Would someone, anyone please post what they know about whether an energy density differential can be caused by acceleration of a clock vs. a “rest” clock, i.e. does energy density have anything to do with why the accelerated clock runs slower?
OK, that acceleration that we all can experience is part of what I am getting at. Acceleration feels like we are being pulled backward into our seat by the gravitation force of a massive object behind us. We "feel" like we are heavier. I want to equate the "heavy" feeling due to acceleration to a concept of being slightly more dense as a result of the force that is accelerating us.Well you could easily look at a person in a car seat. As you increase speed your mass is pushed into the seat as the seat in the car is pulled into acceleration. Initially to begin with you'd feel the force and as you get up to a speed and cruise the force is relaxed as you become unified.
You could suggest that the effects on a clock would only be for the length of acceleration in regards to clocks with moving parts, however I'm pretty sure that such effects of acceleration is minimal when it comes to Atomic clocks. (I doubt it would generate a large enough time dialation for measurement)
This concept of energy density due to acceleration may be the same topic as SR, but right now I am talking about physical motion of clocks moving relative to each other. If one is said to be at rest and one is moving, I am considering that there would be a difference in their density. Maybe it is like the tidal effect and both clocks are effected differently by their different gravitational surroundings considering the acceleration to be the same as a gravitational effect on the "moving" clock that isn't experienced by the "rest" clock.No. Special relativity doesn't have physical clocks, they are simply a way of visualising the coordinate time. Even if you consider something physical which can measure time you can use ones which don't have volume. For instance, muons are unstable point particles which measure time in the sense that their decay rate varies with their relative velocity. There's no change in energy density in a single muon yet it can last a lot longer if its moving quickly relative to you.
What I am asking is if there is anyone who considers that the acceleration of a clock to relativistic speeds (should that be velocities?), relative to a clock at rest, could increase the energy density of the accelerated clock and make it run slower than the rest clock.
I am wondering if acceleration acts as a retardant to the motion of particles due to an increase in the density of the object. Or on the other hand, does the lack of relative acceleration provide a level of “lubrication” in the motion of particles that is gradually removed as an object is accelerated toward relativistic speeds?
I've posted a few times that I don't believe in Relativity, and that the clocks are undergoing energy differences. The two planes scenario with atomic clocks is an example of atomic energy through atomic energy transfer. I don't believe in time as a physical entity. I think that time is a flat Earth argument that should be laughed at. First though, you have to understand atoms better, and then you will understand energy transfer better.
Obviously you don't practice what you preach.First though, you have to understand atoms better, and then you will understand energy transfer better.
What I am asking is if there is anyone who considers that the acceleration of a clock to relativistic speeds (should that be velocities?), relative to a clock at rest, could increase the energy density of the accelerated clock and make it run slower than the rest clock.
I am wondering if acceleration acts as a retardant to the motion of particles due to an increase in the density of the object. Or on the other hand, does the lack of relative acceleration provide a level of “lubrication” in the motion of particles that is gradually removed as an object is accelerated toward relativistic speeds?
I know. And I guess you know that I am asking if anyone has thought through the energy density angle. If you go by accepted scientific theory you wouldn't consider there to be any merit to any such energy density ideas. But then, you also don't have a speculative scenario about any new physics related to energy density that goes along with the big crunch scenario leading up to our big bang event. That angle has speculation that matter is composed of energy in quantum increments and the functioning of mass takes place within a range of energy density. As the density of an object approaches the upper limit of energy density matter functions less efficiently and at a maximum limit of energy density matter ceases to function. That is the basic idea.The logic of SR claims clocks run differently because of different light emission points in the frames not energy densities. Since SR supports the always measure at c in any frame view, reciprocal time dilation is a necessary condition of this view.
That is the physical reason.