Gravitational Time Dilation

But as someone said earlier, arguing on this will not help till both the sides fully understand what they are arguing about and in what context.....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Actually, clocks do measure time. This is getting rather silly.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But it isn't just mechanical clocks...Your biological clocks are affected also.
Time dilation is proven. Clocks do measure time, at least in this Universe.
The clocks show different times because time passes at a different rate.
With the familiar twins paradox [which is not really a paradox at all] the acceleration and decelleration phase of the travelling twin tells all.....
http://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module4_twin_paradox.htm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What of time passes differently ??

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

This is easier to see if time is thought of as a potential; time potential. As an analogy, say we have two similar springs, one that is stretched a distance d and the other stretch to 2d. The potential energy is higher in the second spring. If we release the tension in both springs, the larger stretched spring will move faster and the less stretch spring, slower. In the case of time, faster time references, where time moves faster, have more time potential; stretched spring. At the speed of light, time stops, because the time spring has zero tension. The speed of light has zero time potential.

Since gravity is lowering potential energy, as matter contracts, there is a lowering tension in the time spring, such that time begins to slow. If we go the other way and add potential, by moving outward, from the bottom of the space-time well; we add gravitational potential. The time spring gains potential and times moves faster.

The contemporary conceptual problem is time is treated as an abstract thing, without tangible properties. The theory then starts to manipulate this imaginary time construct. This is not always settling to everyone, because the imagination can make this imaginary platform do anything. This problem is connected to using a relative reference.

But if you look at time as a potential, then something tangible is changing up or down, relative to the only absolute reference, which is the speed of light; t= zero. The speed of light is the same in all references, because this is the universal standard where time potential is zero.

In the case of the acceleration in the twin paradox, we are using a futuristic EM impulse engine. Time potential change is not exclusive to gravity. It is connected to acceleration, which d/t/t or space-time, time. Gravity makes the time potential change easier to see because of the scope of the effect.

 

It is the intention of clocks to measure time.

But if I synchronize two clocks at the same time, do different things with them, and compare them later, may be at another place, but also at the same moment of time, and I see a difference, that means, these particular clocks don't measure time. What is silly with this simple criterion? I would say, the only thing which would be silly would be to insist that above clocks have really, without any error, measured time. The idea that one of them has measured time, the other not, is a normal reaction, then the problem would be to find out which is the wrong one. The idea that above clocks do not measure time, but something different, seems even more reasonable. But the idea that, despite the different results between the same two events, above clocks have measured time correctly is IMHO silly.

 

I know. But so what? That means, the biological clocks are also influenced by gravity. Big insight. Gravity is universal.

Clock time dilation is without doubt. Your insistence to name clock time "time" is pure ideology.

If we meet each other, we are at the same place at the same time. If we meet two times, we are two times at the same place, and at the same time.
Possibly the places of the two meeting are different, but for each of the two meetings the place is the same. And, similarly, the time is the same.

Ok, for the the time between the two meetings may have been very short, for you very long, our clocks show completely different numbers, but this does not mean that we can meet somethere at the same place but at different time. If we appear there at different times we do not meet each other. This is the very meaning of the word "time".

(I agree that the twin paradox is not a paradox at all. But accelerations are irrelevant in this question. Accelerations may be completely identical, but their clock times will be nonetheless very different.)

 

No, it is correct.

To make physical predictions out of a physical theory, you always have to make a lot of additional hypotheses. In this case, I have to make hypotheses which allow to connect absolute space and time of the theory with objects visible in the real world.

 

What is silly is the complete misunderstanding of time. The differences in the clocks is because the time has proceeded at different rates in the difference reference frames. Everything in the reference frames experienced a different rate of time not just the clock.

Observation shows that your opinion is wrong. Experimentation shows that your opinion is wrong. Mathematical derivations show that your opinion is wrong. The fact that you find this concept hard to grasp does not mean that it is wrong, it only means that it is a hard concept for you to grasp.

 

Really? General Relativity, Special Relativity and Newton's theory of gravity did not require ' a lot of additional hypotheses' to make physical predictions.

So if you are so sure that your 'theory' is correct you must already have these 'lot of additional hypotheses'. So what are these additional hypothesis that allow you to boldly state:

There is not much to misunderstand - the fact is that a theory with absolute time exist, and absolute space exists too, and this theory is viable, and compatibility with the empirical evidence is not a problem at all for such a theory.

 

It is your choice to name "time" something completely different from the usual notion of time. I continue to use the standard notion of time, which implies, that if we meet somewhere, we are at the same place at the same time. Completely independent of my personal history, even if this would include my use of time machines or so.

In your, personalized notion of time, it would be meaningless to talk about meeting somewhere "at a time X".

Nothing shows me wrong. That clocks are influenced by gravity, all clocks in the same way, is simple, in no way difficult to grasp, and in agreement with observation, experimentation and mathematics. If you claim that there exists some experiment which falsifies my concept of time, please present it.

 

They do, and that you don't know what standard scientific methodology has to say about this, this is your problem. Read Popper about this.

The theory proves, mathematically, that in a natural limit - applicable almost everywhere - the equations of the theory become the Einstein equations of general relativity.

So, in all those cases, where this limit is applicable, I can simply reuse all the additional hypotheses used by GR, and obtain the same results. In the case where the additional terms may become important, I can use the additional hypotheses used in GR anyway, but have to recompute the equations and may obtain some modified results.

An explicit list of the additional assumptions is neither necessary nor possible. That's why it is usually not included into descriptions of the theory.

 

My notion of time is the same as everyone else who has an education and an understanding of science and physics. Your incorrect notion of time is a narrow view based on your limited personal experiences.

What do you mean by standard notion of time? You have been describing a layman's misunderstanding of time, that is not standard. By the way even the for people who have an understanding of Relativity if you meet someone we can safely conclude you are in the same reference frame so you are 'at the same place at the same time'.

Not surprisingly you do not understand what you are talking about because it is not meaningless to talk about meeting somewhere "at a time X".

Nothing shows me wrong. That clocks are influenced by gravity, all clocks in the same way, is simple, in no way difficult to grasp, and in agreement with observation, experimentation and mathematics. If you claim that there exists some experiment which falsifies my concept of time, please present it.[/QUOTE]
I know that you won't accept this because it goes against your preconceived notions, but here is the evidence you asked for anyway.

Time dilation and muons.

Have a good day. I have work to do (it involves that pesky science!).

 

Then do it! What is the absolute speed of the earth? I already know the RELATIVE speed of the earth. Put up or shut up.

Check back later to see which it is going to be.

 

A, this was your misunderstanding. No problem. the speed relative to the CMBR, which you already know, is the absolute speed.

 

First, people who are really educated about GR rarely use the notion "reference frame", because this is a typical SR notion which plays no role in GR, because it is not well-defined. GR people talk about different systems of coordinates.

Second, they also use freely the notion "at the same time" as I use it, in a case where this can cause misunderstandings they add "at the same coordinate time".

But your talk is inconsistent. Once you accept "at a time X" once used in the same frame, we can go back to the twin "paradox". They start, in the same frame, that means, at the same place at the same time, and synchronize their clocks. They end in another frame, but, again, the same for above twins, thus, again at the same time. But their clocks show something completely different.

Nothing in the experiments which show time dilation for myons goes against any of my notions. I have no problem accepting this evidence. The lifetime of the myon is, indeed, a reasonable clock, thus, has to follow the same rules as all other clocks.

 

The relative speed is the absolute speed? Again your misunderstanding of physics has led you to an incorrect conclusion. I guess you are assuming that CMBR is an absolute frame - it is not. The CMBR is simply a useful RELATIVE reference frame.

 

That's nice. So when one twin ages differently than the other twin we simply call the twins clocks I suppose. Have a nice day, this is clearly useless.

 

hilarious...
according to whom, you, the typical pathetic, uneducated piss-ant internet science hero.(shakes head) ?
if you think you're this intelligent, then why are you only touching simple basic physics ?
why not higher levels, where intelligence is actually need.
but i assume it's because you cannot even conceive this level. your shenanigans prove this.
so please don't mind me and continue to show what a pathetic joke you are.
(shrugs)

 

apples to oranges when entities scale is involved.