Speed of Time
in [Relativity]
|
From: Ste on 27 Dec 2009 00:04 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. But to those who say it *does* move ever-forward, I ask, and what *rate* does it move ever-forward? Unless you can tell me the rate, then you have no evidential basis to say it moves ever-forward. And let me be clear: if you're a true relativist, you will freely accept my proposition, that time is standing still on Earth.
From: Ste on 27 Dec 2009 00:11 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. You disproved relativity; because relativity says that no matter what the frame of reference, the effects will be the same. The astronaut will perceive a slowing down of events on earth on the out-bound journey, then simultaneity-with- time-lag during the stop, and then a speeding up of events on Earth on the in-bound journey. If special relativity holds, then when the astronaut returns to Earth, his age should be the same as that of his twin. Incidentally, I know the answer to the assymmetry of ages in the twin paradox. I'll give you a clue: it's because the proper frame of reference is neither the Earth alone nor the rocket alone.
From: Androcles on 27 Dec 2009 01:07 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:7dfc99f9-fbfa-4957-96a0-1a06346525f7(a)j42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... On 27 Dec, 00:04, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:5b346f59-142c-43de-9543-208e09be2187(a)n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > Believe it or not though, this contrivance of "moving reference > frames" is closer to the truth than you might think. What changes is > not the reference frame. What changes is the astronaut's relative > length (i.e. length contraction). > ============================================= > You mean length expansion, surely? > xi = x' / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) where x' = x-vt, the length. > > Dividing by something less than 1 INCREASES the quotient. > Believe it or not though, this contrivance of "moving reference > frames" is closer to utter bullshit than you hallucinate. You forgot to adjust the speed of light. ========================================= Believe it or not though, this contrivance of "adjusting speed of light" is further from the truth than you might hallucinate. What changes is not the reference frame. What remains the same is the idiot's answer. You forgot to engage brain before opening mouth. Let's try again. You mean length expansion, surely, idiot?
From: Ste on 27 Dec 2009 03:39 On 27 Dec, 06:07, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:7dfc99f9-fbfa-4957-96a0-1a06346525f7(a)j42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On 27 Dec, 00:04, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote: > > > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:5b346f59-142c-43de-9543-208e09be2187(a)n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > > Believe it or not though, this contrivance of "moving reference > > frames" is closer to the truth than you might think. What changes is > > not the reference frame. What changes is the astronaut's relative > > length (i.e. length contraction). > > ============================================= > > You mean length expansion, surely? > > xi = x' / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) where x' = x-vt, the length. > > > Dividing by something less than 1 INCREASES the quotient. > > Believe it or not though, this contrivance of "moving reference > > frames" is closer to utter bullshit than you hallucinate. > > You forgot to adjust the speed of light. > ========================================= > Believe it or not though, this contrivance of "adjusting speed of light" > is further from the truth than you might hallucinate. What changes is > not the reference frame. What remains the same is the idiot's answer. > You forgot to engage brain before opening mouth. Let's try > again. You mean length expansion, surely, idiot? No, I don't mean length expansion. If length contracts by a certain factor, then the speed of light reduces (numerically) by the same factor (because the speed of light is based on metres per second, and if the measured length of the metre reduces, then necessarily the speed of light in existing equations must reduce). Incidentally, equations can be adjusted to take account of length contraction, but keep the speed of light numerically constant - at the moment however, equations are geared for time dilation instead (and, you being an expert n'all, you know that time dilation and length contraction are the two sides of the same coin).
From: Evil's Toy on 27 Dec 2009 04:09
Ste wrote: > 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. Hm, since time does not exist,neither it can stand still, neither it can move forward. Events happen or not. When something happens we call that, time passes. We grow old and eventually die. Earth moves, clocks ticking... We notice that we are hungry. This all proves that something happens. > > But to those who say it *does* move ever-forward, I ask, and what > *rate* does it move ever-forward? Unless you can tell me the rate, > then you have no evidential basis to say it moves ever-forward. It does not move forward, it does not move backward. It just happens that something happens before, something after. Problem is how you determine that something happened before or after or in same moment? Since such information is not available in same moment event happened, we simply cannot reliably determine whether something happened in same moment, before or after that moment. If there are two observers in different positions related to two objects, depending on position of observers, they can notice different order of events because information that something happened is not simultaneous ,rather information travels. Therefore, we cannot determine that something happened in same moment because information that something happened is not same moment when something happened. > > And let me be clear: if you're a true relativist, you will freely > accept my proposition, that time is standing still on Earth. There is no time, again. Earth definitely rotates, we notice day and night change. Events happen, we count events. Therefore "time" passes. We call that forward in time. You cannot measure time if there is not something else to synchronize on. How we calculate speed? In school they thought me speed depends on time. What distance you go in some time. Since time on Earth is not same as time on Mars, if we count Mars revolution, speed on Mars would be expressed in different units than speed on Earth. One Mars second is 1.03 Earth seconds. So if I move 1 km per 10 Earth seconds. On Mars I would move 1.03 km per 10 Mars seconds. Which of course does not means that I move at different speeds, rather that speed is same, but synchronization object is different. So if I use clock synchronized on Earth rotation, I would measure same speed on Mars, based on that clock. Greets |