mpc755

owl said, "Clocks keeping time at different rates is a different issue than asserting that "time itself" is an actual medium/entity which differes in each and every local inertia situation." Correct. Atomic clocks tick based upon the physical state of the space in which they exist.

The original poster stated, "Clocks keeping time at different rates is a different issue than asserting that "time itself" is an actual medium/entity which differes in each and every local inertia situation." The mainstream answer is that time does change. How is there supposed to be a conversation when the only accepted response is from the mainstream point of view when the question is posed "Clocks keeping time at different rates is a different issue than asserting that "time itself" is an actual medium/entity which differes in each and every local inertia situation" and the only allowed for response is the mainstream response which is "no its not" when the non-mainstream answer is, yes, you are correct, clocks keeping time at different rates IS a different issue than asserting the 'time itself' differs? Why even have a 'speculations' thread when you are not allowed to speculate on mainstream physics? Why even have a 'speculations' thread when any post having to do with speculations can only be responded with "That is incorrect because it is different than mainstream physics"? The whole point of the original post was to understand how clocks may be able to tick at different rates and how that might have nothing to do with time itself. The answer is easy, the rate at which atomic clocks tick is determined by the state of the physical space in which they exist. Your response is going to be, "that is not a mainstream response". Of course it isn't. That's the whole point. My response actually explains what occurs physically in nature to cause atomic clocks to tick at the rate they do.

If I could have deleted my post I would have.

Correct. When you move the clocks you are changing the state of the space in which they exist. Two previously synchronized clocks at rest with respect to the state of the space in which they exist will remain synchronized as long as they exist in the same state with respect to the state of the space in which they exist. If you move both clocks identically they will remain synchronized even though they are both now ticking at different rates then they had been previously because both clocks remain in the same state, with respect to one another, with respect to the state of the space in which they exist. If you start to move one clock and not the other, or if you move the two clocks at different speeds, even when gravity is identical, the clocks exist in space in different physical states and will no longer be synchronized. It is not time which is changing which is causing the clocks to tick at the rate they do. It is the physical state of the space in which the clocks exist which causes them to tick at the rate they do. In the following video starting at 1:00 you can see the physical state of the space as determined by its connections with the Earth and the state of the space in neighboring places.

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html "A prediction of General Relativity is that clocks closer to a massive object will seem to tick more slowly than those located further away (see the Black Holes lecture). They tick more slowly due to the increase in the force of gravity exerted towards and throughout the clock. If the physical parameters are identical. They are not. The clock in the airplane and the clock on the surface of the Earth do not exist in environments with all physical parameters identical. What is not identical is the force of gravity. Of course it is. The faster a clock moves with respect to the state of the space in which it exists in the slower the clock ticks. Einstein stated acceleration and gravity are one in the same. They both refer to the state of the space the matter exists in. There is no absolute frame of reference but the state of the space is determined by its connection with matter and the state of the space in neighboring places.

[update: Just re-read your thread more carefully and the death of a black hole spawning a universe is very different than my idea...] This is similar to my idea that the Universe, or the local universe we exist in, is a jet. Analogous to the polar jet of a black hole. The matter in the Universe can not account for the directionality of the galaxy clusters in the following: 'Mysterious Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Tracked Deeper into Universe' http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/releases/2010/10-023.html 'The clusters appear to be moving along a line extending from our solar system toward Centaurus/Hydra, but the direction of this motion is less certain. Evidence indicates that the clusters are headed outward along this path, away from Earth, but the team cannot yet rule out the opposite flow. "We detect motion along this axis, but right now our data cannot state as strongly as we'd like whether the clusters are coming or going," Kashlinsky said.' The article speculates it is some external mass pulling on the galaxy clusters. I think the clusters are headed along this path because the Universe is, or the local Universe we exist in is, a jet. Analogous to the polar jet of a black hole. There does not have to be a 'big bang' associated with this idea. If, as far as we are able to determine, the Universe always existed in this state it would still look like a 'big bang' because materials are continually being emitted into and expanding away from the Universal jet emission point. Think of the image in the following as part of an ongoing process: http://aether.lbl.gov/image_all.html

The force of gravity is not controlled and compensated for. You have two clocks on an airplane. They both tick at the same rate. You drop one of the clocks out the window of the airplane. The closer the clock gets to the Earth the greater the force of gravity exerted towards and throughout the clock the slower the clock ticks. If you cool the atomic clock to absolute zero and it begins to tick slower you understand time has not changed. You understand what occurred physically in nature to cause the atomic clock to tick slower. The force of gravity is no different.

There are two synchronized clocks on a boat in a tank of water. The rate the clocks tick is determined by the pressure exerted on them by the water. One of the clocks is dropped off the side of the boat. The deeper the clock drops the more pressure exerted on it by the water the slower it ticks. If you are unable or unwilling to understand water exists and insist it is time itself which is changing which is causing the clock to tick slower, are you correct? There are two synchronized atomic clocks on an airplane. The rate the clocks tick is determined by the force exerted on and throughout them by the aether. One of the clocks is dropped out a window of the airplane. The closer the clock gets to the surface of the Earth the more force exerted on and throughout it by the aether the slower it ticks. If you are unable or unwilling to understand aether exists and insist it is time itself which is changing which is causing the clock to tick slower, are you correct?

The absurdities here pertain to the lack of understanding where the Earth is located with respect to the Sun based on the distant stars is a more accurate clock than the rate at which an atomic clock ticks and the inability to understand the rate at which an atomic clock ticks is determined by the physical environment in which it exists. Not universally preferred position. A preferred position versus an atomic clock. The Earth 'ticks' according to the physical environment in which it exists. An atomic clock ticks based upon the physical environment in which it exists. An atomic clock is in a different physical environment in a GPS than it is on the Earth and ticks accordingly. The rate at which the atomic clock ticks changes because of the physical environment in which it exists. And what the confirmed laws of physics have determined is the rate at which an atomic clock ticks is determined by the physical environment in which it exists. The reason why light is determined to be 'c' in all frames of reference is because of the physical effects the environment has on the measuring devices. What physics mistakes as time as a dimension is the measurement of time is a physical process based on the environment in which the clock exists. A large planet swings by the Earth and pushes the Earth closer to the Sun. The Earth speeds up in its orbit. It now takes the Earth three months to complete one orbit of the Sun. Do you insist one year still passes for each orbit of the Sun by the Earth or do you understand what has occurred physically in nature to cause the Earth to change its physical behavior? Simply because you insist on not understanding what changes physically in nature to cause an atomic clock to tick at a different rate does not mean time has changed. And likewise, it is not time which is changing which is causing the atomic clock to tick at a different rate. It is the physical environment in which the clock exists which has changed which causes the atomic clock to change its physical behavior.

And that is exactly what the original poster is stating is incorrect. The rate at which an atomic clock ticks has nothing to do with time. The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is certainly not more accurate in terms of determining one year has passed than where the Earth is with respect to the Sun based upon the distant stars. An astronomer is on the ground and determines the location of the Earth with respect to the Sun based upon the distant stars. The astronomer gets into a spaceship which travels at incredible speeds around the Earth. The astronomer lands the spaceship, looks through a telescope, and determines the Earth is in the same location with respect to the Sun based upon the distant stars as they were at the start of the experiment and determines one year has passed. Is the astronomer correct? Of course they are. Only in the absurdity of mainstream physics is an atomic clock a more accurate time piece than where the Earth is with respect to the Sun based upon the distant stars. Another experiment is performed with an astronaut in a spaceship. This spaceship is circling the Earth at such a high rate of speed that the atomic clock on board the spaceship only ticks of one day has passed when a similar atomic clock on the Earth ticks off one year has passed. Do you really think only one day has passed for the astronaut on the spaceship? Do you really think if the astronaut does not drink any water while on the spaceship, where one year passes on the Earth, that the astronaut will survive? If you were the astronaut would you take enough water to last you more than a day or would you be certain that only one day would really pass simply because you are traveling at a very high rate of speed and the atomic clock you have with you implies only one day will pass? Are you so confident that only one day will actually pass for you while on the spaceship and not the 365 days which pass for everyone else on Earth that you would not bring any water at all?

An astronomer and an astronaut are in a spaceship traveling very fast around the Earth and the astronomer determines one year has passed based on the position of the Earth with respect to the Sun based on the distant stars then why is the atomic clock which has not yet clocked one years worth of ticks considered to be more accurate when in actuality it isn't? If there are a million people on the spaceship and they all determine one year has passed based upon the location of the Earth with respect to the Sun based upon the distant stars and one person insists one year has not yet passed because the atomic clock has not clocked a years worth of ticks who is correct? All that has to occur to correct the notion of time is to define a second correctly. The present definition is: http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter2/2-1/second.html "The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom." The more correct definition is: The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom at sea level. Since the astronaut knows they are not at sea level they will correct the rate at which their atomic clock ticks accordingly and after one year be in agreement with the other one million people on the spaceship that one year has passed.

Very good definition of gravity. The 'bulge' is the state of displacement of the universal electromagnetic field.

No.

No. The information must be erased in order for the interference patterns at D0 to be discerned. My test will provide evidence it is the exact opposite of what is presently [mis]understood to occur. My experiment will provide evidence the two interference patterns are being created at D0 regardless of what else occurs in the experiment. My experiment allows for the interference patterns at D0 to be discerned without anything being 'erased'. My experiment fundamentally changes physics.

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable" - Albert Einstein Einstein disagrees. What part of the test at the bottom of this post is a test of aether displacement are you unable to understand? What is it with the moderators who refuse to understand the test at the bottom of this post is a test of aether displacement? How does this work? You insist I propose an experiment which will provide evidence of aether displacement, which I do. And then you ignore the experiment. Are you insisting my experiment can not possibly be correct because it is different than the mainstream understanding of what occurs in similar experiments? Isn't that the whole point of asking me to provide an experiment is to provide evidence of my theory? That is exactly what I have done. AETHER DISPLACEMENT IS TESTABLE. All 'delayed choice quantum eraser' experiments are explained by understanding conservation of momentum and a moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. Following the explanation is an experiment which will provide evidence of aether displacement. Following this is an explanation of what will be derived for the offset between the galaxy clusters matter and their gravitational center which will provide evidence the galaxy clusters are moving with respect to the state of the aether. In the image on the right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experiment When the downconverted photon creates the photon pair, in order for there to be conservation of momentum, the original photons momentum is conserved. This means the photon pair have opposite polarizations. We will describe one of the photons as being the 'up' photon and the other photon as being the 'down' photon. One of the photons travels either the red or blue path towards D0 and the other photon travels either the red or blue path towards the prism. There are physical waves in the aether propagating both the red and blue paths. The aether waves propagating towards D0 interact with the lens and create interference prior to reaching D0. The aether waves create interference which alters the direction the photon travels prior to reaching D0. There are actually two interference patterns being created at D0. One associated with the 'up' photons when they arrive at D0 and the other interference pattern associated with the 'down' photons when they arrive at D0. Both 'up' and 'down' photons are reflected by BSa and arrive at D3. Since there is a single path towards D3 there is nothing for the wave in the aether to interfere with and there is no interference pattern and since it is not determined if it is an 'up' or 'down' photon being detected at D3 there is no way to distinguish between the photons arriving at D0 which interference pattern each photon belongs to. The same for photons reflected by BSb and arrive at D4. Photons which pass through BSa and are reflected by BSc and arrive at D1 are either 'up' or 'down' photons but not both. If 'up' photons arrive at D1 then 'down' photons arrive at D2. The opposite occurs for photons which pass through BSb. Photons which pass through BSa and pass through BSb and arrive at D1 are all either 'up' or 'down' photons. If all 'up' photons arrive at D1 then all 'down' photons arrive at D2. Since the physical waves in the aether traveling both the red and blue paths are combined prior to D1 and D2 the aether waves create interference which alters the direction the photon travels. Since all 'up' photons arrive at one of the detectors and all 'down' photons arrive at the other an interference pattern is created which reflects back to the interference both sets of photons are creating at D0. The following experiment will provide evidence of aether displacement: Instead of having a single beam splitter BSc have two beam splitters BSca and BScb. Have the photons reflected by mirror Ma interact with BSca and have the photons reflected by mirror Mb interact with BScb. Do not combine the red and blue paths. Have additional detectors D1a, D2a, D1b, and D2b. Have the photons reflected by and propagate through BSca be detected at D1a and D2a. Have the photons reflected by and propagate through BScb be detected at D1b and D2b. If you compare the photons detected at D1a and D1b with the photons detected at D0, the corresponding photons detected at D0 will form an interference pattern. If you compare the photons detected at D2a and D2b with the photons detected at D0, the corresponding photons detected at D0 will form an interference pattern. What is occurring is all 'up' photons are being detected at one pair of detectors, for example D1a and D1b, and all 'down' photons are being detected at the other pair of detectors, for example D2a and D2b. Interference patterns do not even need to be created in order to determine the interference patterns created at D0.