28 Jun 08
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayWhen Jupiter is moving towards us, its moons can be observed to rotate slightly faster around it than when Jupiter is moving away from us. This is as the result of time dilation effects. But to observe this, although you need accurate clocks to time exactly when a particular moon appears in a particular position in space, those clocks are not put under any ‘experimental stress’ from the experiment for those clocks are not put in space but kept on Earth and stationary relative to the telescopes. So, in this example, how could it be true that “the clocks are being changed but not time”? for that to be true, the clocks would have to be changed in response to whether Jupiter was moving toward us or away from us! -but then how would those clocks “know” anything about the movement of Jupiter or Jupiter‘s moons?
Again, is it time or the clocks that are being changed?
KJ
Also, it must be possible to observe both Jupiter coming towards us and , at the same time, observe Saturn going away from us and measure the speed of rotation of the moons around each using the SAME clock for both simultaneous observations. Then we would see the moons revolving around faster than average around one planet while simultaneously see the moons revolving around slower than average around the other planet. But then if this was a result of something effecting the clock to slow the clock down or speed the clock up, then we shouldn’t observe this but should observe either the moons of BOTH planets revolving faster than average or the moons of BOTH planets revolving slower than average.
-I don’t think anyone would want to go to the time and expense to do this observation just to prove the point to you but I hope you can see that, because of my first argument, there is no reason why you should doubt that the speed of the clocks cannot be altered merely by planet movements.
Does that argument convince you that time dilation must be a real phenomena?
28 Jun 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIt could be something like a doppler effect in which the perceived image is different than the image emitted due to relative motion of emitter and receiver.
When Jupiter is moving towards us, its moons can be observed to rotate slightly faster around it than when Jupiter is moving away from us. This is as the result of time dilation effects. But to observe this, although you need accurate clocks to time exactly when a particular moon appears in a particular position in space, those clocks are not put und ...[text shortened]... anet movements.
Does that argument convince you that time dilation must be a real phenomena?
28 Jun 08
The doppler effect changes frequency, not the speed of the propagating wave.
A quick think about the situation leads us to the conclusion that if an effect similar doppler shift is happening it must change one of the following things:
1) time
2)distance
3)speed of wave travel
The speed of the wave is the speed of light, which is constant in a vacuum (there are a whole host of observed findings which support this - which I am sure you are aware of).
So that means that the effect of the relative motion between the moons and us must alter the distance and/or the time experienced by the wave. Hence we have Lorentze contraction and time dilation.
In short, an effect similar to doppler shift is happening, as it depends on the relative motion between the observer and the signal source. However, the effect alters distance and time, as it cannot alter the speed.
28 Jun 08
Originally posted by MattPIt is all about properties and constants, is it the material in our
It is time.
There have been lots of measurements of this, using several different methods for measuring time. For example (here are just two - there are many, many observable tests but lots of them test relativity in different ways (such as space-time distortion) that you will not understand):
1) use two atomic clocks, move one relative to us and leave ...[text shortened]... l methods give consistant results whatever is being measured and however it is being measured.
physical world being altered during the test or time, which
would be the various and sundry means we are attempting
to measure time, or time itself? Something within these
experiments are being altered, is it the nature of time, or the
physical equipment with which time is being measured?
You are assuming that the clocks or what ever measuring
devices are being used are always remaining constantly true.
If the clocks or the time measuring devices do not maintain
synchronize measurements of time, it is being suggested that
time has been altered and not the devices that have been
used to measure time! The measurements of the clocks or the
time measuring devices either remain constant and true, or
time does; I want to know how you know that!?
Kelly
29 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungBy “doppler-like effect” I assume you mean what our interpretation of what we observe through the telescope would be if we failed to take into account that fact that the speed of light is finite and not infinite and that it take times to get here and how much time depends on how far the planet is. But even when the scientists take fully into account of the finite speed of light (which they normally do) the moons around Jupiter will still appear to be revolving faster than what you would expect as Jupiter approaches us and if you were to assume no time dilation effects.
It could be something like a doppler effect in which the perceived image is different than the image emitted due to relative motion of emitter and receiver.
29 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayYou either didn’t understand my last argument or you didn’t agree with it or you haven’t yet read it (which one?). So I will try and create a very different argument:
It is all about properties and constants, is it the material in our
physical world being altered during the test or time, which
would be the various and sundry means we are attempting
to measure time, or time itself? Something within these
experiments are being altered, is it the nature of time, or the
physical equipment with which time is being measur ...[text shortened]... vices either remain constant and true, or
time does; I want to know how you know that!?
Kelly
“…Something within these experiments are being altered, is it the nature of time, or the physical equipment with which time is being measured? …”
When interpreting the evidence of what is being observed, we should regard the most ‘rational’ interpretation (the interpretation that should be regarded as the one with the highest probability of being correct) is the interpretation that assumes, as for as possible, that what most obviously appears to be evident from the observation is true and is not an illusion unless there is a reason to think otherwise.
The clock measurements appear to indicate that time can slow down and there is no evidence that the clocks are faulty or that the experiment itself is interfering in some way with the accuracy of the clocks.
So judging from the clocks, the most rational interpretation is the interpretation that it is time that is being changed here and not something in the clocks -after all, that is what the clocks appear to be saying if we don’t question their accuracy!
To say it is “time” that is changing here is the “simplest” hypothesis because we don’t have to assume the existence of something extra -I mean, we already agree that “time” does exists! don’t we?
But to say it is “something” in the clocks that is being changed is a more “complex” hypothesis because we are not observing what that “something” is in which case we have to assume the existence of that extra “something” which we have no evidence for (and not even with a basic explanation of that kind of thing that “something” is in this case!) and it is that extra assumption of the existence of that extra apparently unobserved “something” that makes the hypothesis more “complex”.
Of course, the assumption that it is “time” that is changing here is also an “assumption”, -but it is a “qualified assumption” because of the observation of the clocks ‘apparently’ telling us that it is time that is changing if we don’t question the accuracy of the clocks. On the other hand, the assumption that there is “something” in the clocks that is effecting the clocks is not a “qualified assumption” because there is no observation ‘apparently’ telling us that there exists that “something” -we are not seeing that “something”.
With all else being kept equal, the more unproven unqualified assumptions you put into a hypothesis, the more likely it is that one of those unproven unqualified assumptions will be wrong and therefore that the whole hypothesis is wrong. So, therefore, we must generally assume that the simplest hypothesis is the most probable.
That is why it should be regarded as more probable that it is time that changes in these experiments and not something in the clocks.
29 Jun 08
3 edits
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonReading that first remark back to myself, it sounds extremely blunt.
You either didn’t understand my last argument or you didn’t agree with it or you haven’t yet read it (which one?). So I will try and create a very different argument:...
I did not mean any offence. 🙂 🙄
29 Jun 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI did not call the clocks faulty, I said that they can be altered. I can
You either didn’t understand my last argument or you didn’t agree with it or you haven’t yet read it (which one?). So I will try and create a very different argument:
[b]“…Something within these experiments are being altered, is it the nature of time, or the physical equipment with which time is being measured? …”
When interpreting the evid ...[text shortened]... more probable that it is time that changes in these experiments and not something in the clocks.[/b]
alter a clock, that does not require much effort, so we know that can
be done, My question to you is remains the same, you are telling
me the constant is a mechanical device under a stress, and that time
itself is being altered during the stress. Your use of the word 'rational'
does not add to this question, I'm asking you again, how do you know
which is the one that is really being altered? You want to claim that
having the clocks get altered is more complex so you don't like the
idea, so it must mean it isn't happening!? I know clocks can be
altered, so with respect to the more complex I think you even have
that wrong.
Kelly
30 Jun 08
3 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay“I did not call the clocks faulty, I said that they can be altered….”
I did not call the clocks faulty, I said that they can be altered. I can
alter a clock, that does not require much effort, so we know that can
be done, My question to you is remains the same, you are telling
me the constant is a mechanical device under a stress, and that time
itself is being altered during the stress. Your use of the word 'rational'
do be
altered, so with respect to the more complex I think you even have
that wrong.
Kelly
Ok, I hear you; you are not saying the clocks are faulty, but I assume you are saying they are made inaccurate by some mysterious and yet unobserved influence from the experiment. If you are saying some kind of physical influence from the experiment itself causing the clocks to run faster or slower but without time running faster or slower then that must logically mean that the clocks are not showing the correct time in which case you are saying they are made inaccurate from the experiment.
“…I can alter a clock, that does not require much effort…”
Yes, but we can observe you altering the clocks! But what you are assuming here is that there could be some yet unexplained and unobserved “thing” that must be altering the clocks in these experiments.
“…so we know that can be done, …”
Yes, that is correct: we know it “can be done” by things that are observable and have known rational explanations. To assume that it “can be done” with the additional assumption that it is being done by something that is yet unexplained and yet unobserved in my view makes the theory more “complex“ (using the criterion I used for “complex” I indicated earlier).
“…You want to claim that having the clocks get altered is more complex so you don't like the
idea,…”
“don’t like the idea”? I don’t choose my beliefs on the bases of what I “like” to be true (that’s one reason why I am an atheist but that’s completely changing the subject)
Ok, I just accept the fact that it is unlikely that I can convince you of my criteria for judging the complexity and the probability of a hypothesis -so I will give up on that and revert back to my original tactic:
“…My question to you is remains the same, you are telling
me the constant is a mechanical device under a stress, and that time
itself is being altered during the stress. …”
Just to make sure: when you say “stress” do you mean “experimental stress” I.e. some kind of physical influence from the experiment itself causing the clocks to run faster or slower but without time running faster or slower? If so, then I have already dealt with that issue in one of the previous posts in this thread. Refer back to the post that I made that starts with the words: “When Jupiter is moving towards us,…”
There was some suggestion in a subsequent post that what I said could be explained by a “doppler-like effect” but then two subsequent posts disposed of that issue.
30 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayKelly,
It is all about properties and constants, is it the material in our
physical world being altered during the test or time, which
would be the various and sundry means we are attempting
to measure time, or time itself? Something within these
experiments are being altered, is it the nature of time, or the
physical equipment with which time is being measur ...[text shortened]... vices either remain constant and true, or
time does; I want to know how you know that!?
Kelly
The time has been measured with many different clocks which work in different ways and all results are consistent.
Also, as I mentioned before, time is not the only parameter which has been measured to confirm time dilation. Distance has also been measured (of particles traveling before they decay) and the results are consistent with the time results. This too has been done with many different sets of equipment.
Your point seems to be along the lines of (and correct me if I am wrong):
"There may be something we dont know about - perhaps some other factor is effecting the results so it isnt time that is changing, it is this other factor"
You are right to challenge results and ask for justification, as I have said before, however in this case it has been proved conclusivly that time and space do change. Any equipment error has been ruled out.
If, as you may be suggesting, it is some other effect to do with the "material" of the equipment, then this must lead to the changing of time and space, because the changing of time and space has been confirmed - it is not fully understood and there are still questions, but it has been confirmed that they depend on relative movement.
You clearly do not understand all this, you are not capable of comprehending the distortion/altering of space-time. once again - I ask you to explain what you understand about all this. Will you please write a summary paragraph with your understanding of relativity so I can try and correct your mistakes and enlighted you.
If you don't give an explination of what you understand - can I suggest that people ignore your views on the subject, as I suspect you dont know what you are talking about (but I may be wrong you may know a lot about the subject - but you refuse to tell me what you know)
30 Jun 08
4 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayWait! I have it! Of course! I don’t know why I didn’t think of it before! You don’t need clocks to observe time dilation effects! I remember this from an university physics course I did:
I did not call the clocks faulty, I said that they can be altered. I can
alter a clock, that does not require much effort, so we know that can
be done, My question to you is remains the same, you are telling
me the constant is a mechanical device under a stress, and that time
itself is being altered during the stress. Your use of the word 'rational'
do be
altered, so with respect to the more complex I think you even have
that wrong.
Kelly
The elliptical path of mercury has long been observed to ‘wobble’ and, before relativity, this ’wobble’ was a totally unexplained scientific mystery. But it is now fully explained by relativity because, according to general relativity, because mercury is much deeper in the gravity well of the sun than Earth, time runs more slowly relative to time on Earth. This effects the motion of Mercury as seen from Earth causing the ’wobble’ in its orbit. No clocks are essential to observe this wobble! That’s because you can observe the change in the position of the point in space where mercury is closest to the sun because this point will appear to rotate slightly around the sun each time Mercury orbit’s the sun once!
The only thing that you need to observe this is time-dilation effect is a telescope on Earth -no other instrument!
Would you think that the act of looking through the telescope alters something in the telescope which makes it merely appear that Mercury’s orbit wobbles but with no actual physical wobble ?
Do you still disagree with me now? 🙂
30 Jun 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWell, yes, if the clocks are stressed and that stress changes the
[b]“I did not call the clocks faulty, I said that they can be altered….”
Ok, I hear you; you are not saying the clocks are faulty, but I assume you are saying they are made inaccurate by some mysterious and yet unobserved influence from the experiment. If you are saying some kind of physical influence from the experiment itself causing the clo ...[text shortened]... d be explained by a “doppler-like effect” but then two subsequent posts disposed of that issue.[/b]
timing of the clock, does that mean time changed or the clock?
You can observe me altering the clock so only your observance
matters here, not the results of the clock being altered? Come on
what is it you are not seeing, what is constant here time, or the
clock? We know clocks can be changed, so what makes the clock
true and constant, and time the thing that is being altered during
your stresses? I'm still waiting, because as near as I can tell you
have made this whole thing much more complex by saying time
changed and not the clock, since clocks can be observed while
someone changes them, we know that can happen, but when you
want to avoid that truth you assume time changes and not the
clocks.
Yes, "stress" means "experimental stress", and just so we are clear
here, this what we have agreed on so far as near as I can tell.
1. Clocks are stressed, and some are not.
a.Those that are stressed show different times than those that
have not been stressed afterwards.
2. I can alter a clock by doing several things to it, and everyone can
observe me doing it.
3. Something in the experiment is being altered at stress, it is
assumed time itself has been altered or changed.
Okay, so my question is, why is it assumed time changed and not
the clock? We know I can alter a clock, heck I can stop a clock in one
room and allow another to keep running, did I stop time, or the clock?
I'll wait for your answer.
Kelly