I gladly accept your statement that you are convienced but I would not accept statements that claim it as a fact.
Very well, sounds good - do we have any rough technical details? What is the size of the objects? What is the radius, r? What is the angular velocity, ω? How will the objects be accelerated and decelerated to speed/rest?
One thing that I forgot to mention before; There are no extra calculations coming in for an accelerated frame of reference. Time Dilation does not depend directly on your acceleration. Only on instantaneous speed, which is constant in the case of uniform circular motion. The only thing to worry about is the time dilation of the other clock as seen by the accelerating (non-inertial) clock. This could present a problem because even in this frame, the other clock, although accelerating, is inertial. But that is what I fixed for you. In the modified design, this effect is equal for both clocks, so both should report the other to have slowed down, by the same amount. So don't worry about te frames being non-inertial. Symmetry takes care of everything.
What do you mean? This experiment is meant to dtermine whether there is mutual observerd, or, reciprocal, or whatever, time dilation
I am getting tired of repeating this. Pay attention. No arguement has been made regarding what is "Seen". It is what does the time dilation by accumulated time record.
The only issue is "Reciprocity". Your test must have each clock record less time than the other. That is the issue. That is the false claim of SRT that is being challenged. "Mutual Dilation" is not being challenged. Mutual dilation occurs when two clocks are co-moving at equal veloicty for example. In cases of mutual dilation there is no systemic recorded time dilation between the clocks since each dilates equally. The dilation is relative to their common rest frame before acceleration.
In two different reference frames, which is no problem for SRT. Do you have any evidence that one clock will record MORE time than the other? No, you don't.
MacM, I have said this before, but you didn't answer it. Even accumulated time is relateive, in the sense that it depends on who stops in whose frame. Given two observers moving with relative to each other, if the first one deccelerates and stops in the other's frame, his clock will have accumulated less time than the other's. If on the other hand, the second one deccelerates and stops in the first one's frame, <I>his</I> clock will show less accumulated time. Okay, according to each person, the other is the one who deccelerates, but they have to agree on <I>who</I> deccelerated non-inertially. And this means there is a preference for one frame, one observer. But while they are in uniform motion, the other person's clock is slowed according to each, in each one's frame. This is as real as the accumulated time. Or are you claiming that a moving frame has no right to reality?
By hyphothesis, I mean I want an explicit explaination of what you expect to happen. hypothesis:A specific statement regarding the relationship between two variables. In evaluation research, this typically involves a prediction that the program or treatment will cause a specified outcome. Hypotheses are confirmed or denied based on empirical analysis.
This is a stupid proposition. The clocks necessarily undergo acceleration which affects the "clock accumulation" claim.
All: Here's the proposition: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=46454 The basic hypothesis holds, just the physical setup is different (rosnet's changes in the position of C2 to the rim of the "track") Hypothesis: After a sufficient time at speed (enough to show a measurable difference) C1 and C2 will transmit (digitally) their precision clock data to each other. An on board comparison will be made by C1 and C2 against their own clock data. The comparison results will be digitally transmitted to a stationary receiver (us). C1 is expected to show TC2 < TC1 and C2 is expected to show TC1 < TC2 in accord with SRT predictions of mutual observed dilation. If the clocks are kept running, and the apparatus brought to a halt, C1 and C2 are expected to be in sync.
Ummm - a concern I guess. You are assuming the acceleration of C1 and C2 will cancel each other out so each can consider themself an inertial reference frame? Sorry, I don't think I can agree with that. Please tell me there is something I am misunderstanding in the above.
They will definitely NOT be inertial. However the "clock postulate" tells me that the effects of acceleration will not effect the time dilation. (look up the clock postulate on google) And:
OK - I was just saying that your animations seemed to assume that each was an inertial frame - I guess I see the perspective now. Edit: actually I need an explaination to this statement in the quote by Rosnet: This could present a problem because even in this frame, the other clock, although accelerating, is inertial. accelerating and inertial? I guess you are saying it looks inertial, but really is not. OK - all good.
