Re: The clock malfunctioned.

On 24 juil, 14:52, "Spaceman" <space...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
srp2...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 24 juil, 14:25, "Spaceman" <space...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
srp2...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 24 juil, 13:28, "Spaceman" <space...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
srp2...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 24 juil, 12:41, "Spaceman"
<space...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
srp2...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 24 juil, 12:02, "Spaceman"
<space...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
srp2...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 23 juil, 01:18, "Spaceman"
<space...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If 2 clocks show different times.
At least one clock malfunctioned in it's proper
counting rate.

Clocks are nothing more that "periodic counting machines".
When a clock does not "count" at the same
rate as another clock, at least one lost it's proper
counting rate.

Only relativist fools can not grasp such a simple fact
that has been known about clocks for centuries.
:)

The real problem really is that rate difference between ground
based atomic clocks and altitude based similar clocks is taken
as ultimate proof of time dilation without anyone ever trying
to understand the real mechanical reason for the rate
difference.

Don't forget that we have been thrown back to rationality's
dark age since the Copenhagen interpretation spread like
wildfire
in the 1930's.

So easy to explain everything with magic. Why look for
real ground breaking reasons ?.

So true, they found the magic wand (aka) "spacetime" and with
the rubber rulers they also use, the malfunctioning clocks
are being magically effected by spacetime of course and they
just know that the "wand" of spacetime did that.
:)

Actually, the atomic rate change has been consistently
verified to be real and directly related to altitude. It is not
really a malfunction, just an as yet unexplained physical
phenomenon if you put in perspective that time dilation
is axiomatic (postulated) and that it is unproven from
any other source.

The whole point of the "real change in rate" is in fact
a clock malfunction.
The "real change" in rate would not occur if the clock
was truly still keeping the correct rate the clock
was designed to do.
and yes of course the "ratio" of "ticks to seconds"
never changed. only the "speed" that the ratio occurs changed.
In short, that still comes down to a clock malfunction
and nothing less or more than such.

Good thing the smarter people of yesteryear did not do
that type of reasoning for the "clock malfunctions" that
caused trains to collide and boats to be way off course
a long time ago.
:)
A Simple repeat of history and new god has emerged.
The time and clock god (aka Einstein spacetime).

To be eventually reexamined by up coming generations
if not sooner and discarded to the benefit of a real
mechanical explanation (not axiomantic).

Is a spring "scale" mechanical?
I think it is.

Yes, but it measures weight, not mass.

Yes, but it is a 100% mechanical flaw of the
mechanical device caused 100% by the
gravitational potential difference only.

I don't understand why you call this a "flaw".
since it is a well understood mechanical behavior.

I am not calling it a "flaw" though.
I am callign it a malfunction in the proper
operation parameters that the "scale" should have
done according to it's original design.
The scale malfunctions even though it is "working"
per it's designed function.

I see what you mean, but it seems to me that from
the start those who designed and manufactured
spring balances, once Newton's explanation for
gravity was in, knew that weight would vary with
altitude.

But ok, I see what you mean.

If I set it to show 20 lbs for a 20 lb mass
at sea level.

Ok.

will it show the same 20 lb reading at the top of
a 20,000 ft high mountain?

No, since it measures weight.

Mechanically though.

Yes.

So the mechanical malfunction is occuring
and it is a 100% mechanical fault of the device.
:)

Again, I do not understand why you call this a
flaw. It is the expected mechanical behavior when
measuring weights at various altitudes. Well
understood and confirmed.

It is well understood of the (malfunction) of the scale
when measuring for weight at higher altitudes.
It is a mechanical malfunction of the proper operation
parameters of the scale.

Or will it mechanically fault because of a different
gravitational potential?

This would not be a fault since it is well understood
and taken account of why weight diminishes with
altitude.

It is a fault.
The scale malfunctioned because the "weight"
changed from the gravity potential difference.

Yes. But why call this a malfunction, since
it is a well understood mechanical behavior with
an instrument designed to measure weight.

It is "well understood as a "mechanical malfunction".
The scale is no longer performing to the "set"
parameters it was originally designed to do.

It is also why we went to "balance beam" scales
in industry.

Yes, since for measuring mass, the spring device
is useless.

But.
The balance rate of a balance beam to balance
will also be effected by a different altitude.

It may, but maybe not in the same manner. If you
balance 1kg of lead on one side with 1 kg of lead
on the other side, the balance will not be affected
with altitude, as long as free fall is not in the picture.

I did not say the balance will be affected.
only the "time to balanced".
The time it takes for the beam to "reach" balance
will be affected. and it is caused by the gravitational
potential difference.

I see. My bad. I agree. The "time to balance" will increase
with altitude.

But I wouldn't bet that it will remain balanced with altitude
if you put 1 kg of uranium (measured at ground level)
on one side 1 kg of lithium (measured at ground level)
on the other side. This one has never been tested, and
when it is will definitely lead to requestioning the
time dilation conclusion for atomic clocks.

I am not saying the "balance itself" will be off.
Only the balance "rate".
The balance beam will take longer to finally
stabalize as "balanced" when in a higher altitude.
Again, it is a "freedom of motion thing".
More freedom of motion will allow longer motion
time to occur simply by allowing faster motion
to occur because of the higher freedom of motion.

Yes I see what you mean. I agree.

But how do you reconcile this with "increasing frequency"
of the atomic clock with altitude.

The same basic thing is occuring, except this time
the higher freedom of motion is allowing the "faster"
motion of the oscillations to occur taking.
If you have the same amount of "force" doing the
spinning, it will spin faster at higher altitudes from the
higher freedom of motion being allowed.

Ok. I see your angle. Not illogical.

I have a quite different explanation though.

André Michaud

But the real issue with atomic clocks seems to be
one of increasing mass of nuclei of atoms making up
the clock (thus of the ceasium nuclei themselves) with
altitude (distance from the large Earth mass.)

The oscillation rate at the top of the mountain speeds
up because of a simple mechanical factor of balancing
forces.

Yes. But maybe not the way you think.

Actually,
Yes. the way I think.
It is more free to move.
Less g-potential = more freedom of motion.
(including more freedom of oscillation motion).

It is still a malfuntion of the "off balance" spin
and simply being effected by the lesser g-potential.

I personally never think of observed behaviors as
malfunctions. I see them as observed phenomena
to be explained. I think that all observed phenomena
have a mechanical explanation.

You might not like the term "malfunction"
but for machines whenever they do not perform
to spec, it is a malafunction at cause.

I can live with your definition.

Thanks
:)

André Michaud

Think about a balance beam.
Isn't it still "weight" in gravity that causes the beam
to balance?

Yes, but as long as the same element is being
weighed on both sides, equal masses of the same
element are going to weigh the same at any altitude
on both sides of the balance arm.

Forget the "they will balance part", I know they will
balance and I am not saying they will not.
I am saying they will take longer to finally reach
the blance point.
All caused by more freedom of mechanical motion.

From the model I have studied, to be consistent with
atomic clocks ceasium atoms behavior and the Pioneers
10/11 trajectory anomaly, the less massive element
(lithium for example in my previous example) should
appear to become more massive faster than the uranium
mass on the other side.

If they are different "masses" they will of course
have different KE than each other.

I meant equal masses at ground level of different elements.

Well,
If you again think about the balance beam
One mass might be more "effected" by the actual
acceleration than another would even if they are
the same mass.

If you take 1 kilogram of feathers
and one kilogram of lead. (ignoring air of course)
they will both have the same mass.
but if you force the feathers to move with something
the lead will move quicker from the density difference.
and the feathers would atually take longer to start
the motion
So to put the entire force against the balance beam the same
way the feathers would take longer to finally impact the balance
beam.
Drop them both at the same time.
the lead will win for a bit.
Then the balance will finally equal as the feathers
density "catches up and finally allows the total contact
to occur and balance the two forces.
:)
So I would think the "density" could be a factor.
At least in "theory".
:)

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The clock malfunctioned.
    ... At least one clock malfunctioned in it's proper ... verified to be real and directly related to altitude. ... really a malfunction, just an as yet unexplained physical ... The balance rate of a balance beam to balance ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The clock malfunctioned.
    ... At least one clock malfunctioned in it's proper ... verified to be real and directly related to altitude. ... really a malfunction, just an as yet unexplained physical ... The balance rate of a balance beam to balance ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The clock malfunctioned.
    ... At least one clock malfunctioned in it's proper ... verified to be real and directly related to altitude. ... really a malfunction, just an as yet unexplained physical ... The balance rate of a balance beam to balance ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The clock malfunctioned.
    ... At least one clock malfunctioned in it's proper ... verified to be real and directly related to altitude. ... not really a malfunction, just an as yet unexplained physical ... The balance rate of a balance beam to balance ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The clock malfunctioned.
    ... At least one clock malfunctioned in it's proper ... verified to be real and directly related to altitude. ... really a malfunction, just an as yet unexplained physical ... The balance rate of a balance beam to balance ...
    (sci.physics)