Is Time Merely A Construct Of The Imagination ?

[A-wal]

Time is only a dimension in a matematical sense, primarily due to Minkowski.

IF the mathematics is are correctly describing reality then they are obviously an accurate description of it and it makes no sense "time is only a dimension in a mathematical sense".

 

The only motion is spatial, with 'time' being an accounting of the motion.

Motion is distance over time. Movement by definition requires both space and time.

 

You can't remember the future, events that have not been observed.

The only thing that defines whether or not an event has been observed if whether or not it exists as a memory. You can't use subjective memory to define objective time.

 

That's the word I was trying to think of, objective. I must have deleted those after xyz's continual misuse of the them.

 

Time is cumulative vs space which is not. It is just a number which only has meaning to humans.

Undefined gibberish.

 

Aging due to time dilation is permanent, length contraction is not.

You're confusing proper time (that's its official term) with the dimension of time. Time dilation is every bit as permanent as length contraction, you can't have one without the other.

 

The mind remembers previous states and connects them as a continuum.

'Previous' is defined by what is remembered. It's circular reasoning to think that what is remembered is defined what's 'previously' occurred.

 

Now the not even wrong stuff is out of the way I can move on the actually wrong stuff. :)

To me, the essential difference between dimensions of space and dimensions of time is that rotations of an object involving 2 spatial dimensions can be performed with arbitrarily small quantity of physical work, while rotations involving a spatial dimension and a temporal one cannot.

What you're comparing is the trajectory of a worldline with the orientation of an object in space. Those aren't equivalent. To illustrate the difference imagine an object that is traveling alone at half the speed of light from your frame of reference. It can rotate as much as it likes using very little energy but its path (its worldline) remain straight.

 

To travel on a curved path through space requires constant acceleration. The angle of this curve depends on the frame of reference of the observer, just like a world line in four dimensional spacetime. A curved path requires two dimensions and it make no difference which two dimensions are used.

Edited October 6, 2016 by A-wal

[xyz]

To me, the essential difference between dimensions of space and dimensions of time is that rotations of an object involving 2 spatial dimensions can be performed with arbitrarily small quantity of physical work, while rotations involving a spatial dimension and a temporal one cannot.

 

Consider an ordinary meter stick oriented along the north-south axis. With a small amount of work (force applied over distance), I can rotate it to be oriented along the east-west axis. Its length on the usual, arbitrary 3 spatial axes (x,y,z) before was, let’s say, (0.05 m, 1 m, 0.01 m). After, it’s (1 m,0.05 m, 0.01 m)

 

Now consider the stick (or, to be precise, the history of the stick) with the time dimension added. With a lot of work, I can rotate it not to affect its x and y axis length, but to affect its t (time) and y length. I can “rotate” it from a before length of (0.05 m, 1 m, 0.01 m, 86400 s) (since a historied object has to have not only spatial but temporal extent, I arbitrarily gave this a lifetime of 1 day) to an after length of (0.05 m, 0.8 m, 0.01 m, 108000 s). This “rotation” is due to the familiar length contraction and time dilation transformations – the stick becomes shorter spatially, but “longer” temporally.

 

Unlike with a spatial dimension only rotation, which I can make with arbitrarily little work, there’s an well-defined minimum work required to make this spatial-temporal dimension rotation. Let’s say the stick has an invariant mass of 1 kg. To give it the spatial-temporal rotation, I must accelerate it to 0.6 c, which requires at least [math](1 - \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-0.6^2}} \,\mbox{kg} ) c^2 = 22468879468420441 \,\mbox{J}[/math]. (For perspective, this is a lot of work/energy – about 5.37 megaton TNT equivalent!)

 

Another way to look at this difference is to ignore work, and note that with the space-space rotation, the velocity of the stick didn’t need to change, but with the space-time rotation, it did.

 

My reasoning here is a bit lose and fuzzy, but hopefully enough to show that there is a concrete, essential difference between time and space.

Craig, motion, spin, distance, rates and likes have nothing to do with real time. 

 

A third observer, observes a void, free space without matter or energy.   Do you think that there is no ''time'' in the void?  the time is there existing interwoven with the void.  Things exist in time, things can be timed in time, i.e using a rate to measure increments of ''time''. 

Edited October 8, 2016 by xyz

[A-wal]

Craig, motion, spin, distance, rates and likes have nothing to do with real time. 

 

A third observer, observes a void, free space without matter or energy.   Do you think that there is no ''time'' in the void?  the time is there existing interwoven with the void.  Things exist in time, things can be timed in time, i.e using a rate to measure increments of ''time''. 

Utter BS from a simple mind that can't understand basic reasoning! Shown to be BS with observational evidence and the very simple fact that the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames. Go away!

[xyz]

Utter BS from a simple mind that can't understand basic reasoning! Shown to be BS with observational evidence and the very simple fact that the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames. Go away!

A simple  mind?  really the troll insults are becoming tiresome now and in no way bother me.   Go find somebody whom may be offended . 

 

Quite clearly you have not grasped the concept of time very well and only have the ability to recite your education in some way trying to show off what you  have learnt like a good ''teachers pet''. 

 

 

You clearly think time is related to a velocity or a rate and have no idea how to grasp the concept of absolute time and space occupied by relative things. 

[A-wal]

A simple  mind?  really the troll insults are becoming tiresome now and in no way bother me.   Go find somebody whom may be offended .

Not meant as a trolling but as an observation based on your inability to grasp simple truths when they are shown to in simple terms many time and in multiple ways.

 

Quite clearly you have not grasped the concept of time very well and only have the ability to recite your education in some way trying to show off what you  have learnt like a good ''teachers pet''.

I barely even went to high school. I'm challenging general relativity by throwing down a gauntlet for anybody to demonstrate general relativity's assertion that there's a distinction between 'space-like' and 'time-like' dimensions.

 

You clearly think time is related to a velocity or a rate and have no idea how to grasp the concept of absolute time and space occupied by relative things. 

The constant velocity of the speed of light proves that lengths in time and space are relative to the observer. Observational evidence and simple common sense show that the notion of absolute time and space is nonsensical bollocks and your inability to even understand why this view is easily disproved show that you have very severe reasoning issues, ie a simple mind. Your refusal to accept that you can't grasp it and insistence that you know better show that you are also deluded. I'm not saying this to be nasty but unless this is spelt out to you you'll continue to waist you time and energy on something that is obviously well beyond your ability to grasp.

[A-wal]

Mods, could you please split this into another topic in the main section with the title: Challenge to anyone to demonstrate an objective difference between space and time and with this as the first post; This is not a topic for relativity deniers to challenge what they can't understand. This is a topic to demonstrate any genuine difference between space and time and with post #16, everything after "6. no" from post #17 and post #18?

Edited October 8, 2016 by A-wal

[sluggo]

IF the mathematics is are correctly describing reality then they are obviously an accurate description of it and it makes no sense "time is only a dimension in a mathematical sense".

 

Motion is distance over time. Movement by definition requires both space and time.

 

The only thing that defines whether or not an event has been observed if whether or not it exists as a memory. You can't use subjective memory to define objective time.

 

That's the word I was trying to think of, objective. I must have deleted those after xyz's continual misuse of the them.

 

 

The light clock is simple in form, very precise, and universally consistent because light speed is constant and independent of frames. If we use a light clock to time the speed of an object along a known distance x, what are we actually doing?

We are comparing the motion of an object to the motion of light for the same 'time' duration (number of ticks). The result is a ratio x/s = vt/ct = v/c. It should be obvious that the ticks serve to correlate the positions of the object with the positions of the light signal, for simultaneous comparisons. If you use Minkowski space-time diagrams the vertical scale is not 'time', it's ct, light path distance. You 're comparing apples to apples.

 

Einstein equality for invariant interval: (x₁)² +(x₂)² +(x₃)² - (ct)² = 0

Minkowski general form: (x₁)² +(x₂)² +(x₃)² +(x₄)² = 0, with x₄ = it, using complex  variable notation. Note t=x/v, a scalar, it has no direction, thus is not a vector, nor a dimension. It can be an attribute, parameter, variable, etc.

 

No objective or universal 'time' has yet been discovered, thus it remains subjective, especially since it varies with observer motion per SR. It is a correspondence convention, i.e., assigning events of interest to standard clock events, a measure of activity, and that's what science does, it measures things.

 

Motion is a change of position relative to a reference object, dx.

Speed is the rate of change of position, dx/dt.

[sluggo]

That's the word I was trying to think of, objective. I must have deleted those after xyz's continual misuse of the them.

 

You're confusing proper time (that's its official term) with the dimension of time. Time dilation is every bit as permanent as length contraction, you can't have one without the other.

 

'Previous' is defined by what is remembered. It's circular reasoning to think that what is remembered is defined what's 'previously' occurred.

 

 

 

It isn't a question of whether an event has been observed. It's the order of things.

There are two types of events, emission (primary) and detection (secondary).

This establishes an order, detection must follow emission. The local time of perception/detection/awareness of an event h is 'now', the present. The time of a primary event h is in the past, and typically depends on distance. Memory therefore follows observation, thus you only remember the present. The future is always an unknown.

There is no evidence of objective time.

 

 

When you measure the length of a stick, the value is independent of measurements of other sticks. When you record the time of an event, the value will be greater than the last recorded time, i.e. the clock is always running. This is not the same as recording the duration of something, like the concert lasted for 2 hr.

 

Clocks are frequencies, so two observers, if converging will see the other clock running faster, and if diverging will see the other clock running slower. That's doppler shift, an effect of relative motion of emitter and detector. If one or both adjust their speed to match the other, i.e. zero relative speed, the clock rates will match, thus it's temporary.

If they record their time prior to separating and move at varying random speeds, then reunite, there is a high probability of a difference in accumulated times. All moving clocks lose time, and comparison is the only known way to determine which one loses  more.

I prefer 'local'/'individual' time as defined by the author of SR. The word origin of 'proper' has that connotation, and the 1905 paper, par 1, is distinguishing between nearby and remote/distant, which makes local more meaningful.

If a moving stick is length contracted relative to a ref. frame, when it returns to rest in  that frame its length is restored.

Edited October 8, 2016 by sluggo

[A-wal]

The light clock is simple in form, very precise, and universally consistent because light speed is constant and independent of frames. If we use a light clock to time the speed of an object along a known distance x, what are we actually doing?

We are comparing the motion of an object to the motion of light for the same 'time' duration (number of ticks). The result is a ratio x/s = vt/ct = v/c. It should be obvious that the ticks serve to correlate the positions of the object with the positions of the light signal, for simultaneous comparisons. If you use Minkowski space-time diagrams the vertical scale is not 'time', it's ct, light path distance. You 're comparing apples to apples.

 

Einstein equality for invariant interval: (x₁)² +(x₂)² +(x₃)² - (ct)² = 0

Minkowski general form: (x₁)² +(x₂)² +(x₃)² +(x₄)² = 0, with x₄ = it, using complex  variable notation. Note t=x/v, a scalar, it has no direction, thus is not a vector, nor a dimension. It can be an attribute, parameter, variable, etc.

When you compare yourself to an object that's in motion relative to you you need to apply length contraction and time dilation to account for the consistency of the speed of light. You could in principle use only time dilation or only length contraction to maintain a constant velocity for light but velocity is a measure of distance over time. Both are equally subject to the change if the inertial frame of the observer changes.

 

I should clarify something from before.

Aging due to time dilation is permanent, length contraction is not.

You're confusing proper time (that's its official term) with the dimension of time. Time dilation is every bit as permanent as length contraction, you can't have one without the other.

A very easy trap to fall into is to think that the difference on observers watches when they compare after traveling at different velocities is a result of time dilation. This is not true.

 

Firstly, what's measured on an observer's watch (their own personal 'time') is just as influence by length contraction as it is time dilation. If an object is traveling through time dilated and length contracted space (moving on a path through spacetime that isn't parallel to the observer) from the observer's inertial frame then it's taking less time to cover a shorter distance and that is what effects the amount of proper time experienced by the object. A lot of the confusion of thinking of time and space as distinct is due to proper time being confused with coordinate time.

 

Secondly, the time dilation and length contraction experience by one object as observed by another object in a different inertial frame is completely symmetric, both objects observe the other to be moving on an angled but straight path through spacetime (or to be time dilated and length contracted if you prefer). It's only previous acceleration (a curved path through spacetme) that causes a difference in proper time between two observers in the same inertial frame.

 

No objective or universal 'time' has yet been discovered, thus it remains subjective, especially since it varies with observer motion per SR. It is a correspondence convention, i.e., assigning events of interest to standard clock events, a measure of activity, and that's what science does, it measures things.

 

Motion is a change of position relative to a reference object, dx.

Speed is the rate of change of position, dx/dt.

No universal time exists, resulting in variable subjective proper times. Coordinate time is completely objective and indistinguishable from space.

 

It isn't a question of whether an event has been observed. It's the order of things.

There are two types of events, emission (primary) and detection (secondary).

This establishes an order, detection must follow emission. The local time of perception/detection/awareness of an event h is 'now', the present. The time of a primary event h is in the past, and typically depends on distance. Memory therefore follows observation, thus you only remember the present. The future is always an unknown.

There is no evidence of objective time.

You're attempting to use the experience of memory to define the attributes of time again. That's completely circular. The only thing that determines the whether or not cause proceeds effect is our subject experience of memory. An order is established based purely on what we can observe (remember) and what we can't at a specific point in time.

 

When you measure the length of a stick, the value is independent of measurements of other sticks. When you record the time of an event, the value will be greater than the last recorded time, i.e. the clock is always running. This is not the same as recording the duration of something, like the concert lasted for 2 hr

No it isn't. You need to compare it to another stick to get a measurement. "The clock is always running" is again a purely memory based perception. You can place any event in a four dimensional manifold without any changes occurring to the manifold. Time is enclosed within it.

 

Clocks are frequencies, so two observers, if converging will see the other clock running faster, and if diverging will see the other clock running slower. That's doppler shift, an effect of relative motion of emitter and detector. If one or both adjust their speed to match the other, i.e. zero relative speed, the clock rates will match, thus it's temporary.

If they record their time prior to separating and move at varying random speeds, then reunite, there is a high probability of a difference in accumulated times. All moving clocks lose time, and comparison is the only known way to determine which one loses  more.

I prefer 'local'/'individual' time as defined by the author of SR. The word origin of 'proper' has that connotation, and the 1905 paper, par 1, is distinguishing between nearby and remote/distant, which makes local more meaningful.

If a moving stick is length contracted relative to a ref. frame, when it returns to rest in  that frame its length is restored.

Yes length is restored, in both space and in time. Length contraction no longer applies because they're in the same frame of reference. Time dilation no longer applies because they're in the same frame of reference. A difference in proper time experienced by the observers remains due to a each undergoing a different a amount of time dilation and length contraction from each others perspectives.

 

Each took a different amount of proper time to make the journey because spacetime was dilated by a different amount from the others inertial frame and so caused the other to travel over a distance in time of a different length which caused the amount of proper time taken to move between those two points to differ between the two inertial frames and contracted by a different amount from the others inertial frame and so caused the other to travel over a distance in space of a different length which again, caused the amount of proper time taken to move between those two points to differ between the two inertial frames.

[xyz]

Not meant as a trolling but as an observation based on your inability to grasp simple truths when they are shown to in simple terms many time and in multiple ways.

 

 

I barely even went to high school. I'm challenging general relativity by throwing down a gauntlet for anybody to demonstrate general relativity's assertion that there's a distinction between 'space-like' and 'time-like' dimensions.

 

 

The constant velocity of the speed of light proves that lengths in time and space are relative to the observer. Observational evidence and simple common sense show that the notion of absolute time and space is nonsensical bollocks and your inability to even understand why this view is easily disproved show that you have very severe reasoning issues, ie a simple mind. Your refusal to accept that you can't grasp it and insistence that you know better show that you are also deluded. I'm not saying this to be nasty but unless this is spelt out to you you'll continue to waist you time and energy on something that is obviously well beyond your ability to grasp.

clearly you are not bright enough to understand or think about things in a different manner, you really are clueless about time . You think a clock is time , which is quite funny I must say.

[A-wal]

Physical processes can be used to measure time, time is defined by physical process. When you do this it's called a clock.

The notion of a universal time is completely disproved by the constant velocity of light in all inertial frames. You want to think that your opinion is valid. It isn't.

By ignoring evidence you're no better than a religious evolution denier. The only difference is that your motivation is not being able to accept that you're simply not capable of understanding it.

Edited October 9, 2016 by A-wal

[xyz]

Physical processes can be used to measure time, time is defined by physical process. When you do this it's called a clock.

 

The notion of a universal time is completely disproved by the constant velocity of light in all inertial frames. You want to think that your opinion is valid. It isn't.

 

By ignoring evidence you're no better than a religious evolution denier. The only difference is that your motivation is not being able to accept that you're simply not capable of understanding it.

The velocity of light does not prove there is no universal time, physical process is nothing to do with time. Do you not know the difference between something that is arbitrary and something that is reality? 

 

You do not understand some very basic simple things. 

[A-wal]

The fact that you can't see that a universal time can't possibly exist if the speed of light remains constant in all inertial frames is what makes your opinion invalid. You've had it explained to you on multiple occasions and in multiple different ways so it's fair to say it's too complex for you and well beyond what you're capable of understanding.

 

The fact that you think you know better despite having absolutely no grasp of what you're trying to refute is what makes you deluded. You need to understand why the speed of light proves that lengths in time and space have to vary between inertial frames or you're just continuing to make an idiot of yourself.

 

Physical processes have everything to do with time. It's how time can exist because time is defined only by physical processes. I told you before, if there is a higher dimension that could be thought of as a universal time then it's not the same thing that physics describes and it has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion because relativity only deals with the four dimensions that we know exist.

 

You're becoming very tiresome. Go away and either learn about what the theory actually describes (whether you believe in it or not) so you stand a chance of making some kind of valid point or admit to yourself that you're simply incapable of understanding this subject, because all you're doing now is providing a shining example of how not to think.

 

When you figure out how time and space can remain constant while light has the same relative velocity in all inertial frames let us know.

Edited October 10, 2016 by A-wal

[sluggo]

A-wal #26

When you compare yourself to an object that's in motion relative to you you need to apply length contraction and time dilation to account for the consistency of the speed of light. You could in principle use only time dilation or only length contraction to maintain a constant velocity for light but velocity is a measure of distance over time. Both are equally subject to the change if the inertial frame of the observer changes.

 

 

The coordinate transformations do that.

A very easy trap to fall into is to think that the difference on observers watches when they compare after traveling at different velocities is a result of time dilation. This is not true.

 

 

Was Einstein wrong when he said (paraphrase) "if the B clock moves away from the A clock and returns, its time will lag behind the A clock."

No universal time exists, resulting in variable subjective proper times.

 

 

That's what I said.

 Coordinate time is completely objective and indistinguishable from space.

 

 

The only 'time' is what the mind perceives.

 

When using a ruler, the equally spaced lines are counted and that number is the 'length'. When measuring 'time' the equally spaced ticks are counted and that number is the 'time'. There is space between the lines but what's between the ticks? 

[sluggo]

Moving in time

Moving in time is a literal interpretation of the space and time merger proposed by Minkowski. It's also another perspective of the moving light clock. On the left, light is emitted from a source at the origin in a direction p, perpendicular to x, the direction of motion, and reflects from a mirror a distance d=1, to a detector/counter at the origin. For the clock to function, the photon path must have an x and p component. The x component compensates for the motion of the clock at speed v. The p component becomes the active part of the clock. Since the photon speed is constant, its path in any direction terminates on a circular arc for the 90º between the p axis and x axis. This means the relative photon speed along p is u = c*sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) = c/γ, i.e. the clock ticks slower, the faster it moves past an observer.
With vt the x component and ut the p component, the relation can be rephrased as
1.   (vt)^2 + (ut)^2 = (ct)^2, or
2.   (light motion)^2 + (light motion)^2 = (light motion)^2, or
3.   (object motion)^2 + (object time)^2 = (object motion)^2
Conclusion:
Line 3 being so similar to line 2, allows a metaphorical interpretation as popularized by Briane Green and others, by misinterpreting light motion as clock motion, when there is no clock motion in the p direction. The clock is counting spatial increments of (2γd) which are labeled in the traditional manner as "time".

On the right is the simultaneous perception of an observer moving with the clock.

[A-wal]

The coordinate transformations do that.

Yes of course they do. Like I said, "When you compare yourself to an object that's in motion relative to you you need to apply length contraction and time dilation to account for the consistency of the speed of light", and that's what coordinate transformations are for. What's your point?

 

Was Einstein wrong when he said (paraphrase) "if the B clock moves away from the A clock and returns, its time will lag behind the A clock."

Surely you know that motion is relative and you could just as easily say that clock A is moving away from clock B and clock a will be time dilated (and length contracted) from clock A's frame by the same amount as clock A is from clock B's frame? If two observers start off at rest relative to each other and then move away from each before meeting up again to compare watches in the same frame as each other then the one that will be behind is the one that accelerated the most. Acceleration is what's responsible for the different amounts of proper time that each observer measures, velocity is the same both ways so it cancels out.

 

Go back to basics. If two objects are in motion relative to each other then length contraction and time dilation are equally responsible for making the journey shorter so you can't claim that "Aging due to time dilation is permanent, length contraction is not.". And besides that, it's only acceleration that provide non-symmetric time dilation and length contraction and be responsible for a difference in proper time on the watches of multiple observers.

 

That's what I said.

What you said was:

 

"No objective or universal 'time' has yet been discovered, thus it remains subjective, especially since it varies with observer motion per SR. It is a correspondence convention, i.e., assigning events of interest to standard clock events, a measure of activity, and that's what science does, it measures things.

 

Motion is a change of position relative to a reference object, dx.

Speed is the rate of change of position, dx/dt."

 

Nobody's talking about universal time, except xyz. Coordinate time is not subjective, proper time is but coordinate time is exactly equivalent to coordinate space and that's the point, there's no objective distinction.

 

The only 'time' is what the mind perceives.

Technically true, but only in the sense that the only space is what the mind perceives.

 

When using a ruler, the equally spaced lines are counted and that number is the 'length'. When measuring 'time' the equally spaced ticks are counted and that number is the 'time'. There is space between the lines but what's between the ticks?

Stop using our linear perception of time in your attempts to assign it actual physical characteristics! Length in space is measured by a static ruler because space is static in our perceptions, length in time is measured using motion because that's how we perceive time. This says absolutely nothing about real nature of space and time, only about how we perceive them. In their true form they are one and the same, that's why you can accurately represent time on a graph. Spacetime a static four dimensional manifold.

 

light clock2.gif

Moving in time

Moving in time is a literal interpretation of the space and time merger proposed by Minkowski. It's also another perspective of the moving light clock. On the left, light is emitted from a source at the origin in a direction p, perpendicular to x, the direction of motion, and reflects from a mirror a distance d=1, to a detector/counter at the origin. For the clock to function, the photon path must have an x and p component. The x component compensates for the motion of the clock at speed v. The p component becomes the active part of the clock. Since the photon speed is constant, its path in any direction terminates on a circular arc for the 90º between the p axis and x axis. This means the relative photon speed along p is u = c*sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) = c/γ, i.e. the clock ticks slower, the faster it moves past an observer.

With vt the x component and ut the p component, the relation can be rephrased as

1.   (vt)^2 + (ut)^2 = (ct)^2, or

2.   (light motion)^2 + (light motion)^2 = (light motion)^2, or

3.   (object motion)^2 + (object time)^2 = (object motion)^2

Conclusion:

Line 3 being so similar to line 2, allows a metaphorical interpretation as popularized by Briane Green and others, by misinterpreting light motion as clock motion, when there is no clock motion in the p direction. The clock is counting spatial increments of (2γd) which are labeled in the traditional manner as "time".

On the right is the simultaneous perception of an observer moving with the clock.

Oh the irony, you're using a static graph to attempt to assert that motion real intrinsic property of time. At least I think that's what you're trying to do, you not exactly making your points clear. How it works on a graph illustrates exactly how time actually works. The graph is static, time is represented by a series of points that form a line.

 

If two observers are at rest relative to each other then their worldlines in four dimensions run parallel to each other. From their perspective they are moving through time at the same rate as each other, the speed of light.

 

If two objects are in inertial motion relative to each other then their worldlines in four dimensions run at angled (but straight) lines to each other. From their own perspectives, the other is moving through space and so moving through time slower than themselves so that their overall velocity through spacetime is still the speed of light.

 

If one object is accelerating away from the other in straight line in space then their worldline in four dimensions is curved from the perspective of the other observer. From the perspective of the inertial observer, the accelerating observer's clock is continuously slowing down as their velocity through space increases.

[sluggo]

A-wal #35

 

What's your point?

 

 

That I'm not concerned about td and lc, since the transformations cover those.

 

Surely you know that motion is relative and you could just as easily say that clock A is moving away from clock B and clock a will be time dilated (and length contracted) from clock A's frame by the same amount as clock A is from clock B's frame? If two observers start off at rest relative to each other and then move away from each before meeting up again to compare watches in the same frame as each other then the one that will be behind is the one that accelerated the most. Acceleration is what's responsible for the different amounts of proper time that each observer measures, velocity is the same both ways so it cancels out

 

 

The example Einstein used was the simple twin paradox, with A static and B moving.

It's not symmetrical.

Examine the gamma factor and notice it's a function of speed v/c, not acceleration.

The clock hypothesis states that the tick rate of a clock when measured in an inertial frame depends only upon its velocity relative to that frame, and is independent of its acceleration or higher derivatives. The experiment of Bailey et al. referenced above stored muons in a magnetic storage ring and measured their lifetime. While being stored in the ring they were subject to a proper acceleration of approximately 10¹⁸ g (1 g = 9.8 m/s²). The observed agreement between the lifetime of the stored muons with that of muons with the same energy moving inertially confirms the clock hypothesis for accelerations of that magnitude.

      Sherwin, “Some Recent Experimental Tests of the 'Clock Paradox'”, Phys. Rev. 129 no. 1            (1960), pg 17.

 

Aging is permanent since there is no speed by which a clock gains time.

 

Oh the irony, you're using a static graph to attempt to assert that motion real intrinsic property of time. At least I think that's what you're trying to do, you not exactly making your points clear. How it works on a graph illustrates exactly how time actually works. The graph is static, time is represented by a series of points that form a line

 

.

 

The point of the light clock is to show "moving in time" is just a figure of speech, since  all elements, observer, clock, and light are moving in space. You do make a good point with the line. The path of an object as shown in any graphic is a history of its positions for a duration of time, and is not a physically observable thing. We can't see orbits, trajectories, etc. 

If two observers are at rest relative to each other then their worldlines in four dimensions run parallel to each other. From their perspective they are moving through time at the same rate as each other, the speed of light.

 

 How do they communicate?

Draw a square 1 unit per side, vertical axis t, horizontal axis x.
Coordinates (x,t): for A (0,0), for B (1,0). They are static, and after 1 time unit,
for A (0,1), for B (1,1). A sends a light signal to B at t=0. It arrives at B(1,0) at t=1.
B is not there!