DOES GRAVITY REALLY INFLUENCE THE 'FLOW' OF TIME? (ACCORDING TO THE OBSERVED)

[Justatruthseeker]

but I'm not buying that

mind experiment?

try this......
picture yourself sitting on a 6foot diameter ball.....in a complete void

Are you moving?

You wouldn’t know because your zero points have reset and you would read as stationary regardless if you were moving.

That’s why even if you are spinning around the surface of the earth at 1,000 mph, orbiting the sun at 67,000 mph, which is orbiting the galaxy at 514,000 mph, which itself is moving through space, you feel stationary...... no thought experiment needed....

Your zero points have shifted and compensated exactly for that change in velocity.

We wouldn’t know a stationary frame if we saw it because it would appear to be in motion while your devices told you you were stationary.

 

[Thief]

You wouldn’t know because your zero points have reset and you would read as stationary regardless if you were moving.

That’s why even if you are spinning around the surface of the earth at 1,000 mph, orbiting the sun at 67,000 mph, which is orbiting the galaxy at 514,000 mph, which itself is moving through space, you feel stationary...... no thought experiment needed....

Your zero points have shifted and compensated exactly for that change in velocity.

We wouldn’t know a stationary frame if we saw it because it would appear to be in motion while your devices told you you were stationary.

and even at the speed of light....you would not know

same as having many spheres about you
moving in parallel lines......
you would seem motionless

ONLY an item moving contrary to your motion (if you have one)
could clue you in

BUT if that item was moving toward you at the speed of light
you can't see it coming

AND if it passes you by as a near miss.....
you get only a flash as it was near you in approach
AFTER that near miss
it disappears

 

[Justatruthseeker]

and even at the speed of light....you would not know

same as having many spheres about you
moving in parallel lines......
you would seem motionless

ONLY an item moving contrary to your motion (if you have one)
could clue you in

BUT if that item was moving toward you at the speed of light
you can't see it coming

AND if it passes you by as a near miss.....
you get only a flash as it was near you in approach
AFTER that near miss
it disappears

But your speedometer maxes at 100 mph (speed of light). Now and then like a speedometer needle jumping we get indications of something moving above c to us, but write it off as a statistical error....

You could be moving at what was once c to you, but your shift in zero points would tell you you were stationary and like you said, not even know it...

Everything is relative because of our shift in zero points. Every frame has its own c. Their clocks don’t tick our duration, nor are their rulers the same length. Just because they call a longer duration tick a second doesn’t mean it equals what we call a second. One simply can not tell within the frame under observation that their clocks and rulers have changed. Because their zero points have changed as well compensating for that increase in velocity.

 

[Thief]

But your speedometer maxes at 100 mph (speed of light). Now and then like a speedometer needle jumping we get indications of something moving above c to us, but write it off as a statistical error....

You could be moving at what was once c to you, but your shift in zero points would tell you you were stationary and like you said, not even know it...

Everything is relative because of our shift in zero points. Every frame has its own c. Their clocks don’t tick our duration, nor are their rulers the same length. Just because they call a longer duration tick a second doesn’t mean it equals what we call a second. One simply can not tell within the frame under observation that their clocks and rulers have changed. Because their zero points have changed as well compensating for that increase in velocity.

clocks are useless....

are you assuming? you will never grow old.....if you move at the speed of light

 

[Justatruthseeker]

clocks are useless....

are you assuming? you will never grow old.....if you move at the speed of light

Yes you will. Just at a different rate than you do now.

Assuming you won’t would be treating “this” frame as an absolute frame, of which there are none......

We are in motion...... so what you think is a standard clock is already slower than a clock moving even slower or even stationary. So we base that assumption on a clock we consider absolute while knowing we are in motion and therefore our clock is not absolute as it has already slowed due to our motion.... yet we think it ticks “normally” as every frame thinks their clock ticks normally, regardless of their velocity because their zero points have shifted.

A frame traveling at 99.9% of c to us, still sees light travel at c. The value c can never be reached using your own clocks because your zero points shift along with your clocks and rulers....

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes you will. Just at a different rate than you do now.

Assuming you won’t would be treating “this” frame as an absolute frame, of which there are none......

We are in motion...... so what you think is a standard clock is already slower than a clock moving even slower or even stationary. So we base that assumption on a clock we consider absolute while knowing we are in motion and therefore our clock is not absolute as it has already slowed due to our motion.... yet we think it ticks “normally” as every frame thinks their clock ticks normally, regardless of their velocity because their zero points have shifted.

Claiming that we are in motion is rather meaningless. One must always say what we are in motion relative too. By the way, the in our frame of reference we are stationary. Also since the Earth is effectively one frame of reference. gravitational and velocity effects on radioactive decay are for all practical purposes zero. We can date how much time has passed on the Earth using radiometric methods. One can't use relativity to argue for a young Earth.

 

[Polymath257]

Because every frame sees itself as stationary.

Zero points have reset for our measuring devices and us due to the energy content of each frame from its velocity through space.

Look at the speedometer on your car. Imagine that 100 mph is the speed of light. Accelerate to 50 mph.

With respect to what?

As you accelerate energy is added on the quantum level from your change in velocity.

Energy in which frame?

This causes your division marks (clocks and rulers) to change proportionally. Now comes the most important part. You must rotate the dial so that the zero point follows the needle.

Notice the consequences. 100 mph is still 100 mph and can not be reached. Also your velocity through space now reads as zero, not 50 mph.

Our zero points resetting proportionally to our change in velocity is why everything still appears as normal and why every frame measures c.

Other frames appear to change instead because you no longer share the same zero points as they do. Such is why the charge on an electron appears to remain the same, even if that frame has a higher energy content. Your zero points do not start at the same place on the energy scale. The change of your zero points compensate exactly for your change in velocity.

It's called a Lorentz transformation.

 

[Polymath257]

You wouldn’t know because your zero points have reset and you would read as stationary regardless if you were moving.

That’s why even if you are spinning around the surface of the earth at 1,000 mph, orbiting the sun at 67,000 mph, which is orbiting the galaxy at 514,000 mph, which itself is moving through space, you feel stationary...... no thought experiment needed....

Your zero points have shifted and compensated exactly for that change in velocity.

We wouldn’t know a stationary frame if we saw it because it would appear to be in motion while your devices told you you were stationary.

The term 'stationary' is meaningless in SR except in relation to some other frame. It doesn't have an absolute meaning.

Now, in GR, it is *possible* to have absolute motion if there is a way to select a reference frame at each point. For example, in an expanding universe, the frame where the expansion is isotropic is a default frame.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes you will. Just at a different rate than you do now.

Assuming you won’t would be treating “this” frame as an absolute frame, of which there are none......

We are in motion......

With respect to what? This has no meaning except in relation to some other frame.

so what you think is a standard clock is already slower than a clock moving even slower or even stationary. So we base that assumption on a clock we consider absolute while knowing we are in motion and therefore our clock is not absolute as it has already slowed due to our motion.... yet we think it ticks “normally” as every frame thinks their clock ticks normally, regardless of their velocity because their zero points have shifted.

There is no absolute reference frame. Every frame is equally good. And every frame sees the clocks in all other frames as moving slower than its own.

So, for example, suppose we have two twins. One is moving past the other at 99% of the speed of light. BOTH see the clocks of the other as going slower than their own. The situation in this case is perfectly symmetrical. You cannot say that one twin has a clock that is slowed because of its motion from some absolute rest frame. Both twins have perfectly valid frames.

Whenever you say something is in motion, you have to say what it is in motion with respect to. There is no absolute motion.

A frame traveling at 99.9% of c to us, still sees light travel at c. The value c can never be reached using your own clocks because your zero points shift along with your clocks and rulers....

Yes, the speed of light is the same in all reference frames.

But you have to go further than this. Suppose I am going 99.9% of c past you. Then you are going 99.9% of c past me. The situation is symmetric. Both of us see the clocks of the other as being slower. Both of us see the lengths of the other as being smaller. Both of us see the others clocks going about 1/22 as fast as the other. So, I mark off 22 seconds with my clock and see your clock as marking off 1 second. But *you* mark off 22 seconds on your clock and see *mine* as marking off 1 second.

Until you understand how both of these are possible, you don't understand special relativity.

 

[Thief]

Suppose I am going 99.9% of c past you. Then you are going 99.9% of c past me.

ooops....

all motion is relative....

what if we pass each other by a near miss
both of us moving at C
(light can do this)

we would pass by at twice the speed of light

is that high velocity possible?
yes
but at best....my half of it is C

my motion would be all that it can be....absolutely

now if you through in obstacles.....like a frozen sodium cloud
all bets are off

 

[Subduction Zone]

ooops....

all motion is relative....

what if we pass each other by a near miss
both of us moving at C
(light can do this)

we would pass by at twice the speed of light

is that high velocity possible?
yes
but at best....my half of it is C

my motion would be all that it can be....absolutely

now if you through in obstacles.....like a frozen sodium cloud
all bets are off

For anything with any rest mass moving at the speed of light is impossible. For an object without any rest mass traveling at any speed other than the speed of light is impossible.

 

[Thief]

For anything with any rest mass moving at the speed of light is impossible. For an object without any rest mass traveling at any speed other than the speed of light is impossible.

so....light 'particles'.....

have no substance at all?

bit sure about that
seems the energy needs a body

that might be a very small body
but that a wave delivers it's energy on impact
indicates a collision

 

[Subduction Zone]

so....light 'particles'.....

have no substance at all?

bit sure about that
seems the energy needs a body

that might be a very small body
but that a wave delivers it's energy on impact
indicates a collision

Relativity demonstrates that they have zero rest mass.

 

[Thief]

Relativity demonstrates that they have zero rest mass.

and when not resting?

when I was sooooo much younger....
a discussion revealed the notion that mas increases as you approach C
near to infinity

always wondered if numbers could be trusted

seems an outrageous claim
don't you think so?

 

[Polymath257]

ooops....

all motion is relative....

what if we pass each other by a near miss
both of us moving at C
(light can do this)

we would pass by at twice the speed of light

Nope. That is one of the unusual things about special relativity. Velocities don't add in the usual way.

If you and I are both going past the Earth at 99% of c in opposite directions, then each of us will see the other as moving at 99.995% of c.


The formula in SR for the addition of velocities is (v1 +v2)/(1+v1*v2) where v1 and v2 are giving as fractions of c.

 

[Polymath257]

so....light 'particles'.....

have no substance at all?

bit sure about that
seems the energy needs a body

that might be a very small body
but that a wave delivers it's energy on impact
indicates a collision

the terms 'substance' and 'body' are not precisely defined. A photon has no rest mass (so its energy satisfies E=pc, where p is the momentum). Like all other fundamental particles, photons have both particle and wave properties. Collisions are a type of interaction, but do not imply anything like one marble hitting another one. In the case of photons, they interact with matter via the elctromagnetic force, which is what actually releases the energy of a 'collision'.

 

[Thief]

the terms 'substance' and 'body' are not precisely defined. A photon has no rest mass (so its energy satisfies E=pc, where p is the momentum). Like all other fundamental particles, photons have both particle and wave properties. Collisions are a type of interaction, but do not imply anything like one marble hitting another one. In the case of photons, they interact with matter via the elctromagnetic force, which is what actually releases the energy of a 'collision'.

hmmmm.....seems there is a simple over sight

if it's not moving at the speed of light....

it's not light

do you have an equation for that

NOTE......that equation is a pivot
and would reinvent ALL that we know about motion

more so than Einstein

the equation will promote the notion
YOU can become light.....and survive the event

 

[Subduction Zone]

and when not resting?

when I was sooooo much younger....
a discussion revealed the notion that mas increases as you approach C
near to infinity

always wondered if numbers could be trusted

seems an outrageous claim
don't you think so?

No, not an outrageous claim since it can be observed and measured. Experiments with high energy atomic particles more.than confirms the claim.

 

[Polymath257]

and when not resting?

when I was sooooo much younger....
a discussion revealed the notion that mas increases as you approach C
near to infinity

always wondered if numbers could be trusted

seems an outrageous claim
don't you think so?

Many things about the real world are counter-intuitive. Observations show that special relativity is correct for speeds very, very close to c. Yes, that includes the equation that is often interpreted as saying mass increases as speeds approach c.

 

[Thief]

No, not an outrageous claim since it can be observed and measured. Experiments with high energy atomic particles more.than confirms the claim.

so you do believe?....mass approaches infinity as the speed of light is gained