It's about time.

[Age]

All that needs to be done to correct this is just write: The faster you are going, the slower time 'appears' to pass for you. Thus, the reference to 'relativity'.

Not a good start Age. The fact that time does slow down the faster you are going is why the 'Twins Paradox' isn't a paradox.

But does 'time' actually slow down, or is this just a perception?

As ALREADY pointed out. What 'time' actually is is still very much in contention among 'you', human beings.

Also, even your interpretation of a 'paradox' is completely opposite to mine. So, if you are 'trying to' say that what you say about 'time' slowing down the faster you are going has been proven to be true, then that would be a 'paradox'. But, considering just how CLOSED you really are, you will NEVER understand how I define the word 'paradox'.

I'm not going through your entire post, so if there's a couple of points you particularly want me to address, pick them out.

If you choose not to go through my entire post, then this reveals more about 'you', than 'me'.

If you believe you already know enough, and/or choose not to be open to anything else or more, then so be it. It is your choice to be as open or as closed as you want to be.

Now, if you want to address any point I wrote, then you will. But if you choose not to, then please do not. There is nothing in particular that I want you to address. I have absolutely no care in the world if you read any, or nothing, of what I write.

I just addressed what you have written in order to clear up some of the confusion, which you have obtained, and continue to pass on to "others". I also asked you some clarifying questions, which you obviously do not want to address honestly nor openly.

Also, what, to you, is 'relatively' "not a good start" is absolutely a 'great start' to "others". See, some people are open, curious, and interested in learning more and newer thing. Whereas, as proven, you are interested only in your own beliefs and findings ways to "prove" them to be true, right, and correct.

[uwot]

But does 'time' actually slow down, or is this just a perception?

Clocks really do slow down. So does our perception. That is why you would not perceive clocks in your own bubble/inertial frame behaving oddly. It is only when you look at clocks that are moving relative to your bubble that you perceive that they are either faster or slower relative to clocks within your bubble. That is what Hafele-Keating, and every other subsequent experiment demonstrate.

As ALREADY pointed out. What 'time' actually is is still very much in contention among 'you', human beings.

That is hardly news. We humans are a creative bunch and between us have come up with many, many different ideas about time.

Also, even your interpretation of a 'paradox' is completely opposite to mine.

Presumably that is because you are not human.

So, if you are 'trying to' say that what you say about 'time' slowing down the faster you are going has been proven to be true, then that would be a 'paradox'. But, considering just how CLOSED you really are, you will NEVER understand how I define the word 'paradox'.

Oh well.

[Age]

But does 'time' actually slow down, or is this just a perception?

Clocks really do slow down.

Okay. So, if this was an unambiguous and irrefutable fact, then why the necessity to keep 'trying to' "justify" it?

So does our perception. That is why you would not perceive clocks in your own bubble/inertial frame behaving oddly. It is only when you look at clocks that are moving relative to your bubble that you perceive that they are either faster or slower relative to clocks within your bubble.

This is what is 'presumed' to happen, by some people. But, obviously, what is 'presumed' to happen is NOT necessarily what does actually happen.

That is what Hafele-Keating, and every other subsequent experiment demonstrate.

Were 'other' clocks look at whilst in motion, by the ones in different motion?

If yes, then how did this actually take place?

As ALREADY pointed out. What 'time' actually is is still very much in contention among 'you', human beings.

That is hardly news. We humans are a creative bunch and between us have come up with many, many different ideas about time.

Yet here you are insisting that 'time' slows down the fast a clock moves. And, you are presenting it as though it is the absolute and only, objective, TRUTH.

'you', human beings, have also come up with many different ways to 'try to' "reason out" and/or "justify" your already held beliefs and assumptions about what is true and right.

Also, even your interpretation of a 'paradox' is completely opposite to mine.

Presumably that is because you are not human.

No, your 'presumption' is, once again, WRONG.

The reason your interpretation is completely opposite to mine here is because of how the word 'paradox' is actually defined.

So, if you are 'trying to' say that what you say about 'time' slowing down the faster you are going has been proven to be true, then that would be a 'paradox'. But, considering just how CLOSED you really are, you will NEVER understand how I define the word 'paradox'.

Oh well.

[uwot]

Clocks really do slow down.

Okay. So, if this was an unambiguous and irrefutable fact, then why the necessity to keep 'trying to' "justify" it?

I really am not trying to justify it; I am simply telling you what clocks are actually seen to do.

So does our perception. That is why you would not perceive clocks in your own bubble/inertial frame behaving oddly. It is only when you look at clocks that are moving relative to your bubble that you perceive that they are either faster or slower relative to clocks within your bubble.

This is what is 'presumed' to happen, by some people. But, obviously, what is 'presumed' to happen is NOT necessarily what does actually happen.

It is not was is presumed to happen by some people. It is what is seen to happen by people with access to atomic clocks.

That is what Hafele-Keating, and every other subsequent experiment demonstrate.

Were 'other' clocks look at whilst in motion, by the ones in different motion?

If yes, then how did this actually take place?

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

...you are insisting that 'time' slows down the fast a clock moves. And, you are presenting it as though it is the absolute and only, objective, TRUTH.

No, I am presenting it as the finding of experiment.

'you', human beings, have also come up with many different ways to 'try to' "reason out" and/or "justify" your already held beliefs and assumptions about what is true and right.

Yes, and the best one is to perform experiments that either support or contradict an hypothesis.

[Age]

Clocks really do slow down.

Okay. So, if this was an unambiguous and irrefutable fact, then why the necessity to keep 'trying to' "justify" it?

I really am not trying to justify it; I am simply telling you what clocks are actually seen to do.

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

So does our perception. That is why you would not perceive clocks in your own bubble/inertial frame behaving oddly. It is only when you look at clocks that are moving relative to your bubble that you perceive that they are either faster or slower relative to clocks within your bubble.

This is what is 'presumed' to happen, by some people. But, obviously, what is 'presumed' to happen is NOT necessarily what does actually happen.

It is not was is presumed to happen by some people. It is what is seen to happen by people with access to atomic clocks.

But were these atomic clocks, when traveling, ever observed by someone traveling at different speeds?

If yes, then HOW?

Continual deflecting is NOT helping your claims here.

That is what Hafele-Keating, and every other subsequent experiment demonstrate.

Were 'other' clocks look at whilst in motion, by the ones in different motion?

If yes, then how did this actually take place?

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

A nice 'try' at deflection, but it did not work on me. But what "happened pretty much as you described in the article" is NOT what my question was asking.

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.

...you are insisting that 'time' slows down the fast a clock moves. And, you are presenting it as though it is the absolute and only, objective, TRUTH.

No, I am presenting it as the finding of experiment.

But the experiment NEVER found this to be true.

The clocks just showed what happens to them in 'relative' to the direction in which they travel at, which is in 'relation' to the source of what causes what some of 'you', human beings, generally know as and call "time".

But, from those results to then JUMPING TO THE CONCLUSION that 'time' slows down the faster a clock moves is about as absurd and as ridiculous as can be.

As I have previously noted, 'you', human beings, will look for and find just about anything, which you think you can use to concluded your previously held onto assumptions and beliefs about what is true, which can be just based solely off of one other person's words and theories.

Do NOT forget what the experiment was set up for EXACTLY? And, do NOT forget how high a standard some people's words are seen as.

'you', human beings, have also come up with many different ways to 'try to' "reason out" and/or "justify" your already held beliefs and assumptions about what is true and right.

Yes, and the best one is to perform experiments that either support or contradict an hypothesis.

Why do you appear keen to respond to me now, but not before?

If you want to discuss now, then why not then?

I did ask you some clarifying questions in a previous post, and I did point out some of your errors there. But, you alleged that you were not going to read through it. This is partly due to the fact of how CLOSED you are to your own BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS about what is actually true, and partly due to the fact that you are NOT at all able to CLARIFY some of what you say and allege is true.

If you do not clarify what 'time' actually is FIRST, then you can NOT accurately claim that 'time' slows down the faster speed a clock travels at.

Even the experiments, which you mention here, contradict your claims here. But you are NOT able to SEE this fact, YET. You are just to STUCK in your own BELIEFS that you are NOT even willing to consider that this might be true. So, you will just keep looking for and seeing things, which you BELIEVE back up and support your ALREADY held onto BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS here. Just like you do with your other BELIEFS.

[Impenitent]

I've never seen a sun dial in the passing lane...

-Imp

[surreptitious57]

Were other clocks looked at whilst in motion by the ones in different motion ?
If yes then how did this actually take place ?

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
So is the Hafele Keating experiment insufficient for determining time differentials based upon the direction being flown ?
Has the experiment ever been repeated with different results or is every result consistent with the original experiment ?
As no experiment can be performed outside of human perception is it not impossible to determine how much perception influences experiment ?
But since atomic clocks operate independently of human perception cannot the results of the experiment be regarded as true as can possibly be ?

[uwot]

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. 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

[surreptitious57]

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

[Skepdick]

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

With the precision of modern-day atomic clocks the results have been reproduced at room scale with altitude differences of mere 33cm (making for really really expensive altimeters)

https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2 ... onal-scale

With less precise clocks the effects have been reproduced at altitude differences of +- 500 meters (Tokyo's SkyTree tower): https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-020-0619-8

[surreptitious57]

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

[Impenitent]

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

[surreptitious57]

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

[uwot]

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. 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.

[uwot]

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?