Gravitational Time Dilation

That an absolute frame also defines a relative one is a triviality - "absolute" means relative to the absolute object in question, in this case absolute space.

If you think that the CMBR frame cannot be an absolute frame, please provide the evidence. That it is defined as a relative object - relative to the the matter configuration which has emitted this radiation - is a triviality I'm of course aware of. That's why I have underscored that some additional hypothesis is necessary to identify the absolute frame of my theory whith this relative frame.

Indeed. This is what is usually named "biological clock". About uselessness - dito for your comments.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Whoa, really? I mean come on, really?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Never heard of biological clocks? Any problem with this?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Schmelzer

When you use the word "preferred", it seems your intent that it is interchangeable with the word, "absolute"?

Most of the debate here seems fixated on the difference in the way time is thought of in GR, which is relative to one's frame of reference and the use of imperfect clocks.., and an idealized absolute background time. While there may be some absolute time in the background, I don't see that you have provided any conclusive evidence that we can reliably access.., or measure it, from any relative frame of reference.

A valid argument can be made that the clocks we use, which include everything from time pieces to muon decay, represent rates of change that are frame of reference dependent... We use imperfect clocks! Relativity adopts the position that how we measure and experience time is dependent on just this and provides the means to transform, both space and time coordinates, between frames of reference. However, the idea or contention that everything sharing a changing frame of reference, experiences an identical rate of internal change, is not supported by experience or experiment. Where location in a gravity well is concerned, there are many other environmental variables, not all of which affect all rates of change equally. We very often in discussions like this, extend our understanding of time dilation, universally without consideration for how environmental aspects aside from location in a gravity well might affect different "clocks" differently (The word "clocks" here is meant to include everything from standard clocks to biological systems.). None of this invalidates relativity, since we don't use different clocks, when comparing time between frames.., and our transformation of coordinates always assumes, the use of identical clocks and rulers, across frames, not ideal, but identical. So one could say that our concept of time in physics, is relative to not only to our frame of reference, but also the specific identical clocks being used.., across the frames being compared.

It seems that you are suggesting that the CMBR represents the basis for an absolute or preferred frame of reference.., for both time and a spacial coordinate system? The problem there is that it assumes that the CMBR appears uniform to us because it originates from a preferred and absolute frame.., and neglects that the uniformity might be the result of the locally constant speed of light... IOW because the speed of light is locally uniform, unless our frame of reference is unique and special, the CMBR should appear uniform, whether it originates from an intertial, accelerating or preferred and absolute frame... the fact that the CMBR is defined by an EM background and thus the speed of light.., it should as observed by any inertial observer, seem to suggest that any coordinate system an inertial observer were to associate with the CMBR must also be relative, rather than absolute... The speed of light itself is locally relative.

All of this to say, I don't see that you have presented any reason to expect that the CMBR represents an absolute or even just preferred frame of reference. Nor any reason or evidence to support your contention we can identify any absolute or preferred frame, whether one exists or not.

 

Actually, would not the burden of proof be on you? It is you that are suggesting an alternate perspective and absolute frame of reference.

 

Schmelzer

It is sounding more and more as if you are presenting conclusions based on assumptions that you have not identified.

You cannot expect others to just accept your assertions, without presenting the assumptions they are based on.

 

Hm, you have to be more specific.

In my ether theory http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205035 I make assumptions, very explicit. These are the axioms of this particular theory. They are well identified. It includes, of course, the existence of an absolute (Euclidean) space and time. The assumption which is necessary to connect the CMBR frame with the absolute frame I have made, explicitly, too: The hypothesis that the universe is globally in an approximately homogeneous and isotropic state - in the preferred Euclidean coordinates of absolute space, of course.

Where I argue for the motivation of such a theory, I use what I need for the specific argument. For example, if I use the violations of Bell's inequality, I specify that I need causality (in a strong enough version, with Reichenbach's common cause), realism, and that quantum theory holds.

Not in this case, I was answering a rigid "it is not" without justification. (At best with the invalid justification that that it is a relative frame, invalid because every absolute frame is also relative.)

 

Massive problems.
The issue is that you are essentially saying that everything that can mark the passage of time is a clock. The clocks can be a watch, the vibration of an atom, the decay rate of Co60, the rate at which a person ages, etc., etc. So even though in a different inertial frame ALL OF THESE 'clocks' show a different rate of passage of time you maintain that it just is that all of these clocks are slowing and not the passage of time.
So if everything, I mean everything, measures a slowing of the passage of time for a given reference frame; how is that different than time slowing?

It is akin to me heating a piece of steel to red hot and saying sure a thermometer indicates it is hot, it catches things on fire and it will give a 3rd degree burn if I touch it, but it isn't REALLY hot it is just that everything measures it as being hot.

 

"Time" is what I have described is, by definition, always the same if we meet each other at the same place. A clock is an ideal clock only if it measures this notion of time, that means, if, after calibration at a first meeting, two clocks of this type will show the same time at every meeting. Everything else is not an ideal clock, but distorted.

Given this prerequisite, it is difficult to make sense of a notion of "time dilation". Instead, clock time dilation is completely meaningful.

I would suggest to imagine a toyworld where the effect of purely gravitational time dilation is much stronger but the velocity dependence plays no role. So, you make a phone call into another town and can heeeaaarrr thaaaat the "time" for the other guys there goes much slower. Would people in such a word use only one notion of "time" like we? Or would they distinguish the notion of "time" we use if we organize a meeting somewhere (which requires some sort of coordinate time, but, given that velocity restriction plays no role, can be global without problems) and another one for what clocks show (clock time, which would be obviously dilated)?

 

So you have been arguing this for over a decade? Well in that case good luck with your continued pursuits, I certainly am not going to 'beat my head against the wall'.

 

Schmelzer, you cannot expect anyone to accept assumptions not made or referenced in a discussion, unless they have previously acknowledged, knowledge of the source. This is the first time you have referenced the paper above, on this forum.., and you have made earlier reference to further assumptions not stated in the discussion...

That said and not having read the paper.., I see no problem accepting, "that the universe is globally in an approximately homogeneous and isotropic state", since that is how it appears from our relative frame of reference! All it seems you are saying is that the universe would appear the same from any inertial frame or any absolute frame. An assertion that cannot be tested, but from what we know is not on the face of it an unreasonable assumption.

While you may provide assumptions necessary to your conclusions in the paper referenced, you have not done so in this discussion, except by reference just now, if on review, those involved in this discussion agree, that your paper supports your conclusions, your case might be made, but that is not a situation that has occurred, at present... Thus the burden remains with the minority position.

Beyond that, assuming that an absolute Euclidean space and time exists, is not the same as proving the same to be practically accessible, to anyone confined to a relativistic space and time. As I attempted to address earlier, just claiming the CMBR represents an absolute frame of reference is not good enough.

The above does not make sense. When you speak of an absolute frame of reference, it implies a single background frame, within which relative frames exist. Saying that, "every absolute frame is also relative", implies multiple absolute frames? Saying essentially that every relative frame has an associated absolute frame, seems to me nosensical, without extraordinary supporting evidence.

Below is a somewhat expanded quote of your earlier comment.

You are assuming an absolute space (coordinate system I assume? ), not providing evidence or argument supporting a useable absolute coordinate system associated with an absolute space... And the assumption almost assumes that space itself is an object. Even in GR space itself is not and object while spacetime, is often treated as an independent object, it is essentially an abstract composite description of the geometry of a gravitational field.

And again.., I assert that, when you say, "If you think that the CMBR frame cannot be an absolute frame, please provide the evidence.", you are transferring an inherent burden of proof. You are asserting that the CMBR is an absolute frame of reference and thus the burden of proof or at least the burden of a convincing argument is yours. Those you are debating the issue with are maintaining a more majority mainstream position.

And then you close with, "That's why I have underscored that some additional hypothesis is necessary to identify the absolute frame of my theory whith this relative frame.", which specifically and directly states that there are either hidden or undiscovered hypothesis and/or assumptions necessisary to make your case.

 

I would not say that there is such an intend. I think there is not that much essential difference. But, as far as there are differences, I try to use the notion which is most adequate. For example, I can use violations of Bell's inequality to argue for a preferred foliation, but different functions T(x) can define the same notion of causality, and the violation of BI gives nothing to distinguish them.

The CMBR frame is good enough for this.

Yep, but it is worth to note that there is no necessity at all for such exercises. Every system of coordinates is sufficient to describe all physics. Inclusive all different observers. People learning relativity are confused by bad teaching and often think that there is some necessity to do all the time some transformations from frame to frame. Not at all. You can do all the physics correctly in one frame. Before 1905, nobody has known about the Lorentz transformations, but there was already a relativistic theory in use: Maxwell's EM theory. So, all the computations for Maxwell's theory have been made, I would guess, in Newtonian absolute time. Any problem because of this? None at all.

I have no problem at all with such a notion of clock time.

It should be simply distinguished from time, once we appear in a world where this clock time does not measure the time we have to agree upon to meet at a certain place.

If this would be a problem, it would show up as a problem in my theory. It doesn't - or at least I'm not aware of that.

The definition of the CMBR frame does not depend on this - the point is that light from different directions comes with different frequencies. But assuming some Doppler shift allows to make it isotropic in the frequency. For one particular velocity only.

The reason is the assumption that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic in my theory - which means, obviously, homogeneous and isotropic in the preferred coordinates of my theory.
The evidence is that for the CMBR radiation as we observe it - as described in the GR language - we can define the preferred coordinates of my theory in such a way that this radiation appears, to a high degree, as isotropic and homogeneous. This is a very interesting fact, far from being trivial. For a GR solution with nonzero spatial curvature this would have been impossible. That there exists one particular velocity which makes it isotropic is also a highly nontrivial observational fact.

Of course, the mathematics to identify this very nontrivial fact have been, fortunately for me, quite easy. This is because the coordinates in which the CMBR and the expanding universe and so on are presented in GR are, for the spatially flat universe, \(ds^2=d\tau^2 - a^2(\tau)(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2)\), which is nice because the coordinates x, y, and z already fulfill, independent of a(t), the equations of my theory for preferred coordinates. It remains to find the absolute time, and this is not difficult too, because the ansatz t=t(\tau) is sufficient to give a solution: The metric \(ds^2=a(t)^6 dt^2 - a^2(t)(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2)\) fulfills all the additional equations for preferred coordinates.

 

So what? So time as well as space are non absolute, and the flow and measure of them depends on ones frame of reference.
All common knowledge which you seem to somehow be misconstruing to align with your own wholly theoretical thoughts and papers.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That's pure fabricated nonsense to align with your unproven highly speculative scenario.
Clocks measure the passage of time: The passage of time depends on ones frame of reference, comparitive speed, and the gravitational well that each frame of reference has.
That is the current accepted model of time dilation and length contraction, that are mathematically consistent and in the case of time dilation is proven
The ideology in fact rests with your highly speculative theoretical application, with no observational evidence to support it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yep, if we meet each other, we certainly meet at the same time and the same place...so? But if I decide to take a trip at 99.999%c into the universe and return 12 months later, I will find you long dead and buried and an Earth 230 years in the future. If you could survive the ravages of time, and we did meet, again we would be meeting at the same time, but I will be one year older, while you would be 230 years older.
That's specifically what time dilation is.....that is specifically why time is non absolute...that's specifically why time is real, and why theoretically speaking, time travel is possible and allowed for by the laws of physics and GR

Agreed, and it also reinforces what I said just up there. We may meet at the same time [common sense prevails] but time has been passing at different rates, which means time is a variable depending on speed and gravity.

No, accelerations define who has been travelling and the asymmetry between the twins.

 

That's nice.
It still doesn't prove the facts that time and space are variable, and time dilation is what it is and what most commonly understand time dilation to be.
If you believe you have any hard evidence [other than pure theoretical unsupported concepts] to validate anything you have been saying, why are you actually here? I mean fair dinkum, If I was to have created some model that proved relativity wrong, or any aspect of either SR or GR to be wrong, I would be pounding on the doors of academia, shouting it from the roof tops, and standing in line for this years Nobel.

 

Schmelzer,

Nothing can be closer to reality of 'Time' than this statement of yours !! Well Said !

Einstein Time is not what we perceive of the time, it distinctly involves multiple frames and observation which is dependent on signal and processing . The passage of time is independent of all these, so it got be absolute and same everywhere.

If you think, you can win this argument here on this forum, then you are mistaken, this argument cannot be won as on date on any of the platforms....It will take some time.........absolute time.

 

Pt#1,2, & 3 are given by Paddoboy in support of Time Dilation and Pt#4 cropped up in discussion...


Time Dilation : Is a serious SR/GR part, which has a hot history of arguments from both the sides...But all the arguments against relativity are so far stonewalled, so as on date it stands.....Some of the already raised objections are placed below...


Evidence for time Dilation:

[1]Atomic clocks on planes move slower then clocks on the ground:

Data Fudged !!

[2]Clocks on orbiting Satellited move slower:

No proof, and problem exaggerated, GPS calculations are required to take into account various signaling transmission issues....just does not prove the dilation.........There is no atomic clock on the receiver.

[3] Cosmic particles known as Muons are observed to decay slower then expected:

Cyclic Proof, kind of proving the assumption. The speed of Muons is calculated from relativistic Energy Formula, which as per the formula and as per relativity cannot come out be >c.

[4] Twin Paradox

So many questions are raised on this due to unanswered major question, which clock slows down and why ? The argument about inertial and non inertial frame is also countered, so this Twin time Dilation is also in sticky situation..


My Stand : No Time Dilation, and use of term time in equations, is not same as use of word time by general people. Both are contextually different animals. Yes observational delays could be there due to finite speed of light...

 

No, he is demonstrably wrong if you are inferring time and/or space are absolute.
We have irrefutable evidence that they are not.
You, as usual only have your say so.

 

So now we are indulging in conspiracy theories just to try and maintain some credibility.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You really are a joke Rajesh.
Let me tell you again, we have much evidence for the BB and time dilation, despite your lies and petty conspiracy claims.
[1]Clocks on orbiting satellites move slower
[2] Atomic clocks on planes move slower
[3] Michelson-Morley experiment
[4] Muon particles decay more slowly while falling

All done many thousands of times.
And with your as usual childish comments about winning arguments......
This is again where you are confused Rajesh. This forum is simply a sounding platform to discuss mainstream science in this section and reasonable speculative ideas...with sections for alternative stuff politics and much nonsensical discussions such as Ghosts, goblins etc.
Winning or losing here means SFA!
If you and/or Schmelzer, need to push any concept invalidating accepted mainstream cosmology, you need to submit a scientific paper through reputable publishing companies, have evidence to support the idea, or evidence invalidating the incumbent model. What you have is a baseless impossible scenario, and what Schmelzer has, is purely speculative, theoretical aspects of certain scenarios. He has admitted that.

 

There are multitude of questions around relativity.....with no proper answer...so, read on...


When "A" asks question about some theory, then

The question, response and acceptance or denial of response involves..

1. The merit and the relevance of the question to the theory.
2. The competence of the person who responds as an expert.
3. The veracity and the exactness of the response.
4. Acceptance or denial of the response.

If the Pt#3 is well taken care of, then Pt#4 is irrelevant, but who decides that pt#3 is well taken care of ?

 

1. The merit and the relevance of the question to the theory.
You do not have the expertise to question anyone, let alone Professors
2. The competence of the person who responds as an expert.
So you now are questioning the competence of all those professors who have shown you to be wrong, from your own position of ignorance and non expertise?
3. The veracity and the exactness of the response.
Especially when all responses have derided your nonsense

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

4. Acceptance or denial of the response.
Answered in the first three.


Try again

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!