What Time Dilation ACTUALLY Is In Relativity (Hint: It has nothing to do with time)

[Clete]

The two videos below are, without a doubt, the best videos I have ever seen that deal with Einstein's Theory of Relativity in a manner that does not require the ontological existence of time or space and the difference between physics (ontological) vs. mathematics (epistemological).

"It is not time itself which is relative, merely our knowledge of it." - Quote from the first video

 

[Lon]

Comments section is helpful on these. Some of the Riemmanian teachers/professors (Einstein math) do a good job of discussing the tenable and untenable points. MrZelduck had a few good critique points:

The situation is as follows: Physicists are doing A. Neo-Lorentzians do B which contains A, but hides it and then claim they do not need A, as they did B. The Universe simply has length contraction and time dilation. If you call it fundamental or "effective" does a priori not matter. They are there, you have to compute them. Even worse, when you switch to the reference frame of an accelerated observer, you inevitably get curvature, since your curved line getting straight, means straight lines will become curved. You will also see that the rate at which time gets dilated depends on the distance from you and (in more complex situations) the rate of length contraction is dime dependent. I am btw. referring to Rindler coordinates and proper coordinates. Having established this, you will have to deal with that. You will now go to your mathematician of choice and ask him "Hey, I have here some phenomena which contract and curve space and time. How do I mathematically handle that?". They will answer: "Well normally lengthes and angles are described by metric tensors on manifolds". So you take, what they give you and build a physical theory with that math. What you will end up with is special and flat general relativity....

 

[DFT_Dave]

Time is not material, not made of particles; it cannot be seen, either through a telescope or a microscope; it cannot be weighed or measured; it cannot expand, contract, or bend. The science of special relativity is as irrational as the theology of a timeless God. Special relativity means everything is moving, we can only have a stationary clock if we imagine a stationary earth. Regardless, the moving clock does not arrive in the future ahead of the one that is stationary and the stationary clock is not left behind in past.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Time is not material, not made of particles; It cannot be seen, either through a telescope or a microscope; It cannot be weighed or measured; it cannot expand, contract, or bend. Special relativity is to science what a timeless God is to theology--the death of the Biblical Creator.

Welcome back, Dave!

 

[DFT_Dave]

Thanks!

 

[Clete]

Time is not material, not made of particles; it cannot be seen, either through a telescope or a microscope; it cannot be weighed or measured; it cannot expand, contract, or bend. The science of special relativity is as irrational as the theology of a timeless God. Special relativity means everything is moving, we can only have a stationary clock if we imagine a stationary earth. Regardless, the moving clock does not arrive in the future ahead of the one that is stationary and the stationary clock is not left behind in past.

100% true!

Welcome back, Dave! I've missed you!

 

[DFT_Dave]

Good to be back

 

[DFT_Dave]

The pencil never changes size because we all know that we see in "perspective". There are laws of perspective, how we see things far away. The example in the video disregards this and so the pencil does not really shrink--more relativity stupidity.

 

[Clete]

The pencil never changes size because we all know that we see in "perspective". There are laws of perspective, how we see things far away. The example in the video disregards this and so the pencil does not really shrink--more relativity stupidity.

I don't think the fact that an object takes a smaller amount of your field of view as it gets further away has anything to do with it.

 

[DFT_Dave]

How does a pencil shrink? How does a background grow?

 

[DFT_Dave]

A clock in motion vs a clock not in motion is a fallacy in the video. The example tells us how sound waves are affected by motion, it tells us nothing about time.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Neither time nor velocity is measured by moving sound waves or moving light waves. Time and velocity are measured by what is not moving. For us it's an immovable earth or an immovable sun.

 

[JudgeRightly]

How does a pencil shrink? How does a background grow?

They don't.

The only thing that changes is the distance from the observer to the object (or image) being observed.

In other words:

What changes is the "apparent" size of the objects.

 

[Lon]

Time is not material, not made of particles; it cannot be seen, either through a telescope or a microscope; it cannot be weighed or measured; it cannot expand, contract, or bend. The science of special relativity is as irrational as the theology of a timeless God.

Er, no. Not everything created is physical. An inch isn't physical, but it is 1) created and 2) existent as a represent-able concept.
"Time is not material..." It doesn't matter. "Time" is a 'created' or crafted concept. It is a conveyance of observation and is only of use with things we measure (an inch doesn't matter as a concept unless it coincides with the created universe).

Special relativity means everything is moving, we can only have a stationary clock if we imagine a stationary earth.

Algebra vs basic math: If a kid cannot understand letters with numbers, it is his/her short-coming, not the short-coming of Algebra. "Time" isn't basic math.

Regardless, the moving clock does not arrive in the future ahead of the one that is stationary and the stationary clock is not left behind in past.

1) A moving vs stationary clock, in the universe that you said was always moving, eliminates the premise of your argument. There never would be a stationary clock upon such a premise. 2) Clocks 'measure' time, are not time themselves and is a physical entity, not just a concept (not the same thing to equate). "Time" as a concept already 'exists' in the future, also a concept.

 

[Clete]

They don't.

The only thing that changes is the distance from the observer to the object (or image) being observed.

In other words:

What changes is the "apparent" size of the objects.

Again, the fact that an object takes up a smaller and smaller amount of your field of view as it gets further way, nor anything else related to parallax for that matter, is being discussed in those videos.

 

[Clete]

So, look you guys, it doesn't do anyone any good just to relegate these ideas to something so simplistic as parallax and/or the apparent angular size of an object in one's field of vision. These effects are real and have been experimentally verified to happen.

In high-energy particle accelerators, particles are accelerated to speeds close to the speed of light. The distances over which particles travel in a given time are shorter than what would be expected without relativistic effects. This contraction is very precisely factored into the design and operation of these incredibly complex and outrageously expensive particle accelerators. The same is true of the GPS system which has to account for both time dilation and length contraction in order to work properly. These are NOT mere perceptual issues or optical illusions.

This is a fascinating topic and it does no one any good at all to treat it as if it were some sort of childishly irrational prank that the scientific community has played on everyone. The only thing such a reaction to these things creates is a distrust of Christians and of Christianity, and for good reason. We need not be afraid of the truth and we do not do ourselves any favors by sticking our heads in the sand when a tough problem comes up.

That's the beautiful thing about those videos! They provide a way of interpreting the real phenomena that are observed without having to resort to the ad hoc creation of irrationalities like curved space/time. Space and time are both ideas, not physical things, and the videos in the opening post demonstrate how time dilation and length contraction can be explained without contradicting the Christian worldview. The most beautiful aspect of that is the fact that this was not its goal. The producers of those videos are not Christians (or if they are they don't say so or mention it in any way). In fact, all they are doing is providing a more logically consistent way of understanding these issues and they deserve more respect than to be blown off as though they're so stupid as to have confused the angular diameter of objects with relativistic length contraction.

 

[Clete]

How does a pencil shrink? How does a background grow?

The videos explain the answer to both questions.

 

[DFT_Dave]

If we just accept everything that's presented in the videos then there is nothing to debate, correct?

Particle theory, aka, time and material dilation, is counter intuitive, aka, irrational, correct?

I would suppose that we should understand why.

Lets begin at the beginning, there is no such thing as a moving clock vs a stationary clock. If any one thinks there is, please explain.

 

[DFT_Dave]

"A fallacy of ambiguity is a type of incorrect reasoning that occurs when an argument uses ambiguous language or unclear terms to confuse or misinterpret the audience. The argument's conclusion is reached through improper use of words, often by using the same word or phrase with different meanings in different parts of the argument." --Google

 

[ok doser]

"A fallacy of ambiguity is a type of incorrect reasoning that occurs when an argument uses ambiguous language or unclear terms to confuse or misinterpret the audience. The argument's conclusion is reached through improper use of words, often by using the same word or phrase with different meanings in different parts of the argument." --Google

I think you meant to say "... when an argument uses ambitious language or nuclear terms to confuse or misinterupt the audience"