Is time universal? NO (and its proof)
- Thread starter Billy T
- Start date
I remain confused. We take our two clocks at the same spacetime point and start them ticking. We move them around however we want and bring them back together. Once they are again at the same spacetime point, we stop both clocks. They both read their own proper time. How can the time displayed on either clock once we stop them depend on your reference frame?
Aer said:
What about "proper time"? Do you think that proper time is the same as "elapsed time"? Do you think it is well defined?
What about "time as measured by an accelerating clock"? Do you think it is well defined? Do you think it is a meaningful measure of elapsed time for that clock?
Pete said:
Don't speak for me please. His statement merely states that each frame believes his tick rate is standard. Aer is correct (and SRT is wrong to deny) that it is only the moving clock that is dilated. Reciprocity does not exist in time dilation.
That is the only thing supported by emperical data and acceptable physics. The rest is rhetoric.
This is what I am getting at, except I'm not sure what you mean by "proper time is an invariant." What do you mean by "proper time."? In any case, this endless talk about frames of reference is nothing more than a waste of intellectual argument.Physics Monkey said:
1100f said:
This is false innuendo. I damn well understand SR. I do not accept SR. That is entirely different than your statement.
Which has nothing to do with the issue. You have refused now 2 - 3 times to reply to my question.
I will repeat. "Simultaneity" does not and cannot alter tick rates. Accumulated time is a direct function of tick rates. Simultaneity only shifts the start or stop points, hence recorded accumulated time but tick rate is tick rate and I have shown numerous times that to claim multiple tick rates requires physical clocks to accumulate multiple times for multiple moving observers.
Repeat Question: Do you agree that simultaneity cannot alter tick rates?
Not all frames start at the same place. In fact the ground frame never even comes close to crossing paths with the satellite, unless the satellites lifetime has come to pass..Pete said:
You are confused. You are now only refering to your two predefined frames when I was refering to your claim that all frames will agree. They will not, because they will not have the same simultaneity. In other words, they are not synchronized.Pete said:
Perhaps, maybe I am considering synchronization and you are not.Pete said:
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
I think everyone agrees that whatever is written on the notepads is 'absolute' (and not 'relative' to any particular frame of reference).
I wish I could follow those maths by 1100f and Pete a little better. The length contraction, time dilation, and lossed simultanaety all contribute to these calculations, but I still cannot understand what is predicted to be printed on each notepad.
What is the difference between systems K and K' in my perfectly-symmetrical example of reference frames which are permeated with synchronized notepad-clocks??
Assuming the clocks are identically contructed, is there any reason that the printed receipts would not be as follows?
TimeK=1. TimeK'=15. End of notepad.
TimeK=2. TimeK'=16. End of notepad.
TimeK=3. TimeK'=17. End of notepad.
They are only out of synch, but they are ticking at the same rates. Otherwise, how do you decide which frame is "really moving"?
I wish I could follow those maths by 1100f and Pete a little better. The length contraction, time dilation, and lossed simultanaety all contribute to these calculations, but I still cannot understand what is predicted to be printed on each notepad.
What is the difference between systems K and K' in my perfectly-symmetrical example of reference frames which are permeated with synchronized notepad-clocks??
Assuming the clocks are identically contructed, is there any reason that the printed receipts would not be as follows?
TimeK=1. TimeK'=15. End of notepad.
TimeK=2. TimeK'=16. End of notepad.
TimeK=3. TimeK'=17. End of notepad.
They are only out of synch, but they are ticking at the same rates. Otherwise, how do you decide which frame is "really moving"?
Hi Neddy,Neddy Bate said:
The cornerstone of relativity is that no frame is "really moving", so it shouldn't be a surprise that if you analyse something using a relativity model, you can't decide which is actually moving.
Relativity also suggests that the K clocks and K' clocks don't tick at the same rate - that in the K frame, the K' clocks will tick slow; and in the K' frame, the K clocks will tick slow (assuming that both K and K' are not accelerating).
This seems to be the only way that the following two things can be true:
1) no frame is really moving
2) There is a maximum speed that is constant in all frames
...which is why Einstein constructed the theory of relativity in the first place.
Last edited:
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
Hi Pete,Pete said:
I know my post sounds frightfully naive, but I think I might actually be making some ground with this.
If systems K and K' are each 'filled' with a network of synchronized notepad-clocks, then you do not have to wait for any clocks to be reunited in order to compare tick rates. This lays bare the notion that SR can predict a dilated tick rate. It cannot because both frames are equally valid. If you disagree then simpy tell me whether it is K or K' that has the slower tick rate recorded on the notepads.
Universal time, and identical tick rates seem to be the only logical conclusion to this non-accelerating, perfectly symmetric and inertial thought experiment.
Of course the real universe might not necessarily have anythng like systems K and K', so SR might be just a theoretical, foundational construct that leads to greater things.