[swansont]

Myuncle, on 28 December 2011 - 01:41 PM, said:

No matter which clock you are using, even an atomic clock will never be perfect. Time dilation is not real at all, since "time" exists only in our fantasy, but not in reality, deal with it. For centuries we have been taught a wrong definition of time. In science time is defined as "that which gets measured by a clock", it doesn't make sense at all (it would make sense only in a human social way of speaking, but not in a physics context). It would be more precise to define time as a human concept used to keep track of the atoms and subatomic particles movement in their sequence and progression.

Even been early or late to any kind of meeting? Time applies at all scales.

GPS works. As Janus said, Deal with it.

[Myuncle]

swansont, on 28 December 2011 - 04:12 PM, said:

GPS works.

So what? Still dodging the issue. Let's go back to Ionesco... "All cats die. Socrates is dead. Therefore Socrates is a cat". Clock is speeding up, therefore time is slowing down. Is it logic?

[swansont]

Myuncle, on 29 December 2011 - 01:47 AM, said:

So what? Still dodging the issue. Let's go back to Ionesco... "All cats die. Socrates is dead. Therefore Socrates is a cat". Clock is speeding up, therefore time is slowing down. Is it logic?

But it isn't just "clock speed up" (or slow down). That could be because of a mechanical defect. You have to eliminate mechanical and environmental causes, so in an of itself a change in the rate of a clock is not indicative of time changing. You eliminate or compensate for those effects. But once you do, clocks speed up/slow down in an expected manner as predicted by theory. The theory is a direct consequence of an invariant speed of light.

[URAIN]

Myuncle, on 28 December 2011 - 01:41 PM, said:

No matter which clock you are using, even an atomic clock will never be perfect. Time dilation is not real at all, since "time" exists only in our fantasy, but not in reality, deal with it. For centuries we have been taught a wrong definition of time. In science time is defined as "that which gets measured by a clock", it doesn't make sense at all (it would make sense only in a human social way of speaking, but not in a physics context). It would be more precise to define time as a human concept used to keep track of the atoms and subatomic particles movement in their sequence and progression.

In my view when we relate or compare two incident of far distance, then only time dilation occur. Otherwise there is no time dilation. Time is same for everyone in local frame of reference.


(For time, considering the frame of reference is important. )

This post has been edited by URAIN: 29 December 2011 - 01:51 PM

[Myuncle]

swansont, on 29 December 2011 - 11:30 AM, said:

But it isn't just "clock speed up" (or slow down). That could be because of a mechanical defect. You have to eliminate mechanical and environmental causes, so in an of itself a change in the rate of a clock is not indicative of time changing. You eliminate or compensate for those effects. But once you do, clocks speed up/slow down in an expected manner as predicted by theory. The theory is a direct consequence of an invariant speed of light.

Since every clock is affected by gravity or speed, you can't eliminate or compensate those causes. Any variation in atomic clocks has got nothing to do with time. You don't need an atomic clock on a satellite to see those effects, if you want stupidly confirm Relativity you just need to run an atomic clock on a table and raise the table by a foot. After a long observation, they found that the time on the raised clock was slightly ahead of the time on a second clock kept below. Which means that according to relativity, time is slowing down in our heads compared to our feet...I ask you this: does it make any sense?

This post has been edited by Myuncle: 29 December 2011 - 07:03 PM

[swansont]

Myuncle, on 29 December 2011 - 07:03 PM, said:

Since every clock is affected by gravity or speed, you can't eliminate or compensate those causes. Any variation in atomic clocks has got nothing to do with time. You don't need an atomic clock on a satellite to see those effects, if you want stupidly confirm Relativity you just need to run an atomic clock on a table and raise the table by a foot. After a long observation, they found that the time on the raised clock was slightly ahead of the time on a second clock kept below. Which means that according to relativity, time is slowing down in our heads compared to our feet...I ask you this: does it make any sense?

Yes, frankly, it does make sense to me. Though I have studied relativity.

You need some kind of interaction to explain it; this is not magic. The variation is independent of the type of clock.

[Myuncle]

swansont, on 29 December 2011 - 09:35 PM, said:

Yes, frankly, it does make sense to me. Though I have studied relativity.

You need some kind of interaction to explain it; this is not magic. The variation is independent of the type of clock.

No matter how useless or irrational a theory is, as long as is accepted by the mainstream media, the students start believing that that theory is somehow true, and the brainwashing mechanism keeps going on and on and on.

[swansont]

Myuncle, on 30 December 2011 - 02:46 PM, said:

No matter how useless or irrational a theory is, as long as is accepted by the mainstream media, the students start believing that that theory is somehow true, and the brainwashing mechanism keeps going on and on and on.

Really? GPS working, etc., is both a happy accident and a conspiracy, and it was fueled by media acceptance?