Xyz's Request That Sluggo Listen To Him

[billvon]

Time dilation is a contraction of frequency/wavelength. light is not time, why do you keep insisting that the Caesium rate is time?

Why do you think that the slowing down of a frequency means time slows down? 

"Caesium rate" is not time.  Time is time.  Anything you build that can measure time will slow down relative to a stationary observer, whether it is based on a cesium standard, a different standard, a mechanical timekeeper, a chemical timekeeper - anything.  Cesium based clocks slow down.  Rubidium based clocks slow down.  We know this for a fact because both are used on GPS satellites.  This is not because "clocks don't work when they go fast" - this is because time itself is running slower relative to an Earth-based observer.

 

We can see this happen to a far greater degree with subatomic particles.  For example, cosmic rays hit our atmosphere high up.  The collision causes muon generation; these muons then decay quickly, within microseconds.  It is easy to calculate how far into the atmosphere they will get even if they are moving very close to the speed of light - and the answer is "not very far" which is a good thing for us.  (About 600 meters assuming they are very close to the speed of light.)

 

But when actual experiments were run, muons were found much lower in the atmosphere than predicted; they went much farther than should be possible before decaying.  Why did this happen?  Because they were moving at .995 times the speed of light - and at those speeds, time was very dilated indeed.  Normally these muons would persist for an average of 2.2us before decaying - but due to time dilation, these were persisting for over 20us and getting much lower in the atmosphere than Newtonian timing would predict.  No clocks at all involved here - just basic subatomic physics.  The time changes not because a "clock is inaccurate" but because time (for those particles) slows down relative to our planet.

[Maine farmer]

If you mean rejection in the sense that I reject bogus information then indeed yes.  I reject anything that is subjective without foundation. 

 

 

If you mean it in some sort of weird way, then not at all. 

 

I couldn't care less if anyone listens but I am not ignorant so will reply to posts from members. 

 

But it is ignorant and arrogant of most to not ''listen'' and only hear their subjective education.

 

People replying are not thinking.  

You seem to be rejecting standard definition of time, all available means for measuring time, and the recorded experimental evidence that supports the generally accepted interpretations of relativity.  

 

The problem with your time lines, from my perspective, is that you draw them as straight lines.  Both twins are travelling through to the same point in time, but the travelling twin took a short cut through time, while the twin that stayed home took a longer route through time.

 

You are rejecting the possibility of a short cut through time.

[xyz]

"Caesium rate" is not time.  Time is time.  Anything you build that can measure time will slow down relative to a stationary observer, whether it is based on a cesium standard, a different standard, a mechanical timekeeper, a chemical timekeeper - anything.  Cesium based clocks slow down.  Rubidium based clocks slow down.  We know this for a fact because both are used on GPS satellites.  This is not because "clocks don't work when they go fast" - this is because time itself is running slower relative to an Earth-based observer.

 

We can see this happen to a far greater degree with subatomic particles.  For example, cosmic rays hit our atmosphere high up.  The collision causes muon generation; these muons then decay quickly, within microseconds.  It is easy to calculate how far into the atmosphere they will get even if they are moving very close to the speed of light - and the answer is "not very far" which is a good thing for us.  (About 600 meters assuming they are very close to the speed of light.)

 

But when actual experiments were run, muons were found much lower in the atmosphere than predicted; they went much farther than should be possible before decaying.  Why did this happen?  Because they were moving at .995 times the speed of light - and at those speeds, time was very dilated indeed.  Normally these muons would persist for an average of 2.2us before decaying - but due to time dilation, these were persisting for over 20us and getting much lower in the atmosphere than Newtonian timing would predict.  No clocks at all involved here - just basic subatomic physics.  The time changes not because a "clock is inaccurate" but because time (for those particles) slows down relative to our planet.

You started off do well with this post but then faded half way through.  

 

 

"''''Caesium rate" is not time.  Time is time.  Anything you build that can measure time will slow down relative to a stationary observer,''  CORRECT

 

 

 ''whether it is based on a cesium standard, a different standard, a mechanical timekeeper, a chemical timekeeper - anything.  Cesium based clocks slow down.  Rubidium based clocks slow down.  We know this for a fact because both are used on GPS satellites.  '' CORRECT

 

 

''This is not because "clocks don't work when they go fast" - this is because time itself is running slower relative to an Earth-based observer.''WRONG and contradictory

 

 

 

Why is this wrong?  Because the "Caesium rate" is not time.  Time is time''., your own words. Then you contradict yourself and in the same breathe say ''This is not because "clocks don't work when they go fast" - this is because time itself is running slower relative to an Earth-based observer.''

 

 

Really ?  You conclude because the Caesium rate has variation which admitted by yourself is not time, that the real time you are representing by a rate comparison slows down?  How strange and not remotely true in any sense of the word time. 

 

 

This is how daft you really sound to me in comparison, a constant drip slows down, it must be that time is slowing down. PFFFFF how crazy you all are in thinking this. 

Edited January 10, 2017 by xyz

[xyz]

You seem to be rejecting standard definition of time, all available means for measuring time, and the recorded experimental evidence that supports the generally accepted interpretations of relativity.  

 

The problem with your time lines, from my perspective, is that you draw them as straight lines.  Both twins are travelling through to the same point in time, but the travelling twin took a short cut through time, while the twin that stayed home took a longer route through time.

 

You are rejecting the possibility of a short cut through time.

I am rejecting it on very simple reasoning, 

 

If you left me and returned, we both spend an exact equal amount of time away from each other, if you can not ''see'' why this true,  then I can only presume in some sort of mass brain washing/control by whoever, whatever. 

 

 

 

It is more than obvious I am correct, I have tried with simple questions which are and have been not directly answered. 

 

 

A short cut through time, meaning a length contraction , you can't short cut through time. Time is adjoined, there is no gaps or spaces, the next increment of time instantaneous follows the previous increment, any measurement after 0 is instantaneous history, you do not  measure time per-say , ''you'' record moments past. 

[billvon]

''This is not because "clocks don't work when they go fast" - this is because time itself is running slower relative to an Earth-based observer.''WRONG and contradictory

Not contradictory at all.  It is explained quite readily by the Lorentz equation several others have presented.

 

 

Why is this wrong?  Because the "Caesium rate" is not time.  Time is time''., your own words. Then you contradict yourself and in the same breathe say ''This is not because "clocks don't work when they go fast" - this is because time itself is running slower relative to an Earth-based observer.''

They are not a contradiction.  Time is time.  Cesium clocks run slower when moving quickly compared to another frame of observation.  So do mechanical clocks.  So do chemical clocks.  So do light-based clocks.  EVERY clock runs slower.  This is not because there is some magical effect that manages to make each type of clock equally inaccurate - it is because time itself is slowing down.  All those clocks are still as accurate as ever, even if that makes your head hurt.

 

Really ?  You conclude because the Caesium rate has variation which admitted by yourself is not time, that the real time you are representing by a rate comparison slows down?  How strange  . . . .

You are demonstrating a classic logical fallacy here - argument from ignorance. "I cannot comprehend how this thing happens, therefore it does not happen!"

 

This is how daft you really sound to me in comparison, a constant drip slows down, it must be that time is slowing down.

If you were next to the sink that was dripping on your spaceship, you would not see it slowing down at all.  All your clocks would seem to be running like they always do.  Time would seem to pass normally to you.  Light would still go the speed of light.  Only an outside observer, moving at a different speed, would see any difference at all. That's another thing you are missing here - you would not notice the difference, just as astronauts, the clocks on board satellites and the particles in the example above that are decaying do not notice any difference.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 10, 2017 by billvon

[xyz]

 

Not contradictory at all.  It is explained quite readily by the Lorentz equation several others have presented.

 

 

They are not a contradiction.  Time is time.  Cesium clocks run slower when moving quickly compared to another frame of observation.  So do mechanical clocks.  So do chemical clocks.  So do light-based clocks.  EVERY clock runs slower.  This is not because there is some magical effect that manages to make each type of clock equally inaccurate - it is because time itself is slowing down.  All those clocks are still as accurate as ever, even if that makes your head hurt.

 

You are demonstrating a classic logical fallacy here - argument from ignorance. "I cannot comprehend how this thing happens, therefore it does not happen!"

 

If you were next to the sink that was dripping on your spaceship, you would not see it slowing down at all.  All your clocks would seem to be running like they always do.  Time would seem to pass normally to you.  Light would still go the speed of light.  Only an outside observer, moving at a different speed, would see any difference at all. That's another thing you are missing here - you would not notice the difference, just as astronauts, the clocks on board satellites and the particles in the example above that are decaying do not notice any difference.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes there was a contradiction, you have just not realised the realisation of your own words. 

 

 

''Caesium rate" is not time.  Time is time. ''

 

 

 

 

Realise what you are saying here, think objectively and you may just find some realism. 

 

 

Realise the point that time does not ''care'' what rate the clock is ticking at. 

[sluggo]

added post 

 

seem's how awal likes light so much I will ask you all the question by using Photons. 

 

A photon travels away from (A) to ( :cool: a mirror and reflects back again from ( :cool: to (A). 

 

 

The distance between (A) and ( :cool: is 299 792 458 m and the distance has no medium. 

 

 

How much time is the Photon and (A) apart?

 

My  fast track calculation says 

 

(A) is away from the Photon for 2.s

 

 

The Photon is away from (A) for 2.s

 

 

does anyone disagree?

 

Because the constant speed of light shows why there cant be a time dilation or a younger returning twin. 

A light clock with a mirror 1 light sec from the emitter is a huge and impractical clock. That's why the example specified 1 unit of distance. In the real world it would be more like a nanosecond or 1 foot. Extending this example, the time cycle would be 2 ns. But what if the clock is moving to the right and the mirror doesn't wait for the photon, the photon has to chase the mirror for a bit before catching up, i.e. it takes more time to complete a cycle. It's a simple scenario like the criminal Vinnie spotted in his car 1 mile east of the bank. The police car can do 60 mph. If Vinnie remains parked, officer Dudley can get there in 1/60 hr or 1 min. If Vinnie drives away headed east at 50 mph, Dudley can overtake him in 1/10 hr or 6 min.

The same principle is present, the greater the speed the longer the process takes due to the changing distance.

FYI the second is defined as >9 billion wave lengths of light from the cesium atom. Those wave lengths reprsent a distance. As in the past, 'time' is distance wearing a different dress.

MInkowski defined the 4th parameter/variable as ict, a distance for purely mathematical reasons. The labeling of the vertical axis in the 'spacetime' drawing as ct is necessary regardless of Minkowski since without scaling of one of time or space, a graph would be useless for analysis of relativistic speeds.

I think the role of a clock is not to measure time but to provide a standard event which can be used as a tool to measure the duration of an event or the duration between events, in the same manner as using a ruler to measure spatial distances. A clock is more like a metronome that provides a beat to coordinate activities. 

[billvon]

Yes there was a contradiction, you have just not realised the realisation of your own words. 

 

 

''Caesium rate" is not time.  Time is time. ''

 

Realise what you are saying here, think objectively and you may just find some realism. 

Realise the point that time does not ''care'' what rate the clock is ticking at. 

Correct.  The clock cares what rate time is passing - and an accurate clock measures the passage of time accurately.

 

An accurate clock is accurate no matter what speed it goes at.  An accurate clock seems to run slower (to a ground based observer) when it is in orbit.  This is because time passes more slowly, relative to the ground.  There is no magical "speed force" that makes clocks inaccurate, and if you were on the ISS (or a much faster spaceship) you would not notice time passing any more slowly - because to you, it does not.

 

If you can't wrap your head around this, then consider the light clock in the example above.

[xyz]

A light clock with a mirror 1 light sec from the emitter is a huge and impractical clock. That's why the example specified 1 unit of distance. In the real world it would be more like a nanosecond or 1 foot. Extending this example, the time cycle would be 2 ns. But what if the clock is moving to the right and the mirror doesn't wait for the photon, the photon has to chase the mirror for a bit before catching up, i.e. it takes more time to complete a cycle. It's a simple scenario like the criminal Vinnie spotted in his car 1 mile east of the bank. The police car can do 60 mph. If Vinnie remains parked, officer Dudley can get there in 1/60 hr or 1 min. If Vinnie drives away headed east at 50 mph, Dudley can overtake him in 1/10 hr or 6 min.

The same principle is present, the greater the speed the longer the process takes due to the changing distance.

FYI the second is defined as >9 billion wave lengths of light from the cesium atom. Those wave lengths reprsent a distance. As in the past, 'time' is distance wearing a different dress.

MInkowski defined the 4th parameter/variable as ict, a distance for purely mathematical reasons. The labeling of the vertical axis in the 'spacetime' drawing as ct is necessary regardless of Minkowski since without scaling of one of time or space, a graph would be useless for analysis of relativistic speeds.

I think the role of a clock is not to measure time but to provide a standard event which can be used as a tool to measure the duration of an event or the duration between events, in the same manner as using a ruler to measure spatial distances. A clock is more like a metronome that provides a beat to coordinate activities. 

Ahhh, I wondered when somebody would mention the totally incorrect light clock and ''zig zagging'' beams, there is no zig zag and easily provable. 

 

Do you own a laser?   Shine the laser at the floor vertically, then add a reflective medium such has smoke otherwise you see no beam, now move the laser keeping it vertical  and notice the laser beam remains vertically aligned. Also notice the floor gives no reflective ray of the laser  beam..  Now add a mirror on the floor , a horizontal plain, then the observer affect of the mirror has a reflective beam . However it remains a vertical beam unless the mirror is angled to create the angled trajectory of the reflective  beam. 

 

Don't believe me? 

 

Try it. 

Edited January 10, 2017 by xyz

[xyz]

Correct.  The clock cares what rate time is passing - and an accurate clock measures the passage of time accurately.

 

An accurate clock is accurate no matter what speed it goes at.  An accurate clock seems to run slower (to a ground based observer) when it is in orbit.  This is because time passes more slowly, relative to the ground.  There is no magical "speed force" that makes clocks inaccurate, and if you were on the ISS (or a much faster spaceship) you would not notice time passing any more slowly - because to you, it does not.

 

If you can't wrap your head around this, then consider the light clock in the example above.

Clearly you are a ''troll'', changing content and saying things I have not even said .  which I have quoted in bold in the above. 

 

''An accurate clock is accurate no matter what speed it goes at.  An accurate clock seems to run slower (to a ground based observer) when it is in orbit.  This is because time passes more slowly, relative to the ground. ''

 

 

An accurate clock is one that is constant, the Caesium clock is not a constant, it has a variable rate due to motion .  Time does not pass more slowly relative to the ground, the rate of the caesium atom in motion is slower than a Caesium atom's rate at ground state in a inertia reference frame. 

 

 

 

The Caesium rate is to do with entropy transfer, nothing to do with time in a realistic world. 

[billvon]

Clearly you are a ''troll'',

And clearly you have some issues with reality, and are unable to learn from your mistakes.

 

In reality, time dilation occurs.  In your imagination, it does not.  I hope you are someday able to deal with reality.  Good luck with that.

Edited January 10, 2017 by billvon

[xyz]

And clearly you have some issues with reality, and are unable to learn from your mistakes.

 

In reality, time dilation occurs.  In your imagination, it does not.  I hope you are someday able to deal with reality.  Good luck with that.

Clearly you can not ''see'' past your subjective education and  in essence, you was ''programmed'' to learn in the fear of failure in school grades.

 

You quite clearly have this strange imaginary reality that you believe to be the absolute.  

 

 

I will ask you two questions  and if your given answer is yes to both questions, then nothing else is needed and you should ''see'' the true reality of the Universe.

 

 

 

1.  If you leave me on a journey and return sometime later , you are away from me for equally as long as I away from you .  YES or NO

 

 

 

2.  The Caesium rate is not time .  YES or NO 

 

 

When you have answered yes to both questions, I want you to consider that the length of distance between two bodies is equally proportional relative too the two bodies. (see below diagram)

 

 

Diagram 1. 

 

 

M₁_______________________________________________________________________________M₂

 

 

_d/x=d/x

 

 

_c/x=c/x=1.s

 

 

My clock says your clock is broke. 

 

How do you propose x contracts?  

 

How do you propose c is not constant?

 

 

added - now I am in the mood for this, let me advance you further. 

 

 

 

''you'' say we see the sun in its past.   ''Watch'' what happens in the below diagram.

 

 

 

 

 

M₁___________________________________________M₂

 

 

 

d/x=d/x

 

ct/x=ct/x=1,s

 

 

 

M₁    see's M₂   in 1.s

 

 

M₂    see's M₁   in 1.s

 

They cancel each other out,'' they'' see each other at the same time.   Relativity fails and is based on one way events.    

 

 

 

At a speed of c the sun is approximately 8 minutes and 24 seconds away from the Earth.  vice versus at the speed of c. the Earth is approximately 8 minutes and 24 seconds away from the sun, Both the Sun and the Earth exist in the present .     Quite simply if the Sun was to come to the Earth ., or vice versus , the Sun or vice versus would arrive in the ''now'' present time frame, if it travelled back to position, the time frame remains the same, the ''now'' present moment' The time frame is always equally proportional. 

 

And omg, I have just thought of something ,   xyzt   is the time frame of space. We time things within the time frame. The time frame is a visual boundary of sight, the inverse square law and light diminishing over distance creating a visual volume with limitations. 

 

 

 

added- Because while the Photon travels from the Sun to the Earth, approx 8 minutes of time passes for both the Sun and the Earth.  Also I have just thought, the big bang started at 0, everything ''flowed'' out at the same time, the same time was continuous and simultaneous. 

Edited January 11, 2017 by xyz

[CraigD]

Correct. The clock cares what rate time is passing - and an accurate clock measures the passage of time accurately.

 

An accurate clock is accurate no matter what speed it goes at. An accurate clock seems to run slower (to a ground based observer) when it is in orbit. This is because time passes more slowly, relative to the ground. There is no magical "speed force" that makes clocks inaccurate, and if you were on the ISS (or a much faster spaceship) you would not notice time passing any more slowly - because to you, it does not.

 

If you can't wrap your head around this, then consider the light clock in the example above.

Clearly you are a ''troll'', changing content and saying things I have not even said . which I have quoted in bold in the above.

Xyz, you are misusing the term “troll”. An internet troll is someone who purposefully tries to upset and argue with people in internet forums, such as by insulting people or making outrageous claims.

 

Billvon and others are showing extraordinary patience in trying to teach you basic concepts of modern physics. They are not trolling you.

 

I don’t believe you are a troll, because I don’t believe you understand that your claims are obviously wrong to anyone with an adequate science education, and when you make rude and insulting statements, you feel you are retaliating against people who are insulting you. In my opinion – which, as moderator, is authoritative here at Hypography – you are wrong.

 

You need to stop behaving this way, and be receptive to people’s attempts to help you learn science.

 

Clearly you can not ''see'' past your subjective education and in essence, you was ''programmed'' to learn in the fear of failure in school grades.

As has been explained to you many time, you are misusing the terms “subjective” and “objective”.

 

More disturbingly, you are disparaging science by suggesting that it “programs” people who learn it in school.

 

A defining characteristic of science is that its hypotheses and theories are tested and supported by experiment, which reveal objective reality.

 

As has been explained to you many time, this claim

If you leave me on a journey and return sometime later , you are away from me for equally as long as I away from you

is refuted by a large body experimental data. It simply is not true. Why it is not true is well explained by theory, and has been explained to you at length in this thread.

 

Insisting that what you intuitively believe must be true, even when it disagrees with science accepted by nearly every science educated person, is not scientific, and not allowed in these forums. If you want to continue to participate here at Hypography, you must stop doing it.

[xyz]

Xyz, you are misusing the term “troll”. An internet troll is someone who purposefully tries to upset and argue with people in internet forums, such as by insulting people or making outrageous claims.

 

Billvon and others are showing extraordinary patience in trying to teach you basic concepts of modern physics. They are not trolling you.

 

I don’t believe you are a troll, because I don’t believe you understand that your claims are obviously wrong to anyone with an adequate science education, and when you make rude and insulting statements, you feel you are retaliating against people who are insulting you. In my opinion – which, as moderator, is authoritative here at Hypography – you are wrong.

 

You need to stop behaving this way, and be receptive to people’s attempts to help you learn science.

 

As has been explained to you many time, you are misusing the terms “subjective” and “objective”.

 

More disturbingly, you are disparaging science by suggesting that it “programs” people who learn it in school.

 

A defining characteristic of science is that its hypotheses and theories are tested and supported by experiment, which reveal objective reality.

 

As has been explained to you many time, this claim

is refuted by a large body experimental data. It simply is not true. Why it is not true is well explained by theory, and has been explained to you at length in this thread.

 

Insisting that what you intuitively believe must be true, even when it disagrees with science accepted by nearly every science educated person, is not scientific, and not allowed in these forums. If you want to continue to participate here at Hypography, you must stop doing it.

Well I am just going to leave this forum and wish you good day.  

 

I have not once asked to learn science or feel I need to know much more about science as I have done self studying for several year.  I know very well what your time dilation is, I also know what it isn't.  

 

I find it strange that in a strange claims section, that you are basically threatening me with a ban if I dont stop  making strange claims, quite ironic with the section title. 

 

 

I am going to tell you  that you are wrong also. 

 

 

You are right that the Caesium atom changes rate, you admit the caesium rate is not time then make outlandish claims that time changes just because the rate of the caesium atom changes. 

 

I accuse science of  being religion and believe you are governed by religion. 

 

Science is not even science anymore and you wouldn't know the truth if it was on the end of your nose. 

 

 

Goodbye and you all carry on preaching to the naive and subjective.   To put it straight , ''you'' are all really stupid for thinking ''your'' garbage and I find it laughable that you wilfully don't listen to the truth and claim your imaginary ideas are reality. 

[billvon]

I will ask you two questions  and if your given answer is yes to both questions, then nothing else is needed and you should ''see'' the true reality of the Universe.

 

 

 

1.  If you leave me on a journey and return sometime later , you are away from me for equally as long as I away from you .  YES or NO

 

No.

2.  The Caesium rate is not time .  YES or NO

 

Yes, the frequency generated by the transition between the two hyperfine ground states of cesium is not time; it is merely measured using time, and is used as a reference for measurements of time.  Just as a ruler is not distance; a ruler merely measures distance.  An accurate clock measures time accurately, and an accurate ruler measures distance accurately.

 

And omg, I have just thought of something ,   xyzt   is the time frame of space. We time things within the time frame. The time frame is a visual boundary of sight, the inverse square law and light diminishing over distance creating a visual volume with limitations. 

 

!!!! OMG  !!!!  OMG  !!!!  OMG  !!!!  It's like time is a fourth dimension!

 

Keep thinking and you may happen upon something called the light cone, which is a 3D projection of the 4D thing you are beginning to describe above.  Keep thinking some more (and perhaps do some reading) and you will begin to realize that for everything described within that light cone to make sense, time _must_ dilate as relative motions increase.

added- Because while the Photon travels from the Sun to the Earth, approx 8 minutes of time passes for both the Sun and the Earth.

Yep.  And if someone was following that photon in a spaceship going _almost_ as fast as that photon, they would arrive in seconds by their own clocks (and their own perceptions.)

[A-wal]

You keeping repeating this rubbish that is nothing to do with time.  

 

I don't mean to sound rude Awal but do you have mental issues or English is not your native language?   Because I am talking about ''apples'' and you are talking about ''pairs''

 

''Because the consistency of the speed of light is what shows that it's totally impossible for objects that are in motion relative to each other to measure the same values for lengths in time and space.''

 

What on earth are you talking about?, I am talking about time. You reply with unrelated ''gibber''.

Can you really not see how the consistency of the the speed of light is connected to this topic? Wow, oh dear.

 

This - 

 

''An hour in the wife's frame of reference, slightly less than an hour in the husband's because they both measure the same speed of light despite their motion relative to each other so they have to each be time dilated and length contracted from the others frame of reference and the one that accelerates is the one that that was time dilated and length contracted in the frame that they both start and finish in so the husband is the one that experiences less proper time.''

 

Huh ? I asked you a very basic and simple question and you fail to give an answer a 5 year old could give.

I thought you'd want the correct answer. My mistake.

 

You are without doubt a troll and only here to keep repeating the same gibber you have been repeating for years.

You're definition of troll is as warped as your definition of subjective and objective and almost as warped as you're definition of time.

 

BUt..but.....but...the speed of light is constant blah blah, I do not care if the speed of light is constant, the speed of light has NOTHING to do with time,

The consistency of the speed of light has everything to do with time, both coordinate time and proper time.

 

But in saying that I will remain calm and try for one last time to get you to understand instead of being so naive .

 

I will take it really slow for you.

Thank you for your patience. :)

 

Your answer only needs to be an answer related to the question asked or just dont bother.

 

1. Do you know what equal means?   please explain in your own words

 

2. Define time ? 

 

3. How many seconds in 24 hours?

1. The same as something else. As in 'the time measured of the watches of the two observer's in the twin paradox can never be equal'.

 

2. Coordinate time is the time as measured by an observer of objects that are in a different frame of reference. Proper time is an observers own personal elapsed time.

 

3. 86,400. Are we just asking irrelevant questions now? How many loafs of bread in a baker's dozen?

 

Because the constant speed of light shows why there cant be a time dilation or a younger returning twin. 

If the speed of light wasn't constant there'd no time dilation and length contraction. The consistency of the speed of light is what proves that time dilation and length contraction have to exist.

 

This is A's perspective:

 

A's frame of reference:

 

0.5c

B<----------------------------------A

<-------------------------------------------------------------------------Light

0.5c                                         1c

 

 

Without time dilation this would be B's perspective.

 

B's frame of reference:

 

0.5c

B---------------------------------->A

<-------------------------------------------------------------------------Light

0.5c                                         1c

 

It's exactly the same because there's no time dilation and length contraction but the speed of light wouldn't be constant. It would move past B at 0.5 from B's perspective and we know that isn't what happens. This is what happens when we see it from B's frame of reference:

 

B's frame of reference:

 

0.5c

B---------------------------------->A

<-------------------------------------------------------------------------Light

1c                                         1.5c

 

So B must be time dilated and length contracted from A's reference frame so that when we switch to B's frame time speeds up, making the light take less time on B's watch to cover the same distance and length in space increaces, making the light cover more distance in the same amount of time. The combination of the two bring the speed of light up to 1c as it is in every inertial frame of reference.

 

This universal time that your mind's stuck with simply doesn't exist, there's no need for it and there's no evidence for it.

 

 

Still can't get it to work with light going in the opposite direction though, I'll start a new topic for that.

Edited January 11, 2017 by A-wal

[exchemist]

Clearly you are a ''troll'', changing content and saying things I have not even said .  which I have quoted in bold in the above. 

 

''An accurate clock is accurate no matter what speed it goes at.  An accurate clock seems to run slower (to a ground based observer) when it is in orbit.  This is because time passes more slowly, relative to the ground. ''

 

 

An accurate clock is one that is constant, the Caesium clock is not a constant, it has a variable rate due to motion .  Time does not pass more slowly relative to the ground, the rate of the caesium atom in motion is slower than a Caesium atom's rate at ground state in a inertia reference frame. 

 

 

 

The Caesium rate is to do with entropy transfer, nothing to do with time in a realistic world. 

I'm reporting you. It is monstrous to accuse billvon of all people of being a troll. I've had the pleasure of reading his solid and polite scientific contributions, for several years, on three different fora. He meets none of the criteria for being a troll.  

 

Oops too late! 

Edited January 11, 2017 by exchemist