0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Not sure what you mean there "But if you where on a moving body and shot 2 light beams , one concurrent with your progression and the other opposite, an observer could see you having 2 constants simultaneously ?"First of all, it would be very tricky to observe both light beams. you might consider it from some theoretical point of view though in which case the only difference would be a blue shift relative a red shift, although I don't see how to set such a experiment up. The speed you would measure would be 'c' in both cases though. (This presuming a uniformly moving body, where from both light beams are sent in opposite directions.)
Thanks David, I was just wondering if it had been proved beyond resonable doubt like things such as higgs bosons existance and gravitational waves. There seems to be a lot of theory but no conclusive proof.
Also it seems unecesarry as no theorys seem to rely on it, even relativity seems to need it as a mere after thought, and that seems to have various reasons.
When you think stationary mass weighs less at altitude (I can think of at least 2 possible causes) I do not see why radioactive decay is down to time.
I suppose why it is so contentious as it seems to target at relativity in general, without time dilations relativity seems to be threatened!
Quote from: Petrochemicals on 02/05/2017 13:13:44Thanks David, I was just wondering if it had been proved beyond resonable doubt like things such as higgs bosons existance and gravitational waves. There seems to be a lot of theory but no conclusive proof.With both of those examples, experiments are producing numbers that make it very hard to deny them. What is still open to argue about is which theories/models are right, and it's fully possible for an incorrect model to make correct predictions.
Quote from: Petrochemicals on 02/05/2017 13:13:44Also it seems unecesarry as no theorys seem to rely on it, even relativity seems to need it as a mere after thought, and that seems to have various reasons.If "it" means absolute time, some theories do depend on it, and others which claim not to depend on it also depend on it if you push them into places where they break. If "it" means time dilation, then all theories have to include this in some form if they are to fit the results of experiments.
Quote from: Petrochemicals on 02/05/2017 13:13:44When you think stationary mass weighs less at altitude (I can think of at least 2 possible causes) I do not see why radioactive decay is down to time.If the functionality of any object slows down when it's moved fast or placed deep in a gravity well, that slowing will apply to the rate of its radioactive decay too. We know from experiments that this slowing occurs, so we have to accept that it happens and make sure our theories conform to the real universe rather than coming up with theories that disagree with reality.
Quote from: Petrochemicals on 02/05/2017 13:13:44I suppose why it is so contentious as it seems to target at relativity in general, without time dilations relativity seems to be threatened!There is nothing contentious about the actuality of time dilation - it happens. What is contentious is the mechanism by which it supposedly happens, although most people in the physics world don't accept that it is contentious at all because they're happy to work with a model that's irrational so long as it predicts all the right numbers to match up with the data generated by experiments.
The clock experiment.Does the velocity affect it? Has it ever been performed with both clocks in low gravity?
If one clock was moved away from the other and then back hypothetically this should give the same resultant time difference as the clocks both in a high gravity environment. I do not know if on a circular return path from one clock this would have the same effect/ the clock orentation depending on design of the clock. If the clock moved backwards and forwards a set ammount in a low gravity showed identical dilation than a high gravity it would prove that gravity is merely causing iradioactive decay to happen faster?
...The actual measureable loss due to dilation is negligibly small, if it exists. The inaccuracies in the syetem are far larger...