[time-nuts] A different way to think about time dilation?
William H. Fite
omniryx at gmail.com
Mon Jul 11 15:21:20 EDT 2016
Chris, if you want to verify the mathematical operations you can send them
to me and my spouse and I will check them for you. As to whether you chose
the right equations, you probably need the help of a physicist.
On Monday, July 11, 2016, Chris Albertson <albertson.chris at gmail.com> wrote:
> What I really asked was "does the math work?". So far I suspect it does.
> I don't think what I wrote contradicts anything in any conventional text
> book. What I'm looking for is to be proven wrong
> Yes I know about velocity driven time dilation. Let's stick with Special
> Relativity for now and ignore gravity. Notice that in this alternate
> explanation thinks work the same way. It they don't then I'm proven
> wrong. The way to prove me wrong is to compute the same situation both
> ways and get different answers in just one case (that is not some special
> corner case)
> Notice that your use of "velocity" or speed is confined to only 3-space.
> Notice in my different explanation when speed in x,y,z is zero time is
> moving at a 1:1 ratio and when speed in x,y,z is equal to c then time is
> moving at zero speed. Al I did was ask what happens if we talk about
> speed in x,y,z,t or "4-space". My first guess is that it would make
> everything so complex no one would want to think about it but no, it seems
> to make it easier because you only need to think about a plane parallel to
> t axis, no need to think in 4-space, 2-space is general enough
> So I'm certainly NOT challenging anything in Special Relativity. I've read
> what Einstein has written on this and I think all his examples apply What
> you wrote is true also. You are using Einstein's examples. They are
> good. But he and you are talking about speed in 3-space.
> I think it is intuitive that I am right now not moving in x,y,z but I KNOW
> I am moving in "t" (time) at about 1 second/secind and from my reference
> point I NEVER MOVE I am always "here" so I always experience time at 1 s/s
> So I forgot to say that the x,y,z,t frame is relative to some "fixed"
> object like my office. We all know that we are moving in time even if we
> have no control over it. If we are moving then we should be able to
> measure our velocity. Velocity is always something over time. It this
> case it must be time over time. Using units it becomes seconds per second.
> Then you set 1 s/s = c (tally arbitrary assignment) and much complexity
> falls out.
> No intention to invent new physics here, just a different way to compute
> and explain the same thing. It works the same way an observer in my
> office sees me push my chair back at 4 inch/second and sees that my watch
> has slowed down by some tiny amount. I claim only that assuming every
> object in the universe always moves in 4-space at speed = c makes the
> calculation simpler and easier to understand.
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 9:30 PM, Bill Byrom <time at radio.sent.com
> > I think you are on the wrong track with assuming that every object has a
> > velocity c. What you need to consider is relativity. Velocity is a local
> > measurement (local reference frame distance and local reference frame
> > time). Light (and other electromagnetic radiation) always travels at a
> > local velocity c (local distance divided by local time). Time dilation
> > is a way of describing the effect of the relativity of simultaneity.
> > Events which are not local (adjacent) to each other can't be
> > unambiguously described as simultaneous. There is no universal clock
> > which allows us to determine which of two separated events occurred
> > "before" the other.
> > There are two causes of time dilation:
> > (1) Relative uniform motion. If two spacecraft are passing each other
> > in uniform motion (not accelerating), from the point of view of
> > each spacecraft the clocks on the other vessel will be slow
> > compared to the local clocks. Due to the relativity of
> > simultaneity, the seeming contradiction of a lack of symmetry (each
> > of the remote clocks appears slow compared to the local clock)
> > isn't a problem if you consider the two spacecraft starting with no
> > motion at the same location, then moving relative to each other,
> > then coming together again.
> > (2) Gravitational fields (or - by the principle of equivalence -
> > acceleration). As the Pound-Rebka experiment verified, clocks at
> > different gravitational potentials appear to run at different rates
> > from each other. This also causes the gravitational redshift. This
> > is a symmetric effect, and observers at both gravitational fields
> > will agree that the clocks at one are slower than the other.
> > For an explanation of why relative motion causes time dilation, see:
> > If you want to understand why the relativity of simultaneity is so
> > important, research the "ladder paradox" or the "train and platform
> > light flash" thought experiment:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_paradox
> > Consider this last example as the velocity of the train approaches c.
> > Inside the train car, the observer at the center of the car will view
> > the experiment as very simple. If there are mirrors at each end of the
> > car, from the point of view of the observer at the center of the car the
> > light flash reaches the two end mirrors at exactly the same time, and
> > the reflected light pulses arrive back at the center simultaneously. But
> > from the point of view of the observer on the platform, the light
> > reaches the "back" mirror long before it reaches the "front" mirror, due
> > to the rapid motion of the train.
> > --
> > Bill Byrom N5BB
> > On Sun, Jul 10, 2016, at 11:01 AM, Chris Albertson wrote:
> > > Is this a valid TN subject? It's about time but a little off of the
> > > usual
> > > subject of 10Mhz oscillators.
> > >
> > > I heard of an alternate way to describe time dilation caused by
> > > velocity.
> > > I think this makes it easier to understand but I've not been able to
> > > verify the math. This alternate explanation also makes it easy to see
> > > why
> > > we can never go faster than light. But I've not seen a mathematical
> > > derivation so it could be wrong or just an approximation.
> > >
> > > Here goes:
> > >
> > > 1) We assume a 4 dimensional universe with four orthogonal axis, x,
> > > y, z,
> > > and time (t)
> > > 2) assume that at all times EVERY object always has a velocity vector
> > > who's
> > > magnitude is "c", the speed of light. The magnitude of this vector
> > > (speed)
> > > never changes and is the same for every particle in the universe.
> > >
> > > This at first seems a radical statement but how is moving at c much
> > > different from assuming every partial is at rest in t's own reference
> > > frame? I've just said it is moving at c in it's own reference frame.
> > > Both
> > > c and zero are arbitrary speeds selected for connivance.
> > >
> > > How can this be? I know I'm sitting in front of my computer and
> > > have not
> > > moved an inch in the last four hours. c is faster than that. Yes
> > > you
> > > are
> > > stationary in (x,y,z) but along the t axis you are moving one
> > > second per
> > > second and I define one second per second as c. Now you get smart and
> > > try
> > > to move faster than c by pushing your chair backward in the Y
> > > direction
> > > at
> > > 4 inches per second. So you THINK your velocity magnitude is
> > > the vector
> > > sum of c and 4 inch/sec which is greater than c. BUT NO. Your speed
> > > along Y axis causes time dilation such that your speed along T is now
> > > slower than 1 second/second. In fact if you push your chair backward
> > > along Y real fast at exactly c your speed along t axis is zero, time
> > > stops. Try pushing your chair at 0.7071 * c and you find
> > > yourself moving
> > > through t at 0.7071 sec/sec and the vector sum is c. You can
> > > NOT change
> > > you speed from c all you can do to change the direction of the
> > > velocity
> > > vector and your speed through time is determined by the angle between
> > > that
> > > vector and the t axis.
> > >
> > > It works ok to just use one of the three spacial axis because we can
> > > always
> > > define them such that (say) the Y axis points in the direction
> > > of motion.
> > > So a plot of your speed in the dy,t plane covers the general case and
> > > looks
> > > like an arc of radius c.
> > >
> > > If this works out then I have some work to do, like defining
> > > momentum as
> > > a
> > > function of the area between the velocity vector and the t axis
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Chris Albertson
> > > Redondo Beach, California
> > > _________________________________________________
> > > To unsubscribe, go to
> > > https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> > > and follow the instructions there.
> > _______________________________________________
> > To unsubscribe, go to
> > https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> > and follow the instructions there.
> Chris Albertson
> Redondo Beach, California
> To unsubscribe, go to
> and follow the instructions there.
I am Pulse. Unbreakable.
More information about the time-nuts