The discussion revolves around the concept of time and its relationship with spacetime, particularly whether time can be considered to move backwards. Participants explore various aspects of general and special relativity, geodesics in spacetime, and the nature of spacetime itself.
Participants do not reach a consensus on whether time moves backwards or the nature of spacetime. Multiple competing views are presented, particularly regarding the interpretation of spacetime and its implications in relativity.
Some statements reflect uncertainty about the definitions and implications of spacetime, as well as the interpretations of popular science literature. There are unresolved questions about the relationship between motion and spacetime.
Monday morning comes between 11 and 13 hours (depending on time of year) earlier in New Zealand than in UK, both of which are not in motion with respect to the Earth or each other (ignoring plate techtonics).Ibix said:"The closest I can make is to observe that Monday morning comes at different times for frames in motion with respect to the Earth."
A more precise statement of the point I was making is that frames in relative motion have different notions of simultaneity. That means that what one frame calls "now" another frame will call partly in the past, partly in the future, and partly now. This is not the same concept as different locations that share a notion of simultaneity having different names for the same time, which is what your example is.darth boozer said:Monday morning comes between 11 and 13 hours (depending on time of year) earlier in New Zealand than in UK, both of which are not in motion with respect to the Earth or each other (ignoring plate techtonics).
To make this a bit more concrete, suppose that I have a Zoom conference at 8:00 am EST and my colleague in London joins the meeting at 1:00 pm GMT.Ibix said:A more precise statement of the point I was making is that frames in relative motion have different notions of simultaneity. That means that what one frame calls "now" another frame will call partly in the past, partly in the future, and partly now. This is not the same concept as different locations that share a notion of simultaneity having different names for the same time, which is what your example is.
I'm not sure I understand this remark as written; certainly the spatially separated clocks will appear desynchronised to an observer with relative speed ##v## to the Earth by ##\delta t = Lv/c^2##, and if ##v \sim c## then this is ##\delta t \sim L/c \sim 10^{-2} \, \mathrm{s}## between the UK-clock and the USA-clock. Is that what you mean by 'from the perspective of time zones'?jbriggs444 said:From the perspective of time zones, we both agree that we both joined simultaneously [to within 20 milliseconds or so anyway].
The two joins to the Zoom conference are off by only 20 milliseconds at most, no matter what frame one chooses. Not the 5 hours that the time zone offset calls for.etotheipi said:I'm not sure I understand this remark as written; certainly the clocks will appear desynchronised to an observer with relative speed ##v## to the Earth by ##\delta t = Lv/c^2##, and if ##v \sim c## then this is ##\delta t \sim L/c \sim 10^{-2} \, \mathrm{s}## between the UK-clock and the USA-clock. Is that what you mean by 'from the perspective of time zones'?
Even more precisely, inertial frames in relative motion have different notions of Einstein clock synchronized simultaneity.Ibix said:A more precise statement of the point I was making is that frames in relative motion have different notions of simultaneity.
But the notion of simultaneity that is shared by people at different locations on the Earth, that let's them all call into a Zoom call at the same time even though they are in widely different time zones, is not the same notion of simultaneity that inertial frames have. It is not based on Einstein clock synchronization. It can't be, because it is impossible to use Einstein clock synchronization to establish a global notion of simultaneity for a rotating family of observers. (In more technical language, it is impossible to use Einstein clock synchronization to establish a global notion of simultaneity for a family of observers whose worldlines form a congruence with nonzero vorticity. Observers at rest on the rotating Earth are such a family of observers.)Ibix said:This is not the same concept as different locations that share a notion of simultaneity
See the qualifier in the quote above. Clocks at rest on the rotating Earth and using the common time standards that we all use for our clocks will appear desynchronized in any inertial frame that is moving relative to the center of the Earth, if we use that frame's notion of simultaneity. The clocks we use on Earth are simply synchronized using a different notion of simultaneity (roughly, the notion of simultaneity of the inertial frame in which the center of the Earth is at rest, with the clock rate adjusted to the rate on the geoid).etotheipi said:certainly the spatially separated clocks will appear desynchronised to an observer who is using the Einstein clock synchronization notion of simultaneity for the inertial frame in which he is at rest