From: rbwinn3@gmail.com   
      
   One of the problems of science today is misconception of time,   
   presenting time as a sort of force that contracts lengths, curves space,   
   and distorts mathematics.  Time is not a force.  It is a measurement of   
   events.  So let us consider time as shown by the Galilean transformation   
   equations.   
   x'=x-vt   
   y'=y   
   z'=z   
   t'=t   
   The problem scientists have with the Galilean transformation equations   
   is the last equation, t'=t, because they do not see it as providing for   
   the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment.  The disagreement with   
   these equations can be shown by the example of a clock in a flying   
   airplane.  Einstein says in his Special Theory that the time of that   
   clock would be slower than the time of a clock on the ground.   
   Scientists then experimented with clocks in airplanes and found that   
   they did indeed have slower rates than a clock on the ground.  Then   
   Hafele and Keating experimented with cesium clocks flown on   
   transcontinental jet flights and said that their experiment had shown   
   that if an airplane flew around the earth one way, the clocks would be   
   slower, but if flown around the earth the other way, the clocks would be   
   faster.  They attributed the slower clocks to the effects of Special   
   Relativity and the faster clocks to the effects of General Relativity.   
   Then GPS satellites were put in orbit, and a clock in a GPS satellite is   
   faster than a clock on earth, and scientists once again found a way to   
   determine the time of a GPS satellite clock by combining the perceived   
   effects of Special and General Relativity.  But it would appear that   
   there is a simpler way to describe all of these times.  Just because   
   Isaac Newton described time in his theory of gravitation as being   
   absolute does not mean he could not have worked the problem Einstein   
   claimed to have solved with the Lorentz equations.  My own opinion is   
   that Newton was a good enough mathematician that he would have   
   considered the problem a different way and worked it with the   
   transformation equations he always used, the Galilean transformation   
   equations.  There have always been faster and slower clocks.  Scientists   
   of the times of Galileo and Newton did not have any problem representing   
   these times with the Galilean transformation equations.  If a clock or   
   any other rate of time was faster or slower than the rate of a clock   
   that agreed with the rotation of the earth, which was considered the   
   standard of time when those scientists were alive, represented by the   
   equation t'=t, then those scientists would have just shown another set   
   of Galilean transformation equations with different variables for   
   velocity and time.  So to represent the time of a clock in an airplane,   
   the inverse Galilean transformation equations would be   
   x = x' - (-vt/n')n'   
   y = y'   
   z = z'   
   n = n'   
   n' is the time of the faster or slower clock in the airplane, (-vt/n')   
   is the velocity of the ground relative to the airplane.  and n=n' shows   
   that the time of the clock that shows n' is being used in both frames of   
   reference.  So now we can show the results of the Michelson-Morley   
   experiment using the Galilean transformation equations.  All we have to   
   do is to say that x=ct and x'=cn' instead of saying that x=ct and x'=ct'   
   the way Lorentz and Einstein did.   Then according to the Galilean   
   transformation equations   
   x'=x-vt   
   cn' = ct-vt   
   n' = t-vt\c   
   This value for n' is actually the same as the numerator for Lorentz's equation   
   for t'.   
   t-vt/c = t-vct/c^2 = t-vx/c^2   
   However, there is no need for the x in this expression in the Galilean   
   transformation equations because there is no length contraction.  The   
   spatial coordinates are the same in both sets of equations.  To show   
   this, we just cancel out the (n')'s in the inverse equations, and we   
   have our original Galilean transformation equations.   
   x = x' - (-vt/n')n'   
   x = x' + vt   
   t = t'   
   To show how this relates to gravitation, we consider the orbits of the   
   planets in our solar system.  Mercury is the planet that is orbiting the   
   fastest, being the closest to the sun, its velocity being 30 miles per   
   second.  A clock on Mercury would be slower than a clock on earth   
   because earth has a slower velocity in its orbit, 20 miles per second.   
   But what scientists do not seem to have realized is that if we compute   
   n' for the time on Mercury, we are not computing it from time on earth.   
   Earth is the third planet from the sun, and there would be an n' for   
   earth's clock derived from a clock that shows t that applies to all   
   planets, asteroids, etc., in the solar system.  To imagine this common   
   clock, we go out through the planets, each having a faster clock than   
   the planets closer to the sun, until we run out of planets and other   
   things that are orbiting the sun.  Then we are at a point, say halfway   
   to the nearest star, where the gravitation of the sun is of no effect,   
   and a clock at that point is faster than a clock on any planet in our   
   solar system.  If we say that the time of that clock is t, then we can   
   calculate the time of a clock on any planet by the Galilean   
   transformation equations if the velocity of the planet is shown as v   
   according to the time of the clock halfway to the nearest star.  So then   
   the speed of earth in its orbit would not be v, but (vt/n'), where v is   
   the velocity of earth's orbit computed from the outer space clock, t is   
   the time of the outer space clock, and n' is the time of a GPS clock on   
   earth.  I hope this description of time can help scientists visualize   
   how time relates to motion and gravitation.   
   Robert B. Winn   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)