Time

[Jaaanosik]

It is still worth looking at it.

This one is easy: GPS satellites are not in geosynchronous orbits, so there are some SR issues in the co-moving frame. The Hafele-Keating test showed that orbiting earth, even with take-off and landing, caused a delay or an increase in time, so using an orbiting satellite would be a bad idea!

We use earth-based clocks because the rotation we experience on the surface will cause other clocks that are not in a rotating system to go out of our time. Neither group will age faster, as relativistic effects will not exist in this scenario. The amount of time lost in measurement might work out to be something like a few microseconds (10[sup]-6[/sup] seconds), not even noticeable by anyone.

I am not sure what this means.

So in the experiment you mentioned (shorter time and lower speed) the delta is in the range of 10[sup]-7[/sup]s. The Earth travels at higher speeds and it would be a full year and you claim the delta will be in the range of 10[sup]-6[/sup]s?
Please, what equations did you use?
What do you think which clock will be slower? The Earth or the Sun-stationery?
Higher frame of reference - the galaxy-stationery satellite - in comparison to the Sun-stationery and the Earth clocks?
What would be the time measured on each one of them and why? Can we order them from the slowest to the fastest clock?

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

no one may notice it, but there would still be some time lost. Who would lose the time? from the point of view of the space station, the earth is orbiting the sun. From the point of view of the earth, the space station is orbiting the sun. In order for any relativistic affects to occur, someone has to actually be moving!

What happened is the clocks on-board the space station lose their accuracy due to the lack of rotation as on earth, not time being “lost.”

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

It tells you whatever you want it to, if you made it.

I did not make it, Sony did. So when I push the “Start/Stop” button and later push it again, what does it tell me?

 

[Jaaanosik]

doubtful.

The universe may cool as it expands, but it will probably only approach absolute zero, never reach it. In fact, I don’t think that scientists have actually reached absolute zero experimentally yet. What, then, could be the basis behind the claim that matter will cease to exist if it loses all of its kennetic energy? I can see why it would cease to have mass, since, from what I understand, mass is caused when a particle moves through and interacts with the Higgs field. so, lack of motion may cause an object to lose its mass,** but it would still take up space, right?**

No, it would not take up space. It would annihilate, check the vacuum fluctuation.

 

[Jaaanosik]

You do not understand the four-dimensional nature of the big bang, nor the prompting of the theory.
It is blindingly easy to determine the location of the origin of an explosion: the debris follows specific trajectories, you just have to follow the trajectories backwards.** In space, each galaxy is moving away from all other galaxies, equally.** There is no trajectory to follow because there does not exist one.

The easiest way to explain it is to take a deflated balloon and put a whole bunch of equally spaced dots on it, then inflate it. What happens? Each dot moves away from all other dots equally and, if you only existed on the surface of the balloon, there is no origin of the expansion. This is the same thing in our universe. No amount of technological advances will ever be enough to determine the location of the big bang, it is not a physical possibility now or ever.

No, the singularity was absolutely something. It must have been, otherwise we would be made of nothing, an obvious contradiction. Prior to the singularity was nothing, but God created something out of nothing: the singularity and all of existence.

This is a false statement. There are blue-shifted galaxies. There is a logical explanation for that.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Zro x:

Good question!

You see, I don’t think any object really has mass. I think mass is manifest to us like a hologram. Very high def though. **And, the Higgs, is still only postulated. **I have to concur with Yppop, that mass is supplied by God, for our psychological benefit.

God bless,
jd

Dan,
we have a different name for the ‘Higgs’ field. It seems it’s there.
God bless,
Jano

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

So in the experiment you mentioned (shorter time and lower speed) the delta is in the range of 10[sup]-7[/sup]s. The Earth travels at higher speeds and it would be a full year and you claim the delta will be in the range of 10[sup]-6[/sup]s?
Please, what equations did you use?

The Hafele-Keating experiment had two clocks going all the way around earth, something that takes about two full days to complete (about 1/182 of a year). Multiply this to their 60 nanoseconds difference (eastward motion) gives about 11 microseconds over the course of the year; their 270 nanoseconds difference (westward motion) gives about 50 microseconds over that same year.

I fully expect this to be experimentally wrong, but I figured that it is accurate to first order approximation.

What do you think which clock will be slower? The Earth or the Sun-stationery?

From the view-point of the north pole, earth is rotating clockwise about the sun. So if we left a satellite in our orbit, we would be traveling eastward relative to it, so our clock on earth should be slower.

Also: stationery is paper, stationary is the word you are wanting.

Higher frame of reference - the galaxy-stationery satellite - in comparison to the Sun-stationery and the Earth clocks?

I think I have proved it enough that a stationary clock will lose time compared to on earth due to the lack of rotation, extrapolating further and further from us would result in the same change of time measurement.

What would be the time measured on each one of them and why? Can we order them from the slowest to the fastest clock?

I have no idea what the galaxy-stationary clock would give as a result, probably something insanely large (it takes us roughly 250 million years to orbit the galaxy). If I felt like it, I probably could order them slowest to fastest. However, it is completely irrelevant.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

This is a false statement. There are blue-shifted galaxies. There is a logical explanation for that.

Yes, the 100 or so blue-shifted galaxies (compared to the billions of galaxies that are all red-shifted) are all close to us (part of the local group) and have local velocities that exceed the expansion velocity. Most of those 100 galaxies are dwarf galaxies that orbit around us and M31 (also called Andromeda).

Perhaps I should amend my statement to all local groups are moving away from all other local groups, equally?

 

[pig]

I did not make it, Sony did. So when I push the “Start/Stop” button and later push it again, what does it tell me?

it tells you whatever sony wants it to tell you. it could be counting mushrooms for all we know.

 

[JDaniel]

Please see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units#Planck_units

Muchas gracias, senor!

God bless,
jd

 

[Jaaanosik]

The Hafele-Keating experiment had two clocks going all the way around earth, something that takes about two full days to complete (about 1/182 of a year). Multiply this to their 60 nanoseconds difference (eastward motion) gives about 11 microseconds over the course of the year; their 270 nanoseconds difference (westward motion) gives about 50 microseconds over that same year.

I fully expect this to be experimentally wrong, but I figured that it is accurate to first order approximation.

From the view-point of the north pole, earth is rotating clockwise about the sun. So if we left a satellite in our orbit, we would be traveling eastward relative to it, so our clock on earth should be slower.

Also: stationery is paper, stationary is the word you are wanting.

I think I have proved it enough that a stationary clock will lose time compared to on earth due to the lack of rotation, extrapolating further and further from us would result in the same change of time measurement.

I have no idea what the galaxy-stationary clock would give as a result, probably something insanely large (it takes us roughly 250 million years to orbit the galaxy). If I felt like it, I probably could order them slowest to fastest. However, it is completely irrelevant.

Now, I am losing you a little bit.
If there is an astronaut that goes on a spaceship for a year and travels at 0.5 speed of light, he comes back. How much time his clock would show?

If we go back to the Earth and the Sun-stationary satellite: who is traveling? at what speed? The Earth clock shows 1 year. What does the Sun-stationary satellite show? 1 year plus or minus some time?
Is this time direction dependent? Why?

 

[JDaniel]

Dan,
we have a different name for the ‘Higgs’ field. It seems it’s there.
God bless,
Jano

Jano:

I view “postulated” and “it seems it’s there,” as being almost absolutely equivalent!

God bless,
jd

 

[Jaaanosik]

Yes, the 100 or so blue-shifted galaxies (compared to the billions of galaxies that are all red-shifted) are all close to us (part of the local group) and have local velocities that exceed the expansion velocity. Most of those 100 galaxies are dwarf galaxies that orbit around us and M31 (also called Andromeda).

Perhaps I should amend my statement to all local groups are moving away from all other local groups, equally?

That would not be completely accurate but closer to the reality. I am not going to say more for now. Top secret stuff.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Jano:

I view “postulated” and “it seems it’s there,” as being almost absolutely equivalent!

God bless,
jd

Dan,
when I read “And, the Higgs, is still only postulated.” I understood it as it is only defined/assumed and we are quite far from being 100% sure it’s true. I am sorry for that.

What I am trying to say is that we don’t know for sure but the existence of the Higgs field (enter our name - was it ‘Nomos’ the last year?) makes sense and it is getting closer to those 100%.
God bless,
Jano

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

it tells you whatever sony wants it to tell you. it could be counting mushrooms for all we know.

Okay, so you are completely unwilling to concede a point. That is fine. I will not waste any more time discussing time with you.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Now, I am losing you a little bit.
If there is an astronaut that goes on a spaceship for a year and travels at 0.5 speed of light, he comes back. How much time his clock would show?

Assuming my calculations were correct, his clock would show something like 420 days passed to our 365 (a 15% increase).

If we go back to the Earth and the Sun-stationary satellite: who is traveling? at what speed? The Earth clock shows 1 year. What does the Sun-stationary satellite show? 1 year plus or minus some time?

Who is traveling depends on where you are: on earth, the satellite is traveling but on the satellite the earth is traveling. Yes, the sun-stationary clock would show one year plus or minus some time.

Is this time direction dependent? Why?

The addition or subtraction of time depends on direction, relative velocities is why. The section titled Kinematic time-shift calculation on the HyperPhysics portal will show you the reason why direction matters, if you note that an oppositely moving object would travel at -v, rather than v.

 

[Jaaanosik]

The Hafele-Keating experiment had two clocks going all the way around earth, something that takes about two full days to complete (about 1/182 of a year). Multiply this to their 60 nanoseconds difference (eastward motion) gives about 11 microseconds over the course of the year; their 270 nanoseconds difference (westward motion) gives about 50 microseconds over that same year.

I fully expect this to be experimentally wrong, but I figured that it is accurate to first order approximation.

It seems the first part of your last sentence is the most accurate.
Why? Because time dilation is speed dependent. The speeds are not the same.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

It seems the first part of your last sentence is the most accurate.
Why? Because time dilation is speed dependent. The speeds are not the same.

The last portion is the most important though, to first order it is a reasonable approximation.

 

[JDaniel]

Dan,
when I read “And, the Higgs, is still only postulated.” I understood it as it is only defined/assumed and we are quite far from being 100% sure it’s true. I am sorry for that.

What I am trying to say is that we don’t know for sure but the existence of the Higgs field (enter our name - was it ‘Nomos’ the last year?) makes sense and it is getting closer to those 100%.
God bless,
Jano

Jano:

Even so, if the Higgs particle is a point particle, it, like all other point particles, is dimensionless. So, now we are left with “forces” producing solidity and mass. And, while we have no sensory perception of a force, except for its effect(s), we have sensory perception of solidity, mass and weight. Now, we could say that our perceptions of mass and solidity are simply how the Higgs particles manifest. But that seems to beg numerous questions.

God bless,
jd

 

[Jaaanosik]

Assuming my calculations were correct, his clock would show something like 420 days passed to our 365 (a 15% increase).

The other way around. The moving clock is slower.
Does the direction make a difference here?

Who is traveling depends on where you are: on earth, the satellite is traveling but on the satellite the earth is traveling. Yes, the sun-stationary clock would show one year plus or minus some time.

Let’s make a simplification.
We have a satellite that is traveling with the Earth and the satellite stays constantly behind the Earth, it’s in the Earth’s shadow. No spinning, the Earth satellite travels with the Earth and follows its path.
The Earth satellite shows 1 year. What time is on the Sun-stationary satellite? Is it more or less than 1 year? Why?

The addition or subtraction of time depends on direction, relative velocities is why. The section titled Kinematic time-shift calculation on the HyperPhysics portal will show you the reason why direction matters, if you note that an oppositely moving object would travel at -v, rather than v.

… and v is squared in the time dilation equations, what’s the issue?