Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Bjarne]

Bjarne wrote
One complete orbit around the Sun (for the Earth and ISS) would not take the same amount of time, (since gravity is different at the ISS compared to Earth).
Farsight wrote
It would actually. The Earth and the ISS start off from point x in the orbit at the same time, and arrive back there at the same time. The ISS doesn't get there half an hour before the Earth, or vice versa.

Not is a single cow anywhere (included in all the parallel universes) would deny that if the ISS was orbiting the earth in the exact same orbit, as the earth, a clock on board the ISS would thick faster compared to a clock at the earth.

So what you are saying is that that 1 second at the ISS is faster compared to 1second at the Earth. – I mean if the local orbit time consumption must be the “same”, - the lenght of 1 second can’t be?

Farsight wrote
To appreciate this, just imagine yourself to be an observer watching all this from a point out in space 100 million miles from the Sun. OK, the clock difference measured by the observer on earth and the observer on the ISS is real enough, but what clocks actually "clock up" is local motion. All clocks count up some regular cyclic motion and display a cumulative count as "the time". Local motion at the surface of the earth is occuring at a slightly slower rate than on the ISS, that's all.

A cow onboard at the ISS and a cow on Earth would both be able to calculate their orbit sped.
That would be independent of the mass of the earth or the mass of the ISS, and hence the same.
Which mean, if the laws of gravity must be the same, and I believe they must, -then must the cause of time dilation simply be that length to 1 second not is the same, for those 2 observers..

X….Y……………………………………………………………………………………………..Sun
Let us say X is an overseer living in a cellar by the equator.
Y lives in the same building but at 100 th floor. Both are looking right “up” and can see the sun.
Because of gravity difference A and Y can’t agree about how long time 1 orbit around the Sun takes - What is the problem?
I mean 1 second can’t be the same length, when law of gravity must be valid everywhere.

Bjarne
I mean every cow know that time multiplied with speed = distances.
FarSight
Sure. And every cow knows that when my second is different to yours, my 10 m/s isn't the same as yours.

Exactly, this is the first point to understand.
When everybody agrees so far we can continue to the next point.

 

[Daylightstar]

... orbiting the earth in the exact same orbit, as the earth, ...

 

[DazzaD]

Not is a single cow anywhere (included in all the parallel universes) would deny that if the ISS was orbiting the earth in the exact same orbit, as the earth, a clock on board the ISS would thick faster compared to a clock at the earth.

I dunno about cows but I picked up this exact point earlier and you seemed to brush past it.

As highlighted by me and others you said "exact same orbit"... so therefore the "exact same time"...

Besides.. you need to be much much more careful with your wording with regards time measured here...

Say things like " from the point of view of an observer on the surface of the Earth a clock on the ISS would appear to ....."... you need to clearly specify which frame of reference you are using else relativity flies out of the window...

 

[Reality Check]

I see the precession of Mercury has been mentioned. Whilst I'm what some would describe as an "Einstein fan", I have to say that there's a possible issue with this. See Paul Gerber on wiki:

"It was noted by the Einstein- and relativity critic Ernst Gehrcke in 1916,^{[A 3]} that this formula is mathematically identical to Albert Einstein's formula (1915) for general relativity.^{[A 4]"}

Bit of quote miniing there.
Gerber's work was wrong. See Paul Gerber on wiki:

So Gehrcke initiated a reprint of Gerber's 1902-paper in the Annalen der Physik in 1917, where he questioned the priority of Einstein and tried to prove a possible Plagiarism by him.[A 5] However, according to Albrecht Fölsing[B 5] and Roseveare,[B 6] those claims were rejected, because soon after Gerber's paper was reprinted, scientists like Hugo von Seeliger,[A 6] Max von Laue[A 7] published some papers, where it was claimed that Gerber's theory is inconsistent and his formula is not the consequence of his premises. And Einstein wrote in 1920:[A 8]
“Mr. Gehrcke wants to make us believe that the Perihelion shift of mercury can be explained without the theory of relativity. So there are two possibilities. Either you invent special interplanetary masses. [...] Or you rely on a work by Gerber, who already gave the right formula for the Perihelion shift of mercury before me. The experts are not only in agreement that Gerber’s derivation is wrong through and through, but the formula cannot be obtained as a consequence of the main assumption made by Gerber. Mr. Gerber’s work is therefore completely useless, an unsuccessful and erroneous theoretical attempt. I maintain that the theory of general relativity has provided the first real explanation of the perihelion motion of Mercury. I have not mentioned the work by Gerber originally, because I did not know it when I wrote my work on the perihelion motion of Mercury; even if I had been aware of it, I would not have had any reason to mention it.[C 1]”

In the recent past, Roseveare argued that Gerber's derivation is unclear, however, he claimed to have found the way by which Gerber possibly found his result[B 6] (although Roseveare's derivation was criticized as well[web 1]). More importantly, Roseveare showed that Gerber's theory is in conflict with experience: the value for the deflection of light in the gravitational field of the sun is too high in Gerber's theory, and if the relativistic mass is considered, also Gerber's prediction for the perihelion advance is wrong.

 

[Reality Check]

For reference, Farsight on: Relativity+.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=169567

A thread about the historical physics and doing science by pretty pictures!

 

[Bjarne]

I dunno about cows but I picked up this exact point earlier and you seemed to brush past it.

As highlighted by me and others you said "exact same orbit"... so therefore the "exact same time"...

Besides.. you need to be much much more careful with your wording with regards time measured here...

Say things like " from the point of view of an observer on the surface of the Earth a clock on the ISS would appear to ....."... you need to clearly specify which frame of reference you are using else relativity flies out of the window...

No there is no "appears to" when we speak about time, - time is always an unshakable parts of the local space time reality.
As Farsight correctly wrote, "one second" on board on the ISS is not the same length as”one second" at the Earth.

It is not just time that ticks “different”, but one second is never the same in different space time. One second is either contracting or stretching, and so is local reality.
Reality appears to be the same seen from the ISS and seen from the Earth, but if you would and could compare them, these would be different.
So when one second is stretching so and so much, - let say 50%, - then reality does the same.

If you could cut pieces from 2 frozen space time realities, and compare these, the comparable distance for example between the Moon Earth etc, would not be the same. But locally these would appear to be the “same”, also even though these would be either contracted or stretched proportional with the relative stretch/contraction of 1 second.
This is the second point, and for those that now understand relativity, - it always means ; there is no certain reality "out there".

Reality is a local phenomena very limited to its local circumstances, and not a true refelction of something concrete solid and stable, - “out there”.
Cows have for a long time known that a certain reality doesn’t exist, - there are instead plenty of them, - tomorrow at 1,07,86 a clock Mercury time, it is exactly 2512831457232347239595,6234 ½ billion years since the first cow discovered that truth.

Muuhhh

 

[DazzaD]

No there is no "appears to" when we speak about time, - time is always an unshakable parts of the local space time reality.
As Farsight correctly wrote, "one second" on board on the ISS is not the same length as”one second" at the Earth.

Here is the rub.

If you want to use a phrase like "unshakable parts of the local space time reality" you need to

a) be clear WHY it is unshakeable

b) clearly define 'local'

c) be clear on what space time you mean (mathematically)

d) (BIG contention) explain what you mean by reality (mathematically)

Else it is just hand waving.


Why is it unshakeable? What is the justification?

How are you measuring this "time"?

WHY would different observers NOT see different "times taken" for an event?

Note carefully, in the instance of special relavitity there is no great attempt to define time or length, or even how to 'measure' those.. it is assumed we have a "rod" to measure length and a "clock" to measure time to some extent. Much of the philosophical and technical physical background relies heavily upon these issues.

 

[Bjarne]

Here is the rub.

If you want to use a phrase like "unshakable parts of the local space time reality" you need to

a) be clear WHY it is unshakeable

b) clearly define 'local'

c) be clear on what space time you mean (mathematically)

d) (BIG contention) explain what you mean by reality (mathematically)

Else it is just hand waving.


Why is it unshakeable? What is the justification?

How are you measuring this "time"?

WHY would different observers NOT see different "times taken" for an event?

Note carefully, in the instance of special relavitity there is no great attempt to define time or length, or even how to 'measure' those.. it is assumed we have a "rod" to measure length and a "clock" to measure time to some extent. Much of the philosophical and technical physical background relies heavily upon these issues.

All this only shows how confused you are.

 

[Reality Check]

All this only shows how confused you are.

All that shows is your inability to explain yourself.
You need to explain this bit of gibberish: "unshakable parts of the local space time reality".

What is doing the "shaking"?
What are the parts you are talking about?
How local is the "local" space time" and how can we tell if it is local, remote or global?
What is "space time" (it is not the space time in physics which is global and nothing shakes it)?
What is "reality"?

Originally Posted by Bjarne
No there is no "appears to" when we speak about time, - time is always an unshakable parts of the local space time reality.
As Farsight correctly wrote, "one second" on board on the ISS is not the same length as”one second" at the Earth.

You and Farsight are wrong.
One second on board on the ISS is exactly the same length as one second at the Earth. If you had a clock running at one second per second on the surface of the Earth and and an identical one on the ISS then they tick at the same rate.

General Relativity though tells us that an observer at the surface of the Earth will measure the ISS clock to tick at a different rate to their clock. Likewise an ISS observer will observer the Earth clock to tick at a different rate to their clock.

 

[Daylightstar]

All that shows is your inability to explain yourself. ...

I am, eh, skeptical, that Bjarne has anything to explain at all.

 

[Paulhoff]

One second on board on the ISS is exactly the same length as one second at the Earth.

No they aren't.

Being 200 miles up the clock would be a little faster on the ISS, but the are going at 5 MPS and that will more than off-set that faster clock speed and will make it run a little slower than the ground clock.

Paul

 

[Bjarne]

All that shows is your inability to explain yourself.
You need to explain this bit of gibberish: "unshakable parts of the local space time reality".
What is doing the "shaking"?

This is when a very fat heavy cow work very close to you.

What are the parts you are talking about?

Parts ?

How local is the "local" space time" and how can we tell if it is local, remote or global?

Very very very local.

What is "space time" (it is not the space time in physics which is global and nothing shakes it)?

Ohh no, there are many space time "levels" - infinity amount of them.
For ensample for every nano-millimeter you move away from the earth, you have passed billion of space times realities.

What is "reality"?)?

You surprise me, I thought that you allready knew everything.
Well ....
It is not the future, since it doesn’t exist
It is also not the past because it also doesn’t exist.
It is even not now, since a true now must be without time, and then you would not receive the wave bombardment you call reality.
So what do you believe is left now?
OK, - let us say it is a frozen image of the universe, - a “now” at in that space time "level" you are right now. - But it is different at you feed level compared to your nose level.

You and Farsight are wrong. .

No Farsight, cows and me have understood that either you would violate all the laws of nature, everywhere, or you must accept that 1 second can stretch or contract, and this is exactly what it does.

One second on board on the ISS is exactly the same length as one second at the Earth. If you had a clock running at one second per second on the surface of the Earth and and an identical one on the ISS then they tick at the same rate.

One second is something that is defined a random place at the Earth.
If that should express a universal unshakeable truth, - the laws of nature would not be the same at your feed level as it is at your nose level. - 1 orbit around the Sun would not be the same distance these 2 places, hence would the law of gravity also not, and muhh muhhh muuuhhh a lot more.

The example - ISS orbiting the Sun in the same orbit as the Earth also easy demonstrate that if the laws of nature must be the same, - the length of 1 second cannot.

Muh-cows in all the parallel universes and in all the dimension, and even also those made of dark matter and highs know this before they begin in kindergarten.

General Relativity though tells us that an observer at the surface of the Earth will measure the ISS clock to tick at a different rate to their clock. Likewise an ISS observer will observer the Earth clock to tick at a different rate to their clock.

To make a long history short the clock ticks different, the reason is that 1 second is not the same, BUT the reason is also that reality is not the same.

 

[DazzaD]

So to summarise you have not answered any of my questions.

A perfectly reasonable question in physics like "what do you mean by local" is met by the offhanded childish response of "very very very local".

This does nothing to help me understand your position.

I am not in the least bit confused about the commonly held 'definitions' of local, space time, time, relativity etc... I have studied them to some level of understanding...

IF you are going to 'redefine' these terms to mean your own pet things you MUST make it clear what you mean, what the difference is between what YOU mean by space time and what I mean by space time.

Else it becomes a merry go round of childish word play that achieves nothing and your cause will seem to be petty, without foundation or merit.

With regards to your "reality" and "time" ideas.. have you read the works of Julian Barbour? My first thought on this thread was that your ideas were a hazy mish mash of Julian's work only without any foundation in physics or mathematics.

 

[DazzaD]

One second is something that is defined a random place at the Earth.
If that should express a universal unshakeable truth, - the laws of nature would not be the same at your feed level as it is at your nose level. - 1 orbit around the Sun would not be the same distance these 2 places, hence would the law of gravity also not, and muhh muhhh muuuhhh a lot more.

Is this the source of your ideas? The fact that you have taken the mere "definition" in the SI system of a second and extrapolated from that some deep meaningful 'problem' in physics?

Regardless of the units used or the way in which you choose to define them this has nothing to do with "universal truths" (which are what anyway?).

 

[Reality Check]

No they aren't.

Being 200 miles up the clock would be a little faster on the ISS, but the are going at 5 MPS and that will more than off-set that faster clock speed and will make it run a little slower than the ground clock.

If you had a clock running at one second per second on the surface of the Earth and and an identical one on the ISS then they tick at the same rate according to someone sitting next to them (missed that out in my post).
SR causes different rates of ticking for an observer traveling at a different speed than the clock (your 5 MPS).
GR causes different rates of ticking for an observer in a different gravitational field, e.g. one on the surface looking at the ISS clock.

 

[Reality Check]

...gibberish....
Parts ?

"unshakable parts of the local space time reality".

...gibberish....
No Farsight, cows and me have understood that either you would violate all the laws of nature, everywhere, or you must accept that 1 second can stretch or contract, and this is exactly what it does.

No cows and me (and maybe Farsight) have understood that you remain ignorant of the laws of physics.
1 second can stretch or contract according to an observer at a different speed or in a different gravitational field, and this is exactly what it does.

One second is something that is defined a random place at the Earth.
...usual gibberish rant snipped...

One second is something that is defined throughout the universe.

the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.[

 

[Bjarne]

1 second can stretch or contract according to an observer at a different speed or in a different gravitational field, and this is exactly what it does.

Finally
Hurrah RC
Now you too understood it
But "according to" – no , - you mean compared to.
You know what; - before cows can begin in the kindergarten they must pass such kind of questions.
So it took you 17 years at the University, and Farsights teaching before you finally understood the point ?
Anyway I am very happy you finally did.

Now is only left to understand that when 1 second is comparable different, distances are also comparable different.
And therefore also realities are comparable different.
But i guess it will take you at least 50 years more at the university before you'll get that don't you think?

 

[Reality Check]

Finally
Hurrah RC

How stupid - I have understood and have been stating this all along.

Maybe we will not get any more cow fetish insanity from you now that you acknowledge that you know what SR and GR state about the reality that we exist in !

 

[Farsight]

Not is a single cow anywhere (included in all the parallel universes) would deny that if the ISS was orbiting the earth in the exact same orbit, as the earth, a clock on board the ISS would tick faster compared to a clock at the earth.

Agreed.

So what you are saying is that that 1 second at the ISS is faster compared to 1second at the Earth. – I mean if the local orbit time consumption must be the “same”, - the lenght of 1 second can’t be?

Yes. But don't think in terms of time "consumption" or the "length" of a second. Such words are just a figure of speech. Clocks are contraptions with things moving in them, that's all.

A cow onboard at the ISS and a cow on Earth would both be able to calculate their orbit speed.

Yep, and they'd get different results, but both solar-orbit speeds are nevertheless the same because the ISS doesn't get ahead of the Earth.

That would be independent of the mass of the earth or the mass of the ISS, and hence the same. Which mean, if the laws of gravity must be the same, and I believe they must, -then must the cause of time dilation simply be that length to 1 second not is the same, for those 2 observers...

Yep. no problem.

Exactly, this is the first point to understand. When everybody agrees so far we can continue to the next point.

Good. It's all pretty simple.

 

[Farsight]

Bit of quote miniing there.

Yes. That's why I put it in quotes.

Gerber's work was wrong. See Paul Gerber on wiki:

I know what wiki says, and you know I root for Einstein, but it was the exact same expression. I'm not the sort of guy who would try to brush it under the carpet.

A thread about the historical physics and doing science by pretty pictures!

It's about reading the original material and examining the evidence, and challenging misrepresentation. It's about thinking for yourself.