But if “time” is the thing that clocks measure, and they change how long they say a “second” is under a gravitational field, why not say that the clocks are still measuring time, but it is the time itself that has been altered? If you say time has not changed, then you must have some invariant reference to measure it against to show that it has not been altered by the gravity. What is that reference?
Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute
- Thread starter Bob Enyart
- Start date
Or you could just calm down and have a simple conversation. :idunno:
The only clocks that can measure time accurately enough to show the effects of gravity are all of one general type - atomic.
Hi, Watties. :wave:
Figured out how an aquifer can retain its pressure for 2 million years yet?
I don't think you have the foggiest clue what you're talking about.
Gravity affects clocks. To say that changing a clock means you're changing time is irrational.
Not at all, if by “time” I mean that thing that clocks measure. In dismissing what I said, you side-stepped my question. Gravity changes clocks. But you don’t think gravity changes time. If you move to a place where the clocks are being affected by gravity, how do you know time has not been changed as well? So far your answer is to sneer and not address that point. I say that time has changed, and for evidence I will examine clocks. If they uniformly have altered, yet they operate on different principles, then I say the common thing that has changed is the time they are all measuring. Now you tell why time has not changed, and explain how you can verify that.
Because that is what he believes. He will never provide an explanation. He will continue to misrepresent both science and his god.
What is the use of saying that gravity also affects time?
Your questions are of no value.
More nonsense from Julia. If you can't keep up with the conversation, feel free to just read along. :thumb:
Ok, since you won’t answer, your assertion that time is invariant is on a par with the invisible undetectable white elephant that I keep in my room. You can’t prove me wrong, and I can trivially dismiss any challenge to my claim about my elephant.
It is you making the assertion that an intangible noun is variant. I simply say that gravity does not affect time. Instead gravity affects clocks. Clocks are physical entities that we can look at and get readings from. When I test my idea I look at real things and give answers according to physical reality. When you share your idea you look at exactly the same things, get exactly the same results and then claim a non-physical entity is what explains everything. You are the one claiming the invisible white elephant!
Now, did you have anything to say that is not nonsense?
But you adamantly refuse to say how you show that time was not altered. Time is the interval between events. If that interval changes under the influence of gravity, then by definition, time has changed. You can say it has not changed for the rest of your life, but so saying just puts that invisible elephant in your room, unless you can establish the claim empirically.
sorry Stripe. I have asked several times for citations to the literature for your claims. You are unable to provide. Ergo, more unfounded misrepresentations from Stripe.
And to make sure you understand "Ergo = therefore" and "unfounded misrepresentations" = you are just another liar for Jesus. I would suggest it was simple ignorance but I have read enough of your posts to know you are not ignorant.
You are making the claim. You show the evidence. I make a simple claim. Gravity affects clocks - and guess what?! When we place clocks into different gravity environments, they are indeed affected!
Claim ratified.
You make the extra claim that time is also affected. You want to make supernatural claims - you show evidence for them.
Good luck with that. :wave:
Show us evidence for that. Show us that it is not simply the clock being affected.
Quit putting the burden of proof for your claim upon me. :thumb:
:darwinsm:
:mock: Jokia.
And you've offered nothing but nonsense. Feel free to grow up and start offering something of value any time you like. :thumb:
Merry Christmas. :wave2:
Flipper
New member
Ho! Stripe steps out onto the really thin ice.
There's more direct physical evidence for the time dilatory effects predicted by relativity than there is for, let's say, the resurrection.
Why would you accept one but not the other, Stripe?
And you consistently say that "gravity affects clocks" but you never, ever attempt to explain what the mechanism it is that allows it to affect atomic decay rates, muon particle half-lives, and electromagnetic waves in a manner exactly consistent with the predictions of theory. Should we explain it away as the work of the gravity elves? Stripe doesn't know, but he remains resolutely sure that it's nothing to do with the theory, no matter how logical and how consistent it is with observed reality.
Theres no direct, physical evidence for either. But that's not a problem for the resurrection since it is a historical claim, not a physical one. There's plenty of historical evidence for the resurrection, which is what you would expect for a historical event.
But where is this evidence that gravity affects time as well as clocks?
Because of the evidence. :duh:
With what are the speeds of those things measured?
No. :idunno:
We should think sensibly about a reasonable answer.
And if there is any special pleading or ad hoc explanations we should be less certain about our idea.
Observed reality is that gravity affects clocks. Any further interpretation of that fact is evidence you need to produce. Quit trying to shift the burden of proof for your idea onto me. :thumb:
Nukia - please learn to follow a thread, reading the relevant posts and quit being such a waste of bandwidth. :thumb:
Stripe: Please provide a citation to the literature for the readily available evidence for your position that you mentioned earlier.
You were the one who indicated that the evidence was readily available. Since I do not believe you are a scientist who works in the area I expected you to have obtained the evidence elsewhere. Normally when someone suggests that there is readily available evidence for their position they are more than willing to share it to indicate they are correct.
But it appears you do not have such evidence so your statement is a misrepresentation. The Little Baby Jesus is not happy with you.
Happy Holidays.
You were the one who indicated that the evidence was readily available. Since I do not believe you are a scientist who works in the area I expected you to have obtained the evidence elsewhere. Normally when someone suggests that there is readily available evidence for their position they are more than willing to share it to indicate they are correct.
But it appears you do not have such evidence so your statement is a misrepresentation. The Little Baby Jesus is not happy with you.
Happy Holidays.
I’m just trying to get a clearer idea of what this nebulous idea called “time” is to you. You say the onus is on me. I touched on this before, but I will elaborate a bit.
My first clarification that takes time from a vague concept is during the latter 1800s. It was then that Maxwell, starting with well-understood foundational ideas in physics, saw the connection tying together a hodge-podge of ideas in electricity and magnetism. He merged them beautifully into 4 simple calculus equations now known as Maxwell’s Equations. The problem was that these 4 equations did not dove-tail cleanly into Newton’s version of physics. For a few decades the rub between the two was largely ignored, and that worked well because seldom did anything about electricity or magnetism have to do with gravity.
Late in the 1800s a mathematician named Lorentz undertook what was largely an intellectual exercise trying to find a mathematical description of how Newton’s world would relate to Maxwell’s. He came up with what are famously called the Lorentz Transformations.
Now the second point. A few more years and a young man named Einstein looked at the Newton Maxwell issue from a different approach. Out came Special Relativity, and along with it the Lorentz Transformations showed up again. This time though, it was not an exercise in mathematical formalism like it had been for Lorentz, but an attempt to unify two descriptions of physics. And time – not clocks – but time itself, was required in Lorentz’s equations to be changeable.
Then the third approach – the empirical one. If time itself can be varied, then it should matter not at all what principle a clock operates on. In a situation where time is expected to be altered, every clock would be expected to agree in that alteration. And they do. Regularly. In places like particle accelerators, a million times a day time is seen to be stretched or compressed.
So, in summary, as a conclusion of a purely formal mathematical treatment, time was seen to vary. Then as a conclusion of an analysis from the needed physics, time was seen to vary. Then in the lab, time was measured as varying.
Now your answer is that it is the clocks that are being affected, not time itself. But time is – listen carefully now, measured by intervals between events. If gravity is changed, and the interval is seen to change, then it may be the clock has changed. Or not. One clock is a dripping seal bladder. One is a crystal electromagnetically resonating. One is how long it takes light to bounce between a couple mirrors a thousand times. One is how long a nuclear particle takes to decay. One is a pendulum. There is not commonality in how they work, and some could care less about variations in gravity. But they all measure the same intervals, and they agree with each other, whether in low or high gravity.
Now to you. Do you agree that time is the interval between events? If not, please tell me what you envision time as. It has to be something meaningful, that we can jointly subject to some sort of study, so we can see who is right about whether it is invariant or not.
In a high gravity environment, what (beyond you just saying so) are you going to do to show that the time has not been altered?
Time is the distance between events.
To provide evidence that gravity affects the non-physical description of the distance between events.
No, they don't. There is no way you can get the accuracy required out of all those in order to measure the effects of gravity.
Put a water clock into space. It will stop altogether. Does that agree with the atomic clock? The pendulum?
Nothing. It is you that is making the claim. It is you that needs to provide the evidence. :up:
Point taken. I was speaking a bit metaphorically. However, there are independent types of clocks that can be tested and compared to high accuracy. For example crystals are used as high accuracy frequency standards in many electronic systems, quantum tunneling in many atomic clocks, and the nitrogen inversion of ammonia. And none of these depend on gravity.
Ok, now assume we have two events (two “clicks”) that occur reliably at 1 second separation as measured by different clocks. Put the system in a high gravity environment, and the different types of clocks retain their agreement. The one second is still the distance between the two clicks.
You say the onus is on me to:
Already done. Clocks whose functioning is not dependent on gravity have been put in differing gravitational fields, and found to differ as expected.
My claim is simple, and you have already agreed to part of it. “Time is the distance between events”. I say that is true, period. I am not adding on conditions like “Time is the distance between events, except when the gravity changes, and then it is a secret as to what the time is since clocks can't measure it anymore.”
I already itemized where that has been done from a mathematical consistency approach, an analysis of the requisite physics, and empirical data. In contrast, your offering consists of “no, no, no, not logical”.
How do you measure the nitrogen inversion of ammonia?
Or we can take into account the fact that gravity affects the clock and say that the clicks are farther apart in low gravity. Either way, we are entirely capable of predicting the readout on the clock after given conditions.
You've just asserted the truth of your own idea. There are no clocks that are not affected by gravity unless you define a second as the distance between two clicks regardless of the gravitational environment.
And neither do I. But we must both account for the fact that gravity does indeed play a role. I say it affects the clock - which I can readily demonstrate. You say it affects the clock and that it also affects time.
By making a claim you later retracted?