The Underlying Problem With Some Science Is Interpretation.

[xyz]

Notice that 100 mph is a ratio: 100 miles / 1 Hour

 

If I stay with your example of the clock in the moving car ticking at half speed (which of course is ridiculous at this very slow velocity, but nevertheless) then the distance will also be halved, keeping the ratio exactly the same.

 

In other words, time dilation does not happen independently of length contraction.

So, for the observer in the car, the car would travel 50 miles in ½ hour and the velocity is 100 mph. The relative velocity of the car is the same for two different observers; one in the car and the other at rest.

 

The observers agree on the velocity, but not on the time and the distance travelled.

I do understand if you are reluctant to accept this. You are not alone!! Most people struggle with SR and GR , but its predictions have been well tested and verified time and time again (no pun intended) and that means it is a good theory.

 

Furthermore, many people simply pretend they understand relativity when they really only have a superficial understanding of what it says. For a more thorough understanding one has to understand the mathematics of vector and tensor calculus and even then, it can be frustratingly difficult to grasp.

 

Personally, I think I do understand it, but sometimes I wonder if it isn’t all a load of hogwash.

;) 

 

As for “what is time” there are some philosophical arguments that time itself does not exist; only the measurement of time exists.

 

I think the accepted definition is: “Time is change” If clocks are slowing down due to time dilation, then the rate of change of everything is slowing also, not just for the clock.

Time can not be change, timing can change, time cannot, ask yourself this, doe's time exist in a void?  the answer yes , a void has a volume of space.  Movement means change, decay means change, space itself has nothing to change of physicality. 

Answer me this, when the Caesium atom rate is recorded/measured, what exactly are you measuring of the Caesium, I believe it to be light related and not time related, frequency over time?

 

So what is this time you are using? 

 

A short interval of distance of A to B function. 

[xyz]

Nonsense! The only maths you need to understand is this:

 

A is moving at 10 mph relative to the road. B is in front of A and is moving at 20 mph relative to the road. C moves past A at 20 mph. What speed does A observe C overtaking them?

 

Answer: 10 mph. That's the only maths you need to grasp. Now just scale it up:

 

A is moving at a quarter of the speed of light relative to the road. B is in front of A and is moving at half the speed of light relative to the road relative to the road. C moves past A at c (the speed of light). What speed does A observer C overtaking them?

 

Answer: c, the speed of light. In the first example the only way to get C to move past A and B at the same velocity is through length contraction and time dilation. If B is time dilated from A's perspective so that B is moving through time at half their own rate then B would observe C moving past them twice as fast as A observes C moving past B but B would observe C moving past them at the same speed that A observed C moving past them.

 

Similarly, If B is length contracted from A's perspective so that B is moving through space at half their own rate then B would observe C moving past them twice as fast as A observes C moving past B but B would observe C moving past them at the same speed that A observed C moving past them.

 

Then you just have to get the square root of what the TD or LC would need to be on their own because velocity is distance over time so the effect of TD and LC are multiplied together. Because they're equal it should just be a case of what the square root of one of them on its own would need to be. I don't see why the SR equations are so complex. Surely that's a really cack handed way of doing it?

And why do you change the parameters of the scenario?

 

If the speedometer says half the speed of c, it will also say half the speed of c on the second vehicle. Reason we set the ratio before hand by gearing and mechanics.

[A-wal]

Time can not be change, timing can change, time cannot, ask yourself this, doe's time exist in a void?  the answer yes , a void has a volume of space.  Movement means change, decay means change, space itself has nothing to change of physicality. 

Answer me this, when the Caesium atom rate is recorded/measured, what exactly are you measuring of the Caesium, I believe it to be light related and not time related, frequency over time?

 

So what is this time you are using? 

 

A short interval of distance of A to B function. 

Time cannot change but timing can? What? There's no distinction!

 

Time can't exist in a void, it's the measurement of change. Space can't exist either, it's defined by the distances between objects.

 

The speed of light is constant in all inertial frames so we know that time dilation and length contraction have to occur. If you can't grasp that that's your problem not the model's.

 

And why do you change the parameters of the scenario?

 

If the speedometer says half the speed of c, it will also say half the speed of c on the second vehicle. Reason we set the ratio before hand by gearing and mechanics.

You really can't understand from that? Read it again, nothing in the scenario changes, I didn't move the goalposts. Take step by step.

 

Step 1:

A is moving at 10 mph relative to the road. B is in front of A and is moving at 20 mph relative to the road. C moves past A at 20 mph. What speed does B observe C overtaking them?

 

Answer: 10 mph.

 

Agreed?

 

Step 2:

In the first example the only way to get C to move past A and B at the same velocity is through length contraction and time dilation.

 

Agreed?

 

Deep breath, step 3:

If B is time dilated from A's perspective so that B is moving through time at half their own rate then B would observe C moving past them twice as fast as A observes C moving past B but B would observe C moving past them at the same speed that A observed C moving past them.

 

Similarly, If B is length contracted from A's perspective so that B is moving through space at half their own rate then B would observe C moving past them twice as fast as A observes C moving past B but B would observe C moving past them at the same speed that A observed C moving past them.

 

Agreed? If you say no I'm going to reach out from your screen and slap you really hard!

Edited December 4, 2016 by A-wal

[xyz]

Time cannot change but timing can? What? There's no distinction!

 

Time can't exist in a void, it's the measurement of change. Space can't exist either, it's defined by the distances between objects.

 

The speed of light is constant in all inertial frames so we know that time dilation and length contraction have to occur. If you can't grasp that that's your problem not the model's.

 

You really can't understand from that? Read it again, nothing in the scenario changes, I didn't move the goalposts. Take step by step.

 

Step 1:

A is moving at 10 mph relative to the road. B is in front of A and is moving at 20 mph relative to the road. C moves past A at 20 mph. What speed does A observe C overtaking them?

 

Answer: 10 mph.

 

Agreed?

 

Step 2:

In the first example the only way to get C to move past A and B at the same velocity is through length contraction and time dilation.

 

Agreed?

 

Deep breath, step 3:

If B is time dilated from A's perspective so that B is moving through time at half their own rate then B would observe C moving past them twice as fast as A observes C moving past B but B would observe C moving past them at the same speed that A observed C moving past them.

 

Similarly, If B is length contracted from A's perspective so that B is moving through space at half their own rate then B would observe C moving past them twice as fast as A observes C moving past B but B would observe C moving past them at the same speed that A observed C moving past them.

 

Agreed? If you say no I'm going to reach out from your screen and slap you really hard!

You really have no idea the differences between time and arbitrary time do you?

 

Arbitrary time is the measurement of change by the use of the timing of the Caesium frequency. 

 

And a void cannot exist without real time. 

 

Think of a void, a void exists in time. 

[A-wal]

Time and space cannot exist in the absence of the stuff that defines them, they're meaningless concepts in a total void. That's really not the issue, this is:

 

Step 1:

A is moving at 10 mph relative to the road. B is in front of A and is moving at 20 mph relative to the road. C moves past A at 20 mph. What speed does B observe C overtaking them?

 

Answer: 10 mph.

 

Agreed?

Edited December 4, 2016 by A-wal

[xyz]

Time and space cannot exist in the absence of the stuff that defines them, they're meaningless concepts in a total void. That's really not the issue., this is:

 

Step 1:

A is moving at 10 mph relative to the road. B is in front of A and is moving at 20 mph relative to the road. C moves past A at 20 mph. What speed does A observe C overtaking them?

 

Answer: 10 mph.

 

Agreed?

NO, they observe 20 mph relative to the road, 10 mph is incorrect. All the cars are travelling a speed relative tot he road, all observer compare to A and B points on the road. They do not have to compare to themselves . 

 

Speed cameras don't lie. 

 

 

p.s time is space

 

 

added- The objective is that all the observers know the ratio of mechanics relative to the speedometer the car is travelling at 20 mph, you are short of all the facts in your example. If I was travelling at 10 mph and a car passes me, I know prior that the objective is the car passing is travelling faster than me, so I know for sure the car passing is not travelling at 10 mph. 

Edited December 4, 2016 by xyz

[A-wal]

You're stuck at step1! Seriously?

 

NO, they observe 20 mph relative to the road, 10 mph is incorrect. All the cars are travelling a speed relative tot he road, all observer compare to A and B points on the road.

That's not the question!

 

A is moving at 10 mph relative to the road. B is in front of A and is moving at 20 mph relative to the road. C moves past A at 20 mph.

 

WHAT SPEED DOES B OBSERVE C OVERTAKING THEM?

 

 

Edit:

I made a mistake, sorry my fault. I said "What speed does A observe C overtaking them?" Should be B.

 

A is moving at 10 mph relative to the road. B is in front of A and is moving at 20 mph relative to the road. C moves past A at 20 mph.

 

What speed does B observe C overtaking them?

 

Answer: 10 mph.

 

Agreed?

[xyz]

You're stuck at step1! Seriously?

 

That's not the question!

 

A is moving at 10 mph relative to the road. B is in front of A and is moving at 20 mph relative to the road. C moves past A at 20 mph.

 

WHAT SPEED DOES B OBSERVE C OVERTAKING THEM?

 

 

Edit:

I made a mistake, sorry my fault. I said "What speed does A observe C overtaking them?" Should be B.

 

A is moving at 10 mph relative to the road. B is in front of A and is moving at 20 mph relative to the road. C moves past A at 20 mph.

 

What speed does B observe C overtaking them?

 

Answer: 10 mph.

 

Agreed?

Yes , subjectively the observer , observes the overtaking car to be travelling at 10 mph, from themselves, however objectively the observer knows it is travelling at 20 mph relative to the road if we are including all the parameters. 

[A-wal]

Okay good. So...

 

A is moving at 10 mph relative to the road. B is in front of A and is moving at 20 mph relative to the road. C moves past A at 20 mph. C moves past B at 10 mph.

 

 

Light moves past every non accelerating (inertial observer at the same relative velocity. Let's slow down light (C) but keep its speed constant, so...

 

Step 2:

A is moving at 10 mph relative to the road. B is in front of A and is moving at 20 mph relative to the road. C moves past A at 20 mph. C moves past B at 20 mph. None of them accelerated.

 

The only way to get C to move past A and B at the same velocity is through length contraction and time dilation.

 

Do you understand that? If you do then you should understand this as well:

 

 

Solution 1:

If B is time dilated from A's perspective so that B is moving through time at half their own rate then B would observe C moving past them twice as fast as A observes C moving past B.

 

This works because now B would observe C moving past them (moving past themselves) at the same speed that A observed C moving past them (moving past themselves).

 

 

Solution 2:

If B is length contracted from A's perspective so that B is moving through space at half their own rate then B would observe C moving past them twice as fast as A observes C moving past B.

 

Again, this works because now B would observe C moving past them (moving past themselves) at the same speed that A observed C moving past them (moving past themselves).

 

 

Real Solution:

Time dilation and length contraction are always equal so you just have to get the square root of what the TD or LC would need to be on their own because velocity is distance over time so the effect of TD and LC are multiplied together.

Edited December 4, 2016 by A-wal

[xyz]

Okay good. So...

 

A is moving at 10 mph relative to the road. B is in front of A and is moving at 20 mph relative to the road. C moves past A at 20 mph. C moves past B at 10 mph.

 

 

Light moves past every non accelerating (inertial observer at the same relative velocity. Let's slow down light (C) but keep its speed constant, so...

 

Step 2:

A is moving at 10 mph relative to the road. B is in front of A and is moving at 20 mph relative to the road. C moves past A at 20 mph. C moves past B at 20 mph. None of them accelerated.

 

The only way to get C to move past A and B at the same velocity is through length contraction and time dilation.

 

 

of course if you was being subjective and not looking at the actual facts. 

 

C moves past everything objectively at C, but relatively if you approached the Sun at any speed, the light is travelling subjectively faster relative to the traveller because they are moving towards the light making the light take less time to reach them  by contracting the distance by velocity. 

 

 

I will read the next part now and reply.

 

Any problems with the above statement?

[xyz]

 

 

 

Real Solution:

Time dilation and length contraction are always equal so you just have to get the square root of what the TD or LC would need to be on their own because velocity is distance over time so the effect of TD and LC are multiplied together.

what time dilation?

 

what length contraction?

Edited December 4, 2016 by xyz

[xyz]

I do not understand why you think there is any change in actual time or a length of distance.  Below is vector x

 

 

A.........................................B

 

Two point sources in a stationary radius.

 

So you think that if something travels from A to B, that the the distance shortens and contracts,

 

 

A..........B

 

 

 

That does not happen.

 

added - let ,e help with your confusion

 

fr/d  = t/d  that is where you go wrong. 

 

 

I will add the Caesium frequency overlaid space.

 

 

A^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^B

..........................................

 

 

The top squiggles rep the caesium, the dots rep space.

 

 

added let me add your time dilation and contraction

 

A^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^B

..........................................

 

 

hmm x is still x

 

 

added - take note , the Caesium frequency passes through space.

Edited December 4, 2016 by xyz

[billvon]

How peculiar , the speedometer shows 100mph, at no stage is the car travelling half the speed or twice the speed.

Correct.  At 100mph there is effectively no time contraction, so no change in speed can be measured. 

 

If the car were moving much faster, then there WOULD be cases where the speed observed by the occupants of the car differs from the speed observed by a stationary observer.

 

 

Like the title says , it is about the correct interpretation, I do not believe specifying the Caesium clock rate to be time itself to be the correct interpretation of the facts of reality.

Then you are incorrect, as has been proven by dozens of experiments.

 

 

I am pretty sure the correct interpretation would be a relative timing dilation, not a time dilation of actual time which has no physicality.

It is a dilation of actual time.  Within each reference frame (call it A) everything matches.  Every clock can be as close to accurate as its design allows.  They will all measure the passage of time equally.

 

In a different reference frame (call it B ) everything matches.  Every clock can be as close to accurate as its design allows.  They will all measure the passage of time equally.

 

If there is relative motion between the two frames, then the clocks in A will not match the clocks in B.  Observers will disagree on timing, lengths and speeds.

Edited December 4, 2016 by billvon

[billvon]

C moves past everything objectively at C, but relatively if you approached the Sun at any speed, the light is travelling subjectively faster relative to the traveller because they are moving towards the light making the light take less time to reach them  by contracting the distance by velocity.

To an outside observer - yes.  To him it seems like the light that approaches the traveler moves at C, and the traveler is moving at some speed S less than C, so the outside observer thinks "the traveler must be seeing light move at C+S."  He is incorrect, however, due to time dilation.

 

To the traveler - no.  He sees light move at exactly the same speed it always does.  However, he notes that it is blue-shifted.

[xyz]

Correct.  At 100mph there is effectively no time contraction, so no change in speed can be measured. 

 

If the car were moving much faster, then there WOULD be cases where the speed observed by the occupants of the car differs from the speed observed by a stationary observer.

 

 

Then you are incorrect, as has been proven by dozens of experiments.

 

 

It is a dilation of actual time.  Within each reference frame (call it A) everything matches.  Every clock can be as close to accurate as its design allows.  They will all measure the passage of time equally.

 

In a different reference frame (call it B ) everything matches.  Every clock can be as close to accurate as its design allows.  They will all measure the passage of time equally.

 

If there is relative motion between the two frames, then the clocks in A will not match the clocks in B.  Observers will disagree on timing, lengths and speeds.

No its not an actual dilation of time, only if you interpret the Caesium atom and rate to be time itself is there a contraction, I am pretty sure you will agree that the Caesium is not time itself, the frequency being a rate to equal an increment of time that is arbitrary, the Caesium atom is not like a set of scales that measures things, you are using measuring the rate and setting the parameters of the meaning. 

 

A Caesium is not time , so how do you conclude that the Caesium frequency is time?

[xyz]

To an outside observer - yes.  To him it seems like the light that approaches the traveler moves at C, and the traveler is moving at some speed S less than C, so the outside observer thinks "the traveler must be seeing light move at C+S."  He is incorrect, however, due to time dilation.

 

To the traveler - no.  He sees light move at exactly the same speed it always does.  However, he notes that it is blue-shifted.

I am glad you  mentioned blue shift. 

 

What ''colour'' is light passing through free space?

[A-wal]

Crap!!! I made another mistake, this one's not as important. B needs to move at three quarters the speed of light, not half. B is moving away from A at half the speed of light. The whole thing should look like this.

 

 

Step 1:

A is moving at 25mph relative to the road. B is in front of A and is moving at 75mph relative to the road. C moves past A at 75mph. What speed does B observe C overtaking them?

 

Answer: 25mph.

 

 

Light moves past every non accelerating (inertial observer at the same relative velocity. Let's slow down light (C) to 100mph but keep its speed constant, so...

 

Step 2:

A is moving at 25mph (.25c / quarter the speed of light) relative to the road. B is in front of A and is moving at 75mph (.25c / three quarters the speed of light) relative to the road. C moves past A at 100mph (c / the speed of light). C moves past B at 100mph (c / the speed of light). None of them accelerated.

 

 

Step 3:

The only way to get C to move past A and B at the same velocity is through length contraction and time dilation.

 

 

Solution 1:

If B is time dilated from A's perspective so that B is moving through time at half their own rate then B would observe C moving past them twice as fast as A observes C moving past B.

 

This works because now B would observe C moving past them (moving past themselves) at the same speed that A observed C moving past them (moving past themselves).

 

 

Solution 2:

If B is length contracted from A's perspective so that B is moving through space at half their own rate then B would observe C moving past them twice as fast as A observes C moving past B.

 

Again, this works because now B would observe C moving past them (moving past themselves) at the same speed that A observed C moving past them (moving past themselves).

 

 

Real Solution:

Time dilation and length contraction are always equal so you just have to get the square root of what the TD or LC would need to be on their own because velocity is distance over time so the effect of TD and LC are multiplied together.

 

 

 

of course if you was being subjective and not looking at the actual facts. 

 

C moves past everything objectively at C, but relatively if you approached the Sun at any speed, the light is travelling subjectively faster relative to the traveller because they are moving towards the light making the light take less time to reach them  by contracting the distance by velocity. 

 

 

I will read the next part now and reply.

 

Any problems with the above statement?

Yes! You're using the word 'subjective' in the wrong context yet again, you say that light moves a c relative to all inertial objects but not if you're moving towards the sun (wtf!), you seem unable to understand simple scenarios and you're assuming your own inability to comprehend this is because everyone else is wrong (hilarious and infuriating at the same time).

 

I do not understand why you think there is any change in actual time or a length of distance.  Below is vector x

 

 

A.........................................B

 

Two point sources in a stationary radius.

 

So you think that if something travels from A to B, that the the distance shortens and contracts,

 

 

A..........B

 

 

 

That does not happen.

 

added - let ,e help with your confusion

 

fr/d  = t/d  that is where you go wrong. 

 

 

I will add the Caesium frequency overlaid space.

 

 

A^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^B

..........................................

 

 

The top squiggles rep the caesium, the dots rep space.

 

 

added let me add your time dilation and contraction

 

A^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^B

..........................................

 

 

hmm x is still x

 

 

added - take note , the Caesium frequency passes through space.

:fool: Start again.

 

 

Step 1:

A is moving at 25mph relative to the road. B is in front of A and is moving at 75mph relative to the road. C moves past A at 75mph. C moves past B at 25mph.

 

 

From A's perspective C moves past themselves at 75mph and still from A's perspective, C moves past B at 25mph.

 

From B's perspective C moves past A at 75mph and moves past themselves at 25mph. Both perspectives are the same so no time dilation and length contraction.

 

 

 

Step 2:

Light moves past every non accelerating (inertial observer at the same relative velocity. Let's slow down light (C) but keep its speed constant, so...

 

A is moving at 25mph (0.25c / quarter the speed of light) relative to the road. B is in front of A and is moving at 75mph (0.75c / three quarters the speed of light) relative to the road. C moves past A at 100mph (c / the speed of light). C moves past B at 100mph (c / the speed of light). None of them accelerated.

 

 

Unlike the first example, C passes A at the same speed that C passes B. From A's perspective C moves past themselves at 100mph (c / the speed of light) and still from A's perspective, C moves past B at (0.5c / half the speed of light).

 

From B's perspective C moves past A at 150mph (1.5c / one and a half times the speed of light) and moves past themselves at 100mph (c / the speed of light).

 

 

Do you understand that?