This is not a definition of “time itself” since different kinds of clocks tick at different rates and they slow down and speed up at different rates for different reasons, and some will speed up and slow down in different directions while located in the same place. Why are intervals between events different for different kinds of clocks and why do they vary at different rates and in different directions? All you are saying here is that a clock tick interval can appear to be different when clocks are viewed by moving observers. Doppler explained that back in the 1840s. We don’t need SR theory to tell us that. This was already known long before SR was written.

You said, “Other effects of the acceleration (motion of the pendulum for example) could add an additional effect.” So explain how this happens. The more rapid motion of a pendulum in strong gravity causes the pendulum to swing more rapidly and a pendulum clock speeds up in places where atomic clock oscillation rates slow down and atomic clocks slow down. If the pendulum clock ticks more quickly in a strong gravity field, and an atomic clock oscillates more slowly, then which clock represents “time itself”? You and others try to give the impression that ALL clocks and all of “time itself” slows down where ever an atomic clock slows down, but this is just not true. So why do you think atomic oscillation rates represent “time itself” whereas pendulum swing rates and molecular vibration rates do not?

My opinion about time, which I’ve already expressed several times on this board, is that the “durations” between the “events” are determined by various laws of physics, depending on what type of clock is being considered, depending on what kind of repetitive motion, oscillation, or vibration is involved. So “time itself” can not be determined or represented by any one kind of clock, such as an atomic clock. An atomic clock is just one kind of clock that operates according to electrodynamics and quantum mechanics laws. A pendulum clock operates by different macro-mechanical laws. Thermodynamic time is determined by heat energy and thermodynamic laws. A thermodynamic clock speeds up when heat energy is added to it. The different kinds of clocks speed up and slow down depending on the individual laws of physics that govern the rate of their own particular repetitive “events”. So why do you think that when an atomic clock slows down, where other kinds of clocks (which are operating by different other laws of physics) speed up, represents “time itself”, while the other clocks do not?

Do you actually think the mechanical balance wheel clocks in the SR theory will slow down due only to relative motion, without any kind of force or pressure being placed on the clocks? And if there are just two relatively moving clocks, why would just one of them slow down and the other not, since both clocks are equal in the SR theory, and both relatively moving “systems” are completely equal? What is it about relative motion, i.e. straight line motion with no acceleration, that can slow down one of two relatively moving balance wheel clocks? And how do we decide which of the two identical relatively moving clocks physically slows down its tick rate? How do you make that determination?

And if the SR theory is correct as-is, why did Einstein have to correct it in his 1918 paper by adding atomic clocks to it, along with acceleration and gravity effects? Why did he do away with the “relative motion” in 1918, as a means of slowing down the clocks in the SR theory?

And yet that you insist that all moving clocks slow down at the same rate when moving, and there's an interaction with "fields" that does this. Why do all clocks slow by the same predictable rate when they move? Why does this happen whether they are moving through the earth's gravitational field or not?

Yes, Sam, I think everyone here is aware of your opinion. But it's just that - an opinion. Until you address the glaring problems that have been pointed out by numerous people, you don't come close to having a theory. And in science, nobody cares much about opinions. Give us facts, and theories to explain those facts and predict things so we can test them

To any observer, the other one always slows down. But only relative to that observer. It's not a physical slowdown of a clock in your own frame - it's the measurement of the clock in the other frame.

You moving doesn't change the tick rate of my clock that I measure. But what you measure won't agree with what I measure, because there is relative motion. Our clocks won't agree, and yet we agree that there is nothing happening to the clocks!

__________________
"I have a cunning plan that cannot fail."
S. Baldrick

No I don’t. I’ve never said that. I’ve never “insisted” any such thing.


That’s the basic Doppler Effect, described and explained by Doppler in 1843.

In SR theory, Einstein claimed that one of the clocks really did slow down and “lagged behind” the other when they both united. And he said they were “balance wheel” mechanical clocks, and they had no force at all placed on them.

No, that's a perfectly good definition of time - and as far as I'm concerned its the best physical definition of time out there.

The intervals are *not* different for different kinds of clocks. A clock is just a device to measure that interval. How well it measures that interval is limited by the accuracy clock, just like distance measurements are limited by the accuracy of your ruler. Time can pass at different rates due to observers moving at different relative velocities or being in different gravitational fields or experiencing different accelerations.

No, he's saying that those clock ticks have physical meaning. Special relativity EXPLICITLY states that time passes at different rates. As far as I know, this has been REPEATEDLY verified through experiment.

Because a pendulum's motion is determined partly by the acceleration due to gravity. If another acceleration acceleration gets involved, it can speed up or slow down the pendulum arm. This, however, has nothing to do with time.

Both measure time itself. The atomic clock will be more accurate since the atoms don't care about gravity when they vibrate. The pendulum clock will be less accurate because it depends on more variables (gravity and the length of the pendulum arm). It will not, however, necessarily run faster in a high gravitational field than it will in microgravity - there are other factors at work including time dilation.

Sam5, PROVE IT. I don't care what Einstein may or may not have written in his papers here - if you disagree with him, I want evidence. Show me an experiment that explicitly proves time moves at a constant rate for all observers. Show me the flaws in the experiments that have been done that force us to junk their results. After you've done that, show me a theory that explains all of this AND makes all the predictions of special and general relativity with equal or greater success.

The atomic oscillation rates depend on two things: the type of atoms involved and the energy level of those atoms. Two easily controlled variables that do not change with relative motion or gravity. Since atomic clocks DO run slow in a gravitational field AND with relative motion, this implies that either quantum mechanics is wrong (which it isn't) OR that time passes differently for different observers.

Pendulum swing rates depend on things: the length of the pendulum arm and the acceleration due to gravity. Those do change with relative motion and gravity. Therefore, if you want to see how relative motion and gravity affects time this is a terrible choice.

As for molecular vibration rates, you'll have to explain that type of clock more. I'm not familiar with it.

No. Those are just different means of measuring time. What you're saying is that equivilent of space being different depending on whether or not you measure it with a yard stick or a laser. Time exists independently of our ability to measure it.

But time is still present in the equations that govern its motion.

No. Thermodynamic time is the inevitable increase in the entropy of the universe, better known as the second law of thermodynamics. As time progresses, entropy increases. Thermodynamic time, however, is NOT a clock. It is a consequence of time. Furthermore, you can change the rate at which entropy increases by altering the rate at which time passes.

Like I said, you haven't established that those other clocks speed up. There are other variables with other kinds of clocks that you have to measure.

Yes. That's exactly what happens.

They're not identical systems. They're only equal in the sense that any measurements taken in either reference frame are valid. Those measurements can be different.

We don't know. It's just some weird property of time and space.

By deciding which is at rest and which is moving. Assuming no accelerations and no gravity, you will always measure the clock in your reference frame to be at rest and the other clock to be moving. Someone in the other clock's reference frame will decide that he is at rest and you're moving.

He did no such thing. Special relativity only dealt with situations where neither gravity nor accelerations were present. Einstein developed general relativity to extend the theory to all possible cases. He most emphatically did NOT get rid of relative motion as a cause of time dilation. What he said was that gravity can cause ALSO cause time dilation.

In his "The Cosmic Conspiracy", Stan Deyo (I know nothing about him) writes in Appendix 5:

http://au.geocities.com/psyberplasmic/ccX-5.html
Does he mean that space itself have inertia? If so, this could account for why the Pioneer spacecrafts leaving the solar system are experiencing measurable slowdown in velocity. This could be accounted for if the inertia of space (away from a hot star like our sun) is greater than near us, so that the mass out there is taking on this greater inertia, thus slowing velocity for the given momentum it has.

Has anyone theorized, either within or outside Relativity, that gravity may not be a universal constant? One way to think of this is that if gravity is greater in the deep cold of space, far from a hot star's electromagnetic energy source, the space vacuum may revert back to some primordial form which is more gravity rich (per volume of matter) than here on Earth. It would then imply that the more gravity, the greater the inertia for any matter in that greater gravity. It might also imply why we had been theorizing a "dark matter" in deep space. Hypothetically, could this space vacuum inertia be the "ether" through which light propagates? Of course, that would mean that gravity is not the Newton's Classical, and Einstein's General Relativity, universal constant but a "variable-constant" instead. Why did we assume gravity to be a universal constant? Should this variable gravity prove true instead, it may explain why the Pioneers are slowing. It might also help explain why cosmic light traveling great distances will redshift, since it must pass through a greater gravity in deep space? My reference here is to Sam5's April 10, 2004, post:
I'm just connecting the dots here, but it would seem that if gravity is not a universal constant, then several phenomena such as Pioneers slowing, cosmic light redshift, dark matter, all become better explainable (Ockham's razor).

Has anyone seen anything elsewhere on this line of reasoning, that gravity is not a universal constant? I am not "physics smart", so pardon my obtuseness for asking such elementary questions. Any books or internet references I should look into?

Then why do atomic clocks we send at high speed slow down according to the same predictable factor that a "light pulse" clock will?


What, exactly is Doppler-shifting? If it's time itself that is changing, then the type of clock is immaterial, as long as mechanical effects are compensated for.

__________________
"I have a cunning plan that cannot fail."
S. Baldrick

So, you've never really explained why Relativity theory fails, Sammy. You've just been insisting that Einstein came up with GR to apologize for SR, when he did no such thing. Find the book or paper -- since that seems to be your thing to do -- which says "I'm sorry for screwing up back in 1905. Here's a retraction of all my statements, and a new theory to boot!" Oh, and his use of the words "ether" or "aether" do not constitute this. Failing that, show us the experiments which refute Relativity theory, or that show SR not to be a special case of GR. You started talking about experimental observations or evidence in the thread on the centre of the universe. Now it's your turn to pony up.

__________________
"I'm making wheatloaf. It's like meatloaf, only with wheat"
"Isn't that just...bread?"

An atomic clock IS a “light pulse” clock. It is the fundamental oscillation rate of the atom that regulates the frequency of the emitted light.

Hey! Tensor have you finished your analysis upon the Math include in the book.My opinion is that the guy use a deliberatery woo woo style to sell his books but than the Maths include in it are serious. Just a guess.
http://au.geocities.com/psyberplasmic/index.html

A classical Doppler shift regarding space and spacecraft is when a moving radio on a spacecraft that is moving away from the earth transmits, let’s say, a 1,000 Hz per second tone signal, and on earth the signal come into a radio receiver at 999 Hz per second. This is an “illusional” time dilation. It is known as a “redshifted” signal. It’s not real at the clock or at the transmitter on the spacecraft. It is just an illusion that is perceived by the radio receiver on earth.

What causes this type of Doppler shift is because the transmitter on the spacecraft is sending out 1,000 Hz, but the distance between the earth and the spacecraft increases constantly, so the signal has further and further to travel. This stretches out the wavelength of the signal in space, so that the frequency that is received on earth is only 999 Hz per second. If the spacecraft could stop in space, so that the distance between it and the earth does not increase, then the earth would receive the full 1,000 Hz per second.

If the spacecraft is moving toward the earth and is sending out a 1,000 Hz signal, then the radio wavelengths are compressed, because the distance between the radio and the earth is decreasing, and so the radio on earth receives something like a 1,001 Hz per second signal. This is called a “blueshifted” signal.

Based on classical Doppler shift alone, at no time does the transmitted signal change rates. But the receiver on earth perceived an illusion of the rates changing, because of the Doppler effect.

As proof of this theory, we could also use a reflective mirror on a moving spacecraft, and we can have a light pulse signal sent from earth and reflected back from the moving mirror. This way we know that the 1,000 Hz signal never changes at the source, because the source is at the earth and is not moving.

But when the mirror moves away from the earth, and the signal is reflected back, the signal is redshifted and only a 999 Hz per second signal comes back to the earth. When the mirror starts back toward the earth, the reflected light signal becomes blueshifted and the earth receives 1,001 Hz per second.

There are several Doppler equations involved in this whole process, to calculate the exact results. Also, note that the earth will receive the redshifted signals for a longer time than it will receive the blueshifted signals. That’s because the earth is still receiving the redshifted signals when the mirror turns around and heads back. The earth will continue to receive the previously emitted redshifted signals for a while, even when the mirror is moving back. Finally the blueshifted signals start being received on earth.

When all the total number of Hz signals that were sent out, and all the total number of Hz signals that were reflected back, are counted, the same number that were sent out are the same as the number that were received on earth. There are no missing or “lost” Hz. If 10 billion were transmitted, then 10 billion will be received back on earth.

The “relativistic” Doppler shift is slightly different, and it includes both the illusion of the classical Doppler shift and a real shift in the rate of an atomic clock. I can explain that to you if you wish. Lorentz first described the relativistic Doppler shift in the frequencies of moving atoms in his book in 1895 and he published the first relativistic Doppler shift equations in that book. The relativistic shift actually does take place at an atomic clock, and it is not an illusion. So the “relativistic Doppler shift” is an observed combination of the classical Doppler shift (which is an illusion) and the real shift in the oscillation rate of an atomic clock signal (which is real and actually does take place at the clock).

No Sam, they are not. This is what I mean by a light pulse clock. A moving observer will measure it to run slow.

An atomic clock has, as you say, atoms oscillating between two states.

__________________
"I have a cunning plan that cannot fail."
S. Baldrick

First, a nitpick. A 'Hz/s' is a meaningless unit. Frequency is measured in Hz. You also don't want to use tones - sound can't propagate througha vacuum - you want to use light.

Big problem here - you've mixed up your refrence frames and as aresult what you're saying is meaningless. You can't have a Doppler shift relative to yourself. If I'm in my car, barrelling down the highway at 80 miles/hour, my radio is going to sound normal to me because I'm moving with my speakers - they're comoving so there is no Doppler shift between the two. However, someone who hears my radio as I drive by will hear a frequency change and what he hears is not an illusion. There are no preferred reference frames so his observation that the relative motion of my car relative to himself causes a frequency change (a Doppler shift) is a physically valid, real observation.

Right, because there is no Doppler shift if there is no motion.

Right.

Dead wrong. The speed of the signal - which I assume is what you mean by rate - is not changing. The light sent by the spacecraft will still be travelling at 2.998 x 10^8 m/s. The sound coming out of my radio will still be travelling at 331.5 m/s. Both observers will agree on that. The wavelength and the frequency change.

Right answer, wrong reason. We will measure the signal's frequency to be 1 kHz when it's emitted because we're not moving relative to the transmitter. However, that doesn't change the fact that the signal we receive has changed its frequency. Assume the spacecraft is moving away from Earth at a constant speed. As a result, the signal it receives is redshifted - the signal has a lower frequency than it did when it left Earth. The signal is then reflected off the mirror towards Earth. Because, from the spacecraft's point of view, the Earth is moving away from it, the Earth will receive a signal that's been redshifted again.

There are several Doppler equations involved in this whole process, to calculate the exact results. Also, note that the earth will receive the redshifted signals for a longer time than it will receive the blueshifted signals. That’s because the earth is still receiving the redshifted signals when the mirror turns around and heads back. The earth will continue to receive the previously emitted redshifted signals for a while, even when the mirror is moving back. Finally the blueshifted signals start being received on earth.

When all the total number of Hz signals that were sent out, and all the total number of Hz signals that were reflected back, are counted, the same number that were sent out are the same as the number that were received on earth. There are no missing or “lost” Hz. If 10 billion were transmitted, then 10 billion will be received back on earth.

Wrong. As far as the actual atomic clock is conerened it's at rest. We only receive a Doppler shifted signal if we're moving relative to it. This is partly due to the fact that, if the two reference frames are moving relative to each other, time is passing at different rates in those two frames.

But that only works if you try to tell time by measuring a frequency of emitted pulses. What if we have a moving clock, and it sends out a coded signal saying what time its clock read, when it passes a marker? It passes, say, the moon, and sends out a signal that says "123456 seconds have elapsed since synchronization" The Doppler shift can't change that signal.

__________________
"I have a cunning plan that cannot fail."
S. Baldrick

If he is, there's no evidence for space having inertia. Besides, the deceleration of the Pioneer spacecraft is explicable due to collisions with dust particles in the outer solar system. You don't need to assign any special properties to spacetime to explain that.

Is cool. The problem with the theory is that there's no evidence for it. Every theory of gravity to date predicts that gravity gets weaker as you move away from its source. That's consistent with, well, just about everything we've observed so far. For instance, if this were the case, you'd have expected the Apollo astronauts to have reported an increase in gravity somewhere between the Earth and Moon, but none was observed. Dark matter is still mysterious, but there doesn't seem to be any reason to change gravity to account for it when there's plenty of evidence for non-luminous matter out there.

Dear God, are we doing this again?

There is an interesting demonstration about:
TIME AND SPACE
and
THE 'GRAVITATIONAL' EFFECT
Text begin near the middle of the page.
http://au.geocities.com/psyberplasmic/ccS1-3.html

............
Also
The author gives the reasons why Aether was rejected and made the claims than Aether was observed from another experiment made by Sagnac.
text and experiments near the bottom of this page
http://au.geocities.com/psyberplasmic/ccX-5.html
See
ETHER EXISTENCE VERIFIED

No it's not. They're mathematically distinct.
And that was born out in general relativity. I thought you said you believed in general relativity?

I thought you were talking about a type of laser pulse clock.

If you are talking about an imaginary clock, you will get imaginary results.

So now do you understand the Doppler Effect?

There are other parts of it if you want me to tell you about them. I can also tell you about the "relativisitic" Doppler effect, which Lorentz first published in his book in 1895.

Evidently you’ve never heard any thousand Hz Morse Code tone pulses on shortwave radio. Go educate yourself and we can discuss this some more.

Thanks for your reply. I presume you're referring to the inverse square law of gravity (or electromagnetic) energy in yours:
So I understand thus far we have no reason to doubt gravity's universality. My interest in trying to find text or observational evidence of gravity as not a constant stems from a possibility that our estimations of distant mass, of planets and stars and galaxies, is derived from orbital spin using Newton's orbital equation with G as a constant. However, should this G not be constant, but somehow inversely proportional to the spacevacuum energy level where it is being measured, then our calculations of distant astronomical bodies may be wrong. It might mean that Pluto's mass, for example, is lower than estimated but behaves as if it were more because the gravity per volume is greater. The same would be true for Sedna, which is again as far as Pluto, where its mass may be comparatively smaller than estimated, though it acts in its orbit as if it were greater. Finally, it would call into question comets with extremely elliptical orbits, where they travel from close vicinity to the sun and far out towards the Kuiper belt or beyond. Could they have a variable gravity per mass as they go about their orbits, which means they "compact" far out on the edge of the solar system, and "de-compact" as they get closer into the sun? If they did, they there should be some evidence of their precessing in their perihelion portion of their orbits, given a constant momentum, but de-precessing in their perihelion orbital paths. Anyone ever study this possibility? I suppose we could attach a radio signal to a passing comet and wait 80 years to find out. But if gravity were not a universal constant, as we currently believe, I would think it would impact Einstein's geometric description of gravity per his General Relativity, since it is built (as I understand it) on a constant G.

I heard elsewhere that in Hawkin's "A Brief History of Time", 'he suggested that when we have a viable theory of quantum gravity, we'll be well on our way to understanding all of the forces'... but have not yet read the book.

First, you need to learn the classical Doppler effect, and then you can learn the “relativistic” Doppler effect. You need to be sure not to confuse the two. Too many people I’ve met on the internet confuse the two all the time, and they have no real idea what the classical Doppler effect is. I’m surprised that universities seem to be turning out physics majors who don’t know how to describe the mechanics of the classical Doppler effect.

I can tell you what a “relativistic” Doppler effect is if you want to know. It is when an atomic clock on board a spacecraft, that regulates the frequency of the radio signal tone or an electronic device that regulates the radio frequency, has its atomic oscillation rates altered, either by moving through a field (Lorentz theory) or as a result of more or less acceleration or stronger or weaker gravity field (GR theory). Lorentz published the first relativistic Doppler equations in his 1895 book. While calculating a relativistic Doppler effect, one must calculate the classical Doppler effect (which is an illusion that does not actually take place at the clock), and combine it with the real clock slowdown or speed up of the clock due to the so-called “relativistic” effect caused by the forces experienced by the atoms inside the clock (this is a real effect that does occur at the clock).

Unfortunately, I did not have the time today to do it (I had a matinee show and I had some work to get done around the house before and after the show). I will look at it tomorrow (I'm off work) and will post on it tomorrow late afternoon or evening.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

Well, he's still here, getting Relativity wrong. So, yes, were doing this again. :roll:

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

This is a typical misunderstanding of how the Sagnac experiment relates to relativity. See here for an excellent explanation (it does get a bit technical)

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

I abstain (courteously ) .

Are you saying the sound itself moves through the air? If so could you please explain why that thousand hz tone takes less than a second to travel from say New York to L.A. instead of the four hours that the sound(which travels at approximately 740 miles per second) should take? Or just perhaps the tone is just a modulated carrier wave moving at c.

What you obviously ignored is the correction. Hz per second is meaningless as the definition for Hz is cycles/second not cycles per second per second, as you stated.

I find it highly ironic and amusing that someone who says they don't understand the math and gets basic physics facts (not to mention more not so basic physics facts) wrong, continually tells people to go get educated.

spelling edit

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

You may find claims that g is not a constant, but I don't think you'll find any undisputed observational evidence of it.

Taylor and Hulse's observations refute your idea that G may be different in different "spacevacuum energy level" (I'm really not sure what you mean by this, but I am taking it as the amout of energy in a volume of spacetime). Only because the energy levels near the pulsar and the companion it is orbiting would be so much different than near the earth-sun system. And yet, the decay of the orbit matches the predictions of General Relativity. If your idea of a variable G were true, then the predictions shouldn't match.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

Can't say that I blame you Russ.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

NO!

Geepers!

Do you know what an audible “tone” is? Do you know how radio stations can send out audio “tones”? Music is made up of audio tones, audio frequencies. Have you ever heard any music over a radio?

Maybe you call them something different today, but when I hear a 1,000 cycle tone over a radio (ie coming from the radio speaker), I call it a “tone”. It’s coded into the radio waves of the radio signal.

Why would you think that I would think that a spacecraft radio would send out “sound waves”??

Geez!

It can be any frequency of any kind of tone or signal. It can be the frequency of the radio transmitter itself.

You can use a light signal too. You can count the frequencies of the light signal, or you can have the light intermittent, such as 1,000 pulses a second. I used the number 1,000 because it was easy to type.

You might have to excuse me, but I read a lot of 19th Century and early 20th Century books, so if it’s no longer called a 1,000 Hz “tone” that is sent over a radio, then tell me what it is called today. If music is not called "music" anymore, then tell me what it is called.

For beginners, I wanted to be sure that they understood the term to mean “cycles per second”. I almost said "cycles per second", but I figured you'd nitpick about that.

Do you nitpick when someone writes “$1 million dollars”? Do you complain because they write “dollars” twice?