# [time-nuts] A different way to think about time dilation?

Chris Albertson albertson.chris at gmail.com
Tue Jul 12 12:21:48 EDT 2016

Using Google I find this idea is all over theInternet and quite common.
That motion in 4-space is always at c.  Or more specifically motion in four
space for a body at rest in 3-space is v =  (dx, dy, dz, dt/t) = (0, 0, 0,
c)  for a photon trading along x axis it is v = (c, 0, 0, 0)  and that |(c,
0, 0, 0) | = |(0, 0, 0, c) |

When I search discussions there seem to be to camps, those who say "of
course, it is implied by special relativity" and those who say "that is not
the way my old text books presented it, so it must be wrong"

I'm becoming a member of the first camp just by common sense.  In 4-space
there can be no such thing as a stationary body.  It is alway moving in
time.  OK not always, if it is moving through space at c it is not moving
in time but it is not stationary.

You can find any number of derivations using Google (as well as any number
of people arguing that the concept on "moving" in 4-space makes no sense.)

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 12:21 PM, William H. Fite <omniryx at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
> Bill
>
> 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
> > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > > 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:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Simple_inference_of_time_dilation_due_to_relative_velocity
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity#The_train-and-platform_thought_experiment
> > >
> > > 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
> > > > _________________________________________________
> > > > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com <javascript:;>
> > > > To unsubscribe, go to
> > > > https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> > > > and follow the instructions there.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com <javascript:;>
> > > To unsubscribe, go to
> > > https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> > > and follow the instructions there.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Chris Albertson
> > Redondo Beach, California
> > _______________________________________________
> > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com <javascript:;>
> > To unsubscribe, go to
> > https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> > and follow the instructions there.
> >
>
>
> --
> I am Pulse. Unbreakable.
> _______________________________________________
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to
> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.
>

--

Chris Albertson
Redondo Beach, California

More information about the time-nuts mailing list