Time

[Alberti_Devoveo]

The other way around. The moving clock is slower.
Does the direction make a difference here?

Nope, we are looking at T’ = T[sub]0[/sub]ɣ and ɣ=1/sqrt(1-v[sup]2[/sup]/c[sup]2[/sup]).

Let’s make a simplification.
We have a satellite that is traveling with the Earth and the satellite stays constantly behind the Earth, it’s in the Earth’s shadow. No spinning, the Earth satellite travels with the Earth and follows its path.
The Earth satellite shows 1 year. What time is on the Sun-stationary satellite? Is it more or less than 1 year? Why?

I am getting bored of these examples. I have already answered the questions to which you are inquiring again.
Time dilation is a real, testable effect. Do you deny this fact, or are you just trying to find new examples that would give the same tested effect?

… and v is squared in the time dilation equations, what’s the issue?

You did not read the section I pointed you to in the link, did you? It is plain as day if you would just look at it.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Nope, we are looking at T’ = T[sub]0[/sub]ɣ and ɣ=1/sqrt(1-v[sup]2[/sup]/c[sup]2[/sup]).

Please, check the ‘twin paradox’. The moving clock shows less time, the moving clock is slower.

I am getting bored of these examples. I have already answered the questions to which you are inquiring again.
Time dilation is a real, testable effect. Do you deny this fact, or are you just trying to find new examples that would give the same tested effect?

Well, you answered with this: “Yes, the sun-stationary clock would show one year plus or minus some time.”
The time on the Sun-stationary satellite can not be both plus or minus. It’s going to have only one value.
I am not trying to deny the time dilation. It’s real. I am trying to point to a bigger picture here. I guess we will not get there.

You did not read the section I pointed you to in the link, did you? It is plain as day if you would just look at it.

I did open the link. I am sorry, I missed the Romegav portion of the equations.
Having said that, the reason I mentioned the Earth satellite is to eliminate this part of the equations and also the gravitational time dilation, which would be very small for the Earth satellite.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Jano:

Even so, if the Higgs particle is a point particle, it, like all other point particles, is dimensionless. So, now we are left with “forces” producing solidity and mass. And, while we have no sensory perception of a force, except for its effect(s), we have sensory perception of solidity, mass and weight. Now, we could say that our perceptions of mass and solidity are simply how the Higgs particles manifest. But that seems to beg numerous questions.

God bless,
jd

Dan,
People are talking about Higgs boson but the more interesting things are ‘Higgs’ field, neutrinos and ‘drag’.
God bless,
Jano

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Please, check the ‘twin paradox’. The moving clock shows less time, the moving clock is slower.

Ah, you are correct. I should have divided by ɣ, not multiplied by it. One of the regular mistakes I make with time dilation and length contraction (not something I teach in the courses, nor something I deal with on a regular basis).

Well, you answered with this: “Yes, the sun-stationary clock would show one year plus or minus some time.”
The time on the Sun-stationary satellite can not be both plus or minus. It’s going to have only one value.

You are completely missing the point by focusing on something completely irrelevant. Whether it is behind or ahead is not important, the fact that it is not the same is the important bit.

I am not trying to deny the time dilation. It’s real. I am trying to point to a bigger picture here. I guess we will not get there.

In the words of Tuco Ramirez: When you have to shoot, shoot. Don’t talk. If you want to point to the bigger picture, just do so. Do not go around in a giant circle to get to the point, just do it.

I did open the link. I am sorry, I missed the Romegav portion of the equations.
Having said that, the reason I mentioned the Earth satellite is to eliminate this part of the equations and also the gravitational time dilation, which would be very small for the Earth satellite.

First, show me a point in the universe where gravitational potential is zero. Second, the Pound-Rebka experiment showed that time dilation is present for two objects in different positions of a gravitational potential.

 

[zro_x]

No, it would not take up space. It would annihilate, check the vacuum fluctuation.

Huh? you mean quantum particles popping into and out of existence? How does that show that a still particle annihilates?

 

[pig]

Okay, so you are completely unwilling to concede a point. That is fine. I will not waste any more time discussing time with you.

not at all Alberti, I will concede any point at all, but I value extremely your time thinking about this. I hope you are not going to go away thinking I am not listening or hearing you. You are expressing an established view and defending it. But without conversation everybody loses.
Continue conversing with me on terms and in ways I find logical and the conversation will continue. It is not a topic to fall out over.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

not at all Alberti, I will concede any point at all, but I value extremely your time thinking about this. I hope you are not going to go away thinking I am not listening or hearing you. You are expressing an established view and defending it. But without conversation everybody loses.
Continue conversing with me on terms and in ways I find logical and the conversation will continue. It is not a topic to fall out over.

The problem is that you are being unreasonable and illogical all while thinking that you are both reasonable and logical, so you are indeed not listening or hearing me. It is a topic not worth continuing if you have no intent of being reasonable or of being logical.

 

[pig]

The problem is that you are being unreasonable and illogical all while thinking that you are both reasonable and logical, so you are indeed not listening or hearing me. It is a topic not worth continuing if you have no intent of being reasonable or of being logical.

maybe its just our perceptions of logic and reason differ. we perhaps see and measure the same thing but see different origins for the results. e.g. you may see time itself as affecting or effecting a material clock but i may see time as the measurement for an effect on the clock. I could be vastly wrong, I don’t know. But i would like very much to see a clock, a spring-wound clock, slowing with acceleration. Then I think I would be satisfied that you are right and that I am wrong.

Am I right in thinking that you are of Italian extraction or origin because I spent many happy days in the company of a group of Italians on a very long, difficult, [time difficult], walk to santiago. ‘Our feet are on fire’ was the Italian description of the pain, I am fond of the Italians. Very friendly and great walkers too.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

maybe its just our perceptions of logic and reason differ. we perhaps see and measure the same thing but see different origins for the results. e.g. you may see time itself as affecting or effecting a material clock but i may see time as the measurement for an effect on the clock. I could be vastly wrong, I don’t know. But i would like very much to see a clock, a spring-wound clock, slowing with acceleration. Then I think I would be satisfied that you are right and that I am wrong.

There is no perception of logic; there is only logic and illogic.

The problem with the Hafele-Keating experiment being repeated with a spring-wound clock is that spring-wound clocks are only accurate to an hour. Within a week, spring-wound clocks can be off by minutes. Your test is an impossible feat.

Am I right in thinking that you are of Italian extraction or origin because I spent many happy days in the company of a group of Italians on a very long, difficult, [time difficult], walk to santiago. ‘Our feet are on fire’ was the Italian description of the pain, I am fond of the Italians. Very friendly and great walkers too.

You are wrong, I am American by birth. If you go back far enough (to my great-grandparents, I believe), my ancestors were Irish.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Ah, you are correct. I should have divided by ɣ, not multiplied by it. One of the regular mistakes I make with time dilation and length contraction (not something I teach in the courses, nor something I deal with on a regular basis).

You are completely missing the point by focusing on something completely irrelevant. Whether it is behind or ahead is not important, the fact that it is not the same is the important bit.

No, I don’t think I am missing any point.
There is a clear distinction; one clock goes faster and the other slower. This is the case for both: twins and the two satellites as well. It is very important!
When two previously synced clocks meet again and they are out of sync and we exclude gravity then a conclusion is the slower clock was moving faster. The question: moving faster in what reference frame?

In the words of Tuco Ramirez: When you have to shoot, shoot. Don’t talk. If you want to point to the bigger picture, just do so. Do not go around in a giant circle to get to the point, just do it.

This thing will not fly if we can not get through reference frames.
It’s all linked, even the blue shifted galaxies.

First, show me a point in the universe where gravitational potential is zero. Second, the Pound-Rebka experiment showed that time dilation is present for two objects in different positions of a gravitational potential.

The gravitational time dilation can be dismissed in case of the satellites.

 

[pig]

There is no perception of logic; there is only logic and illogic.

The problem with the Hafele-Keating experiment being repeated with a spring-wound clock is that spring-wound clocks are only accurate to an hour. Within a week, spring-wound clocks can be off by minutes. Your test is an impossible feat.

My logic is not your logic. You were talking about large-scale known things, but I am talking about almost imaginary unknown-scaled things, like concepts. For you it is the radiation, for me it is the time before radiation is possible. It is the concept of reality I am interested in but we speak at cross purposes and you speak about large-scale things, too complicated to consider in an abstract way.

You are wrong, I am American by birth. If you go back far enough (to my great-grandparents, I believe), my ancestors were Irish.

Even now, I am wrong. The Irish I have a great regard for, some of the greatest walkers I have known were Irish. One could walk 50 miles a day across Ireland, the others walked 75 miles non-stop to the pilgrimage site at Lough Derg, they put alum [whatever that is I don’t know exactly] on their feet before they left to stop blisters.

 

[Jaaanosik]

maybe its just our perceptions of logic and reason differ. we perhaps see and measure the same thing but see different origins for the results. e.g. you may see time itself as affecting or effecting a material clock but i may see time as the measurement for an effect on the clock. I could be vastly wrong, I don’t know. But i would like very much to see a clock, a spring-wound clock, slowing with acceleration. Then I think I would be satisfied that you are right and that I am wrong.

Am I right in thinking that you are of Italian extraction or origin because I spent many happy days in the company of a group of Italians on a very long, difficult, [time difficult], walk to santiago. ‘Our feet are on fire’ was the Italian description of the pain, I am fond of the Italians. Very friendly and great walkers too.

The Lorentz contraction is real. It stiffens the spring.
What else do you want to hear?

 

[pig]

The Lorentz contraction is real. It stiffens the spring.
What else do you want to hear?

I want to see it in action, has anybody accelerated a spring?

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

No, I don’t think I am missing any point.
There is a clear distinction; one clock goes faster and the other slower. This is the case for both: twins and the two satellites as well. It is very important!
When two previously synced clocks meet again and they are out of sync and we exclude gravity then a conclusion is the slower clock was moving faster. The question: moving faster in what reference frame?

The answer is it depends on the situation and whose frame of reference you are in. If you are standing on earth, the spaceship is moving slower; if you are in the spaceship, the earth is moving slower. I believe the physical resolution is that the moving traveler is actually the one who is slower–but this is due to the non-inertial frame in order to get into the moving frame.

This thing will not fly if we can not get through reference frames.
It’s all linked, even the blue shifted galaxies.

You are still just talking and not shooting…

The gravitational time dilation can be dismissed in case of the satellites.

Actually, the aforementioned Pound-Rebka experiment proved that gravitational time dilation exists any time there are two observers in different positions of a gravitational field.

 

[Jaaanosik]

The answer is it depends on the situation and whose frame of reference you are in. If you are standing on earth, the spaceship is moving slower; if you are in the spaceship, the earth is moving slower. I believe the physical resolution is that the moving traveler is actually the one who is slower–but this is due to the non-inertial frame in order to get into the moving frame.

Two synced clocks. The spaceship leaves and comes back after 10 years on the Earth. The spaceship clocks show 6 years. What does it mean?
The spaceship was moving 10 Earth years at the speed of 0.8c.

If we want to turn it around from the spaceship perspective what would we say? The Earth was moving for 6 years at what speed exactly in order to get 10 years on its clocks?

You are still just talking and not shooting…

Actually, the aforementioned Pound-Rebka experiment proved that gravitational time dilation exists any time there are two observers in different positions of a gravitational field.

If we do the numbers for our satellites then the gravitational time dilation is much smaller than the speed time dilation for 30km/s. What is g at 10,000km for the Earth surface?

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Two synced clocks. The spaceship leaves and comes back after 10 years on the Earth. The spaceship clocks show 6 years. What does it mean?
The spaceship was moving 10 Earth years at the speed of 0.8c.

If we want to turn it around from the spaceship perspective what would we say? The Earth was moving for 6 years at what speed exactly in order to get 10 years on its clocks?

In the ship’s perspective, earth would have moved away at 0.8c. In the rest frame, everyone else is moving away from you. Earth’s rest frame has the rocket moving away, in the rocket’s rest frame, earth is moving away.

If we do the numbers for our satellites then the gravitational time dilation is much smaller than the speed time dilation for 30km/s. What is g at 10,000km for the Earth surface?

g = GM/R^2, so if we are adding 10,000 km to the ~6400 km radius of earth, then it is roughly 1.5 m/s/s, compared to the standard 9.81 m/s/s on the surface. As comparison, the moon has a g=1.4 m/s/s at the surface.

 

[Jaaanosik]

In the ship’s perspective, earth would have moved away at 0.8c. In the rest frame, everyone else is moving away from you. Earth’s rest frame has the rocket moving away, in the rocket’s rest frame, earth is moving away.

The issue is that if the Earth was moving away then after 6 years on the spaceship we expect 3.6 years on the Earth clocks. That is not the case, the Earth clock shows 10 years.
The conclusion is the Earth frame of reference is preferred.
Do you understand the implications of what we see here? The spaceship frame of reference is supposed to be inertial and equivalent to the Earth frame.
There is a clear relationship: the Earth frame of reference is preferred and the spaceship frame of reference is moving one.
Does it look like that the time is relative?
A serious question: is the time relative?

g = GM/R^2, so if we are adding 10,000 km to the ~6400 km radius of earth, then it is roughly 1.5 m/s/s, compared to the standard 9.81 m/s/s on the surface. As comparison, the moon has a g=1.4 m/s/s at the surface.

Correct, and it translates to 0.273ns gravitational time dilation.
Velocity time dilation for 30km/s is ~ 5ns approximately 20 times bigger.

If we take number of seconds in a year and multiply it with 5ns then we get ~ 0.16s time dilation. The Earth satellite would show 0.16s less than the Sun-stationary.

If we think about the spaceship example then after 10 years 1.6s passed more in the Sun-stationary frame of reference.

So how many ‘higher’ frame of references we can go?

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

The issue is that if the Earth was moving away then after 6 years on the spaceship we expect 3.6 years on the Earth clocks. That is not the case, the Earth clock shows 10 years.

No, the traveler would expect that earth-dwellers would have aged 6 years because what he experienced was that earth moved away for 3 years and then spent another 3 years returning; just as the earth-dwellers would have expected the traveler to have aged 10 years because he went away for 5 years and then came back for 5 years. Both parties would be surprised at the result of the difference.

The conclusion is the Earth frame of reference is preferred.

This is true but seems to ignore the reason as to why the earth frame is preferred. The reason is that the traveler is in two inertial frames (one for each direction) and three non-inertial frames (one for accelerating away, one for changing directions, and one more for decelerating upon return) while the earth-dweller resides in just one inertial frame. Thus, it is clear that the preference is not for earth simply because it is earth, but because the earth-frame is always an inertial frame.

Do you understand the implications of what we see here? The spaceship frame of reference is supposed to be inertial and equivalent to the Earth frame and does not frame-jump.
There is a clear relationship: the Earth frame of reference is preferred and the spaceship frame of reference is moving one.

Re-read the above.

Does it look like that the time is relative?
A serious question: is the time relative?

When properly understood, it certainly looks like time is relative. The Hafele-Keating experiment conclusively proved that time is indeed relative. The Russians also showed this in a much more accurate manner with the Scout Rocket experiment. As did the several-times-aforemention Pound-Rebka experiment.

Correct, and it translates to 0.273ns gravitational time dilation.
Velocity time dilation for 30km/s is ~ 5ns approximately 20 times bigger.

If we take number of seconds in a year and multiply it with 5ns then we get ~ 0.16s time dilation. The Earth satellite would show 0.16s less than the Sun-stationary.

If we think about the spaceship example then after 10 years 1.6s passed more in the Sun-stationary frame of reference.

So how many ‘higher’ frame of references we can go?

I am not sure that ‘higher’ is an applicable word there. And I fully recognize that gravitational time dilation would be pretty small, however I do not believe that anything is negligible enough to ignore safely (and I practice this in my research).

 

[Jaaanosik]

Thanks Alberti,
let’s postpone our discussion for a few months.
God bless,
Jano

 

[catholictiger]

time doesn’t exist in reality it only exists in the mind.

see Augustine Confessions book 11 chapter 27

but at the same time I would say time is relative in the scientific sense, not sure about the philosophical sense.