Atari_Me said:
So far the response seem to revolve around radioactive decay as the measuring stick to show change in 'age' over time. This begs the question, what other measuring sticks do we have to show change in the 'age' of an object over time?
Well, no - radioactive decay was chosen because it is not affected by environmental factors like temperature, so it is very consistent. But *any* stable and time dependent process can be used to measure the passage of time, to a certain level of accuracy as long as other environmental factors are controlled for; Tree rings, at-bats, beers consumed, wrinkle depth, denim fading...anything. So that means any radioactive decay can be used, depending on other practical considerations. For example, some medical imaging uses Molybnium 99, which has a half life of 3 days. You could probably age a week-old sample to within an hour of its actual age.
Be careful here with your definitions, though: don't play games with the definitions of "age" and "time". Again; you can change the impact that the passage of time has on an object by altering environmental factors, but you cannot change its *actual* age.
I agree that discerning the differences between objects frozen and objects accelerated may dip into engineering a bit, but it is also relativity related as one of the primary principles of relativity is that if you remove reference points, determining whether an object is moving toward you or you are moving toward the object is impossible, or at least irrelevant. This question goes to the heart of the same thing, if you remove the reference point of freezing or moving near the speed of light, how can you discern that an object has been moving near the speed of light when compared to a deeply frozen object.
No. Again; temperature is not frame dependent. The reason why is simple: the motion of molecules in a substance is random, so it has a specific rest frame. It is *not* the same as the speed of an extended object.
Going to your comment Russ about the clock would not be impacted by near zero temperatures, are there any studies to show this?
Absolutely. Controlling for/predicting/assessing environmental factors, such as temperature, is a critical component of metrology, for measuring
anything.
The components of the clock would most certainly be impacted.
As you said earlier; other than physical damage that prevents its operation. If you freeze a mechanical clock and the hands stop moving because of it, that doesn't have anything to do with the actual rate of the passage of time.
What I am trying to sort out here is how you can show that at object moving near the speed of light is being impacted by Einsteinian relativity and not another force, perhaps one unaccounted for.
Again, be careful here: you are again straying into @phind's point of confusing absolute and relative speeds.
An object cannot be affected by speed itself because it has an infinite number of speeds at the same time. The only viable explanation for Relativity is that the passage of time is frame dependent, not that it is speed dependent.
This might sound like a semantic issue, but it's really not and confusing the two issues would become a problem if you started discussing General Relativity and gravity. Unlike speed, gravity
can affect physical processes. A puendulum clock would behave differently on the moon than on Earth in addition to the actual time dilation that is occurring. So you need to understand the difference and be able to account for both when they are both present and recognize when only one is present.
Also, I feel I need to remind you that PF's rules prohibit discussion of non-mainstream ideas. It is fine to ask why Relativity works or how we know, but it is not ok to start with a premise of rejecting it and actively looking for an alternative. You're getting close to that line.