# Is time universal? NO (and its proof)

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Billy T, Aug 12, 2005.

1. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Sorry my error.

Moot point. Being born in a system that is already dilated is the same as being on the system when it accelerated and dilated. The tick rate has already been established by the energy change when the acceleration occured. Hell it could be veloicty as a resuslt of the Big Bang, it woudn't matter. It has accelerated some time in the past so as to have a relative velocity.

OK. Are you saying reciprocity is impossible. Yes or No.?

I understadn simultaneity. It is just that simultaneity does not resolve thie issue. Relativists attempt to use it to mask the problem and create confusion but simultaneity shift does not account for any accumulated time dialation upon comparison in a common frame.

It is only time dilation when compared in a common frame that constitutes actual time shift. All else is perception or illusion.

I'll have another read but I doubt your claims have anything to do with actual time dialtion.

Before reading I can tell you just from what you have written that indeed events that ARE simultaneous (i.e. measured from a center point in a common frame) may not APPEAR simultaneous in another frame but that does not make them not simultaneous physically. All physics occur in the local proper time and frame. All else is perception. The perception of not being simultaneous does not change the fact of simultaneity. The fact of simultaniety is a function of the frame they occur in.

There you have made your problem clear. You choose to believe that simultaneity shift due to different frames is physical reality. It isn't.

3. ### Neddy BateValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,590
MacM, I am intruiged by the above idea, which seems to link energy with clock rates.

Suppose two synchronized clocks are at relative rest, and ClockA remains at rest but ClockB is briefly accelerated into uniform translational motion. You seem to be saying that ClockB, which underwent acceleration, would have its tick rate permanently slowed relative to ClockA, and that there is no reciprocity involved.

I appreciate that this concept is outside of the mainstream interpretation of SR. However, does it really solve all of the problems with SR outlined previously? The purpose of this post will be to see how this altered explanation stands up tot he same types of scrutiny that I have been heaping upon the mainstream SR concepts.
The above requires that some acceleration must have acted upon the two clocks so that they are now joined in the same reference frame again. Let us consider two different possibilities as to what might have occurred:
1. Either the acceleration was applied to the ClockA in the same direction as it had originally applied to ClockB, or
2. The acceleration was applied to the ClockB again, but this time in the opposite direction
In case 1, the exact same acceleration which previously caused a slower tick rate, simply causes a slower tick rate again. This brings the clocks back to the same rate, but out of synch due to the missing time on the dilated ClockB.

In case 2, the exact same magnitude of acceleration which previously caused a slower tick rate, in this case, becomes a faster tick rate. I assume this is because of the direction of the vector, but it is curious nonetheless. If a third clock were at rest in the reference frame that ClockB has just accelerated away from, it would have to conclude that clock rates speed up in this direction and slow down in the opposite direction.

To your credit, (disregarding the above problem), you seem to have nicely done away with a different problem: In SR the tick rate changes independant to the acceleration. In your physics, the magnitude of the acceleration is always directly proportional to the change in clock rate.

None of these theories seem adequate to me, but I do so enjoy investigating them. Soon, I hope to consider QQ's zero dimension universe. There might be something in that after all... :m:

5. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
That is correct. And that is the only thing ever recorded emperically in 100 years of relativity.

I fail to see any connection between the accelerating clock and the one remaining at rest.

The actual mechanics of how this works is not clear however, the fact that it is so is supported by all testing ever done. What needs to happen is to conduct much more specific testing in an effort to identify the actual function.

What is clear is that there is no reciprocity (as it should be) .

7. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Billy T,

I have read the introduction portion of your opening thread and I believe I can now comment in such a fashion to have it make sense to you.

If the train were at rest to the embankment and it was 1,000 persons long. Then when the bombs go off they would kill two specific persons #1 & #1,000.

When the train is put in motion since the light and bombs are all in the trains frame the bombs still explode simultaneously and depending on its velocity when the light is flashed it will still detonate the bombs simultaneously and it will kill just two persons 999 persons apart (i.e. - #7,001 and #8,000.

Now depending on the observers position (and/or velocity) relative to the train remote observers would see light differently. But this has to do with a mis-intepretation of the physics behind the invariance of light and is proven by the fact that regardless of your postion or velocity the same two people are always killed.

Any observer can return to the rest frame and see that it was always the same two people that get killed regardless of postion or velocity of the observer during the test.

That is your perception of the events do not alter the events. They still have to be simultaneous or different people get killed and the range would not remain 999# person spread.

As I have tried to explain to people here numerous times the invariance of light is because you are not viewing the same photon and the actual affect does not result in the physics of relativity.

Hope this simple fact of basic physics makes you realize the falicy of SRT based on a misconception regarding the invariance of light.

Last edited: Aug 31, 2005
8. ### AerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,250
The relativity of simultaneity as described in SR is not a perception issue. Whatever you seem to be describing with "common rest frame" is not SR physics.

The concept of time linked with energy is not new. In fact it seems to be at the heart of the local ether model of wave propagation. However if time is linked with energy, then it cannot be linked with space - so one would have to do away with "spacetime".

I've always had a similar problem with length contraction for this reason, it makes warfare very difficult :m:

9. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Correct and what I am showing is that the SR view is BS.

That would be nice. Then maybe we could move forward once more not hampered by a lot of impossible BS.

:bugeye:

10. ### Billy TUse Sugar Cane Alcohol car FuelValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,198
I assume you start with them in the same inertial frame, but have them born far apart. If yes, you can have clocks that keep time in that frame and are synchronized in it, so with frozen embrios and foster mothers this seem possible.

This is very thought provoking . A good twist to the standard scenario. You are correct - it doesn't not matter which accelerates, and if we assume by prearrangement, both do exactly the same brielf intense accelleration towards the other on their 15th birthday, at noon, it is really tough to understand. I believe that each now in different frames with motion wrt the other will age, relative to the other, more slowly. That is, if 15 years later (each in his own frame) they are both 30 (but not at the same time) and simultaneously (in their frame's concept of what is simultaneous) on their 30th birthday the their brother is only 25.

The "rub" comes if they photograph each other, only meters apart, when they pass, perhaps, just to make it more difficult to understand, by a common flash bulb that was located in their common original frame, midway between their launch sites. Frankly I don't know how to rspond. I will need help from James R or Pete, both of who understand SRT better than I do. Your mod of my post, with my suggestions here to make it even tougher is a much stronger challenge to SRT "gospel" than MacM's "reciprocity", at least as he presents it. Sorry I can't explain what they photgraph when passing. I.e if they have their 30 birthday cake in fornt of them at the moment of passing, how can the photo only show 25 candels? I am at a loss to understand. Congratulations to us both for cooking up a real hard problem for SRT.

I am not responding to rest of your post as I did not understand it especially the age difference "just before accelerating" - they were in the same "birth frame" just far apart were they not?

11. ### AerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,250
It does matter who accelerates. If they both accelerate equally as you just described, then when they pass each other to take a photograph, they will appear the same age in the photographs.

12. ### Billy TUse Sugar Cane Alcohol car FuelValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,198
Nicely done Neddy. MacM is wrong in thinking that the acceleration is the cause of time dialation. As I havre noted the accleration can be less thana second in any frame, but you proof that it speeds clocks up if 180 degrees from the "clock slow down" direction is better. I assume MacM thinks that acceleration applied 90 degrees from these two directions produces neither spped upp not slow down - Do you MacM? Do you see Neddy's argument? Are you going to claim that there is a directionality built into space - a preferred direction for max dilation? I think you should give up your idea that it is acceleration that causes the dialation. Again congratutlations to Neddy.

13. ### AerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,250
It is not the length of acceleration that is the issue here, only the change of inertial frames. While the objects "accelerate" they are not in inertial frames. At the end of the acceleration, they are at rest in a new inertial frame different from the rest inertial frame in which they started. Their sense of "relativity of simultaneity" changes after the acceleration, so the two accelerating objects in the preceding example no longer agree that each accelerated simultaneously in the frame in which they meet and photograph each other as the same age and thus, they can say that the other's clock ticked slower than their own.. blah blah blah. Relativity of simultaneity makes no sense which is the problem you are having, but that is precisely what SR requires.

14. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Acceleration can only be considered in an absolute universe. Vector must count. That is acceleration may dilate or accelerate clock tick rate. Wheich is how a clock returns to a common tick rate when returned to a common frame.

Also the duration of acceleration is only part of the affect. Duration also counts. That is total kenetic energy change.

It seems that being inertial is the equivelent of being at absolute rest, so all relative motion is in referance to such inertial rest point, not some universal absolute rest.

15. ### Billy TUse Sugar Cane Alcohol car FuelValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,198
On 22 Aug, about 5 pages back, I have a long post. I will reproduce the example at end of it for you below. I am not impressed by your repeated assertions, mostly wrong. That is not the way to argue your point. I have numbered the paragraphs in the derivation and asked: where is the error? You state in post I am replying to that the distant (of number of people) between the pair that get killed is not a function of train speed, but this assertion is wrong as the numerical exmple re-posted below shows. Find fault with the numbers, don't keep making false assertions, back by nothing but your opinion.

Reposted Example {slightly modified by these inserts for clarity}:
In the ground frame: Assume that train speed is 0.8c and the moving train is twenty light units {a unit of distant like light second etc, but not specified.} long. For convenience, let the flashbulb flash at t=0. During 5 time units in the station frame, (I.e. between t=0 and t=5) light from the flashbulb moves 5 light units towards the rear of the train and the rear of the train moves 4 light units towards the oncoming light but light wave front and bomb’s optical fuse are still separated by a gap of 1 light unit. Half a time unit later (at t=5.5) the gap between bomb’s fuse and advancing light front is only 0.1 light unit. At t = 5.55 this gap is only 0.01light units, etc. That is, the rear bomb explodes at time t= 5.5555555... and the distance this rearward light traveled in this interval is (55/10) light units.
The front bomb explodes at t =50 when the light has travel 50 light units and the 20 light unit long train has advanced 40 light units. Thus in this case, the station observers admit that even in their proper time, the interval between the two explosions is 44.4444444... time units {with front explosion later than the rear one} - far from simultaneous.

In the train frame: With the flash at center of the train it takes the flash the same time to reach the optical fuse, regardless of train length of speed relative to the ground. I.e. the explosions are simulataneous in the train frame but not in the station frame. The two dead men (clocks) on the train next to the explosions are separated by the length of the train. The dead men on the ground are separated by 0.8x(44.44444...) = 35.55555.... light units in frame where the train is only 20 light units long. MacM's assertion without proof is clearly false, as many of his assertions about SRT presented without proof are.

16. ### Billy TUse Sugar Cane Alcohol car FuelValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,198
I would like to think this. Can you give reasons, - don't just assert as MacM does.

17. ### AerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,250
Billy T, I was not asserting anything with my analysis, I was just stating the SR analysis. I am much too tired to provide a complete and coherent analysis. Hopefully James R will.

18. ### Billy TUse Sugar Cane Alcohol car FuelValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,198
They both accelerated synetrically, starting at noon of their 15th birthday and were in one common frame, but very far apart. Each after the start of acceleration is moving thru a series of frames, but the accleration is intenst (and still symetric) and lasts 1 second on the identicl clocks they both carry.
Then after the brief period (not necessarily 1 second in the original "birth frame", but by symetry it is the same amount of time in the birth frame) they drift for years in inertaila frames towards each other. They aged one second during the period of acceleration by their local clocks, but 15 years during the inertail drift. The starting birth frame separation was very great and just such that on ech of their 30th birthday they pass each other and the flashbulb fixed in the birth frame mid way between their launch sites. I need some help to see your answer, more than simple assertion of the standard SRT claim. I think the problem Neddy and I have joinly built is the toughest I have ever read for SRT and frankly I am at al loss to explain how the photos can have only 25 candles on the cake as time dialtion predicts if each is passing the flash on his 30th birthday. The exterme symetry combined with the long period of drift in inertial frames is what makes this tought to understand.

19. ### AerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,250
Go back to the very instant after the "1 second acceleration phase" ceased and each were in different reference frames. You must analyze each frame one at a time. You appear to be analyzing them both at once. Let's call one A and the other B. when A stops accelerating, A would say that B has not accelerated yet. Now to B's frame. When B stop accelerating, B would say that A has not accelerated yet. this is the relativity of simultaneity that you are not accounting for. To see it explained in terms of the lorentz equations, follow my SR problem I posted awhile back here.

They will each photograph the other as having 30 candles on their cake.

20. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Unfortunately for you you have just proven my point. Your claim that one time interval is 44.44444 and the other 35.55555 where the 40 light unit long train becomes 20 light units long, just killed different people.

That does not happen. What happens is the light aboard the train in its frame explodes both bombs simultaneously. Obervers will see the explosions and also observers will see that the same people were killed but they will think the test went badly since they don't see the light where it should be when the explosions take place. That is the bombs will explode even though light (from their perspective) has not reached the bomb.

It is this invariance of light that gives you the false conclusion about simultaneity. You are not seeing the same photon. Therefore the bombs go off just as planned and killed the correct persons. Observers don't see the light where it should be when the bombs go off due to the ILLUSION of light invariance created by different photons being created due to the motion of the observer.

That is the correct answer, not relativity.

21. ### Billy TUse Sugar Cane Alcohol car FuelValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,198
How many times need I say: "YES, SRT INCLUDES RECIPROCITY"? and then add: "Reciprocity is no problem (as you think it is) IF YOU UNDERSTAND:
"EVENTS SIMULTANEOUS IN ONE FRAME ARE NOT SIMULTANEOUS IN ANOTHER."

For examle, one twin can be IN HIS FRAME'S SIMULTANEIOUS 30 when his brother is 25 and his brother can also be 30 IN HIS FRAME'S SIMULTANEIOUS
when his brother is 25. Their "simultaneous" are different.

22. ### Billy TUse Sugar Cane Alcohol car FuelValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,198
Have not read all yet, but you are mixing apples and oranges: 44.444.. is a time unit.
35.5555 is a distance unit (It was 80% of speed of light times thet time 44.444)

Perhaps you need to mix apples and orange to "prove your point"?

Messages:
23,198