Page 4 of 6

Re: Speed of time ?

Posted: Mon May 04, 2015 3:11 pm
by duszek
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
duszek wrote:What do you mean by "ticking at the same rate" ?

If one person were watching the clock on the beach and another one were watching the clock on the mount and if after 10 days they compared how much "time" had passed so far the results would be a tiny little bit different. They could communicate by a mobile phone and compare what they see.
Each clock continues to tick at the rate rate relative to the local time frame. A person on the beach would see the same thing when he looked at the clock as the person on the mountain. What would be different is the time comparison. The mountaineer would be younger as would his clock.
I don´t think that there is any "local time frame".
The mechanism of the clock can be influenced by gravity.

If we take the atomic clock then the mountaineer should be OLDER, not YOUNGER.
Because the atomic clock moves quicker in the mountains than on the beach which is closer to the centre of gravity.

Re: Speed of time ?

Posted: Mon May 04, 2015 4:59 pm
by Hobbes' Choice
duszek wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
duszek wrote:What do you mean by "ticking at the same rate" ?

If one person were watching the clock on the beach and another one were watching the clock on the mount and if after 10 days they compared how much "time" had passed so far the results would be a tiny little bit different. They could communicate by a mobile phone and compare what they see.
Each clock continues to tick at the rate rate relative to the local time frame. A person on the beach would see the same thing when he looked at the clock as the person on the mountain. What would be different is the time comparison. The mountaineer would be younger as would his clock.
I don´t think that there is any "local time frame".
The mechanism of the clock can be influenced by gravity.

If we take the atomic clock then the mountaineer should be OLDER, not YOUNGER.
Because the atomic clock moves quicker in the mountains than on the beach which is closer to the centre of gravity.
Nope
If the clock moves relatively more quickly then the mountaineer would be younger.
He is moving through time as a relatively accelerated rate, When he comes down off the mountain, people around him would be older.
Think about it!


BTW. The phrase local time. a person in the same gravity field moving at the same rate such as a spaceship; a particular altitude on the same planet shares the same time frame.

Re: Speed of time ?

Posted: Mon May 04, 2015 5:51 pm
by duszek
I think about it and see it the other way round.

The time goes faster on the mountain. So I eat more quickly, sleep more quickly etc.
When I come down more time has passed for me and less time has passed for those down.

Re: Speed of time ?

Posted: Mon May 04, 2015 6:48 pm
by Hobbes' Choice
duszek wrote:I think about it and see it the other way round.

The time goes faster on the mountain. So I eat more quickly, sleep more quickly etc.
When I come down more time has passed for me and less time has passed for those down.
You are wrong.
This is not a matter of opinion.

Okay - consider this.
Astronaughts go fast , really fast. like people on a mountain, but much faster. when they get back to earth everyone is really old or dead, whilst they have stayed younger. They have raced through time (form earth's POV) they have travelled into the future effectively. People on a mountain - going faster do this, but not in such a marked way.

Re: Speed of time ?

Posted: Wed May 13, 2015 1:22 am
by Obvious Leo
Hobbes' Choice wrote:You are wrong.
This is not a matter of opinion.
You're quite right that this is not a matter of opinion but you're quite wrong in what you say. The bloke on the mountaintop ages more quickly because time passes more quickly in the weaker gravitational field. The differential is so minuscule that it's easy to get confused so it's best to do this as a black hole thought experiment. Time grinds to an almost complete halt in a black hole so imagine the twins. One goes into the black hole and the other hovers in space beyond it. Now which one ages more quickly?

Re: Speed of time ?

Posted: Wed May 13, 2015 11:48 pm
by Hobbes' Choice
Obvious Leo wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:You are wrong.
This is not a matter of opinion.
You're quite right that this is not a matter of opinion but you're quite wrong in what you say. The bloke on the mountaintop ages more quickly because time passes more quickly in the weaker gravitational field. The differential is so minuscule that it's easy to get confused so it's best to do this as a black hole thought experiment. Time grinds to an almost complete halt in a black hole so imagine the twins. One goes into the black hole and the other hovers in space beyond it. Now which one ages more quickly?
Jesus fucking Christ. Stop and THINK!
The guy on the mountain ages LESS slowly because he is speeding through time more quickly.
THINK ABOUT IT.

Imagine he is travelling through time at twice the speed. He will still be 10 years older whilst the grounders will be 20 years older.

Re: Speed of time ?

Posted: Thu May 14, 2015 3:05 am
by Obvious Leo
Hobbes' Choice. Your command of language is on a par with your command of physics. The less said about your command of logic the better, I think.

Re: Speed of time ?

Posted: Thu May 14, 2015 9:51 pm
by Hobbes' Choice
Obvious Leo wrote:Hobbes' Choice. Your command of language is on a par with your command of physics. The less said about your command of logic the better, I think.
Don't stick your nose in.
If there is something wrong with what I said then you can state exactly what that is. Other wise shut your cake-hole.

Re: Speed of time ?

Posted: Thu May 14, 2015 11:21 pm
by Obvious Leo
Hobbes' Choice wrote:If there is something wrong with what I said then you can state exactly what that is
I thought I already did that. You've got the story arse-about and if you'll calm down and mind your manners I'll explain why. Since I've been a philosopher of physics for forty years I claim some authority on this subject, but I certainly don't expect you to simply take my word for it. All I ask is that you stop and think for a minute before flying off the deep end because all you're doing is making a fool of yourself.

I suggested that you think of the black hole because it's the easiest way to illustrate the point. You obviously didn't bother to take my advice and instead decided to engage your mouth prior to engaging your brain. We all know that time slows down almost to a crawl in a black hole. Therefore every physical process slows down accordingly, including the processes of your body. Since this is merely a thought experiment we'll overlook the inconvenient fact that a black hole will kill you in an instant if you happen to venture into one so let's just assume that you can. I'm going to stay safely beyond the reach of its gravitational attraction out in interstellar space. What will happen to our respective clocks? Your clock will slow down dramatically relative to mine. Depending on the mass of the black hole your clock might tick only once for every thousand ticks of mine. Thus when a second has passed for you then a thousand seconds has passed for me. You are one second older and I am a thousand seconds older, therefore I am aging faster than you. The person in a weaker gravitational field ALWAYS ages more quickly than the one in the stronger although naturally in the benign gravitational environment of a planet this differential is minuscule.

I have no wish to extract an apology from you for your rudeness, although it would reflect well on your character if you chose to do so. I am immune to personal insult and was simply trying to correct a blatant error which I happened to notice in passing. I trust my explanation is satisfactory, if not to you then at least to whoever else might happen to be reading this thread.

Re: Speed of time ?

Posted: Fri May 15, 2015 12:55 pm
by Hobbes' Choice
Obvious Leo wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:If there is something wrong with what I said then you can state exactly what that is
I thought I already did that. You've got the story arse-about and if you'll calm down and mind your manners I'll explain why. Since I've been a philosopher of physics for forty years I claim some authority on this subject, but I certainly don't expect you to simply take my word for it. All I ask is that you stop and think for a minute before flying off the deep end because all you're doing is making a fool of yourself.

I suggested that you think of the black hole because it's the easiest way to illustrate the point. You obviously didn't bother to take my advice and instead decided to engage your mouth prior to engaging your brain. We all know that time slows down almost to a crawl in a black hole. Therefore every physical process slows down accordingly, including the processes of your body. ... .
This is where I stopped reading.
How ironic that you accuse me of being insulting.

Re: Speed of time ?

Posted: Fri May 15, 2015 5:02 pm
by Cerveny
Cerveny wrote:Sorry, but if you want to understand the time (and the matter at all), you have to forget the theory of relativity. I am allways surprised how many guys still believe in it :(
http://discovermagazine.com/2015/june/1 ... -never-was

Re: Speed of time ?

Posted: Fri May 15, 2015 5:31 pm
by Cerveny
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Obvious Leo wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:You are wrong.
This is not a matter of opinion.
You're quite right that this is not a matter of opinion but you're quite wrong in what you say. The bloke on the mountaintop ages more quickly because time passes more quickly in the weaker gravitational field. The differential is so minuscule that it's easy to get confused so it's best to do this as a black hole thought experiment. Time grinds to an almost complete halt in a black hole so imagine the twins. One goes into the black hole and the other hovers in space beyond it. Now which one ages more quickly?
Jesus fucking Christ. Stop and THINK!
The guy on the mountain ages LESS slowly because he is speeding through time more quickly.
THINK ABOUT IT.

Imagine he is travelling through time at twice the speed. He will still be 10 years older whilst the grounders will be 20 years older.
It is remarkable how anyone could still believe such nonsense :(
All mentioned differences are only (subjectively) appeared/seemed...

Re: Speed of time ?

Posted: Fri May 15, 2015 5:58 pm
by Hobbes' Choice
Cerveny wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote: The guy on the mountain ages LESS slowly because he is speeding through time more quickly.
THINK ABOUT IT.

Imagine he is travelling through time at twice the speed. He will still be 10 years older whilst the grounders will be 20 years older.
It is remarkable how anyone could still believe such nonsense :(
All mentioned differences are only (subjectively) appeared/seemed...
Sorry to disappoint you, but it has been proven to be true. Two jets; synchronised clocks, one flies east, the other west. As each are effectively travelling a X speed, one travels against the rotation of the earth, the other with it, they are doing different speeds. With the earth it speed into the future at a greater rate, against the earth at a slower rate. When they meet the clocks are out of sync.
You tell me why that is the case!

Re: Speed of time ?

Posted: Fri May 15, 2015 7:21 pm
by Starfall
Obvious Leo wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:If there is something wrong with what I said then you can state exactly what that is
I thought I already did that. You've got the story arse-about and if you'll calm down and mind your manners I'll explain why. Since I've been a philosopher of physics for forty years I claim some authority on this subject, but I certainly don't expect you to simply take my word for it. All I ask is that you stop and think for a minute before flying off the deep end because all you're doing is making a fool of yourself.

I suggested that you think of the black hole because it's the easiest way to illustrate the point. You obviously didn't bother to take my advice and instead decided to engage your mouth prior to engaging your brain. We all know that time slows down almost to a crawl in a black hole. Therefore every physical process slows down accordingly, including the processes of your body. Since this is merely a thought experiment we'll overlook the inconvenient fact that a black hole will kill you in an instant if you happen to venture into one so let's just assume that you can. I'm going to stay safely beyond the reach of its gravitational attraction out in interstellar space. What will happen to our respective clocks? Your clock will slow down dramatically relative to mine. Depending on the mass of the black hole your clock might tick only once for every thousand ticks of mine. Thus when a second has passed for you then a thousand seconds has passed for me. You are one second older and I am a thousand seconds older, therefore I am aging faster than you. The person in a weaker gravitational field ALWAYS ages more quickly than the one in the stronger although naturally in the benign gravitational environment of a planet this differential is minuscule.

I have no wish to extract an apology from you for your rudeness, although it would reflect well on your character if you chose to do so. I am immune to personal insult and was simply trying to correct a blatant error which I happened to notice in passing. I trust my explanation is satisfactory, if not to you then at least to whoever else might happen to be reading this thread.
A perfect and concise explanation of time dilation due to a gravitational field. Weaker gravitational potential means that time flows more quickly. I do not understand why (and how) Hobbes is arguing with this.

The only thing that comes to mind is being confused about how a person on top of a mountain ages more quickly, yet an astronaut travelling in a spaceship ages much more slowly, even though the gravitational potential at where he is in space is much weaker. The reason for this is that gravitational potential is not the only thing that causes time dilation. According to special relativity, an increase in velocity also causes time dilation. This time dilation is much more significant in speeds comparable to the speed of light in comparison to the Earth's (relatively) weak gravitational field, and hence the astronaut ends up being younger instead of older. The twin paradox-like situation arising from this is ultimately resolved due to the change in inertial reference frames, in which case acceleration is treated in the same fashion as a gravitational field.

Re: Speed of time ?

Posted: Fri May 15, 2015 9:03 pm
by Cerveny
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Cerveny wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote: The guy on the mountain ages LESS slowly because he is speeding through time more quickly.
THINK ABOUT IT.

Imagine he is travelling through time at twice the speed. He will still be 10 years older whilst the grounders will be 20 years older.
It is remarkable how anyone could still believe such nonsense :(
All mentioned differences are only (subjectively) appeared/seemed...
Sorry to disappoint you, but it has been proven to be true. Two jets; synchronised clocks, one flies east, the other west. As each are effectively travelling a X speed, one travels against the rotation of the earth, the other with it, they are doing different speeds. With the earth it speed into the future at a greater rate, against the earth at a slower rate. When they meet the clocks are out of sync.
You tell me why that is the case!
That, you have measured/seen (macroscopically) any value, does not mean that the subject has been affected, belive me. Jet, very speed muons flying around you do not slow down your life. :)
The situation is (of course) different in quantum mechanics: measurement (interaction) fixes the subject into the history...
I am not disappointed at all, I am only always rather sad from a lack of common sense :(