Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #359047 > unrolled thread

BRAINWASHING CHILDREN AT PERIMETER INSTITUTE

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  BRAINWASHING CHILDREN AT PERIMETER INSTITUTE Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-29 14:00 -0700
    Re: BRAINWASHING CHILDREN AT PERIMETER INSTITUTE Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-07-30 07:09 +0200
    Re: BRAINWASHING CHILDREN AT PERIMETER INSTITUTE Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-31 19:36 -0700
    Re: BRAINWASHING CHILDREN AT PERIMETER INSTITUTE Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-01 14:23 -0700
      Re: BRAINWASHING CHILDREN AT PERIMETER INSTITUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-02 05:46 -0700
    Re: BRAINWASHING CHILDREN AT PERIMETER INSTITUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-02 05:43 -0700
      Re: BRAINWASHING CHILDREN AT PERIMETER INSTITUTE rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-02 05:55 -0700
        Re: BRAINWASHING CHILDREN AT PERIMETER INSTITUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-02 08:27 -0700
          Re: BRAINWASHING CHILDREN AT PERIMETER INSTITUTE rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-02 17:48 -0700
        Re: BRAINWASHING CHILDREN AT PERIMETER INSTITUTE John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-07 20:33 -0700
          Re: BRAINWASHING CHILDREN AT PERIMETER INSTITUTE John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-07 20:38 -0700
            Re: BRAINWASHING CHILDREN AT PERIMETER INSTITUTE John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-07 21:02 -0700
    Re: BRAINWASHING CHILDREN AT PERIMETER INSTITUTE rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-01 20:24 -0700
    Re: BRAINWASHING CHILDREN AT PERIMETER INSTITUTE Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-08 02:42 +0200
    Re: BRAINWASHING CHILDREN AT PERIMETER INSTITUTE Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-14 06:51 +0200
      Re: BRAINWASHING CHILDREN AT PERIMETER INSTITUTE Eteocles Panagakos <eteoclespd@prospernetwork.org> - 2015-08-15 16:56 +0000
        Re: BRAINWASHING CHILDREN AT PERIMETER INSTITUTE Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-15 20:12 +0200
          Re: BRAINWASHING CHILDREN AT PERIMETER INSTITUTE Eteocles Panagakos <eteoclespd@prospernetwork.org> - 2015-08-15 18:51 +0000
            Re: BRAINWASHING CHILDREN AT PERIMETER INSTITUTE Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-16 06:30 +0200
              Re: BRAINWASHING CHILDREN AT PERIMETER INSTITUTE shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-08-16 12:07 +0000
                Re: BRAINWASHING CHILDREN AT PERIMETER INSTITUTE Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-16 20:40 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#359047 — BRAINWASHING CHILDREN AT PERIMETER INSTITUTE

https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/news/physics-and-friendships-flourish-science-summer-camp 
 "Time elapses differently on the ground than it does atop a ladder. This time dilation is a hallmark of Einstein's general relativity and is, among other things, what makes GPS technology work. The demonstration shows that Einstein's "acceleration" model helps explain something that another model, the "force" model of Newton, does not (and the beach balls provide a handy depiction of curved spacetime)."

Stop brainwashing children, Einsteinians! There is no gravitational time dilation. Clocks on the top of the ladder ticks ate the same rate as clocks on the ground. All experiments allegedly measuring gravitational time dilation actually measure the red/blueshift caused by the variation of the speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light: 

http://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys419/sp2013/Lectures/l13.pdf 
 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction." 

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs 
 Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."

http://www.printsasia.com/book/relativity-and-its-roots-banesh-hoffmann-0486406768 
 Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks even though all the clocks go at the same rate. (...) As a result the experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the ceiling clock - even though, as I have stressed, both are going at the same rate. (...) The gravitational red shift does not arise from changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation." 

 Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#359082

Am 29.07.2015 23:00, schrieb Pentcho Valev:
> https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/news/physics-and-friendships-flourish-science-summer-camp
>   "Time elapses differently on the ground than it does atop a ladder. This time dilation is a hallmark of Einstein's general relativity and is, among other things, what makes GPS technology work. The demonstration shows that Einstein's "acceleration" model helps explain something that another model, the "force" model of Newton, does not (and the beach balls provide a handy depiction of curved spacetime)."
>
> Stop brainwashing children, Einsteinians! There is no gravitational time dilation. Clocks on the top of the ladder ticks ate the same rate as clocks on the ground. All experiments allegedly measuring gravitational time dilation actually measure the red/blueshift caused by the variation of the speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light:
>


How do you measure time?

You take - say - a photon and measure its frequency. A certain number of 
waves of a certain type of light is then used as definition of the 
second. If this is blueshifted (by gravity), than time is 'squeezed'.

You cannot know the blueshift itself, since the experimenter is subject 
to the same gravity. So his view of time is regarded as relevant and his 
time universal. So blueshifted red light is in the view of the 
experimenter a blue photon, but its origin is 'time dilated.

Also an effect of gravity on length of things is measured, since the 
meter is defined as a certain amount of waves of a certain type of light.

If the wavelength changes, this would make things larger (if measured by 
light), since more waves would fit into the same distance.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#359278

On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 4:36:41 PM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> Since Einsteinians at Perimeter Institute are utterly confused, the only
> thing they can do is mercilessly destroy children's rationality: 

Prevaricating Pentcho's rationality was destroyed long ago, as was his
integrity.  It seems that everything he writes is a lie.

Gary

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#359370

On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 1:26:53 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 6:26:04 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 3:00:48 PM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > >
> > > There is no gravitational time dilation. Clocks on the top of the ladder
> > > ticks ate the same rate as clocks on the ground.
> > 
> > Liar!
> > 
> > http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/aluminum-atomic-clock_092310.cfm
> 
> This is not due to time dilation.

Of course it is, you stupid, yammering moron.

[Remainder of stupid yammering deleted for sanitary reasons]

Go pound sand up your butt until it fills that vacuum between your ears.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#359422

On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 5:23:46 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 1:26:53 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 6:26:04 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 3:00:48 PM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There is no gravitational time dilation. Clocks on the top of the ladder
> > > > ticks ate the same rate as clocks on the ground.
> > > 
> > > Liar!
> > > 
> > > http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/aluminum-atomic-clock_092310.cfm
> > 
> > This is not due to time dilation.
> 
> Of course it is, you stupid, yammering moron.
> 
> [Remainder of stupid yammering deleted for sanitary reasons]
> 
> Go pound sand up your butt until it fills that vacuum between your ears.

It appears that the vacuum between your ears already filled up with sands.....when did you do such pounding?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#359421

On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 11:24:06 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 3:26:53 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 6:26:04 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 3:00:48 PM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There is no gravitational time dilation. Clocks on the top of the ladder
> > > > ticks ate the same rate as clocks on the ground.
> > > 
> > > Liar!
> > > 
> > > http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/aluminum-atomic-clock_092310.cfm
> > 
> > This is not due to time dilation. 
> 
> No one said it was. That effect is *entitled* "time dilation"; in this case, entitled "gravitational time dilation". A title is not a cause. 
> 

ROTFLOL....so time dilation is not time dilation?
> > It is due to that a clock second 
> 
> No matter the causes, the effect is *entitled* "time dilation".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#359423

On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 8:43:33 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:

> .so time dilation is not time dilation?

You said that, not me. 
I said that for two synched clocks, if one eventually has a different value than the other, then we call this time dilation, no matter the causes. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#359456

On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 8:55:53 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 8:43:33 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> 
> > .so time dilation is not time dilation?
> 
> You said that, not me. 
> I said that for two synched clocks, if one eventually has a different value than the other, then we call this time dilation, no matter the causes.

The problem is that clocks in relative motion cannot be synched. Also there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) represents the same amount of time in different frames. That means that two clocks show different values do not mean time dilation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#359473

On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 11:27:44 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:

> > I said that for two synched clocks, if one eventually has a 
> > different value than the other, then we call this time dilation, 
> > no matter the causes.
> 
> The problem is that clocks in relative motion cannot be synched. 

Irrelevant to the discussion since we are not talking about relatively moving clocks. We are talking about clocks at rest wrt each other in different grav field. 

> Also there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) 

Yes there is. *WE* define the units. To put simply, when a clock changes its value by one, it has changed by one unit! 

> That means that two clocks show different values do not 
> mean time dilation.

"time dilation" already means something in physics, in SR. You cant change its meaning as you go along. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#359983

On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 7:55:53 AM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
> On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 8:43:33 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> 
> > .so time dilation is not time dilation?
> 
> You said that, not me. 
> I said that for two synched clocks, if one eventually has a different value than the other, then we call this time dilation, no matter the causes.

No, one is merely an extrapolation of the other.  Two separate objects cannot contain the same coordinates.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#359984

On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 10:33:42 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
> On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 7:55:53 AM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 8:43:33 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > 
> > > .so time dilation is not time dilation?
> > 
> > You said that, not me. 
> > I said that for two synched clocks, if one eventually has a different value than the other, then we call this time dilation, no matter the causes.
> 
> No, one is merely an extrapolation of the other.  Two separate objects cannot contain the same coordinates.

Even if these separated objects are reference points with clocks.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#359986

On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 10:38:26 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
> On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 10:33:42 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 7:55:53 AM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
> > > On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 8:43:33 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > > 
> > > > .so time dilation is not time dilation?
> > > 
> > > You said that, not me. 
> > > I said that for two synched clocks, if one eventually has a different value than the other, then we call this time dilation, no matter the causes.
> > 
> > No, one is merely an extrapolation of the other.  Two separate objects cannot contain the same coordinates.
> 
> Even if these separated objects are reference points with clocks.

These inertial reference points must be established a priori to any action taken by all instruments involved in the performance of an experiment.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#359439

On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 3:26:53 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 6:26:04 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 3:00:48 PM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > >
> > > There is no gravitational time dilation. Clocks on the top of the ladder
> > > ticks ate the same rate as clocks on the ground.
> > 
> > Liar!
> > 
> > http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/aluminum-atomic-clock_092310.cfm
> 
> This is not due to time dilation. 

No one said it was. That effect is *entitled* "time dilation"; in this case, entitled "gravitational time dilation". A title is not a cause. 

> It is due to that a clock second 

No matter the causes, the effect is *entitled* "time dilation". 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#359975

Am 31.07.2015 15:35, schrieb Gary Harnagel:
> On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 5:43:52 AM UTC-6, wobbly wrote:
>>
>> Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 3:00:48 PM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There is no gravitational time dilation. Clocks on the top of the
>>>> ladder ticks ate the same rate as clocks on the ground.
>>>
>>> Liar!
>>
>> I'm not sure you are able to prove it.
>
> I'm sure I can:
>
> http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/aluminum-atomic-clock_092310.cfm
>
>> Would imply your head is younger than your body.
>

if c is a constant, but time ticks faster at a higher elevation, this 
would lead to the effect measured by Martin Grusenick, since the effect 
would generate shifts in wave patterns of an interferometer.

I could also assume a relation between this effect and gravity:
the lower position had less seconds 'contained', hence an object would 
minimise the 'length' of its path in spacetime, if moving downwards.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360674

Am 31.07.2015 15:43, schrieb wobbly:
> Gary Harnagel wrote:
>
>>> I'm not sure you are able to prove it.
>>
>> I'm sure I can:
>>
>> http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/aluminum-atomic-
> clock_092310.cfm
>>
>>> Would imply your head is younger than your body.
>>
>> You have it backwards, Wobblehead.
>
> It depends on your perspective. Is that Sr Or Gr? You tend to forget they
> are of opposite sign. I understood this is obvious posting in this forum,
> pretending they understand relativity, known to cover over both Sr and Gr.
>
> So the answer reduces to an exercise to find out which one is stronger. Sr
> without gravity, or Gr without change in position?
>
> What do you think, my dear friend Gabriel Harnagel? Are tensors stronger
> than speeds and velocities?

SRT is wrong in my eyes and GRT is correct (in my opinion).

But tensors a BAD tools. I suggest 'complex four vectors + Pauli 
algebra' instead.

There is a paper from Jonathan Scott about this. (let me try to find it...)

Here it is:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.110.993&rep=rep1&type=pdf

To understand the idea behind my suggestion, you may like to read my own 
paper:

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6

(This is a little less mathematical, but has nicer pictures.)

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360897

Thomas Heger wrote:

> But tensors a BAD tools. I suggest 'complex four vectors + Pauli
> algebra'
> instead.

Why should tensors be a bad tool. Do you understand tensors, to begin 
with. They are indispensable in order to balance the books.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360912

Am 15.08.2015 18:56, schrieb Eteocles Panagakos:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> But tensors a BAD tools. I suggest 'complex four vectors + Pauli
>> algebra'
>> instead.
>
> Why should tensors be a bad tool. Do you understand tensors, to begin
> with. They are indispensable in order to balance the books.


Of curse I wanted to suggest complex-four-vectors in connection with 
general relativity and to use them in this context instead of tensors.


This is actually my personal impression. If you like to read more about 
this subject, I would suggest the text of Jonathan Scott (mentioned 
earlier) or:

  Patrick R. Girard
"Quaternions, Clifford Algebras and Relativistic Physics"


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360913

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 15.08.2015 18:56, schrieb Eteocles Panagakos:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>>> But tensors a BAD tools. I suggest 'complex four vectors + Pauli
>>> algebra' instead.
>>
>> Why should tensors be a bad tool. Do you understand tensors, to begin
>> with. They are indispensable in order to balance the books.
> 
> Of curse I wanted to suggest complex-four-vectors in connection with
> general relativity and to use them in this context instead of tensors.
> This is actually my personal impression. If you like to read more about
> this subject, I would suggest the text of Jonathan Scott (mentioned
> earlier) or:
>   Patrick R. Girard
> "Quaternions, Clifford Algebras and Relativistic Physics"

Quaternions are known to exhibits unavoidable singularities, so they 
cannot be that good. There is no such problem using tensors.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360952

Am 15.08.2015 20:51, schrieb Eteocles Panagakos:

>>>> But tensors a BAD tools. I suggest 'complex four vectors + Pauli
>>>> algebra' instead.
>>>
>>> Why should tensors be a bad tool. Do you understand tensors, to begin
>>> with. They are indispensable in order to balance the books.
>>
>> Of curse I wanted to suggest complex-four-vectors in connection with
>> general relativity and to use them in this context instead of tensors.
>> This is actually my personal impression. If you like to read more about
>> this subject, I would suggest the text of Jonathan Scott (mentioned
>> earlier) or:
>>    Patrick R. Girard
>> "Quaternions, Clifford Algebras and Relativistic Physics"
>
> Quaternions are known to exhibits unavoidable singularities, so they
> cannot be that good. There is no such problem using tensors.

I suggested 'complex four-vectors'. Those are also called 
'bi-quaternions' and do not suffer from the problem of quaternions you 
have mentioned.

What I actually did was this: I assume spacetime to be real and some 
sort of quaternion field.

This contains structures, that we call matter. This structure stems from 
a certain characteristic of quaternions. So the equivalent to a point 
has a direction, like an attached vector.

This is distributed in a certain way as 'timelike stable patterns'. And 
that is what we call matter (according to my concept).

This is my idea about how to connect GR to QM, since that is 'particles 
out of spacetime'. And for this I would need such type of quaternions.


TH


https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360981

Thomas Heger wrote:

> What I actually did was this: I assume spacetime to be real and
> some sort of quaternion field.

Right away you seem well off the rails with circular nonsense,
since fields in physics are functions of spacetime events, that is
the field values depend on the spacetime coordinates of each frame.


         ---Tim Shuba---

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web