Speed of Time
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 25 Dec 2009 22:28 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ee5c4ca0-faf6-46a8-8565-c830f685d3b9(a)m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > I was just wondering, can anyone tell me at what rate time advances on > earth? There is no such thing as a rate of time, as 'rate' implies change over time. That is a problem with the English language (and I suspect most if not all human languages). But one can compare the rates of ticking of clocks (which measures time) and compare the rates in different locations or at different relative velocities. There is no absolute measure of 'rate' of time (whatever that means)
From: Inertial on 25 Dec 2009 22:29 "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote in message news:BWaZm.1$QX6.0(a)newsfe13.ams2... > > "snapdragon31" <snapdragon31(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:d9dc0b9f-663d-4564-a7c1-3a6f54ba9a51(a)u1g2000pre.googlegroups.com... > 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. > > ======================================= > Dork likes to hallucinate moving clocks make stationary clocks > run faster. He's insane, but of course lunatics never know they > are lunatics. Nope .. 'moving' clocks do nothing at all to 'stationary' clocks or vice versa. Unless of coude the moving clocks runs into the stationary clock and smashes it . Or the clocks are so massive their gravitational fields affect their ticking :):)
From: Inertial on 25 Dec 2009 22:31 "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. it is nonsense to talk of the 'rate' of time > So I'll ask again, at what *rate* does time advance. There is only the relative rate at which processes happen > 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. Indeed it is .. but then, asking the rate of time is similarly nonsensical
From: Inertial on 25 Dec 2009 22:33 "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote in message news:7PcZm.714$7u4.16(a)newsfe07.ams2... > > "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. Again .. you lie to make SR, and hte statments of others about it, appear ridiculous. > 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 Indeed they will. Of course, I guess Androcles will deny all the experimental evidence of time dilation etc.
From: Inertial on 25 Dec 2009 23:03
"Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:c6d4ea67-9711-4b79-b35f-7bc54e086b76(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. He was using the Lorentz transforms of SR > It > rubbishes relativity. Nope > Relativity says that both twins will perceive > the same effects, relative to their own frame of reference. No .. it does not. This is something many novices stumble over. The two twins are no equivalent as one remains at rest in his initial frame of reference, the other twin changes frames of reference (ie does not remain at rest in his initial frame of reference). In fact he changes inertial frames three times (given instantaneous acceleration) .. once when he leave his twin, one when re turns around to come back, and another when he stops when he gets back to the stay-at-home-twin. The stay-at-home twin stays at rest in his inertial frame of reference through out. NOTE: You can avoid two of the changes by starting the experiment the instance after the twin starts to move away, and finishing the instant before he stops .. then there is just one change in inertial frame. NOTE: You can also eliminate the instantaneous (infinite) acceleration altogether by having three 'twins' (triplets then). I'll explain if you like. What really makes a difference is the change of inertial frame of reference. > If that is > true, then the astronaut cannot return younger than the homebody - it > cannot happen. Sorry .. it does > 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. Nope .. you can do the analysis from either point of view, and you get the same result > 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? Because less time has elapsed for the travelling twin. Unlike spatial dimensions, where the shortest distance between two point is a straight line (and so a twisty path is longer) for the temporal dimension the straight line is the longest temporal distance (elapsed time). The more you move in your path from one event to another, the shorter the time taken. |