Thread: Time Dilation - Modulated Force

1. Member
Join Date
Dec 2018
Posts
67
Originally Posted by grant hutchison
There is no section suited to philosophical enquiry. This forum has a slightly dysfunctional relationship with philosophy, but I'm persuaded that there are good (if regrettable) reasons for that.

Grant Hutchison
Oh, ok. I might have some content I can share. A continuation of this OP, accounts based on empirical observations. New perspectives, but non theoretical

2. Originally Posted by Presocratics
When you bring two clocks together for comparative as per the OP, you dont see two clocks that were slower than each other. One was ahead of the other, expressing a-symmetry.
That is only true if there was some asymmetry in the paths through spacetime of the two clocks. Without that, both clocks will see the other running slow (and they will both show the same elapsed time if brought together again).

3. Originally Posted by Presocratics
Yes, good points. If a free spinning wheel in space is effected by time dilation, its rate slowed and quickened. Superficially this "looks like" acceleration, and accelerating inertial mass is associated with kinetic force. Just let that go by please. I dont want to argue this point. I've got my hands full with the balance wheel
No, let's not just let that go. Let's pull back from the more complex case of a balance wheel and consider profloater's ideal clock, which appears to be simply a frictionless flywheel, along with an observer to count the revolutions. Let's consider clock A which stays put and clock B which is taken on a high speed journey and then returned to the origin. We observe that clock B has shown fewer cycles. My inclination, from reading various sources, is to analyze the phenomenon as a result of clock B having "experienced" less elapsed time in its own frame of reference because of the relativistic attributes of the cosmos. This is the proper time that has been mentioned repeatedly. No physical alteration or perturbation of the clock during the journey. I don't know why it works this way, and for all I know it may be unknowable.

Once again, I am not an expert on this topic, so don't blindly take what I say as gospel. My inclination is to trust the mainstream experts who have exhaustively tested GR over the past century, and found no doable experiment that could contradict it.

I don't think of time dilation as any sort of causative action that physically acts on a moving clock. To me it is merely a description of a phenomenon we have observed in various experiments.

4. Yes. We've grown up understanding intuitively that the space trajectory we follow between two points determines our "proper distance" - that is, we can minimize distance travelled by taking a straight line path, and any other path increases the distance we travel as we go from A and B.
What we need to get used (and which isn't intuitive) is that our proper time depends on the spacetime trajectory we follow between two spacetime events - that is, we can maximize the time we experience if we follow a geodesic between the two events, and any other worldline connecting those two events will experience less proper time.

Fundamentally, it's geometry - just not the sort of geometry we're used to.

Grant Hutchison

5. Member
Join Date
Dec 2018
Posts
67
Originally Posted by Hornblower
No, let's not just let that go. Let's pull back from the more complex case of a balance wheel and consider profloater's ideal clock, which appears to be simply a frictionless flywheel, along with an observer to count the revolutions. Let's consider clock A which stays put and clock B which is taken on a high speed journey and then returned to the origin. We observe that clock B has shown fewer cycles. My inclination, from reading various sources, is to analyze the phenomenon as a result of clock B having "experienced" less elapsed time in its own frame of reference because of the relativistic attributes of the cosmos. This is the proper time that has been mentioned repeatedly. No physical alteration or perturbation of the clock during the journey. I don't know why it works this way, and for all I know it may be unknowable.

Once again, I am not an expert on this topic, so don't blindly take what I say as gospel. My inclination is to trust the mainstream experts who have exhaustively tested GR over the past century, and found no doable experiment that could contradict it.

I don't think of time dilation as any sort of causative action that physically acts on a moving clock. To me it is merely a description of a phenomenon we have observed in various experiments.
Ok, this sounds like a good plan. I think this is the natural progression for this topic. I have some force considerations which might build context for this task. I'll return after some thought

6. Member
Join Date
Dec 2018
Posts
67
Originally Posted by grant hutchison
Yes. We've grown up understanding intuitively that the space trajectory we follow between two points determines our "proper distance" - that is, we can minimize distance travelled by taking a straight line path, and any other path increases the distance we travel as we go from A and B.
What we need to get used (and which isn't intuitive) is that our proper time depends on the spacetime trajectory we follow between two spacetime events - that is, we can maximize the time we experience if we follow a geodesic between the two events, and any other worldline connecting those two events will experience less proper time.

Fundamentally, it's geometry - just not the sort of geometry we're used to.

Grant Hutchison
Sounds like we have refined a test of the OP. Yes, lets see how these force considerations look while compared to the traditional view, as you have laid them out here

7. Member
Join Date
Dec 2018
Posts
67
Originally Posted by Shaula
Take your time - no one is going to badger you for responses or get upset if you just drop the conversation for a bit. It's a forum, not a chore or job.

I'll be honest - I see no need to reconcile the rocket scenario. It doesn't seem impossible, that's how relativity works. It's been tested in all kinds of ways and not failed so far. While logic and intuition are useful tools, at the end of the day science is about making models and testing them until they break. All kinds of counter-intuitive things have been found and tested and so far theory has won out over intuition most times! Except when it didn't and the theory was scrapped or changed. But keep digging into what interests you, this kind of endeavour is its own reward. Just be aware that when it becomes time to convince the scientific community of what you are saying evidence and testability are going to be key*.

* Edit to add: And just to reiterate new theories have their own forum here, as mods have said. And it is a challenging one. Have a look before you post there and think about whether what you want to discuss is ready for the robust challenges you'll get.
I know the tests for relativity are good. I'm still working on my conceptualizations however. I attempt for intuitive understandings, and if the reality stands contrasted to intuitive, then I have the measure against the attempt for intuitive. Perhaps I can understand something about the weirdness having developed this contrast. Yes, the endeavor is its own reward. I'm kind of hooked on this stuff

We have refined a test for my OP. I like it

8. Ok so a simple clock is a solid sphere spinning in vacuum and shielded from radiation and fields except for the gravity field. We can observe it. The bearings are ideal and gimballed. In detail it is perfectly elastic so experiencing hoop stresses due to spin and its shape is therefore distorted. It has mass and angular momentum. In a gravity field gradient it experiences tidal forces which will change its second moment and thus rate. However the question here is not gradient nor acceleration but moving into a higher gravity field where time is dilated. Should i say spacetime is dilated? The forces on the ideal beraings change. Now, i think, the second moment is constant, there is no time dimension in the second moment, it keeps proper time and a remote observer sees it run slow. Now what about the elasticity forces? I think they remain constant. I am ignoring gradient as explained although the supposed black hole definitely has gradient but i can say this sphere is tiny. It is a “spring” but the stored energy is irrelevant to the gravity question. I think!

9. Originally Posted by profloater
Ok so a simple clock is a solid sphere spinning in vacuum and shielded from radiation and fields except for the gravity field. We can observe it. The bearings are ideal and gimballed. In detail it is perfectly elastic so experiencing hoop stresses due to spin and its shape is therefore distorted. It has mass and angular momentum. In a gravity field gradient it experiences tidal forces which will change its second moment and thus rate. However the question here is not gradient nor acceleration but moving into a higher gravity field where time is dilated. Should i say spacetime is dilated? The forces on the ideal beraings change. Now, i think, the second moment is constant, there is no time dimension in the second moment, it keeps proper time and a remote observer sees it run slow. Now what about the elasticity forces? I think they remain constant. I am ignoring gradient as explained although the supposed black hole definitely has gradient but i can say this sphere is tiny. It is a “spring” but the stored energy is irrelevant to the gravity question. I think!
In my opinion you are introducing complications by which your flywheel ceases to be an ideal thought-exercise timer. Let's make the flywheel absolutely rigid for the purposes of this exercise.

10. Originally Posted by Presocratics
I know the tests for relativity are good. I'm still working on my conceptualizations however. I attempt for intuitive understandings, and if the reality stands contrasted to intuitive, then I have the measure against the attempt for intuitive. Perhaps I can understand something about the weirdness having developed this contrast. Yes, the endeavor is its own reward. I'm kind of hooked on this stuff

We have refined a test for my OP. I like it
This thread has gone through enough twists and turns that I had forgotten that your OP question was concerned only with journeys at different depths in a gravitational well, without dealing with relative high speed motion.

Originally Posted by Presocratics
What can be made of the following observation please? I cant find any literature detailing this, if you can point me in the right direction please?

Observation
Imagine I hand you two identical springs, each wound up to different tensions. I ask you to define their internal tension/force states in terms of Hookes Law. You determine that the first spring possesses 1 newton of force/tension. and the second spring contains 2 newtons of force/tension. So thats all pretty straight forward, but now I tell you the history of the springs.......

I inform you that the springs are clock drive mechanisms, and that they were taken from identical clocks that were once synchronized, before being transported to different gravitational environments, near and afar large masses. Time Dilation was allowed duration to accumulate some effect, then the clocks were retrieved for comparative.

It is trivial to note that the clock dials display divergent values of time. However the springs position and its respective force/tension values are also divergent, as your earlier assessment attests. Divergent force values dependent upon gravitational influence, time dilation.

It seams to me that clocks are dynamic instruments, and their system exhibits more information than merely a measure of time. But I cant find any information about this please? Clocks being force driven devices, and so their modulated function must be implicated with modulated force?

My question is, what do you make of this observation? and does somebody know where I might find literature accounting for this please? I havent been able to find anything relevant, or that I can make sense of
My bold. It does not seem that way to me. I cannot think of any reason that the tension of the spring should depend on anything other than the amount it has unwound, which in theory (as I think I understand it) depends only on the elapsed proper time since the clock was wound. Apparently the experts who understand relativity better than I do think the same way, and thus have no motive to do a thought exercise about possible differences in the behavior of different types of timers in the same spacetime journey.

As has been noted before, the best spring-driven chronometers ever built are neither sensitive nor stable enough for any practical test with today's technology.

11. Originally Posted by Hornblower
In my opinion you are introducing complications by which your flywheel ceases to be an ideal thought-exercise timer. Let's make the flywheel absolutely rigid for the purposes of this exercise.
I introduced elasticity because of the central role of Hookes law in the OP and without elasticity any role of a gravity change is hidden. I idealised the frictionless bearings and shielding. I separated the mainspring in the OP to a simple elasticity. I wait to see if better physicists than I can see how gravity might affect elasticity, which is the OP question. I felt balance wheels and mainsprings in clockwork would confuse the experiment.

12. To be honest, the OP question is still not clear to me. Is it about gravity and elasticity? Is it about time dilation and elasticity? Is it about this concept of "modulating force" (a term I still don't understand)?
The fact that we're now seeing the mathematics of relativity described as "the traditional view" convinces me I haven't a clue what's going on here.

Grant Hutchison

13. I do agree, I think I may have assumed my own version of the question which I now think of as a spinning inertia in time dilation. The spin introduces the time dimension but I still think the inertia remains the same assuming the mass and length dimensions have not changed. That last part is where elasticity might come in. The object in a higher g field must shrink and spin faster therefore changing its proper time keeping locally. Or do we say that G is still constant while g has changed?
Using Newton is probably wrong once we consider dilation effects. I have confused myself trying to understand the OP question.

14. Originally Posted by Presocratics
Before you do, please read our rules if you haven't already done so. In particular, rule 13 and 13A apply to the Against the Mainstream forum. I also recommend reading our advice about alternate theories. Both are linked in my signature line below. There are also a few other "sticky" threads worth reading at the top of the ATM forum.

15. It is clear to me that Presocratics, in the OP, is describing a spring whose tension diminishes as the clock it is powering runs between windings. That clearly is a mainspring turning a mechanism at a rate that is regulated by a governor or oscillator of some sort. Beyond that, the presentation becomes imprecise and/or ambiguous, resulting in lack of clarity in describing his inquiry. A couple of cases in point:
It is trivial to note that the clock dials display divergent values of time. However the springs position and its respective force/tension values are also divergent, as your earlier assessment attests.
My bold. If you are just saying the position and tension in one clock simply diverge from the respective quantities in the other clock, that is just as trivial as the divergence of the dials. If you mean something else about position and tension, what is it?
Divergent force values dependent upon gravitational influence, time dilation.
Does gravitational influence in this exercise mean a steep gravitational gradient that stresses the mechanism, or is it merely the effect of being in a deep gravitational well but not having a stressful gradient across the mechanism?

I am not sure what you mean by divergent force values.

16. Originally Posted by Hornblower
My bold. If you are just saying the position and tension in one clock simply diverge from the respective quantities in the other clock, that is just as trivial as the divergence of the dials. If you mean something else about position and tension, what is it.
This is certainly the sense I am getting out of this discussion. I can't shake the feeling that the OP is looking at the difference between the two clocks and perhaps referencing them against some independent and absolute time frame. This then allows the difference to be attributed to the way the different gravity fields act on the springs. I certainly stand to be corrected (I'm enjoying this thread - it re-opened my interest in spring-driven clock mechanisms!), but I simply think it's a matter that there's no more surprise in seeing a difference between the springs in the thought experiment than if they had just stayed together & measured different elapsed times.

17. Originally Posted by Presocratics
Impulse does. Force divided by time

Newtons however are force divided by distance. lift 100grams 1m in the earths gravitational field equates to 1 newton, if I recall correctly. No time component. Doesnt matter how long you take to lift it the 1m, it still amounts to 1 newton of force
May i just correct that. A Newton is a force. The dimensions are mass.distance divided by time squared. Force times distance moved is work done (in joules) a lifted weight has potential energy like a wound spring . The rate of work done is called the power in Watts. A watt is a Joule per second. Thisconfusion of yours may help untangle the question.

18. Member
Join Date
Dec 2018
Posts
67
Originally Posted by profloater
Ok so a simple clock is a solid sphere spinning in vacuum and shielded from radiation and fields except for the gravity field. We can observe it. The bearings are ideal and gimballed. In detail it is perfectly elastic so experiencing hoop stresses due to spin and its shape is therefore distorted. It has mass and angular momentum. In a gravity field gradient it experiences tidal forces which will change its second moment and thus rate. However the question here is not gradient nor acceleration but moving into a higher gravity field where time is dilated. Should i say spacetime is dilated? The forces on the ideal beraings change. Now, i think, the second moment is constant, there is no time dimension in the second moment, it keeps proper time and a remote observer sees it run slow. Now what about the elasticity forces? I think they remain constant. I am ignoring gradient as explained although the supposed black hole definitely has gradient but i can say this sphere is tiny. It is a “spring” but the stored energy is irrelevant to the gravity question. I think!
You have a broader set of understandings than I do, factors that act on matter.. Do I need bearings? Hornblower and I were talking about adopting a one part clock, just a balance wheel spinning in gravitational void. But this doesn't get us around the tidal forces.

We could just pretend tidal forces dont exist for our ideal clock. Or, we could build our balance wheel so that tidal forces are minimal. Or we could pretend to have the tech to flatten spacetime just a little across the span of our device.

A balance wheel designed to minimize tidal force might be cup shaped, concave side facing towards the gravity source. So all parts are the same distance from the gravity source. But the disk has thickness. But we make it very thin to minimize this effect. You see where I'm going with this? If there is a minute affect remaining, we have a spacetime flatterner to iron out the wrinkles in space. Does this clock work for you?

Our device has no recorder, so we place a local observer to count revolutions, so we can later compare.

Let us keep working on our ideal clock, till we're all on the same page.

I will also share some perspectives I have been working on, which I am going to be asking of our ideal clock once its built and running. I'm going to need help with that too, because I want my statements and logic and defined measures to qualify as empirical or close too it. We just want to talk about the system that we observe before us, "all theory and assumptions put aside". We just want to describe in terms of what we see and what measured values we can literally place.
Last edited by Presocratics; 2018-Dec-22 at 03:11 AM.

19. Member
Join Date
Dec 2018
Posts
67
Originally Posted by Hornblower
This thread has gone through enough twists and turns that I had forgotten that your OP question was concerned only with journeys at different depths in a gravitational well, without dealing with relative high speed motion.
Yes, the OP forms the consideration as gravitational time dilation. Motion is obviously equivalent, but we want to limit the number of considerations to simplify the thought experiment. And so we can stand a chance of arriving on the same page with minimal effort spent. We can always apply our conclusions to the wider scope of motion afterwards.

Originally Posted by Hornblower
My bold. It does not seem that way to me. I cannot think of any reason that the tension of the spring should depend on anything other than the amount it has unwound, which in theory (as I think I understand it) depends only on the elapsed proper time since the clock was wound. Apparently the experts who understand relativity better than I do think the same way, and thus have no motive to do a thought exercise about possible differences in the behavior of different types of timers in the same spacetime journey.
Thats fine. We are all starting out with pre-formed ideas. Thats part of the test, to see how our current views compare from a different perspective. I'm going to try to prime a different perspective. A test perspective that takes the modulated force value "described in the OP" at face value. I'll try at least

Originally Posted by Hornblower
As has been noted before, the best spring-driven chronometers ever built are neither sensitive nor stable enough for any practical test with today's technology.
Sensitivity isnt just an issue if we're envisioning an extreme gravitational influence, near and afar a black hole for example. Any time keeping instrument would serve this scenario.

20. Member
Join Date
Dec 2018
Posts
67
Originally Posted by profloater
I introduced elasticity because of the central role of Hookes law in the OP and without elasticity any role of a gravity change is hidden. I idealised the frictionless bearings and shielding. I separated the mainspring in the OP to a simple elasticity. I wait to see if better physicists than I can see how gravity might affect elasticity, which is the OP question. I felt balance wheels and mainsprings in clockwork would confuse the experiment.
Yes, however what I said before. Hornblower and I have attempted to form a simpler minimal ideal clock. What do you think of using the rotating disk in gravitating void?

21. Member
Join Date
Dec 2018
Posts
67
Originally Posted by grant hutchison
To be honest, the OP question is still not clear to me. Is it about gravity and elasticity? Is it about time dilation and elasticity? Is it about this concept of "modulating force" (a term I still don't understand)?
The fact that we're now seeing the mathematics of relativity described as "the traditional view" convinces me I haven't a clue what's going on here.

Grant Hutchison
I understand. I havent shared all my considerations, so my reasons for this inquiry arent made clear. So the fault isnt yours. This OP started out as an information gathering effort. But now its a conversation I'll try to develop it further.

I'm going to say a few things, and they're going to sound a little odd. But the test is not whether or not they sound odd, its about whether or not they are true. If they are true, then we move through and test consecutive statements, and build a perspective this way.

22. Member
Join Date
Dec 2018
Posts
67
Originally Posted by PetersCreek
Before you do, please read our rules if you haven't already done so. In particular, rule 13 and 13A apply to the Against the Mainstream forum. I also recommend reading our advice about alternate theories. Both are linked in my signature line below. There are also a few other "sticky" threads worth reading at the top of the ATM forum.
Thank you. I will look over those details. I dont have any plans for an ATM though. perhaps another time

23. Member
Join Date
Dec 2018
Posts
67
Originally Posted by Hornblower
It is clear to me that Presocratics, in the OP, is describing a spring whose tension diminishes as the clock it is powering runs between windings. That clearly is a mainspring turning a mechanism at a rate that is regulated by a governor or oscillator of some sort. Beyond that, the presentation becomes imprecise and/or ambiguous, resulting in lack of clarity in describing his inquiry. A couple of cases in point:

My bold. If you are just saying the position and tension in one clock simply diverge from the respective quantities in the other clock, that is just as trivial as the divergence of the dials. If you mean something else about position and tension, what is it?
The OP doesnt go into the reasons of interest. It just identifies a divergent value. The divergent values of clock systems due to gravitys time dilation effect, are not exclusive to its measure of time. The spring possesses a divergent value also, defined empirically by Hookes Law. Is it more than merely an observation though, is it nontrivial? well it needent be more than an observation to justify its scientific credentials. I suggest that even though I referred to a dials display of time dilation as being "trivial to say" that does not mean to say it is a trivial observation. That speaks towards it as a common observation. Whether Force modulation is a trivial phenomenon or not being yet answered, however it is certainly not a common observation. If google search is an indication.

Seams everybody I show this too can see it. But nobody is familiar with it. I dont take it for granted that it is uninteresting just because others havent focused on it much. Thats not really a useful measure in my book. In anycase, I'll try to open a door that makes this seam a little more interesting for you. Its just a matter of perspective. I've had time to turn this around within my head, so perhaps you can help me qualify some ideas

Originally Posted by Hornblower
Does gravitational influence in this exercise mean a steep gravitational gradient that stresses the mechanism, or is it merely the effect of being in a deep gravitational well but not having a stressful gradient across the mechanism?
In essence, I'm interested in this as an extension of time dilation effect. Purely its association with GR spacetime. Not gradient, weight or stresses etc.

Originally Posted by Hornblower
I am not sure what you mean by divergent force values.
Two springs of different tension states defined by Hookes Force Law. The divergent value is associated with or caused by time dilation effect, as per the OP, this association is my interest. I'll explain my thoughts further, but a question you might ask yourself is "how does a clock measure time, within context that force drives clocks?" and or "what is time, within context that force driven devices measure it"?

Can you check this logic for me please?
"If forces drive clocks, then do clocks measure force"? Sounds odd, I know. But give it some thought.
Dont think of this within terms of kitchen utility. We're seeking questions and prospective answers for the fundamental associations? although you certainly could take the springs from the clock and use them to build a set of kitchen scales that measure force. What does it mean that we use the same mechanical device "spring" to measure weight force, and drive clocks measure of time"? The same mechanism drives both devices, but put the spring behind a clock dial and we never think in terms of forces. And scales never lead us to think of time.

This helps put a twist on perspective.
It is easy to think of a train in terms of being a force driven machine. Engine driving gears, connected to a shaft that drives wheels, that pulls a heavy load. In a sense a train can be used to measure force, or more commonly force is a means to describe a train.
But consider the similarities between a clock and a train? The clock has an engine which drives gears and shaft, that drives the dial which stands analogous to a wheel.
Clocks and trains are more or less the same type of system as each other “while forgiving the balance wheel to stead the rate”. Trains are like massive clocks, and clocks are like miniature trains. We are not accustom to thinking of their system similarities, day to day untility doesn’t demand that of us, but the conceptual divide is largely arbitrary, the divide doesn’t exist. Drive a train at a steady rate, and place a dial on the wheels. Its a clock. And in turn, a clocks function is entirely a consideration of forces, and so in an abstract but very literal sense, must be a measure of forces.

What use does this general concept have? For this inquiry it is useful to think within terms of how we measure time, and what we use measures of time for within our everyday lives and sciences. Boiled down to a most fundamental statement, "we are using force driven systems, to measure force driven systems". I believe this is a universal truth, but I would like to have this notion tests on the basis that all universal systems are force driven.

If I haven’t made my point clear within this message, then please allow me another attempt?

24. Member
Join Date
Dec 2018
Posts
67
Originally Posted by AGN Fuel
This is certainly the sense I am getting out of this discussion. I can't shake the feeling that the OP is looking at the difference between the two clocks and perhaps referencing them against some independent and absolute time frame. This then allows the difference to be attributed to the way the different gravity fields act on the springs. I certainly stand to be corrected (I'm enjoying this thread - it re-opened my interest in spring-driven clock mechanisms!), but I simply think it's a matter that there's no more surprise in seeing a difference between the springs in the thought experiment than if they had just stayed together & measured different elapsed times.
Welcome to the conversation

However, the divergence of the dials due to time dilation effect is very non-trivial. And by extension, why would any further associations or implications of it be considered trivial? I think the discipline here is to ensure we are not taking anything for granted. Taking times process for granted, while its process is shrouded within mystery?

How does time command matters forces, that modulate a clocks rate? or is this even the right way to frame the question? Trying to answer the question becomes an informative exercise, because it forces us to think within terms of cause and effect. Forces drive the dial which measures time. So does time have to command the forces, that enable clock mechanisms to serve as a measure of time?

I hope the questions themselves sound sane, even if you doubt the prospect they will serve as a useful inquiry. We judge their utility having tried, and not before.

25. Member
Join Date
Dec 2018
Posts
67
Originally Posted by profloater
May i just correct that. A Newton is a force. The dimensions are mass.distance divided by time squared. Force times distance moved is work done (in joules) a lifted weight has potential energy like a wound spring . The rate of work done is called the power in Watts. A watt is a Joule per second. Thisconfusion of yours may help untangle the question.
Thank you for this. I'll think on how time squared is incorporated within this formula.

The dimensions are mass.distance divided by time squared.

26. Originally Posted by Presocratics
Thank you for this. I'll think on how time squared is incorporated within this formula.

The dimensions are mass.distance divided by time squared.
From force equals mass times acceleration.
In a spring we store energy as stress, elastic in this case. Stress is the same as pressure, force per unit area. Dimensions: mass divided by length and time squared.
Of course most springs are designed with bending stress involving tension, compression and shear stresses.
The forces stored involve the distortion of crystals where atoms are held together by interatomic forces and these are where your thought experiment leads.

27. Originally Posted by Presocratics
The OP doesnt go into the reasons of interest. It just identifies a divergent value. The divergent values of clock systems due to gravitys time dilation effect, are not exclusive to its measure of time. The spring possesses a divergent value also, defined empirically by Hookes Law. Is it more than merely an observation though, is it nontrivial?
You seem to think that the divergence between the springs of the two clocks is somehow different from the divergence in the positions of the hands. I can't see why you would think that.

The divergence in the springs is a trivial observation, if you know that the the clocks display different times.

Whether Force modulation is a trivial phenomenon or not being yet answered, however it is certainly not a common observation. If google search is an indication.
It is not a common observation because, as already explained, it is not a possible observation.

Two springs of different tension states defined by Hookes Force Law. The divergent value is associated with or caused by time dilation effect, as per the OP, this association is my interest. I'll explain my thoughts further, but a question you might ask yourself is "how does a clock measure time, within context that force drives clocks?" and or "what is time, within context that force driven devices measure it"?
A clock of the sort you are describing measures time by converting the change in tension of the spring into the positions of the hands. The two things are just different aspects of the same thing. So they are obviously affected equally by time dilation.

"If forces drive clocks, then do clocks measure force"? Sounds odd, I know. But give it some thought.
I suppose you could consider the position of the hands of this clock being a representation of the amount the force in the spring has been reduced. Not really odd, and not particularly useful.

And scales never lead us to think of time.
You could hang a clepsydra from a spring balance and watch the weight change as the clock ran down.

What use does this general concept have? For this inquiry it is useful to think within terms of how we measure time, and what we use measures of time for within our everyday lives and sciences. Boiled down to a most fundamental statement, "we are using force driven systems, to measure force driven systems". I believe this is a universal truth, but I would like to have this notion tests on the basis that all universal systems are force driven.
You might be able to make that argument for a specific type of clock. But certainly not all. And the clocks that are used in practice to measure time dilation in experiments do not involve any forces at all.

If I haven’t made my point clear within this message, then please allow me another attempt?
I still have no idea what the point is.

28. Originally Posted by Presocratics
However, the divergence of the dials due to time dilation effect is very non-trivial.
What do you mean by "non-trivial"? Do you mean not intuitive? It is extremely trivial once one knows about special relativity.

How does time command matters forces, that modulate a clocks rate? or is this even the right way to frame the question? Trying to answer the question becomes an informative exercise, because it forces us to think within terms of cause and effect. Forces drive the dial which measures time. So does time have to command the forces, that enable clock mechanisms to serve as a measure of time?
These questions seem fairly meaningless to me. What does it mean for "time to command forces"? Many things change through time, but does that mean that time "commands" them to do it? More than just confusing cause and effect, this just seems like a bizarre anthropomorphisation of time. Does time "command" planets to orbit the sun or "command" entropy to increase? Could they rebel and refuse to accept the commands? Is time taking its orders from something else?

29. As in my first post the clock part of the question is a red herring, the force is to overcome friction. If you forget clocks and think about stored force, then does dilation have any effect? This becomes a quantum effect question about the force transmitting particles of the standard model. IMO.

30. Originally Posted by Presocratics
I understand. I havent shared all my considerations, so my reasons for this inquiry arent made clear. So the fault isnt yours. This OP started out as an information gathering effort. But now its a conversation I'll try to develop it further.

I'm going to say a few things, and they're going to sound a little odd. But the test is not whether or not they sound odd, its about whether or not they are true. If they are true, then we move through and test consecutive statements, and build a perspective this way.
Why not just spit the whole thing out? The Socratic method may work face to face, but it's a disaster on asynchronous media like this forum.
I guarantee you that "saying a few things that sound a little odd" will get you stuck in endless discussion before you ever get to your "Big Reveal", and will most likely end with an involuntary move to ATM, at which point things will really hot up.

Grant Hutchison