Gravitational time dilation

[Bart]

I thought the rest of the recipe was understood, but OK: you specify the environmental conditions. But it will not take 20 UTUs everywhere, under those same conditions.

I do not understand this.Could you explain it more detail?

 

And this is the reason. If you have to speed or slow your reference clock, you change the standard of time, using what we currently mean by time. If you have to slow your clock down then more than 1 actual second passes for each indicated second. Which means that 20 UTUs represents a longer elapsed time than for where no adjustment was necessary.

What do you mean by the standard of time? The standard of time in our physics is the second. The original definition of the second was such that it is 1/86400 of the diurnal rotation of the Earth. For practical reasons in 1967, this definition has been changed (converted) to the frequency of the cesium atomic clock. This must be strongly stressed that the second as a unit of time, is unambiguously associated with the diurnal rotation of the Earth and not with the ticking of one or another clock, wherever they are located. Conversion of the seconds for the UTUs units does not change the passage rate of time, just as conversion centimeters to inches does not change the length of the stick.

If your watch is late (or fast) and to correct this a watchmaker do precision adjustment of the ticking frequency of the watch, it does not mean that before the adjusment of the watch, your time passed more slowly than after making adjustments.

 

You need to demonstrate this. Do the equivalent of Einstein's derivations but under the assumption of invariant time. You cannot have it and the other postulates all be true. Something has to give.

 

The application of UTUs units of time maintains in full all the laws of Newtonian physics.

 

In relation to the theory of relativity, let's first explain whether it is indeed cosistent and universal, as on the example of the gravitational constant G.:

 

G = 6,67384(80) *10E-11 m3/kg sec2

 

Question: What is the gravitational constant for the calculations made on the object XXL moving at high speed v, where the second is no longer the true second, because time slows down there, and the meter is not the true meter, because of the contraction and the kilogram is no longer the true kilogram of the rest mass?

 

[swansont]

The application of UTUs units of time maintains in full all the laws of Newtonian physics.

 

The universe in not Newtonian. This is the basis of the objections to your proposal.

[md65536]

I do not understand this.Could you explain it more detail?

In the recipe example, you listed environmental conditions, but you'd also have to list "bake while traveling at low speed relative to The Clock, while in a low gravitational potential relative to The Clock."

 

Those last two aren't environmental conditions. A local environment doesn't depend on its speed etc. relative to some remote point.

 

For example, consider the environmental conditions here on Earth.

Imagine putting a master clock deep space somewhere. A cake may take 20 minutes or say 1,000,000 UTU.

Now imagine moving the master clock into a black hole. Does that change the environment on Earth? (No) A cake still takes 20 minutes to bake, but now it may take only 10 UTU... and now 9... 8... as the master clock appears to slow relative to local clocks.

 

Moving your clock wouldn't affect the environment on Earth. Yes, the master clock still ticks consistently at 1 UTU per UTU, but now the timing of everything else is changed. If you can't "go to the black hole to bake your cake" then to use a recipe you must adjust for the gravitational differential between you and the clock. Or just use a local clock that is not synchronized to the master clock.

 

 

 

What do you mean by the standard of time? The standard of time in our physics is the second. The original definition of the second was such that it is 1/86400 of the diurnal rotation of the Earth. For practical reasons in 1967, this definition has been changed (converted) to the frequency of the cesium atomic clock.

 

Yes, and in a sense we adhere to a master clock (the rotation of the earth for days, and the orbit of the earth for years) for practical purposes, but that no longer is a sufficient definition of time.

 

The Earth slows its rotation due to friction of the tides. Occasionally our main atomic "local clocks" are adjusted to sync with the Earth's rotation. This is exactly what you're suggesting is the right thing to do. However the Earth's rotation doesn't make a sufficient definition for time. If we still defined a second by the Earth's rotation, then we'd find that the tides do not slow the Earth but instead they increase the speed of light.

[Spyman]

I am only repeating what others already have said, but sometimes it helps understanding when reading/viewing it from different sources/angles.

 

 

 

Thus, consider the following example:

 

In the distant space, we have chosen two pulsars for measurement of time, pulsar P1 and pulsar P2, both with the very stable generation of signals (flashes). Pulsar P1 generates flashes of very high frequency, and the pulsar P2 of very slow frequency. Assume the period of flashes of the pulsar P1 as the Universal Time Unit (UTU). Our measuring robot placed on some very massive object in space, which mass is 100 times larger than our Sun, but of the same radius, has measured the period of flashes of the pulsar P2 as exactly equal to the 100 000 UTU (100 000 pulses of pulsar P1).

 

Question: What will be the period of flashes of the pulsar P2 in UTU units, if measured on Earth ?

 

 

But you still have to apply the time dilation correction, because otherwise identical processes will no longer take the same time in different locations. Which is contrary to the whole basis of timekeeping. "Bake for 20 UTUs" will be meaningless in a recipe because you need to correct for your gravitational potential. Meaning that it's not "universal" at all. You will be unable to synchronize local clocks to the universal clock, because they run at different rates. Even under identical environmental conditions.

 

It's not like you mean it. Such a recipe for cake baking : "Bake for 20 UTUs" is useless wherever you baked this cake, even on Earth. If in the recipe you specify that cake should bake for 20 UTUs, at 200 ° C, at a pressure of air of 1 atm , etc. , then you bake this cake in 20UTUs in any place in universe.

 

I thought the rest of the recipe was understood, but OK: you specify the environmental conditions. But it will not take 20 UTUs everywhere, under those same conditions.

I do not understand this.Could you explain it more detail?

 

Let's say that we put this measuring robot on a large and powerful spaceship that is currently burning fuel for a one g acceleration in a safe trajectory through the mighty gravitational field of a nearby supermassive black hole. The robot is inside a pressurised cabin that keeps the enviroment inside identical as on Earth and has a camera with a videofeed transferred to Earth. The camera view shows the measurements of the UTU by the robot, the display of a very accurate clock and the inside of an oven through the glass lid, with a cake being baked inside.

 

An observer on Earth watching this live videofeed on a screen notices that 20 UTUs on Earth equals 20 UTUs for the measuring robot on the ship, but due to gravitational time dilation 20 minutes as measured by a clock on Earth is only measured to 10 minutes by the spaceship clock.

 

Question: If the period of 20 UTU units is measured to last 20 minutes on Earth and a duplicate cake needs 20 minutes in an identical oven on Earth, for how many UTU units should the robot in the spaceship bake the cake?

 

Answer: According to the theory of relativity the cake needs to be baked 20 minutes according to the local clock, which in this case is the clock in the ship. Since time passes at half the rate in the region the spaceship is travelling through compared to time on Earth, the double time needs to pass on Earth for the cake in the ship to be done, which in this case is 40 minutes. 40 minutes on Earth equals 40 UTU units on both Earth and ship.

 

Conclusion: We can NOT bake the cake for 20 UTUs in any place in the universe with equal results.

[Bart]

Let's say that we put this measuring robot on a large and powerful spaceship that is currently burning fuel for a one g acceleration in a safe trajectory through the mighty gravitational field of a nearby supermassive black hole. The robot is inside a pressurised cabin that keeps the enviroment inside identical as on Earth and has a camera with a videofeed transferred to Earth. The camera view shows the measurements of the UTU by the robot, the display of a very accurate clock and the inside of an oven through the glass lid, with a cake being baked inside.

 

An observer on Earth watching this live videofeed on a screen notices that 20 UTUs on Earth equals 20 UTUs for the measuring robot on the ship, but due to gravitational time dilation 20 minutes as measured by a clock on Earth is only measured to 10 minutes by the spaceship clock.

 

Question: If the period of 20 UTU units is measured to last 20 minutes on Earth and a duplicate cake needs 20 minutes in an identical oven on Earth, for how many UTU units should the robot in the spaceship bake the cake?

 

Answer: According to the theory of relativity the cake needs to be baked 20 minutes according to the local clock, which in this case is the clock in the ship. Since time passes at half the rate in the region the spaceship is travelling through compared to time on Earth, the double time needs to pass on Earth for the cake in the ship to be done, which in this case is 40 minutes. 40 minutes on Earth equals 40 UTU units on both Earth and ship.

 

Conclusion: We can NOT bake the cake for 20 UTUs in any place in the universe with equal results.

 

I see that there is still lack of clarity of understanding on the ensuring of uniform ticking rate for all clocks. For better understanding this case, forget here about minutes and seconds. All local clocks on Earth and wherever they are, are scaled in the UTU units and are tuned to the main master clock, which is the pulsar P1. Each time if the local clock is moved to another location, must be in the new location retuned to the master clock. Ordinary atomic clocks have its stability of the order of 10E-10, which means that such a local clock, after tuning in the new location to the master clock, will indicate at least for a period of several years, the time consistent to the master clock (P1) with an accuracy of 1 second. Temporary lack of visibility of the master clock will not affect the ticking rate of these local clocks.

 

Thus, these clocks will everywhere show the same time, regardless of the mass of the object and the gravity at the place of installation. Therefore, our cake under the same environmental conditions will be baked for 20 UTU, everywhere.

 

Swansont: The universe in not Newtonian. This is the basis of the objections to your proposal

 

This is not so sure. The man probably never know the true nature of the universe. Some calculations based on Newtonian physics are fully consistent with the observations. An illustrative example of this is presented on the following link: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/26262175/SagitariusBRprogramDescription.pdf

 

 

The assumption that only the theory of relativity can properly describe the universe, requires explicit confirmation that this theory is fully correct and consistent with reality. Even this thread shows that there is a lot of doubts. To explain this issue I repeat here my question from the previous post, whether the relativity theory is ideed consistent and universal, on an example of the gravitational constant G.

 

G = 6,67384(80) * 10E-11 m3/kg sec2

 

Question: What is the gravitational constant for the calculations made on the object XXL which moves at a constant speed v, where the second on this object is no longer the true second because (according SR and GR) time slows down there, and the meter is not the true meter because of the contraction and the kilogram is no longer the true kilogram of the rest mass?

[swansont]

The assumption that only the theory of relativity can properly describe the universe, requires explicit confirmation that this theory is fully correct and consistent with reality.

 

GPS works.

 

Even this thread shows that there is a lot of doubts.

 

This thread has raised zero doubts. What this thread has done is demonstrate that misunderstanding of relativity exists.

[Bart]

GPS works.

 

 

This thread has raised zero doubts. What this thread has done is demonstrate that misunderstanding of relativity exists.

 

 

GPS works but it is not a matter of time dilation, but the technological properties of the light clocks. It was explained in the post #37.

 

And what about the gravitational constant on the object XXL?

 

 

Happy are the people who never have any doubts.

 

Thanks for the nice discussion.

 

Bart

[swansont]

GPS works but it is not a matter of time dilation, but the technological properties of the light clocks. It was explained in the post #37.

 

GPS doesn't use light clocks. They use cesium and rubidium clocks, which also have a quartz oscillator. And the different types of clocks are affected identically. This is not a matter of construction. There is no way to make this effect get smaller or change sign.

 

And what about the gravitational constant on the object XXL?

 

AFAIK constants are constant. That the laws of physics don't change is one of the paradigms applied to this.

 

 

Happy are the people who never have any doubts.

 

Thanks for the nice discussion.

 

Bart

 

If you think that scientists don't doubt then you know nothing of scientists. A flawed proposal, however, does not raise any.

[Janus]

GPS works but it is not a matter of time dilation, but the technological properties of the light clocks. It was explained in the post #37.

 

 

Bart

 

No, what happened in post #37 is that you made claims based on what you thought was true. However those claims are based on a misconception of the nature of gravitational time dilation on your part. gravitational time dilation has absolutely nothing to do with the type of clock used. Neither is it due to the strength of the local gravity. This is something that you have been told repeatedly by many different posters, but they might have as well be talking to a wall for all the good it does.

[Bart]

No, what happened in post #37 is that you made claims based on what you thought was true. However those claims are based on a misconception of the nature of gravitational time dilation on your part. gravitational time dilation has absolutely nothing to do with the type of clock used. Neither is it due to the strength of the local gravity. This is something that you have been told repeatedly by many different posters, but they might have as well be talking to a wall for all the good it does.

 

The first postulate of SR says: The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference. For the true description of the events with compliance to this postulate, must necessarily be applied the same physical constants and the same measurement units (meters, kilograms,seconds), identical for all reference frames. Thus the second as the reference unit of time, which according to its original definition is 1/86400 of the day, must be constant. So on the object XXL and on any other object, the second also must be 1/86400 part of the full diurnal rotation of the Earth. This may not be any"second" as measured by local clocks, which are late or fast (from the reasons given by the theory of relativity), because it is not the true second, but just a completely different unit of time. It can not therefore identify changes in the ticking rate of local clocks as the change of the passage rate of time, as measured in constant units of reference which are the true seconds. And this is the error of the current interpretation of time dilation.

[ACG52]

The first postulate of SR says: The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference. For the true description of the events with compliance to this postulate, must necessarily be applied the same physical constants and the same measurement units (meters, kilograms,seconds), identical for all reference frames. Thus the second as the reference unit of time, which according to its original definition is 1/86400 of the day, must be constant. So on the object XXL and on any other object, the second also must be 1/86400 part of the full diurnal rotation of the Earth. This may not be any"second" as measured by local clocks, which are late or fast (from the reasons given by the theory of relativity), because it is not the true second, but just a completely different unit of time. It can not therefore identify changes in the ticking rate of local clocks as the change of the passage rate of time, as measured in constant units of reference which are the true seconds. And this is the error of the current interpretation of time dilation.

 

 

What you're saying is that there is an absolute rate of time, and by inference, an absolute length, and an absoulute frame of reference.

 

This totally contradicts what Relativity tells us, and since relativity works astoundingly well (check your GPS for confirmation), I think I'll go with Einstein and ditch you.

[Spyman]

I see that there is still lack of clarity of understanding on the ensuring of uniform ticking rate for all clocks. For better understanding this case, forget here about minutes and seconds. All local clocks on Earth and wherever they are, are scaled in the UTU units and are tuned to the main master clock, which is the pulsar P1. Each time if the local clock is moved to another location, must be in the new location retuned to the master clock. Ordinary atomic clocks have its stability of the order of 10E-10, which means that such a local clock, after tuning in the new location to the master clock, will indicate at least for a period of several years, the time consistent to the master clock (P1) with an accuracy of 1 second. Temporary lack of visibility of the master clock will not affect the ticking rate of these local clocks.

 

Thus, these clocks will everywhere show the same time, regardless of the mass of the object and the gravity at the place of installation. Therefore, our cake under the same environmental conditions will be baked for 20 UTU, everywhere.

I can understand the possibility to rescale any local clock to UTU units, such that the clock in the spaceship speeds up and matches the clock on Earth and all other clocks tuned to the master UTU clock.

 

But I don't understand how the dough in the oven will get forced to acknowledge this master clock and yield to its rate.

 

When 20 UTUs have passed in the ship the cake will only be half done, because at that gravitational potential it needs 40 UTUs to finish.

(Which I clearly showed in my example in post #54.)

 

AFAIK you can NOT speed up cooking and other processes by simply retuning the clock in the kitchen or factory.

[swansont]

The first postulate of SR says: The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference. For the true description of the events with compliance to this postulate, must necessarily be applied the same physical constants and the same measurement units (meters, kilograms,seconds), identical for all reference frames. Thus the second as the reference unit of time, which according to its original definition is 1/86400 of the day, must be constant. So on the object XXL and on any other object, the second also must be 1/86400 part of the full diurnal rotation of the Earth. This may not be any"second" as measured by local clocks, which are late or fast (from the reasons given by the theory of relativity), because it is not the true second, but just a completely different unit of time. It can not therefore identify changes in the ticking rate of local clocks as the change of the passage rate of time, as measured in constant units of reference which are the true seconds. And this is the error of the current interpretation of time dilation.

 

Given that Einstein describes the effects of length contraction and time dilation in the very paper he introduces the postulate, this interpretation is clearly wrong.

[Bart]

Given that Einstein describes the effects of length contraction and time dilation in the very paper he introduces the postulate, this interpretation is clearly wrong.

 

If my objection to the current interpretation of time dilation is incorrect, please answer what will be the rotation period of Mars measured from the object XXL, if this period measured from the Earth is 24h37m23s?

 

 

[swansont]

It will be that period multiplied by 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

[Bart]

It will be that period multiplied by 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

 

And here you are wrong. If we denote the rotation period of Mars measured from the Earth as To, the rotation period of Mars measured from the object XXL will be T1 = To(c + v) / c, when the object XXL is moving away from Mars with the speed v, and T2 = To (c-v) / c, when the object XXL approaches Mars with the speed v. This is a simple change of the period resulting from the classical Doppler effect.

 

But the most important, as a result of your answer is that the rotation period of Mars measured from the object XXL is independent from the mass of that object. You confirm therefore my opinion that current interpretation of the gravitational time dilation is wrong.

 

 

[ACG52]

And here you are wrong. If we denote the rotation period of Mars measured from the Earth as To, the rotation period of Mars measured from the object XXL will be T1 = To(c + v) / c, when the object XXL is moving away from Mars with the speed v, and T2 = To (c-v) / c, when the object XXL approaches Mars with the speed v. This is a simple change of the period resulting from the classical Doppler effect.

 

But the most important, as a result of your answer is that the rotation period of Mars measured from the object XXL is independent from the mass of that object. You confirm therefore my opinion that current interpretation of the gravitational time dilation is wrong.

 

 

 

 

Nope, you're wrong, Swansont is correct, although he is only considering relative velocity, and not gravitational time dilation.

[swansont]

And here you are wrong. If we denote the rotation period of Mars measured from the Earth as To, the rotation period of Mars measured from the object XXL will be T1 = To(c + v) / c, when the object XXL is moving away from Mars with the speed v, and T2 = To (c-v) / c, when the object XXL approaches Mars with the speed v. This is a simple change of the period resulting from the classical Doppler effect.

 

But the most important, as a result of your answer is that the rotation period of Mars measured from the object XXL is independent from the mass of that object. You confirm therefore my opinion that current interpretation of the gravitational time dilation is wrong.

 

I don't see where you specified the gravitational profile of the object, only its speed. Further, your value for the rotational period was limited to seconds. The gravitational time dilation of the earth is lost in the roundoff error.

 

Do you really think a clumsy "gotcha" question is going to overturn relativity? The only way to do that is with physical experimental evidence. Got any?

[Bart]

I don't see where you specified the gravitational profile of the object, only its speed. Further, your value for the rotational period was limited to seconds. The gravitational time dilation of the earth is lost in the roundoff error.

 

Do you really think a clumsy "gotcha" question is going to overturn relativity? The only way to do that is with physical experimental evidence. Got any?

 

Mass of the example object XXL is 100 solar masses and has been shown in the post #21 and #31.

 

It was not my intention to overturn the theory of relativity, but only the removal of its mysticism, and doubts of interpretation that are still open.

 

Endless discussions and arguments on this theory, almost in the style of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and how it depends on the obesity of these angels and the speed of their dance, may give the impression that that theory is no longer science but has already become a kind of religion, that can not be overturned.

 

I'm sorry if this sentence offended anyone.

[swansont]

Mass of the example object XXL is 100 solar masses and has been shown in the post #21 and #31.

 

Oh. You didn't identify anything as object XXL until much later (post #51), and then only specified its speed. Post 31 has a link, but no mention of mass of an object.

 

 

It was not my intention to overturn the theory of relativity, but only the removal of its mysticism, and doubts of interpretation that are still open.

 

Endless discussions and arguments on this theory, almost in the style of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and how it depends on the obesity of these angels and the speed of their dance, may give the impression that that theory is no longer science but has already become a kind of religion, that can not be overturned.

 

I'm sorry if this sentence offended anyone.

 

 

From what I can tell you are the one giving the "angels on a head of a pin" arguments. Relativity has actual experimental results to support it, which makes it about as far from religion as you can get, and there really not a lot of doubts. To overturn it you must fight against the weight of that evidence, which is considerable. That's why it would be difficult to overturn, not because of some "religion".

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

Bart

There are rules to the speculations forum - you can re-read them here

Unless you immediately start to deal with the questions about your idea and counter the criticisms that members have made the thread will be closed; continued re-assertion of bald claims is not acceptable. Asking half formed questions and then complaining that the answers don't fit your idea of the question is also not on. If you believe you have shown a problem with an established theory a fully worked example should not be too much to ask.

I will repeat; the thread will be locked very quickly if you continue to ignore the speculation forum rules. Please do not respond to this moderation.