What form, let's assume a physical body, does time have? Your opinion. - page 60
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
"...from the position of the third observer M2..." - all the problems with this approach to the question are BECAUSE of the observers.
And I'm talking about SPACE.
" Amomentary snapshot" of space should be understood as the ACTUAL STATUS OF POINT PARAMETERS,INDEPENDENT OF THE VISITOR'S PERCEPTION. I think you admit that SPACE could REALLY not care about all observers put together.
Now for the ships.
Take your two ships. Put them at the same point. Synchronize their clocks... ...and send them off in opposing directions in a huge circle.
After N years... the two ships meet at one point on this circular path... and the astronauts - put their watches on the table.
The question is, can we tell from this clock whether the speeds of the ships were the same, or whether one of them was moving faster than the other?
if the accelerations and therefore the speeds of the ships were different during the journey, the clock readings will be different. otherwise the clock readings will be the same, i.e. the ships will meet exactly at the diametrically opposite point of the trajectory circle
Please clarify WHAT, in your theory, is slowing down the clock: acceleration... or velocity?
Please clarify WHAT, in your theory, is slowing down the clock: acceleration... or speed?
Acceleration is necessary to make the ships' trajectory curvilinear so that these ships meet in a circle and do not fly apart forever, otherwise it will not be possible to directly compare the clock readings of the two ships. if it is possible to get information about the clock readings of any ship, then we can do without any acceleration necessary to bring the ships closer together.
What form does time have, as a physical body, let's say?
If we measure time by some physical quantity, then maybe it must also have some form?
I would like to hear your opinion.
This is a question from the category of misunderstanding of terms. I will try to clarify, just paraphrasing your question....
What form does the length of the body have? Can you answer?
we are three dimensional and perceive the world in three dimensions only,length height,width....
we cannot see time, mass, density etc. we do not have sense organs that perceive this information and consequently we can evaluate, compare and so on (i.e. define its form)
H.E. The world is much wider than its three-dimensional model, and there is evidence of this
The acceleration is necessary to make the ships' trajectory curvilinear, so that they meet each other moving in a circle and are not separated forever, otherwise it will not be possible to directly compare the readings of two ships. If it is possible to get information about any ship's watch, then we can do without any acceleration necessary to bring the ships closer together, but this requires the third ship to have high speed, catching up one of our two ships apart from the other.
So, the clock (the speed of physical processes in the ship) is slowed down by the SPEED.
Well, now for the decisive one: do you recognize ABSOLUTELY the result of studying the clock readings when my ships fly by in a circle, or will you state that one cosmonaut will see one readings, another one - another, and an independent observer - another?
(and by the same token, could you please answer how the clock will know its speed (to calculate the necessary deceleration), IF IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to look at...? - everything is relative)
So, the clock (the speed of physical processes in the ship) is slowed down by the SPEED.
Well, now for the decisive one: do you ABSOLUTELY accept the result of studying the clock readings when my ships fly in a circle, or would you argue that one astronaut will see one reading, another one another, and an independent observer another one?
(and by the same token, could you please answer how the clock will know its speed (to calculate the necessary deceleration), IF IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to look at...? - everything is relative)
Please clarify WHAT, in your theory, is slowing down the clock: acceleration... or speed?
One ship can describe a circle with diameter of 1 km in a year, another one with radius of a million km in the same time. At the arrival point, of course, the clocks will be different: the ship that flew faster will be lagging behind. If the circles are the same, and the total flight time is the same, but the law of motion along them is different (for example, one flew at a constant speed, and the other flew slightly slower the whole way, but accelerated at the end), then the integral along the trajectory will give an unambiguous answer.
(and by the same token, could you please tell me how the clock learns its speed (to calculate the necessary deceleration) IF it has absolutely nothing to look at...? - everything is relative)
The clock, however, recognises nothing. The difference in the flow of time is a property of the environment, and it is perfectly symmetrical. For example, if you and I are in reference frames moving relative to each other, then for me your clock runs slower than mine, and for you, on the contrary, yours runs faster. And that is exactly what we will see as we fly past each other. If we want to stop and measure our watches, at least one of us will have to change his or her speed. As a result, his reference frame will no longer be inertial and the flow of time will change. From the moment our speeds equalise, the rate of time on both clocks is the same for both of us.
In short, in non-inertial systems, such as a flying ship or something moving in a circle, it is no longer possible to count by STR, GTR works here.
The clock, however, recognises nothing. The difference in the flow of time is a property of the surrounding space, and it is perfectly symmetrical. For example, if you and I are in a reference frame that is moving relative to each other, then for me your clock is slower than mine, and for you, on the contrary, yours is faster. And that is exactly what we will see as we fly past each other.
I remember reading that when a train was whizzing past a platform at near-light speed, a source of light in the carriage and an observer on the platform, I thought that if we swap the source of light and the observer, the "time dilation" would not be on the train, but on the platform. Such is the paradox.
I remember reading about a train whizzing past the platform at near-light speed, a light source in the carriage and an observer on the platform, and thinking that if you swap the light source and the observer, then the "time dilation" would not be on the train, but on the platform. Such a paradox.
I agree! if you watch the train rushing towards you from the platform against a motionless background, it will seem faster, but if you watch the train from the platform, the effect will be the same, slowed down! the same as from the train!
The clock, however, recognises nothing. The difference in the flow of time is a property of the surrounding space...
That's right...
The propagandists of the theory of relativity somehow skirt this subtlety. CLOCKS REACT TO SPEED BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO 'FEEL' IT.
That is, there is something ABOUT WHERE the watch moves at its SPEED... And it is according to THIS SPEED that the watch slows down.
(correct me if I have missed something in your theory)