Does Destroying an Atomic Clock Really Stop Time?

[Heretoignore]

I will not bother saying to much because the post will just get closed if I do not accept the forced discipline. If I shot the aeroplane out of the sky with the Keating experiment on board, destroying the atomic clock in essence
stopping the beats per second of the clock, does this mean time stops?

Because according to science and what I have read, if a caesium clock slows down, time slows down to, so on that basis according to science if I destroy the clock, time stops.

 

[ZapperZ]

You are highly confusing a device to measure time versus time itself. That's like saying if you destroy a meter stick, you destroy space.

Does that make any sense to you?

Zz.

 

[Heretoignore]

You are highly confusing a device to measure time versus time itself. That's like saying if you destroy a meter stick, you destroy space.

Does that make any sense to you?

Zz.

I am not confusing things myself and yes I understand you because I understand the essence of time and what it is. Science says their is a time dilation, special relativity is based on this. I do not want to say to much, but I really do understand everything.
However I get banned for not being to communicate greatly. Are you saying there is not a time dilation then?

 

[ZapperZ]

I am not confusing things myself and yes I understand you because I understand the essence of time and what it is. Science says their is a time dilation, special relativity is based on this. I do not want to say to much, but I really do understand everything.
However I get banned for not being to communicate greatly.Are you saying there is not a time dilation then?

SR is NOT based on time dilation. Time dilation is a CONSEQUENCE of SR's postulates. There is a difference.

And no, I do not believe you understand everything. This is illustrated by the fact that you think if you destroy the cesium click, you can destroy time. This is silly and is not a reflection of someone who "understands everything".

Zz.

 

[Heretoignore]

SR is NOT based on time dilation. Time dilation is a CONSEQUENCE of SR's postulates. There is a difference.

And no, I do not believe you understand everything. This is illustrated by the fact that you think if you destroy the cesium click, you can destroy time. This is silly and is not a reflection of someone who "understands everything".

Zz.

I don't think that, science is saying the equivalent to that by saying time slows down by the differential of the ''beats''.

And obviously by what you have said in reply you agree there is no time dilation. Is it not a gravitational timing synchronisation offset rather than a time dilation?

is the definition worded wrongly and misleading?

 

[Drakkith]

And obviously by what you have said in reply you agree there is no time dilation. Is it not a gravitational timing synchronisation offset rather than a time dilation?

Time dilation as a result of relative motion doesn't involve gravity, so no, it is not gravitational timing synchronization.

 

[Heretoignore]

Time dilation as a result of relative motion doesn't involve gravity, so no, it is not gravitational timing synchronization.

I do not believe that is true, I was under the impression that if you placed an atomic clock on mount everest or such place, that the synchronisation will be offset without relativistic motion?

and are things not always in motion ?

 

[ZapperZ]

And obviously by what you have said in reply you agree there is no time dilation. Is it not a gravitational timing synchronisation offset rather than a time dilation?

is the definition worded wrongly and misleading?

You have a very strange and erroneous way of interpreting what you read. I said and implied no such thing.

Zz.

 

[Heretoignore]

You have a very strange and erroneous way of interpreting what you read. I said and implied no such thing.

Zz.

You said the atomic clock is not actual time, therefore agreeing the synchronisation offset of the Caesium atom does not effect actual time and there is no actual time dilation.

 

[Drakkith]

I do not believe that is true, I was under the impression that if you placed an atomic clock on mount everest or such place, that the synchronisation will be offset without relativistic motion?

That is correct. But what you're missing is that time dilation is a consequence of two things: 1. relative motion 2. differences in gravity
The clock up on Mount Everest does indeed undergo gravitational time dilation. The same is true for planes, satellites, and all objects that are not in the same gravity as you. However, in addition to that effect, relative motion must also be taken into account. For example, GPS satellites experience time slightly faster than we do on Earth because they are farther up and in less gravity, but this is partially offset by an opposite time dilation due to their relative motion which slows time down for them when viewed from our frame of reference here on the Earth's surface. The net effect is that they tick about 38 microseconds faster per day than clocks at sea level do.

See here: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

and are things not always in motion ?

Relative to what? All motion is relative. It is true that you can always find something somewhere in relative motion with yourself, but so what? Unless you're comparing your frame to that one it doesn't matter. A proton moving at 0.99c does nothing to the clock on Everest and myself.

 

[Heretoignore]

That is correct. But what you're missing is that time dilation is a consequence of two things: 1. relative motion 2. differences in gravity
The clock up on Mount Everest does indeed undergo gravitational time dilation. The same is true for planes, satellites, and all objects that are not in the same gravity as you. However, in addition to that effect, relative motion must also be taken into account. For example, GPS satellites experience time slightly faster than we do on Earth because they are farther up and in less gravity, but this is partially offset by an opposite time dilation due to their relative motion which slows time down for them when viewed from our frame of reference here on the Earth's surface. The net effect is that they tick about 38 microseconds faster per day than clocks at sea level do.Relative to what? All motion is relative. It is true that you can always find something somewhere in relative motion with yourself, but so what? Unless you're comparing your frame to that one it doesn't matter. A proton moving at 0.99c does nothing to the clock on Everest and myself.

An observer in ''stationary'' position is always moving relatively with the the body the observer is adjoined with?

You say time, do you really not think the definition should be timing?

Do we not use these clocks for the timing of an increment period?

]That is correct. But what you're missing is that timing dilation is a consequence of two things: 1. relative motion 2. differences in gravity
The clock up on Mount Everest does indeed undergo gravitational timing dilation. The same is true for planes, satellites, and all objects that are not in the same gravity as you. However, in addition to that effect, relative motion must also be taken into account. For example, GPS satellites experience timing slightly faster than we do on Earth because they are farther up and in less gravity, but this is partially offset by an opposite timing dilation due to their relative motion which slows the timing mechanism down for them when viewed from our frame of reference here on the Earth's surface. The net effect is that they tick about 38 microseconds faster per day than clocks at sea level do.

 

[Drakkith]

An observer in ''stationary'' position is always moving relatively with the the body the observer is adjoined with?

If 'adjoined' in this context means that the observer is stationary with respect to the object, then no, there is no relative motion between them. If I lay on the ground there is no motion between me and the ground.

Do we not use these clocks for the timing of an increment period?

Which is how you measure time. So if a clock measures time as running slow or fast compared to another clock, and I've ruled out mechanical fault, then the only remaining explanation is that time is actually passing at a different rate for one clock compared to the other.

 

[ZapperZ]

You said the atomic clock is not actual time, therefore agreeing the synchronisation offset of the Caesium atom does not effect actual time and there is no actual time dilation.

Again, your interpretation is erroneous. A meter stick measures space. It is NOT space. An atomic click measures time. It is NOT time itself.

Nothing here says that there is no time dilation, ESPECIALLY when I corrected you by saying that time dilation is a CONSEQUENCE of SR postulates.

I hate to try and continue to respond to this anymore. How else will you misread other things here?

Zz.

 

[Heretoignore]

If 'adjoined' in this context means that the observer is stationary with respect to the object, then no, there is no relative motion between them. If I lay on the ground there is no motion between me and the ground.
Which is how you measure time. So if a clock measures time as running slow or fast compared to another clock, and I've ruled out mechanical fault, then the only remaining explanation is that time is actually passing at a different rate for one clock compared to the other.

No the Caesium atom is not time itself, it is a timing device used to measure an increment of time, timing is independent to the clock. The clock does not measure time running slow or fast, it measures its own timing running slow or fast. Each atomic clock is independent of another clock, the subsequence of one offset does not have any effect on the others synchronisation.
When you observe a clock do you think you are observing time?
While you observe the clock, you are observing your own time observing the clock.

Time is dependent to each individual observer.

 

[Drakkith]

Please stop asserting your opinion and actually read a technical description of SR and GR. This is all fully explained by those theories. Thread locked.