Eric 5

Norman, lets keep this simple. Do you believe that dimensions, any dimension you want, are real physical things? If so, please explain what these dimensions are made of. I have read many books on string theory and not one author of these book has stated the physical properties of any dimension, and that includes the first three spatial dimensions that we are familiar with.

Originally Posted by Wormwood How could it? How could something have only height for example? What has height? Any sort of line representing height has at least some miniscule width. It seems like time is the only dimension that could dodge this pitfall Can you give an example of any real physical thing that only has one dimension? Your answer of "just by being" does not answer the question. It begs the question-- Just by being what?

I have to tell you that I was going to commend you on your ability to “stick to your guns” and your strong commitment to your understanding of this topic. I was going to tell you that I enjoy having a discussion with someone who is so dedicated as you to proving his point, and staying on topic. That was until I saw your last post. I hope that this last post was done in haste, and not actually what you meant to communicate. I still look forward to discussing more on this topic with you. The discussions with you have caused me to do more research on time dilation, which is always a benefit to my ability to understand the topic and discuss it with others. So here is my response: Originally Posted by Eric 5 A measurement of what exactly? Time is not being measured, oscillations are. Not all machines that are built to “measure” time use an oscillator. You have not stated what this physical thing that is being measured is made of. If time is a physical thing that causes a clock to move in a regulated manner, then in what form is this thing that you call time. Are you saying that the form that time exists as, is an oscillation? If time is something more that a mere human consideration, then it must exist as some sort of energy , either energy that is flowing or moving, or energy that is condensed, as in the case of matter. There are only two ways in which something can exist or be real for anyone. Either they perceived this something through any of their body's senses, or they imagined or conceived this something. Time has to fall into one of these two categories. From our conversations, you seem to think that time is more than a consideration. I would just like you to explain in what way time is not just a consideration, but exists as an actual physical thing. Originally Posted by Eric 5 We are told that these experiments have been done. The way that these experiments are portrayed to us is more in a story form reporting that says the experiments got the desired results, but they are not portrayed in a manner to the public in a way that anyone could recreate these tests themselves. Where is the proof beyond a reasonable doubt? The special theory of relativity basically states “that there is a loss of time of a moving clock as observed by a stationary observer.” I have read much on the topic, I can not say if I have read THE paper. Be more specific. I never said that just anyone can recreate the experiment. I said that the experiments that were done do not give specifics so that anyone who wanted to, could recreate the experiment. There are no exact details on how these experiments were carried out. Now comes the best part. You refered me to an article to show that someone can indeed recreate the experiment of time dilation as done with the air planes. The experiment with the planes was to prove time dilation per the theory of Special Relativity, you know moving clocks. The article you refered me to is time dilation per the theory of General Relativity, gravitational time dilation. So the article does not apply to what I originally was asking. But it does not matter, because the article that you offered up as evidence of time dilation, contradicts itself, and proves the point that clocks do not measure a thing called time. The information in this article states that there is no way to know what time it really is. Thanks for the article, I am going to use it in future discussions of time dilation. The following is from the article. "If you have one clock ... you are peaceful and have no worries," says Van Baak, fingering a length of cable connecting two of his machines. "If you have two clocks ... you start asking, 'What time is it, really?'" “He wanted his children to see that relativity is proportional. So he loaded the family's blue minivan with portable power supplies, monitoring equipment, and three HP 5071 cesium clocks. Three, because time is always marked relative to other clocks: More clocks mean more accurate time.” The same guy contradicts himself. “They hiked the trails, and the kids relaxed with board games and books, while in the imperceptibly lessened gravity, time moved a little bit faster than at home.” I have to ask, how was he comparing the clocks in the mountains to the clocks at home while he was in the mountains? He would need to observe both the clocks near him in the mountains and the clocks at his house simultaneously in order to conduct the test properly. This guy Van Baak even stated that if you have more than one accurate clock, you would be asking yourself, “what time is it really.” So if this guy brought his clocks down from the mountain and compared them to the clocks in his house, he will be in the position of comparing four very accurate clocks, and asking himself what time is it really? Then there is this guy named John Ackerman who has four very accurate clocks, and even when they are in the same reference frame, are not in synch. Now imagine if you were to subject these machines to a road trip up and back from the mountains. From the article: “It's a hobby that feeds on itself: A good clock always needs a better clock to set it. "You always have to have a reference frequency," says Ackerman. "If you get the next new good thing ... you have to measure it against something even better." It's a source of pride to Ackerman that his four machines keep time within 100 nanoseconds of each other.” I say, just think, all the tests that were done in the past to prove time dilation were not that reliable because a better more accurate clock was yet to be made. These clock are off by 100 nanoseconds, and they are at rest, and experiencing the same amount of gravity. How can any two clocks be reliably used in time dilation tests. From the article: “That fastidiousness is typical in both the amateur and professional timekeeping communities, where people are drawn first to the idea of finding precision in the physical world. Consistently, they tell stories of an early fascination with looking ever closer at something, trying to understand its exact boundaries. Fundamental to the field of precise time is that it will never be perfect. With every new level of accuracy comes a new frame of reference for error. Time has an intractable precision -- you can spend your days always moving closer to the ever-unreachable now.” This statement that you made has no merit. If you look up the word observer you will find that I have not misunderstood the term. Where did you get the idea that in the theory of Special Relativity, anything that is present and can make a measurement is considered an observer? The last sentence is what did it for me, how does a clock observe? Clocks are not alive and do not have the ability to observe, or perceive. Clocks, like the dead, cannot observe. Your statement basically says that Special Relativity can work with nobody around. Seriously, did you mean to say this? I am sure that you read this article all the way through, so I do not see how you could have read all of these inconsistencies, and considered this article to be an accurate claim to the idea of time dilation. I would say that you read the article and wanted to believe that time dilation is true. There is a quote that I have posted on this thread before that eloquently states how people will accept data without much scrutiny or skepticism if that data hints at what they what to believe is true. I will post it again for the benefit of anyone who has not seen it. “What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.” Bertrand Russell Anyways, my point is still this: 1. Time is not a real physical thing, time is a consideration. 2. Clocks do not measure an energy called time. Clocks are a man-made device that work in such a way that man has designed them to operate. 3. Time dilation is the appearance of clocks moving slower, time dilation does not in reality occur. So far in our discussion of this topic you have not stated how time is a real physical thing. You have not stated how a clock is anything more then a machine designed to assign a number to a pre-engineered motion, or the or preexisting activity of an object. You have not shown any evidence of how in any time dilation tests, both clocks were observed simultaneously, as stated in the Special Theory of Relativity. Please do not take any of this personally, I would like to continue this discussion with someone like you who has put so much time and research into stating his view. You have provided me with a worthy adversary in this on going debate. Please continue to do so.

A measurement of what exactly? We are told that these experiments have been done. The way that these experiments are portrayed to us is more in a story form reporting that says the experiments got the desired results, but they are not portrayed in a manner to the public in a way that anyone could recreate these tests themselves. Where is the proof beyond a reasonable doubt? The special theory of relativity basically states “that there is a loss of time of a moving clock as observed by a stationary observer.” Without this observer there is no loss of time in a moving clock. If time dilation were a real effect then it would happen with or without a stationary observer. This time dilation idea depends on an observer that is not moving with the clock. Again, without this observer, no time dilation. Taken from Wikipedia. “The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October of 1971, J. C. Hafele and Richard E. Keating took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners and flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against those of the United States Naval Observatory.” In order to do the test correctly the clocks on the air liners would have to be observed by a stationary observer. No mention of how this was done. When they compared the clocks, how did they do this? This reference and all other references I have found on these time dilation experiments are vague. No step by step account of the test from beginning to end. Have you seen any report that tells in detail how these tests were done? They all seem to leave out pertinent data regarding the tests, leaving us to assume how they were done or just take their word for it. What kind of scientific research reporting is that? Again, in what way were these clocks compared? The test results that can be found are so vague that you can see in many science forums like this, people who have their own take on how this was done. Some even say that the planes landed and then the clocks were compared. There would not be a debate on these experiments if there was undeniable readily available to the public, data that shows step by step the process of the experiments. But as it stands, we are left to take their word for it. That is not how science should be done. Now lets look at the item that is supposed to be effected by this time dilation. The clock. The idea of time dilation is centered around a moving clock counting off time slower than a clock that is a rest. Clocks are a man made device operating as man designed it, counting off man made increments that man gave a numeric significance to, that results in a man made concept called time. Clocks are designed to give numbers, to which man assigns a significance or importance to. A clock could be considered to be a device or machine that generates a number or numbers in a regulated manner that was pre-determined by man. A clock is akin to a regulated number generator that converts mechanical, electrical, or the motion of an object to a number through pre-determined engineering of the device, and these numbers are delivered at a rate that follows the set standards that man has agreed to be universal in all such machines. How would this device be considered a proper tool in the time dilation experiments, when it is not built to react to changes in its environment? Please share with me your definition of a clock that shows that clocks actually measure anything outside of its immediate construction. What outside influence is a clock measuring?

Every measurement of time is based on what man decided that measurement to mean. Seconds, minutes, hours and so on are all man made. Time did not come pre-packaged in these units, man agreed on what to call these durations. Clocks measure how much of a pre-determined man made unit passed for a given motion. If something takes a minute of time, then that activity lasted for what man determined to be a minute. Time is the concept of man. Radioactive isotopes and quartz crystals are not clocks. Man used these materials in his man made clocks to harness the activity of these materials to his advantage. Yes all clocks are man made. Taken from Wikipedia. The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October of 1971, J. C. Hafele and Richard E. Keating took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners and flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against those of the United States Naval Observatory. My comment. They were testing the theory of relativity, since they are talking about clocks and motion we have to assume that they were testing the special theory of relativity. The special theory of relativity basically states: "that there is a loss of time of a moving clock as observed by a stationary observer." Without this observer there is no loss of time in a moving clock. If time dilation were a real effect then it would happen with or without a stationary observer. This time dilation idea depends on an observer that is not moving with the clock. Again, without this observer, no time dilation. Taken from Wikipedia. Overview According to special relativity, the speed of a clock is greatest according to an observer who is not in motion with respect to the clock. In a frame of reference in which the clock is not at rest, the clock runs slower, and the effect is proportional to the square of the velocity. In a frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth, the clock aboard the plane moving eastward, in the direction of the earth's rotation, is moving faster than a clock that remains on the ground, while the clock aboard the plane moving westward, against the earth's rotation, is moving slower. According to general relativity, another effect comes into play: the slight increase in gravitational potential due to altitude that speeds the clocks back up. Since the aircraft are flying at roughly the same altitude in both directions, this effect is more "constant" between the two clocks, but nevertheless it causes a difference in comparison to the clock on the ground. My comment. So in order to do this test correctly they had to observe the clocks while they were in motion. There is no mention of if they did this or how. How would this test be verified? This article tells us that clocks are moving faster and slower, but there is no scientific evidence, everyone just has to take the word of the experimenters. This article tells the story of airplanes in flight and clocks running at different speeds relative to those on Earth, we just have to believe this happened. That is not science There is no margin of error mentioned in the experiment. What is the math behind taking into account human error? There could be errors that are man made without him noticing. The textbook that I have read is the one that Einstein wrote when he wanted to introduce his theories on the Special and General relativity. The book is called "RELATIVITY The Special and the General Theory". ISBN O-7607-5921-9 This book is the source of all subsequent interpretations of the Special and General theories of Relativity. You would be more accurate in saying that I am an informed skeptic with the true spirit of scientific research, rather than just saying that I am stubbornly clinging on to preconceived notions. "The important thing is to not stop questioning." Albert Einstein "The beginning of wisdom is found in doubting; by doubting we come to the question, and by seeking we may come upon the truth." Pierre Abelard "What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way." Bertrand Russell “Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” Albert Einstein I say that these time dilation experiments were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In these experiments you have a man made device operating as man designed it, counting off man made increments that man gave a numeric significance to, that results in a man made concept called time. Clocks are designed to give numbers, to which man assigns a significance or importance to. A clock could be considered to be a device or machine that generates a number or numbers in a regulated manner that was pre-determined by man. A clock is akin to a regulated number generator that converts mechanical, electrical, or the motion of an object to a number through pre-determined engineering of the device, and these numbers are delivered at a rate that follows the set standards that man has agreed to be universal in all such machines. Please share with me your definition of a clock and time that shows that clocks actually measure anything outside of its immediate construction. What outside influence is a clock measuring? Although, in regards to this topic, you may be right. There might be someone who is stubbornly clinging to preconceived notions.

It will help you understand this whole time dilation concept if you go to your reference books and define the terms: Time, Clocks, Special Relativity, Appears. If you can find any verifiable step by step clear concise scientific research that was written about these experiments that shows exactly how these experiments were carried out to the point of being able to recreate the experiment, please let me know. Otherwise, all of these experiments that were done to "prove" time dilation are all as true as they can be recreated and verified by anyone interested in doing so. Believe what you will.

Originally Posted by Eric 5 You say clocks measure time, how does this happen? If I take the batteries out of a clock it will not measure time. clocks are man made devices that are made to move according to a pre-engineered construction. Man decides what makes a clock move, not time. A tape measure is used to measure length. Measuring this length with a mangled tape measure does not change the length of the object. The object's length will remain the same whether you measure with a good tape measure or a mangled one. The measuring device does not change the object being measured. The object will stand on its own and exist whether or not it is measured. A tape measure is a tool that man puts up against that which he wants to measure (a real physical object) so as to get a length. A clock on-the-other-hand, is not put in contact with or used to measure a real physical thing. Time is not a thing that exists on its own, where a clock can be used to measure it. Clocks just move in a regulated manner that give information that man uses to stay in synch with the rest of the world. Clocks do not measure a pre-existing object or force. Where a clock says 3 o'clock, what does that mean exactly? What was being measured to give this result? The numbers that a clock show came about through a man made pre-determined rate at which they were built to run at. Clocks do not measure time. Take a tape measure and hold it up in the air, pull the tape out to three feet and there you have it a measurement of three feet, three feet of what? Nothing, but the tape measure said three feet so there has to be something that it measured right? No. Now take a clock and adjust it so it reads 3 o’clock, so now it must be 3 o’clock because the clock says so, right? No. In order for a measuring device to be useful, or for the information that it gives to be useful, it has to be applied in the proper manner to a thing that can be measured. This brings me back to where this whole conversation started. You said that clocks measure time, I would like you to state how this happens. Originally Posted by Eric 5 The general idea of how man perceives time is that time flows, so I will go along with this analogy to ask you, If time flows then how is it that a clock measures this flow. A clock would be like a flow meter, meaning that the flow of time would drive the clock. We all know that this is not true. Clocks are pre-programed to move or count at a certain rate that has been determined by man, not time. Clocks work according to how man made them to work, they are not time driven. Clocks were invented to give mankind a universal agreement on when things occur. Clocks allow man to be on the same schedule when it comes to communicating or planning. Clocks give a structure to human activity. They do not actually measure time, they just operate at a pre-determined rate that has been set up by man. If you think that clocks actually measure time, then please elaborate on this process Absolute or not, it is still a pre-determined rate. Time does not move the clock. You say clocks measure time, please elaborate. Originally Posted by Eric 5 John 5746 mentioned that atomic clocks aboard planes have different readings when compared to those on the ground. And I(Eric5) wanted to know if these comparisons were done while the planes were still in flight or after they landed. You said that these readings were done after the planes landed. So now I have a few questions for you. 1. Do you know where I can find data that states that in fact the planes had landed and were on the ground when these readings were taken. I have searched for this data on the internet and could only find information stating that this experiment was done, but no details on when the readings were taken. This sounds like this is your assumption. Where is the reference that states that these readings were taken on the ground after the planes laned. Do any of these experiments have details of each step? I have never found any. The information just says that this time dilation occured. No information on how someone could repeat the process. Do you have a reference to back up what you are saying about when the readings were taken? Originally Posted by Eric 5 2. How is it that these clocks would remain out of synch with the Earth bound clocks even when they are now at rest compared to the Earth bond clocks? According to Special Theory of relativity time dilation refers to the loss of time of a MOVING clock as observed by a stationary observer. Exactly how does a clock accumulate more time? The American Heritage dicionary states the definition for Accumulate is: 1. To gather or pile up; amass. 2. To mount up; increase. Sounds like you said moving clocks gather or increase more time, yet Special Relativity states that there is a loss of time of a moving clock as observed by a stationary observer. Also, if the clocks return to being the same rate once they are back on Earth. So the numbers on one clock are different than the numbers on another, so you assume that there this was due to some time shift. Just because the numbers are different does not prove that only a thing called time is responsible for this change. What is the margin of error? Clocks are just machines that count off numbers at a pre-determined rate. Any error in the clock counting could be due to many things that are plausible. Time is not one of them. look I could go on about this but I think I will just cut to the chase. Show me scientific evidence that any clock measures a force called time, and is not just a machine made to give numbers at a pre-determined rate. It will help you understand this whole time dilation concept if you go to your reference books and define the terms: Time, Clocks, Special Relitivity, Appears. If you can find any varifiable step by step clear concise scientific research that was written about these experiments that shows exactly how these experiments were carried out to the point of being able to recreate the experiment, please let me know. Otherwise, all of these experiments that were done to "prove" time dilation are all as true as they can be recreated and verified by anyone interested in doing so. I just noticed that I spelled Relativity, and verifiable wrong. My mistake for not using spell check.

Swansont, you say that the twin paradox is a real occurance. The twin paradox is a thought experiment based on time dilation. Time dilation according to the Special Theory of Relativity is a term that refers to the loss of time of a moving clock as observed by a stationary observer, time APPEARS to move slower on a moving object from the viewpoint of a stationary observer. Many people today think that this thing called time actually slows down. Well, these people have a misunderstanding of the Special Theory of Relativity, it states that time APPEARS to move slower to a stationary observer. Besides, this time thing that slows down, slows down in what way? Velocity? Vibration? Exactly in what way does this thing slow down? In other words, in what physical way does this time move, what are the mechanics behind the motion of time that are being altered by motion? Most examples of this phenomenon that appear in books covering this topic use an analogy of a space ship traveling at near the speed of light. What these examples show is that time APPEARS to slow down in a ship that is traveling at or near the speed of light to an observer that is traveling much slower or is at rest relative to the ship. It APPEARS to slow down, but time does not actually slow down.

So what is your opinion of string theory and extra dimensions?

Thedarkshade, please reveiw what time dilation is. The idea of time slowing down in moving objects is based on Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity which refers to the loss of time of a moving clock as observed by a stationary observer. Time APPEARS to slow down to this observer.

John 5746 mentioned that atomic clocks aboard planes have different readings when compared to those on the ground. And I(Eric5) wanted to know if these comparisons were done while the planes were still in flight or after they landed. You said that these readings were done after the planes landed. So now I have a few questions for you. 1. Do you know where I can find data that states that in fact the planes had landed and were on the ground when these readings were taken. I have searched for this data on the internet and could only find information stating that this experiment was done, but no details on when the readings were taken. 2. How is it that these clocks would remain out of synch with the Earth bound clocks even when they are now at rest compared to the Earth bond clocks? According to Special Theory of relativity time dilation refers to the loss of time of a MOVING clock as observed by a stationary observer. 3. If these clocks were indeed reading different times than those on the ground (meaning that these clocks were actually in different time periods) Are these clocks still experiencing a time dilation? 4. If the clocks on the planes experienced a time dilation than would not the planes, the men on the planes and everything involved with the plane experience the same time dilation? If so, then are these men, for example, still experiencing a time dilation? 5. Now lets say (as you did) that all of these things that were on the planes still experienced a time dilation when they were on the ground. Now lets suppose that these clocks were taken off the planes and brought to an office and put on a table next to the Earth bound clocks so they could check the results. Now this table that these out of synch clocks are put on, are in one time, and the clocks off the planes are in another time, are these clocks physically touching the table? The clocks are made of some physical material that is now experiencing a time dilation, does this object that is experiencing a time dilation have any effect on those things that it comes in contact with, or is there some sort of barrier that prevents one time from coming in contact with another time?

Originally Posted by NYSportsGuy You are NOT left with changes to time after you factor out alterations to the clock itself, you are JUST PERCEIVING TIME TO HAVE CHANGED. It's a PERCEPTION TO THE HUMAN SENSES What comment of NYSportsGuy do you disagree with. You say that he is wrong, but do not state what you think is right. I would like to hear what you have to say.

Why not join the conversation? I am sure that you have some idea of what would be required of something to be considered alive. I would like to hear your veiw on this subject. It would help to get the ball rolling.

One criteria that could be used to determine if something is alive or not would be by observing if that thing in question is self-determined, does it have the ability to direct itself in a way that promotes it's survival. Can this thing control its enviroment in a manner that aids it in continuing to exist.

String theory is based on the assumption that there are extra spatial dimensions to the three that we are familiar with. These extra dimensions are assumed to be real physical things that occupy a space or area and can be located, just like the three spatial dimensions that we are accustom to. My question is, if these extra dimensions are something that can be searched for through some scientific means, then it would follow that they have some physical quality about them, they exist in such a way that they can be perceived in some manner. And if these extra dimensions are extra to the three spatial dimensions that we are familiar with, then that would mean that the first three dimensions have some sort of physical quality about them that allows them to be perceived as something that occupies a space or area. If string theory states that the first three spatial dimensions are real physical things, then what are the first three dimensions made of that allows them to be considered as real physical things that can have extras? As of right now all reference books that include a definition for spatial dimensions, none of them say that spatial dimensions are real physical things. The reference books do agree that the term spatial dimension is used in conceptual models to communicate size or location of a particular object or mathematical concept. Spatial dimensions are numbers given to an area to convey the size, i.e. length, width, height. The concept of three spatial dimensions are used by man to communicate the size and or location of real or imagined objects. Dimensions are not things that are measured, but are numbers given to things that man so desires to give them to. If spatial dimensions were real physical things that could be located in space, then these first three dimensions themselves would have dimensions. That means that the first dimension would have its own set of dimensions that is separate from the second dimension, and the third. If spatial dimensions are real physical things, and not a man made concept, then that would mean that these first three spatial dimensions are naturally occurring, and existed before mankind. So if this is true that spatial dimensions have been around before man then that would mean that at some point in time someone would have discovered at least one of these physical things and gave it the label of dimension. Who was this person? If man is looking for extra dimensions then it follows that at one time in history he had to stumble across or find the first three. Yet no one is credited with the discovery of the first three spatial dimensions. For all of you who BELIEVE that the first three spatial dimensions are real things that can have extras please share your insights. Remember that the first three dimensions are used by man to describe directions such as: up/down (height), Forward/backward(depth), left/right(width). So these extra dimensions, what are they really ? Extra up’s, down’s, left’s, right’s, forward’s, backward’s? Also remember that the directions that the first three dimensions describe are all based on the viewpoint of the observer, and are given the significance of what direction is by the observer. Man is not observing an actual physical thing and then describing it. If dimensions were true physical things then they would be the same to all observers, and not open to interpretations by the observer. Again, dimensions are a concept.

You say clocks measure time, how does this happen? If I take the batteries out of a clock it will not measure time. clocks are man made devices that are made to move according to a pre-engineered construction. Man decides what makes a clock move, not time. The general idea of how man perceives time is that time flows, so I will go along with this analogy to ask you, If time flows then how is it that a clock measures this flow. A clock would be like a flow meter, meaning that the flow of time would drive the clock. We all know that this is not true. Clocks are pre-programed to move or count at a certain rate that has been determined by man, not time. Clocks work according to how man made them to work, they are not time driven. Clocks were invented to give mankind a universal agreement on when things occur. Clocks allow man to be on the same schedule when it comes to communicating or planning. Clocks give a structure to human activity. They do not actually measure time, they just operate at a pre-determined rate that has been set up by man. If you think that clocks actually measure time, then please elaborate on this process.

You say that time behaves like your second example of who is really left of who. Time BEHAVES like this? Time acts in a way like this? Are you saying that time has a behavior? Because in your example the people involved are behaving in a certain way, the directions of left/right are not behaving at all, they are just concepts. So are you trying to say that man’s idea of time dilation is similar to your left/right example? If you notice, only the people are behaving in response to questions. The directions of left/right are not behaving. The only things that can behave are real physical, tangible things; not concepts. If you were to say that time is perceived by man like the directions were in the second example, that would convey the idea better. Time, like other concepts are perceived, but they do not act or behave. Man perceives a time dilation, time does not actually do anything or react in any manner, it is only perceived. Time can be experienced, but time does not itself experience anything.

Time APPEARS to slow down in a ship that is traveling at or near the speed of light to an observer that is traveling much slower or is at rest relative to the ship. It APPEARS to slow down, but time does not actually slow down. If clocks or any time piece were actually influenced by a thing called time, in effect, driven or motivated by a force called time, than I could see that if you slow time it will in effect slow the meter or device that measures this force called time. But we all know that clocks are not motivated by time nor do clocks have any effect on time, changing a clock does not change time. So if clocks actually have no intimate connection with a thing or force we call time, than accelerating a clock to near the speed of light could effect the clock, it may slow the machine known as a clock, but the motion of a clock, or the position of the clocks hands have no effect on time. If a clock is shown to go slower from extreme velocity, is it time that went slower, or just the clock? If you really want to believe that if a clock that appears to go slower means that time is going slower, than you would also have to believe that time motivates the clock solely and that no other energy is involved in making a clock run or work, which would mean that time alone drives clocks and there really is no need to plug them in, add batteries or wind them up. Before anyone can state truthfully that time dilation actually occurs, they would have to prove that clocks are driven by time, and that extreme velocity on a clock does not hinder or effect in any way the physical workings of a clock to make it mechanically slow down. Time APPEARS to slow down. It SEEMS as though time slows down. Time does not effect the motion of clocks, time does not make clocks run or work. If clocks were motivated by time, than they would not need some form of power source to make them run. Clocks have no connection to a force called time. Clocks are just man made machines that are made to give a desired result when operating properly, they are not meters that measure time flow. Just because a clock slows down does not mean that the only cause is that time slowed down. If clocks are not motivated by the flow of time, and clocks can easily be manipulated by man to show any time, and if clocks are only as reliable as the man who sets it up and notes the readings, than why would anyone assume that a change in a clock means that there was a change in time? These atomic clocks on the planes, when the readings were compared to the ones one the ground was this comparison done while the planes were still in flight, or were the comparisons made when the planes landed? There is different phenomenon involved in either scenario that would effect the readings.

Which one is accelerating? The one moving away? Both are moving away from each other, depending on the point of veiw according to the special theory of relativity. Please explain what you are trying to say. If neither accelerate, they are either both at rest or moving at the same speed, if they are at rest then both will not see each other moving. If they are moving at the same speed then they would only see each other moving if their direction of motion were away from one another, otherwise if they are not accelerating yet moving at the same speed in the same direction, then neither one would see the other as moving. What was it that you were trying to say?

So would that mean that the stronger the gravity the stronger the time? How does your gravity is time theory explain that sometimes events feel like they took longer or shorter amount of time than a clock said, ie: a quick workday, a long movie, a quick drive. So you say that gravity prevents everything from happening at once, WOW!

So what is the dividing line between these two times? There would have to be some sort of barrier that seperates these two times, right? What do you suppose this barrier is made of?

Thanks for the effort to explain this concept to me. i just want to be clear on something before i can respond. in your example with the moving cart, which way is the cart moving? Those who say spatial dimensions are real wil not say in what way they are real. Besides, if spatial dimensions were real there would be a definition that stated this. There are none to my knowledge. Dimensions are a concept not real physical things.

I am not going to assume what you mean by barrier You are saying that velocity acts as something that separates reference frames. Where are you getting that definition of how velocity can act? You may think I am being too picky on this, but what am I supposed to do? Just take your word for it without any scientific back up. I understand what a sound barrier is because there is a definition for it. Unlike your statement that velocity acts as a barrier. If more people would consult a dicitionary or reference book, to check what is being stated on this and other forms then many science topics would not end up in a discussion of everybody's interptitation or belief in what the real established facts are. Consulting dictionaries and reference books keeps discussions from going off the rails. I just asked for a reference, there was no attack. I did stay on topic

Find your answers in books, do research on the subject. If space-time has a composition then it has mass and location like all other things that are a compostion. If space-time was composed of something you could find out what it is made of in scientific reference books. Space-time is part of a theory and does not exist as a physical thing. If it did exist reference books would say so.

Where did you get this reference that velocity is a barrier? Here is a definition of velocity in The Essential Dictionary of Science: speed of an object in a given direction, or how fast an object changes its position in a given direction. No mention in this dictionary or others at hand that state that velocity can act as a barrier. What is the barrier between these different times? What is all this? Where did you get this information?