Slow Clocks

  • 154 Replies
  • 27210 Views
?

Triskellion

  • 77
  • +0/-0
Slow Clocks
« on: November 21, 2007, 01:04:34 PM »
What is the FE explanation for the fact that clocks at higher altitudes (i.e in a faster moving system) will go slower than a clock at sea level. if the UA is ressponsible for us sticking to this planet then surely this effect would not be seen?

Andy

*

Gabe

  • 485
  • +0/-0
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #1 on: November 21, 2007, 01:08:55 PM »
Congratulations. You win.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
There is no evidence for an infinite Earth.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The Earth is infinite.
Warning, you have just lowered your IQ by reading my sig.

?

Althalus

  • 4062
  • +0/-0
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #2 on: November 21, 2007, 01:22:57 PM »
Thinner air, less resistance.

?

eric bloedow

Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #3 on: November 21, 2007, 02:34:17 PM »
i've pointed this out myself on several other threads.

RE explanation: einstein.

FE explanation: NONE!

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #4 on: November 21, 2007, 02:40:49 PM »
How many times have I said that clocks moved along the vector of acceleration will undergo time dilation?  Clocks moving at any rate of speed will show time dilation.  Thanks to Einstein.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

eric bloedow

Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #5 on: November 21, 2007, 02:49:42 PM »
wrong: einstein said clocks moving at DIFFERENT speeds would show different times, but clocks moving at the SAME speed would show the same time!

so you think the clock SITTING on a mountain is ACCELLERATING at a different rate than one SITTING on the ground? when anyone can see they are both MOVING at the same speed?

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #6 on: November 21, 2007, 02:54:20 PM »
wrong: einstein said clocks moving at DIFFERENT speeds would show different times, but clocks moving at the SAME speed would show the same time!
When did I say otherwise?

Quote
so you think the clock SITTING on a mountain is ACCELLERATING at a different rate than one SITTING on the ground?
Assuming they are at different elevations, yes.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #7 on: November 21, 2007, 03:21:33 PM »
Quote
wrong: einstein said clocks moving at DIFFERENT speeds would show different times, but clocks moving at the SAME speed would show the same time!

Einstein also said that acceleration created a bend in space-time just like gravitation. See the Equivalence Principle. Acceleration and gravitation are the same phenomenon.

?

eric bloedow

Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #8 on: November 21, 2007, 03:41:59 PM »
so they are accellerating at the SAME rate while REMAINING at the SAME distance relative to each other?

that's like saying that a car going 30 and a car going 50 would take the SAME amount of time to go 100 miles! an OBVIOUS contradiction!

oh, now Tom agrees with einstein AND "dark energy" despite the obvious contradictions?

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #9 on: November 21, 2007, 03:52:41 PM »
so they are accellerating at the SAME rate while REMAINING at the SAME distance relative to each other?
I said they are not accelerating at the same rate.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

eric bloedow

Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #10 on: November 21, 2007, 05:15:30 PM »
you're still in a contradition! if they were NOT accellerating at the same rate, they WOULD be moving RELATIVE to each other...but they OBVIOUSLY are NOT!

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #11 on: November 21, 2007, 05:19:22 PM »
You are the one that is in contradiction.  How can two objects undergo differing gravitational acceleration yet not be moving relative to each other? 


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

eric bloedow

Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #12 on: November 21, 2007, 06:34:26 PM »
einstein's theory of gravitation. the one closer to sea level gets more gravity than the one at high altitude.

which would NOT be the case if UA was true!

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #13 on: November 21, 2007, 06:54:44 PM »
einstein's theory of gravitation. the one closer to sea level gets more gravity than the one at high altitude.
So they are accelerating at different rates.  But you just complained about that not being possible on the FE because they are not moving relative to each other... 


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

sypher001

  • 55
  • +0/-0
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #14 on: November 21, 2007, 07:44:40 PM »
It seems like some are a little confused about what Triskellion is saying, so I will try to help out with what I know (admittedly not a great amount) about the subject.

General Relativity does predict a time dilation effect from variations in gravitational acceleration, however this should not be a significant cause of dilation measured by clocks at varying altitudes (at least not compared to the alternative). As you probably know the acceleration due to gravity on a body at higher elevation is lessened. This however if responsible would reverse the observations so that the clock at sea level would seem to count more slowly relative to another at altitude.

The cause of the dilation in this case is a variance in velocity, not acceleration. Velocity at higher altitudes is greater than that at lower ones, compare the earths rotation with that of any circular object and it is easy to observe why. Every point along the radius of the circle must complete each rotation together in the same duration of time. A point with a greater radius must travel a longer distance around its circumference than one with a shorter radius. The point at the greater radius/elevation must therefore travel at a higher velocity than a lower point.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2007, 08:09:03 PM by sypher001 »
"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable."
-Douglas Addams

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #15 on: November 21, 2007, 08:00:48 PM »
Uh, thanks, but I was not confused.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

eric bloedow

Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #16 on: November 21, 2007, 08:48:20 PM »
ok, sypher, your arguement is that the difference is due to difference in velocity from Earth's ROTATION?

oops! most FErs think earth does NOT rotate at ALL!

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #17 on: November 21, 2007, 08:49:43 PM »
idiots like Tom Bishop think that.

He also posits that the Earth is infinite and divides the universe in half.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

?

Triskellion

  • 77
  • +0/-0
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #18 on: November 22, 2007, 12:09:54 AM »
The last couple of posts was kinda my point. The clocks will show different times due to the greater speed/acceleration of the higher clock. So how would this be explained by a flat earth? If our Gravity/gravitation call it what you like is caused by the earth accelerating then both these clocks should have the same velocity/acceleration right?

Help me out here is there an answer. Perhaps the engineer could come up with somthing? you seem to be the daddy of relativity and wot not.

I cant thnk of a good reason how this would occur on a flat earth even if it was spinning as both would still have the same velocity unless we are spinning in an unusual plane and that, i would think, would be rather noticeable.

Andy

?

Pope Zera

  • 329
  • +0/-0
  • A Firm Believer in NOTHING
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #19 on: November 22, 2007, 12:44:53 AM »


Seems to be decellerating to me.  Your arguement is invalid.

?

Emporer DAT

  • 130
  • +0/-0
  • -- I KNOW --
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #20 on: November 22, 2007, 12:53:45 AM »






*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5180
  • +2/-6
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #21 on: November 22, 2007, 12:58:24 AM »
I like the fifth one.

?

Triskellion

  • 77
  • +0/-0
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #22 on: November 22, 2007, 03:50:06 AM »


Seems to be decellerating to me.  Your arguement is invalid.

I think you will find that both the clocks are accelerating but they are doing so at different rates, while the higher clock will have a greater velocity. Perhaps i didnt really phrase it correctly so sorry about that. If my argument is invalid please explain how so? as that is what i am actually asking and give me the FE explanation for why this happens. Thanks

Andy

?

Triskellion

  • 77
  • +0/-0
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #23 on: November 23, 2007, 12:01:21 AM »
Why no Answer?

?

eric bloedow

Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #24 on: November 23, 2007, 08:30:52 AM »
i can't see DAT's pictures for some reason...can you put in some links instead?

?

Triskellion

  • 77
  • +0/-0
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #25 on: November 23, 2007, 08:41:30 AM »
Still waiting for a FE answer im beginning to think you guys dont have one.......

?

Triskellion

  • 77
  • +0/-0
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #26 on: November 23, 2007, 10:18:20 AM »
Uh, thanks, but I was not confused.

It would seem to me that you were and perhaps still are?

Care to give us an answer or is this the end of your daft little attempt to appear cleverer than anyone else.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #27 on: November 23, 2007, 10:26:36 AM »
It would seem to me that you were and perhaps still are?
What am I confused about?


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

Triskellion

  • 77
  • +0/-0
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #28 on: November 23, 2007, 10:34:47 AM »
How did i know that would get a response

If perhaps you would read the original question you will find what i am after.

If thats a bit like effort for you then here you go.

I would like an explanation as to why on a flat earth it would be found that two clocks one at say sea level and another at higher altitude, say a tower, would eventually show different times due to the supposed effect of your beloved relativity theory.

No offence intended in any of this i hope you understand. Im just curious as to how you can explain this as im far too lacking in intelect to ba able to at present and now im curious as to whether this is the answer you guys need. Perhaps the end of the flat world is nigh?

Thanks for your response finally i trust you will now answer the question rather than continue with your usual play.

Andy

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #29 on: November 23, 2007, 10:40:48 AM »
Two things:

Lower gravitational potential.

Clocks moved in the direction of acceleration will undergo time dilation.  Just as I said in my first post.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson