From what I've read, relativity predicts its own breakdown "with distance-time going away," thus, concomitantly, its own buildup "with distance-time oncoming." You can't look at it 1-dimensionally! Not even just 2-dimensionally! According to 11-dimensionality, not even just 10-dimensionally!
- Nov 20, 2024
- 62
- 8
- 35
Asking google's AI : "measuring gravitational time dilation on earth"
Answer :
"To measure gravitational time dilation on Earth, scientists use highly precise atomic clocks placed at different altitudes, comparing the timekeeping rates between them, where a clock at a higher altitude will tick slightly faster due to the weaker gravitational pull at that height; this is most notably demonstrated by the need to adjust clocks on GPS satellites to account for time dilation caused by their orbit around Earth."
So it does appear that time runs at different rates depending on the clock's position in a gravitational field. Not an expert on this, but it seems relatively straightforward.
Answer :
"To measure gravitational time dilation on Earth, scientists use highly precise atomic clocks placed at different altitudes, comparing the timekeeping rates between them, where a clock at a higher altitude will tick slightly faster due to the weaker gravitational pull at that height; this is most notably demonstrated by the need to adjust clocks on GPS satellites to account for time dilation caused by their orbit around Earth."
So it does appear that time runs at different rates depending on the clock's position in a gravitational field. Not an expert on this, but it seems relatively straightforward.
Last edited:
It's not how it runs in place, it's how it keeps regarding magnitude of differing distance times and constant change needing to be adjusted to, in those magnitudes. Plus the Earth is changing instant to instant including its magnetosphere. I, in my own careers, have worked with the necessity of global precision time keeping and it never happened, never kept, for long. The Earth and solar system factors wouldn't let it stay with the precisionist quantum particle-orientated time-keeping clocks. The only factors we could adjust were the clocks, bringing in time adjusted precisionist clocks, sending out the ones then out of whack. That work is approaching fifty years ago now, so I have the actual personal working background to know of what I speak.
Last edited:
By the way, it has been proven that you can't find much more stupidity than that of Google's AI!
It is still as always with such "artificial intelligence," garbage in, garbage out! There is an old movie, among a few others that speak to the same machine utopian-intelligent supremacy, everyone should watch, 'Forbidden Planet'.
The most lasting intelligent species are those that spread and dilute themselves far and away over the frontier universe, branching out, to survive by avoiding the unwise perfect "spike" of their own 'id' of intelligence.
It is still as always with such "artificial intelligence," garbage in, garbage out! There is an old movie, among a few others that speak to the same machine utopian-intelligent supremacy, everyone should watch, 'Forbidden Planet'.
The most lasting intelligent species are those that spread and dilute themselves far and away over the frontier universe, branching out, to survive by avoiding the unwise perfect "spike" of their own 'id' of intelligence.
Last edited:
- Jun 1, 2020
- 3,705
- 2,491
- 12,060
Yes, but Cat’s point about instruments (measurements) gives us the objectivity needed to distinguish science from, say, philosophy.
Yes, that’s nice. Cat likes to note that the map is not the territory, Orienting the map does indeed require logic.
- Nov 20, 2024
- 62
- 8
- 35
It appears to be accurate on this one. There are measurements of gravitational time dilation by various means. Here is only one of them, and was not found using any AI source.
And it comes from this very site:
"Einstein's 'Time Dilation' Gets Pinpoint Measure Thanks to Wayward Satellites"
Einstein's 'Time Dilation' Gets Pinpoint Measure Thanks to Wayward Satellites
Scientists have used the Galileo 5 and Galileo 6 spacecraft to measure 'gravitational time dilation' more precisely than ever before, two new studies reported.
It's still RELATIVE physics! And I worked with clocks based for precision on QUANTUM physics!It appears to be accurate on this one. There are measurements of gravitational time dilation by various means. Here is only one of them, and was not found using any AI source.
And it comes from this very site:
"Einstein's 'Time Dilation' Gets Pinpoint Measure Thanks to Wayward Satellites"
Einstein's 'Time Dilation' Gets Pinpoint Measure Thanks to Wayward Satellites
Scientists have used the Galileo 5 and Galileo 6 spacecraft to measure 'gravitational time dilation' more precisely than ever before, two new studies reported.www.space.com
- Nov 20, 2024
- 62
- 8
- 35
- Feb 18, 2020
- 6,136
- 3,384
- 26,570
Do you call that interaction? Is it studying back? At so many light years away? Interaction?
Cat
- Jun 1, 2020
- 3,705
- 2,491
- 12,060
Sure. Some have said science is a conversation with Nature.
I'm unclear what you mean. Are you asking if a simple observation is an interaction? It is an interaction with the message, but not the messenger. Astronomical lights are the message and astronomers now, remarkably, understand the messengers.
- Feb 18, 2020
- 6,136
- 3,384
- 26,570
RECIPROCAL
done, given, or felt equally by both sides. reciprocal affection. 2. : related to each other in such a way that one completes the other or is the equal of the other. reciprocal agreements
"Some have said science is a conversation with Nature.
Yes. It is a conversation which, by definition, is an interaction between . . .
The conversation is the interaction. Not science and/or nature, but the conversation between.
*******************
This is NOT an interaction. We cannot communicate or react (interact) with Andromeda Galaxy whilst we are over 2.5 million light years apart. Vide
INTERACTION is TWO WAY. Vide communication with, or reaction to.
Two million people seeing something on TV is not interaction they must communicate with or react TO EACH OTHER (person and TV station)
One person phoning the TV station is. This is 2-way INTER action.
Maybe we have another case where we have two different languages.
Cat
done, given, or felt equally by both sides. reciprocal affection. 2. : related to each other in such a way that one completes the other or is the equal of the other. reciprocal agreements
Sure. Some have said science is a conversation with Nature.
I'm unclear what you mean. Are you asking if a simple observation is an interaction? It is an interaction with the message, but not the messenger. Astronomical lights are the message and astronomers now, remarkably, understand the messengers.
"Some have said science is a conversation with Nature.
Yes. It is a conversation which, by definition, is an interaction between . . .
The conversation is the interaction. Not science and/or nature, but the conversation between.
*******************
This is NOT an interaction. We cannot communicate or react (interact) with Andromeda Galaxy whilst we are over 2.5 million light years apart. Vide
INTERACTION is TWO WAY. Vide communication with, or reaction to.
Two million people seeing something on TV is not interaction they must communicate with or react TO EACH OTHER (person and TV station)
One person phoning the TV station is. This is 2-way INTER action.
Maybe we have another case where we have two different languages.
Cat
Last edited:
Only circumstantially possibly interacting: Separate but entangled, entangling, spontaneously concurrent (t=0) REALTIME NOW (t=0) instant moment.
The faster a traveler, including Einstein's traveler always, cuts through a curvature (like Alexander the Great cut through the Gordian Knot), the more the space (the hyperspace) contracts between points A and B. the more the real-time traveler disappears from all observation of the rearward observer (thus the more the physic of relativity has completely broken down between traveler and rearward observer) leaving only the relative light-time, time-dilated, holographic mirage of a traveler fallen behind in the wake of the reality of the traveler.
Some would say then that the real-time traveler has to have achieved faster than light travel to achieve the above. In a sense, they would be right on the money . . . if that is the only way to do away with the idiocy of the nonrelative real-time (object) traveler on the unobservable -- from the rear -- spot in the universe being "time dilated!"
It is sheer idiocy to so flatly deny so constantly that there are two travelers involved in the picture, not one! One real and unobserved! One relative and observed! TWO TRAVELERS (though the same traveler, one of the traveler in the box, one of the traveler outside the box) . . . NOT JUST ONE!!!!
Geez can't people get out of their lock of strictly 1-dimensional thinking, even if only to reach 2-dimensionality in thinking!
Stephen Hawking said it was difficult for him to think in two dimensions of anything, much less three. It's not that hard once you see, once you can think, in the Schrodinger-like split screens (at once the black hole horizon-like split-screens) . . . inside the horizon of the box, and outside the horizon of the box, at one and the same time. If you have to take the unobserved and unobservable real traveler, versus the observed and observable relative traveler, faster than the speed of light to split the screen into two dimensionalities, then do it!
I am one of the very few people in the world capable of realizing how really slow the speed of light is in bringing me information of the world immediately around me . . . never mind information from farther distant and ever farther distant out.
The faster a traveler, including Einstein's traveler always, cuts through a curvature (like Alexander the Great cut through the Gordian Knot), the more the space (the hyperspace) contracts between points A and B. the more the real-time traveler disappears from all observation of the rearward observer (thus the more the physic of relativity has completely broken down between traveler and rearward observer) leaving only the relative light-time, time-dilated, holographic mirage of a traveler fallen behind in the wake of the reality of the traveler.
Some would say then that the real-time traveler has to have achieved faster than light travel to achieve the above. In a sense, they would be right on the money . . . if that is the only way to do away with the idiocy of the nonrelative real-time (object) traveler on the unobservable -- from the rear -- spot in the universe being "time dilated!"
It is sheer idiocy to so flatly deny so constantly that there are two travelers involved in the picture, not one! One real and unobserved! One relative and observed! TWO TRAVELERS (though the same traveler, one of the traveler in the box, one of the traveler outside the box) . . . NOT JUST ONE!!!!
Geez can't people get out of their lock of strictly 1-dimensional thinking, even if only to reach 2-dimensionality in thinking!
Stephen Hawking said it was difficult for him to think in two dimensions of anything, much less three. It's not that hard once you see, once you can think, in the Schrodinger-like split screens (at once the black hole horizon-like split-screens) . . . inside the horizon of the box, and outside the horizon of the box, at one and the same time. If you have to take the unobserved and unobservable real traveler, versus the observed and observable relative traveler, faster than the speed of light to split the screen into two dimensionalities, then do it!
I am one of the very few people in the world capable of realizing how really slow the speed of light is in bringing me information of the world immediately around me . . . never mind information from farther distant and ever farther distant out.
Last edited:
- Jun 1, 2020
- 3,705
- 2,491
- 12,060
Agreed. I was erring by taking a reaction to, or engagement with, observations as an interaction.
I respect John Gribbin! His definition of the universe does not refer to our universe, but to infinite Matter. I have given the definition of Matter in my posts. The meaning of our definitions is the same, but I have given a more detailed definition. In fact, we are talking about an infinite material world. Our universe is a part of the Matter that we have come to know today.
- Feb 18, 2020
- 6,136
- 3,384
- 26,570
Definition of (The) Universe, as opposed to "observable universe".
Defined by whom? Some English speaker at some time living on planet Earth.
OK. That is fine so long as it is understood as valid only according to these limitations.
"That is good enough for us" we may say. With every good reason. That is all we care about.
But is it complete? No. Anyone who suggests that there are (were/will be) no other intelligent species in the entire Universe, and that such would not have their own definitions/understandings, would be very "short sighted".
Good enough for us in general terms, but who will take on a bet that there is no such intelligent life anywhere else in the Universe? Outside our observable universe? They would lose, because statistics would say otherwise. Not observation I believe we all agree, but is it likely?
One answer, as a generality, founded on observation. Another more accurate answer, in terms of probability.
That is just a parting summary of my position on the matter. Most likely, but cannot be proven - hence metaphysics, not science.
Cat
Defined by whom? Some English speaker at some time living on planet Earth.
OK. That is fine so long as it is understood as valid only according to these limitations.
"That is good enough for us" we may say. With every good reason. That is all we care about.
But is it complete? No. Anyone who suggests that there are (were/will be) no other intelligent species in the entire Universe, and that such would not have their own definitions/understandings, would be very "short sighted".
Good enough for us in general terms, but who will take on a bet that there is no such intelligent life anywhere else in the Universe? Outside our observable universe? They would lose, because statistics would say otherwise. Not observation I believe we all agree, but is it likely?
One answer, as a generality, founded on observation. Another more accurate answer, in terms of probability.
That is just a parting summary of my position on the matter. Most likely, but cannot be proven - hence metaphysics, not science.
Cat
- Feb 18, 2020
- 6,136
- 3,384
- 26,570
So time passes and new thoughts arise, more ideas are aired.
Sorry, but the Gribbin definition is up for further examination.
Looking at it now, it just screams subjectivity. Far from being wide, or all inclusive, it is completely the opposite.
Just look at it:
“The Universe is everything that we can see, and interact with, and detect with our instruments.”
There is nothing wrong with science, so long as we understand that it is very subjective.
What we can examine. What we can observe. What we can falsify.
As I have pointed out more than once, whilst the existence of extraterrestrial civilisations may be beyond our abilities to observe, it is certainly not beyond our logic.
We can try to widen Gribbin to:
“The Universe is everything that can be seen, and interacted with, and detected with instruments.”
This seems innocuous, but only if we make our anthropocentric assumptions that whoever is doing the seeing, interacting and detection with instruments means only us.
So we have departed from science, but remain firmly within the bounds of probability and logic. We can widen the definition further by exceeding even these limitations. If there are what would be observable universes, if there were observers - but there are no observers?
Pushing the philosophical approach even further, what if all intelligent life ceases in one location too far from observation/interaction by any other intelligent life. What if they leave instruments which can observe and record? But cannot be investigated? But, if aeons later, new intelligent life arrives and investigates these records? Does science re-ignite?
Was the "Universe" real during the Big Bang? Will it be real if ending in heat death?
But this is too far. This is playing with words, since it involves far wider guesses than logic would permit.
Let us just be happy with "observable universes", but with the proviso that they can be observed, interacted with, and/or detected with instruents, by any entity capable of intelligent observation involving whatever reliable means of investigation available to them.
So we still have loopholes - what are reliable means of investigation, and surely any intelligent entities must have a brain (or even AI) capable of processing such data.
So we are treading beyond science, beyond metaphysics and entering the realms of imagination. Let us stop before we go too far, and realise that we risk danger of simply playing with words, with labels, which merely distort mirages. The maps are no longer associated with any real territory. After all, what is real?
Cat
P.S. That is about as far as I can push the subject at present. But who knows?
The realms of fatasy will surely beckon.
Addendum: I laid some emphasis on the flatlander analogy. It may be of interest to know that even the great Sir Artur Eddington
. . . . . . makes reference to Flatland in Space, Time and Gravitation, Cambridge University Press, 1935, page 57:
He then examines the subject, but does not pursue the analogy which I introduced.
I openly acknowledge that the analogy starts from the common idea of a balloon.
Sorry, but the Gribbin definition is up for further examination.
Looking at it now, it just screams subjectivity. Far from being wide, or all inclusive, it is completely the opposite.
Just look at it:
“The Universe is everything that we can see, and interact with, and detect with our instruments.”
There is nothing wrong with science, so long as we understand that it is very subjective.
What we can examine. What we can observe. What we can falsify.
As I have pointed out more than once, whilst the existence of extraterrestrial civilisations may be beyond our abilities to observe, it is certainly not beyond our logic.
We can try to widen Gribbin to:
“The Universe is everything that can be seen, and interacted with, and detected with instruments.”
This seems innocuous, but only if we make our anthropocentric assumptions that whoever is doing the seeing, interacting and detection with instruments means only us.
So we have departed from science, but remain firmly within the bounds of probability and logic. We can widen the definition further by exceeding even these limitations. If there are what would be observable universes, if there were observers - but there are no observers?
Pushing the philosophical approach even further, what if all intelligent life ceases in one location too far from observation/interaction by any other intelligent life. What if they leave instruments which can observe and record? But cannot be investigated? But, if aeons later, new intelligent life arrives and investigates these records? Does science re-ignite?
Was the "Universe" real during the Big Bang? Will it be real if ending in heat death?
But this is too far. This is playing with words, since it involves far wider guesses than logic would permit.
Let us just be happy with "observable universes", but with the proviso that they can be observed, interacted with, and/or detected with instruents, by any entity capable of intelligent observation involving whatever reliable means of investigation available to them.
So we still have loopholes - what are reliable means of investigation, and surely any intelligent entities must have a brain (or even AI) capable of processing such data.
So we are treading beyond science, beyond metaphysics and entering the realms of imagination. Let us stop before we go too far, and realise that we risk danger of simply playing with words, with labels, which merely distort mirages. The maps are no longer associated with any real territory. After all, what is real?
Cat
P.S. That is about as far as I can push the subject at present. But who knows?
The realms of fatasy will surely beckon.
Addendum: I laid some emphasis on the flatlander analogy. It may be of interest to know that even the great Sir Artur Eddington
. . . . . . makes reference to Flatland in Space, Time and Gravitation, Cambridge University Press, 1935, page 57:
He then examines the subject, but does not pursue the analogy which I introduced.
I openly acknowledge that the analogy starts from the common idea of a balloon.
Last edited:
- Jan 2, 2024
- 994
- 157
- 1,060
Yeh, my waistline is expanding
Suggested Definition: Universe = Everything
A subdivision term is needed for everything known =?
A further subdivision for the environment of all things detected =?
You are the word master around here so let's have some suggestions that the English Speaking World might adopt but don't include 'Universe' or it will never stick
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
The far side of the moon was once a vast magma ocean, Chinese lunar lander confirms- Started by Admin
- Replies: 1
-
-
A video made by me about space and the loneliness in the universe- Started by drakotol
- Replies: 57
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram