[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 1, Issue 25

Mon Oct 24 20:02:03 CEST 2016

hi Ilja,

    Thanks for your response - you said:

"But this is some global synchronization, it is not a local clock.  The
clock which measures proper time is a local clock.  In the ideal, it
has the size of a point.  Of course, every real clock will be greater,
but a clock of point size would be the ideal clock necessary to
measure proper time."

I think the problem is not that the clocks are synchronized, they can't
help but be so because the observers are on a rotating solid body. This
leads back exactly to the problem of how can an object be in the present
and the future simultaneously (it is not just a contradiction in reason,
but a contradiction in language!)
The problem is that relativity claims that the solid body rotating clock
where time must be synchronized by definition, is actually de-synchronized
(!), which goes against our reason and observation of the earth clocks. The
atomic clocks must read in error and the reason why is already well known.
If we now take our observers A and B and measure the speed of light at the
top and bottom of the building using our rotational clocks, we will observe
that the speed of light is now measured to be faster at the higher
altitude, by exactly the difference in the rate of the atomic clock error
reading. This would make sense from the theories of Lorentz, Larmor and
Poincare who immediately proceeded Einstein, who taught that time dilation
is not real but an illusion caused by the differences in the speed of light
in differentmoving  moving frames. Take for example the light clock
analogy:

[image: Inline image 1]
The moving clock counts slower than the stationary clock, but why? Because
of the speed of light is defined as C in the stationary frame, not the
moving frame. Thereby the light takes longer to reach each mirror as the
light moves  in the stationary frame of reference. It then follows that the
speed of light can't be C in the moving frame, but must be C', which is
slower. But because the clock is slower by exactly the same amount, the
speed of light will be measured to be the same!
And this fits exactly with what we observe - that if we use a clock which
is not governed by the speed of light, i.e. one based on solid body
rotation, that we can then measure that the speed of light at altitude is
different than the speed of light at the base, and further, that our atomic
clock, which is governed by the local speed of light, will register a time
difference in error which is exactly the amount required to make us measure
the speed of light to be constant in the altitude frame.
The reason why Einstein's theory and Lorentz theory arrive at the same
answers for the same tests s because they are mathematically equivalent,
they simply differ in their physical presumptions, namely they exchange a
variable but hidden speed of light and absolute time, with a constant speed
of light/variable time. Which is why it is so important to test these
physical assumptions, i.e. does a clock on top of a mountain really
progress into the future faster than a clock at sea level, or is this just
an illusion caused by hidden differences in the speed of light? And I would
say that our rotating clock would seem to prove that the clock at altitude
is not actually in the future, it is just reading faster clock counts.

   -    Finally, consider H.G. Well's time machine, the book came out only
   a few years before Einstein's 1905 paper and probably gave him the idea.
   When the time machine goes into thee future, its clock spins over rapidly
   and then displays the time in the future when the traveler arrives there.
   If people in his former present enter his lab they will not find his time
   machine, and if they did, it would have to display the "present" time on
   its clock, since it would be in their present. The atomic clock on top of
   the building is like the time machine - if it is actually experiencing a
   faster rate of time than the people at the base, then it must slowly move
   into the future, and display the future time to those people who observe it
   in the same future. If someone from the base goes up to the top to look at
   the atomic clock, they should see the time displayed that corresponds to
   their "present". The fact that the clock actually displays the time in the
   future, means only one of two things, either the observer is now in that
   same future, or the clock is wrong. since the observer can take the
   elevator back and forth up and down an elevator, or look through a
   telescope, and see that the base clock still reads the original present,
   can only mean that the clock has read in error, since the future and the
   past are not something that you can simply take a quick stroll too!
   - So if the problem is that with this explanation then clock readings
   would have no meaning, i would say not at all, we just have to properly
   interpret what they mean, which would appear in my opinion to not be what
   GR says they mean.

Doug

On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Ilja Schmelzer <
ilja.schmelzer at googlemail.com> wrote:

> 2016-10-23 19:26 GMT+02:00, Doug Marett <dm88dm at gmail.com>:
> > From my reckoning, the two observers, because
> > they are on a solid body and on a vertical line passing through the
> center
> > of the earth, have no choice but to count exactly the same "rate" of
> time,
> > so after some very long period of time, they will always agree on how
> many
> > days have passed.
>
> But this is some global synchronization, it is not a local clock.  The
> clock which measures proper time is a local clock.  In the ideal, it
> has the size of a point.  Of course, every real clock will be greater,
> but a clock of point size would be the ideal clock necessary to
> measure proper time.
>
> > After some long period of time, the atomic
> > clocks will disagree, but the rotational clocks will agree on what time
> it
> > is. How can this be?
>
> The atomic clocks measure (approximately) proper time, the big
> rotational clock not.  The rotational clock measures some variant of
> coordinate time - the time which does not depend on the path of the
> clock but simply on the position of the Earth and some synchronization
> (say, they look at the position of some star, but if we take into
> account the finite speed of light, it slightly depends on which star
> they look at).
>
> > If gravitational time dilation means that "real" time
> > is passing into the future faster at A than at B, then it should not be
> > possible to design a clock that is immune to time dilation, but we just
> > did. Further, it would soon be clear that the atomic clock at observer A
> > has counted more rotations of the earth than has actually occurred. So it
> > is clearly in error. Further, if atomic clock A on top of the building
> was
> > actually in the future compared to the atomic clock at the base, then if
> I
> > walk up the building to clock B and read the time, it implies I am now in
> > the future.
>
> The proper time of relativity is clock time - the time shown measured
> by point-like local clocks.  Some "real time" does not exist.  This is
> positivism.  Only what can be exactly measured exists.  So, if we
> cannot measure time, it does not exist.  And once different clocks
> measure different proper time between the same events, once they
> travel differently between them,  we cannot measure real time with
> such a clock time.  So, that real time simply does not exist.  Point.
> Stupid philosophy, but positivism is stupid, such is life.
>
> One can take a different position, an accept that some real time
> exists.  But then GR has the problem that it cannot be measured. Real
> time would have to be some time coordinate, but which? Proper time
> measures something different.  Your procedure would define some  time
> coordinate.  But there would be a lot of freedom of choice of
> appropriate time coordinates.  Which is the true time?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20161024/b265a867/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: time.png
Type: image/png
Size: 59910 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20161024/b265a867/attachment.png>