DIY Experement: Time Dilation

  • 133 Replies
  • 29135 Views
?

zeroply

  • 391
  • Flat Earth believer
Re: DIY Experement: Time Dilation
« Reply #60 on: February 26, 2009, 10:35:48 PM »
And another P.S.:

Please study vectors again. Vectors are not lines between two points. And neither are the vector fields.

I've actually got a degree in math, so I think I've stumbled upon the whole "vectors" thing before.

Are you actually familiar with calculus, or are is high school mechanical engineering (based on textbook) as far as you've gotten so far?

You still haven't shown any examples of people calculating gravitational forces using a similar model. I'm suspecting that you have a hammer and everything is starting to look like a nail. You can't use the "truck weighing 4000lbs is 80ft from one end of the bridge" approach to solving all physics problems, you know?
If you have a degree in maths, please, please, please just write the integrals and stop whining. It will take just 5 minutes and you will not look stupid when I decide to work on them and beat you to it.

I have been trying to understand the "vector between the two points" you described and it makes no sense. A force vector is the combination of a 3-dimensional position and a 3-dimensional direction and strength. There is no two points.

And you have not shown any maths at all, not even a single number. Why does a mathematician elude every occasion to use maths to make his point?

It's not a simple problem. Obviously you haven't hit calculus yet because if you had taken a shot at it you would have seen it's not a "5 minute" integral. Please feel free to prove me wrong. Put your money where your mouth is and post an equation for the gravitational vector field of a cuboid if you think it's so trivial.

The more I think about it, the more ridiculous your method is. Consider this simple counterexample:

Think of a block/sheet that's 6e12km x 6e12km x 1mm. Now if you do your calculation, and consider two blocks of size 6e13km x 6e13km x 0.8mm and 6e13km x 6e13km x 0.2mm respectively, the gravitational force from your calculations would be enormous.

So according to your logic, this huge sheet should crumble into a ball instead of maintaining it's shape. This is simply not intuitive.

Again, I freely admit I cannot come up with a reasonable equation in 5 minutes. Let's see what you can do.

Re: DIY Experement: Time Dilation
« Reply #61 on: February 27, 2009, 01:59:14 AM »
If someone gives me the integral i'm happy to try and solve it. I say that knowing full well im away this weekend, but I do know integral.wolfram.com.

?

zeroply

  • 391
  • Flat Earth believer
Re: DIY Experement: Time Dilation
« Reply #62 on: February 27, 2009, 06:38:36 AM »
If someone gives me the integral i'm happy to try and solve it. I say that knowing full well im away this weekend, but I do know integral.wolfram.com.

I'm still at the stage of where I'm setting it up. If I get it into some sort of reasonable closed form I'll post it up. I'm having trouble because it doesn't lend itself to a polar expression. Couldn't find anything in a hasty Google search either.

I guess you could just represent the cuboid as a 3-array of 100m cubes in Python and brute force the calculation based on summing vectors from each COG. If you made the cubes small enough that should be very accurate. I'm hoping for a general expression though so I'm going to take another whack at it.

Also, in my counterexample, all the long measurements should be 6e13km, I accidentally put down 6e12km from a previous draft for the complete block.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: DIY Experement: Time Dilation
« Reply #63 on: February 27, 2009, 01:41:32 PM »
OK, I concede a small part from what I have said. You do need to do some simplifications to get these integrals manageable. Since I do not want to discuss simplifications, here you have a direct computation made with a program written in C. The program is simple enough:

The pressure on any object in a solid, liquid or gas is the weight of the column of matter that is directly above that place divided by the horizontal cross section of that object. For example, the atmospheric pressure at sea level is about 760 millimeters of mercury, which means that the pressure over an 1 cm by 1 cm square is 1x1x76x13.6 = 1034 grams per square centimeter, or 10.1 Newtons per square centimeter. Similarly, in our example we want to know the pressure on the main axis of a 6000x6000x1000 kilometer lead block, 1000 kilometers under the surface. The program is:
Quote
#include <math.h>
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc,char** argv){
  double sz;
  double x,y,z;
  double x1,y1,z1;
  double d,r,r2,m1,m2,g,gf,gfx,gfxt;
  sz=2000.0;
  x1=5000000.0-sz/2.0;
  y1=3000000.0;
  z1=500000.0;
  d=11340.0;
  g=6.673e-11;
  gfxt=0.0;
  for(x=0.0;x<6000000.0;x+=sz){
    for(y=0.0;y<6000000.0;y+=sz){
      for(z=0.0;z<1000000.0;z+=sz){
        m1=sz*sz*sz*d;
        m2=1.0*0.01*0.01*d;
        r2=(x1-x)*(x1-x)+(y1-y)*(y1-y)+(z1-z)*(z1-z);
        r=sqrt(r2);
        gf=g*m1*m2/r2;
        gfx=(x1-x)*gf/r;
        gfxt+=gfx;
      }
    }
  }
  printf("weight per meter: %e\n",gfxt);
}
This program divides the lead block in cubes of "sz" meters on each side. It then calculates the mass of said cube and of a beam of 1 cm by 1 cm by 1 meter, the distance "r" between the two and the gravitational force "gf" between them. Then we isolate the "x" component of the gravitational force ("gfx"), since the others are not relevant and essentially zero. Finally the components are added in "gfxt".

If you run the program with different values of "sz" you will see that with a size of 2 kilometers per side on the cubes the algorithm has converged to reasonably stable values. This value is 2.08 Newtons per square centimeter per meter of beam. This, multiplied by the length of the beam (which is the total matter above the square where we calculate the pressure) is equal to 2.08x1000000 = 2080000 Newtons.

This is an under-estimate, but coincides well with the previous calculation.

As you see, the "cuboid" will not maintain its shape, just as I had said. It will crumble more or less into a sphere with mountains of some kilometers high.

?

zeroply

  • 391
  • Flat Earth believer
Re: DIY Experement: Time Dilation
« Reply #64 on: February 27, 2009, 03:21:55 PM »

The pressure on any object in a solid, liquid or gas is the weight of the column of matter that is directly above that place divided by the horizontal cross section of that object.

This only applies if the gravitational vectors are pointing straight down. In a "normal" setting that can be safely assumed, but not in a general case. Without calculating the vector field, you cannot use any of the formulas that would apply in day to day usage.

For example, consider a huge disk radius 10,000km and thickness 500km. The pressure calculation would not be a linear function of depth as you are thinking, especially not at the edges.

Additionally, it is not sufficient to calculate pressure at the very center. The center IS a sphere already - picture a sphere embedded in the block. It's points outside that sphere that need to be addressed. Obviously a solid sphere of lead is possible, even if the interior is hot enough to be liquid. We have to look at points where the gravitational force is acting as a shear force. You might be able to consider the corners of the cube as huge mountains on a central sphere, but we're not looking at the very interior points.

My idea with the breakdown was to calculate the force vector on each little block, and then look at blocks where the force vector would be enough (or not) to deform the material.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: DIY Experement: Time Dilation
« Reply #65 on: February 27, 2009, 03:34:04 PM »
Think of a block/sheet that's 6e12km x 6e12km x 1mm. Now if you do your calculation, and consider two blocks of size 6e13km x 6e13km x 0.8mm and 6e13km x 6e13km x 0.2mm respectively, the gravitational force from your calculations would be enormous.

Please just do the maths. "Enormous" is not a real number. I would not mind doing the maths, if you ask nicely, but you are the one proposing the counterexample.

Again and again and again, it is the pressure what will force the metal to change shape, not the total force. You are saying there is an "enormous" force between the two sheets, but it is spread through an area that is many times the size of the Solar System, with Kuiper belt and everything else ever found in it. In fact, you are talking sheets of metal of about half a square light year! Might I speculate that the pressure between those two sheets is very small?

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: DIY Experement: Time Dilation
« Reply #66 on: February 27, 2009, 05:10:43 PM »

The pressure on any object in a solid, liquid or gas is the weight of the column of matter that is directly above that place divided by the horizontal cross section of that object.

This only applies if the gravitational vectors are pointing straight down. In a "normal" setting that can be safely assumed, but not in a general case. Without calculating the vector field, you cannot use any of the formulas that would apply in day to day usage.

In the example we are working, where the point we are looking at is on the main axis of the block, the gravitational vector is pointing directly "down", as you put it. You may calculate the vector field, if you like, but up to this moment you have not calculated a single number, a single anything, nada, nada, nada. This fact is evident since the symmetry of the block makes every point of the block correspond to another one when you rotate the block 180 degrees. I think you understand this point but are desperate to contradict something.

The pressure inside the block is so big that the shape of the block cannot be maintained unless the pressure is the same in all directions, and this is obviously not the case. We are talking of a pressure thousands of times bigger than that required to deform the block, not a slight excess that might cause a little internal damage.

More in general, your position that you have to know every single detail of the solution of a problem to reach any conclusion is absolutely wrong. We have made estimations of everything you can imagine in engineering and sciences, and with good results when the homework is done. So the moral for you is: do your homework instead of whining about how hard it is.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: DIY Experement: Time Dilation
« Reply #67 on: February 27, 2009, 05:27:14 PM »
Additionally, it is not sufficient to calculate pressure at the very center. The center IS a sphere already - picture a sphere embedded in the block. It's points outside that sphere that need to be addressed. Obviously a solid sphere of lead is possible, even if the interior is hot enough to be liquid. We have to look at points where the gravitational force is acting as a shear force. You might be able to consider the corners of the cube as huge mountains on a central sphere, but we're not looking at the very interior points.
Did you calculate the pressure along the "z" axis to find that your center is in equilibrium? Or did you just assume that if it looks like a sphere, it is in equilibrium? You should read the book that you so dismissively call a high school textbook. It only explains to you how to use the equilibrium of the system to calculate the forces, but you are thinking that the equilibrium is assumed through argumentation instead of... you guessed it... doing the maths!

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: DIY Experement: Time Dilation
« Reply #68 on: February 28, 2009, 04:53:57 AM »
Think of a block/sheet that's 6e12km x 6e12km x 1mm. Now if you do your calculation, and consider two blocks of size 6e13km x 6e13km x 0.8mm and 6e13km x 6e13km x 0.2mm respectively, the gravitational force from your calculations would be enormous.

So according to your logic, this huge sheet should crumble into a ball instead of maintaining it's shape. This is simply not intuitive.
Now I get what has been bothering me with this counterexample: the example is fine as long as you assume that the two sheets are totally rigid, so much so that the attraction between the sheets at one point is affected by the gravitational pull from metal that is millons of kilometers away. In reality, only the metal from a few centimeters away has even a chance of contributing to the pressure in a certain point, since any force from a longer distance will just bend the sheet. Do you even know what a 0.8 mm thick sheet of lead looks like? It has about the consistency of paper.

Also, the force required to crumble your sheet has to be in a longitudinal direction. The force of one sheet against the other is orthogonal to the one you need.

You really should read any book on Statics, even if you think dismissively of the discipline without the benefit of knowing it. You would learn that you can you can assume a system is static and then find out that the forces are too big to make your system with any material available, but you cannot do the opposite. In maths (assuming you do have the title you say you have) this is called proof by contradiction. You would have found out what your "normal" case means: a case where the minimum requirements needed for your "example" are met by the materials used.

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: DIY Experement: Time Dilation
« Reply #69 on: February 28, 2009, 05:06:38 AM »
Quote
I would not mind doing the maths, if you ask nicely

Dear Trig, would you please do the maths on my taxes this year?  Thank you.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: DIY Experement: Time Dilation
« Reply #70 on: February 28, 2009, 06:30:56 AM »
Quote
I would not mind doing the maths, if you ask nicely

Dear Trig, would you please do the maths on my taxes this year?  Thank you.
Just because you asked nicely, I would try my best to help you. But, since my knowledge of tax laws outside of Colombia is skimpy, at best, I think you would be better off without my help.

?

zeroply

  • 391
  • Flat Earth believer
Re: DIY Experement: Time Dilation
« Reply #71 on: February 28, 2009, 09:37:19 AM »
Think of a block/sheet that's 6e12km x 6e12km x 1mm. Now if you do your calculation, and consider two blocks of size 6e13km x 6e13km x 0.8mm and 6e13km x 6e13km x 0.2mm respectively, the gravitational force from your calculations would be enormous.

So according to your logic, this huge sheet should crumble into a ball instead of maintaining it's shape. This is simply not intuitive.
Now I get what has been bothering me with this counterexample: the example is fine as long as you assume that the two sheets are totally rigid, so much so that the attraction between the sheets at one point is affected by the gravitational pull from metal that is millons of kilometers away. In reality, only the metal from a few centimeters away has even a chance of contributing to the pressure in a certain point, since any force from a longer distance will just bend the sheet. Do you even know what a 0.8 mm thick sheet of lead looks like? It has about the consistency of paper.

Also, the force required to crumble your sheet has to be in a longitudinal direction. The force of one sheet against the other is orthogonal to the one you need.

You really should read any book on Statics, even if you think dismissively of the discipline without the benefit of knowing it. You would learn that you can you can assume a system is static and then find out that the forces are too big to make your system with any material available, but you cannot do the opposite. In maths (assuming you do have the title you say you have) this is called proof by contradiction. You would have found out what your "normal" case means: a case where the minimum requirements needed for your "example" are met by the materials used.

I'm using an extreme example to illustrate that you can't assume the gravity on an arbitrarily shaped body reacts similarly to that on a sphere. With a really flat sheet, as you pointed out, you have to look at a completely different direction. In my cuboid, which is somewhere between the sheet and a cube, you'd have something in the middle - so you really can't just use common sense.

Similarly, you can't assume that the pressure on an interior point is determined by a vector normal to the surface. That only works on a spherically symmetric object.

Last time I've taken static mechanics was in 10th grade, so it's been a while. It's great for calculating stress loads on bridges. It is NOT meant to be used on astronomical calculations. If you don't believe me, show your calculation to your teacher and see what he/she says. The odds are you will be pointed to a vector field methodology, since that's how it's been done since Laplace.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: DIY Experement: Time Dilation
« Reply #72 on: February 28, 2009, 08:00:21 PM »
I'm using an extreme example to illustrate that you can't assume the gravity on an arbitrarily shaped body reacts similarly to that on a sphere. With a really flat sheet, as you pointed out, you have to look at a completely different direction. In my cuboid, which is somewhere between the sheet and a cube, you'd have something in the middle - so you really can't just use common sense.

Similarly, you can't assume that the pressure on an interior point is determined by a vector normal to the surface. That only works on a spherically symmetric object.

Last time I've taken static mechanics was in 10th grade, so it's been a while. It's great for calculating stress loads on bridges. It is NOT meant to be used on astronomical calculations. If you don't believe me, show your calculation to your teacher and see what he/she says. The odds are you will be pointed to a vector field methodology, since that's how it's been done since Laplace.
Too much whining, too few results. If you want to use Laplace, just do it! If you want to show us how to do it, just show us how you did it.

You still try to explain away the mountain of results that are already shown by arguing against the use of the third law of Newton, which is exactly what you do when you dismiss the simple discipline of Statics. But you are not even saying why you do not like it, just that it is learned in tenth grade. (Edit: and that it is meant for bridges, not for blocks; how on Earth the third law of Newton (sum of forces = zero in isolated systems) get banned from blocks if they are big?)

I would accept your argument that the complete vector field should be calculated if the pressures inside the block were close to the limit of pressure that the metal can withstand without permanent shape change, but I have demonstrated that the pressures are thousands of times those required to permanently change the shape of lead, and even hundreds of times that needed to bend steel. Even if you find that I made a big mistake and the pressure is one tenth the one I calculated, this is still thousands of times too much for the lead block.

What you have not brought up and that I have not explicitly calculated is the pressure on a plane orthogonal to the main axis. Of course, if you had done that part of the work you would have found that this pressure is a small fraction of the one exerted parallel to the main axis, so this would confirm that the block would not keep its shape.

So, please, show you are a mathematician and show some results, you know, those things expressed with numbers and names of units. Any precision better than one order of magnitude will be better than your present performance, which is nothing, nada, null, rien, мелочь.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2009, 05:40:27 AM by trig »

*

Euclid

  • 943
Re: DIY Experement: Time Dilation
« Reply #73 on: February 28, 2009, 08:16:32 PM »
Sorry guys, but this experiment is pointless.  Pretty much the exact same results would be expected on a RE or FE.
Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist
Yes, thanks to the tireless efforts of Euclid and a few other mathematically-inclined members, electromagnetic acceleration is fast moving into the forefront of FE research.
8)

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: DIY Experement: Time Dilation
« Reply #74 on: March 01, 2009, 06:31:11 AM »
Sorry guys, but this experiment is pointless.  Pretty much the exact same results would be expected on a RE or FE.
There is a point in this, even though the part where this block produces some time dilation is not very important or verifiable.

If any block of these dimensions (the approximate size of an "RE" small planet) will crumble into about the shape of a sphere (maybe with some mountains of tens or hundreds of kilometers high) then the flat Earth will not keep its flat shape for more than a few years, if at all. The important conclusion is that you cannot argue for FE and accept that there is a gravitational pull and time dilation and everything else that comes with General and Special Relativity.

You can throw away all of that and create your own models, but you cannot choose and pick where to use modern science and where to declare it null and void.

*

Euclid

  • 943
Re: DIY Experement: Time Dilation
« Reply #75 on: March 01, 2009, 06:35:59 AM »
I am referring to the experiment in the OP.
Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist
Yes, thanks to the tireless efforts of Euclid and a few other mathematically-inclined members, electromagnetic acceleration is fast moving into the forefront of FE research.
8)

Re: DIY Experement: Time Dilation
« Reply #76 on: March 01, 2009, 06:50:57 AM »
Sorry guys, but this experiment is pointless.  Pretty much the exact same results would be expected on a RE or FE.
I respectfully disagree. The OP's experiment predicts that we would detect whether the acceleration varies in regards to the altitude. FE unequivocally states it will not vary. RE predicts a very small difference that would cause a delta in the progress of time that two atomic clocks could measure over a reasonable period of time. Time moves more slowly in the more accelerated FOR. In FE, the UA's acceleration is constant for all the Earth, bottom or top of the building. In RE, acceleration varies by the inverse of the square of distance between the center of masses (clock and Earth).

BTW, I also see that the experiment described has been documented here repeatedly with proper references. Clearly the OP favors the RE model.

*

Euclid

  • 943
Re: DIY Experement: Time Dilation
« Reply #77 on: March 01, 2009, 06:54:03 AM »
A uniform gravitational field is the primary cause of time dilation across elevation.  Any inhomogeneities as predicted by RE have insignificant effect on time dilation at this scale.  Thus, the results predicted by both models are essentially the same.
Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist
Yes, thanks to the tireless efforts of Euclid and a few other mathematically-inclined members, electromagnetic acceleration is fast moving into the forefront of FE research.
8)

Re: DIY Experement: Time Dilation
« Reply #78 on: March 01, 2009, 07:10:54 AM »
A uniform gravitational field is the primary cause of time dilation across elevation.  Any inhomogeneities as predicted by RE have insignificant effect on time dilation at this scale.  Thus, the results predicted by both models are essentially the same.
Nope.

A uniform gravitational field does not cause time dilation across elevation.

Furthermore we have measured the differences RE predicts.

*

Euclid

  • 943
Re: DIY Experement: Time Dilation
« Reply #79 on: March 01, 2009, 07:20:52 AM »
The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume II, 42-6 disagrees with you.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2009, 07:22:51 AM by Euclid »
Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist
Yes, thanks to the tireless efforts of Euclid and a few other mathematically-inclined members, electromagnetic acceleration is fast moving into the forefront of FE research.
8)

Re: DIY Experement: Time Dilation
« Reply #80 on: March 01, 2009, 07:35:12 AM »
The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume II, 42-6 disagrees with you.
We await your proof. I suspect that we'll be waiting a long time, pun intended.

*

Euclid

  • 943
Re: DIY Experement: Time Dilation
« Reply #81 on: March 01, 2009, 07:40:27 AM »
I gave you my reference.  Also, from Wikipedia

Quote
Not all gravitational fields are "curved" or "spherical"; some are flat as in the case of an accelerating dragster or space shuttle. Any kind of g-load contributes to gravitational time dilation.

    * In an accelerated box, the equation with respect to an arbitrary base observer is Td = 1 + gh / c2, where
          o Td is the total time dilation at a distant position,
          o g is the acceleration of the box as measured by the base observer, and
          o h is the "vertical" distance between the observers.
Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist
Yes, thanks to the tireless efforts of Euclid and a few other mathematically-inclined members, electromagnetic acceleration is fast moving into the forefront of FE research.
8)

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: DIY Experement: Time Dilation
« Reply #82 on: March 01, 2009, 09:15:36 AM »
A uniform gravitational field does not cause time dilation across elevation.

Only if by uniform you mean does not adhere to conservation, which if that is the case you should re-evaluate your interpretation of uniform.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

Re: DIY Experement: Time Dilation
« Reply #83 on: March 01, 2009, 10:59:01 AM »
I gave you my reference.  Also, from Wikipedia

Quote
Not all gravitational fields are "curved" or "spherical"; some are flat as in the case of an accelerating dragster or space shuttle. Any kind of g-load contributes to gravitational time dilation.

    * In an accelerated box, the equation with respect to an arbitrary base observer is Td = 1 + gh / c2, where
          o Td is the total time dilation at a distant position,
          o g is the acceleration of the box as measured by the base observer, and
          o h is the "vertical" distance between the observers.
Thank you for explaining yourself. You just failed to understand the concept. The presence of a field causes dilation vice the absence of one, or a different one. Since FE has only the presence of the same field, there is no delta and no dilation (Both clocks run at the same rate.). Since RE predicts two different gs, there is a delta and a measurable dilation (The clock on the lower floor runs more slowly.). If you don't understand this explanation, please ask again. I really don't mind explaining in more detail, honest.

Re: DIY Experement: Time Dilation
« Reply #84 on: March 01, 2009, 11:01:25 AM »
A uniform gravitational field does not cause time dilation across elevation.

Only if by uniform you mean does not adhere to conservation, which if that is the case you should re-evaluate your interpretation of uniform.
I meant what I wrote. Uniform means to me everywhere equal in strength and direction, regardless of elevation.

?

zeroply

  • 391
  • Flat Earth believer
Re: DIY Experement: Time Dilation
« Reply #85 on: March 01, 2009, 11:03:01 AM »

Too much whining, too few results. If you want to use Laplace, just do it! If you want to show us how to do it, just show us how you did it.

You still try to explain away the mountain of results that are already shown by arguing against the use of the third law of Newton, which is exactly what you do when you dismiss the simple discipline of Statics. But you are not even saying why you do not like it, just that it is learned in tenth grade. (Edit: and that it is meant for bridges, not for blocks; how on Earth the third law of Newton (sum of forces = zero in isolated systems) get banned from blocks if they are big?)


Your "mountain of results" is more like a pile of the stinky. I've already shown that your calculation doesn't work. You have not come up with any problems in my counterexample, besides some illiterate rambling about planes. And you're still trying to use methods from a high school mechanics textbook to calculate the gravitational forces acting on a planet. Sorry... no-go.

You don't "use Laplace". If you had any understanding of this area, you would realize that after Laplace vector fields were used for these types of calculations rather than forces between individual objects. I am sure that if you encountered a massive suspension bridge floating in space, you would be quite qualfied to calculate the stress loads. But your methods are just rubbish when applied here.

Also, if you extend your memory more than a few days back, you were the one who came up with the claim that the disk in question would not hold its shape. That means it's on you to prove it. Just because you're incompetent at physics and math doesn't put the burden onto me.

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: DIY Experement: Time Dilation
« Reply #86 on: March 01, 2009, 11:30:16 AM »
Since FE has only the presence of the same field, there is no delta and no dilation (Both clocks run at the same rate.).

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, so correct me if I am wrong here.  Are you saying that you don't believe that accelerated reference frames experience time dilation?  An accelerated reference frame such as in the relativistic rocket thought experiment would cause time to dilate perpendicular to the plane of force in the same manner as a gravitational field without the longitudinal tidal forces.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

Re: DIY Experement: Time Dilation
« Reply #87 on: March 01, 2009, 11:39:01 AM »
Since FE has only the presence of the same field, there is no delta and no dilation (Both clocks run at the same rate.).

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, so correct me if I am wrong here.  Are you saying that you don't believe that accelerated reference frames experience time dilation?  An accelerated reference frame such as in the relativistic rocket thought experiment would cause time to dilate perpendicular to the plane of force in the same manner as a gravitational field without the longitudinal tidal forces.
No, I argue that a uniform gravitational field does not cause time dilation regardless of the elevation. It's uniform. Time runs at the same rate everywhere (unless there's some other variation). Do other variations cause time dilation? Of course.

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: DIY Experement: Time Dilation
« Reply #88 on: March 01, 2009, 11:44:16 AM »
No, I argue that a uniform gravitational field does not cause time dilation regardless of the elevation. It's uniform. Time runs at the same rate everywhere (unless there's some other variation). Do other variations cause time dilation? Of course.

I see where you are coming from now.  That is a completely different argument.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

Re: DIY Experement: Time Dilation
« Reply #89 on: March 01, 2009, 02:35:43 PM »
This effect is well known among transatlantic flights, the clocks onboard the planes have to be adjusted every once and a while because they are moving so fast for so long.

This is explained by the same theory of relativity that can be used to prove numerous other things that say the earth is round.

The best way to do this, is instead of a skyscraper, put one clock on top of a mountain(Pikes Peak would be a good one), the other at sea level.  Then you've got 2-3 miles of difference in altitude.