Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute

[DavisBJ]

How do you measure the nitrogen inversion of ammonia?

See wiki on ammonia. But basically, there will be a resonance peak at 23.8 ghz with a RF signal.

Or we can take into account the fact that gravity affects the clock and say that the clicks are farther apart in low gravity.

See, now you are adding a condition not stated in your original definition of time. You said: “Time is the distance between events.”

The construction of high-accuracy clocks requires intimate understanding of the principles the clocks will be based on. I already itemized several types of clocks whose functioning has no dependence on gravity. The principles the clocks rely on are detailed in the science literature. It is you, an armchair critic that is declaring that the very functioning of these clocks, by some mysterious mechanism you won't disclose, is affected by gravity. You know basically nothing of how they work, but you object to the idea that time itself is the thing that is changing. Until you can back your claim with defensible science, then I am not buying.

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.

Close, but my claim is not that the clocks are affected by gravity, but rather that time - the thing the clocks measure - that is affected.

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.

Then start demonstrating. You say the clocks themselves run slow in gravity, but time itself is unchanged. To prove that, you must show that time is not the thing that is altered. How ya gonna do it?

 

[Stripe]

See, now you are adding a condition not stated in your original definition of time. You said: “Time is the distance between events.”

:think: Perhaps you're right. I've always used that definition - perhaps it doesn't quite fit with what I believe.

The construction of high-accuracy clocks requires intimate understanding of the principles the clocks will be based on. I already itemized several types of clocks whose functioning has no dependence on gravity.

But all of them are affected by gravity.

The principles the clocks rely on are detailed in the science literature. It is you, an armchair critic that is declaring that the very functioning of these clocks, by some mysterious mechanism you won't disclose, is affected by gravity.

In the case of the water clock, it is simple application of Newton's laws. For the pendulum it is similar except friction plays more of a role. Nobody knows why gravity affects atomic resonance.

You know basically nothing of how they work, but you object to the idea that time itself is the thing that is changing. Until you can back your claim with defensible science, then I am not buying.

Until you can support your idea with science, I'm utterly justified in sticking with reality.

Close, but my claim is not that the clocks are affected by gravity, but rather that time - the thing the clocks measure - that is affected.

But clocks are affected by gravity. This you cannot deny.

Then start demonstrating. You say the clocks themselves run slow in gravity, but time itself is unchanged. To prove that, you must show that time is not the thing that is altered. How ya gonna do it?

It's your claim. Quit unloading the burden of proof for what you assert onto me.

 

[Stripe]

See wiki on ammonia. But basically, there will be a resonance peak at 23.8 ghz with a RF signal.

What I'm getting at is - this looks like a process that is measured, not a process by which we measure. In order to measure the resonance you quote I guess an atomic clock is used.

Have tests been done to measure the resonance peak in different gravity environments?

 

[Jukia]

Until you can support your idea with science, I'm utterly justified in sticking with reality.

Please provide citations to the scientific literature to your earlier reference to readily available evidence. See, isn't that easy?

 

[DavisBJ]

But all of them are affected by gravity.

That is your claim, not mine. And so far, you have yet to move beyond assertion in establishing that claim.

In the case of the water clock, it is simple application of Newton's laws. For the pendulum it is similar except friction plays more of a role.

Which is why I specifically pointed out several types of clocks that do not depend on gravity for their time-keeping.

Nobody knows why gravity affects atomic resonance.

Andy nobody knows why the invisible pink elephant in your room likes horseradish ice cream in the middle of the night. You are the one singing off-key a one-note song about gravity affecting atomic resonance. We are standing laughing at your antics.

Until you can support your idea with science, I'm utterly justified in sticking with reality.

I take it you choose to dismiss the mathematical analysis done by Lorentz, the physics of Einstein, and the on-going work in a thousand labs that depend critically on time being changeable as “not science”? Instead, your unsupported ideas are the true measure of what reality is?

But clocks are affected by gravity. This you cannot deny.

I can deny that many clocks are affected by gravity, and I do deny it.

Look at it this way. If you use the odometer in your car to measure the distance between two cities, say city A and city B, you get a reading. You confirm it by repeating the trip, and by cross-checking with other vehicles. But then for some reason you take a new road from city A to city B. Different distance measured. The fact that you took a new route and got a new reading on the odometer does not mean the new route affected the operation of your odometer. It was doing just what it was designed to do on the original route, and it was doing just what it was designed to do on the new route. And in both cases it was correct. The distance between cities A and B depends on how you go. It has nothing to do with the route change somehow causing the odometer to be inaccurate and requiring the distance between the cities to be invariant.

It's your claim. Quit unloading the burden of proof for what you assert onto me.

I know your comprehension is limited, so I will try to be clear. Here is what you posted in your prior post to me:

… gravity does indeed play a role. I say it affects the clock - which I can readily demonstrate.

In that you said, not me, that you can “readily demonstrate” that gravity plays a role and affects the clock. So stop this duplicitous nonsense about saying I have the burden of proof when you made the claim.

 

[Stripe]

That is your claim, not mine. And so far, you have yet to move beyond assertion in establishing that claim.

So you do not believe that changing the gravity environment affects clocks? Fortunately that is something we can test.

Which is why I specifically pointed out several types of clocks that do not depend on gravity for their time-keeping.

And you mentioned the water clock and the grandfather clock. And the other clocks you mentioned are also affected by gravity. Everything you care to name - everything physical, mind - is affected by gravity. The challenge to you is to show how gravity affects the non-physical, intangible noun called time.

You might as well try to convince us that gravity affects love.

Andy nobody knows why the invisible pink elephant in your room likes horseradish ice cream in the middle of the night. You are the one singing off-key a one-note song about gravity affecting atomic resonance. We are standing laughing at your antics.

Laughing, and doing nothing to support your assertions. My assertion is backed up by evidence.

I take it you choose to dismiss the mathematical analysis done by Lorentz, the physics of Einstein, and the on-going work in a thousand labs that depend critically on time being changeable as “not science”? Instead, your unsupported ideas are the true measure of what reality is?

Their work has value. I'm not trying to throw out everything. Just trying to suggest that the mathematical model may have been over-applied. It's just a formula. It's not reality.

I can deny that many clocks are affected by gravity, and I do deny it.

And you do so in defiance of the evidence. :idunno:

Look at it this way. If you use the odometer in your car to measure the distance between two cities, say city A and city B, you get a reading. You confirm it by repeating the trip, and by cross-checking with other vehicles. But then for some reason you take a new road from city A to city B. Different distance measured. The fact that you took a new route and got a new reading on the odometer does not mean the new route affected the operation of your odometer. It was doing just what it was designed to do on the original route, and it was doing just what it was designed to do on the new route. And in both cases it was correct. The distance between cities A and B depends on how you go. It has nothing to do with the route change somehow causing the odometer to be inaccurate and requiring the distance between the cities to be invariant.

That's nice. Nothing to do with what we're talking about. But at least it makes sense.

I know your comprehension is limited, so I will try to be clear. Here is what you posted in your prior post to me:In that you said, not me, that you can “readily demonstrate” that gravity plays a role and affects the clock. So stop this duplicitous nonsense about saying I have the burden of proof when you made the claim.

There's not much I can do if you're not going to accept that clocks run slower in lower gravity environments. :idunno:

 

[DavisBJ]

So you do not believe that changing the gravity environment affects clocks? Fortunately that is something we can test.

I would pursue this, except it will just turn into stanza 16 of Stripe’s claim in which you again dodge actually answering the question of how to tell if it is the clock or time that is being altered. You blatantly do that again below in this post.

And you mentioned the water clock and the grandfather clock.

Yes, and I clarified that indeed those were gravitationally driven clocks. It appears that only by keeping the spotlight on those can you point to the obvious influence of gravity in their operation. Those are not in dispute, and it is your impotence at showing how gravity could influence other types of clocks that makes you keep coming back to them.

And the other clocks you mentioned are also affected by gravity.

Not in their time-keeping function.

The challenge to you is to show how gravity affects the non-physical, intangible noun called time.

Ok, I have a thick volume with the one-word title “Gravitation”. It is a graduate-level physics text, written by Wheeler, Thorne, and Misner. It is a mathematically exhaustive treatment including how time – time, not clocks – is affected by gravity.

For the past several posts you have already ignored addressing the Lorentz transformations, which say absolutely nothing about clocks, and do involve time as a variable parameter.

You might as well try to convince us that gravity affects love.

That is the level of response I expect from someone who has an abject ignorance of physics.

I'm not trying to throw out everything. Just trying to suggest that the mathematical model may have been over-applied. It's just a formula. It's not reality.

Again you are not reticent about demonstrating your ignorance. Mathematical models may be in error, but when engineering is based on those models, suddenly there is a clear test of whether those models are accurate. GPS, cyclotrons, linear accelerators, CERN, Ferrmilabs, LASL, etc. All would not function correctly if the models were in error, especially as regards to time dilation.

There's not much I can do if you're not going to accept that clocks run slower in lower gravity environments. :idunno:

And not a whimper from you about backing your assertion in your last post that you tried to foist off on me.

 

[Jukia]

Ok, I have a thick volume with the one-word title “Gravitation”. It is a graduate-level physics text, written by Wheeler, Thorne, and Misner. It is a mathematically exhaustive treatment including how time – time, not clocks – are affected by gravity. For the past several posts you have already ignored addressing the Lorentz transformations, which say absolutely nothing about clocks, and do involve time as a variable parameter.

Oh no, Stripe. Looks like someone has actually provided a citation to "readily available evidence" to support his claim. See how that is done? Now what you do is go to the library and take a peek at the book to see if it really supports Davis and report back.

 

[Stripe]

I would pursue this, except it will just turn into stanza 16 of Stripe’s claim in which you again dodge actually answering the question of how to tell if it is the clock or time that is being altered. You blatantly do that again below in this post.

If you want evidence for your assertion, feel free to present it. :up:

Yes, and I clarified that indeed those were gravitationally driven clocks. It appears that only by keeping the spotlight on those can you point to the obvious influence of gravity in their operation. Those are not in dispute, and it is your impotence at showing how gravity could influence other types of clocks that makes you keep coming back to them.

:darwinsm:

You brought up the water clock and the pendulum saying they are affected to the same degree by gravity. I showed you how they weren't.

Not in their time-keeping function.

:rotfl:

Ok, I have a thick volume with the one-word title “Gravitation”. It is a graduate-level physics text, written by Wheeler, Thorne, and Misner. It is a mathematically exhaustive treatment including how time – time, not clocks – is affected by gravity.

And you also have an appeal to authority. We're looking for evidence. :up:

For the past several posts you have already ignored addressing the Lorentz transformations, which say absolutely nothing about clocks, and do involve time as a variable parameter.

I've been talking about how Gravity affects clocks. You want to talk about something else now?

Again you are not reticent about demonstrating your ignorance. Mathematical models may be in error, but when engineering is based on those models, suddenly there is a clear test of whether those models are accurate. GPS, cyclotrons, linear accelerators, CERN, Ferrmilabs, LASL, etc. All would not function correctly if the models were in error, especially as regards to time dilation.

Wow. You completely shredded that straw man.

And not a whimper from you about backing your assertion in your last post that you tried to foist off on me.

My assertion is that gravity affects clocks. You reject that assertion despite the widely available evidence for it.

 

[DavisBJ]

Once again Stripe has retreated to his ultimate safe haven – mindless denial and silliness. A couple of the things he said warrant a rational response below, but on the rest I choose not to stoop to meet him at his favorite level of discourse.

If you want evidence for your assertion, feel free to present it. :up:

Meaning Stripe is still pretending I have not, several times over, listed technical treatments, engineering applications, and experimental verifications for my assertions. In contrast, how many papers or other credible evidences has he listed for his side?

:darwinsm: … :rotfl:

Note the level of substance he offers in his replies.

And you also have an appeal to authority. We're looking for evidence. :up:

I didn’t say one word about the credentials of the authors of the book I referenced. I spoke only of the technical scientific content of the book. To Stripe’s warped intellect, that is an appeal to authority.

I've been talking about how Gravity affects clocks. You want to talk about something else now?

I have pointed out that the Lorentz transformation is the mathematics showing that time, not clocks, is not always constant. But that is “something else” in Stripe’s mind.

Wow. You completely shredded that straw man.

Is it embarrassing, Stripe, when your best recourse is to blindly label replies as strawmen?

My assertion is that gravity affects clocks. You reject that assertion despite the widely available evidence for it.

Stanza 17 of Stripe’s one-note ditty.

It is time to shelve this interaction with Stripe right alongside some older and similarly clear demonstrations of his replacement of his feelings for scientific fact. There are previous threads where he was clueless about the energy available from friction, about what an orbit is, and a few other items that a freshman in science would know. Bye bye, silly one.

 

[Dr.Watson]

It is time to shelve this interaction with Stripe right alongside some older and similarly clear demonstrations of his replacement of his feelings for scientific fact. There are previous threads where he was clueless about the energy available from friction, about what an orbit is, and a few other items that a freshman in science would know. Bye bye, silly one.

:thumb:

Good decision. s(Tripe) compensates for his handicap with shameless lies and denial. That's about as intellectually stimulating as he can be.

 

[Stripe]

Once again Stripe has retreated to his ultimate safe haven – mindless denial and silliness. A couple of the things he said warrant a rational response below, but on the rest I choose not to stoop to meet him at his favorite level of discourse.

Meaning Stripe is still pretending I have not, several times over, listed technical treatments, engineering applications, and experimental verifications for my assertions. In contrast, how many papers or other credible evidences has he listed for his side?

Note the level of substance he offers in his replies.

I didn’t say one word about the credentials of the authors of the book I referenced. I spoke only of the technical scientific content of the book. To Stripe’s warped intellect, that is an appeal to authority.

I have pointed out that the Lorentz transformation is the mathematics showing that time, not clocks, is not always constant. But that is “something else” in Stripe’s mind.

Is it embarrassing, Stripe, when your best recourse is to blindly label replies as strawmen?

Stanza 17 of Stripe’s one-note ditty.

It is time to shelve this interaction with Stripe right alongside some older and similarly clear demonstrations of his replacement of his feelings for scientific fact. There are previous threads where he was clueless about the energy available from friction, about what an orbit is, and a few other items that a freshman in science would know. Bye bye, silly one.

:wave:

 

[Jukia]

:thumb:

Good decision. s(Tripe) compensates for his handicap with shameless lies and denial. That's about as intellectually stimulating as he can be.

Hard to believe that Jesus is happy with the lies he tells. But that is OK, he is saved

 

[Frayed Knot]

I have a question for Stripe and Tom from Mabank - is the speed of light constant?

 

[Stripe]

I have a question for Stripe and Tom from Mabank - is the speed of light constant?

Nope.

Stick your finger in a glass of water.

 

[Frayed Knot]

How about this - is the speed of light in empty space constant?

 

[Stripe]

How about this - is the speed of light in empty space constant?

It's affected by gravity.

Is empty space under the influence of gravity truly empty?

 

[Frayed Knot]

What if there's no gravity anywhere near? No easily discernible reference - you're so far away from any galaxies, that you can't determine your speed. It feels like you're sitting still. There's a pulsed laser at your feet, and a photodetector at your head. You measure that it takes 6 ns for the light to make the trip.

Would other people in the area also see that the light traveled at the same speed you did?

 

[Stripe]

What if there's no gravity anywhere near? No easily discernible reference - you're so far away from any galaxies, that you can't determine your speed. It feels like you're sitting still. There's a pulsed laser at your feet, and a photodetector at your head. You measure that it takes 6 ns for the light to make the trip.

If all the conditions are the same, the same pulse of light will travel at the same speed through the same medium.

I just do not see any way to exactly repeat any given setup. No matter how distant the mass, gravity will always have an effect.

Would other people in the area also see that the light traveled at the same speed you did?

That's an entirely different question. That would depend on the coordinate system they were working with and how they correlated it with yours.

Whatever the case, once the coordinate systems were correlated, each observer could accurately predict what the other might observe under given circumstances.

 

[Frayed Knot]

If all the conditions are the same, the same pulse of light will travel at the same speed through the same medium.

...


That's an entirely different question. That would depend on the coordinate system they were working with and how they correlated it with yours.

OK, now there's another person passing by this first person at high relative speed - let's say half the speed of light. However, since there's no reference nearby, Person B thinks that he's the one sitting still and Person A is moving. When Person A, with the laser setup, pulses the laser, Person B is passing nearby. Person B happens to have a good stopwatch, and times the pulse of laser light himself.

Now Person B sees that the distance from the laser to the photodetector is six feet, just like Person A sees. However, the light beam in his perspective travels farther than six feet - while it goes the six vertical feet, Person A has also moved three feet sideways, so the light has to travel 6.7 feet. Since the speed of light is constant, Person B thinks the light took 6.7 ns (light travels very close to 1 foot per nanosecond) to make the trip.

Who is right?