Time Travel to the future a Fact?

[Johnny5]

A GPS satellite clock on the ground does not run at the same rate as a "normal" clock - it has to be set to run slow' date=' because of the effects of time dilation and the change in the gravitational redshift. The kinetic term makes it run slow, the gravitational term makes it run fast. Because of the height of the orbit for GPS, ~20,000 km, the gravitational term "wins."

 

Once in orbit, the clock runs at the correct average rate - there are still small effects that require adjustment, and all clocks need to be periodically synchronized anyway, since no two clocks can remain synchronous. But the adjustments are small compared to the offset.[/quote']

 

Dumb questions coming.

 

You have two identical clocks, constructed in earth orbit, where force due to gravity is negligible. The clocks are constructed with great care, so as to tick at exactly the same rate to eight decimal place accuracy. They are digital clocks, and the unit is the second.

 

Then clock A is taken down to earth.

 

10 years pass according to clock A, when clock B is finally taken out of earth orbit, and brought down to earth.

 

The clocks are then compared.

 

Are the clocks still synchronous?

 

And if not, then what does each clock read?

[Johnny5]

When we find differences is the way clocks measure time' date=' why do we assume that it is time itself that has been altered, and not merely the clock? Is it impossible to think that perhaps there are physical circumstances whereby a clock would be induced record time at a different rate?

 

I am with you on this syntax, that is exactly what I think is happening. The internal parts are being affected, and so the interior functioning of the clock is being altered, so there must necessarily be a difference in clock readings. But not because time was altered, because the CLOCK was altered.

 

Yes, I am with you, if that is in fact what you really think.

[syntax252]

Because the clocks are protected from changes caused by environmental effects, the changes are what are predicted by theory, and it hasn't mattered what type of clock has been used. The effects have been seen in radioactive decay and in atomic clocks using different technologies and different elements.

But how does this prove that time itself changed?

 

You say that the clocks were protected from environmental affects, but obviousely they were not protected from weightlessness, nor were they protected from the effects of the speed of their orbit.

 

All I am saying is that things like radiation decay just might have another explaination besides time dialation.

 

When these clocks are brought back to Earth, which time frame are they in? Earth's or theirs? When and how did they revert back to an unchanged time frame?

[Hiya]

But how does this prove that time itself changed?

 

Atomic clocks measure oscillations in atoms... if every fundamental particle is slowed down by the same amount, then it cannot be perceived as anything else than time slowing down, as our conception of time is based on the speed which the earth orbits the sun, and therefore it is the rate of development of space. If everything is slowed down by the same amount of speed, then time is effectively slowed. It's true that conditions could affect radioactive decay, but the way any clock system is slowed by the same percentage suggests it is not just outside conditions.

 

More definitive, the fact that light travels relative to an observer at the same speed no matter what speed that observer is travelling at.. the only real way to explain that is time slowing down, when there is a 3rd party involved and the observer's speed and distance relative to this 3rd party are measureable.

 

When these clocks are brought back to Earth, which time frame are they in? Earth's or theirs? When and how did they revert back to an unchanged time frame?

 

The clocks are in their own independant time frame as always, which happens to progress at the same speed as that of earth, as they are travelling at the same relative velocity and under the same gravitational influences, though could be considered "Behind" by an unchanging amount, as their time was slowed for the duration they spent in orbit

[Cadmus]

But how does this prove that time itself changed?

In mathematics, the concept of proof is very important. In physics, it is an obstacle. You should not think in terms of proof. The notion that the universe is a flux of space-time, both of which vary in motion is extremely useful, in light of available evidence. No single piece of evidence, or even all of it together, either proves or is designed to prove anything. The purpose of theories in physics is to provide a useful context for framing understanding. It is certainly possible to develop alternate theories based on the evidence, and many people do so.

 

Are you asking why many people here seem to accept the basic tenets of relativity? I am not sure of the purpose of your question.

[swansont]

You have two identical clocks' date=' constructed in earth orbit, where force due to gravity is negligible. The clocks are constructed with great care, so as to tick at exactly the same rate to eight decimal place accuracy. They are digital clocks, and the unit is the second.

 

Then clock A is taken down to earth.

 

10 years pass according to clock A, when clock B is finally taken out of earth orbit, and brought down to earth.

 

The clocks are then compared.

 

Are the clocks still synchronous?

 

And if not, then what does each clock read?[/quote']

 

Only eight-digits?

 

No they are not. The difference depends on the orbit; as I stated earlier the kinetic term and gravitational term have opposite signs.

 

(Two clocks ticking at the same rate when compared, that are identical, won't be synchronous after some elapsed time anyway, even if nothing is done to them)

[swansont]

But how does this prove that time itself changed?

 

You say that the clocks were protected from environmental affects' date=' but obviousely they were not protected from weightlessness, nor were they protected from the effects of the speed of their orbit.

 

All I am saying is that things like radiation decay just might have another explaination besides time dialation.

 

When these clocks are brought back to Earth, which time frame are they in? Earth's or theirs? When and how did they revert back to an unchanged time frame?[/quote']

 

As Hiya stated, the clocks depend on atomic oscillations between states, which depends on the energy difference between the states. If you can find a physical effect that gravity (or speed) has to change this, feel free. Your mechanism must be independent of the atom used, since it's been seen to happen to different elements. And since it happens on both the atomic and nuclear scales, the interaction energy has to somehow scale accordingly.

[swansont]

I am with you on this syntax' date=' that is exactly what I think is happening. The internal parts are being affected, and so the interior functioning of the clock is being altered, so there must necessarily be a difference in clock readings. But not because time was altered, because the CLOCK was altered.

 

Yes, I am with you, if that is in fact what you really think.[/quote']

 

Which interior part of the clock?

[syntax252]

In mathematics' date=' the concept of proof is very important. In physics, it is an obstacle. You should not think in terms of proof. The notion that the universe is a flux of space-time, both of which vary in motion is extremely useful, in light of available evidence. No single piece of evidence, or even all of it together, either proves or is designed to prove anything. The purpose of theories in physics is to provide a useful context for framing understanding. It is certainly possible to develop alternate theories based on the evidence, and many people do so.

 

Are you asking why many people here seem to accept the basic tenets of relativity? I am not sure of the purpose of your question.[/quote']

 

I am trying to understand how an object can be in two different times at once and still be observable to someone in either of those time time frames.

[Cadmus]

I am trying to understand how an object can be in two different times at once and still be observable to someone in either of those time time frames.

The object is question is always in your time. The difference is its rate of motion through its time.

 

Have you ever watched a friend age quickly after a negative traumatic experience? You and your friend were in the same time, but your rate of motion through time was not the same.

[Johnny5]

...as I stated earlier the kinetic term and gravitational term have opposite signs.

 

I don't know what that means.

 

 

(Two clocks ticking at the same rate when compared' date=' that are identical, won't be synchronous after some elapsed time anyway, even if nothing is done to them)

 

 

[/quote']

 

Why on earth not?

[Johnny5]

Which interior part of the clock?

 

In the case of a mechanical clock, any of the parts.

In the case of a digital clock, the electronics.

In the case of an atomic clock, in the atoms.

[syntax252]

The object is question is always in your time. The difference is its rate of motion through its time.

 

Have you ever watched a friend age quickly after a negative traumatic experience? You and your friend were in the same time' date=' but your rate of motion through time was not the same.[/quote']

 

Well if that is all you are referring to, hell yes, I have seen that happen. But usually there is a physiological reason behind it.

 

I have known people who were old at 50 while their brothers were still young at 70. Sometimes it is a matter of attitude.

 

But I don't believe that time passes at a different rate for them, I just think they burn themselvs out with booze and drugs.

[swansont]

In the case of a mechanical clock' date=' any of the parts.

In the case of a digital clock, the electronics.

In the case of an atomic clock, in the atoms.[/quote']

 

Now calculate the effect on the atoms, or nuclei, and explain why the fractional change in frequency of the clock changes by the same amount for an atomic interaction (independent of the energy of the states) and the much stronger nuclear interaction.

[swansont]

I don't know what that means.

 

One has a + sign (the gravitational effect, with respect to the earth's surface) and one has a - sign (the kinetic effect, aka time dilation)

 

Why on earth not?

 

Because the best you can hope to do with a clock is have white frequency noise. And when you read a clock, you are measuring the accumulation of all the oscillations, which is the same as integrating the frequency. The integration of white noise gives a random walk in phase (i.e. time). So two clocks at the same measured frequency will do a random walk in phase, and become asynchronous. The only question is how much they will differ - it will be smaller if there is less noise.

[Cadmus]

Well if that is all you are referring to, hell yes,

This "all" has tremendous implications.

 

I have seen that happen. But usually there is a physiological reason behind it.

When you age, is it not physiological? There are always a physiological component to the aging of organisms.

 

I have known people who were old at 50 while their brothers were still young at 70. Sometimes it is a matter of attitude.

 

But I don't believe that time passes at a different rate for them, I just think they burn themselvs out with booze and drugs.

OK. I recommend that you now reconsider your belief in a new light.

[swansont]

The object is question is always in your time. The difference is its rate of motion through its time.

 

Have you ever watched a friend age quickly after a negative traumatic experience? You and your friend were in the same time' date=' but your rate of motion through time was not the same.[/quote']

 

That has absolutely nothing to do with physics.

[Cadmus]

That has absolutely nothing to do with physics.

How can you say that? It has everything to do with physics.

[Johnny5]

Now calculate the effect on the atoms, or nuclei, and explain why the fractional change in frequency of the clock changes by the same amount for an atomic interaction (independent of the energy of the states) and the much stronger nuclear interaction.

 

You are going to have to help me out, since I have no idea where to begin.

 

Well actually that's not true, but I want to see how you start off.

[swansont]

How can you say that? It has everything to do with physics.

 

Well, then I got ripped off. We never covered "negative traumatic experiences" when I was taking physics in school. Is that supposed to be part of mechanics, E&M, atomic physics or nuclear?

[swansont]

You are going to have to help me out' date=' since I have no idea where to begin.

 

Well actually that's not true, but I want to see how you start off.[/quote']

 

It's not my thesis. The effect is negligible, first of all, and the fact that it has to have the same fractional effect for different energy interactions should be a huge clue that it's not a force you're dealing with. It has to be a systematic effect.

[Johnny5]

It's not my thesis. The effect is negligible, first of all, and the fact that it has to have the same fractional effect for different energy interactions should be a huge clue that it's not a force you're dealing with. It has to be a systematic effect.

 

Are you implying that gravity isn't a force?

[syntax252]

Boys this is all very interesting, but I really think that when 5 minutes goes by here on Earth, 5 minutes goes by everywhere else in the universe.

 

It might not seem like 5 minutes, and certain mechanical measuring devices may read different, but 5 minutes has passed just the same.

[Hiya]

Boys this is all very interesting, but I really think that when 5 minutes goes by here on Earth, 5 minutes goes by everywhere else in the universe.

 

Then how do you explain light travelling at the same speed relative to an observer of any velocity?

[swansont]

Are you implying that gravity isn't a force?

 

I'm saying the gravitational force is not causing a mechanical effect that slows the clock down. If it were, you'd expect different clocks to be affected differently.