Mordred

Yes there is even different rates of time between your head and your feet. Its simply too small to be detectable

Yes this is defined mathematically using reference frames. Processes within the same reference frame has the same rate of time. It is when you compare reference frames that the different rates becomes apparent. Those reference frames can vary in volume however. (higher level topic Einstein locality)

There is always time processes but not an absolute rate of time.

things always change so in that sense yes. However don't think of time as some seperate entity. It is a property much like color or volume

Well part of the puzzle is how mass is affected by both potential kinetic energy. If you increase the energy total of each atom. Then it follows that each atom has greater energy to resist change. This then goes further as it also applies to how each atom affects the next atom.

You don't need to spend years to understand the basics behind how mass arises via a coupling constant. Keep this always in mind. Mass is resistance to inertia change. The coupling constants of feild interactions affect the mass term which affects the velocity of said particle/object. The speed limit is also the limit of all interactions and information exchange. Now take a rigid rod for example 1 light year in length. From the above if you move the rod on one end on Earth it will take a minimal of 1 light year for the interparticle interactions to transfer this movement information to the opposite end. The rod is made up of atoms. No perfect rigid rod exists

All change of state involves a rate of change that we describe as time. The rates of change can vary due to conditions ie under relativity. There is no absolute set rate of change. Time varies between reference frames but will always function normally within a given IR frame.

describe a biological body under particle physics and a mechanical clock. There isn't much difference. The only difference is ones living or what we define as living and the other isn't. They are both made up of atoms

A deep understanding of how GR works, as well as a deep understanding of how particle physics is involved. Its all interconnected. For biological processes you can study the electromagnetic field. There is numerous everyday examples of signal delay due to field interactions (commonly referred to as signal propogation delay) its far more reaching than just electronic circuits.

yes

The aging is one aspect of it, aging can be considered another form of clock with similarities to radioactive decay. All particle processes that occur in a biological body is affected. To understand this aspect you need to first grip a proper understanding of mass. In particular how mass of said body varies due to motion and how this affects the coupling constants

Now my age is showing lol

Here is a short list of modern tests of GR. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1705.04397&ved=0ahUKEwjVmui8g7fYAhVcHGMKHacPC4UQFgglMAI&usg=AOvVaw054EguS3mqzq8k-KfOkm8o

Don't get stuck at looking for clock errors. This will lead you down garden paths. There are other processes not involving mechanical or atomic clocks that cannot be explained without time dilation. A common example being muon decay, muons have too short a mean lifetime to be able to pass through the Earths atmosphere. Yet they strike the Earths surface, thanks to time dilation. While not directly related to time dilation, it does affect the mass term, we can generate particles at an LHC which has a higher rest mass than the combined rest mass of the two colliding particles. Then on top of the gravitational redshift demonstrates the effect of time dilation on signals recieved. Which is another piece of evidence. Another being GPS satelites if we didn't account for time dilation they wouldn't be accurate. The list of tests is quite huge and far more encompassing than what could be explained as clock errors.

All physical processes that involve rate of change is a form of clock. All physical processes are equally affected by time dilation. Unfortunately there is no easy way to describe how this occurs. Even if you fully understand all the involved mathematics it is still difficult to fully understand. I like to describe it to laymen as a signal propogation delay between all forms of interactions relative to the field locality conditions however that heuristic explanation doesn't encompass the full scope of time dilation. It doesn't particularly describe time dilation due to velocity . One must examine how each situation is influenced by the mass term "resistance to inertia change" and how mass is influenced by the sum of fields coupling constants and how rest (invariant mass) and relativistic (variant mass) affects the binding energy that contributes to the mass term. The latter being involved in the inertial mass. Part of the problem is in order to understand spacetime itself one must also understand the other fields relating to force. ie electromagnetic, strong and weak force. As well as the Higgs field. They are all involved and all affected. That is the reality of the challenge to understand relativity. One must also understand how every other field is affected and contributes. In truth the mathematics of GR is only one part of the full story.

The clocks are simply a measurement tool. All processes are affected by time dilation. This includes aging. All forms of interactions between particles. Time is literally variable. It takes awhile to wrap your head around this. It is fairly normal as its difficult to fully grasp at first.

Happy new Year all.

Not without using a little tiny amount of math lol its far easier to show it this way and will be obvious once you see it. Tranformation equation in positive x direction. [math]\acute{t}=\gamma(t-\frac{vx}{c^2})[/math] [math]\acute{x}=\gamma x-vt[/math] [math]\acute{y}=y[/math] [math]\acute{z}=z[/math] now lets reverse the direction by switching the observers Transformation equation in negative x direction [math]t=\gamma(\acute{t}+\frac{vx}{c^2}[/math] [math]x=\gamma x+vt[/math] the last two are identical Notice that the only thing that has changed is the sign plus or minus depending on the observer? This is a symmetric identity. The only thing that changes is the sign itself in the first two equations. Now when you do an acceleration this no longer applies the transforms become [math] c\acute{t}=ct\cosh\zeta-x\sinh\zeta[/math] [math]\acute{x}=x\cosh\zeta-ct\sinh\zeta[/math] although once again the sign will change in the reverse direction on both these you have involved non linear equations which involves trigonometric identities. Thes are assymetric rotations using the trig identities. Instead your undergoing angular momentum rather than linear momentum during the acceleration A non math way to describe it. In the first case if neither observer has any other reference point they are not sure which observer is moving. In the second case the acceleration change makes it clear which observer is undergoing the change in velocity. Observer A for example can tell he is accelerating or decelerating.

Think of it this way, the Lorentz transforms under constant velocity is time symmetric. under specifically the Minkowskii tensor. Any acceleration including directional change causes rapidity and this is an assymetric time relation that is handled under group via a rotation transformation matrix.

Probably and he probably kicked himself with Hubbles findings of expansion even though he knew his model predicted either expansion or contraction. I have to admit Geordief your starting to make a huge progress in your recent threads well done and keep up the good work. You are asking well thought out questions.

The use of lasers ie null geodesics signaling is part of the Einstein synchronization procedure. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0702157&ved=0ahUKEwinjsPXs7XYAhUDKGMKHdIwAqEQFgghMAI&usg=AOvVaw0iN3HiYkn905utSfQrozdW This arxiv is fairly low key on the math working under SR.

Good catch Studiot

Olber's paradox still applies

Any books by Griffith is also good https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/153908.Introduction_to_Quantum_Mechanics another is QM demystified https://www.amazon.ca/dp/0071455469?tag=vglnk-ca-c90-20

It would be challenging considering you have numerous tensor ranks lol. Though I have read several articles that seemingly attempt to do so. example "• At this early stage in these notes, we generically define “tensor” as an organized array of mathematical objects such as numbers or functions." https://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.01660.pdf I always try to help teach so no worries there. The rest is up to the individual