It's about time.

[RCSaunders]

...
It’s about time.
...

Nice concise overview of relativity as understood today. There are just two comments I have. They are not criticisms, just obsverations. I'll quote what I'm addressing.

On the face of it, it sounds ridiculous; why should the speed you are going at make any difference to how much time passes? Surely time and motion are two completely different things, so how on earth could one affect the other?

Without motion there is no time. Time is one of the metrics by which motion is described or identified, the other is velocity. Motion is nothing more than change of position. In a static universe there would be neither time or velocity. Both velocity and time are measured (like all measurement) by means of some arbitrary unit of measure. The unit of measure for both time and velocity is some standard motion (non-changing, i.e. not accelerated, motion). Velocity measures how much the position of a thing changes (moves) relative to a standard motion. Time measures the difference in the rate of change of position relative to a standard motion. But time and velocity cannot be separated because they are mutually determined, and is why velocity is described as distance over time (v=d/t), and time may be described as distance over velocity (t=d/v).

I know I'm not saying anything that is not obvious to you, but it isn't obvious to everyone. Time is not a thing, it is only a way of describing a relationship between things that move. It is very much the same as the way we describe position. Position, like motion, is only a relationship. Just as a think only moves relative to something else, positions can only be identified relative to other positions, and every position has two metrics, direction and distance, both measured by some arbitrary standard direction and some arbitrary standard distance.

There is no absolute position and no absolute motion and therefore no absolute measures of these things, no absolute direction, distance, velocity, or time. It is in that sense that I think it is meaningless to say time changes.

One of the things that is most often misunderstood about Special Relativity is that it is about what you see, rather than what really is the case. Remember that no one can tell how things are actually moving, all that anyone can say is how much something is moving relative to a point of their choosing. And while it is only relative to that point that we can tell that time is moving faster or slower, it is a demonstrable fact that time really is affected by speed.

That is exactly what I think you cannot know. Just because something moves faster or slower does not mean, "time," changed. If a clock runs slower, it is the behavior of the measuring device that changed, not the standard by which the clock was meant to measure time. If the standard changed, the actual unit of measure, rather then the behavior of physical devices, it would change everywhere. Even looking at how it is described (clocks run slower relative to their velocity) puts the lie to the notion that time itself changed. If a clock runs slower because time changes, and not because of the physical behavior of the clock, it would mean time was running faster--more events could occur in the same amount of clock measured time because real time was faster.

[RCSaunders]

As an aside, I happen to be in Wick, in Northern Scotland. My daughter is cycling from John O'Groats to Lands End, ya see. Anyway, mooching around town I came across this plaque stating that Alexander Bain, 'inventor of the electric clock' had worked in the building. Having said in the article that electronic clocks were invented in the 1930's, I thought I'd better check it out. Turns out that Bain invented a clock that keeps a pendulum swinging with electromagnetic pulses (turning a magnet on and off in plain English). 'Electric' not 'electronic' ya see?

I wonder if the difference is that clear. When did things driven by electricity change from mere electric to electronic. Was it the introduction of the vacuum tube? Were the first radios electric or electronic? Some early radio transmitters were merely big sparks with no tubes, not even a diode, and somewhat coil tuned (like big magnets). Early "digital" telephone stepping and reed switches (dialed telephones) were entirely based on magnetic relays and switches. Lot's of things to consider: dc vs ac, analog vs digital, etc.

It's an interesting question.

[Dubious]

I realize it's more complicated but being simple-minded it always seemed that on the whole as space measures distance between objects whether they be stars, planets or quarks, time measures the period between events, accelerated or not, whether they be intra-process or inter-process causing time & space to be joined at the hip balancing itself out. With nothing happening neither time or space need to exist which seems to imply there's at least always one incipient event happening proceeding from an intra-process to a universe of inter-processes assuming inflation takes place. An absolute Nothing generates neither time or space almost as if it were a Black Hole forever consuming itself through a process which, in effect, creates Nothing.

Nothing is far more weird than any universe.

[uwot]

'Electric' not 'electronic' ya see?

I wonder if the difference is that clear.

To be honest, it wasn't to me.

When did things driven by electricity change from mere electric to electronic.

Turns out the main difference is that electronic implies decision making - logic gates and whatnot. Not an expert in this field, so if anyone knows better, please share.

[Paradigmer]

It’s about time.

What about for everyone else though? Well, time passes for them at a rate that is dependent on how fast they are moving compared to the speed of light. But remember, however fast you are moving, it feels the same as if you were standing still. Stones fall at your feet and the pulse of light in your light clock bounces straight up and down. It is everyone else who, relative to you, is moving. And that has an apparently paradoxical consequence.

Very well articulated post, and you are right on.

Forumers with such an understanding for the essence of time are very rare.

It indeed has an apparently paradoxical consequence; am on the same page with you on this!

I would like to add that the contempory modern physics was an adulterated version of the original Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

IMO it was the Einsteinians who had made Einstein the figurehead of a relativistic theory that posits time is transformable, which was not really endorsed by Einstein at all.

I had a few articles that is relevant to your this post, and that include most of the things you had mentioned. These articles have much errors and I could not articulate them as well like you did. Many had told me they were hard to read. However, I would like to share them with you, and I believe reading these articles should be like a walk in the park for you.

Time dilation reviewed with UVS

Critique of the scientific method on its intrinsic flaws

p.s. Very glad to have found people like you.

[Age]

In the particular case of the Hafele Keating experiment it happened pretty much as I described in the article

You OBVIOUSLY did not answer my actual clarifying question because if you did Honestly then you would have had to say No
And then this would confirm that NO experiment has demonstrated what you are claiming here

Now if you want to look into this further and delve deeper into this then I am more than willing to

I definitely want to look into this further and clear up some confusion here

Great, what confusion, exactly, do you have?

So is the Hafele Keating experiment insufficient for determining time differentials based upon the direction being flown ?

I have previously said that the direction of travel around the earth is what affects what clocks will read, and, the faster one is traveling, depending in which direction they are traveling, then this will make the effect greater. This is because of what the 'thing', itself, 'time' is in relation to, exactly.

Now, in saying that, the direction, and the speed, in say the "twins paradox" has NO affect on clocks.

All of this can be explained. That is; if anyone is truly interested in having a discussion.

Has the experiment ever been repeated with different results or is every result consistent with the original experiment ?

I do not know. Has there?

The result/s is NOT in contention, from my perspective. The assumption of what the result/s conclude/mean is what is in contention, from my perspective.

My two clarifying questions still stand:
Were other clocks looked at whilst in motion by the observers in different motion ?

If yes, then how did this actually take place ?

As no experiment can be performed outside of human perception is it not impossible to determine how much perception influences experiment ?

If EVERY one is 'perceiving' the EXACT SAME thing, then the question; 'How much perception influences experiments?' could be sufficiently enough answered.

Also, what has this got to do with what I have been asking, and saying?

But since atomic clocks operate independently of human perception cannot the results of the experiment be regarded as true as can possibly be ?

I have NEVER disputed the results. And, I have continually stated this. What I dispute is what these results conclude.

To me, the assumption that the results MEAN that 'time' slows down the faster a clock travels is just plain WRONG. This is based, mostly, on what 'time', itself, actually IS.

[Age]

But, as far as I am aware, clocks are NOT seen to do this, from the context of what you are claiming.

Again Age, I am not making any claim; I am reporting the results of a very famous experiment, which has been repeated, refined and confirmed.

You are also saying/claiming OTHER THINGS as well.

Clocks moving at different speeds tick at different rates.

Yes we are AWARE what you BELIEVE is true. HOWEVER, have you, and/or "others", ever considered that the ticks at different rates when clocks move at different speeds could be for some OTHER reason than just the one, which you BELIEVE is true?

If you wish to challenge that, you need to examine the results and methodology of the experiment and point out any flaws you perceive.

I have already 'examined' the results and methodology of that experiment. This is HOW I found the flaws I perceive.

I have also WANTED to point out THE flaws, which I have observed/perceived, BUT I have YET to find ANY one who WANTS to discuss this. This is because most people BELIEVE that they ALREADY KNOW what the results MEAN.

This would be a reasonable place to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele–Keating_experiment

For a person who openly admits that they are not going to go through what I write entirely, but then wants to inform me of where would be "a reasonable place to start", to some, this is an extremely unreasonable thing itself. If you REALLY WANTED TO KNOW what I wish to challenge, then you would have gone through ALL of what I wrote, so that you could then SEE what I am actually challenging.

You state and insist that "time does slow down the faster you are going", and, you claim that this is 'a fact'. I have asked you what 'time', itself, is.

If you can not or will not explain what 'time' is, to you, then NO one has ANY clue what 'it' is you insist and claim actually "slows down the faster you are going".

[Age]

So not only has the experiment been repeated but it has generated more accurate results as the clocks used were more advanced
And because of such replication it can be stated according to the evidence that the speed of clocks is directly affected by gravity
That is to say that the stronger the gravitational effect is the slower time will be and vice versa which confirms general relativity

The effects are because of what 'time' is in relation to, and NOT because of what is claimed in the days of when this is being written.

This can be, and will be, PROVEN.

[Age]

Caesium atomic clocks accurate to I second every 33 billion years [ 9.4 x I0 - I9 ] [ wikipedia ]

"Accurate" to 'what', EXACTLY?

[Age]

just thinking... if clocks run differently according to speed, would the same hold true for clocks underwater? I know that people can only go so deep, but what of clocks?

-Imp

Well, people move slower in water because they're not fish. However...

Pressure is a gravitational effect so the principle would still apply
For the deeper the clock the slower time would be and vice versa

According to General Relativity, it's nothing to do with pressure. It is simply the deeper you are, the stronger the gravity. It gets complicated if you go REALLY deep; in fact no one knows what would happen, because we don't know the cause of gravity and at the centre of the Earth, there would be negligible gravitational pull in any direction.

Is it "a fact" that NO one knows the cause of gravity?

Or, is is A FACT that you are NOT YET aware of ANY one who knows the cause of gravity?

The answer to these two questions can be completely opposing.

But if Earth were the size of an apple, even the Marianas Trench wouldn't puncture the skin, so it's not really an issue. Clocks slow down the deeper you go because the gravity is greater, which is General Relativity. They also speed up slightly because being closer to the axis, they are rotating at a slower speed, which is Special Relativity.
Hafele-Keating et al have to take both those effects into account, as does anyone designing GPS.

[Age]

...
It’s about time.
...

Nice concise overview of relativity as understood today. There are just two comments I have. They are not criticisms, just obsverations. I'll quote what I'm addressing.

On the face of it, it sounds ridiculous; why should the speed you are going at make any difference to how much time passes? Surely time and motion are two completely different things, so how on earth could one affect the other?

Without motion there is no time. Time is one of the metrics by which motion is described or identified, the other is velocity. Motion is nothing more than change of position. In a static universe there would be neither time or velocity. Both velocity and time are measured (like all measurement) by means of some arbitrary unit of measure. The unit of measure for both time and velocity is some standard motion (non-changing, i.e. not accelerated, motion). Velocity measures how much the position of a thing changes (moves) relative to a standard motion. Time measures the difference in the rate of change of position relative to a standard motion. But time and velocity cannot be separated because they are mutually determined, and is why velocity is described as distance over time (v=d/t), and time may be described as distance over velocity (t=d/v).

I know I'm not saying anything that is not obvious to you, but it isn't obvious to everyone. Time is not a thing, it is only a way of describing a relationship between things that move. It is very much the same as the way we describe position. Position, like motion, is only a relationship. Just as a think only moves relative to something else, positions can only be identified relative to other positions, and every position has two metrics, direction and distance, both measured by some arbitrary standard direction and some arbitrary standard distance.

This is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of how absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer.

Also, will you elaborate on and explain further what this 'standard' thing is in relation to 'motion'?

See, when ALL these words are defined in a particular way, then working out how ALL-OF-THIS actually works becomes far easier and simpler, and then explaining and understanding ALL-OF-THIS becomes far simpler and easier as well.

There is no absolute position and no absolute motion and therefore no absolute measures of these things, no absolute direction, distance, velocity, or time. It is in that sense that I think it is meaningless to say time changes.

Great point.

One of the things that is most often misunderstood about Special Relativity is that it is about what you see, rather than what really is the case. Remember that no one can tell how things are actually moving, all that anyone can say is how much something is moving relative to a point of their choosing. And while it is only relative to that point that we can tell that time is moving faster or slower, it is a demonstrable fact that time really is affected by speed.

That is exactly what I think you cannot know.

It also appears to contradict its self.

That is; If 'time' is only relative to the observer, and where they are positioned, in motion, then HOW can there be a demonstrable fact that 'time', itself, is REALLY affected by speed?

Combine this with the fact that 'you', human beings, have YET to come up with an agreed up definition of what 'time' actually is, in the days of when this is being written, then HOW could you demonstrably show or prove that an undefined thing is really affected by speed?

Just because something moves faster or slower does not mean, "time," changed. If a clock runs slower, it is the behavior of the measuring device that changed, not the standard by which the clock was meant to measure time.

ANOTHER great point.

If the standard changed, the actual unit of measure, rather then the behavior of physical devices, it would change everywhere.

AGAIN, ANOTHER great point.

And the actual 'unit of measure' for what is, generally, known as 'time' is said to NOT change at all. So, AGAIN, ANOTHER contradiction.

Even looking at how it is described (clocks run slower relative to their velocity) puts the lie to the notion that time itself changed. If a clock runs slower because time changes, and not because of the physical behavior of the clock, it would mean time was running faster--more events could occur in the same amount of clock measured time because real time was faster.

Besides this.

Clocks "run" or "tick" slower, or faster, only in RELATION to observers, in only RELATION to direction of travel and in RELATION to speed, and, in RELATION to the unit or 'thing', which the word 'time' is in RELATION to, EXACTLY.

AGAIN, absolutely EVERY thing is relative, or in RELATION to the observer.

[Age]

I realize it's more complicated but being simple-minded it always seemed that on the whole as space measures distance between objects whether they be stars, planets or quarks, time measures the period between events, accelerated or not, whether they be intra-process or inter-process causing time & space to be joined at the hip balancing itself out. With nothing happening neither time or space need to exist which seems to imply there's at least always one incipient event happening proceeding from an intra-process to a universe of inter-processes assuming inflation takes place. An absolute Nothing generates neither time or space almost as if it were a Black Hole forever consuming itself through a process which, in effect, creates Nothing.

Thee Truth IS, in fact, far more simpler, than more complicated.

It is that "simple" Mindedness, which has led you to SEE things far more accurately here than "others" can.

Nothing is far more weird than any universe.

There is absolutely NOTHING weird about this, One and only, Universe.

The simplicity of what thee Universe ACTUALLY IS, and how It actually works, is very JUST, normal and ordinary.

[AlexW]

Clocks moving at different speeds tick at different rates. If you wish to challenge that, you need to examine the results and methodology of the experiment and point out any flaws you perceive. This would be a reasonable place to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele–Keating_experiment

Lets – only for a moment – consider that the ticking of the clocks are not affected by the speed of travel – lets imagine that they tick at the same rate no matter what velocity they are travelling.

Considering the above lets propose the following experimental setup:

There are three cars, each carrying a simple clock.
At first, all cars travel at the same speed - 50km/h -, then, at point X, car A increases its speed from 50 to 100km/h, car B keeps on travelling at 50km/h and car C reduces its speed to 25km/h
When reaching point Y, car A stops, waits for car B to arrive, which also stops and together they wait for car C to arrive - when they have all arrived at point Y they keep on travelling at 50km/h and the clocks are compared.

This essentially corresponds to the Hafele–Keating experiment, only that we are not going in a circle, but simply in a straight line from X to Y (and further on at aligned speed).
To reflect the setup of the Hafele–Keating experiment, car B has to carry the "stationary" clock, car A travels faster (travels eastward) and car C slower (travels westward) than the "stationary" clock.

Now, as the clocks – as we proposed at the beginning – all tick at the same rate, no matter the speed of the car, to achieve the same result as the Hafele–Keating experiment – to measure any time dilution at all - the clock in car A has to stop when the car is at rest - if it wouldn't stop when waiting, then it would simply keep on ticking and not show any time difference to car B when it arrives -, the same is true for car B, it has to stop until car C catches up. Car C never stops and thus the clock in car C simply keeps on ticking (at the same speed as all the other clocks).

The above is of course only an illustration - leading us to what comes next:

Imagine that in “reality” there are no objects travelling from X to Y but only energy vibrating in certain frequencies, then the standstill at point Y is actually not happening only at Y, not only at the end of the journey, but simply a billion billion times during the journey (each time only for an extremely tiny fraction of a second).
The higher the frequency, the more often standstills happen (the more often there will be turnaround points), which results in less time/ticks only because of a shorter distance travelled (and not because "time" itself was compressed) by the high frequency car A compared to the low frequency cars B and C (because more frequent turnaround points mean less distance spent travelling “forward” while still arriving at point Y – but via a “shorter”/compressed route).

Time dilution might be the result of the time spent "waiting" (in absolute standstill) also resulting in a shorter relative distance travelled.

If we could measure distance travelled just as precisely as we can measure time, we might actually find that the higher the speed the shorter the distance between 2 points.

[uwot]

Is it "a fact" that NO one knows the cause of gravity?

Not only is it a fact that no one knows the cause of gravity, it is a fact that no one can know the cause of gravity. It's a rigid sense of 'to know' but if you take it to mean that only one explanation is possible, I do not see how every conceivable alternative could be ruled out. The science part of gravity is careful measurement and the design of mathematical formulae that account for the measurements. You cannot know that future measurements will not find something that current understanding cannot account for.
So to summarise:
You don't know that you know everything about how gravity behaves.
Even if you do, you don't know that your explanation is the only one that adequately accounts for that behaviour.

Or, is is A FACT that you are NOT YET aware of ANY one who knows the cause of gravity?

Well, taking a looser meaning of 'to know', it could be that I am aware of someone who 'knows' the cause of gravity; it could be that my suspicion that gravity is refraction is correct; yay for me, if so. On the other hand, it could be that whatever you think causes gravity is correct; if so, yay for you. All we 'know' with any confidence is that we can eliminate any hypothesis that doesn't account for the careful measurements of scientists.

[uwot]

Very well articulated post, and you are right on.

Thank you.

Forumers with such an understanding for the essence of time are very rare.

In fairness, even the professionals can't agree.

IMO it was the Einsteinians who had made Einstein the figurehead of a relativistic theory that posits time is transformable, which was not really endorsed by Einstein at all.

Okay. So what in your view did Einstein think about time?

I had a few articles that is relevant to your this post, and that include most of the things you had mentioned.

Congratulations. The research and commitment are impressive. I can see why people find it difficult. A good exercise is to imagine explaining it to a twelve year old. Could you do that with your vortex theory?