0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: timey on 11/02/2016 00:18:19What 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?Because by definition GR must simplify to SR if there is no acceleration or gravitational field. SR is, as it says, a special case of R.
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?
correction - If the field decreases, the rate of emittance of the caesium atom decreases.
Quote from: Thebox on 11/02/2016 10:05:18correction - If the field decreases, the rate of emittance of the caesium atom decreases.Off topic but timey had it right. As you get further from a centre of gravity time runs faster. Example; time runs faster on the surface of the moon than on the surface of the Earth. Lower gravity dilation.The difference just as a back of envelope calculation is only about 1 in a billion, but it is there just the same.That means that the surface of the Moon has aged about four and a half years more over the life of the solar system, But the effect would still be there.
...and in the voids between galaxies there is no gravitational field. This having been ascertained as being a verabatum via the ascertation of paralax distances in relation to a gravitational field reducing by the inverse square law, and the constancy of the speed of light. Correct?
Quote from: timey on 11/02/2016 10:21:41...and in the voids between galaxies there is no gravitational field. This having been ascertained as being a verabatum via the ascertation of paralax distances in relation to a gravitational field reducing by the inverse square law, and the constancy of the speed of light. Correct?In theory, the gravitational effect of spacetime by matter never disappears. It just weakens by the inverse square law as you state, but at some level it still exists as you approach infinity.Of course practically if there was such a thing as a completely empty Void and you somehow placed yourself in the middle of it, and also arranged you angular momentum so you were equidistant from all concentrations of matter surrounding this void you would by curved space interpretation be in almost totally flat spacetime and your clock rate would be running close to as fast as is possible.Again that constitutes a very special case and reality complicates things a bit.There is no such thing as a totally empty Void that we have been able to find.Such may not exist.
So you are insisting that the Caesium atom and the Caesium's atoms rate is time itself and controls the whole Universe?You are saying the four dimensions of mass, XYZ and t is the interwoven single state and space-time does not exist?You are saying space-time is the 5th n-dimensional quality?And a time contraction is not off topic.
Quote from: Thebox on 11/02/2016 10:28:53So you are insisting that the Caesium atom and the Caesium's atoms rate is time itself and controls the whole Universe?You are saying the four dimensions of mass, XYZ and t is the interwoven single state and space-time does not exist?You are saying space-time is the 5th n-dimensional quality?And a time contraction is not off topic.No that appears to be what you are reading even though it is not what I am writing.I have said none of those things.I am not talking about Caesium or any clock. Those are your words not mine.I was talking about time. Not a measure of time, but time itself. Cause and effect.And as far as what I mean by off topic, I am not a multitasker.I was asking you a question that you appear to be avoiding answering. That is the topic in the discussion between you and me.One step at a time mr Box.
Sorry for my impatience, what is your next question.
Quote from: Space Flow on Today at 10:41:45Quote from: Thebox on Today at 10:19:28I 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-setI 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.
Quote from: Thebox on Today at 10:54:21I 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.
it is not me who persists that the caesium atoms rate is time itself
and in the voids between galaxies there is no gravitational field.
Quote from: Thebox on 11/02/2016 10:07:01it is not me who persists that the caesium atoms rate is time itselfNor does anyone else. Time is the dimension that separates sequential events. Nothing more, nothing less, no other words. We measure time by various means, the best of which is the cesium clock. A yardstick or a statute chain is not "length itself": it is the means by which we measure length in a nonaccelerating reference frame. Don't accuse other people of talking nonsense until you have acquired the knowledge to distinguish it, and the humility to use their language correctly.
You measure time by various means, so how do you conceive that the rate of the clock affects what you are measuring?
Quote from: Thebox on 11/02/2016 11:32:20You measure time by various means, so how do you conceive that the rate of the clock affects what you are measuring?Thebox please just stop it. You have repeatably been told by a large number of people that it is only you that claims that this is what everyone else is saying. WE consistently write one thing and you consistently read another.That is not good communication skills.Now take out some paper and write 100 times;"Nobody conceives that the rate of the clock affects what is being measured".
I will stop it when you stop calling it a time dilation.[/b]?
Box, this is a great question, but I've moved my quest for a deeper understanding to another thread, and apologise for high jacking your thread to my purpose... All the best.Alan, Space Flow and Jeff, I've furthered your posts here:http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65776.0
You could have asked me, I have a deep deep understanding,