Re: Does the universe exist outside our perception of it?


meltedown wrote:
> michael_thistle@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > What you are saying is true but you are neglecting to point out that
> > the difference is infinitesimal. The difference is measured in
> > nanoseconds or billioneths of a second. The difference between a clock
> > in orbit and a clock at 1 G or earth normal gravity would be some
> > hundreds, maybe some thousands of nanoseconds a day. It would take
> > years, more likely a few decades for it to add up to 1 second.
>
> So what ? Its enough to prove that time exists only as an illusion
> created by the point of view of the observer.
> >
> > You also seem to be useing Einstien's theories to support your
> > contention that "Everything exists now, not millions of years ago.
> > There is only now."
>
> Thats pretty much how most people interpret einstein.
>
> > These theories do not in any way support that
> > statement. Einstein meerly states that time is not an absolute, that
> > its a function of velocity and gravity, as you somewhat stated in this
> > post.
> If time is not an absolute, then by definition, everything always
> exists now.

No. An event happens on earth. One of the observers leaves the earth on
a space trip traveling at a speed near the speed of light. After 10
years he returns. In the 10 years that have passed for him, 50 years
have passed for the people on earth. No one thinks the event happened
now. All agree it happened in the past. The disagreement is how long
ago in the past.



>
>
>
>
> In his theories time still exists, that which is past is past and
> > the future is not yet. Time just moves at different rates for different
> > people or objects under different external forces. One premise
> > Einstein used in constructing his theories is that nothing can move as
> > fast or faster than light. Therefore time would always move forward,
> > just at different rates.
> >
> Thats not what I'm seeing. According to Einstien, there is no reason why
> time can't go backwords.
> >
> >
> >
> > meltedown wrote:
> >
> >>-ammitusen-@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>
> >>>meltedown wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>-ammitusen-@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>the airplane has to be going at a fantastic rate of speed for the clock
> >>>>>onboard to show even an infinitesimal difference in time from the
> >>>>>stationary clock on the ground.
> >>>>
> >>>>Actually, it was a regular commercial airliner. A clock was sent around
> >>>>the world and then compared to another clock. The one that wne around
> >>>>the world was behind the one that stayed put.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>i discussed this with my mate who is better at mechanical things than i
> >>>am. he said that the time difference shown on the clock onboard the
> >>>plane had nothing to do with actual time differences but the magnetic
> >>>variations within the Earths magnetic fields, that the only way to
> >>>accurately prove out such a theory would be to conduct the experiment
> >>>far outside the magnetic field of any celestial body.
> >>
> >> > but believe as
> >>
> >>>pleases you.
> >>
> >>Its not just me its a whole lot of math and physics. General
> >>Relativity (GR) predicts that clocks in a stronger gravitational field
> >>will tick at a slower rate. Special Relativity (SR) predicts that moving
> >>clocks will appear to tick slower than non-moving ones. Are you saying
> >>the general and special theories of relativity is all wrong ? Then how
> >>did they explode those atomic bombs ?
> >>
> >>In the Hafele-Keating experiments of 1971 Hafele and Keating twice flew
> >>four cesium atomic clocks around the world in commercial jets, first
> >>eastbound, then westbound. This accounted for any effect of the earths
> >>magnetic field. The experiment was carried out under the auspices of
> >>the U.S. Naval Observatory which is one of best timekeeping
> >>laboratories in the world.They have a vested interest in knowing how to
> >>set up, use, and move about, accurate clocks. The results were published
> >>in a reputable, peer reviewed , journal, and there was no rebuttle to
> >>speak of. The results are wideldy accepted.
> >>
> >>The clocks that traveled around the world went slower. These experiments
> >>proved that "time," as measured by atomic clocks, is a function of the
> >>direction, velocity and altitude of jet airplanes. (It wasn't the first
> >>time this was proved, it was already widely accepted by the time they
> >>did thier experiment. )
> >>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html
> >>
> >>And if you can't accept that, there's hundreds of other experiments that
> >>prove the same thing. If the effect can be measured in an airplane, then
> >>image the effect it has on satelites. The Global Positioning System
> >>(GPS) consists of a network of 24 satellites in roughly 12-hour orbits,
> >>each carrying atomic clocks on board. The Global Positioning System
> >>wouldn't work at all unless it was adjusted for the changes in the
> >>nature of time that take place as the sattelites circle the earth. How
> >>do you explain the fact that the GPS system works after these
> >>adjustments are made ?
> >>Here's the math:
> >>http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/
> >>http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mluttgens/Gps-rela.htm
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>if believing humans are the be all and end all of an
> >>>infinite Universe props up your fragile human self esteem **shrug**
> >>>fine with me.
> >>
> >>I don't know where you are getting any of this. That has absolutely
> >>nothing to do with it. I'm talking physics.
> >>
> >>but what i'm reading is a theory of reality based in a
> >>
> >>>need to control, in the need to have influence and impact not on just
> >>>immediate self and environment but the entire frigging Universe. some
> >>>people desire power. and some people simply can't stand the idea of
> >>>the Universes continueing on without them after their short, eye blink
> >>>of a life is over.
> >>
> >>This is totally not what I am saying.
> >>
> >>
> >>>i view the Hubble pics and know, beyond all doubt,
> >>>that my life is barely a blip on the radar of Time and i know, beyond
> >>>all doubt, that i dont create that nebula or that field of galaxies
> >>>just by perceiving those pics. my ego just doesnt need the Universe to
> >>>die with me.
> >>
> >>As far as I know. No one is saying the universe dies with anybody. I
> >>don't know where you are getting any of this.
> >
> >

.

Relevant Pages

  • Stick to the planes for now
    ... One clock flew in western direction around the earth, ... "time delation" as predicted by Einstein's theories of Relativity. ... The atomic clocks onboard the planes ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Anyone can apply for a warrant over allegations of a serious offence
    ... clocks. ... must encompass both the Earth and the space-rocket. ... Rocket fuel is combusted ... to Special Relativity. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: The Dimension of Time
    ... Without the Earth moving through space there is no duration either. ... One can define an oscillator, but only in terms of duration ... Clocks are oscillators ... of the Earth to one turn around the sun while Mercury ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Deadly questions for creationists (in debate) ?
    ... rather than a literal stopping of the earth. ... Actually it's saying ... I don't know that there are higher dimensions. ... energy of the black hole. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Parallax
    ... Copernican insight used the faster orbital motion of the Earth to ... practical achievement of the last millenia arising from astronomy yet ... heliocentric astronomers which keep clocks in sync with axial rotation ...
    (uk.sci.astronomy)