 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2008Time slowdown means a fastest time
"There is no absolute rest." Albert Einstein This can mean that everything is moving in some way through space. Relative rest is co motion of two objects moving together at the same speed in the same direction. If motion slows time than everything has a slower time because of it. Also gravitation slows time. Both time slow downs in Einstein's GR and SR slow time down from a fastest starting point or fastest ideal time. Mitch Raemsch **> "There is no absolute rest." Albert Einstein **> **> This can mean that everything is moving in some way through space. **> Relative rest is co motion of two objects moving together at the same **> speed in the same direction. **> **> If motion slows time than everything has a slower time because of it. **> Also gravitation slows time. Both time slow downs in Einstein's GR and **> SR slow time down from a fastest starting point or fastest ideal time. **> **> Mitch Raemsch I stand facing due south at a distance from the north geographical pole such that the longitudinal line I stand upon is a circle 24 feet in circumference. You stand due geographical soutth at a point where the longitudinal line you stand upon is a circle 96 feet in circumference. Relative to each other we are motionless. Relative to the earths geographical axis I travel at 1 foot per hour while you are traveling at 4 feet per hour. Our velocities relative to the sun is approx. 18 miles per second, and we assign V to this value. We are close enough to the pole that it virtually always "daylight", however, you travel at V minus Y. Y = 0 at 6am, 4 feet per hour at "noon", 0 at 6pm, and negative 4 feet per hour at 12 midnight, while my velocity, V minus X, X = 0 at 6am, 1 foot per hour at "noon", 0 at 6pm, and negative 1 foot per hour at 12 midnight. This simple formula is made more complex by the tilt of the earth's axis relative to the sun. For simplicity that has been disregarded in this discussion. Relative to the sun, I travel faster than you half the 24 hour "day" and slower than you the other half of the 24 hour "day at a varying rate. However, at any given instant of time our velocities relative to the sun are equal. Only if there is a time passing allowing a rate of change to be calculated are our relative to the sun velocities different. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** On Jul 4, 10:50 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: > "There is no absolute rest." Albert Einstein > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Mitch Raemsch "Time" has one rate: exactly 60 seconds per minute. There is no instrument (clock) that can measure anything else. The confusion arises because the measured rate is only valid in the frame of reference of the clock. The flow of time is a local phenomenon, as is acceleration. Two clocks, in two different places, of course, each measure time in their own local frame. These clocks may or may not be moving or accelerated WRT each other. That is when GR must be used - to *compare* the clocks to each other. Tom Davidson Richmond, VA >On Jul 4, 10:50 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: >> "There is no absolute rest." Albert Einstein [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >Tom Davidson >Richmond, VA Acceleration does not affect clock rate, only gravity does. Consequently, the principle of equivalence is false. Gravity cannot be replaced by acceleration specifically because of this clock rate effect. Hasn't this been tested to 18000 gees? John Polasek > Acceleration does not affect clock rate, only gravity does. Actually acceleration does effect clock rate. It is also an ancient problem and both acceleration and gravity changes are g-force related. > Consequently, the principle of equivalence is false. Gravity cannot be > replaced by acceleration specifically because of this clock rate > effect. Hasn't this been tested to 18000 gees? Don't know about that many G's. but it has been tested but for some reason relativists won't let you call gravity a force even though it is. :) > Acceleration does not affect clock rate, only gravity does. > Consequently, the principle of equivalence is false. Gravity cannot be > replaced by acceleration specifically because of this clock rate > effect. Hasn't this been tested to 18000 gees? > John Polasek The principle of equivalence is false???? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Time_dilation_at_constant_acceleration >> Acceleration does not affect clock rate, only gravity does. >> Consequently, the principle of equivalence is false. Gravity cannot [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The principle of equivalence is false???? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Time_dilation_at_constant_acceleration Actually no, The equivelance principle is not false, Stating that a malfunctioning clock is keeping "proper" time is what is false. :)  SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman In the fields of Aerodynamics, Hydrodynamics, and Electrodynamics, only Position (statics) and it's first two derivatives, Velocity, and Acceleration are used in current science. Even Newton stated that Position MUST have 3 derivatives to completely define motion. The Missing 3d derivative in science are for variations in Acceleration. Newton knew that it took position, and 3 derivatives, and 4 equations to define the 3 dimensional world, and now you know it too. Why doesn't Physics use these Control Field sets in the branches of dynamics? Obviously, masses, molecules, atoms, and particles have motions and relationships that are variations in Acceleration Fields, the definition of the Contol Field being variations of acceleration, and the results, from elementary particles to stellar bodies. Newton provided the necessary formal expression in the calculus, where he defined velocity as the rate of change of position with respect to time, and acceleration as the rate of change of velocity with respect to time. Velocity is known as the first derivative (of position), acceleration as the second derivative. These two expressions laid the basis for the theory of gravitation. While Newton mentioned a third derivative, he made no attempt to give it a physical meaning, in 1667. What is it? Since each derivative is the rate of change of the quantity derived (i.e., velocity is the rate of change of position, with respect to time, acceleration the rate of change of velocity), with respect to time, we may conclude that the third derivative is the rate of change of acceleration, with respect to time. Every automobile driver has direct experience with the third derivative, for in controlling the car by pushing the accelerator, applying the brake, or changing its direction with the steering wheel, he is changing its acceleration. For example, a a number of years ago, engineers at General Motors were trying to find the analytical foundations for what passengers considered a comfortable ride in a vehicle. They assumed that minimizing vertical acceleration was the key, but road testing said otherwise. They found that the rate of change of acceleration, or the third derivative of position, was the key factor. This was new mathematical ground, and GM didn't know what to call the derivative of acceleration. This, in fact, is control. The existence of the fourth EM field for a patterned or cyclical hetrodynamic Control EM field is both a logical and physical necessity following the natural pattern of the 3 known fields. The Eletrodynamic Control field is totally predictable when deliberately generated, and the constraints of the design elements make a generated Control EM usable by man. Maxwell and Einstein USED ONLY VELOCITY & ACCELERATION, in formulating current electromagnetic theory and relativity theory, NEVER considering Control, or the third derivative of position L, expressed mathematically as L/T³. Here is a direct quote from Albert Einstein that proves this point: " THE SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY OWES ITS ORIGINS TO MAXWELL'S EQUATIONS OF THE ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD " ALBERT EINSTEIN (ed. Schilpp; Albert Einstein, Philosopher-Scientist, Library of living Authors, 1949, p62.) This poses the question: Was Maxwell stupid or cunning? When a particle or group of particles is accelerated, it sets up a magnetic braking field to oppose the driving field, hence more and more power is needed to to increase the acceleration of the particle group . There is no increase in mass, only an increase in needed driving force, and the results are made to fit invalid theory, with all the bewildering fudge factor phantom particles that comprise it. (As mentioned before, Maxwell's theories use/cover only 2 of the basic 3 derivatives, upon which Einstein developed his incomplete theories ) ß--¹¹ > > Acceleration does not affect clock rate, only gravity does. > > Consequently, the principle of equivalence is false. Gravity cannot be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The principle of equivalence is false???? > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Time_dilation_at_constant_... Acceleration slows time speed keeps it there. Mitch Raemsch >> Acceleration does not affect clock rate, only gravity does. >> Consequently, the principle of equivalence is false. Gravity cannot be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The principle of equivalence is false???? > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Time_dilation_at_constant_acceleration (TDACA) The TDACA reference you gave has an unbelievably convoluted formula that does not bear on the principle of equivalence from general relativity. It is a melange of Lorentz transforms with a strictly geometric basis. We would all appreciate it if you would show how to correlate the acceleration term 'g' in that formula with its equivalent in GR. In GR dtau/dt = sqrt(-g00) = sqrt(1-MG/rc^2) Your TDA reference effectively computes velocity as gt but which is further corrupted by abstruse terms: v = gt + 1/gc*sqrt(v2c2 + x2g2 etc. etc.) If valid, it should be possible to equivocate the two expressions, but I think even cursosry examination will indicate that such would not be possible. Furthermore the need for such arcane algebra raises the suspicion that TDA qualifies more for necromancy than science. There is a reason for gravity and its reduction of c, and time dilation is not in it. Minkowski, with no one to answer to, just thought it was a good idea. How to explain in a newsgroup email? In Dual Space theory I know that where the earth exists as a mass, that mass was taken from pairspace, leaving pairspace deprived and with strains that are the cause of gravity. The governing equation is cdc/dr = dc^2/2/dr = MG/r^2 so that dc/dr = MG/r^2c and that the speed of light increases out of the well by (if h = 22.5m as in Pound Rebka), then Dc = MGh/r^2c = gh/c = 7.4e-7 m/s, or fractionally %c = gh/c^2 = 2.4 e-15 as is widely quoted. It is c that speeds up out of a well and does what time dilation claims. Nobody dilates God's time. c and clocks are both lower in the well because of mass deprivation,, so Lambda is the same in and out, but stretches on the way out. The frequency started low and stays low. John Polasek > >> Acceleration does not affect clock rate, only gravity does. > >> Consequently, the principle of equivalence is false. Gravity cannot be [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > frequency started low and stays low. > John Polasek Acceleration slows time by Gamma and speed keeps it there. Mitch Raemsch > >> Acceleration does not affect clock rate, only gravity does. > >> Consequently, the principle of equivalence is false. Gravity cannot be > >> replaced by acceleration specifically because of this clock rate > >> effect. Hasn't this been tested to 18000 gees? > >> John Polasek Hi John Dale wrote:Actually I used to think that by equalizing gravity's as by for example the level where the the gravity between two planets cancel, that time and or the speed of light would have returned to its original speed.I even had it on my earlier web site that it would have been as if no gravity was ever there to begin with and you get some hypothetical faster than light experiments that became possible for the inhabitants of such a high gravity world by using strings of tiny black holes to equalize the gravity's then sending light signals through that level. Believe its the L5 level.It was with a cute cartoon too. But later realized that this idea made no since. Added point that later thoughts suggested that it might still be possible. If we had relativistically falling equalizing gravity sources.This suggested, at least on planets with high gravity's that at least some sort of experiments with FTL communication was at least in principle possible. This hypothesis looked at how black holes could fall into each other without the time dilating effects slowing the whole process down.Posted some gedankens rods made up of black holes and why they would become stable to our prospective of time if and only if the effects of gravity did not cancel the effects on the speed of light or time.However these would be in free fall and not suspended as if by hypothetical superstrings ;). Dale > > The principle of equivalence is false???? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Time_dilation_at_constant_...(TDACA) [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > There is a reason for gravity and its reduction of c, and time > dilation is not in it. Dale wrote: How in the world could you slow light but not slow time. Long ago I did some postings looking at a light clock and hypothesized about what would happed if you slowed the speed of light but tried to keep time unchanged.Clock would not keep the same time and you would end up with a preferred frame of reference unless you also change something else to preserve covariance.In other words if the matter the clock was made to remained the same length the clocks time would appear to slow down in relation to other clocks that kept time by other means. You say > It is c that speeds up out of a well and does what time dilation > claims. Nobody dilates God's time. > c and clocks are both lower in the well because of mass >deprivation,, How dose your idea of mass deprivation, work with the sped of light being slower and do you mean time remaining the same.Try to keep it simple for me not a lot of equations needed. This is sort of important for this alternative theory I so commonly post on.If you remember that theory looks at the way gravity slows time and contracts matter in such a way that it also expands space. Dale Minkowski, with no one to answer to, just > thought it was a good idea. > How to explain in a newsgroup email? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > frequency started low and stays low. > John Polasek > >> Acceleration does not affect clock rate, only gravity does. > >> Consequently, the principle of equivalence is false. Gravity cannot be > >> replaced by acceleration specifically because of this clock rate > >> effect. Hasn't this been tested to 18000 gees? > >> John Polasek Hi John Dale wrote:Actually I used to think that by equalizing gravity's as by for example the level where the the gravity between two planets cancel, that time and or the speed of light would have returned to its original speed.I even had it on my earlier web site that it would have been as if no gravity was ever there to begin with and you get some hypothetical faster than light experiments that became possible for the inhabitants of such a high gravity world by using strings of tiny black holes to equalize the gravity's then sending light signals through that level. Believe its the L5 level.It was with a cute cartoon too. But later realized that this idea made no since. Added point that later thoughts suggested that it might still be possible. If we had relativistically falling equalizing gravity sources.This suggested, at least on planets with high gravity's that at least some sort of experiments with FTL communication was at least in principle possible. This hypothesis looked at how black holes could fall into each other without the time dilating effects slowing the whole process down.Posted some gedankens rods made up of black holes and why they would become stable to our prospective of time if and only if the effects of gravity did not cancel the effects on the speed of light or time.However these would be in free fall and not suspended as if by hypothetical superstrings ;). Dale > > The principle of equivalence is false???? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Time_dilation_at_constant_...(TDACA) [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > There is a reason for gravity and its reduction of c, and time > dilation is not in it. Dale wrote: How in the world could you slow light but not slow time. Long ago I did some postings looking at a light clock and hypothesized about what would happed if you slowed the speed of light but tried to keep time unchanged.Clock would not keep the same time and you would end up with a preferred frame of reference unless you also change something else to preserve covariance.In other words if the matter the clock was made to remained the same length the clocks time would appear to slow down in relation to other clocks that kept time by other means. You say > It is c that speeds up out of a well and does what time dilation > claims. Nobody dilates God's time. > c and clocks are both lower in the well because of mass >deprivation,, How dose your idea of mass deprivation, work with the sped of light being slower and do you mean time remaining the same.Try to keep it simple for me not a lot of equations needed. This is sort of important for this alternative theory I so commonly post on.If you remember that theory looks at the way gravity slows time and contracts matter in such a way that it also expands space. Dale Minkowski, with no one to answer to, just > thought it was a good idea. > How to explain in a newsgroup email? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > frequency started low and stays low. > John Polasek > >> Acceleration does not affect clock rate, only gravity does. > >> Consequently, the principle of equivalence is false. Gravity cannot be > >> replaced by acceleration specifically because of this clock rate > >> effect. Hasn't this been tested to 18000 gees? > >> John Polasek Hi John Dale wrote:Actually I used to think that by equalizing gravity's as by for example the level where the the gravity between two planets cancel, that time and or the speed of light would have returned to its original speed.I even had it on my earlier web site that it would have been as if no gravity was ever there to begin with and you get some hypothetical faster than light experiments that became possible for the inhabitants of such a high gravity world by using strings of tiny black holes to equalize the gravity's then sending light signals through that level. Believe its the L5 level.It was with a cute cartoon too. But later realized that this idea made no since. Added point that later thoughts suggested that it might still be possible. If we had relativistically falling equalizing gravity sources.This suggested, at least on planets with high gravity's that at least some sort of experiments with FTL communication was at least in principle possible. This hypothesis looked at how black holes could fall into each other without the time dilating effects slowing the whole process down.Posted some gedankens rods made up of black holes and why they would become stable to our prospective of time if and only if the effects of gravity did not cancel the effects on the speed of light or time.However these would be in free fall and not suspended as if by hypothetical superstrings ;). Dale > > The principle of equivalence is false???? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Time_dilation_at_constant_...(TDACA) [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > There is a reason for gravity and its reduction of c, and time > dilation is not in it. Dale wrote: How in the world could you slow light but not slow time. Long ago I did some postings looking at a light clock and hypothesized about what would happed if you slowed the speed of light but tried to keep time unchanged.Clock would not keep the same time and you would end up with a preferred frame of reference unless you also change something else to preserve covariance.In other words if the matter the clock was made to remained the same length the clocks time would appear to slow down in relation to other clocks that kept time by other means. You say > It is c that speeds up out of a well and does what time dilation > claims. Nobody dilates God's time. > c and clocks are both lower in the well because of mass >deprivation,, How dose your idea of mass deprivation, work with the sped of light being slower and do you mean time remaining the same.Try to keep it simple for me not a lot of equations needed. This is sort of important for this alternative theory I so commonly post on.If you remember that theory looks at the way gravity slows time and contracts matter in such a way that it also expands space. Dale Minkowski, with no one to answer to, just > thought it was a good idea. > How to explain in a newsgroup email? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > frequency started low and stays low. > John Polasek > >> Acceleration does not affect clock rate, only gravity does. > >> Consequently, the principle of equivalence is false. Gravity cannot be > >> replaced by acceleration specifically because of this clock rate > >> effect. Hasn't this been tested to 18000 gees? > >> John Polasek Hi John Dale wrote:Actually I used to think that by equalizing gravity's as by for example the level where the the gravity between two planets cancel, that time and or the speed of light would have returned to its original speed.I even had it on my earlier web site that it would have been as if no gravity was ever there to begin with and you get some hypothetical faster than light experiments that became possible for the inhabitants of such a high gravity world by using strings of tiny black holes to equalize the gravity's then sending light signals through that level. Believe its the L5 level.It was with a cute cartoon too. But later realized that this idea made no since. Added point that later thoughts suggested that it might still be possible. If we had relativistically falling equalizing gravity sources.This suggested, at least on planets with high gravity's that at least some sort of experiments with FTL communication was at least in principle possible. This hypothesis looked at how black holes could fall into each other without the time dilating effects slowing the whole process down.Posted some gedankens rods made up of black holes and why they would become stable to our prospective of time if and only if the effects of gravity did not cancel the effects on the speed of light or time.However these would be in free fall and not suspended as if by hypothetical superstrings ;). Dale > > The principle of equivalence is false???? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Time_dilation_at_constant_...(TDACA) [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > There is a reason for gravity and its reduction of c, and time > dilation is not in it. Dale wrote: How in the world could you slow light but not slow time. Long ago I did some postings looking at a light clock and hypothesized about what would happed if you slowed the speed of light but tried to keep time unchanged.Clock would not keep the same time and you would end up with a preferred frame of reference unless you also change something else to preserve covariance.In other words if the matter the clock was made to remained the same length the clocks time would appear to slow down in relation to other clocks that kept time by other means. You say > It is c that speeds up out of a well and does what time dilation > claims. Nobody dilates God's time. > c and clocks are both lower in the well because of mass >deprivation,, How dose your idea of mass deprivation, work with the sped of light being slower and do you mean time remaining the same.Try to keep it simple for me not a lot of equations needed. This is sort of important for this alternative theory I so commonly post on.If you remember that theory looks at the way gravity slows time and contracts matter in such a way that it also expands space. Dale Minkowski, with no one to answer to, just > thought it was a good idea. > How to explain in a newsgroup email? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > frequency started low and stays low. > John Polasek > >> Acceleration does not affect clock rate, only gravity does. > >> Consequently, the principle of equivalence is false. Gravity cannot be > >> replaced by acceleration specifically because of this clock rate > >> effect. Hasn't this been tested to 18000 gees? > >> John Polasek Hi John Dale wrote: I had trouble posting this yesterday and nothing showed up so I had to repost this again today.So if this shows up as 2 postings thats probably the reason. Actually I used to think that by equalizing gravity's as by for example the level where the the gravity between two planets cancel, that time and or the speed of light would have returned to its original speed.I even had it on my earlier web site that it would have been as if no gravity was ever there to begin with and you get some hypothetical faster than light experiments that became possible for the inhabitants of such a high gravity world by using strings of tiny black holes to equalize the gravity's then sending light signals through that level. Believe its the L5 level.It was with a cute cartoon too. But later realized that this idea made no since. Added point that later thoughts suggested that it might still be possible. If we had relativistically falling equalizing gravity sources.This suggested, at least on planets with high gravity's that at least some sort of experiments with FTL communication was at least in principle possible. This hypothesis looked at how black holes could fall into each other without the time dilating effects slowing the whole process down.Posted some gedankens rods made up of black holes and why they would become stable to our prospective of time if and only if the effects of gravity did not cancel the effects on the speed of light or time.However these would be in free fall and not suspended as if by hypothetical superstrings ;). Dale > > The principle of equivalence is false???? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Time_dilation_at_constant_...(TDACA) [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > There is a reason for gravity and its reduction of c, and time > dilation is not in it. Dale wrote: How in the world could you slow light but not slow time. Long ago I did some postings looking at a light clock and hypothesized about what would happed if you slowed the speed of light but tried to keep time unchanged.Clock would not keep the same time and you would end up with a preferred frame of reference unless you also change something else to preserve covariance.In other words if the matter the clock was made to remained the same length the clocks time would appear to slow down in relation to other clocks that kept time by other means. You say > It is c that speeds up out of a well and does what time dilation > claims. Nobody dilates God's time. > c and clocks are both lower in the well because of mass >deprivation,, How dose your idea of mass deprivation, work with the sped of light being slower and do you mean time remaining the same.Try to keep it simple for me not a lot of equations needed. This is sort of important for this alternative theory I so commonly post on.If you remember that theory looks at the way gravity slows time and contracts matter in such a way that it also expands space. Dale Minkowski, with no one to answer to, just > thought it was a good idea. > How to explain in a newsgroup email? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > frequency started low and stays low. > John Polasek > >> Acceleration does not affect clock rate, only gravity does. > >> Consequently, the principle of equivalence is false. Gravity cannot be > >> replaced by acceleration specifically because of this clock rate > >> effect. Hasn't this been tested to 18000 gees? > >> John Polasek Hi John Dale wrote: I had trouble posting this yesterday and nothing showed up so I had to repost this again today.So if this shows up as 2 postings thats probably the reason. Actually I used to think that by equalizing gravity's as by for example the level where the the gravity between two planets cancel, that time and or the speed of light would have returned to its original speed.I even had it on my earlier web site that it would have been as if no gravity was ever there to begin with and you get some hypothetical faster than light experiments that became possible for the inhabitants of such a high gravity world by using strings of tiny black holes to equalize the gravity's then sending light signals through that level. Believe its the L5 level.It was with a cute cartoon too. But later realized that this idea made no since. Added point that later thoughts suggested that it might still be possible. If we had relativistically falling equalizing gravity sources.This suggested, at least on planets with high gravity's that at least some sort of experiments with FTL communication was at least in principle possible. This hypothesis looked at how black holes could fall into each other without the time dilating effects slowing the whole process down.Posted some gedankens rods made up of black holes and why they would become stable to our prospective of time if and only if the effects of gravity did not cancel the effects on the speed of light or time.However these would be in free fall and not suspended as if by hypothetical superstrings ;). Dale > > The principle of equivalence is false???? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Time_dilation_at_constant_...(TDACA) [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > There is a reason for gravity and its reduction of c, and time > dilation is not in it. Dale wrote: How in the world could you slow light but not slow time. Long ago I did some postings looking at a light clock and hypothesized about what would happed if you slowed the speed of light but tried to keep time unchanged.Clock would not keep the same time and you would end up with a preferred frame of reference unless you also change something else to preserve covariance.In other words if the matter the clock was made to remained the same length the clocks time would appear to slow down in relation to other clocks that kept time by other means. You say > It is c that speeds up out of a well and does what time dilation > claims. Nobody dilates God's time. > c and clocks are both lower in the well because of mass >deprivation,, How dose your idea of mass deprivation, work with the sped of light being slower and do you mean time remaining the same.Try to keep it simple for me not a lot of equations needed. This is sort of important for this alternative theory I so commonly post on.If you remember that theory looks at the way gravity slows time and contracts matter in such a way that it also expands space. Dale Minkowski, with no one to answer to, just > thought it was a good idea. > How to explain in a newsgroup email? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > frequency started low and stays low. > John Polasek > >> Acceleration does not affect clock rate, only gravity does. > >> Consequently, the principle of equivalence is false. Gravity cannot be > >> replaced by acceleration specifically because of this clock rate > >> effect. Hasn't this been tested to 18000 gees? > >> John Polasek Hi John Dale wrote: I had trouble posting this yesterday and nothing showed up so I had to repost this again today.So if this shows up as 2 postings thats probably the reason. Actually I used to think that by equalizing gravity's as by for example the level where the the gravity between two planets cancel, that time and or the speed of light would have returned to its original speed.I even had it on my earlier web site that it would have been as if no gravity was ever there to begin with and you get some hypothetical faster than light experiments that became possible for the inhabitants of such a high gravity world by using strings of tiny black holes to equalize the gravity's then sending light signals through that level. Believe its the L5 level.It was with a cute cartoon too. But later realized that this idea made no since. Added point that later thoughts suggested that it might still be possible. If we had relativistically falling equalizing gravity sources.This suggested, at least on planets with high gravity's that at least some sort of experiments with FTL communication was at least in principle possible. This hypothesis looked at how black holes could fall into each other without the time dilating effects slowing the whole process down.Posted some gedankens rods made up of black holes and why they would become stable to our prospective of time if and only if the effects of gravity did not cancel the effects on the speed of light or time.However these would be in free fall and not suspended as if by hypothetical superstrings ;). Dale > > The principle of equivalence is false???? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Time_dilation_at_constant_...(TDACA) [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > There is a reason for gravity and its reduction of c, and time > dilation is not in it. Dale wrote: How in the world could you slow light but not slow time. Long ago I did some postings looking at a light clock and hypothesized about what would happed if you slowed the speed of light but tried to keep time unchanged.Clock would not keep the same time and you would end up with a preferred frame of reference unless you also change something else to preserve covariance.In other words if the matter the clock was made to remained the same length the clocks time would appear to slow down in relation to other clocks that kept time by other means. You say > It is c that speeds up out of a well and does what time dilation > claims. Nobody dilates God's time. > c and clocks are both lower in the well because of mass >deprivation,, How dose your idea of mass deprivation, work with the sped of light being slower and do you mean time remaining the same.Try to keep it simple for me not a lot of equations needed. This is sort of important for this alternative theory I so commonly post on.If you remember that theory looks at the way gravity slows time and contracts matter in such a way that it also expands space. Dale Minkowski, with no one to answer to, just > thought it was a good idea. > How to explain in a newsgroup email? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > frequency started low and stays low. > John Polasek > >> Acceleration does not affect clock rate, only gravity does. > >> Consequently, the principle of equivalence is false. Gravity cannot be > >> replaced by acceleration specifically because of this clock rate > >> effect. Hasn't this been tested to 18000 gees? > >> John Polasek Hi John Dale wrote:Actually I used to think that by equalizing gravity's as by for example the level where the the gravity between two planets cancel, that time and or the speed of light would have returned to its original speed.I even had it on my earlier web site that it would have been as if no gravity was ever there to begin with and you get some hypothetical faster than light experiments that became possible for the inhabitants of such a high gravity world by using strings of tiny black holes to equalize the gravity's then sending light signals through that level. Believe its the L5 level.It was with a cute cartoon too. But later realized that this idea made no since. Added point that later thoughts suggested that it might still be possible. If we had relativistically falling equalizing gravity sources.This suggested, at least on planets with high gravity's that at least some sort of experiments with FTL communication was at least in principle possible. This hypothesis looked at how black holes could fall into each other without the time dilating effects slowing the whole process down.Posted some gedankens rods made up of black holes and why they would become stable to our prospective of time if and only if the effects of gravity did not cancel the effects on the speed of light or time.However these would be in free fall and not suspended as if by hypothetical superstrings ;). Dale > > The principle of equivalence is false???? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Time_dilation_at_constant_...(TDACA) [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > There is a reason for gravity and its reduction of c, and time > dilation is not in it. Dale wrote: How in the world could you slow light but not slow time. Long ago I did some postings looking at a light clock and hypothesized about what would happed if you slowed the speed of light but tried to keep time unchanged.Clock would not keep the same time and you would end up with a preferred frame of reference unless you also change something else to preserve covariance.In other words if the matter the clock was made to remained the same length the clocks time would appear to slow down in relation to other clocks that kept time by other means. You say > It is c that speeds up out of a well and does what time dilation > claims. Nobody dilates God's time. > c and clocks are both lower in the well because of mass >deprivation,, How dose your idea of mass deprivation, work with the sped of light being slower and do you mean time remaining the same.Try to keep it simple for me not a lot of equations needed. This is sort of important for this alternative theory I so commonly post on.If you remember that theory looks at the way gravity slows time and contracts matter in such a way that it also expands space. Dale Minkowski, with no one to answer to, just > thought it was a good idea. > How to explain in a newsgroup email? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > frequency started low and stays low. > John Polasek |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.