Sorry, but when I accelerate, you can say that I stay stationary and make move the rest of the universe, but I don't believe that.

If after the acceleration something changed with my observations, I think the change happened in my frame.

Sorry, but when I accelerate, you can say that I stay stationary and make move the rest of the universe, but I don't believe that.

If after the acceleration something changed with my observations, I think the change happened in my frame.

 

 

That doesn't make much sense (when compared with observation): when you increase your speed, their clock slows down (and they will say your clock slowed); when they increase their speed, their clock slows down (and they will say your clock slowed). How can that be a result of something happening to your clock (which was the point of the thread)?

 

Of course you won't affect someone else's clock. Changing your velocity will affect your own clock. That's the principle of the twin's story, isn't it?

Well understood. As a matter of fact, that was not only clear from Langevin's explanation, it was already clear from the very first clock retardation prediction. Einstein did not pretend that moving a clock around would affect the inertial clocks.

[edit]: as a matter of fact, that would be magical "action at a distance" which definitely is not SR.

 

I think I might be understanding it a bit more at this point...

 

But yes, the whole concept of "time dilation" to me seems to be quite abstract and supernatural.

 

I still don't know if I even believe literal 'time' dilation is what's happening, as blasphemous as that sounds.

 

As long as you forget to clarify what you mean with "time", if you indeed hold that clocks do not measure "time", we may soon reach a dead end here!

Edited October 19, 20169 yr by Tim88

If clocks don't measure time, then what do they measure!? (And what use are they? )

 

And if time is not measured by clocks, how can we measure it?

Yes, that was my point.

Yes, that was my point.

 

Good, that's what I thought!

 

 

That doesn't make much sense (when compared with observation): when you increase your speed, their clock slows down (and they will say your clock slowed); when they increase their speed, their clock slows down (and they will say your clock slowed). How can that be a result of something happening to your clock (which was the point of the thread)?

 

If frame A and frame B are moving relative to each other, you can say that according to A, B's time runs slow, and according to B, A's time runs slow.

At the same time, of course, A's and B's times run differently according to all the other frames.

That makes no sense for me, but with an abstract concept as time, you can say that.

 

But if one considers that the cause of the time slowing could be a physical effect on the clocks (and all other processes), one can't say that all the clock's are affected in a different way at the same time.

If that was your point, then I agree.

 

But that doesn't exclude the possibility of a physical effect of the change of velocity in the own frame.

 

 

If frame A and frame B are moving relative to each other, you can say that according to A, B's time runs slow, and according to B, A's time runs slow.

At the same time, of course, A's and B's times run differently according to all the other frames.

That makes no sense for me, but with an abstract concept as time, you can say that.

 

But if one considers that the cause of the time slowing could be a physical effect on the clocks (and all other processes), one can't say that all the clock's are affected in a different way at the same time.

If that was your point, then I agree.

 

But that doesn't exclude the possibility of a physical effect of the change of velocity in the own frame.

 

 

 

Those effects can be measured and quantified. You can devise a test for them, and even possibly model the effect for different types of oscillators. You would not necessarily expect disparate devices to respond the same way.