Does velocity really dilate time?

[Uclock]

post #36

Farsight

Yes I do Uclock. And you haven't read TIME EXPLAINED at all, because if you had you would have seen how scathing I was about the Arrow of Time. It's merely a counting direction. I called it the Arrow of Beans. Time is a derived effect of motion. Like heat. And like heat it is not imaginary, but it is not fundamental. Did you notice the 1949 in my post? When did Einstein write Special Relativity part III? Aw that's enough, you've made up your mind that acceleration causes time dilation, you ignore anything that demonstrates that this is incorrect, you pretend you've read background material but get caught out and make up fatuous reasons as to why you don't need to bother. So just forget it

Yes I have read you essay on TIME EXPLAINED and if what you say about the arrow of time is true then why can’t I grow younger instead of aging? It is far more than just a counting direction. None of us can go back in time because it has a direction, an arrow that allows time to move in only one direction and I believe there is a real physical reason for this.
Don’t throw your toys out the pram. I may not agree with your interpretation of time but that does not mean we cannot discuss time in a sensible manner.

Tony

 

[Uclock]

post #37

kwhilborn

Is there an argument that Acceleration does not cause time dilation here?

Not quite, the argument is that velocity is not the reason that time dilates and all experiments on time dilation involve an element of acceleration which ‘indirectly’ accounts for time dilation. I maintain that any unbalanced force acting on an object will cause its time to dilate and this can be measured by how much this force displaces the object in spacetime. When the unbalanced force ceases to act on the object and it is in uniform motion, then time dilation for the object also ceases.

It is a controversial subject that NASA is planning to prove or disprove once and for all. What is wrong with the atomic clock on the plane experiments again?

For a start, there was no account taken of the forces of acceleration taken during take off and landing or any account of acceleration forces due to turbulence.

I accept that velocity and gravity affect perspective times based mostly on those. The longevity of particles or "muons" based on their comparative life expectancy has been attacked a lot, but I am only a reader of these experiments. Helionic waves or whatever.

The GPS answer I thought was the best for non velocity time dilation, however it is true that velocity may be a factor in that.

The two experiments that I feel have proved both Velocity and gravity time dilation are these.

a) the atomic clock in plane experiment.

Inconclusive, too many factors of acceleration where not taken into account.

b) the atomic clocks at high altitudes (no velocity) experiments. This is where clocks have been left atop mountains and eventually are eventually off. The most accurate clocks are atomic clocks, but due to the gravitational redshift, the oscillations of atoms will vary with gravity- that is, their frequency will change depending on the value of the gravitational field they are in. The gravity will affect the frequency of the atoms. Therefore, time runs faster at higher altitudes. Due to the same effect that makes time run faster at higher altitudes, it would run more slowly in a large gravitational field.

Still inconclusive, the clocks had to be moved from where ever to the top of the mountain and during their journey they will experience movement (acceleration) so unless this is also taken into account then the experiment will be flawed as far as my concept of spacetime is concerned.

c) my empoyees seem to work slower when I am in a rush. (this has just been a personal observation and not scientific. lol)

Give them a pay rise, it might speed them up! Also not scientific.

So Einsteins math has withstood some pretty heavy measuring. How can we argue with a theory that makes sense, and stands up to measurements?

The reason I am arguing with Einstein’s view of spacetime is because he never took into consideration the arrow of time. He believed it to be a psychological phenomenon whereas I believe it must have a real physical explanation. He is close to calculating time dilation but never spot on. Yes, his theory does make sense if you view spacetime as a metric but there is another way which can mathematically match Newton’s value for gravity within the confines of the solar system where we know the effect of gravity to be true, without using Newton’s gravitational constant. The main difference is that in this new way of viewing spacetime gravity becomes ‘time dependant’ and is not a force that works over an infinite distance.

Tony

 

[Uclock]

post #38

Janus58

Again, it is not the local value of the gravity field that results in gravitational time dilation, but the difference in gravtational potential, or relative depth in the field. This is what Einstein's math predicts and the experimental results show. IOW, Einstein predicts that if you had a uniform gravitational field (One where g does not vary with height), two clocks, placed at different heights in that field, will still run at different rates, even though both clocks experience the same g force.

I agree, with Einstein’s view of spacetime that is exactly what might happen but what I am saying is there is no experimental evidence to back up that assumption.

Tony

 

[Janus58]

Janus58







I am sorry Janus58 but I think you may have that the wrong way around. The person on the surface of the Earth will see the observers clock outside the gravitational field beat once every 0.99999999s for every one beat of his own clock, otherwise it would mean that clocks beat faster inside a gravitational field than outside which is not the case.

???? What's the difference between saying the outside observer sees the Earth clock beat 0.99999999 sec for each one of his own, and saying that the Earth observer sees the outside observer's clock beat 1 sec for every .99999999 sec of his own? They both say that the outside observer's clock beats 1 sec for every 0.999999999 sec beat on the Earth clock. IOW, the outside observer's clock beats faster.

Again, the Loretz transformation is close but we are also talking about centripetal acceleration involved here not just velocity. It may we be the rate of acceleration that is causing the effect and not the velocity.

Tony

But, since the ratio of centripetal acceleration to radial velocity changes with the radius of the ring,There is only one radius at which time dilation by centripetal acceleration would give the same results as the time dilation predicted by velocity. Since this experiment gives results that agree with the velocity prediction, this means, that in order for the centripetal acceleration to be the cause, the experiment would had to have used a radius very close to this, by pure chance. Not only that, but every like experiment done since would have had to use that same radius. I find that too unlikely a coincidence.

 

[Uclock]

Janus58

???? What's the difference between saying the outside observer sees the Earth clock beat 0.99999999 sec for each one of his own, and saying that the Earth observer sees the outside observer's clock beat 1 sec for every .99999999 sec of his own? They both say that the outside observer's clock beats 1 sec for every 0.999999999 sec beat on the Earth clock. IOW, the outside observer's clock beats faster.

You stated: Meaning that said removed observer sees 0.999999999 secs pass on the surface of the Earth fro every second he measures.

There is a big difference. If the observer outside of a gravitational field sees the observer’s clock on Earth beat once every 0.99999999 sec for every one beat his own clock then the clock on Earth is beating faster than the clock in space which is not the case. By your statement above you are saying that clocks beat slower in space. Take a closer look at your statement.

But, since the ratio of centripetal acceleration to radial velocity changes with the radius of the ring,There is only one radius at which time dilation by centripetal acceleration would give the same results as the time dilation predicted by velocity. Since this experiment gives results that agree with the velocity prediction, this means, that in order for the centripetal acceleration to be the cause, the experiment would had to have used a radius very close to this, by pure chance. Not only that, but every like experiment done since would have had to use that same radius. I find that too unlikely a coincidence.

Can you give me the details of this experiment? I need to know if they are varying the size of the storage ring in which the muon is accelerated and the velocities involved, the accuracy of the clocks used and the length of time the experiment was run for. Is there public access to this paper because I am having trouble finding it? (Bailey, J. et al., Nature 268, 301 (1977) on muon lifetimes and time dilation.)

Tony

 

[Farsight]

Janus: Just out of interest, is your dilation factor of 0.999999999 calculated? If I look at escape velocity of 11.2 kilometres per second versus c of 300,000 kilometres per second I see that it's roughly 1 in 30,000. One in a hundred thousand is 0.00001 so 1 in 30,000 is about 0.00003. If I take this from one I get 0.99997. All ready reckoning - I haven't worked it out properly so apologies if there's a c squared in there somewhere.

 

[Uclock]

Farsight

I think you will find Janus58 has used t = t'*sqrt(1-(2*G*M/r*c^2)) from GR to calculate the gravitational time dilation.

Tony

 

[darksidZz]

I'm no scientist, I should probably get a book or something on science. Anyways my thinking is this, velocity doesn't dilate time, from my understanding space effects time in that a more denser object will shift time around it into dilating from the surrounding normal space. So if you're approaching a dense object in your ship like a pulsar the closer you get the more time will slow outside the boundries of the gravity field. To an observer you might seem to be moving slowly, when infact you are moving exactly the same speed as they are.

This means gravity effects time because space bends more around an object that's more massive. Ahemm... yeah so wouldn't that mean that velocity doesn't change the rate of time but the faster you can move through space? So if I could move from point A to B in say 500 miliseconds and it was 30 light years then redo that and accomplish it in say 2 minutes, in theory the time I was gone should differ. For the person not moving in space that quickly the differences should be vast, and for me seem the same.

So this really means that as you move in space your mass increases, thus the surrounding gravity field is distorted to a point were you move into abnormal time. Instead of a singularity you become that singularity, and then are the cause of gravity being disturbed.

What do you think?

 

[Janus58]

Janus58




You stated: Meaning that said removed observer sees 0.999999999 secs pass on the surface of the Earth fro every second he measures.

There is a big difference. If the observer outside of a gravitational field sees the observer’s clock on Earth beat once every 0.99999999 sec for every one beat his own clock then the clock on Earth is beating faster than the clock in space which is not the case. By your statement above you are saying that clocks beat slower in space. Take a closer look at your statement.

No, you need to look closer. The statement" the removed observer sees 0.99999999 pass on Earth for every sec he measures", means that when his own clock has ticked off 1 sec, the Earth clock has only ticked off 0.999999999 sec by the removed observer's observation,( put another way, when his clock has ticked off 1,000,000,000 seconds, only 999,999,999 seconds have ticked off on Earth; the Earth's clock will be one second behind the Observers.) not that the Earth clock beats at an interval of 0.999999999 sec.

Can you give me the details of this experiment? I need to know if they are varying the size of the storage ring in which the muon is accelerated and the velocities involved, the accuracy of the clocks used and the length of time the experiment was run for. Is there public access to this paper because I am having trouble finding it? (Bailey, J. et al., Nature 268, 301 (1977) on muon lifetimes and time dilation.)

Tony

Here's a link to the nature article:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v268/n5618/abs/268301a0.html

 

[kwhilborn]

uclock

Thanks for the thorough explanation. I'm not equipped to postulate theories, although I do have one more question.

Would not the clock on a hill test still stand up to your theory based on the difference in gravity force.

I can tell from your nick that you have given time a lot of thought. I would like to see your theory in full. Perhaps I missed it in this thread. I will look again.

P.S. to darksidz. Don't forget mass increases with speed.

 

[darksidZz]

That's actually what I meant. As the object moves faster it's mass will increase, therefore any surrounding space will have a corresponding change in gravity. This will cause time to dilate around the object even though it's natural mass is essentially the same. The movement through space is the only thing that's really causing this increase though so that's the reason it even occurs.

 

[Farsight]

darksidZz: note that the relativistic mass will increase with velocity. The rest mass or "invariant" mass does not. There's been a lot of debate in physics about which is the best definition to use. I prefer the latter actually, but most people prefer to speak of it as energy. As it happens gravity is the result of energy as well as mass, but there's no "change of gravity in the surrounding space". You can see this if you imagine one mass passing another. The reason we see time dilation in a moving object is perhaps better described in terms of "light clocks" where the light path is like this /\/\/\ instead of this |.

 

[Uclock]

post #48

DarksidZz

So this really means that as you move in space your mass increases, thus the surrounding gravity field is distorted to a point were you move into abnormal time. Instead of a singularity you become that singularity, and then are the cause of gravity being disturbed.

What do you think?

An interesting view but what if it is not mass that increases the more you gain velocity but something else such as potential displacement?

Tony

 

[Uclock]

post #49

Janus58

No, you need to look closer. The statement" the removed observer sees 0.99999999 pass on Earth for every sec he measures", means that when his own clock has ticked off 1 sec, the Earth clock has only ticked off 0.999999999 sec by the removed observer's observation,( put another way, when his clock has ticked off 1,000,000,000 seconds, only 999,999,999 seconds have ticked off on Earth; the Earth's clock will be one second behind the Observers.) not that the Earth clock beats at an interval of 0.999999999 sec.

I apologise, I misinterpreted your statement.

Here's a link to the nature article:

Thanks, but unfortunately I am not in a position to keep purchasing articles from Nature journals.

I apologise again but I have three questions to ask you.
Was it the ‘On-line isotope mass separator’ that was used for the experiment?
Is it situated in the 2km ring?
Do you happen to know the velocity involved?

I hope I’m not being too bothersome.


Tony

 

[Uclock]

post #50

kwilborn

uclock

Thanks for the thorough explanation. I'm not equipped to postulate theories, although I do have one more question.

Would not the clock on a hill test still stand up to your theory based on the difference in gravity force.

Yes I believe it would and I think I can calculate time dilation very accurately inside and outside gravitational fields once my concept of spacetime is calibrated, which can be done with a few drop test experiments.

I can tell from your nick that you have given time a lot of thought. I would like to see your theory in full. Perhaps I missed it in this thread. I will look again.

I have yet to post my concept of spacetime on this site because I wanted to discuss a few aspects of accepted physics first. The problem I seem to find is, I get little or no feedback but that may be due to the quality of physicists, if any, that use these sites.
I do expect an easy ride because the concept is so radical but the math work and work well and the least I expect is an argument against my theory from those who back the mainstream.
I will post my concept of spacetime, including a separate paper on time dilation, at the weekend and I hope there will be a serious discussion of all the consequences of such a radial theory.

P.S. to darksidz. Don't forget mass increases with speed.

Yes, that is correct if you view spacetime as Einstein did.

Tony

 

[kwhilborn]

kettle of worms

Hmmm,

IF (NOTE: Underlined) Mass did not increase with speed, it would open up a "Kettle of worms".

Maybe its "time" for that. lol

Newtons gravity law could be replaced by brush's theory for starters. The Gravity is a push supporters would be happy.

My children are young (Uclock)Tony, so you still have some time if you want them to study YOU when they reach university.

I am not saying I believe it either way, if I have learned anything in physics its that we know a lot less than we do know.

Good-luck.

P.S. O.K. so we've concluded that any experiment involving time dilation is bound to have either acceleration or differing gravitational force, in which you have agreed might "fit" your theory. Sounds like you need a new test. Have they not measured the mass of speeding objects? Anyways, back to my own project. Good-luck

UCLOCK, If you want a very interesting theory in support of your "theory" check out.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=Print&client=printer&f=16&t=3067

very interesting (rubs chin).

 

[Uclock]

kwhilborn

Hmmm,

IF (NOTE: Underlined) Mass did not increase with speed, it would open up a "Kettle of worms".

Maybe its "time" for that. Lol

I agree, It never quite seemed right to me that if you constantly accelerate at 9.81m s^-2 mimicking Earth’s gravity that you cannot eventually pass light speed although I understood the reasoning behind it.
I am not saying my concept of TR is correct because it has yet to be tested but if these tests turn out to be in favour of TR then it opens up the possibility of faster than light space travel which will be a good thing.

Newtons gravity law could be replaced by brush's theory for starters. The Gravity is a push supporters would be happy.

If there is one thing I agree with Einstein on that is that gravity is a distortion of spacetime. There is a kind of push, that being spacetime has a sort of natural pressure.

My children are young (Uclock)Tony, so you still have some time if you want them to study YOU when they reach university.

I think that is highly unlikely because it is going to take decades for the physics community to change direction even if the tests of TR are undertaken because it is such a radical view of spacetime. Nice thought though.

I am not saying I believe it either way, if I have learned anything in physics its that we know a lot less than we do know.

Good-luck.

True and thanks, I’ll need it.

P.S. O.K. so we've concluded that any experiment involving time dilation is bound to have either acceleration or differing gravitational force, in which you have agreed might "fit" your theory. Sounds like you need a new test. Have they not measured the mass of speeding objects?

Yes and the conclusion is that mass increases with velocity but if an object does generate its own spacetime field as TR states then it is quite possible that the extra energy absorbed by the object is in the form of potential displacement within its own spacetime field because the field is moving with the object.

Anyways, back to my own project. Good-luck.

And good luck with your own project.

UCLOCK, If you want a very interesting theory in support of your "theory" check out.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?a...er&f=16&t=3067

very interesting (rubs chin).

I’ll try and find the time to check it out properly, thanks again.

Tony