Types Of Clocks Which Have Actually Measured Time Dilation

[mrg]

He would not have even known those names if you didn't mention them.

 

I was careful make sure they couldn't be found on a search.   Can you tell me an honest reason for then making sure they are?  No?  Didn't think so.

 

I know these two guys.   Sensible people do not invite wreckers into their house.

[OceanBreeze]

I was careful make sure they couldn't be found on a search.   Can you tell me an honest reason for then making sure they are?  No?  Didn't think so.

 

 

 

Is that supposed to make sense?

 

 

I know these two guys.   Sensible people do not invite wreckers into their house.

 

 

The why did you mention them? And how is SP re-mentioning them any worse?

 

You are not making any sense.

[mrg]

Oh, how tiresome,  Do grow up, OB.

[OceanBreeze]

Oh, how tiresome,  Do grow up, OB.

 

If it so tiresome, GTFO. As far as I can tell, most of what you do is antagonize people.

[AmishFighterPilot]

It doesn't move "in one direction only" so much as it "moves". So even if a given frame moves opposite to another, its defining space-time by ensuring cause always preceeds effect.

 

Its like how a car can "reverse" its course, but the car still follows action-reaction. So forward and backward are totally subjective concepts that require 3-dimensionality. So, in a sense "time conflicts" occur when two objects collide. Their reference frames must sychronized into the same polarity of flow. There's no need for this flow to always go the same way as long as the frames of reference don't interact with another that is in conflict with it. How they all maintain relative direction is easy: all reference frames are connected. Matter is what gives 3-dimensionality to space-time, and thus in a sense defines it, but standard model suggests space-time can exist without matter, but lacks any reference frames(and thus any flow of or conflict of "time")

[mrg]

If it so tiresome ...

 

Yeah, yeah, "and yo' momma."

[AmishFighterPilot]

Has anyone ever built a precision clock based on carbon decay?

[mrg]

Has anyone ever built a precision clock based on carbon decay?

 

No.   I don't think anyone has built a clock based on any radioactive decay process.

Edited May 27, 2017 by mrg

[AmishFighterPilot]

Wouldn't it be possible to launch tiny probes that return so we could actually test the twins paradox. Load probes with things that decay, launch them under different parameters and test the decay uopn return. Has anyone done anything remotely like this?

[mrg]

. Has anyone done anything remotely like this?

 

Yes.  They have observed the variations in timing of atomic clocks in orbit.

[AmishFighterPilot]

I applaud your curiosity. However I would urge you to proceed with crystal clarity as to what you mean when you introduce concepts and also to be clear about how your ideas relate to current science. I honestly think you would do better to learn more before trying to construct - however you choose to do that. Things are very carefully thought through in science. Resist the temptation to "make sh1t up", as one of my correspondents on another forum use to put it.

Fair enough. I don't disagree with Einstein or Bohr. They used brilliant techniques to accurately model things they both couldn't fully explain the mechanism of. They both had questions about the universe till the days they died.

 

If you try observe something moving relative to you up to the maximum©, how would you observe or accurately track their course? Like those really old low-fps silent films; the snapshots they take have apparent gaps, but they still form logical progressions that the mind stitches together. The apparent state of the universe from one perspective is captured in series, but the adjoining data is lost. The higher the frame rate, the less data lost. Funny thing is though, no matter how fast we make the recording, there never seems to be an absolute, indivisible moment along the progression of the motion. The video technique developed recently for recording light waves still shows the smooth flow with no clearly estimable transitional moments along its wavefront

[exchemist]

Wouldn't it be possible to launch tiny probes that return so we could actually test the twins paradox. Load probes with things that decay, launch them under different parameters and test the decay uopn return. Has anyone done anything remotely like this?

There is a famous result that corroborates special relativity by observing the rate of decay of muons (I think it is) formed in the upper atmosphere by interactions with cosmic rays. We know from terrestrial lab experiments what the decay rate of these muons is, when they are moving slowly relative to the lab observer. But we find that the proportion of the cosmic ray - generated muons that has decayed by the time they reach the earth's surface is less than what would be expected from their "normal" decay rate. The difference is consistent with time appearing - to a terrestrial observer - to run more slowly for the muons, due to the relativistic speeds at which they travel.

 

Furthermore, you can use this fact to imagine how this fits in with the Lorentz contraction of length. What the muons see, from their own perspective, is time running as normal BUT the distance between the upper atmosphere and the ground is reduced, compared to what a terrestrial observer would measure.

 

So Lorentz contraction from one viewpoint balances time dilation from the other viewpoint, making everything consistent, if counterintuitive.

Edited May 27, 2017 by exchemist

[AmishFighterPilot]

How would you establish "aging" in something like pure iron in a vacuum?

Edited May 27, 2017 by AmishFighterPilot

[exchemist]

How would you establish "aging" in something like pure iron in a vacuum?

With great difficulty, since most isotopes of Fe are very stable.

[AmishFighterPilot]

With great difficulty, since most isotopes of Fe are very stable.

So essentially, pure, stable substances don't experience time unless they interact with something that does.

 

Lets say you have pure gold atoms in a vacuum at absolute zero, inside a shielded satellite moving in space relative to Earth at extreme speeds, high acceleration. Does that gold experience "time"? If so, can they be said to experience dilation of time?

Edited May 28, 2017 by AmishFighterPilot

[mrg]

So essentially, pure, stable substances don't experience time unless they interact with something that does.

 

Lets say you have pure gold atoms in a vacuum at absolute zero, inside a shielded satellite moving in space relative to Earth at extreme speeds, high acceleration. Does that gold experience "time"? If so, can they be said to experience dilation of time?

 

This is inane.

[AmishFighterPilot]

Then why respond?