Since experimental evidence, it is well known that a desynchronization of clocks appears between different altitudes on earth (simultaneity is relative). However, simultaneity (absolute for the sky) of the sun or the moon (since million years for example) is a fact.
Shouldn't the concept of relativity be questionned?
Decoherence has uncoupled the large scale simultaneity of sky and cosmos.
``simultaneity (absolute for the sky) of the sun or the moon (since million years for example) is a fact.''
What fact? What is your evidence? I ask, because the phrase ``simultaneity of the sun or the moon'' has no obvious meaning. A single object is not simultaneous. Neither are two objects. The issue of simultaneity arises for two *events*. So as far as things stand, the sentence you state is ``semantically anomalous'' that is, it has correct grammar, yet no meaning: the standard example being
``Colorless green ideas sleep furiously''
Noam Chomsky
You are still sleeping with colourless green ideas. What two events do you have in mind?
Two events.
2 events watched from 2 altitudes. Imagine the disparition of the sun is instantaneous 1 milion years before (event 1) and it reappears (event 2) suddendly. (2 rising sun with 1 milion year interval).
What would tell general relativity (frame-dragging added)? And what would you tell by asking the sources of your ancestry and a trip on a mountain one morning?
(my question to you remains the same one)
Relativity: relative simultaneity (each event is not seen at same moment between altitudes)
Fact of nature: absolute simultaneity (each event is seen at same time between altitudes)
Do you agree? If yes, shouldn't we question relativity? (the main question)
2 events separated by a million years are indeed not simultaneous. I fail to see a contradiction, or, for that matter, a point.
Before you start with your routine of questioning relativity, it would be good for you to attempt to understand what the objection you believe to have is actually supposed to be.
Finally, what altitudes do you mean?
I mean simultaneity of event 1 at altitude 1 with event 1 at altitude 2 and simultaneity of event 2 at altitude 1 with event 2 at altitude 2.
If both are simultaneous, then no desynchronization of time (1 million year) occurs.
(1 million year at altitude 1 = 1 million year at altitude 2, then 1 hour at altitude 1 = 1 hour at altitude 2 and not some nanoseconds more/less)
What events? What altitudes? And, just for good measure, what simultaneity? I reiterate my claim that two events separated by a million years are in fact not simultaneous. Try to be specific. It will then be easier to show you why you are wrong.
But if you prefer to attempt to confuse the audience by hollow words and loud noises, we might as well terminate this non-discussion.
By the way: the expression ``event 1 at altitude 1 and event 1 at altitude 2'' again shows up your confusion: an event happens at a fixed time and at a fixed position. So ``event 1'' whatever that is, cannot be at altitude 1 and 2 simultaneously, unless both altitudes are the same.
You are still far from being able to question relativity.
@Francois. I wonder if Ni somehow is referring to synchronisation of sundials. Either at different heights above the geoid, or perhaps with altitude in the meaning of different positions along the north-south directions (Ni has always taken great care and pride to select expressions of maximal vagueness and imprecision).
So, in addition to the transformation laws for hourglasses and gravitational pendulums, relativity is now facing the task of explaining why hourglasses and sundials get out of synch with each other with a yearly period :-D
Sometimes discussing physics can be funny!
I am sorry for my expressions (my english is far away perfect).
What I try to explain:
1. Event 1: sun disapear (or solar eruption)
2a. Event 1 is noted at altitude 1 and 2 (nearly synchronized)
2b. Each altitudes 1 and 2 runs a (hudge) hourglass from noted event 1
3. Event 2: sun reapears (second solar eruption)
4a. Event 2 is noted at altitude 1 and 2 (nearly synchronized)
4b. Question: would each hourglass count 1 milion year or some hours more/less relative to the other one (between the 2 noted events)???
If both hourglasses count the same time, it means there can't be a desynchronization of clocks. Shouldn't we question theory of relativity then? And how can we question it?
Ni> ... how can we question it?
You must start by working out the physics of hourglasses: How their flow-rate depends on the distribution of grain sizes, the local acceleration of gravity, air pressure, humidity and pollution, and so on. Then you should decide whether it is realistic to expect that two hourglasses at different altitudes (whatever that means) will flow at the same rate. If you want to question relativity theory, you must figure out which possible connections there can be between relativistic effects and the physics of hourglasses. And, if you find any effects, whether they are detectable given the achievable accuracy of your hourglasses.
Your should also analyse whether the time from sunrise to sunrise is expected to be constant, as measured by these clocks.
In summary, you must start with a serious study of physics, wherein the theory of hourglasses is quite far from the simplest topic.
``If both hourglasses count the same time, it means there can't be a desynchronization of clocks.If both hourglasses count the same time, it means there can't be a desynchronization of clocks.''
After a lot of ``if'' s and ``but'' 's I might well agree. But the question remains: where is your evidence that the two hourglasses would show the same time? I cannot assume you actually did the experiment. On the other hand, physics has lots of evidence (with Cesium clocks instead of hourglasses, and over times of days rather than millions of years) that they do not.
I have recently been thinking about a concept that I call "The Now Universe" whose physical meaning is completely unclear to me! For simplicity start with the solar system. I see the sun and the planets by light that they emitted a few minutes ago. But I know their equations of motion and trajectories, so I can extrapolate to calculate their positions and motion at the present time as determined by me at my position. Now expand your thinking to the Universe! Although I cannot calculate the motion of a galaxy 13 million light years away, its motion is determined (up to quantum uncertainty and statistical fluctuations) 13 million years forward in time. So I can in principle construct a Now Universe. Of course, this is a mathematical construct and not a physical one; there are no instantaneous interactions among the parts of this now universe. This does not contradict relativity but is an interesting idle musing. Any comments?
I mean "absolute simultaneity" in reference to a NON-EXISTING "RELATIVITY OF SIMULTANEITY" between altitudes.
Moreover, we could talk about an absolute simultaneity between altitudes; the time light comes from one altitude to the other, time has moved on the second altitude the same amount as the light travel.
Because sun was synchro 1 million years before and is still synchro today between altitudes (time light travel omitted), there is no desychronization possible for time between altitudes. Atomic clocks (side effect) do not show the same time as hourglasses (reality) at two different altitudes.
In other words: GRAVITATIONAL TIME DILATION DOES NOT EXIST.
Knowing this is the case, how could we question theory of relativity? Is it possible to question it?
Back to total lack of meaning. it is not your English, that is at fault. This would be a minor issue. It is your mode of thinking. Saying ``the sun was synchro 1 million years before and still is'' lacks any meaning, and thus is impossible to discuss rationally.
Synchronised refers to two events, not to one single object. Further, both events happen at one point in space and one instant in time. So a solar eruption could be an event (happening on the Sun). Someone witnessing the eruption, at altitude h1, is another event, not synchronous to the eruption, since the light must travel from the sun to the observer. Another person witnessing the eruption at altitude h2 is a third event, still not simultaneous.
``Atomic clocks (side effect) do not show the same time as hourglasses (reality) at two different altitudes.''
Certainly a very risky statement. There is no experimental evidence whatever for it. Hourglasses are *extremely inaccurate*, and additionally their theory is today a very poorly understood part of physics, so it is hard to make any comment. Would you accept quartz clocks? It is well documented that these run in sync with atomic clocks, though of course their accuracy is not sufficient to detect relativistic effects.
I think it is more the difficulty of understanding what earth tell us about relativity...
"Someone witnessing the eruption, at altitude h1, is another event, not synchronous to the eruption, since the light must travel from the sun to the observer. Another person witnessing the eruption at altitude h2 is a third event, still not simultaneous."
True, if you consider seeing light as a real event different from the first one (that is relativity of simultaneity).
You can also compare simultaneity between;
pacesH1: event1[seenSunExplosion1] at h1; event2[seenSunExplosion2] at h1; etc. AND
pacesH2: ...event1[seenSunExplosion1] at h2; event2[seenSunExplosion2] at h2; etc.).
...=light travel time from h1 to h2 (sun is on a hypothetic line with h1(high) and h2(low))
Relativity of simultaneity tell us that last paces will not be synchronized (desychronization): event2 at h1 will not be synchronized to event2 h2 (clocks experiments).
What I mean is that event1 at h1 and event1 at h2 could be synchronized (light travel excepted). Event2 at h1 and event2 at h2 are synchronized relative to the first synchronization. (theory of relativity tell us that further event is not synchronized!!! Relativity of simultaneity with gravitational potentials can't occur.)
If we admit the last seen event are synchronized, we can omit light time travel and know that all event ON EARTH are absolute simultane.
If we go up and down from h2 to h1 and h2 again we still know h1 and h2 are simultane, else coming back to "h2" will lead us to h2b (telling we started from h2a) with relativity.
Again, you are trying to mean something, perhaps, but not really succeeding. If I understand you correctly, you want perhaps to neglect the time of light travel. That is not possible: it is important always. On the other hand, perhaps you somehow mean that you correct for light travel, in such a way that the two events become simultaneous. If you try to do something along these lines, you will find that the correction depends on the reference frame in which you work. The effect of gravity is yet far more complicated, and best left to a future discussion. This one, on the other hand is probably best terminated by noting that everything you have claimed here is either demonstrably and obviously wrong, or else, the more common case, it is a jumble of words put together in a way that is grammatically correct, but quite meaningless.
Do you understand that?
pacesH1: event1[seenSunExplosion1] at h1; event2[seenSunExplosion2] at h1; etc. AND
pacesH2: ...; event1[seenSunExplosion1] at h2; event2[seenSunExplosion2] at h2; etc.
...=one light travel time from h1 to h2 (sun is on a hypothetic line with h1(high altitude) and h2(low altitude))
Question1: If event1 are synchronized (with clocks) between altitudes, are event2, etc. synchrone?
Question2: If all eventX are synchro, where is desynchronization?
QuestionMain: If no desynchronization exists on earth besides thousand of (interpreted) proofs that it is obvious it exists, can we question relativity?
It's imaginable that the fundamental starting point for the universe were common simultaneity or timeless continuum as an alternative to the inflation hypothesis.
When the time started ticking in forming matter all over, the topological defects started crawling, not from one causal wholeness to ends but from ends to the common causal connectivity and this process is still in step of 100...200 Mpc. Isotropic and homogenous universe would be a precondition, not a goal...
No I do not understand. What are the Paces?
However, let me assume you mean:
event 1(h1) and 1(h2) are the same initial eruption viewed at two different heights. Assume they were corrected to become simultaneous in spite of the different in light path.
event2(h1) and event2(h2) are a later eruption viewed at the same two heights. Similarly, correct for the difference in light paths, to obtain simultaneous events.
Then, if you measure the time elapsed between event1(h1) and event 2(h1), you will find it to be different from the corresponding time between event1(h2) and event2(h2). Of course, these measurements must be performed with a clock that measures the time at the relevant altitude. The difference between these times can indeed be quite large, if the two eruptions are separated by a very long time.
On the other hand, the two eruptions themselves, as measured in the Sun, are themselves separated by yet a third time interval. The key to understanding the apparent paradox is that you must measure all times locally. Each of the two eruptions trigger two events on earth. But time on earth goes at different rates in the two different positions.
There is no contradiction, but it is a bit confusing.
@Säkkinen
What about 0-5000m (altitude) and (in or since) 1million years?
@Leyvraz
Sorry,
What I try to make you understand:
E1 is seen at h1, he starts runing a clock (and see second/year 0,1,2, etc.).
E1 is seen at h2, she starts runing a clock (and second/year X,Y,Z, etc.).
He and she admit both clock started at 0 for E1 (admit X=0)
Will E2 (1;Y), E3 (2;Z), etc. be synchronized between altitudes (h1,h2) on earth?
If both observers started their clocks at the same time when they saw the first eruption, then they will not observe the same time for the second eruption. The fact that the two final events are both triggered by the *same* solar event is not relevant, because the time which passed on the Sun between the two eruptions has no relation to either of the times measured.
In other words, a clock on the sun measures T3 between the two eruptions.
The clock at h1 measures T1 between the viewing of the two eruptions at altitude h1
The clock at h2 measures T2 between the viewing of the two eruptions at altitude h2.
The fact that the second eruption is, in some sense, simultaneous to both of the later events at both altitudes does not mean that these are simultaneous in their local time.
I mean that if the two observers synchronise their watches at the first eruption, and if they then wait for the second, when the second eruption comes, their watches will not show the same time. Of course, in both cases, they should make appropriate corrections for the time the light takes to go from h2 to h1.
The puzzling effect is the following, maybe: on the sun, between the two eruptions, there is only one time. How then can it happen that the two events triggered by the first eruption are separated from the two events triggered by the second eruption, by different times? To this the answer is: that the time elapsed on the Sun between the two eruptions is, indeed, well-defined and unique, but it is unrelated to the times meansured by both observers at their respective altitudes. That was why I thought introducing T1, T2 and T3 was important.
Define your notation. It is part of a good discipline in thought to learn how clearly to describe what you mean to people who are not aware of the way you think.
Is that meant to illustrate the coherence level of your way of thinking?
When I answer to questions I try at least to understand the way of thinking of the person who asks. (#scientific_thinking)
What is the coherence level of your way of thinking?
h1: E1(sec0) = Event1 seen at hourglass second/Myear 0 for h1
h1: E2(sec1) = Event2 seen at hourglass second/Myear 1 for h1
h2: E1(X=sec0) = Event1 seen at hourglass second/Myear 0 for h2
h2: E2(Y=sec1) = Event2 seen at hourglass second/Myear 1 for h2
Or
h1: E1(year0) = Event1 seen at hourglass second/Myear 0 for h1
h1: E2(year1) = Event2 seen at hourglass second/Myear 1 for h1
h2: E1(X=year0) = Event1 seen at hourglass second/Myear 0 for h2
h2: E2(Y=year0.9) = Event2 seen at hourglass second/Myear 0.9 for h2
???
(T1 is time between h1E1 and h1E2; T2 is time between hourglass seconds/years 0 and 0.9 for h2)
Think about eclipses, are they still synchronized today between altitudes h1 and h2???
If I understand the symbols correctly, I think we have no direct evidence either way, since nobody has checked this, but we do have indirect evidence (via cesium clocks over times far shorter than a million years) that the second alternative holds. Since the hourglass (or the cesium clock, hourglasses just do not have the requisite accuracy) always remain at h1, or respectively h2, there is no contradiction with the clocks being out of sync, say, by half a day. Of course, the Sun has a well determined position when the second event happens, but its connection to the time of the two clocks (``hourglasses'') is ambiguous due to the height difference.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physics