Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    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.
    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...iv/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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    OK
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joinedup)
    OK

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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Fact 1 -

    ve=X

    L=X

    A→B=+ve(c)

    B→A=-ve(c)

    net difference time= 0
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Aston Villa FC Supporter
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    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.
    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)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    So I take it, you are unable to learn me anything and answer me?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    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.
    try economics?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Consider a moving clock (at say, 0.5c) and a stationary clock. Let's say they're using emission and detections of light beams to measure time. The moment a beam is detected another is emitted. Both clocks were synchronised when stationary. For the stationary clock the light is emitted and detected at regular intervals. For the light beam in the moving clock, when the clock is moving in the same direction as the light beam the detector is continuously moving away from the light beam at a speed of 0.5c.

    The speed of light is constant but the distance it travels has increased to 1.5 times the distance in the stationary clock, so the time measured decreases and the clock runs slower. If you then compare the times on the two clocks you'll see that the stationary one shows a larger time interval between the start and end of the experiment.

    I think the confusion here is that the space is invariant. Overall the distance between the emitter and detector stays the same, but as observed in the Doppler effect the wavelength of light seems contracted or expanded depending on whether the objects are moving towards or away from each other. This is actually a result of time dilation/contraction. The time's changing and so the time period changes. Therefore the frequency changes and since v = fw (w = wavelength, I don't know the key code for lambda) and speed is constant, the wavelength changes too. Hence, the Doppler effect.

    Edit: 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.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    Quite impossible.

    Evidence 2 - anything after 0 measurement is instantaneous history.
    Wrong.

    Time is relative to the strength of the gravitational field strength and to the speed you're moving at. In Kyx's example a stationary observer on the earth would measure a smaller time than one on the moon due to the larger gravitational field strength. While the observer on the moon is moving at a much faster speed (the moon's orbital speed), the effect of speed on time is far smaller than that of gravitational fields so it can be omitted here for the sake of simplicity.

    You are correct that everything before time 0 is history though, but then again where you start timing is completely arbitrary. Technically time 0 is the Big Bang, but in practice we can just use arbitrary starting points and get the same results.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    Wrong.

    Time is relative to the strength of the gravitational field strength and to the speed you're moving at. In Kyx's example a stationary observer on the earth would measure a smaller time than one on the moon due to the larger gravitational field strength. While the observer on the moon is moving at a much faster speed (the moon's orbital speed), the effect of speed on time is far smaller than that of gravitational fields so it can be omitted here for the sake of simplicity.

    .
    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.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 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.
    I haven't contradicted anything. I don't assume that Einstein was correct, but since his theory of general relativity has provided the explanation which matches the observation and has correctly predicted many more it is the accepted model at present. Your post was contradicted by volumes of empirical evidence therefore you were wrong and so I was correct in saying you were wrong.

    I think I'm beginning to understand your confusion now.

    Let's say for example that we have observer A moving relative to stationary observer at point 0. He's currently at A1. Each observer has a clock on him, the clocks were synchronised before observer A started moving.

    A1.....0

    After 1 second has passed for the stationary observer, observer A is at point A2:

    A1.....0.....A2

    However since observer A is moving, his clock says that 0.8 seconds have passed.

    From both observers' perspective time appears to progress at the same rate as normal, and they both agree on the speed observer A was moving at. So what the hell happened?

    Well, from observer A's perspective, time was progressing the same as normally but the distance he had to travel had contracted. But from the stationary observer's perspective time appeared to progress more slowly for observer A.

    This is what's known as the length contraction and time dilation effects. Which one you experience depends on whether you're moving or not.

    Take for example, a muon produced in the earth's upper atmosphere. If we're using Newtonian mechanics, that muon would never reach the ground. It would decay long before then. However, we can detect these muons on the earth's surface. So what's going on?

    Using the length contraction transformation we see that from the muon's point of view the distance it has to travel is contracting so it makes it to the ground before decaying. From our point of view, the muon's time frame appears to be running slower than our own.

    We CAN measure time, that is what a clock or stopwatch does.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)

    We CAN measure time, that is what a clock or stopwatch does.


    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.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 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.
    At this point I'm sure you're trolling. If you really want answers then first you need to accept the fact that you're thinking about this the wrong way. Until then no one can help you because you'll just keep on telling them they're wrong and you're right while simultaneously asking for their help.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    At this point I'm sure you're trolling. If you really want answers then first you need to accept the fact that you're thinking about this the wrong way. Until then no one can help you because you'll just keep on telling them they're wrong and you're right while simultaneously asking for their help.

    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....
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    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..
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.