Time and speed and how speed impacts time

[beecee]

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

I don't think you are catching my point.

 

Say the stationary clock emits red light and the other blue light.

 

The diagram you have shown refers to red light only,

The pulse should be drawn as a wave front of the red light that intersects the path of the other clock and bounces off its upper mirror to achieve the diagonal path shown.

 

As far as the blue light is concerned it always starts from the bottom of the travelling rod and bounces off the upper mirror of the travelling clock, travelling exactly the same distance as the red light in the stationary clock.

Yep, OK, gotcha!

[geordief]

12 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

 

Swansont was not asking questions, he was trying to answer them and note he specified spacetime not time or space separately.

 

I did make/draw/assume that distinction

I did not mean "pick up" in a critical way

I was just surprised at this statement until I realized he was just restating the commonplace observation that all objects move through spacetime at the speed of light.

A slow learner ,sometimes I can't even 

keep up with myself!

 

I also like your red light/blue light description

Is there an intersection between the two expanding spheres?

Edited January 1, 2018 by geordief

[studiot]

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

Yep, OK, gotcha!

Ya, it is very easy to go wrong when describing relativity things in separated space and time.

 

Consider the following.

 

Suppose a traveller leaves a clock on a stationary table and takes another with him.

He then travels, at high speed, along a gigantic tape measure that is stretched out from the table and stationary relative to it.

 

At any point in his journey he can read the tape measure so he can see how far he has travelled.

But he has no equivalent device for time

 

Equally, without the table and tape measure he would not be able to determine how far he has travelled, only for how long by the clock he carries.

15 minutes ago, geordief said:

1)

I did make/draw/assume that distinction

I did not mean "pick up" in a critical way

I was just surprised at this statement until I realized he was just restating the commonplace observation that all objects move through spacetime at the speed of light.

A slow learner ,sometimes I can't even 

keep up with myself!

2)

I also like your red light/blue light description

Is there an intersection between the two expanding spheres?

1) No problem, you did well to get the distinction.

2) You should look at four vectors and in particular four velocity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-velocity

[Estranged]

9 hours ago, Strange said:

There is nothing special about biological systems. They brave the way they do because of complex sequences of chemical reactions. Those reaction take place at a rate determined by fundamental processes. We have observed this same processes being affected by time dilation. So there is no reason why biological system would not behave the same as any other clock.

The universe was evolving for billions of years before humans developed ways to measure time. So it is pretty clear that time is not a human invention. Our descriptions of what time "is" (philosophy) and ways of measuring it (science) are human inventions though.

There is nothing special about biological systems, but they're still different from mechanical systems. Biologic aging is different from mechanical clock rate. 

I'm not sure how you can claim that time is not a human invention. If you could describe time without being human then I'd be REALLY fascinated.

7 hours ago, studiot said:

 

Well you haven't said much about my posts, perhaps you missed them in the barrage.

 

One of them was about observing this 'fixed' clock.

The point being that the observation takes time and can't proceed faster than light.

 

This simple fact needs to be taken into consideration on any accounting of what is seen (observed) by two observers in relative motion.

OK, but what does that have to do with age?

[beecee]

6 minutes ago, Estranged said:

There is nothing special about biological systems, but they're still different from mechanical systems. Biologic aging is different from mechanical clock rate. 

I'm not sure how you can claim that time is not a human invention. If you could describe time without being human then I'd be REALLY fascinated.OK, but what does that have to do with age?

Time was created at the BB. It is not a human invention. If life had not evolved, time would still pass. It is the measurement of time, (clocks) which are a human invention. And as already mentioned time dilation and length contraction have both been totally verified.

 

Quote

OK, but what does that have to do with age?

When we observe time dilation, it is both mechanical and biological. The astronauts in the ISS are aging slower then us on Earth, albeit by tiny amounts.

[Strange]

2 hours ago, Estranged said:

There is nothing special about biological systems, but they're still different from mechanical systems. Biologic aging is different from mechanical clock rate. 

Not sure why you think that. Biological systems are based on the same physics and chemistry as anything else. 

2 hours ago, Estranged said:

I'm not sure how you can claim that time is not a human invention. 

The earth was spinning once a day, and orbiting the sun once a year, for billions of years before humans were around. The universe didn’t spring into existence when humans arrived. (How could they have evolved if time didn’t pass?)

Quote

If you could describe time without being human then I'd be REALLY fascinated.

But now you are not talking about the existence of time but describing it. You could say the same about light, trees, the moon, etc. but they all existed before we were around to d scrive them. 

[interested]

I asked a question about how time is affected by gravity or acceleration, no one answered so having googled it, I will have a bash myself, but may have confused myself somewhat. 

A fundamental result in Special Relativety is that a clock along an accelerated world line through two events in space time records less elapsed time between those events than a clock along an unaccelerated world line through the same two events.

Since, in this case, an accelerated clock and an unaccelerated clock are co-located at two different events, the two clocks can be directly compared and, in this case, the time dilation is absolute - does the accelerated clock tick faster than the unaccelerated clock ?????? Is time slower in space?????????????

The muon decay mentioned by Mordred is an example of the above. The muon experiences no acceleration ie is in free fall as it enters the earths atmosphere and it experiences a slowing down of time relative to observers on the ground. Quantum excitations not being accelerated by gravity or any other force last longer. This must alsoi apply to all Quantum fluctuations and excitations in space, not experiencing acceleration.

Does a Photon of light travelling at c experience time, No it doesnt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

If a person leaves earth at 0.7c for 20  years before returning, how much as said person aged when acceleration and deceleration are taken into account. The above examples ignore acceleration?

Viewing the above as a bungey jump as your speed increases to earth time slows, like a muon, as the elastic takes up the tension you decelerate and experience an increase in the speed of time, if the rope breaks your life ends like the muon, if not you are accelerated back up towards the crane at what feels like a much faster rate than you descended, until you reach the height of your climb when you start on the way back down again.

For the observer on the ground time is not affected for the person doing the bungy jump they experience a decrease in the speed of time followed by an acceleration as the rope becomes taught again.

PS I do not recomend bungey jumping, I dont think it is good for the brain cells having so much blood rush into your head at once.

Edit Biological systems experiencing higher levels of gravity will have higher masses and will have to work harder, and use more energy, joints will ware out faster, and they will experience time ticking at a faster/slower ???? rate. It will feel longer due to the extra work that will have to be done, but may in fact be faster.

Edited January 2, 2018 by interested

[swansont]

11 hours ago, geordief said:

What is that speed? Is it the same for all objects in the universe?

Some kind of a universal constant?

 

It's c.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-velocity

[studiot]

5 hours ago, Estranged said:

OK, but what does that have to do with age?

 

It is difficult to know how to reply to this question since I have not once mentioned aging.

I did, however, address your expressed desire to come to an understanding of relativity and showed sympathy with your frustration at the difficulty in doing so.

So it is a pity  that you choose not to engage in that discussion since you need at least a qualitative conception of the idea.

In other words you need to know what it actually says (in simple cases) before you can discuss the more difficult applications.

 

So here is a simple answer to aging.

 

When relativity was first proposed in 1905, applications to aging were not considered.

It was not until 1940 that the first application to aging was confirmed in Colorado by Rossi and Hall.

This was not the aging of a living system but the decay of certain comic radiation particles called muons.

These muons lived longer than expected by classical physics, as they passed through the Earth's atmosphere.
But their lifetime was correctly estimated by relativity.

 

However you need to get straight how relativity goes about making such an estimation, before discussing that aspect further.

[swansont]

11 hours ago, geordief said:

I was just picking  up Swansont who referred to the "speed of spacetime" being constant

Speed through spacetime.

5 hours ago, Estranged said:

There is nothing special about biological systems, but they're still different from mechanical systems. Biologic aging is different from mechanical clock rate. 

It is? What is different about it?

21 minutes ago, interested said:

 Edit Biological systems experiencing higher levels of gravity will have higher masses and will have to work harder, and use more energy, joints will ware out faster, and they will experience time ticking at a faster/slower ???? rate. It will feel longer due to the extra work that will have to be done, but may in fact be faster.

Which is irrelevant to the discussion.

Time and speed implies special relativity, not general relativity. Gravity isn't at issue here.

11 hours ago, studiot said:

Ya, it is very easy to go wrong when describing relativity things in separated space and time.

 

Consider the following.

 

Suppose a traveller leaves a clock on a stationary table and takes another with him.

He then travels, at high speed, along a gigantic tape measure that is stretched out from the table and stationary relative to it.

 

At any point in his journey he can read the tape measure so he can see how far he has travelled.

But he has no equivalent device for time

The observer has a clock. 

The thing is, the observer in the spaceship looks at the tape measure and notices it doesn't agree with the one s/he has on board the ship. The tape measure says that the destination was e.g. 1 LY away, but according to the ship, the distance was less. Similarly, the shipboard clock and one at rest with the tape measure will read different times.

[Endy0816]

6 hours ago, Estranged said:

There is nothing special about biological systems, but they're still different from mechanical systems. Biologic aging is different from mechanical clock rate. 

I'm not sure how you can claim that time is not a human invention. If you could describe time without being human then I'd be REALLY fascinated.

OK, but what does that have to do with age?

Falling into a common trap, thinking the velocity is causing some mechanical or biological effect.

Instead Time, itself, is center stage. That is what effects the clock, you, plants, decay, you name it.

Less time passes and how much you age will reflect that fact.

We discovered Time, we invented Time Keeping. Time exists independent of us.

 

43 minutes ago, interested said:

I asked a question about how time is affected by gravity or acceleration, no one answered so having googled it, I will have a bash myself, but may have confused myself somewhat. 

A fundamental result in Special Relativety is that a clock along an accelerated world line through two events in space time records less elapsed time between those events than a clock along an unaccelerated world line through the same two events.

Since, in this case, an accelerated clock and an unaccelerated clock are co-located at two different events, the two clocks can be directly compared and, in this case, the time dilation is absolute - does the accelerated clock tick faster than the unaccelerated clock ?????? Is time slower in space?????????????

What the other frame sees is going to depend on whether the one is headed towards or away. Away slower, towards faster.

For you it always passes at the same rate.

Time runs marginally slower on Earth actually due to gravitational time dilation. Not a huge difference though.

Edited January 2, 2018 by Endy0816

[geordief]

30 minutes ago, swansont said:

Speed through spacetime.

Yes,thanks for the correction (esp when I was "citing" you. btw I did work out the constant was c -after I posted  </slaphead>)

 

 

[studiot]

59 minutes ago, swansont said:

The observer has a clock. 

The thing is, the observer in the spaceship looks at the tape measure and notices it doesn't agree with the one s/he has on board the ship. The tape measure says that the destination was e.g. 1 LY away, but according to the ship, the distance was less. Similarly, the shipboard clock and one at rest with the tape measure will read different times.

 

Yes indeed, I wanted to use this simple example to help the OP explore in some detail what he thinks is happening.

Edited January 2, 2018 by studiot

[Janus]

5 hours ago, interested said:

I asked a question about how time is affected by gravity or acceleration, no one answered so having googled it, I will have a bash myself, but may have confused myself somewhat. 

A fundamental result in Special Relativety is that a clock along an accelerated world line through two events in space time records less elapsed time between those events than a clock along an unaccelerated world line through the same two events.

Since, in this case, an accelerated clock and an unaccelerated clock are co-located at two different events, the two clocks can be directly compared and, in this case, the time dilation is absolute - does the accelerated clock tick faster than the unaccelerated clock ?????? Is time slower in space?????????????

The muon decay mentioned by Mordred is an example of the above. The muon experiences no acceleration ie is in free fall as it enters the earths atmosphere and it experiences a slowing down of time relative to observers on the ground. Quantum excitations not being accelerated by gravity or any other force last longer. This must alsoi apply to all Quantum fluctuations and excitations in space, not experiencing acceleration.

 

To directly compare the times between the accelerated and non-accelerated clock, they have to start next to each other and end up next to each other.  The accelerated clock has to accelerate away, then reverse the direction of its acceleration and return to the other clock.

So first we will examine the instant the clock starts its acceleration. At this moment it is still co-located with the other clock and has zero motion. What will be the observed time dilation between the two clocks? Zero.  At that instant, even though the one clock is accelerating,  both clocks clocks will determine that they are running at the same rate.

As the accelerating clock gains velocity with respect to the other clock, you now have to consider what each clock separately would measure.

For the non-accelerated clock, the accelerated clock would exhibit time-dilation and run slow. That time dilation would however just be due to the relative velocity difference between the two clocks, the acceleration rate of the accelerating clock adds no additional effect.  This remains true for the entire trip. The end difference in the elapsed times of the clocks when they meet will be due to the accumulated effect of the this time dilation.

For the accelerated clock, the acceleration does matter in terms of what it would measure as happening to the other clock.  But not just the magnitude of the acceleration, but its direction and the distance between the two clocks.  There will also be the normal time dilation factor due to relative velocity between the clocks.   As the two clocks separate, the relative speed increases, as does the distance.  The increase in speed causes it to measure the other clock as running slower. The increasing distance along with the direction of the acceleration adds an additional slowing to the other clock.  The greater the separation, the greater this effect becomes.

Now the accelerating clock reverses its direction of acceleration, to first come to rest with respect to the other clock, and then start the trip back.  Once the direction of the acceleration vector goes from away to towards the other clock, the time dilation factor due to the acceleration reverses, and causes the other clock to appear to run fast. This will be counteracted by the time dilation factor due to the relative motion.   

As the clock continues to slow relative to the other clock, the relative motion time dilation factor decreases and the speeding up of the other clock due to the acceleration factor dominates more and more.  Eventually the relative speeds reaches zero and the accelerating clock starts speeding up again, but now back towards the other clock.  The distance starts to decrease, lessening the factor that speeds up the other clock and the relative speed increases, increasing the slowing down effect.    When the two clocks meet up again, the total elapsed time difference will be due  to the accumulation of the all the factors given above, and the clock will find that less time has accumulated for it than has for the other clock.

Both clocks come to the same conclusion as to the total elapsed time difference between them, but contribute this difference to different reasons and different time dilation effects.

While the total accumulated time difference between the clocks is absolute, the time dilation between them never is.  Do not confuse "time dilation" which is the relative tick rate as measured between two frames at any given moment with "total time accumulation difference".  For the non-accelerating clock the time dilation measured for the accelerating clock always has it running slow except for those brief moments when the clock are at rest with respect to each other. For the accelerating clock, the time dilation factors combine so that for part of the time the non-accelerating clock runs slow and for part of the time it runs fast.

Which is the "real" reason the clocks differ at the end? Both.  Neither clock's view of what happened during the trip has precedence over the other. they are both equally true.

I realize that for many, this is a hard pill to swallow.  They want a singular "cause" that they can point to that results in the time difference.  Unfortunately, the universe is not obliging in this manner.

As to the muon experiment.  The fact that the muon is in free-fall is not a factor.  It is not the gravity or acceleration "felt" by the muon that counts with gravitational time dilation, it is the difference in gravitational potential.  Specifically, what this means in the case of the muon is that it is related to the difference in the altitude between the ground clock and the muon. If you were to take two clocks and suspend them from the same altitude, and then let one start to drop. In the instant you released the one clock it would go from not being in free fall to being in free fall, but this would not cause any change in its tick rate as compared to the other clock.  That wouldn't start to occur until the clock actually changed altitude and relative velocity with respect to the other clock.

That beside gravitational time dilation as far as the muon experiment is concerned is just too small to produce the measured results. It is the relative velocity between muon and ground clock that produces this.

Like in the accelerated clock example above, the reason behind the muon surviving until the reaches the ground depends upon whether you are in the ground rest frame or the muon rest frame.   

In the ground rest frame, the muon undergoes time dilation, ages more slowly and thus lives long enough to reach the ground from the altitude where it was created.

In the Muon frame, the Earth and its atmosphere is length contracted, thus the distance between the point of the atmosphere where it finds itself upon creation and the ground is short enough for it traverse during its normal life-time.   And while the ground clock undergoes time dilation and runs slow according to the Muon, due to the relativity of simultaneity, the ground clock, according to the muon, reads a later time at the moment of the muon creation, than the ground clock frame would read on the ground clock upon Muon creation.

For example, if the muon-ground relative velocity is 0.999c, and the muon is created at an altitude of 10km and when the ground clock reads 0 as measured in the ground frame, Then the ground clock will read ~3.34 e-5 sec when the Muon reaches it.  In the Muon frame, the Muon will be 447 meters from the ground upon creation, and will reach the ground clock in ~4.77e-7 sec, during which time, the ground clock will tick off ~7e-9 sec, but the ground clock would have read 3.33393e-5 secs when the muon was created, and this plus 7e-9 sec equals 3.34e-5 seconds, so both the muon and ground clock agree on the ground clocks reading when the muon arrives. (though they don't agree as what the ground clock read upon the muon's creation). 

So again, we have two frames agreeing on the end result, but not agreeing upon how that result was arrived at.

 

 

 

[studiot]

4 minutes ago, Janus said:

As the accelerating clock gains velocity with respect to the other clock, you now have to consider what each clock separately would measure.

 

This is exactly what I have been trying to say about the simpler situation for the OP.

7 minutes ago, Janus said:

Which is the "real" reason the clocks differ at the end? Both.  Neither clock's view of what happened during the trip has precedence over the other. they are both equally true.

I realize that for many, this is a hard pill to swallow.  They want a singular "cause" that they can point to that results in the time difference.  Unfortunately, the universe is not obliging in this manner.

And this is exactly my point When I asked how would you measure it?

[Janus]

13 hours ago, Estranged said:

There is nothing special about biological systems, but they're still different from mechanical systems. Biologic aging is different from mechanical clock rate. 

I'm not sure how you can claim that time is not a human invention. If you could describe time without being human then I'd be REALLY fascinated.

OK, but what does that have to do with age?

I'm going to try an analogy here to try and get the idea across.  Imagine you have two men. They start at the same spot and start walking in different directions. After they both have walked an equal distance, on man turns so that his new path will cross the other man's path.  After both have walked an equal distance again, they come to a stop and measure how far they are from where they started.  The man who changed direction during his walk will find himself on the other man's path line, but closer to where he started than the the man who didn't change direction.  Now it doesn't matter how they measured the distance they walked, they could have used a tape measure (equivalent of measuring time with a clock) or counted the number of steps they took of equal stride length (equivalent of biological aging or personal perception of time passage),  They still end up with one man closer to where they started than the other.

The same is true for accumulated time difference due to Relativity. It doesn't matter how you measure "time", by a clock or human "age", less time will have passed for one person than for the other.  You simply cannot separate "aging" from time measured by a clock. They are both the result, on a fundamental basis, of the same thing.

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Janus said:

I'm going to try an analogy here to try and get the idea across.  Imagine you have two men. They start at the same spot and start walking in different directions. After they both have walked an equal distance, on man turns so that his new path will cross the other man's path.  After both have walked an equal distance again, they come to a stop and measure how far they are from where they started.  The man who changed direction during his walk will find himself on the other man's path line, but closer to where he started than the the man who didn't change direction.  Now it doesn't matter how they measured the distance they walked, they could have used a tape measure (equivalent of measuring time with a clock) or counted the number of steps they took of equal stride length (equivalent of biological aging or personal perception of time passage),  They still end up with one man closer to where they started than the other.

The same is true for accumulated time difference due to Relativity. It doesn't matter how you measure "time", by a clock or human "age", less time will have passed for one person than for the other.  You simply cannot separate "aging" from time measured by a clock. They are both the result, on a fundamental basis, of the same thing.

 

Like it. +1

Edited January 2, 2018 by studiot

[beecee]

On 1/1/2018 at 5:13 PM, Estranged said:

Plainly, I don't get why people have conjured that aging happens by clock rate. People age by time, not clock rate. 

So, just because a clock rate changes at speed, I don't see how that has to do with time in regards to aging or blooming.

Clocks, measure time: Aging is a result of the accumulation or passing of time: When time is measured to be dilated in another frame, the clocks that measure it are slowed, and any aging of biological entities are also as a consequence slowed: 

The validity and acceptance of SR and the consequences of length contraction and time dilation are  universal and agreed to by many tests every day, including GPS navigation and positioning. That small minority that hold a contrary position, are probably cranks of one sort or another and in the same nutty class as those that still believe the Earth is flat, and that it is the center of the universe.

 

[interested]

Thank you very much for the replies, especially Janus. 

To clarify just a little bit further, although I think I may have got it now. Gravity slows time down, ie time runs faster in space than it does on a large planet. For a space being however time is slowed by speed and this offsets the faster aging he/she/dog/etc would have experienced otherwise.

Does acceleration also like gravity slow time down like gravity on a large planet, or is this offset by the speed? 

Edit Would a vibrating object experiencing high ratesof acceleration go slower through time than the space around it?

 

Edited January 2, 2018 by interested

[phyti]

Estranged;

The motivation and basis for Special Relativity.

In reading the original 1905 paper 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies',

Einstein questions the need for an absolute rest frame, since the same electromagnetic phenomenon occurs whether the magnet moves past a coil, or the coil moves past the magnet, i.e. requiring only relative motion. He was also aware of the failed attempt in the 1880's to detect an absolute motion of the earth relative to a theoretical 'ether', a medium for light propagation. He then forms his theory extending his  principle of relativity to all physical phenomena, in the form of the first postulate, 'the laws of physics are the same for all inertial (moving at constant speed) frames of reference '. Then he adds a second postulate, 'the propagation speed of light is constant and independent of the emitter for all inertial frames'.

In the development of the coordinate transformations required to compare data from two observers with relative motion, time and space measurements differ.

The theory predicts time dilation and length contraction. The idea that motion could alter perception and measurement was totally unexpected, in a world that believed in a  universal time and rigid bodies.

 

The mental connection to 'time'.

 

Subjective time requires memory, which allows a comparison of a current state to a previous state for any changes, which lends itself to an interpretation of 'time' flowing. Patients with brain damage to specific areas involved in maintaining a personal chronology, lose their ability to estimate elapsed time, short or long term. Consider the fact that people waking from a comatose state, have no memory of how much elapsed time, whether hrs, days, or even years.

If you are in a cave with no light and no clock, how do you know how much 'time' has elapsed? You rely on your memory and sensory input.

Since you can't see any of your surroundings, you rely on your biological perception concluding you are still self aware, breathing, pulse, etc. This requires energy, so there is (must be) energy , if there is awareness.

The mind supplies the perception of continuity of events just as it supplies the perception of motion for viewing a fast sequence of still images, movies and electronic screens.

Any uniform periodic event can serve as a clock to meter/measure 'time' just as a stick with uniform marks serves to measure distance. It provides a means of correspondence of an event of interest to a clock event for future reference. Time like distance is an intangible relation that is malleable in the process of motion. Like the planetary orbits, the lunar sphere, lines, points, etc., these things only exist in the mind. They are real as mental constructs, but there is nothing corresponding to them in the physical world outside the mind.

 

Biological processes are chemical processes, and chemistry is the physical processes of electron clouds surrounding atoms, which involves em (light) interactions. If motion slows the process in a light clock, it will slow the light processes in chemistry.

[studiot]

26 minutes ago, phyti said:

Then he adds a second postulate, 'the propagation speed of light is constant and independent of the emitter for all inertial frames'.

 

Are you sure?

I thought the innovation was that the speed of light was the same for all observers.

This is what distinguishes it from previous knowledge since in classical wave theory the wave speed depends upon the medium and is independent of the emitter.

[Strange]

36 minutes ago, studiot said:

I thought the innovation was that the speed of light was the same for all observers.

"for all inertial frames" 

[studiot]

21 minutes ago, Strange said:

"for all inertial frames" 

The point was about the observer, not the frame.

 

Classical  observer observe different wave speeds depending upon their own speed.

But once an emitter has launched the classical wave into the medium, it looses all control.

[Janus]

On 1/2/2018 at 12:57 PM, interested said:

Thank you very much for the replies, especially Janus. 

To clarify just a little bit further, although I think I may have got it now. Gravity slows time down, ie time runs faster in space than it does on a large planet. For a space being however time is slowed by speed and this offsets the faster aging he/she/dog/etc would have experienced otherwise.

Does acceleration also like gravity slow time down like gravity on a large planet, or is this offset by the speed? 

Edit Would a vibrating object experiencing high ratesof acceleration go slower through time than the space around it?

 

Acceleration of a clock has no additional time dilation effect.  The only time dilation you would see in the vibrating object would be due to its velocity at any given moment. This is knwon as the "clock postulate" and has been tested by placing radioactive samples in high speed centrifuges and subjecting them to extreme g forces. The resulting measured decrease in the deacy rate of the samples was exactly equal to that expected for just the speed at which the sample was traveling with respect to the lab frame.

If you are in an accelerating frame, then you will measure some time dilation effects in clocks depending on where they are located relative to you with respect to the acceleration.

For instance, if you where in an accelerating rocket, and sitting at its midpoint with a clock, you would note that a clock in the tail would be running slow, while a clock in the nose would be running fast when compared to your own clock.  This is despite the fact that all three clocks are experiencing the exact same acceleration.

[Strange]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

The point was about the observer, not the frame.

Sorry I was a bit brief - I was using my phone. What I meant to imply was that "all frames" includes the frames of all observers. "Observer"in this context just means "the measurements from another frame of reference".