Speed of Time
in [Relativity]
|
From: Ste on 28 Dec 2009 00:33 On 28 Dec, 03:22, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:e36f70a3-ce39-4d88-9663-b986c0df94ec(a)j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On 27 Dec, 01:47, Evil's Toy <brani...(a)maksimovic.com> wrote: > >> Ste wrote: > >> > I was just wondering, can anyone tell me at what rate time advances on > >> > earth? > > >> Time does not physically exist. It is mathematical concept to > >> describe that something happens. Speed of happening is defined > >> by machine called clock, which is based on time needed > >> for Earth to make one revolution. > >> So we synchronize on Earth revolution and we call that time. > > > Oh how believers squirm. > > > I am not refuting the measure of time. My position is that it does not > > flow ever-forward - and that, for all practical purposes, time is > > standing still on Earth. > > All of that makes no sense. It does, insofar as I'm referring to "time" in the theoretical physics sense. Obvious I retain such grasp of reality and language that I know "time" is flowing forward according to the everyday definition. > > But to those who say it *does* move ever-forward, I ask, and what > > *rate* does it move ever-forward? > > We can compare objectively how elapsed time and ticking rates compare in > different locations or frames of reference Indeed, none of which proves the flow forward. All I can see is that events that would have been simultaneous, either move ahead of or astern. You can describe the ahead-ness or astern-ness in relative terms, without requiring overall motion forwards. And indeed, by comparing clocks in different reference frames, you are demonstrating to me the possibility of moving events ahead or astern, you have not demonstrated overall motion forwards. And unless you have demonstrated overall motion forwards, then it is far easier to discard the concept than wrestle with the notion of overall motion backwards (i.e. travelling back in time). So unless you can prove this concept of overall motion forwards by *verifiable* scientific observation (for example, by demonstrating the reversal of time), then I suggest you follow Hume's advice: commit it to the flames. > > Unless you can tell me the rate, > > then you have no evidential basis to say it moves ever-forward. > > Wrong. You don't need to know a rate .. only a direction So how do you describe time dilation in terms of "direction"? > > And let me be clear: if you're a true relativist, you will freely > > accept my proposition, that time is standing still on Earth. > > It doesn't make sense to says it is moving, or that it is standing still. > both of those refer to change (or lack of it) over time. You can't talk > about how time changes over time.. its a nonsense. Exactly! So discard the concept. Accept that, for the purposes of theoretical physics, time stands still when you are not moving in space. Just like we accept that, for the purposes of theoretical physics, chemistry, and biology, that matter does not have "free will" or "God" in it anywhere.
From: Ste on 28 Dec 2009 00:34 On 28 Dec, 03:27, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:483e2fe2-a490-4f59-846e-1a7abf63fa86(a)26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On 27 Dec, 11:25, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:82a2de5c-1a2e-48e4-a7e4-76287acb88c2(a)j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On 26 Dec, 23:32, "Dirk Van de moortel" > >> > <dirkvandemoor...(a)nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >> c6d4ea67-9711-4b79-b35f-7bc54e086...(a)n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com > > >> >> > 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. I > > >> >> You see how I arrived at it by looking at > >> >> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/TwinsEvents.html > >> >> If there is anything unclear about it, let me know - perhaps I > >> >> can explain. > >> >> Or if there's a mistake, I can correct it. > > >> > There is indeed a mistake. > > >> Nope > > >> > You disproved relativity; because > >> > relativity says that no matter what the frame of reference, the > >> > effects will be the same. > > >> That's right .. in every frame, one twin is younger than the other > > > And isn't that a contradiction? > > No. Dear me.
From: Ste on 28 Dec 2009 00:36 On 28 Dec, 03:26, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:a35de26f-5383-4b5f-86b5-0c0c3b43bbe5(a)26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On 27 Dec, 11:19, "Dirk Van de moortel" > > <dirkvandemoor...(a)nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >> 82a2de5c-1a2e-48e4-a7e4-76287acb8...(a)j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com > > >> > On 26 Dec, 23:32, "Dirk Van de moortel" > >> > <dirkvandemoor...(a)nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >> c6d4ea67-9711-4b79-b35f-7bc54e086...(a)n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com > > >> >>> 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. I > > >> >> You see how I arrived at it by looking at > >> >> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/TwinsEvents.html > >> >> If there is anything unclear about it, let me know - perhaps I > >> >> can explain. > >> >> Or if there's a mistake, I can correct it. > > >> > There is indeed a mistake. > > >> I assume you understood everything about it, so, in which > >> line do you find the first mistake? > > > The mistake is with this "changing frame of reference" business. > > So .. you don't understand. > > > It's > > not the frame of reference that changes, > > No .. it IS the change in inertial frame of reference. > > > the time-lag is on account of > > the fact that the astronaut accelerates more than the Earth, within a > > reference frame that encompasses the Earth, the astronaut, and the > > whole journey. > > You really don't understand what a frame of reference is (let alone an > inertial one), nor what changing inertial frames means I suggest you learn > and become familiar with the basic terms of physics before posting further There is a difference between being unfamiliar with physics, and disagreeing with it. I've told you plain as day, this nonsense about changing reference frames is just that: nonsense. It's an utter contrivance to explain a simpler mechanism: the homebody on Earth did not accelerate as much as the astronaut (no matter what the frame of reference). That fact could be proven with two simple accelerometers - unless you're going to tell me that SR dictates that both accelerometers must read the same.
From: Ste on 28 Dec 2009 00:38 On 28 Dec, 03:55, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote in message > > >> People are so bitter here! > > > It's not a question of emotion, it's a question of teaching arrogant > > lunatics like you the basics. You forgot to adjust the speed of lunacy. > > Androcles described himself nicely .. an arrogant lunatic. Though he forgot > to add "blatant liar" to his self-description Indeed. Why is this place so feral?
From: Inertial on 28 Dec 2009 00:45
"Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:319cc58e-c86b-4187-9de6-86aa5d2c65ca(a)s3g2000yqs.googlegroups.com... > On 28 Dec, 03:22, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:e36f70a3-ce39-4d88-9663-b986c0df94ec(a)j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 27 Dec, 01:47, Evil's Toy <brani...(a)maksimovic.com> wrote: >> >> Ste wrote: >> >> > I was just wondering, can anyone tell me at what rate time advances >> >> > on >> >> > earth? >> >> >> Time does not physically exist. It is mathematical concept to >> >> describe that something happens. Speed of happening is defined >> >> by machine called clock, which is based on time needed >> >> for Earth to make one revolution. >> >> So we synchronize on Earth revolution and we call that time. >> >> > Oh how believers squirm. >> >> > I am not refuting the measure of time. My position is that it does not >> > flow ever-forward - and that, for all practical purposes, time is >> > standing still on Earth. >> >> All of that makes no sense. > > It does, insofar as I'm referring to "time" in the theoretical physics > sense. Obvious I retain such grasp of reality and language that I know > "time" is flowing forward according to the everyday definition. > > > >> > But to those who say it *does* move ever-forward, I ask, and what >> > *rate* does it move ever-forward? >> >> We can compare objectively how elapsed time and ticking rates compare in >> different locations or frames of reference > > Indeed, none of which proves the flow forward. All I can see is that > events that would have been simultaneous, either move ahead of or > astern. You can describe the ahead-ness or astern-ness in relative > terms, without requiring overall motion forwards. And indeed, by > comparing clocks in different reference frames, you are demonstrating > to me the possibility of moving events ahead or astern, you have not > demonstrated overall motion forwards. And unless you have demonstrated > overall motion forwards, then it is far easier to discard the concept > than wrestle with the notion of overall motion backwards (i.e. > travelling back in time). > > So unless you can prove this concept of overall motion forwards by > *verifiable* scientific observation (for example, by demonstrating the > reversal of time), then I suggest you follow Hume's advice: commit it > to the flames. > > > > >> > Unless you can tell me the rate, >> > then you have no evidential basis to say it moves ever-forward. >> >> Wrong. You don't need to know a rate .. only a direction > > So how do you describe time dilation in terms of "direction"? > > > > >> > And let me be clear: if you're a true relativist, you will freely >> > accept my proposition, that time is standing still on Earth. >> >> It doesn't make sense to says it is moving, or that it is standing still. >> both of those refer to change (or lack of it) over time. You can't talk >> about how time changes over time.. its a nonsense. > > Exactly! So discard the concept. That 'concept' is not really used in physics. We talk about events that happen at a given time. There is very little that refers to a flow through time. > Accept that, for the purposes of > theoretical physics, time stands still when you are not moving in > space. No .. it doesn't "stand still" .. nor does it "move". Both those concept are nonsensical. Time just is .. like space just is. Events have a position in spacetime. An object can exist as a set of events. Also there is no such notion as 'not moving in space', as it all depends on the frame of reference of the observer measuring your velocity. Every inertial observer measures themselves as at rest in 'space'. > Just like we accept that, for the purposes of theoretical > physics, chemistry, and biology, that matter does not have "free will" > or "God" in it anywhere. Mmmhmmm |