Anti-Materialism

[White Crane Feather]

A simple visualization of this is to imagine a light clock that is 1 m tall and another that is two. Ever time a signal leaves the top of the clock and comes back a tick is recorded. Because C is fixed the 2 m clock will obviously run slower. Space is stretched in gravity wells even the space inbetwen subatomic particles. Even those particles are further apart. All information will run slower. A light clock descending into a gravity well ( or accelerating) is a taller clock. "time" is not really slowing --- it dosnt exist--- it just looks that way for the outside observer.the malleable nature of "time" should be a clue to its status.

Edited June 23, 2012 by Seeker79

[Rlyeh]

In relative movement, two frames of reference moving relative to each other ( 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. The light leaves one frame, but he 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. this is true for oh frames. Upon comparing the clocks ( subtracting the acceleration affects) the clocks will not have really desyncronized.

Are you aware of experiments performed that verify velocity time dilation? When did a "trick of light" modify the lifetime of particles fired from particle accelerators?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977Natur.268..301B

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980Natur.286..244R

[ai_guardian]

In relative movement, two frames of reference moving relative to each other ( 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. The light leaves one frame, but he 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. this is true for oh frames. Upon comparing the clocks ( subtracting the acceleration affects) the clocks will not have really desyncronized.

Seeker79, what you have attempted to describe above as time dilation in SR with your "Relative Movement" is more like the doppler effect and not really time dilation. What you have described as "trick of light" because "the light takes longer to travel" is wrong because that would mean that if something was travelling towards you, it's clock would appear to run faster. This is just utterly wrong. All clocks, no matter if they are moving towards or away will not only appear to have but also WILL HAVE slower ticks if measured from a stationary reference frame. Talking about what time is is moot since you have a basic misunderstanding about time dilation and that in fact, it is not only perception but a real effect, makes it objective.

Also, time IS a kind of dimension, on par but obviously not the same as a spatial dimension. Are you aware of the interval equation c^2T^2 - X^2 - Y^2 - Z^2 that ties two events together in relativity? Perhaps not, I don't blame you, but you will notice the T in the equation just like the X, the Y, and the Z which represent the space part of spacetime.

And finally, time is real and not just perception, and is synonymous (read: equal to) with the "change of state" that you mention. Just because we have decided to label the changes that happen around us with a blanket word like "time" does not mean that what we have come to understand as time, does not exist. If you argue that "time" is a human concept because we use it to represent "change of state" then you are arguing semantics as we have also made up the words "change" "of" and "state" and therefore the latter is also a concept. But I'm pretty sure that is not what you meant, is it?

[White Crane Feather]

Seeker79, what you have attempted to describe above as time dilation in SR with your "Relative Movement" is more like the doppler effect and not really time dilation. What you have described as "trick of light" because "the light takes longer to travel" is wrong because that would mean that if something was travelling towards you, it's clock would appear to run faster. This is just utterly wrong. All clocks, no matter if they are moving towards or away will not only appear to have but also WILL HAVE slower ticks if measured from a stationary reference frame. Talking about what time is is moot since you have a basic misunderstanding about time dilation and that in fact, it is not only perception but a real effect, makes it objective.

Also, time IS a kind of dimension, on par but obviously not the same as a spatial dimension. Are you aware of the interval equation c^2T^2 - X^2 - Y^2 - Z^2 that ties two events together in relativity? Perhaps not, I don't blame you, but you will notice the T in the equation just like the X, the Y, and the Z which represent the space part of spacetime.

And finally, time is real and not just perception, and is synonymous (read: equal to) with the "change of state" that you mention. Just because we have decided to label the changes that happen around us with a blanket word like "time" does not mean that what we have come to understand as time, does not exist. If you argue that "time" is a human concept because we use it to represent "change of state" then you are arguing semantics as we have also made up the words "change" "of" and "state" and therefore the latter is also a concept. But I'm pretty sure that is not what you meant, is it?

Oh my...

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

It's just a way of explaining it simply... That I actually regurgitated from a hawking book I believe.

Semantics... Not at all. That's what it is. A label... Not a thing. I'm just trying to keep it it that way. It's others that have elevated the "time" concept to something that it should not be.

[ai_guardian]

Oh my...

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

It's just a way of explaining it simply... That I actually regurgitated from a hawking book I believe.

Semantics... Not at all. That's what it is. A label... Not a thing. I'm just trying to keep it it that way. It's others that have elevated the "time" concept to something that it should not be.

Exactly Seeker79, oh my... that you get what you wrote "explaining it simply" from what you have linked shows me exactly how much you actually don't understand. Tisk, tisk. Re-read your "explaining it simply" version again,Hawking would not have implied what you wrote, I'm certain of that. It is more likely that you misunderstood.

Time is as much a thing as state change because that is what it represents. If state change exists, so does time.

[White Crane Feather]

Are you aware of experiments performed that verify velocity time dilation? When did a "trick of light" modify the lifetime of particles fired from particle accelerators?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977Natur.268..301B

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980Natur.286..244R

Particle accelerators ( ACCELERATORS). I specifically mentioned in my explanation of the first kind of time dilation if we subtracted the acceleration dilation and focused on the relstive movement. As I mentioned due to the equivalency principlal accelerated frames of refrence are treated the same as in a gravitational time dilation. All the time dilation in your experiments which you failed to notice mention acceleration show this. There is no dispute. Sheshsh man sometimes I think you would argue with a Rick.

Edited June 23, 2012 by Seeker79

[ai_guardian]

That I actually regurgitated from a hawking book I believe.

Perhaps reading books doesn't guarantee understanding, since your regurgitation was way off the mark.

Also, I suspect that is the main reason for your pov regarding time.

[Rlyeh]

Particle accelerators ( ACCELERATORS). I specifically mentioned in my explanation of the first kind of time dilation if we subtracted the acceleration dilation and focused on the relstive movement. As I mentioned due to the equivalency principlal accelerated frames of refrence are treated the same as in a gravitational time dilation. All the time dilation in your experiments which you failed to notice mention acceleration show this. There is no dispute. Sheshsh man sometimes I think you would argue with a Rick.

Do you know what time dilation is? The time difference between two or more reference frames, not the passage of time in the current reference frame, is that easy enough to understand?

Subtracting the dilation no more disproves time dilation than subtracting 1 km from a 1 km walk disproves you've been walking.

In the end the experiments show particles that having different lifetimes when compared to a reference frame at rest.

Edited June 23, 2012 by Rlyeh

[White Crane Feather]

Exactly Seeker79, oh my... that you get what you wrote "explaining it simply" from what you have linked shows me exactly how much you actually don't understand. Tisk, tisk. Re-read your "explaining it simply" version again,Hawking would not have implied what you wrote, I'm certain of that. It is more likely that you misunderstood.

Time is as much a thing as state change because that is what it represents. If state change exists, so does time.

Typical.... Im going take a picture of the exact words of hawking or Mabey it was green ill check. and post it. What exactly is wrong about that explanation? It's just a way of getting an idea across. If I remember correctly he used a pong analogy...

It's not a "thing" at all. It's as much a thing as an inch is a thing. Or a foot. It's an assignment. A measurement is not a thing. It's recognition of a relationship. It's not a force. It's not a dimension (like a special dimension). It's an invention to make sense of change.... That's it. The simple fact of relativity shows that time is not a "thing" but an idea. Electromagnetism is a thing... A force. The strength of it will be the same anywhere under any conditions ( as far as we know). It' is made up of electrons.

An inch is not made up of anything. It's an invention to describe a relationship. Time is an invention to describe a relationship. It exists in our minds. Light and particles do their thing, we decide what we experience as the intervals and assign a value to it. Time dilation ( regardless if I got any of my realativity wrong) does not even hint at time being a thing, quite the contrary. The fact that time is different in nearly all frames of reference, show that it's purely a subjective affect. This is why we call it REALATIVITY.

By the way, redshift/blushift are intimately linked with time dilation.

[White Crane Feather]

Do you know what time dilation is? The time difference between two or more reference frames, not the passage of time in the current reference frame, is that easy enough to understand?

Subtracting the dilation no more disproves time dilation than subtracting 1 km from a 1 km walk disproves you've been walking.

In the end the experiments show particles that having different lifetimes when compared to a reference frame at rest.

Your not getting it... Their is no dispute that time dilation happens. the question is what is happening. Is some imaginary force that allows for change to happen being changed around, or are events simply being recorded differently because of the limit of the speed of light. If I stretch the space In your frame of reference and inch will be larger will it not? It will not apear to be larger to you because you are stretched along with it. If c is fixed and you have a clock that you tick by bouncing light back and forth across that inch, your clock by virtue of the fixed nature of c will run slower than mine.

With regards to the muons. We observe the muons decaying, but there is no way for us to be at the muons perspective of us. In which the muon would observe the exact phenomenon happening to us.

I'm surprised you are not with me on this one... You are the one generally against imaginary entities.

Edited June 23, 2012 by Seeker79

[White Crane Feather]

Perhaps reading books doesn't guarantee understanding, since your regurgitation was way off the mark.

Also, I suspect that is the main reason for your pov regarding time.

Perhaps just saying you understand something dosn't gurantee that you do either. Ultimately anything in these matters is a regurgitation of a book now isn't it? Unless you invented It i suppose. Unless you are willing to explaine it yourself, you really don't really have anything to contribute.

Edited June 23, 2012 by Seeker79

[Stellar]

Crap. My window closed and I lost my entire reply. Let me try to summarize everything I wrote previously.

In relative movement, two frames of reference moving relative to each other ( 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. The light leaves one frame, but he 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. this is true for oh frames. Upon comparing the clocks ( subtracting the acceleration affects) the clocks will not have really desyncronized.

This is not true for Gravitational time dialation. Accelerated frames of reference do to the equivalency principal are treated the same as frames inside a gravity well. A clock on earth that is deeper in the earths gravity than a satalight will actually run slower and there will be discrepancies upon comparison. Why? Simple the internal ticks of information within the very atoms of the clock are stretched along with space. Gravity warps space and even affects light. C is fixed. Those greater distances will take longer for any amount of information within any matter to do its thing. The clock ticks slower. It's minute but adds up. Places like black holes where the stretching of matter will spagetify it. ( tidal forces are a bit different) we see extreme examples. No magic "time" dimension or force needed. Just the recognition of change. It takes things in gravity wells and accelerated frames of reference longer to happen because information has further to go. It's simPly a matter of having to run 100 yards or 200 yards but you can only jog at the same speed. It obviously takes longer to run 200 yards at a fixed speed

You are correct with general relativity, however your whole explanation of time dilation due to relative motion is flawed. The relative motion between two objects can either increase or decrease the distance between them, and yet the clocks will still appear to run slower. You make it seem as if its just a "trick" and, according to what your said, once relative motion has ceased, the discrepancy between the two clocks should disappear. This is not the case. The discrepancy is maintained at that point. One clock has effectively aged, say, 1 year, while the remainder of the universe has aged 20. It is infact a dimension, and all of what you stated hinges on 4 dimensional spacetime. The light "pulses" that you essentially describe is just a way of measuring that time. Based on what you yourself have said, clearly it is possible to control your rate of movement through time in the sense that, based on my velocity and location in a gravitational field, I can essentially "travel" to the year 5000 without having aged 3000 years... Do you disagree with this assertion?

If time were a thing or a dimension it would be the same for all reference frames. It's not. It varies because it's simply the perception of a particular reference point intimately linked with space because internal information must traverse that space but the speed is fixed. So we call it spacetime.

Ahh but that is incorrect. As I have demonstrated, I can essentially "travel" through time at a faster rate, just as you can walk through along the road at different speeds. You would not claim that length is not a dimension because our velocity through it is not fixed, would you?

A simple visualization of this is to imagine a light clock that is 1 m tall and another that is two. Ever time a signal leaves the top of the clock and comes back a tick is recorded. Because C is fixed the 2 m clock will obviously run slower.

What? No... The height of a clock really has nothing to do with it. Two synchronized clocks, stationary relative to each other and in the absence of any gravitational field will remain completely in sync. The measurement of time is something that is a human construct, and that's what is off in your example. The actual time is the same.

For example, if we take two identical kittens, and say we know that they will die at the same age, and put them in those clocks, the kittens will die at the same time, irrelevant of how many "ticks" have gone by. If we take one of the clocks and move it at 0.99C, the kittens will no longer die at the same time. The one in the stationary clock will die first.

That, right there, shows clearly that time is a dimension that can be manipulated, and is not merely human perception.

[Stellar]

It's not a "thing" at all. It's as much a thing as an inch is a thing. Or a foot. It's an assignment.

Would you argue that since an inch is not a thing but an assignment, length does not exist?

[ai_guardian]

Typical.... Im going take a picture of the exact words of hawking or Mabey it was green ill check. and post it. What exactly is wrong about that explanation? It's just a way of getting an idea across. If I remember correctly he used a pong analogy...

THIS ENTIRE SUPPOSED 'REGURGITATION' BELOW (which btw is not describing pong, describing pong is correct as in the ball (light) travelling between the paddles (mirrors) of pong (light-clock) is NOT light travelling towards the measuring frame - that is where you went wrong)...

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. The light leaves one frame, but he 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. this is true for oh frames. Upon comparing the clocks ( subtracting the acceleration affects) the clocks will not have really desyncronized.

...and upon comparing the clocks (assuming the frames don't meet when comparing) they will be desynchronised.

It's not a "thing" at all. It's as much a thing as an inch is a thing. Or a foot. It's an assignment. A measurement is not a thing. It's recognition of a relationship. It's not a force. It's not a dimension (like a special dimension). It's an invention to make sense of change.... That's it. The simple fact of relativity shows that time is not a "thing" but an idea. Electromagnetism is a thing... A force. The strength of it will be the same anywhere under any conditions ( as far as we know). It' is made up of electrons.

I never said time is a thing. I said it is as much a thing as state change is. I think you are disengineously trying to construct a strawman again at an attempt to show that time is perception only. I am pushing the fact that time exists because it is (for the second time now, maybe you'll catch it this time) synonymous with (read: equal to) state change, and 1) it exists because state change exists, 2) is not only perception because of time dilation in relativity

An inch is not made up of anything. It's an invention to describe a relationship. Time is an invention to describe a relationship. It exists in our minds. Light and particles do their thing, we decide what we experience as the intervals and assign a value to it. Time dilation ( regardless if I got any of my realativity wrong) does not even hint at time being a thing, quite the contrary. The fact that time is different in nearly all frames of reference, show that it's purely a subjective affect. This is why we call it REALATIVITY.

(my bold)Further evidence that suggests your book reading doesn't guarantee understanding. First, you are correct (if you are implying) that most reference frames' time flow (state change rate) is different from some preferred frame (the underlined part is important), BUT you are not correct if you just simply meant "time is different in nearly all frames of reference" because in each reference frame time is the same (ie the state change rate is the same) just as all physical laws are the same in all reference frames - IIRC, a postulate of relativity.

By the way, redshift/blushift are intimately linked with time dilation.

Don't try to muddy the waters. You and I both know you weren't talking about red/blue shift.

[ai_guardian]

Perhaps just saying you understand something dosn't gurantee that you do either. Ultimately anything in these matters is a regurgitation of a book now isn't it? Unless you invented It i suppose. Unless you are willing to explaine it yourself, you really don't really have anything to contribute.

Left a bit of a bitter taste? No, not everything is a regurgitation of a book. You stepped up to the podium because you professed you could explain it. I would be doing a disservice if I let you mislead the audience on a subject, the understanding of which, has extreme bearing on how the universe is viewed.

[Rlyeh]

Your not getting it... Their is no dispute that time dilation happens. the question is what is happening. Is some imaginary force that allows for change to happen being changed around, or are events simply being recorded differently because of the limit of the speed of light. If I stretch the space In your frame of reference and inch will be larger will it not? It will not apear to be larger to you because you are stretched along with it. If c is fixed and you have a clock that you tick by bouncing light back and forth across that inch, your clock by virtue of the fixed nature of c will run slower than mine.

Still not seeing what this has to do with the experiment I gave, there is no clock being distorted.

With regards to the muons. We observe the muons decaying, but there is no way for us to be at the muons perspective of us. In which the muon would observe the exact phenomenon happening to us.

That is the whole point. If we were recording it from the muons reference, their lifetimes would be the same. To a reference frame at rest, the muons are taking longer to decay.

[White Crane Feather]

THIS ENTIRE SUPPOSED 'REGURGITATION' BELOW (which btw is not describing pong, describing pong is correct as in the ball (light) travelling between the paddles (mirrors) of pong (light-clock) is NOT light travelling towards the measuring frame - that is where you went wrong)...

...and upon comparing the clocks (assuming the frames don't meet when comparing) they will be desynchronised.

I never said time is a thing. I said it is as much a thing as state change is. I think you are disengineously trying to construct a strawman again at an attempt to show that time is perception only. I am pushing the fact that time exists because it is (for the second time now, maybe you'll catch it this time) synonymous with (read: equal to) state change, and 1) it exists because state change exists, 2) is not only perception because of time dilation in relativity

(my bold)Further evidence that suggests your book reading doesn't guarantee understanding. First, you are correct (if you are implying) that most reference frames' time flow (state change rate) is different from some preferred frame (the underlined part is important), BUT you are not correct if you just simply meant "time is different in nearly all frames of reference" because in each reference frame time is the same (ie the state change rate is the same) just as all physical laws are the same in all reference frames - IIRC, a postulate of relativity.

Don't try to muddy the waters. You and I both know you weren't talking about red/blue shift.

And I never said anything about you. You are using a strawman accusing me of a strawman... How funny. Then you jump in with ad homonyms about my reading comprehension, and my genuineness. On top of it all you wrote "i never said time was a thing" when that's what I was debating with bother people in the first place then acuse me of muddying the waters and misleading the audience. Its just sounds like you are here to inflate your ego. I don't have a bitter taste because you have given nothing to chew on. I'm sorry you did not like the way I explained relative velocity time dilation, take it up with hawking, or green, or whoever I read that explanation from. .

Now. You will see that redshift is intricately apart of gravitational time dilation and has everything to do with light and the speed limit. this is how all got this started. Time is not a thing or a dimension. Time dilation it's merely an affect and a consequence of light---" a trick of light". You will also see why you thought it sounded like I was explaining the Doppler affect. They are similar

On page 32 of "A brief history of time" ---- Stephen Hawking. But what do I know I can't read.

"Another prediction of general relativity is that time should appear to run slower near a massive body like the earth. This is because there is a the relation between the energy of light and it's frequency ( that is, the number of waves of light per second) the greater the energy, the higher the frequency. As light travels upward in the earths gravitational field, it loses energy, and so it's frequency goes down. ( this means that the length of time between one wave crests and the next goes up.) To Somone high up, it would appear that everything down below was taking longer to happen" --- he then goes on to talk about experimental confirmation.

Page 34

" The theory of relativity gets rid if absolute time."

There is no way around it. Time is not a force, a thing, or a dmention. It's is useful to think of it in those terms but it is not. What we view of as time is just observation of change the rate of which is completely subjective to any particular frame of reference or observer. Time does not exist as its own entity it's an affect, and a construct for understanding.

Edited June 25, 2012 by Seeker79

[White Crane Feather]

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

Would you argue that since an inch is not a thing but an assignment, length does not exist?

Length is a measurement not a thing aswell. If you use length you must describe a length of what. Otherwise it is just nothing but a concept. Same is true for time. With time we are measureing various physical comparisons. Ticks of our clocks are done in all sorts of ways.

[White Crane Feather]

Crap. My window closed and I lost my entire reply. Let me try to summarize everything I wrote previously.

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

You are correct with general relativity, however your whole explanation of time dilation due to relative motion is flawed. The relative motion between two objects can either increase or decrease the distance between them, and yet the clocks will still appear to run slower. You make it seem as if its just a "trick" and, according to what your said, once relative motion has ceased, the discrepancy between the two clocks should disappear. This is not the case. The discrepancy is maintained at that point. One clock has effectively aged, say, 1 year, while the remainder of the universe has aged 20. It is infact a dimension, and all of what you stated hinges on 4 dimensional spacetime. The light "pulses" that you essentially describe is just a way of measuring that time. Based on what you yourself have said, clearly it is possible to control your rate of movement through time in the sense that, based on my velocity and location in a gravitational field, I can essentially "travel" to the year 5000 without having aged 3000 years... Do you disagree with this assertion?

Ahh but that is incorrect. As I have demonstrated, I can essentially "travel" through time at a faster rate, just as you can walk through along the road at different speeds. You would not claim that length is not a dimension because our velocity through it is not fixed, would you?

What? No... The height of a clock really has nothing to do with it. Two synchronized clocks, stationary relative to each other and in the absence of any gravitational field will remain completely in sync. The measurement of time is something that is a human construct, and that's what is off in your example. The actual time is the same.

For example, if we take two identical kittens, and say we know that they will die at the same age, and put them in those clocks, the kittens will die at the same time, irrelevant of how many "ticks" have gone by. If we take one of the clocks and move it at 0.99C, the kittens will no longer die at the same time. The one in the stationary clock will die first.

That, right there, shows clearly that time is a dimension that can be manipulated, and is not merely human perception.

Uggggh not mechanical clocks light clocks. The size of the clock does matter . If I count a tick by shooting a lazer a hundred yards and counting a tick when it bounces of a mirror and returns. Obviously the mirror of another system set up at 200 hundred yards will tick slower. In gravity wells matter is effectively stretched. The very wavelengths of its particles. This is what makes it run slower than an outside frame of reference.

Length would not exist if I could not place my ruller down and measure forward and backward. Being able to visualize it dosnt count. With time we extend an imaginary ruller into the past and future. The only real measurement we can take is the present. These are not the qualities of dimension.

Edited June 25, 2012 by Seeker79

[lightly]

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) *

[ai_guardian]

And I never said anything about you. You are using a strawman accusing me of a strawman... How funny. Then you jump in with ad homonyms about my reading comprehension, and my genuineness.

No Seeker79, your strawman is there in the "trick of light" explanation, live with it. Show me the adhominem Seeker79. The proof is in the pudding. You offered an explanation for relativity. You attempted to explain relative motion time dilation (SR) and you explained gravitational time dilation (GR). I pointed out AND QUOTED the error in your explanation of the former (SR time dilation) and I was specific. You point out that (paraphrasing) I should take it up with Hawking because you just regurgitated his explanation. I pointed out that Hawking would not explain the doppler effect as time dilation, therefore you must have misunderstood when you read the book. AND YOU THINK THAT IS AN AD HOMINEM?, take a break Seeker79, time to meditate. You misunderstanding what Hawking wrote is an observation based on your explanation and the fact that he would not explain it like that (ie. erroneously), live with it, you did it to yourself.

On top of it all you wrote "i never said time was a thing" when that's what I was debating with bother people in the first place then acuse me of muddying the waters and misleading the audience. Its just sounds like you are here to inflate your ego. I don't have a bitter taste because you have given nothing to chew on.

With regards to the bolded, then why reply with that to me, ha? With regards to the rest, you are misleading the audience if you explain something wrong, and you did, too bad you cannot admit it - certainly tells us something of your ego now doesn't it. If that is what your spirituality leads to, then I'm glad we have our differences.

I'm sorry you did not like the way I explained relative velocity time dilation, take it up with hawking, or green, or whoever I read that explanation from.

And I see you went searching for it too. So where is the quote of them (whoever it was) describing it as you do? Oh, wait, you will not find it because they would not describe relative velocity time dilation as a DOPPLER EFFECT, as you did. You explained it wrong, you just don't have the kahunas to admit it - so much for your spirituality.

Now. You will see that redshift is intricately apart of gravitational time dilation and has everything to do with light and the speed limit. this is how all got this started. Time is not a thing or a dimension. Time dilation it's merely an affect and a consequence of light---" a trick of light". You will also see why you thought it sounded like I was explaining the Doppler affect. They are similar

On page 32 of "A brief history of time" ---- Stephen Hawking. But what do I know I can't read.

"Another prediction of general relativity is that time should appear to run slower near a massive body like the earth. This is because there is a the relation between the energy of light and it's frequency ( that is, the number of waves of light per second) the greater the energy, the higher the frequency. As light travels upward in the earths gravitational field, it loses energy, and so it's frequency goes down. ( this means that the length of time between one wave crests and the next goes up.) To Somone high up, it would appear that everything down below was taking longer to happen" --- he then goes on to talk about experimental confirmation.

Oh Seeker79, go back and see what I quoted of yours in the first place, where I was pointing out your error and stop supporting my observation (pointed out above in earlier paragraph), sigh. You are now talking about GR. We were talking about RELATIVE MOTION TIME DILATION (SR) were we not? Or are you replying to someone else again in response to me? With regards to the underlined (by me), therein is an example and an observation of your disingenuity Seeker79, I NEVER SAID YOU CANNOT READ, I said you may have misunderstood what you read. BTW, what you have just read is not an ad hominem - just in case you try to pull that one again.

Page 34

" The theory of relativity gets rid if absolute time."

There is no way around it. Time is not a force, a thing, or a dmention. It's is useful to think of it in those terms but it is not. What we view of as time is just observation of change the rate of which is completely subjective to any particular frame of reference or observer. Time does not exist as its own entity it's an affect, and a construct for understanding.

You're kidding, one line that says that relativity gets rid of absolute time. Well I'll be damned, Newtonian mechanics has been surpassed? (sarcasm of course) Nothing's said about its existence or non btw, but we all know that it must exist since it has an effect (relative between frames of reference - not merely observers).

See, above, you quote one line from a book, which is correct, and then you add your own woo woo. You are of course entitled to that, but you cannot use that one line to support your woo woo. I will pull out the equation for an interval that ties two events together (which you missed earlier) ie. c^2T^2 - X^2 - Y^2 - Z^2 , and repeat that time IS a kind of dimension, on par but obviously not the same as a spatial dimension. The T in the equation just like the X, the Y, and the Z which represent the space part of spacetime, represents the time of spacetime. QED.

[White Crane Feather]

No Seeker79, your strawman is there in the "trick of light" explanation, live with it. Show me the adhominem Seeker79. The proof is in the pudding. You offered an explanation for relativity. You attempted to explain relative motion time dilation (SR) and you explained gravitational time dilation (GR). I pointed out AND QUOTED the error in your explanation of the former (SR time dilation) and I was specific. You point out that (paraphrasing) I should take it up with Hawking because you just regurgitated his explanation. I pointed out that Hawking would not explain the doppler effect as time dilation, therefore you must have misunderstood when you read the book. AND YOU THINK THAT IS AN AD HOMINEM?, take a break Seeker79, time to meditate. You misunderstanding what Hawking wrote is an observation based on your explanation and the fact that he would not explain it like that (ie. erroneously), live with it, you did it to yourself.

With regards to the bolded, then why reply with that to me, ha? With regards to the rest, you are misleading the audience if you explain something wrong, and you did, too bad you cannot admit it - certainly tells us something of your ego now doesn't it. If that is what your spirituality leads to, then I'm glad we have our differences.

And I see you went searching for it too. So where is the quote of them (whoever it was) describing it as you do? Oh, wait, you will not find it because they would not describe relative velocity time dilation as a DOPPLER EFFECT, as you did. You explained it wrong, you just don't have the kahunas to admit it - so much for your spirituality.

Oh Seeker79, go back and see what I quoted of yours in the first place, where I was pointing out your error and stop supporting my observation (pointed out above in earlier paragraph), sigh. You are now talking about GR. We were talking about RELATIVE MOTION TIME DILATION (SR) were we not? Or are you replying to someone else again in response to me? With regards to the underlined (by me), therein is an example and an observation of your disingenuity Seeker79, I NEVER SAID YOU CANNOT READ, I said you may have misunderstood what you read. BTW, what you have just read is not an ad hominem - just in case you try to pull that one again.

You're kidding, one line that says that relativity gets rid of absolute time. Well I'll be damned, Newtonian mechanics has been surpassed? (sarcasm of course) Nothing's said about its existence or non btw, but we all know that it must exist since it has an effect (relative between frames of reference - not merely observers).

See, above, you quote one line from a book, which is correct, and then you add your own woo woo. You are of course entitled to that, but you cannot use that one line to support your woo woo. I will pull out the equation for an interval that ties two events together (which you missed earlier) ie. c^2T^2 - X^2 - Y^2 - Z^2 , and repeat that time IS a kind of dimension, on par but obviously not the same as a spatial dimension. The T in the equation just like the X, the Y, and the Z which represent the space part of spacetime, represents the time of spacetime. QED.

Your sugestion of me being disengrnuous was an ad hominim... But anyway.

Where's the wowo? Why don't you invalidate what I am saying rather than engage in Yet another logical fallacy.(http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule)

Now you are just wrong. The explanation I gave for relative time velocity, has nothing in common with the Doppler effect other than moving bodies. I explained that light traveling toward a moving object .... Well crap here

"in relative movement, two frames of reference moving relative to each other ( 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. The light leaves one frame, but he 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. this is true for  oh frames. Upon comparing the clocks ( subtracting the acceleration affects) the clocks will not have really desyncronized."

Now it seems like you don't know what the Doppler effect Is. The Doppler effect is when something is moving towards you and any waves emitted by it being sound waves or electromagnetic waves are compressed, that is the distances from peak to peak or troff to troll are closer. When it is moving away from you they are stretched ( getting further apart). http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect

Quite obviously I was not explaining that. Now it does bear resemblance to gravitational time dialation as explained by the quote from my hawking book. :0 imagine that. Are you absolutely sure you were not just blowing smoke?

Oh by the way. The wiki explanation is just about the same as mine.

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

So what's going on AI! Are you mad at me or something? you popped on the thread guns a blazing but you clearly have misrepresented me the entire way through. You say you know about relativity and doppler effects but keep saying my statements are wrong, when clearly I post links and quotes to support. Are you trolling? It is it you misleading the audience? Honestly it's either that or you don't understand the material. Just compare my explanation, admitably layman, to the online explanations. Anyone reading should do the same.

Where are your kahunas ai?... Let's see them

Edited June 25, 2012 by Seeker79

[ai_guardian]

Your sugestion of me being disengrnuous was an ad hominim... But anyway.

Where's the wowo? Why don't you invalidate what I am saying rather than engage in Yet another logical fallacy.(http://en.m.wikipedi...eal_to_ridicule)

I have invalidated it by posting facts. What do you think the paragraph below it is, you know, the one with the equation? Now missed the second time. Disprove it.

Now you are just wrong. The explanation I gave for relative time velocity, has nothing in common with the Doppler effect other than moving bodies. I explained that light traveling toward a moving object .... Well crap here

"in relative movement, two frames of reference moving relative to each other ( 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. The light leaves one frame, but he 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. this is true for oh frames. Upon comparing the clocks ( subtracting the acceleration affects) the clocks will not have really desyncronized."

Bolded, once more, for your benefit. That ^ there will stretch the troughs & peaks ie. DOPPLER EFFECT. Jus because you write "makeing the clock apear to run slower" doesn't make it an eplanation of time dilation. Yeah, I hope people read it too.

Now it seems like you don't know what the Doppler effect Is. The Doppler effect is when something is moving towards you and any waves emitted by it being sound waves or electromagnetic waves are compressed, that is the distances from peak to peak or troff to troll are closer. When it is moving away from you they are stretched ( getting further apart). http://en.m.wikipedi.../Doppler_effect

Quite obviously I was not explaining that. Now it does bear resemblance to gravitational time dialation as explained by the quote from my hawking book. :0 imagine that. Are you absolutely sure you were not just blowing smoke?

You may not have been explaining it but that is what you described. And here you bring in GR again, I repeat, we are talking about relative motion time dilation (SR).

Oh by the way. The wiki explanation is just about the same as mine.

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

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

So what's going on AI! Are you mad at me or something? you popped on the thread guns a blazing but you clearly have misrepresented me the entire way through. You say you know about relativity and doppler effects but keep saying my statements are wrong, when clearly I post links and quotes to support. Are you trolling? It is it you misleading the audience? Honestly it's either that or you don't understand the material. Just compare my explanation, admitably layman, to the online explanations. Anyone reading should do the same.

Yes, I do hope people read it, lol.

[ai_guardian]

And just for the benefit of a correct explanation what you wrote would be correct if it was changed to the following:

In relative movement, two frames of reference moving relative to each other ( if they could ) would view the others clock as running slower. 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. 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. Makeing the clock apear to run slower. this is true for oh frames. Upon comparing the clocks ( subtracting the acceleration affects) the clocks will a ) not have really desyncronized if the frames of reference meet up. b ) have desynchronised if the frames of reference do not meet up.

Notice:

1) "This is a trick of light." is removed, because it is not just a trick of light!

2) "The light leaves one frame, but he other frame is moveing while the light is traveling there." is removed because this is an explanation apt for the doppler effect.

3) "This means that light will take longer to get there" (on it's own this is apt for the doppler effect) is changed to "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." (this is time dilation)

Can you see the difference yet Seeker79?

Edit: correct bold tags

Edited June 25, 2012 by ai_guardian

[White Crane Feather]

And just for the benefit of a correct explanation what you wrote would be correct if it was changed to the following:

In relative movement, two frames of reference moving relative to each other ( if they could ) would view the others clock as running slower. 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. 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. Makeing the clock apear to run slower. this is true for oh frames. Upon comparing the clocks ( subtracting the acceleration affects) the clocks will a ) not have really desyncronized if the frames of reference meet up. b ) have desynchronised if the frames of reference do not meet up.

Notice:

1) "This is a trick of light." is removed, because it is not just a trick of light!

2) "The light leaves one frame, but he other frame is moveing while the light is traveling there." is removed because this is an explanation apt for the doppler effect.

3) "This means that light will take longer to get there" (on it's own this is apt for the doppler effect) is changed to "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." (this is time dilation)

Can you see the difference yet Seeker79?

Edit: correct bold tags

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.

1) is fairly accurate

2) 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.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect

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.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#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.

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"

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.