# An absolute time clock!

by roineust
Tags: absolute, clock, time
Mentor
P: 15,553
 Quote by Ymyk You made a great deal claiming that I couldn't measure the one way sol. I didn't try to measure the sol. I already knew the sol as approximately 3x 10^8 km/sec which IO copied out of AE's book "relativity".
And how did you already know the SOL? You assumed it, that is what AE did.

If you set up the equations without that assumption then you will find that you always have more unknowns than equations.
 P: 120 ghwellsjr, No problem, I am here and waiting. Roi.
P: 137
 Quote by Ymyk ghwellsjr, My clumsy language perhaps garbled what is a simple arrangement. Two tranbsponder are separated by a constant distance. A transponder is a device that substitutes fro air traffic control radar. Insted of bouncing the outbound sihnal off of an aircraft, the signal is coded and the 'reflected signal' has the time of arrival and reflection imbeded in the return signal - aircraft ID, azimuth and elevation and calculated distance are included. The transponders are identical in all respects. My argument is straightgforward. A0 is the time imbeded in the outbound pulse in the direction of the B transponder. At A0 the B clock is unknown, or Bu, a recordwed vcalue. When the pulse arrives at B the B clock registers Bu + B1 , where both Bu and B1 are unbknown but their total clock value is recorded when the pulse arrives. In other words the pulse simple tells the clock to give out the current clock time, he Bu + B1. When the pulse returns to A at A2, the B clock now reads Bu + A2, again recorded as x1. Immediately emitting a pulse from A where the clock now is A2, arrives at B at Bu + A2 + B1 = x2 subtracting thye two x's x2 - x1 = Bu + A2 + B1 - Bu - A2 = B1, which is the time of flight of the pulse from A to B. There is no measure of the SOL which is presumed to be constant at unit SOL C = 1. The two clock are ticking at the same rate and even thoughn there was initially no information of what the clock time on B happened to be when the A clock reas A0. There is also the presumption that the motion of the [pulse is independent of the motion of the source of the light - I already knew what the SOL was before the pulse motions began. The repeat of the round tripm trajectory was intended for the purpose of determining what the instantaneous clock time difference of the two transponders happened to be. The transponders work as I have indicatedbut I am sure that the system disrfegards any relativity effects for the reason thagt the velocities are soi slow. Look at it as two clocks separated by a constant distance. On clock emits a pulse at A0 when the B clock time is inknown or Bu, a time recorded when triggered by the arriving pulse. We don't even need to imbed the time of arrival in the reflected pulse. As long as the A transponder has the A0 and A2 times recorded and the B clock has the Bu + B1 time recorded. Calculating the trajectory distances is then trivial and can be accomplished at the observer's pleasure. You made a great deal claiming that I couldn't measure the one way sol. I didn't try to measure the sol. I already knew the sol as approximately 3x 10^8 km/sec which IO copied out of AE's book "relativity". AE didn't know about transponders in 1905. I didn't violate any relativity concept. In fact I claim that determining the velocity of the transponder is determined soley from the three time-of -day events A0, A2, and B1. Which is NOT a measurement of the velocity NOR detection of motion. The three event times are carefully recorded.
What exactly are you trying to get at? I am not sure what your trying to do here. Unless I am reading them wrong the math doesn't line up with what your saying. Why did you send it from A to B, back to A then back to B again? I am trying to go through it and see what your doing but it really doesn't make any sense. You are using A and B clocks in the same frame of reference, why not just synchronize them? Then when you send your signal from A to B you know the start time on A and the time that B gets it just subtract and you get the time it takes to go from A to B. But what does this tell us? I really have no idea what you are trying to get to at the end of all of this.
 P: 31 Hello, All we are trying to build is an Absolute time clock, lets follow the rules of Physics and see if it works, We all know that light beam acts like a wave too, and it has some frequency. And this frequency changes with the motion of the light source, (red shift or blue shift depending on the direction) So let us place a light source and a frequency detector on both ends of a stationary train, and claculate the frequency of the light beam emitted from the light source, What ever this frequency is, Set the speed to zero. (Reletive to the Earth, of cource) Now if the train starts to accelerate/travel to any direction the shift in frequency of the light beam should be detected and claculated to determine the speed of train. Hence these calculated values can be added to a conventional clock onboard which is loosing time because of motion. And we get an Absolute clock for the Earth. (For the Universe it will be a whole new story) I'm not sure, but this is my two cents.
 PF Patron P: 4,153 No, there might be a momentary shift in the color of the light (frequency) during the acceleration but as soon as the effect of that is over, the detected light and the unboard clock behave just like they did before the acceleration. But you could use this or any number of other means to measure/calculate the speed of the train. Now you have a situation where there are two clocks in relative motion. Each clock sees the other one as running slower than its own. Neither clock can be considered Absolute. In fact, you can view both clocks from any frame of reference, including one that is the "average" speed of the two clocks in such a way that they both appear to run at the same rate (both slow in that reference frame). An Absolute clock is considered one that is stationary in the so-called, presumed, universal, at-rest ether which no one knows how to identify if it were to exist and so there is no hope to have an Absolute clock.
PF Patron
P: 4,153
I have uploaded some animations to illustrate the scenarios in my previous post:
 Quote by ghwellsjr OK, good. Now the first thing we must do is put ourselves in the mindset of most of the great scientists of that era. They believed in an absolute ether rest frame in which light propagated at the same constant speed in all directions. Imagine a very brief bright flash of light being set off in this stationary frame. It will create an ever-expanding spherical shell of light, centered on its point of origin with respect to the stationary ether.
 Quote by ghwellsjr They believed that if the source of light were moving with respect to this stationary ether frame, the source would not remain in the center of this expanding spherical shell but would move off-center.
 Quote by ghwellsjr But the question is: how can we tell if the light source remains in the center of this expanding shell or moves off-center? By analogy, we could visualize what would happen if we were observing an expanding ring of waves on the surface of a pool after dropping a pebble in the water because we use light to observe the water, but how can we observe a lightwave once it has started moving away from us? Therein lies the problem: we cannot directly observe the propagation of light so we do the next best thing which is to set up an array of mirrors to reflect the light back to us. Now the best way to "observe" an expanding spherical shell of light is to set up a whole bunch of mirrors, all an equal distance from the source and in all possible directions. Then when we set off the flash it will expand until it simultaneously hits all the mirrors which turn the expanding spherical shell of light into a contracting spherical shell of light which will eventually collapse on the source simultaneously from all directions. For purposes of illustration, we will consider a two-dimensional subset of mirrors and an expanding ring of light, much like the expanding ring of waves on the surface of a circular pool of water as it simultaneously strikes the entire pool wall circumference, reverses direction and simultaneously collapses on the source in the center of the pool.
 Quote by ghwellsjr I realize this is pretty simple so far, but I want to make sure you grasp all the concepts before moving on so if there is anything that is ambiguous or confusing, please let me know before we continue.
P: 2,281
This is an explanation I think I'll modify for use with family members on this issue. Thanks ghwelljr, your posts are always very thoughtful.

Quick question... what's the point of trying to design a clock (I realize you're arguing against it, not for it) to measure something that modern physics tells us is NOT absolute and universal? I must be missing something critical... I thought that one of the central tenants of relativity was the inability to define the passage of time in absolute terms for anything other than an ether?

This thread seems like a backwards argument to get to that absolute frame of reference, but using time as the hook instead of relative motion.
PF Patron
P: 4,153
 Quote by nismaratwork This is an explanation I think I'll modify for use with family members on this issue. Thanks ghwelljr, your posts are always very thoughtful. Quick question... what's the point of trying to design a clock (I realize you're arguing against it, not for it) to measure something that modern physics tells us is NOT absolute and universal? I must be missing something critical... I thought that one of the central tenants of relativity was the inability to define the passage of time in absolute terms for anything other than an ether? This thread seems like a backwards argument to get to that absolute frame of reference, but using time as the hook instead of relative motion.
I'm not sure I understand your concern. Roi is the one who is trying to design an absolute clock which is the same as trying to identify an absolute ether rest frame. I'm trying to show him historically how Special Relativity treats each Frame of Reference as if it were an absolute ether rest frame, just so that he can understand SR. I believe that once a person understands how time dilation, length contraction and relativity of simultaneity work in explaining the null result of MMX in the context of the existence of ether, and how SR is merely a switch in concept where instead of the ether being out there somewhere unknown, we can treat it as if it is any inertial frame of reference, they will no longer search for the ether any more or search for a means to make an absolute time clock.

I have more animations to show how Homer and Rover both think they are in the center of the expanding circle of light and how they each see that the other one also thinks he is in the center, but I want to let this one sink in first.
P: 2,281
 Quote by ghwellsjr I'm not sure I understand your concern. Roi is the one who is trying to design an absolute clock which is the same as trying to identify an absolute ether rest frame. I'm trying to show him historically how Special Relativity treats each Frame of Reference as if it were an absolute ether rest frame, just so that he can understand SR. I believe that once a person understands how time dilation, length contraction and relativity of simultaneity work in explaining the null result of MMX in the context of the existence of ether, and how SR is merely a switch in concept where instead of the ether being out there somewhere unknown, we can treat it as if it is any inertial frame of reference, they will no longer search for the ether any more or search for a means to make an absolute time clock. I have more animations to show how Homer and Rover both think they are in the center of the expanding circle of light and how they each see that the other one also thinks he is in the center, but I want to let this one sink in first.
I agree with you... and given the acceptance and sense of SR/GR... it seems odd to try and find an absolute rest frame, which as you rightly point out is not possible... or rather, not meaningful. I don't see why the switch as you put it, it something people seem to fight like mad though, and that's my concern.
 P: 120 ghwellsjr, I need some time now to learn the text and animations. If you have more, please let me know. Thanks, Roi.
P: 31
 Quote by ghwellsjr No, there might be a momentary shift in the color of the light (frequency) during the acceleration but as soon as the effect of that is over, the detected light and the unboard clock behave just like they did before the acceleration. But you could use this or any number of other means to measure/calculate the speed of the train..
Alright, alright, I agree with you.
So do you agree with me that this arrangement will work only while acceleration, but not in constent velocity situation? If yes, I can put another experiment to show that it is possible to build a clock that will not loose its time because of motion, In simple words, A clock that will keep time with my home clock, no matter what, even if you put it on a jet, a rocket, or any thing faster than that. It should keep its time. I'll give it a try, may be I'm missing something?
Mentor
P: 15,553
 Quote by NoDoubt I can put another experiment to show that it is possible to build a clock that will not loose its time because of motion, In simple words, A clock that will keep time with my home clock, no matter what, even if you put it on a jet, a rocket, or any thing faster than that. It should keep its time.
Sure, in principle it is possible to take an accelerometer, a clock, and a computer and build a device which accounts for relativistic effects and measures coordinate time. That is essentially what GPS does. Such a device would confirm relativity.
PF Patron
P: 4,153
 Quote by NoDoubt Alright, alright, I agree with you. So do you agree with me that this arrangement will work only while acceleration, but not in constent velocity situation? If yes, I can put another experiment to show that it is possible to build a clock that will not loose its time because of motion, In simple words, A clock that will keep time with my home clock, no matter what, even if you put it on a jet, a rocket, or any thing faster than that. It should keep its time. I'll give it a try, may be I'm missing something?
But as I said before:
 Quote by ghwellsjr An Absolute clock is considered one that is stationary in the so-called, presumed, universal, at-rest ether which no one knows how to identify if it were to exist and so there is no hope to have an Absolute clock.
Your home clock is not an absolute clock. And you don't need to actually construct a clock to keep track of earth time, you can do it with Lorentz Transforms as long as you keep track of your accelerations. But even then, you have to be aware that even earth time is not unique except to those stationary on earth. From any other reference frame, time is totally different.

I just don't understand what it is you are trying to "prove" by making a moving spacecraft clock read the same as a stationary earth clock. Would you also try to have a clock on earth keep track of the time on a clock on the moving spacecraft and consider that significant?
P: 31
 Quote by ghwellsjr Your home clock is not an absolute clock. ?
Of cource, I know that.

 Quote by ghwellsjr Would you also try to have a clock on earth keep track of the time on a clock on the moving spacecraft and consider that significant?
This is exactly what I'm trying to do.

"DaleSpam"

I'm sorry, You missed the whole point.
Mentor
P: 15,553
 Quote by NoDoubt I'm sorry, You missed the whole point.
PF Patron
P: 4,153
Quote by NoDoubt
 Quote by ghwellsjr Your home clock is not an absolute clock.
Of cource, I know that.
 Quote by NoDoubt All we are trying to build is an Absolute time clock, lets follow the rules of Physics and see if it works...
And then you proceeded to propose something that I thought was supposed to be an Absolute time clock. Did you change your mind somewhere along the line without telling us? Please be clear and state what it is you are trying to do here.
P: 31
 Quote by ghwellsjr But your first post on this thread started off: And then you proceeded to propose something that I thought was supposed to be an Absolute time clock. Did you change your mind somewhere along the line without telling us? Please be clear and state what it is you are trying to do here.
I think we are having some miscommunications here, Let me try to explain myself again. I'll try to keep it as simple as possible. Thank you.

My understanding is, take two identical clocks (atomic clocks), and put one on a jet or a spaceship for some time. when we bring them back togather, they are out of sinc. The one that was sent out has lost some time, (Time dilation).

And this does not happen to just the clocks, it happens to everything even biological clocks. Even people, (The twin age thing)

So the goal is to make two clocks again, but this time none should loose its time, even when one is send out to Mars or put near a black whole and when brought back, It should have the same time as the other one, that was left on the Earth. (No time dilation for this clock)

So the question is, is it possible? There will be no out side help, like GPS, transponders, etc. etc. It has to be just the clock itself.

I have tried to keep it as simple as I can. I hope it will help.

 Related Discussions Special & General Relativity 16 General Physics 3 Special & General Relativity 4 Special & General Relativity 3 General Physics 23