[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 1, Issue 25

[carmam at tiscali.co.uk]

Spot on Doug (and others - Doug's was just the last one I read). Time as measured by the star passing the zenith is the actual rate of time passing. All other clocks suffer from errors caused by gravity and other effects. Einstein said "it is immaterial what clock we use...", but this is patently absurd, as a pendulum clock speeds up as gravity increases, while an atomic clock slows down. 
Tom Hollings



----Original Message----

From: dm88dm at gmail.com

Date: 24/10/2016 18:02

To: "General Physics and Natural Philosophy discussion list"<physics at tuks.nl>

Subj: Re: [Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 1, Issue 25



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: 


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



_______________________________________________
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/a5fc3dfd/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/a5fc3dfd/attachment.png>