[Petrochemicals (OP)]

As einsteins time varies with energy etc while newtons is absolute, is there anything that proves one over the other ?


I know in relativity you have to be having time travel faster for velocity to make sense but given wave particle duqlity is still unexplained, the photo is still not proven to be massless(i believe it is due to the forces all seeming to travel at the constant) is there anything that definatley proves time travels at different speeds ? A quote i read also spoke of an observqtion of light as being pre programmed so does this raise questions about how the forces interact. Without understanding the forces in entirety can we understand anything


I know about the clocks in plnes but surely this is not categorical proof due to the fact we do not understand gravity, and the satelites are no where near precice enough to measure the infinitesimal small distance that would prove relative time correct.




Pete

[yor_on]

Sorry to disappoint you Pete, time dilation's are a proven fact. Just check out NIST clock experiments. That doesn't take away a 'absolute time' though, not locally defined. In its new settings 'absolute time' can be seen as a 'relation of sorts',  to each one of us, a description of ones life span. That 'life span' never change for you. You can sit in a satellite or on Earth, doesn't matter. Your life span will be the same generally speaking, relative your wrist watch. Time becoming a 'local invariant', instead of Newtons 'universal invariant'. If you think of it you change gravitational potential each time you stand up. that doesn't seem to change your life span though.
=


Now, if you reason this way, the question then becomes. Is this local 'invariance' representing a 'constant'?
Yep, and the proof of it is in joining a same frame of reference.

Alternatively you can connect your local clock to 'c', if you find the idea of needing a same frame of reference questionable. Both express the exact same to me, presenting you with a local constant. To reproduce a experiment you need the same approximate circumstances/setup, well practically speaking. Theoretically the 'exact same'. Physics presume that you should be able to reproduce a experiment anywhere, and anytime, assuming you doing a 'exact' replica of the original. That's called creating a 'repeatable experiment', and is what science builds on. What it also suggest is that your computer, presuming you have energy for it, must work anywhere in our universe, and at any time.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

I was looking into why we could not make a speed dial with a light gun to find in which direction the earth was travelling and at what speed. I found the aether experiments of mickelson

I know about radioactive clocks and I would say schrodeingers cat has an even chance depending on the radioactive decay, If it where not for the fact that the same clock always looses time .I understand the equivilance principle through the acceleration idea with light being constant, and  gravitational potential, but how do these require time if light is preprogrammed ? As i said this and the wave particle dual slit experiment leads me to suspect that light is not understood, and due to the fact that gravity is not understood,  how can time dilation be decided upon for the cause of increaced radioactive decay in less gravity ? Alot of people doubt time dilation.  Until there is some more conclusive proof ie shroedingers cat got old and died whilst waiting for you to get there with your radioactive isotope, can you actually say that yes it is beond doubt. I am not bothered either way but there are too many arguments to the contrary for me to say yes or no. Also there is no definitive proof i can find.


As for experiments the light experiment i am thinking of, it was where light was fired at opposite directions in relation to the earth inexpectation of a doppler shift, exept there was none. The light travelled in both directions in an equal  velocity, which i do not quite understand how the constant C was maintained, but it sounds like the researcher did not either ! Its the idea of firing a photon across a box , does the box move or the photon ? In a moving box  if you fire photons from the centre  to the  two sides to the moving box , one to the side where the box is heading towards and the other to the side where the box is moving away from, the box will be unaffected but, you would expect a red/blue shift, but you do not see one. When the photons strike the side they strike at the same time and cancel each other out. It seems to render the headlights parable being useless at the speed of light null and void. Would the light would be going twice 'C' to the observer ? Or  Simultanious viewing of 2 time frames ?

[yor_on]

Light is not 'pre programmed', although I like the idea, well, sort of :)
The speed of light in a vacuum is a local measurement that is true anywhere, unless we want to discus accelerations. A constant is something that is locally constant. If it happens to be so, and you include everyone that measures it so, then it is a constant.The question then becomes, is there any way to globally define it otherwise?

No

[yor_on]

The reason why I say no is because you then will question everything we built through experiments.

[yor_on]

If you do so you will need a new foundation, and you can't use the experiments, as you just invalidated their conclusions. So you will need to create a theoretical foundation, without experiments. you could argue that a Big Bang is just that kind of idea, but if you do you forget that a Big Bang is a result of experiments and observations already made. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it will demand the genius of several Einsteins and Newtons etc.

[yor_on]

Furthermore, constants will still be constants, if you go by the way we build science. Weird, isn't it :) even if you made a totally new way of looking at the universe, constants still will exist.

[yor_on]

And, I don't know? If one look at the conclusions from a 'Big Bang'
It's 'no where'/ any where.

It's inside you, it's 'local'

[yor_on]

It's in some way a description of a 'equilibrium', it's like the idea of physics being the same at any time, and every where.

[yor_on]

exchange that and you meet chaos.
I prefer constants

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

It seems like you agree with the doubt or perchance is it a forum glitch ?

I do not really see any necessity in having relitavistic time. No singular proof that is not easily countered.

[evan_au]

due to the fact that gravity is not understood,  how can time dilation be decided upon for the cause of increased radioactive decay in less gravity?

When you say "gravity is not understood", I assume that you are referring to "the conflict between general relativity and quantum gravity theories in the strong gravitational regime"? ie current theories of quantum gravity don't have finite solutions in the immediate vicinity of a black hole's event horizon.

However, away from the event horizon of a black hole (on the outside), gravity is really quite well understood. That includes all of our Solar system. And, it seems, that includes regions within 30km of a black hole, if the recent discoveries about gravitational waves are any indication.

Within our solar system, the effects of gravitation on time dilation have been measured to enormous accuracy - and in fact, you rely on it when you use the mapping app on your smartphone, or use the location that your camera records with a photo.

This is because the GPS satellites take into account both time dilation due to velocity and time dilation due to gravity. If either of these effects were ignored, the GPS system would quickly build up some significant errors (about 10 km/day).

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System#Special_and_General_Relativity

[yor_on]

I agree, although under certain restrictions. A 'absolute time' is local, it's not Newtons idea building on a universal 'Absolute' time. Rather Einsteins, although he probably would question it.

You can build it this way.

1. set your local clock as equivalent to 'c' (becoming that unchanging 'life span' I refer to.)
2. 'c' is already defined as a local constant.
3. Then that local clock also becomes one.
4. Defined over all local measurements it now represent an idea of the equivalence of all 'local clocks', animate or inanimate etc.

( and one proof of it is joining a same frame of reference, in where all local clocks must agree.)

It's a different way of defining it though, and it does not support the older ideas of what a universe 'is'. It becomes 'universal' in the exact same manner of a 'constant' being so. But that is what I think this universe builds from, 'constants'.

[yor_on]

As for us not needing 'relativistic time'.

I'm afraid we need it. My definition is about a  'ground setting', and so about a theoretical local equivalence of all clocks. But it's not a definition of our ' seamlessly existing universe'. To get to that you definitely will need to add a lot more, as Einsteins stress energy tensor,  time dilation's and LorentzFitzgerald contractions. They are needed as soon as you step out of a strict local definition.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

We see the effects of gravity, like a caveman saw the effects of blowing on a fire, but as the caveman did not know of oxidisers, we do not know what mechanism gravity works by.

And the gps thing is a gimmick. Bill clinton is responsible for that being on board, he ordered the doubting top brass to include it. The actual measureable loss due to dilation is negligibly small, if it exists. The inaccuracies in the syetem are far larger.


The contractions seems a good example with muons through the atmosphere.

But if you where on a moving body and shot 2 light beams , one concurrent with your progression and the other opposite, an observer could see you having 2 constants simultaniously ?

[Colin2B]

And the gps thing is a gimmick. Bill clinton is responsible for that being on board, he ordered the doubting top brass to include it. The actual measureable loss due to dilation is negligibly small, if it exists. The inaccuracies in the syetem are far larger.

I'm afraid you are misinformed. The system was built with a switch to turn the correction on or off, it was run initially without the correction which soon showed that the correction was necessary and it was then switched on.


If you wish to continue your misunderstanding of physics please do so in New Theories or just chat. Thank you.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

If you are going to be rude and antagonistic you could at least read the earlier posts first and try not to look ignorant.

http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/gps.htm

Also gps has a reset on the clocks and a buffer far cigger for time abnormalities due to leap seconds.
I won't waist any more time on you, start your own thread.

One other thing, where's the ignore button?

[evan_au]

the gps thing is a gimmick. Bill clinton is responsible for that being on board, he ordered the doubting top brass to include it. The actual measureable loss due to dilation is negligibly small, if it exists. The inaccuracies in the syetem are far larger.

I'm afraid you are misinformed. The system was built with a switch to turn the correction on or off

I am bit puzzled by this exchange.
The first of the GPS satellites were launched in 1978.
Bill Clinton became president in 1993. There is no way he could order anyone to include a new hardware feature on a satellite that had been launched 15 years earlier.

Perhaps what you are talking about is "Selective Availability" (SA), a feature that introduced intentional jitter into the timing of the transmitted signals, so that civilian receivers had degraded accuracy? However, military receivers were able to cancel this added jitter.

What President Clinton did was to instruct the military to remotely disable the SA feature already present in the GPS satellites. This improved the accuracy of civilian receivers to the point where it could (in theory) be used for things like landing an aeroplane on a runway in zero visibility. You can see a graph of the GPS timing accuracy at the moment SA was disabled here.

In reality, many applications requiring greater accuracy had already introduced "differential GPS", where a carefully surveyed site transmitted corrections to the GPS satellite signals. So there was already an effective countermeasure for SA.

Even the earliest GPS satellites had corrections for both Special & General relativity built into their manufacture. That design is continued in the latest satellites. But the latest satellites don't have SA.

See, for example: https://www.cnet.com/au/news/celebrating-10-years-of-gps-for-the-masses/

[Colin2B]

I am bit puzzled by this exchange.
The first of the GPS satellites were launched in 1978.
Bill Clinton became president in 1993. There is no way he could order anyone to include a new hardware feature on a satellite that had been launched 15 years earlier.

Perhaps what you are talking about is "Selective Availability" (SA),

Yes. the OP is confusing SA switch off with the need for the general correction.
There are a number of myths circulating that the correction is unnecessary, but they are untrue.

[yor_on]

Not sure what you mean there "But if you where on a moving body and shot 2 light beams , one concurrent with your progression and the other opposite, an observer could see you having 2 constants simultaneously ?"

First of all, it would be very tricky to observe both light beams. you might consider it from some theoretical point of view though in which case the only difference would be a blue shift relative a red shift, although I don't see how to set such a experiment up. The speed you would measure would be 'c' in both cases though.  (This presuming a uniformly moving body, where from both light beams are sent in opposite directions.)