What is time dilation and how does it relate to Einstein's theory?

[petm1]

SR talks about length contraction and time dilation, I have added length dilation and time contraction just to show the two sides or if you will the duality of SR. Length contraction LC/TC time contraction shows less motion while length dilation LD/TD time dilation shows more motion, meter per second is relative to us in our 3-d finite visible universe, The twist we see in the fact that SR says we see LC/TD when our motion increases and I think that we feel the other twist of LD/TC in gravity. Granted we do not know our true motion and can only tell our motion as compared to some other frame but none the less we do see time constriction the deeper we travel into the gravity well we call earth, and we see time dilation the faster we leave it.

Light exists almost exclusively in 4-d, while we exist almost exclusively in 3-d, and only at very high speeds and very low speeds do we notice the twist that we see through the 4-d of a light wave all the time.

 

[JesseM]

SR talks about length contraction and time dilation, I have added length dilation and time contraction just to show the two sides or if you will the duality of SR.

Did you pay any attention to what I just wrote, and do you have anything to say to it? Do you understand why you can't just do c*(length contraction)/(time dilation) for the speed of light in a different frame, since in my example the distance between light-emission and light-absorption would be 100 light-seconds and the time between these events would be 100 seconds, but the distance and time between these events as measured on the ruler/clock system which is moving at 0.6c in my frame would not be 125 light-seconds and 80 seconds? Do you understand how this is a consequence of both the fact that the ruler is moving in my frame (so the ruler's position is different at the moment the light is absorbed than it was when it was emitted) and the fact that clocks at either end of the ruler are out-of-sync in my frame?

Again, if you have trouble understanding the example, I can draw a diagram to help make it more clear. But please don't just keep ignoring it and repeating the same old incorrect arguments!

 

[petm1]

Actually, beyond the relativity of simultaneity, your argument also doesn't make sense because it ignores the fact that the ruler is moving in my frame. Again, I measure the position and time of light being emitted from a source at rest in my frame, and the position and time of the same being being absorbed by a detector in my frame{/QUOTE]

But Jesse your frame is moving too. Your rest frame is an illusion brought to you from a light wave traveling through 4-d space. The light in your light clock, while appearing to be moving in a straight line up and down is not. We always see light from the outside looking in and it always appears to travel in straight lines and to each of us it appears to be moving at c relative to us, but when viewing another observer who is in motion it appears to have changed. I know that we each can measure and we each can figure out the changes but, why is it that I am always in a rest frame. Could it be because we feel our 3-d frame and see other 3-d frames through a 4-d filter called light? We can show how we all measure light to be the same speed but there is a difference as proven by the moving twins’ age. What is the change each of us makes seamlessly so that we do not feel that difference? I am looking for the answer that will tie everything together and I believe that it will be the little clues that will make it happen.

 

[nakurusil]

Is the "Proca Lagrangian" based on quantum electrodynamics or classical electromagnetism?

QED.
The Procal EM theory plays an important role in setting up the experiments that determine the limits on the photon mass.

 

[JesseM]

But Jesse your frame is moving too.

To talk about whether a frame is "moving" in an absolute sense is meaningless in relativity, you can only talk about whether something is moving relative to another thing, or relative to another frame. In my example, I just used the phrase "moving ruler" to mean "moving relative to myself". It is equally true that an observer at rest on that ruler would consider me to be moving in his frame, and therefore would measure my ruler to be shrunk relative to his, and my clocks to be slowed-down relative to his.

Your rest frame is an illusion brought to you from a light wave traveling through 4-d space. The light in your light clock, while appearing to be moving in a straight line up and down is not. We always see light from the outside looking in and it always appears to travel in straight lines and to each of us it appears to be moving at c relative to us, but when viewing another observer who is in motion it appears to have changed. I know that we each can measure and we each can figure out the changes but, why is it that I am always in a rest frame. Could it be because we feel our 3-d frame and see other 3-d frames through a 4-d filter called light? We can show how we all measure light to be the same speed but there is a difference as proven by the moving twins’ age. What is the change each of us makes seamlessly so that we do not feel that difference? I am looking for the answer that will tie everything together and I believe that it will be the little clues that will make it happen.

Again, questions about what is "really" moving or "really" at rest are meaningless in the context of relativity. All relativity deals with is the practical issue of what different observers will measure if they use rulers and clocks at rest relative to themselves. For an object to be "at rest" in an observer's frame just means it stays lined up with the same mark on his ruler as time passes, for an object to be "moving" in an observer's frame just means the object is passing different marks on his ruler at different times.

So, do you agree that just in terms of measurements, it does make sense that each observer will measure the speed of a light beam (defined in terms of [change in position on his ruler between emission and absorption]/[change in time on his clocks between emission and absorption]) to be c, even though each observer measures the other observer's ruler to be shrunk and the other observer's clocks to be slowed down and out of sync?

 

[petm1]

Motion is the change, more motion gives us time dilation and I do not believe the deeper we travel into gravity well gives us more motion, it gives us less, hence time contraction. It "looks" the same as time dilation but it is not, can we put it is a graph to compare it to time dilation, yes. I wrote it out as a proportional equation, (LC/TC<meter/second<LD/TD) if you think of light being a twist we see all the time, then for more motion we see objects as LC/TD and for less motion we feel and see them as LD/TC.

 

[petm1]

Does this view hold for a full range of numbers in our equation, well when we are talking about motion I think it does, the more motion away makes things appear to follow LC/TD things appear to contract getting smaller as they move away with little change to their time till their speed get high enough, what about the other side, as things get closer and their speeds slow to match ours they do appear to get larger LD/TC, and as their speed matches our Earth's their time does appear to contract the deeper they go into the gravity well.

 

[JesseM]

petm1, this isn't the forum for you to be talking about your own personal theories (and your ideas seem too vague anyway--can you explain how 'length dilation' or 'time contraction' would be measured on actual physical rulers and clocks?). If you have questions about relativity that's fine, if you wish to construct your own alternatives you should submit to the Independent Research forum.

 

[Doc Al]

Well said, JesseM. And on that note, I think it's time to close this thread.