Strange Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Earlier in my questions, a house brick up a mountain would weight less, so experiences less gravity the more altitude. Correct. At altitude the Caesium clock would run faster because of less gravity surely? Also correct. ''The timing difference would depend on the altitude'' and gravity is different depending on altitude? Also correct. (This is some sort of record!) Has anyone took a Caesium clock up a mountain and left it static to try that compared to sea level? You don't even need a mountain. How about 13 inches: http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-09/superaccurate-clocks-prove-your-head-older-your-feet And the classic experiment along these lines was the Pound–Rebka experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment And, of course, GPS receivers have to take this effect into accounts. So there is not doubt that it is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Ok, I do understand what Einstein was saying, but it is still 1 d thought and still changing the rules of the physics involved. Natural light, is constant to all observers unless obstructed, we all see light at the same time, since when does light, return to the Sun? I just can not see how this works. Its bending the laws of Physical process surely? It's not changing the rules, it's recognizing that our understanding of the rules was wrong, though it's not apparent until you travel close to c and/or have really good clocks. We don't all see light at the same time. You can't assume that's true. If the relativity thinking is wrong, then so must be the rest. Earlier in my questions, a house brick up a mountain would weight less, so experiences less gravity the more altitude. ''Near the earth's surface clocks run about a part in 1016 faster for every meter above sea level. The equation for the fractional frequency change is gh/c2 The timing difference would depend on the altitude and the duration of the flight.'' How would this compare to the gravity difference? At altitude the Caesium clock would run faster because of less gravity surely? ''The timing difference would depend on the altitude'' and gravity is different depending on altitude? Has anyone took a Caesium clock up a mountain and left it static to try that compared to sea level? It's not due to a difference in gravity, it's due to a difference in gravitational potential. i.e. it's due to variations in gh (where the potential energy is mgh), rather than in g. So changing g will alter the potential, but changing h will as well, even if g is constant. And yes, someone has gone up a mountain to test this http://leapsecond.com/great2005/ In September 2005 the kids and I took several very accurate cesium atomic clocks from home and parked 5400 feet up Mt Rainier (the volcano near Seattle) for a full two days. The goal was to see if the clocks actually gained time, even if billionths of a second, as predicted by Einstein's general theory of relativity. it agreed. ~22 nanoseconds. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Maybe I'm becoming cynical after being a member for a while and seeing the behaviour of some members and if so, I apologise, but why do I get the feeling that this guy, Relative, knows a little more than he is letting on. I mean he knows about the H-K eperiment but has no clue how the HUP will not allow the electron to be localised in the nucleus ? I get the ipression he is 'leading 'you guys towards some pet theory which will be ultimately sent to Speculation or the thread closed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted August 12, 2014 Author Share Posted August 12, 2014 Thank you , I have a lot of reading to do with the provided links, I am still scratching my head. I thank you and will re-read all the replies before any more questions. I still think there is something wrong, I am unsure what , but either way for some reason my penny is not dropping, or something is wrong. If we was referring to time dilation has gravity dilation, then I would get it.......there seems so much contradictory in science. I do know by my own logic, it could be a case of my little understanding, and something I am just not getting. I will scratch my head and sleep on it. After reading the links I am more confused, I do not want to come across has arrogant or suffering Dunning and Kruger effect, But can no one see the simple logic, I will quote form the links - ''Einstein first figured out that time moves at a different rate depending on how fast you're moving, and depending on how close you are to a gravitational field. And scientists have already shown that time moves faster at higher elevations — clocks on a rocket move slower than clocks on Earth, for instance. By this logic, astronauts are actually time travelers.'' I think I am just going cry . Honestly time on a clock is an invention and not time. ''Einstein first figured out that time moves at a different rate depending on how fast you're moving'' Time on the clock changes yes, but time does not change surely? Our Earth time is based on rotation!. If you are in a car and travel at 100 mph starting at 12 o'clock A rival travels at 100 mph starting at 12 o'clock No change in the clocks correct? Clock Time stays the same for both observers ? I add altitude to one observer, and leave the other on the ground, the 100 miles at altitude takes less time because of circumference difference? less time meaning the clock runs quicker? If I wanted to land on the moon this is how I do it? The clock runs slower at altitude? Time is based on distance? I got a feeling I could make some maths .... Times started with one rotation been 24 hrs? The 24 hrs, were then used to create distance again subdivided? 24,901.55 miles Earth's circumference? Then it is easy to extend distance and work out the rest? Is this what relativity is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Honestly time on a clock is an invention and not time. Clocks are an invention. The units that clocks measure time in (hours, minutes, seconds) are an invention. But they are just a way of measuring time. Time is not an invention. And, when you measure time under different circumstances, you find it changes. Time on the clock changes yes, but time does not change surely? Time on the clock changes because the clock is measuring time. Time on the clock does not chnage because the clock has changed. It is because time has changed. Our Earth time is based on rotation!. Once upon a time, we invented a unit for measuring time called the "day". This unit was based on the rotation of the Earth. Now we use a unit called the "second." This has nothing to do with the rotation of the Earth. Time is based on distance? No. Times started with one rotation been 24 hrs? No. <sigh> Here we go again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted August 12, 2014 Author Share Posted August 12, 2014 Clocks are an invention. The units that clocks measure time in (hours, minutes, seconds) are an invention. But they are just a way of measuring time. Time is not an invention. And, when you measure time under different circumstances, you find it changes. Time on the clock changes because the clock is measuring time. Time on the clock does not chnage because the clock has changed. It is because time has changed. Once upon a time, we invented a unit for measuring time called the "day". This unit was based on the rotation of the Earth. Now we use a unit called the "second." This has nothing to do with the rotation of the Earth. No. No. <sigh> Here we go again. here we dont go again, I am trying to find out why I do not understand, you say maths , I do the maths and my answers are the same as my thoughts, using your circumferences etc, so why does the maths add up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 here we dont go again, I am trying to find out why I do not understand, you say maths , I do the maths and my answers are the same as my thoughts, using your circumferences etc, so why does the maths add up? Because you are starting from a false assumption. Time is NOT based on distance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted August 12, 2014 Author Share Posted August 12, 2014 Because you are starting from a false assumption. Time is NOT based on distance. The assumption that time is based on distance, proceeds the maths, I did the maths to get the presumption, because the maths fitted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 No, please don't hit me again officer. Not another another what is time argument no please no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted August 12, 2014 Author Share Posted August 12, 2014 (edited) I am not arguing, I am asking why the maths fits, what is my calculation mistake? Edited August 12, 2014 by Relative Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 I am not arguing, I am asking why the maths fits, where is my calculation mistake? Don't ask me, I ducked out of this one when, to paraphrase migL's words, you went from kindergarten physics to postdoc physics faster than Usain Bolt does the 100 metres. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted August 12, 2014 Author Share Posted August 12, 2014 Don't ask me, I ducked out of this one when, to paraphrase migL's words, you went from kindergarten physics to postdoc physics faster than Usain Bolt does the 100 metres. HUH? I have just learnt from forums and the internet, I am self taught, so you can see the confusion at times from myself. There is a lot of info, to take on board, one life time is not enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 (edited) I am self taught But you are missing a lot of the (boring but essential) stuff in the middle. In the past this would have been provided on well planned syllabuses, whoever taught it. In today's world many syllabuses are poorly planned and many non core subjects only touch lightly on core material, but give the impression they cover more ground than they do. Edited August 12, 2014 by studiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted August 12, 2014 Author Share Posted August 12, 2014 But you are missing a lot of the (boring but essential) stuff in the middle. In the past this would have been provided on well planned syllabuses, whoever taught it. In today's world many syllabuses are poorly planned and many non core subjects only touch lightly on core material, but give the impression they cover more ground than they do. I had to look up the word, are you saying I only outline my questions and miss parts out I should be asking? I had to look up the word, are you saying I only outline my questions and miss parts out I should be asking? Or what I have learnt is only the outlines? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 I am not arguing, I am asking why the maths fits, what is my calculation mistake? What maths? What calculation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted August 13, 2014 Author Share Posted August 13, 2014 What maths? What calculation? I have Earth's equator circumference at 24,859.82 miles? Earth's rotation 1038 MPH? 1 revolution 24 hrs? 24 hrs at 86400 seconds? Is that all correct? 24 hours equal to 360 degrees rotation? 24,859.82/1038 = 2394.97302505 hours? 1 day -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 I have Earth's equator circumference at 24,859.82 miles? Earth's rotation 1038 MPH? 1 revolution 24 hrs? 24 hrs at 86400 seconds? Is that all correct? 24 hours equal to 360 degrees rotation? Yes. But AGAIN: Time is NOT equal to distance. Imagine people living on a planet that did not rotate. They could still use clocks, including atomic clocks, to measure time. They would still see time dilation and all the other effects of relativity. The size and rotation of the Earth are irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted August 13, 2014 Author Share Posted August 13, 2014 (edited) Yes. But AGAIN: Time is NOT equal to distance. Imagine people living on a planet that did not rotate. They could still use clocks, including atomic clocks, to measure time. They would still see time dilation and all the other effects of relativity. The size and rotation of the Earth are irrelevant. This is because no one has spotted this Strange before, time is and was derived this way, making time equal to distance there is no other explanation of why else the maths all fits and how distance was derived also? 2394.97302505/86400= 0.02771959519 mile It all fits , you can reverse the maths and it still fits, I cant see past this, You need to do better than just say time is not distance?, when I can clearly see that it is! and it works for other planets..... A clock is 360 degrees, a clock represents one rotation, expand the clock, we have different time, it all fits? Big bang expansion is time ? Yes. But AGAIN: Time is NOT equal to distance. Imagine people living on a planet that did not rotate. They could still use clocks, including atomic clocks, to measure time. They would still see time dilation and all the other effects of relativity. The size and rotation of the Earth are irrelevant. And where do they get there timing from? I understand the context in which you represent time, and it is not what I am on about. Science has age and everything related, according to time, by rotation timing? Do you know this has in my diagram below? Or Am I trying to explain something you already know which I have got confused about? I do apologise to the forum, my learning style is curious and to question what I am learning. I have to have 100% facts to except that knowledge. I thank you, and to move on I have to understand before I can move on, I do not like to leave out any details in learning. And up to date, there is lots of subject matter I can question, science is incredible and opens the mind to thought. Edited August 13, 2014 by Relative Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 This is because no one has spotted this Strange before Wrong. time is and was derived this way The units of time might have been derived this way. But time wasn't. making time equal to distance there is no other explanation of why else the maths all fits and how distance was derived also? Time is NOT equal to distance. The only reason the math works is because you don't understand what you are doing. I cant see past this, You need to do better than just say time is not distance?, when I can clearly see that it is! You are just relating time, distance and speed. This is primary school stuff: speed = distance / time. This means that time = distance / speed. Therefore: time is NOT equal to distance. Because it is equal to distance divided by speed. Therefore: time is NOT equal to distance. Can I make it any clearer? And where do they get there timing from? Dripping water, burning candles, swinging pendulums, heartbeats, ... Science has age and everything related, according to time, by rotation timing? wrong. Or Am I trying to explain something you already know which I have got confused about? This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted August 13, 2014 Author Share Posted August 13, 2014 (edited) Wrong. The units of time might have been derived this way. But time wasn't. Time is NOT equal to distance. The only reason the math works is because you don't understand what you are doing. You are just relating time, distance and speed. This is primary school stuff: speed = distance / time. This means that time = distance / speed. Therefore: time is NOT equal to distance. Because it is equal to distance divided by speed. Therefore: time is NOT equal to distance. Can I make it any clearer? Dripping water, burning candles, swinging pendulums, heartbeats, ... wrong. This. Scratching my head because I know you are smart!. Time comes first correct?, without time, there is no speed or distance? In history what was the order ? 1st time 2nd distance 3rd speed? ''Because it is equal to distance divided by speed.'' which is 0.277 mile equivalent to 1 second? or is there some other point to point we use to measure distance? Distance is equal to divided by time? Edited August 13, 2014 by Relative Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 Time comes first correct?, without time, there is no speed or distance? Time does not come first. There is time and there is distance (that is why GR describes the universe in temrs of space-time). From these you can calculate things like speed and acceleration. which is 0.277 mile equivalent to 1 second? Only at some specific speed (0.277 miles per second). At any other speed this is no longer true. So, again time is not equal to, or even equivalent to, distance in any fixed way. or is there some other point to point we use to measure distance? You can choose any two points to measure distance: inches, millimetres, parsecs, furlongs, ... Distance is equal to divided by time? Distance is equal to speed times time. This is basic, primary school arithmetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted August 16, 2014 Author Share Posted August 16, 2014 I will try asking a question I have probably never asked, How was time on a clock ,of 24 hours, derived? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 How was time on a clock ,of 24 hours, derived? The Egyptians (and several other ancient civilizations) divided the time between sunrise and sunset into 12 periods. They probably chose 12 because of the 12 months in the year. These 12 hours varied in length over the year, because the length of the day varies (and because time was mainly measured with sundials). The hour didn't become a fixed period of time until the invention of mechanical clocks (about 800 years ago, maybe?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted August 16, 2014 Author Share Posted August 16, 2014 (edited) The Egyptians (and several other ancient civilizations) divided the time between sunrise and sunset into 12 periods. They probably chose 12 because of the 12 months in the year. These 12 hours varied in length over the year, because the length of the day varies (and because time was mainly measured with sundials). The hour didn't become a fixed period of time until the invention of mechanical clocks (about 800 years ago, maybe?) Ok thank you, so where did we derive 12 months in a year from?, has you are saying months came before the clock, which seems a little backwards, This should be easy for you guys to explain. Point A and Point B is all that exists, what do we use to measure the distance? How do we measure distance on a solar scale? The Sun is approx 92957130mi away Earth's circumference 24,859.82 miles 92957130/2485982=6017.9411883approx So the sun is equal to 6017 times around the earth away from us? approximately? The Sun changes size to the Earth observer, depending on time of year? Edited August 16, 2014 by Relative Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 Ok thank you, so where did we derive 12 months in a year from?, has you are saying months came before the clock, which seems a little backwards 12 months in a year because that is (approximately) the number of full moons in a year (that is where to word motnh comes from, month=moon). Point A and Point B is all that exists, what do we use to measure the distance? A non-existent ruler? How do we measure distance on a solar scale? The (average) distance from the Earth to the Sun is called an Astronomical Unit (AU). 1 AU = 92 955 807.3 miles = 149 597 871 km 92957130/2485982=6017.9411883approx Something has gone wrong there. I make it about 3,700. The Sun changes size to the Earth observer, depending on time of year? Very slightly as we get closer and further away. I don't think it is noticeable to the naked eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts