Does time go faster for an object moving faster?

[Tom Mattson]

Yep.

 

OK' date=' now for the next obvious question: On what grounds?

 

But it does change the measurment, doesn't it?

 

Yes. And I've already explained why your analogy with the steel tape fails.

[Tom Mattson]

No' date=' I am not. I am suggesting that if time dialation is a fact, then the observer travels [i']foreward[/i] faster in time that the apple and therefore the apple is 2 days in his past.

 

The apple exists in every frame. Seriously, I have no idea of where you're coming up with this. Why don't you try what I already suggested: Explicitly show your reasoning, starting from the Lorentz transformation.

 

And an infinite munber of realities?

 

No, just one. I don't know why you would think that SR suggests otherwise.

[swansont]

So' date=' if an apple traveled in a ship at sufficient velocity to make 5 days difference in time, and then returned to Earth, then someone picked it up and ate it, he would be eating it 5 days before he ate it?

 

For example the apple arrived on July 12th but the apple was still in a July 7th time frame, one would be eating it 5 days before it got to his time frame?

 

You [i']do[/i] see that this is pure nonsense, don't you?

 

No, that's not what I'm saying, and strawmen usually are nonsense.

 

I'm saying that if an apple ripens in 5 days, and you went away on a trip at sufficient velocity to account for 5 days in time to the apple, but the trip was very short for you (say one hour), when you came back the apple would be ripe. By your watch, one hour had passed. By the apple, and the clock sitting next to it, 5 days had passed. The timekeepers in the two frames will not agree, even though when they are side-by-side, the second hands are observed to tick at the same rate, and they were reading the same value at the beginning of the trip.

[swansont]

I don't think clocks are "conspireing" to do anything. I just think that the evidence has been misread. I think that what happens is that clocks can be made to measure time differently under differing circumstances, just as a steel tape will give a slight different measurement of, say, 100 feet when the temperature is 100 degrees than it will if the temperature is zero degrees.

 

In addition to what Tom Mattson has said in response to this, great pains are taken to shield precise clocks from effect such as these. Time dilation is not a mechanical effect on clocks. It is an effect on time.

[towjyt]

In addition to what Tom Mattson has said in response to this, great pains are taken to shield precise clocks from effect such as these. Time dilation is not a mechanical effect on clocks. It is an effect on time.

 

Bullshit!

 

What is being measured are the effects that time has on devices and organic entities.

 

Time has not changed, merely the effect that time has on things.

[towjyt]

No' date=' that's not what I'm saying, and strawmen usually are nonsense.

 

I'm saying that if an apple ripens in 5 days, and you went away on a trip at sufficient velocity to account for 5 days in time to the apple, but the trip was very short for you (say one hour), when you came back the apple would be ripe. By your watch, one hour had passed. By the apple, and the clock sitting next to it, 5 days had passed. The timekeepers in the two frames will not agree, even though when they are side-by-side, the second hands are observed to tick at the same rate, and they were reading the same value at the beginning of the trip.[/quote']

 

But again, all you have shown is that the effect that time has on the apple has changed, not time itself.

[towjyt]

OK, now for the next obvious question: On what grounds?

 

On the same grounds that many scientists reject the existence of a God. Just because millions (BILLIONS) of people believe in something, does not make it fact.

 

 

Yes. And I've already explained why your analogy with the steel tape fails.

 

What makes you think that all materials must react the same to illustrate the point? Can you be sure that time dialation has the same effect on the famous twins as it does on an atomic clock?

[towjyt]

The apple exists in every[/i'] frame. Seriously, I have no idea of where you're coming up with this. Why don't you try what I already suggested: Explicitly show your reasoning, starting from the Lorentz transformation.

I agree that the apple exists in every time frame because there is only time frame.

 

 

No, just one. I don't know why you would think that SR suggests otherwise.

 

Edit: How many apples are we talking about?

 

Since there is only one reality, there can be only one time frame.

 

To say otherwise is to engage in self contradiction. Are we still fighting the Civil War? In a galaxy far far away?

[Tom Mattson]

Tom: OK, now for the next obvious question: On what grounds?

 

towjyt: On the same grounds that many scientists reject the existence of a God. Just because millions (BILLIONS) of people believe in something, does not make it fact.

 

No, I mean what exactly do you think they are doing that is wrong. Simple incredulity does not suffice.

 

Tom: Yes. And I've already explained why your analogy with the steel tape fails.

 

towjyt: What makes you think that all materials must react the same to illustrate the point?

 

Because all clocks react the same way in twin paradox experiments. You are trying to argue by analogy, and I am showing you where the cases differ in a crucial detail, and hence are not analogous.

 

towjyt: Can you be sure that time dialation has the same effect on the famous twins as it does on an atomic clock?

 

It would have to be done with actual human beings before we could say for sure. What we do know is that atomic and subatomic clocks that operate according to the electromagnetic, weak, and strong interactions. If we had as precise a clock that were based on the gravitational interaction and tested it, then we would have covered all the bases.

 

So the answer to your question above is: There is presently no reason to think that the effects would be different.

 

Tom: The apple exists in every frame.

 

towjyt: I agree that the apple exists in every time frame because there is only time frame.

 

When you define what a "time frame" is, then we can talk meaningfully about it.

 

Tom: Seriously, I have no idea of where you're coming up with this. Why don't you try what I already suggested: Explicitly show your reasoning, starting from the Lorentz transformation.

 

Still waitin' for this.

 

swansont: great pains are taken to shield precise clocks from effect such as these. Time dilation is not a mechanical effect on clocks. It is an effect on time.

 

towjyt: Bullshit!

 

What is being measured are the effects that time has on devices and organic entities.

 

Time has not changed, merely the effect that time has on things.

 

I asked it once before, now I'm asking again: What's the difference?

 

What can you point to, apart from the "effects of time", that is this thing called "time"? Nothing, that's what. So if all experiments designed to test the so-called "effects of time" conform to the predictions of SR, then there simply is nothing you can point to and say, "Ah, but this hasn't been affected!"

 

So, what exactly grounds your faith?

[blike]

Can you be sure that time dialation has the same effect on the famous twins as it does on an atomic clock?

You could always create measure "twin" particles with a known life-span. Measure the life-span of one moving at .9999c and the lifespan of a stationary one. I'm sure this has been done.

[towjyt]

No' date=' I mean what exactly do you think they are doing that is wrong. Simple incredulity does not suffice.

 

 

 

Because all [b']clocks[/b] react the same way in twin paradox experiments. You are trying to argue by analogy, and I am showing you where the cases differ in a crucial detail, and hence are not analogous.

 

 

 

It would have to be done with actual human beings before we could say for sure. What we do know is that atomic and subatomic clocks that operate according to the electromagnetic, weak, and strong interactions. If we had as precise a clock that were based on the gravitational interaction and tested it, then we would have covered all the bases.

 

So the answer to your question above is: There is presently no reason to think that the effects would be different.

 

 

 

When you define what a "time frame" is, then we can talk meaningfully about it.

 

 

 

Still waitin' for this.

 

 

 

I asked it once before, now I'm asking again: What's the difference?

 

What can you point to, apart from the "effects of time", that is this thing called "time"? Nothing, that's what. So if all experiments designed to test the so-called "effects of time" conform to the predictions of SR, then there simply is nothing you can point to and say, "Ah, but this hasn't been affected!"

 

So, what exactly grounds your faith?

 

What grounds my faith is the fact that time and the rate at which it passes has not changed.

 

I think that the effect that near light speed has on atomic clocks proves nothing. The same goes for gravitational fields. To say that time itself is altered, yet these same objects that have been in conditions that alter time, yet are able to return to the same time that the observer in in is ludicrous on it's face.

 

Could there not be forces at light speed that could affect the way an atomic clock measures time without time actually having been affected? The movement of the atoms that the elements are composed of could be affected by either speed or gravity. No one knows what actually happens to elements at that speed or in a high gravity field. So, rather that asking me to prove that it doesn't happen, why don't you prove that it does happen? Not just that it is accepted in the scientific community, explain how the apple that is 2 days behind the observer could be eaten two days before it reached the age that it was when the observer ate it?

[towjyt]

You could always create measure "twin" particles with a known life-span. Measure the life-span of one moving at .9999c and the lifespan of a stationary one. I'm sure [/b']this has been done.

 

Perhaps, but Tom says there is no such thing as time.

[Tom Mattson]

What grounds my faith is the fact that time and the rate at which it passes has not changed.

 

LOL' date=' no need for experiments then. It must be nice to know the answers ahead of time!

 

I think that the effect that near light speed has on atomic clocks proves nothing. The same goes for gravitational fields.

 

Just a note: The speeds need not be anywhere close to light speed. This effect has been tested on an airplane.

 

To say that time itself is altered, yet these same objects that have been in conditions that alter time, yet are able to return to the same time that the observer in in is ludicrous on it's face.

 

Unfortunately for you, the universe is under no duty to conform to your a priori arguments. These questions are decided by experiments, not by what sounds ludicrous or credible to you. And what do you mean by "return to the same time that the observer is in" anyway?

 

Could there not be forces at light speed that could affect the way an atomic clock measures time without time actually having been affected?

 

Once again, for emphasis: There's no reason to consider "at" or "near" light speed. This effect occurs at any speed.

 

On to your question: It's possible that there are forces at work. It's also possible that there are little gnomes who set the clocks back, or that the clocks conspire to play a trick on us as I joked earlier.

 

But I think the reason you are fixated on this is that you do not understand what a big deal it is for clocks that operate on completely different principles to respond in exactly the same way in time dilation experiments.

 

The movement of the atoms that the elements are composed of could be affected by either speed or gravity. No one knows what actually happens to elements at that speed or in a high gravity field.

 

On the contrary, we know a whole lot about the dynamics of atomic and subatomic systems. But it is not necessary to bring that to bear here. I've already made my points without going into those theories.

 

So, rather that asking me to prove that it doesn't happen, why don't you prove that it does happen?

 

It has already been demonstrated that it does happen.

 

Not just that it is accepted in the scientific community, explain how the apple that is 2 days behind the observer could be eaten two days before it reached the age that it was when the observer ate it?

 

You have reverted to talking nonsense about time reversal again.

 

towjyt, with each post you make I become more convinced that you aren't interested in learning nearly as much as you are interested in being a pain in the rear end. I have asked you some pointed questions that you have completely dodged. Here they are again:

 

1.) Why don't you try to explicitly show your reasoning regarding the apple? Then it will be clear why you think that SR predicts this "apple paradox"?

 

2.) What exactly do you think physicists are doing that is wrong, regarding the interpretation of their experiments? And why do you think they are wrong?

 

3.) What can you point to, apart from the "effects of time", that is this thing called "time"?

[SHtRO]

...if you were to (somehow) become an absolutely perfect frame of reference, you would experience an infinite amount of time. Also, if you don't mind gaining infinite mass, you can see every point in the universe in literally no time at all.

 

Saw this once on a Hard Rock Cafe matchbook:

All is One.

[Masanov]

http://www.rainbow-calendar.hotmail.ru/Relativity_Refutation.htm

Here is the quick answer why time cannot be relative. Refutation of the theory of relativity. Masanov Konstantin.

[swansont]

http://www.rainbow-calendar.hotmail.ru/Relativity_Refutation.htm

Here is the quick answer why time cannot be relative. Refutation of the theory of relativity. Masanov Konstantin.

 

One post was enough. More than enough, really.