It's a means to deceive an audience.
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
What Time Dilation ACTUALLY Is In Relativity (Hint: It has nothing to do with time)
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
It's a means to deceive an audience.
The hands on a clock are in motion but the clock is not in motion.
Clocks everywhere on earth are ticking away at seconds, to minutes, and hours.
No clock anywhere on earth is speeding up or slowing down for anybody or anything that moves.
The faster anything moves the farther distance it travels through space.
Nothing arrives in the future ahead of anything else regardless of how fast it's moving.
Clocks everywhere on earth are ticking away at seconds, to minutes, and hours.
No clock anywhere on earth is speeding up or slowing down for anybody or anything that moves.
The faster anything moves the farther distance it travels through space.
Nothing arrives in the future ahead of anything else regardless of how fast it's moving.
Right Divider
Body part
Support your claim.
I see nothing about it that is irrational. On the contrary, contradictions do not exist in reality and these phenomena have been experimentally observed to happen and very very complex and hyper-expensive scientific instruments have these effects very intentionally engineered into the way they work because they wouldn't work at all otherwise.
Why? Why, what?
All motion is relative.
If you drop a clock out of a window, the clock is moving relative to you and your watch as it drops to the ground. When it reaches the ground, its probably not a clock anymore.
The watches and other clocks that happen to be in an aircraft are in motion relative to you and your watch as they fly over head.
How so?
There is experimental proof that they do not do so.
A sound wave in a clock in motion, as per video, must travel a greater distance than the sound wave in the clock that is stationary so obviously it takes more time-more than a second. But there is a "false equivalence" between the two clocks. The moving clock is subject to--affected by--the "air" but the stationary clock is not. The speed of the sound wave is the same in both clocks but distance the wave travels is not the same for both clocks so they are not equal in the number of clicks. Time has not been shortened or lengthened the number of clicks are not the same because the distance is not the same. Sound waves travel through space not through time. Time has not been altered in this illustration between the two clocks, the distance the sound waves must travel has been altered between the two clocks, which creates a false equivalence. Time has not been altered if the distance is not the same between the waves moving at the same speed.
Maybe I need to rewatch the video because what you are describing as an objection sounds to me like the point they were making. The idea is to give an explanation for what we observe without resorting to time being an ontological thing that is somehow changing.
Now it is you who are making a false equivalence. A clock is not time. Time is not a clock. Motion effects clocks, not time. Time is not a thing, it is an idea and cannot be effected my physical forces. Clocks, on the other hand, can be and are.
A person's watch will run slower at the equator than someone else's watch who it directly north of them (i.e. same time zone) at the arctic circle. The rather slow speed of the rotation of the Earth means that the difference between the two would be imperceptible but the effect is quite real and not merely a matter of perception. If the effect was large enough, the two could meet half way, say in Oklahoma City, and when they compare their watches, they'd find that they are out of sync. Neither person, however, ever leaves the present, which is why the two can meet in OKC, and so the effect isn't about time but about clocks.
"Time dilation is a physical phenomenon in which time moves differently for different observers in the same inertial frame. In time dilation, time moves slower for an observer who is in motion relative to another observer."--Google
Time dilation is not about clocks it's about time in a frame of reference.
I'm arguing that time does not slow down or speed up. The examples that attempt to show that it does are about distance not about time.
Space and time are not the same thing.
Time dilation is not about clocks it's about time in a frame of reference.
I'm arguing that time does not slow down or speed up. The examples that attempt to show that it does are about distance not about time.
Space and time are not the same thing.
Last edited:
This is the conventional understanding of time dilation. The videos are there to present another view.
It is 100% entirely and totally about nothing else but the clocks.
It isn't about distances. The effect on the clocks are quite real and cannot be ignored if we want certain technologies we use every day to actually work. GPS satellites are moving quite fast relative to the surface of the Earth and, as a result, their clocks run more slowly. That difference has to be accounted for or else the errors that happen would be significant and noticeable to the point that the system would be unusable because, when you are talking about distances on a planetary scale, it doesn't take much of an error to cause your position reading to be off by quite a long ways. If you sent your GPS guided bomb to blow up the terrorist's compound and it destroys the hospital two miles down the street, that's a bad day! The reason that doesn't happen is because the relativistic effects on those GPS satellite clocks are very precisely accounted for.
Very true but they are interestingly similar concepts. They are nearly identical concepts applied to two different aspects of reality. One has to do with the position of objects relative to other objects (space) the other has to do with the sequence of events relative to other events (time). It is this similarity that allows them to be treated as though they are the same thing mathematically. The error comes from accepting mathematics as reality without proper foundation.
Lets have some agreement.
The speed of the sound wave is the same in both clocks, yes?
But the distance the wave travels (through space) is not the same for both clocks, yes?
In the moving clock the sound wave must travel a farther distance (through space) than the wave in the stationary clock, correct?
We are talking about time dilation not clock dilation, right?
The speed of the sound wave is the same in both clocks, yes?
But the distance the wave travels (through space) is not the same for both clocks, yes?
In the moving clock the sound wave must travel a farther distance (through space) than the wave in the stationary clock, correct?
We are talking about time dilation not clock dilation, right?
Are we debating GPS or special relativity? Do you think they are the same thing?
GPS is a radio wave, "a type of electromagnetic wave that transmit and receive messages." What does it have to do with special relativity?
"In the context of special relativity, time cannot be separated from the three dimensions of space, because the observed rate at which time passes for an object depends on the object's velocity relative to the observer. General relativity provides an explanation of how gravitational fields can slow the passage of time for an object as seen by an observer outside the field."
I'm arguing that time "can" be separated from the three dimensions of space and the rate at which time passes for an object "does not" change for an observer outside the field.
The video is one attempt to explain special relativity in a different way but it still fails because a "moving clock" is not a valid way to measure time because the distance the waves travel through space in a moving clock is not the same distance as in the stationary clock.
My watch if I'm on a moving train will tick to the same seconds, minutes, and hours just as the clocks say in every town I pass by.
All illustrations of how time expands or contracts are flawed.
Clete: "A clock is not time. Time is not a clock. Motion effects clocks, not time. Time is not a thing."
Time is not a thing "in itself". Time exists because a material world exists. Time exists in eternity because God exists and he does things. If God and a material world did not existed then neither would time.
Motion in God and motion in the world is one of the reasons time exists, time is not what is in motion.
Time does not speed up or slow down, a train speeds up and moves through space a farther distance than a train that is stationary or not moving as fast.
Special relativity means time travel is possible, but in reality nothing (not even God) moves into the future ahead of anything else, and nothing (not even God) gets left behind in the past.
"Before the twentieth century, scientists and philosophers rarely investigated time travel, but now it is an exciting and deeply studied topic...The most attention is paid to time travel that is consistent with current physical theory such as Einstein’s general theory of relativity." https://iep.utm.edu/timetrav/
GPS is a radio wave, "a type of electromagnetic wave that transmit and receive messages." What does it have to do with special relativity?
"In the context of special relativity, time cannot be separated from the three dimensions of space, because the observed rate at which time passes for an object depends on the object's velocity relative to the observer. General relativity provides an explanation of how gravitational fields can slow the passage of time for an object as seen by an observer outside the field."
I'm arguing that time "can" be separated from the three dimensions of space and the rate at which time passes for an object "does not" change for an observer outside the field.
The video is one attempt to explain special relativity in a different way but it still fails because a "moving clock" is not a valid way to measure time because the distance the waves travel through space in a moving clock is not the same distance as in the stationary clock.
My watch if I'm on a moving train will tick to the same seconds, minutes, and hours just as the clocks say in every town I pass by.
All illustrations of how time expands or contracts are flawed.
Clete: "A clock is not time. Time is not a clock. Motion effects clocks, not time. Time is not a thing."
Time is not a thing "in itself". Time exists because a material world exists. Time exists in eternity because God exists and he does things. If God and a material world did not existed then neither would time.
Motion in God and motion in the world is one of the reasons time exists, time is not what is in motion.
Time does not speed up or slow down, a train speeds up and moves through space a farther distance than a train that is stationary or not moving as fast.
Special relativity means time travel is possible, but in reality nothing (not even God) moves into the future ahead of anything else, and nothing (not even God) gets left behind in the past.
"Before the twentieth century, scientists and philosophers rarely investigated time travel, but now it is an exciting and deeply studied topic...The most attention is paid to time travel that is consistent with current physical theory such as Einstein’s general theory of relativity." https://iep.utm.edu/timetrav/
Last edited:
GPS is just one very relatable example of a system that is effected by relativity.
Everything!
There's actually more to it than just one transmission of a radio wave, there are several. The satellites communicate both with the ground and with each other via radio waves and the distances they measure are based on how long it takes for those signals to travel between them. And, because of relativity, the speed of the radio waves, the distance those waves travel and the clocks used to time the trip the wave took are all effected in ways that are significant enough that they must be accounted for or else the system doesn't work.
Again, it really seems like you've not watched the videos.
That difference in distance is not ignored by these videos. I many ways, that difference is the very basis for what the video is trying to say.
In short, it directly acknowledges as true what you are trying to use as an objection. In other words, these videos are trying to tell you that trying to account for these effects based on the frame of reference of one of the clocks doesn't work and that what you need to do is to interpret these effects in terms of a third reference, like whatever it is that the light waves are propagating through. This is the reason the sound based clocks in the first video work as an analogy.
That is NOT so!
The speeds you'd be traveling on a train are too slow for you to detect the difference but there would, in fact, be a difference between your watch and any clock in a town you passed by. This is PRECISELY the issue with the GPS clocks. The ONLY differences being the speeds at which the clocks are moving and the distances involved.
Saying it doesn't make it so. You really should take the time to re-watch the videos. It is clear that you missed major points and/or misunderstood the arguments made.
You really aught to just use the "quote" feature.
No. Time does not exist at all except as a concept inside a thinking mind. Time is an idea. It is a convention of language that is used to communicate information related to the duration and sequence of events. It is nothing at all other than comparing one event to another; talking about one event in terms of other event (or set of events).
Time is nothing at all other than speaking about that motion in terms of other motion. A "motion" of any sort, is just an event. If you talk (or just think about) that event in relation to some other event then, by doing so, you are employing the concept of time.
Clocks, on the other hand, do speed up or slow down.
No, that's entirely wrong.
That's because there isn't any such ontologically real thing as the past or the future. Both are ideas and do not exist at all outside a thinking mind. Nothing ever leaves the present - period. This is a point that I hammered for weeks on end in the Summit Clock Experiment thread.
I agree that modern scientists have gone off the deep end with regard to time travel (traveling in some direction through time other than into the future) but it isn't actually relativity that makes them think its possible, (except in the context of a very liberal definition of "time travel" as is given in that article that you linked to).
It is pretty much universally accepted that time travels on in one direction, which is into the future. Indeed, if this were not the case, the law of entropy wouldn't work! It's quantum mechanics, that has some suggesting that the arrow of time can be switch to go the other direction, which would be real time travel. Quantum mechanics, however, is another whole can of worms that will have to be saved for a different thread.
In short, what that article is calling "time travel" is nothing other than a renaming of "time dilation". It's wrong for the exact same reasons was we've already been discussing.
Right Divider
Body part
A related video that I found very interesting:
Alright, so I just finished re-watching the videos in the opening post and I have to say that they are both simply brilliant. The second video in particular might well be the most brilliant video I've ever seen on this topic.
Almost nothing that has been said in the last week, including most of what I've said, demonstrates a proper understanding of what it is proposing.
Do you guys remember the Summit Clock experiment that Bob Enyart presented several years back? If, you'll recall, his argument was based on the inclusion of a third witness when it comes to trying to figure out how much time has actually passed when two clocks are out of sync. He proposed the spinning of Earth's axis relative to the Sun as that third witness, which is consistent with the biblical teaching that time keeping is part of the Sun's purpose.
These videos, which introduce the audience to what is called "Matrix Theory", employs a similar concept. It introduces a third, independent frame of reference (i.e. the either) in order to reconcile the effects that are observed between moving parties and in so doing, reconciles Einsteinian and Lorentzian interpretations of those effects.
If you haven't dabbled with these ideas for basically your entire life the way I have then that last sentence might not strike you as anything particularly important, but let me just tell you that I haven't ever written a sentence in any context or for any reason that is more scientifically profound than that single sentence. It isn't at all trivial and it isn't merely interesting. Indeed, the word "profound" is inadequate to convey the colossal importance of such a thing. The idea of the angel Michael doing combat with demonic forces is profound. This beats that by a country mile in a New York second.
Everyone here needs to re-watch those videos! If you only pick one to re-watch then watch the second one.
Almost nothing that has been said in the last week, including most of what I've said, demonstrates a proper understanding of what it is proposing.
Do you guys remember the Summit Clock experiment that Bob Enyart presented several years back? If, you'll recall, his argument was based on the inclusion of a third witness when it comes to trying to figure out how much time has actually passed when two clocks are out of sync. He proposed the spinning of Earth's axis relative to the Sun as that third witness, which is consistent with the biblical teaching that time keeping is part of the Sun's purpose.
These videos, which introduce the audience to what is called "Matrix Theory", employs a similar concept. It introduces a third, independent frame of reference (i.e. the either) in order to reconcile the effects that are observed between moving parties and in so doing, reconciles Einsteinian and Lorentzian interpretations of those effects.
If you haven't dabbled with these ideas for basically your entire life the way I have then that last sentence might not strike you as anything particularly important, but let me just tell you that I haven't ever written a sentence in any context or for any reason that is more scientifically profound than that single sentence. It isn't at all trivial and it isn't merely interesting. Indeed, the word "profound" is inadequate to convey the colossal importance of such a thing. The idea of the angel Michael doing combat with demonic forces is profound. This beats that by a country mile in a New York second.
Everyone here needs to re-watch those videos! If you only pick one to re-watch then watch the second one.
Last edited:
The second video in the opening post ends with a "to be continued". Do you know whether this video that you've linked to is the next video in the series? Their YouTube channel doesn't make it overtly clear which is intended to be the next in the series.