What form, let's assume a physical body, does time have? Your opinion. - page 61
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
prikolnyjkent:
THAT'S WHY CLOCKS RESPOND TO SPEED, BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO "FEEL" IT.
(correct me if I've missed something in your theory)
It's not the watch that reacts to speed, it's the age of the person. Maybe I misunderstood something due to not having read the whole dialogue about it...
Imagine a day as a percentage of time lived, of days lived... Or a year to years lived. If you're 20, you've lived 1/20 of your life... and if you're 50, you're already 1/50th which is much less than 1/20th... That's the way it is...
That's right, that's right...
The propagandists of the theory of relativity somehow sidestep this subtlety. THE REASON CLOCKS RESPOND TO SPEED IS BECAUSE THEY ARE ABLE TO "SENSE" IT.
That is, there is something ABOUT WHICH the clock moves at its own SPEED... And it is according to THIS SPEED that the watch slows down.
(correct me if I have missed something in your theory)
Clocks in one reference frame are moving relative to other clocks in another reference frame.
And it should be understood that the observer has no possibility to compare readings of "his" and moving clocks several times to understand whether they run equally (he can do it directly only once in the moment of meeting, but it does not give information about presence/absence of a difference of rate of the clock). It is therefore assumed that the observer's reference frame has a single clock and the moving reference frame has many clocks (at least two!) lined up along the trajectory of motion and synchronised with each other in advance, and synchronised precisely in their, the moving SO. But for the observer, the moving clocks are NOT synchronized, since the relative motion leads to a violation of the simultaneity of ticking. Therefore, the observer, in turn comparing his clock with each passing him in the encounter moving clock, notes that the moving clock is slower.
Once again, the logical chain: comparing the rate of time implies at least two measurements => it requires synchronisation of clocks, BUT - synchronisation is not possible simultaneously in two reference frames moving relative to each other => the rate of time in these frames will be different for the observer.
Also. All these conclusions, and even the formulas for Lorentz transformations (the same ones with roots) are logically derived from just two assumptions: 1) about homogeneity and isotropy of space and homogeneity of time (it is general enough assumption) and 2) about presence of some limiting speed of transfer of interactions (and it is already experimentally established fact) (by the way, STR says nothing about nature of this limiting speed; it only numerically coincides with speed of light that follows already from quantum mechanics). Exactly, if these two conditions are met, then the whole of STO follows entirely from them without any reservations. Therefore, if you want to shake positions of TR, it is necessary either to disprove results of experiments confirming existence of a limiting velocity, or to prove presence in these experiments of unaccounted inhomogeneity of space or time or anisotropy of space.
Поэтому, если вы хотите поколебать позиции ТО, то придется либо опровергнуть результаты экспериментов, подтверждающих наличие предельной скорости, либо доказать наличие в этих экспериментах неучтенной неоднородности пространства или времени или анизотропии пространства.
The conversation moves into the realm of theology.
A clock in one reference frame moves relative to another clock in another reference frame.
And it must be understood that the observer has no possibility to compare the readings of "his" and moving clocks several times in order to understand whether they are the same (he can do it directly only once at the moment of meeting, but it does not give information about the presence/absence of a difference in the rate of the clock). It is therefore assumed that the observer's reference frame has one clock and the moving reference frame has many clocks (at least two!) lined up along the trajectory of motion and synchronised with each other in advance, and synchronised precisely in their, the moving SO. But for the observer, the moving clocks are NOT synchronised, as the relative motion leads to a violation of the simultaneity of ticking. Therefore, the observer, in turn comparing his clock with each passing him in the face of the moving clock, notes that the moving clock is slower.
Once again a logical chain: comparing the rate of time implies at least two measurements => for this it is necessary to synchronize the clocks, BUT - synchronization is impossible simultaneously in two frames of reference moving relative to each other => the rate of time in these frames will be different for the observer.
Also. All these conclusions, and even the formulas for Lorentz transformations (the same ones with roots) are logically derived from just two assumptions: 1) about homogeneity and isotropy of space and homogeneity of time (it is general enough assumption) and 2) about presence of some limiting speed of transfer of interactions (and it is already experimentally established fact) (by the way, STR says nothing about nature of this limiting speed; it only numerically coincides with speed of light that follows already from quantum mechanics). Exactly, if these two conditions are met, then the whole of STO follows entirely from them without any reservations. Therefore, if you want to shake positions of TR, it is necessary either to disprove results of experiments confirming presence of a limiting velocity, or to prove presence in these experiments of unaccounted inhomogeneity of space or time or anisotropy of space.
I have a feeling that you and I are not thinking of the same thing.
Here is an example I am going to give now - is it generally from the same point of view as your explanation, or am I talking in principle not about what you are talking about...?
We take two ships.
Put them at the same point in space.
Synchronise their clocks... ...and send one of the ships in a huge circle.
Having circled the circle, the ship returns to the starting point and we synchronise our watches.
Question: will the clocks on the ship be different from the clocks that have not flown the circle?...
Clocks in one frame of reference move relative to other clocks in another frame of reference.
And it must be understood that the observer has no possibility to compare the readings of "his" and the moving clock several times in order to understand whether they are the same (he can do it directly only once at the moment of meeting, but it does not give information about the presence/absence of a difference in the rate of the clock). It is therefore assumed that the observer's reference frame has one clock and the moving reference frame has many clocks (at least two!) lined up along the trajectory of motion and synchronised with each other in advance, and synchronised precisely in their, the moving SO. But for the observer, the moving clocks are NOT synchronised, as the relative motion leads to a violation of the simultaneity of ticking. Therefore, the observer, in turn comparing his clock with each passing him in the face of the moving clock, notes that the moving clock is slower.
Once again, the logical chain: comparing the rate of time implies at least two measurements => it requires synchronization of clocks, BUT - synchronization is not possible simultaneously in two reference frames moving relative to each other => the rate of time in these frames will be different for the observer.
Also. All these conclusions, and even formulas of Lorentz transformations (the same ones with roots) are logically obtained from only two assumptions: 1) about homogeneity and isotropy of space and homogeneity of time (it is general enough assumption) and 2) about presence of some limiting speed of transfer of interactions (and it is already experimentally established fact) (by the way, STR says nothing about nature of this limiting speed; it only numerically coincides with speed of light that follows already from quantum mechanics). Exactly, if these two conditions are met, then the whole of STO follows entirely from them without any reservations. Therefore, if you want to shake positions of TR, it is necessary either to disprove results of experiments confirming existence of a limiting velocity, or to prove presence in these experiments of unaccounted inhomogeneity of space or time or anisotropy of space.
From my life experience and some knowledge, there are very big doubts about homogeneity of time. Rather on the contrary, time is heterogeneous. And about space, I think the same, though not so obvious.
We build logical constructions from postulates which we take as our starting point. But what if the 'reference point' is wrong? Someone once said that light moves at a constant speed. Where is that chronometer or ruler with which the speed of light can be measured? And who has made such measurements himself? The photon dualism was made up... :)
If you take as a "reference point" that the past and the future exist simultaneously, the notion of speed loses its physical meaning altogether. At moment T1 the body is at point A.B.C and after delta T (instant) the body is at point N.P.M. And there is no need to calculate the distance between these points in order to divide by time. For an object "the future has arrived" and in this future it is at the point of N.P.M.
P.S. Anything a person can imagine and believe in is possible!!! - thus he will create that future which will come in an "instant" ;)
There's a lot of focus on time. And no one's interested in what the form is. As if the form was all sort of clear. What, too obscene? Taboo?