FYI Physics, 1989 revised version, written by Prof. Richard Weidner of Rutgers University, the author explains how this time dilation equation drawn (page 868): T = To /Ö (1 - v2/c2) 'This is the fundamental time-dilation equation. Keeping straight the meaning of the terms in it is crucial. The time interval To is between two events that occur at the same location and are measured on the clock of an observer at rest at this location; To is termed the proper time (or rest time). On the other hand, T is the time interval between the very same two events but registered on the clock of an observer traveling at the speed of v relative to the location at which the two events take place (and who therefore sees the two events take place at different locations in his reference frame). Of course, the clocks of the two observers when compared at rest with respect to one another give identical readings.' Relativity written by Prof. Gerald Tauber in 1988, the author also used the same experiment with two identical clocks of light pulse to explain that clocks appear to run slow. He wrote: 'Two such clocks are constructed. One is kept on the ground, and the second is mounted in a fast-moving airplane or spacecraft. Both the observer on the ground and the pilot will obtain the same readings on their particular clocks. However, as seen from the ground, the path of the light in the moving clock -- the one in the plane -- will describe a zigzag (figure added). It is longer than the path of the stationary clock, because the airplane is moving horizontally. Since the speed of light is the same for both, the time between ticks of the moving clock is longer -- the clock has slowed down. Exactly the same argument applies to the pilot of the spacecraft. To him the light pulse of the clock on the ground follows a zigzag path (but in the opposite direction). The clock has slowed down. The effect is mutual. Every observer finds that clocks in motion relative to him or her tick more slowly.' Fearful Symmetry written by Prof. Anthony Zee in 1986, talking about Einstein's time and space, he wrote: 'Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, Einstein's theory does not offer a path to longevity. The lifetime of the train passenger is measured as longer by the station clock, but the lifetime experienced by the passenger, that is, as measured by the clock in the train, remains the same. In fact, since the very notion of relativity insists that neither the passenger nor the stationmaster has a status more special than the other, the lifetime of the stationmaster is also observed by the passenger as longer. Each perceives the other as having lived longer!' Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe will make you a genius.
Isnt there some way that the 3 clock rate situation can be simulated/measured physically on earth, for instance, by using pulsed laserbeams of different wavelengths (read different velocity) shooting at targets, these tagets record the pulse (counter) AND also provide the local clock by loopback; when the target is hit, the laser is triggered again (otherwise, if the 3 lasers where pulsed by chrystalclocks outside the laserbeams, all three would have the same common timeframe and that is not what we want we want local velocity dependant clocks). The counters recordings are fed to a computer where a program runs that also handles the flagraising to be received in correct/synchronised order...
Vortexx, I am trying to follow your experiment. Where is the relative velocity between clocks? The way I read this is a measure of timing delays only? What am I missing. I see different lasers being used but that changes the energy of the beam not the velocity of the beam. Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe will make you a genius.
Re: FYI MacM: I said: <i>The local times of different observers are different, so each has his own reality.</i> You replied: <i>So then you agree that time dilation is perception and not reality?</i> Read what I wrote again. I said each observer has his own <b>reality</b>. Your problem is that you assume there is only one True reference frame, which is why you're stuck at square one with relativity. Regarding your quotes: I agree. Again, this is correct. This is correct, but only up to a point. The passenger and the stationmaster both agree that the passenger is younger once the train finishes its journey and stops at the station. There is no paradox here. What is Prof. Anthony Zee a professor of, exactly?
James R., ANS: You can't have it both ways. Either my view of your clock is reality and your clock must conform or my view of your clock is Percention and your clock will continue to do its own thing at its own local rate. The latter is the way it works, hence time dilation is perception not reality. I'm not stuck at all. You seem to have an adversion to acknowledging the true meaning of perception vs reality. Apparently to you perception means Relativity is invalid, therefore you can't acknowledge the fact that the reality is time dilation is perception. Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe will make you a genius.
James R., We actually seem to have finally reached agreement as to what happens to clocks in motion. There remains a matter of symantics as to what one calls "Reality" and one calls "Perception". You seem to be content to claim the perception I hold of your clock as being my "Reality". I have no real problem with that except I think it obviscates the truth a bit since my view doesn't alter your clock I think it better to simply call a spade a spade and say it is "Perception" but that is not an issue worth argueing about. I would like to advance this discussion to the next level. That is the fact that "Perception" or "Reality" don't alter the fact that there is no evidence that "Clock Dilation" means "Time Dilation". Clocks do not measure time. They are processes and while the process may change with velocity, acceleration, gravity, etc., that in no way shows that time changed. That is to say we may well find (and this is my personal view) that having made a short trip (i.e. 1 hour) at relavistic speed in space and return expecting to see the next century on earth that all I did was miss lunch with my twin brother, who is still at the same relative age as I and that our clocks don't agree by a few minutes. That is there is no evidence that the biological process (aging) is subject to the same process changes for clocks. Once again I re-introduce the concept of clocks and time dilation. "If I fill a pan, with graduation marks on its side, with water and call the evaporation rate of water from the pan a clock". You can see that heating the pan (altering the process) appears to alter time but in actuality we know that time was unaffected, we merely changed our process of measurement and time did not change. Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe will make you a genius.
MacM: <i>You can't have it both ways. Either my view of your clock is reality and your clock must conform or my view of your clock is Percention and your clock will continue to do its own thing at its own local rate.</i> Your view of my clock is your reality. My view of my clock is my reality. <i>Apparently to you perception means Relativity is invalid, therefore you can't acknowledge the fact that the reality is time dilation is perception.</i> I'm quite happy to agree that perception is reality. Fine. <i>You seem to be content to claim the perception I hold of your clock as being my "Reality". I have no real problem with that except I think it obviscates the truth a bit since my view doesn't alter your clock...</i> But your view <b>does</b> alter my clock, for you. <i>I would like to advance this discussion to the next level. That is the fact that "Perception" or "Reality" don't alter the fact that there is no evidence that "Clock Dilation" means "Time Dilation".</i> Einstein's derivation of time dilation does not rely on any particular mechanism (clock, biological, etc.). It is completely general. <i>Clocks do not measure time.</i> If they measure anything at all, they measure time. <i>That is to say we may well find (and this is my personal view) that having made a short trip (i.e. 1 hour) at relavistic speed in space and return expecting to see the next century on earth that all I did was miss lunch with my twin brother, who is still at the same relative age as I and that our clocks don't agree by a few minutes.</i> Not if Einstein was correct. And all evidence so far indicates he was. <i>That is there is no evidence that the biological process (aging) is subject to the same process changes for clocks.</i> Einstein's derivation of time dilation does not rely on any particular mechanism (clock, biological, etc.). It is completely general. <i>"If I fill a pan, with graduation marks on its side, with water and call the evaporation rate of water from the pan a clock".</i> Sure, you can do that. In a sense, it is a clock - just not a very accurate one. <i>You can see that heating the pan (altering the process) appears to alter time but in actuality we know that time was unaffected, we merely changed our process of measurement and time did not change.</i> How do you know time did not change? If you can answer that question, you'll understand why your pan is a lousy clock. Think about it.
I Like It James R., Ans: Finally I think we are on the same page. ANS: But that has always been the bone of contention. What is physical reality is the actual clock and its physical reading. What I think your clock will say is nothing more than my perception of your clock. But I think we are in good agreement here. You just want to call my perception reality, I disagree with that interpretation. Since it is only my reality until I come face to face with your clock under controlled conditions and I find what I thought your clock was doing it really wasn't. ANS: I agree. But the point is it has only been tested on clocks. ANS: No, they display increments of a process in time. When a clocks battery gets weak it loses time. That is because its process changes. When the battery is dead, time doesn't stop. Time (if it exists at all) continues to run unaffected by the pulse rate of a clock process. ANS: I agree. But at least I now have you using correct terminology "IF". ANS: I am afraid we agree.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But I even have to add that even should it be found that biological process are also altered by motion or gravity, etc., that doesn't show time has been altered. If time exists I see it as the universal standard and all that has been accomplished is another way to change aging, not in the final analysis any different than taking anti-oxidants to prolong life. Now I will have to qualify that it would be a major finding and would provide a way for one to experience life well after the time he should otherwise have demised but that still doesn't mean time itself was altered. I don't know if you follow the distinction or not, it is a technical one in this case but one I think is important none the less. ANS: That is why I use it. It makes the point quite wellPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ANS: I know why my pan is a lousy clock. That is why I use it to make my point. If you think my pan-clock is man's first time machine then you are to gullible. hmmmmm. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Thanks for your participation. I do think 3 Clocks went better this time. I actually got to the point I have been wanting to reach with it. Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe will make you a genius.
"Thanks for your participation. I do think 3 Clocks went better this time. I actually got to the point I have been wanting to reach with it." ... that point being ? You're still using one absolute "truth" behind it all, which is still in contradiction with relativity. Bye! Crisp
In post by MacM: quote:MAc - I would like to advance this discussion to the next level. That is the fact that "Perception" or "Reality" don't alter the fact that there is no evidence that "Clock Dilation" means "Time Dilation". James - Einstein's derivation of time dilation does not rely on any particular mechanism (clock, biological, etc.). It is completely general. ANS: I agree. But the point is it has only been tested on clocks. ======================================== Mac, I think this statement is where your conclusions about time dilation as proposed by SR are derived from. I agree that the Hafele & Keating two clock experiment may have been inconclusive due to errors, but there is much other evidence that supports time dilation that is not as easily dismissed. Surely you are aware of the results of particle accelerator experiments, decay rates of particles entering the earth's atmosphere and other experiments supporting time dilation?
2Inquisitive, Yes. But they too are all processes. These individual processes can change but the universal standard of time would still be marching on unaffected. Decay rates of elements is statistics. That is after "x" number of internal cycles (hertz) it will eject some form of radiation or change in energy state. These internal cycles are the same process that is taken advantage of in atomic clocks. Energy input (accleration, etc) affect the dynamics of the electron and the atomic frequency but that doesn't mean time changed. You change the energy equilibrium in any process and the process changes but you have not changed time by doing so. Another way of looking at this is "What is frequency?" Frequency is motion within a time period. It is not time itself. Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe will make you a genius.
This is just funny.... Yes. But they too are all processes. These individual processes can change but the universal standard of time would still be marching on unaffected. So what exactly is the 'universal standard of time'? Considering that processes ignore it anyway, and thats the only thing we use time for, or ever will. We would never know what the 'universal standard' was, because by your definition it is completely invisible and doesn't affect anything. I could just as easily say that clock A's view of time is the universal standard, and everybody else's processes are changing. Your comment doesn't actually say anything.
Persol, All I can add is that you would do well to not only stop skimming and read but also think. Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe will make you a genius.
Persol, Since you insist. ANS: Assuming it exists (and I don't) it affects everything. Your conclusion that my presentation has it affect nothing just shows you don't follow the logic. Evidence actually suggests to me that time is a property of space and energy and not an enity in of itself such as a 4th dimension. Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe will make you a genius.
Originally posted by MacM Assuming it exists (and I don't) it affects everything. Such as? Your conclusion that my presentation has it affect nothing just shows you don't follow the logic. Then list something it would affect.
MacM: You claim that all changes in rates seen in relativity are actually changes in process rather than changes in time itself. Ok. Let's take a specific example - the well-known observation of muon decay rates. Muons come from outer space. In particle accelerators and the like, they are observed to have a specific half-life. This half-life is too short for any muons to reach from the limits of our atmosphere to the ground. And yet, we detect muons from space on the ground (I've actually done this myself, experimentally). Please explain what it is which changes the observed muon half-life, if not relativistic time dilation. In other words, do you have <b>any</b> alternative explanation in terms of physical processes relating to the decay which explains the observations? Or is your point of view nothing more than wishing it were so?
Persol, You might find it educational to actually try to envision some new concepts rather than try to make it appear there is something wrong with them. That is because when an idea is right it is more difficult to punch holes in. ANS: Lets see. Lets try if it exists as a seperate enity (4th dimension) you could not have motion without passage of time. Without motion you could have no energetic particles (such as quarks and gluons) and even if they existed they couldn't move hence creation would be timeless and there would be no events hence no concept of time. Therefore here is the list: 1 - Everything. Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe will make you a genius.
James R., I'm not vouching for the following link but it appears to address your question. And to say the least something like this could well be the answer. http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/EINSTEIN/Chapter2.html#Section2 Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe will make you a genius.
