0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
imatfaalWhilst I have no real objection to you moving this thread I believe it to be a perfectly legitimate question that could should be answered in Physics, Astronomy and Cosmology. I don't believe it constitutes a new theory, it just asks what may be an awkward question.
I can go with "We know that the passage of time does vary on a local scale" if you add "relative the observer". Your own local rate of 'change' as I call it, never varies. That mean that if you have two clocks at A and B, two meters between them, you being at A. You will see a 'time dilation' at B, but as soon as you move to B looking back at the clock you left at A, you again will see a 'time dilation' but now defining A as the place 'out of sync'. If you now had a wristwatch, coupled to some process in your body that is very exact, chopping that 'local arrow' we all live by into very small, evenly made, chunks, you would find that your wrist watch always give you the exact same 'chunks' as measured relative that bodily process (biological 'clock'). That means that no matter if you're at A measuring B, or at B measuring A your own local 'time' as your 'arrow', never changes for you. That lifespan you have will always be the same according to your wristwatch, no matter where you go, or how fast. So a time dilation is a description between frames of reference. And the comparison of 'time' can only be done using your own local time in any real, direct measurement.==...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please
REGISTER or LOGINHowever it is not the same as gravitational time dilation which is real. Observer A on the Earth will see the clock of observers B in orbit to be running fast. Observer B in orbit will see the clock of observer A to be running slow. If this applies on Earth which we know it does then presumably it applies anywhere that has a difference in gravitational potential due to mass. For it not to be relevant would require clocks to run at the same rate everywhere in the Universe and for all cosmological time. To the best of my knowledge that would be simply a huge assumption.The Hubble red-shift to truly be a measure of distance and age of the Universe requires that clocks run at the same rate everywhere in the Universe and for all cosmological time. As I said that is a huge assumption.According to the interpretation of the Hubble red-shift some very distant galaxies are moving away from us at many times the speed of light. As this is not possible it was proposed that space is being created. This may or may not be true but it still seems to me to be a 'patch' born out of desperation. Oh and the patch required another 'patch' 'dark energy' etc. to account for the necessary force of expansion. Is that another patch?If the observed red-shift is due to a mixture of 'expansion' and the variable rate of time then no 'patch is required. Why adopt a complicated solution when there is a much simpler one?
ClipI can see where you're coming from there Mike, heh, and I beg to differ. If you don't have another frame of reference to compare 'local time' too there can be no 'time dilations'.
Quote from: MikeS on 01/03/2012 17:18:20imatfaalWhilst I have no real objection to you moving this thread I believe it to be a perfectly legitimate question that could should be answered in Physics, Astronomy and Cosmology. I don't believe it constitutes a new theory, it just asks what may be an awkward question. Unfortunately, it is a question premised on a misunderstanding of time dilation; it was also one in a long line of your posts that deal with this area - thus moved to New Theories.
Quote from: imatfaal on 05/03/2012 10:51:39Quote from: MikeS on 01/03/2012 17:18:20imatfaalWhilst I have no real objection to you moving this thread I believe it to be a perfectly legitimate question that could should be answered in Physics, Astronomy and Cosmology. I don't believe it constitutes a new theory, it just asks what may be an awkward question. Unfortunately, it is a question premised on a misunderstanding of time dilation; it was also one in a long line of your posts that deal with this area - thus moved to New Theories.I would be grateful if you could explain exactly what it is that you think I am misunderstanding?
Gravitational potential (a term open to misinterpretation)...
or more correctly Gravitational Potential Energy
can be interpreted as the negative of the work done by the gravitational field moving a unit mass in from infinity
Whereas gravitational strength refers to the 'strength or density' of the gravitational 'field' in a particular location where physical bodies attract with a force proportional to their mass.
What is it about that you think I don't understand?[/color]
There is a ambiguity to what a time dilation is. Sometimes you find otherwise knowledgeable guys describing it as time goes 'slower', relative some other frame, which in my view is incorrect. Times arrow has only one pace locally, the same everywhere, as far as I see it, but that's my view You think of it in terms of different frames of reference experiencing different arrows of time, although not measurable locally, if I get it right. You work your ideas from that assumption while I work mine from the opposite assumption. We may still meet in middle somewhere Mike, and until then we will have good discussions.One might also express it as that you work from a definition of a 'wholly joined indivisible SpaceTime', where I work strictly from 'locality' assuming radiations constant to be what 'join' different frames of reference into a 'whole description' of SpaceTime. It's a subtle difference, but it gives us two perspectives.
GPE relative GP huh To find GPE you need a mass, the gravitational potential energy is the energy associated with the position of a given mass in the gravitational field. To find GP you also need a test particle of rest mass to define it from. The Principle of Equivalence when it compares Earths gravity to a rocket accelerating uniformly constantly at one gravity also uses a 'test particle', aka that rocket. Without the 'test particle' there can be no descriptions of a gravitational field as you have nothing to describe the field against as it seems to me.Fields and relative motion gives me constant headaches.