Speed of Time
in [Relativity]
|
From: Ste on 25 Dec 2009 18:27 On 25 Dec, 20:39, snapdragon31 <snapdrago...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 25, 6:21 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" > > <dirkvandemoor...(a)nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: > > Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > ee5c4ca0-faf6-46a8-8565-c830f685d...(a)m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com > > > > I was just wondering, can anyone tell me at what rate time advances on > > > earth? > > > I suspect you won't like this answer, but every clock tells > > you how its time advances, and the theory that relates one > > clock's time to another clock's, is the theory of relativity. > > > Dirk Vdm > > The rate time advances is 1 sec per sec. That is true for all clocks > including those malfunction clocks in relativity. Let's do the maths with that then. Time advances at a rate seconds/ seconds (i.e. 1 second for every second). Any number divided by itself is 1. Therefore time advances at 1 second. So I'll ask again, at what *rate* does time advance. Telling me that time has a velocity of 1 second per second is as tautologous as saying an object has a spatial velocity of 1 metre per metre.
From: Androcles on 25 Dec 2009 18:42 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b5e0a622-6862-43ec-9f06-1ae8a46b1d1d(a)k23g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... On 25 Dec, 20:39, snapdragon31 <snapdrago...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 25, 6:21 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" > > <dirkvandemoor...(a)nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: > > Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > ee5c4ca0-faf6-46a8-8565-c830f685d...(a)m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com > > > > I was just wondering, can anyone tell me at what rate time advances on > > > earth? > > > I suspect you won't like this answer, but every clock tells > > you how its time advances, and the theory that relates one > > clock's time to another clock's, is the theory of relativity. > > > Dirk Vdm > > The rate time advances is 1 sec per sec. That is true for all clocks > including those malfunction clocks in relativity. Let's do the maths with that then. Time advances at a rate seconds/ seconds (i.e. 1 second for every second). Any number divided by itself is 1. Therefore time advances at 1 second. So I'll ask again, at what *rate* does time advance. Telling me that time has a velocity of 1 second per second is as tautologous as saying an object has a spatial velocity of 1 metre per metre. ========================================= And one tonne per tonne.
From: Ste on 25 Dec 2009 19:13 On 25 Dec, 23:42, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:b5e0a622-6862-43ec-9f06-1ae8a46b1d1d(a)k23g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > On 25 Dec, 20:39, snapdragon31 <snapdrago...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 25, 6:21 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" > > > <dirkvandemoor...(a)nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > ee5c4ca0-faf6-46a8-8565-c830f685d...(a)m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com > > > > > I was just wondering, can anyone tell me at what rate time advances on > > > > earth? > > > > I suspect you won't like this answer, but every clock tells > > > you how its time advances, and the theory that relates one > > > clock's time to another clock's, is the theory of relativity. > > > > Dirk Vdm > > > The rate time advances is 1 sec per sec. That is true for all clocks > > including those malfunction clocks in relativity. > > Let's do the maths with that then. Time advances at a rate seconds/ > seconds (i.e. 1 second for every second). Any number divided by itself > is 1. Therefore time advances at 1 second. > > So I'll ask again, at what *rate* does time advance. Telling me that > time has a velocity of 1 second per second is as tautologous as saying > an object has a spatial velocity of 1 metre per metre. > > ========================================= > And one tonne per tonne. Indeed.
From: Androcles on 25 Dec 2009 19:30 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:72c2b3b9-3f6a-4af5-9b62-666c95117098(a)26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com... > On 25 Dec, 23:42, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote: >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:b5e0a622-6862-43ec-9f06-1ae8a46b1d1d(a)k23g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... >> On 25 Dec, 20:39, snapdragon31 <snapdrago...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Dec 25, 6:21 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" >> >> > <dirkvandemoor...(a)nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: >> > > Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> > > ee5c4ca0-faf6-46a8-8565-c830f685d...(a)m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com >> >> > > > I was just wondering, can anyone tell me at what rate time advances >> > > > on >> > > > earth? >> >> > > I suspect you won't like this answer, but every clock tells >> > > you how its time advances, and the theory that relates one >> > > clock's time to another clock's, is the theory of relativity. >> >> > > Dirk Vdm >> >> > The rate time advances is 1 sec per sec. That is true for all clocks >> > including those malfunction clocks in relativity. >> >> Let's do the maths with that then. Time advances at a rate seconds/ >> seconds (i.e. 1 second for every second). Any number divided by itself >> is 1. Therefore time advances at 1 second. >> >> So I'll ask again, at what *rate* does time advance. Telling me that >> time has a velocity of 1 second per second is as tautologous as saying >> an object has a spatial velocity of 1 metre per metre. >> >> ========================================= >> And one tonne per tonne. > > Indeed. You should read Dork's twin paradox analysis. He can pick up the origin of frame of reference and move it, so if you go from London to New York you can do it twice without ever going from New York to London. He says quote/ "We use 3 inertial reference frames. S: The frame of the "stay at home" twin. S': The frame of the "outbound part of the trip". S": The frame of the "inbound part of the trip". http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/TwinsEvents.html So if T = 5 years and v = 0.8c, then the stay at home twin will have aged 10 years while his travelling twin sister will have aged 6 years. /unquote Dork has aged 20 years since he posted to Usenet in 1999, he stayed at home. Amazing what drugs do to immature minds.
From: Ste on 25 Dec 2009 22:12
On 26 Dec, 00:30, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote: > > You should read Dork's twin paradox analysis. He can > pick up the origin of frame of reference and move it, > so if you go from London to New York you can do it > twice without ever going from New York to London. > > He says > quote/ > "We use 3 inertial reference frames. > S: The frame of the "stay at home" twin. > S': The frame of the "outbound part of the trip". > S": The frame of the "inbound part of the trip". > http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/TwinsEvents.html > > So if T = 5 years and v = 0.8c, then the stay at home twin will > have aged 10 years while his travelling twin sister will have aged > 6 years. > /unquote I'm afraid I don't understand how he arrives at that conclusion. It rubbishes relativity. Relativity says that both twins will perceive the same effects, relative to their own frame of reference. If that is true, then the astronaut cannot return younger than the homebody - it cannot happen. Because if you change the analysis and have the astronaut in the fixed frame of reference, and have the universe accelerate around him, then by exactly the same logic the *homebody* will be the younger twin when the astronaut returns to earth. If the astronaut is younger when he returns, then either relativity is false, or there is another factor in play that applies differently to the astronaut than the homebody. Incidentally, what evidence is there exactly to suggest that such twins ages would differ once the astronaut returned to earth? |