The Underlying Problem With Some Science Is Interpretation.

[A-wal]

In short if the Caesium atom travelled to the sun , at any speed, the time it arrives will be what the earth clock says, the atom does not travel slower when the rate of the Caesium slows.if time slowed it would take longer to get there . Velocity is constant therefore so is time.

It does take longer to get there from the Earth's frame of reference. Less time always passes for the object that accelerates or the object that's in a stronger gravitational field (same thing).

[xyz]

If the clocks are running at different rates then the car can't possibly be moving at the same velocity relative to both of them because velocity is a measurement of distance over time.

 

If the clocks were in motion relative to each other and both measuring the car moving at the same velocity (as happens with light) then they couldn't possibly be running at the same rate (time dilation).

 

This will probably confuse the hell out out of you so you'll reject it on the basis that you can't face the prospect of not being capable of understanding it but...

 

If you were to put one clock inside the car and leave the other clock beside the road (assuming now that both clocks are accurate) then the time it would take for the car to travel any distance would be different on the two clocks, less time will have passed on the clock in the car. You'd need a very accurate clock to measure the difference because 100mph is so slow compared to the speed of light but if the car were moving at say half the speed of light then any clock would do.

you really are blind, the velocity is constant, if the clock on the car was ruunning at a slow rate it does not affect d/t

[xyz]

It does take longer to get there from the Earth's frame of reference. Less time always passes for the object that accelerates or the object that's in a stronger gravitational field (same thing).

the velocity is constant it takes the same time always

[A-wal]

If the velocity is constant then the rate of time CAN'T be constant for to clocks that are in motion relative to each other.

 

I'm done talking to you. You're far too dumb to understand or far too stubborn to listen, or both. Either way it's infuriating and I don't want to end up getting banned.

Edited October 5, 2016 by A-wal

[xyz]

If the velocity is constant then the rate of time CAN'T be constant for to clocks that are in motion relative to each other.

 

I'm done talking to you. You're far too dumb to understand or far too stubborn to listen, or both. Either way it's infuriating and I don't want to end up getting banned.

you really do not have the ability to think.

 

 

Are you really that clueless to what is being said?

 

 

If the velocity is constant that means the time is constant, d/t does not change regardless the rate of the clock

Edited October 5, 2016 by xyz

[A-wal]

This really is the last time and then I'm done, and it's only to clarify what I meant.

 

If the velocity is constant that means the time is constant, d/t does not change regardless the rate of the clock

It's because they both measure light to be moving at 186,000 mps faster then themselves. If the two clocks (all physical processes when I say clock) are moving relative to each other at half the speed of light (just to keep it simple) then clock A would measure light moving at 186,000 mps past themselves and at 93,000 mps past clock B while clock B would measure light moving at 186,000 mps past themselves and at 93,000 mps past clock A.

 

Clearly there's a discrepancy here due to the consistency of the velocity of light in both frames despite the fact that they're in motion relative to each other. There's two possible ways to resolves this.

 

One is to halve the distance in space (length contraction) so that each frame views the other as 50% of it's previous (when the two clocks were at rest relative to each other) length. Now from the perspective of clock A light is passing clock B at 93,000 mps because it's traveling half the distance in the same amount of time and from the perspective of clock B light is passing clock A at 93,000 mps because again, it's traveling half the distance in the same amount of time.

 

The second option is to halve the rate of time (time dilation) so that each frame views the other as moving through time at 50% of it's own rate. Now from the perspective of clock A light is passing clock B at 93,000 mps because it's taking twice as much time to cover the same distance and from the perspective of clock B light is passing clock A at 93,000 mps because again, it's taking twice as much time to cover the same distance.

 

How it actually works is that length contraction and time dilation work together to keep the speed of light constant. They're always equal because acceleration can be thought of as a two dimensional curve through four dimensional spacetime (an object that's accelerating away from you is moving in a straight line in three dimensional space but a curved line in four dimensional spacetime). Anyway because they're equal you have to multiply the effects together to get the amount of time dilation and length contraction.

 

The upshot is that each will view the other as length contracted and time dilated. This doesn't cause any kind of paradox because if they wanted to meet back up and compare watches again from the same frame of reference as each other then one of them would have to accelerate. Assuming the both accelerated equally to move to different frames of reference then if the both accelerate equally to move back to the same frame as each other then their clocks will match.

 

If on the other hand just one of them accelerates this time to move them back into the same frame of reference as each other then less time will have passed on the clock of the one that accelerated because they were following a curved path through spacetime. An object's overall speed through spacetime is always the speed of light and a curved path is a longer path than a straight line so less time passes on the accelerator's watch to keep their overall velocity through space-time constant.

 

Everything works out perfectly, there's no contradictions or ambiguities, it's all stunningly beautiful and it makes every inertial frame equivalent (and why would they be). Now do yourself the biggest intellectual favour you ever do yourself and admit that you don't understand how it really works so that you'll be able to learn how it actually does and will be able to see and appreciate just how profound it is. It will be well worth it and you'll be so glad you did.

Edited October 5, 2016 by A-wal

[xyz]

This really is the last time and then I'm done, and it's only to clarify what I meant.

 

 

It's because they both measure light to be moving at 186,000 mps faster then themselves. If the two clocks (all physical processes when I say clock) are moving relative to each other at half the speed of light (just to keep it simple) then clock A would measure light moving at 186,000 mps past thgemselves and at 93,000 mps past clock B while clock B would measure light moving at 186,000 mps past themselves and at 93,000 mps past clock A.

 

Clearly there's a discrepancy here due to the consistency of the velocity of light in both frames despite the fact that they're in motion relative to each other. There's two possible ways to resolves this.

 

One is to halve the distance in space (length contraction) so that each frame views the other as 50% of it's previous (when the two clocks were at rest relative to each other) length. Now from the perspective of clock A light is passing clock B at 93,000 mps because it's traveling half the distance in the same amount of time and from the perspective of clock B light is passing clock A at 93,000 mps because again, it's traveling half the distance in the same amount of time.

 

The second option is to halve the rate of time (time dilation) so that each frame views the other as moving through time at 50% of it's own rate. Now from the perspective of clock A light is passing clock B at 93,000 mps because it's taking twice as much time to cover the same distance and from the perspective of clock B light is passing clock A at 93,000 mps because again, it's taking twice as much time to cover the same distance.

 

How it actually works is that length contraction and time dilation work together to keep the speed of light constant. They're always equal because acceleration can be thought of as a two dimensional curve through four dimensional spacetime (an object that's accelerating away from you is moving in a straight line in three dimensional space but a curved line in four dimensional spacetime). Anyway because they're equal you have to multiply the effects together to get the amount of time dilation and length contraction.

 

The upshot is that each will view the other as length contracted and time dilated. This doesn't cause any kind of paradox because if they wanted to meet back up and compare watches again from the same frame of reference as each other then one of them would have to accelerate. Assuming the both accelerated equally to move to different frames of reference then if the both accelerate equally to move back to the same frame as each other then their clocks will match.

 

If on the other hand just one of them accelerates this time to move them back into the same frame of reference as each other then less time will have passed on the clock of the one that accelerated because they were following a curved path through spacetime. An object's overall speed through spacetime is always the speed of light and a curved path is a longer path than a straight line so less time passes on the accelerator's watch to keep their overall velocity through space-time constant.

 

Everything works out perfectly, there's no contradictions or ambiguities, it's all stunningly beautiful and it makes every inertial frame equivalent (and why would they be). Now do yourself the biggest intellectual favour you ever do yourself and admit that you don't understand how it really works so that you'll be able to learn how it actually does and will be able to see and appreciate just how profound it is. It will be well worth it and you'll be so glad you did.

i appreciate your extensive post, but you fail to discuss the thread title and your post is completely off point, an object travelling does not experience the distance it is travelling contract to half the distance , fact.

Let's look at one Light year away, the distance is always one Light year , the light will take 1light year to travel the distance by a clock that is at ground state on the inertia reference frame of earth, can you tell me how long it takes to travel the distance on a dilated clock?

[A-wal]

The post is not point in any sense, it completely answers and invalidates all of your objections.

 

I told you I'm no longer going to keep on trying to explain it to you, you need to read it again because you've misread some parts.

 

An object that accelerates hard enough does experience the distance traveled to contract to half of what it was before they accelerated, fact! I can justly call it a fact because not only is there evidence showing that length contraction occurs but the speed of light couldn't possibly be constant without it. What you need to understand is that this isn't just an idea. It's a necessary and unavoidable consequence of a constant speed of light.

 

As for your question, a light-year is defined as the distance traveled by light in one year. Because the speed of light is constant it means that (**** I'm explaining it again) if light takes one year to travel between point A and point B while you're at rest relative to them (A and B are at rest relative to each other as well) then if you were to leave point A and head towards point B at half the speed of light then light still moves at the full speed of light relative to you, so you're moving at the half the speed of light and light is moving at original speed PLUS half the speed of light. So now it must either take less time to cover the same distance (time dilation) or the distance has shortened (length contraction). It's both, equally.

 

Read the previous post again until that last paragraph makes sense.

[xyz]

The post is not point in any sense, it completely answers and invalidates all of your objections.

 

I told you I'm no longer going to keep on trying to explain it to you, you need to read it again because you've misread some parts.

 

An object that accelerates hard enough does experience the distance traveled to contract to half of what it was before they accelerated, fact! I can justly call it a fact because not only is there evidence showing that length contraction occurs but the speed of light couldn't possibly be constant without it. What you need to understand is that this isn't just an idea. It's a necessary and unavoidable consequence of a constant speed of light.

 

As for your question, a light-year is defined as the distance traveled by light in one year. Because the speed of light is constant it means that (**** I'm explaining it again) if light takes one year to travel between point A and point B while you're at rest relative to them (A and B are at rest relative to each other as well) then if you were to leave point A and head towards point B at half the speed of light then light still moves at the full speed of light relative to you, so you're moving at the half the speed of light and light is moving at original speed PLUS half the speed of light. So now it must either take less time to cover the same distance (time dilation) or the distance has shortened (length contraction). It's both, equally.

 

Read the previous post again until that last paragraph makes sense.

quite clearly you do not hear anybody but your own voice and fail to discuss the topic and answer any questions. You again reply with dogma with no evidence and talk about ludicrous ideas such as space contracting to half its length.

I will ask you one last time , you measure time, what is it you are measuring?

 

Why do you interpret time is a Clock?

 

 

Velocity is constant of light so why do you keep replying with Gibberish?

 

 

I ask again, you again will fail to answer and try to side track the question like you always do.

 

the car was travelling at 100mph , in the car is a dilated clock outside the car is a ground state clock, how far does the car travel in 1 hour ?

[A-wal]

I need to clarify something. This isn't for your benefit xyz. I've given up with you, you're a lost cause. I've answered your questions countless times in various thread and you just ignore them and continue to ask the same dumb questions that only show just how poor your understanding is. Most of your questions don't even make sense, you've got two clocks running at different rates and you ask how for something moves in an hour without specifying according to which clock. This for anyone else who actually does have the capacity to grasp it. Most people can, it's actually fairly simple.

 

As for your question, a light-year is defined as the distance traveled by light in one year. Because the speed of light is constant it means that (**** I'm explaining it again) if light takes one year to travel between point A and point B while you're at rest relative to them (A and B are at rest relative to each other as well) then if you were to leave point A and head towards point B at half the speed of light then light still moves at the full speed of light relative to you, so you're moving at the half the speed of light and light is moving at original speed PLUS half the speed of light. So now it must either take less time to cover the same distance (time dilation) or the distance has shortened (length contraction). It's both, equally.

 

A light-year is defined as the distance traveled by light in one year. Because the speed of light is constant it means that if light takes one year to travel between point A and point B while you're at rest relative to them (A and B are at rest relative to each other as well) then if you were to leave point A and head towards point B at half the speed of light then light still moves at the full speed of light relative to you.

 

So in your new frame of reference, relative to point A and B light is moving at 1.5 times the speed of light because you're moving at the half the speed of light and light is moving at its original speed PLUS half the speed of light relative to the original frame. So now it must either take less time to cover the same distance (time dilation) or the distance has shortened (length contraction). It's both, equally.

[xyz]

I need to clarify something. This isn't for your benefit xyz. I've given up with you, you're a lost cause. I've answered your questions countless times in various thread and you just ignore them and continue to ask the same dumb questions that only show just how poor your understanding is. Most of your questions don't even make sense, you've got two clocks running at different rates and you ask how for something moves in an hour without specifying according to which clock. This for anyone else who actually does have the capacity to grasp it. Most people can, it's actually fairly simple.

 

 

A light-year is defined as the distance traveled by light in one year. Because the speed of light is constant it means that if light takes one year to travel between point A and point B while you're at rest relative to them (A and B are at rest relative to each other as well) then if you were to leave point A and head towards point B at half the speed of light then light still moves at the full speed of light relative to you.

 

So in your new frame of reference, relative to point A and B light is moving at 1.5 times the speed of light because you're moving at the half the speed of light and light is moving at its original speed PLUS half the speed of light relative to the original frame. So now it must either take less time to cover the same distance (time dilation) or the distance has shortened (length contraction). It's both, equally.

So again you ignore the direct question. I will await for somebody who is not so clueless and can read to answer my questions as you avoid the answers and are being intentionally obtuse.

[Arcvmenicvs]

Can I join in?  This is a great topic!  I am very excited to be with you A-Wal, and you xyz to talk about knowledge. and science.  What do we know? 

 

Interpretation is not science, xyz.  You are very intelligent to put the question.  This was done many years ago when Newton described his experiments with light and a prism.  There was a big science dude who asked the same questions as you about observations made by Newton.    I forget the guys name, but your discussion with A-Wal is identical. 

 

Another thing about science you should know.  It has become political.  As you know politics is a dirty, disgusting enterprise.  Please don't let your science go to these dogs of hell. 

[A-wal]

The biggest things that can be learned from this thread is how not to reason, how not having even a basic understanding can make a person ignorant to the ridiculousness of their own arguments and how an inability to understand something shouldn't be used to attempt to invalidate it because it just makes them look like an idiot.

 

xyz can't even understand that the consistency of the speed relative to all inertial objects is what makes time dilation and length contraction necessary.

[xyz]

The biggest things that can be learned from this thread is how not to reason, how not having even a basic understanding can make a person ignorant to the ridiculousness of their own arguments and how an inability to understand something shouldn't be used to attempt to invalidate it because it just makes them look like an idiot.

 

xyz can't even understand that the consistency of the speed relative to all inertial objects is what makes time dilation and length contraction necessary.

quite clearly you underestimate me in your arrogance sir.

I will ask you one question, an object falls to the ground from a 10m height, it falls at 9.81m/s, attached to the object is a Caesium atom , can you tell me how fast the Caesium fall?

[billvon]

If the velocity is constant that means the time is constant, d/t does not change regardless the rate of the clock

LOCAL time is always constant.

 

However, to an outside observer, the clock in a frame moving relative to the observer runs more slowly.

 

 

 

I will ask you one question, an object falls to the ground from a 10m height, it falls at 9.81m/s, attached to the object is a Caesium atom , can you tell me how fast the Caesium fall?

It falls initially at 9.8 meters per second.  If it is in the atmosphere, then it begins to accelerate more and more slowly as drag increases.  If it is in a vacuum, it accelerates faster and faster (getting deeper into the gravity well) until it hits the ground.

 

The cesium atom always sees time passing at the same rate.

 

If the cesium atom were used to create an accurate clock, a stationary observer would see the clock slow down as 1) the clock goes faster and faster and 2) as it descends deeper into a gravitational well.  If it was a VERY deep gravitational well (i.e. a black hole) the stationary observer would see it slow almost to zero but never _quite_ stop.

Edited November 29, 2016 by billvon

[xyz]

LOCAL time is always constant.

 

However, to an outside observer, the clock in a frame moving relative to the observer runs more slowly.

 

 

It falls initially at 9.8 meters per second. If it is in the atmosphere, then it begins to accelerate more and more slowly as drag increases. If it is in a vacuum, it accelerates faster and faster (getting deeper into the gravity well) until it hits the ground.

 

The cesium atom always sees time passing at the same rate.

 

If the cesium atom were used to create an accurate clock, a stationary observer would see the clock slow down as 1) the clock goes faster and faster and 2) as it descends deeper into a gravitational well. If it was a VERY deep gravitational well (i.e. a black hole) the stationary observer would see it slow almost to zero but never _quite_ stop.

An outside observer may see the clOck rate slow down, but does not observe the speed of fall slow time, with speed being d/t , the constant of speed shows no time dilation . Edited November 29, 2016 by xyz

[billvon]

An outside observer may see the clOck rate slow down, but does not observe the speed of fall slow time, with speed being d/t , the constant of speed shows no time dilation .

The outside observer sees the object fall in accordance with the acceleration caused by gravity, yes.  As the object gets faster, his assessment of the speed of the object begins to differ from the speed of the object as measured on the object.  d/t is changing because t is changing.