0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Hi Mike,Frankly I am totally confused of what you are talking about, if you could go into detail of few things it'll be more helpful.But if you're saying that time dilation depends on gravity, its not proven yet. Little amount of time dilation is tested but seriously its not a huge difference where we can't say that error could be on experiment side. When Einstein talked about time dilation it was because he wanted to fix the speed of light, but if you fix the speed of light time has to dilate otherwise it doesn't make sense.
Lots of people say "time dilation" is needed for GPS to work but seriously these clocks on satellite are updated every second from ground stations so I don't think its possible to have a time dilation in these satellite clocks.
But it'll be great if you could explain your idea one more time, because I agree with time dilation but not depending upon speed but size, larger the size faster the time is, I have my reasons for that.It'll be great to get your idea once more and if you could make it much more clear it'll be great.
Hmm, so the event horizon of a black hole is the border where time dilation would slow down time to exactly the amount where light no longer has the time to escape with its constant velocity?
clipI find this one rather confusing? You can't split SpaceTime into 'components', and the assertion that 'gravity on earth is "equivalent" to acceleration mostly in the sense that clocks on the surface run more slowly than clocks in outer space.' makes little sense to me?
4) In physics, acceleration is the rate of change of velocity with time.However, it can equally be a constant (or changing) velocity with a changing rate of time (changing time dilation factor.)
If you consider a test particle in its own empty universe. The particle is stationary in the three spacial dimensions but is moving, accelerating in the time dimension or more correctly, space-time. I guess that could be re-phrased as anything that has mass cannot be stationary in space-time.
Quote from: MikeS on 08/04/2012 07:11:51If you consider a test particle in its own empty universe. The particle is stationary in the three spacial dimensions but is moving, accelerating in the time dimension or more correctly, space-time. I guess that could be re-phrased as anything that has mass cannot be stationary in space-time.If you are considering an example of an empty universe as Einstein does in Special Relativity then a single particle can be stationery in Space-Time, you have to introduce a second reference point or particle, thats the relativity aspect of the theory. Time would stand still for a single particle in an empty universe given your example.
Hi MikeI like your idea and as you say it is a possible answer to better explaining gravity but Iíve has similar thoughts myself and one or two points occurred to me that pushed me back off the idea. I agree with points 1, 2, 3, and 5 in your opening paragraph but point 4 is where it gets a bit more complicated.Quote from: MikeS on 20/03/2012 06:40:404) In physics, acceleration is the rate of change of velocity with time.However, it can equally be a constant (or changing) velocity with a changing rate of time (changing time dilation factor.) Now time dilation is a real thing as you say but gravity and time dilation do not appear to be variable in respect to one another i.e. time given GR will slow as proximity to mass increases but this is a relative constant, mass dictates time dilation not the other way round.So is gravity caused by mass accelerating through space-time, no I donít think so but it is a variable relative to velocity. The hard part is in appreciating the individual factors, Time, Gravity, and space/distance. If you view time speeding up as fewer time intervals for a set distance you have one result and if you view time as fixed and the relevant distance travelled for each interval as varying you get another. Is time fixed and space stretches or the other way round, or both at the same time.Now I view distance as fixed and what we perceive as time varying but there is no definitive answer either way so I know my opinion is just as open to debate as yours.
Crossed hairs it would seem, you wrote "it can equally be a constant (or changing) velocity with a changing rate of time (changing time dilation factor.)" in point 4.It can be a constant velocity with changing time or changing velocity with constant time, thatís open to debate ! It cannot be changing velocity and changing time simultaneously or gravity would fluctuate everywhere and cosmology would be a crazy thing to look at. Likewise they both can't be fixed because its been proved otherwise with things like the atomic clock tests. Have you considered the "cosmological constant", this essentially would be a reference point by which Space-Time can be measured as accelerating and is in line with your point of, if I understand you. The Cosmological Constant has just received a little press because it may have been proved or is at least far more likely...http://uk.news.yahoo.com/einstein-proved-over-universe-095658382.html [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]Not a great link but you can go from there, its one of those topics opinions change constantly and this is about as up-to-date as I could find on the fly.Also I'm sure your only using that link to Stanford Uni as an example but its one of the most basic descriptions of Space-Time I've ever read.
clipAt one G accelerating, will the time dilation measured from a 'inertial frame' be equivalent to the time dilation measured on Earth, as measured from that same 'inertial frame'
It's a question I wonder about too Mike. What is a ultimate 'speed' of something gravitationally in-falling through the Event Horizon? It can't really be 'c' as that is a limit. But it is also so that I can assume 'uniform motions' infinity close to 'c'. But if we consider it some more we will notice that for two infinity's to merge as a 'speed' at 'c' for mass, relative a Black Hole, it must then be defined infinitely close to its 'center' as it is only there the mass becomes 'infinite'.