# Can somebody explain time dilation to me please?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by maxjojo, Mar 13, 2017.

Not open for further replies.
1. ### maxjojoRegistered Member

Messages:
41
OK, I will fight in Newton's ''corner''.

What is the rate of time?

Do you suggest it is not immediate?

3. ### originTrump is the best argument against a democracy.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
9,445
No I really don't.
Not true. Example: I took a sip of tea 10 seconds ago (past), I am going to take a sip of tea in 10 seconds (future).

OK now I know what you mean when you say time is immediate and that is fine, but that really has nothing to do with time dilation.

Time dilation example:
I can use time increments to check the rate of change of things, like my heartbeat. My heartbeat is about 65 beats per minute. I am using the time increments of minutess to determine the rate of my heartbeats. If I was going REALLY fast relative to you, I mean REALLY fast, then you would see that according to your clock my heart rate was 1 beat per hour, but I would say my heart rate was 65 beats per minute.

That is the effect of time dilation.

Messages:
9,445

7. ### karenmanskerHSIRIRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
593
Hi Maxjojo: I think what is confusing some folks here is your usage of the terms 'immediate' and 'rate' in reference to time. Can you clarify (define) your usage of these terms. All of the disagreements/discussion here seem to revolve around usage and understanding of each others' terms. My thinking? Rate of time depends on the measurement units utilized - picoseconds vs years, for example, passage of picoseconds appears (relative?), for most folks, to be more instantaneous (absolute) than centuries. Note: depending upon one's ability to perceive (observe) specific increments of time, a point is reached (relatively) where such increments are measureable (e.g., digits on an electronic counter). The 'graininess' (my term) of time may be a useful concept. Fine-grained time (e.g., picoseconds = precise, high-resolution) is mathematically definable as units that are contained within coarser-grained time, but difficult to realize if you are glancing at your watch (minutes=coarser-grained time = lower resolution). Also, 'time' appears (again relative) to be instantaneous depending upon the observer and the causal situation - for example, falling out of an airplane without a parachute may seem interminable (for most observers), but the sudden stop seems immediate! . . . . . well, so much for humorous anecdotes . . . after all, I spent a week here one day! (HAHA!)

Last edited: Mar 15, 2017
8. ### maxjojoRegistered Member

Messages:
41
You are describing timing, you are not thinking about why Newtons absolute time must be correct. You are timing relativistic affects relative to absolute time.

''Timing - a particular point or period of time when something happens.''

You also can not measure future time, you can measure future positions in space but all the measurements exist relative to being in the ''now''.

Quite clearly you are ignoring my question.

I ask for one last time, failing to answer can only be the result of denying the absolute truth.

The rate of time is immediate ? a simple yes or no

9. ### maxjojoRegistered Member

Messages:
41
Immediate means at an instant, your next ''now'' moment is always at an instant away .

I am sure even a child understands what instant or immediate means.

10. ### karenmanskerHSIRIRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
593
Plus! . . . . I have had persons listening to some of my 5 minute lectures complain that the lecture lasted for 3 hours!! . . . . Relative? or Absolute? . . . depends on the frame of reference of the 'observer'

11. ### maxjojoRegistered Member

Messages:
41
If you was on planet X and I was on Planet Y , if our times are both passing immediately, we must be simultaneous and the frames do not even have to be mentioned.

12. ### maxjojoRegistered Member

Messages:
41
Your silence to my question shows me that Newtons ''corner'' has won.

13. ### originTrump is the best argument against a democracy.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
9,445
First of all bravo to you, a couple of days ago you did not even know what time dilation is and now you are talking about relativistic effect and taking a stance on absolute time!

I now think I see the problem. You have an incorrect understanding of Newtons concept of absolute time!

From Wiki on absolute time:
Originally introduced by Sir Isaac Newton in Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, the concepts of absolute time and space provided a theoretical foundation that facilitated Newtonian mechanics.[3] According to Newton, absolute time and space respectively are independent aspects of objective reality:[4][clarification needed]

Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is called duration: relative, apparent and common time, is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion, which is commonly used instead of true time ...

Notice he talks about the flow of time and the duration - no where does he discuss absolute time as being 'immediate' or and 'instant'.

14. ### originTrump is the best argument against a democracy.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
9,445
Wow, you are certainly a quick study, it is amlost like you have thought about this much more than a few days!!!
In just a couple days you have gone from complete ignorance of time dilation to demanding that people answer your questions about your notions of time!!!
No.

15. ### originTrump is the best argument against a democracy.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
9,445
Hey Karen still this person is not a troll.....

exchemist likes this.
16. ### maxjojoRegistered Member

Messages:
41
Your no answer then needs an explanation? denying that time is immediate is like denying there is air.

Are you saying time is slower than immediate?

This explanation from you should be good.

17. ### rpennerFully WiredStaff Member

Messages:
4,832
That is a potential violation of the forum rules. http://www.sciforums.com/threads/ex...from-posting-in-the-science-subforums.144700/

The rate of trajectory-dependent proper time (τ) to with respect to coordinate time (t) (in any one choice of Cartesian coordinates where bodies subject to no external forces move in straight lines with constant velocity or remain at rest) is given by a function of the coordinate-velocity of the trajectory:
$\frac{\Delta \tau}{\Delta t} = \sqrt{ 1 - \frac{1}{c^2} \, \vec{v}^2 }$

$\begin{array}{ll} \left| \vec{v} \right| & \frac{\Delta \tau}{\Delta t} \\ \hline \\ 0 & 1 \\ \epsilon \, c ; \quad \epsilon << 1 & \sim 1 - \frac{1}{2} \epsilon^2 - \frac{1}{8} \epsilon^4 - \dots \\ 10^{-9} c & 1 - 5 \times 10^{-19} \\ 10^{-8} c & 1 - 5 \times 10^{-17} \\ 10^{-7} c & 1 - 5 \times 10^{-15} \\ 10^{-6} c & 1 - 5 \times 10^{-13} \\ 10^{-5} c & 1 - 5 \times 10^{-11} \\ 10^{-4} c & 1 - 5.000000 \times 10^{-9} \\ 10^{-3} c & 1 - 5.000001 \times 10^{-7} \\ 10^{-2} c & 1 - 0.00005000125 \\ 0.1 c & 0.99499 \\ 0.2 c & 0.97980 \\ 0.3 c & 0.95394 \\ 0.4 c & 0.91652 \\ 0.5 c & 0.86603 \\ 0.6 c & 0.80000 \\ 0.7 c & 0.71414 \\ 0.8 c & 0.60000 \\ 0.9 c & 0.43589 \\ 0.94 c & 0.34117 \\ 0.97 c & 0.24310 \\ 0.99 c & 0.14107 \\ 0.995 c & 0.099875 \\ 0.99995 c & 0.0099999 \\ 0.9999995 c & 0.001 \\ 0.999999995 c & 0.0001 \\ 0.99999999995 c & 10^{-5} \\ 0.9999999999995 c & 10^{-6} \\ 0.999999999999995 c & 10^{-7} \\ 0.99999999999999995 c & 10^{-8} \\ 0.9999999999999999995 c & 10^{-9} \\ (1 - \epsilon ) \, c ; \quad \epsilon << 1 & \sim \sqrt{2 \epsilon} \left( 1 - \frac{1}{4} \epsilon - \frac{1}{32} \epsilon^2 - \dots \right) \end{array}$

Since, if you remain at rest in a particular coordinate system, if someone else is moving, your time is the same as that particular coordinate times and so the ratio of elapsed proper time to coordinate time for that someone else looks like it could also be the ratio of their proper time to your proper time, but such a statement hides that we are using the coordinate system's spatial and temporal coordinates and the relativity of simultaneity.

This is analogous to placing two rulers, one parallel to the edge table top and one slanted. Each ruler has markings which mark off its proper length, but the coordinate system induced by the edge of the table top says that the "rate" of slanted inches to unslanted inches is $\sec \theta$ where $\theta$ is the angle between rulers. However, without reference to the table edge (which is analogous to the imaginary coordinate system and not to anything of universal import) we can only say the rulers are tilted with respect to each other and each rulers is equally capable of establishing a coordinate system where it is untilted and that "other ruler" inches pass at a rate of $\sec \theta = \sec - \theta$ per coordinate system inch.

I think your question is motivated by definitions and assumptions which will only impede your education in physics.

In the analogous system "simultaneous" is analogous to picking a particular marking on a particular ruler and drawing a line perpendicular to that ruler that passes through that marking. Since the rulers are tilted with respect to each other, the different definitions of "simultaneous" are also not parallel.

Thus "now" (analogous to the choices of ways to draw lines) has no universal meaning but requires a definition of "at rest" (analogous to picking a ruler to be the "untilted" one), while "here and now" and "there and then" (identifying a specific point) does.

Last edited: Mar 15, 2017
18. ### maxjojoRegistered Member

Messages:
41
Looking to confuse the reader with jargon will not make a wrong a right. Discussing Newton I do not believe is against forum rules unless this as just become selective to me in failure to answer a relative easy question. Well I know how you men like your maths , so here is something for you to ponder over before you ban me.

Any measurement after the value 0, no matter how small of an increment or how fast of a rate, becomes immediate history/memory. The rate of time is immediate, Newton is correct in simultaneous, I wish you good day before my ban as i know you like to ban awkward questions.

19. ### maxjojoRegistered Member

Messages:
41
• Please don't miseducate in the main science forums. Creating Sockpuppets is a violation of forum rules.
Oh and not counting I am a sock . good bye i got bored.

20. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,806
Yes, some of us had worked that out. Others no doubt suspected it, but gave you the benefit of the doubt.

But a good run-through of some of the evidence and arguments, nonetheless.

Oh, and fuck off (nearly forgot

).

Last edited: Mar 15, 2017
origin likes this.
21. ### rpennerFully WiredStaff Member

Messages:
4,832
You came here already confused. Teaching you physics that actually works will naturally require new concepts which requires new language. Rather than invent words, you are being taught proper jargon for the benefit of your daughter.

Advocating for Newton in a problem domain where his physics are inapplicable is antithetical to the values and teaching of science. Thus when you insist that you will “fight in Newton's ''corner''.” that sounds like 1) you have a vested interest in avoiding education in post-1905 physics and 2) that you will promote debunked hypotheses in spite of empirical refutation and available education to the contrary.

One may lead a horse to water, but if that horse refuses to drink and gets in the way of other thirsty horses, then you have a problem if you are in the business of providing reliably clean water.

Questions predicated on your personal assumptions are not simple question and any answer requires you to examine and surrender your mistaken assumptions. You have not carried your fair burden.

There is no need to be a sexist offender about your personal math anxiety. I learned my plasma physics from the late Sally Ride, and that math was far tougher than anything presented in this thread. Physics since Newton has been quite mathy.

Meaningless. There is a whole universe of methodology and preconceptions behind this phrase which your have not fairly explored.
I think you are just trying to say "now" separates the "future" from the "past" and in doing so refuse to surrender your preconceptions about absolute times. In Relativity, there is no "the future" but only "your potential future" which is the forward half of the light-speed double cone centered on your "here and now". The future light cone encompasses all future events of people being influenced by your "here and now" and limits all your future trajectories.

Still meaningless.
Completely wrong.
We only ban awkward posters.

22. ### karenmanskerHSIRIRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
593
Sigh! . . . . . Well, Maxjojo . . . . . Thanks for your participation and the 'good fight' on the forum . . . . looks like this thread is done - thanks to those Sciforums Einsteinian and Feynmanian "wannabes" who are too busy smacking themselves on their own backs to realize their professisonal and humanitarian responsibilities (and blunders). You see Maxjojo, . . . . If you don't know enough about the Standard Model (physics SM) - even though you want to learn more - then you are destined to have your bones picked in the fashionable SM (Sado-Masochistic) scientific tradition that typifies scientists who are afraid to interact with laypersons, lest they (scientists) be challenged and found wanting. Bye for now!

23. ### arfa branecall me arfValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,164
But it doesn't do away with time coordinates; you still have proper time which is supposed to be the time interval as measured by a clock with the same trajectory. That is, a clock at rest everywhere along the trajectory, but moving relatively to some other frame.

p.s. maxjojo: I think what you might be trying to say about Newton's concept of absolute time is that he meant it passed at the same rate everywhere, "immediately".

We understand that he was wrong about time, it isn't universally "passing at the same rate", the rate depends on how the speed of light is measured, or why we accept it's always the same no matter how we measure it. Newton didn't believe he needed to consider the time it takes for the light from a clock to reach him, so he can adjust his own watch, but Einstein says he does need to.

But to account for the speed of light you will need to update a few things, by about three centuries from the time of Newton and the beginnings of the Industrial Age. Today it's routine to measure the distance to some object, like the face of a tower clock (Big Ben, say), using laser rangeing. We accept the results without checking that the laser light is moving at the same rate there and back, because that would be a waste of time, and denote a certain level of ignorance about what you use a laser rangeing system for.

Last edited: Mar 15, 2017