A time problem

[Klaynos]

If they're separated by 186,000 miles after 1 second, they moved at ~ c/2 in the lab frame. That shouldn't be a problem.

 

My mistake, misread it!

[Motor Daddy]

We define the duration of the second, but the behavior of time is a property of the universe, and we don't get to define that.

 

Time is relative to the frame of reference you are in when you measure it.

 

What do you mean "the behavior of time?" Time is a duration, it's as simple as that.

Edited June 19, 2008 by Motor Daddy

[swansont]

What do you mean "the behavior of time?" Time is a duration, it's a simple as that.

 

And we won't agree on a duration if we are in different frames of reference. It's a simple as that.

[Klaynos]

What do you mean "the behavior of time?" Time is a duration, it's a simple as that.

 

Kinda, but it can have behaviour associated with it, which time (and space) does.

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0702157

 

Looks to be a nice derivation of the Lorentz transforms that shows how time is relative.

[Motor Daddy]

And we won't agree on a duration if we are in different frames of reference. It's a simple as that.

 

Well, if we don't agree with the duration, and I have the universal second measuring device, then where does that leave you? Are you trying to call a second a minute?

[ydoaPs]

Well, if we don't agree with the duration, and I have the universal second measuring device, then where does that leave you? Are you trying to call a second a minute?

 

"How do the Heisenberg Compensators work?"

 

"Very well, thank you."

[Motor Daddy]

Kinda, but it can have behaviour associated with it, which time (and space) does.

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0702157

 

Looks to be a nice derivation of the Lorentz transforms that shows how time is relative.

 

And here is a paper for you to read, although you will probably not agree with it, but that's irrelevant. The paper is accurate as far as I'm concerned.

 

http://doc.cern.ch//archive/electronic/other/ext/ext-2003-042.pdf

 

Pay particular attention to paragraph 3.

 

"How do the Heisenberg Compensators work?"

 

"Very well, thank you."

 

Heisenberg? As in:

 

"The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa."

--Heisenberg, uncertainty paper, 1927

 

I love that quote!

Edited June 19, 2008 by Motor Daddy
multiple post merged

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Well, if we don't agree with the duration, and I have the universal second measuring device, then where does that leave you? Are you trying to call a second a minute?

 

There is no universal second measuring device. I could observe your "universal" device from a different reference frame and get a different answer than you get in your reference frame -- even though we're looking at the same device.

[Motor Daddy]

There is no universal second measuring device. I could observe your "universal" device from a different reference frame and get a different answer than you get in your reference frame -- even though we're looking at the same device.

 

No you won't, because you are counting the rotations, and the rotations don't lie.

[mooeypoo]

But the length of the rotations varies - the "time" it takes to complete a rotation.

 

That's what dilation of time DOES.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

If I get myself two atomic clocks, the accepted standard for timekeeping, and synchronize them as exactly as possible, I can then stick one of them on a spaceship and be certain that they'll continue to agree with each other. (The atomic clocks are similar to your rotating thingummy.) I can then have the spaceship fly away at 0.5c for a year or two and return. Guess what? When you compare the clocks (like your rotating doohicky), they won't agree with each other on how much time has elapsed. Which clock is the "correct" one?

[nstansbury]

Motor Daddy, you seem to have fundamentally misunderstood what being "relative" means - and you don't need Einstein to explain it....

 

Try this for a story....

 

A flat bed railway carriage is travelling at 90 MPH down the tracks.

 

Bill & Ben are playing catch down the length of the carriage. Bill, standing at the front of the carriage, throws the ball back to Ben at the rear, just as it rushes through the station where Mary is standing at the platform.

 

Bill can throw the ball to Ben so as it always takes two seconds, and they have uber accurate clocks so they KNOW it always takes 2 seconds for the ball to reach Ben.

 

If, however you asked Mary to really accurately measure what was going on, she might set up laser measurement devices on the platform so that the ball breaks the beam as it goes by etc.

 

She will be absolutely adamant that the ball is travelling at about 90MPH, as Bill who threw the ball is travelling at 90 MPH as well, and her uber accurate equipment says so. So it must have been travelling at 90 MPH - right?

 

Not according to Ben - who caught it or Bill - who threw it - surely they'd know?

 

Now, neither Mary or Ben will agree on the speed of the ball, and even worse Bill was throwing it backwards so how can it be moving forward at 90 MPH - because Mary's very expensive equipment says it was?

 

But to make matters worse, they won't agree on the time either, because Ben was moving past Mary's at 90 MPH, he is moving towards the ball in Mary's view at 90 MPH - though he'll be adamant he's stationary and didn't move an inch.

 

Because of this, Mary will see Bill throw the ball and a split second later Ben catch it, even though Bill & Ben will be adamant that their uber accurate clocks MUST be right and it took 2 seconds.

 

They all synchronised their watches that morning to their favourite atomic clock, and both Bill's and Mary's uber watches are running fine. When the train stops and Mary catches up, both clocks will read the same time.

 

Neither will agree on how fast the ball was travelling nor how long it took Ben to catch it.

 

Neither are "wrong" - in fact both are right in their own frame of reference.

[Motor Daddy]

But the length of the rotations varies - the "time" it takes to complete a rotation.

 

That's what dilation of time DOES.

 

WRONG! The shaft runs at a CONSTANT VELOCITY.

 

If I get myself two atomic clocks, the accepted standard for timekeeping, and synchronize them as exactly as possible, I can then stick one of them on a spaceship and be certain that they'll continue to agree with each other. (The atomic clocks are similar to your rotating thingummy.) I can then have the spaceship fly away at 0.5c for a year or two and return. Guess what? When you compare the clocks (like your rotating doohicky), they won't agree with each other on how much time has elapsed. Which clock is the "correct" one?

 

So we agree before we stick the clock on the ship that the stationary clock mounted next to us (non accelerated) is the correct definition of a second. There is no outside forces acting on the stationary clock. When the clock on the ship returns after being accelerated, if it doesn't agree with the standard (stationary clock), then it is WRONG! The official universal time is the standard, not a variation of the standard!

 

Motor Daddy, you seem to have fundamentally misunderstood what being "relative" means - and you don't need Einstein to explain it....

 

Try this for a story....

 

A flat bed railway carriage is travelling at 90 MPH down the tracks.

 

Bill & Ben are playing catch down the length of the carriage. Bill, standing at the front of the carriage, throws the ball back to Ben at the rear, just as it rushes through the station where Mary is standing at the platform.

 

Bill can throw the ball to Ben so as it always takes two seconds, and they have uber accurate clocks so they KNOW it always takes 2 seconds for the ball to reach Ben.

 

If, however you asked Mary to really accurately measure what was going on, she might set up laser measurement devices on the platform so that the ball breaks the beam as it goes by etc.

 

She will be absolutely adamant that the ball is travelling at about 90MPH, as Bill who threw the ball is travelling at 90 MPH as well, and her uber accurate equipment says so. So it must have been travelling at 90 MPH - right?

 

Not according to Ben - who caught it or Bill - who threw it - surely they'd know?

 

Now, neither Mary or Ben will agree on the speed of the ball, and even worse Bill was throwing it backwards so how can it be moving forward at 90 MPH - because Mary's very expensive equipment says it was?

 

But to make matters worse, they won't agree on the time either, because Ben was moving past Mary's at 90 MPH, he is moving towards the ball in Mary's view at 90 MPH - though he'll be adamant he's stationary and didn't move an inch.

 

Because of this, Mary will see Bill throw the ball and a split second later Ben catch it, even though Bill & Ben will be adamant that their uber accurate clocks MUST be right and it took 2 seconds.

 

They all synchronised their watches that morning to their favourite atomic clock, and both Bill's and Mary's uber watches are running fine. When the train stops and Mary catches up, both clocks will read the same time.

 

Neither will agree on how fast the ball was travelling nor how long it took Ben to catch it.

 

Neither are "wrong" - in fact both are right in their own frame of reference.

 

Why are you demonstrating illusions for me?

 

90 MPH means 90 MPH.

 

When you throw a ball, regardless of YOUR motion, the ball takes x amount of time to travel a specific distance, regardless of how Mary, Bob, Paul, Jeno, Larry, Tom, or Jane perceive the situation. Those are ILLUSIONS, and they are not the BALL. The measure of the ball is from point A to point B, and the time it takes to get there.

[Klaynos]

I really don't think any of your threads can continue without you doing some reading on special relativity.

[Motor Daddy]

I really don't think any of your threads can continue without you doing some reading on special relativity.

 

The problem is how things are measured, and SR does not measure things accurately. Explain how SR addresses acceleration of an object from a zero velocity to a velocity of 100 ft/sec in one second? How far did the object travel in that one second?

[Klaynos]

SR cannot discus acceleration, you need GR for that, and you need to understand SR to even start heading in that direction.

[nstansbury]

Why are you demonstrating illusions for me?

 

90 MPH means 90 MPH.

 

When you throw a ball' date=' regardless of YOUR motion, the ball takes x amount of time to travel a specific distance, regardless of how Mary, Bob, Paul, Jeno, Larry, Tom, or Jane perceive the situation. Those are ILLUSIONS, and they are not the BALL. The measure of the ball is from point A to point B, and the time it takes to get there.[/quote']

 

They are only illusions because you can't explain them.

 

"90 MPH means 90 MPH."

 

No it doesn't, You think you could throw a ball at 90 MPH?

 

In fact - lets throw the ball on Concorde at Mach 2 - according to you the ball is travelling at Mach 2 - think you can throw a ball at twice the speed of sound?

 

"The measure of the ball is from point A to point B, and the time it takes to get there."

 

Exactly!!

 

And if point A and B are moving when C try to measure it what then?

 

Bill and Ben are two points - why can't they measure amongst themselves?

 

How fast are you moving relative to your car when driving down the road at 55 MPH? You are moving relatively to the road at 55MPH, but relatively to you car at 0MPH

[mooeypoo]

WRONG! The shaft runs at a CONSTANT VELOCITY.

How 'bout this - instead of us arguing silliness, how 'bout you PROVE what you say is right and what 100 years of physics theories and proofs are wrong.

 

After all, we are in a SCIENTIFIC forum, not a fantasy stomp-your-feet-on-the-ground sandbox.

 

For your claims to make any sort of sense, you need to base them on proven observations, and then explain how they fit the experiments that seem to refute them.

 

Until you do that, you're just churning water in a very unscientific way in a scientific forum you chose to post in.

 

Own up to your responsibility and prove your statements.

We do, even though you try to ignore them.

 

So we agree before we stick the clock on the ship that the stationary clock mounted next to us (non accelerated) is the correct definition of a second.

 

Yes.

 

There is no outside forces acting on the stationary clock.

There are, but we'll ignore them. (gravity, anyone?)

 

When the clock on the ship returns after being accelerated, if it doesn't agree with the standard (stationary clock), then it is WRONG!

No. The clock "comes back" and its every second is the same second as the other clock. The problem is that when the stationary clock shows 1 second, then 2 then 3 in equal intervals, the accelerated clock shows 3 and the 4 and then 5 (respectively) in the SAME intervals.

 

The measurement of time is the same for both clocks when they're both stationary, because they're both back in the same reference.

 

The only time the measurement of that second is wrong is when they are not in the same reference frame -- hence, one is accelerated.

 

The difference is the INTERVAL of the seconds in both reference frames.

You really do need to read a bit about relativity. your presentation of it is wrong, which makes your faulty conclusions unsurprising.

 

 

The official universal time is the standard, not a variation of the standard!

The official universal time on EARTH while NOT MOVING is standard.

Read relativity.

 

I suggest you read a bit about GPS satellites too, since the wouldn't be able to EXIST and FUNCTION without relying on the theory of relativity.

 

You're ignoring facts. Nice for you. And yet.. unrealistic, a bit, wouldn't you say?

 

 

Why are you demonstrating illusions for me?

 

90 MPH means 90 MPH.

Yep. Just for me (stationary) the hour will SEEM SHORTER than you the accelerating.

 

We will still both experience 90MPH, and in our own frame of reference we wouldn't feel the difference. But you looking at me, will see me slower. Me looking at you will see you faster.

 

Proven. PROVEN. Stop arguing factual data.

 

Start reading about the theory you seem to claim is false. You seem to misrepresent it. That's called Strawman, and while it's a fun fallacy to do (hey, it gets you right every time!) it's also fallacious, and hence non scientific.

 

~moo

[nstansbury]

if it doesn't agree with the standard (stationary clock), then it is WRONG! The official universal time is the standard, not a variation of the standard!

 

That'll be the "Standard Stationary Clock" on earth - the same Earth that rotates? So your "stationary" clock is already moving at about 19 mi/s

 

Doesn't seem very "stationary" to me.

[Klaynos]

The question really is what is it stationary relative to?

[Motor Daddy]

The question really is what is it stationary relative to?

 

A real second is not relative to anything, it is a duration of time for all to be measured against.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

And how do you define a "real second"? None of your clocks will agree.

[Edtharan]

Motor Daddy, you seem to have a problem with understanding Frames of Reference.

 

A Frame of Reference is essentially How you are moving and The Gravitational Field around you.

 

(however as in these examples we are not taking into account gravity, we can leave that out for now)

 

If you are moving the same as something else, then you are both in the same frame of reference. If you are moving differently, then you are in a different frame of reference.

 

Now anything in your frame of reference experiences the same effects you do. So if you have a watch, no matter how accurate, then if your frame of reference has time slowing down, then your watch will also experience that slowdown.

 

Because you have slowed down and everything around you in your frame of reference has slowed down, you are not aware of this. Everything seems normal to you. However when you look at the outside world (that is everything else that is not in your frame of reference), it will appear to be sped up. You will see clocks moving faster, people ageing faster and so forth.

 

However, someone in the outside frame of reference where time hasn't slowed down, will still see everything running normally (because everything is in their frame of reference so it experiences the same effects as that observer). But, they will see you slowed down and your watch running slowly.

 

This is not and illusion.

 

Processes (like chemical reactions and subatomic reactions - like the decay of a lone neutron into a proton and electron) also experience this effect. If this effect was only an illusion, then such processes would be unaffected, but they are (and have been measured).

 

Atomic clocks work on a process within an atom (Caesium) where by it will regularly emit a photon. It does this so regularly that they are the most accurate clocks that currently exist.

 

It is also not dependant on Distance for its operation. However, when such clocks are accelerated (put into another frame of reference), they clearly show dilations of time.

 

Remember, if the dilation of time was an illusion, then such a process should go unaffected. If it was dependent of Distance, it should be unaffected.

 

But it is effected by it. Therefore this time dilation must be real and not an illusion.

 

The atomic clocks are not measuring time by having a distance analogue (as it is with a watch), but are measuring events where the only separation is in time (they are even emitted form the same object). Therefore the only effect on this is changes in Time.

 

So, if all we are measuring is separations in time, and we see changes in time, then it really must be change in time, not some illusion where distance or some other factor is confusing us.

[Motor Daddy]

And how do you define a "real second"? None of your clocks will agree.

 

A real second is a specific duration. Just because you have trouble measuring that duration because of inconsistent clocks doesn't mean the duration of a second changes.

[mooeypoo]

A real second is a specific duration. Just because you have trouble measuring that duration because of inconsistent clocks doesn't mean the duration of a second changes.

Alright, fine, then by that definition, a "real second" only exists in your time reference.