![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
handmade » 09 Apr 2017, 00:32 wrote:I thought the question would be easy to understand. Because of time dilation , time is thought to be a variant. However I believe it is the reference frame that is a variant and not the rate of time. My reasoning for this, if mass one was equal to mass two and they both were an equal distance away from the sun orbiting the Sun at the same speed, time would be synchronous for mass one and mass two.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
BurtJordaan» 10 Apr 2017, 09:28 wrote:
No, you are wrong on both counts, or at least very imprecise. Time is relative, not a variant. It means different inertial frames have different definitions of time, simultaneity, energy, momentum, etc.
Two masses orbiting the Sun in equivalent orbits can have clocks that are synchronized in the Sun-centered inertial frame. But they are each in a different inertial frame and they cannot synchronize their clocks to each other in their own separate inertial frames. Neither can their clock be synchronized to a theoretical "paper clock" at the center of the Sun.
We do not call such inertial frames "variants", they are just different inertial frames.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
handmade » 10 Apr 2017, 09:35 wrote:... but in reality doesn't entropy change at the speed of the c and it is the incoming ''light'' that changes entropy?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
BurtJordaan » April 10th, 2017, 3:03 am wrote:handmade » 10 Apr 2017, 09:35 wrote:... but in reality doesn't entropy change at the speed of the c and it is the incoming ''light'' that changes entropy?
No, entropy does not change at "the speed of c". And it is not light that changes the entropy of a system. I still don't understand what you are really asking. If you want to chat on physics, you must be prepared to formulate precise statements or questions.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
handmade » 10 Apr 2017, 10:12 wrote:Ok, to put it in simplified form, I do not think time dilation is what we think it is or works like we think it does. I am not saying there is not a measured dilation, I am saying we have the wrong interpretation of the information.
I am not sure why you say entropy does not change at the rate of c. Most certainty photons ''bombard'' matter at c changing the state of matter in a thermodynamic way etc.
Surely what we measure of the caesium is a rate of entropy and not a rate of time?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
BurtJordaan » April 10th, 2017, 4:02 am wrote:handmade » 10 Apr 2017, 10:12 wrote:Ok, to put it in simplified form, I do not think time dilation is what we think it is or works like we think it does. I am not saying there is not a measured dilation, I am saying we have the wrong interpretation of the information.
This may be more suited to the Philosophy part of SCPCF (PCF).I am not sure why you say entropy does not change at the rate of c. Most certainty photons ''bombard'' matter at c changing the state of matter in a thermodynamic way etc.
The Sun bombards Earth with radiation energy and the Sun's entropy goes up and the Earth's entropy goes down. When Earth performs work woth that energy, its entropy increases. It also radiates, so its entropy increase. But the rate of change has to do with energy flux, not the speed of photons.Surely what we measure of the caesium is a rate of entropy and not a rate of time?
Yes, time is local and we do not measure the "rate of time": it is always one second per second. But we have defined the local second to be 9,192,631,770 cycles of the transitions between the two hyperfine ground states of caesium-133 atoms. Then we measure the elapsed time between local events using those seconds.
Since we also pump energy into the cesium clock, what comes out is not a measure of the rate of change of entropy of the clock.
Before we get to your 'added questions', let us first get the above straight.
The Sun bombards Earth with radiation energy and the Sun's entropy goes up and the Earth's entropy goes down. When Earth performs work with that energy, its entropy increases. It also radiates, so its entropy increase. But the rate of change has to do with energy flux, not the speed of photons.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
BurtJordaan » April 10th, 2017, 4:21 am wrote:Nope, please agree to what I have replied as correct, or discuss it further. Only then may we possibly continue with the barrage of 'added assertions'.
Which BTW, hints that is is not mainstream physics that you are interested in, but a return to absolute time. This will make your thread unsuitable for the Physics Sub-forum...
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
handmade » 10 Apr 2017, 11:28 wrote:
Please show mutual respect in that I have self studied for several years and understand time dilation , assume I know what I am talking about.
Yes I agree you observe a change in the rate of time when using the Caesium cycles to measure time. Ok ?
So now please answer this question , do you agree that an object in motion has an immediate future geometrical position ahead of it and will leave an immediate past geometrical position behind it?
P.s I am not attacking mainstream, Newton is still mainstream with lots of notions, if his absolute time was proven to be correct, it is no big thing really, he already is mainstream and the notion already exists.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
BurtJordaan » April 10th, 2017, 4:02 am wrote:handmade » 10 Apr 2017, 10:12 wrote:Ok, to put it in simplified form, I do not think time dilation is what we think it is or works like we think it does. I am not saying there is not a measured dilation, I am saying we have the wrong interpretation of the information.
This may be more suited to the Philosophy part of SCPCF (PCF).
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
vivian maxine » 10 Apr 2017, 15:05 wrote:Are you saying that once we start interpreting what science shows us, we have moved into philosophy? I see that as possible since philosophy is opinions. But what does that do to scientific investigations?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
BurtJordaan » April 10th, 2017, 7:03 am wrote:handmade » 10 Apr 2017, 11:28 wrote:
Please show mutual respect in that I have self studied for several years and understand time dilation , assume I know what I am talking about.
Yes I agree you observe a change in the rate of time when using the Caesium cycles to measure time. Ok ?
I'm happy to assume that you know what you are talking about, but when you make a loose statement like the one before the "OK?", then I don't know what you are talking about. Time does not have rate - we measure rates of change of other things against time, as so many 'something' that happened in a time interval as determined by cesium (or ceasium if you like) time. Or maybe you are asking about relative time, i.e. the time interval that one observer measures compared to the time interval that another observer measures, but there is no way to tell from your statement.
So it is not OK!So now please answer this question , do you agree that an object in motion has an immediate future geometrical position ahead of it and will leave an immediate past geometrical position behind it?
Unless you define 'motion' relative so some specified reference frame, this is also an non-answerable question.P.s I am not attacking mainstream, Newton is still mainstream with lots of notions, if his absolute time was proven to be correct, it is no big thing really, he already is mainstream and the notion already exists.
Newton's theory is only mainstream if we are discussing the history of science, or when clearly stated that the relativistic effects are negligibly small (and define the scenario so that they are, e.g. low relative speeds and negligible spacetime curvature).
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
BurtJordaan » April 11th, 2017, 5:14 am wrote:Thanks for the accolades, Handmade. The idea is to make the SPCF a useful place for people to come to when they want to chat about science and learn something about the topics that they are interested in.
However, as you may have noticed, I have moved your topic to Personal Theories, because it is now clear that what you have in mind is getting feedback on non-mainstream physics ideas. To keep things uncluttered for people interested in mainstream physics, we reserve the right to shift non-mainstream propositions to the section created for it. There the rules are more relaxed and most ideas go, as long as it is civilized and well motivated.
A little advice on quoting in your replies. It is not good to quote the whole of a long post and then to quote bits and pieces in a different color for your response. I normally just leave the first bit that I want to respond to in the original quote tags, which identifies the post that you reply to. After that I use just the Quote tags of the editor and copy and paste the text I want to specifically respond to in there. This creates a 'clean look and feel' for your reply. You can get the text from underneath the editor, or sometimes I just open another tab with the post visible.
I will respond to your questions in a separate post.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
handmade » 11 Apr 2017, 11:00 wrote:I am confused, are you saying that real time has no rate and therefore no dilation?
But relative time dilates.
The motion is relative to the observer or yourself if you like or 3 points of reference , an object in motion relative to an observer will leave a past geometrical position as it enters a new future geometrical position.
Yes?
I have looked at both sides of the fence to conclude Newton was correct about time. Planck, re-enforcing Newtons ideas.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
me:The motion is relative to the observer or yourself if you like or 3 points of reference , an object in motion relative to an observer will leave a past geometrical position as it enters a new future geometrical position.
Yes?
you:If by geometrical you mean a spatial (x,y,z) position, yes. But take note that it is only in the reference frame. In the moving frame, there is no new spatial position taken up, just a new spacetime position.
In any case, Newton's theory has been proved inadequate for high relative speeds, so what would be the point?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
In essence the difference in spacetime path lengths causes accelerated clocks (even momentarily) to record less elapsed time than purely inertial clocks between the same two events.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
ralfcis » April 15th, 2017, 8:58 am wrote:Jorrie wroteIn essence the difference in spacetime path lengths causes accelerated clocks (even momentarily) to record less elapsed time than purely inertial clocks between the same two events.
So are you saying the age difference occurs only during the acceleration phase for however long that lasts? So each frame is seeing the other's relative time going slower. It's like they each have a bank account of time to which more and more virtual time savings are being deposited. That time remains virtual until one or the other withdraws the virtual time savings by accelerating and all that virtual time saving suddenly becomes real for the accelerator and evaporates for the other guy? Is this correct or am I missing a subtlety or two?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
handmade » 15 Apr 2017, 13:34 wrote:Yes I mean XYZ or Minkowski space-time. If you consider your yes answer you have just wholesomely agreed with me and my speculation about time and why Newton was correct about absolute time.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
ralfcis » 15 Apr 2017, 15:58 wrote:So are you saying the age difference occurs only during the acceleration phase for however long that lasts? ... Is this correct or am I missing a subtlety or two?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
ralfcis » 15 Apr 2017, 20:52 wrote:But you've said no to that so I really don't know what a "change to the structure of spacetime" means.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
BurtJordaan » April 15th, 2017, 12:58 pm wrote:handmade » 15 Apr 2017, 13:34 wrote:Yes I mean XYZ or Minkowski space-time. If you consider your yes answer you have just wholesomely agreed with me and my speculation about time and why Newton was correct about absolute time.
I disagree. It indicates a misconception on your part about the differences between Newton's and Einstein's theories.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests