1

# Relativity revisited once more still again

Sun 28 Jul, 2013 11:45 am
I own a rocket capable of achieving a velocity very nearly c at the very instant I fire my whimsical engine, somehow surviving the experience; and for purposes of argument let's assume a finite Universe

My apologies if I seem to be stumbling over this concept but I've always been mystified by the relative effect of acceleration upon a clock. You and I pass one another at a relative velocity near c and of course to each of us the other's clock has stopped. But doesn't "conventional" relativity tell us that whose clock was "really" stopped depends upon which one of us had accelerated to reach that velocity

Thus if it we're I who had accelerated, after circumnavigating the Universe when we meet again an instant later (to me) I haven't aged at all while you're very ancient. But two q's now arise:

(1) Suppose at the instant of our parting we had both been traveling, relative to the rest of the visible Universe, near c so that when I fire my rockets to go in a direction opposite our (apparent) motion I come to a relative standstill. Wouldn't it then me who is the doddering oldster when we meet again….

…..and if so, doesn't the result of our experiments, contrary to the usual relativistic view, suggest a kind of absolute or "stationary" reference; and

(2) To me the effect of acceleration has always seemed to imply that if it's the acceleration that caused my clock to slow, how come it remains in that state throughout my trip
• Topic Stats
• Top Replies
Type: Question • Score: 1 • Views: 8,263 • Replies: 132
No top replies

oralloy

1
Tue 30 Jul, 2013 05:00 am

1: Deceleration is just a form of acceleration. So the person who decelerates is the one who has time slow down for them.

2: What causes your clock to slow down is your state of not being in your original inertial frame of reference. The acceleration is just you leaving that inertial frame of reference.

If, having accelerated, you then remain at high speed for a period of time, you are also remaining away from your original inertial frame of reference for that same period of time, and are therefore subject to the time slowdown for the duration of that time.
dalehileman

1
Tue 30 Jul, 2013 10:29 am
@oralloy,
Thank you Ora for that response, it will take me a while to digest

Does your explanation reinforce the view that the reference frame representing the rest of the visible Universe (or at least those parts of it apparently not moving very fast) isn't special or unique
mark noble

-1
Tue 30 Jul, 2013 06:08 pm
@dalehileman,
Dale, none of us will have aged any more than the other.
akaMechsmith

0
Tue 30 Jul, 2013 06:09 pm
In trying to understand "relativity theories" Remember that they generally are from the point of view of the obnserver. Any observations that are made have to take into consideration that what the observer "observes" is subject to the rules that govern light. That is that light to an observer always is percieved as a fixed speed. However the wave length changes.

I have done the best for my own personal understanding to wit. Syncronized watchs are understood.

Imagine a flowing river. Put wind and waves on it. Put a boat in the water. Put marks on the shore, and put some bobbers in the water with some drags attached. The mouth of the river narrows as it runs into the sea.

Now put yourself at different vantage points.
You go upriver and upwind in the boat (Blue shift) waves appear closer together. You drift down stream. You power downstream. You power downstream against the wind and waves. Check with other observers.

So now I ask what time is it to the guy on shore. We do not agree but we disagree due to the speed of sound. At 1100 ft. we disagree by one second. You will just have to imagine this at the speed of light. My boat won't go that fast!!

Just for grins look up "red shift"," Wave theory",and "Doppler effects".

0 Replies

dalehileman

0
Wed 31 Jul, 2013 09:55 am
@mark noble,
Quote:
Dale, none of us will have aged any more than the other.
Forgive me Mark if I take issue but the fella who takes off at high speed then returns home will find his buddies to have aged more than he
mark noble

-2
Thu 1 Aug, 2013 07:24 pm
@dalehileman,
How?
Have you experienced this?
Einstein was WELL short of the mark, Dale.

dalehileman

0
Thu 1 Aug, 2013 08:00 pm
@mark noble,
Quote:
How?
Motion slows one's clock

Quote:
Have you experienced this?
It has been demonstrated repeatedly

Quote:
Einstein was WELL short of the mark, Dale.
Howso
mark noble

-1
Thu 1 Aug, 2013 08:06 pm
@dalehileman,
Motion is exact.
Yet relative.

Demonstration is theoretical.

Einstein was an idiot - He neglected to add size and capacity into his TOR, think about it.
dalehileman

1
Fri 2 Aug, 2013 09:44 am
@mark noble,
Quote:
Motion is exact.
Not sure Mark what that means, forgive an old man

Quote:
Yet relative.
That's pretty sure, yes

Quote:
Demonstration is theoretical.
I'd be more inclined to say "practical"

Quote:
Einstein was an idiot - He neglected to add size and capacity into his TOR, think about it.
I would if I could. Maybe Mark you could supply a Google link
carloslebaron

0
Sun 21 Sep, 2014 09:07 pm
@dalehileman,
You must specify what kind of clock you will use.

The atomic clock is very sensitive to acceleration because internally works with a receptor of the signals originated by the vibration frequency of the atom of Cesium. This receptor counts a certain number of vibrations and make click to set a second. Acceleration will cause an intercepting problem and by such the atomic clock will show malfunction.

When the atomic clock is exposed to almost zero gravity, the entire spaceship or satellite -including the clock- will suffer of changes. It has been proved hundreds of times that traveling from ground zero to outer space causes changes in matter and energy behavior.

Example, astronauts standing 6 months in the Space Station return "older" this is to say, with illnesses found in people older than the current age of the astronauts (this fact destroys completely the fallacies obtained from Relativity) and another example, liquid metals that can't be mixed by any means on ground zero, these can be mixed in outer space.

The atomic clock was calibrated on ground zero and will suffer of a continued malfunction as long as it stays traveling surrounding earth. The rate of erroneous data will be regular.

If you use a mechanical or digital (battery/electric) clock, you might need of years in order to detect the difference in nanoseconds because these clocks can't be calibrated to such a level.

If you use a sand clock or a water clock, well, will be obvious that their malfunction will give you disparate results.

So, not all the clocks malfunction the same when exposed to outer space.

Which one is the clock you will select in your thought experiment?
dalehileman

1
Mon 22 Sep, 2014 07:37 am
@carloslebaron,
Quote:
So, not all the clocks malfunction the same when exposed to outer space.
Perhaps Baron you misunderstand. The relative slowing of time isn't a malfunction

Quote:
Which one is the clock you will select in your thought experiment?
It doesn't matter since relative motion should affect all clocks equally
0 Replies

dalehileman

1
Mon 22 Sep, 2014 08:00 am
@carloslebaron,
Quote:
The atomic clock is very sensitive to acceleration ….If you use a mechanical or digital (battery/electric) clock, you might need of years…….
If you use a sand clock or a water clock, well…...So, not all the clocks malfunction the same when exposed to outer space
But Carl if you review my OP you will see that my periods of acceleration are assumed to be infinitesimal, thus should affect all clocks the same
0 Replies

dalehileman

1
Mon 22 Sep, 2014 08:41 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
1: Deceleration is just a form of acceleration. So the person who decelerates is the one who has time slow down for them.
Ora this is very troubling. After circumnavigating the Universe when I encounter you once more you've aged eons while I've hardly aged at all even if I don't stop to chat. Thus wasn't it my acceleration that had caused my time to stop (relative to you and the rest of the Universe)

…though the remainder of your posting does make sense in terms of classical relativity so I am wondering if I might have misread your first statement
Quehoniaomath

-1
Mon 22 Sep, 2014 11:31 am
@carloslebaron,
Quote:
The atomic clock is very sensitive to acceleration because internally works with a receptor of the signals originated by the vibration frequency of the atom of Cesium

The atomic clocks are not accurate enough to measure the whole thing!!!!

This whole relativity thing is from an extreme stupidity!

Space doesn't curve and time doesn't slow down or accelarate!

0 Replies

mark noble

0
Tue 23 Sep, 2014 11:42 am
@dalehileman,
Particle-physics and QM break down beyond the 'mathematical process and become 'copenhagen or many world's' PHILOSOPHY.
As with ANY philosophical....'entanglement - Reality predisposes subjectivity.
Ultimately - One's own perspective denounces anothers'.
E=MCsq just means 'something' equates to itself. That's not hard to determine............... is it?
dalehileman

1
Tue 23 Sep, 2014 12:07 pm
@mark noble,
Quote:
Explanatory function

Quote:
….. beyond the 'mathematical process and become ……. PHILOSOPHY.
According to the general rule that nieaweipse I see phys and philo in eternal embrace

Quote:
Ultimately - One's own perspective denounces anothers
Certainly at a2k but my theory doesn't denounce Einstein, only enhances

Quote:
E=MCsq...equates …... not hard........ is it?
Sorry Mark but you'd have to elaborate for the Average Clod who might suffer calls of yard work while suffering incipient Alz's (me)
dalehileman

1
Tue 23 Sep, 2014 12:11 pm
@mark noble,
Quote:
Quote:
Einstein was an idiot - He neglected to add size and capacity into his TOR, think about it.

I would if I could. Maybe Mark you could supply a Google link

Quote:

Aha Mark, now understand. Such a link might explain how he neglected...
mark noble

1
Tue 23 Sep, 2014 12:16 pm
@dalehileman,
I don't have the ability to break-down quotes, Dale. No PC. Visit here via ps3 (key-screen) only.
oralloy

1
Tue 23 Sep, 2014 12:17 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:
Does your explanation reinforce the view that the reference frame representing the rest of the visible Universe (or at least those parts of it apparently not moving very fast) isn't special or unique

I don't know if it reinforces it, but it is certainly compatible with it.
0 Replies

### Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek

1. Forums
2. » Relativity revisited once more still again