Why does speed time slow down when you go fast then the speed of light

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Everyone just hold on a second. A lot of what is being said here is because you are just assuming what Einstein said was true. I just read a book describing how time is supposed to "slow down" as you travel faster and faster towards the speed of light but in reality..... that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

Time only "slows" down to the person tracking your time on Earth, but not for the person on the spaceship moving at the speed of light of .5c (whatever) you're on.....the observer's time on earth stays constant but that observer clocks your time on the ship to be slower. However the person on board the space ship's clock ISN'T REALLY SLOWER! It is still going the normal time accorrding to his perception....so therefore time really ISN'T slowing down for the person on board the spaceship going at c or .5c.

It is, actually. The key in relativity is the "relative" bit: time is relative. Time has "slowed down" for one person and is faster for the other, but it isn't just a perception: both observers are correct. Neither is seeing an illusion. All inertial reference frames are valid.

[NYSportsGuy]

A lot of what Einstein said about how time slows down as you move faster away is not 100% correct. All the other stuff based on that, as a result, isn't 100% correct either.

 

According what you guys and Einstein says about Relativity: Time is different depending on where you observe certain things happening. So your perception of time is different form the person moving at c and conducting an experiment for instance.

 

Note: This is NOT a Doppler Effect, a Doppler effect measures how far light is away from you without a medium and produces either a blue or red color shift based on their wavelengths as a result. We already know the light you are observing in this scenario is moving AWAY from you....so why is the Doppler shift even needed? So forget the whole Doppler shift concept for a second.

 

Anyhow, whoever is the one percieved to be moving will be percieved by the other observer to be moving SLOWER. That is the basis behind Time Dilation. But why this is becasue the change on motion direction and distance at which you are observing the body in motion that is causing things to hit your eye slower. Thus it makes a perception. To prove this, say your leave the Earth in a spaceship going .9c relative to Earth, rememebr that your heart will continue to beat normally to you and your cells will divide at a normal rate, however to the observer on Earth, your ship's clock runs more slowly thatn theirs, and as a result for every one hour that goes by on your clock, 2 hours may go by on the earth clock. For every one month that goes by on your calendar four months go by on Earth...etc. However accoording to Einstein, motion is relative. So the person moving at .9c away from the earth at constant speed can say that it is the Earth moving at .9c AWAY FROM ME instead and as a result they would have their time slowing down and thus in my four months away it will only be one month for them on Earth.

 

But who is right? Both can't be older or younger at the same time.

 

I see this being a contradiction in what Einstein had proposed in his Time Dilation theory.

[swansont]

 

But who is right? Both can't be older or younger at the same time.

 

I see this being a contradiction in what Einstein had proposed in his Time Dilation theory.

 

No, it's exactly what Einstein proposed — there is no absolute frame of reference, so you have no way of saying who is right. Observers in different reference frames will not agree on things like measurements of distance and time, and of simultaneity of events. This is the so-called twins paradox, the basis of which Einstein called a "peculiar consequence" in his 1905 paper, and which he later discussed in 1911.

[Janus]

Note: This is NOT a Doppler Effect, a Doppler effect measures how far light is away from you without a medium and produces either a blue or red color shift based on their wavelengths as a result. We already know the light you are observing in this scenario is moving AWAY from you....so why is the Doppler shift even needed? So forget the whole Doppler shift concept for a second.

 

You said:

To REPHRASE: The time it takes for the light or the movements of the person on board the ship traveling at .5c or c to hit the stationary observer's eye on Earth gets longer and longer exponentially as the ship goes farther and farther away form the observer on Earth. So technically, you (the observer) see what they do on spaceship a lot longer than when they ACTAULLY DID IT.....hence time appears "slower" to you on earth, but for the people on the spaceship, time is the same for the person traveling at c.

 

And this is a description of how the Doppler effect works, not how time dilation works. While The Doppler effect does red-shift the light from an receding object it also creates the perceived effect of slowed down time for the receding object. Time dilation is not based on this perception, and does not rely on increasing distance, only on the relative speed. The object could be approaching at .5c and you would still measure its clock as ticking slower than yours due to time dilation.

 

Anyhow, whoever is the one percieved to be moving will be percieved by the other observer to be moving SLOWER. That is the basis behind Time Dilation. But why this is becasue the change on motion direction and distance at which you are observing the body in motion that is causing things to hit your eye slower. Thus it makes a perception. To prove this, say your leave the Earth in a spaceship going .9c relative to Earth, rememebr that your heart will continue to beat normally to you and your cells will divide at a normal rate, however to the observer on Earth, your ship's clock runs more slowly thatn theirs, and as a result for every one hour that goes by on your clock, 2 hours may go by on the earth clock. For every one month that goes by on your calendar four months go by on Earth...etc. However accoording to Einstein, motion is relative. So the person moving at .9c away from the earth at constant speed can say that it is the Earth moving at .9c AWAY FROM ME instead and as a result they would have their time slowing down and thus in my four months away it will only be one month for them on Earth.

 

But who is right? Both can't be older or younger at the same time.

 

I see this being a contradiction in what Einstein had proposed in his Time Dilation theory.

 

The problem you are having is that you haven't wrapped your mind around the concept that time is relative and not absolute. This can be a hard thing to do because it goes against one's intuition and common everyday experience. Until you can wrap your mind around this concept you will continue to butt heads with Relativity.

 

For example, in your example you say that they both can't be younger and older at the same time, but in Relativity they actually can, or more correctly, the question of "who is right?" has no absolute answer.

 

Let me try a little analogy to show you what I'm talking about.

 

Say you have two people, one facing West, and standing a little North of him, another facing East.

 

If you ask them who the most Northernly, both will agree. If you ask them to point South, both will point in the same absolute direction. In this situation, One of them can't be both North and South of the other at the same time. There is an absoluteness of of their relative North and South positions.

 

Now ask them who's to the Left of who. Each will say that they are to the Left of the the other. If you ask them to point Right, they will point in opposite directions. In this situation each can be to the left of the other and be correct. There is no way to say who is really to the left of who.

 

Time actually behaves like the second example and not the first. Common experience has, until quite recently in Man's history, fooled us into thinking that it behaved like the first example. This is because the effects of Relative time do not become apparent until relative velocities become quite large, and the velocities we deal with in normal life are too small for them to show up. Its like the first example, but everyone is facing in almost the same direction. No one notices that time flows Left-Right rather than North-South, because Left/right and North/South are almost exactly the same.

[Eric 5]

I was woundering why time slows down when you go faster then the speed of light

 

 

Time APPEARS to slow down in a ship that is traveling at or near the speed of light to an observer that is traveling much slower or is at rest relative to the ship. It APPEARS to slow down, but time does not actually slow down. If clocks or any time piece were actually influenced by a thing called time, in effect, driven or motivated by a force called time, than I could see that if you slow time it will in effect slow the meter or device that measures this force called time. But we all know that clocks are not motivated by time nor do clocks have any effect on time, changing a clock does not change time. So if clocks actually have no intimate connection with a thing or force we call time, than accelerating a clock to near the speed of light could effect the clock, it may slow the machine known as a clock, but the motion of a clock, or the position of the clocks hands have no effect on time. If a clock is shown to go slower from extreme velocity, is it time that went slower, or just the clock? If you really want to believe that if a clock that appears to go slower means that time is going slower, than you would also have to believe that time motivates the clock solely and that no other energy is involved in making a clock run or work, which would mean that time alone drives clocks and there really is no need to plug them in, add batteries or wind them up. Before anyone can state truthfully that time dilation actually occurs, they would have to prove that clocks are driven by time, and that extreme velocity on a clock does not hinder or effect in any way the physical workings of a clock to make it mechanically slow down.

 

First of all, Einstein predicted that c (light speed) is the ultimate velocity. Nothing in the universe travels faster than light! So, time slows down ONLY as an observer approaches the speed of light. Here's how it works:

 

Imagine that an observer could travel 99% of the speed of light. We assume that the observer can now study the beam of light more easily, because now the light is only travelling 1% faster, right? Wrong! Light will continue to travel 100% faster than the observer, because light travels at a constant rate relative to us, despite our best efforts to try and catch it up! Here's how time slows down: to the observer travelling at 99% the speed of light, everything seems normal. His clocks will tick at a regular rate of one second per second, and his experiments will yield the expected results. But because he observes light to be travelling at the constant c, we are led to the conclusion that time has slowed down for him!

 

In short, we conclude that time slows down for objects travelling near the speed of light, because it explains how light continues to travel at it's constant rate, despite the speed of the observer relative to it. Sound strange? Almost unbelievably, it's all been verified experimentally.

 

 

Time APPEARS to slow down. It SEEMS as though time slows down. Time does not effect the motion of clocks, time does not make clocks run or work. If clocks were motivated by time, than they would not need some form of power source to make them run. Clocks have no connection to a force called time. Clocks are just man made machines that are made to give a desired result when operating properly, they are not meters that measure time flow. Just because a clock slows down does not mean that the only cause is that time slowed down. If clocks are not motivated by the flow of time, and clocks can easily be manipulated by man to show any time, and if clocks are only as reliable as the man who sets it up and notes the readings, than why would anyone assume that a change in a clock means that there was a change in time?

 

Actually, time slows down with any acceleration. Atomic clocks aboard planes have different readings when compared to those on the ground. The difference is very small, so we don't notice in everyday life.

 

 

These atomic clocks on the planes, when the readings were compared to the ones one the ground was this comparison done while the planes were still in flight, or were the comparisons made when the planes landed? There is different phenomenon involved in either scenario that would effect the readings.

[NYSportsGuy]

You said:

 

 

 

No one notices that time flows Left-Right rather than North-South, because Left/right and North/South are almost exactly the same.

 

 

I liked your explanation stating the person North facing East and the pseron South of him facing West and the fact that they are both to the right of each other and would be correct in saying so.....however that is just further validating my general idea of what exactly is Einstein's point?

 

By the way, according to the laws of thermodynamics time doesn't move "left to right" it moves from "hot to cold" and can never be reversed as a result. It's the molecules moving from "hot to cold" that causes all future movement not "left to right" becasue in theory, there is no "left" and no "right".

 

Bascially (assuming Einstein's theory of Relativity is correct) all Einstein is saying is that reality as we know it is all "perception" and "illusion". Time and distance aren't constant for two people anywhere in the universe traveling at different uniform speeds so therefore both time and distance I guess aren't good standards of measurement because they are not consistent. Okay so what?

 

Is he just trying to prove that he is the Neitzche of mathematical phyisicists? What's the whole point?

[Eric 5]

 

For example, in your example you say that they both can't be younger and older at the same time, but in Relativity they actually can, or more correctly, the question of "who is right?" has no absolute answer.

 

Let me try a little analogy to show you what I'm talking about.

 

Say you have two people, one facing West, and standing a little North of him, another facing East.

 

If you ask them who the most Northernly, both will agree. If you ask them to point South, both will point in the same absolute direction. In this situation, One of them can't be both North and South of the other at the same time. There is an absoluteness of of their relative North and South positions.

 

Now ask them who's to the Left of who. Each will say that they are to the Left of the the other. If you ask them to point Right, they will point in opposite directions. In this situation each can be to the left of the other and be correct. There is no way to say who is really to the left of who.

 

Time actually behaves like the second example and not the first. Common experience has, until quite recently in Man's history, fooled us into thinking that it behaved like the first example. This is because the effects of Relative time do not become apparent until relative velocities become quite large, and the velocities we deal with in normal life are too small for them to show up. Its like the first example, but everyone is facing in almost the same direction. No one notices that time flows Left-Right rather than North-South, because Left/right and North/South are almost exactly the same.

 

You say that time behaves like your second example of who is really left of who. Time BEHAVES like this? Time acts in a way like this? Are you saying that time has a behavior? Because in your example the people involved are behaving in a certain way, the directions of left/right are not behaving at all, they are just concepts. So are you trying to say that man’s idea of time dilation is similar to your left/right example? If you notice, only the people are behaving in response to questions. The directions of left/right are not behaving. The only things that can behave are real physical, tangible things; not concepts.

 

If you were to say that time is perceived by man like the directions were in the second example, that would convey the idea better. Time, like other concepts are perceived, but they do not act or behave. Man perceives a time dilation, time does not actually do anything or react in any manner, it is only perceived.

 

Time can be experienced, but time does not itself experience anything.

[foursixand2]

At the speed of light, you would be instantly transported to your destination, because time would not exist for you. How can you exceed an instant?

 

I dont think that could be true. Even light takes time to travel a distance, for example the light of our sun reaches our planet within 8 minutes. So are you saying rather you could travel anywhere within that 'beam' of light? that makes more sense . . . maybe. I'd just want to know the reason behind that statement

 

also

 

what would be the definition of light here? Is not light electromagnetic radiation? and if that is the case isnt there a difference in speed from sonar, to radio, infrared, visible, ultrasonic, ultraviolet (thats probably not the right order but you understand the principal of my question)

[swansont]

Time APPEARS to slow down in a ship that is traveling at or near the speed of light to an observer that is traveling much slower or is at rest relative to the ship. It APPEARS to slow down, but time does not actually slow down. If clocks or any time piece were actually influenced by a thing called time, in effect, driven or motivated by a force called time, than I could see that if you slow time it will in effect slow the meter or device that measures this force called time. But we all know that clocks are not motivated by time nor do clocks have any effect on time, changing a clock does not change time. So if clocks actually have no intimate connection with a thing or force we call time, than accelerating a clock to near the speed of light could effect the clock, it may slow the machine known as a clock, but the motion of a clock, or the position of the clocks hands have no effect on time. If a clock is shown to go slower from extreme velocity, is it time that went slower, or just the clock? If you really want to believe that if a clock that appears to go slower means that time is going slower, than you would also have to believe that time motivates the clock solely and that no other energy is involved in making a clock run or work, which would mean that time alone drives clocks and there really is no need to plug them in, add batteries or wind them up. Before anyone can state truthfully that time dilation actually occurs, they would have to prove that clocks are driven by time, and that extreme velocity on a clock does not hinder or effect in any way the physical workings of a clock to make it mechanically slow down.

 

 

 

 

Time APPEARS to slow down. It SEEMS as though time slows down. Time does not effect the motion of clocks, time does not make clocks run or work. If clocks were motivated by time, than they would not need some form of power source to make them run. Clocks have no connection to a force called time. Clocks are just man made machines that are made to give a desired result when operating properly, they are not meters that measure time flow. Just because a clock slows down does not mean that the only cause is that time slowed down. If clocks are not motivated by the flow of time, and clocks can easily be manipulated by man to show any time, and if clocks are only as reliable as the man who sets it up and notes the readings, than why would anyone assume that a change in a clock means that there was a change in time?

 

That's not an accurate representation of what's going on. Anyone can make a clock runs slower or faster by making mechanical or electrical adjustments to it. But that's not what is happening here. The clocks run at different rates despite the fact that no adjustments (purposeful or accidental) are happening. But clocks measure time. Once you eliminate the physical changes to the clock, you are left with changes to time.

 

 

These atomic clocks on the planes, when the readings were compared to the ones one the ground was this comparison done while the planes were still in flight, or were the comparisons made when the planes landed? There is different phenomenon involved in either scenario that would effect the readings.

 

After they landed. But the key here is that despite traveling at about the same speed relative to the earth, they were traveling at different speeds with respect to an inertial frame, and showed different values for the dilation. All consistent with relativity.

 

GPS signals, however, are sent continuously (as are many other satellite signals). You couldn't get the system to work without relativity.

 

what would be the definition of light here? Is not light electromagnetic radiation? and if that is the case isnt there a difference in speed from sonar, to radio, infrared, visible, ultrasonic, ultraviolet (thats probably not the right order but you understand the principal of my question)

 

Sonar and ultrasonic are sound, not EM. But the rest all travel at the same speed in a vacuum (you will get speed differences in a dispersive medium, which is how a prism splits the colors up)

 

Bascially (assuming Einstein's theory of Relativity is correct) all Einstein is saying is that reality as we know it is all "perception" and "illusion". Time and distance aren't constant for two people anywhere in the universe traveling at different uniform speeds so therefore both time and distance I guess aren't good standards of measurement because they are not consistent. Okay so what?

 

Is he just trying to prove that he is the Neitzche of mathematical phyisicists? What's the whole point?

 

No, not illusion. It's assumed that what you measure is what is real. The point is that this is how nature behaves, and that's what scientists try and figure out.

[Janus]

I liked your explanation stating the person North facing East and the pseron South of him facing West and the fact that they are both to the right of each other and would be correct in saying so.....however that is just further validating my general idea of what exactly is Einstein's point?

 

By the way, according to the laws of thermodynamics time doesn't move "left to right" it moves from "hot to cold" and can never be reversed as a result. It's the molecules moving from "hot to cold" that causes all future movement not "left to right" becasue in theory, there is no "left" and no "right".

 

Bascially (assuming Einstein's theory of Relativity is correct) all Einstein is saying is that reality as we know it is all "perception" and "illusion". Time and distance aren't constant for two people anywhere in the universe traveling at different uniform speeds so therefore both time and distance I guess aren't good standards of measurement because they are not consistent. Okay so what?

 

Is he just trying to prove that he is the Neitzche of mathematical phyisicists? What's the whole point?

 

Time and distance measurements are consistent, they just aren't absolute. But if you are looking for something that is the same for all observers, there is the space-time interval.

 

Again, let's go back to the analogy of people facing different direction. Only this time they are facing at a 37° angle to each other. On the ground is a rod. The rod lays so that its long axis faces in the same direction as one of the persons is facing. For this person the ends of the rod are separated by 1 meter in the front/back direction and zero meters in the left/right direction.

 

For the other person, the ends of the rod are separated by 0.8 meters in the front back direction and 0.6 meters in the left/right direction.

 

While both disagree as the separation in front-back and left front, When each takes his front/back and left/front separation together, they determine that the rod's ends are separated by 1 meter.

 

If we consider the front/back direction as distance and left/right as time, we have a picture of the space-time interval. The two observers can disagree as to the separation of two events in time and the separation in space, but they agree as the total separation in space-time or the space-time interval.

 

As to Einstein's point. The nature of time and space is fundamental. Everything we know is based on it. The Equation e=mc² which relates matter and energy comes directly from the relative nature of these two concepts.

[NYSportsGuy]

No according to Einstein (and I have it in words here in a book that explains his theories in detail), gravity and acceleration are the same thing as well as uniform motion and standing still because then properties of physics and time behave the same in both cases. This being the case, the special theory of relativity is ONLY CORRECT if one is looking at SOMEONE ELSE in motion relative to themsleves. Only then do they experience a time dilation, but once again as ERIC5 explained so rationally, time can be experienced, but time itself does not experience anything. If I percieve time to be slower on your ship moving at c and you on the ship percieve it be normal......how can we both be correct? If we both are what does that tell us about time? It tells us that time, as a concept, DOESN'T really exist. It is man-made, artificial....therefore why even worry about it?

 

In essence, DISTANCE is what truly affects time.....not motion.

 

Great Quote:Time APPEARS to slow down in a ship that is traveling at or near the speed of light to an observer that is traveling much slower or is at rest relative to the ship. It APPEARS to slow down, but time does not actually slow down. If clocks or any time piece were actually influenced by a thing called time, in effect, driven or motivated by a force called time, than I could see that if you slow time it will in effect slow the meter or device that measures this force called time. But we all know that clocks are not motivated by time nor do clocks have any effect on time, changing a clock does not change time. So if clocks actually have no intimate connection with a thing or force we call time, than accelerating a clock to near the speed of light could effect the clock, it may slow the machine known as a clock, but the motion of a clock, or the position of the clocks hands have no effect on time. If a clock is shown to go slower from extreme velocity, is it time that went slower, or just the clock? If you really want to believe that if a clock that appears to go slower means that time is going slower, than you would also have to believe that time motivates the clock solely and that no other energy is involved in making a clock run or work, which would mean that time alone drives clocks and there really is no need to plug them in, add batteries or wind them up. Before anyone can state truthfully that time dilation actually occurs, they would have to prove that clocks are driven by time, and that extreme velocity on a clock does not hinder or effect in any way the physical workings of a clock to make it mechanically slow down.

 

-Eric5

 

Time and distance measurements are consistent, they just aren't absolute. But if you are looking for something that is the same for all observers, there is the space-time interval.

 

Again, let's go back to the analogy of people facing different direction. Only this time they are facing at a 37° angle to each other. On the ground is a rod. The rod lays so that its long axis faces in the same direction as one of the persons is facing. For this person the ends of the rod are separated by 1 meter in the front/back direction and zero meters in the left/right direction.

 

For the other person, the ends of the rod are separated by 0.8 meters in the front back direction and 0.6 meters in the left/right direction.

 

While both disagree as the separation in front-back and left front, When each takes his front/back and left/front separation together, they determine that the rod's ends are separated by 1 meter.

 

If we consider the front/back direction as distance and left/right as time, we have a picture of the space-time interval. The two observers can disagree as to the separation of two events in time and the separation in space, but they agree as the total separation in space-time or the space-time interval.

 

As to Einstein's point. The nature of time and space is fundamental. Everything we know is based on it. The Equation e=mc² which relates matter and energy comes directly from the relative nature of these two concepts.

 

 

Why do you say "front/back" and then "left/front" in your example? What does "left/front" mean? Also how do you know for the other person, the ends of the rod are separated by 0.8 meters in the front back direction and 0.6 meters in the left/right direction? You just made it more confusing actually....thanks.

 

Originally posted by Swansont:That's not an accurate representation of what's going on. Anyone can make a clock runs slower or faster by making mechanical or electrical adjustments to it. But that's not what is happening here. The clocks run at different rates despite the fact that no adjustments (purposeful or accidental) are happening. But clocks measure time. Once you eliminate the physical changes to the clock, you are left with changes to time.

 

 

 

Wrong Swansont.....that's what I and Eric are TRYING TO TELL YOU. You are NOT left with changes to time after you factor out alterations to the clock itself, you are JUST PERCEIVING TIME TO HAVE CHANGED. It's a PERCEPTION TO THE HUMAN SENSES.

[Eric 5]

That's not an accurate representation of what's going on. Anyone can make a clock runs slower or faster by making mechanical or electrical adjustments to it. But that's not what is happening here. The clocks run at different rates despite the fact that no adjustments (purposeful or accidental) are happening. But clocks measure time. Once you eliminate the physical changes to the clock, you are left with changes to time.

 

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

[iNow]

You are NOT left with changes to time after you factor out alterations to the clock itself, you are JUST PERCEIVING TIME TO HAVE CHANGED. It's a PERCEPTION TO THE HUMAN SENSES.

 

Simply repeating yourself does not add any validity to a comment which was wrong the first time.

[Eric 5]

Originally Posted by NYSportsGuy

You are NOT left with changes to time after you factor out alterations to the clock itself, you are JUST PERCEIVING TIME TO HAVE CHANGED. It's a PERCEPTION TO THE HUMAN SENSES

 

 

Simply repeating yourself does not add any validity to a comment which was wrong the first time.

 

What comment of NYSportsGuy do you disagree with. You say that he is wrong, but do not state what you think is right. I would like to hear what you have to say.

[Janus]

Why do you say "front/back" and then "left/front" in your example? What does "left/front" mean?

Because in the example Front/back represents distance and left/right represents time.

 

Also how do you know for the other person, the ends of the rod are separated by 0.8 meters in the front back direction and 0.6 meters in the left/right direction? You just made it more confusing actually....thanks.

 

 

Check out this diagram.

 

The first image is how things are from the perspective of the the first person in the example, and the second is from the perspective of the other person. Each person measures "time" by "his" left/right and distance by "his" Front/back. I know that the front/back distance for the second person is 0.8 m and the left/right distance 0.6 m, because I chose the angle between the directions they were facing for it to come out that way. (I could have chosen a different angle and got different values, but these were convenient numbers to use.) The space-time interval is the length as measured along the rod, and is constant for both of them.

[Eric 5]

After they landed. But the key here is that despite traveling at about the same speed relative to the earth, they were traveling at different speeds with respect to an inertial frame, and showed different values for the dilation. All consistent with relativity.

 

 

John 5746 mentioned that atomic clocks aboard planes have different readings when compared to those on the ground. And I(Eric5) wanted to know if these comparisons were done while the planes were still in flight or after they landed. You said that these readings were done after the planes landed.

 

So now I have a few questions for you.

 

1. Do you know where I can find data that states that in fact the planes had landed and were on the ground when these readings were taken. I have searched for this data on the internet and could only find information stating that this experiment was done, but no details on when the readings were taken.

 

2. How is it that these clocks would remain out of synch with the Earth bound clocks even when they are now at rest compared to the Earth bond clocks? According to Special Theory of relativity time dilation refers to the loss of time of a MOVING clock as observed by a stationary observer.

 

3. If these clocks were indeed reading different times than those on the ground (meaning that these clocks were actually in different time periods) Are these clocks still experiencing a time dilation?

 

4. If the clocks on the planes experienced a time dilation than would not the planes, the men on the planes and everything involved with the plane experience the same time dilation? If so, then are these men, for example, still experiencing a time dilation?

 

5. Now lets say (as you did) that all of these things that were on the planes still experienced a time dilation when they were on the ground. Now lets suppose that these clocks were taken off the planes and brought to an office and put on a table next to the Earth bound clocks so they could check the results. Now this table that these out of synch clocks are put on, are in one time, and the clocks off the planes are in another time, are these clocks physically touching the table? The clocks are made of some physical material that is now experiencing a time dilation, does this object that is experiencing a time dilation have any effect on those things that it comes in contact with, or is there some sort of barrier that prevents one time from coming in contact with another time?

[thedarkshade]

Why time slows down?

 

One day I was coming back from school with a friend of mine and we were discussing about effects of SR. Why does time has to slow? Why contraction? Why mass increase?, and the rest about SR. And talking, it came to his mind a very interesting picture of how time slows down! And it goes like this:

 

Let's say that time come to us in frames (yeah just like frames in a movie, a PC game). And these frames come to us real fast and in everyday life we don't miss any of these frames, or even not a part of these frames and so we don't really 'lose' time. Or we do it in such a small value than cannot really be noticed. But when we travel fast enough (let's say 0.5C) then we begin to lose some of these frames. While the others at rest experience the whole frames coming to them, we lose some and so we experience less time. And we keep losing more and more frames as we move on faster and faster. And losing more and more frames means experiencing less and less time.

 

I know it's not a serious thought, but it's an interesting picture of how time probably slows down. But why does it slow down? Well, I know of no explanation about this so far.

Many think that this is not part of science, but I don't think that's right. It indeed is part of science but saying that it is not part of science is only due to little progress done on the filed!

[Eric 5]

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

[swansont]

You say clocks measure time, how does this happen? If I take the batteries out of a clock it will not measure time. clocks are man made devices that are made to move according to a pre-engineered construction. Man decides what makes a clock move, not time.

 

And if a mangle my tape measure it won't measure distance accurately. So what? Nobody is saying that time makes a clock move. You measure time by counting oscillations of a periodic system. The laws that govern its operation are unchanged by its relative motion in an inertial frame.

 

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

 

The pre-determined rate is not an absolute. It depends on what reference frame is used to measure it.

 

John 5746 mentioned that atomic clocks aboard planes have different readings when compared to those on the ground. And I(Eric5) wanted to know if these comparisons were done while the planes were still in flight or after they landed. You said that these readings were done after the planes landed.

 

So now I have a few questions for you.

 

1. Do you know where I can find data that states that in fact the planes had landed and were on the ground when these readings were taken. I have searched for this data on the internet and could only find information stating that this experiment was done, but no details on when the readings were taken.

 

There would have been no way to communicate the data while the planes were in the air. It was a set of commercial flights, and the technology just wasn't there — this was an experiment done in 1972. It's been repeated since, with the same answer, of course.

 

2. How is it that these clocks would remain out of synch with the Earth bound clocks even when they are now at rest compared to the Earth bond clocks? According to Special Theory of relativity time dilation refers to the loss of time of a MOVING clock as observed by a stationary observer.

 

Moving clocks run at a different rate, and accumulate more phase (time) the longer that are at the different rate. Once the clocks returned to earth, their rate would return to being the same.

 

 

3. If these clocks were indeed reading different times than those on the ground (meaning that these clocks were actually in different time periods) Are these clocks still experiencing a time dilation?

 

No, they are no longer dilated, they just read a different value until they are re-synchronized.

 

4. If the clocks on the planes experienced a time dilation than would not the planes, the men on the planes and everything involved with the plane experience the same time dilation? If so, then are these men, for example, still experiencing a time dilation?

 

No, as with my previous answer.

 

5. Now lets say (as you did) that all of these things that were on the planes still experienced a time dilation when they were on the ground. Now lets suppose that these clocks were taken off the planes and brought to an office and put on a table next to the Earth bound clocks so they could check the results. Now this table that these out of synch clocks are put on, are in one time, and the clocks off the planes are in another time, are these clocks physically touching the table? The clocks are made of some physical material that is now experiencing a time dilation, does this object that is experiencing a time dilation have any effect on those things that it comes in contact with, or is there some sort of barrier that prevents one time from coming in contact with another time?

 

This is all a misconception based on there being an absolute time.

[Eric 5]

Originally Posted by Eric 5

You say clocks measure time, how does this happen? If I take the batteries out of a clock it will not measure time. clocks are man made devices that are made to move according to a pre-engineered construction. Man decides what makes a clock move, not time.

 

And if a mangle my tape measure it won't measure distance accurately. So what? Nobody is saying that time makes a clock move. You measure time by counting oscillations of a periodic system. The laws that govern its operation are unchanged by its relative motion in an inertial frame.

 

A tape measure is used to measure length. Measuring this length with a mangled tape measure does not change the length of the object. The object's length will remain the same whether you measure with a good tape measure or a mangled one. The measuring device does not change the object being measured. The object will stand on its own and exist whether or not it is measured. A tape measure is a tool that man puts up against that which he wants to measure (a real physical object) so as to get a length.

 

A clock on-the-other-hand, is not put in contact with or used to measure a real physical thing. Time is not a thing that exists on its own, where a clock can be used to measure it. Clocks just move in a regulated manner that give information that man uses to stay in synch with the rest of the world. Clocks do not measure a pre-existing object or force.

Where a clock says 3 o'clock, what does that mean exactly? What was being measured to give this result? The numbers that a clock show came about through a man made pre-determined rate at which they were built to run at. Clocks do not measure time.

 

Take a tape measure and hold it up in the air, pull the tape out to three feet and there you have it a measurement of three feet, three feet of what? Nothing, but the tape measure said three feet so there has to be something that it measured right? No.

 

Now take a clock and adjust it so it reads 3 o’clock, so now it must be 3 o’clock because the clock says so, right? No.

 

In order for a measuring device to be useful, or for the information that it gives to be useful, it has to be applied in the proper manner to a thing that can be measured. This brings me back to where this whole conversation started. You said that clocks measure time, I would like you to state how this happens.

 

Originally Posted by Eric 5

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

 

The pre-determined rate is not an absolute. It depends on what reference frame is used to measure it.

 

Absolute or not, it is still a pre-determined rate. Time does not move the clock. You say clocks measure time, please elaborate.

 

 

 

Originally Posted by Eric 5

John 5746 mentioned that atomic clocks aboard planes have different readings when compared to those on the ground. And I(Eric5) wanted to know if these comparisons were done while the planes were still in flight or after they landed. You said that these readings were done after the planes landed.

 

So now I have a few questions for you.

 

1. Do you know where I can find data that states that in fact the planes had landed and were on the ground when these readings were taken. I have searched for this data on the internet and could only find information stating that this experiment was done, but no details on when the readings were taken.

 

 

 

There would have been no way to communicate the data while the planes were in the air. It was a set of commercial flights, and the technology just wasn't there — this was an experiment done in 1972. It's been repeated since, with the same answer, of course.

 

 

This sounds like this is your assumption. Where is the reference that states that these readings were taken on the ground after the planes laned. Do any of these experiments have details of each step? I have never found any. The information just says that this time dilation occured. No information on how someone could repeat the process. Do you have a reference to back up what you are saying about when the readings were taken?

 

 

Originally Posted by Eric 5

2. How is it that these clocks would remain out of synch with the Earth bound clocks even when they are now at rest compared to the Earth bond clocks? According to Special Theory of relativity time dilation refers to the loss of time of a MOVING clock as observed by a stationary observer.

 

 

 

Moving clocks run at a different rate, and accumulate more phase (time) the longer that are at the different rate. Once the clocks returned to earth, their rate would return to being the same.

 

Exactly how does a clock accumulate more time? The American Heritage dicionary states the definition for Accumulate is: 1. To gather or pile up; amass. 2. To mount up; increase.

 

Sounds like you said moving clocks gather or increase more time, yet Special Relativity states that there is a loss of time of a moving clock as observed by a stationary observer. Also, if the clocks return to being the same rate once they are back on Earth. So the numbers on one clock are different than the numbers on another, so you assume that there this was due to some time shift. Just because the numbers are different does not prove that only a thing called time is responsible for this change. What is the margin of error?

Clocks are just machines that count off numbers at a pre-determined rate. Any error in the clock counting could be due to many things that are plausible. Time is not one of them. look I could go on about this but I think I will just cut to the chase. Show me scientific evidence that any clock measures a force called time, and is not just a machine made to give numbers at a pre-determined rate.

 

It will help you understand this whole time dilation concept if you go to your reference books and define the terms: Time, Clocks, Special Relitivity, Appears.

 

If you can find any varifiable step by step clear concise scientific research that was written about these experiments that shows exactly how these experiments were carried out to the point of being able to recreate the experiment, please let me know. Otherwise, all of these experiments that were done to "prove" time dilation are all as true as they can be recreated and verified by anyone interested in doing so.

 

I just noticed that I spelled Relativity, and verifiable wrong. My mistake for not using spell check.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Eric 5

You say clocks measure time, how does this happen? If I take the batteries out of a clock it will not measure time. clocks are man made devices that are made to move according to a pre-engineered construction. Man decides what makes a clock move, not time.

 

..........................

 

A clock on-the-other-hand, is not put in contact with or used to measure a real physical thing. Time is not a thing that exists on its own, where a clock can be used to measure it. Clocks just move in a regulated manner that give information that man uses to stay in synch with the rest of the world. Clocks do not measure a pre-existing object or force.

Where a clock says 3 o'clock, what does that mean exactly? What was being measured to give this result? The numbers that a clock show came about through a man made pre-determined rate at which they were built to run at. Clocks do not measure time.

 

Take a tape measure and hold it up in the air, pull the tape out to three feet and there you have it a measurement of three feet, three feet of what? Nothing, but the tape measure said three feet so there has to be something that it measured right? No.

 

Now take a clock and adjust it so it reads 3 o’clock, so now it must be 3 o’clock because the clock says so, right? No.

 

Really? Then why is it that most measurements are made with respect to time (e.g. m/s, m/s/s, J/s, etc.). The whole point of a clock is to measure how much time has actually passed i.e. it is a way to quantify it, just as a ruler helps quantify space, and a scale helps quantify force due to gravity.

 

And not all clocks are necessarily man made, for instance radioactive isotopes have predictable half-lives, and quartz crystals oscillate at regular intervals.

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

Read the above. Clearly, you haven't really thought it through.

 

 

 

Originally Posted by Eric 5

John 5746 mentioned that atomic clocks aboard planes have different readings when compared to those on the ground. And I(Eric5) wanted to know if these comparisons were done while the planes were still in flight or after they landed. You said that these readings were done after the planes landed.

 

So now I have a few questions for you.

 

1. Do you know where I can find data that states that in fact the planes had landed and were on the ground when these readings were taken. I have searched for this data on the internet and could only find information stating that this experiment was done, but no details on when the readings were taken.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This sounds like this is your assumption. Where is the reference that states that these readings were taken on the ground after the planes laned. Do any of these experiments have details of each step? I have never found any. The information just says that this time dilation occured. No information on how someone could repeat the process. Do you have a reference to back up what you are saying about when the readings were taken?

 

You can read about that right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment

 

 

Originally Posted by Eric 5

2. How is it that these clocks would remain out of synch with the Earth bound clocks even when they are now at rest compared to the Earth bond clocks? According to Special Theory of relativity time dilation refers to the loss of time of a MOVING clock as observed by a stationary observer.

 

Not according to this equation: t=t_o/[root]1 - v²/c²[/root].

 

According to the above, time dialation is a real phenomenon, not just someone's perception.

 

Exactly how does a clock accumulate more time? The American Heritage dicionary states the definition for Accumulate is: 1. To gather or pile up; amass. 2. To mount up; increase.

 

But it doesn't accumulate more time.

 

Sounds like you said moving clocks gather or increase more time, yet Special Relativity states that there is a loss of time of a moving clock as observed by a stationary observer. Also, if the clocks return to being the same rate once they are back on Earth. So the numbers on one clock are different than the numbers on another, so you assume that there this was due to some time shift. Just because the numbers are different does not prove that only a thing called time is responsible for this change. What is the margin of error?

 

Read the above. And actually take the time to learn relativity before you go off spreading your erroneous opinions.

 

Clocks are just machines that count off numbers at a pre-determined rate. Any error in the clock counting could be due to many things that are plausible. Time is not one of them. look I could go on about this but I think I will just cut to the chase. Show me scientific evidence that any clock measures a force called time, and is not just a machine made to give numbers at a pre-determined rate.

 

Simple. I just create a device or find a substance/material/object that oscillates/moves/ticks/etc.. at a regular interval or a constant rate. And then, we assign a value to each tick/movement/.....

 

It's how we've always done it, except that nowadays we use atoms instead of hourglasses.

 

The only real difference between time and space is that time is a temporal dimension.

 

===========================

 

And, we know that time dialation occured because there is nothing wrong with the device itself. And any errors that occur, human or otherwise, are taken into account, that's why a margin of error is always included when explaining the results of an experiment.

 

 

It will help you understand this whole time dilation concept if you go to your reference books and define the terms: Time, Clocks, Special Relitivity, Appears.

 

It would help if you actually read a textbook on Relativity and do some equations on it and understand what exactly the equations and concepts mean, rather than stubbornly clinging on to your preconcieved notions of it.

 

Time only "slows" down to the person tracking your time on Earth, but not for the person on the spaceship moving at the speed of light of .5c (whatever) you're on.....the observer's time on earth stays constant but that observer clocks your time on the ship to be slower. However the person on board the space ship's clock ISN'T REALLY SLOWER! It is still going the normal time accorrding to his perception....so therefore time really ISN'T slowing down for the person on board the spaceship going at c or .5c.

 

 

Not according to this equation: t=t_o/[sqrt]1 - v²/c²[/sqrt]. This equation states that objects do actually experience time dialation at relativistic speeds, as I said above. It has been verified by many experiments over and over again.

 

EDIT: Does anyone know how to put in a square root symbol?

[swansont]

Originally Posted by Eric 5

You say clocks measure time, how does this happen? If I take the batteries out of a clock it will not measure time. clocks are man made devices that are made to move according to a pre-engineered construction. Man decides what makes a clock move, not time.

 

 

 

A tape measure is used to measure length. Measuring this length with a mangled tape measure does not change the length of the object. The object's length will remain the same whether you measure with a good tape measure or a mangled one. The measuring device does not change the object being measured. The object will stand on its own and exist whether or not it is measured. A tape measure is a tool that man puts up against that which he wants to measure (a real physical object) so as to get a length.

 

And the mangled tape measure is meant as an analogy to the clock without batteries. Obviously it doesn't work anymore. But that's not the case with clocks undergoing time dilation. They are not broken.

 

A clock on-the-other-hand, is not put in contact with or used to measure a real physical thing. Time is not a thing that exists on its own, where a clock can be used to measure it. Clocks just move in a regulated manner that give information that man uses to stay in synch with the rest of the world. Clocks do not measure a pre-existing object or force.

Where a clock says 3 o'clock, what does that mean exactly? What was being measured to give this result? The numbers that a clock show came about through a man made pre-determined rate at which they were built to run at. Clocks do not measure time.

 

Take a tape measure and hold it up in the air, pull the tape out to three feet and there you have it a measurement of three feet, three feet of what? Nothing, but the tape measure said three feet so there has to be something that it measured right? No.

 

Now take a clock and adjust it so it reads 3 o’clock, so now it must be 3 o’clock because the clock says so, right? No.

 

Non sequitur/ strawman.

 

In order for a measuring device to be useful, or for the information that it gives to be useful, it has to be applied in the proper manner to a thing that can be measured. This brings me back to where this whole conversation started. You said that clocks measure time, I would like you to state how this happens.

 

Find something that oscillates at a regular rate. Count the oscillations.

 

 

So now I have a few questions for you.

 

1. Do you know where I can find data that states that in fact the planes had landed and were on the ground when these readings were taken. I have searched for this data on the internet and could only find information stating that this experiment was done, but no details on when the readings were taken.

 

Hafele and Keating, Science 177 (#4404), pp. 168-170

 

 

 

 

 

Originally Posted by Eric 5

2. How is it that these clocks would remain out of synch with the Earth bound clocks even when they are now at rest compared to the Earth bond clocks? According to Special Theory of relativity time dilation refers to the loss of time of a MOVING clock as observed by a stationary observer.

 

 

They ran slow or fast for a period of time. If you have a clock run slow for say, an hour, and lose a second, but then not run slow anymore, it will remain a second behind. This is the accumulated phase. If it had run slow for half an hour, it would have accumulated half a second of phase.

 

 

Sounds like you said moving clocks gather or increase more time, yet Special Relativity states that there is a loss of time of a moving clock as observed by a stationary observer. Also, if the clocks return to being the same rate once they are back on Earth. So the numbers on one clock are different than the numbers on another, so you assume that there this was due to some time shift. Just because the numbers are different does not prove that only a thing called time is responsible for this change. What is the margin of error?

Clocks are just machines that count off numbers at a pre-determined rate. Any error in the clock counting could be due to many things that are plausible. Time is not one of them. look I could go on about this but I think I will just cut to the chase. Show me scientific evidence that any clock measures a force called time, and is not just a machine made to give numbers at a pre-determined rate.

 

It will help you understand this whole time dilation concept if you go to your reference books and define the terms: Time, Clocks, Special Relitivity, Appears.

 

If you can find any varifiable step by step clear concise scientific research that was written about these experiments that shows exactly how these experiments were carried out to the point of being able to recreate the experiment, please let me know. Otherwise, all of these experiments that were done to "prove" time dilation are all as true as they can be recreated and verified by anyone interested in doing so.

 

See above for the cite. The experiment has been repeated, probably hundreds of times (timing labs used to send clocks to each other to do synchronization), but since the results are no longer noteworthy —unless you do it significantly better — there's no reason to publish them. Just like nobody is surprised when something falls due to gravity. However, Britain's NPL did commemorate the 25th anniversary by doing another "clock trip" and measuring the results. They mention it in their newsletter (pdf file)

 

Not according to this equation: t=t_o/[sqrt]1 - v²/c²[/sqrt]. This equation states that objects do actually experience time dialation at relativistic speeds, as I said above. It has been verified by many experiments over and over again.

 

EDIT: Does anyone know how to put in a square root symbol?

 

[math]t = \frac{t_0}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}[/math]

 

You have to use the "math" tags, and then \sqrt works. Mousing-over the equation should show you what this one looks like.

[thedarkshade]

You don't really have to write [math]\frac{v^2}{c^2}[/math], you can simply write [math]\beta^2[/math] since [math]\beta=\frac{v^2}{c^2}[/math], it also refers to lightspeed!

[Eric 5]

Really? Then why is it that most measurements are made with respect to time (e.g. m/s, m/s/s, J/s, etc.). The whole point of a clock is to measure how much time has actually passed i.e. it is a way to quantify it, just as a ruler helps quantify space, and a scale helps quantify force due to gravity.

 

Every measurement of time is based on what man decided that measurement to mean. Seconds, minutes, hours and so on are all man made. Time did not come pre-packaged in these units, man agreed on what to call these durations. Clocks measure how much of a pre-determined man made unit passed for a given motion. If something takes a minute of time, then that activity lasted for what man determined to be a minute. Time is the concept of man.

 

And not all clocks are necessarily man made, for instance radioactive isotopes have predictable half-lives, and quartz crystals oscillate at regular intervals.

 

Radioactive isotopes and quartz crystals are not clocks. Man used these materials in his man made clocks to harness the activity of these materials to his advantage. Yes all clocks are man made.

 

 

 

 

You can read about that right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment

 

 

Taken from Wikipedia.

The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October of 1971, J. C. Hafele and Richard E. Keating took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners and flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against those of the United States Naval Observatory.

 

My comment.

They were testing the theory of relativity, since they are talking about clocks and motion we have to assume that they were testing the special theory of relativity. The special theory of relativity basically states: "that there is a loss of time of a moving clock as observed by a stationary observer."

 

Without this observer there is no loss of time in a moving clock. If time dilation were a real effect then it would happen with or without a stationary observer. This time dilation idea depends on an observer that is not moving with the clock. Again, without this observer, no time dilation.

 

 

 

Taken from Wikipedia.

Overview

According to special relativity, the speed of a clock is greatest according to an observer who is not in motion with respect to the clock. In a frame of reference in which the clock is not at rest, the clock runs slower, and the effect is proportional to the square of the velocity. In a frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth, the clock aboard the plane moving eastward, in the direction of the earth's rotation, is moving faster than a clock that remains on the ground, while the clock aboard the plane moving westward, against the earth's rotation, is moving slower.

According to general relativity, another effect comes into play: the slight increase in gravitational potential due to altitude that speeds the clocks back up. Since the aircraft are flying at roughly the same altitude in both directions, this effect is more "constant" between the two clocks, but nevertheless it causes a difference in comparison to the clock on the ground.

 

 

 

 

My comment.

So in order to do this test correctly they had to observe the clocks while they were in motion. There is no mention of if they did this or how. How would this test be verified? This article tells us that clocks are moving faster and slower, but there is no scientific evidence, everyone just has to take the word of the experimenters. This article tells the story of airplanes in flight and clocks running at different speeds relative to those on Earth, we just have to believe this happened. That is not science

 

 

 

 

And, we know that time dilation occurred because there is nothing wrong with the device itself. And any errors that occur, human or otherwise, are taken into account, that's why a margin of error is always included when explaining the results of an experiment.

 

There is no margin of error mentioned in the experiment. What is the math behind taking into account human error? There could be errors that are man made without him noticing.

 

 

 

 

It would help if you actually read a textbook on Relativity and do some equations on it and understand what exactly the equations and concepts mean, rather than stubbornly clinging on to your preconceived notions of it.

 

The textbook that I have read is the one that Einstein wrote when he wanted to introduce his theories on the Special and General relativity. The book is called "RELATIVITY The Special and the General Theory".

ISBN O-7607-5921-9 This book is the source of all subsequent interpretations of the Special and General theories of Relativity.

 

You would be more accurate in saying that I am an informed skeptic with the true spirit of scientific research, rather than just saying that I am stubbornly clinging on to preconceived notions.

 

 

 

 

"The important thing is to not stop questioning."

Albert Einstein

 

"The beginning of wisdom is found in doubting; by doubting we come to the question, and by seeking we may come upon the truth."

Pierre Abelard

 

 

"What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way."

Bertrand Russell

 

“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.”

Albert Einstein

 

 

 

I say that these time dilation experiments were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

 

 

In these experiments you have a man made device operating as man designed it, counting off man made increments that man gave a numeric significance to, that results in a man made concept called time. Clocks are designed to give numbers, to which man assigns a significance or importance to. A clock could be considered to be a device or machine that generates a number or numbers in a regulated manner that was pre-determined by man. A clock is akin to a regulated number generator that converts mechanical, electrical, or the motion of an object to a number through pre-determined engineering of the device, and these numbers are delivered at a rate that follows the set standards that man has agreed to be universal in all such machines.

 

 

Please share with me your definition of a clock and time that shows that clocks actually measure anything outside of its immediate construction. What outside influence is a clock measuring?

 

Although, in regards to this topic, you may be right. There might be someone who is stubbornly clinging to preconceived notions.

[swansont]

Every measurement of time is based on what man decided that measurement to mean. Seconds, minutes, hours and so on are all man made. Time did not come pre-packaged in these units, man agreed on what to call these durations. Clocks measure how much of a pre-determined man made unit passed for a given motion. If something takes a minute of time, then that activity lasted for what man determined to be a minute. Time is the concept of man.

 

Units of time are not the same thing as time, just as units of distance (which are also man-made) are not the same thing as distance itself.

 

Radioactive isotopes and quartz crystals are not clocks. Man used these materials in his man made clocks to harness the activity of these materials to his advantage. Yes all clocks are man made.

 

Utter crap. Anything that operates in a predictable fashion can be used as a clock. Radioactive decay is used to measure time intervals all the time. Pulsars are used as clocks. Quartz oscillators are used in watches and many other clock systems.

 

 

 

There is no margin of error mentioned in the experiment. What is the math behind taking into account human error? There could be errors that are man made without him noticing.

 

 

Sure there is. "Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks lost 59 ± 10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and gained 273 ± 7 nanoseconds during the westward trip, where the errors are the corresponding standard deviations."

 

That's from the abstract of the paper you obviously haven't read.

 

 

 

 

I say that these time dilation experiments were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

 

You are in a very small minority.