How does Einstein’s light clock explain time dilation?

[Will Bouwman]

Do you believe in 'absolute time'?

No.

What do the words 'absolute time' even mean, or refer to, to you, EXACTLY?

Well, in Newtonian physics, it's a thing. These days it's little more than naïve realism: the idea that there is some cosmic clock by which all others are measured. Every serious search for relative time has found it.

[seeds]

Do you believe in 'absolute time'?

No.

What do the words 'absolute time' even mean, or refer to, to you, EXACTLY?

Well, in Newtonian physics, it's a thing. These days it's little more than naïve realism: the idea that there is some cosmic clock by which all others are measured. Every serious search for relative time has found it.

Obviously, this is all just fun speculation, but a long time ago I created a fanciful illustration of, let's call it, a "Holoroid" camera.

It was based on the theoretical notion that all universal matter is "instantaneously" connected at the deepest level of reality via the superpositioned entanglement of the universal wavefunction.

It had a shutter speed of one unit of Planck time, and instead of an optical lens, it had a quantum probe that could capture an image of the entire universal wavefunction and transform the information therein into a holographic projection somewhat similar to this image I keep uploading,...



The projected holographic image showed the precise position of literally every object in the universe as they existed relative to each other during one instant of, again, one unit of Planck time.

And the point was to suggest that the material universe does indeed have a base state of "absolute time" by which all instances of relative time can be measured.

In other words, it doesn't matter how fast you are moving, or the strength of the gravitational field you are held within, the quantum-based Holoroid camera will always capture and display precisely where you were in the universe - relative to everything else - at any given instant of one unit of Planck time measurement.
_______

[Will Bouwman]

And the point was to suggest that the material universe does indeed have a base state of "absolute time" by which all instances of relative time can be measured.

I'm happy to concede that at any moment, the universe is in a particular arrangement and that it changes. We're trying to work out what the arrangement was like right at the start, which would be the universal year dot. Here's the thing though seeds, once you have your snapshot, what then do you count for a practical experience of time?

[Impenitent]

instantaneous finite computation of an expanding infinite quantity...

-Imp

[Walker]

instantaneous finite computation of an expanding infinite quantity...

-Imp

That calculation changes quicker than you can say Jack Robinson.

[Age]

And the point was to suggest that the material universe does indeed have a base state of "absolute time" by which all instances of relative time can be measured.

I'm happy to concede that at any moment, the universe is in a particular arrangement and that it changes. We're trying to work out what the arrangement was like right at the start, which would be the universal year dot.

WHY do you people keep SAYING and CLAIMING that there was a start?

Sometimes so-called "scientists" sound more religious than the "religious" do.

And when you people work out WHY both, those of the "scientific" crowd AND those of the "religious" crowd, together, in harmony, keep CHANTING, SAYING and CLAIMING that there was a start, when there is OBVIOUSLY NO actual PROOF for a start AT ALL, then you will all be ABLE to begin to start moving forward, and thus start SEEING what thee ACTUAL Truth IS instead.

Here's the thing though seeds, once you have your snapshot, what then do you count for a practical experience of time?

[Age]

Do you believe in 'absolute time'?

No.

What do the words 'absolute time' even mean, or refer to, to you, EXACTLY?

Well, in Newtonian physics, it's a thing. These days it's little more than naïve realism: the idea that there is some cosmic clock by which all others are measured. Every serious search for relative time has found it.

Obviously, this is all just fun speculation, but a long time ago I created a fanciful illustration of, let's call it, a "Holoroid" camera.

What you actually did, "a long time ago", was create a fanciful illustration of what you perceived would be the snap shot of some camera, which would be sitting OUTSIDE of the Universe. Which, by the way, is an ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBILITY anyway.

And, you present it as though it was some thing new, which obviously it is not.

It was based on the theoretical notion that all universal matter is "instantaneously" connected at the deepest level of reality via the superpositioned entanglement of the universal wavefunction.

Talk about looking for words in some hope that they would back up and support some 'theory' of yours.

For your information, ALL matter is connected, ALWAYS, anyway.

It had a shutter speed of one unit of Planck time,

WHY NOT at a shutter speed of half so-called 'planck time'?

and instead of an optical lens, it had a quantum probe that could capture an image of the entire universal wavefunction and transform the information therein into a holographic projection somewhat similar to this image I keep uploading,...

And WHY, EXACTLY, do you keep uploading this image?

The projected holographic image showed the precise position of literally every object in the universe as they existed relative to each other during one instant of, again, one unit of Planck time.

Do you mean, that if some holographic image could be taken from outside of the WHOLE Universe, Itself, then of that one image, and it could, then it would show the precise position of EVERY object in the Universe?

If yes, then fair enough. But, the way you wrote what you did is, as you say, 'fanciful', and VERY fanciful I will add.

And the point was to suggest that the material universe does indeed have a base state of "absolute time" by which all instances of relative time can be measured.

But absolutely NOTHING that you have said NOR showed so far suggests ANY such thing.

In other words, it doesn't matter how fast you are moving, or the strength of the gravitational field you are held within, the quantum-based Holoroid camera will always capture and display precisely where you were in the universe - relative to everything else - at any given instant of one unit of Planck time measurement.
_______

1. This is ALL beyond being even remotely True or POSSIBLE.

2. Why not just say, 'At ANY given moment absolutely EVERY thing is in its precise location, which is obviously relative to EVERY thing ELSE'? NO one that I yet know of is going to NOR even could, logically, disagree with this statement.

And it says the EXACT SAME thing. Which, AGAIN, says NOR suggest ANY thing about some 'absolute time' phenomenon.

[seeds]

_______

Where's that scary little girl from the movie "The Ring" when you need her?

You know, the one who crawls through monitors and slaps the crap out of someone on the other side?...


_______

[Age]

_______

Where's that scary little girl from the movie "The Ring" when you need her?

You know, the one who crawls through monitors and slaps the crap out of someone on the other side?...


_______

WHY?

Do you not like it when "others" SHOW WHERE in what you say and claim is true and right is ACTUALLY Wrong and False?

[Will Bouwman]

I'm happy to concede that at any moment, the universe is in a particular arrangement and that it changes. We're trying to work out what the arrangement was like right at the start, which would be the universal year dot.

WHY do you people keep SAYING and CLAIMING that there was a start?

Because we understand the evidence. As you can see above, we appreciate that the visible universe is changing and while we don't know the initial conditions, we can see that the visible universe is expanding. The 'start' referred to is the moment the visible universe started expanding.

[Age]

I'm happy to concede that at any moment, the universe is in a particular arrangement and that it changes. We're trying to work out what the arrangement was like right at the start, which would be the universal year dot.

WHY do you people keep SAYING and CLAIMING that there was a start?

Because we understand the evidence.

The SAME WAY the people who said and claimed that sun revolves around the earth were, also, thinking and even believing that they 'understood the evidence'.

But what is REALLY happening is 'you', people, have 'data', and then are just INTERPRETING 'that' in ways, which is usually in line with your already previously held presumptions and preconceptions.

As you can see above, we appreciate that the visible universe is changing

It is very obvious that the visible PART of the Universe changes. Do you know of ANY one who does not agree with this or does not accept this?

and while we don't know the initial conditions, we can see that the visible universe is expanding.

Here you go again, ASSUMING and JUMPING to the CONCLUSION that there was an 'initial' or a 'start' to the Universe, Itself.

And, just looking at the 'visible universe' will obviously provide one with a limited view here

The 'start' referred to is the moment the visible universe started expanding.

Now that you are changing your views and words here, slowly I will add, you are, at least, slowly getting closer to thee ACTUAL Truth of things here. Which is a good thing to see you doing.

Also, and just so we are clear on this, there is NO 'visible universe', from the concept that that PART is somehow different from 'the rest of the Universe', Itself.

The Universe, Itself, NEVER 'began' NOR 'started'. And, if one only wants to LOOK AT and DISCUSS just a very small and limited PART of the Universe here, then so be it. But it is from these short-sighted, NARROWED, and LIMITED ways of looking and seeing things this is the reason WHY 'you', human beings, are taking SO LONG to catch up, and SEE and RECOGNIZE what the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of things ARE, EXACTLY.

[wtf]

Well, in Newtonian physics, it's a thing. These days it's little more than naïve realism: the idea that there is some cosmic clock by which all others are measured. Every serious search for relative time has found it.

Can you put something into perspective for me?

In relativity, there is no absolute time.

But in quantum mechanics, entanglement is instantaneous.

As Tim Maudlin puts it, in relativity we have locality but not simultaneity. In quantum theory we have simultaneity but not locality. That's why relativity and quantum theory are incompatible.

I'm no physics expert, don't even pretend to play one on the internet. Just wondering how you can condemn absolute time to "naive realism," when entanglement is instantaneous.

[Skepdick]

I'm no physics expert, don't even pretend to play one on the internet. Just wondering how you can condemn absolute time to "naive realism," when entanglement is instantaneous.

Semantics, semantics, semantics, semantics.

You can't empirically assert/establish the "instantaneity" of entanglement because you can't perform "simultaneous" measurements across non-zero distances. Any synchronisation mechanism which would enable you to do that violates the causal speed limit.

Instantaneity/simultinaity is axiomatic. Which is basically the same as "naive".

[Age]

I'm no physics expert, don't even pretend to play one on the internet. Just wondering how you can condemn absolute time to "naive realism," when entanglement is instantaneous.

Semantics, semantics, semantics, semantics.

You can't empirically assert/establish the "instantaneity" of entanglement because you can't perform "simultaneous" measurements across non-zero distances. Any synchronisation mechanism which would enable you to do that violates the causal speed limit.

Instantaneity/simultinaity is axiomatic. Which is basically the same as "naive".

Agree, and just because phrases or terms are bandied around does not necessarily mean that they are true nor correct.

[Will Bouwman]

I'm no physics expert, don't even pretend to play one on the internet. Just wondering how you can condemn absolute time to "naive realism," when entanglement is instantaneous.

I'm no physics expert, don't even pretend to play one on the internet either, but entanglement has no bearing on the sort of absolute time I'm talking about.
As I said to seeds:

I'm happy to concede that at any moment, the universe is in a particular arrangement...

That includes entangled arrangements and simutaneity. The type of absolute time I mean is the sort that exists independently of anything happening, the type that would keep ticking even if nothing existed. Is there a type of absolute time you think simultaneity supports?