On 09/15/2024 07:24 PM, gharnagel wrote:
On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 19:05:35 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>
Gary: Given that they are isolated, how would relative velocity
cause them to run slower? (It doesn't cause time itself to dilate.
That is pure nonsense.)
>
It certainly is nonsense that velocity causes a clock to run
slower. Clocks run at their normal rate regardless of velocity
or gravitational potential.
>
Relativity predicts that measuring such a clock at different
gravitational potentials or in relative motion will get different
results from measuring them when next to the clock. This is a
fact, valid information.
>
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04349-7
>
https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.12238
>
"we measure a linear frequency gradient consistent with the
gravitational redshift within a single millimetre-scale sample
of ultracold strontium. Our result is enabled by improving the
fractional frequency measurement uncertainty by more than a
factor of 10, now reaching 7.6 × 10−21."
It could be space-contraction in the rotational instead
of length-contraction and time-dilation separately,
still making for that if you have an array of
atomic clocks in a lattice, it can detect the
hand-waving about it, without accelerating it.
I.e. it makes a "gravitational wave detector"
of a sort. Sort of like a "bullshit-and-lies
detector", except it's just a mute scientific
apparatus, which generally as a class comprise
bullshit-and-lies detectors, yet aren't quite
up to the task of the huge amount of bullshit-
and-lies which accompanies many human activities.
The Hafaele-Keating experiment flew a very particular
track, Pound-Rebka stepped up to a laser vis-a-vis
power transmission, and, Michelson-Morley is yet
that "SR is local", so, that the equivalence
principle falls away only sort of extra-terrestrially.
I.e., that's one way to look at it, where of course
any kind of putative _new_ explanation needs to of
course satisfy every single aspect of _old_ explanation,
or it's just a putative theory of an effect, subject to
the configuration and energy of experiment, not necessarily
as with regards to "the law(s)", of physics.
There's Sagnac in here, the Coriolis, Cerenkov,
Compton, Coulomb, Hall ("fractional" Hall),
Birkhoff, Magnus heft, Casimir, effects, lots of these
things that have approximations usually in accords
with the stock premier theories of the day,
also asymptotes.
The JWST space-telescope has thoroughly paint-canned
the fine-tuned inflationary cosmology and so on,
you also have to keep in mind that other stuff
was built on that.
Of course, scientists would agree that all the
experiments of all time all are according to
a "the physics", given the laws being same.
Re: No evidence
Re: No evidence