# is time absolute or relative

## Recommended Posts

Is time absolute or relative

According to general relativity, time is relative meaning people moving at different rates at different positions will experience different times which can be denoted by their time piece (watch).  Here is my thought experiment: Imagine people playing soccer on a field, due to each players rate of motion and position, each will experience different times.  Now I decide to videotape the game on my camcorder and later watch it on my television.  On the home video each player’s time may still be relative to each other but to me as the observer they are all experiencing the same time according to my clock on the wall.  This is the universal time or absolute time.  We all exist in the universal time frames similar to the time frames on my home video.  Everybody in this universe experience relative time on the universal time frames but to the observer outside the time frames (GOD), there is a universal time also known as absolute time.  Time is absolute; time is relative which matches the yin yang concept of the existing duality.

##### Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, motlan said:

On the home video each player’s time may still be relative to each other but to me as the observer they are all experiencing the same time according to my clock on the wall.  This is the universal time or absolute time.

No. That is just your frame of reference. It is not “absolute” because some else’s measurements of time could be different.

14 minutes ago, motlan said:

but to the observer outside the time frames (GOD), there is a universal time also known as absolute time.

There is no such observer.

##### Share on other sites

The time differences for such observers has no material effect on their play. Much, much, much smaller than biological response/reflex times.

You need a better example, and you need to quantify the effects.

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Strange said:

No. That is just your frame of reference. It is not “absolute” because some else’s measurements of time could be different.

There is no such observer.

The late albert einstein said in many of his thought experiments.  It is true in both frames of reference.  For example if a person in the middle of a moving train cart experience lightning hit the front and back simulataneously, he would see the front being struck first.  to an observer outside the train cart, the lightning hits the front and back at the same time.  which is true, according to albert einstein? it is true for both frames of reference.  So from my example,  in my frame of reference I am still correct.

##### Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, motlan said:

For example if a person in the middle of a moving train cart experience lightning hit the front and back simulataneously, he would see the front being struck first.

This is a self-contradictory statement, and is thus wrong.  He cannot both experience (observe) the two events simultaneously, and also one before the other.

##### Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Halc said:

This is a self-contradictory statement, and is thus wrong.  He cannot both experience (observe) the two events simultaneously, and also one before the other.

there are 2 observers, one in the train cart and the other outside the train cart.  read up on this classic einstein thought experiment.  I meant the lightning actually hitting the front and back simultaneously.  the observer in the train cart will observe the front being struck first.  to another observer outside the cart, he will observe it hitting simultaneously.  according to einstein, both frames of reference are correct!!

##### Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, motlan said:

there are 2 observers, one in the train cart and the other outside the train cart.  read up on this classic einstein thought experiment.  I meant the lightning actually hitting the front and back simultaneously.  the observer in the train cart will observe the front being struck first.  to another observer outside the cart, he will observe it hitting simultaneously.  according to einstein, both frames of reference are correct!!

It is not just that the train observer "sees" the lightning strikes at different times, for him, the strikes occurred at different times.  So for the embankment observer, the strikes actually hit the front and back train simultaneously,  while for anyone riding in the train, they they do not strike the ends of the train simultaneously.

What Einstein is saying is the the very notion of "simultaneous" is frame dependent and is not absolute.

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, motlan said:

there are 2 observers, one in the train cart and the other outside the train cart.  read up on this classic einstein thought experiment.

I know the thought experiment well.  You statement that the observer in the middle of the train boths observes the strikes simultaneously and not simultaneously cannot be correct.  OK, you meant something else, but also wrong:

Quote

I meant the lightning actually hitting the front and back simultaneously.

There is no actual to it.  Simultaneity of spatially separated events is frame dependent and there is no ordering that is more actual than another.  The thought experiment classically suggests the strikes take place simultaneously in (and only in) the platform frame, which, as I said, is no more special than any other frame.  Thus the guy on the train sees one strike before the other (because in the frame of the train, the one strike is actually before the other), and does not "experience lightning hit the front and back simulataneously" as you posted.

Quote

according to einstein, both frames of reference are correct!!

Neither frame is 'correct'. Better worded is that according to Einstein, each observer is correct relative to the frame of reference in which he is respectively stationary.

Edited by Halc

##### Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Strange said:

No. That is just your frame of reference. It is not “absolute” because some else’s measurements of time could be different.

There is no such observer.

back to my original thought experiment:  imagine a digital timer presented on the same screen as the home video is being showed on the television.  It does not matter how many other people observe the home video on screen they will all observe the same time based on the digital timer presented on the home video.  All observers watching the video will see the timer pass time the same way.  That is what I refer to as the universal time from the perspective of outside observers observing events on time frames such as a home video.  This universal time is the same for all viewers watching the video which defines it as absolute.

##### Share on other sites

No.
It is just another frame of reference.

Say the train wasn't moving, but the station was moving relative to the train.
And the lighting strike didn't occur 'simultaneously ( whatever that means ) to the 'stationary' ( whatever that means ) observers on the train...

Would "the digital timer presented on the same screen as the home video is being showed on the television, as seen by many other people observe the home video on screen they will all observe the same time based on the digital timer presented on the home video" and see simultaneous lighting flashes ? And is it still an 'absolute' frame ?
Do you not see that all frames are equally valid to observers in that  frame ?
Do you not see that you can't claim one is special, or absolute ?

##### Share on other sites
8 hours ago, motlan said:

there are 2 observers, one in the train cart and the other outside the train cart.  read up on this classic einstein thought experiment.  I meant the lightning actually hitting the front and back simultaneously.  the observer in the train cart will observe the front being struck first.  to another observer outside the cart, he will observe it hitting simultaneously.  according to einstein, both frames of reference are correct!!

There is no "actually" here. The strike is simultaneous in one frame, but that frame is not preferred over any other. The observers will disagree about the relative timing of the strikes, and each can say their observation is correct and in accordance with the laws of physics.

7 hours ago, motlan said:

back to my original thought experiment:  imagine a digital timer presented on the same screen as the home video is being showed on the television.  It does not matter how many other people observe the home video on screen they will all observe the same time based on the digital timer presented on the home video.  All observers watching the video will see the timer pass time the same way.  That is what I refer to as the universal time from the perspective of outside observers observing events on time frames such as a home video.  This universal time is the same for all viewers watching the video which defines it as absolute.

The video timer disagrees with the viewer's clock.

One can choose a reference frame for convenience and/or convention, but that does not make it an absolute frame.

##### Share on other sites
12 hours ago, motlan said:

It is true for both frames of reference.  So from my example,  in my frame of reference I am still correct.

You are correct that it is true for your frame of reference. But that doesn’t make it absolute. Because it is not correct for other frames of reference.

But maybe you are just misusing “absolute “ to mean “relative”

11 hours ago, motlan said:

there are 2 observers, one in the train cart and the other outside the train cart.  read up on this classic einstein thought experiment.  I meant the lightning actually hitting the front and back simultaneously.  the observer in the train cart will observe the front being struck first.  to another observer outside the cart, he will observe it hitting simultaneously.  according to einstein, both frames of reference are correct!!

##### Share on other sites
11 hours ago, motlan said:

back to my original thought experiment:  imagine a digital timer presented on the same screen as the home video is being showed on the television.  It does not matter how many other people observe the home video on screen they will all observe the same time based on the digital timer presented on the home video.  All observers watching the video will see the timer pass time the same way.  That is what I refer to as the universal time from the perspective of outside observers observing events on time frames such as a home video.  This universal time is the same for all viewers watching the video which defines it as absolute.

They may all see the same time on the screen but some may see the time on the screen changing more slowly than others.

So it isn't "absolute" time; it is just one frame of reference being shown to others (who can share their experience of it to confirm that there is no absolute reference)

##### Share on other sites
11 hours ago, motlan said:

back to my original thought experiment:  imagine a digital timer presented on the same screen as the home video is being showed on the television.  It does not matter how many other people observe the home video on screen they will all observe the same time based on the digital timer presented on the home video.  All observers watching the video will see the timer pass time the same way.  That is what I refer to as the universal time from the perspective of outside observers observing events on time frames such as a home video.  This universal time is the same for all viewers watching the video which defines it as absolute.

That timer on the screen is just showing the time according to the frame of the camera that recorded the image, and there is nothing unique or special about that choice of frame.  You could have also had cameras attached to the individual players, each with its own timer.  The recordings made by these cameras would be just as valid as the stadium camera.  While the stadium recording might show that two events at different ends of the field occurred at the same moment,  a player camera may show that they did not.  And there is no reason t accept the stadium camera's determination over that of the player's camera.

So the fact that anyone watching the recording sees the same events occurring at the same time mark of the digital time stamp, just means that they all agree that this was what was recorded from the reference frame of the camera, not that this represents any kind of universal absolute time.

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Strange said:

They may all see the same time on the screen but some may see the time on the screen changing more slowly than others.

So it isn't "absolute" time; it is just one frame of reference being shown to others (who can share their experience of it to confirm that there is no absolute reference)

remember the timer on the television screen is synchronized with the video, all observers watching the video will agree every event on the video is in sync with the video timer. if someone sees the time on the screen slower than others, the events on the video is slower also.  in that sense there is a universal time for the events on the video.

##### Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, motlan said:

in that sense there is a universal time for the events on the video.

That is the exact opposite of "universal". What you mean is that there is a local time for the events on the video. Which may not match the time measured by others.

You need to buy a better dictionary.

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Janus said:

That timer on the screen is just showing the time according to the frame of the camera that recorded the image, and there is nothing unique or special about that choice of frame.  You could have also had cameras attached to the individual players, each with its own timer.  The recordings made by these cameras would be just as valid as the stadium camera.  While the stadium recording might show that two events at different ends of the field occurred at the same moment,  a player camera may show that they did not.  And there is no reason t accept the stadium camera's determination over that of the player's camera.

So the fact that anyone watching the recording sees the same events occurring at the same time mark of the digital time stamp, just means that they all agree that this was what was recorded from the reference frame of the camera, not that this represents any kind of universal absolute time.

in comparing the universal digital time frames to the digital frames of a home video, there is only one set of frames.  we cannot consider the example of cameras attached to individual players as an example.

remember the timer on the television screen is synchronized with the video, all observers watching the video will agree every event on the video is in sync with the video timer. if someone sees the time on the screen slower than others, the events on the video is slower also.  in that sense there is a universal time for the events on the video.

##### Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, motlan said:

in that sense there is a universal time for the events on the video.

Even if you repeat this a third time, it will still be false.

If this is going to be another thread where you just ignore all corrections to your errors, then there seems little point it staying open.

##### Share on other sites
7 hours ago, motlan said:

in that sense there is a universal time for the events on the video.

No, it just means everyone knows what time it is/was in the camera’s frame

## Create an account

Register a new account