DanMP

I imagined few more tests for relativity. Please tell me if they were already performed and with what outcome. The first one is about 2 atomic clocks, one at the South pole (to be at rest in Earth's center frame) and the other in Space, around the Sun, on Earth's orbit (same distance, same speed) but far from Earth. So, both clocks are travelling with huge, same speed around the Sun, but the one on Earth "tick" slower due to gravitational time dilation caused by the Earth. This is the only difference, or the clock on Earth benefits from linear frame dragging and is not afected by the Earth movement around the Sun? Did anyone perform this, or at least apply relativity to see the outcome?

Ok, but this doesn't mean that we have to use GR, and only GR, to describe the movement of a falling ball. We can predict well enough with Newton's laws, when the speeds are less than 100kph. You agree? And about the fact that "interferometers are generally sensitive devices", you should keep in mind that Sagnac effect in air/vacuum (rotating plate with mirrors) is very well explained in a classical manner, so there is not a problem of sensitivity ... By the way, in Fizeau experiment, the result given by SR is not exactly the measured one. It tends to it (see the site), but it is just an aproximation ... The refractive index changes with wavelenght, so, to be really accurate, we should consider that. We have redshift/blueshift there ... So, considering the above, we should have a classical explanation for Fizeau & Sagnac. Do you know one? Anyone?

It is important, because, as I said, the speeds are not relativistic, so these are not relativistic effects. A good explanation/theory of how light travels in transparent materials can and should cover this. I have such a theory and, as I said, this has almost nothing to do with relativity.

Because we, and our real clocks, are made of atoms. Ryan begun to apply the light-clock explanation to all that's made of atoms, but he didn't elaborate. I did ... before him, but also too naive, so I wasn't able to publish in a journal. Anyway, first I want to hear your opinion about his (rewarded) idea. Not the reason of the "length of the travel of the light (and thus also for the time)" is important, but the effect on atoms, molecules, people, etc..

The light clock I wrote about (see the first post) has 2 mirrors/detectors, one up and one down. So, the up and down detectors form one clock, the light clock.

It's hard for me to see this, but probably you are right. This is right for the light clocks. Actually this is the light clock explanation ... I asked how this explains time dilation in general, for any clock or thing. Did you watch Ryan’s video?

I created a new topic for time dilation discussion I started above: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93360-simple-explanation-for-time-dilation/ (here it was off-topic)

Time dilation is usually explained in a simple way using a "light clock" (1, 2). Here I started a discussion about gravitational time dilation, offering a simple explanation I found on internet, but in that place is off-topic and, anyway, I want to extend this discussion, including time dilation in SR. This one was explained in a simple fashion (see here) and rewarded, although the explanation is not only naive but also incomplete. So, I want to discuss this further. First, I want to "hear" how the light clock explanation for gravitational time dilation (see link above) works for up and down movement of the light. Second, I want to "hear" how the longer time needed for the light to complete the cycle, seen in light clock explanations, explains time dilation in general. In Ryan’s video (the one rewarded) there is a beginning of an explanation ... What do you think about it? Please keep in mind, first, that I totally agree with relativity's results/predictions and second, that I don't expect from you the mathematical models and equations used to make the predictions, I want simple answers to the questions above, the physical explanation of time dilation.

Fizeau experiment and Sagnac effect are explained completely and correctly only using special relativity (Lorentz transformations), although the speeds involved are far smaller than c (the speed of light in vacuum). Don't you think that we should have a "classical" explanation for them? Do you know any? As I wrote here, Sagnac effect is explained in a classical way only when light is travelling through vacuum or air. When the refractive index is greater than 1, SR is used.

In the same place we have both redshift and blueshift, depending on the light source beeing down or up. How exactly does this explain time dilation in the light clock above, or in any clock? My "maths" is not so good I hoped that there is a simple, logical explanation. I'll try to read Sean Carrol's notes next day(s).

Enter the site and scroll down. It explains gravitational time dilation imagining a light clock (2 mirrors ...) in which the light paths become longer closer to a gravity well due to spacetime deformation. Pound–Rebka_exp. is a gravitational redshift experiment. How it can explain gravitational time dilation? Try again my link to see what I meant. This is not what I'm questioning. I totally agree with all that GR predicts. I just want to see/read a proper explanation, if possible ... Here? I searched for "clock" and found nothing.

Really? Maybe when we have rotating mirrors. What Newtonian/Galilean explanation do you know for the fibre optic conveyor (see Figure 5 in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect)? Anyone?

Really? How? Like this: https://www.academia.edu/9724931/Gravitational_time_dilation_explained_for_beginners_ ? If so, what if the photon movement is up-down? How the "path"/time increases than? And how this apply to (affect) a real clock? Sorry if my questions are off-topic here. Please redirect me/them to a proper place.