Tick Tock, the monad Clock

[Jonesboy]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Do you have any reason to believe it isn't?

Most undergraduate physics classes have done the muon experiment at one time or another; that one experiment is enough to show that time dilation is very real.

But if its real, why wouldn't we notice it happening to ourselves, even if we were travelling close to the speed of light?

Normally, we say that something happens IN THE PLACE WHERE IT HAPPENS!

This is why Hawkins was confused about time dilation. He didn't know if it was actually happening or not.

[Jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Mister Earl

... wow. This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. This is calculating the square root of rhubarb and somehow coming up with potato.

We are living in an age of darkness my friend. Science and human endeavour work in the dark, but when a transgressor looks at the dark itself, it gets frightening.

[Mister Earl]

Originally Posted by Jonesboy

We are living in an age of darkness my friend. Science and human endeavour work in the dark, but when a transgressor looks at the dark itself, it gets frightening.

On the contrary. Science works. Thanks to science you and I can expect to live twice as long as our forefathers. Thanks to science, satellites in orbit can calculate our position on this earth in ways that explorers of years gone would have killed to have been capable of this. Thanks to science, far fewer global man-hours go towards food production, and even basic survival, and more into leasurely activities... and of course, science.

Science works. Pseudoscientific kookery does not.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Jonesboy

But if its real, why wouldn't we notice it happening to ourselves, even if we were travelling close to the speed of light?

Because velocity is relative. We don't travel relative to ourselves; we travel relative to other things.

Quote:

Normally, we say that something happens IN THE PLACE WHERE IT HAPPENS!

Not when we talk about things that are relational with respect to measurement or location.

"Bob went from Chicago to New York." That doesn't happen at any particular place; it happens in the travel between places.

Moreso: "Bob flew from Chicago to New York at 300 mph." The 300 mph isn't relative to Bob but is rather relative to the Earth's reference frame that includes Chicago and New York.

Just because effects are relational or relative doesn't mean they're not real. Bob's movement is measurable and real, even if it's relative to something other than himself.

[Jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Farsight

He made a mistake, but that wasn't it. Everything on the train is indeed in slow motion. That's because the maximum rate of motion is c, and if the train is going very fast, the rate of local motion on the train is noticeably reduced. See the Simple inference of time dilation due to relative velocity on wikipedia. Imagine I'm on the train, holding a parallel-mirror light clock on my lap. It's in a glass box, with a bit of smoke so you can see the light beam. Imagine that you look at me through a telescope as the train sweeps by, panning as you go to keep me in view. You see the light beam going back and forth slowly. The mistake he made was saying time starts flowing slowly on board. Time doesn't literally flow. That's just a figure of speech. I was just talking about this on another thread, it's worth repeating:

A clock doesn't actually measure the flow of time. It isn't some magic chronological gas meter. Instead there's something moving in there, regularly. The inner mechanism of a clock isn't called a movement for nothing. The clock counts the regular cyclic motion and gives you some form of cumulative display that you call the time. That's what a clock does. There is no time flowing inside it, so it isn't literally measuring the flow of time. Whilst we can see the space between our upheld hands and see the motion when we waggle them, and whilst we can derive the time dimension from motion, we have absolutely no scientific evidence to support the fairy tale that time flows like a river. Or the fairy tale that you are continuously travelling forward through time at one second per second. You don't travel through time at all. Any travelling you do is through space. And when you say what time it took, all you're doing is referring to something else moving in space, such as some regular cyclic motion in a clock that is counted and converted into some kind of cumulative display. Like the 22:30 in the corner of my screen. That's all there is to it, it's that simple.

You must check up on what you said. Einstein wanted us to know that no matter how fast we were travelling, we would appear the same to ourselves. And so it is. There can be no such thing as time going slower (or faster) for us. Everything on the train is unchanged.
Things happen where they happen. But it seems that you, and Hawking, and the relatavists, are describing things as they happen as a function of being somewhere else.

I've been saying, indicating, for quite some time now that clocks don't measure time.

[AvalonXQ]

I notice that you quoted my reference to the muon experiment but didn't comment upon it. Are you familiar with this experiment, which demonstrates time dilation quite adequately, and do you have any questions about it?

[Jonesboy]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Because velocity is relative. We don't travel relative to ourselves; we travel relative to other things.


Not when we talk about things that are relational with respect to measurement or location.

"Bob went from Chicago to New York." That doesn't happen at any particular place; it happens in the travel between places.

Moreso: "Bob flew from Chicago to New York at 300 mph." The 300 mph isn't relative to Bob but is rather relative to the Earth's reference frame that includes Chicago and New York.

Just because effects are relational or relative doesn't mean they're not real. Bob's movement is measurable and real, even if it's relative to something other than himself.

Then it would appear that motion is a happening that always happens somewhere else. But the point is, if it happens somewhere else, and it doesn't actually happen somewhere else, then where does it happen?

Where is the real in time dilation? Is the happening of time dilation always somewhere else? There is no such place as always somewhere else.

[Jonesboy]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I notice that you quoted my reference to the muon experiment but didn't comment upon it. Are you familiar with this experiment, which demonstrates time dilation quite adequately, and do you have any questions about it?

I know about particles, cosmic rays, etc living longer because of "time-dilation". I thought it was common knowledge in science so didn't bother checking on it.

[Jonesboy]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Because velocity is relative. We don't travel relative to ourselves; we travel relative to other things.


Not when we talk about things that are relational with respect to measurement or location.

"Bob went from Chicago to New York." That doesn't happen at any particular place; it happens in the travel between places.

Moreso: "Bob flew from Chicago to New York at 300 mph." The 300 mph isn't relative to Bob but is rather relative to the Earth's reference frame that includes Chicago and New York.

Just because effects are relational or relative doesn't mean they're not real. Bob's movement is measurable and real, even if it's relative to something other than himself.

If A and B are moving, then where is the movement? At A? or B?
Obviously at neither A nor B.

[Jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Mister Earl

On the contrary. Science works. Thanks to science you and I can expect to live twice as long as our forefathers. Thanks to science, satellites in orbit can calculate our position on this earth in ways that explorers of years gone would have killed to have been capable of this. Thanks to science, far fewer global man-hours go towards food production, and even basic survival, and more into leasurely activities... and of course, science.

Science works. Pseudoscientific kookery does not.

Of course science works. It puts food on the table. But lets not look too close. Lets just think of our full stomachs. After all, we can eat even if what we do ultimately is organised thrashing about.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Jonesboy

I know about particles, cosmic rays, etc living longer because of "time-dilation". I thought it was common knowledge in science so didn't bother checking on it.

I think you would be better off if you took this approach a bit more often.

[Hokulele]

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/...Unit5/gps.html

[RussDill]

Originally Posted by Jonesboy

incommensurability would describe my monad clock which also generates or unfolds ticks and is alone or which comes to the same thing, is incommensurable.

Can you describe what happens if one of your monad clocks stays on earth, and another travels to a star 10 light years away at 0.99c, and then returns to Earth at the same speed? How much time does each clock claim has passed?

[Mister Earl]

Originally Posted by Jonesboy

Of course science works. It puts food on the table. But lets not look too close. Lets just think of our full stomachs. After all, we can eat even if what we do ultimately is organised thrashing about.

Bollocks. That's not how science works, and you *know* it. That's how kookery works, and is evidenced by your own actions in all of your threads. You're shown wrong, again and again and again, yet you refuse to even consider it.

In short, you're projecting your own faults onto scientists.

[RussDill]

Originally Posted by Jonesboy

Where is the real in time dilation? Is the happening of time dilation always somewhere else? There is no such place as always somewhere else.

Time dilation is just the effect of two objects taking different paths though space-time. Did they both travel the same distance through space? probably not. Did they both travel the same distance through time? probably not. Why is this difficult to comprehend?

[Jonesboy]

[quote=Brian-M;8897251][quote=Jonesboy;8896375]If, now, we bring in a second monad clock, call it clock B, that is travelling more slowly we find that ticks can now be distinguished in one vital way. We still cannot say whether there is a gap between ticks for either of the clocks, but we can determine whether one clock is giving more sets of ticks than another clock.

Quote:

But that last sentence contradicts what you said earlier....


If you can't tell the order in which the ticks are made, with no way to tell which tick came before which, then you can't tell which clock is giving off more sets of ticks than the other.

If you can tell, then the clocks can be used for determining a relative difference in the passage of time, just like any other clock.




In other words, time is passing more slowly for clock A than clock B, just like relativity predicts for normal clocks.



Because our observations are dilated due to relativistic effects. If time is passing 10% slower than on earth because we are moving a significant fraction of the speed of light, our observation of passing time is also 10% slower, and consequently it appears as if that time is moving at it's normal rate for us. It's only when we get back to earth and discover that our clocks have fallen behind that we discover that time was passing more slowly for us.



Movement relative to another object is real. Movement in the absence of any basis for comparison (ie, when no other objects exist) is meaningless.

Relative movement is real. Absolute movement is not.
(Or at least, is effectively not real. Whether or not it is genuinely not real is a question for philosophy, not science.)

Yes, that's right. I had thought of it at the time. That is, how do I compare one set of ticks from clock A with one set of ticks from clock B if I have no means of establishing a set?

This is no problem for the mathematician of course, whose sets are thrown up without the slightest regard for how they arise. I don't want to have a mathematical set, it is an insignificant proposal.

I could speak of the totality of ticks from each clock, for a total gives a terminus or fixed point that can establish subdivisions among the ticks or make sets sets of ticks, perhaps by mapping the ticks between clocks. But that seems a cheat also.

Even if I bring in a third monad clock to relate the ticks from the other two, its ticks will also arise timelessly and be quite useless at forging relationships.

The problem seems that without a sequenced continuum like time then I have no means of making a comparison between the amount of ticks each clock makes. But then even a continuum, like time, won't help me. It doesn't help to say that we can compare the rates at which each clock makes ticks by choosing them within a particular time period, for I still need to provide a real means of establishing the "same" time period, and, that the clocks are in the same continuum.

On the other hand, a third monadic clock will have sets of ticks imposed on it from the other two clocks. It can then compare sets and see which one is travelling faster or making fewer ticks.

Thus, monad or solitary clocks that are making fewer ticks can be said to be travelling faster. We have a new definition of speed and distance. The number of events is correlated to the distance or speed. However, as monads whose events are timeless, there is no change for the clocks themselves. This is an intuitive reason for Einsteins idea that clocks remain unchanged at speed. It would then be impossible to establish a relatavistic effect as any clocks we use will also have timeless ticks. This amounts to saying that a clock that makes fewer ticks is indistinguishable from a clock that makes more ticks. Which in turn amounts to saying that the ticks of a monad clock are not countable events. Which in turn amounts to saying that an event is, by nature, not singular or multiple. This eliminates the monad clock. More later.

[Jonesboy]

Originally Posted by RussDill

Time dilation is just the effect of two objects taking different paths though space-time. Did they both travel the same distance through space? probably not. Did they both travel the same distance through time? probably not. Why is this difficult to comprehend?

My point was, where is the time dilation taking effect, IF it is not happening on the train or from the observers seat? On the speeding train everything is the same. On the observers train, everything is the same.

[RussDill]

Would a photon be your monad clock? Time doesn't pass for a photon, it doesn't change, but it has 'ticks' that can be counted by using the wavelength.

[Jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Mister Earl

Bollocks. That's not how science works, and you *know* it. That's how kookery works, and is evidenced by your own actions in all of your threads. You're shown wrong, again and again and again, yet you refuse to even consider it.

In short, you're projecting your own faults onto scientists.

A new set of myths befall us. Meanwhile, we eat so everything seems fine. New thread, coming soon.

[Jonesboy]

Originally Posted by RussDill

Would a photon be your monad clock? Time doesn't pass for a photon, it doesn't change, but it has 'ticks' that can be counted by using the wavelength.

That's right isn't it, time for a photon we might say doesnt exist (because of time dilation aka), or the number of events it encounters is zero.

Now there's a problem. if there is no time for a photon, how can it have two events like a change in wavelength.
But does the wavelength really change? I know there's a red shift, but that's because of the stretching of space? Does it actually happen.

If it does, then it shows that we can have more than one event for an entity that has zero life span. This would wreck the philosophy of time as used by the scientist.

have to go now for a mo

[RussDill]

Originally Posted by Jonesboy

That's right isn't it, time for a photon we might say doesnt exist (because of time dilation aka), or the number of events it encounters is zero.

Now there's a problem. if there is no time for a photon, how can it have two events like a change in wavelength.
But does the wavelength really change? I know there's a red shift, but that's because of the stretching of space? Does it actually happen.

If it does, then it shows that we can have more than one event for an entity that has zero life span. This would wreck the philosophy of time as used by the scientist.

have to go now for a mo

Wavelength is not a property of a photon that really changes, a photon is a photon is a photon. The Wavelength of a photon depends on your motion relative to the photon, just as momentum depends on your motion relative to an object.

[jsfisher]

Originally Posted by Jonesboy

But if its real, why wouldn't we notice it happening to ourselves, even if we were travelling close to the speed of light?

Didn't I mention that "other guy" thing? Why does this confuse you so?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Jonesboy

Cripes yes. sO - my question IS - is time dilation real or not!?

Um, it depends on the frame of reference.

[Jonesboy]

Originally Posted by jsfisher

Didn't I mention that "other guy" thing? Why does this confuse you so?

Yes but which of us is right. Everything appears fine to me but not to the other guy.

Normally, we look to where something happens to see if it actually happens. But you are saying no - to see if our clock really is slow we have to go somewhere else to find out.

[W.D.Clinger]

Originally Posted by Jonesboy

Originally Posted by jsfisher

Didn't I mention that "other guy" thing? Why does this confuse you so?

Yes but which of us is right. Everything appears fine to me but not to the other guy.

Relativity says you're both right.

That may offend your intuition, but your intuition has been spectacularly unproductive so far.

Relativity's answer is supported by an enormous body of experimental evidence. Your intuition, not so much.

Originally Posted by Jonesboy

Normally, we look to where something happens to see if it actually happens. But you are saying no - to see if our clock really is slow we have to go somewhere else to find out.

Relativity says your sense of "where" will be different, just as your sense of time will be different.

Have you ever considered trying to understand math and science before you reject it?

[ehcks]

Isn't time dilation proven real by how GPS satellites need their clocks set differently than ground clocks to make sure they synchronize properly?

Or is that not good enough evidence?