DOES GRAVITY REALLY INFLUENCE THE 'FLOW' OF TIME? (ACCORDING TO THE OBSERVED)

[Subduction Zone]

So you basically agree with a flat earther then who believes the earth is stationary because your devices tell you you are not in motion.

Or despite what your devices tell you about being stationary do you realize we are spinning around the earth’s surface at 1,000 mph, orbiting the sun at 67,000 mph, which is orbiting the galaxy at 514,000 mph which is itself moving through space?

So, what you going to believe, that you are stationary because your devices tell you that, or that you are really in motion despite what your devices say?????

And I notice you found in convenient to ignore transforms are required precisely because the values are not the same.....

Nope, you do not seem to understand the concept of a frame of reference. And that is the problem that Flat Earthers have. It is rather amazing that you are once again accusing others of having your flaws.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If you look at the nature of time, time flows in one direction to the future. Time may slow down or time speed up, based on Relativity and reference, but it always moves in one direction forward to the future (or stops).

That being said, clocks, are used to measure time, yet clocks cycle and repeat, which is not how time propagates. Clocks do not behave in the same manner as the thing they measure; time. This is subtle, but is a conceptual flaw in physics. In a loose sense it is like using a thermometer to measure distance. The thermometer does not behave the same way as distance but is used to measure it.

The cyclic nature of clocks behaves more like energy, instead of time. Energy propagates as waves which have a cyclic nature; repeat. We essentially use an energy analogy tool to measure time. This makes it hard to answer the question. We are mimicking energy and calling this measuring time.

A better physics concept for a clock, uses entropy, instead of energy, as the phenomena to mimic. The entropy of the universe, like time, moves in one direction; increases. Entropy does not cycle like clocks. Entropy also expresses change which is consistent with other definitions of time.

A more conceptually consistent way to measure time would be with an entropy clock. One example is the dead fish clock. We start with a fresh dead fish on the kitchen counter. Time will be measured when entropy causes the fish to stink. Like entropy, the dead fish clocks moves in one direction. We cannot un-stink the fish and make it fresh again, anymore than we can become a baby again.

We can slow or speed up the increment of time expressed by our entropy clock with refrigeration or heating. Heating and cooling of the dead fish clock can create effects similar to what relativity does to energy clock time.

Energy and entropy are related. Entropy can only move forward and increase by absorbing energy. When we cool, the rate of energy absorption deceases causing the rate of change; entropy rate or time slows.

The center of gravity is where energy clock time slows the most. The center of gravity, such as a back hole, is the place where the gravitational force vectors cancel and there is no net gravitational potential energy. Things come to a rest. This suggests when gravitational potential energy approaches a universal zero, there is no energy to increase entropy-time and time stops.

Time is simply a second measurement of distance.

No, Einstein deduced that like gravity acceleration caused the same effect.

When we cool, you are slowing the molecular motion, reducing the rate at which the molecules loose energy due to radiating it away from their motion.

The opposite happens with gravity and acceleration. Energy is added which offsets the energy lost to decay due to the radiation emitted from the molecular motion.

The further away you get from a gravitational source, the faster your clock ticks or decays.

A singularity would be a hot, dense point, not a cold place. Due to the compression by gravity. Remember, it is gravity supposedly causing the nuclear fusion in the sun from being compressed.

Although Einstein dismissed them as being realities, but accepted they were simply artifacts of the math due to incompleteness of the theory.

Even if one were to consider them as reality, the math fails beyond the event horizon. So the reality of what happens inside is unknown. We see relativistic jets shooting from the spin axis, not stillness. We see great heat, not cold. We see radiation emitted in all spectrums, not being offset by additional energy.

If time did not run and there was no decay or motion, then the Big Bang would never have happened.

You already have a clock based on entropy. The atomic clock uses a resonator which is “regulated by the frequency of the microwave electromagnetic radiation emitted or absorbed by the quantum transition (energy change) of an atom or molecule."

That atomic clock is slowly decaying as it ticks.....

Entropy is a state of energy change. From higher energy to lower energy. That rate of energy can simply be offset by cooling, slowing the molecular motion and therefore rate of energy loss. Or by acceleration and adding energy offsetting the energy lost by the molecular motion. Or by a gravitational field adding energy offsetting the energy lost by the molecular motion.

Entropy is just a word for energy loss. Energy is unavoidable in the discussion of time or entropy....

Which brings us back to distance... which is really what is being measured....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Nope, you do not seem to understand the concept of a frame of reference. And that is the problem that Flat Earthers have. It is rather amazing that you are once again accusing others of having your flaws.

Says the guy that thinks he is stationary because his devices say he is yet claims to understand we are not stationary.....

But you avoided the question:

So what are you going to believe. That you are stationary because your devices say you are or that we are in motion despite what your devices tell you?

I’m curious if you are able to separate perception from reality?

Then we will discuss your other claims based on devices that say one thing when you know the opposite is true....

 

[Subduction Zone]

Says the guy that thinks he is stationary because his devices say he is yet claims to understand we are not stationary.....

But you avoided the question:

So what are you going to believe. That you are stationary because your devices say you are or that we are in motion despite what your devices tell you?

I’m curious if you are able to separate perception from reality?

Then we will discuss your other claims based on devices that say one thing when you know the opposite is true....

You sound just like a flat earther. I never made such a claim. The fact is that you do not understand frames of reference. Your posts indicate that you believe in absolute motion. Again, I am willing to discuss this with you so that you can learn from your errors instead of merely repeating them.

Can you quit making false claims about others? That is the first thing that you must do it you want to learn.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You sound just like a flat earther. I never made such a claim. The fact is that you do not understand frames of reference. Your posts indicate that you believe in absolute motion. Again, I am willing to discuss this with you so that you can learn from your errors instead of merely repeating them.

Can you quit making false claims about others? That is the first thing that you must do it you want to learn.

You’ve made it clear several times that “in your frame of reference you are not moving.” to quote your own words....

So I will ask once again.... Do you believe we are stationary because our devices and perceptions say we are not in motion, or do you believe we are actually in motion despite what our devices and perception tells us?

Not afraid of answering a simple question are you? You’ve only tried to avoid doing so for the third time.... I think your answer will be quite telling and will show if you are able to separate fact from what we perceive to be fact....

 

[Subduction Zone]

You’ve made it clear several times that “in your frame of reference you are not moving.” to quote your own words....

So I will ask once again.... Do you believe we are stationary because our devices and perceptions say we are not in motion, or do you believe we are actually in motion despite what our devices and perception tells us?

Not afraid of answering a simple question are you? You’ve only tried to avoid doing so for the third time.... I think your answer will be quite telling and will show if you are able to separate fact from what we perceive to be fact....

Right, and you once again demonstrated that you do not understand what a frame of reference is or even what motion is. I did not say that "we are stationary". You tried to quote out of context. That shows that you were either dishonest or did not understand a concept. You do not seem to be terribly dishonest in this so I will assume that you do not understand.

Your question is poorly asked since it has a false assumption in it. I do not answer "Have you quit beating your wife yet?" questions. What you do not understand is motion. There is no absolute motion. All motion is relative. The Earth moves relative to the Sun. At the same time the Sun moves relative to the Earth. To a third observer both the Sun and the Earth move. Technically all frames of reference are just as valid. This is something that you have trouble with when it comes to relativity. @Polymath257 pointed that out when discussing the Twins Paradox.

So let's try this one more time. In one's own frame of reference one is stationary. As long as one is not accelerating one is staying in a constant frame of reference. If one nit picked on could show how being on Earth involves being in a constant series of changing frames of reference which is why in physics thought experiments using relativity that ideal is to start at some undefined point in space. That way we do not deal with a spinning orbiting Earth. Starting from there with one object in motion relative to another one cannot say that object A is stationary and object B is in motion is the "correct point of view" anymore than object A being in motion and object B being stationary is correct. An observer on object A would see himself to be stationary and an observer on object B would see himself to be stationary. Do you understand this?

 

[Sky Rivers]

TO THE MEMBERS; FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT DON'T LIKE LONG THREADS; THE RED FONT DESCRIBES THE MAIN POINTS OF THE THREAD.

To a few members that will go unnamed; Please do not nit pick insignificant details unless they would be fatal to the threads questions and inferences. I intentionally left out volumes of precise data, and I was intentionally vague on some points for brevity and understandably.

I would be happy to supply sources if anyone has difficulty using a search engine etc to verify any technical facts.



For this thread must use what Einstein called a thought experiment to visualize this question. Why does time pass normally for anyone that falls past the event horizon of a back hole according to his personal time piece? Einstein's theories say the extreme gravity of a black hole should slow then stop time when the observed passes the event horizon. For example two astronauts are orbiting a black hole when one begins to fall towards it. The observer watching his friend fall towards the BH would witness him falling ever slower until he stopped at the event horizon and remained frozen there 'forever'. All the while his friend would pass the event horizon and would say time is normal according to his clock. So maybe we should say time slows or stops for an observer but not the observed. Still it seems like personal time of each does not change. Each would their time was passing normally. I suppose that is why the theories use relative in the title, because time is relative to the observer not the observed!

Question; does the theory; ie General Relativity that predicts time slows** then stops in an infinite gravity field an indication that the theory is wrong because of its infinities etc? Or is it generally correct only incomplete soon to be merged into a quantum theory of gravity via the marriage of the two branches of physics into a TOE? I have a hunch and a hunch only that the theory is at least as wrong as Newtons theory was wrong. Of course Newtons theory was superseded by Einsteins SR and GR.

Since no human has visited a black hole, this remains entirely theoretical to me. I voted, “no”.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since no human has visited a black hole, this remains entirely theoretical to me. I voted, “no”.

Time dilation caused by gravity has been directly measured. In fact with ultra-accurate clocks we can now observe that time flows at different rates when one is only a couple of steps higher on a ladder:

https://phys.org/news/2010-09-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal.html

What objection do you have with time slowing to a stop within a black hole?

 

[Sky Rivers]

Time dilation caused by gravity has been directly measured. In fact with ultra-accurate clocks we can now observe that time flows at different rates when one is only a couple of steps higher on a ladder:

https://phys.org/news/2010-09-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal.html

What objection do you have with time slowing to a stop within a black hole?

Since time dilation occurs at higher elevation (distance away from the ground), I question if it’s related to gravity or if there is another explanation, dealing with something, present at higher elevation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since time dilation occurs at higher elevation (distance away from the ground), I question if it’s related to gravity or if there is another explanation, dealing with something, present at higher elevation.

In the sciences there is no proof. Remember that. There are testable models. There are no other models that work as good as relativity that I know of. Find a model that explains at least as much and is simpler and it will be accepted. All models must be testable. Simply waving ones hands and saying "what if" is not a model. It is not an explanation.

 

[Thief]

In the sciences there is no proof.

oh oh.....

 

[Thief]

was watching a science documentary on this topic.....yesterday

A. Einstein was quoted.....Time is an illusion

 

[wellwisher]

Entropy is a state of energy change. From higher energy to lower energy. That rate of energy can simply be offset by cooling, slowing the molecular motion and therefore rate of energy loss. Or by acceleration and adding energy offsetting the energy lost by the molecular motion. Or by a gravitational field adding energy offsetting the energy lost by the molecular motion.

Entropy is just a word for energy loss. Energy is unavoidable in the discussion of time or entropy....

Which brings us back to distance... which is really what is being measured....

The term "entropy" was originally coined by engineers during the development of the steam engine. When they did an energy balance around the early steam engines, there was always missing energy.

The energy inputs and the outputs were never exactly the same, based on all the traditional energy assumptions and measurements. Entropy was the term used to account for the missing energy, so they could close the energy balance.

The second law says that the entropy of the universes increases with time. This means that the net energy, absorbed by and tied up within entropy, is not reversible, and is therefore lost to the universe, in terms of being reusable energy. We can reverse entropy, on a smaller scale, but it takes more energy than we get back, causing net useable energy to be lost by the universe. Entropy absorbs energy and takes this energy off-line in terms of a universal energy balance; 2nd law.

Entropy and time work in similar ways. Time does not repeat or recycle itself, like reusable energy. Once time is expressed, it is lost forever. The past might be recorded in various structural changes; mountains, but the past can't be reproduced from these recorded structures. The past, like the energy within entropy, is preserved, but lost to the present and future, since it is not useable.

Entropy is also a state variable, which means for any given state of matter, there is a fixed amount of entropy contained in that specific state. Entropy values are not random, but are constant for any given state. For example, the entropy of water at 25 ◦C and 1 atm is 188.8 joules/(mole K). The entropy of that state is always the same, no matter how we get there, or who measures it. Entropy is implicit of how matter is organized; facade of matter. Time is perceived as the facade of matter changes, and the unusable energy within entropy changes the facade.

Say we had two references, one reference (A) is where space-time is contracted and time moves slow. In the second reference (B) space-time is expanded and time moves fast. I place identical factories in each reference. Both factors make widgets and both have the exact same production rate. Each factory also makes defects in the widgets, at the rate of 1 per hour. Since a defect changes the facade of the widget, a defect reflects a change in entropy; different state of widget. We will throw away or recycle the defective widgets since we can't undo the defect by reversing time. All we can do is alter it in the present; recycle.

If I stood in a third reference, which has space-time between the two, and I looked at the two factories, side-by-side, we notice that because time is moving faster in factory B, its production rate of widgets is much faster with respect to our reference. Since time in factory A, appears slower from our reference, its production rate of widgets is much slower.

We also notice that the increase in entropy, as reflected by the defects, is moving faster in factory B. This also means that energy is becoming unusable at a faster rate, in factory B. When time moves faster, the rate of lost universal energy; nonreversible, increases. With the energy lost, we do not have the energy needed to reverse time, so it can only move forward.

The expanding universe; space-time expanding, is using up reversible energy at a faster rate; red shift. This energy being tied up in an increasing variety of universal facade. A highly contracted universe; singularity, where time moves slow, has very little facade variety. Expansion and the speeding of time, allows for variety in exchange for unusable energy.

 

[Thief]

If I stood in a third reference, which has space-time between the two, and I looked at the two factories, side-by-side, we notice that because time is moving faster in factory B, its production rate of widgets is much faster with respect to our reference. Since time in factory A, appears slower from our reference, its production rate of widgets is much slower.

that mind experiment won't work

picture the earth in orbit as an ellipse
now consider the sun moving in the direction of it's north pole
but the orbit of the earth appears as before

the orbit of earth is not an ellipse
it is more the shape of a coil spring.....that has been stepped on

now consider the path of the moon's orbit

 

[Revoltingest]

Entropy is just a word for energy loss.

Actually, it isn't a measure of loss of energy.
Instead, it's about loss of ability to do work with energy.
Example:
You have a closed system....
A barrel of hot water, & a barrel of cold water.
The temperature difference allows a heat engine to do work, eg, Stirling cycle.
As work is done, the temperatures of each barrel become the same.
Upon reaching equilibrium, no more work can be done.
None of the energy disappeared.
But entropy increased because the availability of it to do work decreased.

 

[Thief]

Actually, it isn't a measure of loss of energy.
Instead, it's about loss of ability to do work with energy.
Example:
You have a barrel of hot water, & a barrel of cold water.
The temperature difference would allow a heat engine to do work, eg, Stirling cycle.
As work is done, the temperature of each barrel becomes the same as the other.
Then no more work can be done.
The energy is all still there in the barrels & in the work done.
But entropy increased because the availability of it to do work decreased.

does that apply to an object in motion.....
as last I heard
that object will continue in a straight line.....forever
at the rate of speed
unless 'something gets in the way'

 

[Revoltingest]

does that apply to an object in motion.....
as last I heard
that object will continue in a straight line.....forever
at the rate of speed
unless 'something gets in the way'

Yes, entropy applies to mechanical energy.

 

[Thief]

Yes, entropy applies to mechanical energy.

no no no....not that

inertial energy

as in headed for the far reaches of nowhere with nothing in the way

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Say we had two references, one reference (A) is where space-time is contracted and time moves slow. In the second reference (B) space-time is expanded and time moves fast. I place identical factories in each reference. Both factors make widgets and both have the exact same production rate. Each factory also makes defects in the widgets, at the rate of 1 per hour. Since a defect changes the facade of the widget, a defect reflects a change in entropy; different state of widget. We will throw away or recycle the defective widgets since we can't undo the defect by reversing time. All we can do is alter it in the present; recycle.

If I stood in a third reference, which has space-time between the two, and I looked at the two factories, side-by-side, we notice that because time is moving faster in factory B, its production rate of widgets is much faster with respect to our reference. Since time in factory A, appears slower from our reference, its production rate of widgets is much slower.

We also notice that the increase in entropy, as reflected by the defects, is moving faster in factory B. This also means that energy is becoming unusable at a faster rate, in factory B. When time moves faster, the rate of lost universal energy; nonreversible, increases. With the energy lost, we do not have the energy needed to reverse time, so it can only move forward.

The expanding universe; space-time expanding, is using up reversible energy at a faster rate; red shift. This energy being tied up in an increasing variety of universal facade. A highly contracted universe; singularity, where time moves slow, has very little facade variety. Expansion and the speeding of time, allows for variety in exchange for unusable energy.

Your analogy is flawed.

If you stood in a third reference both A and B would be moving slower with respect to your reference. B would not be moving faster with respect to you..... Even if he actually is....

This is why the twin thinks the stay at home twin ages slower, when in reality he is the only one that does so. He can not perceive the rate changes to his own clocks....

And time is not reversible, but is able to change rate. When the twin returns home his clocks speed up to the faster rate of the stay at home twin. This does not mean he travels forward in time.

You got to remember that each twin is calling a different duration tick of time a second. Each twins frame has a different energy content than the other due to their velocity through space. The person traveling faster has a greater energy content in his frame due to his velocity. His entropy is less (he ages slower) because the energy lost to entropy has been offset by the energy gained from acceleration.

There is no such thing as seeing someone else's clock tick faster than yours, even if it actually is. Because you don't share the same zero points for the start of your measurements that they use for theirs.....

 

[Thief]

I see misperception....

my pocket watch slows down?
my heart rate does likewise?

I am almost 64yrs old
if I go anywhere.....even at the speed of light .....
I will age

what?.....you think your chemistry is linked to a clock?
you think your chemistry is linked to a cognitive equation?

so what! .....if you journey away at a high rate of speed

if your journey lasts long .....you come back as a corpse