Jump to content

Time dilation or a change of frequency ?


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, iNow said:

So in addition to all of your many other problems, your quote unquote "model" can't even accurately model the very thing it proposes to model? Wow... I'm sold! Where do I sign up! 

Can you also travel faster than space?!?

Space is a different subject , please do not divert from the subject . 

My model accurately demonstrates there is no change of time in time dilation theory . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Ned said:

Space is a different subject

Space is different than time in a conversation about spacetime? Maybe, but certainly not relevant to my comment

15 minutes ago, Ned said:

My model accurately demonstrates there is no change of time in time dilation theory

You keep saying that despite it not being true. Do you lie all the time, or just here on this topic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Space is different than time in a conversation about spacetime? Maybe, but certainly not relevant to my comment

You keep saying that despite it not being true. Do you lie all the time, or just here on this topic?

Space-time , space and time are three different independent subjects . 

I'm not lying , perhaps you lack understanding and need something clarifying of the model  ? 

You have also avoided the d/t question which also is a part of the model . 

I'm going off for a bit now but will say that Einstein was correct about the twins ageing differently in the twin paradox . Although they both experienced the same amount of time (history) , the travelling twin aged less because their frequency of decay was slower than the twin at rest . 

The results of the Caesium clock I believe show that decay or ageing has a frequency rather than a time dilation . 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ned said:

The results of the Caesium clock I believe show that...

You've given us no reason to give a damn what you "believe." In fact, you've given copious reasons for us to disbelieve just about anything you say. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Euclidean geometry, a straight line is the shortest possible distance. Shortest possible time. Any nonstraight path means it’s a longer distance and longer time. 

In the Newtonian world, everyone just agrees there’s one time. Given our crude measurements of moons and weeks and days, we generally all form a consensus about what is “proper” time.

But that doesn’t apply intuitively at larger and vaster scales that humans didn’t evolve requirements to think upon.

In spacetime, the longest time elapsed is a straight line. The straight line is slowest because the curved line fits the path better in the pseudo-Euclidean spacetime in which we find ourselves.

The time you personally experience is almost like the distance driven along a curve. They’re analogous, but you and I are on different curves so our “times” no longer perfectly (or properly) align. 

In relativity, everyone experiences their own personal time and that time will depend on the path they take through spacetime itself (the “curve” referenced in previous paragraph). 
 

*Paraphrased from Sean Carroll. Any inaccuracies are mine, not his. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ned said:

Before the 1950's a Caesium atom was just an atom with a frequency , then science defined a set frequency to equal a second . 

They could of used any set frequency , knowing the Caesiums frequency was dependent to climate control . 

All atoms are subject to the effects of temperature. Cesium is by no mean unique in this regard.

Your fixation on this suggests that you don’t actually understand the issues involved  

 

4 hours ago, Ned said:

That is what I mean by the time added value , sciences definition of a second . 

The irony is they defined the second to equal the caesiums frequency because the Earths rotation wasn't constant . 

They replaced one broken clock with another broken clock , knowingly the caesium was a volitile atom and variant before the time value was added . 

The definition is for the atom at 0 K; the effects of temperature are accounted for when doing a frequency evaluation. I believe I covered this already.

Earth rotation variability is much larger than the temperature effects - rotation variation is on order of milliseconds per day over the course of the year. IIRC for our rubidium fountains the effect was smaller than a part in 10^16 per degree, so maintaining the temperature to 0.1 K variation was the goal. So more than a factor of 10^10 better. One motivating factor for adopting atomic time.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, iNow said:

You've given us no reason to give a damn what you "believe." In fact, you've given copious reasons for us to disbelieve just about anything you say. 

I have offered several proofs that demonstrates the caesiums change of frequency isn't a change of time . In doing so I question what can a change of frequency mean if not a change of time and my conclusion is as mentioned . 

2 hours ago, iNow said:

In Euclidean geometry, a straight line is the shortest possible distance. Shortest possible time. Any nonstraight path means it’s a longer distance and longer time. 

In the Newtonian world, everyone just agrees there’s one time. Given our crude measurements of moons and weeks and days, we generally all form a consensus about what is “proper” time.

But that doesn’t apply intuitively at larger and vaster scales that humans didn’t evolve requirements to think upon.

In spacetime, the longest time elapsed is a straight line. The straight line is slowest because the curved line fits the path better in the pseudo-Euclidean spacetime in which we find ourselves.

The time you personally experience is almost like the distance driven along a curve. They’re analogous, but you and I are on different curves so our “times” no longer perfectly (or properly) align. 

In relativity, everyone experiences their own personal time and that time will depend on the path they take through spacetime itself (the “curve” referenced in previous paragraph). 
 

*Paraphrased from Sean Carroll. Any inaccuracies are mine, not his. 

I don't want to upset you but the only time that exists is the present because all other versions of time are nothing more than a record of history . Any position along your straight line presently exists in the present and simultaneously exists with yourself . 

 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

All atoms are subject to the effects of temperature. Cesium is by no mean unique in this regard.

Your fixation on this suggests that you don’t actually understand the issues involved  

 

The definition is for the atom at 0 K; the effects of temperature are accounted for when doing a frequency evaluation. I believe I covered this already.

 

 

 

I am not fixated on the Caesium , I know all particles are subject to affects of temperature  which just goes to show how irrelevant the caesium frequency is in regards to time . You also missed the point I made about climate control being able to change the frequency , which is suggestive climate control of the Caesium can control time based on present understanding . 

Yes the temperature is accounted for in the experiment but they didn't account for field energy differences or length contractions . 

The atomic clock  if I remember correctly , has  a 3.24cm gap between the Caesium and the detector , a well positioned atomic clock in transit would experience a length contraction which would slow down the frequency . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Ned said:

don't want to upset you but the only time that exists is the present

Yes, given my username, that’s super duper upsetting. I’ll be crying tears into my pillow tonight. Boo dee hoo dee.

Even if I stipulate this nebulous concept of a now, EVEN THEN yours and mine differ. No matter how you slice this, you’re laughably and pathetically wrong.

FYI - All you EVER experience is a stitched together narrative of signals and inputs which themselves arrived at least several hundred milliseconds in the past. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, iNow said:

Yes, given my username, that’s super duper upsetting. I’ll be crying tears into my pillow tonight. Boo dee hoo dee.

Even if I stipulate this nebulous concept of a now, EVEN THEN yours and mine differ. No matter how you slice this, you’re laughably and pathetically wrong.

FYI - All you EVER experience is a stitched together narrative of signals and inputs which themselves arrived at least several hundred milliseconds in the past. 

You still haven't answered the d/t question because you know the answer is ''incriminating'' . I am right , I have shown I'm right . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Ned said:

no more replies to you ! 

How is it different this time from when you said it 7 hours ago?

7 hours ago, Ned said:

I'm not going to reply to you

 

You have what’s known in the biz as a credibility problem. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Ned said:

I don't want to upset you but the only time that exists is the present because all other versions of time are nothing more than a record of history . Any position along your straight line presently exists in the present and simultaneously exists with yourself

Your own personal experience of the present maybe. But experience is about perception and interpretation. 

Then, if you throw relativity into the mix, which you should, since its the most valid current model that has been verified over and over for the past century +. "Your" present relative to another's within a different frame of reference may not align, you may not agree on the timing of an event, thus may not agree on the "present". 

Then you may also want to consider the definition of present in perception terms anyhow. Since the experience of each present moment is an after event, so to speak, (it takes time for you body & brain to process information received) technically you could say you only ever experience the past not the present, so time only ever exists in the past. 

Then you may want to consider the "flow" of time, is each moment a discreet point separate from the previous & next, or is it a continuous blend within no definitive moment (present)? Then what does this mean from a relativity view point, if my present is now and yours is later which moment exists and which doesn't? 

You seem to want to model with absolutes, but unfortunately the universe doesn't work this way. The sooner you understand this the better! Then maybe you can start to re-think some of your ideas and realise why they are incorrect and some completely absurd.   

Edited by Intoscience
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

 

You seem to want to model with absolutes, but unfortunately the universe doesn't work this way. The sooner you understand this the better! Then maybe you can start to re-think some of your ideas and realise why they are incorrect and some completely absurd.   

The problem with relativity is , it isn't all it seems to be . Maybe you need to re-think because we don't see things or events in the past as proven by this diagram . 

rel.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Ned said:

I have offered several proofs that demonstrates the caesiums change of frequency isn't a change of time . In doing so I question what can a change of frequency mean if not a change of time and my conclusion is as mentioned . 

“proofs”? You’ve asserted it, with no supporting science, and I countered that assertion. You’ve not addressed what I have said in rebuttal.

 

12 hours ago, Ned said:

I am not fixated on the Caesium , I know all particles are subject to affects of temperature 

Your contention that some other standard could have been chosen, that would not be subject to temperature effects, contradicts this.

12 hours ago, Ned said:

which just goes to show how irrelevant the caesium frequency is in regards to time .

Perhaps you can discuss the reasons cesium was chosen as the standard, to demonstrate your understanding of the issues.

 

12 hours ago, Ned said:

You also missed the point I made about climate control being able to change the frequency , which is suggestive climate control of the Caesium can control time based on present understanding . 

News flash: absolutely nobody is claiming that temperature changes control time. Except you.

 

12 hours ago, Ned said:

Yes the temperature is accounted for in the experiment but they didn't account for field energy differences or length contractions . 

“field energy differences”?

 

12 hours ago, Ned said:

The atomic clock  if I remember correctly , has  a 3.24cm gap between the Caesium and the detector , a well positioned atomic clock in transit would experience a length contraction which would slow down the frequency . 

How, exactly, does this allegedly slow down the frequency?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, swansont said:

“proofs”? You’ve asserted it, with no supporting science, and I countered that assertion. You’ve not addressed what I have said in rebuttal.

 

Your contention that some other standard could have been chosen, that would not be subject to temperature effects, contradicts this.

Perhaps you can discuss the reasons cesium was chosen as the standard, to demonstrate your understanding of the issues.

 

News flash: absolutely nobody is claiming that temperature changes control time. Except you.

 

“field energy differences”?

 

How, exactly, does this allegedly slow down the frequency?

 

I  have offered several proofs that you must of failed to recognise as proofs . My provided diagram and discourse is proof . 

The Caesium standard was chosen because science found at 0k it was a constant frequency and because the Earth spins wasn't a constant , we needed a more accurate way of measuring time . 

I should of said a length expansion rather than contraction sorry . If the direction of light is travelling the direction the plane is travelling towards the detector , then as the light moves ''forward'' . the detector also moves forward . The light is slightly delayed in reaching the detector that way  . I drew it for you ! 

 

ex.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Ned said:

I drew it for you ! 

May I humbly request that next time you use crayons, you know... so the content of your diagram more closely aligns with the media used to create it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Ned said:

I  have offered several proofs that you must of failed to recognise as proofs . My provided diagram and discourse is proof . 

I failed to recognize them as proofs because they are not. You’ve been told this several times, and yet you seem incredibly uncurious as to what is lacking. You have a number of people familiar with, and actually trained in science who could critique your “efforts”

 

32 minutes ago, Ned said:

The Caesium standard was chosen because science found at 0k it was a constant frequency and because the Earth spins wasn't a constant , we needed a more accurate way of measuring time . 

As you have acknowledged, temperature affects all atoms’ transitions, and thus cesium is not unique, so this can’t be a consideration. The earth’s non-constant spin was apparent well before atomic clocks were invented; pendulum clocks, and later quartz clocks, were able to show this.

You’re 0-for-2

(you also seem to be confusing accuracy and precision)

 

 

32 minutes ago, Ned said:

I should of said a length expansion rather than contraction sorry . If the direction of light is travelling the direction the plane is travelling towards the detector , then as the light moves ''forward'' . the detector also moves forward . The light is slightly delayed in reaching the detector that way  . I drew it for you ! 

 

ex.jpg

You don’t say what the 3.24 cm refers to, and you should know that in a cesium beam clock such as a 5061 or 5071 (formerly made by HP) there is no visible light involved - the atoms are detected - and should also know that the time-of-flight to the detector doesn’t matter in the measurement.

But you don’t know this, because you are way out if your depth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

I failed to recognize them as proofs because they are not. You’ve been told this several times, and yet you seem incredibly uncurious as to what is lacking. You have a number of people familiar with, and actually trained in science who could critique your “efforts”

 

As you have acknowledged, temperature affects all atoms’ transitions, and thus cesium is not unique, so this can’t be a consideration. The earth’s non-constant spin was apparent well before atomic clocks were invented; pendulum clocks, and later quartz clocks, were able to show this.

You’re 0-for-2

(you also seem to be confusing accuracy and precision)

 

 

You don’t say what the 3.24 cm refers to, and you should know that in a cesium beam clock such as a 5061 or 5071 (formerly made by HP) there is no visible light involved - the atoms are detected - and should also know that the time-of-flight to the detector doesn’t matter in the measurement.

But you don’t know this, because you are way out if your depth.

I said earlier that if I remember correctly , the gap between the Caesium and detector is 3.24cm. I know there is no visble light involved . 

I'm not out of my depth , dimensional analysis isn't a difficult task . 

You really aren't seen the evidence I have provided which is evidence . Diagrams and thought experiments are often accepted in scientific theory . Einstein explained time dilation using thought experiments etc . 

I ask you to reconsider this diagram and answer the question , how much time (history) does the bottom line experience in the diagram ? My answer is 1.s although they only measure 0.5s . 

 

 

td.jpg

Edited by Ned
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ned said:

I said earlier that if I remember correctly , the gap between the Caesium and detector is 3.24cm.

Which makes no sense, if you looked at the inside of a cesium beam clock.

 

2 minutes ago, Ned said:

 

I know there is no visble light involved . 

And yet you wrote about light traveling and being delayed in hitting the detector.

So the light - which doesn’t exist - is delayed?

 

2 minutes ago, Ned said:

I'm not out of my depth ,

You are, and don’t realize it.

 

2 minutes ago, Ned said:

dimensional analysis isn't a difficult task . 

None if this is connected with dimensional analysis 

 

2 minutes ago, Ned said:

You really aren't seen the evidence I have provided which is evidence . Diagrams and thought experiments are often accepted in scientific theory . Einstein explained time dilation using thought experiments etc . 

Einstein explained things with thought experiments, but he also wrote papers with actual equations derived from known physics, which is the actual science.

 

2 minutes ago, Ned said:

I ask you to reconsider this diagram and answer the question , how much time (history) does the bottom line experience in the diagram ? My answer is 1.s although they only measure 0.5s . 

 

 

td.jpg

Your diagram is rubbish. It conveys little useful information. You are not nearly as good at communicating as you think you are. No, this is not my fault. This is part of my area of expertise, and I’m telling you this is nonsensical.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

But you don’t know this, because you are way out if your depth.

I have re-drawn the model to show you where science are going wrong . ''Frequency is the number of occurrences of a repeating event per unit of time. '' Frequency can't be a unit of time ,period . You can't have frequency is the number of occurrences of a repeating frequency . Added - Science forgets that the frequency of the clock in motion is being measured by the ground state clock at rest . The second being defined to the clock at rest . 

correct.jpg

Edited by Ned
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, MigL said:

Pictures and diagrams are not proofs ...

Post something that makes sense, back it up with evidence, or go play in another sandbox.

You are incorrect when a diagram shows the experiment and the discourse supports the claim . The evidence is the method of  hafele and keating experiment and the results . 

The evidence is definition , what is frequency ? 

I'm 100% correct on this and have proved it in this thread with discourse and diagrams . 

The last diagram and explanation ''killed it '' , I'll take on science anyday because they don't scare me from revealing the truth . 

The Caesium in motion frequency was measured by the clock at rest , end of argument , I win this debate .  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.