Is time universal? NO (and its proof)

[Aer]

So you are answering NO to this question?

If the times on Satellite clock and the Satellite-Stationary clock are recorded at a meeting, then recorded again at a later meeting, then is the difference between readings greater for the Satellite clock or the Satellite-Stationary clock?

You've asked so many questions that it is hard to tell.. well, except for the fact that the one you chose above isn't even a Yes/No question.

 

[Pete]

Do you know what is wrong with MacM's claims about comparing clocks for different frames? Comparing clocks requires they either meet or one accelerates to the frame of the other. In both situations, one frame is noninertial and as such has a shift of simultaneity.

The clocks meet. The Satellite clock meets the Satellite-Stationary clock once per orbit.

Is it OK with you to compare the clocks when they meet?

 

[Pete]

You've asked so many questions that it is hard to tell.. well, except for the fact that the one you chose above isn't even a Yes/No question.

So can you answer it or not?

I guess you just don't want to.

 

[Pete]

It appears that you are in agreement with MacM that one clock is actually dilated compared to the other clock.

Yes, I do agree in this particular case.

This is one of MacM's famous claims against special relativity.

Mac thinks it's a claim against special relativity.
I suggest that it is a prediction of special relativity.

 

[Aer]

The clocks meet. The Satellite clock meets the Satellite-Stationary clock once per orbit.

Is it OK with you to compare the clocks when they meet?

Of couse you can compare clocks when they meet, and the dilated clock will be the clock that is the noninertial frame (one of them must be).

So can you answer it or not?

I guess you just don't want to.

Your question indicate a lacking in the understanding of relativity. Which is quite surprising after all this time. I guess you need to hit the books again. And for the record, no it is not any fun trying to decipher your questions which inherently contain misconceptions in them.

 

[Pete]

Of couse you can compare clocks when they meet, and the dilated clock will be the clock that is the noninertial frame (one of them must be).

Hooray!

So the Satellite clock will be dilated, right?
Is this true in all frames?

 

[Aer]

Mac thinks it's a claim against special relativity.
I suggest that it is a prediction of special relativity.

Then you essentially agree with MacM, since your interpretation and MacM's interpretation constitues MacM relativity which has been refuted by numerous people on this and other forums. I am not going to argue with you over whether MacM relativity or special relativity is the "correct" relativity.

 

[Pete]

If the times on Satellite clock and the Satellite-Stationary clock are recorded at a meeting, then recorded again at a later meeting, then is the difference between readings greater for the Satellite clock or the Satellite-Stationary clock?

And for the record, no it is not any fun trying to decipher your questions which inherently contain misconceptions in them.

What misconceptions?

 

[Aer]

So the Satellite clock will be dilated, right?

In the Statellite-Stationary frame, yes.

Is this true in all frames?

According to special relativity, no.

 

[Aer]

What misconceptions?

Your misconception that if a clock is dilated in one frame, then it must be dilated in all frames. (for example)

 

[Pete]

Your misconception that if a clock is dilated in one frame, then it must be dilated in all frames. (for example)

How is that relevant to this question?

If the times on Satellite clock and the Satellite-Stationary clock are recorded at a meeting, then recorded again at a later meeting, then is the difference between readings greater for the Satellite clock or the Satellite-Stationary clock?

Do you think that the comparison of the clocks at a meeting is frame dependent?
You appeared to acknowledge earlier that they are not.

 

[Pete]

Of couse you can compare clocks when they meet, and the dilated clock will be the clock that is the noninertial frame (one of them must be).

So the Satellite clock will be dilated, right?

In the Satellite-Stationary frame, yes.

So you think that another frame, the comparison of the clocks will show a different result?

 

[Aer]

So you think that another frame, the comparison of the clocks will show a different result?

Are you asking what I think or what special relativity says? If it is what special relativity says, then the dilation of the clock is only dependent on the instantaneous velocity relative to whatever frame you might choose.

 

[Pete]

I'm asking what SR says about the comparison of the clock readings.

Do you agree that SR says that the clock comparisons are absolute when they meet?
That if one clock reads X and the other reads Y at a particular meeting, then they read X and Y at that meeting in all frames?

Do you agree that SR says that if:
T_S1 = Satellite-Clock-Reading-At-First-Meeting
T_SS1 = Satellite-Stationary-Clock-Reading-At-First-Meeting
T_S2 = Satellite-Clock-Reading-At-Next-Meeting
T_SS2 = Satellite-Stationary-Clock-Reading-At-Next-Meeting

Then T_S1, T_SS1, T_S2, and T_SS2 are not frame dependant?

And that (T_S2 - T_S1) < (T_SS2 - T_SS1)?

 

[Aer]

I'm asking what SR says about the comparison of the clock readings.

Do you agree that SR says that the clock comparisons are absolute when they meet?

Let me guess, you are going to set some rules for in order to consider absolute space and time. Sounds a lot like an ether to me. In fact, sounds a lot like you are advocating the "Local Ether" theory.

It appears that you are trying to tell me that special relativity actually predicts the local ether model (in which clock dilations are absolute). If that is what you believe, then so be it... but 99% of physicists disagree with you.

 

[Pete]

I'm really confused about what you think SR says, Aer.

Do you or do you not agree that SR says that clocks can be unambiguously compared when they meet?

 

[Aer]

Do you or do you not agree that SR says that clocks can be unambiguously compared when they meet?

"unambiguously"? no.. The clocks can only be compared from the perspective of the inertial frame. That is an implied meaning when you say "compare" in the same sentence with special relativity. You can only compare the clocks in one of the frames when they "remeet" which inherently means that the other frame is the noninertial frame and thus the dilated frame according to special relativity.

After the "remeet" assume the satellite becomes inertial and shoots off in a straight line. Which clock is dilated, the satellite clock or the satellite stationary clock? Both frames are now inertial.

 

[Pete]

"unambiguously"? no..

OK, you need to go and sort this out. Find a reference.

The clocks can only be compared from the perspective of the inertial frame.

What is "the" inertial frame?
Do you agree that SR says that the comparison is the same in all inertial frames or not?

 

[Aer]

It appears you missed my question for you:

After the "remeet" assume the satellite becomes inertial and shoots off in a straight line. Which clock is dilated, the satellite clock or the satellite stationary clock? Both frames are now inertial.

 

[Aer]

OK, you need to go and sort this out. Find a reference.

What is "the" inertial frame?

And you think that I need to some sorting out... You are seriously asking me which is the inertial frame? Oh my.

Do you agree that SR says that the comparison is the same in all inertial frames or not?

Let's define a comparison. How about the dilated total elapsed time. This measure will be different in all exclusive inertial frames.