about Bob's article on absolute or relative time

[Lighthouse]

Therefore, they exist. Unless you can make calculations and measure something which doesn't exist? I certainly don't know how to do it.

When did I say they didn't exist? I said they were intangible.

 

[Memento Mori]

When did I say they didn't exist? I said they were intangible.

Oh, you think that when things are intangible, they can't be affected by gravity. You're funny LH.

 

[Lighthouse]

Oh, you think that when things are intangible, they can't be affected by gravity. You're funny LH.

How, exactly, is something that can neither bee seen, touched, heard, tasted or smelled, effected by gravity?

 

[Memento Mori]

How, exactly, is something that can neither bee seen, touched, heard, tasted or smelled, effected by gravity?

If it moves through space-time, it will be affected by gravity.

That's not an answer to your question. You also didn't answer my question.

You also ignored the rest of my post.

More and more you appear as if you're taking blind stabs in the dark, disagreeing at every turn, and saying things like "cut out the middle man" -- which shows that you haven't even bothered to educate yourself on a basic wikipedia level about that which you're arguing against. Really, I can't count the number of basic misunderstandings you've been corrected on by the participants in this thread. It's not even that you have to think the theory is correct, you just don't even show the slightest understanding of the theory. Perhaps you're hoping that one of these blind stabs will stick, and then you'll be able to follow that line of argument.

Just because I don't want it overlooked.

 

[pozzolane]

I didn't say anything about what you meant. Pay attention.

Another creationist moron showing how dishonest they are?

You apparently have no idea what you said.

E=MC²

If you had been paying attention at all during this discussion, you would have read that someone already pointed out that this has to do with rest mass. Now spit out that straw, put down your banjo, and actually think about what is being said.

Prove that space and time are connected...

And then prove that time curves.

What would this proof be? Here's a hint: I'm asking you to think about the predictions and falsifications of your argument, and those of relativity.

Unless of course gravity doesn't travel. It only pulls. That's it.

Gravity doesn't "pull". Again, as has been pointed out, it's not really a tangible force, it's simply curved space-time due to mass' effect on the fabric of space-time.

And seeing as how it's eight seconds for the light to travel, I don't think we are going to notice the difference in gravity before the light disappears.

Ahem... I'm assuming you mean the time it takes for the light from the Sun to reach Earth...It's actually 8 minutes. I know your used to your backyard rodeo's, but do try to keep on track.

 

[Stripe]

Yes actually, you do need to explain how this is illogical.

Space is measurable. Time is measurable. Get a ruler and a watch. Unless you exist as a singularity, in which case you should definitely contact some scientist.

Gravity affects the ruler and the watch. It does not affect nothing.

 

[Yorzhik]

So, assuming I was correct, the answer to Bob's OP is: Yes, the clock can re-enter the other clock's frame, but it will be a little older than than the clock which is something we would have a hard time measuring.

What Bob would need to do is create an example where the effects of time would be more obvious.

So, if we were to create a test where we could get 2 objects to come toward each other at a speed approaching the speed of light we should be able to detect the kind of change to test Bob's theory that time is absolute. Or, barring "close to the speed of light", how fast could we get 2 objects to move toward each other? how close to the speed of light would we have to get? how close to the speed of light is technically possible with today's technology?

 

[Johnny]

So, assuming I was correct, the answer to Bob's OP is: Yes, the clock can re-enter the other clock's frame, but it will be a little older than than the clock which is something we would have a hard time measuring.

That is the answer, essentially. The clock's never leave each others "frame", though, as Bob suggests they should.

He writes,

"Seemingly implying that time flows at different rates for the two clocks. If that were literally true, then it seems the two clocks would exist in two different time frames, now separated by twenty-four hours, and the operator at the base shouldn’t even be able to see the clock at the summit, since it is 24 hours ahead of him in time, and it is impossible to see into the future!"​

This mistaken conclusion is reached by assuming that time is absolute, i.e. 1 second for one clock is 1 second for another clock -- and thus a clock that has experienced more seconds is "in the future" of the other clock. Relativity actually says that 1 second for one clock is not 1 second for another clock, thus the two clocks never leave each others "time frame" (as Bob puts it), they just experience a different amount of time in over the same interval (from an outside perspective, i.e. the sun's apparent movement across the sky).

Bob's done a heavy amount of editing since he originally posted that. Two things that I found interesting in his edits:

(1) The statement "When exposed to different gravitational gradients, it is the various measuring instruments of time, like atomic clocks, seal bladders, GPS satellites, metabolism, etc., that are affected." seems to imply that Bob accepts that a man in an extreme gravitational field would far outlive his counter-part not under the same conditions. This is the essence of what relativity implies.

(2) He at least admits his vested interest in showing that the classic interpretation of relativity is wrong. Stripe and Lighthouse both cowered away from that question.

So, if we were to create a test where we could get 2 objects to come toward each other at a speed approaching the speed of light we should be able to detect the kind of change to test Bob's theory that time is absolute. Or, barring "close to the speed of light", how fast could we get 2 objects to move toward each other?

What would you like to test? Propose a test for us. We can accelerate particles to very close to the speed of light. If we count the stationary measuring device as one observer, and the particles whirling around at close to the speed of light as the other, then we've got two observers moving towards each other very, very fast.

 

[Memento Mori]

What would you like to test? Propose a test for us. We can accelerate particles to very close to the speed of light. If we count the stationary measuring device as one observer, and the particles whirling around at close to the speed of light as the other, then we've got two observers moving towards each other very, very fast.

Why don't we just synchronize two watches on earth, then have one fly in airplane very high and very fast and observe how they are affected by the difference? :chuckle:

 

[Lighthouse]

If it moves through space-time, it will be affected by gravity.

Did I say otherwise? I was talking specifically about time and space, not about things that move through them.

Another creationist moron showing how dishonest they are?

You're not that smart are you?

This has nothing to do with what you meant. I know what you meant. You made that clear.

What I was laughing at was the idea that just because distance varies that time itself is variable. The time it takes to go to one distance versus another when speed is constant, varies, obviously. That doesn't mean time itself is variable. Only the amount of time.

If you had been paying attention at all during this discussion, you would have read that someone already pointed out that this has to do with rest mass. Now spit out that straw, put down your banjo, and actually think about what is being said.

Idiot.

If you had been paying attention you would know that the question I raised which originated the discussion was in reference to photons in motion, and motion is the opposite of rest.

Also, if you had any logical and critical thinking skills you would recognize that mass doesn't change, not even from rest to motion.:dunce::duh:

What would this proof be? Here's a hint: I'm asking you to think about the predictions and falsifications of your argument, and those of relativity.

Prove that space effects time, or that time effects space. Go ahead...

We can move on to whether or not time curves after that.

Gravity doesn't "pull". Again, as has been pointed out, it's not really a tangible force, it's simply curved space-time due to mass' effect on the fabric of space-time.

:rotfl:

Ahem... I'm assuming you mean the time it takes for the light from the Sun to reach Earth...It's actually 8 minutes. I know your used to your backyard rodeo's, but do try to keep on track.

Yeah, that's it.

Well, I guess that changes things.

Gravity still doesn't change.

Gravity affects the ruler and the watch. It does not affect nothing.

That has nothing to do with the interaction between he and I.

The issue was only whether or not time and space could be measured. At least to his mind. He doesn't seem to know what tangible means. Apparently.

 

[Memento Mori]

Did I say otherwise? I was talking specifically about time and space, not about things that move through them.

Let's say, we have something moving through empty space like a light ray. As you've said, light rays have zero mass, right? (If not then disregard this and show how light has mass). So, the gravitational attraction between a light ray and a massive body should be zero and the light should not change in anyway (F_g= G m₁m₂/r where m₂ is the light ray). But this isn't what we observe. So, something must be off. I haven't heard what your explanation is but, mine is that space-time is dented by gravity causing anything which passes by to be influenced by the curvature including light rays.

Tell me what you believe.

 

[dan1el]

Also, if you had any logical and critical thinking skills you would recognize that mass doesn't change, not even from rest to motion.:dunce::duh:

If that were the case, particle accelerators should be able to easily accelerate particles to far beyond light speed.

 

[dan1el]

:bang:

E=MC²

That equation doesn't mean a particle must have mass to have energy. It only tells you how much energy a given relativistic mass is equal to.

Unless of course gravity doesn't travel. It only pulls. That's it.

And seeing as how it's eight seconds for the light to travel, I don't think we are going to notice the difference in gravity before the light disappears.

If gravity didn't propagate through space, how could it affect anything?

I think that's a "no" to your question, Johnny.

Did I say that? When and where?

In the following post from chair's Science, Intuition and "it doesn't make sense" you said you reject the theory of relativity not because you don't understand it, but because you do:

And to say it doesn't make sense simply because you do not understand it is certainly ridiculous. That isn't what I have done. I do understand it. And it still doesn't make sense. (...) There is a reason that scientists cannot prove that gravity's effect is on time itself, and not the clocks.

:doh:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html

Such as?

Space being nothing, for instance.

It has no measurable mass, but it has potential energy. If it didn't then it couldn't have any kinetic energy, i.e. it would never be not at rest. But light is the opposite, never at rest...

Do you need mass to have potential energy?

Mass at rest to potential energy. But kinetic energy cannot exist if there is no potential energy. And potential energy cannot exist if there is no mass.:think:

That's patently wrong. A particle can have potential energy because of its charge, for instance.

 

[pozzolane]

Talking to Lighthouse or Stripe regarding anything scientific is a complete waste of time. They think that having a failing understanding at a wikipedia level entiles an expertise beyond that of any current, or past, physicist. Their arrogance and narcism is to be unmatched by any reason or civil talk. They deserve nothing but harsh words and ridicule to the extreme. Further than that, I sincerely hope that many people stop by and read the stupidity that flows from them. They are the best example of why education is important, and they help remind those who do possess intellegence that they are truely fortunate.

 

[Clete]

Photons have no rest mass, but they do have "relativistic mass". Their momentum is defined by Einstein's famous equation:

E² = m²c⁴ + p²c²

substituting m=0

E² = p²c²
or
E = pc

solving for momentum:
p = E/c

Before posting what I said about photons having momentum I did a quick search just to make sure I hadn't gotten the idea confused with another and I came across the same information on Wikipedia. The first thing that hit me is the implied contradiction.

If p=mv

and

If E² = m²c⁴ + p²c²

then

E² = m²c⁴ + (mv)²c²

then substituting M=0 yields...

E² = 0c⁴ + 0c²

or

E² = 0

or

E = 0

Then taking your math quoted above...

p = E/c

p = 0/c

p = 0

No matter how you slice it, the answer comes up zero. Zero mass = zero energy. Zero energy = no photon.

How can a non photon with no energy have momentum?

It seems Relativity, in spite of its usefulness in predicting certain things, is riddled with contradictions, both in common sense and mathematics. In short, my position is that there is something about Relativity that gets things right but it seems like it does so in spite of itself. As though its getting to some aspect of the truth through the back door, if you will.
One might argue that Relativity is the best we've got but I think its way over stepping to hold to the idea that Relativity has been proven to be factual in every respect. The truth is not contradictory and thus, no matter how much one might like Einstein's theory, it can and almost certainly will be replaced with something far superior that not only explains the phenomena that Relativity accurately predicts but does so without all the obvious contradictions.


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[dan1el]

Well, duh, you're using the formula for momentum of a particle with mass on a particle with no mass.

 

[Clete]

Well, duh, you're using the formula for momentum of a particle with mass on a particle with no mass.

There is no such thing as "the formula for momentum of a particle with mass", there's just a formula for momentum - period. And that formula is p=mv (Momentum = mass X velocity).

Further, I used the same equation that Johnny presented, which can be found in about 10,000 different places on the internet in reference to this exact same question.

The point is that presenting that equation does nothing to answer the question, "How does something with no mass have momentum?".

On the contrary, that equation, as you have just tacitly conceded, seems to prove that something with no mass cannot have momentum.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[dan1el]

There is no such thing as "the formula for momentum of a particle with mass", there's just a formula for momentum - period. And that formula is p=mv (Momentum = mass X velocity).

You have no idea what you're talking about. The momentum of a photon is p = E/c = hf/c = h/λ.

 

[Memento Mori]

You have no idea what you're talking about. The momentum of a photon is p = E/c = hf/c = h/λ.

What are hf and h, if I may ask?

 

[dan1el]

f is frequency, h is Planck's constant. hf is just the product of h and f.