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 99.99999999% 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 [email protected]
<[email protected]> 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 <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent: *Sunday, April 12, 2020 6:32 PM
*To: *[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject: *Re: [Vo]:Re: CONCEPTS OF TIME--
On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 5:14 PM <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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
