Light years is a time measure

[dad]

And like I said earlier, that's a mighty big IF you have there. And you have nothing at all to support your ideas.

Learn how science works, dad. You'll feel better for it.

No less a big if that anyone has in assuming time is the same far away from earth. All distances to stars and sizes, and the whole standard model and big bang and etc all depend on this belief.

 

[dad]

How do you know that it is different?

They know because they now have very exact clocks, and a time difference is observed as little as less than 10 inches high. Two clocks several inches apart, each registering a difference in the clocks.

 

[Loudmouth]

They know because they now have very exact clocks, and a time difference is observed as little as less than 10 inches high. Two clocks several inches apart, each registering a difference in the clocks.

If there is space separating the clocks then it doesn't count, according to your logic. We can't compare two clocks that are separated by space.

 

[RealityCheck]

They know because they now have very exact clocks, and a time difference is observed as little as less than 10 inches high. Two clocks several inches apart, each registering a difference in the clocks.

The irony of you citing this is that these experiments are consistent with everything we've already explained to you and contradict your wild assertions. These experimentally confirm general relativity, which consistently and accurately predicts time dilation in the presence of gravitational fields. The difference is not random. It is entirely predictable based on height. Or more precisely distance from the center of the gravitational field. This actually confirms the concept of time being a dimension interrelated with spatial dimensions, and that time DOES behave consistently, not randomly as you want desperately to believe.

 

[dad]

*staff edit*

"What Hawking has a problem with is "event horizons" of black holes. This is due to a conflict between general relativity and quantum dynamics. Hawking proposed a way around the problem. He *did not* suggest that black holes do not exist, but that the event horizon that makes them "black" may not be exactly as previously envisioned."

So if the black holes are not really what they were supposed to be, we are left with something they now claim is basically no longer a black hole..hence all the news articles that have that sort of title.

Bottom line is that all black holes are invented to explain what we see with earth rules. No wonder they keep changing their story!


How sweet it is.

 

[dad]

If there is space separating the clocks then it doesn't count, according to your logic. We can't compare two clocks that are separated by space.

False. Of course we can and do. We do this near and on earth. The whole point being that even here on earth we know time is different as we go up.

 

[dad]

The irony of you citing this is that these experiments are consistent with everything we've already explained to you and contradict your wild assertions. These experimentally confirm general relativity, which consistently and accurately predicts time dilation in the presence of gravitational fields.

Not to a degree that is certain and precise that precludes any other cause or effects. The issue was not why anyhow...but that a time difference exists. The exact reasons are another issue.


I have an experiment that costs not too much that can be done to help determine whether GR is the sole factor in time differences observed.

I will post it later...gotta run..the darn time got away from me for now.

The difference is not random. It is entirely predictable based on height. Or more precisely distance from the center of the gravitational field. This actually confirms the concept of time being a dimension interrelated with spatial dimensions, and that time DOES behave consistently, not randomly as you want desperately to believe.

Time difference is not random but apparently in a pattern. The further from earth...the more we see!

 

[Loudmouth]

False. Of course we can and do. We do this near and on earth.

As soon as you move one angstrom you are in a new space, so you can't compare the two. Those are your rules.

The whole point being that even here on earth we know time is different as we go up.

How do we know that?

 

[freezerman2000]

As soon as you move one angstrom you are in a new space, so you can't compare the two. Those are your rules.



How do we know that?

I'd like to know who the "we" is supposed to be..dad said that "we know".Just what body of folks constitutes that "we"?..I'm glad I'm not included in that club...

 

[dad]

As soon as you move one angstrom you are in a new space, so you can't compare the two. Those are your rules.

No idea what you are babbling about. The issue is time, I think, in the thread.

How do we know that?

Experiments in time dilation, in planes, hills, and etc.

 

[dad]

I'd like to know who the "we" is supposed to be..dad said that "we know".Just what body of folks constitutes that "we"?..I'm glad I'm not included in that club...

Maybe if you cite what is known, we can figure out the we part.

 

[dad]

OK, so I mentioned an experiment that could be done cheaply, on this time issue and relativity. Maybe they already did this and someone could point out the results...that is fine.

Gravity is supposed to be what bends timespace and causes the dilation if I have their ideas right. We can leave aside other issues like velocity as they are not needed here.


If time changed as one departed earth and it was due to gravity mainly, then why not get say, 50 precise clocks. Get a precise altimeter. Place maybe 2 or 3 clocks in several key locations. Namely, locations where gravity is more or less!

Place each clock at the exact same altitude. For example..sea level. Maybe also place clocks at a few hundred feet higher in the same areas. Gravity should make a bigger difference in the time dilation, so that in the areas of greater gravity I think we should expect more dilation, right?

 

[Kylie]

OK, so I mentioned an experiment that could be done cheaply, on this time issue and relativity. Maybe they already did this and someone could point out the results...that is fine.

Gravity is supposed to be what bends timespace and causes the dilation if I have their ideas right. We can leave aside other issues like velocity as they are not needed here.


If time changed as one departed earth and it was due to gravity mainly, then why not get say, 50 precise clocks. Get a precise altimeter. Place maybe 2 or 3 clocks in several key locations. Namely, locations where gravity is more or less!

Place each clock at the exact same altitude. For example..sea level. Maybe also place clocks at a few hundred feet higher in the same areas. Gravity should make a bigger difference in the time dilation, so that in the areas of greater gravity I think we should expect more dilation, right?

And what differences do you predict? How many nanoseconds I(or whatever length of time your prediction is)?

 

[dad]

And what differences do you predict? How many nanoseconds I(or whatever length of time your prediction is)?

Well, why would I care? If we can prove that GR is totally the cause of time difference on earth, it affects me not at all. However, if we found that the expected (predicted by GR) time difference had no real correlation with stronger or weaker gravity at the same altitudes, that would be interesting. You can guess why.

 

[Kylie]

Well, why would I care? If we can prove that GR is totally the cause of time difference on earth, it affects me not at all. However, if we found that the expected (predicted by GR) time difference had no real correlation with stronger or weaker gravity at the same altitudes, that would be interesting. You can guess why.

*staff edit*

Seriously, I can't remember you ever making a valid scientific point to support anything you've suggested.

And when you've finally come close, all you want to do is find something interesting so you can jump to the conclusion that you're pet idea must be the cause of it.

 

[dad]

*staff edit*

Seriously, I can't remember you ever making a valid scientific point to support anything you've suggested.

And when you've finally come close, all you want to do is find something interesting so you can jump to the conclusion that you're pet idea must be the cause of it.

The idea is to test GR. Put it to the test. Whatever conclusions one may or may not lean towards after that is up to the person looking at the evidence.

If gravity is what bends time, should not time be bent more in areas where there is greater gravity? If it is measurable enough to map the planet in gravity zones of less and more gravity, it should be clearly measurable in the clocks!

 

[Delphiki]

Well, why would I care? If we can prove that GR is totally the cause of time difference on earth, it affects me not at all. However, if we found that the expected (predicted by GR) time difference had no real correlation with stronger or weaker gravity at the same altitudes, that would be interesting. You can guess why.

What distance above sea-level do you have to be to consider yourself no longer "on earth"?

 

[PsychoSarah]

What distance above sea-level do you have to be to consider yourself no longer "on earth"?

I would consider it escaping the atmosphere.

 

[Delphiki]

I would consider it escaping the atmosphere.

I'd like to see dad's answer, but in the event it is similar: What altitude would that be, exactly. Because he is saying that the laws of physics begin to change when you leave earth. I'd like to know where this boundary is supposed to be.

The atmosphere doesn't suddenly terminate at any point. It gradually loses density as you climb in altitude. Do dad's different-state physics start at sea level and get crazier as you climb? It there a finite boundary considered to be "off earth"?

 

[PsychoSarah]

I'd like to see dad's answer, but in the event it is similar: What altitude would that be, exactly. Because he is saying that the laws of physics begin to change when you leave earth. I'd like to know where this boundary is supposed to be.

The atmosphere doesn't suddenly terminate at any point. It gradually loses density as you climb in altitude. Do dad's different-state physics start at sea level and get crazier as you climb? It there a finite boundary considered to be "off earth"?

Certain forces are impacted by the influence of earth's gravity, atmosphere, and the magnetic forces in its core, but this is well within the laws of physics that govern the rest of the universe.