This is the origin of the famous "time dilation" effect everybody talks about when they discuss special relativity. If you're moving through space, then you're not moving through time as fast as you would be if you were sitting still. Your clock will tick slower than the clock of a person who isn't moving.

And this has been proved with atomic clocks has it? I think it has but not sure.

Don't need atomic clocks all you need is a GPS receiver. If GPS didn't take time dilation into account they'd be nowhere near as accurate as they are.

---

This is the origin of the famous "time dilation" effect everybody talks about when they discuss special relativity. If you're moving through space, then you're not moving through time as fast as you would be if you were sitting still. Your clock will tick slower than the clock of a person who isn't moving.

And this has been proved with atomic clocks has it? I think it has but not sure.

Don't need atomic clocks all you need is a GPS receiver. If GPS didn't take time dilation into account they'd be nowhere near as accurate as they are.

Who know's if they give the right time? They're connected with satellites in space. They're an invention of men. They give an overall accepted time on earth...

[edit] An atomic clock sounds more acceptable to me

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

is time a real dimension? Or is it something else?

Found an interesting article on that matter:

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/04/spacetime-has-no-time-dimension-new-theory-claims-that-time-is-not-the-4th-dimension.html

Thank you for that. Quite an interesting read. It does tend to take a completely different concept of time, though I'm not sure that the proposed theory resolves all questions about time.

... Your clock will tick slower than the clock of a person who isn't moving.

And this has been proved with atomic clocks has it? I think it has but not sure.

Very much so.

Laboriously with atomic clocks being flown around in aircraft.

More recently, every second of every day with the GPS system.

Even the different effects of gravity with respect to altitude vs speed have been untangled by the direct time measurements.


Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

... Time is constant throughout the universe, ...

Apparently not so, if you assume that it is the speed of light that is the constant in our universe.


Also note that we have no direct way in which to measure or understand that 'thing' we call "time". (All that our "time measurements" actually do is to merely measure "distance" in various ways...)


Now... What if the speed of light were not constant? Do we still have a workable and consistent universe?

Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

How does one who denies the existence of black holes explain the observed phenomena where a black hole is sucking the guts out of a companion star?

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

How does one who denies the existence of black holes explain the observed phenomena where a black hole is sucking the guts out of a companion star?

Rewording "black hole" to "singularity" gives a different aspect...

We've lots of observations now of what the common press call "black hole"s.

As to what they actually are... I've always had reservations about the ideas of there being a 'singularity' of zero dimensions hidden inside...


Considering time, as the gravitational field increases, there should never be enough time for a 'zero sized' object to be able to form.

Which conjures up the questions:

Can gravity ever overwhelm all the other nuclear forces?

Are there any limits if gravity can/does overwhelm all other forces?


Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

I have always thought of black holes as pure mass. The individual particles are crushed so close together, all distance between the particles is zero, so they become 1 particle, hence the "singularity" term. I saw a program last week, that said if the earth was a black hole, it would be 2 inches across. Some of the supermassive ones might be the size of our solar system.

Steve

---

Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website

we have no direct way in which to measure or understand that 'thing' we call "time".

My point exactly. 'Time' is quite abstract, we'll never find a right formula or explanation for it, I'm afraid.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

All true enough. We don't even know what time really is. We call it the fourth dimension in part because it doesn't really fit into any other category.

My point with bringing up GPS is that the calculations your hand held GPS unit includes accounting for both the effects of speed and the slightly lower gravity at orbital altitudes. If they didn't then the results produced by GPS would be in great error.

Science can measure the passage of time with remarkable precision and those measurements are in perfect harmony with the predictions of Relativity. Perfection (as near as we can measure it, anyway) makes a strong statement, methinks.

---

+1 to Clayton Rayne! :-)

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

And of course, the best part of both Relativity and Quantum Theory is that they pretty much do away with the need for any sort of intelligent creator.

---

Never the less, you are correct.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

And of course, the best part of both Relativity and Quantum Theory is that they pretty much do away with the need for any sort of intelligent creator.

Dr. Albert Einstein strongly disagrees with you.

We wander off topic so I'll leave it here.....

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Back on topic then:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130729231440.htm

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

As Steve correctly states, black holes are all about mass, a lot of it contained in a very small space.

Assumedly the smallest thing known which may be associated with something is the Planck constant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant

Either an object is a one-dimensional, two-dimensional, or three-dimensional one. A point, or maybe I rather should have said "a point in space", is neither of these elements, rather it becomes an abstract thing on its own.

Thinking about it, a point on its own could be more or less the same as a one-dimensional object. The notion of space really comes as an addition to the definition of objects or points themselves.

Hopefully someone else may be able to clarify this.

The three-dimensional space between objects may be regarded as being linear, but in a strong gravitational field, like a black hole, space is not linear either, even though it may appear to be so. Gravity not only bends time, but also the space around it. Pictures taken of some galaxy clusters clearly shows this lens artifact, which is a result of some massive object inside such a cluster, or possibly an invisible object located between it and us in space.

Gravity may not be present without a similar amount of mass. Really, thinking this way, we may be able to exclude a couple of problems leaving us with those which have yet to be explained. Assumedly time is not related to mass on its own, so we are left with the problem once again of trying to explain the notion of time itself.

And of course, the best part of both Relativity and Quantum Theory is that they pretty much do away with the need for any sort of intelligent creator.

Dr. Albert Einstein strongly disagrees with you.

Albert Einstein hasn't done much work lately.
Most physicists today are light years ahead of him.

And of course, the best part of both Relativity and Quantum Theory is that they pretty much do away with the need for any sort of intelligent creator.

Dr. Albert Einstein strongly disagrees with you.

Albert Einstein hasn't done much work lately.
Most physicists today are light years ahead of him.

Du er fri til å tenke hva du ønsker.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

And of course, the best part of both Relativity and Quantum Theory is that they pretty much do away with the need for any sort of intelligent creator.

Dr. Albert Einstein strongly disagrees with you. ...

I am very sure you do not know that.

I can also have a very good guess that your understanding and use of the word "God" is also quite different to what Einstein was careful not to fully explain...

And that is definitely for another thread.


Now back to the topic for this thread...

Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Einstein's "I don't believe in God" letter has sold on eBay — and you're not going to believe the price

Translation from the original German.

... I read a great deal in the last days of your book, and thank you very much for sending it to me. What especially struck me about it was this. With regard to the factual attitude to life and to the human community we have a great deal in common.

... The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.

In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the privilege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolization. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.

Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each other in essential things, i.e; in our evaluations of human behavior. What separates us are only intellectual 'props' and 'rationalization' in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each other quite well if we talked about concrete things.

With friendly thanks and best wishes,
Yours, A. Einstein

P.S. I thought this was the Science (non-Seti) board