# An absolute time clock!

by roineust
Tags: absolute, clock, time
P: 3,188
 Quote by roineust Thanks Harald... You did not relate to what really bothers me (posts #186, #190, #192), but your clarification was, non the less, enlightening. Roi.
You're welcome Roi!

Every day there is something else that "really bothers you" but it's all very much related. I replied to your post #178 of a few days ago.

#186: "If time dilation exists, without relation to acceleration, that brought the frame to its new inertial state, how could it exist and not exist at the same time?"

I also gave the answer to that question in my last post!
Time dilation is measured wrt what one assumes to be "rest".

It's the same as with kinetic energy: there is said to be none when we say that it is in rest, but there is said to be some when we say that it is in motion. That is Newtonian mechanics - for sure you know it!
How can kinetic energy exist and not exist at the same time? And the example can be pushed further, for it costs energy to bring something into motion and a moving charge also has a magnetic field. How could it have no kinetic energy and no magnetic field?

#190: "The question is, why the device functions exactly the same, also in the 'moving diagram', although we know that time dilation exists (it says, in the 'moving diagram' 'time dilation' with an arrow pointing at clock C)."

I also gave the answer to that question in my last post!
Without time dilation the device would not function exactly the same in motion as in rest.

I have the impression that you confuse the different points of view - a bit like asking how, if kinetic energy does not exist, it can exist. That way you can never understand it.

As measured with the moving frame, the clocks have zero kinetic energy and zero time dilation and the speed of light is c relative to that frame. For that you need no transformation.

#192: "But we know [time dilation] was already detected and verified, experimentally, when a clock was in the 'moving' frame, so how come, when inside the 'moving diagram' or let it be, 'moving frame', it can't be detected?"

That is wrongly formulated as I already answered in #194. As you don't use calculations, wrong formulations are disastrous. Everything is always in all frames; and I explained in my last post how it works!

Regards,
Harald
 P: 128 Hearld, Sorry, but if you open with a complain, that the rate of me having questions, that 'bother me' is a problem - then it makes it harder for me, to read throughly what you write (maybe this is what you are wishing for?). So, maybe when I will be ready to read berating explanations, I will get back to you. Meanwhile, maybe I will find someone, who really has an unheard of, novel way, to explain SR, or maybe corrections to SR will take place in the future. Please - replies only relating to my questions!
 Mentor P: 17,569 I don't think you need more explanations. I think you need to work some problems. There is a reason that homework problems are an essential part of any physics course. In the process of actually calculating the answers you learn things that are not easy to explain verbally. Please work the problem I suggested in 188, I think it will help your understanding.
P: 3,188
 Quote by roineust Hearld, Sorry, but if you open with a complain, [..] Please - replies only relating to my questions!
Sorry if I sounded like complaining, that was not intended! I tried to make clear that already the answers had been there, in our earlier replies.
But this time I did even better, for just after answering your post #178 (which clarified a lot for you), I now answered in one reply: