Is Relativity Reality?

[ChildInAZoo]

So show us, based on your theory, what our results should be in such a test.

[lpetrich]

And better yet, what numbers you expect, like what cross-section value. Even a very approximate calculation would be worth doing.

[mistermack]

Except that much of the case for it was non-fossil: comparative anatomy and biogeography.

That's right. There was a good CASE for it, but no evidence till the fossils.

What do you think that evidence is?

Except that constancy of the speed of sound is relative to its medium, and the speed of light in a vacuum is constant because of the geometry of space-time.

Which is arrived at using the speed of light as a constant.

Yes, but you fail to note something very important in Close's work: he assumes that we have clocks made to work using sound waves in water. In general, we do not have clocks that work through the reflection of light. As far as we can tell (and we've looked as much as we can), SR is obeyed by every type of physical process that we can describe using GR. This includes a number of nuclear decay processes that do not involve light. So it is not simply light that is governing timing.

Back to SR then.
I would very much take issue with that statement.
I think there is a direct parallel between the time dilation experienced in a sound-in-water clock, and any kind of nuclear decay clock.
Time for the water clock slows with velocity, and would stop altogether at the speed of sound in water.
Time for any nuclear clock slows with velocity, and would stop altogether at the speed of light. What more of a direct parallel could you want?
.

[ChildInAZoo]

I would very much take issue with that statement.
I think there is a direct parallel between the time dilation experienced in a sound-in-water clock, and any kind of nuclear decay clock.
Time for the water clock slows with velocity, and would stop altogether at the speed of sound in water.
Time for any nuclear clock slows with velocity, and would stop altogether at the speed of light. What more of a direct parallel could you want?
.

Well, I would want you to actually look at the very real difference between the supposed sonar clock and a decaying particle.

[mistermack]

Well, I would want you to actually look at the very real difference between the supposed sonar clock and a decaying particle.

No comment on the very real similarity then?
.

[Farsight]

You won't get any from those guys, mistermack. They aren't here to talk science. They're here to wreck any talk of science. They're like a couple of witchdoctors confronted by a couple of pharmacists. That saying science advances one death at a time isn't for nothing,

[ChildInAZoo]

You won't get any from those guys, mistermack. They aren't here to talk science. They're here to wreck any talk of science. They're like a couple of witchdoctors confronted by a couple of pharmacists.

If someone can demonstrate that all nuclear processes are electromagnetic in nature, then perhaps Close has a point. I will wait for the demonstration.

That saying science advances one death at a time isn't for nothing,

And that saying has been shown to actually be historically incorrect.

[mistermack]

You won't get any from those guys, mistermack. They aren't here to talk science. They're here to wreck any talk of science. They're like a couple of witchdoctors confronted by a couple of pharmacists.

If someone can demonstrate that all nuclear processes are electromagnetic in nature, then perhaps Close has a point. I will wait for the demonstration.

Now you're getting into the realms of sillyness.
All nuclear processes undergo time dilation with velocity, and nuclear and all other time slows to a stop at the speed of light. That's all he's pointing to, to make the comparison.
You seem to find it impossible to stick to the point, or to admit an error.
.

[lpetrich]

That's because time dilation is a result of the geometry of space-time, not of whatever it might be that physical entities are made of.

[Farsight]

Mistermack: time dilation is the result of moving fast through space, or by being located in a region of high spatial energy density. The latter is synonymous with a low gravitational potential, but not spacetime geometry. For example, if you were able to sit in a void at the centre of the earth, there's no spacetime curvature at that location, and no discernible gravity, hence you flaot around and you don't fall down. However this is the location where gravitational time dilation is at a maximum.

This plot is from the wikipedia gravitational potential page. It depicts the gravitational potential for a horizontal slice through the middle of the earth:



It's lowest at the centre, where there's a small region that is essentially "flat". The slope of the "upturned hat" depicts the strength of the gravitational field at any given location, which is also the amount of curvature at that location. See How gravity works for more.

[Farsight]

If someone can demonstrate that all nuclear processes are electromagnetic in nature, then perhaps Close has a point. I will wait for the demonstration.

Close has an excellent point, but you've already dismissed the demonstration. It's low-energy proton-antiproton annhililation to neutral pions which decay in a femtosecond to gamma photons. All the "fundamental" quarks and gluons and strong force have totally disappeared, and all that's left is photons. You'll doubtless try to duck the issue by blustering on about cross-sections and charged pions, forgetting that they decay in a nanosecond to muons and neutrinos, and that muons then decay in a microsecond to electrons and neutrinos. And you'll also skate over the fact that the neutrino is a lepton. It isn't electromagnetic like the photon and the electron, but it certainly isn't some baryon.

Mistermack, see http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... adron.html re pions.

[mistermack]

That's because time dilation is a result of the geometry of space-time, not of whatever it might be that physical entities are made of.

That's partly right, and partly wrong.
Time is a property of movement, in in a medium. No medium, no time. No movement, no time. The geometry of spacetime means nothing without movement.

And the second part is quite wrong. It just so happens that every piece of matter is constructed of disturbances of some sort in spacetime. That's why time slows for all matter, as it moves THROUGH spacetime. So what matter is made of is absolutely vital for time dilation. It just so happens that all matter is fundamentally a disturbance in spacetime, so time applies equally to all.
Energy based matter seems to be all there is. ( e=mc2 ).

So saying that time dilation isn't related to what physical entities are made of is wrong, because you ignore the fact that they are all made of the same thing.

If some other physical entity existed, that wasn't energy based, there is absolutely no reason why it should experience time dilation, as it moved through spacetime.
.

[colubridae]

And the second part is quite wrong. It just so happens that every piece of matter is constructed of disturbances of some sort in spacetime. .

Nope you are thinking of a disturbance in the force. :dev:

[mistermack]

If some other physical entity existed, that wasn't energy based, there is absolutely no reason why it should experience time dilation, as it moved through spacetime.
.

And that perfectly mirrors the submarine situation, where a clock working from sound in water experiences time dilation, whereas an ordinary one does not.
.

[ChildInAZoo]

Energy based matter seems to be all there is. ( e=mc2 ).

So saying that time dilation isn't related to what physical entities are made of is wrong, because you ignore the fact that they are all made of the same thing.

This is just a work of fiction. You take random equations and assign then the meaning you want, just like Farsight. This is why I cannot simply accept your claims.