# Maths to explain time.

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by amber, Feb 1, 2018.

Not open for further replies.
1. ### nebel

Messages:
2,469
just having fun here: gravity in basements is lower, because
(surface's max gravity falls off in both directions, inward and out) see topic, "where is more gravity, inside or out?".
if the basement is deep enough, like reaching down to the center, gravity drops to zero. time to max. If the building is massive enough, gravity will pull up even more, less basement gravity with mass all around. and,
better build your tall buildings near the Equator, no speed effects on the poles, just a nice twist., this.
thank you, Amber, we are having a great time with this. Found a piece of amber once on the beach with an enclosed insect, it's body having defied increase in entropy for the longest time.
I am voting with you, time is fundamental. flight through time without formulae.

Last edited: Feb 2, 2018

3. ### Michael 345New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldlValued Senior Member

Messages:
13,077
??? Who

I know you didn't say that
You said

To which I said no BUT for satellites

Weightlessness is a balance between the satellites falling to Earth (yes gravity) and the speed of the satellite pushing it over the horizon

No for the simple (?) reason there is no way to place a bench with scales in any area in the space around Earth

Turtles all the way down

5. ### amberRegistered Member

Messages:
323
A Satellite is not weightless , it still experiences the force of gravity and follows a curvature path because of this. If it were not for the force of gravity and Newtons of weight , the Satellite would travel a straight path and travel away from the Earth. In a free fall situation a person aboard a falling craft will fall with the craft and seem weightless. I vaguely remember seeing something once, where aeroplanes go up and down to simulate the affects of weightless. A person or object could only be weightless if they were at a position in the Universe where forces did not act.

7. ### Michael 345New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldlValued Senior Member

Messages:
13,077
If counting fast enough to capture each oscillation OK

If counting fast but only capture every 3rd 5th or what ever they are not counting caesium atom oscillations. You are counting SOME of them

8. ### Xelasnave.1947Valued Senior Member

Messages:
8,502
It would ruin the song thats for sure.
If you are counting the intervals slow thats ok so long as you keep up I guess but ... I may as well type slow for slow readers..neither makes sense.
Alex

9. ### Xelasnave.1947Valued Senior Member

Messages:
8,502
The person I replied to...Nebel
Try some digital scales by placeing them upside down on the ground that should do it.
Alex

10. ### Michael 345New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldlValued Senior Member

Messages:
13,077
But in fact, the Earth's core is substantially more dense than the outer layers (mantle and crust), and gravity actually increases a bit as you descend

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/18446/how-does-gravity-work-underground

Just having fun but I take time to check details. If I made a defect in my list sure point it out
But I think I got the info right

11. ### Michael 345New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldlValued Senior Member

Messages:
13,077

Damn gazumped again

Did that

I can report Earth weighs more than 120 kg

12. ### Xelasnave.1947Valued Senior Member

Messages:
8,502
How did you see the read out?
Alex

13. ### amberRegistered Member

Messages:
323
The scales would then be measuring their own weight.

14. ### Michael 345New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldlValued Senior Member

Messages:
13,077
NO

It follows a curved path because its speed counter balances gravity

Satellites are able to orbit around the planet because they are locked into speeds that are fast enough to defeat the downward pull of gravity

A satellite maintains its orbit by balancing two factors: its velocity (the speed it takes to travel in a straight line) and the gravitational pull that Earth has on it. A satellite orbiting closer to the Earth requires more velocity to resist the stronger gravitational pull.

https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/content/why-don’t-satellites-fall-out-sky

Weightlessness

Counterintuitively, a uniform gravitational field does not by itself cause stress or strain, and a body in free fallin such an environment experiences no g-force acceleration and feels weightless

15. ### Michael 345New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldlValued Senior Member

Messages:
13,077
The readout stuck at max with a + sign

The scale are smart and stop and hold at the top weight registered

Was told by the salesman the feature allowed fat people who could not see their toes the ability to step off the scales and back away until they could see the readout

16. ### amberRegistered Member

Messages:
323
If gravity did not have a hold on the satellite it would fly off into space and not follow a curvature path. The speed stops it falling to Earth and gravity stops if flying off into space.

17. ### Michael 345New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldlValued Senior Member

Messages:
13,077
Not when I step on the back of the scales

PS this is a joke sub thread running

Messages:
19,248
Why?

No.

19. ### Michael 345New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldlValued Senior Member

Messages:
13,077
Which is not what you first posted

No mention about the speed of the satellite giving the impression only gravity counted

I'm done here

20. ### amberRegistered Member

Messages:
323
Because how can a state of entropy change if it were enclosed in a special box . There would be no loss or gain so the state and energy contained should remain the same. I think it would be similar to Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier's work and that nothing is ever lost or gained, but in the scenario of a special box, it includes photon energy.

21. ### amberRegistered Member

Messages:
323
You did not read it how I thought I had wrote it if you can follow that.

22. ### DywyddyrPenguinaciously duckalicious.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
19,248
Ah right.
So you have decided - arbitrarily - that a change in entropy is what "causes" time (with no evidence, no supporting argument) and therefore you're arguing the conclusion from that premise. IOW a circular argument based on an unsupported premise.

23. ### amberRegistered Member

Messages:
323
You say no, counting slow would not affect time, yet we say when the detector in the Caesium clock counts slow, it affects time, why?