why don't you actually do some.

Photons have mass. Do you disagree?

 

[pozzolane]

Then explain to me exactly what led Einstein to this idea when he had no way of testing it...


How, exactly, did this go against the idea that c was constant, or that nothing acted faster than light?

Has anyone seen "Zoolander"? This question reminds me of Derek Zoolander saying "But why male models?!"

Lighthouse asks a redudant question just as stupid as in that movie quote, to which I respond...Are you serious?! I just explained that!

How would the time not be agreeable?

Speed is constant, distance is variable, therefore time is variable.

:dunce::duh:

Photons have mass. Do you disagree?

Of course I do. The very definition of photon requires that it have zero mass and zero energy at rest.

:dunce::duh:

 

[Johnny]

Good! I agree. Relativity does not agree however. It insists that not only is time (and width and height (i.e. space) a real thing but that it can be manipulated by gravity and one's velocity.

I never claimed that time was not a real thing, I stated that I don't think of it as a physical object. Time is certainly a real property, inasmuch as length/width/height are real properties. There is no aspect of relativity which demands that time is a physical object in and of it self -- certainly no more so than any other equations which include time as a variable. Relativity simply assumes that time is a quantifiable measure.

It's also incorrect to claim that relativity assumes that space is a real thing. Common usage of the term spacetime is not actually referring to physical objects space and time (although some pop-sci literature may make this mistake). Einstein did away with the notion that there is a physical object known as space (i.e. the aether). Spacetime is more accurately a Lorentzian manifold, a mathematical representation of a vector field. For convenience it is often shorthanded that "x travels through spacetime". This is a reference to the field spacetime, not a physical object known as spacetime.

As you note, it's just a clock that both observers can see and which is not affected by either observer's local gravitational conditions (in Bob's example). The error is introduced when you assume that the "giant wall clock" is actually measuring a set time for either observer. It's not. It's not measuring time for either observer because it's not subject to the same local conditions as either observer, and therefore it is not a valid clock for either of the observers.

I bet both observers would argue with you when they wanted their morning papers to arrive somewhat closer to sunrise rather than sunset.

Assuming a third party paperboy exists outside the extreme relativistic effects described in this hyperbole (perhaps he lives very far away from this mountain), the morning paper would arrive at sunrise for both observers. Though the observer at the top would correctly note that it's only been a few hours since the last paper arrived.

Any clock that gives you a reference by which you can describe duration and/or sequence is a valid clock

According to relativity its only a valid clock for observers under the same conditions as the clock.

and any clock that is more consistent across multiple frames of reference is, by definition, a more reliable clock.

The trouble here is that any clock outside the inertial frames of either observer is actually less consistent. For the observer at the top of the mountain, the sun is rising and setting at a very fast pace; whereas for the observer at the bottom of the mountain its rising and setting at its normal pace. In other words, the two observers do not agree on the interval in which the sun rises and sets (hence the interval is relative). And since the clock does not describe an invariant interval for both observers, it is not a "more valid clock". It's actually less valid because the interval it describes will be debated between the two observers. Once again, relativity posits the only valid clock is the clock in the same inertial frame as the observer.

You are using Bob's hyperbole as a foundation for your argument, and then asking us to make some consideration regarding clocks and time, etc. And when doing so, you ask us to consider "if relativity were true, then..." You then point out some observations which show that relativity could not be true. The problem is that you are not painting an accurate picture of what relativity actually implies -- such as when you say "any clock is valid" or when you insist that clocks under a relativistic scenario would remain "in sync with each other."

If you are trying to argue against relativity by assuming a relativistic scenario and then pointing out apparent incongruities, then you need to at least assume a proper relativistic scenario. You are not doing so, and therefore the conclusions that you've reached are as invalid as the assumptions you made. That's why I've spent a significant portion of my discussion with you saying "that's not what relativity assumes."

If it were time itself then the Sun would be down for one and high in the sky for the other because the position of one observer on a mountain top has no effect whatsoever on how long it take for the Earth to spin on its axis.

Why would it remain in synchrony with the sun? That would not be relative time, that would be absolute time.

Because the Earth spins on its axis once every 24 hours.

No. The Earth spins on its axis once every 24 hours in our "every day" inertial frame. For someone in a highly relativistic frame, the Earth's rotation is not 24 hours. Again, we're supposed to be assuming a relativistic scenario here. You prefaced your initial statement with, "If it were time itself" -- in other words, if it were as relativity implies. You started your argument by asking us to take on a relativistic picture, and then you proceed to defend your argument with assumptions that are not relativistic assumptions. That's why my initial response pointed out that you've switched mid-argument from a relativistic picture to a non-relativistic picture. In relativity, the interval of an event varies based on your velocity and the gravitational field.

If a person's hours are slowed down that shouldn't have any effect on how many times the Earth spins on its axis in 24 of them.

Sure it does. The earth's rotation can be measured in meters per second. If you're measuring seconds differently than someone else, then you will argue that the Earth is rotating at a different speed. That doesn't mean the Earth has actually changed its rotational speed -- it means that you're measuring the interval of one second differently than someone else is. Remember earlier when we agreed that time is not a physical object, but rather a measured property? This is where it comes into play -- we measure time differently.

This ignores the fact that you have a second observer who agrees entirely with the first observers observations of the Sun and it once again confuses a discussion about clocks with a discussion about time itself. I do not deny that people's

Since this paragraph got cut off I'll leave it be.

So you agree then that to say time is relative is semantics and that what you are really saying is that the reading on clocks is relative.

I can't agree with that semantic variation because the effect relativity implies is not just the reading on a clock, but rather it's all events which occur in intervals that are subject to the same conditions as the clock -- be it heart beats, brainwaves, water boiling, or tying my shoes. In other words, the effect is not a property of the physical structure of the clock in any way, it's a property of the way light and matter interact at the sub-atomic scale.

It isn't that I'm uninterested its that its so hard to keep people on the topic.

Fair enough.

 

[Stripe]

Assuming a third party paperboy exists outside the extreme relativistic effects described in this hyperbole (perhaps he lives very far away from this mountain), the morning paper would arrive at sunrise for both observers. Though the observer at the top would correctly note that it's only been a few hours since the last paper arrived.

By his watch he'd be correct. Or he could easily blame gravity for altering the accuracy of his watch, make a few calculations to work out the length of time according to more universally accepted standards. There is no need to insist that anything has affected a 'non-physical yet real thing'.

 

[Johnny]

By his watch he'd be correct. Or he could easily blame gravity for altering the accuracy of his watch, make a few calculations to work out the length of time according to more universally accepted standards. There is no need to insist that anything has affected a 'non-physical yet real thing'.

The reason he can't simply blame his watch and simply correct for the "universally accepted" time is that if he says that that some other clock in a different inertial frame is actually the "correct timeZ", then the speed of light is not truly invariant from his frame of reference, thus contradicting well-established observation. In this case such a scenario could be devised in which light actually travels faster than c in some inertial frame, thus violating causality.

It's not a matter of introducing a correction factor.

 

[Stripe]

The reason he can't simply blame his watch and simply correct for the "universally accepted" time is that if he says that that some other clock in a different inertial frame is actually the "correct timeZ", then the speed of light is not truly invariant from his frame of reference, thus contradicting well-established observation.

Which observation would that be? Light can change speed, you know?

In this case such a scenario could be devised in which light actually travels faster than c in some inertial frame, thus violating causality.

:idunno: How would that happen?

It's not a matter of introducing a correction factor.

Sure it is. That's exactly what relativity does mathematically.

 

[chair]

Which observation would that be? Light can change speed, you know?

Light can change speed?
It can- in materials with different refractive indices. In vacuum (or when comparing the speed of light in the same material)- it is constant.

 

[Yorzhik]

Yorzhik,

If I understand you properly, you are referring to observing the sun? Could you clarify this sentence for me?

Correct, the sun would appear to travel at a different speed. But that doesn't mean they need to adjust their clock. It just means they are experiencing interval A [the sun's path across the sky] differently from another observer. That is the essence of relativity: the time lapse between two events is not invariant.

So let's see. The sun will travel slower for the observer on the mountain than his clock. The ticks of the clock of the observer on the mountain will seem the same, but the sun will seem to be traveling faster across the sky. Likewise the persons metabolism would be faster, along with the clock, than the person at the bottom of the mountain. Correct?

 

[Stripe]

Light can change speed?
It can- in materials with different refractive indices. In vacuum (or when comparing the speed of light in the same material)- it is constant.

Do you make a habit of answering your own questions?

 

[chair]

Do you make a habit of answering your own questions?

It was in response to your statement, I was questioning your idea that the speed of light changes. I pointed out that is doesn't as long as it is in the same medium.

 

[Lighthouse]

Has anyone seen "Zoolander"? This question reminds me of Derek Zoolander saying "But why male models?!"

Lighthouse asks a redudant question just as stupid as in that movie quote, to which I respond...Are you serious?! I just explained that!

Apparently not to my satisfaction.

Speed is constant, distance is variable, therefore time is variable.

:dunce::duh:

:rotfl:

Of course I do. The very definition of photon requires that it have zero mass and zero energy at rest.

:dunce::duh:

Then how is it possible to concentrate photons into a laser that can cut through diamonds?

Well, I guess that requires they be in motion, which is what we are talking about here, so how about answering the question honestly?

Do photons in motion have no mass?

 

[Stripe]

It was in response to your statement, I was questioning your idea that the speed of light changes. I pointed out that is doesn't as long as it is in the same medium.

That's nice, chair.

 

[pozzolane]

Apparently not to my satisfaction.

No, just not to your level of comprehension. But, unfortunately for you, you must demonstrate that you have an intelligence level above that of a wet dish towel in order to comprehend any explanations at all.

RE: Basis physics 101.

:rotfl:

Are you serious?! You're having a laugh when I tell you that distance equals velocity multiplied by time? How incredibly retarded are you!?

Then how is it possible to concentrate photons into a laser that can cut through diamonds?

Maybe you should do a quick google on how lasers work before you confirm that you are on an intellectual par with a garden vegitable...

Do photons in motion have no mass?

Photons have zero mass.

Now if you please, I have to get back to my mockery of you.

:mock: Lighthouse

 

[Lighthouse]

No, just not to your level of comprehension. But, unfortunately for you, you must demonstrate that you have an intelligence level above that of a wet dish towel in order to comprehend any explanations at all.

RE: Basis physics 101.

You have no idea what my level of comprehension is. Here's a clue: when I was in second grade I had the comprehension level of an eleventh grader. I actually was an eleventh grader 11 years ago.

Are you serious?! You're having a laugh when I tell you that distance equals velocity multiplied by time? How incredibly retarded are you!?

That's not what I'm laughing at, you twit.

Maybe you should do a quick google on how lasers work before you confirm that you are on an intellectual par with a garden vegitable...

Are they, or are they not, light?

Photons have zero mass.

Now prove it. Provide me with the evidence that verifies this to be completely true.

 

[pozzolane]

You have no idea what my level of comprehension is. Here's a clue: when I was in second grade I had the comprehension level of an eleventh grader. I actually was an eleventh grader 11 years ago.

Wow. Are you gonna use the "my dad can beat up your dad" line next?

That's not what I'm laughing at, you twit.

I only assumed that it was because that's exactly what I was conveying to you.

RE: Photons having zero mass.

Now prove it. Provide me with the evidence that verifies this to be completely true.

:chuckle:

OK, Lighthouse, you got me. Photons have mass. One photon is equal to 17 LHBM-eons ⁽¹⁾. Each LHBM-eon having the mass force of a single flap of a pink fairies wing, or 3 sprinkles of pixie dust.

1) LHBM-eon - Weigh scale derived on "Lighthouse's Brain Mass"

 

[Clete]

Photons having zero mass is another whole can of worms in regards to modern physics.

They say photons have no mass but that they do have momentum, which is proven by the small but measurable recoil that lasers experience.

So if momentum = mass x velocity (p=mv), how then does something with no mass have momentum?

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. Johnny,

I saw your response to my last post but I simply don't have the time to type up a substantive response. I just want to post a quick note to say that it's not that I'm ignoring you, I'm just got too many pots on the stove to be a consistent participant in the thread.