Time dilation due to gravity

[Roshi]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitati ... e_dilation

The lower the gravitational potential (the closer the clock is to the source of gravitation), the slower time passes, speeding up as the gravitational potential increases (the clock getting away from the source of gravitation)

Nobody really thinks about these things. Those who do can't obtain the title of "scientists".

If time goes slower at sea level than on a mountain, they could place 2 (or more) clocks, at sea level and on a mountain. Geographically close. Check them after some years. Easy experiment. (Remember the Hafele-Keating experiment that is said to be valid, they did not need years for that.)

Let's say - the experiment succeeds. Atomic clocks, mechanic clocks, electronic clocks, all run faster up on the mountain. "Time" is such a general force, that moves everything...Everything is moved by this "time force" - nevermind any other physical forces. (Except hour-glasses, those should run slower up the mountain. But never mind that.)

Let's say - in 1 million years clocks up the mountain gain 1 day difference compared to the clocks at sea level. Big problem - the top of the mountain has not moved into the future compared to the base. It's still there. How come? "Well time just accelerates things, it does not move things into any future" the scientists could say. Accelerates what? I am sure there are tons of physical and chemical processes that will not perform faster on top of the mountain. Does "time" work selectively?

Also it will never be night on top on the mountain and day at the base, no matter what clocks do on top of the mountain, and that is another problem. In the end they will say "it's all relative, no real physical effects", because there will be too many inconsistencies. Still, they will search for black holes and waves in "space-time".

I just proven "time" does not exist, by "reductio at absurdum". "Time" is just a count. Us humans counting things - we chose to count cyclical processes, and that is useful to us in many ways. "Time" is not a physical force, it's a concept.

[jackokie]

@Roshi Given the tendency of today's "scientists" to favor their preferred theories, your post prompted me to consider the following questions:

1. When attempting to measure the time difference between two atomic clocks, have the experimenters measured any changes in the differences between the two clocks at various points as the Earth rotates? As it travels around the sun? As the sun moves above and below the galactic plane?

2. Has the time difference been plotted as a function of altitude?

3. Has the time difference been explored by placing one clock under acceleration in a centrifuge at ground level?

4. Why couldn't the "ticks" of the atomic clock be responding directly to gravity without affecting time?

5. Have the differences between the clocks been measured while the earth is experiencing higher than normal electrical flux due to coronal flares, etc.?

[allynh]

I just proven "time" does not exist, by "reductio at absurdum". "Time" is just a count. Us humans counting things - we chose to count cyclical processes, and that is useful to us in many ways. "Time" is not a physical force, it's a concept.

I wrote about this a couple of years ago.

https://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/phpBB3 ... =163#p1023

As you said, there is no "time", it's just word games. There are too many such word games taught simply to fill the text book. Simply to "appear on the test" to see if you will repeat their "Narrative". If you can't, then you are not worthy of being there.

That's not science, that's the dogma of Scientism.

[allynh]

This is the Myth:

The trustworthiness of science comes not from certainty, but from its very openness about its uncertainty, always calling into question what we currently understand and being prepared to replace that knowledge with a deeper understanding if something better comes along… Scientific progress depends on scientists’ unwavering commitment to the qualities of honesty and doubt.

Jim Al-Khalili

[crawler]

There is not such thing as time, what we have is the ticking of various processes.
The ticking of atomic clocks might be affected approx as per the Larmor gamma for atomic ticking due to speed.
The ticking of atomic clocks might be affected by the nearness of mass as per Einstein's so called gravitational potential.
But the ticking of all other kinds of clocks are affected by speed & by elevation in many different ways, or at least to different degrees.

[Roshi]

Thanks for the replies.
If any process is "powered by time" you could not stop that process.
Or maybe - you could stop the part powered by the usual stuff, then the "time powered part" would remain?

"But atomic clocks are not powered by time, they are just influenced by time!" say the scientists.
Influenced meaning - to go faster or slower. What part of the atomic clock is influenced? All the parts? I do not know the makings of an atomic clock, but one part inside the clock going faster may not necesarilly mean the indicated time goes faster.

Same thing for all cyclical processes that we can call "clocks". Or does time influence only the final reading of the clock, because that's what time does - it powers clocks....
What part of the speed of a clock is because of "time power" and what part of it is electric power from a battery?

jackokie - I do not know about any such experiments, except Hafele-Keating. And that one is not trustworthy. Still, the same as the "space-time waves" experiment, it is considered valid and done, no need to repeat it, unless you are a heretic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2 ... experiment

https://www.anti-relativity.com/hafelekeatingdebunk.htm

allynh - interesting topic there. I never heard about that PBS nova tv experiment. It seems it's an easy to do experiment if they did it for a tv show. They should just let the clocks run longer to be sure. Maybe turn the clocks into a tourist attraction...

Can they say that it's not the force we feel and call gravity that influences atomic clocks? They say "no, its the bend in space time that influences them". Well, this "bend in space time" will make an hourglass go slower with altitude. They will say "hourglass is influenced by the force we feel because of the bend in space time". And atomic clocks are not? Did anyone test this?

They want to say that atomic clocks are only influenced by the theoretical mathematical bend in space time and not by the felt force - that makes an hourglass an invalid clock for such an experiment... How exactly dos this theoretical bend influence atomic clocks, in a valid way that disgards the force present - else atomic clocks would be the same as hourglasses - influenced by physical force, so invalid to use...

[allynh]

This is an example of the nonsense you are talking about.

There is no "time".

This Cosmic Timekeeping Method Proposes to Synchronize All Clocks on Earth
https://www.sciencealert.com/cosmic-ray ... onize-time

Modern technology pulses with a heartbeat measured in microseconds. From global positioning systems to communications networks, it's vital every component falls into near-perfect synch.

Based on standards determined by a specialized task group, signals sent through optic fiber or down from an orbiting satellite tend to ensure time-sensitive technology matches moments down to the nanosecond.

Yet this isn't always going to be the case. Reliant on fallible electronics, separated by vast distances, hidden beneath waves and stone, it's easy for vital pieces of a network to lose the beat.

According to University of Tokyo geophysicist Hiroyuki Tanaka, it might be high time we looked elsewhere for a more reliable, more accessible timekeeper. Like to the sky, and above.

"It's relatively easy to keep time accurately these days. For example, atomic clocks have been doing this for decades now," says Tanaka.

"However, these are large and expensive devices that are very easy to disrupt. This is one reason I have been working on an improved way to keep time."

Called cosmic time synchronization (CTS), Tanaka proposes we use the subatomic fireworks that shower down from collisions between high energy cosmic rays and our atmosphere.

Those collisions generate a variety of particles, one of which is the heavyweight cousin of the electron – the muon.

These beefy bits of matter shoot towards the planet's surface at close to the speed of light, respecting little in its path. Hold out your hand and you can expect a muon to punch through your palm once a second.

Even the rock beneath your feet struggles to block its path, a feature that makes them perfect for shining a light on the insides of dense structures like the Great Pyramid of Giza.

Crucially, every shower of muons rains down in a slightly unique fashion, providing a signature explosion that can be detected independently by sensors spread across several square kilometers.

By sharing details of each event and working backward, a network can use a series of cosmic muon fireworks to synchronize their watches with split-second precision.

CTSSensorSystem(Hiroyuki K. M. Tanaka)

"The principle is robust, and the technology, detectors, and timing electronics already exist. So we could implement this idea relatively quickly," said Tanaka.

It's easy to imagine a web of muon-catchers on the ocean floor or scattered in remote regions, conscientiously synchronized to align observations that could help pinpoint earthquakes or warn against tsunamis.

According to Tanaka, the technology could also have an added advantage of serving as the basis for a new kind of global positioning system by mapping muons back to their source.

Whether such technology could augment current methods, serve as an alternative in select situations, or replace it altogether, is yet to be seen.

"Thomas Edison lit up Manhattan starting with a single light bulb," says Tanaka.

"Perhaps we should take that approach, starting with a city block, then a district, and eventually we'll synchronize the whole of Tokyo and beyond."

This research was published in Scientific Reports.

[Brent72]

The illusion of time dilation, which relativitists have used to ‘prove’ their theory, can alternatively be explained by variable light speed. Ron Hatch talked about this at EU 2013 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGZ1GU_HDwY
VSL actually fits the empirical data much better.