Register to reply

An absolute time clock!

by roineust
Tags: absolute, clock, time
Share this thread:
harrylin
#199
Feb27-11, 07:07 AM
P: 3,184
Quote Quote by roineust View Post
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
roineust
#200
Feb27-11, 07:17 AM
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!
DaleSpam
#201
Feb27-11, 07:32 AM
Mentor
P: 16,981
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.
harrylin
#202
Feb27-11, 09:13 AM
P: 3,184
Quote Quote by roineust View Post
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:

- your post #186,
- your post #190,
- your post #192

So, I answered to all your remaining questions in my last reply!

Did you really read it and think it over? Next you could try to get a better feeling for it by doing a few calculations, as Dalespam and I recommended.

Success!
Harald
ghwellsjr
#203
Feb27-11, 09:15 AM
PF Gold
P: 4,686
Roi, are you trying to understand how in one frame time dilation can exist for a particular clock but in another frame, there is no time dilation for the very same clock?
harrylin
#204
Feb27-11, 09:34 AM
P: 3,184
Quote Quote by ghwellsjr View Post
Roi, are you trying to understand how in one frame time dilation can exist for a particular clock but in another frame, there is no time dilation for the very same clock?
I'm pretty sure of that - that's why I gave him the kinetic energy example!
PhilDSP
#205
Feb28-11, 06:59 AM
P: 603
Hi Roi,

I'm wondering if it might be easiest to put everything together if one first understands why the concept of length contraction became the primary aspect of SR and LET in the first place. To understand that we really don't need to refer to the MMX and neither do we need to know any terminology or relationships which are now part of SR or LET.

To begin, we can describe how the frequency of sound waves are experienced when a person moves with respect to the source of the sound waves. Do you understand the Doppler effect and can you describe that verbally or with math?


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Time Dilation Light Clock Example Special & General Relativity 16
Preception of time on a Clock. General Physics 3
How Does a Clock Measure Time? Special & General Relativity 4
The light clock and time dilation. Special & General Relativity 3
A photonic clock - absolute time General Physics 23