The discrepancy between the clock on the ground and the clock on the aircraft can only be explained by the relative motion between the clocks as that was the only material difference between the 2 clocks in the experiment.
Your driving analogy is only applicable to time dilation if the odometers measure the same distance despite the fact that we have traveled different distances.
The implication then is that 1 odometer was measuring distance at a different rate to the other. We could then conclude for example...
"All clocks tick at their highest tick rate in a reference frame where they are at rest".
By your definition a clock is always in a reference frame where it is at rest! From this definition it follows that the tick rate of a clock will never vary which is contradicted by the evidence of the...
You have just restated the principles of relative motion.
As to whether there any physical changes to an object in motion is a separate issue. Observationally there are physical changes to synchronised clocks when put in motion as they cease to be synchronised with the relatively stationary...
There is nothing stated or implied in the first postulate that motion is not something physical.
What exactly do you mean by your statement "motion is not physical"?
My original question is "Considering an atom within a rigid body, does the angular momentum of an electron within the atom vary...
As you say SR is a theory of space and time. The definition of time is "that which is measured by clocks" so the workings of clocks are inextricably bound up with time.
Regardless of whether or not time is a separate entity something must be physically affecting the tick rate of clocks in...
Regardless of the different paths taken how is it possible for 3 previously synchronised clocks to indicate different times without their respective tick rates having changed at some point? To my knowledge there is no evidence to support your claim that "all clocks tick physically at the same rate"?
But surely if the mass doesn't increase then it will be possible to accelerate the clock to a speed > c?
In the Hafele Keating experiment the clock moving eastwards indicated an earlier time than the stationary ground clock, so surely it must have been ticking at a slower rate whilst in motion?
My understanding is that particles with mass cannot be accelerated to c due to their mass increasing exponentially. Is there now a different explanation?
To be more specific. Consider 2 identical stationary synchronised clocks A and B at a given location on earth. Clock B is set in motion relative to clock A in an Eastwardly direction at 0.9c. There are 2 physical parameters that are now different in clock B compared to Clock A:
1. Its mass has...
Comparing a body in motion with the same body at rest can we expect a lesser probability of an electron cloud and its effect being in a given location within the vicinity of the nucleus or will it be the same?
If we consider a rigid body firstly at rest. Within a constituent atom of the body we can consider the probability of an electron cloud and its effect being in a given location within the vicinity of the nucleus.
If we then consider the body in motion at 0.9c. Since a constituent atom of the...
So considering a rigid body in motion at 0.9c can we envisage in a classical sense the electrons of a constituent atom moving at a speed close to c but taking the usual (stationary body) time period per orbit of the nucleus due to the extra distance they are traveling through space?