Bart

Does the passage of time in the universe is uniform?

A brief discussion paper on this subject is available on the link: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/26262175/TimeInUniverse.pdf

Do the arguments presented in this article can be right?

I don't. That's the problem.

Thank you for your response. Yes, it is a serious problem for the theory of relativity. Let's stop hiding our heads in the sand.

Brief description of this case is available at the link: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/26262175/GravitationalTimeDilation.pdf

The ratio can be constant and still not represent a constant interval. If they both changed by any constant multiplicative factor — as happens with time dilation — the ratio would remain the same. e.g. double both rates. The ratio is unchanged.

I do not understand your position. The ratio of rotation period of the pulsar P2 to the pulsar P1 is always constant, and on any object in space is 100 000. We have taken the rotation period of the pulsar P1 as our universal time unit UTU, which makes that on every object in the universe, the rotation period of the pulsar P2 will always be measured as 100 000 UTU. Thus, time in the UTU units flows at the same rate on all objects in the space. Where do you see here, therefore, any time dilation measured in the UTU units?

Let me see: four times five is twelve, and four times six is thirteen, and four times seven is -- oh dear! I shall never get to twenty at that rate! Ask nonsense questions and you should expect nonsense answers.

 

Your concept of a "Universal Time Unit" explicitly assumes something GR says cannot exist. There is no such thing as a global reference frame or a universal time standard.

DH, does this mean that the ratio of the flashes period of the pulsar P2 to the period of pulsar P1 , which is invariable and is always equal to 100 000 (in this example), according to you is changing? How do you want to explain that to you here on Earth, suddenly one of the pulsar decreased or increased its rotation compared to the other one? Are you a magician?

Swansont wrote: Any competent physics can.

 

Thus, consider the following example:

 

In the distant space, we have chosen two pulsars for measurement of time, pulsar P1 and pulsar P2, both with the very stable generation of signals (flashes). Pulsar P1 generates flashes of very high frequency, and the pulsar P2 of very slow frequency. Assume the period of flashes of the pulsar P1 as the Universal Time Unit (UTU). Our measuring robot placed on some very massive object in space, which mass is 100 times larger than our Sun, but of the same radius, has measured the period of flashes of the pulsar P2 as exactly equal to the 100 000 UTU (100 000 pulses of pulsar P1).

 

Question: What will be the period of flashes of the pulsar P2 in UTU units, if measured on Earth ?

 

 

No response?

So it just means, that all agree with the fact that the period of the flashes of pulsar P2, if measured on the Earth, will also amount to 100 000 UTU, which is the same as measured on any other object in the universe, regardless of its mass.

Thus, this example provides confirmation that the time flows everywhere at the same rate, independent from the local clocks, which may be late or fast due to various reasons.

And also, this example confirms that the interpretation of time dilation according to the theory of relativity is evidently erroneous.

So it's probably time to radically revise our current understanding and interpretation of the relativity theory as a whole.

Many thanks to All for your comments.

Bart

Can anyone deny that the duration of any event anywhere in the universe, if measured by the same units of time (eg flashes of the selected pulsar) will always be the same for every observer in space, regardless of the mass of the object on which he is located?

 

 

Swansont wrote: Any competent physics can.

Thus, consider the following example:

In the distant space, we have chosen two pulsars for measurement of time, pulsar P1 and pulsar P2, both with the very stable generation of signals (flashes). Pulsar P1 generates flashes of very high frequency, and the pulsar P2 of very slow frequency. Assume the period of flashes of the pulsar P1 as the Universal Time Unit (UTU). Our measuring robot placed on some very massive object in space, which mass is 100 times larger than our Sun, but of the same radius, has measured the period of flashes of the pulsar P2 as exactly equal to the 100 000 UTU (100 000 pulses of pulsar P1).

Question: What will be the period of flashes of the pulsar P2 in UTU units, if measured on Earth ?

I guess I have to repeat myself: The period of a pendulum clock has an explicit dependence on g, for which you must compensate. i.e. when you move the clock, it has a new frequency, and you have to use that new value. You don't get to ignore it, but neither do you get to write it off as time dilation, because it isn't.

So let's look at the relationship of the clocks in question from g:

The period of the pendulum clock: T = 2pi (L / g) ^0.5 , (g = GM / R ^ 2)

The period of the light clock: T = To / (1-gR / c ^ 2) ^ 0.5

Where: To - the period of the light clock ticking in the absence of gravity (g = 0)

Why then, it is believed that when moving the clocks from the ground floor onto 50th floor, which results in a change to these clocks the value of g from g1 to g2, a compensation of this change is only required for the pendulum clock, and is not required for the light clock?

Why it is claimed that light clocks always show the correct time on the site, and other types of clocks require revisions?

Why it is believed that indications of the light clocks are invariant and that time is just variable and flows faster or slower depending on the g? Can anyone deny that the duration of any event anywhere in the universe, if measured by the same units of time (eg flashes of the selected pulsar) will always be the same for every observer in space, regardless of the mass of the object on which he is located?

So I repeat my thesis here, that the time dilation should be understood as a divergence of indication of the clocks, because of the way they work, and not as the change of passage of time itself, which can not depend on the construction of one or other of the clock.

On the contrary, time dilation affects clocks of any construction equally, because it is an effect on time rather than a mechanical effect (i.e. a force)

 

The period of a pendulum clock has an explicit dependence on g, for which you must compensate. In reality, clocks on the geoid at the equator or poles would run at the same rate, since the kinematic and gravitational terms cancel.

 

You do realize you have to wait for a response, don't you?

 

Conclusions based on flawed logic are invalid.

Let's leave then the Earth's poles and equator and take another example:

Light-clock and the pendulum clock, are placed on the ground floor of a tower, and have identical time indication with the third reference clock on this floor. After moving light-clock and pendulum clock to the 50 floor of the tower, these clocks will have different indications of time. The light-clock will be fast, and the pendulum clock will be late relative to the reference clock left on the ground floor.

We see then that this or that time dilation is associated with the construction of the clocks, not with time itself.

As for the "No response !", it was just kind of thought shortcut, that the answer to the question raised is not so obvious. Sorry about that, but English is not my home language.

Many thanks for your comments, but there are no convincing arguments in your opinion that the claim: "the measurement of time must always be referred to the some accepted reference clock, and must be counted in the same units for all clocks" - is invalid. So, I still stand by my conclusion.

Likewise, all the time-related processes in the body would also run at the pace of a local clock, not caring what some remote pulsar is doing. The body ages like a crude clock... and how do you force your body to synchronize with a pulsar?

 

 

1.The aging of the body has no connection with the tick rate of any remote or local clocks. It is a biological process which runs according to the rate of its chemical process , which in turn depend on the physical environment in which this body resides.

Examples:

- The body badly nourished and hard-working is aging faster than the body well fed and rested.

- The body in hibernation, practically not age at all. Time is stopped for it.

- The same chemical reactions proceed more slowly at low temperatures and faster at higher temperatures.

2.Relativistic gravitational time dilation is just a technological feature of the light clocks, which does not apply to passage of time itself.

According to the GR theory, time indicated by such clocks at the poles of Earth, runs slower than at the equator, due to the difference of gravity. But whereas the other clocks, pendulum clocks, using just gravity, indicate that the time run faster at the poles than at the equator.

Thus, the indication of which of these clocks show the correct passage of time on the Earth?

No response !

The conclusion is that the measurement of time must always be referred to some accepted reference clock, and must be counted in the same units for all clocks.

Such a reference clock in space could be the selected pulsar, and its period of flashes (eg 1 second) as the standard unit of time for all clocks.

3. The real passage of time in space, thus not dependent on the local clocks.

At the fixed time unit, the Earth's rotation period of 24 hours and the Earth's orbital period around the Sun amounting to 365 * 24 hours, will be the same for every observer in space, regardless of the mass of the object on which he is located.

Clock design is probably irrelevant since we don't seem to be discussion the technical difficulties of timekeeping but rather the limitations placed by relativity. i.e. there the problems present when you assume ideal clocks, and the additional problems you introduce when you bring real clocks into the discussion.

 

If you have ideal clocks in different gravitational potentials, they will not synchronize with both the pulsar and with each other.

This case has no relation with ideal clocks that do not exist, but relates to the real clocks that work, let's say, in the vast space web of time, working in master-slave mode, in which the pulsar is the master clock and the slave are the clocks on all other objects in space. Such a network is similar to the typical solution that has been used and still is, in a distributed clock networks in offices and factories. So the theory of relativity has nothing to do here and any time dilation for the clocks does not occur here at all.

Sure, you could synchronize all clocks to agree by correcting for velocity and gravitational time dilation, but this doesn't have any real physical meaning. It doesn't stop initially synchronized clocks from ticking at different rates according to altitude or velocity.

I think we should separate the concept of time dilation, from the possible dilation of clocks indications, which for the clocks not using the pulsar signal can be fast or slow,depending on the clock design. My understanding of this case was different. In this example, all clocks in space are clocked remotely using a standard time signal which is generated from the pulsar. Thus, all clocks in space will run exactly with the same rhythm of time, and one minute, one hour, etc on Earth has the same time length as on any other obiect in space. Thus, regardless of the construction and location of clocks in space, the passage of time indicated on each clock in space will always be the same, and there is no room for any time dilation.

<br /><br /><br />

No. This doesn't account for gravitational time dilation. Clocks near gravitating bodies which generate a spacetime for which there is a spatial variation in [math]g_00[/math] will cause the local clock to run at a different rate as the distance source. If you locallysync that clock to the distance source then according to distant clocks they will be out of sync.

Thank you for responce. In my post the synchronization of the clocks should be understood remote timing of the clocks by 1 sec pulses from the pulsar.

Assume that the adopted standard of time in our region of the universe is a selected pulsar with a rotation cycle of 1 second,and that the clocks on Earth and on all other space objects, including those with very big mass, are synchronized by the pulses of the pulsar. Thus, these clocks will always indicate the same time, everywhere in space, regardless of the mass of the object upon which they are located. This example, therefore, contradicts the truth of the gravitational time dilation. Am I right?

The Sagitarius BR program is cool and gives a surprising explanation of dark matter and dark energy. But in the version 3.0+ available in the above link, the calculation of the speed of the universe expansion has been limited to the interaction between neighboring clusters only. This makes that to obtain the Hubble parameter, it must be used a fairly high rate of contraction of the clusters. Is it already available an up-grade of this program, which takes into account in calculating the impact of the other more distant clusters?

A newer version of Sagitarius BR does not exist yet and I do not know when it might appear.

Can anyone quietly elucidate what is time? I mean while defining Time people in general relate them to be just a measure of something. That "something" can't be defined by them!

Do not be clear enough, the following definition of time?

Time is a quantity indicating the amount of the unit reference events, that occur in the period between two other events under consideration.

Yes, I also agree. It would seem that there is something there that causes light to bend like the gravitational effects of matter. But since its behavior, according to this conclusion, is unlike matter -- the question becomes: is it really matter of some kind or something else? I have long proposed in my writings that what we now call dark matter is the primary substantive part of the ZPF which could then be called an aether. Light would accordingly bend based upon currents of aether flowing from high to low pressure areas which accordingly would also be the cause of all gravity rather than matter warping space. Of course these "preliminary findings" should be confirmed by others and in other locations. And of course there are seemingly many other possible explanations to explain these conclusions that might explain "dark matter," having many other possible characteristics explained by different reasoning. Many would also agree that the words "dark matter" may be just a place holder for something that is not understood and is not necessarily matter.

 

My expectation and prediction is that what we now call dark matter behaves in a way that we will at sometime be able to equationally approximate by a form of modified Newtonian gravity not unlike Milgram's MOND. Of course such a formulation would also need to explain the inverse square law of gravity as well as the behavior of galaxies in a cluster, and I think also the related logic concerning all. Milgram's MOND cannot do any of these. It can only explain spiral disk stellar motions but another version of MOND with the appropriate logic, I believe will eventually explain it all.

Reliable physical explanation for the effects of dark matter is presented in the following link: link removed

Origins, emergence and eschatology of the Universe: Dark Energy & Dark Matter

Should we mean "the universe" or "the meta-verse" or "the multi-verse"? (Hugh Everett)

 

Presumably, when the universe formed from an ensemble of some sort of "inflaton" point particles (Alan Guth) as a statistically inevitable child of an extremely excited field, possibly the gravitational field itself, its hyperbolic (proportional to 1/r) field began to collapse into a parabolic (1/r²) one. That collapse continues to this day. But, the process is almost done. There cannot be an infinite amount of energy sequestered in the hyperbolic 1/r field that would be available to fuel acceleration of the Hubble expansion rate by such a transformation.

 

Transition to a lower potential energy parabolic field must provide a distinctly limited supply of extra impetus. Surely, after 13.72 billion years, the (1/r) potential energy mainspring has almost run down by now. The remaining (1/r) potential energy is called Dark Energy. It accounts for the "missing mass " or "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" in audits of universe contents and provides a convenient, theoretically rigorous and parsimonious basis for "acceleration".

 

Dark Energy could account for around 80% of the universe's total mass, but audits are not so accurate. Dark Matter accounts for another 15% perhaps. Still, The Mainspring may still have enough oomph to last for at least 140 billion years more! (at least 10x what has come so far). The total mass, including Dark Matter, of the universe is enough to "flatten" it while acceleration may creep to a stop, but Hubble expansion will not.

 

 

On the link: : http://dl.dropbox.com/u/26262175/SagitariusBRprogramDescription.pdf , the calculation program is presented which shows that dark matter and dark energy is not needed to explain the behavior of the universe. This implies that dark matter and dark energy, as such, may not exist.

A volume of space that is totally devoid of any matter would be an absolute vacuum, complete and totally empty space.

From a scientific point of view, the absolute vacuum, is a term of more philosophical than physical sense, as much as the terms of heaven or hell.

If by an absolute vacuum we understand, in the physical sense, any geometric space in which there is no matter, there is no energy, and any physical forces, then such a thing does not exist anywhere in the entire universe. Everywhere in the universe there is some matter (mean density of matter in the universe is 9.3 E-27 kg/m3), is a radiation, is a gravitational force, is a electrostatic or magnetic field.

Thus, considering the physical characteristics of an absolute vacuum, has rather little sense.

Your conclusion does not follow from the premises. I cut your post off with the words "and at the same time" because that is the source of your error in understanding. One of the key consequences of relativity is that even simultaneity is relativity. There is no universal "at the same time".

 

You are wasting your time trying to disprove relativity mathematically. You aren't going to be able to that. The mathematics of special relativity is very sound. What you should be doing is trying to understand that mathematics.

 

Just because the mathematics of special relativity is very sound does not mean that it is right. After all, the mathematics of Newtonian mechanics is also very sound. Just because a theory is internally consistent does not mean it is correct. Scientific theories have an extra constraint: They have to describe reality. Experiment upon experiment have shown that it is relativity theory, not Newtonian mechanics, that describes what transpires at very high speeds.

Thank you DH, many thanks to All for interesting discussion and the search for truth in this intricate and perhaps still open topic.

"Man involved in science will never understand why he should believe in certain opinions simply because they are in a book. [...] Also he never deems its own results for the ultimate truth". A. Einstein

Reality does not always agree even with the most sound mathematics. If you put your one leg in boiling water (100 °C) and the other in a very cold ice (eg-50 ° C), then you should feel great, because the sound math shows that you are in the average temperature of 25 °C.

It means that the local time indications in the rocketwill be exacly the same as on the Earth.

 

Correct.

 

 

Thus it denies the existence of time dilation, and proves constancy of thetime in the universe ?

 

Incorrect.

Why incorrect? If I, being in a flying rocket, have on my clock an indication eg. 12.00 and at the same time, you on the Earth have also on your clock an indication 12.00, and after an hour I have an indication 13.00 and you also have an indication 13.00, etc. Thus, in my frame in a rocket and in your frame on the Earth, time passes at an identical rate. Does not it?

Yes, an observer sitting on the rocket will see that the clock is ticking at exactly the frequency he'd expect if he were sitting on Earth and watching a stationary clock.

Thanks. It means that the local time indications in the rocket will be exacly the same as on the Earth.

Thus it denies the existence of time dilation, and proves constancy of the time in the universe ?

Your understanding is incorrect.

 

 

A request: Stop with the font/size games. Just use the defaults.

 

 

That was a bit terse.

 

The people on the Earth will see the rocket's clock as running slow.

The people on the rocket with see the Earth-based clocks as running slow.

Sorry but I did not use any font/size game. May be in my notebook was something wrong defaulted.

My question was about some other matter. It not concerned on how the observers see each other clocks on Earth and in the rocket, but on whether the clock in the rocket, due to the fact that the speed of light in its glass is the same as on Earth, is ticking at the same local frequency in the rocket as the ticking of clocks on the Earth? My understanding is that the clocks in the rocket must have identical frequency (measured locally), as the frequency measured localy for the clocks on the Earth. It means that the local time idications in the rocket and the Earth will be the same

Yes. The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference.

Thank you DH. So in that case, the light-clocks made of glass that were used in the experiment presented earlier in this forum on the link: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/26262175/TimeDilation.pdf

should always indicate the same time as the clocks on the Earth. Is my understanding correct?

Correct. You could even have the rocket moving at 99.9999% the speed of light with respect to some reference, and the motion of the rocket will still have no effect. There is no absolute reference frame by which to judge something's speed. Everything is relative. In the case of this experiment, that the rocket is moving with respect to something else has zero impact on the outcome of the experiment.

Thanks Swansont and DH for your explanations.

So, does it mean that regardless of whether the rocket is standing on the Earth or already is flying in space, the speed of light in the glass rods ( parallel to the rocket or perpendicular to the rocket), which will be observed by the researcher in the rocket, will always show no difference and remains the same as on Earth?

Try rephrasing that question. As it stands it's pretty much gobbledygook. You aren't communicating.

The answer from IM: " The speed of light in a glass rod will show no difference, whether the rod is parallel to the Earth or perpendicular to the Earth. This result does not violate special relativity. Why? Because it is being performed in a single frame of reference. The source of the light, the glassrod, and the device which measures the speed of that light are all on the Earth at rest with respect to each other -- i.e. in a single frame of reference.

The motion of the Earth has no effect because the entire experiment and the Earth are moving together. "

So my question is very clear: If the above explanation is OK, whether it is also true the following statement:

The speed of light in a glass rod will show no difference, whether the rod is parallel to the rocket or perpendicular to the rocket, because it is being performed in a single frame of reference. The researcher, the source of the light, the glass rod, and the device which measures the speed of that light are all on the rocket at rest with respect to each other -- i.e. in a single frame of reference.

The motion of the rocket has no effect because the entire experiment and the rocket are moving together. "

DH, if this question is still unclear to you, then I would think that you play with me in the "cat and mouse", and you do not want to explain anything.