So we have problems with clocks measureing time ?

[4newton]

Where do you get the idea that theories are open to interpretation?

Have you read some of the posting?

Before I reply to the rest of your comments let us try to resolve one point about reference frames as all else may resolve it self if we reach agreement on this point.

Consider
If you start from your current reference frame ( fz ) and send a clock (A) away at a relativistic speed in all different directions. Each time clock (A) always comes back with less time. Less time indicating that clock (A) ran slower.

You can then conclude that your reference frame ( fz ) is the slowest. Then is your reference frame the same or different than all other reference frames.

In all other reference frames except ( fz ) the clock would come back some of the times with the clock indicating more time. More time indicating the clock had been moving slower than that reference frame.

( fz ) then may be considered the zero or rest frame.

 

[russ_watters]

Have you read some of the posting?

Have you learned any physics outside of internet forums? Your understanding (not "interpretation") of the scientific method (not to mention the laws of physics) is flawed.

Consider
If you start from your current reference frame ( fz ) and send a clock (A) away at a relativistic speed in all different directions. Each time clock (A) always comes back with less time. Less time indicating that clock (A) ran slower.

So far so good.

You can then conclude that your reference frame ( fz ) is the slowest.

No. In the first sentence of your thought experiment, you defined your reference frame as being stationary when you said "if you start from your current reference frame..." If you repeat the experiment in any other reference frame, you'll get the same results as predicted by the first postulate.

Then is your reference frame the same or different than all other reference frames.

Exactly the same (as stated in the 1st postulate of SR).

In all other reference frames except ( fz ) the clock would come back some of the times with the clock indicating more time. More time indicating the clock had been moving slower than that reference frame.

Nope. Experimentation has shown this to be incorrect. Thus Relativity was born. And just to clarify, the postulate that the laws of the universe are the same for all reference frames wasn't invented by Einstein: it exists in Newtonian mechanics and Galileo's relativity as well. Ironically, you think you're boosting Newton by attacking Einstein, but you're not: you're error is in the part of the theory common to both.

 

[4newton]

Have you learned any physics outside of internet forums? Your understanding (not "interpretation") of the scientific method (not to mention the laws of physics) is flawed.

Sir I find you lack manners, rigid in you thoughts, and unable or unwilling to comprehend concepts. If you check the methods used by Einstein you will find someone else with methods you do not approve.

Consider
If you start from your current reference frame ( fz ) and send a clock (A) away at a relativistic speed in all different directions. Each time clock (A) always comes back with less time. Less time indicating that clock (A) ran slower.

No. In the first sentence of your thought experiment, you defined your reference frame as being stationary when you said "if you start from your current reference frame..."

The first sentence in no way stated that ( fz ) was stationary.

You jumped to that conclusion, in you mind, after you read the experiment realizing that the experiment taken to its end result does prove frame ( fz ) must be a rest frame and stationary. Your religion of SR will not allow you to be open to this concept.

When you said

If you repeat the experiment in any other reference frame, you'll get the same results as predicted by the first postulate.

In all other reference frames except ( fz ) the clock would come back some of the times with the clock indicating more time. More time indicating the clock had been moving slower than that reference frame.

Nope. Experimentation has shown this to be incorrect. Thus Relativity was born. And just to clarify, the postulate that the laws of the universe are the same for all reference frames wasn't invented by Einstein: it exists in Newtonian mechanics and Galileo's relativity as well. Ironically, you think you're boosting Newton by attacking Einstein, but you're not: you're error is in the part of the theory common to both.

If clocks run at different rates when moving at different velocities as stated in SR

www.bartleby.com/173/12.html

Then some clocks moving at a slower velocity when brought back to a clock moving at a higher velocity will indicate more elapsed time indicating it had been running faster.

The statements you make in rebuttal contain no arguments about the area under consideration. I have given you two experiments to question the extent of SR. All you return with is that it violates SR. I am not asking for permission that these concepts pass the SR test. I am stating that SR is unable to explain the results of these experiments.

 

[russ_watters]

Sir I find you lack manners, rigid in you thoughts, and unable or unwilling to comprehend concepts. If you check the methods used by Einstein you will find someone else with methods you do not approve.

Sorry if you percieve a lack of manners - I'm being blunt, but you need to hear it and accept it. Your understanding is incorrect and the reason is your education (or lack of). That's not an insult, its a fact and an observation. And I do most certainly approve of Einstein's methods. He was an outstanding scientist. You need to accept that you are not Einstein.

The first sentence in no way stated that ( fz ) was stationary.

You jumped to that conclusion, in you mind, after you read the experiment realizing that the experiment taken to its end result does prove frame ( fz ) must be a rest frame and stationary. Your religion of SR will not allow you to be open to this concept.

I'm sorry, but all you are saying here is that you don't even understand what a reference frame is or how to define one. Defining a reference frame is critical to any measurement - even in Newtonian physics.

Lets look at that sentence (fragment) again:

If you start from your current reference frame ( fz ) and send a clock (A) away at a relativistic speed in all different directions.

What is the reference frame (not its name, give me a description) and what are you doing with respect to that reference frame?

In all other reference frames except ( fz ) the clock would come back some of the times with the clock indicating more time. More time indicating the clock had been moving slower than that reference frame.

Asserting it over and over does not make it true. Let me repeat: this has been shown by experiment to be false.

The statements you make in rebuttal contain no arguments about the area under consideration. I have given you two experiments to question the extent of SR. All you return with is that it violates SR. I am not asking for permission that these concepts pass the SR test.

Reread the explanation just above and at the bottom of the previous post. I'll repeat it one more time: what you propose has been shown by experimentation to be false. It reflects your personal view of how you want the universe to work, not how the universe actually works.

Forget SR, look at the evidence. Maybe you had some preconcieved notion of what I'd argue, but you are putting words in my mouth I didn't say. This quote:

If you repeat the experiment in any other reference frame, you'll get the same results as predicted by the first postulate.

Does not say that your idea is wrong because it violates SR, it says your idea is wrong because experiments show it to be wrong. I mention SR only to add the fact that the predictions of SR do match the experimental results.

I am stating that SR is unable to explain the results of these experiments.

Yes, I know. This statement is factually inaccurate. The body of evidence for SR is truly massive. Show me one actual experiment that doesn't fit with the predictions of SR.

If clocks run at different rates when moving at different velocities as stated in SR...

They do.

Then some clocks moving at a slower velocity when brought back to a clock moving at a higher velocity will indicate more elapsed time indicating it had been running faster.

Slower relative to what? Slower relative to your hypothetical universal reference frame? Once more: experimentation has shown that this frame does not exist.

Maybe a little reality will help: You've heard of GPS, right? GPS satelites have extremely accurate clocks on board that are synchronized to a clock on the ground. These clocks are so accurate that SR (and GR) effects must be taken into account when synchronizing them. Since the satellites are on a number of different orbital inclinations, they should show variations in tick rate depending on their orientation with respect to the Earth's motion through your proposed universal reference frame. This is your thought experiment (albeit somewhat more complicated). Clocks in GPS satellites do not show the behavior you predict.

And have you heard of the Michelson-Morley experiment...?

 

[4newton]

You said:

What is the reference frame (not its name, give me a description) and what are you doing with respect to that reference frame?

I did not want to insult you or your education but if you require an education here it is.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
In physics, an inertial frame of reference, or inertial frame for short, is a frame of reference in which the observers move without the influence of any accelerating or decelerating force. The term "inertia" refers to a direction through spacetime, and "frame" defines an area wherin the inertia is functionally the same for the relevant observers.
The inertial frame is a space-time coordinate system that neither rotates nor accelerates. Different inertial reference frames may have different origins at any given moment in time, and their respective origins may be moving at constant speed and direction relative to each other. A non-inertial frame of reference is a coordinate system which is accelerating. The transformation from one inertial frame of reference to another is done using Lorentz transformations, or, at speeds considerably below the speed of light, Galilean transformations.

As I stated before.

Consider
If you start from your current reference frame ( fz ) and send a clock (A) away at a relativistic speed in all different directions. Each time, clock (A) always comes back with less time. Less time indicating that clock (A) ran slower.

I left out the term inertial to allow for a coordinate system that may not be moving.
The object of the experiment, that you don’t seem to get, is can you have a zero reference frame in which the relations of SR still apply. For example, can you determine the difference of the rate of a clock from a rest frame to a moving frame? Or with your inability to understand concepts and nit pick terms. Can you apply the relations of SR to any coordinate system? If SR is unable to be used when considering the possibility of any absolutes in the universe then there is a limitation on SR.

Clocks in GPS satellites do not show the behavior you predict.

I think to help with you education you should look at:
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp

If you go to the site above you will find no support for your position.

If you have any source of SR experimental results that disprove my two experiments I would be very happy to learn of them.

If clocks run at different rates when moving at different velocities as stated in SR
www.bartleby.com/173/12.html
Then some clocks moving at a slower velocity when brought back to a clock moving at a higher velocity will indicate more elapsed time indicating it had been running faster.

Slower relative to what? Slower relative to your hypothetical universal reference frame? Once more: experimentation has shown that this frame does not exist.

Again you leave me no choice except educate you and explain to you the terms of a formula.
The rate of a clock as given in Einstein’s formula is stated with respect to C, C is the speed of light, and V, V is the velocity of the clock in a spatial direction. It stated nothing more and nothing less. If it will help your understanding then you name, describe, find a reference frame, or what ever else you must do to understand the concept.

What experiments?

And have you heard of the Michelson-Morley experiment...?

What does that have to do with the above?

 

[russ_watters]

I did not want to insult you or your education but if you require an education here it is.

I didn't ask for a definition of a reference frame, I asked for a description of the specific reference frame you were working with. If someone asks you what your car looks like, do you say it has 4 wheels and an engine?

In your thought experiment, what is your velocity with respect to yourself?

Have you heard of the train tool for explaining reference frames? There are two guys - one sitting on a train moving at 10ft/sec (with respect to the platform), one standing on the platform. There is a woman walking forward on the train at 1ft/sec with respect to the train.

-With respect to the man on the train, the woman is moving at 1ft/sec.
-With respect to the man on the platform, the woman is moving at 11ft/sec.
-With respect to herself, she is stationary.

3 different reference frames from which to measure her speed, therefore 3 different speeds. All 3 are equally valid and therefore all 3 can be used to make accurate predictions about things like how long it will take for her to get to the end of the train. And yet none of them take into account the rotation of the Earth (but it would still work if you choose to use it). All 3 can also be used to predict the time dilation of a clock she carries with her for the purpose of synchronizing her clock with the clocks the two guys are carrying. You are saying that all 3 would give different predictions about her time dilation and that only one can be right.

The object of the experiment, that you don’t seem to get, is can you have a zero reference frame in which the relations of SR still apply.

You can keep repeating it(and I do understand what you are saying - its just that what you are saying is wrong), I'll keep telling you its wrong on both levels - no, its not consistent with SR, and no, it does not reflect reality. Again, the 1st postulate of SR is that all reference frames are equally valid. If all frames are equally valid, how can one be more valid than the rest?

Can you apply the relations of SR to any coordinate system?

Yes. Of course. That (again) is the 1st postulate.

If SR is unable to be used when considering the possibility of any absolutes in the universe then there is a limitation on SR.

Well of course SR has limitations: it is constrained by the requirement that it match observations.

I think to help with you education you should look at:
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmolo...-relativity.asp

If you go to the site above you will find no support for your position.

If you have any source of SR experimental results that disprove my two experiments I would be very happy to learn of them.

That's a great link. I've read it before. You clearly do not understand it, but the gist of it is that GPS satellites perform exactly as SR/GR predict. I'm starting to doubt that you're serious here: you alternately argue that your idea fits SR and that SR is wrong. To argue against my assertion that SR fits observations, you post a link that says SR fits observations. Its bizarre. Come right out and say it: do you think SR fits observations or not?

Then some clocks moving at a slower velocity when brought back to a clock moving at a higher velocity will indicate more elapsed time indicating it had been running faster.

So, for example, a clock orbiting the Earth perpendicular to Earth's orbit around the sun will move faster (on average) than one orbiting parallel to Earth's orbit and as a result its clock will tick slower. Is that would you would predict?

Again you leave me no choice except educate you and explain to you the terms of a formula.
The rate of a clock as given in Einstein’s formula is stated with respect to C, C is the speed of light, and V, V is the velocity of the clock in a spatial direction. It stated nothing more and nothing less. If it will help your understanding then you name, describe, find a reference frame, or what ever else you must do to understand the concept.

You know Einstein didn't come up with that equation, right? Its called a Lorentz tranformation. If the equation was everything, we wouldn't need Einstein - we'd be using "Lorentzian Relativity" today (that is, btw, essentially what you are advocating). The part about reference frames, which you apparently don't think is relevant, is Einstein's entire contribution to the theory. If you don't use it, you're not using the equation as Einstein intended, you are using it as Lorentz intended.

SR says that all reference frames are equally valid, ie no one frame is "better" than the rest and the laws of the universe work the same for all of them. So which is it: do you want to use SR or not?

And again, its funny that you would say reference frames don't matter - in your attempt to show something about reference frames. Statements like that make me think you're kidding about all of this.

What does that (M&M experiment) have to do with the above?

The Michelson Morlely experiment was an attempt to find the universal reference frame. Since your thought experiment is an attempt to find the universal reference frame, I figured it might be relevant.

Have you heard of muon decay experiments? Muons decay at a fast and predictible rate. When fired from a particle accelerator, time dilation slows their decay rate. Would you predict that a muon fired in the same direction of the Earth's motion would decay faster, slower, or at the same rate as one fired in the opposite direction of the Earth's motion.

Also, the Earth's motion is about 1000 mph. If a particle is fired at C-500mph (relative to the ground), but in the direction of Earth's rotation, does that mean it is travleling faster than C?

If the speed of objects has an absolute relative to some universal reference frame, does light as well? Ie, since we measure the speed of objects to be different in different frames, but there is one "true" speed, does the same apply to light?

 

[russ_watters]

http://caos.creol.ucf.edu/seminars/Measurement,%20Relativity,%20Einstein%20and%20Everything%20Else.ppt is a nice little Power Point presentation. It may be educational. It states the 1st postulate in a slightly different way than I do, which better addresses your point. But go through all the slides (there are only 20) - it covers just about everything we've talked about (its so close to the discussion in the thread its a little scary).

 

[russ_watters]

I just realized I missed something before that should have been rather obvious. Embarassing (and annoying), but its important:

First off, I'm not great with the particle physics, so I think I had a couple of experiments confused. THIS is pion decay:

Pion experiments at CERN have measured time dilation effects. Pions are produced in high energy collisions of nucleons. They are unstable and decay into a muon and a neutrino.

Not taking into account time dilation pions would travel about 7.6 meters before decaying.

Taking into account time dilation a pion of energy 4.5 GeV would travel about 250 meters before decaying.

CERN has measured a mean distance of 250 meters before the pions decay.

Now, according to your hypothesis, how long it takes to decay depends on the "true" speed of the pion relative to the universal reference frame. That distance would vary if the pion was shot in different directions, just like your clocks' time dilation varies. That means that in order to make a prediction of 250 meters, CERN first had to know the "true" speed with respect to the universal reference frame. So where did they get that prediction from unless they already know about the universal reference frame?

In your experiment with the clocks, you don't make a specific prediction about the time dilation rate. Ie, you couln't predict the exact time dilation of any of those clocks because you don't know the "true" speed with respect to the universal reference frame.

To put a finer point on it, without knowing your true speed with respect to the universal reference frame, you can't predict time dilation. How then can your link say this:

Special Relativity (SR) predicts that atomic clocks moving at GPS orbital speeds will tick slower by about 7,200 ns/day than stationary ground clocks.

Since we haven't found the universal reference frame from which to make that prediction, how can they say such a thing?

 

[RedDye5]

so... the frame we're in is always the fastest frame temporal-wise? that's the conclusion I'm reaching if any clock sent from that frame will return with slower time.

but we're also the slowest frame spatial-wise... weird

 

[4newton]

Let us start at this place and see if we can work together. I am sorry for any remark that I have made that was personal. I will try to restrain myself in the future.

I think at this point that it would be useful to start new with the basics.
You read the post on the GPS system. I think you agree it works. Do you also agree, disregarding gravity, that if you take a clock, as they did in the GPS system, from Earth surface to the orbital distance of the GPS that your clock will slow down? Like wise if you take a clock from the GPS orbit to the Earth surface it will speed up?

 

[4newton]

A frame is an idea that is used to consider all things collectively that share a common condition. In Special Relativity the common condition is movement in the spatial dimension, or velocity. Although all things under consideration may consist of objects it is not restricted to objects. Some of the objects under consideration are clocks and the length of a rigid object. By invention, not based on any direct observation, Einstein proposed a relationship between velocity and the objects that may be moving at the same rate. Most important however, are his relationships between frames moving at different velocities. A collection of objects moving in a spatial direction may be called an inertial reference frame. The discussion we are trying to have here: Is SR the limit of reality and requires all things to exist only in relations to other things in the universe or is SR just a statement of relationships of some things in an absolute universe.

The relationship you call weird is no different then you getting in a car and finding that the more you push the gas pedal your car will go faster or the other way around if you push the brake the car will slow down.

 

[russ_watters]

so... the frame we're in is always the fastest frame temporal-wise? that's the conclusion I'm reaching if any clock sent from that frame will return with slower time.

but we're also the slowest frame spatial-wise...

Not quite - in 4Newton's thought experiment, you're always stationary. But if you're accelerating, then you can't really consider yourself stationary. You've left the frame you started in. In that case, your clock will be slower than the clock in that frame.

weird

It is weird. Someone once said about quantum mechanics that if you think it makes sense, you don't understand it. But its good that you're thinking about it with an open mind even though it doesn't make sense.

 

[russ_watters]

You read the post on the GPS system. I think you agree it works. Do you also agree, disregarding gravity, that if you take a clock, as they did in the GPS system, from Earth surface to the orbital distance of the GPS that your clock will slow down? Like wise if you take a clock from the GPS orbit to the Earth surface it will speed up? GPS satellites have their clock rates calibrated prior to launch using Einstein's prediction so that once in orbit they stay in sync with ground-based clocks.

Absolutely. The question is how much.

By invention, not based on any direct observation, Einstein proposed a relationship between velocity and the objects that may be moving at the same rate.

The second part doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but the first is factually inaccurate: Einstein proposed SR because of a known difficulty in reconciling the observation that C is constant with Newtonian physics. GR came about because of inaccuracies in Newtonian predictions about the orbits of planets.

 

[4newton]

Absolutely. The question is how much.]

I think we have a starting point.
The main point is that we now agree that the rate of clocks is bi-directional. If a clock ( L ) that has been moving with a velocity in a spatial dimension and has a spatial velocity that is less than clock ( M ) and clock ( H ) and clock ( M ) has been moving at a velocity that is less than clock ( H ) then, clock ( H ) will run the slowest and clock ( L ) will run the fastest and by agreement, clock ( M ) is in the exact middle and has a rate to that effect.
If we bring all three clocks together, after a set time period, without changing the conditions of clock ( M ) then, clock ( L ) will have accumulated the most time and clock ( H ) will have accumulated the least time.

Do we still agree?

 

[4newton]

By invention, not based on any direct observation, Einstein proposed a relationship between velocity and the objects that may be moving at the same rate.

The second part doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but the first is factually inaccurate: Einstein proposed SR because of a known difficulty in reconciling the observation that C is constant with Newtonian physics. GR came about because of inaccuracies in Newtonian predictions about the orbits of planets.

If you will check
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmolo...-relativity.asp
this is Einstein’s paper. You will see the relationship of rigid objects and clocks when moving at a velocity in a spatial dimension.

Direct measurement is the key word. At that time no one had measured the change of clocks or rigid objects with velocity.
I think everyone should spend a little time looking at the method used by Einstein. It is not the scientific method and was disapproved of at the time, in fact it is still disapproved of today.

 

[mattcom]

what? a clock is something that measures time, like anything else, even the clock work of a solar system. but that solar system IS moving very fast through space, around the center of the galaxy. and how fast is that galaxy moving? are we all moving through space at an amazing speed? how does that effect the rate of clocks? or the rate of a solar system clock? sorry, i may be on a differnt level of understanding than you scientists. what exactly are u talkin bout?

 

[n0n]

what is all this frame talk? frame this frame that, whatever I haven't had time to read the rest of the posts just the last few, so if this has been said before sorry. I think time is fluid, like water & air going from hot to cold

that the fluid(time) uses a scale like absolute 0 temp. only absolute 0 temp. would be the speed of light or 299792458 meter/sec. and any range above absolute 0 temp. would be effected by time much like absolute 0 temp. is effected by heat. For time is infinite distance and is why Einstine declared Space and Time to be the same thing. Thier for time shouldn't be based on frame but on a relitiveness to light.

unit-time to travel (on 2D of Distance)@ speed=(distance/(speed/C))/Distance
C = 299792458 m/s

this then shows the ability to observe separate time continuums. I am on a rocket going the speed of light, it will take 1 time unit for me to get any distance, but say I were traveling 5,000,000,000meters . you would see 16.6782047seconds (or depending on the distance any amount of time).
Based on our rotation around the earth(1609344m/s) and sun(107826048m/s), and say my rocket were in space starting at (0m/s), you would only feel 2.7394470 unit-time. within my 1. note: if the distance were the same as the speed of light but the speed were different the classic t = d/s would work. so the slower you go over a larger area means more unit-time's. but at c always just 1 unit-time, even if its 1000million m away or even greater.

this is usefull in gyro's, for they can tell any movement changes and time relative to the objects initial starting point and speed. the accuracy of the clock would then be dependent on the accuracy of the labled initinal starting point and speed. a chip could calculate the difference and reset itsslef to keep perfect time without a hitch. for as long as the gyro's would keep going

some say that light goes can go faster then the speed of light, gravity waves move at the speed of light too so thierfor gravitational speed increase in relation to light is not increasive only decreasive.

 

[4newton]

what? a clock is something that measures time, like anything else, even the clock work of a solar system. but that solar system IS moving very fast through space, around the center of the galaxy. and how fast is that galaxy moving? are we all moving through space at an amazing speed? how does that effect the rate of clocks? or the rate of a solar system clock? sorry, i may be on a differnt level of understanding than you scientists. what exactly are u talkin bout?

In the spatial dimension you are only able to move in one direction and at only one speed at a time. Your speed and direction are the vector sum of all the forces that act on an object, you, in this case, are the object. Your current direction and rate are as you state. The result of all the actions you list and more. If however you move out into space and you pick a direction and apply a force that will cancel all of the motion you will come to a point of rest or steady state.

Clocks tick at a rate that is dependent on how fast they are moving. Clocks that move faster tick slower and as clocks move in the spatial dimension at a rate that approaches the speed of light the tick of the clock approaches zero.

The question is what is the maximum rate that a clock can tick? In theory this would be when your motion in space is zero. You would then be at a point of zero motion, or zero velocity. That point then would be the zero reference frame for clocks. No clock can run faster because you can not go slower then zero velocity. The experiment that I proposed is to find the point of zero velocity.

 

[Prometheus]

If however you move out into space and you pick a direction and apply a force that will cancel all of the motion you will come to a point of rest or steady state.

Are you suggesting that it is possible to come to a point of rest with respect to the entire universe?

The question is what is the maximum rate that a clock can tick? In theory this would be when your motion in space is zero. You would then be at a point of zero motion, or zero velocity. That point then would be the zero reference frame for clocks. No clock can run faster because you can not go slower then zero velocity. The experiment that I proposed is to find the point of zero velocity.

Zero velocity is absolutely meaningless, unless you are of the opinion that all non-accelerating velocities are at zero velocity, in which case it is relatively meaningless (pun intended).

I do not understand how you can consider it possible for an object to be at complete rest with respect the the entire universe, which will never be at rest with respect to the object. Perhaps you might elucidate this.

 

[n0n]

I think that this has been said before but, their is no such thing as no movement in space. for one, time, speed, and distance are all referances to things on earth. and in space only inirtia exists so any direction at any speed could still be considered not moving at all. time is erronious in that aspect but using constants and relitive referance points, we can figure it out. in a designated distance if you don't speed then time= inf->. but if you do speed then its all relitive. so 1 Distance = infinite time (0 movement in relation to bass object), infinite distance = 1 time (speed of light).

 

[russ_watters]

I think we have a starting point.
The main point is that we now agree that the rate of clocks is bi-directional. If a clock ( L ) that has been moving with a velocity in a spatial dimension and has a spatial velocity that is less than clock ( M ) and clock ( H ) and clock ( M ) has been moving at a velocity that is less than clock ( H ) then, clock ( H ) will run the slowest and clock ( L ) will run the fastest and by agreement, clock ( M ) is in the exact middle and has a rate to that effect.
If we bring all three clocks together, after a set time period, without changing the conditions of clock ( M ) then, clock ( L ) will have accumulated the most time and clock ( H ) will have accumulated the least time.

Do we still agree?

Yep. Still there.

Direct measurement is the key word. At that time no one had measured the change of clocks or rigid objects with velocity.

Quite right. Time dilation was predicted mathematically based on the observation that the speed of light is constant. But are you saying that he shouldn't have suggested it because it hadn't yet been observed? That isn't now, nor ever has been the way science works. Ptolmey's epicycles were such a mathematical model. They matched the observations of known motions because they were designed to - but they had no real predictive value (ie they could only tell you what you already knew about the motion of the planets). Making predictions isn't just a requirement of the scientific method, its the whole reason science exists.

 

[russ_watters]

what? a clock is something that measures time, like anything else, even the clock work of a solar system. but that solar system IS moving very fast through space, around the center of the galaxy. and how fast is that galaxy moving? are we all moving through space at an amazing speed? how does that effect the rate of clocks? or the rate of a solar system clock? sorry, i may be on a differnt level of understanding than you scientists. what exactly are u talkin bout?

I don't know how new this idea is to you, mattcom, so this may come as a shock: the rate of the passage of time is not constant. It varies with speed and gravity.

what is all this frame talk? frame this frame that, whatever I haven't had time to read the rest of the posts just the last few, so if this has been said before sorry.

All physical measurments require a well-defined frame of reference for them to have any meaning. Voltage is measured with respect to a ground, temperature on a scale tied to the behavior of water. Speed is measured with respect to an arbitrary stationary observer.

It may be that this seems so basic to you that you've never even thought about it. If so, fine - its been a part of science since the very beginning, but still (clearly) some people have issues with the concept.

Are you suggesting that it is possible to come to a point of rest with respect to the entire universe?

Yes, that is what is being incorrectly suggested.

 

[brodix]

Well, Dr. Dick should be back soon. Are we discussing measuring time, or what is time?

As my point seems to have been lost in the shuffle, I may as well repeat it;

All physical measurments require a well-defined frame of reference for them to have any meaning. Voltage is measured with respect to a ground, temperature on a scale tied to the behavior of water. Speed is measured with respect to an arbitrary stationary observer.

It may be that this seems so basic to you that you've never even thought about it. If so, fine - its been a part of science since the very beginning, but still (clearly) some people have issues with the concept.

That frame of reference is relative and since time is a measure of motion, it is effectively going in the opposite direction. While the unit of time goes from beginning to end, the process(the frame of reference) is going on to the next unit, toward beginnings, leaving ends.

 

[4newton]

It has been agreed that:
If a clock moves from reference frame ( H ) to reference frame ( M ) the clock will have an increase in rate, the clock will tick faster. Like wise a clock that moves from ( M ) to ( L ) will again increase in rate.
Therefore if the rate of a clock is relative only from frame to frame then the process may continue without limit and the clock rate will increase without limit. You have but two choices. A point where velocity may be absolute zero or time rate without limits.
This of course also applies to meter rods. Your meter rod would increase to infinity.
Do we still agree?

 

[4newton]

All physical measurements require a well-defined frame of reference for them to have any meaning. Voltage is measured with respect to a ground.

this is correct. Your voltage may decrease until it reaches zero the same as you reference. The two points then have the same number of electrons or no electrons. Both are valid for the measurement.
Are you suggesting that every place in the universe must have electrons?

 

[russ_watters]

It has been agreed that:
If a clock moves from reference frame ( H ) to reference frame ( M ) the clock will have an increase in rate, the clock will tick faster. Like wise a clock that moves from ( M ) to ( L ) will again increase in rate.

You said nothing in your last post about a clock moving into a different reference frame. All you had were 3 clocks in 3 frames moving at 3 speeds. But if you accelerate H's clock to M's speed, its tick rate will slow down relative to a stationary observer.

Therefore if the rate of a clock is relative only from frame to frame then the process may continue without limit and the clock rate will increase without limit.

Except for the caveat that no clock can stop due to time dilation because no clock can go the speed of light, there is no limit to how different the readings of two identical clocks can be.

You have but two choices. A point where velocity may be absolute zero or time rate without limits.

Since nowhere in any of this has the word "absoute" appeared, it doesn't belong there either. In fact, it directly contradicts everything we were just agreeing on: if everything is relative (except C), then how can anything be absolute?

Maybe I should have forced you to specify after you first brought up the speeds of M, L, and H: speed relative to what? A stationary observer is, of course, the answer, but that's still not good enough: is that an absolutely or relatively stationary observer? If you say absolutely, then you are assuming that speed is absolute, not demonstrating it.

In any case, if you jump into a spaceship and accelerate to just under the speed of light, you will return to Earth to find an almost infinite amount of time passed on earth: Your clock was going almost infinitely slower than an identical clock on Earth and the clock on Earth was going almost infinitely faster than yours. That's a time rate without limits.

This of course also applies to meter rods. Your meter rod would increase to infinity.

In actuality, if you are measuring its length with a clock and a speedometer, it can either increase to infinity or decrease to zero.

this is correct. Your voltage may decrease until it reaches zero the same as you reference. The two points then have the same number of electrons or no electrons. Both are valid for the measurement.
Are you suggesting that every place in the universe must have electrons?

This may have been a bad example because there can be an absolute ground (and an absolute zero temperature, for that matter). The point was that in a circuit, voltage is measured between any two points in the circuit.

Sorry, but this is so self-evident for low-speed applications that I'm having trouble giving a good analogy. I use them just because it seems like you are overcomplicating this and confusing yourself. How about this: are you on board with the idea that two people can play ping-pong on a moving train as long as the train never accelerates?

Also, I'm a little disturbed by how you ignored the presentation I posted. Did you read it? If so, you saw how specifically it refuted your position, right? How do you reconcile that? The way I see it, that gives you a pretty clear choice: you can choose to accept that your position is wrong or you can choose to accept that your position is right and the entire physics community is wrong. Doesn't seem like a difficult choice to me (but it does require admitting you're wrong - which is difficult for many people).

 

[4newton]

But if you accelerate H's clock to M's speed, its tick rate will slow down relative to a stationary observer.

Again let's cover one point at a time.

First. In my example H is moving at a velocity faster than M and the tick rate should be faster.
Second. Are you saying that acceleration has something to do with the clock rate?

 

[Chronos]

There is a simple way to resolve this issue. Propose an experiment that results in observations that do not agree with GR. As Einstein said, 'it only takes one to prove me wrong'.

 

[Chronos]

Footnote: The reason some of us are so 'dogmatic' about GR, is because it has passed, with flying colors, every test devised to prove it wrong. Nobody said it was perfect, just that is more so than any alternative explanation offered to date. Perhaps someday we will scoff Einstein in the same way we scoff at Newton. But, today is not the day.

 

[brodix]

Chronos,
If space is ultimately flat, wouldn't that imply an absolute from which expansion and gravitational collapse are just fluctuations?