Re: [Vo]:Re: CONCEPTS OF TIME--IMPLICATIONS FOR SO(4) PHYSICS--

[mixent]

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Tue, 14 Apr 2020 01:18:59 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]
>Te best atomic clocks are sensitive to 10cm difference in altitude.
>
>But there is one open point: Is only the Rb/Cs crystal oscillating a bit 
>slower/faster or is the electronics measuring slower/faster - or both? 
>This, may be, could be tested by changing the crystal only.

...or neither. Maybe Einstein is correct, and time actually flows at different 
speeds at different altitudes. ;)

>
>Of course Leibniz is correct and interesting to see that he knew this a 
>long time before we could mathematically prove it.
>
>The basic elements of nature are 99.% stable/static and only 
>small oscillations form our world. Only this tiny fraction believes that 
>there must be time because live is below 0.15eV compared to one proton 
>mass of 938MeV... The proton feels no time except you start to 
>accelerate it to very high speed ...

This is not clear. What do you mean by "Only this tiny fraction believes"? 
(Only sentient beings can believe, not eV's.)
BTW the limit can't be 0.15 eV, or chemical reactions that result in a change 
of multiple eV would also not be time
sensitive, whereas they clearly are. (Consider the application of chemical 
catalysts.)
[snip]
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:Re: CONCEPTS OF TIME--IMPLICATIONS FOR SO(4) PHYSICS--

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Te best atomic clocks are sensitive to 10cm difference in altitude.

But there is one open point: Is only the Rb/Cs crystal oscillating a bit 
slower/faster or is the electronics measuring slower/faster - or both? 
This, may be, could be tested by changing the crystal only.


Of course Leibniz is correct and interesting to see that he knew this a 
long time before we could mathematically prove it.


The basic elements of nature are 99.% stable/static and only 
small oscillations form our world. Only this tiny fraction believes that 
there must be time because live is below 0.15eV compared to one proton 
mass of 938MeV... The proton feels no time except you start to 
accelerate it to very high speed ...


Of course I do feel time too...

J.W.

Am 13.04.20 um 21:32 schrieb H LV:

Bob,

Time increments maybe arbitrary but I don't hold the belief that the 
passage of time is just an illusion between each increment or event. 
This is a perennial metaphysical question which I don't want to get 
into. For example Leibniz did not think time flowed.  He said time was 
an ordering of events. Newton thought differently.


What do you mean Cs resonant vibrations?
Cs atomic clocks are affected by gravity because their "tick" rate has 
been observed to be slower at sea level than at higher altitudes which 
is a prediction of GR.

Harry


On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 1:27 PM bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
 wrote:


Harry—

If SO(4) physics is valid, the gravitational attraction between
the earth and the pendulum may be blocked by appropriate shields
 and result in a different illusion of the passage of time
relative to other measurements of arbitrary time increments—like
the rotation of the earth due to its angular momentum being pretty
constant or its orbit around the sun also being relatively constant.

This in fact may be a good “down-to-earth test to validate the
SO(4) model—i.e., blocking the effect of the earth’s gravity.  The
measurement of Cs atoms resonant vibrations should also change
relative to the pendulum resonance, since blocking the earth’s
magnetic field from the Cs would be avoided in the validation
test.  (I think my assumption that Cs atoms should be immune to
gravity field variations is a valid conclusion per current
 understanding of physics.)

If validity of SO(4) were _not_ established, it would  also be
 significant to understanding the nature of space and E-M fields.

Bob Cook



*From: *H LV 
*Sent: *Sunday, April 12, 2020 6:32 PM
*To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com 
*Subject: *Re: [Vo]:Re: CONCEPTS OF TIME--

On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 5:14 PM mailto:mix...@bigpond.com>> wrote:



Note that our perception of the flow of time and even our
measurement of it is based on processes which may vary in
speed. IOW if the fabric of space time changes, e.g. in a
gravitational field, then the processes upon which our clocks
are based may speed up or slow down, but this doesn't
*necessarily* imply that time itself is flowing faster or slower.
It may be, but we have no object means of telling the
difference. IOW our temporal "yardstick" may change in length in
some situations. A clock can run fast or slow without the
actual passage of time changing.

I agree.  For example an increase in ambient temperature can
change the period of pendulum clock by increasing the length the
swing arm. However, we don't say time slows down just because it
got warmer. In the 18th century pendulums were designed so as not
to be affected

by temperature. Although we can't block the affects of gravity on
a clock, we can make sure a clock at the surface of the Earth
keeps the same time as a clock in deep space by systematically
adding time to the measured time on Earth.

Harry



--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr.22
8910 Affoltern a.A.
044 760 14 18
079 246 36 06

RE: [Vo]:Re: CONCEPTS OF TIME--IMPLICATIONS FOR SO(4) PHYSICS--

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Harry—

If SO(4) physics is valid, the gravitational attraction between the earth and 
the pendulum may be blocked by appropriate shields  and result in a different 
illusion of the passage of time relative to other measurements of arbitrary 
time increments—like the rotation of the earth due to its angular momentum 
being pretty constant or its orbit around the sun also being relatively 
constant.

This in fact may be a good “down-to-earth test to validate the SO(4) 
model—i.e., blocking the effect of the earth’s gravity.  The measurement of Cs 
atoms resonant vibrations should also change relative to the pendulum 
resonance, since blocking the earth’s magnetic field from the Cs would be 
avoided in the validation test.  (I think my assumption that Cs atoms should be 
immune to gravity field variations is a valid conclusion per current  
understanding of physics.)

If validity of SO(4) were not established, it would  also be  significant to 
understanding the nature of space and E-M fields.

Bob Cook


From: H LV
Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2020 6:32 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: CONCEPTS OF TIME--



On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 5:14 PM mailto:mix...@bigpond.com>> 
wrote:


Note that our perception of the flow of time and even our measurement of it is 
based on processes which may vary in
speed. IOW if the fabric of space time changes, e.g. in a gravitational field, 
then the processes upon which our clocks
are based may speed up or slow down, but this doesn't *necessarily* imply that 
time itself is flowing faster or slower.
It may be, but we have no object means of telling the difference. IOW our 
temporal "yardstick" may change in length in
some situations. A clock can run fast or slow without the actual passage of 
time changing.

I agree.  For example an increase in ambient temperature can change the period 
of pendulum clock by increasing the length the swing arm. However, we don't say 
time slows down just because it got warmer. In the 18th century pendulums were 
designed so as not to be affected
by temperature. Although we can't block the affects of gravity on a clock, we 
can make sure a clock at the surface of the Earth keeps the same time as a 
clock in deep space by systematically adding time to the measured time on Earth.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Re: CONCEPTS OF TIME--IMPLICATIONS FOR SO(4) PHYSICS--

[H LV]

Bob,

Time increments maybe arbitrary but I don't hold the belief that the
passage of time is just an illusion between each increment or event. This
is a perennial metaphysical question which I don't want to get into. For
example Leibniz did not think time flowed.  He said time was an ordering of
events. Newton thought differently.

What do you mean Cs resonant vibrations?
Cs atomic clocks are affected by gravity because their "tick" rate has been
observed to be slower at sea level than at higher altitudes which is a
prediction of GR.
Harry


On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 1:27 PM bobcook39...@hotmail.com  wrote:

> Harry—
>
>
>
> If SO(4) physics is valid, the gravitational attraction between the earth
> and the pendulum may be blocked by appropriate shields  and result in a
> different illusion of the passage of time relative to other measurements of
> arbitrary time increments—like the rotation of the earth due to its angular
> momentum being pretty constant or its orbit around the sun also being
> relatively constant.
>
>
>
> This in fact may be a good “down-to-earth test to validate the SO(4)
> model—i.e., blocking the effect of the earth’s gravity.  The measurement of
> Cs atoms resonant vibrations should also change relative to the pendulum
> resonance, since blocking the earth’s magnetic field from the Cs would be
> avoided in the validation test.  (I think my assumption that Cs atoms
> should be immune to gravity field variations is a valid conclusion per
> current  understanding of physics.)
>
>
>
> If validity of SO(4) were *not* established, it would  also be
>  significant to understanding the nature of space and E-M fields.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
> 
>
> *From: *H LV 
> *Sent: *Sunday, April 12, 2020 6:32 PM
> *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:Re: CONCEPTS OF TIME--
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 5:14 PM  wrote:
>
>
>
> Note that our perception of the flow of time and even our measurement of
> it is based on processes which may vary in
> speed. IOW if the fabric of space time changes, e.g. in a gravitational
> field, then the processes upon which our clocks
> are based may speed up or slow down, but this doesn't *necessarily* imply
> that time itself is flowing faster or slower.
> It may be, but we have no object means of telling the difference. IOW our
> temporal "yardstick" may change in length in
> some situations. A clock can run fast or slow without the actual passage
> of time changing.
>
>
>
> I agree.  For example an increase in ambient temperature can change the
> period of pendulum clock by increasing the length the swing arm. However,
> we don't say time slows down just because it got warmer. In the 18th
> century pendulums were designed so as not to be affected
>
> by temperature. Although we can't block the affects of gravity on a clock,
> we can make sure a clock at the surface of the Earth keeps the same time as
> a clock in deep space by systematically adding time to the measured time on
> Earth.
>
>
>
> Harry
>
>
>