Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Al Was One Of The Greatest Thinkers

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Phil.o.sofir on October 9, 1999 13:36:05 UTC

: Phil.o.sofir: : ***What is this 7500mph/equator/and center of earths gravity? A speed is a speed, do you mean in realation to fuel consumption per mile travelled or something? Anyway, you are basing your argument it seems on some kind of principle which applies to earth and gravity which has no relationship to the passage of time as it is theorized, and as especially as related to the entire universe. I do understand that atomic clocks are the best known, better yet would be clocks based upon the movement and relationships between electrons which they are currently working on now as well as for units of wieght. : All this said, how does your atomic clock experiment prove that time is tangable and not simply a very good and convienient tool for mans system of measurements?

: Greg: : It seems you need to aquaint yourself with Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. Nowadays one second is defined as 9,192,631,770 vibrations of the microwave radiation emitted by caesium-133 atoms during a specified atomic rearrangement. An atomic clock counts this number of vibrations in each and every second of its operation. According to Your view of Time, three such syncronized clocks should remain syncronized no matter what their physical relationship to one another is. But according to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, the measure of Time is dependant upon one's proximity to an object of mass(a source of gravity) or it is dependant upon one's acceleration in relation to the speed of light. In the experiment, the eastbound clock lost 59 nanoseconds(billionths of a second), compared to the clock on the ground. The westbound clock gained 273 nanoseconds. The predicted discrepancy, using Einstein's Theory, was 40 nanoseconds and 275 nanoseconds. The experiment confirmed two distinct effects on time. The first is that Time flows faster at high altitude where gravity is slightly weaker. This affected both clocks in the planes in much the same way, in comparison to the clock on the ground. The difference in the clocks on the planes resulted from the second, more subtle effect on time that resulted from their relative speed according to whether they were flying with the direction of earth's rotation or against it.

: The predictions, using Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, were within the approved of margin of error, proving that Time, as a dimension in and of itself, is an objective reality. In your subjective perception of Time, how might you suggest that atoms could come to disagree about the passage of Time? Understand that you are disputing an understanding of Albert Einstein approved of by the entire scientific community and verified by experiment when you do so.

***Hi Greg, no, i do not mean to say that the clocks should stay in sync, i expect them to change in how fast they change. What i am arguing is that the effects of speed/direction and distance prove that time is dependent upon other factors thus is not an entity, but is a percieved effect of an ever changing present. If these changes occur when tested in the environment of earth, what about in space? We can alter the rate of change within the present, nothing more. I guess i should review the special theory, it is important, it has been shown that the effects Al prdicted, but what exactly this change is must be reconsidered. This experiment is based upon wieghts of atomic particals, thier rate of change is affected by gravity and direction in relation to the earth. So you are basically saying that when a rocket shoots skyward it creates more gravitational pull thus movement/change occurs more slowly, and if sppeding strait down toward earth it lessens gravitational attraction and allows freer movement/change, all this is the effect of the strength of gravity on particals of matter and has nothing to do with time since it does not exist. Our concept of time is only how we percieve the effects of gravity/force/acceleration/deceleration upon matter. These perceptions are grounded in our view of arrangements of matter such as life or stars or planetary systems which have beginings and ends, but in relation to the universe are only a biased perception of the changing present. My argument is one in which says there would be no perception of time if there were no matter, also, say if we could achieve absolute zero, this would freeze movement, thus stopping change, but the present would go on, but the present would continue, only without change, thus in the view of belivers in time, it would have simply frozen time, but there would be no way to measure,it. Another example is if one can imagine a point in the universe which is so distant from any matter that there is no way to observe change, thus time which is based upon rates of change would not exist or at least be unrecognizable. I guess this would be seen by believers in time to be an illusion much in the same way that the non-presence of a tangable god is seen as an illusion to those who believe in it. So what does all this matter? I do not know, but this does not mean that this new view (The magarowicz theory) has no value, it simply has not been applied to all those scientific equations in which time plays a significant variable/factor, and needs to be researched by those with the skills to do such things, ideas of value do not have to be found or concieved by those with the skills to prove or apply them. Of course this is grandoise of me to think i could think up something revolutionary, but anything is possible as long as it is within the confines of the limited infinite possbilities. But i do agree that the clocks would change at differing rates...

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins