C Squared

These are my original thoughts derived from what I have read of Einstein's work and the theories of other great people.

Since the January 1998 ice storm in eastern Canada, nature's unpredictability had me searching for a better understanding of it's physical ways.

Although none of this is proven, time will tell if gravity has finally been defined.

Hi GD, Thanks for the explaination. I have read that acceleration has zero effect on clocks so I wonder where you got the data that shows clocks slow down in gravity fields? This detail has been kicked around at this web site and no one suggested what you are saying so maybe you should check that out-Tom may have a ready reference to the thread. I guess its snowing again up north?

Hi Jim

I have read that Einstein's relativity was based on a static universe.
I still believe that the universe is in constant motion and accelerating. Space-time is affected by this.

Here are some quotes that support this theory:

" Prior to launch, satellite clocks are preset to run about .... slower than the base master clock to compensate for their faster rate in orbit."

" It is now well known, atomic clock experiments have repeatedly shown that a clock on a mountain top does run faster than its sea level counterpart."

My theory is also based on Princeton University's Joseph H. Taylor nobel prize winner.
He explores problems in astrophysics and gravitational physics by means of radio-wavelenght studies of pulsars, amongst other things: time keeping metrology.

Here is a quote from him from an internet article:

"Here is direct proof, based on a clock some 15,000 light years from the solar system (pulsar), that clocks on Earth run more slowly when the moon is full, because at this time of the month we are deeper in the gravitational potential of the sun."

I am sorry if I am moving away from your c^2 question, but I think this answers it in some way.

None of the examples you mention are proof that clocks run slow. None of these examples are data and according to Tom there is a lot of data to show clocks are not running slow when accelerated. I don't have a clue myself as to what the truth is about this matter, so, if you have real data of can get some data from Tom it would be a good thing.

These are only ideas. I am trying to keep an open mind on all of this.

The atomic clock relies on the stability of the atom. the atom in such a clock is cooled down for this purpose.
If the potential energy of the atom decreases, so does its stability.

When an object is falling to the ground, we say it loses potential energy.
What I am assuming is, while the object is on the ground it is still losing potential energy.

This loss of energy is present in the form of radioactive decay of rocks for example.

What nature does not tell us, is if this rate will increase over the next billion years. one possible way to find how matter is affected over such a long period of time is to study the dynamics of a galaxy, one which is close to ours and approximately the same size.

Simply by observing the image of such a galaxy, one will notice its shape: A spiral leading towards its center.

The only observation that needs to be made to confirm this theory is to see if matter is actually moving towards the center of the galaxy.

Jim,

Here is an internet link (see below) to a document explaining the varying potential of the Earth during an event.

It mentions the abnormal oscillations of a pendulum during an eclipse of the sun.

The pendulum is affected by the changing potential (gravity/entropy) of the Earth as the sun's radiating energy the Earth receives is diminished by the eclipse.

An atom is the smallest and most accurate clock (in its organized form) for a given potential: its electrons keep time with an almost constant speed. Vary the speed and the potential will change. Vary its potential and the speed will change.

Since we are part of the universe, and the universe is anisotropic with time, then time is relative. Once matter has converted into energy, time has become irrelevant.

Therefore time is relative and it varies with the entropy of the atom.

Here is the link mentioned above:
science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast12oct99_1.htm