Anti-Materialism

[ai_guardian]

Nope. Show me where what I bolded above in your 'explanation' is in your linked material.

I see you couldn't. No surprises.

Oh dear lord....

1st off there is not such thing as "at rest" the frames of reference are moving REALATIVE TO EACH OTHER. From each perspective the others clock is movieing slower. Obviously there has to be a deceleration ( gravitational time dilation) if we could subtract this effect out and just focus on pure relative velocity dilation.... What? Now that they are in the same frame both clocks will be slower than each other? No!!!!! Nothing is happening inside the clock unless accelerated, decelerated or in a gravitational field!!!!!!!!!' relative time dilation is different than gravitational time dilation.

FYI, when you calculate time dilation, the frame of reference from which you do the calculation is considered at rest. *face palm* SEE FURTHER BELOW WHERE YOU LINKED TIME DILATION AND THE BOLDED PART, this is getting beyond a joke.

you are kidding me!!! That has nothing to do with compressing waves. It is in no way related to the doppler effect. Quite obviously light is not innstantanious it has to get there, if it has to catch up because the target is moving it will take longer.... Basic man!!! Will you read the link I posted for the Doppler effect PLEASE?!?!----- screw it. Ill post it.

"

When the source of the waves is moving toward the observer, each successive wave crest is emitted from a position closer to the observer than the previous wave. Therefore each wave takes slightly less time to reach the observer than the previous wave. Therefore the time between the arrival of successive wave crests at the observer is reduced, causing an increase in the frequency. While they are travelling, the distance between successive wave fronts is reduced; so the waves "bunch together". Conversely, if the source of waves is moving away from the observer, each wave is emitted from a position farther from the observer than the previous wave, so the arrival time between successive waves is increased, reducing the frequency. The distance between successive wave fronts is increased, so the waves "spread out"."

http://en.m.wikipedi.../Doppler_effect

"The light leaves one frame, but he other frame is moveing while the light is traveling there" <- this is what you wrote, compare to the bolded above - this IS the doppler effect. I'm getting tired of having to hold your hand.

NOW I WILL POST THE EXPLANATION FOR REALATIVE VELOCITY TIME DILATION

"This constancy of the speed of light means, counter to intuition, that speeds of material objects and light are not additive. It is not possible to make the speed of light appear faster by approaching at speed towards the material source that is emitting light. It is not possible to make the speed of light appear slower by receding from the source at speed. From one point of view, it is the implications of this unexpected constancy that take away from constancies expected elsewhere.

Consider a simple clock consisting of two mirrors A and B, between which a light pulse is bouncing. The separation of the mirrors is L and the clock ticks once each time it hits a given mirror.

In the frame where the clock is at rest (diagram at right), the light pulse traces out a path of length 2L and the period of the clock is 2L divided by the speed of light:

From the frame of reference of a moving observer traveling at the speed v (diagram at lower right), the light pulse traces out a longer, angled path. The second postulate of special relativity states that the speed of light is constant in all frames, which implies a lengthening of the period of this clock from the moving observer's perspective. That is to say, in a frame moving relative to the clock, the clock appears to be running more slowly. Straightforward application of the Pythagorean theorem leads to the well-known prediction of special relativity:"

http://en.m.wikipedi...ation#section_3

quite obviously I was nowhere near discussing the Doppler effect. That was just a brain fart of yourse and you can't admit it. The old kahuna problem.

NOW HIGHLIGHT WHAT I ASKED FOR, DARE YOU!!! Now compare what I added to your explanation to make it TIME DILATION. Speaking of ad hominems. Tisk tisk.

3) you are still confusing realative velocity with gravitational ( accelerated frames) time dilation . The clocks do not tick slower .,,. Only relative to the other. Which yes they both will see the same slowing of time for the other. Quite obviously they can't be ticking slower than each other. A common analogy is used when two people stand apart from each other they look smaller than each other. That dosnt mean they actually are... It's a "trick of light"

Time and time again I've shown you unambiguously that I am talking of SR and YOU keep on bringing up GR, why Seeker79? What is your problem?

I don't know what else to say. You think you know what you are talking about but you are refusing to read the posted material. Any high schooler could obviously see I was not talking about the Doppler effect, and i did not even hint at it. Obviously the at least the wiki explanation is the same as my own which makes sense because I'm just repeating what I have read. It seems though you want to put your own spin on it, save face, or something. I haven't figured it out yet.

What you have written is not the same as the wiki explanation, you've demonstrated an epic fail with your explanation. If you cannot see that then I cannot help you and you will invariably continue to have issues.

[ai_guardian]

Ooops, all quotes except the first one in my last post above are from Seeker79. Don't know why some came up as being from me. If the mods can correct that, that would be great.

Edited June 25, 2012 by ai_guardian

[Rlyeh]

hmm. how about this? If motion can affect the passage of time, ( and make one kitten live longer) then Motion is the true measurement of time? (not the other way around) *

Only to a reference frame of lower velocity, in the kitten's frame of reference it will age normally. However it does show that time is something more than merely a human concept.

[White Crane Feather]

I see you couldn't. No surprises.

FYI, when you calculate time dilation, the frame of reference from which you do the calculation is considered at rest. *face palm* SEE FURTHER BELOW WHERE YOU LINKED TIME DILATION AND THE BOLDED PART, this is getting beyond a joke.

"The light leaves one frame, but he other frame is moveing while the light is traveling there" <- this is what you wrote, compare to the bolded above - this IS the doppler effect. I'm getting tired of having to hold your hand.

NOW HIGHLIGHT WHAT I ASKED FOR, DARE YOU!!! Now compare what I added to your explanation to make it TIME DILATION. Speaking of ad hominems. Tisk tisk.

Time and time again I've shown you unambiguously that I am talking of SR and YOU keep on bringing up GR, why Seeker79? What is your problem?

What you have written is not the same as the wiki explanation, you've demonstrated an epic fail with your explanation. If you cannot see that then I cannot help you and you will invariably continue to have issues.

All right I'll do a step by step.comparison. Of what I said and the wiki material. Just for ****s and giggles.... No doubt you will find some sort off the wall inturpretation of it so I am not sure what good it will do.... I'll do it in the post after this one.

*double face palm* it is simply used as you said a calculation because it makes the calculation simpler without changing the material of the problem. It is not a reality. Seriously man!!!!

"

One is accustomed to the notion of relativity with respect to distance: the distance from Los Angeles to New York is by convention the same as the distance from New York to Los Angeles. On the other hand, when speeds are considered, one thinks of an object as "actually" moving, overlooking that its motion is always relative to something else — to the stars, the ground or to oneself. If one object is moving with respect to another, the latter is moving with respect to the former and with equal relative speed.

In the special theory of relativity, a moving clock is found to be ticking slowly with respect to the observer's clock. If Sam and Abigail are on different trains in near-lightspeed relative motion, Sam measures (by all methods of measurement) clocks on Abigail's train to be running slowly and similarly, Abigail measures clocks on Sam's train to be running slowly."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#section_3

I wrote = IW, you added to = YA, Wiki definition = WD. +1 for me +1 for you. Add up the points at the end. Or ( -1) for wrong statements.

(IW) In relative movement, two frames of reference moving relative to each other (YA) "in the relative frame's light clock" (WD) nothing is happening inside clock. ------ this is why I keep bringing up GR. In GR things are actually happening inside the clock, so it seems if you are confusing the two. (-1 AI)

( IW) ( if they could ) would view the others clock as running slower. This is a trick of light. the distance for the light to travel while the bodies are movieing Is greater than if hey were relatively at rest. (YA) "compared to the "at rest" light clock" ----completely unnescsery, as explained above its just a way of makeing math easier. It's not reality. A frame CANNOT actually be at rest compared to another if one is moving. ( no points)

(iw) The light leaves one frame, but the other frame is moveing while the light is traveling there. This means that light will take longer to get there. Makeing the clock apear to run slower. ( you deleted this!!!!!! And said it described the Dopper affect) (WD) "From the frame of reference of a moving observer traveling at the speed v (diagram at lower right), the light pulse traces out a longer, angled path." (hmmm +1 for seeker -1 ai for deleting it) I obvious was describing this. A longer angled path takes light longer to traverse.

Then ( YA) "This means that light will take longer to travel within the relative frame's light clock, making it tick slower compared to the "at rest" light clock" ---- wrong--- (WD)"In the frame where the clock is at rest (diagram at right), the light pulse traces out a path of length 2L and the period of the clock is 2L divided by the speed of light:" its also wrong because both frames view the other as running slower. ( at rest dosnt exist remember) ----clearly the light pulse we are discussing is NOT INSIDE the clock. Now in GR with gravitational and accelerated affects it is. I'm sorry I keep bringing it up but it is so very clear that you are confusing the two. (-1 ai)

You deleted the "trick of light" comment because you believe the clocks are running slower do to some internal change. This is true upon acceleration but not true for realetive Velocity. Again your confusion. The wiki definition most clearly consistanlfly uses the word "appears". ( WD) "That is to say, in a frame moving relative to the clock, the clock ----appears-----to be running more slowly. Straightforward application of the Pythagorean theorem leads to the well-known prediction of special relativity:" (-1) ai

If it were actually running slower as it is in GR, the article would have said that and not used the word "appears" just as I did in my explanation.

Now the whole doppler fiasco dosnt even warrant comment any more.

Your points are not adding up very well. At least compared to wiki. ( not the greatest source but convinent)

Now are you going to actually post any evidence for your arguments against my statements or are you just going to keep makeing assumptions and pulling things out of your butt.

Edited June 25, 2012 by Seeker79

[White Crane Feather]

Now back on topic. Time clearly dosnt exist as some sort of enabling entity or dimension . ( it certainly can be though of as that, but it's just that at thoughts)

Now if something dosnt exist clearly it does not have a an ending or a beginning. Materialists like to say that there was no time before the big bang. I would agree because there is no time now either. The problem arises because the materialist can only have "time" with changing energy states. And pre BB the state of matter/energy/information is undefined. by saying that time did not exist but not defining time very well it gives the impression that pre bb there was nothing happening. Indeed, for many that don't look into it very deep, they will take this literally. Quite obviously the potential for change existed otherwise it could not have changed. Possibly that should be the definition for "time" potential for change. It still would not be a thing, but at least it would avoid this misleading concept that the potential for change or even chsnge itself could not and did not occure pre BB.

[Lion6969]

Given the many explanations including those that are materialistic, I'm not sure this really refutes materialism.

According to the modern understanding of material, even fundamental particles fit the definition of matter/energy. (this is mostly semantics, the idea matter is only "solid" is a thing of the past)

When defining matter or materialism it's not just limited "solid" it's related to how we perceive matter, whether at a solid level atomic or sub atomic! Materialism is believing in one standard of knowledge, which only relates to our physical reality. What others are suggesting is that this material reality arose from a more fundamental reality which is metaphysical! Materialism and matter are very limited. What's the nature of the fundamental reality? This where materialism fails due to it's standards limitation and those who adhere to it, it's the end of the road! Physics or science alone won't give the answers because their limited to the physical plane, which started at BB. It can't go beyond hence you combine standards of knowledge to find a tangible possible answer. What ever the answer it can't be measured or quantified by material means ie science alone, science can only go so far!

[Lion6969]

If time is truly dependent on our conscious, then did time not exist until we came into existence? Ponder!

[Stellar]

Consider a simple clock consisting of two mirrors A and B, between which a light pulse is bouncing. The separation of the mirrors is L and the clock ticks once each time it hits a given mirror.

In the frame where the clock is at rest (diagram at right), the light pulse traces out a path of length 2L and the period of the clock is 2L divided by the speed of light:

From the frame of reference of a moving observer traveling at the speed v (diagram at lower right), the light pulse traces out a longer, angled path. The second postulate of special relativity states that the speed of light is constant in all frames, which implies a lengthening of the period of this clock from the moving observer's perspective. That is to say, in a frame moving relative to the clock, the clock appears to be running more slowly. Straightforward application of the Pythagorean theorem leads to the well-known prediction of special relativity:"

You deleted the "trick of light" comment because you believe the clocks are running slower do to some internal change. This is true upon acceleration but not true for realetive Velocity. Again your confusion. The wiki definition most clearly consistanlfly uses the word "appears". ( WD) "That is to say, in a frame moving relative to the clock, the clock ----appears-----to be running more slowly. Straightforward application of the Pythagorean theorem leads to the well-known prediction of special relativity:" (-1) ai

If it were actually running slower as it is in GR, the article would have said that and not used the word "appears" just as I did in my explanation.

Now the whole doppler fiasco dosnt even warrant comment any more.

Your points are not adding up very well. At least compared to wiki. ( not the greatest source but convinent)

Now are you going to actually post any evidence for your arguments against my statements or are you just going to keep makeing assumptions and pulling things out of your butt.

You are enormously missing the implications of everything you wrote above, which is the very reason why you (wrongfully) say its a "trick of light". Time IS infact passing slower for the object in motion, and here's why:

The light pulses at rest are traveling in the y direction at a velocity of c. Every time the light pulse makes a return trip, it registers a "tick" on the clock, as you have put it.

Similarly, a tick is registered for the clock that is moving in the x direction; however, since light always travels at the speed of c (no exception), its composite x and y velocities together give it a total velocity of c diagonally from the view of the stationary frame. This means that the y velocity of the light pulse in the moving clock is slower than c. If this were the extent of it, then you would be correct in saying that the time dilation is a trick of light; however, there is more to SR than simply this.

Now, here's the essential point that can not be glanced over: [b]The velocity of light is constant in any reference frame.[/b] What this means is that, from the reference frame of the clock in motion, the light pulse does not travel in the x direction, it only travels in the y direction. Meaning that from his reference frame, the light MUST, by implication of SR, by traveling in the y direction at c. But wait, from the other reference frame, the light pulse was travelling in the y direction at a speed lower than c. We'll say 0.707c. So, How is it that from the stationary reference frame, the light pulse is moving in the y direction at 0.707c, while from the moving reference frame it is moving at 1.0c? Time Dilation. In order to reconcile this discrepancy between the velocities, the moving clock must experience time slower than the person at rest. 1 second is physically longer inside the moving frame than 1 second compared to the stationary frame.

Do you understand?

[Beckys_Mom]

You are enormously missing the implications of everything you wrote above, which is the very reason why you (wrongfully) say its a "trick of light". Time IS infact passing slower for the object in motion, and here's why:

The light pulses at rest are traveling in the y direction at a velocity of c. Every time the light pulse makes a return trip, it registers a "tick" on the clock, as you have put it.

Similarly, a tick is registered for the clock that is moving in the x direction; however, since light always travels at the speed of c (no exception), its composite x and y velocities together give it a total velocity of c diagonally from the view of the stationary frame. This means that the y velocity of the light pulse in the moving clock is slower than c. If this were the extent of it, then you would be correct in saying that the time dilation is a trick of light; however, there is more to SR than simply this.

Now, here's the essential point that can not be glanced over: The velocity of light is constant in any reference frame What this means is that, from the reference frame of the clock in motion, the light pulse does not travel in the x direction, it only travels in the y direction. Meaning that from his reference frame, the light MUST, by implication of SR, by traveling in the y direction at c. But wait, from the other reference frame, the light pulse was travelling in the y direction at a speed lower than c. We'll say 0.707c. So, How is it that from the stationary reference frame, the light pulse is moving in the y direction at 0.707c, while from the moving reference frame it is moving at 1.0c? Time Dilation. In order to reconcile this discrepancy between the velocities, the moving clock must experience time slower than the person at rest. 1 second is physically longer inside the moving frame than 1 second compared to the stationary frame.

Do you understand?

I understand what you posted ..only because I enlarged the font size..

This reminds me of school ....Have you ever heard the old argument - If I am standing at the back of a train that is travelling at the speed of light, and I walked to the front of the train as it is moving, Question is - Am I in fact travelling faster than the speed of light? LOL ..Well we all know the answer to that

Edited June 25, 2012 by Beckys_Mom

[White Crane Feather]

[/background][/size][/font][/color]

You are enormously missing the implications of everything you wrote above, which is the very reason why you (wrongfully) say its a "trick of light". Time IS infact passing slower for the object in motion, and here's why:

The light pulses at rest are traveling in the y direction at a velocity of c. Every time the light pulse makes a return trip, it registers a "tick" on the clock, as you have put it.

Similarly, a tick is registered for the clock that is moving in the x direction; however, since light always travels at the speed of c (no exception), its composite x and y velocities together give it a total velocity of c diagonally from the view of the stationary frame. This means that the y velocity of the light pulse in the moving clock is slower than c. If this were the extent of it, then you would be correct in saying that the time dilation is a trick of light; however, there is more to SR than simply this.

Now, here's the essential point that can not be glanced over: [b]The velocity of light is constant in any reference frame.[/b] What this means is that, from the reference frame of the clock in motion, the light pulse does not travel in the x direction, it only travels in the y direction. Meaning that from his reference frame, the light MUST, by implication of SR, by traveling in the y direction at c. But wait, from the other reference frame, the light pulse was travelling in the y direction at a speed lower than c. We'll say 0.707c. So, How is it that from the stationary reference frame, the light pulse is moving in the y direction at 0.707c, while from the moving reference frame it is moving at 1.0c? Time Dilation. In order to reconcile this discrepancy between the velocities, the moving clock must experience time slower than the person at rest. 1 second is physically longer inside the moving frame than 1 second compared to the stationary frame.

Do you understand?

Except there is no stationary frame. Stationary is hypothetical. Neither clock can actually move slower than the other because they would both be slower than each other. An obviouse paradox. The moving clock does not experience time any differently. Only when looking at the other clock does it look like the other one is moveing slower. Can you understand that?

Edit: I added this for reference.

Principle of relativity Constancy of the speed of light Time dilation

Any uniformly moving observer in an inertial frame cannot determine his "absolute" state of motion by a co-moving experimental arrangement. In all inertial frames the measured speed of light is equal in all directions (isotropy), independent of the speed of the source, and cannot be exceeded by moving bodies. The rate of a clock C (= any periodic process) traveling between two synchronized clocks A and B at rest in an inertial frame is retarded with respect to the two clocks.

Also other relativistic effects such as length contraction, Doppler effect, aberration and the experimental predictions of relativistic theories such as the Standard Model can be measured.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity

Edited June 26, 2012 by Seeker79

[ai_guardian]

All right I'll do a step by step.comparison. Of what I said and the wiki material. Just for ****s and giggles.... No doubt you will find some sort off the wall inturpretation of it so I am not sure what good it will do.... I'll do it in the post after this one.

Yes, you are providing some giggles because clearly your book reading has not included the actual theory, or any real problem solving in SR.

*double face palm* it is simply used as you said a calculation because it makes the calculation simpler without changing the material of the problem. It is not a reality. Seriously man!!!!

And to explain time dilation in SR one reference frame is taken as being at rest. Exactly what I added to your 'explanation' and exactly what your wiki material does. You're the one having some sort of issue with reality.

I wrote = IW, you added to = YA, Wiki definition = WD. +1 for me +1 for you. Add up the points at the end. Or ( -1) for wrong statements.

(IW) In relative movement, two frames of reference moving relative to each other (YA) "in the relative frame's light clock" (WD) nothing is happening inside clock. ------ this is why I keep bringing up GR. In GR things are actually happening inside the clock, so it seems if you are confusing the two. (-1 AI)

Tisk tisk, -10 for you for disingenuity. You are comparing different sentences Seeker79. You thought I and others wouldn't notice? (You wrote) "The distance for the light to travel while the bodies are movieing Is greater than if hey were relatively at rest" - and although true, NOTHING to do with time dilation, but all to do with the doppler effect. (I Added the bold) "The distance for the light to travel in the relative frame's light clock while the bodies are movieing Is greater as compared to the "at rest" light clock than if hey were relatively at rest" - in the relative frame's light clock the distance the light travels (between the mirrors of its clock) is greater as compared to the at rest light clock (our reference frame). Now, another -10, for disingenuity because the wiki definition (WD) does not say as YOU put it "nothing is happening inside clock".

( IW) ( if they could ) would view the others clock as running slower. This is a trick of light. the distance for the light to travel while the bodies are movieing Is greater than if hey were relatively at rest. (YA) "compared to the "at rest" light clock" ----completely unnescsery, as explained above its just a way of makeing math easier. It's not reality. A frame CANNOT actually be at rest compared to another if one is moving. ( no points)

(my bold)Oh what a tangled web we weave Seeker79. Even your reference (wiki) picks one to be at rest, a frame of reference can be at rest when compared to another thats moving, that how one ascertains the velocity of the moving frame otherwise talking of velocities would be meaningless. -10 for you since it is funny here how you avoid a reference to your wiki material to support yourself, ie. no (WD), lol.

(iw) The light leaves one frame, but the other frame is moveing while the light is traveling there. This means that light will take longer to get there. Makeing the clock apear to run slower. ( you deleted this!!!!!! And said it described the Dopper affect) (WD) "From the frame of reference of a moving observer traveling at the speed v (diagram at lower right), the light pulse traces out a longer, angled path." (hmmm +1 for seeker -1 ai for deleting it) I obvious was describing this. A longer angled path takes light longer to traverse.

Yes, deleted because you are NOT describing what the wiki part is describing. Read what I bolded. You are talking about light travelling from one frame to another ie. "leaves one frame, but the other frame is moveing while the light is travelling there". And this "This means that light will take longer to get there" is what I highlighted in the doppler effect, but you missed it. You do realise that the diagram at lower left is a light clock in the relative reference frame, don't you? ie. mirror 1 (A) and mirror 2 (B & C) are not actually two reference frames, this whole diagram is a light clock as 'seen' by the reference frame at rest (the diagram above it), you do know that don't you?

Then ( YA) "This means that light will take longer to travel within the relative frame's light clock, making it tick slower compared to the "at rest" light clock" ---- wrong--- (WD)"In the frame where the clock is at rest (diagram at right), the light pulse traces out a path of length 2L and the period of the clock is 2L divided by the speed of light:" its also wrong because both frames view the other as running slower. ( at rest dosnt exist remember) ----clearly the light pulse we are discussing is NOT INSIDE the clock. Now in GR with gravitational and accelerated affects it is. I'm sorry I keep bringing it up but it is so very clear that you are confusing the two. (-1 ai)

Now you're saying that your MATERIAL IS WRONG? Of course, only because you cannot see your error, duh. The bolded part is exactly where you are wrong. Your material says you are wrong, I say you are wrong, you just don't get it - epic fail - the point scoring now has hit epic lows for you.

You deleted the "trick of light" comment because you believe the clocks are running slower do to some internal change. This is true upon acceleration but not true for realetive Velocity. Again your confusion. The wiki definition most clearly consistanlfly uses the word "appears". ( WD) "That is to say, in a frame moving relative to the clock, the clock ----appears-----to be running more slowly. Straightforward application of the Pythagorean theorem leads to the well-known prediction of special relativity:" (-1) ai

I deleted the "trick of light" comment because IT IS NOT TRICK OF LIGHT. I agree completely with your wiki material, exactly the same thing is happening in each light clock when the respective light clocks' rest frames are considered but not when considering the RELATIVE frame of reference! Notice how I keep on adding that, even in what I added to your erroneous explanation. The pythagorean theorem is light bouncing back and forth inside the relative light clock - which you clearly don't get because me thinks you are confusing one of the diagrams (the second diagram - relative reference frame). It is not a trick of light because it is AN EFFECT OF SPACETIME!

If it were actually running slower as it is in GR, the article would have said that and not used the word "appears" just as I did in my explanation.

Moot, see paragraph above.

At least compared to wiki. ( not the greatest source but convinent)

You supported nothing, see above.

Now are you going to actually post any evidence for your arguments against my statements

I already did numerous times. The fact that you do not understand, after countless attempts by me to make it as simple for you as possible to see your error, is beyond me. But hey, it takes all sorts.

[Stellar]

Except there is no stationary frame. Stationary is hypothetical.

Irrelevant. The stationary frame is stationary relative to the other.

Neither clock can actually move slower than the other because they would both be slower than each other. An obviouse paradox. The moving clock does not experience time any differently.

Actually, it infact does. And the paradox is infact not a paradox, since one of the frames will have to undergo an acceleration (and thus, a jump in time) in order to become at rest with respect to the other. Infact, astronauts on the ISS return to Earth younger than they would have if they remained on Earth due to the coupling of both velocity and gravitational time dilation.

Whether you accept it or not, time *is* experience differently, and that is the basis of relativity. Time is not an absolute, its relative.

Only when looking at the other clock does it look like the other one is moveing slower. Can you understand that?

I understand fully what you are saying. Do you understand that what you are saying is incorrect, though?

[Stellar]

Tisk tisk, -10 for you for disingenuity. You are comparing different sentences Seeker79. You thought I and others wouldn't notice? (You wrote) "The distance for the light to travel while the bodies are movieing Is greater than if hey were relatively at rest" - and although true, NOTHING to do with time dilation, but all to do with the doppler effect. (I Added the bold) "The distance for the light to travel in the relative frame's light clock while the bodies are movieing Is greater as compared to the "at rest" light clock than if hey were relatively at rest" - in the relative frame's light clock the distance the light travels (between the mirrors of its clock) is greater as compared to the at rest light clock (our reference frame). Now, another -10, for disingenuity because the wiki definition (WD) does not say as YOU put it "nothing is happening inside clock".

I think you're just misunderstanding him. He's not talking about one object moving further or closer to the other. He's talking about an added velocity component in the x direction, which means that the pulse is actually moving further as it is moving diagonally instead of simply vertically.

[Rlyeh]

When defining matter or materialism it's not just limited "solid" it's related to how we perceive matter, whether at a solid level atomic or sub atomic! Materialism is believing in one standard of knowledge, which only relates to our physical reality. What others are suggesting is that this material reality arose from a more fundamental reality which is metaphysical! Materialism and matter are very limited. What's the nature of the fundamental reality? This where materialism fails due to it's standards limitation and those who adhere to it, it's the end of the road! Physics or science alone won't give the answers because their limited to the physical plane, which started at BB. It can't go beyond hence you combine standards of knowledge to find a tangible possible answer. What ever the answer it can't be measured or quantified by material means ie science alone, science can only go so far!

Unfortunately you're going to find every concept is derived from the physical world.

[White Crane Feather]

after countless attempts by me to make it as simple for you as possible to see your error, is beyond me. But hey, it takes all sorts.

Yes it does, I feel exactly the same way. It is an affect of space no doubt.

Last time. As simple as I can possibly make it. a is movieing relative to b. a is a clock it sends a signal to b. the angular path between the two is greater than if they were at rest RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER. Each tick of clock a will seem longer to b? The clock is running slower in appearance based on the fact that that c is fixed. Obviously if the clocks were originally synchronized there were more ticks on it while waiting to get the information from b. And will continue to be as its moves relative to b. As I have been saying over and over again, this is a laymen explanation designed to make it understandable. A more concise statement would be its a trick of light as It propigates through space. Yes if you throw a clock it will tick slower relative to the thrower. ( not counting acceleration) this sense I guess you can say its in the clock. But it is just the same effect in the blown up laymen version. C is fixed. If I throw a spear 100 mph and one end of the spear is sending a signal to the other that 100 mph must subtracted from the speed of the signal from one end of the spear to another because that would mean the that the signal would be moving c + 100 mph. It cannot do this. Space is not traveling with the frame of reference. The effective speed of light between point a and b while moving is less than the speed of light, so it apears to be moving slower through time as opposed to something with relative less movement.. This does not require a time dimention!!!!!!! Only the conductivity of space to have a limit.

This is my own explanation not the regurgitated one. Im sorry that you can't get it. It still works that way with or without your aprooval. there is no time other than observing signals propagating through space. It's just an affect.

[Rlyeh]

Seeker79, I'm not sure why you insist the clocks are sending signals to each other. Although the thought experiments involve each observer looking at the others clock inflight, this is for simplicity. The practical experiments involve the clocks being compared after flight.

[Stellar]

Yes it does, I feel exactly the same way. It is an affect of space no doubt.

Last time. As simple as I can possibly make it. a is movieing relative to b. a is a clock it sends a signal to b. the angular path between the two is greater than if they were at rest RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER. Each tick of clock a will seem longer to b?

Actually... No. That IS the doppler effect you're talking about and it has nothing to do with reality. The "angular path" between my clock and a clock moving towards me would impact be getting shorter, not longer.

[ai_guardian]

Yes it does, I feel exactly the same way. It is an affect of space no doubt.

Last time. As simple as I can possibly make it. a is movieing relative to b. a is a clock it sends a signal to b. the angular path between the two is greater than if they were at rest RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER. Each tick of clock a will seem longer to b? The clock is running slower in appearance based on the fact that that c is fixed. Obviously if the clocks were originally synchronized there were more ticks on it while waiting to get the information from b. And will continue to be as its moves relative to b. As I have been saying over and over again, this is a laymen explanation designed to make it understandable. A more concise statement would be its a trick of light as It propigates through space. Yes if you throw a clock it will tick slower relative to the thrower. ( not counting acceleration) this sense I guess you can say its in the clock. But it is just the same effect in the blown up laymen version. C is fixed. If I throw a spear 100 mph and one end of the spear is sending a signal to the other that 100 mph must subtracted from the speed of the signal from one end of the spear to another because that would mean the that the signal would be moving c + 100 mph. It cannot do this. Space is not traveling with the frame of reference. The effective speed of light between point a and b while moving is less than the speed of light, so it apears to be moving slower through time as opposed to something with relative less movement.. This does not require a time dimention!!!!!!! Only the conductivity of space to have a limit.

Oh Seeker79, don't take this too harshly but I think I get where you have misunderstood the whole time dilation in SR and I think it stems from how you have imagined the pong example you spoke about earlier, and the diagrams in your wiki source. Needless to say, as Stellar already pointed out, once again, what you have just described in the openning to your paragraph above, is the doppler effect. However, I have faith in you yet. I don't mean to sound condescending but I can see how I can finally make the light bulb above your head light up.

This should clear things up, just bear with me, please.

Let's get back to your Wiki source http://en.m.wikipedi...ation#section_2 . You see the two diagrams there under "Simple inference of time dilation due to relative velocity":

Diagram 1 (public domain picture):

Read the caption under the diagram in your link, then click on the image (on that page) and read the description also.

Now this, for the purpose of explaining SR, is the light clock in an arbitrary reference frame (the one we are making a calculation from) and is considered "at rest" (I know you don't like that but that IS how SR is explained), agreed so far?

This is for all intents and purposes PONG 1. The vertical line is the light pulse travelling back and forth between mirror A and mirror B. Let's just say that each time it hits a mirror there is a "tick" recorded. With me so far?

Diagram 2 (public domain) from your Wiki source: THIS IS THE MOVING REFERENCE FRAME

Read the caption under this diagram in your link, then click on the image (on that page) and read the description also.

THIS IS IMPORTANT AND WHERE YOU HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD THE WHOLE THING, PLEASE READ CAREFULY THE BELOW AS WELL AS YOUR WIKI SOURCE

This ENTIRE diagram (2), is the RELATIVE (and obviously) MOVING REFERENCE FRAME. This is NOT reference frame A sending a light signal to some moving reference frame B (or C) or somesuch!!!! Read the caption carefully under the Diagrams in your source. Diag 1 is an observer at rest (the whole diagram), diag 2 is a moving observer (the whole diagram).

Diagram 2 is what Diagram 1 observer 'sees' happening in that relative reference frame

In simple terms, this is pretty much the same as diagram 1, BUT IN MOTION! A is a mirror, and B & C are the one and the same mirror but at different times. The light clock in this RELATIVE frame (as 'seen' by Diagram 1 reference frame) sends a light pulse from mirror B, the light travels diagonally (as 'seen' by diagram 1 reference) hits mirror A, reflects and travels again diagonally and hits mirror C (which is also mirror B but in a moved position), it should really be B' (B prime) to iterate that it is the same mirror.

This, this right there, is what IS time dilation! Not some signal travelling from some frame A to frame B. You have misunderstood people's, probably Hawking's, reference to pong and also misunderstood your own source.

This is ALL I've had an issue with with your explanation from the begining, but you were not able to see it and keep/kept on thinking I'm talking of GR, nope. You see, if you take it with your understanding IT IS A DOPPLER EFFECT rather than TIME DILATION.

If you don't get it this time, and still disagree with me AND your own source, then I regrettably give up on making you see your error and understand what Special Relativity is about, how it is best explained, and how it demonstrates that time is in fact a type of dimension.

If you do however see the light (pun intended), then I throw you this curve ball if you still think time is not a dimension and does not exist except for perception. Undoubtedly you've heard of length contraction (perhaps with the same misunderstanding) but nevertheless, length is a spatial dimension that undergoes a very similar effect to time dilation, but to you one is a dimension and the other isn't. Oh well, as long as we can cherry pick, I guess, right?

Edited June 26, 2012 by ai_guardian

[White Crane Feather]

No ai I see what happened now. You are right. Years ago I must have got that image in my head and no one has been able to set it straight. I can be a stubborn competitive sort. Self reflection is always a b****. Thank you for hanging in there with me. My foot dosnt taste that bad knowing I will not continue to make that mistake. A bit of humility for greater glory later I guess.

I still had it right in my head, it's just that explanation is a bad one. Not even really bad... Just wrong. My own spear explanation got it better. What do you think?

Shall we continue?

Non of that changes the fact that that time dilation is just a function of the speed of light limit. it dosn't seem to suggest time is any thing other than a recognition of change. So the clock ticks slower because internal signals can only go through space at c but the frame itself is moving so that movement is part of c and the relevant tick is slower .... right? Time still dosnt sound like a thing. Just space and light.

Yes . I was getting to that. Space, length, distance.... All an illusion.

[White Crane Feather]

Irrelevant. The stationary frame is stationary relative to the other.

Actually, it infact does. And the paradox is infact not a paradox, since one of the frames will have to undergo an acceleration (and thus, a jump in time) in order to become at rest with respect to the other. Infact, astronauts on the ISS return to Earth younger than they would have if they remained on Earth due to the coupling of both velocity and gravitational time dilation.

Whether you accept it or not, time *is* experience differently, and that is the basis of relativity. Time is not an absolute, its relative.

I understand fully what you are saying. Do you understand that what you are saying is incorrect, though?

See my comments to ai.

The bigger picture is still the same. Space an light. the laws of physics allow for change. That's it.

Edited June 26, 2012 by Seeker79

[ai_guardian]

No ai I see what happened now. You are right. Years ago I must have got that image in my head and no one has been able to set it straight. I can be a stubborn competitive sort. Self reflection is always a b****. Thank you for hanging in there with me. My foot dosnt taste that bad knowing I will not continue to make that mistake. A bit of humility for greater glory later I guess.

I still had it right in my head, it's just that explanation is a bad one. Not even really bad... Just wrong. My own spear explanation got it better. What do you think?

Shall we continue?

Non of that changes the fact that that time dilation is just a function of the speed of light limit. it dosn't seem to suggest time is any thing other than a recognition of change. So the clock ticks slower because internal signals can only go through space at c but the frame itself is moving so that movement is part of c and the relevant tick is slower .... right? Time still dosnt sound like a thing. Just space and light.

Yes . I was getting to that. Space, length, distance.... All an illusion.

Thank you for your humility and showing that you do have some kahunas.

I have no doubt that you were thinking of the right thing. I recognised some disparity between your thoughts & your explanation, because you were not able to see how it [your explanation] was a doppler effect.

Lastly, I apologise for calling you disingenious, but honestly you'd have to agree that it was hard for me to believe anyone could be that stubborn - I really thought you were trying to pull wool. BTW, I'm not trying to insult there at all, if there is anyone more stubborn than you, it's probably me.

Cheers

[White Crane Feather]

Thank you for your humility and showing that you do have some kahunas.

I have no doubt that you were thinking of the right thing. I recognised some disparity between your thoughts & your explanation, because you were not able to see how it [your explanation] was a doppler effect.

Lastly, I apologise for calling you disingenious, but honestly you'd have to agree that it was hard for me to believe anyone could be that stubborn - I really thought you were trying to pull wool. BTW, I'm not trying to insult there at all, if there is anyone more stubborn than you, it's probably me.

Cheers

No insult inferred. I had a certain tint of goggles on. You are one of few around these forums that know how powerful those can be. you are the only one that knows some of things I do ( I'm not talking about physics). Im glad it was you. Cheers brother.