davidm wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 5:52 pm
ken wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 6:25 am Now, If a "normal" clock, and NOT a light clock, is traveling at closest as possible to the speed of light, then does it slow down or does it tick away at the human made rate that it did prior to taking the trip? Whatever your answer is, can you then explain how this is possible?
But I HAVE explained. Maybe you don’t pay attention? Perhaps you should write less and read more?
Maybe I have been paying attention? Just maybe some one else has not been paying as much attention to what is really going on here?
Further to this you explained how a LIGHT clock reacts to traveling at speed, relative to a light clock on earth, right? My question here is in regards to a "normal" clock, which has NOT yet been answered nor explained.
davidm wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 5:52 pmThere is no difference between a “normal” clock and a light clock; they both do the same exact thing — tell time — and they can be synchronized with each other.
So, they both give a pre-determined, by human beings, measurement of what is loosely called "time"?
They both might do the same thing, and that is give measurements, but do they both work the same way? That is do they both, what you call "tell time" through the exact same mechanisms?
davidm wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 5:52 pmThe reason the light clock is used in these examples is because it shows WHY time slows down, which is not evident from a regular tick-tock clock.
Are you suggesting that the thought or belief that "time slows down" was prior to finding some thing that will show WHY this happens?
Also, if it is not evident from a regular tick-tock clock that "time" slows down, then are you saying and/or implying that a regular tick-tock clock will just keep on ticking and tocking how it does no matter how fast it is going? If so, then fine. If not, then you will really need to make use of your words and/or express your words better.
You are saying here that "time slows down". What does "time" mean, to you?
If, and when, people go over My previous writings THEN they will see WHY I say, "Time
only appears to slow down, to some", which is in strike contrast to what you are saying here. "How could "time" slow down and/or stop?"
To Me, obviously different people see things differently, and the reason for this, by the way, is also obvious, but what
appears to be "time", to some, is partly the reason of why to them "time" also
appears to slow down and/or stop. But to state, "Time slows down, and/or stops" is a pretty big absolute statement, which I am having trouble with getting people to explain further how this could actually happen. One reason they can not is because what APPEARS to be the case is NOT really the truth of the matter.
What is going on here is like how previously to some people it APPEARED as though the sun revolves the earth. That is what they viewed, and so they then believed that to be the truth of the matter. But the truth was that was not the case, but they were just not ready to see the truth yet.
davidm wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 5:52 pmHere is how the light clock shows WHY time slows down in a moving frame relative to an at-rest frame (though I’ve already explained this):
AND, I have ALREADY explained that that is an extremely very simple and very easy thing to understand. HOWEVER, what the light clock is showing may just be NOT what the actual truth IS. What you do not seem to be understanding is the actual words you a using to explain things, like, for example, what you have just written, and continue to write, these do not make sense to Me. To Me, what you are trying to explain is like trying to explain that the sun revolves around the earth, when I KNOW this is NOT true, and so you are using every conceivable thing you can find to justify your position.
A light clock does NOT show WHY "time" slows down. A light clock was devised and used as example to show what APPEARED to be the truth, previously. People perceived some thing to be true already and then used whatever they could for
confirmation bias, for their already held views and/or beliefs.
To Me, a light clock does NOT show WHY "time" slows down. What a light clock shows Me is WHY it appears as though "time" slows down.
davidm wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 5:52 pm1. The speed of light is invariant in all inertial frames. Everyone, regardless of their frame, measures the velocity of light as c in a vacuum.
So far, generally true.
davidm wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 5:52 pm2. This means that in a frame moving relative to a rest frame,
Where do you think this "rest" frame is, or could actually be?
davidm wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 5:52 pm a moving frame in which a light clock is operating, the speed of light will not ADD the velocity of the moving frame to its own velocity, as stuff normally does. If it
did add the velocity, light would be traveling faster than light, which is not possible.
I will let this be.
davidm wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 5:52 pm3. The light clock can be set up just as a normal clock, in synchrony to depict the passing of one second: A photon is fired from the top of the clock to the bottom; there it rebounds to the top. When the photon reaches the top, it is in synchrony with a normal tick-tock clock, such that: At the end of the first round trip of the photon in the light clock, one second will have ticked off on a regular tick-tock clock. So each round trip of the photo represents one second of elapsed time. Follow?
I have explained this was all very easy to understand a few posts back already.
Maybe you were not paying attention, or just did not read it?
davidm wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 5:52 pm4. Now we imagine there is also a light clock in the rest frame.
Okay, but this is where the experiment and/or example partly starts to fail. But carry on.
davidm wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 5:52 pm5. But now because the light clock in the moving frame is in a frame that is
in motion with respect to an at-rest frame, its photon must traverse a
longer path to make one round trip, than does the photon in the at-rest frame! (This is depicted in the animation you watched.) Again, this
has to happen, because c is invariant as measured from all frames, so the photon will not ADD the velocity of the moving frame to is own velocity.
Conclusion: The moving-frame light clock is “ticking”
slower than the at-rest light clock, and they are now out of synchrony. Time is passing more slowly in the moving frame
relative to the at-rest frame. (The person on the moving frame judges his clock to be ticking normally, just as it did in the rest frame. See: Galilean relativity.)
Hope this helps. (Yah, right!)
Is it an actual and absolute fact that '
time is passing more slowly' in the moving frame
relative to the so called at-rest frame?
What you are
trying to say is ALL very obvious and like I said extremely easy to understand. The moving-frame LIGHT CLOCK 'ticks' slower than the on-earth LIGHT CLOCK because the former clock is moving faster than the latter clock and it would obviously take the bouncing light from the LIGHT clock to bounce back and forth because the bouncing light takes longer to return on a moving-frame. Do you understand, Yes I understand ALL of that?
What you and others do NOT seem to have taken into account is if, in the same moving-frame reference place, BOTH the light clock and the regular tick-tock clock are alongside each other, then both clocks could be out of synchronization with each other just as much and even to the exact same extent as the light clock on the so called "at rest-frame" reference place is out of synchronization with the moving light clock? (This is clumsily written but will get better soon enough).
Anyhow, if the moving at the same speed regular tick-tock clock and the light clock are out of sync AFTER they where synchronized BEFORE they started moving, then this is because the two clocks work in obviously two different ways. One clock (the light clock) is depended upon light, and thus works at different rates of change because the rate of change is depended solely upon the speed it is traveling, while the other clock (regular tick-tock clock) is depended upon the "hands" ticking, which is not affected by speed, and thus works at the exact same rate of change no matter how fast it is going, just as long as the power source stays the same. Thus, the reason WHY a trip takes the exact same amount of, what is generally called, "time". Obviously this is RELATIVE to the speed at which the vehicle is traveling and to the distance it has to go.
And, the "time" it takes to travel a certain distance and how far the actual distances are can be uniformly measured because of that tool, generally referred to as the tick-tock clock, which human beings devised and constructed so they could breakdown change into measured increments. Without this measuring tool the one and only continual event could not as easily be separated into seemingly different and separate events, which we perceive and have become accustomed to now, nor could that one event be broken down into seemingly different and separate compartments of "space" and "time". Without the devise labeled the tick-tock clock, how could measurements be made in "space" and in "time"? But I am moving ahead to quick now now, and just wait to see how much of what I have been saying is understood.