I’ve merged your two threads because they seem to be mostly about the same thing (you even posted the same post to both of them, trying to make the same points).
Let’s keep it all to one thread, okay?
This is what you get when mythoughts meet Idle Thoughts!
Aw, gee thanks.
But they are about different topics, the post to one was an accident, I then posted it to the right thread.
If you can undo it, please do, and delete the post that was clearly meant for a separate thought experiment.
Mythoughts, please , stop writing walls of text.
I think you have a paraclox here, since you haven’t identified which thread was incorrect or which one was incorrect.
Maybe if you got on a parallel train and observed the threads from a vibrating elevator that was in a blackhole on the opposite side - then you could figure it out.
If you can’t, then that means I’m right and you’re wrong but afraid to admit it - anything other than taking me seriously and refuting my thought experience in a manner that I will accept means your wrong and I’m right as well.
Obviously it does not matter where the clock is was my point, that it used to be in the accelerating frame does not mean that is still is even if it looks related.
Those are still actually physical clocks though, but yes. And so?
What point is there is defining all the things that can be used to measure the passage of time?
Yes, and immediately once it is not accelerated, before you even see it apparently falling to the floor.
I’m still waiting for the point.
Great, so if you and a clock are time dilated because you and the clock are undergoing the same acceleration together…
And you stop accelerating the clock, the time dilation caused by the acceleration stops in that instant, you see the clock appears to run faster suddenly.
If you try the same thing in a gravity field, if it doesn’t speed up the instant you let go, then you are able to distinguish between gravity and g-force and they aren’t the same thing!
This means the Equivalence Principe is flawed, you can tell the difference, and that is meant to be impossible.
Another possibility is that acceleration does not cause time dilation at all so you can’t tell the difference…
But then even so, it has been proven to be different since one causes time dilation and the other doesn’t, if the test precludes you from finding out that your degree of time dilation is not as expected then you may not know but that is irrelevant , they are very obviously different phenomena with no genuine equivalence!
Oh boy what a bunch of trash.
The GPS system does not conform to SR expectations and has no great degree of relation to the experiment .
If clocks have been put in aircraft and those aircraft have gone into freefall to check this concept I very very very very very very veeeerrrrrry much doubt.
None of what you have said has anything to do with it.
Here is the code for a computer to understand it!
If Gravity=Time Dilation (if gravity has time dilation)
And Acceleration=Gravity (and acceleration is equal to gravity)
Then Acceleration=Time Dilation (then acceleration has time dilation)
Let Object go in Gravity field & store time rate of object as variable A.
Let Object go in Acceleration field & store time rate of object as variable B.
If A = B & no change in clock rate then print "ERROR, stationary object time rate = to rate of object expected to be tie dilated in gravity field.
If A = B & change in clock rate print "Gravitational time dilation does not occur in fall.
If A in not equal to B print “Equivalence principle failed, difference detected due to dropped object not experiencing acceleration”.
You distort, or misunderstand.
I no longer care which it is.
The second case is true, and has been experimentally verified. Objects on the surface of the earth (in gravity) have a degree of time dilation. Objects accelerating (in space, strapped to rockets) have a degree of time dilation. The results match up very precisely.
Time dilation does not occur in an inertial frame of reference that is shared by the observer. i.e., my clock won’t slow when I’m in free fall alongside it.
None of this is in any way a rebuttal of time dilation due to different inertial frames of reference. If you are in “free fall” and moving very fast, I will see your clock as slowed. (And…you will see mine as slowed.)
The equivalence principle has withstood a great many physical tests and experiments.
You aren’t bringing anything new here.
Ok, wow. This is just so wrong that it has no relationship with reality.
The GPS system has corrections for both SR and GR and those must be continuously made. Otherwise, the errors in the timing (mind, GPS works by clock signals) would quickly make the positioning useless (the errors add up to several kilometers per day, which is a lot in a system that typically has accuracy to a few tens of centimeters).
There’s even a nice article on wiki summarizing (with equations, natch!) just how discrepancies consistent with both SR and GR are observed and must be corrected. It’s one of the many additional confirmations of relativity.
And, for reference, these satellites are in constant freefall.
So, here, we have a clear and ongoing example that your thought experiment fails. It even involves clocks. When a thought experiment is at odds with observed and observable reality, one is strongly advised to consider there is an error in that thought experiment.
I can’t remember which posts were to which discussion, so feel free to remake the topic (if you can find the topic in here that you made it with).
So:
If A = B & change in clock rate print "Gravitational time dilation does not occur in fall.
That one assumes that if an object falls in an gravity field it would not feel the time dilation associated with the gravity.
Honestly all I know is that there are a finite number of end results that are not entirely absurd.
1: Time dilation does not occur for acceleration. This would disprove a portion of General relativity and kill the spirit of equivalence, but not the test for it.
Evidence for this: Experimental Basis of Special Relativity
2: Time dilation does occur for acceleration, but not for an object dropped in the elevator. This is a way to know if you are experiencing acceleration of gravity. General Relativity is mostly Ok, except the equivalence thought experiment created has been busted.
3: Time dilation occurs for gravity and acceleration, but not for a dropped clock in either case as it is no longer effected by the gravity or the acceleration.
Well, it wouldn’t be observable to the observer who is also effected.
Obviously I wasn’t saying it would be, but once the rate changes from the dilated rate it would appear to go fast.
I think you have genuinely failed to grasp what I am trying to say.
One more crack at it…
I am arguing that if you are in an intense gravity field and time dilated, but are unaware…
And you drop a clock, you would not expect it to start running fast the instant you let go, you would expect it to remain time dilated.
But If you are accelerating and feeling a G-force, if it is dilating time per GR and you let go of it then would you expect it to remain time dilated as with gravity, when it is not now accelerating.
We grasp what you are trying to say. It’s just wrong. You are making a very basic and common mistake here and preferring a particular frame of reference. There is no preferred frame of reference.
You are not “unaware” of time dilation. It doesn’t exist in your frame of reference. Only in an outside frame of reference. And who cares about that frame of reference?
When you drop the clock, it begins accelerating in your frame of reference and you see the time dilation effect.
Again, this is precisely what happens with GPS but with rotation and orbital mechanics added on top.
In your frame of reference, you observe the clock accelerating as soon as you let it go.
When you say “it is not now accelerating”, that is in reference to the wrong frame of reference. Again, the problem is you are using a sleight of hand to switch out frames of reference. To you, the observer, the clock accelerates in your frame of reference as soon as you drop the clock.
Yes, it looks that way.
And If I start running accelerating relative to you, to me you are the one accelerating, sure.
But you are making a mistake, while steady motion is (or can be argued to be) relative, acceleration is absolute.
If we were somehow unsure if a object was undergoing acceleration or not (without being in it) we could use things in each frame that make it obvious if the thing is experiencing acceleration like water in a glass, or insubstantial jelly, weak springs that would compress under their own weight.
So if we drop something as we accelerating, it isn’t, it occupies a steady state of relative motion and has no time dilation under GR!
Please, find anything that argues that acceleration is relative.
But you won’t find it, the sleight of hand is yours, but I do suspect you are being intellectually honest and intelligent which makes for a welcome change!
About the only time acceleration can be called into question is in a gravity field as space is the thing accelerating/bent, so maybe going with it (falling and accelerating) is really keeping the same inertial frame, and standing still in a gravity field seems very much like accelerating.
But that is speculation.
At any rate this experiment relates to General Relativity, and you are mixing GR and SR up.
Objects in free-fall aren’t accelerating…from their own point of view. But they may be accelerating from someone else’s point of view. If I drop a rock off a cliff, the rock feels itself to be in free-fall and not accelerating, but I watch it fall faster and faster.
Exactly wrong. I expect it to undergo time dilation and begin to run more slowly, because it is picking up speed relative to me. It would also begin to run more slowly because it is deeper in a gravity well…
Great Antibob: …is that right? If I move my clock from the thirtieth floor of my apartment building to the second floor, it runs more slowly, because it is deeper in the gravity field. But is that true if the clock is falling from the thirtieth floor past the second floor?
Is time dilation due simply to “existing within a gravity field” or “being subject to the acceleration of the gravity field?” When it is falling, it isn’t subject to that acceleration.
(Meanwhile, when the clock passes the first floor, it stops running entirely…)
Objects in free fall are hard to really say if they are accelerating or not.
None of the expectations of acceleration are met from it’s perspective, instead those expectations are met by a stationary object in a gravity field.
Adding to that the fact that gravity is a distortion in space according to Einstein, then maybe falling isn’t accelerating.
Then again Einstein didn’t know what gravity was, if it is actually not a force but a distortion of space as he theorized, then it seems clear the accelerating object isn’t actually accelerating, it is standing still and gravity is accelerating.
But if Gravity is an accelerating attractive force and not a distortion of space, then the falling object IS accelerating and we on earth aren’t.
And since no one has a theory on Gravity that has much going for it, then I doubt we can tell, unless maybe by the dropping a clock, and only if acceleration causes time dilation as General Relativity (wiki) says:
Acceleration produces time dilation according to GR from equivalence to Gravity:
This is because gravitational time dilation is manifested in accelerated frames of reference
According to General Relativity, gravitational time dilation is copresent with the existence of an accelerated reference frame.
But not in experiment it seems:
http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#Clock_Hypothesis
So if we accept the latter experiment trumps General Relativity, then GR has been delt a blow, though not by me.
Maybe you are being disingenuous here.
I have many times said that if time dilation were to occur in the accelerating elevator, it would stop being time dilated the INSTANT the clock is let go of (instant it stops accelerating), hence relativite velocity difference starts at zero.
Yes, it will eventually pick up speed from SR, but much later.
First off, The Special Theory of Relativity states that the speed of light moves at C in a vacuum regardless of the speed of the vehicle but does not even try and explain how, it is an ‘Axiom’ (assumption) on which the rest of it is based.
Well this is also impossible.
But it is understandable, if the speed of sound was expected to change based on how the earth moves, or how the source moves relative (toward of away) or if you measured the speed of sound in a moving vehicle you would find the exact same value, the speed of sound in air.
So light being constant is not required to explain any of the constant light speed results I know of.
Additionally Lorenz contraction CAN make light moving in the same direction as the observer work out, since the light is moving too slow, the length contraction can make the ship shorter so the light doesn’t have as far to go, and if the ships clock slows it will see the light as faster.
Alas, the speed of light going the other way, the too fast light is made worse.
This is never explained, probably why Einstein used it as an Axiom so he wouldn’t need to defend it, it just makes no sense…
BUT, if you can believe something crazy, it can work out, ALMOST, which is better than HARDLY.
If the vehicle was both simultaneously lengthened and contracted fro different views of the same reference frame, now it fixes the speed of light going both ways, but it is also impossibly paradoxical.
But we can do the same thing with time dilation, make the time both faster and slower depending of if the ship if coming or going.
And what’s more, this is even what the Dollper effect shows us due to the message delay increase/decrease, an approaching ship will look longer and accelerated, and a receding one will look shorter and slower.
If this were impossibly help as actually real and not the illusion it is, then this more completely transformed SR would actually work and the issues I bring up about what is seen perpendicular to the motion as things pass is also solved!
Since this side view would balance between receding and approaching and hence the effects would be balanced, null.
So while it is still paradoxical, it is harder to really demonstrate it.
Now don’t go thinking that this is actually what is happening because of all that, everything just said could be applied to sound, but the fact is we can move relative to sound even though the examples I used with sound fail to show that there are many ways that don’t work.
There would still be issues too, if the perpendicular view there are no changes in length or time, then observation in that view can’t correct the speed of light.
And it wouldn’t solve light speed issues from motion perpendicular to light, for that you would need to bring in with expansion, though maybe that would need width contraction too explain fully, I am not sure.
I am merely posting this as a curiosity.
I don’t know why it was not included in SR to make sense of the constancy of the speed of light.
I am not sure what point there is in even writing this, and honestly I don’t care what anyone says in response.
Hey, I glad everyone argues against me, misunderstands, misrepresents and attacks me on here, otherwise I wouldn’t share this for fear anyone took it as real and made Relativity harder to disprove.
-
There are literally hundreds of threads on any other topic for you to post about and you choose to focus on ones that you start yourself. That’s not being very neighborly.
-
You’ve posted thousands upon thousands of words and not a single person has been persuaded. In fact, I’ve been trying to follow your argument and I’m still not entirely sure what the basis of your argument even is. It’s just a jumbled mess of half-truisms, jargon, and pointless asides. Please, if you could in a single sentence, summarize what you think is wrong with SR, that would be great. The convoluted thought experiments can come later.
I guess I’ll point you to this reference:
http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/time_dil.html
This is factually incorrect. It is not a mere assumption. It has been measured and experimentally verified.
When your first paragraph is nonsense, it’s unlikely that the rest of the word salad is going to offer much of value.
mythoughts, if you want to talk experimental physics, wouldn’t you want to talk to some actual physicists?
I’m sure there are a few such types that hang out here, but this is a general-interest message board, and IMHO you’re going to have to explain what you are going on about a lot more clearly than you have so far, if you want a profitable discussion. I’m just sayin’.
Maybe if you tried not posting you would get far fewer negative responses?
Win/Win for everyone!
Also, it’s the Doppler effect.