Are you suggesting I can not read?

 

 

You can go back and peruse my post as many times as you want. I defy you to find a passage where I suggested you can't read.

 

(Almost ironically, the only way to come to that conclusion is if you, in fact, can't comprehend what you read)

 

 

You can go back and peruse my post as many times as you want. I defy you to find a passage where I suggested you can't read.

 

(Almost ironically, the only way to come to that conclusion is if you, in fact, can't comprehend what you read)

You said I would not be able to explain relativity, for that to be true I would have to not be able to read all the free information on the net.

Then if my ground state clock reads noon, the slower clock reads less than noon ?

The clock time question!

 

Think in terms of age instead of clock time. Objects at light-speed age slower than non light-speed objects. This is not about past or present.

 

 

Yes.

So therefore the clock in motion is behind in time relative to the ground state clock?

You said I would not be able to explain relativity, for that to be true I would have to not be able to read all the free information on the net.

 

 

Not at all. You could have read any amount of it. But you either didn't understand it or you are making a terrible hash of explaining it.

 

Think in terms of age instead of clock time. Objects at light-speed age slower than non light-speed objects. This is not about past or present.

Age is measured by a clock.

So therefore the clock in motion is behind in time relative to the ground state clock?

 

Read this:

 

 

Think in terms of age instead of clock time. Objects at light-speed age slower than non light-speed objects. This is not about past or present.

Age is measured by a clock.

 

Exactly. Well done. You are getting there.

 

 

Not at all. You could have read any amount of it. But you either didn't understand it or you are making a terrible hash of explaining it.

Relativity is not difficult to understand. This is more SR.

Age is measured by a clock.

 

A clock at light-speed is materially younger and not one that is in the past.

 

Read this:

 

 

Exactly. Well done. You are getting there.

Your age is equal to the measurement of time passed and nothing to do with the discussion.

So therefore the clock in motion is behind in time relative to the ground state clock?

Don't forget that there are few absolutes in relativity.

 

Your "ground state" clock is not the judge of absolute time.

 

Especially: for the clock that your "ground state" clock considers moving, it is sitting still and it's your "ground state" clock that is moving. (And it will consider your "ground state" clock to be slow).

 

They are not both "moving into the past" or whatever.

You said I would not be able to explain relativity, for that to be true I would have to not be able to read all the free information on the net.

 

 

Quote me, where I said that.

Don't forget that there are few absolutes in relativity.

 

Your "ground state" clock is not the judge of absolute time.

 

Especially: for the clock that your "ground state" clock considers moving, it is sitting still and it's your "ground state" clock that is moving. (And it will consider your "ground state" clock to be slow).

 

They are not both "moving into the past" or whatever.

I understand simultaneity. The twins start in locality of each other, both having the same rate of time which is simultaneous for both twins. When twin departs he experiences time slowing down relative to twin one. When twin one's time measures noon, twin two's time shows less than noon ,twin 2 is effectively then behind in time relative to twin 1.

 

 

Quote me, where I said that.

I maybe read with ambiguity.

I understand simultaneity. The twins start in locality of each other, both having the same rate of time which is simultaneous for both twins.

When twin departs he experiences time slowing down relative to twin one.

When twin one's time measures noon, twin two's time shows less than noon ,twin 2 is effectively then behind in time relative to twin 1.

You missed the point.

 

Twin 1 is also at that time "behind" twin 2. When twin 2's clock shows noon, twin 1's clock shows less than noon.

 

(That's what puts the "paradox" into "twins paradox"; but isn't the issue in this thread.)

 

A clock at light-speed is materially younger and not one that is in the past.

So you are saying time does not slow down?

You missed the point.

 

Twin 1 is also at that time "behind" twin 2. When twin 2's clock shows noon, twin 1's clock shows less than noon.

 

(That's what puts the "paradox" into "twins paradox"; but isn't the issue in this thread.)

The ground state clock is the absolute time relative to the inertia reference frame. The ground state clock is constant.

So you are saying time does not slow down?

 

 

Why do you keep claiming people said things that they didn't say?

 

This is a "straw man" argument. And not very constructive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

So you are saying time does not slow down?

The ground state clock is the absolute time relative to the inertia reference frame. The ground state clock is constant.

 

In your version of time dilation, the clock at light-speed is behind your relative time or in the past as you have continually conveyed. In reality, it's merely registering time temporally more slowly rather than experience some past time. It's analogous to passing your hand through water as opposed to air. Through water, your hand moves more slowly than it does through air. In time dilation, the hands of the light-speed clock moves more slowly than it would at ground time.

Edited April 2, 20178 yr by DrmDoc

 

 

Why do you keep claiming people said things that they didn't say?

 

This is a "straw man" argument. And not very constructive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

The opp claimed it was ageing that slowed, not time.

The opp claimed it was ageing that slowed, not time.

 

 

That is the same thing.

 

For example, in the Twin Paradox, the two twins get together at the end. One has aged less (experienced less time). But they are together at the same time - one is not in the past.

Edited April 2, 20178 yr by Strange

 

 

In your version of time dilation, the clock at light-speed is behind your relative time or in the past as you have continually conveyed. In reality, it's merely registering time temporally more slowly rather than experience some past time. It's analogous to passing your hand through water as opposed to air. Through water, your hand moves more slowly than it does through air. In time dilation, the hands of the light-speed clock moves more slowly than it would at ground time.

It certainly sounds to me like you are saying absolute time exists and time dilation is made up?

It certainly sounds to me like you are saying absolute time exists and time dilation is made up?

 

 

Nope.

 

 

That is the same thing.

 

For example, in the Twin Paradox, the two twins get together at the end. One has aged less (experienced less time). But they are together at the same time - one is not in the past.

So if one experiences less time then most certainly they are behind in time. 11.55am is not noon, it would be in the past relative to twin 1.

It certainly sounds to me like you are saying absolute time exists and time dilation is made up?

 

In my water analogy your hand is slowed when passing through water. The effect of time dilation is represented by the water. Time dilation exist as the analogous influence slowing your theoretical clock's hands. Time dilation is not an effect consigning objects to the past, it's an effect that appears to slow the experience of time.

Edited April 2, 20178 yr by DrmDoc

 

In my water analogy your hand is slowed when passing through water. The effect of time dilation is represented by the water. Time dilation exist as the analogous influence slowing your theoretical clock's hands. Time dilation is not an effect consigning objects to the past, it's an effect that appears to slow the experience of time.

Time is a measurement, I am not sure we experience time but rather observe the affects of it.

Edited April 2, 20178 yr by JohnLesser

So if one experiences less time then most certainly they are behind in time.

 

 

But they are not "in the past".

 

 

 

11.55am is not noon, it would be in the past relative to twin 1.

 

The two twins can still talk to each other. There isn't a 5 minute delay before twin 1 hears twin 2.

Edited April 2, 20178 yr by Strange