Randall Canham Posted February 12, 2019 Posted February 12, 2019 (edited) In physics we have consensus theories or proven rules of physics that are the same rules no matter where you are in the universe. Sometimes a consensus theory looks perfectly correct as Aristotle postulated but then Copernicus proved that the opposite is true. I will now prove this in relation to time in space as there is no 4th dimension. The big bang is a consensus theory opposed by creation of the universe by a god i will leave that decision totally to you and your beliefs I will endeavor to simply explain from the big bang theory. The universe is basically made of matter and energy. Since then all that material has been in perpetual motion in our universe of space. If I want to find the length width or height of an object or the distance between objects I just use a man made ruler to do this when the object/s are relatively stationary. If I want to measure the different forms of energy and their levels we just use the correct man made instrument. If I want to measure the duration of an object's motion I use a man made clock, whether the object is relatively stationary or relatively moving in space. A man made clock measures this duration with constantly accurate ticks . If I change the motion I will then change the rate of ticks counted by the clock no matter what type of clock you used. I will now use the pendulum clock to explain further. A pendulum clock's motion is the movement of a weight on a string - if you vary the length of the string you vary the number of ticks that clock counts thereby increasing or decreasing its ability to accurately time an exact earth second due to the consistent motion of the earth's rotation in space. All man made clocks whether quartz or atomic use the same principle - they count the number of consistent movements of some motion. We all know that gravity restricts the motion of all objects in the universe and that is what is making any man made clock to tick faster in orbit above earth as time is not a thing of the universe, it is just a concept. Therefore gravitional time dilation as Einsten predicted does not exist anywhere in the universe so you can never go forward or back in time as time is just a concept of man's making. I can also prove that time dilation due to velocity as predicted by Einstein is also wrong by using his own light clock that he designed to prove his theory. But I will leave that to another time as you have enough to consider at the moment. I would appreciate any feedback. Randall. Edited February 12, 2019 by Strange fixed formatting to make text more readable.
MigL Posted February 12, 2019 Posted February 12, 2019 Oh no, not another one. Just when I thought it was safe to come back to the Physics forum. You haven't really provided any evidence, just a simplistic statement that "gravity restricts the motion of all objects in the universe". That's pretty feeble compared to a century of testing, by the world's best minds, that GR has passed with flying colors. You were good until you got to the third line and started down the wrong path with "I will now prove...".
Endy0816 Posted February 12, 2019 Posted February 12, 2019 We have to adjust the GPS clocks to account for Time dilation so... If the Universe doesn't work like you think it must, it isn't the Universe that is wrong.
Randall Canham Posted February 12, 2019 Author Posted February 12, 2019 The gps system absolutely does work and I am not debating this fact. I am debating the reason as to why you have to adjust the clocks in orbit around earth as they do now. It is not gravitional time dilation but the physical effect gravity's lower field of force has on those orbiting clock's counting ability. This is because of the increase in the frequency of motion that is caused by the smaller gravitational field that orbiting clock is placed in, when compared to the identical clock on earth with a different gravitational force acting on it. Remember, energy cannot be created or destroyed. in other words, the clock in orbit runs faster, not because of gravitional time dilation, but because of a lower gravitional field exerted on the motion used in the clock. Therefore, the freqency of the clock's ticks on the orbiting satellite increase; the clock just counts faster in relation to its ticking count but fails to count at the same frequency as the identical clock on earth. The identical clock on earth is definitely in a higher gravitional field, so the clocks on earth count slower because they are in a higher gravitional field and therefore go slower. Remember, a clock just counts the number of ticks created by motion.The univerise does work this way as it has always done as it works on physics, not dilation of time.
beecee Posted February 12, 2019 Posted February 12, 2019 (edited) 6 hours ago, Randall Canham said: Therefore gravitional time dilation as Einsten predicted does not exist anywhere in the universe so you can never go forward or back in time as time is just a concept of man's making. I can also prove that time dilation due to velocity as predicted by Einstein is also wrong by using his own light clock that he designed to prove his theory. But I will leave that to another time as you have enough to consider at the moment. I would appreciate any feedback. Randall. Let me first address the delusions in your thread....That is the claim in your thread that you have, or will prove anything. You have made a number of statements, and somehow fooled yourself into believing that you have shown Time dilation and consequently SR as wrong. This is a public science forum, open to any Tom, Dick or Harry, or even Randal to say and claim whatever they like. Your first step to even come close to making reality of your delusions is knowing what the scientific method is, and what in entails. Your second step is to know thoroughly what you are talking about when you say you have/can prove it invalid. Your post appears ignorant on that front. Your third step is to understand that you have fooled no one on this forum, in relation to the delusions under which you have made this thread. Time dilation/Length contraction and consequently SR, are as close to certain, as any scientific theory allows. So far you have not changed a thing, and I dare say that will remain. 37 minutes ago, Randall Canham said: .Remember, a clock just counts the number of ticks created by motion.The univerise does work this way as it has always done as it works on physics, not dilation of time. A clock measures the duration between events and motion. Both occur in time and are not the cause of time. SR tells us that the onboard clocks on something in orbit, should measure time as running slower then clocks measuring time on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day. The ground clocks and the onboard clocks both appear to be ticking at 1 second per second from within each's own frame of reference. It is only when the comparisons are made that one realises that time dilation as per SR has taken place. Just as predicted by SR. That of course is just one example of many examples. http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html The following gives a good account of the GPS and error analysis that is taken into account, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System#Relativity extract: Relativity[edit] Satellite clocks are slowed by their orbital speed but sped up by their distance out of the Earth's gravitational well. A number of sources of error exist due to relativistic effects[15]that would render the system useless if uncorrected. Three relativistic effects are the time dilation, gravitational frequency shift, and eccentricity effects. Examples include the relativistic time slowing due to the speed of the satellite of about 1 part in 1010, the gravitational time dilation that makes a satellite run about 5 parts in 1010 faster than an Earth-based clock, and the Sagnac effect due to rotation relative to receivers on Earth. These topics are examined below, one at a time. much more at link....... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System#Relativity Edited February 12, 2019 by beecee
Ghideon Posted February 12, 2019 Posted February 12, 2019 6 hours ago, Randall Canham said: We all know that gravity restricts the motion of all objects in the universe and that is what is making any man made clock to tick faster in orbit above earth as time is not a thing of the universe, it is just a concept. So what happens when you use other means than man made clocks to verify time dilation? Muons, caused by the collision of cosmic rays with the upper atmosphere, experience time dilation as predicted by special relativity. If no time dilation exists, muons should decay in the upper regions of the atmosphere but as a consequence of time dilation they are present at much lower heights. More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_testing_of_time_dilation
Strange Posted February 12, 2019 Posted February 12, 2019 7 hours ago, Randall Canham said: The big bang is a consensus theory opposed by creation of the universe by a god i will leave that decision totally to you and your beliefs One possible conclusion from the Big Bang model is that the universe was created at time 0 so I don't see how this is contradictory to a belief in a god that created the universe. (But as that has nothing to do with science, we should ignore it really) 7 hours ago, Randall Canham said: All man made clocks whether quartz or atomic use the same principle - they count the number of consistent movements of some motion This is not true. In fact, the more accurate clocks are, the less movement is involved. 7 hours ago, Randall Canham said: We all know that gravity restricts the motion of all objects in the universe and that is what is making any man made clock to tick faster in orbit above earth as time is not a thing of the universe, it is just a concept. Therefore gravitional time dilation as Einsten predicted does not exist anywhere in the universe so you can never go forward or back in time as time is just a concept of man's making. We can measure gravitational time dilation here on Earth, so there is no doubt it is a real effect. 7 hours ago, Randall Canham said: I will now prove this in relation to time in space as there is no 4th dimension. You have not proved anything. You have just made a series of claims based on a serious lack of knowledge. 1 hour ago, Randall Canham said: It is not gravitional time dilation but the physical effect gravity's lower field of force has on those orbiting clock's counting ability. This is because of the increase in the frequency of motion that is caused by the smaller gravitational field that orbiting clock is placed in, when compared to the identical clock on earth with a different gravitational force acting on it. Gravitational time dilation is not caused by gravitational force. It is coursed by differences in gravitational potential. You could have two clocks both experiencing 1g (Earth gravity) but at different gravitational potential and therefore showing gravitational time dilation. 1 hour ago, Randall Canham said: Therefore, the freqency of the clock's ticks on the orbiting satellite increase; the clock just counts faster in relation to its ticking count but fails to count at the same frequency as the identical clock on earth. The identical clock on earth is definitely in a higher gravitional field, so the clocks on earth count slower because they are in a higher gravitional field and therefore go slower. Yes. This is what is called "gravitational time dilation". The thing you claim doesn't exist. If you want to argue that this is a "mechanical" effect caused by the difference in gravity then you need to show that all processes will be affected identically. Can you show, in mathematical detail, that the swing of a pendulum will be affected by exactly the same amount as an atomic clock (which does not involve and motion)? And that will be exactly the same amount as chemical reactions, atomic decay and every other process? No, I don't think so.
Randall Canham Posted February 12, 2019 Author Posted February 12, 2019 I am not tring to debate the math that has been used as if you use any math on an incorrect assumption you will always get an incorrect outcome. Aristotle made an incorect assumation about earth being the center of the universe which Copernicus showed to be an incorrect perspective of our actual reality approx 2000 years later. So what I am saying is time is not a part of the universe as Einstein theroizes, it is just a man made concept to explain relative motion in space whether an object that we can see is relatively stationary or relatively moving in space. Motion does exist and can be seen everywhere - you don't need any math to make it work, it is just nature at work. None of our human senses detect time as our major sensory organ - the eyes detect relative motion, whether stationary or moving. If time was such an important property of the universe, I believe evolution would have equipped us with a sense to detect it but this is not the case. Time just measures the duration of motion whether stationary or moving I can easily predict the relatively stationary motion of any non-biological object, eg the great pyrmads of Egypt, which have been relatively stationary on earth for approx 2500 years at least . I don't need a 4th dimension of time to find them in the future, just their gps position on earth or their latitude and longitude and height if I want to be at its apex. I could also meet my friend there in the future with no mention of a clock or time. All I have to do is say how many full rotations, ie motion of the earth spinning on its axis, there are and what fraction of a rotation of the earth is needed to meet on that day in the future. It would be easier to use a man made clock as this is what it easily does by measuring the duration of the earth's relative motion in space while we are stationary observers on the earth's surface. We devised this concept of time TO GIVE US UNDERSTANDING to the pepetuial moton observed by man on earth. Time is what I am debating, not any type of math, as time is just a man made concept as was earth when we thought it was the center of the universe.
swansont Posted February 12, 2019 Posted February 12, 2019 9 hours ago, Randall Canham said: If I want to measure the duration of an object's motion I use a man made clock, whether the object is relatively stationary or relatively moving in space. A man made clock measures this duration with constantly accurate ticks . If I change the motion I will then change the rate of ticks counted by the clock no matter what type of clock you used. There are measurements you can make using natural clocks. Carbon dating, for example. Quote All man made clocks whether quartz or atomic use the same principle - they count the number of consistent movements of some motion. Not for atomic clocks. The notion of trajectories/motion doesn't really apply to a spin flip of an electron. Quote We all know that gravity restricts the motion of all objects in the universe and that is what is making any man made clock to tick faster in orbit above earth as time is not a thing of the universe, it is just a concept. Therefore gravitional time dilation as Einsten predicted does not exist anywhere in the universe so you can never go forward or back in time as time is just a concept of man's making. Gravitational time dilation has been measured, thus it is safe to say the phenomenon exists. It is not a mechanical effect that changes the workings of a clock.
Randall Canham Posted February 12, 2019 Author Posted February 12, 2019 I will atempt to basically explain how a quartz clock works Inside a quartz clock the battery sends the electricity to a quartz cystal through an electric circuit. The quartz cystal oscillates (vibrates back and forth, in other words it works on motion ) as is well known at a precise frequency of 32,718 times per one duration of an earth second at 1 G on earth's surface. The clock just counts those 32,718 frequencies of motion of the quartz cyrstal to obtain a one second earth duration at 1 G. Clocks just count accurately but must be at the same relative gravitational force to show the same count. An atomic also just counts as do all clocks. As the frequency of motion is far greater over 9 billion per earth second, it will still run in unison with a quartz clock at the same relative gravitational force. As the motion is less in an atomic clock than a quartz clock, its motion is affected less proportionally.
Ghideon Posted February 12, 2019 Posted February 12, 2019 1 hour ago, Randall Canham said: Time is what I am debating, not any type of math, as time is just a man made concept as was earth when we thought it was the center of the universe. So what is your analysis of the counter example I posted? The muons are not man made and they have no knowledge of any human concepts. Yet they are affected by time dilation as predicated by special relativity. 1 hour ago, Randall Canham said: I don't need a 4th dimension of time to find them in the future, just their gps position on earth or their latitude and longitude and height if I want to be at its apex. When you use a GPS you rely on mathematics models that take 4th dimension into account. 1 hour ago, Randall Canham said: if you use any math on an incorrect assumption you will always get an incorrect outcome. I think the opposite is valid as well; If you dismiss math on an incorrect assumption you will always get an incorrect outcome.
Strange Posted February 12, 2019 Posted February 12, 2019 1 hour ago, Randall Canham said: I am not tring to debate the math that has been used as if you use any math on an incorrect assumption you will always get an incorrect outcome. But the math (ie the scientific theory) gets the correct result. All you have is baseless claims it is wrong. You need to provide some evidence. 1 hour ago, Randall Canham said: None of our human senses detect time as our major sensory organ - the eyes detect relative motion, whether stationary or moving. We have internal clocks that measure time. You need to stop making baseless (and incorrect) claims and provide some evidence. 1 hour ago, Randall Canham said: I don't need a 4th dimension of time to find them in the future, just their gps position on earth or their latitude and longitude and height if I want to be at its apex. I could also meet my friend there in the future with no mention of a clock or time. If you want to meet your friend there then you will need to specify the time. If you are going to make false statements like this, there isn’t much hope for this thread. 1 hour ago, Randall Canham said: All I have to do is say how many full rotations, ie motion of the earth spinning on its axis, there are and what fraction of a rotation of the earth is needed to meet on that day in the future. In other words, a crude way of specifying the time. So you admit you were wrong. 1 hour ago, Randall Canham said: time is just a man made concept Are you saying that the universe sprang into existence with the appearance of being 14 billion years old when mankind appeared? It seems more rational to think the universe existed and evolved for 14 billion years as the evidence shows.
studiot Posted February 12, 2019 Posted February 12, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Randall Canham said: None of our human senses detect time as our major sensory organ - You are trying to make your wishful thinking fit the facts. Further you are clearly not a woman. Other examples of our senses failing to sense interaction between body and environment are such things as not feeling the ground as you walk or the air rushing in and out of our lungs. There are many subtle 'measurements' made by out bodies about interactions with our environment and what is going on inside us. This includes a sense of time. Have you heard of Biorhythms? Why do your stomach juices start to flow just beofore a regular dinner time? Talking of regular measurements of time. So many 'free thinkers' start with this basic mistake. 10 hours ago, Randall Canham said: All man made clocks .................they count the number of consistent movements of some motion. No early clock possessed a consistent movement. Obviously regular consistency is desirable but; It took literally thousands of years of progress before Harrison achieved the first clock that could be described as regular or consistent. Edited February 12, 2019 by studiot
Strange Posted February 12, 2019 Posted February 12, 2019 33 minutes ago, Randall Canham said: As the motion is less in an atomic clock than a quartz clock, its motion is affected less proportionally. Ignoring the fact that you have just been told, by someone with some expertise, that this is not true of atomic clocks... You claim that different types of clock will be affected differently by gravity: do you have any EVIDENCE of this?
Eise Posted February 12, 2019 Posted February 12, 2019 4 hours ago, Randall Canham said: The gps system absolutely does work and I am not debating this fact. 3 hours ago, Randall Canham said: in other words, the clock in orbit runs faster, not because of gravitional time dilation, but because of a lower gravitional field exerted on the motion used in the clock. Imagine a stationary pendulum clock on a big distance of the earth. As it is farther from earth, gravitation is less than on the surface. Questions for you: - does it run faster or slower than the same clock on earth? - what does general relativity predict? Faster or slower? - Does that fit with the fact that GPS works? Now it is even worse: GPS satellites are not stationary, they orbit the earth freely, i.e. they are in free fall around the earth. This means everything on board is weightless, as if there is no gravity at all Questions for you: - does the pendulum clock work? Or does it stand still - if nothing on board points to the fact that there is gravity, why do we still need to compensate for gravitational time dilation?
Endy0816 Posted February 12, 2019 Posted February 12, 2019 4 hours ago, Randall Canham said: The gps system absolutely does work and I am not debating this fact. I am debating the reason as to why you have to adjust the clocks in orbit around earth as they do now. It is not gravitional time dilation but the physical effect gravity's lower field of force has on those orbiting clock's counting ability. This is because of the increase in the frequency of motion that is caused by the smaller gravitational field that orbiting clock is placed in, when compared to the identical clock on earth with a different gravitational force acting on it. Remember, energy cannot be created or destroyed. in other words, the clock in orbit runs faster, not because of gravitional time dilation, but because of a lower gravitional field exerted on the motion used in the clock. Therefore, the freqency of the clock's ticks on the orbiting satellite increase; the clock just counts faster in relation to its ticking count but fails to count at the same frequency as the identical clock on earth. The identical clock on earth is definitely in a higher gravitional field, so the clocks on earth count slower because they are in a higher gravitional field and therefore go slower. Remember, a clock just counts the number of ticks created by motion.The univerise does work this way as it has always done as it works on physics, not dilation of time. If you travel a shorter route you measure a lower value. The clocks are working correctly. Clocks measure time passing. Naturally if less time passes in their frame they record that. Has also been shown with natural muons.
Randall Canham Posted February 12, 2019 Author Posted February 12, 2019 Thanks for all the effort in your replies. But nobody has yet proved my theory of space time incorrect. My revolutionary theory goes to the heart of time and what it does and exactly what it actually measures in the universe. We seem to be side-tracked at the moment about all other things except what time does in our universe which is what I am trying to get across, without to much success at the moment. I will now restate my theory on how time works in the universe. Time only measures the duration of any matter or energy or conbination of matter and energy that is relatively stationary or relatively moving with respect to another object in space, using an instrument called a clock. This clock, in turn, measures a duration with a standard earth second. So that is what I am proposing in my theory - nothing else is implied or inferred at the moment. I now need to prove to you how my revolutionary theory works. I will now list a series of basic proofs which must be true/false or the best concensus theory at this point in time. If you disagree with any of my points, please note it in your reply with a reason as to why that statement is incorrect. Not that you just don't agree, prove it, as you also have to prove your statements. I will now prove how time works in my universe from the big bang until now and into the future. 1 The universe started from the big bang - consensus theory. 2 The universe is made up of matter and energy - consensus theory 3 Fom the time of the big bang, all matter and energy has been in motion in space - True 4 All objects in the universe are relatively stationary or are moving relative to each other - True 5 No object in the universe is absolutely stationary, True 6 So how does man measure the relative motion that has passed from the big bang until now? He uses the motion of the earth to establish the length of the duration of one orbit of the sun, which then establishes frequency of a year in earth's orbit around the sun, to end up with a frequency of approx 13.8 billion years old. - True 7 To decide who wins a 100 meter race you see who crosses the fixed finish line first in the shortest duration. In other words, the person with the fastest motion over that set distance wins - True 8 To decide how long the Sydney Harbour bridge has been relatively stationary, you just need to establish when it was opened until now, by establishing the exact duration that it has been relatively stationary for - True 9 If all of your answers are the same as mine, then my theory holds up. 10 If you now have some theory about how time works in the universe, I would love to read it. I also expect proof as to how time works in your universe . Up until now, noboby has established the definitive proof of what time is or does in the universe - True Please don't just recite the theory of time dilation as I understand how it supposedly works or give math formula to explain the theory about how time really works. I understand that if your explanation about how time works is correct, then time dilation is a fact. I now need someone to explain time to me without referring to any type of time dilation. I would like an answer to these following questions. When you were going through the motion of typing a reply to me yesterday, explain where that past time you went through has gone to ? Saying it is now in the past is not an answer. Where has your universe's time gone? You need to explain this and right back to the beginning of time in your universe. Ques. Do you live in just a now time in your universe? Please explain how that works. Ques. Why can't you just touch your future time, when it is only 1 nano second in front of you right now? Please explain how this time evasion of your theory will always elude you forever and forever as long as your universe lasts. Ques. Where does your universe's time go when it is not being dilated? My universe does not have any of your unanswerable questions in relation to time as time in my theory is just a man made concept which uses an instrument called a clock to measure relative motion. True Please, if you still think your notion of how time works in your universe is still correct, please prove your theory for all, by simlpy giving answers to my previous questions about how you think your time works. There can only be one correct theory about how time actually works. So we all could still be wrong and the answer is still out there. Would appreciate any comments with respect to what I have said above.
Endy0816 Posted February 13, 2019 Posted February 13, 2019 Anything new is assumed incorrect until proven otherwise and you haven't done so. It isn't on Science to disprove your hypothesis. More muons arrive to the surface of Earth from the upper atmosphere than their half-life should allow. Explain that. Relativity can. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/muon.html you need to be able to match that and the other evidence for it and then do it one better. If all you can do is predict the same things that isn't useful. Might as well stick with what we have. More generally the Big Bang simply means the Universe is going from a hot dense state to a less dense state. We don't know how it got to be in a hot dense state so logically it could have been the deity of your choice. Science does have to base things on evidence though. There's not some set amount of time or distance in the first place. It doesn't have to go anywhere. Your clock counts a number of divisions or increments. If there are fewer of those then logically your clock will reflect that fact. There are clocks that don't rely on motion. Rather they count alternating amounts. You can do meters / (meters/second) or you can just do 1/(1/second) and obtain time either way.
swansont Posted February 13, 2019 Posted February 13, 2019 16 hours ago, Randall Canham said: The gps system absolutely does work and I am not debating this fact. I am debating the reason as to why you have to adjust the clocks in orbit around earth as they do now. It is not gravitional time dilation but the physical effect gravity's lower field of force has on those orbiting clock's counting ability. This is because of the increase in the frequency of motion that is caused by the smaller gravitational field that orbiting clock is placed in, when compared to the identical clock on earth with a different gravitational force acting on it. Remember, energy cannot be created or destroyed. The change in frequency does not scale with thr firce. 16 hours ago, Randall Canham said: in other words, the clock in orbit runs faster, not because of gravitional time dilation, but because of a lower gravitional field exerted on the motion used in the clock. Yu are using field, force and energy almost interchangeably, and they are distinct things. One reason why having equations is important. (Another is that you can make quantifiable predictions) 32 minutes ago, Randall Canham said: Thanks for all the effort in your replies. But nobody has yet proved my theory of space time incorrect. You don’t have a theory. A theory would include a mathematical model, and a comparison of data with predictions. And it’s up to you to defend it, and provide evidence for it. We might be able to show it’s wrong, but you don’t actually make testable, specific predictions. Vague yes/no “predictions” are insufficient.
Randall Canham Posted February 13, 2019 Author Posted February 13, 2019 Eise I appreciate your reply so I will address your first question only at this point in time to the best of my ability. Your question, does a pendulum clock at a distance from earth run faster or slower than the same pendulum clock on earth. I have now chosen the moon as we all see and understand it, as my point of reference and this is the placement position of one of the clocks. I have chosen a position on earth where the gravitational force is equal to 1 G so please decide where that actual point is that suits any of your theories on how you believe it should be done exactly. If I don't say it like this there will be others explaining to me that I have automatically failed as I didn't get the absolute position correct, thereby just missing the whole point of my explanation to you. The type of pendulum clock that I am using in both positions is a simple wind up spring type so all the relevant physics involved in this process can be easily understood. Obviously exactly the same type of clock from the same factory and have been tested side by side for their ability to keep consistent time with each other. It has been proven that the gravity is approximately 1/6 th of what is here on earth if that amount of difference is wrong use whatever fraction you want but you must keep it real as we have seen how much more an astronaut can jump on the moon even with all his gear on. You will now have to use a bit of imagination when I say that one of those pendulum clocks was put on the moon's surface instanainally in a fully wound up state. I know that this is impossible but now you can not bring any other irrelevant ideas in to explain away that clocks workings. The image of the clock on the moon is captured by video camera and the image is then relayed directly to you here on earth wherever you have put your earth clock so you can easily see if any irregularities in their counting abilities arise. This is a thought experiment of mine. Remember Einstein also used thought experiments IE . Light clock. It is a proven fact of physics ,that the clock on the moon, will run slower than the same clock that you are in front of on earth and you would see that happen before you eyes. So Einstein and I must be totally wrong , as we both totally agree that a clock in orbit aronnd the earth goes faster but I only disagree with his theory as to why this happens,as you do with my theory explaining time, as it only measures an objects relative motion by duration,using a clock. As by numerous experiments and visual conformation, clocks do tick at a faster rate in orbit to what the same clock does on earth. Therefore they need to vary that rate of ticking / frequency whatever in the orbiting clock so the G P S system works in our real world. So why does a pendulum do the reverse. Once you start the pendulum clock, the wound up spring keeps the pendulum in (motion ), this motion is less in a higher gravitational field, in other words its arc of motion is reduced thereby making the pendulum clock tick faster under the energy contained in the spring which keeps its pendulum in motion. Or it would work by perpetual motion. I believe that I have now answered your first question and also your second question as how does a pendulum clock works in relation to Einsten theory. Maybe their are other types of clocks that do a similar things to a pendulum clock but that not the point here. I hope that clears it up for you . I will await your reply to my long explanation , and any problems you might have with it. Thanks for your interest.
Randall Canham Posted February 13, 2019 Author Posted February 13, 2019 Endy 0816 You stated that (science does not have to base things on evidence ) so i should not have to base my theory on any evidence at all in your opinion. But l believe , I must do so, as without any evidence to back any theory not just mine, everything you say is then meaningless. I have no idea about muons but have heard of them. My theory is not about muons it is about time and how it works or what it does as I have suggested. You also stated that (there's not some set amount of time or space in the first place.) I never even suggest this, but I believe what you are saying to be true. But the universe did I believe start with a finite anount of matter an energy remember engery can now not be created or destroyed. I didnt just make that statement up someone who is a lot smartet than me did. Maybe you know who the author is and can let me know. We can all keep on using the same old theory to solve a problem because it gives the same answer as the new theory does in relation to gravity but you then miss the new opportunities provided by the new theory. It seems to me like sticking your head in the sand. Arn't we really lucky copernicus didn't just do that otherwise we would still be at the center of the universe. I can now understand his position when trying to explain a new idea. Thanks for your reply, maybe think about my time theory as motion is everywhere, in the universe and we all measure that relative motion with duration, by simply using a clock which has a freqency of a one second duration, or does man uses some other method that I dont know about to do this?
beecee Posted February 13, 2019 Posted February 13, 2019 (edited) 6 hours ago, Randall Canham said: Thanks for all the effort in your replies. But nobody has yet proved my theory of space time incorrect. Three things first up....science does not prove anything. It constructs models/theories that best match our observational data, and can if necessary be modified, added to or superseded. A theory is literally the top rung, other then of course laws and principals. Secondly you don't have atheory...you have a hypothetical...Thirdly, the onus is on you to show the incumbent model as invalid, or show your hypothetical as better predicting what we observe. eg: Just as GR did with the limitations of Newtonian mechanics with relation to not being able to explain the precession of the equinox of Mercury. Quote So what I am saying is time is not a part of the universe as Einstein theroizes, it is just a man made concept to explain relative motion in space whether an object that we can see is relatively stationary or relatively moving in space. No, time certainly exists, as has been explained to you. Motion occurs in time, while clocks simply measure the time that has passed. Quote 1 The universe started from the big bang - consensus theory. 2 The universe is made up of matter and energy - consensus theory You do accept that they are "the consensus theory" because the overwhelming weight of evidence supports them? Quote All man made clocks whether quartz or atomic use the same principle - they count the number of consistent movements of some motion. We all know that gravity restricts the motion of all objects in the universe and that is what is making any man made clock to tick faster in orbit above earth as time is not a thing of the universe, it is just a concept. All observers in all frames of references, measure time passing at one second per second. It is only when comparisons are made, or a particular frame, returns to a former frame that discrepencies will exist. Quote Time is what I am debating, not any type of math, as time is just a man made concept as was earth when we thought it was the center of the universe. Time is not just a man made concept. Time exists and is related to space, both being created at the BB, although in some unknown concept before t+10-43 seconds. Quote I have no idea about muons but have heard of them. My theory is not about muons it is about time and how it works or what it does as I have suggested. That raises another point, that before you try and invalidate any theory, you should know that theory you are attempting to invalidate completely. Muons in the context mentioned, are more evidence of the validity of time dilation and length contraction is that aspect. S Quote o Einstein and I must be totally wrong , as we both totally agree that a clock in orbit aronnd the earth goes faster but I only disagree with his theory as to why this happens,as you do with my theory explaining time, as it only measures an objects relative motion by duration,using a clock. Einstein was mostly right including why these effects happen. He was not infallible though and what mistakes he did make [eg: assuming the universe was static and adding the CC] was humble enough to admit that. Edited February 13, 2019 by beecee 1
Endy0816 Posted February 13, 2019 Posted February 13, 2019 (edited) I stated the opposite... 5 hours ago, Endy0816 said: Science does have to base things on evidence though. If a deity did it though they too need to offer up some evidence. Muons are effectively a natural way to observe the passage of time and distance contracted at high fractions of c. If more last than would otherwise what explains that? 19 minutes ago, beecee said: That raises another point, that before you try and invalidate any theory, you should know that theory you are attempting to invalidate completely. Muons in the context mentioned, are more evidence of the validity of time dilation and length contraction is that aspect. Well said. +1 Edited February 13, 2019 by Endy0816
Randall Canham Posted February 13, 2019 Author Posted February 13, 2019 Endy0816 You have still not refuted my claim that time is just a basic measuring tool that even you must admit to using . To even just to establish a velocity. Or have you never used this method to do so. Obviously there may be other ways but that is not my point. Thanks
Mordred Posted February 13, 2019 Posted February 13, 2019 (edited) No the problem is that you are confusing the measuring tool to time. Time is simply an assignment to a property called rate of change. The tools we use to measure rates simply have regular intervals. They simply provide a scale of reference to the rate of change. They do not define the term time all this effort of clock comparisons has been absolutely pointless in defining time. The tools used to measure a quantity never defines the quantity being measured. for example a thermometer does not define what a temperature is or what causes temperature. Clocks do not define time nor does a ruler define the property of length. If a color changes at a given rate we could use that as a clock.... not all change requires motion, decay rates of particles for example which has been mentioned. ie muon decay... of course it would actually be nice to see the mathematics that can describe what we observe as time dilation under your model and see where it truly deviates from GR. Quite frankly no verbal argument no matter how accurate will overturn a predictive model (which requires mathematics). One requires the ability to test any model via its mathematics and then compares them to observation. 2 hours ago, Randall Canham said: I have no idea about muons but have heard of them. My theory is not about muons it is about time and how it works or what it does as I have suggested. Simply because your model cannot account for muons does not mean muons isn't a piece of evidence that time doesn't require mechanical components as a basis against your mechanical components of your clock analogies to motion. Arbitrarily ignoring other pieces of evidence that a theory may be wrong isn't going to fly. (though without the mathematics you don't even have a theory but nothing more than a hypothesis ) Not all clocks require a relation to motion to operate. For example the decay rates of atomic clocks. Another piece of evidence that time dilation occurs outside of clocks, is gravitational redshift... Edited February 13, 2019 by Mordred
Recommended Posts