What is the difference between SR and GR?

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Mark Turner, Jul 5, 2019.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    Bingo!
     
    Mark Turner likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Mark Turner Banned Banned

    Messages:
    350
    Thank you .

    In respect to aging , observers age relative to their own reference frame ?

    Thanks in advance .
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    Yes.
     
    Mark Turner likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    Huh? Observers will age relative to any reference frame (which term strictly assumes SR), just not generally at the 'natural' or proper time rate. Idiotically often stated as 'one second per second'. Which is logically meaningless, but folks mostly understand the intent behind it.
     
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I wouldn't take too much notice of some of the emotion shown by one particular member...He's hurting some ...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Time always passes at one second per second in every frame of reference. To add to that, time dilation is only evident when observing another frame, with reference to your own. And of course as mentioned earlier, SR is simply a special case of GR, probably the two most revealing theories of the nature of the universe we inhabit.
     
  9. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    Nonsense. There is proper time, and relative time. Pop-sci 'one second per second' is common parlance but nothing more than a meaningless ratio of unity. Equivalent in meaning(less) to 'one meter per meter' or 'one Kg per Kg' and so on. Your lack of precision, and general understanding, shows.
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    Nup, wrong again q-reeus, or at best just silly uncesssary emotional pedant.
    Time passes at one second per second in each and every frame. Take it easy cobber!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    Contending with a parrot. Should resist the urge more often I suppose. But that only emboldens. Living with a curse - I'll try and be positive and think 'character development'.
     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    Or you could simply just stop acting like a fool?
     
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    IMO, GR describes a fundamental property of relative coordinates in the spacetime geometry, whereas SR describes the actual observable (measurable) effects of this universal relationship, such as the Doppler effect....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    httpd://www.quora.com/What-is-the-speed-of-time-in-seconds-per-second
    What is the speed of time in seconds per second?
    In your own rest frame? 1 second per second.

    If you are comparing the time between two different rest frames (i.e. comparing the rest frame time between me and an observer near a black hole, then you need to revert to Relativity:
    I would be actually more concerned with your lack of sensibility and reasoning with your own muddled view on such things as GR, conspiracy nonsense, and mythical beliefs.
     
  15. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    Easy to play that argument from authority game. Here, I'll raise you one - and a better presented one at that:
    web.mit.edu/bskow/www/research/sec-per-sec.pdf
     
  16. Mark Turner Banned Banned

    Messages:
    350
    Isn't SR specifying that time is proportional to aging in individual reference frames ?


    Thanks in advance .
     
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    I'm not playing games q-reeus, and as mentioned before, to try your pedant with me after so many erroneous concepts, on different areas of science is rather ironic at best. But hey, you keep having fun with your myths!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Are you speaking of how the apparent passage of time feels to go by quicker as one gets older to how it passes as we are younger? If so, I'm pretty sure that such perceptions are more or less due to our body clocks and the gradual slowing of our systems and metabolism as we get older to what it is when younger, particularly as a child, yearning the apparent lengthy passage of time between one Xmas and the next. The facts are though that nothing actually changes as far as time is concerned and its passage at one second per second.
     
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    Ask Michael345. He has given this perspective considerable thought.
     
  19. Mark Turner Banned Banned

    Messages:
    350
    I was specifically considering the given answers , the rate of time measured in any frame being proportional to the aging .
     
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    Yep! A Mayfly lives 20 hrs, before it dies! Just long enough to mate and lay eggs while dying in the water. On land the eggs don't hatch at all. How relative do you wanna get?....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2019
    Mark Turner likes this.
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,559
    Mark Turner:

    A better explanation for time dilation doesn't involve this "one second per second" business.

    It is a general observation that "moving clocks run slow". What that means is that if you compare the time measured by two identical clocks, one stationary relative to you and one that is moving relative to you, then the moving one will appear to be running slower than the stationary one.

    The thing that strikes people as particularly puzzling about this, once they get over the notion that time doesn't run at the same rate for everybody, is that the same thing works in reverse. That is, if A and B both have identical clocks and are moving at a constant velocity relative to one another, then according to A, B's clock will be running slow, and according to B, A's clock will be running slow. Of course, if they ever get back together to compare the elapsed times on their respective clocks, they must both agree on the elapsed times on both clocks (which need not be the same). But the "getting back together" part will usually involve one or both of them accelerating, and accelerating can mean that the symmetry between the two observers is lost.
     
    Mark Turner likes this.
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    The one second per second apparent passage of time is always how one perceives the passage within his own frame is the important message James.
     
    Mark Turner likes this.
  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,559
    I guess it's just another way of saying that time always appears to work "normally" in one's own rest frame. It's only when you look at some other guy's clock that you see time dilation. For example, his clock ticking off half a second for every second your clock ticks might be expressed as "half a second per second", perhaps, but if we're going to use that kind of language we must keep in mind that we're really comparing two different clocks.
     
    Mark Turner likes this.

Share This Page