Personal Topic

[marcospolo]

Well, then, what does it change?  It changes the way we calculate the time and distance IF we rely on (what we know to be unreliable) measuring instruments.  By that erroneous procedure, observers in different inertial frames will always "measure" the speed of light to be the same, even though it aint the same.

hang one tick. There appears to be a problem here with you absolute relativistic theory.

On one hand you say that time is absolute, and are not sure about distance, but your mates assure you that distance does actually shrink, like clocks loose time, meanwhile TIME itself is always static.....

but on the other hand you are saying that BECAUSE of inaccurate clocks, and BECAUSE of shrinking distances, a moving observer will still get the same readings as the stationary observer, whose clocks (required to calculate speed) and rulers have NOT shrunk.

 

THEREFORE the moving observer and the stationary observer will still measure the speed of light to be the same.... even though it aint the same..???? (Your words)

 

BUT, if i use a ruler that is half the size as your ruler, and a time that is half the period of your time, so say (4 of your units = only 2 of mine) to measure something that is supposed to be ABSOLUTE, then you will measure the things velocity as V = d/t

You with your normal measuring equipment say that the velocity is say 20 units distance in 8 units of time = 2.5 velocity.

with the moving guys measuring equipment which is half the size, the result is still 2.5 from his results.

BUT, the claim is that we, as stationary observers, HAVE REALLY EXPERIENCED the measure of the moving guys time and distance, and we KNOW its half our values!

So now we should use the REAL sizes of the moving guys measuring equipment meaning that his real absolute time is half outs, and his real lengths are half...

do the math now.  Moving guys length  is really only 10 units absolute, and his time is only 4 units absolute.

10/4 = 2.5 absolute velocity units.

So here is three different ways to measure the velocity, from all three possible points of view, even assuming that time and distance units are totally different.

We still get the same result. V=2.5 absolute units.

 

Now as you are undecided on the claim that lengths shrink as well as clocks go slower, the answer must be that the two must go hand in hand, or the results cant equal 2.5 when you don't shrink both time AND distance measure units equally.

So if clocks loose time, then so must distance shrink equally.

 

But there is still a problem for you!

 

You are saying that its only an perceived change in time, as its only an error of the clock that gives the impression that time has slowed. But TIME is absolute...

therefore, the same MUST be true for distances, they must be absolute too, we can have one absolute and the other only an illusion.

 

So we have a big problem now. Fair enough if the moving guys gear stops working correctly for some obscure reason, the claim is that it stops working correctly in a precisely mathematically correct manner!

 

Next here is where we run into the problem.. The ONLY way we know that the moving guys distance and time measuring equipment is not working as ours, is NOT because he told us!  To him, everything checks out fine.

The way we know is that we used our perfectly accurate measuring equipment, which is accurately representing absolute time and distance, and we are noticing that the moving guys clocks and rulers are shrunk!

 

Therefore IF they are shrunk as measured on our equipment relative to absolute time and space, then TIME DILATION AND LENGTH CONTRACTION MUST BE A REAL EFFECT.  NOT merely someone clock slowing. It MUST be that TIME itself has slowed, as well as length, absolute length has also shrunk on the moving ship!

 

This is why I think that your belief that clocks have been measured as running slow, MUST be a error of observation, as if its true, then according to the logic above, it MUST mean that TIME and length are NOT ABSOLUTE.  Both Time and length must always go hand in hand, one cant shrink and not the other.

 

You need to think through this one very carefully, where is my error, as surely I mast be wrong...

but where?

Edited February 16, 2019 by marcospolo

[Moronium]

To him, everything checks out fine.  The way we know is that we used our perfectly accurate measuring equipment, which is accurately representing absolute time and distance, and we are noticing that  the moving guys clocks and rulers are shrunk!

 

 

That is a long post, and I've haven't completely followed it.  But let me say a couple of things now.

 

1.  The whole analysis involving what this guy "thinks" and that guy "thinks" is just bogus SR crap.  In LR it doesn't matter what either one of them "think."  It doesn't depend on observers at all.  It's just an analysis of matter in motion. That said, if you asked the moving guy if his clock had slowed down, he would say "yes, because I'm now moving faster."  And he would know his clock was inaccurate, he wouldn't assume that it was "correct."

 

2.  Why do I say that in LR time, motion, length, simultaneity, and all are "absolute?"   Because LR posits a preferred frame.  It has the "correct" or true time, etc.  Lightspeed is the same in all directions ONLY in that frame. It is standard, anything else is nonstandard (even if it is measured to be standard).

 

3.  Let's take a quick example:  Let's start with two objects, A and B which are separating from each other at .6c.  In SR each would say the other's clock had slowed down, etc.

 

Now lets insert a third object (say earth) in between them and let's treat that as the preferred frame.  Let's also suppose that A and B had each left earth at the same time at the speed of .3c (relative to the earth).  OK, now, in LR their "absolute" speed is .3c (not .6c which is merely their "relative speed," The "true" speed of light will NOT be the same in both directions for either A or B, even if they measure it to be (improperly assuming isotrophy).

 

I'm not sure if that responds to the issues you're raising.  You tell me.  But try to forget about what guys are "thinking."  And remember that their measurements have nothing to do with the "other guy" (unless the other guy happens to be in the preferred frame).

Edited February 16, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

2.  Why do I say that in LR time, motion, length, simultaneity, and all are "absolute?"   Because LR posits a preferred frame.  It has the "correct" or true time, etc.  Lightspeed is the same in all directions ONLY in that frame. It is standard, anything else is nonstandard (even if it is measured to be standard).

 

 

In passing note that in SR there is also a "preferred frame."  It is always the one YOU are in.  Without a preferred frame somewhere, you will get nowhere with calculations, as Builder noted.  Ignoring the alleged "reciprocity" of SR, SR generally gets results which are consistent with LR, as long as only two observers are being considered. But that is only because it "mimics" LR by adopting a preferred frame.  

 

Every observer in SR treats himself as being "at rest in the ether."

Edited February 16, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

.  Ignoring the alleged "reciprocity" of SR, SR generally gets results which are consistent with LR, as long as only two observers are being considered. But that is only because it "mimics" LR by adopting a preferred frame.  

 

 

Cases like the H-K experiment and the GPS do not confine themselves to looking at just two objects.  That's when SR disintegrates.

Edited February 16, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

 Let's also suppose that A and B had each left earth at the same time at the speed of .3c (relative to the earth).  OK, now, in LR their "absolute" speed is .3c (not .6c which is merely their "relative speed," 

 

 

Let me add this, which may help clarify the distinction between SR and LR.

 

In SR, A will say his speed is zero, and that B's is .6c.   B will say HIS speed is zero, and that A's is .6c.

 

In LR, A and B will consider their speeds to be identical, i.e., 3c.  They will each consider the speed of the earth (the preferred frame in this example) to be 0.

 

There could be hundreds of objects, all moving at different rates, and it would still be the same thing.  They would all gauge their true speed, the true time, etc. by comparison to the preferred frame, not the other hundreds.  Succinctly stated their motion is absolute, not relative

Edited February 16, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

 

Let me add this, which may help clarify the distinction between SR and LR.

 

In SR, A will say his speed is zero, and that B's is .6c.   B will say HIS speed is zero, and that A's is .6c.

 

In LR, A and B will consider their speeds to be identical, i.e., 3c.  They will each consider the speed of the earth (the preferred frame in this example) to be 0.

 

I mean, really, that's all you need to know to reject SR as being physically "true."  It may work out mathematically, and all, but A and B cannot BOTH be right in their respective claims.  Yet SR tries to tell you that they are "both" right.  Such a claim cannot correspond to objective reality.  SR pretends that subjective perception (more precisely, stubborn assertion) is what determines your speed, not objective reality.  Such sophistry is routine in SR; it's the only way they can pretend that the theory "makes sense."

Edited February 16, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

That is a long post, and I've haven't completely followed it.  But let me say a couple of things now.

 

1.  The whole analysis involving what this guy "thinks" and that guy "thinks" is just bogus SR crap.  In LR it doesn't matter what either one of them "think."  It doesn't depend on observers at all.  It's just an analysis of matter in motion. That said, if you asked the moving guy if his clock had slowed down, he would say "yes, because I'm now moving faster."  And he would know his clock was inaccurate, he wouldn't assume that it was "correct."

 

2.  Why do I say that in LR time, motion, length, simultaneity, and all are "absolute?"   Because LR posits a preferred frame.  It has the "correct" or true time, etc.  Lightspeed is the same in all directions ONLY in that frame. It is standard, anything else is nonstandard (even if it is measured to be standard).

 

3.  Let's take a quick example:  Let's start with two objects, A and B which are separating from each other at .6c.  In SR each would say the other's clock had slowed down, etc.

 

Now lets insert a third object (say earth) in between them and let's treat that as the preferred frame.  Let's also suppose that A and B had each left earth at the same time at the speed of .3c (relative to the earth).  OK, now, in LR their "absolute" speed is .3c (not .6c which is merely their "relative speed," The "true" speed of light will NOT be the same in both directions for either A or B, even if they measure it to be (improperly assuming isotrophy).

 

I'm not sure if that responds to the issues you're raising.  You tell me.  But try to forget about what guys are "thinking."  And remember that their measurements have nothing to do with the "other guy" (unless the other guy happens to be in the preferred frame).

Ok, Ive dropped the term "thinks". Please substitute in there instead the word "measures". 

 

You still have a problem.

 

You must accept that the "length contraction" is a real physical effect.   Its unavoidable according to the logic i gave.

 

But the second you do accept it,

then that necessarily means that you must also accept that TIME itself is also slowing and not just the clock on the moving ship.

 

The logic is clear I think.

 

The only way out if you wish to keep absolute Time is to also insist on absolute distances, is that you can never accept the notion that clocks are slowing for any reason linked to relative velocities or absolute velocities. Therefore any noticed errors in clocks cannot be calculated using LT which links clocks slowing with some capability of time and distance to alter the way the clock maintains it running pace.

 

No, the slowing if its real must be due to some other non time and non speed related factors which we cant yet imagine.

 

Personally, I think Occam's Razor applied would simply say that someone has made a booboo when noticing these minuscule time differences.

[marcospolo]

That is a long post, and I've haven't completely followed it.  But let me say a couple of things now.

 

1.  The whole analysis involving what this guy "thinks" and that guy "thinks" is just bogus SR crap.  In LR it doesn't matter what either one of them "think."  It doesn't depend on observers at all.  It's just an analysis of matter in motion. That said, if you asked the moving guy if his clock had slowed down, he would say "yes, because I'm now moving faster."  And he would know his clock was inaccurate, he wouldn't assume that it was "correct."

 

2.  Why do I say that in LR time, motion, length, simultaneity, and all are "absolute?"   Because LR posits a preferred frame.  It has the "correct" or true time, etc.  Lightspeed is the same in all directions ONLY in that frame. It is standard, anything else is nonstandard (even if it is measured to be standard).

 

3.  Let's take a quick example:  Let's start with two objects, A and B which are separating from each other at .6c.  In SR each would say the other's clock had slowed down, etc.

 

Now lets insert a third object (say earth) in between them and let's treat that as the preferred frame.  Let's also suppose that A and B had each left earth at the same time at the speed of .3c (relative to the earth).  OK, now, in LR their "absolute" speed is .3c (not .6c which is merely their "relative speed," The "true" speed of light will NOT be the same in both directions for either A or B, even if they measure it to be (improperly assuming isotrophy).

 

I'm not sure if that responds to the issues you're raising.  You tell me.  But try to forget about what guys are "thinking."  And remember that their measurements have nothing to do with the "other guy" (unless the other guy happens to be in the preferred frame).

Yes, you are right, none of this is a response to my long post.

But the bit about A and B in relation to the Earth is good stuff to throw at the Einstein Believers. Of course they will just ignore it.

[Moronium]

Next here is where we run into the problem.. The ONLY way we know that the moving guys distance and time measuring equipment is not working as ours, is NOT because he told us!  To him, everything checks out fine.

The way we know is that we used our perfectly accurate measuring equipment, which is accurately representing absolute time and distance, and we are noticing that the moving guys clocks and rulers are shrunk!

 

Therefore IF they are shrunk as measured on our equipment relative to absolute time and space, then TIME DILATION AND LENGTH CONTRACTION MUST BE A REAL EFFECT.  NOT merely someone clock slowing. It MUST be that TIME itself has slowed, as well as length, absolute length has also shrunk on the moving ship!

 

 

 

I think I understand what you're saying here, but I can't figure out why you're saying it.

 

You suddenly say "therefore," but what you say after that doesn't follow for me.  I can't see why you think that "time itself" has slowed.

 

Don't say "time dilation."  Say "clock retardation," because it has nothing to do with "time itself."  If my watch runs at half the rate yours does then after your watch says hour has passed, my watch will only show a half hour has passed.   It's not two different "times" (i.e., intervals), though.   It's the same interval (1 hour) measured differently.  Time has not changed, my watch just runs slower than yours.

 

The rate at which a clock ticks is not "time."  It is a rate at which physical processes occur, that's all.

 

Did you see my analogy regarding temperature?

 

If all you're saying is that both time and length must change, not one without the other, then OK. That's what the theory says will happen.

Edited February 16, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

You must accept that the "length contraction" is a real physical effect.   Its unavoidable according to the logic i gave.

 

But the second you do accept it,

then that necessarily means that you must also accept that TIME itself is also slowing and not just the clock on the moving ship.

 

The logic is clear I think.

 

 

It's not clear to me. Absolute time wouldn't be affected, whether or not lengths changed. Measured speed would change, but not time.  I can have a good clock, and a bad yardstick, or vice versa.  But both must be good to calculate the "true speed."

 

But, leaving that point aside, I think you're still a little confused about "time itself."

 

The clock in the preferred frame is ticking at a steady (and let's say reliable) rate.  That clock has the "real" or absolute time.  If it says it's 5:00, then, by God, it's 5:00 everywhere (but it aint the chemist's watch, it's the "master clock" in the preferred frame. His watch aint got no true time).

 

If the clock in another frame slows down, that has no effect whatsoever on the master clock, and therefore no effect on "true" (absolute) time.  Why should it? 

 

But, just to be clear, the master clock is not itself "true time."  It is merely a mechanical instrument which is designed to "measure" and "keep track of" true time.  If IT shows down for some reason, true time will just keep on truckin. In that case the "master clock" would no longer be in sync with the "true time."  But "time itself" would still be unchanged.

 

And, because I can't stop thinking about it, watches everywhere will NOT say it's 5:00, a la the chemist.  They will show different times, unless they happen to be at rest with respect to the master clock.  But the true time will still be 5:00.  Anyone who says otherwise just aint got the correct time.  But that's OK.  They can get it.  They just need to check out what the master clock says to know.

Edited February 16, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Taking it a step further.

 

If a clock was travelling at .6c relative to the master clock, it would not be ticking at the same rate.

 

Even if the travelling clock set his clock to match the master clock, the synchronization would be strictly temporary.  Because it runs at a slower rate, it would just progressively keep showing less and less time elapsed than the master clock did.

 

Unless you pulled the trick the GPS does.  If you re-calibrated the moving clock to run at the same rate as the master clock, then it wouldn't have to keep checking to see what the true time was.  It too would be showing the correct time, after that, even though it was still moving.

Edited February 16, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

 

 

 

I think I understand what you're saying here, but I can't figure out why you're saying it.

 

You suddenly say "therefore," but what you say after that doesn't follow for me.  I can't see why you think that "time itself" has slowed.

 

Don't say "time dilation."  Say "clock retardation," because it has nothing to do with "time itself."  If my watch runs at half the rate yours does then after your watch says hour has passed, my watch will only show a half hour has passed.   It's not two different "times" (i.e., intervals), though.   It's the same interval (1 hour) measured differently.  Time has not changed, my watch just runs slower than yours.

 

The rate at which a clock ticks is not "time."  It is a rate at which physical processes occur, that's all.

 

Did you see my analogy regarding temperature?

 

If all you're saying is that both time and length must change, not one without the other, then OK. That's what the theory says will happen.

 

I understand your position, and I mostly agree as I have said.

You loose me when you start talking about moving clocks, not loose me with hard to grasp concepts, just i cant readily accept it, clocks run slow just cause they move somewhere.

Ok, Ill spend some more moments to brush up my statements, I probably skipped over stuff and got to "therefore" without explaining very well.

 

Its possible there is an error for you to pick up, the thought just flashed into my head, and I got it down pretty quick.

 

So keep tuned to this channel, Ill be back later with a clearer step by step logic. Unless I find a mistake myself, then Im going to kill myself, save embarrassment.

[Moronium]

I really hesitate to get into this prematurely, because it's best to take it one step at a time and make sure the fundamental concepts are understood before getting into complications.  That said, I'm not doing anything else right now, so....

 

Before I go on, just keep in mind that clock rates are not time, they reflect rates at which regularly recurring physical events occur, that's all.

 

Now, then, lets consider a guy who is going .9999c, or whatever it takes for one month in the preferred frame to be one day his frame.  "Things" have indeed slowed down for him, but it's not "time" that has slowed down.  The "master clock" just keeps steadily ticking at it's own rate (the "correct" rate).

 

Assume a month passes in the preferred frame. But the guy moving says:  ****, a month has passed, but I only got in one day's worth of activity. And he will be right.  A "normal" month didn't pass for him, only a day did.  So did "time" slow down?  No, again, it's not time that has slowed down, it is physical processes.

 

Nonetheless, it has a "real" affect on him.  He really is aging less fast, for example.  HIS clock (if unadjusted) will say that only a day has passed, not a month.  It's just that he will know that his "day" is not a standard day (not the same as one in the preferred frame).  That kinda makes it sound like "time itself" has slowed down (for him).  In a certain sense, yes it has. Like, in a certain sense, Podunk is an hour away from here. Just like time would completely stop (for him) if he croaked.  But the world would still go on.  Similarly,  years could pass while he was in suspended animation while it seemed like "no time at all" had passed for him.

 

But assuming he was in suspended animation for a century, that would not affect the rates of physical processes elsewhere.  Generations would have been born, had kids, lived a long life, and died, all while he was "asleep."  His sense of time would be completely subjective, not objective, but it would seem "real" to him.  There can definitely be a difference between subjective "perception" among people in different circumstances.  And there can be conditions (like suspended animation) that are completely idiosyncratic, but still have "real" effects on a particular individual.

 

In that sense, you can say that time is "relative," not absolute, I guess.  But that's not the kind of time that physical theory deals in.

Edited February 16, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

Moronium.

My fuller explanation, hope its clearer.

 

Time is absolute, clocks can be out of whack if moving. That’s you position.

 

Distance is different, it really must shrink if moving. A 12 inch ruler will still say 12 inches when moving, but compared to a non moving ruler, it will be shorter.

You are not certain about this, but it must be true and Ill explain why in a bit.

 

But as the moving measuring equipment (clock and ruler) have both shrunk according to the LT equation, then any result of a calculation of speed by those shrunken devices will still give the same result as the measuring equipment that is not moving, (whose measurements are in sync with the real Absolute time and absolute distance.)

 

We agree that there is no master absolute time system, or distance measure standard, we just mean that now is now everywhere, and my  spaceship is still the same length here or over there.

 

Now if we check  the measuring equipment on the moving ship get an update on the speed, we MUST use the onboard clock and onboard measurement standard for length.  Which we claim are now both shrunk.  But they still appear exactly and perfectly the same as they did always to the ship observer.

 

So on Earth, the stationary observer using real time and real lengths, will use V=d/t and come up with a number representing the ships speed. Say absolute distance is 20 miles in absolute 8 minutes.

 

The answer is 2.5 miles per minute.

 

Now if the guy on the ship measures using his shrunk equipment which is say half the length and half the time, he will still read 20 shrunk units of distance and 8 shrunk units of time and so will also get 2.5 units speed.  (Relativists can’t supply a method how one could measure any distance with a shrunk ruler when the only things you want to measure are the distance to the destination which is NOT in your shrunk reference frame, so the measurement would not equate with the real absolute distance to the destination, as your ruler is too short!, You would ger a lot bigger resulting distance!)

 

Anyway, what I’m saying is that we assume that the clocks and rulers on the moving ship are a bit wonky, but its clear that the ships occupants don’t see anything out of the ordinary, and their calculations match ours back on Earth. (2.5 units of speed)

 

Now we can ignore what the guys on the ship are saying as to their calculations and measurements, as they don’t know that anything is different, BUT we do. We have calculated that their gear has shrunk and slowed to half of absolute time and distance!

 

So when the ships observer tells us that he got 12 inches, (lucky boy) we can think, Oh well that is really only 6 inches in real absolute units, so its not so impressive after all.

 

So here is what we do on Earth to check the real absolute situation as reported on the ship. We halve everything the ship observer reports.

 

Then do the math, if everything is OK this result will match out result using real absolute units.

 

So, we now get the results from the ship, who claim that the measurements are 20 miles and 8 minutes.

 

We halve those numbers, 10 miles and 4 minutes, and do the complex math, v=d/t and the result is 2.5 miles in one minute!

 

Exactly the same result even thought we applied the conversion from shrunk units to real units.

 

This is great.

 

But, Moronium, IF distance did not shrink in the moving ship, only the clock readings, then we could not halve that distance measurement. The Math would then look like 20 miles in 4 corrected minutes. Resulting in a speed of 5 miles per minute.

 

That’s why IFclocks get "out" on a moving ship, then distance also must get "out" too.

 

What’s the difference between time and a distance?

 

Well, a distance is a physical count of a physical solid entity, or the real gap between two solid objects, it’s a real thing. But Time is not real in that sense. It’s a made up concept so if you say the concept of time is different on a moving ship, then nothing is too weird, I can imagine that.

 

But as we just discovered, to keep the two observations equal despite one observers clock slowing, we HAD to have his distance shrinking too.

 

Now a shrunk distance is not like a shrunk concept.

 

The guys 12 inches have really shrunk! Poor bastard.

 

He can’t see it, but we on Earth using real unshrunk rulers can measure his miserable 6 inches clearly. (I don’t want to think about this too long)

 

Now here’s when we need to be careful with our logic. Don’t want to jump into a “therefore” too quickly.

 

We can’t use the measurements from the ship guy, his stuff is all shrunk. But  we don’t need to.

 

Just use our absolute measuring standards from Earth, and trust those results, no need for any conversion, our units and time counting have not been affected by the dreaded shrinking.

 

We can see that the ship has really shrunk in length, from our absolute reference telescopes, we have the trig to do the measurements, its shrunk, exactly like the theory says it would. We now really get a new length for the ship because its moving. Its new real length in absolute units is now 10. (was 20 when it was stationary)

 

So with our standard equation, v=d/t we know that the v is = 2.5 miles per minute.

 

We also know that with the shrunk units as per the ships measurements and calculations their result is also 2.5.

 

So therefore, the only missing piece of info, is a confirmed clock reading of elapsed time.

 

But you claim that clocks that are moving only "read" wrong, that its only a false indication, that "Time" is unaffected by the clock reading.

 

Then as we can see that the moving clock is ruining with an error, we won’t use it anymore. Just use our reliable and accurate Earth clocks with is are representative of absolute time.

 

So we already have v=d/t   substituting the known values, we have 2.5= 10 miles (new absolute distance)/? Minutes.

Our Earth master clocks give us 8 real minutes.

 

Therefore does the equation 2.5=10/8  work out for you?

 

Because this is the numbers we have to use when we measure the real shrinking of distance but only a false shrinking of TIME!

 

As shown, if we claim that clocks on moving ships go slow, then to balance out the universe, we need to also accept that distance also must shrink by the same formula application.

 

Now logically IF distance, a real thing, shrinks, then in order for the equations to also make sense, we must also realize that real TIME itself, not only mechanical clocks, but TIME must also shrink on the moving ship.

 

Only if both time and distance shrink can the ships measurements and the Earth bound observers come up with rational results that are agreeable.

 

However, as I don’t accept that 'Time" is NOT a concept and the concept is Absolute, I can’t agree with this explanation as to what’s happening here on moving ships

 

The only way it can work for a believer in Absolute time and absolute distances, is IF CLOCKS cant slow with speed!

 

I hope you get that I know that a clock is NOT time, but I think I proved that time IS linked with distance when you also wish to know about the speed.

 

So if the clock is giving a wrong result compared to real time, BUT the result is still correct, it can only be because the distance measurements have shrunk by the same factor.

 

And distance is PHYSICAL, real, therefore we can’t have an equation mixing real units of physics with rubbery, fake, erroneous clock readings. (and still get correct results)

 

My conclusion is that you either accept that time and distance shrink with speed, or neither of them do. In this instance it IS black and white I'm afraid.

 

And furthermore, if you do accept that they shrink,  then you also must agree that exactly like with distance,  real time it must also shrink, not just that the clock is running wrong.

 

This is why I can’t accept that clocks have been measured as running slow, in accord with Einstein’s SR.  its just too convenient for the Relativists. And it has repercussions for physics that are unacceptable for me. So something about those claims that moving clocks HAVE certainly been measured as running slow, MUST be wrong somewhere.

 

Physics is simple, logical and rational but not if those clocks are really going slower with speed.

Edited February 16, 2019 by marcospolo

[marcospolo]

Actually even the established physics standards we all know and love are often wrong.

v does not equal d/t  !!!

Why?

Well v is velocity, which has a component of speed and a direction vector. 

Yet the equation does not mention the direction anywhere, only a distance and a time.

The corrected equation must be s=d/t

s is speed.

 

Other famous stuff ups are e=mc2

and the Law of the conservation of energy.

 

There are others  but these are great examples I think.

[Moronium]

And furthermore, if you do accept that they shrink,  then you also must agree that exactly like with distance,  real time it must also shrink, not just that the clock is running wrong.

 

 

 

You keep saying this, but for the life of me I still can't follow your logic.  Have you read my other posts about this?  They explain my position, so I won't repeat them here.

 

Regarding length contraction:  Prevailing theory says it is REAL.  The only I'm "agnostic" about it for two reasons:

 

1.  We have never detected it because it's so minute as to be undetectable, especially at the speeds we test.  Our tests of time are different.  When a atom oscillates at the rate of 10 billion per second, you can break it down pretty finely, even at every day speeds.  10 billion,  minus only one, is still LESS than 10 billion.  We can test for time dilation without ever having to test for length contraction, so that much has been confirmed.

 

2.  The other reason I say I'm agnostic is because I have seen reputable physicists claim that it's not required.  I'm not sure why, because I don't care enough to pay close attention.  But they do not say:  Therefore the LT is unreliable.  They seem to think it makes no real difference.  So, who knows, maybe they're right, whatever the majority thinks.

 

But, let's just assume that length contraction is real, OK?  That's a complete side issue.  Why would that mean that "time itself" must conract?  I don't get it, despite your attempts to explain your reasoning.

 

You still keep talking about how guys subjectively "see things."  That can lead to all kinds of ambiguity.

 

Speed = d/t, as you know.  Time is measured with a clock, whether that clock is right or wrong.  The clock reading is not necessarily the correct amount of "true" time which has  elapsed, but either way it is not "time itself."

Edited February 16, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

I really hesitate to get into this prematurely, because it's best to take it one step at a time and make sure the fundamental concepts are understood before getting into complications.  That said, I'm not doing anything else right now, so....

 

Before I go on, just keep in mind that clock rates are not time, they reflect rates at which regularly recurring physical events occur, that's all.

 

Now, then, lets consider a guy who is going .9999c, or whatever it takes for one month in the preferred frame to be one day his frame.  "Things" have indeed slowed down for him, but it's not "time" that has slowed down.  The "master clock" just keeps steadily ticking at it's own rate (the "correct" rate).

 

Assume a month passes in the preferred frame. But the guy moving says:  ****, a month has passed, but I only got in one day's worth of activity. And he will be right.  A "normal" month didn't pass for him, only a day did.  So did "time" slow down?  No, again, it's not time that has slowed down, it is physical processes.

 

Nonetheless, it has a "real" affect on him.  He really is aging less fast, for example.  HIS clock (if unadjusted) will say that only a day has passed, not a month.  It's just that he will know that his "day" is not a standard day (not the same as one in the preferred frame).  That kinda makes it sound like "time itself" has slowed down (for him).  In a certain sense, yes it has. Like, in a certain sense, Podunk is an hour away from here. Just like time would completely stop (for him) if he croaked.  But the world would still go on.  Similarly,  years could pass while he was in suspended animation while it seemed like "no time at all" had passed for him.

 

But assuming he was in suspended animation for a century, that would not affect the rates of physical processes elsewhere.  Generations would have been born, had kids, lived a long life, and died, all while he was "asleep."  His sense of time would be completely subjective, not objective, but it would seem "real" to him.  There can definitely be a difference between subjective "perception" among people in different circumstances.  And there can be conditions (like suspended animation) that are completely idiosyncratic, but still have "real" effects on a particular individual.

 

In that sense, you can say that time is "relative," not absolute, I guess.  But that's not the kind of time that physical theory deals in.

I have a problem with this example.

You always use slowing clocks in spaceships and the bit I'm not happy with is:

"Nonetheless, it has a "real" affect on him.  He really is aging less fast, for example.  HIS clock (if unadjusted) will say that only a day has passed, not a month.  It's just that he will know that his "day" is not a standard day (not the same as one in the preferred frame)."

 

You say that what moving clocks read on their faces is not time, than you say that his clock slowing WILL make him age less fast! How so?

You seem to be getting confused here.