General Relativity Does Not Rescue Special Relativity.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

General Relativity Does Not Rescue Special Relativity.


It ditches it.

According to special relativity time dilation is caused by relative
motion per se.

This has been rightly criticized as self-contradictory.

General relativity says the clock that is accelerating is time dilating.
This makes the cause absolute motion and not relative motion.

Therefore, GR ditches SR, which is a distinctly different and false
theory.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
General Relativity Does Not Rescue Special Relativity.
It ditches it.
According to special relativity time dilation is caused by relative
motion per se.
This has been rightly criticized as self-contradictory.
General relativity says the clock that is accelerating is time dilating.
This makes the cause absolute motion and not relative motion.
Therefore, GR ditches SR, which is a distinctly different and false
theory.

Einstein just calls it "spatial" for GR and a separate, though
concident and indifferent, 'in the limit', "spacial" for SR.

It's so though that Einstein already long ago arrived
at "SR is local" because "Relativity of Simultaneity is non-local",
according to his "the time" representing Einstein's clock hypothesis.

Of course that's not the same as "1905 SR" nor "1915 GR",
his circa 1935 "Relativity theory (motion)".

Anyways Einstein already has "GR first", though most followers
are ignorant of it.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Reasonable defense by a relativist: Dingle refuted the alleged cause of
relative motion for time dilation of special relativity. Time dilation
is a part of GR, not SR.

[JanPB]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Reasonable defense by a relativist: Dingle refuted the alleged cause of
relative motion for time dilation of special relativity. Time dilation
is a part of GR, not SR.

Dingle's mistake was assuming a direct cause. But it may be that
the two are merely *correlated* by a *common indirect cause*.

In physics situations like this arose many times. For example,
Maxwell's theory required equipping EM fields with their own
momentum and angular momentum (otherwise the conservation laws
would fail). Nobody knew what the seat of that momentum was.
This was only modelled much later in quantum electrodynamics.

It's very likely that time dilation, etc., are similarly conditioned
phenomena. We still don't have the right model for the underlying
causes.

Same thing happened with thermodynamics when people started to
(correctly) quantify the amount of heat despite not knowing what
heat was, or even at one point while having the wrong model of
heat (the "caloric" or "phlogiston" model).

So this is a normal (although a bit temporarily uncomfortable)
position for a physics theory to be in, it's nothing new. It only
seems such a tragedy to amateurs who ONLY know relativity but do
not actually understand PHYSICS and how science works in
particular. One standard amateur mistake here is the constant
confusion of physics with philosophy.

--
Jan

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by JanPB

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Reasonable defense by a relativist: Dingle refuted the alleged cause of
relative motion for time dilation of special relativity. Time dilation
is a part of GR, not SR.

Dingle's mistake was assuming a direct cause. But it may be that
the two are merely *correlated* by a *common indirect cause*.
In physics situations like this arose many times. For example,
Maxwell's theory required equipping EM fields with their own
momentum and angular momentum (otherwise the conservation laws
would fail). Nobody knew what the seat of that momentum was.
This was only modelled much later in quantum electrodynamics.
It's very likely that time dilation, etc., are similarly conditioned
phenomena. We still don't have the right model for the underlying
causes.
Same thing happened with thermodynamics when people started to
(correctly) quantify the amount of heat despite not knowing what
heat was, or even at one point while having the wrong model of
heat (the "caloric" or "phlogiston" model).
So this is a normal (although a bit temporarily uncomfortable)
position for a physics theory to be in, it's nothing new. It only
seems such a tragedy to amateurs who ONLY know relativity but do
not actually understand PHYSICS and how science works in
particular. One standard amateur mistake here is the constant
confusion of physics with philosophy.
--
Jan

This is perceived a remarkable recent timidity, from what
was earlier your expressed "very SR-ian" opinion.

Reflecting "chaleur and the caloric" with "a-diabatic and
non-a-diabatic", has that Fourier is surely great and all
of analysis sits on its examples, while as well any sort
of difference from the "one-way" model, or for example
any sort difference in the formalism the interpretation
of uniqueness of the Fourier series, does reflect on
that the Laplacian is _partials_ (incomplete).

The "photon" its definition has been so diluted and overloaded
that its relevance to measuring and defining velocity,
has broken the metrics and norms in most all extensions.

Then, it's perceived your more sober assessment is improved,
than before your so-correspondent estimation of "truth",
regards these matters.

The physics and philosophy with regards to theory and metaphysics,
are a combined notion, for a "the theory of truth" and for
as d'Espagnat puts it a very "realist" theory, of a "the physics".

Classical motion itself is under-defined. This "unstated assumptions"
or "hidden implicits" or what make "supplemental variables" when
"hidden variables" were put down as negligeable, these
"zero-eth laws" help show that physics is more than absent philosophy.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by JanPB

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Reasonable defense by a relativist: Dingle refuted the alleged cause of
relative motion for time dilation of special relativity. Time dilation
is a part of GR, not SR.

Dingle's mistake was assuming a direct cause. But it may be that
the two are merely *correlated* by a *common indirect cause*.
In physics situations like this arose many times. For example,
Maxwell's theory required equipping EM fields with their own
momentum and angular momentum (otherwise the conservation laws
would fail). Nobody knew what the seat of that momentum was.
This was only modelled much later in quantum electrodynamics.
It's very likely that time dilation, etc., are similarly conditioned
phenomena. We still don't have the right model for the underlying
causes.

This is highly unlikely.
Time dilation seems to be an inherent property
of the space-time we find ourselves in.
It has nothing to do with any kind of physics.
(let alone models of something)
Au contraire,
physical theories must be Lorentz invariant by construction,
to have any chance at all of being viable.

Post by JanPB
Same thing happened with thermodynamics when people started to
(correctly) quantify the amount of heat despite not knowing what
heat was, or even at one point while having the wrong model of
heat (the "caloric" or "phlogiston" model).

Likewise. The notions of entropy and absolute temperature
have nothing to do with any physical system in particular.
That's why thermodynamics can be axiomatised.

Post by JanPB
So this is a normal (although a bit temporarily uncomfortable)
position for a physics theory to be in, it's nothing new.

Nothing uncomfortable about it.

Post by JanPB
It only seems such a tragedy to amateurs who ONLY know relativity but do
not actually understand PHYSICS and how science works in particular. One
standard amateur mistake here is the constant confusion of physics with
philosophy.

Unfortunately not just amateurs....

Jan

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Jan: You are absolutely correct. Time dilation has nothing to do with
physics. The LT is absurd and unnecessary without an ether. The two
beams in the MMX return simultaneously because there is no ether and not
because of an LT.

According to physics, entropy does not apply to open systems. The
universe is infinite, so it is an open system.

To accept relativity as physics is to confuse philosophy with physics.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Jan: You are absolutely correct.

Unfortunately you are not.

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Time dilation has nothing to do with physics. The LT is absurd and
unnecessary without an ether. The two beams in the MMX return
simultaneously because there is no ether and not because of an LT.
According to physics, entropy does not apply to open systems. The
universe is infinite, so it is an open system.

More nonsense. Do read up on statistical mechanics.
BTW, energy and momentum conservation don't apply either,
if you leave out some of the constituents.

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
To accept relativity as physics is to confuse philosophy with physics.

Again, depending on what you want the words to mean,

Jan

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by JanPB

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Reasonable defense by a relativist: Dingle refuted the alleged cause of
relative motion for time dilation of special relativity. Time dilation
is a part of GR, not SR.

Dingle's mistake was assuming a direct cause. But it may be that
the two are merely *correlated* by a *common indirect cause*.
In physics situations like this arose many times. For example,
Maxwell's theory required equipping EM fields with their own
momentum and angular momentum (otherwise the conservation laws
would fail). Nobody knew what the seat of that momentum was.
This was only modelled much later in quantum electrodynamics.
It's very likely that time dilation, etc., are similarly conditioned
phenomena. We still don't have the right model for the underlying
causes.

This is highly unlikely.
Time dilation seems to be an inherent property
of the space-time we find ourselves in.
It has nothing to do with any kind of physics.
(let alone models of something)
Au contraire,
physical theories must be Lorentz invariant by construction,
to have any chance at all of being viable.

Post by JanPB
Same thing happened with thermodynamics when people started to
(correctly) quantify the amount of heat despite not knowing what
heat was, or even at one point while having the wrong model of
heat (the "caloric" or "phlogiston" model).

Likewise. The notions of entropy and absolute temperature
have nothing to do with any physical system in particular.
That's why thermodynamics can be axiomatised.

Post by JanPB
So this is a normal (although a bit temporarily uncomfortable)
position for a physics theory to be in, it's nothing new.

Nothing uncomfortable about it.

Post by JanPB
It only seems such a tragedy to amateurs who ONLY know relativity but do
not actually understand PHYSICS and how science works in particular. One
standard amateur mistake here is the constant confusion of physics with
philosophy.

Unfortunately not just amateurs....
Jan

The SR-ians are mostly sensationalist phenomenologists
who though think they have operationalist instrumentalism
that makes them non-intersubjective fictionalists
and nominalist weak logical positivists,
of the easily fooled variety.

This is in contrast to platonistic theorists
which intersubjective toward interobjective realism
and platonistic stronger logical positivists
teleology and ontology both, not
the neither-nor of groundless existentialism/nihilism
and what sees Chrysippus boot Plotinus and his pawn Russell,
that stronger platonism and stronger logical positivism
wins with both teleology and ontology and
the strong idealist and analytic and techno-analytic
philosophy, and of science.

It's said Popper adding falsifiability,
yet then he's a weaker sort of logical positivist,
which is merely again an inductive, linear empirical pragmatist.

With no ontological commitment at all except there not being one, ....


Not professionals, ..., where for example Einstein provides at
least two notions of a scientific observer:
"rote inductive model physicist", and
"idealist thorough model philosopher".
Not even practicing, ....

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by JanPB

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Reasonable defense by a relativist: Dingle refuted the alleged cause of
relative motion for time dilation of special relativity. Time dilation
is a part of GR, not SR.

Dingle's mistake was assuming a direct cause. But it may be that
the two are merely *correlated* by a *common indirect cause*.
In physics situations like this arose many times. For example,
Maxwell's theory required equipping EM fields with their own
momentum and angular momentum (otherwise the conservation laws
would fail). Nobody knew what the seat of that momentum was.
This was only modelled much later in quantum electrodynamics.
It's very likely that time dilation, etc., are similarly conditioned
phenomena. We still don't have the right model for the underlying
causes.

This is highly unlikely.
Time dilation seems to be an inherent property
of the space-time we find ourselves in.

It surely is an inherent property
of the space-time you find yourselves
in. It has just nothing in common with
the reality, anyone can check GPS, time
(as defined by your idiot guru himself)
is galilean.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Ross: Well, thanks, but then Einstein is spouting gibberish because you
must be taken to be saying Einstein claimed time dilation is caused by
"spatial." In any case, all of it is stupid and ignorant pseudoscience
that you retail in your gibberish or Einstein's gibberish. Ross, come
out of it!!! Come to your senses.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Ross: Well, thanks, but then Einstein is spouting gibberish because you
must be taken to be saying Einstein claimed time dilation is caused by
"spatial." In any case, all of it is stupid and ignorant pseudoscience
that you retail in your gibberish or Einstein's gibberish. Ross, come
out of it!!! Come to your senses.

It's appreciated to be sensible, yet it's length-contraction &
time-dilation only together what make space-contraction, and
clocks only slow or meet, that FitzGerald is to whom is
accredited space-contraction, who also has a lot going on
with the relation to the electromagnetic developments of
Faraday, Heaviside, Larmor, and Maxwell, then as with regards
to SR-ians and GR-ians that Einstein resulted a GR-ian like
other sensible people.

See, this still can make for a theory where the linear is
yet Galilean as its own Lorentzian with "frame-dragging"
being real enough the space-frames and frame-spaces,
and the "turning worlds" those where all things orbit
each other as much as track the geodesy - which of course
is undefined its curvature per Space-Time at all and
"is what it is", in GR - that massy bodies are mostly space -
then while also the rotational is the more usually Lorentzian,
and its SR-ian magnetic moments are as so associated with
it that way, the space-contraction is in it, as with regards
to notions of DesCartes and Kelvin the vorticial, the,
"un-linear", with regards to the linear.

Which is always nominally non-zero, ....

So, this speaks to some of what you note as perceived deficiencies
in the theory, while making a better one - of course the mathematics
has its own work to do to get improved when 0 m/s = infinity s/m.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Absolute motion can cause some rates of change to alter, but can't cause
all rates to be modified in unison. GR is false.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Absolute motion can cause some rates of change to alter, but can't cause
all rates to be modified in unison. GR is false.

You mean the one _without_ a continuous space-time or the one _with_?

Einstein's "Relativity theory" has one _with_.

Then how that works out with regards to formalisms
like Riemann metric and "what tensors" is under-defined
anyways: what with regards to "space-frames and frame-spaces",
an actual _difference_ linear/rotational,
real space-contraction, a fall-gravity,
mass/energy relativistic equivalence as rotational,
a vanishing yet non-zero cosmological constant,
with regards to that Einstein's relativity theory
is a theory with one negative stipulation:
that motion is relative.

Doesn't say anything about acceleration, either,
then that the equivalence principle is another
thing that varies in terms of there being absolute _space_ (GR).

Where, at least there's a universal _time_.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not so particularly attached
to one or the other interpretation. These though
seem best.


Least action, ....


Of course _mathematics_ is behind too, don't forget that
foundations of _mathematics_ need improvement when looking
to foundations of _physics_.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Ross: All of that is pure nonsense. You are just so full of it because
you are full of relativity. It is totally pseudo-scientific nonsense.
Space-time involves reification fallacy making it nonsense. I don't have
time to waste on your hair brained nonsense.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Ross: All of that is pure nonsense. You are just so full of it because
you are full of relativity. It is totally pseudo-scientific nonsense.
Space-time involves reification fallacy making it nonsense. I don't have
time to waste on your hair brained nonsense.

It is what it is, about absolutes and ideals, and absolute and the
relative, about that there are "real relativistic dynamics",
and "matters of perspective and projection the observable",
with regards to relative states, and relative observers.

(I think it's usually "hare-brained", you'd say
so-and-so is "hare-brained". "So-and-so is a hare-brained lunatic",
"so-and-so is like an aggro otter", these kinds of things,
"I didn't know giant rabbits could get rabies".)

It's funny you mentioned re-ification fallacy, because,
re-ification itself is what all agrees, as with regards
to wrong-ish inductive arguments that conclude themselves.
Most people just attach it directly to fallacy, reification,
yet mostly it means consistent.

The "classical in the limit" bit helps reflect that
most of relativity is "dynamics".

The Newtonian, though, does not add up, because,
gravity can not be constant violation of conservation.

The conserved quantities and the invariants of conservation
mean that any closed system may not gain without something
else lost. The conservation of conserved quantities may
not mean much in a feuilleton world of radical progressives
yet it is of course a foundational principle in principled foundations.


So, it seems then you want something different, well then,
what all makes it so that given what physics we have today,
and given what physics we have since when, that in a
sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials, works out making a
better theory, and not just squeezing (and perhaps popping)
the balloon?

So, conserved quantities and invariant theory of course
represent symmetries. Then with regards to reflections
and rotations, has that any symmetry, is thusly two symmetries.
What I mean by this is there's the reflection, then also
the affine, that there's also a singular point and plane,
or, an axis and a turn, either way affecting a transformation,
what results a conservation after an invariant.


Then anyways, velocity may be relative, with regards to
the plainly Galilean and with regards to observer, yet,
acceleration is not, and, frames are worlds, and this
frame the world is a closed system, and the oldest law
is "what goes up must come down".

[JanPB]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Ross: All of that is pure nonsense. You are just so full of it because
you are full of relativity. It is totally pseudo-scientific nonsense.
Space-time involves reification fallacy making it nonsense. I don't have
time to waste on your hair brained nonsense.

What you've just posted here is nonsense. Not even wrong.

Pick a different hobby, physics is just not something you can do.
It's OK. For example, I cannot compose operas. And I'm perfectly
fine with this knowledge of my limitation in this area.

Grow up, man. You are being silly.

--
Jan

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Paul: Riemann was a brilliant geometer, but he made the elementary error
of reification fallacy when he made space curve and parallel lines meet.
Schwarzschild and Einstein followed him in this error that you take as
gospel. You all fail in elementary logic. Relativity is ridiculous.
Please read this article and see the comments in "No True Relativist."
"Poincaré and Cosmic Space: Curved or not?" According to this history,
non-Euclidean geometry is more empirical than Euclidean. The truth is
that while parallel lines have never been proven not to meet, they have
never been proven to meet. The curvature of the universe is
infinitesimal, making it non-falsifiable and unempirical.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Paul: Riemann was a brilliant geometer, but he made the elementary error
of reification fallacy when he made space curve and parallel lines meet.
Schwarzschild and Einstein followed him in this error that you take as
gospel. You all fail in elementary logic. Relativity is ridiculous.
Please read this article and see the comments in "No True Relativist."
"Poincaré and Cosmic Space: Curved or not?" According to this history,
non-Euclidean geometry is more empirical than Euclidean. The truth is
that while parallel lines have never been proven not to meet, they have
never been proven to meet. The curvature of the universe is
infinitesimal, making it non-falsifiable and unempirical.

In "Sidelights on Relativity", Einstein writes an "Ether and
the Theory of Relativity".

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7333

"This dualism still confronts us in unextenuated form ...."

"Since such fields also occur in vacuo—i.e. in free ether—
the ether also appears as bearer of electromagnetic fields.
The ether appears indistinguishable in its functions from
ordinary matter."

"As to the mechanical nature of the Lorentzian ether,
it may be said of it, in a somewhat playful spirit,
that immobility is the only mechanical property of
which it has not been deprived by H. A. Lorentz."

"We may assume the existence of an ether; only we
must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, ...."


"... there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour
of the ether hypothesis."


[ Heh, "weighty". ]

"Mach’s idea finds its full development in the ether
of the general theory of relativity."

[ General Relativity "rescuing" Special Relativity, .... ]


"As to the part which the new ether is to play in
the physics of the future we are not yet clear.
We know that it determines the metrical relations
in the space-time continuum ...."


"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general
theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities;
in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether."

-- Albert Einstein, 1920


[Einstein separates the spacial and spatial,
SR is local, SR is weak, and GR is first, and
from it derived SR, not the other way around. ]

[JanPB]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
General Relativity Does Not Rescue Special Relativity.
It ditches it.
According to special relativity time dilation is caused by relative
motion per se.

Not "caused" but "is correlated to". We do not know the cause.

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
This has been rightly criticized as self-contradictory.

It's not self-contradictory, hence it cannot be criticised in
this way.

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
General relativity says the clock that is accelerating is time dilating.
This makes the cause absolute motion and not relative motion.

Again, this is not a "cause" but a correlation. Regardless, you
introduced a false dichotomy. What both special and general relativity
say is the same: proper time is the trajectory arc length. The rest
(time dilation, etc.) are related to a coordinate choice and the
choice of a simultaneity criterion. This criterion can be arbitrary and
different for typical special and general relativistic concepts.
There is nothing contradictory about that, it's like preferring the
geographic north to the magnetic north (or vice-versa) as your
angle of reference, depending on your needs.

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Therefore, GR ditches SR, which is a distinctly different and false
theory.

No. BTW, whenever you end up in a cul-de-sac like this, always ask
yourself: "This is a trivial observation, so the probability that
nobody had not noticed it before is exactly ZERO. Therefore,
I'm probably making a mistake somewhere."

You won't get much progress in this business by fantasising.

--
Jan

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by JanPB

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
General Relativity Does Not Rescue Special Relativity.
It ditches it.
According to special relativity time dilation is caused by relative
motion per se.

Not "caused" but "is correlated to". We do not know the cause.

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
This has been rightly criticized as self-contradictory.

It's not self-contradictory

Of course it is, and provided with a proof
you can only pretend you haven't noticed.
Exactly as expected from a fanatic idiot.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
General relativity says the clock that is accelerating is time dilating.
This makes the cause absolute motion and not relative motion.

Consider the following scenario:
Two clocks, A and B, are both moving in circular motion
in flat spacetime. Both clocks are moving with same
constant speed v in the inertial frame where the two
circles are stationary.

Clock A is moving around a circle with radius r.
Clock B is moving around a circle with radius 2r.

The time for clock A to move around the circle is:
tA = 2⋅π⋅r/v
The time for clock B to move around the circle is:
tB = 4⋅π⋅r/v = 2⋅tA

This means that clock A makes two complete turns while
clock B makes one.

The circles are such that clock A and B are adjacent
when tA = 0 and tB = 0.
This means that the event "clocks are adjacent" will
occur periodically with period Δt = 4⋅π⋅r/v = 2⋅tA = tB

So the question is:
What does GR predict the proper times of the clocks will be?

According to GR, we can use the Schwarzschild metric to find
the proper time of a clock in circular motion.

See equation (1) in:
https://paulba.no/pdf/H&K_like.pdf

In our case we have:
M = 0 (no mass in the centre)
dr = 0 (constant radius)
θ = π/2 (colatitude in the orbital plane)
dθ = 0 (θ constant)

So equation (1) simplifies to:
c²⋅dτ² = c²⋅dt² - r²⋅dϕ² => dτ²/dt² = 1 - (r²⋅dϕ²/dt²)/c²

Note that r⋅dϕ/dt = v, the speed of the clock.

dτ/dt = √(1−v²/c²)

This means that the proper time of clock A between the events will be:
ΔτA = 2⋅tA⋅√(1−v²/c²) = (4⋅π⋅r/v)⋅√(1−v²/c²) = Δt⋅√(1−v²/c²)
and the proper time of clock B between the events will be:
ΔτB = tB⋅√(1−v²/c²) = (4⋅π⋅r/v)⋅√(1−v²/c²) = Δt⋅√(1−v²/c²)

So clock A and B will measure the same proper time between
the events "clocks adjacent". (same "time dilation")

BUT:
The centripetal acceleration of clock A is dvA/dt = v²/r
while the centripetal acceleration of clock B is dvB/dt = v²/2r

That is:
The acceleration of clock A is twice the acceleration of clock B,
yet the "time dilation" is the same for both clocks.

So your claim is wrong:
" General relativity says the clock that is accelerating is
time dilating."

The acceleration is not the cause of time dilation according to GR.

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Therefore, GR ditches SR, which is a distinctly different and false
theory.

You know of cause that according to SR:
dτ/dt = √(1−v²/c²)

Exactly the same as GR.

As demonstrated above, GR simplifies to SR in flat spacetime.

Did you really not know this elementary fact?

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Paul: Do you not know the elementary fact that time does not dilate
because time cannot be equated to the rate of functioning of the clock?
No kind of motion can or does cause time dilation because, for time to
dilate, all rates of change would have to be affected to the same
degree, so their relative rates remain the same. If some rates of change
are not affected and do not stay at the same relative rate, time itself
will not be dilating. It would only be a change in some rates relative
to others. Also, motion cannot provide any mechanism to change all rates
in concert. How will the rate of aging, absorption, evaporation, and
heating change together? What will accelerate one rate of change will
slow another. Why does anyone want to think time dilates? Only to save
the ether! But you have no ether! Time dilation is irrelevant without an
ether.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
General relativity says the clock that is accelerating is
time dilating.

Two clocks, A and B, are both moving in circular motion
in flat spacetime. Both clocks are moving with same
constant speed v in the inertial frame where the two
circles are stationary.
Clock A is moving around a circle with radius r.
Clock B is moving around a circle with radius 2r.
tA = 2⋅π⋅r/v
tB = 4⋅π⋅r/v = 2⋅tA
This means that clock A makes two complete turns while
clock B makes one.
The circles are such that clock A and B are adjacent
when tA = 0 and tB = 0.
This means that the event "clocks are adjacent" will
occur periodically with period Δt = 4⋅π⋅r/v = 2⋅tA = tB
What does GR predict the proper times of the clocks will be?
According to GR, we can use the Schwarzschild metric to find
the proper time of a clock in circular motion.
https://paulba.no/pdf/H&K_like.pdf
M = 0 (no mass in the centre)
dr = 0 (constant radius)
θ = π/2 (colatitude in the orbital plane)
dθ = 0 (θ constant)
c²⋅dτ² = c²⋅dt² - r²⋅dϕ² => dτ²/dt² = 1 - (r²⋅dϕ²/dt²)/c²
Note that r⋅dϕ/dt = v, the speed of the clock.
dτ/dt = √(1−v²/c²)
ΔτA = 2⋅tA⋅√(1−v²/c²) = (4⋅π⋅r/v)⋅√(1−v²/c²) = Δt⋅√(1−v²/c²)
ΔτB = tB⋅√(1−v²/c²) = (4⋅π⋅r/v)⋅√(1−v²/c²) = Δt⋅√(1−v²/c²)
So clock A and B will measure the same proper time between
the events "clocks adjacent". (same "time dilation")
The centripetal acceleration of clock A is dvA/dt = v²/r
while the centripetal acceleration of clock B is dvB/dt = v²/2r
The acceleration of clock A is twice the acceleration of clock B,
yet the "time dilation" is the same for both clocks.
" General relativity says the clock that is accelerating is
time dilating."
The acceleration is not the cause of time dilation according to GR.

Paul: Do you not know the elementary fact that time does not dilate
because time cannot be equated to the rate of functioning of the clock?
No kind of motion can or does cause time dilation because, for time to
dilate, all rates of change would have to be affected to the same
degree, so their relative rates remain the same. If some rates of change
are not affected and do not stay at the same relative rate, time itself
will not be dilating. It would only be a change in some rates relative
to others. Also, motion cannot provide any mechanism to change all rates
in concert. How will the rate of aging, absorption, evaporation, and
heating change together? What will accelerate one rate of change will
slow another. Why does anyone want to think time dilates? Only to save
the ether! But you have no ether! Time dilation is irrelevant without an
ether.

Your opinion of SR and GR is irrelevant.

The issue is if GR "say" what you claim it says.

You claim:
" General relativity says the clock that is accelerating is
time dilating."

Implying that acceleration is the "cause" of "time dilation".

I have proven your claim wrong.

Here is another proof of the fact that your claim is wrong:

See:
https://paulba.no/temp/TwinSatellites.pdf

This is a run of a simulation of two satellites orbiting the Earth.
The simulation is done according to GR. (Schwarzschild metric)

The coordinate time is UTC.
(Coordinate time is NOT proper time shown by clocks.)

The "green satellite" has an orbital time 10h 18m 44s measured with UTC.
This satellite is in elliptic orbit and the proper time per orbit
is 10h 18m 44.000015605s
That is, the "time dilation" per orbit is +15.605 μs.

The "red satellite" has an orbital time of 2h 34m 41s measured with UTC.
So this satellite will make exactly four orbits while the green
satellite makes one orbit, and the satellites will meet periodically
with period 10h 18m 44s measured with UTC.
This satellite is in circular orbit in an altitude such that it will
stay in sync with UTC. This means that its proper time per orbit
is 2h 34m 41s. No time dilation.

Summing up:
Both satellites are in free fall with no proper acceleration.
Yet the green satellite will measure the proper time between each time
the satellites meet to be +15.605 μs _longer_ than the proper time
measured by the red satellite.

Conclusion:
The following statement of yours is wrong:
" General relativity says the clock that is accelerating is
time dilating."

-------------

The simulation:
https://paulba.no/Satellites.html

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Paul: What is supposed to cause time to dilate according to relativity
is irrelevant because nothing can cause all rates of change to vary in
unison. That is the only thing that can be called time dilation. You
have not and can not show that this ever takes place. No one has.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Paul: Do you not know the elementary fact that time does not dilate
because time cannot be equated to the rate of functioning of the clock?

In physics, "time" must be measurable.
The instrument we use to measure "time" is per definition a "clock".
So "proper time" is what we measure with clocks.
There is no alternative.

Do you claim to be able to measure time without using a clock?
In that case, explain how.

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
No kind of motion can or does cause time dilation because, for time to
dilate, all rates of change would have to be affected to the same
degree, so their relative rates remain the same.

Nothing affects the rate of a proper clock. It always run at
it's proper rate, advancing one second per second.

"Time dilation" doesn't mean that a clock has changed its rate.

See:
https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf

You won't read it, of course.

But you are right about one thing:
Your idea of "time dilation", namely that some clocks are
changing their rate, is indeed impossible.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Paul: Equating time with the reading of a clock wouldn't be acceptable
to most employers; it's so stupid. Therefore, when clocks run
differently under different circumstances, we properly understand this
is an instrumental error, as when a pendulum clock must be adjusted to
various lengths for different latitudes. That does not require
relativity. Some clocks run slower at less gravity (sand and pendulum
clocks) while some run faster (battery-powered and atomic), so this is
not time itself changing.

If a clock doesn't change its rate when time dilates, everything doesn't
change in unison. Therefore, it is not time dilation. It is only a
change in some rates of change.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Paul: Do you not know the elementary fact that time does not
dilate because time cannot be equated to the rate of functioning
of the clock?

In physics, "time" must be measurable.
The instrument we use to measure "time" is per definition a "clock".
So "proper time" is what we measure with clocks.
There is no alternative.
Do you claim to be able to measure time without using a clock?
In that case, explain how.

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
No kind of motion can or does cause time dilation because, for time
to dilate, all rates of change would have to be affected to the same
degree, so their relative rates remain the same.

Nothing affects the rate of a proper clock. It always run at
it's proper rate, advancing one second per second.
"Time dilation" doesn't mean that a clock has changed its rate.
https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
You won't read it, of course.
Your idea of "time dilation", namely that some clocks are
changing their rate, is indeed impossible.

Do you never read what you are responding to?

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Paul: Equating time with the reading of a clock wouldn't be acceptable
to most employers; it's so stupid.

As explained above:

In _physics_, "time" _must_ be measurable.
The instrument we use to measure "time" is per definition a "clock".
So "proper time" is what we measure with clocks.
There is no alternative.

You are claiming that "time" can't be measure with a clock.

Please explain how you will measure time without using a clock.
===============================================================

Don't ignore this challenge!

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Therefore, when clocks run
differently under different circumstances, we properly understand this
is an instrumental error, as when a pendulum clock must be adjusted to
various lengths for different latitudes.

As explained above:

Nothing affects the rate of a _proper_ clock. It always run at
it's proper rate, advancing one second per second.

"Time dilation" doesn't mean that a clock has changed its rate.
===============================================================

Here you can see what "time-dilation" is according to SR.
https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf

ALL the clocks run at their proper rate, no clock changes
its rate!

Got it?
Of course not. You haven't even tried to read it!

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
That does not require
relativity. Some clocks run slower at less gravity (sand and pendulum
clocks) while some run faster (battery-powered and atomic), so this is
not time itself changing.

Don't be ridiculous.
Of course a proper clock must be independent of environmental
parameters which may vary where the clock is used.
These parameters can be temperature, air pressure, acceleration, etc.
Any clock, even a pendulum clock may serve as a proper clock if
the resolution and precision is adequate for the purpose at hand,
but the best clocks we have are atomic clocks based on the frequency
of the photon associated with a hyperfine transition.
Only atomic clocks will be adequate for measuring time dilation.

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
If a clock doesn't change its rate when time dilates, everything doesn't
change in unison. Therefore, it is not time dilation. It is only a
change in some rates of change.

"Time dilation" doesn't mean that a clock has changed its rate.
===============================================================

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Paul B. Andersen
In _physics_, "time" _must_ be measurable.
The instrument we use to measure "time" is per definition a "clock".
So "proper time" is what we measure with clocks.

After repeating - still bullshit.
Anyone can check GPS, what is measured
with clock is - t'=t. Your "proper time" is
just some absurd delusion of yours.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Paul: Kindly don't put words in people's mouths. I made no such claim.
Einstein is famous for making the stupid error of equating time with a
clock reading, and you follow lockstep. What I said is clear: because an
atomic clock runs faster in space, time doesn't move faster. Your
relativity is no challenge to debunk. It has been recognized all along
for facile nonsense. Clearly, atomic clocks aren't proper clocks until
they are adjusted. If time were to dilate, all rates of change would
change in unison, so the clock would necessarily have to change its
rate. See how irrational relativity is. So, you are saying time is
dilating (actually contracting because the clock is running faster), so
you slow the clock's rate to proper time, and everything else on the
satellite is affected by the time dilation and runs fast? Things age
faster on the satellite? That's nonsense.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Paul: Kindly don't put words in people's mouths. I made no such claim.
Einstein is famous for making the stupid error of equating time with a
clock reading, and you follow lockstep. >

Please quote what you are responding to.

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen

Post by Paul B. Andersen
In _physics_, "time" _must_ be measurable.
The instrument we use to measure "time" is per definition a "clock".
So "proper time" is what we measure with clocks.
There is no alternative.
You are claiming that "time" can't be measure with a clock.
Please explain how you will measure time without using a clock.
===============================================================
Don't ignore this challenge!

I won't bother to repeat the above yet again.

But please, answer this question:

How do you measure time?

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Paul: Obviously, you can make atomic clocks in space run as on Earth or
proper time, just as pendulum clocks can be adjusted to latitude. We
don't infer from the different rates of pendulum clocks that time runs
at different rates. We adjust their lengths. You cannot infer from the
fast running of atomic clocks in space that time is running faster in
lower gravity. That is nonsense.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Paul: Obviously, you can make atomic clocks in space run as on Earth or
proper time, just as pendulum clocks can be adjusted to latitude. We
don't infer from the different rates of pendulum clocks that time runs
at different rates. We adjust their lengths. You cannot infer from the
fast running of atomic clocks in space that time is running faster in
lower gravity. That is nonsense.

Please quote what you are responding to.

Please, answer this question:

How do you measure time?

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Paul: Obviously, you can make atomic clocks in space run as on Earth or
proper time, just as pendulum clocks can be adjusted to latitude. We
don't infer from the different rates of pendulum clocks that time runs
at different rates. We adjust their lengths. You cannot infer from the
fast running of atomic clocks in space that time is running faster in
lower gravity. That is nonsense.

Please quote what you are responding to.
How do you measure time?

Nucleon lifetime?

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Paul: Obviously, you can make atomic clocks in space run as on Earth or
proper time, just as pendulum clocks can be adjusted to latitude. We
don't infer from the different rates of pendulum clocks that time runs
at different rates. We adjust their lengths. You cannot infer from the
fast running of atomic clocks in space that time is running faster in
lower gravity. That is nonsense.

Please quote what you are responding to.
How do you measure time?

Nucleon lifetime?

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70915/does-a-constantly-accelerating-charged-particle-emit-em-radiation-or-not

Of course the nucleon lifetime is quite too long to much
measure it, yet it reflects on that nuclear processes,
indicate being a clock, or, "half-life in the centrifuge".

Of course there are theories where the linear is Galilean
and a sort of specious Lorentzian as a FitzGeraldian,
while in the rotational then the space contraction makes
for examples of including the atom itself.


Experiments with the Allais pendulum are often claimed to
demonstrate a sort of fall-gravity during planetary alignments.

An atomic clock array can detect hand-waving the
space-contraction around it, without much moving at
all its "rest" frame.


The discussion referenced indicates that it's rather
up in the air, whether acceleration makes according
to an aether or not radiation or not, for example
as would reflect timing.


So, ..., nucleon lifetime.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Paul: Obviously, you can make atomic clocks in space run as on Earth or
proper time, just as pendulum clocks can be adjusted to latitude. We
don't infer from the different rates of pendulum clocks that time runs
at different rates. We adjust their lengths. You cannot infer from the
fast running of atomic clocks in space that time is running faster in
lower gravity. That is nonsense.

Please quote what you are responding to.
How do you measure time?

Nucleon lifetime?

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70915/does-a-constantly-accelerating-charged-particle-emit-em-radiation-or-not
Of course the nucleon lifetime is quite too long to much
measure it, yet it reflects on that nuclear processes,
indicate being a clock, or, "half-life in the centrifuge".
Of course there are theories where the linear is Galilean
and a sort of specious Lorentzian as a FitzGeraldian,
while in the rotational then the space contraction makes
for examples of including the atom itself.
Experiments with the Allais pendulum are often claimed to
demonstrate a sort of fall-gravity during planetary alignments.
An atomic clock array can detect hand-waving the
space-contraction around it, without much moving at
all its "rest" frame.
The discussion referenced indicates that it's rather
up in the air, whether acceleration makes according
to an aether or not radiation or not, for example
as would reflect timing.
So, ..., nucleon lifetime.

It's like, what's Roger Penrose on about these
days, "the Guth Anomaly: his spots are twice
or half our spots".

"I think it could be, one could understand, how that works, ...."


He got a Nobel prize for "can't get rid of gravitational singularities",
as he puts it, then it's like "how about they'll only imminent on the
way to the end of the universe", then their dynamics are nascent
and imminent, on the order of nucleon lifetime.



See, the halving and doubling spaces are about taking individua
of a continuum, or, taking a signal of a continuum. So, besides
stuff like the "cube wall" as the Finkelstein event horizon, then
these ideas about "Sciama's spots" or "Hawking spots" or what they're
called, and the doubling and halving, has a mathematical basic, about
plainly the trans-Planckian and the regime of real super-strings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Finkelstein#Universal_relativity


So nucleon lifetime, is also about clocks, and: them not running out.



It's a continuum mechanics, ....

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Paul: Can we infer from the faster rate of atomic clocks in low gravity
that all other processes are equally faster on the satellite? No, that
is an unwarranted inference. Then, time itself doesn't run faster. Only
the atomic clocks do.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Paul: Can we infer from the faster rate of atomic clocks in low gravity
that all other processes are equally faster on the satellite? No, that
is an unwarranted inference. Then, time itself doesn't run faster. Only
the atomic clocks do.

Please quote what you are responding to.

Please, answer this question:

How do you measure time?

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Paul: I'm sorry you cannot understand such a simple matter. My answers
were straightforward and to the point. Please try to understand.

"How do you measure time?" All methods have weaknesses. Try to consider
them.

Anyone can understand that every method of time reckoning, including
every type of clock, is imperfect for various reasons, and the accuracy
issue is only one. A clock can be precise yet thrown off when nothing
else is. That's all you need to understand.

Anyone reading my comments can easily understand that if the rate of the
clock changes, that doesn't mean any other rate of change on the
satellite changes. Then, time itself may not have changed. Where is your
evidence that any other rate has changed on the satellite?

That the atomic clocks change with gravity doesn't prove time itself
changes.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Paul: I'm sorry you cannot understand such a simple matter. My answers
were straightforward and to the point. Please try to understand.

Please quote what you are responding to.
========================================

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
"How do you measure time?" All methods have weaknesses. Try to consider
them.

The trivial fact that nothing can be measured with infinite
precision doesn't change the fact that the only way to measure
time is with a clock.

Your comment was:
"Einstein is famous for making the stupid error of equating
time with a clock reading."

That can only be interpreted as that YOU do not make the stupid
error of equating "time" with what you read off a clock.
In other words:
You can't measure time with a clock because a clock doesn't show time.

But you have now admitted that you must use a clock to measure time.
"You can measure time very accurately with a pendulum clock."
Which means that you know that "time" is what a clock shows.

Do you still claim that Einstein made a stupid error when he said
that clocks show time?

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Anyone can understand that every method of time reckoning, including
every type of clock, is imperfect for various reasons, and the accuracy
issue is only one.

Quite.
Time can not be measured with infinite precision.
So what?

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
A clock can be precise yet thrown off when nothing
else is. That's all you need to understand.

Doesn't parse.

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Anyone reading my comments can easily understand that if the rate of the
clock changes, that doesn't mean any other rate of change on the
satellite changes. Then, time itself may not have changed. Where is your
evidence that any other rate has changed on the satellite?

It is obviously ridiculous to claim that "time itself" changes
because a clock changes. Clocks used in satellites are always
atomic clocks with precision one to 1E15 or better.
They _never_ change their rate due to change of altitude
or speed or anything else-

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
That the atomic clocks change with gravity doesn't prove time itself
changes.

For the umpteenth time:

Atomic clocks don't change with gravity.
Nothing affects the rate of a _proper_ clock. It always run at
it's proper rate, advancing one second per second.

"Time dilation" doesn't mean that a clock has changed its rate.
===============================================================

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Paul:

Replying to your latest comments including but not limited to:

"It is obviously ridiculous to claim that "time itself" changes
because a clock changes. Clocks used in satellites are always
atomic clocks with precision one to 1E15 or better.
They _never_ change their rate due to change of altitude
or speed or anything else-

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
That the atomic clocks change with gravity doesn't prove time itself
changes.

For the umpteenth time:

Atomic clocks don't change with gravity.
Nothing affects the rate of a _proper_ clock. It always run at
it's proper rate, advancing one second per second.

"Time dilation" doesn't mean that a clock has changed its rate."
-----------------------------------------------------------------

A reasonable person would acknowledge that the atomic clock's rate can
vary when most other rates do not. Time on the satellite is the distance
traveled divided by the speed. The nuclear clock differs from that until
it is adjusted for the effects of gravity. This has nothing to do with
time itself dilating/contracting. This is correctly regarded as an
instrumental error. The rate of an atomic clock in space provides no
evidence for time dilation. It is a stupid error to equate the reading
on clocks with time.

I said the accuracy is only one issue. My issue was not with the
precision. Please don't put words in my mouth. You couldn't understand
that the atomic cock can function differently while everything else is
unchanged, so time itself is unchanged.

According to the European Space Agency, atomic clocks run faster in
space: "Einstein’s principle details how gravity interferes with time
and space. One of its most interesting manifestations is time dilation
due to gravity. This effect has been proven by comparing clocks at
different altitudes such as on mountains, in valleys and in space.
Clocks at higher altitude show time passes faster with respect to a
clock on the Earth surface as there is less gravity from Earth the
farther you are from our planet." -
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Human_and_Robotic_Exploration/Research/Clocks_gravity_and_the_limits_of_relativity


And: "The NIST experiments focused on two scenarios predicted by
Einstein's theories of relativity. First, when two clocks are subjected
to unequal gravitational forces due to their different elevations above
the surface of the Earth, the higher clock—experiencing a smaller
gravitational force—runs faster." -
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale

I agree that it is obviously ridiculous to claim time itself changes
because a clock changes. However, the ESA does just this in the above
quote.

You lied when you said, "Atomic clocks don't change with gravity."
You lied when you said, "They _never_ change their rate due to change of
altitude or speed or anything else-"

[ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog]

On Sat, 16 Nov 2024 21:36:10 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

And: "The NIST experiments focused on two scenarios predicted by

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Einstein's theories of relativity. First, when two clocks are subjected
to unequal gravitational forces due to their different elevations above
the surface of the Earth, the higher clock—experiencing a smaller
gravitational force—runs faster." -
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale
I agree that it is obviously ridiculous to claim time itself changes
because a clock changes. However, the ESA does just this in the above
quote.

I am sure that you have been *REPEATEDLY* warned that the people
writing news releases for dissemination to the general public often
get things wrong.

It will do no good for me to point out your misunderstandings, since I
am sure that it has already been explained to you countless times the
distinction between gravitational force and gravitational potential,
and what happens when signals are transmitted between observers at
different gravitational potentials.

Go wallow some more in your pigsty of ignorance.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
It will do no good for me to point out your misunderstandings, since I
am sure that it has already been explained to you countless times the
distinction between gravitational force

No such thing; a common sense prejudice,
refuted by your idiot guru.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
"It is obviously ridiculous to claim that "time itself" changes
because a clock changes. Clocks used in satellites are always
atomic clocks with precision one to 1E15 or better.
They _never_ change their rate due to change of altitude
or speed or anything else-
Atomic clocks don't change with gravity.
Nothing affects the rate of a _proper_ clock. It always run at
it's proper rate, advancing one second per second.
"Time dilation" doesn't mean that a clock has changed its rate."
-----------------------------------------------------------------

According to the European Space Agency, atomic clocks run faster in
space: "Einstein’s principle details how gravity interferes with time
and space. One of its most interesting manifestations is time dilation
due to gravity. This effect has been proven by comparing clocks at
different altitudes such as on mountains, in valleys and in space.
Clocks at higher altitude show time passes faster with respect to a
clock on the Earth surface as there is less gravity from Earth the
farther you are from our planet." -
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Human_and_Robotic_Exploration/
Research/Clocks_gravity_and_the_limits_of_relativity
And: "The NIST experiments focused on two scenarios predicted by
Einstein's theories of relativity. First, when two clocks are subjected
to unequal gravitational forces due to their different elevations above
the surface of the Earth, the higher clock—experiencing a smaller
gravitational force—runs faster." -
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale

The quotations above are not written by scientists, it is news
written by journalists who don't know what they are talking about.

I quote from your last reference:
"Scientists have known for decades that time passes faster
at higher elevations — a curious aspect of Einstein's theories
of relativity that previously has been measured by comparing
clocks on the Earth's surface and a high-flying rocket."

What does this mean?

Note that "clocks on the Earth's surface" will be synchronous with UTC.

Consider the following:
UTC is the coordinate time used in the non-rotating Earth centred
frame of reference (ECI-frame). Coordinate time is NOT proper time!

Given two satellites in circular orbit around the Earth.
Satellite A has the orbital time half a sidereal day measured in UTC.
Satellite B has the orbital time 1h 32m 37s measured in UTC.

Let t be the UTC-coordinate time of the satellite,
Let τ be the proper time of a clock in the satellite.

We then have: (according to GR, but experimentally verified)
Satellite A: dτ/dt = (1 + 4.4647e-10)
Satellite B: dτ/dt = (1 - 2.8411e-10)

Does this mean that according to GR,
the time in satellite A runs faster than time on Earth's surface?
Does this mean that according to GR,
the time in satellite B runs slower than time on Earth's surface?
Shouldn't it run faster?

Imagine you are in one of the satellites with no windows.
You have an atomic clock ticking out seconds as defined by SI.
Has it even any meaning to ask if your time runs faster
or slower than does time on the Earth?
Of course not.
Your clock runs at its proper rate, and advances one second
per second, neither your clock nor your pulse are affected of your
position in the universe, or your distance to the Earth or Sun
or the Andromeda galaxy, or your speed relative to anything.

You are weightless in a closed room, and nothing outside
that room can affect you in any way.

---------------

But lets revert to satellite A for moment.

The orbital time of the satellite is:
Measured with UTC: 43082.045250000 s
The proper orbital time: 43082.045269235 s
(This is experimentally confirmed.)

The difference between the proper orbital time
and the orbital time measured by coordinate time in
the ECI frame is 19.235 μs.


This difference is often called "time dilation".
Which is a misnomer, no time is "dilated".

Clocks and thus "time" always run at their normal rate,
and advance a second per second.

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
I agree that it is obviously ridiculous to claim time itself changes
because a clock changes. However, the ESA does just this in the above
quote.
You lied when you said, "Atomic clocks don't change with gravity."
You lied when you said, "They _never_ change their rate due to change of
altitude or speed or anything else-"

Nether I nor the scientists at ESA lied.

Some journalists trying to explain news about experiments
"lied" because they don't know better.

What GR say is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact.
GR say that clocks always run at their proper rate.
Those who claim otherwise don't know GR.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Paul: You can measure time very accurately with a pendulum clock, but at
a different latitude, the gravity is different, so its rate is
different. Most other rates remain unchanged. Time did not change. Even
a child should understand and acknowledge this.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Paul: You can measure time very accurately with a pendulum clock, but at
a different latitude, the gravity is different, so its rate is
different. Most other rates remain unchanged. Time did not change. Even
a child should understand and acknowledge this.

Please quote what you are responding to.
========================================

But thanks for a clear answer to my question:
"How do YOU measure time?"

Your answer is:
"You can measure time very accurately with a pendulum clock."

So you know that the only way to measure time is with a clock.

You are aware of the fact that a pendulum clock is very
dependent on the environmental parameter "acceleration".

So you agree to what I previously wrote:

In _physics_, "time" _must_ be measurable.
The instrument we use to measure "time" is per definition a "clock".
So "proper time" is what we measure with clocks.
There is no alternative.

Of course a proper clock must be independent of environmental
parameters which may vary where the clock is used.
These parameters can be temperature, air pressure, acceleration, etc.
Any clock, even a pendulum clock may serve as a proper clock if
the resolution and precision is adequate for the purpose at hand,
but the best clocks we have are atomic clocks based on the frequency
of the photon associated with a hyperfine transition.
Only atomic clocks will be adequate for measuring time dilation.

An atomic clock with the time unit second as defined by SI
is independent of all environments parameters. The frequency
of the photon associated with the hyper fine transition is
not affected by anything.

That means that such an atomic clock always will run at its
proper rate one second per second _per definition_.
The precision of an atomic clock is one to 1E15 or better.

Clocks do not "dilate".

For the umpteenth time:

"Time dilation" doesn't mean that a clock has changed its rate.
===============================================================

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Paul: That atomic clocks in space run faster does not demonstrate or
even provide any evidence that all processes speed up as would be
necessary if time itself sped up.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Paul: That atomic clocks in space run faster does not demonstrate or
even provide any evidence that all processes speed up as would be
necessary if time itself sped up.

The only thing necessary "if time itself speed up"
is - reworking measurement procedures. And that's
what The Shit is trying to do.
Without success, however, anyone can check GPS,
serious people responsible for serious measurements
are rsistant to the ideological madness of physicists.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Paul: That atomic clocks in space run faster does not demonstrate or
even provide any evidence that all processes speed up as would be
necessary if time itself sped up.

Please quote what you are responding to.

Please, answer this question:

How do you measure time?

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Paul: Do you not know the elementary fact that time does not dilate
because time cannot be equated to the rate of functioning of the clock?

In physics, "time" must be measurable.
The instrument we use to measure "time" is per definition a "clock".
So "proper time" is what we measure with clocks.

Nope. Anyone can check GPS, what is measured
with clock is - t'=t. Your "proper time" is
just some absurd delusion of yours.

[Sylvia Else]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
General Relativity Does Not Rescue Special Relativity.
It ditches it.
According to special relativity time dilation is caused by relative
motion per se.
This has been rightly criticized as self-contradictory.

Only by people who misconstrue (willfully, or otherwise) what it says.

Sylvia

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
General Relativity Does Not Rescue Special Relativity.
It ditches it.
According to special relativity time dilation is caused by relative
motion per se.
This has been rightly criticized as self-contradictory.

Only by people who misconstrue (willfully, or otherwise) what it says.

Sorry, lady, it has been proven and Your assertions
change nothing.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
General Relativity Does Not Rescue Special Relativity.
It ditches it.
According to special relativity time dilation is caused by relative
motion per se.
This has been rightly criticized as self-contradictory.

Only by people who misconstrue (willfully, or otherwise) what it says.
Sylvia

Sylvia and Laurence are both right and wrong.
It is difficult to separate people when they are both right, or when they
are both wrong.
I waste a lot of time, but that is how it is, and there is not much you
can do with human beings who will always consider it impossible for
someone to enlighten them on something.

Laurence is right when he says that if the two protagonists have
reciprocally, and continuously, during their entire journey, CLOCKS that
turn faster than the other clock, it is absurd.

It IS absurd, and those who stood up against Einstein were right (a
hundred authors against Einstein).

And as long as we don't understand, neither Sylvia nor Laurence, the
genius of Doctor Hachel, because Hachel is evil, because he is a bandit,
and because the Holy Good Lord has decreed that he is the craziest of men,
we will continue to swim in a small lake of shit.

And no one will understand anything, and everyone will be happy to pretend
to understand.

I repeat for the thousandth time (the thousand and first time is on rotary
press). It is NOT the time marked on the watches that is reciprocally
continually greater on the watch that observes (otherwise it is absurd),
it is chronotropy.

It is CHRONOTROPY.

That is to say the INTERNAL mechanism of watches.

This is what is reciprocally, and continually in question during the whole
journey, as much on Stella's side as on Terrence's side.

And there is no contradiction ON THIS.

Because chronotropy is the passage of time on watches, and not the total
time measured on watches.

The total time must take into account a second factor: anisochrony, that
is to say the relativity of simultaneity.

We therefore obtain in the numerator of the equation a correction to take
into account.

And we then have t'=t(1+cosµ.v/c)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)

The absurdity of speaking only in terms of chronotropy is then lifted.

For Stella, during her 18 years of travel sees Terrence age 30 years.

For Terrence, during his thirty years, he sees Stella age 18 years.

Everything is in order, and the theory of relativity remains perfect.

R.H.