# What is the difference between SR and GR?

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.
Don't clocks tick relative to the face of the clock ?

Question; If time slows down for a moving clock, then time is a relative property, and is not a property of the clock but outside of the clock, no?
The faster you go, the slower the clock (time). But a stationary clock ticks faster (time) than a moving clock?
What can we deduce from that? The faster I go the faster I get there (my clock has slowed down) . The slower I go the longer it takes to get there, (my clock has speeded up)?
Time is also a relative phenomenon?

Question; If time slows down for a moving clock, then time is a relative property, and is not a property of the clock but outside of the clock, no?
The faster you go, the slower the clock (time). But a stationary clock ticks faster (time) than a moving clock?
What can we deduce from that? The faster I go the faster I get there (my clock has slowed down) . The slower I go the longer it takes to get there, (my clock has speeded up)?
Time is also a relative phenomenon?

Doesn't the twin paradox mean the time dilation between twin one and two is dependent to the twins ?

I'd also assume this also applies to the clocks themselves and that the clocks experience an aging dilation also proportional to the time dilation .

Is that correct or have I misunderstood ?

Question; If time slows down for a moving clock, then time is a relative property, and is not a property of the clock but outside of the clock, no?
Yes, time is relative...There is no universal now.
The faster you go, the slower the clock (time). But a stationary clock ticks faster (time) than a moving clock?
The faster you go, the slower all time, biological and mechanical will appear to go from the point of view of an outside frame of reference.
What can we deduce from that? The faster I go the faster I get there (my clock has slowed down) . The slower I go the longer it takes to get there, (my clock has speeded up)?
Time is also a relative phenomenon?
What we are able to deduce thanks to Albert and others, is that space and time are a unified framework in which we use to locate events and describe the relationships between them in terms of spatial coordinates [length, breadth and height[ and time, which are variable, and as a result of the observation that the speed of light is invariant, and does not vary with the motion of the emitter or the observer.

Doesn't the twin paradox mean the time dilation between twin one and two is dependent to the twins ?

I'd also assume this also applies to the clocks themselves and that the clocks experience an aging dilation also proportional to the time dilation .

Is that correct or have I misunderstood ?

That appear to have been answered pretty well by James earlier.

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,

Don't clocks tick relative to the face of the clock ?
Bear in mind that when we say "clock" in this context, it doesn't have to be an analogue clock with hands that go around a dial. It can be anything that measures time - your heartbeat, a pendulum, an oscillating quartz crystal, or whatever.

Doesn't the twin paradox mean the time dilation between twin one and two is dependent to the twins ?

I'd also assume this also applies to the clocks themselves and that the clocks experience an aging dilation also proportional to the time dilation .

Is that correct or have I misunderstood
In the twin paradox, one twin really ends up older than the other, once they get back together. The difference, in the end, will depend on which twin accelerated, how long the entire round trip took, and a few other things.

Mark Turner,

Bear in mind that when we say "clock" in this context, it doesn't have to be an analogue clock with hands that go around a dial. It can be anything that measures time - your heartbeat, a pendulum, an oscillating quartz crystal, or whatever.

In the twin paradox, one twin really ends up older than the other, once they get back together. The difference, in the end, will depend on which twin accelerated, how long the entire round trip took, and a few other things.

I agree one twin ends up older than the other twin .

The twin has experienced a physical time dilation not just a measure of time dilation , they aged physically proportional to their reference frame ?

The twin has experienced a physical time dilation not just a measure of time dilation , they aged physically proportional to their reference frame ?
As I said, "clock" means any kind of clock, including the rate at which a human being ages.

The reason that this all sounds so fantastical is because it's not something that we experience in everyday life to the degree that these things are all that noticeable (the workings of GPS being an exception).

Realistically we aren't likely to be travelling at speeds fast enough for this twins paradox to occur. Remember, we aren't likely to be going that fast, and if we did, a lot of time would be spent decelerating to reverse course and come back and land for the twins to be reuniting where the age difference would be noticed. The long decelerating required reduces the age differences as well.

In other words we are picturing a situation that isn't likely to actually happen. In a way it's like talking about what if we were at absolute zero, what if we could travel at the speed of light, what if we opened a box and Schrodingers cat was both alive and dead? What if we were at the singularity in a black hole?

We don't really know what happens at these extreme states and sometimes it's possible to ask a question that turns out to be nonsensical because we don't really know what happens at planck lengths or it can be nonsensical to ask certain questions that would be true if they could occur but they may never occur practically speaking.

What if we were a product of physical bio-chemical matter mathematically assembled into a human pattern?

What if everything we see and looks like mathematical in nature, IS mathematical in nature and deterministically governs the cause/effect phenomenon? Would logically solve a lot of controversy, no?

Watch the self-assembling patterns:

and the resulting patterns after 13.8 billion years of dynamic change.

Last edited:
The reason that this all sounds so fantastical .

It doesn't sound fantasy to me , I am pretty sure I understood it .

Apart from motion , time dilation can occur in relative stationary reference frames according to the frame ?

What if we were a product of physical bio-chemical matter mathematically assembled into a human pattern?

What if everything we see and looks like mathematical in nature, IS mathematical in nature and deterministically governs the cause/effect phenomenon? Would logically solve a lot of controversy, no?

Watch the self-assembling patterns:

What does viewing sound vibrations a nodes have to do with anything being discussed?

It doesn't sound fantasy to me , I am pretty sure I understood it .

Apart from motion , time dilation can occur in relative stationary reference frames according to the frame ?

?

A Caesium clock placed on a different planet or maybe even on the moon , will tick at a different rate than a clock at rest on earth ?

What does viewing sound vibrations a nodes have to do with anything being discussed?
Expanded perspective?

Causality could be fundamentally math based in a sense of equivalent , as numbers only exist of our own conscious state and definitions .
I think there must be some sort of key to the universe , it is a matter of finding the key as simultaneity can give us different views and different interpretations of the universe . I hate the thought of so much diversity and variance in thoughts and math is our one piece of logic that equivalently describes process .

I like your views and thought , thanks for sharing the cool videos .

A Caesium clock placed on a different planet or maybe even on the moon , will tick at a different rate than a clock at rest on earth ?
Yes. That's a general relativistic effect related to gravity.

It turns out that time runs slower in a higher gravitational field, which means that clocks on the surface of the Earth run slower than clocks in orbit, for example. GPS satellites have to take this into account in order to provide an accurate positioning system.

Since the surface gravity on the Moon is different from on Earth, a clock on the surface of the Moon will run a little faster than one on the surface of the Earth, due to this effect.

Causality could be fundamentally math based in a sense of equivalent , as numbers only exist of our own conscious state and definitions .
I think there must be some sort of key to the universe , it is a matter of finding the key as simultaneity can give us different views and different interpretations of the universe . I hate the thought of so much diversity and variance in thoughts and math is our one piece of logic that equivalently describes process .

I like your views and thought , thanks for sharing the cool videos .
Thank you!
Somehow I find the concept of a natural ability for mathematical processing of relative values and functions as the single logical model that is able to explain all the mathematical wonders in the universe, including GR and SR and QM.

One particular fact supports this notion. Mathematical values and functions (patterns) pervade the universe from the very subtle to gross expression in physical reality.
Man's contribution is our recognition of the mathematical aspects and understanding of the relative values and functions. We wrote a few book on it also; "Physics".....
Elements of what became physics were drawn primarily from the fields of astronomy, optics, and mechanics, which were methodologically united through the study of geometry. These mathematical disciplines began in antiquity with the Babylonians and with Hellenistic writers such as Archimedes and Ptolemy.
Ancient philosophy, meanwhile – including what was called "physics" – focused on explaining nature through ideas such as Aristotle's four types of "cause"
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_physics

Watch these important self-forming patterns;

Last edited:
Yes. That's a general relativistic effect related to gravity.

It turns out that time runs slower in a higher gravitational field, which means that clocks on the surface of the Earth run slower than clocks in orbit, for example. GPS satellites have to take this into account in order to provide an accurate positioning system.

Since the surface gravity on the Moon is different from on Earth, a clock on the surface of the Moon will run a little faster than one on the surface of the Earth, due to this effect.