I think you’re wrong here. The equations are not ambiguous. You would never have contradictory time rates. In your example, Earth and Alpha Centauri would be in one inertial frame, and your spaceship in another. In that case, SR gives only one time compression ratio.
Now, Earth (and AC) see your clock running slow…and you see their clocks running slow…but the ratio is exactly the same.
As long as the frames remain inertial, this apparent paradox is not resolvable. It also doesn’t matter. The contraction equations don’t care which of the two frames is “really” fixed; they (and physical experimentation) show that there is no such thing as a"really fixed" frame of reference.
You’re trying to create problems that don’t exist, either in experiments or in the equations.
Mythoughts, at the risk of sounding obnoxious and pissing you off, I have a genuine question for you that’s not directly related to the topic here. It sounds as though you are not one hundred percent certain about what SR actually predicts. You’ve also said that you aren’t familiar with the term “inertial reference frame,” which is one of the first things that’s come up in my own amateur studies of relativity, and you’ve said that you aren’t completely up on GR.
Given these perfectly understandable gaps in your knowledge (and you seem to working to fill them, which is admirable), when you see an apparent paradox arising from what you think SR is claiming, why on earth would you assume (and be completely certain, in fact!) that you’ve figured out something that all the scientists of the world who spend their entire careers working with this stuff couldn’t grasp, rather than wonder whether you’ve actually understood SR as well as you’ve thought you did?
I’m not saying you haven’t figured out a flaw in SR (though to be perfectly frank, I’m pretty sure you haven’t), but even if you have, surely it’s a little early in the game to be so certain about it, isn’t it? How can you possibly be completely certain that you’ve found a flaw in SR if you aren’t completely certain what SR predicts?
Especially when the SR (Lorentz) math is high school level stuff. The hardest thing in it is a square root. It really is that easy. If there were flaws in it, Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose wouldn’t have been wasting their time.
One of the sad things about it all is how the difficulty of the math makes a HUGE quantum jump. You have to go almost directly from square roots to tensors. This knocks a lot of people right out of the game.
(Quantum Mechanics also gets off to a relatively easy start. Junior-level college physics classes can get into the simple examples of the Schroedinger Wave calculations. The example I got in college was a super-simplified pseudo-atom consisting of an electron bounded with a positron. The two are willing to “orbit each other” for a while before annihilating, and it’s a student-level problem to describe the wave equation for this particle pair. But soon after that, the math gets really overwhelming.)
An INERTIAL reference frame is one not experiencing any acceleration. INERTIAL reference frames experience time dilation only from relative velocity.
A NON-INERTIAL reference frame is one experiencing either acceleration or gravity. (According to the equivalence principle, acceleration and gravity behave identically.) NON-INERTIAL reference frames experience time dilation from BOTH relative velocity AND acceleration/gravity.
If you observe the signals coming from an object moving at relativistic speeds they will indeed be Doppler shifted. But the Doppler shifted signals will appears to be coming from a SLOWED clock. The two effects add together.
The same, or opposed, depending on the direction of motion. If a ticking clock is moving quickly TOWARD you the ticks will be speeded up because of the Doppler shift and slowed down because of time dilation. Which effect predominates depends on how fast it’s going.
Okay, let’s imagine Earth and Alpha Centauri are stationary relative to each other and you’re going to travel from one to the other.
As you start your trip you accelerate away from Earth and quickly reach nearly the speed of light. During your brief acceleration phase Earth’s clock slows down (it’s behind you) and Alpha Centauri’s clock speeds up (it’s ahead of you). However, since AC’s clock is much further away, it speeds up by much more than Earth’s clock slows down.
When you reach traveling speed you shut off your engines and coast to Alpha Centauri. During this long phase of the trip both clocks run slow because they’re moving relative to you.
Then you have another brief burst of acceleration to slow you down at Alpha Centauri. Since its in the opposite direction the clock on Earth runs fast (by a lot since its far away) and the clock on Alpha Centauri runs slow (by a little since its close).
When you’re all done you discover than more time has elapsed on both Earth and Alpha Centauri than on your ship. However Earth’s clock was “sped up” by your deceleration at the end of the trip and Alpha Centauri’s clock was “sped up” by your acceleration at the beginning of the trip.
Note that no signals have to be sent to you while you’re traveling. You just arrive and discover that your clock is lagging the clock on Alpha Centauri.
If signals WERE sent to you while you were traveling then Doppler effects might make it seem like the clocks were keeping times that were even more different. But that’s not a necessary part of the thought experiment.
I was quite sure (in a general sense that one can have without using calculations to get exact values) of what SR predicts.
However I am open to the possibility that I am mistaken about what SR predicts.
Nor would it shock me that there are slightly different interpretations of SR which may all be held as valid by different (respected) scientists.
It rang a bell, and I assumed initially that it meant what I now know it to mean, that of constant motion without and acceleration or curving.
But I was far from sure of this when (whoever it was) accused me of not addressing it (which I had), which made me wonder if it meant the opposite. At any rate I wanted to know what it meant to him.
True
Good question.
Short version of my lifes story:
Above average intelligence (according to those who observed me), but ADD and hated school, bullied, left as soon as I could after attending ‘special’ classes, very very lame.
I couldn’t focus in school and it didn’t interest me, I did not believe I was intelligent at the time.
I left school at 16 but I found I was absolutely passionate about physics, I would get all the books on physics and such from the library, which turned out to be 100 at a time on science…
I then came upon claims of Free Energy and Antigravity, while I was initially sceptical, I found I could not explain away the reports. Now I can be sceptical, but I am not near as cynical as sceptics turn out to be, who would never believe this stuff. I guess everyone has a different way of working out what is probably true, and a different estimation of weather it is better to be fooled by a charlatan or false positive results or deny extremely important world changing results.
Personally I would rather risk being fooled that to have humanity miss such huge revolutions.
I guess you could say that I do not agree that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Sceptics have missed the boat on every revolution that has come from science, even denied ones that have been in use and publicly demonstrated, at least for a short while.
I also recognize that the half life of information is rather short in all fields, even physics, and if progresses procession by procession (funeral).
note: I do not expect any of you to agree with me on such ‘fringe’ subjects.
Anyway I looked at all these claims of Free Energy and Antigravity thinking that firstly there must be flaws and gaps in physics you can drive a bus through under the right conditions, and because mostly the predicted results are bang on, that whatever these different inventions are doing, it must be rare and there must be correlations between them because if there were too many ways to get these effects they would pop up all the time.
So I immersed myself in all these claims and I could not find ANY correlation, at least none that I thought I might find. If there were correlations they linked 2 or 3 different claims at most.
But then, as I kept looking, I saw a correlation, one I DID NOT want to see. Evidence that a great number of these designs seemed to be trying to rotate something, something that was not electrons, not anything other than aether.
And I hated the concept of the aether, really it seemed so messy, and it is there but you can’t see it.
But I got past that and realized that it made sense of many of the anomalies of these devices, often one device would have multiple anomalies. Somehow the substance of space was being moved and changed so that the laws of physics went wonky, energy could now either be created, or al least pulled from the aether, antigravity and many anomalies could be created.
So, easy, all I have to do is rotate, the aether, how hard could that be?
It look by about 16 years of fruitless searching, ok I actually managed to increase my understanding of the aether by researching everything I could, but I couldn’t show any results at all.
Then 2 years ago I made an unusual coil based on what I had learnt, and very faintly at first I could feel something from it when hooked up to a signal generator.
Over time the sensation grew from ‘am I imagining it’ all the way up to ‘ouch’.
I found the effect persisted with that coil after the signal gen was turned off, this ruled out any possible conventional cause. (later coils were unpowered)
I then had the most fun I have ever had trying different ideas I was previously unable to test about how the aether worked.
And to ensure I hadn’t just gone insane, I tried other people, and the majority could feel something (at best, 19 in a row have, at worst 3-4 in a row haven’t felt it), and enough of them felt something surprising and utterly undeniable (not subtle) that I knew that if I was crazy, so is everyone else and quite a few no less crazy than I was.
I have also had 2 instances where someone has felt the energy and commented on it even though they had no knowledge that they should feel anything.
One was a friend I had given one of these coils to, he had it in his jeans pocket, and in a waiting room someone commented that they felt some sensation on their foot which was inline with the coil.
So by this point, I think it is probably easier to conclude that disbelieving it would be crazy.
Additionally I have read a lot of experimental evidence for an aether, more scientific in nature (or more scientifically acceptable) than my own evidence.
But you can’t beat feeling the aether for certainty that exists. That won’t help convince anyone else, but it might help explain my certainty.
Admittedly, beyond that, I an an INTJ, and the J stands for Judging, we act definitive, sometimes even more definitive than we actually are simply because it seem more practical than wallowing in the last tiny bit of uncertainty. And yet I anyway can change my belief however certain I used to be if the evidence weighs in favour of a change.
Longer than you bargained for I bet, but it should be clear at this point I can go on a bit.
I think I have given as complete an answer as I possibly can.
Other than to say that because I am personally convinced the current state of physics has huge holes, that give me far more disrespect, than respect for it’s current state and those who got it here.
In my opinion they have done an amazing job of creating a framework that is so right in so many ways, and yet completely wrong and deficient in other ways.
In other words I am what most would call a crank. Maybe that is the short answer most would rather.
Wow, great response, ** mythoughts**! I don’t have much to say in reply, but it’s a fascinating story, and I appreciate you taking the time to tell it.
Thanks, by being clear you were being genuine yourself, you got that rather than a F#*k you.
It is best to make the effort to respect others with differing beliefs and act genuinely, rather than go on the attack.
I will make a renewed effort, and hope others do too, the first page of this thread was mostly attacks on me, which however valid/invalid/fun that might be, it isn’t constructive. And I fought back.
He is talking about those two frames. Obviously where SR ends and GR can be debated and certainly you can tackle the problem in a way that looks very much like GR, but for me SR in accelerated frames of reference is still SR.
Ok, I just want to quickly state my current position regarding SR.
If time dilation from relative motion applies (inertial reference frames) which (IMO) must still apply even if there is a curve also/arc/orbit also then my thought experiments disprove SR as being logically consistent, and hence it is impossible. I would also say that if light is assumed to be a thing with a definite-ish position at any moment (allowing for QM uncertainty), then the speed of light being constant is indefensible also.
Note: Just because there is GR time dilation involved also due to acceleration, or presence in an actual gravity field, does not mean that SR goes out the window, that wouldn’t track. I doubt anyone seriously knowledgeable would disagree unless desperate to defend SR at any cost including self deception and lying. Hence arguments that rotation should not experience SR effects is IMO unsupportable.
However if time is considered not to move slower in different reference frames (inertial reference frames) in a net manner, but to actually accelerate or slow based on approaching or receding from a point in a reference frame (in a manner identical to Doppler, but in addition to it and real not an illusion like Doppler), then I consider that aspect of SR not to be addressed by my arguments on time dilation. And possibly hard to argue against without instantaneous communication.
However I will be very very surprised if that is the case.
If the latter is the case, then as 2 observers pass each other at near C, they should see the others clock run normally.
However if there the latter is asymmetric, which means that time runs both faster AND slower for an observer in a different inertial reference frame, but one of the effects is greater (which the Twin Paradox would require I think for the travelling twin to come back younger unless all difference is a result of GR time dilation in the twin paradox), which would mean that time dilation is greater, then my arguments still work just fine.
At this point, I need clarification on who supports the middle view, that both time acceleration(compression) exists and time dilation, and that they are equal at a given relative velocity, which means there is no net time dilation between frames until specific points in each frame is considered.
This being besides time dilation from GR of course.
But this is part of the problem, you don’t understand how it applies for curved paths (and in fact your misconceptions are basic than that). I’ve tried to do my best to point out where you have been going astray.
Let’s ignore GR, I wish it wasn’t brought up. It’s a common misconception that as soon as acceleration gets involved we move over from SR into GR, but SR would be a pretty crappy theory of kinematics if it couldn’t handle accelerated motion.
I’ve tried to make the distinction between time dilation and what observers actually see. Time dilation is well-defined in some contexts, less well-defined in others, but what an observer actually sees is always well-defined, que sera.
This is not the case, if two inertial observers pass at some non-zero distance they will see the others clock to be slowed at the moment they work out that they pass (this is the transverse Doppler effect which can be entirely attributed to time dilation). Note though neither observer will agree with the other as to the moment when they passed due to the failure of simultaneity at a distance.
I don’t know what your arguments are here or what point you are trying to illustrate. In the twin paradox, the twin who undergoes some form on non-inertial motion is always younger upon their return.
I’m not sure how you go the impression anyone supports this view or even precisely what you mean here. It’s difficult to answer any kind of questions if you don’t lay out what you mean. Don’t expect to be understood without making the effort to be understood.
This is a key point. If something is traveling along a curved path then it MUST be experiencing either acceleration or gravity. These create their own time dilation effects. Depending on the set-up, the time dilation effects from acceleration/gravity may cancel out those from relative motion or give opposite results from what you’d expect in the straight-line case.
You can prove that time dilation is not a Doppler effect by moving clocks around and then bringing them together to compare them. This was done in 1971 by putting high-accuracy clocks on two jetliners and flying them around the world in opposite directions. No signals were exchanged between the clocks during their travels, but when they were brought back together they were out of sync with each other as well as and a stationary clock on the ground. And the amounts they were out of sync agreed with what relativity predicts.
I’m not sure what you mean by “the middle view”. There are two types of time dilation. One caused by relative velocity. The other caused by acceleration/gravity. Sometimes the two effects add together. Sometimes the two effects act in opposition. And sometimes they cancel each other out.
Here’s an example of how time dilation and Doppler shift combine.
Say a spaceship is traveling at 90% of the speed of light toward Earth. It’s sending out a radio beep every second.
If the ship were stationary the beeps would arrive one second apart. But because the ship is getting closer, each successive beep has less distance to travel. If we ignore relativity, each beep would arrive 1/10 of a second apart. That’s Doppler shift.
However, traveling at 90% of the speed of light also causes time dilation. The factor is about 2.29, but to keep the math simple, let’s round it to 2. From the perspective of an observer on Earth, the clock on the spaceship is ticking about half as fast as a clock on earth.
So instead of a beep being emitted every second (from Earth’s perspective) the ship is emitting one beep every two seconds. Combined with the Doppler effect, the beeps arrive at earth about 1/5th of a second apart.
If you just look at the beeps, the ships clock is running “faster”. But not as fast as it should if the Doppler effect were the only cause.
(This example ignores the effects of Earth’s gravity.)
My apologies if this has already been said; I haven’t read the whole thread. But –
The idea that speed of light is the same for all observers isn’t just an idea the Einstein dreamed up and proposed with special relativity. A couple of guys named Michelson and Morely tried to measure how the speed of light varied, as measured in different directions relative to the motion of the earth. They were shocked to discover that there was no difference. All Einstein did was come with an explanation for how that could possibly be the case.
The rest of the story about time dilation, length compression, etc., are just the mathematical implications of the observed fact that the speed of light does not vary for different observers. Doesn’t matter if it makes sense or not; it’s consistent with actual observed evidence, and has since been corroborated many times in many different ways.
Ok, now I see an opportunity to get somewhere.
You argue that we can ignore GR, and that the issue is that I don’t understand how it (SR) applies to curved paths.
Obviously your objection to curved paths is not related to GR time dilation occurring in addition, or that SR somehow falls apart the moment there is acceleration in any axis.
And yet to have such an objection, seemingly you must simultaneously expect SR to not apply in anything like the normal fashion the moment a slight curve exists.
If you can explain this, I might be able to advance my understanding in a useful way.
The distance could be mighty small, and this can’t work so well if constantly passing as is the case with the opposite cabins on the train turn table.
Or also the case with any researcher in the center, or a counter-rotating train turn table on a co-linear or parallel axis where cabins repeatedly meet up and could appear stationary if stroboscopic technology is used.
But to me, the problem isn’t that I have ‘trouble with the curve’ but that you seem to be unable to tell me what would be seen with the train turn table (TTT) when linear paths (dropped objects, passing same velocity linear travelling trains)
I am presenting you with a thought experiment, you give me the results, it seems that you can’t, or you would have by now.
And yes I did get an initial answer to the fist part of the TTT experiment, but I did not include more because I did not think the answer that was given would be given.
So now the next question about linear paths must be solvable and hopefully not contradictory.
But what does non-inertian motion have to do with it?
As you said, SR would be a pretty crappy theory if it couldn’t handle non-inertial motion.
But to me, if non-inertial motion is what causes the only actual time dilation, then it sounds a lot like it is just that GR is being factored in.
But I suspect you are saying that it is going to be something to do with non-simultaneity at a distance?
Still I would argue that it would probably be easier for you to say what you think would be seen by the different observers in the thought experiment, than to try and have me understand SR to the point that I can solve it myself.
If no one believes such a view, then there is no need to mention it.
It was The Hampster King who proposed something very close to that view, with the only question being if there was symmetry between time acceleration and slowing in the same frame.
But I didn’t expect anyone else to agree with his time acceleration is real concept.
Still in my belief Relativity makes no sense, so has no doubt been held together by chewing gum and sticky tape I would not think it unlikely that different views/contortions are held by different scientists to make it survive one logical attack of another.
It doesn’t matter if it makes sense or not.
I really think that is the heart of the issue, it doesn’t matter if it is hard to comprehend, sure.
BUT it DOES make matter if it makes sense or not!
If it does not make sense, then an error in some form has been made.
In this case the error was blindingly obvious, they just didn’t want to believe it.
The earth carries space (aether/ether) with it, both in it’s orbit around the sun and it’s spin.
The M-M experiment would not be expected to find light to deviate from C if light travels through the aether the earth entrains at C (in the same way sound is dependant on the medium not the emitter velocity).
Note: That sentence reads funny, I am not saying the earth entrains aether at C obviously, but that light moves though the aether at C, and the earth entrains the aether. Hence light moves at C relative to matter.
Actually when you consider that time dilation and length contraction are also very plausible if you are flying at high speed into an aetheric head wind as the aether would compress and distort…
And if most material objects entrain aether…
Then the only time that the speed of light would be measured to deviate from C is in a vehicle that might carry aether with it, but has sensors out the side that are insufficient to entrain aether outside the vehicle, these could then move along the earth frame (entrained aether frame) and detect the speed of light to differ from C, either faster or slower depending on direction.
But if the speed of light was measured in the vehicle, it would probably be measured at C since it is carrying aether with it, just as the speed of sound would be normal in the vehicle as it carries air.
It would also be a challenge to measure the speed of sound in air as anything other than the normal velocity too for the same reasons.
There are also experiments that back up the aether, and an interesting one I read the other day.
There is a theory that is a mirror travels at a significant % of the speed of light, it will give enough energy to virtual photon pairs that they become real light, researchers had managed to pull this amazing feat off by virtually moving a mirror for microwaves at about 20% of the speed of light.
This caused photons to appear from the vacuum!
But something should be occurring to you relativists, why would you need to move the mirror to have a significant percentage of the photons to be moving at a great % of the speed of light relative to the mirror??? (wait, what did I just say?)
If we assume that the no preferred (privileged) inertial reference frames exist, then shouldn’t we conclude that this should be true for virtual particles also, and that every virtual particle would occupy some random inertial frame between that of the earths and the speed of light?
And how can you move relative to a photon of all things, something which velocity relative to is meant to be meaningless???
Even if you view velocity to light to matter here in some respect because there are 2 photons, still the reference frame the photons pop out of should be random, unless QM doesn’t respect that there are no preferred reference frames.
There is nothing the least bit illogical about an entrained aether, which is more than I can say for SR, and they make almost all the same predictions unless you get fancy.
Except SR makes me suspect that the definition for Axiom should read: What you call an assertion you can’t find any way to argue for or defend in an argument so that you can avoid an argument you know you will lose.
This has been a wonderfully informative thread; I had never been taught the distance relationship, and I was one of those under the misconception that only GR could deal with acceleration, either of frames of reference or of objects.
This is the time dilation that occurs in reference frames that are being accelerated or are in gravitational fields. In your “circular train” example the passengers are experiencing high accelerations even when the train is moving at constant radial velocity.
Gravitational time dilation can be observed even when nothing is moving. Clocks on the top of mountains run faster than clocks down in valleys even if they’re stationary with respect to each other. You don’t need motion to get time dilation.
I didn’t see this one, I see we are on a new page.
I never ignored these effects, I merely argued that it was not the type of time dilation I was addressing, and can be reduced continuously to fall out of any competition with the time dilation we are interested in. (without lessening the time dilation we are interested in).
Also correct me if I am wrong, but does time dilation not mean specifically the SLOWING of time?
How can 2 different forms of slowing on the same object cancel?
They would add!
Let’s get away from the GR confusion, SR still applies even when there is a bit of GR in the mix, it has no relevance.
Now I can make an argument as to how GR time dilation would also lead to impossible results if you like?
Let’s say you have 2 identical light speed detectors, each is a clock, 2 light sensors separated by a suitable distance.
Now we will have both measure the same photon, OR instantaneous light pulse wave front.
Now the should get the same velocity, obviously, now set one to vibrate or oscillate, the whole thing, violently, very violently (but at a high frequency) enough that the G-forces create time dilation according to GR of magnitudes that you could hope to detect with a precision clock.
Now the 2 sensors on each rig could be right by each other in almost the same location at each end, and yet one clock is experiencing time more slowly.
Try and work out how each clock could measure the same speed of light for the pulse.
Oh, it’s an axiom, nevermind :).
Now the magic word has been used logic has been defeated!
I do not hold this experiment in the high regard that you do. But I am not interested in squabbling over details of flaws in specific experiments, that would get us no where. Additionally such a result is hardly implausible with an entrained aether, but I want to stay focused on thought experiments and on SR, not on aether.
To me logic is always going to be more pure and clear than arguing different technical issues, deception and fraud (scientific fraud is rife according to recent findings) false positives, etc…
Look at the neutrinos are definitely faster than the speed of light and it isn’t a technical issue, wait no they aren’t it is a technical issue. And from my perspective of being cynical toward the integrity of the scientific process, I question the retraction as seriously as the initial claim.
How about Tesla recording his special radiant energy exceeding the speed of light be a significant degree, and from cosmic sources to a huge degree!
Should that be counted as evidence too?
Oh, but he is a crackpot…
Who beat Marconi to the invention of the radio and invented synchronous motors, and the AC system and initial architecture for the electrical grid.
The problem is that went it comes down to it, physical results of the subtle variety that are not witnessed by many independent observers depend on who you trust to both be straight with you and competent.
And we are not going to agree on who is and isn’t trustworthy and competent.
The middle view meant that I had expressed 3 possibilities, the middle view being the second one, I should have been clearer and numbered them.
At any rate no one appears to agree with your view that actual (not apparent) time acceleration exists for a parties approaching each other.
And even if that were so, it would not matter to my arguments unless the effect were fully symmetrical so as to cause no net time dilation between inertial reference frames if favoured positions in each frame aren’t selected.
How does time dilation (slowing in my book) ever cancel out?
No, I am talking about your claim that as an object in one inertial frame approaches an observer in a different inertial frame, that both will see the others time to proceed more rapidly than their own (see the other parties time to be accelerated) and while I would expect the same to be true as an illusion of the effect I have been asked not to mention cough Doppler cough you were holding that there is an additional identical but actual acceleration of time besides the illusory one we all agree isn’t real.
For the record:
I DO get what you mean about GR and time acceleration, despite your claims to the contrary I am fully aware of the basic concept of gravity slowing time in an absolute way (which means from the inside perspective the outside world seems accelerated) and the equivalence of gravity ant acceleration.
Indeed that is all I do know of GR, I think there is much more about GR that I am ignorant of and not currently interested in.
No they aren’t (necessarily), please make a better effort to read more of what I say!
The centripetal acceleration involved in rotation at a constant RPM is fully dependant on the diameter, and not just the immediate linear velocity.
If the diameter is increased enough even at near light speed the G-force can be reduced below 1G, and the time dilation in a 1G gravity or acceleration field is vanishingly small and nothing compared to the effects of time dilation from SR.
Seriously, it’s not just me, everyone else seems to agree that there is no point in bringing GR into this.
Yes, all things I know.
There are even clocks that can measure the different rate of time between the top and bottom of a building I think I had read.
We are addressing SR, not GR.
For GR see my thought experiment with the shaken speed of light measuring apparatus along side one not shaken in a message above.
Nothing else has involved GR, or needs to consider GR in the least.
Please stop bringing up GR, that is your misunderstanding not mine.
In this case, slowing for you means speeding up for me.
Gravitational time dilation is NOT SYMMETRICAL. If I’m down in the valley and you’re up on the mountain, I will see your clock running faster and you will see my clock running slower. It does not have the paradoxical “we both see the other moving slower” aspect of inertial time dilation.
And, because of the equivalence principle, gravity and acceleration work the same. If I’m accelerating toward you, we will BOTH AGREE that my clock is running slower and your clock is running faster.
This is not some weird personal theory of mine. Just read the Wikipedia page on gravitational time dilation.
If you’re oscillating the detector quickly you have an acceleration in one direction immediately followed by an opposing acceleration the opposite direction. These effects cancel out.
Lol … of course not. It directly contradicts your claims.
Not “approaching each other”. ACCELERATING toward each other. And, as I said, this is not some weird crackpot theory I’ve made up. It’s right there in the Wikipedia description of gravitational time dilation.
You do understand the difference between velocity and acceleration, right?
I can be accelerating toward you without moving toward you, and I can be moving toward you without accelerating toward you.
