Speed of Time
in [Relativity]
|
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 3 Jan 2010 09:35 On Jan 2, 4:50 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:964ee5d2-b7ef-4cac-81d7-373366981422(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jan 1, 5:54 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in > >> messagenews:eeb80815-f182-4d98-88fc-8c4dce783915(a)22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com... > > >> > On Dec 28 2009, 1:10 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > >> >>news:7c5de113-b2fb-4654-85e0-7d921368b3c8(a)a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > On Dec 24, 3:51 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> I was just wondering, can anyone tell me at what rate time advances > >> >> >> on > >> >> >> earth? > > >> > How about one second per second? > > >> That's a tautology that says nothing > > >> > When you speak of a rate you must provide a ratio, yes? > >> > I believe these units are adequate. > > >> Nope .. they say nothing > > > Well, then, don't you have to declare the question invalid? > > I already had earlier Hmmm.... Who is this Ste tricharacter anyway? Seems to want to talk time, but then again refuses to. I prefer a different replacement principle. prisoner of spacetime, - Tim
From: Ste on 3 Jan 2010 12:34 On 3 Jan, 14:35, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jan 2, 4:50 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:964ee5d2-b7ef-4cac-81d7-373366981422(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > > > > On Jan 1, 5:54 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in > > >> messagenews:eeb80815-f182-4d98-88fc-8c4dce783915(a)22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com... > > > >> > On Dec 28 2009, 1:10 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > > >> >>news:7c5de113-b2fb-4654-85e0-7d921368b3c8(a)a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > > > >> >> > On Dec 24, 3:51 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> I was just wondering, can anyone tell me at what rate time advances > > >> >> >> on > > >> >> >> earth? > > > >> > How about one second per second? > > > >> That's a tautology that says nothing > > > >> > When you speak of a rate you must provide a ratio, yes? > > >> > I believe these units are adequate. > > > >> Nope .. they say nothing > > > > Well, then, don't you have to declare the question invalid? > > > I already had earlier > > Hmmm.... > > Who is this Ste tricharacter anyway? What's a "tricharacter"? > Seems to want to talk time, but then again refuses to. I want to talk time, just not as you know it.
From: PD on 5 Jan 2010 16:40 On Dec 25 2009, 5:27 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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. Small problem with units there. Can you spot it? > > 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: PD on 5 Jan 2010 16:45 On Dec 24 2009, 2:51 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > I was just wondering, can anyone tell me at what rate time advances on > earth? Time doesn't really advance. What happens is that what we call "now" by observing an event advances through time. We mark those advances by saying that certain repeatable physical processes, like the swing of a pendulum (to take a coarse example; there are better) advances through the same interval of time every occurrence of that process, when that process is observed locally at rest. This is our only real metric by which we can mark now's advance through time.
From: PD on 5 Jan 2010 16:50
On Dec 25 2009, 9:12 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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. Be careful here. That is not what relativity says. Relativity says that twins in different, SINGLE inertial reference frames will note the same laws of physics in effect -- nothing more and nothing less. In the case of the twin puzzle, this criterion is not met because one twin inhabits at least two very different inertial reference frames (and experiences an acceleration the other twin does not). Secondly, relativity does NOT say that observers in two different reference frames will see the same effects or have the same accounting of events. Even Galileo recognized that even the *shape* of the path of a falling cannonball from the top of a ship's mast depends on whether the observer is on the deck of the ship or is standing on the shore. It is linear in one case and parabolic in the other. The principle of relativity does NOT say that if it is parabolic in one frame then it must be parabolic in the other. > 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? This has been seen using muons in circulating muon beams at the g-2 facility, for one example. |