Personal Topic

[Moronium]

. The mathematical concept of what causes age difference in the twin paradox seems solid but there is no agreement on the definition of terms such as acceleration and time dilation. The definitive answer on time dilation shows diagrams of the twin paradox. So most say time dilation is the cause of age difference and the experts say without "acceleration" (which I was told words can't define) there is no age difference.

 

There is time dilation due to proximity to a gravitational mass and time dilation due to speed.  Both cause (i.e. result in) aging to occur at different rates. If you want to say that gravity is equivalent to acceleration, then, yes, acceleration is necessary to that type of time dilation.

 

But you're talking about time dilation in the twin paradox, which is due to a variance in speed, not acceleration (gravity).  The consensus, based on theoretical hypothesis and extensive empirical confirmation thereof, is that acceleration plays no direct role in time dilation due to speed. I don''t know what presumed "experts," you are talking to, but if they claim that acceleration causes dilation due to speed, they aint no experts.

 

And, again, time dilation, per se, is not a phenomenon which is distinct from slower aging.  The question is still:  "how did you ever get the idea that they have distinct causes?"

 

I think I see how, but I'm just speculating.  Because SR says one twin will age less, you accept that.  But you want to salvage as much of the SR doctrine as you can, so you want to say that the reciprocal time dilation posited by SR still occurs, notwithstanding  the non reciprocal age difference.

 

But there is no reciprocal time dilation in the twin paradox.  The dilation is unilateral, directional, and asymmetrical, i.e., non reciprocal. It's a simple example of the premise that the moving (whether accelerating or not) clock will run slower.  When two  clocks are ticking at different rates, only one of the two can be slower.  The other will be faster, out of logical necessity, if for no other reason.

Edited January 29, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

For the benefit of those who don't read so well, I will post this again:

 

The clock hypothesis is the assumption that the rate at which a clock is affected by time dilation does not depend on its acceleration but only on its instantaneous velocity....The clock hypothesis was implicitly (but not explicitly) included in Einstein's original 1905 formulation of special relativity. Since then, it has become a standard assumption and is usually included in the axioms of special relativity, especially in the light of experimental verification up to very high accelerations in particle accelerators.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Clock_hypothesis

 

For another, of hundreds of available, confirmation of this by experts, see also, e.g.:  http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/clock.html

Edited January 29, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

My brain again redacted many of the words so I was not able to read your post so well. Could you please re-post it?

[Moronium]

SR does not claim that the "moving clock" runs slowly. The only inertial motion in SR is relative motion. The clocks are simply in motion relative to each other. You're again inserting an ether and claiming SR contradicts itself when it actually only contradicts the notion of a preferred frame. Give it a rest dumb dumb.

 

It's amusing to see you make such claims, with such absolute certainty, when the only thing you're proving is that you don't even have an elementary understanding of what you're talking about.

 

The chain of "reasoning" which you're resorting to here (and everywhere else) is this:

 

1.  SR has been conclusively proven to be absolutely correct

 

2.  Therefore it cannot, and does not, make any kind of contradictory claims.

 

3.  If it makes any claim that does seem to contradict another of it's tenets, well, then.....

 

4.  Simply deny that it makes both claims.

 

5. Q.E.D.

Edited January 31, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

 

The only reason the eath twin's watch ends up ahead is because the other twin accelerated and the Earth twin didn't. Pay attention dumb dumb.

 

 

 

Completely wrong, as usual, A-wal.  Acceleration has nothing to due with time dilation caused by motion.  The reason his watch is slower is that he was moving faster, absolutely, not relatively.

 

In this case he wouldn't have been moving faster if he had not accelerated, true, but that is just an accidental circumstance.  Acceleration does not "cause" his time dilation.  You might just as well say that the only reason his watch is slower is because he was wearing a green spacesuit.  It's irrelevant, even if true.

Edited January 31, 2019 by Moronium

[sluggo]

Ralf;

 

I'm going to regret this but here goes nothin'. Learning is easy when you learn new things that fit in with your beliefs, it's very difficult when new things counter your beliefs. It's easier to not accept those new things than to throw out your beliefs. Beliefs become part of a person's id. If you insult their beliefs, you are insulting the person. 

 

----

If an idea can be shown to be true, and it conflicts with someone's belief, they can choose to remain ignorant. If they take the revelation as a personal insult then they are ignorant and stubborn. Life is a learning process. Imagine how small your world would be if you chose to not learn to read.

----

 

See the word inertia applies to both a moving mass and the mass's resistance to moving and that inertia is also equivalent to gravity.

 

-----

The word inertia applies to the resistance of a mass to a change in its motion.

The equivalence principle states the inertial mass is equivalent to the gravitational mass." I,e., the mass behaves the same regardless of the source of the acceleration.

----

SR was written in German, and translated to other languages by persons who knew the various languages involved, just as most translations have been done for millennia.

 

 

[sluggo]

The Hafele-Keating experiment involved SR for the translational motion around the earth and GR for the gravitational effects from the altitude.

The gain or loss in nanosecends relative to a ground clock at the Naval Observatory:

predicted east west

--------------------------------

GR          144 179

SR          -184 96

net           -40 275

--------------------------------

obs          -59 273

 

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu

 

The ECI center establishes an absolute frame, but the circular flight path does not disqualify it as inertial motion. No acceleration factor in gamma! 

 

[Moronium]

 

The ECI center establishes an absolute frame, but the circular flight path does not disqualify it as inertial motion. No acceleration factor in gamma! 

 

 

Insofar as relative clock retardation goes, acceleration is irrelevant, is that what you're getting at when you say "does not disqualify?"   Did you mean to say qualify, instead of disqualify?   What is the point of this assertion?  Why the word "but?"

Edited January 31, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

The H-K expriment , ignoring the gravity effect on the earth clock, is an example of twin paradox permanent age difference, not of "time retardation" due to reciprocal time dilation. Until the plane made the turnaround point in its orbit, the "time retardation" was due to reciprocal time dilation. If the plane had left earth, the time retardation would have remained reciprocal time dilation. But since the plane was in orbit, the turnaround point, even without any force of acceleration felt by the plane, was crucial to establishing a permanent age difference that could be verified once the plane clock and the earth clock co-located. The journey to and from the turnaround point was reciprocal time dilation only. This means without the turnaround point, the result, at co-location, would have been that the plane would have seen the earth clock as having run slower and the earth clock would have seen the plane's clock having run slower which would be a paradox and impossible. Hence the age difference was established by the turnaround but most probably did not count in the total amount of the age difference which correlates entirely to the total of the time dilation for each leg.

 

Conversely, if you look at the muon experiment, that is an example of reciprocal time dilation and not of permanent age difference. The muon's clock, which is its half-life, sees the earth's clock as having run slower than its own just before it crashes into the detector. The earth's clock sees the muon's clock as having run slower. This is not how permanent age difference would have seen it but there was no turnaround involved so a twin paradox age difference was not in play.

Edited January 31, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

The H-K expriment , ignoring the gravity effect on the earth clock, is an example of twin paradox permanent age difference, not of "time retardation" due to reciprocal time dilation.  Until the plane made the turnaround point in its orbit, the "time retardation" was due to reciprocal time dilation.

 

 

1.  The H-K concerned itself only with clocks, not aging.

 

2.  There was no "as seen by" element to it.  The accumlated time differences were objective and absolute, not a result of subjective perception or hypothetical deduction.

 

3.  Your repeated claims about how the clocks "would have ran" are not only devoid of any evidence, but they are not even based on any rational theoretical hypothesis.

Edited January 31, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

SR advocates like to claim that one relatively moving observer "sees" or "observes" the other's clock as running slower.

 

Such language is completely misleading.   They "see" no such thing.  They deduce conclusions from (dubious) premises, and then claim they "saw" it.

 

In SR, the starting premise is that  "I am stationary, he is moving."

Edited January 31, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Atomic clocks have become so precise that you can now put two identical clocks on, say, a table top and actually "see" them run at the same rate.  Raise one of them 12" and you can actually "see" one of them now run at a different rate than the other.

 

Same with dilation due to speed.  They can now detect differences in clock rates when the speed differential is only 20 miles per hour.  You can put two clocks on a curb and see them running at identical rates.  Put one in a convertible going 20 mph and you can see a difference.  You are looking at both simultaneously, so there's no speculation about how one will "see" the other.

 

The guy in the car will see the curbside clock running faster, not slower, and the guy on the curb will see things the same way.  The time dilation is NOT "reciprocal," it is asymmetrical.

Edited January 31, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Yup, fer sure. Now back to science.

[Moronium]

Yup, fer sure. Now back to science.

 

 

Heh, you mean pseudo science from Ralf, which ignores and denies all relevant empirical fact, that it?

 

September 23, 2010

 

BOULDER, Colo. – Scientists have known for decades that time passes faster at higher elevations—a curious aspect of Einstein's theories of relativity that previously has been measured by comparing clocks on the Earth's surface and a high-flying rocket.

 

Now, physicists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have measured this effect at a more down-to-earth scale of 33 centimeters, or about 1 foot, demonstrating, for instance, that you age faster when you stand a couple of steps higher on a staircase.

 

Similarly, the NIST researchers observed another aspect of relativity—that time passes more slowly when you move faster—at speeds comparable to a car travelling about 20 miles per hour, a more comprehensible scale than previous measurements made using jet aircraft.

 

NIST scientists performed the new "time dilation" experiments by comparing operations of a pair of the world's best experimental atomic clocks. The nearly identical clocks are each based on the "ticking" of a single aluminum ion (electrically charged atom) as it vibrates between two energy levels over a million billion times per second. One clock keeps time to within 1 second in about 3.7 billion years 

 

 

 

https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale

Edited January 31, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

The nearly identical clocks are each based on the "ticking" of a single aluminum ion (electrically charged atom) as it vibrates between two energy levels over a million billion times per second.

 

 

Do clocks slow down because "time" slows down?  Obviously not.  An atomic clock records slower times at increased speeds and lower elevations because its ions oscillate less frequently.

 

"Time" hasn't slowed down.  Atomic activity has slowed down, just as it can with temperature changes (which do not change "time" either), that's all.

 

You can look at two clocks, one 12" higher than the other, for a minute, an hour, a day, or any other arbitrary duration.  That time will be identical to itself, whatever it is, and it will be the same for each clock.   There are not two different "times," just because there are two clocks.  What has changed is merely the number of oscillations occurring in the two clocks during that identical duration, not "time."

 

Minkowski wanted to pretend that time itself somehow changes (God only knows how).  Minkowski was wrong.

`

Edited January 31, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Ah nope.

[OceanBreeze]

  What has changed is merely the number of oscillations occurring in the two clocks during that identical duration, not "time."

 

 

 

How do you characterize that “duration”? All you are doing is substituting the word “duration” for the word “time”

 

Nothing can change without that "duration"

 

time=change