Eric 5 Posted March 9, 2008 Posted March 9, 2008 Originally Posted by Eric 5 I am not going to transcribe the book that Einstein wrote, but I will tell you to read it. Anyone familiar with Special Relativity will tell you that it is based on events that occur simultaneously and how they appear to an observer. After coming this far in our dialog, only to find out that you do not have a firm grasp on what the concept of time dilation is, I can see why you have the belief in time dilation as an actual physical occurrence. It is too bad that I am now just finding this out, I would have spent more time pointing you to the book that started this concept. I have mentioned this book previously in this thread, I will do this again since I would like you to get the proper understanding of what Special Theory of Relativity says about time dilation. Oh, please. I do have the proper understanding of what SR says about time dilation. Simultaneity for an observer is presented as a concept of SR, but there is nothing that states that measurements have to continually occur at the same time. The measurements that occur at the beginning and end of the experiment happen simultaneously. Wow! Read the book by Einstein. Look up the definition of Special Relativity in any science reference book. What you are stating is not what the standard definition of Special Relativity is. What you are stating is not in agreement with what Einstein wrote in his book. Have you read the book RELATIVITY. THE SPECIAL AND THE GENERAL THEORY.? Yes/no? This report from kelly contradicts what you are saying. So we are left with two reports that contradict each other. We will have to take both reports at face value since neither one of us personally conducted the experiments, or were present when the tests were conducted. So now we are put in the position of either choosing a side based on what we want to believe, or the one that follows what happens in the real physical universe according to the laws of nature. Remember the laws of nature are not a theory. Time dilation is based on a theory. In order for time dilation to tip the scale in its favor it needs to be backed up by data that is irrefutable. Right now, the idea of time dilation is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I say that time is a considerstion, and clocks are nothing more than man made machines that only run according to how man engineered them to run. This agrees with the idea that time dilation is not physical occurance in the physical universe. The kelly report backs this up. You have not stated what you think time is or how you think clocks measure this thing that you said is not physical. This leaves a lot to be desired, and opens the door to interptations and arbitraries. The introduction of an arbitrary into a problem or solution invites the further introduction of arbitraries into problems and solutions. You have not defined the terms of time or clocks that backs up the idea that time dilation is even possible in physical reality. Go ahead and tell everyone that reads this what your definition of time is. "And that makes you oh-for-three. I'll give you a foul-tip on the first one, since I am not claiming time is physical.” The above is a quote of what you said. You say that time is not physical, so what is it? I would like to state right here and now that during this dialog you have said what time is not, but have not said what it is. Your choices are time is a real physical thing, or it is a concept. Which is it? Your definition of time is the foundation of your arguement. Define your terms please.
Eric 5 Posted March 9, 2008 Posted March 9, 2008 I kinda find it funny that Eric 5 is trying to tell a physicist (and one who works with atomic clocks no less) that he doesn't understand relativity. Reaper! Get off the sidelines and into the game. What do you have to say about all of this? Talk to me. State your opinion. Maybe you and swansont can team up and give a good definition of time that supports the idea of time dilation. Come on reaper, don't be shy, join in the fun. I would welcome another player in all of this. Stop feeding the trolls... The following is a quote found on your post: "[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." Time is a concept. I agree. Concepts do not experience time dilation. If you have something to say about time dilation please say it.
JohnFromAus Posted March 9, 2008 Author Posted March 9, 2008 I now am aware of the folllowing - I would be interested to see how I score. 1 - an OBSERVER is not a person seeing something. Here an observer is an infinity of synchronized clocks at rest at each point in the reference frame. 2 - Inertial frames in relative motion are all equivalent ( maybe not the right word) by that I mean when A sees Bs clock running slowly B sees As clock running slowly - when A sees Bs rod shortened B sees As rod shortened. 3 - "Moving clocks run slow" means A (single) clock moving relative to an inertial frame containing an observer ( see 1 above) will be found to run slow when timed by this observer. ie we compare 1 moving clock with 2 stationary synchronized clocks. 4 - Classical physics makes the assumption that signals can travel at infinite speed - SR proposes a limit - c . Surely SR is more believable! 5 - The twins paradox - well I am not 100% with this yet but can understand that 1 of the twins is not in an inertial frame all of the time - otherwise he could never return. Also I have a problem relating this situation to 3 above. So there is more to it than just "clocks running slow"! However I dont intend to argue the point with Mr E or others - I accept the fact and am doing what I can to understand it - perhaps I never will! The book I have has many problems I can work through to see if I can get the answers and thus confirm that I am on the right track. So far I have only studied the chapter "Relativistic Kinematics" - still have dynamics and electromagnetism to go. John
Eric 5 Posted March 9, 2008 Posted March 9, 2008 Swansont. The reference articles that you directed me to in order to back up your viewpoint, I found flaws in, or other reports that refute the reports you referred me to. I show you a report that says the Hafele-Keating experiment was not accurate, and ask you which of the two reports are we to believe? All you have to say is “the peer reviewed one.” No mention of which one, or where I can find this peer reviewed one. Your answer does not show me any evidence of this experiment. Do you want to prove your point or not? Be specific in your answers. Why are you being so vague? Do you assume I can read your mind? Also, if you knew of a better test, then why did you allow this dialog to continue to use an inaccurate report as long as it did? You knew of a better test and said nothing until I find the report inaccurate. Why not just state the better test earlier? Does this "peer reviewed" report really exist?
iNow Posted March 9, 2008 Posted March 9, 2008 If you have something to say about time dilation please say it. Regardless of how much you close your eyes, plug your ears, and whale "nanner nanner boo boo," the evidence of time dilation is still available and abundant. Frankly, you're an annoyance. If you had something to offer which was meaningful, you'd have provided it by now. Hence, my reference to your trollish behavior.
Eric 5 Posted March 9, 2008 Posted March 9, 2008 Regardless of how much you close your eyes, plug your ears, and whale "nanner nanner boo boo," the evidence of time dilation is still available and abundant. Frankly, you're an annoyance. If you had something to offer which was meaningful, you'd have provided it by now. Hence, my reference to your trollish behavior. Is this really the way you try and give evidence of what you believe to be a physical occurrence? It is not at all scientific. I guess I am supposed to just take your word for it that time dilation is an actual physical occurrence. How could anyone deny your explicit evidence that you just put forth? It appears that you are trying to have me get off topic and defend myself from your inappropriate comment. What was your point? Does it ever occur to you that this is a forum that is open to everyone who wants to discuss their observations and questions about physics, and that in order for this forum to function and provide a place to openly discuss various topics, everyone should behave in a manner that is respectful and professional. Remember, you are setting an example to others on the attitude of this forum. I am going to assume that this forum is not your creation, and you are just a guest here. If you want this forum to remain as a good place to discuss and share your observations with others on physics, keep the unprofessional comments to yourself. What you say and how you say it are a reflection on you. With that said I will respond. This is a physics forum. I am sure that I am not the first person that has been on this forum that disagrees with the idea that time dilation is a physical occurrence. This topic should be a piece of cake for someone on this forum to resolve. Yet no one can even give a good definition of time that provides a hint that time dilation is physically possible. So far the only statement that was made in defense of time dilation is, time is not physical. That’s it?! Can anyone do better? How about you iNow? Can someone show me the evidence of time dilation as a physical occurrence? In case you haven’t noticed, no one has provided any reference to a report that shows irrefutable evidence of time dilation actually occurring. The report ( The Hafele–Keating experiment) that swansont said provided accurate data on time dilation actually occurring was found to be inaccurate. Swansont has not provided any other report to show evidence of time dilation. Can you provide any evidence. You and Swansont say that it is available, well then show me. I have provided my observations of what time and clocks are that go along with my viewpoint of why time dilation cannot physically occur. No one, including you, has provided any working definitions of time and clocks that agree with the idea that time dilation can physically occur. You can settle this whole debate if you can provide evidence that time dilation can occur. At least give me your definition of time and clocks that can make time dilation seem physically plausible. Can you do that? You may find me annoying, but that is because I am being persistent in getting some evidence of time dilation being a physical occurrence. I don’t settle for just being told the evidence exist. No evidence of time dilation or definitions of time have been provided to back up the idea that time dilation is a physical occurrence. Go ahead and lets see what you can provide that is meaningful to this topic of time dilation, give it your best shot.
swansont Posted March 9, 2008 Posted March 9, 2008 I now am aware of the folllowing - I would be interested to see how I score.1 - an OBSERVER is not a person seeing something. Here an observer is an infinity of synchronized clocks at rest at each point in the reference frame. 2 - Inertial frames in relative motion are all equivalent ( maybe not the right word) by that I mean when A sees Bs clock running slowly B sees As clock running slowly - when A sees Bs rod shortened B sees As rod shortened. 3 - "Moving clocks run slow" means A (single) clock moving relative to an inertial frame containing an observer ( see 1 above) will be found to run slow when timed by this observer. ie we compare 1 moving clock with 2 stationary synchronized clocks. 4 - Classical physics makes the assumption that signals can travel at infinite speed - SR proposes a limit - c . Surely SR is more believable! 5 - The twins paradox - well I am not 100% with this yet but can understand that 1 of the twins is not in an inertial frame all of the time - otherwise he could never return. Also I have a problem relating this situation to 3 above. So there is more to it than just "clocks running slow"! However I dont intend to argue the point with Mr E or others - I accept the fact and am doing what I can to understand it - perhaps I never will! The book I have has many problems I can work through to see if I can get the answers and thus confirm that I am on the right track. So far I have only studied the chapter "Relativistic Kinematics" - still have dynamics and electromagnetism to go. John All five of your points are in accord with special relativity. Reaper! Get off the sidelines and into the game. What do you have to say about all of this? Talk to me. State your opinion. Maybe you and swansont can team up and give a good definition of time that supports the idea of time dilation. Come on reaper, don't be shy, join in the fun. I would welcome another player in all of this. Reaper's opinion, or anyone else's, for that matter, are of no import. This is about science. Empirical evidence that back up (or contradict) established theories are what need to be discussed. Swansont. The reference articles that you directed me to in order to back up your viewpoint, I found flaws in, or other reports that refute the reports you referred me to. I show you a report that says the Hafele-Keating experiment was not accurate, and ask you which of the two reports are we to believe? All you have to say is “the peer reviewed one.” No mention of which one, or where I can find this peer reviewed one. Your answer does not show me any evidence of this experiment. Do you want to prove your point or not? Be specific in your answers. Why are you being so vague? Do you assume I can read your mind? Also, if you knew of a better test, then why did you allow this dialog to continue to use an inaccurate report as long as it did? You knew of a better test and said nothing until I find the report inaccurate. Why not just state the better test earlier? Does this "peer reviewed" report really exist? The Hafele-Keating papers appeared in the journal Science, which is peer-reviewed. The criticism by Kelly appears on the internet, which is not. (If one were to accept any criticism of a theory that appears on the internet we'd have nothing, since geocentrism, flat-earth, creationism, germ-theory denial, etc. etc. all exist, with some in great abundance, on the internet). The most likely scenario is that Mr. Kelly does not understand clock analysis. There is no credibility established to make one think Kelly is right, so it is incorrect to say that the H&K paper in inaccurate. You may have to go to a library to access the journal; it's laughable that you can criticize the reporting of the experiment when you have obviously have not read it. Saying that I "allowed[ed] this dialog to continue" is a mischaracterization; you're the one who started criticizing it! When I offered evidence of time dilation it was GPS satellites. My responses were to rebut your statements, correct your mistakes and try and answer your questions. You say to be specific and not be vague, but when I give specific answers you ignore them and repeat the questions. Stop trolling. This is a physics forum. I am sure that I am not the first person that has been on this forum that disagrees with the idea that time dilation is a physical occurrence. This topic should be a piece of cake for someone on this forum to resolve. Yet no one can even give a good definition of time that provides a hint that time dilation is physically possible. So far the only statement that was made in defense of time dilation is, time is not physical. That’s it?! Can anyone do better? How about you iNow? Time is defined by the math. The accumulated phase of an oscillation is one definition. That's an answer to the experimental question, but not an answer to the metaphysical question. Metaphysics isn't science. Can someone show me the evidence of time dilation as a physical occurrence? In case you haven’t noticed, no one has provided any reference to a report that shows irrefutable evidence of time dilation actually occurring. The report ( The Hafele–Keating experiment) that swansont said provided accurate data on time dilation actually occurring was found to be inaccurate. Swansont has not provided any other report to show evidence of time dilation. Can you provide any evidence. You and Swansont say that it is available, well then show me. I have provided my observations of what time and clocks are that go along with my viewpoint of why time dilation cannot physically occur. No one, including you, has provided any working definitions of time and clocks that agree with the idea that time dilation can physically occur. You can settle this whole debate if you can provide evidence that time dilation can occur. At least give me your definition of time and clocks that can make time dilation seem physically plausible. Can you do that? "irrefutable" is the problem here, since somewhere, somehow, someone will object to any piece of evidence. H&K is a piece of evidence. GPS (and other) satellites represent other pieces of evidence. GPS works, and would not work if time dilation were wrong. The GPS kinematic time dilation correction is about 7 microseconds per day, which represents 7 kilometers of positioning error, which is almost 5 meters every minute. (the gravitational dilation correction is even larger) You may find me annoying, but that is because I am being persistent in getting some evidence of time dilation being a physical occurrence. I don’t settle for just being told the evidence exist. No evidence of time dilation or definitions of time have been provided to back up the idea that time dilation is a physical occurrence. Go ahead and lets see what you can provide that is meaningful to this topic of time dilation, give it your best shot. Persistence isn't a virtue when it involves repeating the same questions after they've been answered, and raising the same objections or making the same proclamations after they've been refuted.
Janus Posted March 9, 2008 Posted March 9, 2008 Originally Posted by Eric 5 Wow! Read the book by Einstein. Look up the definition of Special Relativity in any science reference book. What you are stating is not what the standard definition of Special Relativity is. What you are stating is not in agreement with what Einstein wrote in his book. Have you read the book RELATIVITY. THE SPECIAL AND THE GENERAL THEORY.? Yes/no? Are you talking about this book? http://bartleby.com/173/ If so, you do realise that this is meant as an introduction to Relativity, not an exhaustive text on the subject. Also, I see nothing in this book that supports your view.
John Cuthber Posted March 9, 2008 Posted March 9, 2008 I'm intrigued by some of the things Eric5 writes. For example "Time is not being measured, oscillations are. Not all machines that are built to “measure” time use an oscillator. " This is true; a few other things have been used to verify time dilation such as the extended half life of subatomic particles whne they are traveling near the speed of light. These "clocks" agree with the "conventional" ones; time dilation happens, just the way relativity says it should. Eric5 seems to have gone to the trouble of pointing out more evidence against his claim-that's rather odd behaviour. He also says "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" Now, when I was at school the definition of energy was "the capacity to do work". Presumable in Eric 5's world there is no impending energy crisis because we can use time to heat our houses and run our cars. In this world it just looks like his understanding of energy is as shoddy as his grasp of relativity. He repeatedly asks for evidence, some of the available evidence is a bit highbrow- not easy for the layman to understand. The fact that GPS systems work with clocks that were deliberately set (on earth) to run at the wrong speed so that (in orbit) they will run correctly is pretty good evidence for most people. But I realise that he wasn't there to see the clocks being set so he's entitled not to believe it. I was particularly pleased to see that an amateur got a collection of second hand (no pun intended) atomic clocks and took them camping in the mountains. Then he took them back home and showed that they had gained an extra 22 ns just as predicted. A bloke with some spare cash, a van and a family that don't mind camping can verify special relativity. Surely it's time for Eric5 to believe in it.
Eric 5 Posted March 9, 2008 Posted March 9, 2008 I'm intrigued by some of the things Eric5 writes. For example "Time is not being measured, oscillations are. Not all machines that are built to “measure” time use an oscillator. "This is true; a few other things have been used to verify time dilation such as the extended half life of subatomic particles whne they are traveling near the speed of light. These "clocks" agree with the "conventional" ones; time dilation happens, just the way relativity says it should. Eric5 seems to have gone to the trouble of pointing out more evidence against his claim-that's rather odd behaviour. He also says "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" Now, when I was at school the definition of energy was "the capacity to do work". Presumable in Eric 5's world there is no impending energy crisis because we can use time to heat our houses and run our cars. In this world it just looks like his understanding of energy is as shoddy as his grasp of relativity. He repeatedly asks for evidence, some of the available evidence is a bit highbrow- not easy for the layman to understand. The fact that GPS systems work with clocks that were deliberately set (on earth) to run at the wrong speed so that (in orbit) they will run correctly is pretty good evidence for most people. But I realise that he wasn't there to see the clocks being set so he's entitled not to believe it. I was particularly pleased to see that an amateur got a collection of second hand (no pun intended) atomic clocks and took them camping in the mountains. Then he took them back home and showed that they had gained an extra 22 ns just as predicted. A bloke with some spare cash, a van and a family that don't mind camping can verify special relativity. Surely it's time for Eric5 to believe in it. I am not going to believe in Time dilation. Like swansont said, "this is science. Empirical evidence that back up (or contradict) established therories are what need to be discussed." John, tell me, time is either a consideration, or a physical form of energy (energy that is flowing or condensed as in matter.) Which is it? You tell me what your definition of time is that allows it to be measured by the man made device called a clock. Also, have you noticed that no one on this thread has mentioned that my definitions of time and clocks are wrong. No one has taken issue with my definitions of time and clocks that back up my observation of why time dilation cannot physically occur. The ball is in your court.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted March 9, 2008 Posted March 9, 2008 If you are willing to redefine "time" to mean what you want, and not what is accepted, then certainly time dilation may not occur. As far as I know there is no "definition" of what time "is." Time is a fundamental quantity we can measure. Whether it is a fourth dimension or some strange flow is totally irrelevant. We observe that what we measure changes depending on velocity and gravity. That's what matters. We are limited in our understanding of phenomena by how we can measure them. Your question is similar to asking "what is space?" It's extraordinarily difficult to define, but it has certain characteristics we have observed and we can measure.
insane_alien Posted March 9, 2008 Posted March 9, 2008 I am not going to believe in Time dilation ahh starting from the conclusion are we? tut tut. anyway, why the hell should reality care what you do/don't believe in. if theres a brick coming towards your head you duck, you don't say that you don't believe in the brick therefore it won't hurt because it won't hit my head.
thedarkshade Posted March 9, 2008 Posted March 9, 2008 As far as I know there is no "definition" of what time "is."Actually there are a lot of definitions of what time is (most of them from philosophers), but unfortunately the issues has not yet been brightened enough to have a deeper understanding of it despite the numerous attempts of human mind during the history. ========== There is a lot of mystery related to time, so the subject has usually been left behind and considered metaphysical, something that is beyond out physical perception and hence we cannot fully understand it, and perhaps it is like that. But this is not a good reason to stop thinking about time, because the subject is left behind not due to being considered as metaphysical, but due to very little progress done in the field of understanding time. In philosophy there are several point of views which each in their way try to explain time, and some of the impossible paradoxes related with the issue, but yet we are quite far from completely grasping it. What I personally like is the way St. Augustin talks about time and his explanation of what time is. He considers time as a mind dimension, and the beauty of it stand on not violating some of the main philosophical principles and creates a perfect relation between different philosophies. First, considering time as a mind dimension completely fits with the idea of time belonging to idealist subjectivism. If we are not there to think of time, time itself wouldn't exist. It cannot exit independent from the observer (in a metaphorical meaning). The observer thinks of time, hence it must be a mind dimension. Augustin said that "if time weren't a mind dimension then how would we remember the past which is in out memory, feel the present due to our perceptions, and think of future". Then also saying time is a mind dimension perfectly fits the cartesian philosphy "I think, therefore I am" and Kant's philosophy of time being a priori form of sensualism! I am not going to believe in Time dilation.What about the experiments with accelerated radioactive particles? Their radioactive decay slows down by an exactly predicted value due to time dilation. You can believe what you want, but your own beliefs do not make a general true!
Eric 5 Posted March 9, 2008 Posted March 9, 2008 Are you talking about this book? http://bartleby.com/173/ If so, you do realise that this is meant as an introduction to Relativity, not an exhaustive text on the subject. Also, I see nothing in this book that supports your view. Yes that looks loke the same book. This is the book Einstein wrote. Any other book not written by him or under his guidance are just an interpretation. This is the book Einstein wrote. It is simple and to the point. Exhaustive text on the subject are just interpretations of what Einstein wrote. Making it more complicated does not make it more true or workable. "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Albert Einstein The book states that time appears to move slower. Einstein mentions clocks on trains. No specific clocks, just clocks. Einstein did not care to say what kind of clock because that is beside the point. The point is that because the speed of light is the same in all reference frames, moving or stationary, the only factor that can introduce a change in two clocks moving in two different reference frames, is the time it takes light to travel to the observer. The light from the clock near the observer will get to that observer more quickly than the light coming from a clock further away. In all the experiments of time dilation according to Special Relativity, there is supposed to be an observer near one clock and one that is further away that is moving relative to the observer. Just by the fact that there is a greater distance between the two clocks from the observers viewpoint means that the time it takes for light to reach the observer from the distant clock will be different from the time it takes light to reach the observer from the closer clock. When the observer looks at both clocks simultaneously, the light from the further clock will be carrying information that is “old” compared to the clock near by. Any light from the distant clock will be that light that was reflected off the clock and had to travel a distance. While that bit of info from that reflection is traveling it carries info of a past event. “Time” has carried on and things have changed since that light left the distant object. The data that an observer receives from this distant object cannot be considered what is actually occurring at the distant object at the time of receiving the data. Here is an example. Two of the same guns with two of the same type of ammunition. One gun is ten feet away from a target, the other gun is one hundred feet away from the target. Both guns are fired at the same time, the bullet from the closer gun will always reach the target first. Why? Is the further gun slower? Did the further bullet travel slower? No. The distance is greater. Now apply this to observing two clocks. To the observer light from the closer clock will reach him sooner that light from the further clock. If he then assumes that he further clock is slower, he is mistaken. It is not time that went slower, it was that there was a greater distance for the light to travel. Read the book. Look at chapter 8 entitled “on the idea of time in physics” It agrees with what I am saying. It is all relative to the speed of light from an object to an observer. Janus, please tell me what your idea of time is that fit’s the concept that time can physically slow down a clock.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted March 9, 2008 Posted March 9, 2008 The book is not the definitive source on relativity, it's a book designed to explain it to people. The definitive source is the series of papers Einstein published on the subject.
Norman Albers Posted March 9, 2008 Posted March 9, 2008 I like the "long-spaced antlers on the police car", or spaceships travelling in tandem. Two or three ships at millions of kilometers' distance but travelling together to maintain constant separation, define a coordinate system where simultaneous clocks can be agreed upon. However, the "stationary" observers being passed by these three ships have their own agreed-upon simultaneity. HEREIN LIES GREAT ?!?!?!
JohnFromAus Posted March 9, 2008 Author Posted March 9, 2008 I am not going to believe in Time dilation. Fact or not .... he has said it all !!! John
Eric 5 Posted March 9, 2008 Posted March 9, 2008 Actually there are a lot of definitions of what time is (most of them from philosophers), but unfortunately the issues has not yet been brightened enough to have a deeper understanding of it despite the numerous attempts of human mind during the history. . Physics has no standard definition of time? Are you going to tell me that measurements in the nanoseconds have no standard definition. Is time a physical thing? Or is time a human mind thing? When physics states that a time dilation occurred what definition of time are they using? A dilation of what exactly. What kind of science is this? Sounds like if there is no good working definition of time, then there can be no absolute measurements that use time as a measurement especially as small as a nanosecond. There is a lot of mystery related to time, so the subject has usually been left behind and considered metaphysical, something that is beyond out physical perception and hence we cannot fully understand it, and perhaps it is like that. But this is not a good reason to stop thinking about time, because the subject is left behind not due to being considered as metaphysical, but due to very little progress done in the field of understanding time. . There is a lot of mystery related to time! How do clocks measure this mystery? “Time has been left behind and considered metaphysical, something that is beyond our physical perception and hence we cannot fully understand it” Now time could be considered metaphysical. It is beyond our physical perception yet we can measure it in nanoseconds. The field of physics does not fully understand time yet can measure this thing down to the nanosecond. You tell me that physics does not fully understand time and yet you want me to trust their findings when they say that they measured this thing down to the nanosecond. Like a nanosecond is some real thing. A nanosecond of what? Very little progress has been done on the most fundamental cornerstone of time dilation, yet much is said about how time dilation has been tested and observed. They tell us that time dilation data is irrefutable, but just don’t ask them exactly what they are measuring. You want me to believe what I am told, and ignore what I see. Have you ever heard the expression “Who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes.?” This applies to the idea of time dilation. In philosophy there are several point of views which each in their way try to explain time, and some of the impossible paradoxes related with the issue, but yet we are quite far from completely grasping it.. “In philosophy there are several points of view” What about physics? So far you have said that time is: 1. A mystery. 2. Could be metaphysical. 3. Beyond our understanding 4. Cannot be fully understood. 5. Very little progress has been done in the field of time. What other subject in the physical sciences do you know of that is this undefined like this? With all this mystery behind the subject of time, how am I to trust any results that use this mystery as a reference? A dilation of what? What I personally like is the way St. Augustin talks about time and his explanation of what time is. He considers time as a mind dimension, and the beauty of it stand on not violating some of the main philosophical principles and creates a perfect relation between different philosophies. That is your opinion. I don’t mean to be rude, but I have spent a lot of time and energy on this forum discussing my observation that time dilation cannot physically occur, and this is what I get for a good solid definition of time. First, considering time as a mind dimension completely fits with the idea of time belonging to idealist subjectivism. Is this what is being measured in time dilation? If we are not there to think of time, time itself wouldn't exist. It cannot exit independent from the observer (in a metaphorical meaning). The observer thinks of time, hence it must be a mind dimension. Is this what is being measured in time dilation? Augustin said that "if time weren't a mind dimension then how would we remember the past which is in out memory, feel the present due to our perceptions, and think of future". Then also saying time is a mind dimension perfectly fits the cartesian philosphy "I think, therefore I am" and Kant's philosophy of time being a priori form of sensualism!.. What is the connection to time dilation? What about the experiments with accelerated radioactive particles? Their radioactive decay slows down by an exactly predicted value due to time dilation. What definition of time are they using when they tell us that time dilation occurred? They do not have an exact definition of time. If time is such a mystery to the physicist then why not just call it a mystery. A mystery dilation sounds more to the point according to your explanation of time. You can believe what you want, but your own beliefs do not make a general true! Who is doing the believing here? You just finished telling me that no one knows what time is, yet say that time dilation is a physical occurrence. A dilation of what? From what you have stated so far time is a mystery. You would have to be the one who is trying to ignore the facts that physics has no definition of time that fit’s the idea that a clock can measure it. Let alone a dilation of it. The facts state that time is a mystery to the field of physics. Yet you want to believe that time dilation occurs. “The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge.” Daniel J Boorstin “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 The above is a quote that eloquently states how people will accept data without much scrutiny or skepticism if that data hints at what they want to believe is true. Time dilation is a dilation of what? What is physically occurring that causes a time dilation to register on a man made device known as a clock.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted March 9, 2008 Posted March 9, 2008 Physics has no standard definition of time? Are you going to tell me that measurements in the nanoseconds have no standard definition. Is time a physical thing? Or is time a human mind thing? When physics states that a time dilation occurred what definition of time are they using? A dilation of what exactly. What kind of science is this? Sounds like if there is no good working definition of time, then there can be no absolute measurements that use time as a measurement especially as small as a nanosecond. We don't have a good working definition of gravity (gravitons? some sort of field? warped space-time? We need more experimentation) and we can measure it accurately.
Eric 5 Posted March 10, 2008 Posted March 10, 2008 Originally Posted by Eric 5 I am not going to believe in Time dilation. Fact or not .... he has said it all !!!John Leave beliefs to the field of religion and the mysterious. No data in the physical sciences should be dependent on belief. The confirmed data in the physical sciences is observed empirical data. Data that was achieved through the application of exact measurements, not data that was confirmed with such an ambiguous, undefined, mystery as the definition of time. Facts speak for themselves. I am not going to believe in time dilation being an actual physical occurrence, because that is not how science is conducted. Maybe you can tell me the relationship of how this thing called time, is measured by a clock. A clock is a physical object, what physical thing is it measuring? Time is either an energy form, (energy that flows, or energy that is condensed, as in matter) Or time is a concept. Which is it?
Klaynos Posted March 10, 2008 Posted March 10, 2008 We don't have a good working definition of gravity (gravitons? some sort of field? warped space-time? We need more experimentation) and we can measure it accurately. Interestingly our definition of length is based on time, so if we can't measure time, we also can't measure length... *hits random people with a ruler*
JohnFromAus Posted March 10, 2008 Author Posted March 10, 2008 time is either a consideration, or a physical form of energy (energy that is flowing or condensed as in matter.) Which is it? What do you mean by "a consideration"? It seems to me time has the same qualities as the other dimensions and can be measured with appropriate instruments. What's the difference between measuring a length with a ruler and a time with a clock? Length is not an energy but I assume you are not denying that length can be measured.So I am assuming you believe length to be a "consideration" which can be measured. So what's the big problem about time? Are you also denying the fact that there will be a difference in the length of an object measured in its rest frame to that measured in a frame in relative motion?
Klaynos Posted March 10, 2008 Posted March 10, 2008 A clock is a physical object, what physical thing is it measuring? Time is either an energy form, (energy that flows, or energy that is condensed, as in matter) Or time is a concept. Which is it? Neither. When we measure time we measure oscillations. Do you think the same about distance, that it's either energy or a concept?
Eric 5 Posted March 10, 2008 Posted March 10, 2008 We don't have a good working definition of gravity (gravitons? some sort of field? warped space-time? We need more experimentation) and we can measure it accurately. We can measure what this force (gravity) does in the physical universe. We may not know what exactly causes this force (gravity), but we see its effects. The term of gravity was given to this force that is observable. The force of gravity was existing before man existed and before he gave it a name. What was time before man existed and gave it a name? Nobody needs a device to measure gravity to know that it is there. The presence of gravity has an effect on everything in its sphere of influence. Gravity exists without being measured. What is time when it is not being measured? Without a clock what is this thing called time? What does a clock measure? How does anyone know this time thing exists without a clock? Tell me what time is. You have two options. Either time is a form of energy, or time is a consideration. Which do you think?
Recommended Posts