A Facebook Discussion Worth Saving (#2)
(It happened on the "Quantum Physics" Facebook group.)

Ralph Maggio
July 30 at 10:50am

I think I've narrowed down the arguments over Time Dilation to a single question: If time runs slower the faster you travel and the further away you get from a gravitational mass, as shown in Einstein's relativity equations, then doesn't the length of a second also change?

The arguments seemed to boil down to this meaningless phrase: "1 second is 1 second."

Yes, but IS the LENGTH a second the same at Earth's surface as it is at 20,000 kilometers above the surface.

-- start quote -->
Scientists have known for decades that time passes faster at higher elevations—a curious aspect of Einstein's theories of relativity that previously has been measured by comparing clocks on the Earth's surface and a high-flying rocket.

Now, physicists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have measured this effect at a more down-to-earth scale of 33 centimeters, or about 1 foot, demonstrating, for instance, that you age faster when you stand a couple of steps higher on a staircase.

Described in the Sept. 24 issue of Science, the difference is much too small for humans to perceive directly—adding up to approximately 90 billionths of a second over a 79-year lifetime—but may provide practical applications in geophysics and other fields.
<-- end quote --
time dilation problems
Source: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/aluminum-atomic-clock_092310.cfm

-- start quote -->
Each satellite in the GPS constellation orbits at an altitude of about 20,000 km from the ground

A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds [millionths of a second] per day.
<-- end quote --

Source: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

I'm no mathematician, but if an atomic clock ticks 9,192,631,770 times per second at surface level, how many times per second would it have to tick to allow the 86,400 seconds in a day to include those additional 45 microseconds experienced at 20,000 km above the surface?

Dee Solar East
July 31 at 2:19am

Moving fast is occupying more space.. you are moving slower than the shringking space. You are literally stoping time. You ceases to exist in the present time. When you stop and occupy a normal shrinking space you are now younger than your nabor.... question me more guys... I know a lot....


Dee Solar East
July 31 at 2:30am

East Similar with fast turning metals. They are slowing time and no longer exist to present moving time. They are unaffected by present gravity. Also similar to black holes they are stoping normal speed of time and ceased to exist in our present time. We can only feel their strong gravity when they beat again and die.


Dee Solar East
July 31 at 2:41am

The speed of shrinking space is constant. 1 second now is 2 seconds in the future. Or any numbers but must be faster. I am not so sure.

Neil Creamer
July 31 at 4:42am

I remember having frustrating conversations with Ed Lake on the subject of time where he seemed unable to separate the idea of time from the observation of a clock.

There is no stuff called time in our universe. All we can observe or measure is matter and its motion. Notions such as time, space, energy and forces are ideas we add to what we observe. The idea that there is any substance to the ideas we invent to discuss what we observe is akin to delusional insanity. Specifically, time is a human mental construct we associate with change.

Some motion is cyclic and can be used as a clock. When we speak of changes in the rate of clocks we are explicitly comparing two or more processes. In the example of the satellites, there are atomic clocks on the satellites being compared to reference clocks on the Earth’s surface.

There is a difference in the rate of the oscillation of clocks which needs to be accounted for. Unfortunately, this phenomenon has become associated with relativistic arguments.

I am disappointed that followers of what I can only describe as the religion of relativity continue to ignore the evidence that relativity was still born in 1905. The purported proof of the compatibility of invariant c with the principle of relativity fails because it is incomplete.

It’s time we stopped prattling on about bending space and dilating time and used actual physics to find the real reasons why the rate of atomic clocks seems to vary and why relativity seems to explain the phenomenon.

http://www.relativitychallenge.com/papers/Bryant.SphericalWaveProof.NPA2010.pdf

Dee Solar East
July 31 at 5:11am

Time is true and real... it is the movement of existing dimension to infinite zero dimension. Past was real. Present is now. Future doesn't exist yet. You are talking about diifferent kind of time.. the time you are saying Neil Creamer is how long is now... well you can never measure how long is now... we make our own standards from existing beating objects.. which are no longer at sync after many many beats. We make a standard to single universal clock... on the other hand we the subject is time dilation... when object move very fast... they slow their time compared to a slower moving or none moving object.


Dee Solar East
July 31 at 5:32am

My theory supports everything. Gravity is the phenomena when space shrink to accomodate shrinking matter. Space needs to shrink faster since it has more dimension than matter. In an atom electrons need to move forever in more space to accomodate the proton. Earth need to turn around the Sun to accomodate more space before reaching the speed of time influence by the Sun. The forever shinking is what you call time. When an object move fast, it occupies more space. Meaning it occupies more dimension. It becomes slower than accelerating shrinking space. You call that time dilation. When lightning strikes, some electron moves so fast it slowed its own time instead of moving down to earth they moves upwards since it delayed time on itself. You guys want more proof?

Neil Creamer
July 31 at 7:12am

Space and time exist only in your head and "the speed of time" is a meaningless concept.

Dee Solar East
July 31 at 7:36am

If you understand waves you will understand that now is a little bit or faster than now of the past.


Ralph Maggio
July 31 at 10:33am

Neil Creamer wrote: "It’s time we stopped prattling on about bending space and dilating time and used actual physics to find the real reasons why the rate of atomic clocks seems to vary and why relativity seems to explain the phenomenon."

I totally agree. That's why I started this thread. (However, I don't understand the idea of "bending space." I think it's just a metaphor that someone dreamed up to help explain gravity, and other people took it literally.)

I fully agree with using physics to explain "why the rate of atomic clocks seems to vary and why relativity seems to explain the phenomenon." That is what Ed and I have been doing for a couple years. Back in February, Ed produced a paper titled "What is Time?" The paper says that, whatever time is, it seems to be controlled by particle spin. Do something to slow down particle spin, and you slow down time.

Neil also wrote: "Space and time exist only in your head and 'the speed of time' is a meaningless concept."

It's not just in MY head. It's in the head of millions. I certainly don't want do disagree with an administrator, but how can "the speed of time" be a "meaningless concept" if it has GREAT meaning to countless physicists and astrophysicists?

Ed's papers: http://vixra.org/author/edward_g_lake


Ralph Maggio
July 31 at 10:44am

Dee Solar East, I'm sorry. Nothing of what you write makes any sense to me.

You wrote "The speed of shrinking space is constant. 1 second now is 2 seconds in the future. "

What's amazing to me is that time can tick at different rates everywhere, but nothing is ever ahead or behind anything else in time. "Now" is the same everywhere. That was illustrated and explained in Ed's paper on "Time Dilation Re-Visualized."

Dee Solar East
August 1 at 1:31pm

i mean universal... a shrinking proton in a point of space is similar to any shrinking proton at any part of our universe... their acceleration is also similar... but the rate of acceleration i am not sure... but they are getting faster and faster...


Ralph Maggio
July 31 at 10:59am

FYI everybody: This morning on Ed's web site he provides links to two papers where people argue that Einstein was WRONG when he wrote that clocks would tick slower at the equator than at the poles. Here are the two papers:

http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/harryricker/2015/05/28/einsteins-mistaken-time-dilation-prediction/

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/science/zapffe3.pdf

In the first paper it says,

-- begin quote -->
The purpose of this short note is to expand upon a conclusion I discussed in my paper on the Irksomeness of Einstein’s Special Theory Of Relativity . There it was pointed out that the famous prediction made by Einstein in his 1905 paper was false. Einstein said that a clock placed at the equator should run more slowly than an identical one located at one of the poles of the earth. Obviously it was IMPLICITLY ASSUMED that the earth’s rotation would produce a relative motion between the clocks that could be used to test the prediction. As was pointed out in that paper, there is no relative motion at all, so the prediction is a false one.
<-- end quote --

And Ed says,

-- begin quote -->
Mr. Ricker's "implicit assumption" is total nonsense. But it's a very good example of how someone can think that Relativity is ONLY about relative motion and not about ACTUAL motion. So, Mr. Ricker bizarrely believes that Einstein somehow saw some "relative motion" between a stationary clock at the equator and a stationary clock at one of the poles, and Mr. Ricker helpfully points out that there is no relative motion since both clocks are stationary relative to one another. Mr. Riker corrects an error that is only in his mind. What Einstein was talking about was that both clocks are moving relative to the earth's axis, one at about 1,000 mph, and the other just spinning in place.
<-- end quote --

That particular misunderstanding of relativity might be a good basis for discussion here.


Dee Solar East
August 1 at 1:49pm

i think the position must be in the equation... both clocks are still in space time of the earth... you must move upward or downward to perform an ideal time dilation on the earth surface....


Yanick Borg
July 31 at 4:15pm
 
The rates of correctly calibrated clocks do not change given uniform conditions of motion (inertia) and thermodyamic factors.

Everyone on this thread should learn about what is an "operational definition".


Neil Creamer
July 31 at 5:33pm

Ralph,

“Back in February, Ed produced a paper titled "What is Time?" The paper says that, whatever time is, it seems to be controlled by particle spin. Do something to slow down particle spin, and you slow down time.”

This is the frustrating thing I mentioned about Ed. If spin is a cyclic process we could associate a mental construct called time with it and, if we haven’t defined a unit of time, do so using the cyclic process, or if we have defined a unit of time using another cyclic process, measure the rate of the new process in our arbitrary units. Change is real, the processes are real but time isn’t; it’s just an idea for comparing rates of change.

Spin might be a clock but it isn’t time.

“Neil also wrote: "Space and time exist only in your head and 'the speed of time' is a meaningless concept."

It's not just in MY head. It's in the head of millions.”

I didn’t mean to imply that it’s some idiosyncratic notion of yours. It’s in all of our heads as a very persuasive idea but it doesn’t have a physical existence.

“how can "the speed of time" be a "meaningless concept"?

How is the speed of time measured? In seconds per second?


Ralph Maggio
August 1 at 3:16pm

Neil Creamer asked, "How is the speed of time measured? In seconds per second?"

They first measured it by seasons - spring, summer, fall, winter. 4 seasons equals 1 "year" of measured time.

Of course, a year would be different on a different planet.

They also measured the speed of time by cycles of the sun. Noon to noon equals one "day" of measured time.

Of course, a day would be different on a different planet.

Shop owners needed to break a "day" down into smaller increments, so they used sun dials to measure "hours." And then to set tasks for their employees they used more sophisticated mechanical clocks to measure "minutes" and "seconds."

Neil also wrote: "Change is real, the processes are real but time isn’t; it’s just an idea for comparing rates of change. "

The problem is, it ISN'T just an idea. Lots of books call it a "concept." It isn't just a "concept," either.

How can an idea or concept CAUSE CHANGE when an object moves or gets near a gravitational mass?

Time Dilation is REAL. It is something that HAPPENS. We can CAUSE it to happen. Can you slow down an idea or concept?

The term "time" encompasses ALL the different ways of measuring all the different regularly repeating processes and cycles. And, unlike an "idea" or "concept," Time can be slowed down. It's called "Time Dilation." So, what's the problem with calling what is being slowed down or dilated "time?"


Yanick Borg
August 1 at 10:08am

All of these are operational definitions. Now look how a second is operationally defined in science NOwadays, then come back and paste it in this thread.

Ralph Maggio
August 1 at 10:20am

"The second (abbreviation, s or sec) is the Standard International ( SI ) unit of time. One second is the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 (9.192631770 x 10 9 ) cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom."

https://www.google.com/#q=second+definition+time

Yanick Borg
August 1 at 10:25am

 Ok. Good. :)


Yanick Borg
August 1 at 10:25am

So, this number of cycles is how we define what a second is.


Ralph Maggio
August 1 at 10:26am

Yep, I learn something new every day. :-)

Yanick Borg
August 1 at 10:26am

If you put this clock on a mountain, 1 second is still defined by this number of cycles.

Ralph Maggio
August 1 at 10:28am

Yes, the number of cycles will not change, but when you COMPARE the two clocks, you will see they are not ticking at the same rate.

Yanick Borg
August 1 at 10:28am

And YES !!! You finally worded it correctly (as visible to an observer in another frame of reference). Well done Ralph. ??



Yanick Borg

August 1 at 10:29am

You may not be a crackpot after all.


Yanick Borg
August 1 at 10:30am

A crackpot is defined solely by fixed ideas (inability to learn basically).


Yanick Borg
August 1 at 10:31am

What I recommend is a text book. Spacetime Physics by J.A Wheeler.


Ralph Maggio
August 1 at 10:32am

Well, let's phrase it another way to see if you are still pleased, Yanick.: If you did it with one clock 10 meters above another clock, the two clocks could be seen to tick at a different rate by ALL observers. You do not need a third observer.

Yanick Borg
August 1 at 10:32am

You may want to have a search around on the web for practice questions and run through some.


Yanick Borg
August 1 at 10:33am

Where do you locate the 3rd observer Ralph ?


Ralph Maggio
August 1 at 10:33am

You do not need a "3rd observer" when each observer can see both clocks, Yanick.


Ralph Maggio
August 1 at 10:36am

This has been explained before. You can make the clocks LARGE or you can use TV to enable both observers to watch both clocks as they get farther and farther out of sync.


Ralph Maggio
August 1 at 10:39am

I'm talking about our REAL WORLD, Yanick. Not some IMAGINARY world where a person in one "frame of reference" has no ability to see what is happening in another "frame of reference."


Ralph Maggio
August 1 at 10:53am

Everybody, FYI: I just went back and changed "if a clock ticks 1,000,000 times per second" to "if a clock ticks 9,192,631,770" times per second in the comment that began this thread. Everything else remains the same.


Yanick Borg
August 1 at 11:10am

 :(

Ralph Maggio
August 1 at 11:10am

What's the problem, Yanick?

Yanick Borg
August 1 at 11:13am

With one clock 10m above another, you still have two reference frames in different locations in curved spacetime. You can't avoid this, not even by including a 3rd observer.

Ralph Maggio
August 1 at 11:14am

You can avoid it, Yanick, by thinking in REAL WORLD terms, not in MATHEMATICAL TERMS.

Yanick Borg
August 1 at 11:18am

That would not be science then. It would be philosophy or something.


Yanick Borg
August 1 at 11:19am

But before you turn to philosophy, please note; the point osf science is to make predictions, and it is necessary to do this with some kind of quantitative (mathematical) model.


Yanick Borg
August 1 at 11:24am

No one has unbridled access to nature. It is necessary to describe our observations with some kind of mathematical model.


Ralph Maggio
August 1 at 11:31am

Sorry, Yanick, but it IS science. It may not be mathematics, but science isn't just mathematics. Science is mainly OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENTATION and ANALYSIS. I showed a chart of the "scientific method" on two different occasions in the previous thread.

The point of science is NOT to make predictions. The point of science is to try to UNDERSTAND what is going on in the universe around us.

Mathematics is just a TOOL to help us understand certain details, and it can sometimes help make predictions.

It is NOT necessary to describe our observations with some kind of mathematical model. And obviously, mathematics can be a PROBLEM when people cannot understand the REAL WORLD except in mathematical terms.

Yanick Borg
August 1 at 11:42am

Btw, it would still be a physical thing. Information propagates from a location 10m to another location at ground at the speed of light across a curved spacetime (and visa versa). This is why we use reference frames. This is why c is the value used to transform coordinates. This is why curved spacetime for gravitation.

Ralph Maggio
August 1 at 11:43am

BTW, in case anyone is interested, Ed Lake just produced an updated version of his paper on "Time Dilated Light." It's available at this link: http://vixra.org/pdf/1607.0289v3.pdf

The biggest change is the replacement of the next to last paragraph. Instead of measuring the speed of light in New York versus Denver, the new paragraph explains things as I explained them here., i.e.,

-- begin quote -->
A gravitation-based validation of this Constructive Time Dilated Light Theory can be accomplished by measuring the speed of light vertically, instead of parallel to the Earth’s surface as is commonly done. All that is required is for someone to use an atomic clock to measure both the speed of light and the length of a second at ground level, bouncing the light off a mirror 10 meters directly above the emitter. Then to do the reverse, i.e., use an atomic clock to measure both the speed of light and the length of a second at a high point, bouncing the light off a mirror 10 meters directly below the emitter. If done with two sets of equipment side by side, the light that is emitted from the higher point should travel faster than the light that is emitted from the lower point, thereby sending light“ faster than the speed of light” as it is typically measured. We already know that it has been repeatedly proven that atomic clocks will show that the length of a second is different at those different heights.


Ralph Maggio
August 1 at 11:44am

You're babbling mathematics, Yanick. I'm talking science.


Yanick Borg
August 1 at 11:52am

Haha. I had hope for you. It seems the babbling cretin within was too much, and has mushroomed out to several important areas of the brain.


Yanick Borg
August 1 at 11:54am

Newsflash. Science is applied mathematics.


Ralph Maggio
August 1 at 11:56am

Newsflash: Mathematics is just a TOOL for science. And it appears that when this is explained to Mathematicians, they get snippy and start calling you names because they have no intelligent response to give.


Ralph Maggio
August 1 at 11:59am

I just made a copy of this thread. Some day I might publish a book which shows how hopeless it is to try to discuss science with mathematicians and philosophers. (All names will be changed "to protect the "innocent" mathematicians and philosophers, of course.)


Dee Solar East
August 1 at 1:21pm

show my name in your future book Ralph Maggio. Shrinking space and matter as both gravity and time is my theory and I am proud of it. hehe


Dinesh Padiyar
August 1 at 2:40pm

I know exactly what you mean! It's almost impossible to discuss food with cooks and chefs!


Ralph Maggio
August 1 at 3:05pm

In the previous thread, Yanick Borg wrote: "I never lose physics arguments, as I only argue when I know that I am correct about something."

Isn't that what everyone does? Argue when they BELIEVE they are correct?

How does one "know" they are correct except by closing their mind to any possibility that they MAY be wrong?


Ariaya Haile
August 1 at 3:06pm

Math comes first not science - we learn by experiment the specific mathematics that we are, but we know which one came first


Ralph Maggio
August 1 at 3:08pm

Dee Solar East, the book wouldn't be about your theory. It would be about arguing with mathematicians who REFUSE to discuss the REAL world and who can only discuss mathematical "frames of reference."


Ralph Maggio
August 1 at 3:11pm

Ariaya Haile wrote "Math comes first not science."

Only to mathematicians. To scientists, a question comes first, and that question may be answerable WITHOUT mathematics. Where do you see mathematics mentioned in the chart of "the scientific method" shown below?


the scientific method

http://www.cdn.sciencebuddies.org/Files/5084/7/2013-updated_scientific-method-steps_v6_noheader.png

Ralph Maggio
August 1 at 3:14pm

Dinesh Padiyar wrote: "It's almost impossible to discuss food with cooks and chefs!"

I don't know if you are being sarcastic or if you just used a bad analogy.

I'd say it's more like trying to discuss food with the accountant who keeps the books for a restaurant.


Ariaya Haile
August 1 at 3:17pm

Why can we predict anything? Because of the deterministic equations of motion (classically). No math, symmetry, conserved quantities -> no structure and no predicting. In quantum mechanics we talk about linear transformations of vector spaces, representation theory talks about the computational representation of abstract algebraic structures by way of linear transformations of vector spaces - at the core are quantum mechanical wave functions which are simply vector spaces or probability distributions - even physicists are asking themselves this final question - why does probability work? What seems to be at the core is math, relations fundamentally exist - Euclid proved Euclidean geometry exists axiomatically. We are a particular mathematics but still math. "Measurement" is just entanglement which is simply correlation - becoming correlated = measurement.


Ariaya Haile
August 1 at 3:21pm

The multiverse which most string theorists support comes about essentially because, if our mathematics or mathematical proof exists, so should every computable mathematics - that's where you get other universes with different physical laws based on other types of mathematics


Ralph Maggio
August 1 at 3:26pm

Ariaya Haile asked, "Why can we predict anything?"

Mathematicians seem to be hung up on the idea of "predicting." Mathematics plays a central role in "predicting," but there's a lot more to science than just "predicting." Science is really about UNDERSTANDING.

Ariaya Haile also wrote: "The multiverse which most string theorists support comes about ......"

Ah! String theory. A theory that cannot be proved or disproved. It just works MATHEMATICALLY and pleases mathematicians.

To a REAL scientist, string theory is a waste of time. When you find some way to PROVE something objectively, then we can talk. Until then, talking about String Theory is just a waste of time.


Ariaya Haile
August 1 at 3:29pm

Unfortunately there's a reason why physics classrooms have boards filled with math...Richard Feynman, top 10 of all time, once said, "To those who do not know mathematics it is difficult to get across a real feeling as to the beauty, the deepest beauty, of nature... If you want to learn about nature, to appreciate nature, it is necessary to understand the language that she speaks in."


Ralph Maggio
August 1 at 3:35pm

Ariaya Haile, I'm a big admirer of Richard Feynman, who said,
"Pure mathematics is just such an abstraction from the real world, and pure mathematics does have a special precise language for dealing with its own special and technical subjects. But this precise language is not precise in any sense if you deal with real objects of the world, and it is only pedantic and quite confusing to use it unless there are some special subtleties which have to be carefully distinguished."
and
"Physics is to mathematics what sex is to masturbation."
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman
 

Ralph Maggio
August 1 at 3:47pm

"ISSCC Microelectronics pioneer, Caltech professor emeritus, and all-around smart guy Carver Mead believes that the scientific revolution that began with the discovery of special relativity and quantum mechanics has stalled, and that it’s up to us to kickstart it, The Register reports.

“A bunch of big egos got in the way,” he told his audience of 3,000-plus chipheads at the International Soild-State Circuits Conference (ISSCC) in San Francisco on Monday.

Much more work needs to be done to restart that revolution, Mead said, with the goal of explaining in an intuitive way how all matter in the universe relates to and affects all other matter, and how to explore those interrelationships in a way that isn’t “buried in enormous piles of obscure mathematics.”

Source: http://www.kurzweilai.net/carver-mead-a-bunch-of-big-egos-are-strangling-science


Ralph Maggio
August 1 at 3:49pm

"Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with mathematics--it's the language we use to express the precise relations of physical law. But there is an increasing tendency to mistake the language for the physics itself. Once we lose the conceptual foundations, the whole thing becomes a shell game."

That's another Carver Mead quote from this link: http://worrydream.com/refs/Mead%20-%20American%20Spectator%20Interview.html

Dinesh Padiyar
August 1 at 3:54pm

That's quite right, but misunderstood. Feynman was a mathematical physicist, and the language of physics is mathematics. If you read his red books, it's full of mathematics. Feynman diagrams are representations of mathematical equations. What he meant was to differentiate Pure mathematics from useful mathematics. This has been an ongoing rivalry between physicists and mathematicians for quite a long time. Pure mathematicians require rigorous proof, but physicists usually dispense with rigour for the sake of the model. For a (simple) example, when you analyse a complex system, you might use Fourier analysis. However, a mathematician would require that you show that the Dirichelet conditions be first satisfied, while a physicist would answer that any physical system automatically satisfies the Dirichelet conditions. If you do a problem where a chain is falling onto a weighing pan, and you require the force on the pan as the chain falls, you get a quantity dy, the small length of chain that falls onto the pan. You can convert the rate of change of length to a rate of change in time by converting dy to (dy/dt)*dt. A mathematician would say that this is not rigorous, whereas the physicist would say, "But it gives the right answer"!


Ralph Maggio
August 1 at 4:01pm

Dinesh Padiyar wrote "If you read his [Richard Feynman's] red books, it's full of mathematics."

I have copies of "The Character of Physical Law" and "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" on my desk at this moment, and they are NOT full of mathematics. That's the great thing about them. They can be read and understood without heavy mathematics.


Ralph Maggio
August 1 at 4:12pm

I highlighted this quote on page 34 of "The Character of Physical Law":

"Mathematics is a language plus reasoning; it is like a language plus logic."

Here are a couple quotes from Dinesh Padiyar on the previous thread:

"Logic is nonsense. The infinitesimal of logic is probably a point consisting of pure stupidity."

"I'm a physicist. I know nothing of logic."


Dinesh Padiyar
August 1 at 4:14pm

Presumably you haven't got to chapter 16, where he transforms relativistic velocities (eqn 16.2), or calculates momentum transfer (eqn 16.10), or gives the full electromagnetic field equation (eqn 28.3), or derives the dispersion relations (eqn 31.7). Pretty much everything after chapter 8 is mathematically derived. Book 3 is the one on QM, and from chapter three onwards, he starts to use Dirac's bra-ket nomenclature.If you don't like mathematics, you're really not going to like chapter three of book 2. It's all about vector calculus! You're really not going to like chapter 31. It's all about tensors!


Ralph Maggio
August 1 at 4:17pm

"The Character of Physical Law" only has 7 chapters. And "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" doesn't have chapter numbers, only 5 "Parts" with many sub-parts.


Dinesh Padiyar
August 1 at 4:18pm

A misunderstanding. he uses the word "logic" whereas I use the word "abstract". It's a matter of definition. Without a definition, I can say mathematics is a chirping bird in a yellow tree. If you want to believe that all physics is wrong then go ahead. It's just a belief system.


Dinesh Padiyar
August 1 at 4:19pm

I was talking about the red books. "The Feynman Lectures". The books you mention were for the layman, not the physicist.


Dinesh Padiyar
August 1 at 4:22pm

...or better still publish all this in a peer reviewed journal, and let the physics community in on your ideas that relativity does not need mathematics! You cannot disprove a belief system. So you may believe and believe and believe that you can solve a problem in relativistic mechanics without mathematics, but, the proof is in the experiment.


Ralph Maggio
August 1 at 4:23pm

Dinesh Padiyar now resorts to a "straw man argument": "If you want to believe that all physics is wrong then go ahead."

Did anyone suggest or even hint at such a thing? Who said "all physics is wrong"? I certainly didn't.

Dinesh Padiyar also wrote: "The books you mention were for the layman, not the physicist."

Duh! I AM a layman, not a physicist. I'm just a science buff. I'm currently listening to one science book on my MP3 player while working out at the gym, I listen to a different science book on CDs when I've in my car driving from place to place, and I'm READING a third science book on my Kindle during breakfast and lunch.


Ralph Maggio

August 1 at 4:26pm

Dinesh Padiyar produces ANOTHER STRAW MAN ARGUMENT: "or better still publish all this in a peer reviewed journal, and let the physics community in on your ideas that relativity does not need mathematics! "

"Relativity does not need mathematics???!!!" Who ever said such a thing? Can't you discuss ANYTHING without distorting what is being said?


Ralph Maggio
August 1 at 4:32pm

Dinesh Padiyar also wrote: "He [Richard Feynman} uses the word "logic" whereas I use the word "abstract".

That doesn't even make sense. "Logic" and "abstract" aren't synonyms or anything like synonyms. They are totally different words.

LOGIC: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

ABSTRACT: existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.


Ralph Maggio
August 1 at 4:49pm

Hmm. I just noticed that I have a THIRD book by Richard Feynman on the bookshelves behind me: "What Do YOU Care What Other People Think?"

I'm signing off for today.


Dinesh Padiyar
August 1 at 4:54pm

But, if you're not a physicist, how can you say that physics does not require mathematics! You have a hand-waving superficial understanding of physics, yet you seem to think that physics does not require mathematics! Perhaps you can persuade Caltech or Harvard or Imperial College London or the Max Planck Institute thyat physics does not require mathematics.


Dinesh Padiyar
August 1 at 4:54pm

Depends on what you mean by 'validity'. Does the solution of x^2 + 1 = 0 require "validity? How does one justify 'validity in stating that 0! = 1? If you start with the real part of u = exp(ijk), and then differentiate it to give u' = iku, what then is the validity of the purely complex number that arises. These are all mathematical constructs, but if you define mathematics as "logic" and define "logic" as "validity", you'd be pressed I think to show the validity of i.


Ralph Maggio
August 2 at 9:17am

Dinesh Padiyar asked, "how can you say that physics does not require mathematics!"

WHERE AND WHEN did I say that? You make up silly, phony statements and claim I said them. What's the point of such nonsense?

Dinesh Padiyar also wrote: "Depends on what you mean by 'validity'."

Are you now arguing with a dictionary definition? Why don't you just look up "validity" in a dictionary?

VALIDITY: the quality of being logically or factually sound; soundness or cogency.

You repeatedly make up nonsense arguments. What's the purpose of that?

https://www.google.com/#q=validity+definition


Yanick Borg
August 2 at 9:21am

FFS Ralph Maggio. Get real man.


Ralph Maggio
August 2 at 9:34am

Sorry, Yanick, but I don't know what you mean.


Yanick Borg
August 2 at 9:38am

You don't understand the scientific method mate.


Yanick Borg

August 2 at 9:39am

Your prediction has to be repeatedly testable. How the hell you gonna make a prediction without math ?


Dinesh Padiyar
August 2 at 12:03pm

I'm afraid I don't follow "links". Don't actually know how to do that.


Ralph Maggio
August 3
at 9:21am

Yanick Borg wrote: "You don't understand the scientific method mate."

Clearly one of us doesn't. It has done very well for me. You seem to believe it is only for making "predictions." It's not.

Yanick Borg also wrote: "Your prediction has to be repeatedly testable. How the hell you gonna make a prediction without math ?"

What prediction? And who says I can't use math to make a prediction if math is necessary?

I can predict that the street light on the corner will flash in this order green-yellow-red-green-yellow-red and NEVER red-yellow-green-red-yellow-green by just observing it. No need for math.

Ed's paper says that light emitted 10 meters above the surface will travel faster than light emitted at the surface. He uses an UNDERSTANDING of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, but he actually didn't do the math. He's still looking for a way to compute the length of a second at ground level relative to the length of a second at 10 meters above the ground. He can do it with velocity by using the calculator at this link: http://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224059993

1 second for a stationary observer is 1.0050377997499 seconds for someone going 29,979.2 kps.

But what is 1 second for someone at 10 meters altitude relative to someone a zero altitude? If I guessed 0.9999999936 seconds, how far off would I be?
 

Ralph Maggio
August 3
at 9:26am

Dinesh Padiyar wrote: "I'm afraid I don't follow "links". Don't actually know how to do that."

Seriously? How did you get to this Facebook discussion in the first place?

And what link are you incapable of following? To what does your confession refer?


Ralph Maggio
August 3 at 9:30am

I've explained time dilation in fifty different ways. I can explain it in 50 other ways, if necessary. That is because I understand it.

No one here seems able to explain anything. Is it because you only understand mathematics, not what is ACTUALLY going on in our universe?
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/5d/08/94/5d089436bdbf817127b45ebada498e75.jpg

 

einstein grandmother quote

Dee Solar East
August 3
at 9:33am

I think it is too complex for math to solve. You have to solve not only for the observers space contractions within quark components, but all the space contractions or gravity affecting the observer like from other stars and all of the space. zero altitude is not even a good math interpretation of reality since zero altitude now is already 10m altitude in the future. we can agree on one thing. Math is full of mistakes.


Nathan Thomas
August 3 at 11:15am

Why not try that great physics law, disorder into order ?


Nathan Thomas

August 3 at 11:26am

Mathematics has no equal physics with no math is translucency.

Dee Solar East
August 3 at 12:02pm

But there is that right Math... We just need to start with the right concepts... We blame everything that we do not know to Energy, but what is energy? Something that cause something? Like What causing mass is again blamed to Energy? What causing gravity is again blamed to mass and Energy? What if the gravity is cause by time? you certainly do not need any Energy in that equation.


Dinesh Padiyar
August 3 at 1:25pm

As far as I can see, you can pretty much find a link to justify any position on the internet. I don't place a great deal of relevancy on links. If you have a position regarding standard physics, publish it in a peer reviewed journal. Simply saying something does not carry a lot of weight. So, publish.


Neil Creamer
August 3 at 2:20pm
 
This is a classic gatekeeper ploy. You don't even read the papers that people post.


Dinesh Padiyar
August 3 at 2:27pm

I do read Physics Review, Science (from AAAS), Nature Physics and Physics Today. These journals pretty much cover the latest in physics. I don't read anything on the internet, since it's not peer reviewed. What's a "gatekeeper"?


Ralph Maggio
August 4 at 10:55am

Dinesh Padiyar wrote: "I don't place a great deal of relevancy on links."

That doesn't make any sense. Links are like a reference. They tell you where you got some information. I provide a link to Einstein's 1905 paper. Does the fact that I linked to it make it irrelevant? Here's the link:

http://www.ed-lake.com/Einstein_1905_relativity-annotated.pdf

My link to Einstein's paper is to a version where he has highlighted passages and added comments to show where he got his quotes and information from. That should be helpful to anyone who really wants to understand what is being discussed.

Dinesh Padiyar also wrote: "I don't read anything on the internet, since it's not peer reviewed."

Sorry to break this news to you, but you are reading something on the Internet right now. Facebook is part of the Internet.


Neil Creamer
August 4 at 12:28pm

Dinesh, while I’d agree that those journals are good sources for what’s current in Physics, limiting your reading to only these is like opting to take all your news from a few newspapers or TV programs. You are effectively handing over control of the information you receive to a few editors.

Surely you are aware that peer review doesn’t even start until an editor has agreed to provisionally accept a paper? You have made comments before deriding claims of a conspiracy among editors and I agree that this is highly unlikely. However, a combination of consensus, peer pressure and vague ideas of the bounds of acceptability make some work unpublishable in some journals simply because editors are unwilling to host such a dialogue for fear of seeming credulous.

Examples of this include two authors who I have discussed on this forum: Eric Reiter who challenges the photon model, and Steven Bryant who challenges Relativity. Neither’s work has been rebutted yet both of them were compelled to publish in lesser-known journals after failing to be accepted for peer review by the major journals.
As a result, someone adopting your policy of reading only selected sources would never be exposed to work like this which might be of major importance. Despite claims to the contrary there is no evidence that the field of scientific publishing is anxious to discover paradigm-breaking work.

In response to your question, “What’s a gatekeeper?”, in this context a gatekeeper is someone who, like the editors, controls access to knowledge. Specifically here, they ensure that one message is promoted while any others are starved of exposure irrespective of their potential merits because these are never tested. The motto, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is a gatekeeper tool because it sets a higher standard of proof for challenges than it does for what has already been accepted.


Dinesh Padiyar
August 4 at 1:19pm

Neil, the problem is that modern physics is mathematics. You cannot do modern physics without mathematics anymore than you cannot practice medicine without drugs. But a lot of people think that hand waving arguments and apparently "logical" or "intuitive" statements can underlie modern physics. Anyone who had carried through a graduate course in physics is thoroughly grounded in mathematics. But, there a lot of popular books and articles about modern physics that give metaphors on the mathematics. You cannot understand General Relativity without tensor calculus. But, popular books talk of "space bending" and "time dilating" as metaphors. No popular book is going to say that "space bends" because the metric tensor has non-linear elements which indicate a Riemannian space, or a Lobachevsky space. However, physicists are constantly regaled by people who claim that General Relativity is wrong or that space does not bend or time is not what physicists think it is. Usually, physicists ignore such meanderings. If someone wants to be taken seriously then that person must submit their concept to experimental verification. Without experimental verification, no "idea" has any validity. Popular books on physics are simply metaphors trying to "popularise" the mathematics. If someone truly thinks they have something, the way to do this is to enroll in a good university, and take a course in physics, then get a PhD in physics. Until this happens, gatekeeper or no gatekeeper, no physicist will take you seriously. Anymore than someone with no medical qualifications claiming to have a miracle cure but the gatekeepers are keeping the word from spreading is going to be taken seriously by the medical community. Hand waving, philosophical, or philological, or semantic arguments are not physics, no matter how much you may insist they are. They're simply belief systems.


Dinesh Padiyar
August 4 at 1:20pm

By the way, my news sources are The Los Angeles Times, Time magazine and The Economist. I get nothing from TV or the internet.


Dinesh Padiyar
August 4 at 1:23pm

So, at this point, if you believe you or someone else believe you have something in physics, publish! Get a physics degree. Why everyone seems to want my imprimatur, I have no idea. Submit your idea to a university, an institute of theoretical physics such as Kavli, or a physics journal. if it doesn't get accepted, it's not physics as it is known to the physics community, but it may be philosophy. Any more comments to me will simply be met with the one word: Publish! You really don't need my imprimatur!


Neil Creamer
August 4 at 1:30pm

That's an awful lot of strawman argument. Where did I suggest that mathematics is not necessary to Physics? Both of the authors I mentioned use it rigorously. In fact, Steven Bryant uses it to point out the mathematical flaws in Einstein's 1905 paper.


Dinesh Padiyar
August 4 at 1:30pm

Publish!


Neil Creamer
August 4 at 1:33pm

Already done.

http://www.relativitychallenge.com/papers/Bryant.SphericalWaveProof.NPA2010.pdf


Neil Creamer

August 4 at 1:33pm

 http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2014/PP-37-06.PDF

Ralph Maggio
August 4 at 3:27pm

Dinesh Padiyar wrote: "By the way, my news sources are The Los Angeles Times, Time magazine and The Economist. I get nothing from TV or the internet."

Wasting paper? All three can be obtained from the Internet:

https://myaccount2.latimes.com/

https://time.com-sub.biz/?&gclid=CKbqtIHMqM4CFQgcaQodxRkG_Q

http://www.economist.com/


Ralph Maggio

August 5 at 9:32am

Dinesh Padiyar wrote: "Why everyone seems to want my imprimatur, I have no idea."

No one is asking for your "imprimatur," i.e., your permission to publish. This thread was created to discuss how the length of a second changes due to time dilation. Instead of discussing that, you tried and failed to convince me (and others here) that mathematics is now all there is to science. All you did was show me that you have no LOGICAL arguments.

Ed is attempting to publish his paper. It's currently awaiting peer review at a major science journal. Meanwhile, Ed and I are discussing the paper's concepts with others to see if the paper can be improved upon. That's the purpose of this thread.

Dinesh Padiyar
August 5 at 12:54pm

Good enough. But all the requests to "prove" this and that seems to apparently want my imprimatur. I cannot "prove" anything! If you go to a university, and study actual, real physics, you will learn the methodology of proof.

Neil Creamer
August 5 at 1:56pm

Speaking for myself, rather than proof I'd be more interested in seeing people question the things about which they are so certain. However, people in general are terrified to face uncertainty and this might be why scientific theory is so readily taken to be proven.


Ralph Maggio
August 5 at 2:57pm

Dinesh Padiyar wrote: "But all the requests to "prove" this and that seems to apparently want my imprimatur. "

Which requests are those? I can't recall any such requests. They seem to be just products of your overactive imagination.

Ed's paper states two ways how his theory can be "proven." No one is asking you or anyone else on this group to prove anything. Proof would involve using atomic clocks and equipment for measuring the speed of light.


Ralph Maggio
August 5 at 3:08pm

Maybe Dinesh Padiyar misuses the word "prove," just as he misused the word "logic."

I DID try to see if anyone here could DISprove Ed's theory. All I got was nonsense about how his theory somehow conflicts with Einstein's theories -- which it doesn't. And I got a lot of misunderstandings about the speed of light being a "universal constant." No one DISproved anything.


Dinesh Padiyar
August 5 at 3:36pm

Prove that I misused the word.


Yanick Borg
August 5 at 7:19pm

You're using the word proof incorrectly Ralph Maggio.


Yanick Borg
August 5 at 7:20pm

Lengths of seconds do not change.


Ralph Maggio
August 6 at 9:29am

Yanick Borg wrote: "Lengths of seconds do not change."

The lengths of seconds DO change. Einstein's equations show how the length of a second changes with velocity. There's a calculator at this link which uses his time dilation formula to calculate how velocity changes the length of a second: http://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224059993

Plunk in a relative velocity of 29979.2 (1/10th the speed of light) and the result is that the length of a second is 1.0050377997499 seconds relative to a stationary observer's 1 second.

Plunk in a relative velocity of 298291 (99.5% of the speed of light) and the length of a second is TEN TIMES the length of a second observed by someone stationary.

At any velocity, the length of a second is longer than the length of a second when standing still.

And that is a REAL difference in the length of a second. It is not just some "perceived" or "imaginary" difference.

Gravitational time dilation is also real. The tests at the NIST show that: http://www.nist.gov/.../aluminum-atomic-clock_092310.cfm

Hmm. I just found the scientific paper about it: http://tf.boulder.nist.gov/general/pdf/2447.pdf


Ralph Maggio
August 6 at 9:28am

I'm not going argue opinions about the definitions of words like "proof."


Some "final" discussions from Saturday & Sunday, August 6 & 7, 2016:
("time missing" means that the time looks like "just now" and not a specific date and time.
actual dates and times will be added when they become available.)


Ralph Maggio
August 6 at 9:47am

Yanick and Dinesh, I'm really trying to understand how mathematicians think.

Assume I have 2 atomic clocks setting on the floor that tick at the rate of 9,192,631,770 ticks per second. The time they show as they tick off seconds and fractions of seconds indicates they are synchronous.

If I stop both clocks, lift one of them to a shelf just above my head, and then restart them again, I can SEE that the higher clock is now ticking faster than the lower clock.

If I stop both clocks, lift the lower clock to the shelf, and restart them, I will see that they are once again synchronous.

When a clock is on the shelf, the length of a second is shorter than when the clock is on the floor, even though both clocks tick at 9,192,631,770 ticks per second in both locations. The length of a second is shorter because I can SEE that the higher clock ticks faster.

Where do mathematicians disagree with this?


Dinesh Padiyar
August 6 at 12:53pm

Assume the clocks are emitting some frequency nu. The wavelength corresponding to this frequency is now lambda = c/nu = cT, where T is the period of the light. Assume both clocks are ticking at a rate of tau (your nine million odd ticks). Then the number of periods is nu/tau. Assume you are at a distance s, Then the light signal gets to you in time t = s/c = (s*lambda)/T = [s*(lambda)*tau)]/nu. Now you place a clock in a different gravitational potential. Thus, the rate is now (alpha)*tau. = tau'. Then the light signal gets to you t' = {s*(lambda)*tau'}/T.Thus t/t' = tau/tau'.

 
Dinesh Padiyar
August 6 at 1:05pm

Dinesh Padiyar I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The fact that time "slows down" at different gravitational potentials is due to the variation in the metric tensor. It's built into the field equations of the 1915 paper. The time component of the metric tensor, based on the Schwarzchild metric is ds^2 = -{1 - (2V(r)/(c^2)*(dt^2). Since V(r) is the gravitational potential, the loss of 2V(r)/(c^2) is proportional to the potential at any r. This is not new to Einstein, Laplace derived this variation in the 18th century. Einstein simply made the derivation more formal. This has been measured many many times over the past century, although with better and better accuracy. So, if your contention is that time slows down in a gravitational field, then yes, we all know this. It's part of any graduate course in physics at any accredited university. If your contention is that time slows down at some different rate, or does not slow down at all, it's going to require more than hand waving semantics to prove the variation. You need to derive a new metric tensor which gives the same result as the accepted value of the tensor. Your metric tensor must show equivalency the the standard tensor. Also, by the way, mathematicians and theoretical physicists never actually use numbers. I can't remember the last time I derived anything with actual numbers!


Neil Creamer
August 6 at 1:27pm

"Also, by the way, mathematicians and theoretical physicists never actually use numbers."

It's sometimes a good idea to plug some numbers in just to make sure you haven't made a hard-to-detect error.
http://www.relativitychallenge.com/papers/Bryant.SphericalWaveProof.NPA2010.pdf


Yanick Borg
August 6 at 1:49pm

Time is not something that "slows" or "speeds" locally. It's simply a case where two observers placed with clocks at different gravitational potentials are restricted to communicating events across a curved spacetime with each other. The clock at a higher altitude will appear to tick faster than the ground clock to an observer at rest with ground clock. This has nothing to do with the intrinsic ticking rates of the clocks as shown in the math given by Dinesh Padiyar. In all cases tau is tau, but other variables apply for the primed and non primed frames (accounting for those factors that lead to observational disagreements between frames).

Ralph has this confused as he imagines himself as a 3rd observer watching the clocks tick at different rates. Bear in mind Ralph, as a 3rd observer, you can place yourself in a location where both clocks appear to be ticking simultaneously from your particular location. So what "you" imagine yourself seeing is completely irrelevant.


Yanick Borg
August 6 at 1:46pm

While observers at different GPs may disagree on chronology, a causal ordering of events is upheld. See relativity of simulteneity.


Ralph Maggio
August 6 at 3:15pm

Dinesh Padiyar wrote: "I'm not sure what you're getting at here." And "If your contention is that time slows down at some different rate, or does not slow down at all, it's going to require more than hand waving semantics to prove the variation."

Since you refuse to read things on the Internet, you need to buy a copy of Science Magazine from September 2010 that contains the article by scientists from the National Institute of Standards and Technology where they explain their tests of gravitational time dilation. The image below is from that paper. It says: "As one of the clocks is raised, its [tick] rate increases when compared to the clock rate at deeper gravitational potential."

time dilated clocks
The text of the paper begins with this:

-- start quote -->
Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity forced us to alter our concepts of reality. One of the more startling outcomes of the theory is that we have to give up our notions of simultaneity. This is manifest in the so-called twin paradox (1), in which a twin sibling who travels on a fast-moving rocket ship returns home younger than the other twin. This “time dilation” can be quantified by comparing the tick rates of identical clocks that accompany the traveler and the stationary observer. Another consequence of Einstein’s theory is that clocks run more slowly near massive objects. In the range of speeds and length scales encountered in our daily life, relativistic effects are extremely small. For example, if two identical clocks are separated vertically by 1 km near the surface of Earth, the higher clock emits about three more second-ticks than the lower one in a million years.
<-- end quote --

That last sentence nicely fits with what Ed Lake wrote in early versions of his paper about comparing clocks at the "mile high city" of Denver and at New York. Here is the link again: http://tf.boulder.nist.gov/general/pdf/2447.pdf

Or maybe you think the National Institute of Standards and Technology is a some screwball outfit that doesn't know what it is doing?


Ralph Maggio
August 6 at 3:22pm

Yanick Borg wrote: "Time is not something that "slows" or "speeds" locally.

NONSENSE! You also need to read the NIST paper. It says you are WRONG. They have done and are doing tests to demonstrate that time speeds up when a clock is raised, AND that time slows down for a moving object. It has NOTHING to do with any "3rd observer."

Yanick Borg also wrote: "Bear in mind Ralph, as a 3rd observer, you can place yourself in a location where both clocks appear to be ticking simultaneously from your particular location. So what "you" imagine yourself seeing is completely irrelevant."

I'm trying to explain to you that the two clocks DO NOT TICK SIMULTANEOUSLY. The clock farthest from the surface of the earth ticks FASTER than the clock at the lower level. AND THAT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING. IT IS NOT SOMETHING IMAGINARY. It is proof of Einstein's time dilation theory.



Ralph Maggio
August 6 at 3:32pm

I neglected to mention that the title of the NIST paper is: "Optical Clocks and Relativity." It is mostly about the building of the clocks and how the clocks work.

Dinesh Padiyar also wrote: "Also, by the way, mathematicians and theoretical physicists never actually use numbers."

Here are some actual numbers from the NIST paper:

-- start quote -->
In the range of speeds and length scales encountered in our daily life, relativistic effects are extremely small. For example, if two identical clocks are separated vertically by 1 km near the surface of Earth, the higher clock emits about three more second-ticks than the lower one in a million years.


Yanick Borg
August 6 at 6:57pm

Yeah, a clock speeds up when it is raised RELATIVE TO WHAT ?


Dinesh Padiyar
August 7 at 9:27am

NIST is writing for a popular, non-technical audience. Any publication that writes for a popular, non-technical audience knows that the reader is not going to follow the mathematics. They must put these ideas into a form that non-technical people understand.But, the non-technical person is not expected to actually do physics at the advanced, post graduate level. At this level, physicists and mathematicians talk to each other , or publish, in a mathematically. If you want to talk about general relativity to a physicist, by which I mean someone who has graduated from an accredited university with advanced degrees in physics, you talk in terms of the field equations of general relativity. At the advanced level, no one actually puts numbers into these equations, they did all that in undergraduate and graduate classes at their university. Part of the physicists education is to solve problems in which values are obtained so that the knowledge and understanding of the student can be tested. Once past the student stage, we assume the student can add. You do not talk in vague terms like "clocks slow down". A clock is a measuring equipment, physicists talk in terms of ds^2 = V(r)*dt^2, the zero component of the metric tensor. But, all this is known. Physicists knew it before your Ed was born, unless your Ed is 110 years old.


Ralph Maggio
August 7 at 9:36am

Yanick Borg asked, "Yeah, a clock speeds up when it is raised RELATIVE TO WHAT ?"

Relative to the center of the gravitational mass, of course! In this case, that would be the center of the Earth.

Dinesh Padiyar wrote: "NIST is writing for a popular, non-technical audience."

Are you KIDDING??!! Oh, yes, you REFUSE to read the paper, so you are writing about something you haven't read. The NIST paper is INCREDIBLY TECHNICAL. I just picked out a few passages that are relevant and non-technical.

Here is the link again: http://tf.boulder.nist.gov/general/pdf/2447.pdf

It is a copy of their article published in the September 24, 2010 issue of SCIENCE magazine titled "Optical Clocks and Relativity."

If you close your mind and refuse to read the paper, you are proving my point. I'll try to find some other science papers that also describe and confirm time dilation. But, I can only assume you will refuse to read them, too.


Dinesh Padiyar
August 7 at 9:46am

Nobody's arguing the variation of dt. Again, we know all this. We've known it since 1915, for the gravitational case. I studied this in graduate classes in physics. I did the assigned problems. I calculated the variation of dt under various conditions.I went through courses in Differential Geometry. All this is well known. Since 1915, there have been hundreds of thousands of papers on various physical, mathematical and engineering measurements and applications of the variation in dx, dy, dz and dt. NIST was not the first paper ever to mention dt. At 15 I read Eddington's book Space, Time and Gravitation, written in 1920. None of this is new.


Ralph Maggio
August 7 at 11:09am

Dinesh Padiyar wrote: "None of this is new."

And yet you argue what? What is your exact argument? That time dilation isn't "real."? That it is just an "illusion"? Or that NOTHING is real? Or that it isn't real until you SAY it is real?

If you would just stop with the obfuscation and answer a simple question, we might resolve matters:

Do you accept that a clock AND TIME ticks slower closer to the center of a gravitational mass than they do when farther from the mass? And that is an ACTUAL demonstration of time dilation, it is not just some optical illusion?

Why is it I have this feeling that you are going to argue over the definition of words instead of answering the questions?

Dinesh Padiyar
August 7 at 11:45am

Well, of course. The metric tensor clearly states that the zero component is ds^2 = -(1-V(r))dt^2. I'm not sure whether you think that this is new. Any physicist whose taken a course in physics would have covered this in a graduate level. I assume that your own university would have also covered this. Perhaps, you may need to revise some aspects of differential geometry and tensor calculus. I'm not sure what part of tensor calculus you don't remember from your graduate class. The field equations are written in the language of tensor calculus. You do understand the operations of a second rank tensor, I'm assuming.


Dinesh Padiyar
August 7 at 11:49am

An ACTUAL demonstration of time dilation derived from the Lorentz transform has been carried out since the 50's, when the decay rate of pions from cosmic ray showers showed that t' = (gamma)*(t - {v*x/c^2) was obeyed by pion decay. Since then, it's been confirmed from synchrotron radiation, where the variation of mass needs to be taken into consideration by applying the Lorentz transform to Bev = m*v^2/r.


Dinesh Padiyar
August 7 at 11:51am

Are you actually telling me that this Ed thinks his is the first attempt at demonstrating t' = (gamma)(t-{v*x/c^2}), or that ds^2 = -(1-V(r))dt^2. I'm afraid it's a little late.


Dinesh Padiyar
August 7 at 11:55am

By the way, gravitation is a tensor field, as per the field equations of the 1915 paper. Therefore, transformation of a tensor field involves all 16 components of a second rank tensor. However, in order to maintain the integrity of space time, you have to denote a metric tensor. Hope that's clear.


Ralph Maggio
August 7 at 12:25pm

Dinesh Padiyar just continues to obfuscate and waste time. Sigh.

OBFUSCATION: render obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.

Ed's paper changes NOTHING about Einstein's papers. I've stated that REPEATEDLY. It says that light travels at the speed determined by the time dilation factors affecting the atom that emits the light. That is NOT how many people commonly INTERPRET Einstein's 1905 paper.

It seems to me that you should be arguing with Yanick Borg, since he is the one who says, "Time is not something that "slows" or "speeds" locally."


Dinesh Padiyar
August 7 at 12:36pm

I don't know "how many people" interpret the 1905 paper. Any college course in graduate physics deal with the Lorentz transform. I'm certainly glad that you think tensor calculus is "obscure". I very strongly suggest you go to Caltech or Harvard or The Abdus Salaam Centre for Theoretical physics and suggest to them that tensor calculus is "obfuscation!


Dinesh Padiyar
August 7 at 12:36pm

So, what are your field equations?


Ralph Maggio
August 7 at 2:24pm

Dinesh Padiyar demonstrates once again that it is pointless to attempt to discuss anything with him.

If you look through this thread and the previous thread, you'll see that many people "INTERPRET" Einstein's 1905 paper to say that the speed of light is a CONSTANT in OUR universe. It doesn't say that.

Dinesh Padiyar wrote: "So, what are your field equations?"

I'm using Einstein's equations. There is no need for any others.

I see no point in any further discussions with you. All you do is obfuscate while also misunderstanding everything and refusing to read any cited articles.

Ed Lake will be using this discussion to illustrate how it can be a waste of time to try to discuss anything with a mathematician. I've been giving him copies of this discussion, and he now has a reformatted partial copy at this link: http://www.ed-lake.com/Quantum-physics2.html#Aug6

This final part will be on the site within an hour.


Dinesh Padiyar
August 7 at 3:20pm

Without the constancy of the speed of light, you cannot derive the Lorentz transform. I would love to see the derivation of the Lorentz transform without the second postulate.


Ralph Maggio
August 7 at 3:32pm

Dinesh, "the Lorentz transformation (or transformations) are coordinate transformations between two coordinate frames that move at constant velocity relative to each other." Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

If you had read Ed's paper, you would see that "the Lorentz transformations" have nothing to do with Ed's paper. There is NOTHING involved that has anything moving "at a constant velocity relative to each other."

You just continue to waste my time with obfuscation and nonsense. And now I expect you'll just babble about not trusting Wikipedia - whether it is right or wrong.


Dinesh Padiyar
August 7 at 3:52pm

I wanted a derivation of the Lorentz transform without the postulate that the speed of light is independent of the (inertial) coordinate system. I assume you have an actual derivation, and not a description? You do understand the difference between a derivation and a description, right? Still don't look at links.


Dinesh Padiyar
August 7 at 3:58pm

Until you have a derivation, not a description, any more of this and I will insist on a derivation. I assume you know what that is. Ed's "paper" has no relevance or value as a contribution to, or statement of, physics unless it's published in a peer reviewed journal with real physicists peer reviewing it. I understand it's already been rejected by one such publication. So, publish! Otherwise, you may "believe" anything,l it's just a belief system.


Yanick Borg
August 7 at 7:39pm

It's not an optical illusion Ralph. It's what happens when light projects from one location to another (either across a flat or curved spacetime). Observing things that are separated by some distance is the use of relativity (hence RELATIVE), and physcists built it for cosmologists really, to make predictions about planets, orbits, galaxies, and stuff like that. It's also useful when GPS locations are communicating via electromagnetic signals (which also project through a curved spacetime at c).

Between Dinesh and I, you've received a free course in GR. You hould be appreciative. Just saying.


Wes Johnson
August 8 time missing

I just learned that physicists don't use numbers with their math. Thanks Dinesh, that explains a lot. I've been wondering how such intelligent people could go astray.


Nathan Thomas
August 8 time missing

Only quantum ideology translucent tripe