On Wed, 6 Nov 2024 21:50:21 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
General Relativity Does Not Rescue Special Relativity.
It ditches it.
According to special relativity time dilation is caused by relative
motion per se.
Not "caused" but "is correlated to". We do not know the cause.
This has been rightly criticized as self-contradictory.
It's not self-contradictory
General relativity says the clock that is accelerating is time dilating.
This makes the cause absolute motion and not relative motion.
Therefore, GR ditches SR, which is a distinctly different and false
theory.
On 07-Nov-24 5:50 am, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
General Relativity Does Not Rescue Special Relativity.
It ditches it.
According to special relativity time dilation is caused by relative
motion per se.
This has been rightly criticized as self-contradictory.
Only by people who misconstrue (willfully, or otherwise) what it says.
General Relativity Does Not Rescue Special Relativity.
It ditches it.
According to special relativity time dilation is caused by relative
motion per se.
This has been rightly criticized as self-contradictory.
On 07-Nov-24 5:50 am, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
General Relativity Does Not Rescue Special Relativity.
It ditches it.
According to special relativity time dilation is caused by relative
motion per se.
This has been rightly criticized as self-contradictory.
Only by people who misconstrue (willfully, or otherwise) what it says.
Sylvia
On Wed, 6 Nov 2024 22:39:18 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
Reasonable defense by a relativist: Dingle refuted the alleged cause of relative motion for time dilation of special relativity. Time dilation
is a part of GR, not SR.
Dingle's mistake was assuming a direct cause. But it may be that
the two are merely *correlated* by a *common indirect cause*.
In physics situations like this arose many times. For example,
Maxwell's theory required equipping EM fields with their own
momentum and angular momentum (otherwise the conservation laws
would fail). Nobody knew what the seat of that momentum was.
This was only modelled much later in quantum electrodynamics.
It's very likely that time dilation, etc., are similarly conditioned phenomena. We still don't have the right model for the underlying
causes.
Same thing happened with thermodynamics when people started to
(correctly) quantify the amount of heat despite not knowing what
heat was, or even at one point while having the wrong model of
heat (the "caloric" or "phlogiston" model).
So this is a normal (although a bit temporarily uncomfortable)
position for a physics theory to be in, it's nothing new.
It only seems such a tragedy to amateurs who ONLY know relativity but do
not actually understand PHYSICS and how science works in particular. One standard amateur mistake here is the constant confusion of physics with philosophy.
Paul: Do you not know the elementary fact that time does not dilate
because time cannot be equated to the rate of functioning of the clock?
No kind of motion can or does cause time dilation because, for time to dilate, all rates of change would have to be affected to the same
degree, so their relative rates remain the same.
Den 13.11.2024 05:55, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
Paul: Do you not know the elementary fact that time does not dilate
because time cannot be equated to the rate of functioning of the clock?
In physics, "time" must be measurable.
The instrument we use to measure "time" is per definition a "clock".
So "proper time" is what we measure with clocks.
JanPB <film.art@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Nov 2024 22:39:18 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
Reasonable defense by a relativist: Dingle refuted the alleged cause of
relative motion for time dilation of special relativity. Time dilation
is a part of GR, not SR.
Dingle's mistake was assuming a direct cause. But it may be that
the two are merely *correlated* by a *common indirect cause*.
In physics situations like this arose many times. For example,
Maxwell's theory required equipping EM fields with their own
momentum and angular momentum (otherwise the conservation laws
would fail). Nobody knew what the seat of that momentum was.
This was only modelled much later in quantum electrodynamics.
It's very likely that time dilation, etc., are similarly conditioned
phenomena. We still don't have the right model for the underlying
causes.
This is highly unlikely.
Time dilation seems to be an inherent property
of the space-time we find ourselves in.
Jan: You are absolutely correct.
Time dilation has nothing to do with physics. The LT is absurd and unnecessary without an ether. The two beams in the MMX return
simultaneously because there is no ether and not because of an LT.
According to physics, entropy does not apply to open systems. The
universe is infinite, so it is an open system.
To accept relativity as physics is to confuse philosophy with physics.
Den 13.11.2024 05:55, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
Paul: Do you not know the elementary fact that time does not
dilate because time cannot be equated to the rate of functioning
of the clock?
In physics, "time" must be measurable.
The instrument we use to measure "time" is per definition a "clock".
So "proper time" is what we measure with clocks.
There is no alternative.
Do you claim to be able to measure time without using a clock?
In that case, explain how.
No kind of motion can or does cause time dilation because, for time
to dilate, all rates of change would have to be affected to the same
degree, so their relative rates remain the same.
Nothing affects the rate of a proper clock. It always run at
it's proper rate, advancing one second per second.
"Time dilation" doesn't mean that a clock has changed its rate.
See:
https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
You won't read it, of course.
But you are right about one thing:
Your idea of "time dilation", namely that some clocks are
changing their rate, is indeed impossible.
Paul: Equating time with the reading of a clock wouldn't be acceptable
to most employers; it's so stupid.
Therefore, when clocks run
differently under different circumstances, we properly understand this
is an instrumental error, as when a pendulum clock must be adjusted to various lengths for different latitudes.
That does not require
relativity. Some clocks run slower at less gravity (sand and pendulum
clocks) while some run faster (battery-powered and atomic), so this is
not time itself changing.
If a clock doesn't change its rate when time dilates, everything doesn't change in unison. Therefore, it is not time dilation. It is only a
change in some rates of change.
In _physics_, "time" _must_ be measurable.
The instrument we use to measure "time" is per definition a "clock".
So "proper time" is what we measure with clocks.
Paul: That atomic clocks in space run faster does not demonstrate or
even provide any evidence that all processes speed up as would be
necessary if time itself sped up.
Paul: Can we infer from the faster rate of atomic clocks in low gravity
that all other processes are equally faster on the satellite? No, that
is an unwarranted inference. Then, time itself doesn't run faster. Only
the atomic clocks do.
Paul: Kindly don't put words in people's mouths. I made no such claim. Einstein is famous for making the stupid error of equating time with a
clock reading, and you follow lockstep. >
Den 14.11.2024 12:07, skrev Paul B. Andersen:
In _physics_, "time" _must_ be measurable.
The instrument we use to measure "time" is per definition a "clock".
So "proper time" is what we measure with clocks.
There is no alternative.
You are claiming that "time" can't be measure with a clock.
Please explain how you will measure time without using a clock.
===============================================================
Don't ignore this challenge!
Paul: You can measure time very accurately with a pendulum clock, but at
a different latitude, the gravity is different, so its rate is
different. Most other rates remain unchanged. Time did not change. Even
a child should understand and acknowledge this.
Paul: I'm sorry you cannot understand such a simple matter. My answers
were straightforward and to the point. Please try to understand.
"How do you measure time?" All methods have weaknesses. Try to consider
them.
Anyone can understand that every method of time reckoning, including
every type of clock, is imperfect for various reasons, and the accuracy
issue is only one.
A clock can be precise yet thrown off when nothing
else is. That's all you need to understand.
Anyone reading my comments can easily understand that if the rate of the clock changes, that doesn't mean any other rate of change on the
satellite changes. Then, time itself may not have changed. Where is your evidence that any other rate has changed on the satellite?
That the atomic clocks change with gravity doesn't prove time itself
changes.
That the atomic clocks change with gravity doesn't prove time itself
changes.
It will do no good for me to point out your misunderstandings, since I
am sure that it has already been explained to you countless times the distinction between gravitational force
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
"It is obviously ridiculous to claim that "time itself" changes
because a clock changes. Clocks used in satellites are always
atomic clocks with precision one to 1E15 or better.
They _never_ change their rate due to change of altitude
or speed or anything else-
For the umpteenth time:
Atomic clocks don't change with gravity.
Nothing affects the rate of a _proper_ clock. It always run at
it's proper rate, advancing one second per second.
"Time dilation" doesn't mean that a clock has changed its rate."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
According to the European Space Agency, atomic clocks run faster in
space: "Einstein’s principle details how gravity interferes with time
and space. One of its most interesting manifestations is time dilation
due to gravity. This effect has been proven by comparing clocks at
different altitudes such as on mountains, in valleys and in space.
Clocks at higher altitude show time passes faster with respect to a
clock on the Earth surface as there is less gravity from Earth the
farther you are from our planet." - https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Human_and_Robotic_Exploration/ Research/Clocks_gravity_and_the_limits_of_relativity
And: "The NIST experiments focused on two scenarios predicted by
Einstein's theories of relativity. First, when two clocks are subjected
to unequal gravitational forces due to their different elevations above
the surface of the Earth, the higher clock—experiencing a smaller gravitational force—runs faster." - https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale
I agree that it is obviously ridiculous to claim time itself changes
because a clock changes. However, the ESA does just this in the above
quote.
You lied when you said, "Atomic clocks don't change with gravity."
You lied when you said, "They _never_ change their rate due to change of altitude or speed or anything else-"
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 01:00:50 |
| Calls: | 10,385 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,057 |
| Messages: | 6,416,573 |