Originally posted by twhiteheadHave you noticed I have never disagreed with the GPS statement? I
As far as relativity is concerned the rules are the same, they just seem different because the effects are minimal at slow speeds. Its rather like the way gravity has little or no effect on the workings of atoms and chemical reactions, but on larger scales it is quite noticeable.
I also think we do understand most of the rules rather well. Certainly we seem to understand relativity well enough to create a working GPS system.
wonder why it keeps getting brought up?
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayBut what is your alternate theory and what experiment can you propose to back it up?
Have you noticed I have never disagreed with the GPS statement? I
wonder why it keeps getting brought up?
Kelly
If anyone agrees with Kelly, please speak up and give us your take on it.
Originally posted by KellyJayIt keeps getting brought up because it is an example of relativity in action. It essentially shows that either relativity is a very accurate model of the way the universe works ( or we are extraordinarily lucky that this mysterious effect of yours matches the predictions of relativity.)
Have you noticed I have never disagreed with the GPS statement? I
wonder why it keeps getting brought up?
Kelly
This contradicts statements by you such as "we just don't understand them yet"
Originally posted by KellyJayFirst of all, there is no such thing as "absolute time". There is only relative time.
Actually the argument was made here by another that two people can
be placed in different conditions and in "absolute time" one will experience
ten years to another's one. That to me has one moving at a different rate
of time, not just having their life burn hotter as if it were a candle so it goes
away quicker.
Yes, we are not only suggesting that in certain scenarios, one will experience 10 years to another's one, but we are saying that such effects are directly observable (albeit on a different scale) and have been observed, and can even be observed by you (the GPS system is one such observation).
But for some reason you interpret this as time travel, or some sort of disconnection and thus feel there is a problem when in fact, the GPS satellite essentially remains in continuous contact with earth and does not wink in and out of existence at all. It simply experiences less time.
Originally posted by FabianFnasI disagree. Here is what he wrote.
By "we" Kelly means "I and the others having the same opinion as I do."
I know in our universe when we look at the very large or the very small
the rules don't seem to be the same, for me I believe the rules are the
same, we just don't understand them yet.
All he's saying is that he believes in a Grand Unified Theory of Physics in which relativity and quantum mechanics always produce the same results. This is not an unusual position to take. Lots of physicists believe the same. I do.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI still think there is "absolute time". If not, how would this make sense:
First of all, there is no such thing as "absolute time". There is only relative time.
Yes, we are not only suggesting that in certain scenarios, one will experience 10 years to another's one, but we are saying that such effects are directly observable (albeit on a different scale) and have been observed, and can even be observed by you (the GPS system is ...[text shortened]... with earth and does not wink in and out of existence at all. It simply experiences less time.
the concept of time has no meaning before the beginning of the universe...Hubble's observations suggested that there was a time, called the big bang, when the universe was infinitesimally small and infinitely dense. Under such conditions all the laws of science, and therefore all ability to predict the future, would break down. If there were events earlier than this time, then they could not affect what happens at the present time. Their existence can be ignored because it would have no observational consequences.
http://www.celebatheists.com/wiki/Stephen_Hawking
Originally posted by KellyJayKelly, this one is for you:
Have you noticed I have never disagreed with the GPS statement? I
wonder why it keeps getting brought up?
Kelly
A crack in the time dilation theory, a mystery in space where quasars don't seem to be showing time dilation.
http://www.physorg.com/news190027752.html
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWith "we" Kelly means "we who have the same opinion as I do". That's a fact.
I disagree. Here is what he wrote.
I know in our universe when we look at the very large or the very small
the rules don't seem to be the same, for me I believe the rules are the
same, we just don't understand them yet.
All he's saying is that he believes in a Grand Unified Theory of Physics in which relativity and quantum mechanics ...[text shortened]... sults. This is not an unusual position to take. Lots of physicists believe the same. I do.
Because "we" the "the collective professionalists of physics" certainly know that time dilation exists, and the relativity theory is correct.
Kelly says "we don't know".
We certainly know. Kelly doesn't.
Originally posted by FabianFnasKJ does not deny "time dilation" exists. He just feels calling the variable "time" is inappropriate.
With "we" Kelly means "we who have the same opinion as I do". That's a fact.
Because "we" the "the collective professionalists of physics" certainly know that time dilation exists, and the relativity theory is correct.
Kelly says "we don't know".
We certainly know. Kelly doesn't.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWere did he say that? Nowhere if I'm not mistaken. I could be wrong. In this case, please tell me where he said that, and give a quote, if you don't mind.
I disagree. In the context it was used, "we" are the people who think Quantum Mechanics and Relativity can be reconciled.
Kelly has his opinion based of his intuition. He tries desperately to anchor his intuition in science, but he fails. How it should be and how it actually is two different things.
"We", the scientific community, of which I belong, believes in the results of relativity theory. In "our" society things doesn't pop up in our reality and mysteriously disappear. "We", the scientific community, don't believe in a static and absolute time, where 'now' is exactly the same anywhere in universe. "We" actually se times going faster or slower depending on conditions. GPS is a practical consequence of this, not some mysterious errors in the time measureing devices. Muon decay in the atmosphere is another example where theory fits observations.
When Kelly says "we" he cannot mean "we, the scientific community", because he doesn't agree with it. He holds his intuition higher than scientific observations. So Kelly's "We" means "We, who have the same opinion as I (Kelly) do".
I am certainly not included in Kellys "We", becasue I am a member of the scientific community. Are you, AThousandYoung, included in Kelly's "we" or are you not not?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI don't think that quote shows the existence of absolute time.
I still think there is "absolute time". If not, how would this make sense:
the concept of time has no meaning [b]before the beginning of the universe...Hubble's observations suggested that there was a time, called the big bang, when the universe was infinitesimally small and infinitely dense. Under such conditions all the laws of science, a ...[text shortened]... have no observational consequences.
http://www.celebatheists.com/wiki/Stephen_Hawking[/b]
When I say "there is no absolute time" I mean that for any given point in time for you, there is not necessarily an exact corresponding time for me (as per Kellys hypothesis). We can communicate, and between two such communications, we may both experience a period of time, but it may be impossible to match them up and say 'point x on my timeline corresponds to point y on your timeline.' In other words, we do not necessarily share the same moment.
The quote you give from Hawking, only refers to relative time.
2 edits
Suppose you move at 0.5c in one direction. I move 0.5c in the opposite direction. Are you telling me that when you are one light year from the starting spot (two years later), my position is undefined? It seems to me that you can calculate my position relative to the starting point given my velocity, your velocity and your position. No? When you are one light year one way, I am one light year the opposite.
The quote I gave from Hawking refers to two different kinds of time. The kind that gets dilated, and the time that is referred to as the "time before time". Time cannot be before time unless the two times are different kinds of time.