Is time linear?

@fresco,

Quote:

I therefore suggest you throw away any satnav equipment you have, because it requires relativity theory to operate. Even better, to save yourself further embarrassment, throw away your computer, because the quantum electrodynamics behind that is even more problematic than relativity as far your lay concept of 'science' is concerned.

The whole thing of relativity is based in "moving clocks" going slow.

Here is Einstein's stupidity at work:

http://www.bartleby.com/173/8.html

Albert Einstein (1879–1955). Relativity: The Special and General Theory. 1920.

VIII. On the Idea of Time in Physics

Quote:

We are thus led also to a definition of “time” in physics.(*)

For this purpose we suppose that clocks of identical construction are placed at the points A, B and C of the railway line (co-ordinate system), and that they are set in such a manner that the positions of their pointers are simultaneously (in the above sense) the same. Under these conditions we understand by the “time” of an event the reading (position of the hands) of that one of these clocks which is in the immediate vicinity (in space) of the event. In this manner a time-value is associated with every event which is essentially capable of observation.

This stipulation contains a further physical hypothesis, the validity of which will hardly be doubted without empirical evidence to the contrary. It has been assumed that all these clocks go at the same rate if they are of identical construction. Stated more exactly: When two clocks arranged at rest in different places of a reference-body are set in such a manner that a particular position of the pointers of the one clock is simultaneous (in the above sense) with the same position of the pointers of the other clock, then identical “settings” are always simultaneous (in the sense of the above definition).

Until here, pure crapping delusion, because he starts his "definition of time" with a supposition, not so with empirical evidence.

Anyway, he never provided any definition of time but his assumed simultaneously, but simultaneously is not "time" but just two events happening at the same time. He continued:

Quote:

I PLACE a metre-rod in the x'-axis of k' in such a manner that one end (the beginning) coincides with the point x' = 0, whilst the other end (the end of the rod) coincides with the point x' = 1. What is the length of the metre-rod relatively to the system K? In order to learn this, we need only ask where the beginning of the rod and the end of the rod lie with respect to K at a particular time t of the system K. By means of the first equation of the Lorentz transformation the values of these two points at the time t = 0 can be shown to be

the distance between the points being

But the metre-rod is moving with the velocity v relative to K. It therefore follows that the length of a rigid metre-rod moving in the direction of its length with a velocity v is

of a metre. The rigid rod is thus shorter when in motion than when at rest, and the more quickly it is moving, the shorter is the rod. For the velocity v = 0 we should have

and for still greater velocities the square-root becomes imaginary. From this we conclude that in the theory of relativity the velocity c plays the part of a limiting velocity, which can neither be reached nor exceeded by any real body. 1
Of course this feature of the velocity c as a limiting velocity also clearly follows from the equations of the Lorentz transformation, for these become meaningless if we choose values of v greater than c. 2
If, on the contrary, we had considered a metre-rod at rest in the x-axis with respect to K, then we should have found that the length of the rod as judged from K' would have been

this is quite in accordance with the principle of relativity which forms the basis of our considerations. 3
A priori it is quite clear that we must be able to learn something about the physical behaviour of measuring-rods and clocks from the equations of transformation, for the magnitudes x, y, z, t, are nothing more nor less than the results of measurements obtainable by means of measuring-rods and clocks. If we had based our considerations on the Galilei transformation we should not have obtained a contraction of the rod as a consequence of its motion. 4
Let us now consider a seconds-clock which is permanently situated at the origin (x' = 0) of K'. t' = 0 and t' = 1 are two successive ticks of this clock. The first and fourth equations of the Lorentz transformation give for these two ticks:
t = 0
and

As judged from K, the clock is moving with the velocity v; as judged from this reference-body, the time which elapses between two strokes of the clock is not one second, but

seconds, i.e. a somewhat larger time. As a consequence of its motion the clock goes more slowly than when at rest. Here also the velocity c plays the part of an unattainable limiting velocity.

Lets see now with your point.

Apply the formula and use a sand clock.

Remember that for Einstein a clock is a clock.

If you want to be specific, well Einstein never knew the atomic clock when he wrote his fantasies, so, if his formula works solely with one kind of clock, then his theory is false.

He said "clock" and at the moment he said so, he was referring to mechanical clocks and watches.

So, go ahead, prove Einstein right using a sand clock, a water clock, an electrical clock, and a mechanical clock.

If Einstein's formulas are "right" the data on the mentioned clocks must be very similar after being exposed to the same acceleration.

Go ahead... make my day.

1 Reply

@cameronleon,

Quote:

The whole thing of relativity is based in "moving clocks" going slow.

Wrong.!

Relativity is based on the axiom that the speed of light is measurably the same for all observers. From that point it follows that there is no such thing as 'absolute simultanaity' and therefore, that 'time' as measured by the pointing of a hand on a clock is relative to reference frame of the observer looking at the clock. Thus two observers moving at constant velocity relative to each other will each report that the other one's clock was 'slow' relative to their own. This is a separate phenomenon to the concept of 'differential aging' (of twins for example ) as this involves acceleration not just velocity.
The inclusion of accelerated frames moved 'special relativity' to 'general relativity' in which time and space constitute a unified concept.

You are merely one of the many who fail to understand relativity. Not surprising since your warped attitude to even simpler science has already been noted.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

Relativity is based on the axiom that the speed of light is measurably the same for all observers.

The speed of a traveling bullet is also measurable the same for all observers.

The speed of a moving train is also measurable the same for all observers.

Quote:

From that point it follows that there is no such thing as 'absolute simultanaity' and therefore, that 'time' as measured by the pointing of a hand on a clock is relative to reference frame of the observer looking at the clock.

What the heel are you talking about?

From any point of view, when people watch a moving train, everybody see it moving in its present status and location simultaneously with the present status and location of the observer, wherever the location of the observer is.

Why is not such thing as "absolute simultaneously"? You are talking peanuts.

Later you say that time is measured by the pointing of a hand on a clock that is "relative" to reference frame of the observer looking at the clock.

Then, Observer 1 watches a moving train from 5 miles high in the mountain east side, Observer 2 watches the same moving train from spaceship tens of miles away from North side, I can tell you with 100% certainty that both observers are watching the moving train in its present location and status simultaneously with the present status and location of the observers.

Your theory sucks.

Quote:

Thus two observers moving at constant velocity relative to each other will each report that the other one's clock was 'slow' relative to their own. This is a separate phenomenon to the concept of 'differential aging' (of twins for example ) as this involves acceleration not just velocity.

Oh, yeah?

Specify your "relative to each other" with a solid example taken from evident observation. Also, show with evidence the report from both observers that the clocks of the another were slow relative to their own.

And, third, show with evidence such "differential aging" with astronauts current traveling for months in outer space compared with humans staying on ground zero on earth.

Remember, this is a forum of science, and whatever you state, you must show the correspondent evidence.

No formulas, no equations, show real evidence.

Quote:

The inclusion of accelerated frames moved 'special relativity' to 'general relativity' in which time and space constitute a unified concept.

That is your crap to be discussed later. If you can't pass "special relativity" test showing proof, then your "general relativity" is automatically false.

Quote:

You are merely one of the many who fail to understand relativity. Not surprising since your warped attitude to even simpler science has already been noted.

What it will happen is that you will end running away with your tail between the legs, right after you find out that you have no evidence in absolute to prove relativity as a credible theory.

3 Replies

@cameronleon,

You really don't have clue do you !

Next !

1 Reply

@cameronleon,

Cam,
Your problem isn't science, it's arrogance. You can't imagine that someone else has a greater understanding than your own. When presented with information you don't understand you immediately call "bullshit".
Why don't you try to learn? How can you claim to "know" what you haven't studied?

2 Replies

@TomTomBinks,

Alas, he is somewahat typical of those dogmatic misfits who tend to populate forums, because nobody would give them time of day in real life. I suppose its cheaper than going to a therapist!

2 Replies

@cameronleon,

Whether an individual sees a train (or anything that is mobile) going fast or slow is of no consequence; it's traveling at the speed it is traveling. Guessing the speed is only that; guessing. Even the speedometer on cars are not accurate. https://www.thrillist.com/cars/your-speedometer-is-wrong-speed-calibration-inaccuracy-in-german-american-and-japanese-cars

1 Reply

@fresco,

This is one of the problems with the internet. There is little or no effort or consequence involved in voicing ones opinion.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

You really don't have clue do you !

I can see your tail between your legs while you escape from here.

So, you finally found out that using different kind of clocks the predictions of relativity are pure crap.

You have learned a good lesson, hope you teach it to your children.

0 Replies

@TomTomBinks,

Tom.

Lets go step by step.

The idea of relativity lean on frames of reference, time dilatation, light without acceleration, and other claims which have never ever been proved using the scientific method the correct way.

You must recognize this truth.

Time can't dilate before you prove its physical existence.

I asked for the correspondent evidence that two dudes going away one from another, when checking the other's clock will show to be slowed while his own seems to run normally.

I have to see that sh*t.

What now?

Because I ask for such an evidence you are going to tell me to go and study about it?

Come on.

If you claim such a phenomenon of slowing clocks, you must prove it. I don't need to study it.

I want to see the evidence.

Do you understand?

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

Alas, he is somewahat typical of those dogmatic misfits who tend to populate forums, because nobody would give them time of day in real life. I suppose its cheaper than going to a therapist!

No wonder you have escaped from answering my questions, and rather than showing me the requested evidence, you started talking about me, and I can recognize who you are when you take this kind of attitude:

My grandfather taught me that gossip is the revenge of cowards.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Whether an individual sees a train (or anything that is mobile) going fast or slow is of no consequence; it's traveling at the speed it is traveling. Guessing the speed is only that; guessing. Even the speedometer on cars are not accurate.

No doubt you are right with that, our devices are not as perfect as we think they are.

The point in discussion about relativity is that light appears to travel at the same speed for all observers.

And this is funny.

Light is invisible to our naked eyes, then the number of "observers" is reduced to a few with devices capable to detect light traveling around.

The perception of light causes illusions.

For us, with the size of our bodies, if we are capable to see light with our naked eyes, then light is like gas inside our body traveling fast to become a fart.

But, if we were the size of a galaxy, and we were capable to see light with our giant naked eyes, then light is like gas inside the body of a snake traveling fast to become a fart... delayed, slowed, "dilated"... lol

Seriously, if we were as big as a galaxy traveling a 190,000 miles per second, our perception of light traveling at 300,000 miles per second should be as we walking on the sidewalk watching a car passing us at full speed.

Then, in such a condition, light is "not the same" for all observers.

With this example, we can state that for a microbe, light will appear to travel faster than the perception we have of the same phenomenon.

Here is where "devices, instruments, machines" help us to discriminate illusions.

In base on new devices, the perception of a bullet or a moving train will be the same for all observers, no matter if the observer is standing on ground or traveling in a spaceship.

(By the way, I used to have until recently an old Nissan vehicle of the 90's. It had a faulty odometer/speedometer. I replaced the instrument cluster 2 times, they were used of course because Nissan won't make those anymore. I was ready to replace it with an universal speedometer with odometer, but the vehicle's transmission finally broke apart. I owned that vehicle for 20 years, I thought I gonna cry the day I gave it away to the junk, but as soon as I received two hundred bucks for it, I went to celebrate that easy money at a restaurant and next day I got better news receiving money back from car insurance and also money back for unused tag license. I felt happy because repairs I made to that car cost me about 300 bucks every two months, and I was getting tired of rising up the vehicle for repairs. Car mechanics is great as a hobby, but when it come "a job" surely it takes you too much time.)

0 Replies

@TomTomBinks,

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-time-slow-down-when-we-approach-the-speed-of-light-Does-time-really-stop-at-the-speed-of-light

0 Replies

@cameronleon,

Wasn't it lucky for you, professor, that your Grandfather wasn't one of the millions who were murdered in the gas chambers that you have 'scientifically shown' not to have existed !

,

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

Wasn't it lucky for you, professor, that your Grandfather wasn't one of the millions who were murdered in the gas chambers that you have 'scientifically shown' not to have existed !

Because my grandfather wasn't a liar and because my grandfather wasn't brainwashed in order to tell fairy tales.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

BTW I am one of the few atheists round here who requires no 'empirical demonstration of the existence of God'. Since 'God' is a concept like any other, it stands or falls on the basis of its utlility, and that is as far as we can get as fas as 'existence' of anything is concerned. So 'time' is useful to us both, whereas 'God' is only useful to theists.

There you go.

With those words of yours you are rising up your hand and proclaiming that relativity is your religion and no science is involved but is a case of your belief in a doctrine alone.

Quote:

'Physicality' may or may not add to judgement of utility, but we must bear in mind that 'physicality' is itself only another concept based on our particular species physiology.

Science is based in "physicality". Needs material things around to study them.

Religion is based in "faith". No need of material things around.

You keep confirming that relativity is just a religion.

Quote:

I realise that the above is likely to fall on religiously deformed ears, but I re-iterate it anyway for the consideration of fellow atheists.

Atheists already know that relativity is just a religion, you don't have to worry about it.

1 Reply

@cameronleon,

Nah...! Nobody is going to fall for your futile attempt to divert attention from your moronic views. You must be a five star idiot mentioning 'gas' on the other thread ! Smile

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

Nah...! Nobody is going to fall for your futile attempt to divert attention from your moronic views. You must be a five star idiot mentioning 'gas' on the other thread !

So, moronic views are

1)- Relativity claims that time "dilates" when time doesn't even exist physically.
Definitively the moron was Einstein.

2)- The relativistic attempt of defining dilatation of time in base of "moving clocks" is the most laughable absurdity ever written in science.

Clocks (at the time Einstein wrote his sh*t in 1920) are devices calibrated solely to make tic tic tic at determined intervals. That's all clocks are. Even the atomic clock works that way.

Clocks are subjected to malfunction when are exposed to a an environment different to which they were originally calibrated.

Acceleration, different gravity, etc affects the device called clock and will cause to give a different data because the altered calibration at different environment.

What a morons are those relativists who affirm and confirm that the clocks work "perfectly" at different gravity but their imaginary "time" is what dilates.

I can prove thousands of times that clocks malfunction and that their calibration suffers and provides a "regular" different data just by changing the environment. The delay or fast function can give a constant and regular different data (from the calibrated original) as long as the new environment keeps affecting its normal function.

You will never prove that time exists, and by consequence your position sucks.

You know nothing in physics.

2 Replies

@cameronleon,

Oh dear ! Remind me to send my degree certificate back. !
Where's yours from by the way ?

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

Oh dear ! Remind me to send my degree certificate back. !

Hmm... your degree certificate back... I guess your janitorial certificate won't be affected if you recognize that time dilatation never existed at all... don't worry about it...

1 Reply

Is time linear?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know