The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is distance an absolute invariant?  (Read 16352 times)

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #225 on: 10/02/2016 22:47:06 »
Lol good answer , but you know and I know very well what we refer to when talking time dilation, and relative motion to a gravitational field.
I have to strongly disagree with this statement.
I know very well what I refer to when talking time dilation.
I do not know what you refer to when talking time dilation.
I will rephrase, how do you know that there is a change in time?
I do not actually know anything, about anything except for the one thing I can not deny, that is that I am conscience. I exist. That is the only thing I know. Every thing else outside of that one fact is only an approximation to a truth composed of available evidence that has in some way made itself aware to my consciousness.
I do not either know or believe anything outside my own conscious being.
So having got that out, lets answer your question.
I have enough evidence accumulated over a lifetime of learning and experience to think that the closest approximation to the truth that will fit nicely with minimum discord into the jigsaw puzzle that is my internal view of reality is; that time itself is seen to dilate in any frame I observe to be in relative motion compared to me.
No other view that I have come across yet makes my reality work the way that I see it working.

You see I do not for an instant suggest that this is the way reality actually is. Tomorrow I may gain data, that explains things better and fits into my overall picture better than the current model. At such a time this present model will get dumped like a hot potato. And I still will not consider that I know the truth of it. Just a closer approximation that gives my internal view better definition.
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #226 on: 10/02/2016 22:51:56 »
A change in the rate of synchronisation of the caesium atom relative to a gravitational field, notice I have no need to mention time or even consider time with this one statement?

I would have to consider timing and timing synchronisation for sure, But I  am certain anything after 0 is history, and I  can not alter the rate of 0 with any thought experiment.

Without clear and concise explanations of what these incoherent attempts at communication are, I have to say that to me this is just gibberish..
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
  • Thanked: 46 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #227 on: 10/02/2016 22:56:59 »
Lol good answer , but you know and I know very well what we refer to when talking time dilation, and relative motion to a gravitational field.
I have to strongly disagree with this statement.
I know very well what I refer to when talking time dilation.
I do not know what you refer to when talking time dilation.
I will rephrase, how do you know that there is a change in time?
I do not actually know anything, about anything except for the one thing I can not deny, that is that I am conscience. I exist. That is the only thing I know. Every thing else outside of that one fact is only an approximation to a truth composed of available evidence that has in some way made itself aware to my consciousness.
I do not either know or believe anything outside my own conscious being.
So having got that out, lets answer your question.
I have enough evidence accumulated over a lifetime of learning and experience to think that the closest approximation to the truth that will fit nicely with minimum discord into the jigsaw puzzle that is my internal view of reality is; that time itself is seen to dilate in any frame I observe to be in relative motion compared to me.
No other view that I have come across yet makes my reality work the way that I see it working.

You see I do not for an instant suggest that this is the way reality actually is. Tomorrow I may gain data, that explains things better and fits into my overall picture better than the current model. At such a time this present model will get dumped like a hot potato. And I still will not consider that I know the truth of it. Just a closer approximation that gives my internal view better definition.


Interesting views, however ,

space and distance exist , therefore I am.


I do not know about you , but if somebody punched me in the face, I am sure my senses shows me I am real, and the fact I can move freely and can change my own path being different to a rock, makes me believe we are quite real.  But I certainly understood your views and could certainly argue a ''matrix'' type state myself.


I understand you believe the knowledge provided of time dilation, but the thing is in no experiment do we show a change in time, we just show a change in rate of something compared to something.

« Last Edit: 10/02/2016 23:00:02 by Thebox »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
  • Thanked: 46 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #228 on: 10/02/2016 22:58:55 »
A change in the rate of synchronisation of the caesium atom relative to a gravitational field, notice I have no need to mention time or even consider time with this one statement?

I would have to consider timing and timing synchronisation for sure, But I  am certain anything after 0 is history, and I  can not alter the rate of 0 with any thought experiment.

Without clear and concise explanations of what these incoherent attempts at communication are, I have to say that to me this is just gibberish..


What does science observe in the Keating experiment!

A change in the rate of synchronisation of the caesium atom relative to a gravitational field,


Ok?

 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1307
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #229 on: 10/02/2016 22:59:09 »
So you must agree that any effect of a measurement can not affect the here and now?


You can not measure the future either, you can only record the past

A measurement of time is to record sequential events.  We can measure events happening in the here and now, at which point they become history, and we can anticipate, based on the history of events, what may happen in the future.

However, in the world of quantum it is observed that to measure an event does indeed seem to have an effect on the here and now.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
  • Thanked: 46 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #230 on: 10/02/2016 23:05:06 »
So you must agree that any effect of a measurement can not affect the here and now?


You can not measure the future either, you can only record the past

A measurement of time is to record sequential events.  We can measure events happening in the here and now, at which point they become history, and we can anticipate, based on the history of events, what may happen in the future.

However, in the world of quantum it is observed that to measure an event does indeed seem to have an effect on the here and now.

The here and now is zero/naught/0

In ten minutes time the here and now will still be 0.

The rate of here and now is 0

Let me prove this to you


Count to 5

12345

count to 5 again but re-moving 1 and replacing it with 0

02345

remove 2 and replace

00345

remove 3 and replace

00045

remove 4 and replace

00005

remove 5 and replace

00000


Can you see that 0 is always equal to the position of 1?
11111
12345
00000


added - just consider, you can't measure time, you can only observe time.

« Last Edit: 10/02/2016 23:10:13 by Thebox »
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #231 on: 10/02/2016 23:13:34 »
What does science observe in the Keating experiment!

A change in the rate of synchronisation of the caesium atom relative to a gravitational field,


Ok?
And what do you attribute such an observed change to?
What is the cause of this observed behavior according to you?
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
  • Thanked: 46 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #232 on: 10/02/2016 23:19:28 »
What does science observe in the Keating experiment!

A change in the rate of synchronisation of the caesium atom relative to a gravitational field,


Ok?
And what do you attribute such an observed change to?
What is the cause of this observed behavior according to you?

I attribute the change of rate of the caesium atom being relative to motion relative to another body and bodies motion, and the cause of behaviour is the motion of accleration , an object at rest in a constant gravity inertial reference frame, i..e an object on earth Fn=a9.82m/s=N , this is constant, you are changing the constant of a9.82m/s to create an off-set


added - Hard explain, when an object accelerates away from the ground , the force decreases the masses gravity acceleration. Your making mass acceleration invert .



« Last Edit: 10/02/2016 23:29:02 by Thebox »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1307
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #233 on: 10/02/2016 23:32:27 »
A measurement of time is to record sequential events.  We can measure events happening in the here and now, at which point they become history, and we can anticipate, based on the history of events, what may happen in the future.

However, in the world of quantum it is observed that to measure an event does indeed seem to have an effect on the here and now.

The here and now is zero/naught/0

In ten minutes time the here and now will still be 0.

The rate of here and now is 0

Let me prove this to you


Count to 5

12345

count to 5 again but re-moving 1 and replacing it with 0

02345

remove 2 and replace

00345

remove 3 and replace

00045

remove 4 and replace

00005

remove 5 and replace

00000


Can you see that 0 is always equal to the position of 1?
11111
12345
00000


added - just consider, you can't measure time, you can only observe time.

Erm, nope!  You can observe the here and now, 'this instant', and a measurement of time is a record of here and nows, which become history as you record them.  The future is an anticipation of here and nows to come.

A change in the rate of time is a dilation or contraction of the rate that sequential events occur at, but the here and now remains the here and now within those dilations or contractions.

I do not know why you describe this here and now as being zero.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
  • Thanked: 46 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #234 on: 10/02/2016 23:37:07 »
A measurement of time is to record sequential events.  We can measure events happening in the here and now, at which point they become history, and we can anticipate, based on the history of events, what may happen in the future.

However, in the world of quantum it is observed that to measure an event does indeed seem to have an effect on the here and now.

The here and now is zero/naught/0

In ten minutes time the here and now will still be 0.

The rate of here and now is 0

Let me prove this to you


Count to 5

12345

count to 5 again but re-moving 1 and replacing it with 0

02345

remove 2 and replace

00345

remove 3 and replace

00045

remove 4 and replace

00005

remove 5 and replace

00000


Can you see that 0 is always equal to the position of 1?
11111
12345
00000


added - just consider, you can't measure time, you can only observe time.

Erm, nope!  You can observe the here and now, 'this instant', and a measurement of time is a record of here and nows, which become history as you record them.  The future is an anticipation of here and nows to come.

A change in the rate of time is a dilation or contraction of the rate that sequential events occur at, but the here and now remains the here and now within those dilations or contractions.

I do not know why you describe this here and now as being zero.

You must have missed the why thread, most members agreed with me .   Consider that anything after 0 is history, try it, try to do any measurement after zero with out it being instant history.

 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #235 on: 10/02/2016 23:41:45 »
I attribute the change of rate of the caesium atom being relative to motion relative to another body and bodies motion, and the cause of behaviour is the motion of accleration , an object at rest in a constant gravity inertial reference frame, i..e an object on earth Fn=a9.82m/s=N , this is constant, you are changing the constant of a9.82m/s to create an off-set

I would ask you to expand on that please. And in expanding that explanation reference the fact that the effect has been shown to be measurable with one clock stationary on the Ground floor of a building, with the other clock stationary on the top floor of the same building.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
  • Thanked: 46 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #236 on: 10/02/2016 23:54:21 »
I attribute the change of rate of the caesium atom being relative to motion relative to another body and bodies motion, and the cause of behaviour is the motion of accleration , an object at rest in a constant gravity inertial reference frame, i..e an object on earth Fn=a9.82m/s=N , this is constant, you are changing the constant of a9.82m/s to create an off-set

I would ask you to expand on that please. And in expanding that explanation reference the fact that the effect has been shown to be measurable with one clock stationary on the Ground floor of a building, with the other clock stationary on the top floor of the same building.

I have not heard of that fact, and that would affect my reasoning. If indeed two stationary clocks, in the same building , one on the ground floor and the second on a upper floor, and the effect is observed, then I can only conclude that difference is because gravity is weaker at a distance and the upper clock is experienced less strength.  However they both would experience the same constant of Newtons and Fn unless things weigh slightly less at altitude,

I am not sure, something to with calibration maybe.




 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4721
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #237 on: 11/02/2016 00:00:22 »

Surely the special relativity effects only apply to the accelerated reference frame?

Exactly the opposite. SR concerns only the special case of constant velocity. The more general case of nonzero acceleration or position in a graviational field is called general relativity.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4721
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #238 on: 11/02/2016 00:02:17 »
then I can only conclude that difference is because gravity is weaker at a distance and the upper clock is experienced less strength. 

The light is beginning to dawn! Welcome to the rational world, friend.
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #239 on: 11/02/2016 00:15:25 »
Quote from: timey on Today at 06:21:58

Surely the special relativity effects only apply to the accelerated reference frame?

Exactly the opposite. SR concerns only the special case of constant velocity. The more general case of nonzero acceleration or position in a graviational field is called general relativity.
Thank you for answering timey Alan. I am trying to concentrate on Thebox.
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #240 on: 11/02/2016 00:17:46 »
I have not heard of that fact, and that would affect my reasoning. If indeed two stationary clocks, in the same building , one on the ground floor and the second on a upper floor, and the effect is observed, then I can only conclude that difference is because gravity is weaker at a distance and the upper clock is experienced less strength.  However they both would experience the same constant of Newtons and Fn unless things weigh slightly less at altitude,

I am not sure, something to with calibration maybe.
Well have a think about that, maybe do some research to convince yourself that I am talking real data and not making sh1t up, and then get back to me.

EDIT: It has nothing to do with bad calibration. The experiment is not a one off. It has been repeatedly confirmed by different researchers and exactly matches the result predicted by General relativity every single time.
« Last Edit: 11/02/2016 00:21:52 by Space Flow »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1307
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #241 on: 11/02/2016 00:18:19 »

Surely the special relativity effects only apply to the accelerated reference frame?

Exactly the opposite. SR concerns only the special case of constant velocity. The more general case of nonzero acceleration or position in a graviational field is called general relativity.


I mean the reference frame that is accelerated relative to the observer's reference frame, with the moving reference frame moving at a constant velocity.

I understand that general relativity concerns itself with gravitational acceleration and position in the gravitational field.

What I do not understand is how come the Lorentz transformations form part of the GR field equations.  How are these concepts of special relativity and general relativity considerations being intertwined?
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4721
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #242 on: 11/02/2016 00:29:34 »
I mean the reference frame that is accelerated relative to the observer's reference frame, with the moving reference frame moving at a constant velocity.

Some clarity seems to have been lost in translation! SR deals with constant velocity. Acceleration is a change in velocity. An object is either moving with constant velocity or it is accelerating.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1307
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #243 on: 11/02/2016 00:34:34 »
I mean the reference frame that is accelerated relative to the observer's reference frame, with the moving reference frame moving at a constant velocity.

Some clarity seems to have been lost in translation! SR deals with constant velocity. Acceleration is a change in velocity. An object is either moving with constant velocity or it is accelerating.

k, my terminology is lacking.  I am talking about a reference frame that is moving relative to the observers reference frame at a constant velocity. Edit: that is faster relative to the observers reference frames constant velocity.

P.S.  the translation was quite clearly set out in posts 185, 187, and 196, but lost in the pages.
« Last Edit: 11/02/2016 00:44:11 by timey »
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #244 on: 11/02/2016 00:56:12 »
I mean the reference frame that is accelerated relative to the observer's reference frame, with the moving reference frame moving at a constant velocity.

I understand that general relativity concerns itself with gravitational acceleration and position in the gravitational field.

What I do not understand is how come the Lorentz transformations form part of the GR field equations.  How are these concepts of special relativity and general relativity considerations being intertwined?
timey, yours is a common misconception that GR is a theory about Gravity.
GR is "the" theory of relativity.
SR is as Alan put it a very special case.
I would go so far as to even say it is a metaphor for part of GR.
SR is a great way to describe the time and space effects of speed. Just for conceptual understanding. To extend that Understanding to real world situations you have to use GR.

It helps to think of GR as the movie and SR as the advertising poster. The still image.
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #245 on: 11/02/2016 01:12:57 »
k, my terminology is lacking.  I am talking about a reference frame that is moving relative to the observers reference frame at a constant velocity. Edit: that is faster relative to the observers reference frames constant velocity.
timey, am I reading it wrong or are you trying to say that there is a preferred reference frame within SR?
You seem to be saying that one of the reference frames is accelerated.
SR in not dealing with acceleration can not have a preferred frame. Both frames can rightfully say that they are at rest and it is the other one moving.
As I said SR is a teaching aid. If you want to refer to real world situations, then you are looking at a dynamic and changing Universe, not a still frame, and you have to use GR.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1307
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #246 on: 11/02/2016 02:16:54 »
k, my terminology is lacking.  I am talking about a reference frame that is moving relative to the observers reference frame at a constant velocity. Edit: that is faster relative to the observers reference frames constant velocity.
timey, am I reading it wrong or are you trying to say that there is a preferred reference frame within SR?
You seem to be saying that one of the reference frames is accelerated.
SR in not dealing with acceleration can not have a preferred frame. Both frames can rightfully say that they are at rest and it is the other one moving.
As I said SR is a teaching aid. If you want to refer to real world situations, then you are looking at a dynamic and changing Universe, not a still frame, and you have to use GR.

I have set out some thought experiments in posts 185, 187, and 196 that clearly show my line of questioning.  I have used the wrong terminology in describing the reference frame as accelerated.  What I mean is that the observer is observing a reference frame that is moving at a constant velocity that is faster relative to his own.

In this instance the reference frame that is moving faster relative to the observers frame will be experiencing a slowing of its time relative to the observers frame due to its greater velocity.  This is correct right?

The reference frame that is moving faster relative to the observers reference frame will experience a contracting of its experience of distance relative to the observers reference frame.  This is correct right?

These considerations describe the experience of time and distance for 'things', 'mass', 'matter'... This is correct right?

Velocity related slowing of time is a proven fact.  Is this correct?

The Lorentz transformations are a description of these considerations.  This is correct right?

General relativity describes the acceleration of gravity and position within a gravitational field and is a description of the space in between things.  Is this correct?

And general relativity also decribes that 'things', 'mass', 'matter', will experience an increase in their rate of time in a decreased gravitational field, because time in a decreased gravitational field runs at a faster rate relative to the rate of time in an increased gravitational field.  This is correct right?

The Lorentz transformations play a role in the general relativity field equations.  Is this correct?

What I wish to understand is how the general relativity field equations have incorporated the concepts of special relativity that are, if I am correct in my thinking, concerning themselves with 'things', 'mass', 'matter', into describing the space between 'things', 'mass', 'matter', and how gravitational acceleration and general relativity time dilation fits into the GR field equations in relation to the Lorentz transformations.
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #247 on: 11/02/2016 03:07:58 »
What I mean is that the observer is observing a reference frame that is moving at a constant velocity that is faster relative to his own.
This is the part that I find confusing. The use of the word "faster" in that sentence does not denote one frame stationary relative to another. Instead it reads like you are trying to compare one moving frame from the reference of another moving frame. That is not a SR situation.
In this instance the reference frame that is moving faster relative to the observers frame will be experiencing a slowing of its time relative to the observers frame due to its greater velocity.  This is correct right?
If you omit the word faster, than that sentence would be correct.
These considerations describe the experience of time and distance for 'things', 'mass', 'matter'... This is correct right?

Velocity related slowing of time is a proven fact.  Is this correct?

The Lorentz transformations are a description of these considerations.  This is correct right?
These things are correct within GR, and can be said to be correct within SR with the above-mentioned modification of removal of the word faster. SR only deals with reference frames that can consider themselves to be at rest.
General relativity describes the acceleration of gravity and position within a gravitational field and is a description of the space in between things.  Is this correct?
Yes that is correct. that is part of what GR describes.
GR is the theory of relativity of all things relative in the Universe.
And general relativity also decribes that 'things', 'mass', 'matter', will experience an increase in their rate of time in a decreased gravitational field, because time in a decreased gravitational field runs at a faster rate relative to the rate of time in an increased gravitational field.  This is correct right?
Totally correct. Time runs faster in the middle of a Void than it does in the suburbs of a galaxy.
The Lorentz transformations play a role in the general relativity field equations.  Is this correct?
Correct.
What I wish to understand is how the general relativity field equations have incorporated the concepts of special relativity that are, if I am correct in my thinking, concerning themselves with 'things', 'mass', 'matter', into describing the space between 'things', 'mass', 'matter', and how gravitational acceleration and general relativity time dilation fits into the GR field equations in relation to the Lorentz transformations.
OK. This is where currently accepted views and my own differ.
You see by my views there is no difference between the two scenarios.
The equivalence principle is there to tie the two together in the Einsteinian accepted curved space definition of the lorenz transformations.
Where acceleration in free space, which leeds to increased speed, is equivalent to being in a gravity field through the curvature of spacetime.

I on the other hand can demonstrate that the equivalence principle applies because the two situations are actually equivalent. They are exactly the same situation.  Relative Acceleration between matter and spacetime. Acceleration can always be felt by the material object being accelerated. There is only one reference frame that feeling can come from and it isn't relative to any other object.
So in the case of gravity it is space that is accelerating past the surface of a planet and anything in contact with that surface.
Accelerating in free space it is matter that does the accelerating past space. Either way it is relative movement between those two that gives us a Universe.
Anything not accelerating in respect to the spacetime that contains it is said to be Geodesic and will remain in free fall. No mater what an outside observer may see it doing.
If you want to learn more about this theory that directly answers your question, re read spaceflow and associated ideas here; https://www.facebook.com/SpaceTime-Flow-595088680534432/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
  • Thanked: 46 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #248 on: 11/02/2016 09:38:38 »
I have not heard of that fact, and that would affect my reasoning. If indeed two stationary clocks, in the same building , one on the ground floor and the second on a upper floor, and the effect is observed, then I can only conclude that difference is because gravity is weaker at a distance and the upper clock is experienced less strength.  However they both would experience the same constant of Newtons and Fn unless things weigh slightly less at altitude,

I am not sure, something to with calibration maybe.
Well have a think about that, maybe do some research to convince yourself that I am talking real data and not making sh1t up, and then get back to me.

EDIT: It has nothing to do with bad calibration. The experiment is not a one off. It has been repeatedly confirmed by different researchers and exactly matches the result predicted by General relativity every single time.

I have not once denied the results of the experiments, I am saying the results are not what you think they mean.  i.e the clock and clocks rate can not affect what it is measuring.
I have a tape measure, I have a shorter tape measurer, wow distance contracts if I use the smaller tape  measure. (sarcasm)

in comparison

.
I have a clock measure, I have a shorter clock measurer, wow time contracts if I use the smaller clock  measure.



Can you not see what you are doing?

and there is gravitational time dilation and relativistic time dilation, I believe your scenario was gravitational time dilation..  what science fails to consider is if you move a set of scales a distance, they have to be recalibrated.



« Last Edit: 11/02/2016 09:49:02 by Thebox »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
  • Thanked: 46 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #249 on: 11/02/2016 09:40:31 »
then I can only conclude that difference is because gravity is weaker at a distance and the upper clock is experienced less strength. 

The light is beginning to dawn! Welcome to the rational world, friend.

And in the real world, both clocks, both clocks rates, and the observer are all in time and do not affect the time they are in.

 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #249 on: 11/02/2016 09:40:31 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums