Education Forums
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 2:50 am Post subject: Time slowdown means a fastest time |
 |
|
"There is no absolute rest." Albert Einstein
This can mean that everything is moving in some way through space.
Relative rest is co motion of two objects moving together at the same
speed in the same direction.
If motion slows time than everything has a slower time because of it.
Also gravitation slows time. Both time slow downs in Einstein's GR and
SR slow time down from a fastest starting point or fastest ideal time.
Mitch Raemsch |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
tadchem
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 11:22 am Post subject: Re: Time slowdown means a fastest time |
|
|
On Jul 4, 10:50 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: |
"There is no absolute rest." Albert Einstein
This can mean that everything is moving in some way through space.
Relative rest is co motion of two objects moving together at the same
speed in the same direction.
If motion slows time than everything has a slower time because of it.
Also gravitation slows time. Both time slow downs in Einstein's GR and
SR slow time down from a fastest starting point or fastest ideal time.
Mitch Raemsch
|
"Time" has one rate: exactly 60 seconds per minute. There is no
instrument (clock) that can measure anything else.
The confusion arises because the measured rate is only valid in the
frame of reference of the clock. The flow of time is a local
phenomenon, as is acceleration.
Two clocks, in two different places, of course, each measure time in
their own local frame. These clocks may or may not be moving or
accelerated WRT each other. That is when GR must be used - to
*compare* the clocks to each other.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dante Alighieri
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 2:07 pm Post subject: Re: Time slowdown means a fastest time |
|
|
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 19:50:58 -0700 (PDT), mitch.nicolas.raemsch@gmail.com wrote:
**> "There is no absolute rest." Albert Einstein
**>
**> This can mean that everything is moving in some way through space.
**> Relative rest is co motion of two objects moving together at the same
**> speed in the same direction.
**>
**> If motion slows time than everything has a slower time because of it.
**> Also gravitation slows time. Both time slow downs in Einstein's GR and
**> SR slow time down from a fastest starting point or fastest ideal time.
**>
**> Mitch Raemsch
I stand facing due south at a distance from the north geographical pole
such that the longitudinal line I stand upon is a circle 24 feet in circumference.
You stand due geographical soutth at a point where the longitudinal line
you stand upon is a circle 96 feet in circumference.
Relative to each other we are motionless.
Relative to the earths geographical axis I travel at 1 foot per hour while you
are traveling at 4 feet per hour.
Our velocities relative to the sun is approx. 18 miles per second,
and we assign V to this value. We are close enough to the pole that
it virtually always "daylight", however,
you travel at V minus Y. Y = 0 at 6am, 4 feet per hour at "noon", 0 at 6pm,
and negative 4 feet per hour at 12 midnight,
while my velocity, V minus X, X = 0 at 6am, 1 foot per hour at "noon",
0 at 6pm, and negative 1 foot per hour at 12 midnight.
This simple formula is made more complex by the tilt of the earth's axis
relative to the sun.
For simplicity that has been disregarded in this discussion.
Relative to the sun, I travel faster than you half the 24 hour "day" and
slower than you the other half of the 24 hour "day at a varying rate.
However, at any given instant of time our velocities relative to the sun
are equal. Only if there is a time passing allowing a rate of change
to be calculated are our relative to the sun velocities different.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Androcles
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:22 pm Post subject: Re: Time slowdown means a fastest time |
|
|
"tadchem" <tadchem@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:43f567c9-ec7c-4e46-b7b2-98e8d21531ad@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 4, 10:50 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: |
"There is no absolute rest." Albert Einstein
This can mean that everything is moving in some way through space.
Relative rest is co motion of two objects moving together at the same
speed in the same direction.
If motion slows time than everything has a slower time because of it.
Also gravitation slows time. Both time slow downs in Einstein's GR and
SR slow time down from a fastest starting point or fastest ideal time.
Mitch Raemsch
|
"Time" has one rate: exactly 60 seconds per minute. There is no
instrument (clock) that can measure anything else.
The confusion arises because the measured rate is only valid in the
frame of reference of the clock. The flow of time is a local
phenomenon, as is acceleration.
===========================================
BALONEY, time is a UNIVERSAL phenomenon.
===========================================
Two clocks, in two different places, of course, each measure time in
their own local frame.
===========================================
More baloney.
===========================================
These clocks may or may not be moving or
accelerated WRT each other. That is when GR must be used - to
*compare* the clocks to each other.
===========================================
Absolute NONSENSE!
A year is one revolution of the Earth around the Sun.
A year is one revolution of the Moon around the Sun.
According to the GR crackpots, the time on the Moon
does not equal the time on Earth.
After one million years (or a billion), what is the angular
separation between Moon and Earth with Sun at apex?
You've lost your marbles, Davidson. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 6:32 pm Post subject: Re: Time slowdown means a fastest time |
|
|
On Jul 5, 7:46 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
John C. Polasek wrote:
Acceleration does not affect clock rate, only gravity does.
Consequently, the principle of equivalence is false. Gravity cannot be
replaced by acceleration specifically because of this clock rate
effect. Hasn't this been tested to 18000 gees?
John Polasek
The principle of equivalence is false????
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Time_dilation_at_constant_...
|
Acceleration slows time speed keeps it there.
Mitch Raemsch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John C. Polasek
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 8:26 pm Post subject: Re: Time slowdown means a fastest time |
|
|
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 04:22:14 -0700 (PDT), tadchem <tadchem@comcast.net>
wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 4, 10:50 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote:
"There is no absolute rest." Albert Einstein
This can mean that everything is moving in some way through space.
Relative rest is co motion of two objects moving together at the same
speed in the same direction.
If motion slows time than everything has a slower time because of it.
Also gravitation slows time. Both time slow downs in Einstein's GR and
SR slow time down from a fastest starting point or fastest ideal time.
Mitch Raemsch
"Time" has one rate: exactly 60 seconds per minute. There is no
instrument (clock) that can measure anything else.
The confusion arises because the measured rate is only valid in the
frame of reference of the clock. The flow of time is a local
phenomenon, as is acceleration.
Two clocks, in two different places, of course, each measure time in
their own local frame. These clocks may or may not be moving or
accelerated WRT each other. That is when GR must be used - to
*compare* the clocks to each other.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Acceleration does not affect clock rate, only gravity does. |
Consequently, the principle of equivalence is false. Gravity cannot be
replaced by acceleration specifically because of this clock rate
effect. Hasn't this been tested to 18000 gees?
John Polasek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 8:38 pm Post subject: Re: Time slowdown means a fastest time |
|
|
John C. Polasek wrote:
| Quote: |
Acceleration does not affect clock rate, only gravity does.
|
Actually acceleration does effect clock rate.
It is also an ancient problem and both acceleration and gravity
changes are g-force related.
| Quote: |
Consequently, the principle of equivalence is false. Gravity cannot be
replaced by acceleration specifically because of this clock rate
effect. Hasn't this been tested to 18000 gees?
|
Don't know about that many G's.
but it has been tested but for some reason relativists won't let
you call gravity a force even though it is.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Androcles
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 8:43 pm Post subject: Re: Time slowdown means a fastest time |
|
|
"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:gf4v64tsmjborg6gd6p137d89ag1ckcjdf@4ax.com...
| On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 04:22:14 -0700 (PDT), tadchem <tadchem@comcast.net>
| wrote:
|
| >On Jul 4, 10:50 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote:
| >> "There is no absolute rest." Albert Einstein
| >>
| >> This can mean that everything is moving in some way through space.
| >> Relative rest is co motion of two objects moving together at the same
| >> speed in the same direction.
| >>
| >> If motion slows time than everything has a slower time because of it.
| >> Also gravitation slows time. Both time slow downs in Einstein's GR and
| >> SR slow time down from a fastest starting point or fastest ideal time.
| >>
| >> Mitch Raemsch
| >
| >"Time" has one rate: exactly 60 seconds per minute. There is no
| >instrument (clock) that can measure anything else.
| >
| >The confusion arises because the measured rate is only valid in the
| >frame of reference of the clock. The flow of time is a local
| >phenomenon, as is acceleration.
| >
| >Two clocks, in two different places, of course, each measure time in
| >their own local frame. These clocks may or may not be moving or
| >accelerated WRT each other. That is when GR must be used - to
| >*compare* the clocks to each other.
| >
| >Tom Davidson
| >Richmond, VA
| Acceleration does not affect clock rate, only gravity does.
| Consequently, the principle of equivalence is false. Gravity cannot be
| replaced by acceleration specifically because of this clock rate
| effect. Hasn't this been tested to 18000 gees?
| John Polasek
1 gee: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/images/ency/fullsize/9360.jpg
18,000 gees: http://www.hammermuseum.org/images/big_hammer.jpg |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sam Wormley
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 8:46 pm Post subject: Re: Time slowdown means a fastest time |
|
|
John C. Polasek wrote:
| Quote: |
Acceleration does not affect clock rate, only gravity does.
Consequently, the principle of equivalence is false. Gravity cannot be
replaced by acceleration specifically because of this clock rate
effect. Hasn't this been tested to 18000 gees?
John Polasek
|
The principle of equivalence is false????
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Time_dilation_at_constant_acceleration |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 8:48 pm Post subject: Re: Time slowdown means a fastest time |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
| Quote: |
John C. Polasek wrote:
Acceleration does not affect clock rate, only gravity does.
Consequently, the principle of equivalence is false. Gravity cannot
be replaced by acceleration specifically because of this clock rate
effect. Hasn't this been tested to 18000 gees?
John Polasek
The principle of equivalence is false????
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Time_dilation_at_constant_acceleration |
Actually no,
The equivelance principle is not false,
Stating that a malfunctioning clock is keeping "proper" time is what is
false.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John C. Polasek
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 12:01 am Post subject: Re: Time slowdown means a fastest time |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 15:46:44 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
John C. Polasek wrote:
Acceleration does not affect clock rate, only gravity does.
Consequently, the principle of equivalence is false. Gravity cannot be
replaced by acceleration specifically because of this clock rate
effect. Hasn't this been tested to 18000 gees?
John Polasek
The principle of equivalence is false????
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Time_dilation_at_constant_acceleration (TDACA)
The TDACA reference you gave has an unbelievably convoluted formula |
that does not bear on the principle of equivalence from general
relativity. It is a melange of Lorentz transforms with a strictly
geometric basis.
We would all appreciate it if you would show how to correlate the
acceleration term 'g' in that formula with its equivalent in GR.
In GR
dtau/dt = sqrt(-g00) = sqrt(1-MG/rc^2)
Your TDA reference effectively computes velocity as gt but which is
further corrupted by abstruse terms:
v = gt + 1/gc*sqrt(v2c2 + x2g2 etc. etc.)
If valid, it should be possible to equivocate the two expressions, but
I think even cursosry examination will indicate that such would not be
possible. Furthermore the need for such arcane algebra raises the
suspicion that TDA qualifies more for necromancy than science.
There is a reason for gravity and its reduction of c, and time
dilation is not in it. Minkowski, with no one to answer to, just
thought it was a good idea.
How to explain in a newsgroup email?
In Dual Space theory I know that where the earth exists as a mass,
that mass was taken from pairspace, leaving pairspace deprived and
with strains that are the cause of gravity. The governing equation is
cdc/dr = dc^2/2/dr = MG/r^2
so that dc/dr = MG/r^2c and that the speed of light increases
out of the well by (if h = 22.5m as in Pound Rebka), then
Dc = MGh/r^2c = gh/c = 7.4e-7 m/s, or fractionally
%c = gh/c^2 = 2.4 e-15 as is widely quoted.
It is c that speeds up out of a well and does what time dilation
claims. Nobody dilates God's time.
c and clocks are both lower in the well because of mass deprivation,,
so Lambda is the same in and out, but stretches on the way out. The
frequency started low and stays low.
John Polasek
: |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Mitch Raemsch
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 11:33 pm Post subject: Re: Time slowdown means a fastest time |
|
|
On Jul 5, 11:01 am, John C. Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 15:46:44 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com
wrote:
John C. Polasek wrote:
Acceleration does not affect clock rate, only gravity does.
Consequently, the principle of equivalence is false. Gravity cannot be
replaced by acceleration specifically because of this clock rate
effect. Hasn't this been tested to 18000 gees?
John Polasek
The principle of equivalence is false????
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Time_dilation_at_constant_...(TDACA)
The TDACA reference you gave has an unbelievably convoluted formula
that does not bear on the principle of equivalence from general
relativity. It is a melange of Lorentz transforms with a strictly
geometric basis.
We would all appreciate it if you would show how to correlate the
acceleration term 'g' in that formula with its equivalent in GR.
In GR
dtau/dt = sqrt(-g00) = sqrt(1-MG/rc^2)
Your TDA reference effectively computes velocity as gt but which is
further corrupted by abstruse terms:
v = gt + 1/gc*sqrt(v2c2 + x2g2 etc. etc.)
If valid, it should be possible to equivocate the two expressions, but
I think even cursosry examination will indicate that such would not be
possible. Furthermore the need for such arcane algebra raises the
suspicion that TDA qualifies more for necromancy than science.
There is a reason for gravity and its reduction of c, and time
dilation is not in it. Minkowski, with no one to answer to, just
thought it was a good idea.
How to explain in a newsgroup email?
In Dual Space theory I know that where the earth exists as a mass,
that mass was taken from pairspace, leaving pairspace deprived and
with strains that are the cause of gravity. The governing equation is
cdc/dr = dc^2/2/dr = MG/r^2
so that dc/dr = MG/r^2c and that the speed of light increases
out of the well by (if h = 22.5m as in Pound Rebka), then
Dc = MGh/r^2c = gh/c = 7.4e-7 m/s, or fractionally
%c = gh/c^2 = 2.4 e-15 as is widely quoted.
It is c that speeds up out of a well and does what time dilation
claims. Nobody dilates God's time.
c and clocks are both lower in the well because of mass deprivation,,
so Lambda is the same in and out, but stretches on the way out. The
frequency started low and stays low.
John Polasek
:
|
Acceleration slows time by Gamma and speed keeps it there.
Mitch Raemsch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 5:34 am Post subject: Re: Time slowdown means a fastest time |
|
|
On Jul 5, 12:01 pm, John C. Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 15:46:44 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com
wrote:
John C. Polasek wrote:
Acceleration does not affect clock rate, only gravity does.
Consequently, the principle of equivalence is false. Gravity cannot be
replaced by acceleration specifically because of this clock rate
effect. Hasn't this been tested to 18000 gees?
John Polasek
|
Hi John
Dale wrote:Actually I used to think that by equalizing gravity's as by
for example the level where the the gravity between two planets
cancel, that time and or the speed of light would have returned to its
original speed.I even had it on my earlier web site that it would have
been as if no gravity was ever there to begin with and you get some
hypothetical faster than light experiments that became possible for
the inhabitants of such a high gravity world by using strings of tiny
black holes to equalize the gravity's then sending light signals
through that level. Believe its the L5 level.It was with a cute
cartoon too.
But later realized that this idea made no since.
Added point that later thoughts suggested that it might still be
possible. If we had relativistically falling equalizing gravity
sources.This suggested, at least on planets with high gravity's that
at least some sort of experiments with FTL communication was at least
in principle possible. This hypothesis looked at how black holes could
fall into each other without the time dilating effects slowing the
whole process down.Posted some gedankens rods made up of black holes
and why they would become stable to our prospective of time if and
only if the effects of gravity did not cancel the effects on the speed
of light or time.However these would be in free fall and not suspended
as if by hypothetical superstrings ;).
Dale
| Quote: |
The principle of equivalence is false????
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Time_dilation_at_constant_...(TDACA)
The TDACA reference you gave has an unbelievably convoluted formula
that does not bear on the principle of equivalence from general
relativity. It is a melange of Lorentz transforms with a strictly
geometric basis.
We would all appreciate it if you would show how to correlate the
acceleration term 'g' in that formula with its equivalent in GR.
In GR
dtau/dt = sqrt(-g00) = sqrt(1-MG/rc^2)
Your TDA reference effectively computes velocity as gt but which is
further corrupted by abstruse terms:
v = gt + 1/gc*sqrt(v2c2 + x2g2 etc. etc.)
If valid, it should be possible to equivocate the two expressions, but
I think even cursosry examination will indicate that such would not be
possible. Furthermore the need for such arcane algebra raises the
suspicion that TDA qualifies more for necromancy than science.
There is a reason for gravity and its reduction of c, and time
dilation is not in it.
|
Dale wrote: How in the world could you slow light but not slow time.
Long ago I did some postings looking at a light clock and hypothesized
about what would happed if you slowed the speed of light but tried to
keep time unchanged.Clock would not keep the same time and you would
end up with a preferred frame of reference unless you also change
something else to preserve covariance.In other words if the matter the
clock was made to remained the same length the clocks time would
appear to slow down in relation to other clocks that kept time by
other means.
You say
| Quote: |
It is c that speeds up out of a well and does what time dilation
claims. Nobody dilates God's time.
c and clocks are both lower in the well because of mass >deprivation,,
|
How dose your idea of mass deprivation, work with the sped of light
being slower and do you mean time remaining the same.Try to keep it
simple for me not a lot of equations needed.
This is sort of important for this alternative theory I so commonly
post on.If you remember that theory looks at the way gravity slows
time and contracts matter in such a way that it also expands space.
Dale
Minkowski, with no one to answer to, just
| Quote: |
thought it was a good idea.
How to explain in a newsgroup email?
In Dual Space theory I know that where the earth exists as a mass,
that mass was taken from pairspace, leaving pairspace deprived and
with strains that are the cause of gravity. The governing equation is
cdc/dr = dc^2/2/dr = MG/r^2
so that dc/dr = MG/r^2c and that the speed of light increases
out of the well by (if h = 22.5m as in Pound Rebka), then
Dc = MGh/r^2c = gh/c = 7.4e-7 m/s, or fractionally
%c = gh/c^2 = 2.4 e-15 as is widely quoted.
It is c that speeds up out of a well and does what time dilation
claims. Nobody dilates God's time.
c and clocks are both lower in the well because of mass deprivation,,
so Lambda is the same in and out, but stretches on the way out. The
frequency started low and stays low.
John Polasek
: |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 5:35 am Post subject: Re: Time slowdown means a fastest time |
|
|
On Jul 5, 12:01 pm, John C. Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 15:46:44 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com
wrote:
John C. Polasek wrote:
Acceleration does not affect clock rate, only gravity does.
Consequently, the principle of equivalence is false. Gravity cannot be
replaced by acceleration specifically because of this clock rate
effect. Hasn't this been tested to 18000 gees?
John Polasek
|
Hi John
Dale wrote:Actually I used to think that by equalizing gravity's as by
for example the level where the the gravity between two planets
cancel, that time and or the speed of light would have returned to its
original speed.I even had it on my earlier web site that it would have
been as if no gravity was ever there to begin with and you get some
hypothetical faster than light experiments that became possible for
the inhabitants of such a high gravity world by using strings of tiny
black holes to equalize the gravity's then sending light signals
through that level. Believe its the L5 level.It was with a cute
cartoon too.
But later realized that this idea made no since.
Added point that later thoughts suggested that it might still be
possible. If we had relativistically falling equalizing gravity
sources.This suggested, at least on planets with high gravity's that
at least some sort of experiments with FTL communication was at least
in principle possible. This hypothesis looked at how black holes could
fall into each other without the time dilating effects slowing the
whole process down.Posted some gedankens rods made up of black holes
and why they would become stable to our prospective of time if and
only if the effects of gravity did not cancel the effects on the speed
of light or time.However these would be in free fall and not suspended
as if by hypothetical superstrings ;).
Dale
| Quote: |
The principle of equivalence is false????
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Time_dilation_at_constant_...(TDACA)
The TDACA reference you gave has an unbelievably convoluted formula
that does not bear on the principle of equivalence from general
relativity. It is a melange of Lorentz transforms with a strictly
geometric basis.
We would all appreciate it if you would show how to correlate the
acceleration term 'g' in that formula with its equivalent in GR.
In GR
dtau/dt = sqrt(-g00) = sqrt(1-MG/rc^2)
Your TDA reference effectively computes velocity as gt but which is
further corrupted by abstruse terms:
v = gt + 1/gc*sqrt(v2c2 + x2g2 etc. etc.)
If valid, it should be possible to equivocate the two expressions, but
I think even cursosry examination will indicate that such would not be
possible. Furthermore the need for such arcane algebra raises the
suspicion that TDA qualifies more for necromancy than science.
There is a reason for gravity and its reduction of c, and time
dilation is not in it.
|
Dale wrote: How in the world could you slow light but not slow time.
Long ago I did some postings looking at a light clock and hypothesized
about what would happed if you slowed the speed of light but tried to
keep time unchanged.Clock would not keep the same time and you would
end up with a preferred frame of reference unless you also change
something else to preserve covariance.In other words if the matter the
clock was made to remained the same length the clocks time would
appear to slow down in relation to other clocks that kept time by
other means.
You say
| Quote: |
It is c that speeds up out of a well and does what time dilation
claims. Nobody dilates God's time.
c and clocks are both lower in the well because of mass >deprivation,,
|
How dose your idea of mass deprivation, work with the sped of light
being slower and do you mean time remaining the same.Try to keep it
simple for me not a lot of equations needed.
This is sort of important for this alternative theory I so commonly
post on.If you remember that theory looks at the way gravity slows
time and contracts matter in such a way that it also expands space.
Dale
Minkowski, with no one to answer to, just
| Quote: |
thought it was a good idea.
How to explain in a newsgroup email?
In Dual Space theory I know that where the earth exists as a mass,
that mass was taken from pairspace, leaving pairspace deprived and
with strains that are the cause of gravity. The governing equation is
cdc/dr = dc^2/2/dr = MG/r^2
so that dc/dr = MG/r^2c and that the speed of light increases
out of the well by (if h = 22.5m as in Pound Rebka), then
Dc = MGh/r^2c = gh/c = 7.4e-7 m/s, or fractionally
%c = gh/c^2 = 2.4 e-15 as is widely quoted.
It is c that speeds up out of a well and does what time dilation
claims. Nobody dilates God's time.
c and clocks are both lower in the well because of mass deprivation,,
so Lambda is the same in and out, but stretches on the way out. The
frequency started low and stays low.
John Polasek
: |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 5:38 am Post subject: Re: Time slowdown means a fastest time |
|
|
On Jul 5, 12:01 pm, John C. Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 15:46:44 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com
wrote:
John C. Polasek wrote:
Acceleration does not affect clock rate, only gravity does.
Consequently, the principle of equivalence is false. Gravity cannot be
replaced by acceleration specifically because of this clock rate
effect. Hasn't this been tested to 18000 gees?
John Polasek
|
Hi John
Dale wrote:Actually I used to think that by equalizing gravity's as by
for example the level where the the gravity between two planets
cancel, that time and or the speed of light would have returned to its
original speed.I even had it on my earlier web site that it would have
been as if no gravity was ever there to begin with and you get some
hypothetical faster than light experiments that became possible for
the inhabitants of such a high gravity world by using strings of tiny
black holes to equalize the gravity's then sending light signals
through that level. Believe its the L5 level.It was with a cute
cartoon too.
But later realized that this idea made no since.
Added point that later thoughts suggested that it might still be
possible. If we had relativistically falling equalizing gravity
sources.This suggested, at least on planets with high gravity's that
at least some sort of experiments with FTL communication was at least
in principle possible. This hypothesis looked at how black holes could
fall into each other without the time dilating effects slowing the
whole process down.Posted some gedankens rods made up of black holes
and why they would become stable to our prospective of time if and
only if the effects of gravity did not cancel the effects on the speed
of light or time.However these would be in free fall and not suspended
as if by hypothetical superstrings ;).
Dale
| Quote: |
The principle of equivalence is false????
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Time_dilation_at_constant_...(TDACA)
The TDACA reference you gave has an unbelievably convoluted formula
that does not bear on the principle of equivalence from general
relativity. It is a melange of Lorentz transforms with a strictly
geometric basis.
We would all appreciate it if you would show how to correlate the
acceleration term 'g' in that formula with its equivalent in GR.
In GR
dtau/dt = sqrt(-g00) = sqrt(1-MG/rc^2)
Your TDA reference effectively computes velocity as gt but which is
further corrupted by abstruse terms:
v = gt + 1/gc*sqrt(v2c2 + x2g2 etc. etc.)
If valid, it should be possible to equivocate the two expressions, but
I think even cursosry examination will indicate that such would not be
possible. Furthermore the need for such arcane algebra raises the
suspicion that TDA qualifies more for necromancy than science.
There is a reason for gravity and its reduction of c, and time
dilation is not in it.
|
Dale wrote: How in the world could you slow light but not slow time.
Long ago I did some postings looking at a light clock and hypothesized
about what would happed if you slowed the speed of light but tried to
keep time unchanged.Clock would not keep the same time and you would
end up with a preferred frame of reference unless you also change
something else to preserve covariance.In other words if the matter the
clock was made to remained the same length the clocks time would
appear to slow down in relation to other clocks that kept time by
other means.
You say
| Quote: |
It is c that speeds up out of a well and does what time dilation
claims. Nobody dilates God's time.
c and clocks are both lower in the well because of mass >deprivation,,
|
How dose your idea of mass deprivation, work with the sped of light
being slower and do you mean time remaining the same.Try to keep it
simple for me not a lot of equations needed.
This is sort of important for this alternative theory I so commonly
post on.If you remember that theory looks at the way gravity slows
time and contracts matter in such a way that it also expands space.
Dale
Minkowski, with no one to answer to, just
| Quote: |
thought it was a good idea.
How to explain in a newsgroup email?
In Dual Space theory I know that where the earth exists as a mass,
that mass was taken from pairspace, leaving pairspace deprived and
with strains that are the cause of gravity. The governing equation is
cdc/dr = dc^2/2/dr = MG/r^2
so that dc/dr = MG/r^2c and that the speed of light increases
out of the well by (if h = 22.5m as in Pound Rebka), then
Dc = MGh/r^2c = gh/c = 7.4e-7 m/s, or fractionally
%c = gh/c^2 = 2.4 e-15 as is widely quoted.
It is c that speeds up out of a well and does what time dilation
claims. Nobody dilates God's time.
c and clocks are both lower in the well because of mass deprivation,,
so Lambda is the same in and out, but stretches on the way out. The
frequency started low and stays low.
John Polasek
: |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
97 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
