Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #450808 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-02-25 14:53 -0800 |
| Last post | 2018-03-19 08:50 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 128 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-02-25 14:53 -0800
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-02-25 15:09 -0800
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-02-26 07:15 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 14:09 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Eveline Hurst <rutu@rwsrnlv.ee> - 2018-02-26 13:32 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-02 15:24 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-03 07:53 -0600
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Ický Bezdrátovì <ikbe@wmkfre.np> - 2018-03-03 14:05 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Ický Bezdrátovì <ikbe@wmkfre.np> - 2018-03-03 14:07 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-03 21:38 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-04 13:03 +0100
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-08 13:33 -0600
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-03-08 11:53 -0800
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-08 12:08 -0800
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 13:46 -0800
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-03-08 14:16 -0800
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-08 15:37 -0800
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 22:53 -0800
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-09 06:37 -0800
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-09 07:03 -0800
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-11 21:35 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-11 21:42 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-11 18:54 -0500
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-12 01:11 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-13 22:44 -0500
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 14:57 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-18 13:30 -0500
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Simon Roberts <retenshun@gmail.com> - 2018-03-18 12:00 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 11:12 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-23 18:50 -0500
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-23 17:16 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 06:22 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-24 06:22 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-03-24 11:55 -0400
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-24 11:02 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-24 09:08 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-12 11:12 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-12 14:22 -0500
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-12 12:59 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-12 07:30 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Térov Balónky <iytn@yeicenlw.ik> - 2018-03-12 14:34 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-14 07:07 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-12 16:01 -0500
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-12 21:14 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-14 08:50 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 18:01 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-14 11:30 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 18:37 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-14 12:42 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 20:44 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-14 14:11 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 21:27 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 21:31 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-14 22:17 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 11:53 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-15 06:06 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-14 22:17 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 11:53 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-15 06:08 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 14:57 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-15 12:07 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-14 14:28 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-15 07:09 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 14:57 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-16 07:06 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-03-16 14:10 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Térov Balónky <iytn@yeicenlw.ik> - 2018-03-16 14:39 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-03-16 18:19 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-16 16:36 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-16 09:59 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-16 21:34 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-17 06:50 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-17 08:47 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-03-17 16:18 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-17 19:22 +0100
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-17 11:23 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-17 12:05 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-17 19:11 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-17 12:35 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-03-17 16:37 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-17 18:32 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Térov Balónky <iytn@yeicenlw.ik> - 2018-03-18 12:44 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Térov Balónky <iytn@yeicenlw.ik> - 2018-03-17 17:11 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-03-15 17:13 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-13 06:14 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-13 14:06 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-14 08:53 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 18:01 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-15 07:13 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 15:06 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-15 15:03 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-15 15:25 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-15 17:10 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-16 07:09 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-13 17:19 -0500
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Térov Balónky <iytn@yeicenlw.ik> - 2018-03-13 22:51 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-03-13 15:58 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-03-13 16:00 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-14 09:00 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-04 06:10 -0800
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-03 15:08 +0100
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Ický Bezdrátovì <ikbe@wmkfre.np> - 2018-03-03 14:11 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-04 06:22 -0800
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-05 12:43 +0100
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-03-03 07:50 -0800
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-03-12 13:22 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-03-12 13:26 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-03-12 13:27 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-12 13:31 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-03-15 16:01 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-03-17 15:16 +0100
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Térov Balónky <iytn@yeicenlw.ik> - 2018-03-17 17:24 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-03-17 10:42 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-03-17 21:20 +0100
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-17 18:43 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-18 02:46 +0100
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-17 19:16 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Simon Roberts <retenshun@gmail.com> - 2018-03-18 06:39 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-18 07:30 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Simon Roberts <retenshun@gmail.com> - 2018-03-18 08:15 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Simon Roberts <retenshun@gmail.com> - 2018-03-18 08:20 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-18 21:16 +0100
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Simon Roberts <retenshun@gmail.com> - 2018-03-18 08:51 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-18 13:34 -0500
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Simon Roberts <retenshun@gmail.com> - 2018-03-18 11:58 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-19 07:20 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 14:44 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-19 08:50 -0700
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-03 15:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4944495.p5AjoybBPb@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #451209 |
Keith Stein wrote:
>> kenseto wrote:
>>> The rate of passage of absolute time is the same everywhere...
>
> Yes, we know this
*We* do not. If *you* know this, then you know *nonsense*. (Know that you
are referring to a known crackpot’s statement. Ken Seto *provably* has no
clue about even *the most basic* concepts of physics.)
There is no absolute time, because time simply is _not_ absolute: The
observation of time depends on the relative velocities between observer rest
frame and object rest frame (special relativity), and on the differences of
spacetime curvature on the path between observer and object (general
relativity).
See also e.g. <news:1680894.CQOukoFCf9@PointedEars.de> and
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment>.
> because atomic spectra are identical throughout the universe,
*Locally* they are; *observed*, they are _not_. That is how we know that
the objects whose spectra we obtain are at rest in a *different* frame of
reference.
> i.e the frequencies emitted by atoms are the same everywhere at all times.
But not the *observed* frequencies. *That* is what redshift is all about.
> It is true that frequencies look to be lower with galaxies further from
> Earth.
Frequencies, as in *observed* frequencies, *are* lower.
They are *the lower the farther away the astronomical object is* – not only
when observed from Earth, but *from everywhere* in the universe. The reason
is the *metric* expansion of space(time):
[For reading the following, you should use a monospaced font.]
t₁ t₂ > t₂
<-----> <----------->
<---> <------->
<-> <--->
* * * * * * * * * *
* + * * * ^ ^ ^
* * * * * v : : * + * * * ^ ^ ^
* * * * * v : : : :
* * * * * v * * * * * v : :
: :
* * * * * v :
:
* * * * * v
<---> <------->
<-> <--->
* * * * * ^ * * * * * ^
* * * * * ^ : :
* * * * * ^ : : * * * * * ^ :
* * + * * v v v : :
* * * * * * * * * * ^ : :
: : :
* * + * * v v v
* * * * *
________
+ arbitrary observer
* observed points in space, e.g. other galaxies
Why?
This is a wave:
.''. .''.
. . . .
. . . . .
. . . .
'' ''
A wave is a repeating pattern:
: :
.''. : .''. :
. .v . .v
. . . . .
. .^ . .^
'' : '' :
: :
The part that is repeating is called a *cycle*:
.''.
. .
. . .
. .
''
The length of a cycle in space is called the *wavelength* λ (Greek small
letter lambda):
λ
:---------->:
: :
.''. .''.
. . . .
. . . . .
. . . .
'' ''
:<--------->:
λ
One can use a coordinate system to assign values to the wave:
^
1 : .''. .''. .'
:. . . . .
0 :------.----.------.----.--->
: . . . .
−1 : '' ''
A wave is a phenomenon in space (x). At the same time, it has different
values in different points in space:
^
1 : .''. .''. .'
:. . . . .
0 :------.----.------.----.---> x
: . . . .
−1 : '' ''
A wave is also traveling (“propagating”) through space.
This is a wave at time t₁:
λ
:<--------->:
^ : : :
1 : .''. : .''. .'
:. .: . . .
0 :------.----.------.----.---> x
: :. . . .
−1 : : '' ''
x₀
Some time t₂ later, it has traveled a certain distance in space:
λ
:<--------->:
^ : : :
1 : .''. .''. .'
: . : . . . .
0 :---.--:---.----.------.----.--> x
: . : . . . .
−1 :'' : '' ''
x₀
Therefore, a wave is also a phenomenon in time: The same point in space
experiences different values of the wave at different times.
So, instead of drawing the wave in space, we can also draw its value for the
same point in space, but at different times (t). For example, the point x₀
above experiences the value of the wave rising, falling, rising again,
falling again, and so on:
^
1 : .''. .''. .'
: . . . : . .
0 :--.------.----.--:---.----.---> t
: . . .: : . .
−1 :' '' : : ''
t₁ t₂
The time that it takes for a point in space to experience one cycle of the
wave is called the *period* T of the wave:
T
:<--------->:
^ : :
1 : .''. : .''. : .'
:. . :. . :.
0 :------.----.------.----.---> t
: . . . .
−1 : '' ''
“The position of a point in time (an instant) on a waveform cycle” is called
a *phase*. (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_(waves)>)
The *phase speed* c of a wave is the distance that a cycle of the wave
travels through space per unit time:
c = λ∕T
The *frequency* of a wave is the number of cycles experienced by the same
point in space per unit time:
f = 1∕T
It follows:
c = λ f (1)
We can describe light as an electromagnetic wave. Observation shows that
the (phase) speed of light is constant and the same for all observers in
the same optical medium:
c = const.
If the distance between an observer and a wave source increases, the
observed frequency decreases:
The point in space where the observer is experiences less cycles per unit
time, as the distance increases that a cycle must travel, but the phase
speed of the wave does _not_ increase.
With light, this means that the observed frequency of the light decreases:
the light appears more reddish to the observer as reddish light has a lower
frequency than e.g. blueish light.
However, in fact we do not only receive visible light from astronomical
sources; redshift pertains to *all* forms of electromagnetic radiation,
even those that humans cannot perceive (which is *much* more than they
can perceive):
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light#/media/File:EM_spectrum.svg>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_vision#Physiology_of_color_perception>
> This is conventionally considered to be a sort of Doppler Shift
> due to the expansion of the universe,
No, it is not. That is a common misconception:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift#Expansion_of_space> p.
> but it is much better viewed as a result of light slowing down as it
> travels through the intergalactic medium.
You are referring to “tired light”, a class of observationally *falsified*
theories:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light>
PointedEars
--
Q: Why is electricity so dangerous?
A: It doesn't conduct itself.
(from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ický Bezdrátovì <ikbe@wmkfre.np> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-03 14:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p7eadm$1kg8$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #451327 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Keith Stein wrote: > >>> kenseto wrote: >>>> The rate of passage of absolute time is the same everywhere... >> >> Yes, we know this > > *We* do not. If *you* know this, then you know *nonsense*. (Know that > you are referring to a known crackpot’s statement. Ken Seto *provably* > has no clue about even *the most basic* concepts of physics.) Just imagine reading a datasheet for an electronic component, or whatever, using enclosed *terms* like this moron above does. Severely uneducated.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-04 06:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d3999e7a-e06d-4931-b55f-9a9056c1519f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451327 |
On Saturday, March 3, 2018 at 9:08:25 AM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Keith Stein wrote: > > >> kenseto wrote: > >>> The rate of passage of absolute time is the same everywhere... > > > > Yes, we know this > > *We* do not. If *you* know this, then you know *nonsense*. (Know that you > are referring to a known crackpot’s statement. Ken Seto *provably* has no > clue about even *the most basic* concepts of physics.) ROTFLOL....this moron is calling everybody who disagree with him a crackpot. > > There is no absolute time, because time simply is _not_ absolute: The > observation of time depends on the relative velocities between observer rest > frame and object rest frame (special relativity), and on the differences of > spacetime curvature on the path between observer and object (general > relativity). Moron clock time is relative. But there is no clock time unit that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames. That’s why the LT was invented to predict the clock rate of a moving clock--one second of proper time (a specific interval of absolute time) on the observer’s clock is corresponded to 1/gamma second on a moving clock Gee you are so fucking stupid and yet you have the gawk to call everybody crackpot. > > See also e.g. <news:1680894.CQOukoFCf9@PointedEars.de> and > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment>. > > > because atomic spectra are identical throughout the universe, > > *Locally* they are; *observed*, they are _not_. That is how we know that > the objects whose spectra we obtain are at rest in a *different* frame of > reference. > > > i.e the frequencies emitted by atoms are the same everywhere at all times. > > But not the *observed* frequencies. *That* is what redshift is all about. > > > It is true that frequencies look to be lower with galaxies further from > > Earth. > > Frequencies, as in *observed* frequencies, *are* lower. > > They are *the lower the farther away the astronomical object is* – not only > when observed from Earth, but *from everywhere* in the universe. The reason > is the *metric* expansion of space(time): > > [For reading the following, you should use a monospaced font.] > > t₁ t₂ > t₂ > > <-----> <-----------> > <---> <-------> > <-> <---> > * * * * * * * * * * > * + * * * ^ ^ ^ > * * * * * v : : * + * * * ^ ^ ^ > * * * * * v : : : : > * * * * * v * * * * * v : : > : : > * * * * * v : > : > * * * * * v > > <---> <-------> > <-> <---> > * * * * * ^ * * * * * ^ > * * * * * ^ : : > * * * * * ^ : : * * * * * ^ : > * * + * * v v v : : > * * * * * * * * * * ^ : : > : : : > * * + * * v v v > > * * * * * > > ________ > + arbitrary observer > * observed points in space, e.g. other galaxies > > Why? > > This is a wave: > > .''. .''. > . . . . > . . . . . > . . . . > '' '' > > A wave is a repeating pattern: > > > : : > .''. : .''. : > . .v . .v > . . . . . > . .^ . .^ > '' : '' : > : : > > The part that is repeating is called a *cycle*: > > .''. > . . > . . . > . . > '' > > The length of a cycle in space is called the *wavelength* λ (Greek small > letter lambda): > > λ > :---------->: > : : > .''. .''. > . . . . > . . . . . > . . . . > '' '' > :<--------->: > λ > > One can use a coordinate system to assign values to the wave: > > ^ > 1 : .''. .''. .' > :. . . . . > 0 :------.----.------.----.---> > : . . . . > −1 : '' '' > > A wave is a phenomenon in space (x). At the same time, it has different > values in different points in space: > > ^ > 1 : .''. .''. .' > :. . . . . > 0 :------.----.------.----.---> x > : . . . . > −1 : '' '' > > A wave is also traveling (“propagating”) through space. > > This is a wave at time t₁: > > λ > :<--------->: > ^ : : : > 1 : .''. : .''. .' > :. .: . . . > 0 :------.----.------.----.---> x > : :. . . . > −1 : : '' '' > x₀ > > Some time t₂ later, it has traveled a certain distance in space: > > λ > :<--------->: > ^ : : : > 1 : .''. .''. .' > : . : . . . . > 0 :---.--:---.----.------.----.--> x > : . : . . . . > −1 :'' : '' '' > x₀ > > Therefore, a wave is also a phenomenon in time: The same point in space > experiences different values of the wave at different times. > > So, instead of drawing the wave in space, we can also draw its value for the > same point in space, but at different times (t). For example, the point x₀ > above experiences the value of the wave rising, falling, rising again, > falling again, and so on: > > ^ > 1 : .''. .''. .' > : . . . : . . > 0 :--.------.----.--:---.----.---> t > : . . .: : . . > −1 :' '' : : '' > t₁ t₂ > > The time that it takes for a point in space to experience one cycle of the > wave is called the *period* T of the wave: > > T > :<--------->: > ^ : : > 1 : .''. : .''. : .' > :. . :. . :. > 0 :------.----.------.----.---> t > : . . . . > −1 : '' '' > > “The position of a point in time (an instant) on a waveform cycle” is called > a *phase*. (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_(waves)>) > > The *phase speed* c of a wave is the distance that a cycle of the wave > travels through space per unit time: > > c = λ∕T > > The *frequency* of a wave is the number of cycles experienced by the same > point in space per unit time: > > f = 1∕T > > It follows: > > c = λ f (1) > > We can describe light as an electromagnetic wave. Observation shows that > the (phase) speed of light is constant and the same for all observers in > the same optical medium: > > c = const. > > If the distance between an observer and a wave source increases, the > observed frequency decreases: > > The point in space where the observer is experiences less cycles per unit > time, as the distance increases that a cycle must travel, but the phase > speed of the wave does _not_ increase. > > With light, this means that the observed frequency of the light decreases: > the light appears more reddish to the observer as reddish light has a lower > frequency than e.g. blueish light. > > However, in fact we do not only receive visible light from astronomical > sources; redshift pertains to *all* forms of electromagnetic radiation, > even those that humans cannot perceive (which is *much* more than they > can perceive): > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light#/media/File:EM_spectrum.svg> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_vision#Physiology_of_color_perception> > > > This is conventionally considered to be a sort of Doppler Shift > > due to the expansion of the universe, > > No, it is not. That is a common misconception: > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift#Expansion_of_space> p. > > > but it is much better viewed as a result of light slowing down as it > > travels through the intergalactic medium. > > You are referring to “tired light”, a class of observationally *falsified* > theories: > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light> > > > PointedEars > -- > Q: Why is electricity so dangerous? > A: It doesn't conduct itself. > > (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-05 12:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4390309.JSWWVmThbm@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #451424 |
kenseto wrote: > On Saturday, March 3, 2018 at 9:08:25 AM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn > wrote: >> Keith Stein wrote: >> >> kenseto wrote: >> >>> The rate of passage of absolute time is the same everywhere... >> > Yes, we know this >> >> *We* do not. If *you* know this, then you know *nonsense*. (Know that >> you are referring to a known crackpot’s statement. Ken Seto *provably* >> has no clue about even *the most basic* concepts of physics.) > > […] there is no clock time unit that represents the same amount of > absolute time in different frames. That’s why the LT was invented […] Q.E.D. PointedEars -- Q: What did the female magnet say to the male magnet? A: From the back, I found you repulsive, but from the front I find myself very attracted to you. (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-03 07:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ab5fb45c-d917-4ac9-bcc9-c0b78f20b6e4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #450808 |
On Sunday, February 25, 2018 at 2:53:54 PM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > > The above concept of absolute time is described in detail in Chapter 4 of my book in the following link: > snip reference to Ken Shito's cretinism< Ken Shito Does your family know the magnitude? Of your imbecility.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-12 13:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7080401e-0a37-4a37-a8ce-630fe2c78acc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #450808 |
The Big Bang as the beginning of space. and time means there was a common. time beginning. __________________________________________________________________
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-12 13:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <715be690-efd6-422d-916a-a40f56f0b33a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #450808 |
The Big Bang as the beginning of space and time means there was a common time beginning. ____________________________________________________
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-12 13:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c193f67a-95a0-4b25-b6ab-43818270848b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #450808 |
The Big Bang as the beginning of space.. and time means there was a common. time beginning.. _________________________________________________________ The Big Bang expansion theory is justified using the symmetry of a spiral galaxy (fig 22). The outwardly radiating tentacles of a spiral galaxy represent a galaxy that stars originate from a central point which is used to justify the expansion theory but the image of a spiral galaxy was arbitrarily created since all galaxies are located more than a light year from the earth yet the Hubble has a maximum resolution power of .1 arcsec that represents the maximum distance of .052 light years (equ 81). The photographs of the Milky Way spiral galaxy contains the Sun that would require the photographer to be many millions of light years away from the earth. The density of the stars that constitute the celestial universe depicted on celestial maps is constant yet the image of the Milky Way galaxy represents a higher density of stars at the center of the Milky Way and along the tentacles of the Milky Way which does not correspond with the constant density of stars in all the quadrants of the celestial universe viewed from the earth; conversely, the Big Bang expansion theory is based on the stars of the stellar universe that are in motion but the stars of the celestial universe are stationary since the stars of the constellations that constitute the celestial universe have not change positions since the advent of photography (120 years). The red shift is used to justify the Big Bang expansion theory but every star in the universe forms both red and blue shifts since the stars of the stellar universe are stationary. The red shift is caused by the motion of the observed on the surface of the earth viewing a stationary star. When an observer on the surface of the earth propagates towards a star, that motion is produced by the earth's daily and yearly motions, the blue shift is produced and when the observer propagates away from the star, the red shift is observed. The stellar red and blue shifts are formed by the earth's daily and yearly motions affect on the observer viewing the stationary stars of the celestial universe which contradicts the Big Bang theory that stars are in motion (expanding).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-12 13:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3543ade2-024d-4b02-9148-7daf758f9f31@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452440 |
Pressure is constant so c^2 is constant
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-15 16:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2f5ab316-59da-4cf4-90d7-5296976dfbaa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #450808 |
On Sunday, February 25, 2018 at 2:53:54 PM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > Is time everywhere in the universe the same? > This question was asked in Quora in Facebook and my answer is as follows: > > The rate of passage of absolute time is the same everywhere. However, there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represent the same amount of absolute time in different frames. That’s why physicists invented the Lorentz Transformation—a clock second in observer A’s clock will represent a specific amount of absolute time, this amount of absolute time is transformed to a moving clock and the result is 1/gamma second on the moving clock. what this mean is that a clock second on observer A’s clock will represent a specific amount of absolute time and this amount of absolute time is represented by 1/gamma second on a moving clock. > > According to Einstein’s Special Relativity (SR) time is assumed to be relative. This assumption ruled out the existence of absolute time. However, this assumption is wrong. Why? Because it is based on yet another faulty assumption that a clock second is a universal interval of time (absolute time). It is not. The GPS designers knew that the SR assumption is wrong because the GPS at its location will accumulate clock seconds at a different rate than the ground clock—at a rate of 38us/day running faster than the ground clock. They correct this differences by redefining the GPS second to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This makes the GPS in synch with the ground clock permanently in terms of absolute time. > > The above concept of absolute time is described in detail in Chapter 4 of my book in the following link: > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf Time is at every point in the universe as a design of aether order sameness. Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-17 15:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <fh4m90FlfqeU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #450808 |
Am 25.02.2018 um 23:53 schrieb kenseto: > Is time everywhere in the universe the same? > This question was asked in Quora in Facebook and my answer is as follows: > > The rate of passage of absolute time is the same everywhere. However, there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represent the same amount of absolute time in different frames. That’s why physicists invented the Lorentz Transformation—a clock second in observer A’s clock will represent a specific amount of absolute time, this amount of absolute time is transformed to a moving clock and the result is 1/gamma second on the moving clock. what this mean is that a clock second on observer A’s clock will represent a specific amount of absolute time and this amount of absolute time is represented by 1/gamma second on a moving clock. 'The universe' is not universal. This universe is in fact our own past light cone and that is 'relative' (to ourselves). The real thing must be somewhere hidden behind what could actually see. This invisible universe has relations inside, which we could call time. This is certain, since we are also inside and have time. But we do not know how clocks tick in such hidden realms. Most likely they are not in sync with our clocks, but behave like the time we observe. We could also assume different directions of time in such imaginary spaces (like: ticking backwards). We simply do not know, since invisible universes are in fact invisible. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Térov Balónky <iytn@yeicenlw.ik> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-17 17:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p8jj04$17nf$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #452972 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > This invisible universe has relations inside, which we could call time. > This is certain, since we are also inside and have time. You cant call relations for time. What's wrong with the education system in your country of residence, mina amico?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-17 10:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <02216f2f-bef0-4f23-957f-460d93efbf0c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452972 |
On Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 7:16:03 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 25.02.2018 um 23:53 schrieb kenseto: > > Is time everywhere in the universe the same? > > This question was asked in Quora in Facebook and my answer is as follows: > > > > The rate of passage of absolute time is the same everywhere. However, there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represent the same amount of absolute time in different frames. That’s why physicists invented the Lorentz Transformation—a clock second in observer A’s clock will represent a specific amount of absolute time, this amount of absolute time is transformed to a moving clock and the result is 1/gamma second on the moving clock. what this mean is that a clock second on observer A’s clock will represent a specific amount of absolute time and this amount of absolute time is represented by 1/gamma second on a moving clock. > > > 'The universe' is not universal. > > This universe is in fact our own past light cone and that is 'relative' > (to ourselves). > > The real thing must be somewhere hidden behind what could actually see. > > This invisible universe has relations inside, which we could call time. > This is certain, since we are also inside and have time. > > But we do not know how clocks tick in such hidden realms. Most likely > they are not in sync with our clocks, but behave like the time we observe. > > We could also assume different directions of time in such imaginary > spaces (like: ticking backwards). We simply do not know, since invisible > universes are in fact invisible. > > > TH The universe had a common space-time absolute beginning. There is only one universal universe... Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-17 21:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <fh5bkeFqca6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #452987 |
Am 17.03.2018 um 18:42 schrieb mitchrae3323@gmail.com: > On Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 7:16:03 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 25.02.2018 um 23:53 schrieb kenseto: >>> Is time everywhere in the universe the same? >>> This question was asked in Quora in Facebook and my answer is as follows: >>> >>> The rate of passage of absolute time is the same everywhere. However, there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represent the same amount of absolute time in different frames. That’s why physicists invented the Lorentz Transformation—a clock second in observer A’s clock will represent a specific amount of absolute time, this amount of absolute time is transformed to a moving clock and the result is 1/gamma second on the moving clock. what this mean is that a clock second on observer A’s clock will represent a specific amount of absolute time and this amount of absolute time is represented by 1/gamma second on a moving clock. >> >> >> 'The universe' is not universal. >> >> This universe is in fact our own past light cone and that is 'relative' >> (to ourselves). >> >> The real thing must be somewhere hidden behind what could actually see. >> >> This invisible universe has relations inside, which we could call time. >> This is certain, since we are also inside and have time. >> >> But we do not know how clocks tick in such hidden realms. Most likely >> they are not in sync with our clocks, but behave like the time we observe. >> >> We could also assume different directions of time in such imaginary >> spaces (like: ticking backwards). We simply do not know, since invisible >> universes are in fact invisible. >> >> >> TH > > The universe had a common space-time absolute beginning. > There is only one universal universe... > Well, maybe. But I would say, this is not the case. I think, that time is a local measure. We are here in some position (on planet Earth) hence use local time (ours). If we extend this timeline into the very remote past, our universe seems to stem from a singularity. The universe seems to have popped out of nowhere and from that time on evolved into its current state. At least we think, this would be true. But actually we have no proof, since 13,5 billion years is long ago and whether there was another universe before, we simply don't know. But lets assume there was one, which had vanished into a black hole (kind of 'big crunch'). Then later this crunch turned into a bang and we have a new universe. But this picture depends on Earth time, hence on our location on planet Earth. If we would travel far away in space (say 13,5 billion light years). How would the universe look like? The universe would look similar to ours, but a little different. The population of that area (assumed it is populated) had also scientists. Those find out, that the universe has started with a big bang. They also know where that happened: here on planet Earth. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-17 18:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4d634d7f-7c58-495b-a24c-5066c5fdd098@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #450808 |
On Sunday, February 25, 2018 at 4:53:54 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > Is time everywhere in the universe the same? > This question was asked in Quora in Facebook and my answer is as follows: > > The rate of passage of absolute time is the same everywhere. However, there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represent the same amount of absolute time in different frames. That’s why physicists invented the Lorentz Transformation—a clock second in observer A’s clock will represent a specific amount of absolute time, this amount of absolute time is transformed to a moving clock and the result is 1/gamma second on the moving clock. what this mean is that a clock second on observer A’s clock will represent a specific amount of absolute time and this amount of absolute time is represented by 1/gamma second on a moving clock. > > According to Einstein’s Special Relativity (SR) time is assumed to be relative. This assumption ruled out the existence of absolute time. However, this assumption is wrong. Why? Because it is based on yet another faulty assumption that a clock second is a universal interval of time (absolute time). It is not. The GPS designers knew that the SR assumption is wrong because the GPS at its location will accumulate clock seconds at a different rate than the ground clock—at a rate of 38us/day running faster than the ground clock. They correct this differences by redefining the GPS second to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This makes the GPS in synch with the ground clock permanently in terms of absolute time. > > The above concept of absolute time is described in detail in Chapter 4 of my book in the following link: > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf Time in the universe can be the same as long as we can "see" ourselves. If we cannot do this we have to start to send signals that are LESS than images.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-18 02:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5aadc4e6$0$9285$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #453046 |
Utter crank John Gogo wrote: > ... > > Time in the universe can be the same as long as we can > "see" ourselves. If we cannot do this we have to start > to send signals that are LESS than images. Cretin, images are signals too. By the way, by answering to Ken Seto you are dealing with an idiot. As I am by answering to you, oh dear...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-17 19:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8821e603-1c64-44a5-b087-f0eac75bfdf8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #453047 |
On Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 8:46:15 PM UTC-5, Python wrote: > Utter crank John Gogo wrote: > > ... > > > > Time in the universe can be the same as long as we can > > "see" ourselves. If we cannot do this we have to start > > to send signals that are LESS than images. > > Cretin, images are signals too. > > By the way, by answering to Ken Seto you are dealing with > an idiot. As I am by answering to you, oh dear... It is more like... signals are not images!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Simon Roberts <retenshun@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-18 06:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f96e6c6a-8b76-4030-ac96-bd47d9d4b0b6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #450808 |
On Sunday, February 25, 2018 at 5:53:54 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > Is time everywhere in the universe the same? > This question was asked in Quora in Facebook and my answer is as follows: > > The rate of passage of absolute time is the same everywhere. However, there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represent the same amount of absolute time in different frames. That’s why physicists invented the Lorentz Transformation—a clock second in observer A’s clock will represent a specific amount of absolute time, this amount of absolute time is transformed to a moving clock and the result is 1/gamma second on the moving clock. what this mean is that a clock second on observer A’s clock will represent a specific amount of absolute time and this amount of absolute time is represented by 1/gamma second on a moving clock. > > According to Einstein’s Special Relativity (SR) time is assumed to be relative. This assumption ruled out the existence of absolute time. However, this assumption is wrong. Why? Because it is based on yet another faulty assumption that a clock second is a universal interval of time (absolute time). It is not. The GPS designers knew that the SR assumption is wrong because the GPS at its location will accumulate clock seconds at a different rate than the ground clock—at a rate of 38us/day running faster than the ground clock. They correct this differences by redefining the GPS second to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This makes the GPS in synch with the ground clock permanently in terms of absolute time. > > The above concept of absolute time is described in detail in Chapter 4 of my book in the following link: > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf I assume that there is a way to measure absolute time in all reference frames. I assume that the best known way is the atomic clock that uses the measurement of the wavelength / frequency / periodicity or multiple yet identical and not necessarily in phase. (a laser may come in handy to get all emissions in phase or two halved silvered mirrors or something). Although out of phase all identical emissions by a vast multiple of identical atoms may just WORK to yield coherent light in time and space. Just may at a certain limit of the number of atoms involved. I predict some sot of trade-off in the number of atoms used. Say for example, I'm assuming again, the transition of an electron of a super cooled Hydrogen atoms all (hopefully) from the second orbital to the valence (first or inner) orbital. Perhaps with the necessity of specifying whether all Hydrogen atoms are of an identical atomic weight; identical atoms as best as possible in every way important, including temperature and location. How all the emissions of a large enough group of IDENTICAL ELEMENTS would add up to be useful in terms of periodicity / frequency / wavelength, I do not know. (before disagreeing in a certain relative way please consider the null effect of the Michelson-Morley Experiment) A pendulum of sorts. A very good one. If may never be exact. That being said there is still a continuum of simultaneous instances everywhere. If atomic clocks are not the ticker that is useful, accurate or sound then there should be at least one invariable constant across all the universe at each and every 3 dimensional coordinate that can be_used as a measure of time and whether any coordinate can be specified is beside the point. Simon C. Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-18 07:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d44d051f-e8da-4f2a-82ca-e2131dfdc868@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #453101 |
On Sunday, March 18, 2018 at 9:39:51 AM UTC-4, Simon Roberts wrote: > On Sunday, February 25, 2018 at 5:53:54 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > > Is time everywhere in the universe the same? > > This question was asked in Quora in Facebook and my answer is as follows: > > > > The rate of passage of absolute time is the same everywhere. However, there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represent the same amount of absolute time in different frames. That’s why physicists invented the Lorentz Transformation—a clock second in observer A’s clock will represent a specific amount of absolute time, this amount of absolute time is transformed to a moving clock and the result is 1/gamma second on the moving clock. what this mean is that a clock second on observer A’s clock will represent a specific amount of absolute time and this amount of absolute time is represented by 1/gamma second on a moving clock. > > > > According to Einstein’s Special Relativity (SR) time is assumed to be relative. This assumption ruled out the existence of absolute time. However, this assumption is wrong. Why? Because it is based on yet another faulty assumption that a clock second is a universal interval of time (absolute time). It is not. The GPS designers knew that the SR assumption is wrong because the GPS at its location will accumulate clock seconds at a different rate than the ground clock—at a rate of 38us/day running faster than the ground clock. They correct this differences by redefining the GPS second to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This makes the GPS in synch with the ground clock permanently in terms of absolute time. > > > > The above concept of absolute time is described in detail in Chapter 4 of my book in the following link: > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf > > I assume that there is a way to measure absolute time in all reference frames. A clock second at the rest frame of the clock is a measure of a SPECIFIC interval of absolute time. However a clock second does not represent the same amount of absolute time in different frames. That’s why the LT was invented to transform the value of the observer’s specific interval of absolute time (eg: the observer’s clock second) on a moving clock. And the result is: 1 second of absolute time on the observer’s clock = 1/gamma second of absolute time on a moving clock. What this mean is that there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames. The LT is designed to transform an interval of absolute time (eg: the observer’s clock second) on the observer’s clock to a moving clock. The above concept of absolute time give rise to a new theory of relativity called IRT. A paper on IRT is available in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf Also I invite you to read my book in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf > > I assume that the best known way is the atomic clock that uses the measurement of the wavelength / frequency / periodicity or multiple yet identical and not necessarily in phase. (a laser may come in handy to get all emissions in phase or two halved silvered mirrors or something). > > Although out of phase all identical emissions by a vast multiple of identical atoms may just WORK to yield coherent light in time and space. Just may at a certain limit of the number of atoms involved. I predict some sot of trade-off in the number of atoms used. > > Say for example, I'm assuming again, the transition of an electron of a super cooled Hydrogen atoms all (hopefully) from the second orbital to the valence (first or inner) orbital. Perhaps with the necessity of specifying whether all Hydrogen atoms are of an identical atomic weight; identical atoms as best as possible in every way important, including temperature and location. > > How all the emissions of a large enough group of IDENTICAL ELEMENTS would add up to be useful in terms of periodicity / frequency / wavelength, I do not know. > > (before disagreeing in a certain relative way please consider the null effect of the Michelson-Morley Experiment) > > A pendulum of sorts. A very good one. If may never be exact. > > That being said there is still a continuum of simultaneous instances everywhere. If atomic clocks are not the ticker that is useful, accurate or sound then there should be at least one invariable constant across all the universe at each and every 3 dimensional coordinate that can be_used as a measure of time and whether any coordinate can be specified is beside the point. > > Simon C. Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Simon Roberts <retenshun@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-18 08:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f743d7d8-4153-461f-a5f5-901cb0670b61@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #453106 |
On Sunday, March 18, 2018 at 10:30:26 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, March 18, 2018 at 9:39:51 AM UTC-4, Simon Roberts wrote: > > On Sunday, February 25, 2018 at 5:53:54 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > > > Is time everywhere in the universe the same? > > > This question was asked in Quora in Facebook and my answer is as follows: > > > > > > The rate of passage of absolute time is the same everywhere. However, there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represent the same amount of absolute time in different frames. That’s why physicists invented the Lorentz Transformation—a clock second in observer A’s clock will represent a specific amount of absolute time, this amount of absolute time is transformed to a moving clock and the result is 1/gamma second on the moving clock. what this mean is that a clock second on observer A’s clock will represent a specific amount of absolute time and this amount of absolute time is represented by 1/gamma second on a moving clock. > > > > > > According to Einstein’s Special Relativity (SR) time is assumed to be relative. This assumption ruled out the existence of absolute time. However, this assumption is wrong. Why? Because it is based on yet another faulty assumption that a clock second is a universal interval of time (absolute time). It is not. The GPS designers knew that the SR assumption is wrong because the GPS at its location will accumulate clock seconds at a different rate than the ground clock—at a rate of 38us/day running faster than the ground clock. They correct this differences by redefining the GPS second to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This makes the GPS in synch with the ground clock permanently in terms of absolute time. > > > > > > The above concept of absolute time is described in detail in Chapter 4 of my book in the following link: > > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf > > > > I assume that there is a way to measure absolute time in all reference frames. > > A clock second at the rest frame of the clock is a measure of a SPECIFIC interval of absolute time. However a clock second does not represent the same amount of absolute time in different frames. That’s why the LT was invented to transform the value of the observer’s specific interval of absolute time (eg: the observer’s clock second) on a moving clock. And the result is: > 1 second of absolute time on the observer’s clock = 1/gamma second of absolute time on a moving clock. > > What this mean is that there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames. The LT is designed to transform an interval of absolute time (eg: the observer’s clock second) on the observer’s clock to a moving clock. > > The above concept of absolute time give rise to a new theory of relativity called IRT. A paper on IRT is available in the following link: > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf > > Also I invite you to read my book in the following link: > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf > > > > > > I assume that the best known way is the atomic clock that uses the measurement of the wavelength / frequency / periodicity or multiple yet identical and not necessarily in phase. (a laser may come in handy to get all emissions in phase or two halved silvered mirrors or something). > > > > Although out of phase all identical emissions by a vast multiple of identical atoms may just WORK to yield coherent light in time and space. Just may at a certain limit of the number of atoms involved. I predict some sot of trade-off in the number of atoms used. > > > > Say for example, I'm assuming again, the transition of an electron of a super cooled Hydrogen atoms all (hopefully) from the second orbital to the valence (first or inner) orbital. Perhaps with the necessity of specifying whether all Hydrogen atoms are of an identical atomic weight; identical atoms as best as possible in every way important, including temperature and location. > > > > How all the emissions of a large enough group of IDENTICAL ELEMENTS would add up to be useful in terms of periodicity / frequency / wavelength, I do not know. > > > > (before disagreeing in a certain relative way please consider the null effect of the Michelson-Morley Experiment) > > > > A pendulum of sorts. A very good one. If may never be exact. > > > > That being said there is still a continuum of simultaneous instances everywhere. If atomic clocks are not the ticker that is useful, accurate or sound then there should be at least one invariable constant across all the universe at each and every 3 dimensional coordinate that can be_used as a measure of time and whether any coordinate can be specified is beside the point. > > > > Simon C. Roberts please don't snip or truncate my posts and if you do the indicate that you have.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web