Is time universal? NO (and its proof)

[Pete]

There is no reason to believe this. Are you suggesting that in all frames, the surface clock ticks at the same different rate to the satellite clock?

I made that quite clear several posts ago.

Come on, work with me here!

Let's try looking at it another way:

Four clocks.

The Surface clock is on the surface of the Earth, and moving with the surface as the Earth rotates.
The Satellite clock is on the satellite.
The Surface-stationary clock is on the surface of the Earth in the path of the Surface clock, and stationary in the Earth-Center clock's frame.
The Satellite-stationary clock is in the satellite's orbit path, and stationary in the Earth-Center clock's frame.

1. Do you agree that the Surface-stationary and Satellite-stationary clocks are synchronized?
2. Do you agree that in all frames, the Satellite-stationary clock is ticking faster than the Satellite clock by the same ratio? (Think twin paradox if you're not sure about this one.)
3. Do you agree that in all frames, the Surface-stationary clock is ticking faster than the Surface clock by the same ratio? (twin paradox again).

If you disagree to any of these, let's talk.
If you agree to all, then what do you conclude?

 

[Aer]

Four clocks.

The Surface clock is on the surface of the Earth, and moving with the surface as the Earth rotates.
The Satellite clock is on the satellite.
The Surface-stationary clock is on the surface of the Earth in the path of the Surface clock, and stationary in the Earth-Center clock's frame.
The Satellite-stationary clock is in the satellite's orbit path, and stationary in the Earth-Center clock's frame.

1. Do you agree that the Surface-stationary and Satellite-stationary clocks are synchronized?
2. Do you agree that in all frames, the Satellite-stationary clock is ticking faster than the Satellite clock by the same ratio? (Think twin paradox if you're not sure about this one.)
3. Do you agree that in all frames, the Surface-stationary clock is ticking faster than the Surface clock by the same ratio? (twin paradox again).

1: Same frame, yes events will be simultaneous.
2: No. The twin paradox is explained as the turnaround point not being simultaneous in each frame. It does not state that the frame that accelerated actually had a slower clock.
3: No (again).

If you disagree to any of these, let's talk.

On the subject of talking: I think you are misrepresenting what the twin paradox actually states.

 

[MacM]

"BTW why haven't any staunch members here addressed the fact that the earth, orbiting satellite, etc are all encompassed in the sun's gravity potential and there are no changes in tick rate on a dinural or annual basis even though the clock moves in and out of the suns gravity potential."

Probably because none of the staunch members here understand what you are talking about. "moving in and out of the suns gravity potential"? What are you talking about? Not to mention that it sounds as if someone here is actually expounding support for the existance of an ether. Support for that - I definitely want a link to.

- KitNyx

On a dialy basis as the earth rotates a surface clock moves closer and further from the sun, aslo on an annual basis the earth's orbit is not a perfect circle and hence it moves closer and farther from the sun. Yet there are no GR affects detected in the GPS system for this fact.

 

[Pete]

2: No. The twin paradox is explained as the turnaround point not being simultaneous in each frame. It does not state that the frame that accelerated actually had a slower clock.

When the twins return, less time has elapsed on the travelling twin's clock than the stay-home twin's clock, right?

 

[MacM]

That is exactly what reciprocity means. It is the label given to an effect. It is not an effect in itself or the cause of an effect. Why or How are people using as such?

- KitNyx

I have tried for some time to make the distinction between a one way gamma function based on velocity vs SRT. It is primarily (but not entirely) the failure of SRT because it mandates reciprocity and none has ever been recorded; plus if it were true GPS could not function since clocks could not be synchronized by slowing down one clock by the one way gamma calculation.

 

[Aer]

When the twins return, less time has elapsed on the travelling twin's clock than the stay-home twin's clock, right?

Yes, because when he turned around, in his frame it is not simultaneous in the frame of the Earth twin. The explanation is not because his clock was actually slower than the other - you are mixing frames.

Actually, your interpretation above would be the interpretation of a "local ether" theory. So I am not sure what you whole problem is BTW, I do agree that your interpreation makes more sense intuitively - but I don't want to be the judge of that.

 

[MacM]

Oh, and I am not saying the idea or observations for which "reciprocity" describe are absurd, I am saying using it as is being done is absurd. Reciprocity is a logical conclusion of relativity, but it is not some seperate entity or force or anything that supports or disproves relativity...it simply is a logical conclusion of.

- KitNyx

I would suggest that you consider changing terminology "logical" to "Impossible".

 

[Aer]

MacM: Ignore KitNyx, his ideas are borderline stupid.

 

[Pete]

The explanation is not because his clock was actually slower than the other

You're splitting hairs, but it doesn't matter. The key feature is the time elapsed on the two clocks.

So.
Do you agree that in all frames, more time elapses (on average) on the Satellite-stationary clock than on the Satellite clock by the same ratio?

Do you agree that in all frames, more time elapses (on average) on the Surface-stationary clock than on the Surface clock by the same ratio?

 

[MacM]

In the universe you live in, is there ever a time in which the sum of a polygonial construct's angles are not what we would expect. Example, as we know, a triangles angles always add up to 180 degrees, but, must it always? A square or rectangle - 360 degrees etc..

- KitNyx

So you have not taken solid geometry?

 

[Aer]

You're splitting hairs, but it doesn't matter. The key feature is the time elapsed on the two clocks.

Isn't this a MacM argument? I am so confused.

So.
Do you agree that in all frames, more time elapses (on average) on the Satellite-stationary clock than on the Satellite clock by the same ratio?

I want to say no but I am not even sure what this question means. Same probably applies for your other question.

 

[MacM]

You're splitting hairs, but it doesn't matter. The key feature is the time elapsed on the two clocks.

So.
Do you agree that in all frames, more time elapses (on average) on the Satellite-stationary clock than on the Satellite clock by the same ratio?

Do you agree that in all frames, more time elapses (on average) on the Surface-stationary clock than on the Surface clock by the same ratio?

Not sure how you are getting from point A to point B.

Certainly if you theorize two stationary clocks and ignore GR then they tick the same.

However, the rotating surface clock and orbiting clock do not tick the same and the orbiting clock ticks slower. But the issue is SRT since it claims if you assume the orbting clocks view point as being at rest (but in inertial motion - don't tell me it isn't inertial, I know that but it is considered so becasue it is in freefall) then SRT claims from the orbting view the earth surface rotating clock ticks slower.

It does not GPS proves that.

 

[Pete]

Isn't this a MacM argument? I am so confused.

I want to say no but I am not even sure what this question means. Same probably applies for your other question.

Think about it and get back to me.

Not sure how you are getting from point A to point B.

You too.

However, the rotating surface clock and orbiting clock do not tick the same and the orbiting clock ticks slower.

That's the SR prediction, yes. The reality is different as predicted by GR, but that's beside the immediate point.

But the issue is SRT since it claims if you assume the orbting clocks view point as being at rest (but in inertial motion - don't tell me it isn't inertial, I know that but it is considered so becasue it is in freefall) then SRT claims from the orbting view the earth surface rotating clock ticks slower.

GR says that the orbiting clock's rest frame is inertial, but SR doesn't.

SR says that the orbiting clock's rest frame is not inertial, and that in the orbiting clock's rest frame, the surface clock ticks faster (or less time elapses between specified events, if you prefer to think of it like that!)

 

[Aer]

Think about it and get back to me.

I thought in the process of reading it. If I didn't get it then, I simply am not going to unless you rephrase what you mean.

Here, I'll break down where confusion arose:

Do you agree that in all frames,

All good.

more time elapses (on average)

Huh? average? Either more time elapses or it does not.

on the Satellite-stationary clock than on the Satellite clock by the same ratio?

ratio of what measured with respect to what?

 

[Pete]

The Satellite clock meets the Satellite-Stationary clock once per orbit.
Do you agree that SR predicts that less time elapses on the Satellite clock than the Satellite Stationary clock between each meeting, and that the ratio of the two elapsed times is the same in all frames?

The Surface clock meets the Surface-Stationary clock once per day (unless they're at a Pole).
Do you agree that SR predicts that less time elapses on the Surface clock than the Surface-Stationary clock between each meeting, and that the ratio of the two elapsed times is the same in all frames?

 

[Aer]

The Satellite clock meets the Satellite-Stationary clock once per orbit.
Do you agree that SR predicts that less time elapses on the Satellite clock than the Satellite Stationary clock between each meeting,

Again, the reason is because of the relativity of simultaneity. The satellite clock is not inertial in your example. It has a different concept of the order of events than your satellite-stationary clock. As such, the satellite stationary clock did not start at the same time as the satellite clock in the instantaneous reference frame that the satellite is in upon meeting up with the satellite-stationary clock. The satellite clock does still think that the satellite stationary clock ticks slower than it's own clock.

You must remember that the order of events can change when the satellite clock switches inertial frames. And it is switching inertial frames constantly as it is in an orbit. As such, the order of events is constantly changing.. Recall my thread "SR Problem". You had no such problem with this concept of the order of events being able to switch back and forth and flop all over the place in that thread, remember?

OH, and I forgot:

and that the ratio of the two elapsed times is the same in all frames?

No, I do not agree. I don't have the will power to try to explain it, but I just simply do not agree with that statement.

 

[KitNyx]

Aer - Ha, you are expounding a belief in an ether, but I am the quack...okay. So you do not see the relevance between the "shape" of the universe and relativity? You just throw out jargon such as reciprocity and simultaneity and frame of reference and relativity...mix in some complex sounding adjectives and you have science huh?

The difference between Euclidean geometry and non-Euclidean geometry is the difference between the physics of Newton and modern physics...but, I guess you are right, because you say so. It was not my initial intention to offend, if I did so, then I apologize...I will leave this discussion to my betters.

- KitNyx

 

[Aer]

Aer - Ha, you are expounding a belief in an ether, but I am the quack...okay.

I have been the only one in this thread to accurately describe relativity (as of late anyway). Am I a quack for suggesting that it may not be correct? I do after all understand it, one of the leading arguments relativists use to belittle any challenge to the theory (oh, look - that poor guy doesn't understand relativity... ) I've only pointed to other peoples work that suggest that there is good evidence that there is a local ether given the implementation and success of GPS. It should be noted that the local ether model is completely compatible with experiments that seem to "confirm" special relativity. I am not, nor will I support either theory as more correct than the other - you can view that as advocating "ether theories" if you like, but I know where I stand on the issue.

So you do not see the relevance between the "shape" of the universe and relativity? You just throw out jargon such as reciprocity and simultaneity and frame of reference and relativity...mix in some complex sounding adjectives and you have science huh?

No, it is completely clear what is meant by switching from assuming one inertial frame to another inertial frame to be at rest. There is nothing in relatvity that forbids one from doing this and the results are reciprical, hence the term reciprocity.

 

[KitNyx]

Aer - I think anyone who claims to know truth is a quack. Not only do we not yet have the capability mathematically or experimentally to verify any one theory as Truth, but even if you find a theory that matches the observations well. It is HIGHLY unlikely that we have yet identified the true GUT. So, tell me you know truth all you want...I say BS.

As far as you understanding relativity...fine so you grasp the concept of reciprocity. There is much more to SRT than the idea of frame of reference or point of view. Acceleration requires the use of hyperbolic geometry as well as elliptical curvature in regions where mass is present - Lobachevskian geometry.

But, it is difficult for me to admit that you are accurately describing relativity when you start talking about the aether. The two are mutually exclusive. Lorentzian electrodynamics effectively refutes the existance of an aether, and while I refuse to deny its existance 100%. I will allow the lack of evidence to point to its existance being an EXTREMELY low probability.

If you HAVE evidence for the the existance of an aether then please share.

- KitNyx

 

[Aer]

Aer - I think anyone who claims to know truth is a quack. Not only do we not yet have the capability mathematically or experimentally to verify any one theory as Truth, but even if you find a theory that matches the observations well. It is HIGHLY unlikely that we have yet identified the true GUT. So, tell me you know truth all you want...I say BS.

I've told you exactly the opposite. I never once said that "I know truth" or any derivative thereof.

I am not, nor will I support either theory as more correct than the other

As far as you understanding relativity...fine so you grasp the concept of reciprocity. There is much more to SRT than the idea of frame of reference or point of view. Acceleration requires the use of hyperbolic geometry as well as elliptical curvature in regions where mass is present - Lobachevskian geometry.

Trust me, I am not the one that needs to be lectured on how to do computations in special relativity with regards to accelerations.

But, it is difficult for me to admit that you are accurately describing relativity when you start talking about the aether.

nononooo.. You've got it all wrong. I have described two separate theories, one that advocates a "local ether" and one that does not (i.e. special relavity). I know the difference between the two. There seems to just be a misunderstanding here. I know that there is no ether in relativity.