0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The standard second is what all units of measurement that involve time are held relative to.
Speed of light = 299 792 458 metres per standard second...Frequency = wave cycles per standard second...Joules per standard second...Etc...So it is good news that you are hung up on the term standard second translating to a preferred reference frame, because that is exactly and entirely my point!
My point being that if one measures all the above as per the rate of time as per the clock in the 'other' reference frame, then distance, frequency, and energy measurements will be exactly the same in each and every reference frame.*
The equivalence principle currently states that this is the case, but for the reason that the clock is ticking normally in the other reference frame, as per a standard second measurement, and only appears different from the other reference frame.
The difference I make just states that the clock is actually physically ticking at a differing rate to the standard second, but it will appear normal if you go to that other reference frame for the reason that you and your atoms will also be ticking at the differing rate of that reference frame, therefore giving a physical reason for the notion of ageing in keeping with ones time dilated clock.
*But... 'a clock' cannot measure what time is doing in open space.
Therefore it is my suggestion that there is something different going on with time in open space than there is for a clock, (and m in general), when placed in open space.
So 'proper time' is the time on the stationary clock. But what rate is 'proper time' running at?
Why do you say that SR time is invariant?
Clearly the clock in the frame that is in relative motion to the stationary clock is ticking at a slower rate.
But how can you state the stationary clock as stationary?
A stationary clock can be considered stationary held relative to a clock that is not in motion with respect to the stationary clock, but neither clocks are actually stationary. Both will be in motion relative to a clock somewhere else.
Furthermore, both clocks may be stationary with respect to each other, but be placed in differing gravity potentials.
For instance: Place your first clock on ground, and your second clock on a helicopter at a height of 100 metres, and then rather than the helicopter maintain its position directly above the ground clock, whereas the clock on the helicopter would be in motion faster than the ground clock, ask your helicopter to be in motion as per the clock on the ground, where the helicopter will observe the ground clock to be moving away with the rotation of the earth.Both clocks are now stationary with respect to each other, but the helicopters clock will be ticking faster.
Which clock is displaying the 'proper time' in this instance?
If a clock is displaying the energy state of the reference frame it is occupying, then one cannot state that energy is observer dependent.
If a clock measures the energy state of the reference frame of space it is occupying, this statement in itself separates the clock from the reference frame of the space it is measuring.
Now you have 2 reference frames.
The reference frame of the clock, and the reference frame of space the clock is measuring.
As the clock is now occupying the reference frame of the space, how can you say the clock is making a measurement of the space it is occupying?
The clock is measuring the reference frame of its own self when in that space, not the other way round.
Define time:Time is not a measurement to be imposed upon the universe,
but is a reactive phenomenon inherent 'within' the universe.
Therefore if the Universe is not expanding, the redshift of light with increasing distance must be caused by some other phenomena something that happens to the light itself as it travels through space.We are not speculating now as to what could cause the redshift of light, Mr Lerner said.
Note also that SR cannot cope with acceleration. It describes KE in the context of uniform motion. GR describes PE in a stationary context, although it is also valid for free fall because PE=KE in that case.
Einstein certainly suspected that something was amiss in his theory. That's why he was playing around with the cosmological constant. The problem is that, without a cosmological constant, the white hole origin theory (aka. Big Bang) predicts an expanding universe. Einstein was trying to stop the expansion so the universe would be static. Hubble's discovery compelled him to abandon that effort. His theory was in perfect agreement with observation at the time of his death. Since then we have discovered accelerated expansion and anomalous orbits, which are attributed to DE and DM respectively. These are admittedly contrived, but they do not necessarily challenge relativity at its core as you contend.