I need time dilation help please?

In my study I have come across the subject of time dilation and also Albert Einstein's simultaneity.
In short my understanding is that if you lived on the Moon and I continued to live on the Earth. we would not be living simultaneous lives, your rate of time would be slower than my rate of time.

However after taking great consideration and personal debate in thought about this, I can neither accept a time dilation or simultaneity to be of a ''truth'' when greater evidence self evidently suggests it is simultaneous and there is no time dilation.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Joinedup

Original post by AlbertXY

the predicted difference is small at the relative velocities found in actual space travel... but it has been detected in actual man made clocks.

first by Hafele & Keating http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html and currently by things like GPS satellites which need frequent relativistic corrections to their on board clocks (this was in one of Prof Brian Cox's TV shows)
also

earlier evidence came from measuring the distance traveled by unstable sub atomic particles moving at a large fraction of the speed of light - they can go a lot further, i.e. last for a longer time before decaying than identical particles at rest.

You don't necessarily have to like it, but you can't choose your own facts.

Reply 2

AlbertXY

Original post by Joinedup

You don't necessarily have to like it, but you can't choose your own facts.

I am not choosing my own facts, I am looking at other evidential facts that suggests it does not happen like this.

Reply 3

Joinedup

Original post by AlbertXY

I am not choosing my own facts, I am looking at other evidential facts that suggests it does not happen like this.

Reply 4

AlbertXY

Original post by Joinedup

Ok, so do you want to discuss the opposing facts that shows it can't be that way?

Reply 5

AlbertXY

Fact 1 -

ve=X

L=X

A→B=+ve(c)

B→A=-ve(c)

net difference time= 0

Reply 6

Kyx

Original post by AlbertXY

The person on the Earth would have a slower time than the one on the Moon since the mass of the moon is smaller.

Although both of you will observe the other person's time to be slower (I think)

Reply 7

AlbertXY

Original post by Kyx

The person on the Earth would have a slower time than the one on the Moon since the mass of the moon is smaller.

Although both of you will observe the other person's time to be slower (I think)

Quite impossible.

Evidence 2 - anything after 0 measurement is instantaneous history.

Reply 8

AlbertXY

So I take it, you are unable to learn me anything and answer me?

Reply 9

Joinedup

Original post by AlbertXY

Fact 1 -

ve=X

L=X

A→B=+ve(c)

B→A=-ve(c)

net difference time= 0

That's not a fact, it's a model.

sadly in the sciences we throw models that contradict the available evidence into the bin.

Reply 10

AlbertXY

Original post by Joinedup

That's not a fact, it's a model.

sadly in the sciences we throw models that contradict the available evidence into the bin.

A factual model. It uses axioms. Science defines a meter as the speed it takes light to travel a meter, they are not accounting for the space the light travels through that is an invariant space. Light expands and contracts as seen in the Doppler effect and hubble observation , but has no effect on the invariant space.

Newton was correct and k=0 , but also Einstein is correct and k=1.

It is both k=1 and k=0 simultaneously.

k=0 is a ''0 singularity'' where the inverse square law is mirrored and collapses to a ''0 singularity'' between two observers in accordance with the Lorentz transformations and an area contraction of x,y relative to each other.

If you move away from me, neither observer knows who is moving, relative to each other following the lorentz formations and an added considered area contraction x,y of each other, both observers at a boundary point will contract relatively to a 0 point source singularity.

0......r........0

0..1..r..1....0

k=1 is the length between two bodies and bodies that are within the radius of the 0 singularity.

It is a shame science ignores people like me when I am sure I have the answers.

Reply 11

Joinedup

Original post by AlbertXY

try economics?

Reply 12

AlbertXY

You contradict your first post.

''A good scientist never assumes he/she is correct. Instead they consider the new idea as a possibility and withhold judgement about its accuracy until sufficient testing has been done. Even then they never think of it as the truth, they think of it as a step closer to the truth. Science has no place for narcissists, that's what the fashion industry is for.''

You are only considering the abstract time of k=1 and not considering k=0 simultaneously.

The cycles of the Caesium atom were defined to be equal to an old second defined by a clock that is defined by the sun dial and likes , that is defined by relative motion of the Earth and the sun, one second defined by the caesium atom is equal to
0.28820601851 mile of rotation of the Earth.

defined for abstract synchronisation.

Time is not measurable, anything after 0 is instantaneous history, we do not measure time, we record history, the two are distinguishable.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 13

AlbertXY

Clearly you have no idea of what time is if you think it can be measured by a clock or a stopwatch. Did you even read or bother to consider what I said?

Let us start with something really easy to consider, I would like you to try and measure anything past 0 without it being instant history, You can use the smallest possible measurement you can conceive it won't make a difference.

The dogma you try to present is just that, you clearly have no idea about time.

It is 0 now and it will be 0 in ''ten minutes abstract time''.

The Caesium atom is not time and can not affect time and time does not affect the Caesium atom.

The length contraction is a visual contraction of light and not a physical contraction of space or the object in motion. A meter is defined by light which is contradictory to the value of a space meter.

You are quite clearly wrong.

Reply 14

AlbertXY

Then you presume wrong, it is on the teacher to provide the burden of proof when a student ask's for the proof.

I see no offer of proof or anything that contradicts what I said. I accept the Keating experiment shows a frequency change of the Caesium atom, however there is no relationship to time, so how do you presume time dilates when there is no relationship?

How can 0 dilate? are you trying to say that anything after 0 is not instantaneous history?

Fact - A Caesium atom is not time

yes or no?

Fact - time is an abstract creation by mankind based on the origin of rotation to synchronise our everyday lives

Yes or no?

Theory is not fact may I add, if you want me to accept ''Harry Potter'', then you need to provide facts, because a belief system is not facts.

You also avoided my questions and replied with present Dogma, learning is not a forced discipline, I know all about time dilation, relativity and most of Physics so please do not waste your time repeating what I already have learnt , but please answer my queries.

A good scientist knows nothing, will always know nothing, it is called an open mind....

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 15

AlbertXY

The student awaits a reply to my questions.

Defining Time. -It is important in the understanding of simultaneity and simultaneous to completely understand time and to build a central or primary rule or principle on which time is based. Time is the rudiment of existence, time is said to have begun of the big bang some what fourteen billion years ago. Time is said to be the thing that stops things happening all at once. Presently we refer to time as a measurement, the movement of the hands of a clock or the present use of Caesium clocks and it is said that the integral of the frequency is time, 9,192,631,770 hertz being equal to one second of time measurement. In ordinary terms , time is the mechanism that allows us to synchronise our everyday lives, synchronised in respect relative to the inertial accelerating reference frame of the gravitational constant of the Earth and relative velocity, but not simultaneous relative to other reference frames according to relativity. However it is important we do not overlook the mind experience and the observation of time, all observers must agree on the observation of time to be equal. In thought let us imagine a spaceship that was going to make a journey from the Earth to the Moon. On Earth Sam holds in his hand the modern technology of a camcorder, on-board the spaceship Sarah also holds an identical camcorder, finally on the Moon , Sid also holds an identical camcorder.Sarah starts the engines on the spaceship and starts her journey from t=0 . All three observers Sam, Sarah and Sid all synchronise their recording start on the camcorders, starting to fill the internal storage with observed data in synchronisation with the light and time. It is not important we need to consider a forth observer or the speed of the journey or a time on a clock recording the journey. Sarah arrives at the Moon to pick up Sid to return Sid to Earth, where Sarah , Sid and Sam compare the observation of the recordings. All observers agree they have recorded the exact equal amount of data, all observers agree that they experienced the same amount of time in either location or in motion. All observers agree the observation was simultaneous. In this example we are defining time - ''Time is the synchronisation of observation'Therefore I propose a rudiment principle that is self evidently true. Principle - All observers of time must agree that the observation of time is synchronous and constant. Relative maths. If we imagine a single Photon travelling from A → B and a single Photon travelling a parallel journey from B → A over a length X, we can calculate the net difference of time between the two photons journey times to reveal 0 net difference in time. L=XAt=(+ve=c)Bt=(-ve=c)At - Bt = 0t net difference.State 1-Time is an abstract creation by mankind to synchronise their everyday activities 1.1- This state of time is originally denoted by the relative movement of the earth’s spin relative to the motion of the sun. We nowadays use clocks to represent the twenty four hours or so of rotation relative to the two bodies, An invention of a measurement that would go on to synchronise our every day activities and to aid in the scaling of space and the measurement of speed and such. A measurement based on a degree of motion /distance or frequency rate.1.2-A sun dial works by a degree of movement of the shadow,a clock works by a degree of movement of the fingers, a caesium clock uses a cycle rate equal to one second that is equal to a degree of motion.1.3- This abstract time = distance/motion/frequency, this is presently how we record and measure time.1.4 - Needed are point values of {A,B} where A≡B which holds true if A||B which holds true when A≡B≡C which holds true if A||B ||C holds true.State 2-This element of time is a virtual representation of the dimension of the whole of space and virtual vectors of space.(Minkowskis space-time)2.1– This state of time is a virtual representation of estimation, I.e we can calculate a journey of one mile will take one hour to travel at a constant speed of 1 mph. Minkowskis created space-time , virtual representations of dimensions of space to represent virtual journey paths through space that have not yet taken place.2.2-Space-time existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence, a virtual representation of vectors existing only in the imagination of the observer to represent spacial distance and the path that a moving object follows through space as a function of time synchronised to the observers relationship or expression involving one or more variables.2.3-Four dimensions of X,Y and Z and a time linearity, interwoven into a single manifold to virtually represent how long a spacial journey would take an observer to travel or to calculate an objects velocity and as likewise, a three point geometric synchronisation using time to denote four-dimensional Minkowski space-time, ''a fundamental concept of the human mind structure human experience(Immanuel Kant)''. Immanuel Kant also believed that time was neither an event or a thing and in-itself unmeasurable.2.4-In agreement with Kant, I believe time in space or of space can not exist and is unaccountable in any other sense than abstract and of the human imagination. In the representation of a void, the quantity of time becomes unmeasurable because there is no point to point values of {A,B} where A≡B holds true and A||B holds true. There is aslo a ''truth'' in that in measurement, any amount of time meausrement greater than the value of 0 becomes instantaneous history suggesting that the value of 0 moves forward at a continuos rate of 0. State two of time is dependent to state one of abstract time, without state one , state two cannot exist. In considering state one and state two of time, then in a sense of realising the actual specifics of the abstract states, I then considered what real time/absolute time is, and turned my attention towards the Caesium atom and the frequency rate. Although the rate of the Caesium atom was defined to equal an old second denoted by a degree of motion, I could see some significance in time dilation/gravitational time dilation, that gave me a line of enquiries and queries to follow. The present measurement of time and consideration for time is Minkowski space-time, a belief that time is independent of the observer, a belief that the measuring device of time is measuring a time outside of ourselves, which lead me to having an interesting thought of the movement of a clock finger. Whilst observing a degree of movement of a clock finger, respectively measuring an increment of degree equal to an increment of time, what really am I observing?, Am I observing the clock recording its own time? Am I observing the clock recording an independent time? or am I really observing my own time observing the clock?Well it just so happens, at a ground state in a stationary initial reference frame, I am observing my time , the clocks time, and a said independent time all in a moment that is an equal rate. (A) the clock finger , (B) myself and (C) a said independent time , A||B ||C, which means (A) is parallel to (B) and parallel to (C). I then considered would anything change if I placed an Atomic clock/Caesium atom, in my room, with myself, the clock, and the independent time. 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation at ground state was equal to one second of my clock at ground state, so I observed my clock, myself, the said independent time, and imagined the Caesium atom clock (D). I observed all the clocks were travelling parallel in synchronised time A||B ||C||D at ground state. This was an interesting thought but did still not give me the answer to what real time/absolute time was.In consideration of this , the path of investigation lead me to consider time dilation/gravitational time dilation.''The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.''''According to special relativity, the rate of a clock is greatest according to an observer who is at rest with respect to the clock. In a frame of reference in which the clock is not at rest, the clock runs more slowly, as expressed by the Lorentz factor. This effect, called time dilation,''According to time dilation and relativity , the basics are that time slows down when things are moving in comparison to an observer at rest at ground state . This was evidentially shown to be true by the Caesium atoms 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation at ground state that was equal to one second, changing , producing a different rate when in motion showing time slowed down by relative motion compared to a ground state rest mass. Of cause if one knows time can change, then one can also presume time travel is possible and likes. Evidentially all must be known about time and Minkowski space-time and relativity must be correct. That would be an assumption someone who was not curious would make and settle to be the answer.The rate of a clock is greatest according to an observer who is at rest with respect to the clock, in considering this, something is just not quite right, I am at rest relative to my clock that is at rest, I already know that A||B ||C||D at ground state, so now I am going to consider (E) an atomic clock/caesium clock in motion in respect to the ground state of myself, my clock, my imaginary Caesium clock, and the said independent time. {A||B ||C||D } is-not-parallel-imageE which means E is not parallel to A,B,C.D and is independent of A,B,C,D.According to Minkowski and Einstein, time is independent of matter and exists independently as a space-time, but my simple thought experiment shows the atomic clock/Caesium atom is independent from the ground state times and space-time. The effect of time rate slowing down in this instance was only experienced dependently by the Clock in motion independent of any other mass or space.This then leads me to what time actually is.3-Absolute Time is the dependent rate of decay of independent physical bodies/particles. (such as the Caesium atom) 3.1- This state of time is all of concrete existence, a rate that remains constant if the observer remains stationary at a ground state in an initial reference frame and a constant of gravitational influence. Motion stretches this time, a change in rate of time by displacement of the gravitational force constant having effect on frequency rate.Principle rule 1-Time is the synchronisation of observation Principle rule 2 – All independent observers of time are synchronised in their observation of time. Principle rule 3- State 1 and state 2 are dependent for all observers, where as state 3 is independent for all observers.

A good scientist knows nothing, will always know nothing, it is called an open mind..

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 16

The-Spartan

Original post by AlbertXY

The student has a wrong understanding.
Space, Time and Gravity are intricately linked.
The Space-Time continuum is the name for this 'membrane' as you understand it to be.
Gravity is the bending of this continuum.
As such, gravity is a by product of this bending of space-time and is therefore linked directly to time.
As a large gravitational force means a large distortion in space-time, a large gravitational force means a large distortion in time itself. An object with mass in a gravitational field of a massive object will have a slower perception of time due to this warping.
This is shown in this equation:

that states quite simply that time is inversely proportional to the root of the gravitational strength.

As G increases, T decreases. i,e time slows down. Seconds become longer.

I dont see what your argument is from your previous statements.

Reply 17

AlbertXY

Original post by The-Spartan

Why do the teachers recite present theory and not answer the students questions?

You do not see what my argument is, yet I state questions clearly, that nobody has answered.

I accuse the teacher of not understanding and suggest the student knows more than the teacher.

K=0 and k=1,

Relative space occupies absolute space,

Space itself does not curve and Einstein never said it did.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66412.0

I suggest you reread if you have missed my argument, 0 can not dilate,

added - 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation at ground state relative to what exactly?
''reply - relative to one period. It's a number, obtained by counting. ''

Not relative to time.

If I was born on Pluto and my clock was a Caesium clock, and for thought the clock ran at half the rate of an Earth clock, would I measure the speed of light in a vacuum to be 599585136 m/s?

because if we agree on the length of 1 second of light, we have to agree on the length of a second, if I was on Pluto I would disagree on the length of a second if I used a Caesium clock, so either both of our clocks were wrong, or the speed of light is wrong, so which is it?

''No. You would do enough experiments to convince yourself that the speed of light is constant so you would define the second and the meter in terms of the speed of light and the frequenxcy of your clock.''

me - You say no then say the same thing as I just said. If my clock is running twice as slow as your clock we will record a different speed. In 1 second on your clock light would have travelled 299 792 568 m , but my clock runs half the rate of your clock so your second is twice as long, I record 299 792 568m / 0.5s

Look at this way , you are on Earth measuring the speed of light in a vacuum, I am on Pluto observing you doing the experiment, you tell me light travelled 299 792 568 m in 1 second, I tell you according to my clock it only took half a second because my time runs slower than your time.

See the dilemma now?

''relative to one period. It's a number, obtained by counting.

*this may explain a lot!''

A number obtained by counting, relative to one period, please explain what one period suppose to mean?

I have a feeling you mean a fixed length on a chart or graph,

If 9 192 631 770 relative to one period

and 9 192 631 760 relative to one period

I have a feeling one period = one period because surely science is not daft enough to measure a shorter period and declare there is a change.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 18

Implication

Is English your first language? Your posts are very disjointed and most of the maths you have posted seems to be without context. This makes it difficult for most of us to comprehend what you are trying to say, let alone consider whether it has any worth! For example, in your first 'fact' you simply posted a bunch of symbols without specifying what any of them, which makes what you said virtually meaningless!

I don't particularly want to go into an argument with you as you've been so rude to others who are trying to help, but I'm willing to have a discussion. If we suppose that light travels at constant speed for all observers, we can use very elementary mathematics to show that observers moving at different velocities measure different time intervals*. We can calculate precisely how one is related to the other:

\Delta t = \dfrac{\Delta t'}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}

,

where

\Delta t

is the time interval in one frame,

\Delta t'

the time interval in a frame moving at speed

v

relative to the first frame, and

c

the speed of light. Hence, if we wish to maintain that this formula is incorrect and instead

\Delta t=\Delta t' \ \forall \ v

, we must have that either:

1. Arithmetic is wrong and we need to reinvent most of mathematics.
2. Light does not travel at constant speed for all observers.

If we reject (1), we are left with (2). But we have good experimental evidence that light does travel at constant speed for all observers, and so if we care about reality we should reject (2) as well!

*Sussex have a very clear explanation here.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 19

The-Spartan

Original post by AlbertXY

I am only a student, like you. I am not a teacher :biggrin:

0 cannot dilate no. K can though. If k=0, k can change to be a different value. It is not set at a solid 0.

Secondly, the periods of caesium are not dependant on time no. Our measurement of time, a second, is a set number of oscillations between energy levels of the atom, ON EARTH being the number it is due to g. The set amount of oscillations for a second on the moon would be less, as time is perceived as faster.

Now you have brought about the problem of measuring speeds using time. This is a valid point, let's take the speed of light. Gravity, as we know, can affect light in many ways. Light gets pulled into black holes for example, and we know that the distance travelled by light changes due to gravity.

Just to address your point on this, Einstein did not explain explicitly about the curving of space time, although it is a direct by product of his general relativity.

OK back to light, the curving of this space time due to gravity causes a longer path for the light to travel through. This longer distance compensates for the time dilation and as thus the speed of light must be constant. (through the theory of general relativity.)

Now you can argue that his theory is wrong, and do so to little avail unless you directly disprove his work. Cite and show that his theory is wrong, and I will change. Otherwise, it is correct as far as it has been proven.

Sorry about the simple explanations, I am only an A level student doing a course which does not even involve the relitivities, however I do read abit :smile: