# Thread: Time Dilation - Modulated Force

1. Member
Join Date
Dec 2018
Posts
67
Originally Posted by profloater
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.
We have discussed the role of the balance wheel and hair spring being the time keeping device. And the intimate relationship the clocks drive springs shares with the balance wheel. I introduced the subject via the drive spring because it provides a simple observation, measurement. I'm not very familiar with the term redherring. Can you be more specific please?

The clocks balance wheel and hair spring are not for the purposes of overcoming friction. It is a force driven device, and an increased or decreased frequency has the same implication as laid out in the OP. This was discussed early within the thread. The drive spring operates in lock step proportionality with the balance wheel in terms of motion, position and force, and records a meaningful legacy of ticks. Accumulates data for our two clock comparative measure.

In a nut shell, Pendulum action is dependent upon kinetic energy, and a springs restoration force. The comparative of our two clocks indicating a different number of ticks has occurred, each tick corresponding to a value of force expressed, we arrive at divergent values of force of our two clocks. Taken at face value this is modulated force associated with time dilation.

It has been said that this would obviously be the case, and trivial to note, because time causes it. But that speaks as though we know what times process is, when we dont. That is taking a lot for granted.

You say "a quantum effect". Yes, of course.
Springs are understood in terms of quantum behavior. But springs also drive clocks that measure time, a parameter of GR. Clock activity is modulated by GR, time dilation. That modulation caused by GR corresponds to the principle of this OP, a springs modulated expression of force. We can talk about the possibility this modulation of force isnt real, but it sure does appear to be an empirically derived measurement, an observation. So we're not even theorizing anything here. This is merely a description of the device and its observed behaviors within terms of QM and GR, within context that clocks are a single device that corresponds to both these fundamental theories. Clocks are made of QM parts, atoms, and so can be thought of as a study "in" QM. While clocks also measure the parameter of time, and so can be thought of as providing a study "of" GR. One device, a split personality.

If two things correspond to a third, then does that third thing instruct something of how those two things correspond to each other? Do clocks serve in this respect, as part of an association triangle?

This is not an effort in theory. The idea is to avoid theory, but still progress an inquiry based upon observables and empirical measurement. It might seam childishly simple, but I like the logics and believe them useful to some degree. Fun to think about at least.
Last edited by Presocratics; 2018-Dec-22 at 01:49 PM.

2. Member
Join Date
Dec 2018
Posts
67
Originally Posted by grant hutchison
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
haha lol, yes. I mean things like this.

"Force drives clocks, therefore clocks measure force"

The justification is that clock function is entirely a consideration of forces. Or forces entirely define a clocks function. either way.

This statement is for conceptual purposes, and not practical utility. Just a realization thats usefully pointed out for my OP

I dont believe anything of what I said is theory, so I dont see why its content would be objectionable. I'm just describing regular stuff in a different way. I mean, even the main point of my OP, modulated force. People are saying it is obvious, but at the same time almost nobody has spoken about it. Google the concept and you will see. Or maybe its like Columbus egg, obvious once you've heard it, but not before.

I believe it is merely a new perspective on conventional thoery. Recognizing a correspondence between force and time "within conventional theory" yields insights like.........

Clocks are made of QM parts, atoms, and so can be thought of as a study "in" QM. While clocks also measure the parameter of time, and so can be thought of as providing a study "of" GR. A single device that corresponds to both these fundamental theories

Again it is an obvious statement. But I havent come across this line of reasoning elsewhere. Maybe it does exist, then I would like to find it
Last edited by Presocratics; 2018-Dec-22 at 02:14 PM.

3. Member
Join Date
Dec 2018
Posts
67
Originally Posted by Strange
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..
Well, clock springs are usefully defined by parameters of force, and dials measure parameter of time. So they are different properties and defined by different units. However, they do strictly correspond to each other. How would you suggest they are the same, within scientific terms please?

4. Originally Posted by Presocratics
haha lol, yes. I mean things like this.

"Force drives clocks, therefore clocks measure force"
I don't think that is true, even for the sort of mechanical clocks you are describing. You could say that the clock measures how the tension (or energy) in the spring as changed. And the change in force exerted by the spring changes in the same way. So both the indication of elapsed time and the change in the spring are consequences of the release of energy by the clock mechanism.

People are saying it is obvious, but at the same time almost nobody has spoken about it.
Many things are obvious but not worth talking about.

Recognizing a correspondence between force and time "within conventional theory" yields insights like.........
Insights like what?

And there is no general correspondence between force and time, even if you can contrive one for some particular case.

Clocks are made of QM parts, atoms, and so can be thought of as a study "in" QM.
So is everything else. But QM has no significant effect on mechanical clocks, other than the rather obvious fact that one can describe properties of the materials based on the interactions of the atoms in the material. But trying to discuss a clockwork mechanism in terms of electron energy levels and Fermi-Dirac statistics, is about as useful as trying to explain the execution of a complex computer program in terms of transistors turning on and off.

5. Originally Posted by Presocratics
I believe it is merely a new perspective on conventional thoery. Recognizing a correspondence between force and time "within conventional theory" yields insights like.........
So what insight are you claiming to have had? You seem to be going round and round the houses with vague connections between "modulated force" (which you've yet to define), time and gravity, which seem at best trite and at worst misleading.
Just tell us the insight you want to share. Please.

Grant Hutchison

6. Presocratics, if you do not wish to get into theory, you can forget about discussing the behavior of a conventional spring-powered clock in a relativistic journey through spacetime for the time being. As has been pointed out, the best spring-powered mechanical clocks ever made are neither sensitive nor stable enough for any test we are capable of doing with today's technology. The best we can do is a thought experiment in which we apply general relativity. That is Theory with a capital T.

The more this thread goes on, the more your presentations cloud rather than clarify whatever issues were raised in the OP. In recent posts you have addressed the possibility that steep gravitational gradients could distort parts of the clock and perhaps degrade its accuracy as a timekeeper if ignored. This is something that can be analyzed by Newtonian means, and it does not address the effects of placing the clock at different levels in a deep gravitational well. After all, a position near the event horizon of a billion-solar-mass black hole is very deep in such a well, but the gradient across a small object such as a typical clock is vanishingly slight.

In your OP you appeared to be envisioning the possibility that the clock is giving more information than just the elapsed time that it ran. Please tell us what sort of information you are envisioning, and how it might apply to the experiment.

While you are at it, please scroll back to post 75 where I asked two explicit questions. Can you give me short answers rather than long walls of text?

Once again, this is theory, whether you like it or not.

7. Back to the OP. I am going to keep on seeking clarification of what you are thinking here, and not let myself be diverted by complicated digressions.
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.......
Since you mentioned Hooke's Law, let's complete this statement by saying that we observe that the second spring is wound up twice as far from its fully relaxed state.

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.
It is trivial to note that the dials display different amounts of movement. It may or may not be trivial to conclude that different amounts of time elapsed.
However the springs position and its respective force/tension values are also divergent, as your earlier assessment attests.
Once again, you did not mention position at that point. I completed it for you.

If the observation that the dials have turned different amounts is trivial, then the observation that springs have unwound by different amounts is also trivial, because the dials and springs are mechanically linked the same way in both clocks. In accordance with Hooke's Law, the springs have different amounts of tension. No mystery here.
Divergent force values dependent upon gravitational influence, time dilation.
This is sparse and vague, but it appears to indicate that you know something about general relativity and see it as a reason for the differences.

Since I still have no idea what sort of "more information" you are envisioning here, I cannot help you search for appropriate information.
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. If by "this observation" you mean the observation of the aforementioned differences between the two clocks, I attribute those differences to the lesser amount of elapsed proper time for the one that was deep in a gravitational well for a while, in accordance with General Relativity. There is plenty of literature out there on this topic.

8. Member
Join Date
Dec 2018
Posts
67
Originally Posted by Hornblower
Presocratics, if you do not wish to get into theory, you can forget about discussing the behavior of a conventional spring-powered clock in a relativistic journey through spacetime for the time being. As has been pointed out, the best spring-powered mechanical clocks ever made are neither sensitive nor stable enough for any test we are capable of doing with today's technology. The best we can do is a thought experiment in which we apply general relativity. That is Theory with a capital T.

The more this thread goes on, the more your presentations cloud rather than clarify whatever issues were raised in the OP. In recent posts you have addressed the possibility that steep gravitational gradients could distort parts of the clock and perhaps degrade its accuracy as a timekeeper if ignored. This is something that can be analyzed by Newtonian means, and it does not address the effects of placing the clock at different levels in a deep gravitational well. After all, a position near the event horizon of a billion-solar-mass black hole is very deep in such a well, but the gradient across a small object such as a typical clock is vanishingly slight.

In your OP you appeared to be envisioning the possibility that the clock is giving more information than just the elapsed time that it ran. Please tell us what sort of information you are envisioning, and how it might apply to the experiment.

While you are at it, please scroll back to post 75 where I asked two explicit questions. Can you give me short answers rather than long walls of text?

Once again, this is theory, whether you like it or not.
I mean, I'm not injecting "alternate theory". When I point to the spring comparative and derive a divergent force value. Or when I say clocks are a single device which correspond to both fundamental theories QM and GR. Or that clocks are dynamic systems which give us more information than merely a measure of time, by looking to the back end function. These are observations, not theory. Im not saying we cant continue our discussion, thought experiments.

I didnt raise the subject for gravitational gradients. I was responding to profloater. You and I had spoken about a good concept for a simple ideal clock. We should continue along those lines.

The information clocks give in addition to a measure of time, are the forces that drive the clocks function and enable it to measure the parameter of time. You simply take a note of the system forces, and note how they correspond to the measure of time. Time dilation, the forces modulate. As per the OP.

My clouded presentation simply points out that the use force driven systems to measure other force driven systems. "All" clocks are force driven, and all natural systems are force driven. The modulated force noted in the OP, does transpose to all natural systems. No natural system if beyond the scope of time dilation effect, so far as I am aware, and time dilation effect always enables a divergent measurement of distance that forces have acted over. Newtons, force divided by distance.

If you think this is silly then lets not worry about continuing. I dont really feel an urge to prove anything. Im just curious about it. It looks like an empirical measure to me, so Im not ready to dismiss it as "obvious and uninteresting" because time causes it. I think that poor reasoning

9. Member
Join Date
Dec 2018
Posts
67
Originally Posted by Strange
I don't think that is true, even for the sort of mechanical clocks you are describing. You could say that the clock measures how the tension (or energy) in the spring as changed. And the change in force exerted by the spring changes in the same way. So both the indication of elapsed time and the change in the spring are consequences of the release of energy by the clock mechanism.

Many things are obvious but not worth talking about.

Insights like what?

And there is no general correspondence between force and time, even if you can contrive one for some particular case.

So is everything else. But QM has no significant effect on mechanical clocks, other than the rather obvious fact that one can describe properties of the materials based on the interactions of the atoms in the material. But trying to discuss a clockwork mechanism in terms of electron energy levels and Fermi-Dirac statistics, is about as useful as trying to explain the execution of a complex computer program in terms of transistors turning on and off.
Im sorry, I'm not ignoring you. I need to sit down and make a proper response. Just a bit crazy this time of year. Have a great Xmass and I'll answer soon

10. Originally Posted by Presocratics
We have discussed the role of the balance wheel and hair spring being the time keeping device. And the intimate relationship the clocks drive springs shares with the balance wheel. I introduced the subject via the drive spring because it provides a simple observation, measurement. I'm not very familiar with the term redherring. Can you be more specific please?

The clocks balance wheel and hair spring are not for the purposes of overcoming friction. It is a force driven device, and an increased or decreased frequency has the same implication as laid out in the OP. This was discussed early within the thread. The drive spring operates in lock step proportionality with the balance wheel in terms of motion, position and force, and records a meaningful legacy of ticks. Accumulates data for our two clock comparative measure.

In a nut shell, Pendulum action is dependent upon kinetic energy, and a springs restoration force. The comparative of our two clocks indicating a different number of ticks has occurred, each tick corresponding to a value of force expressed, we arrive at divergent values of force of our two clocks. Taken at face value this is modulated force associated with time dilation.

It has been said that this would obviously be the case, and trivial to note, because time causes it. But that speaks as though we know what times process is, when we dont. That is taking a lot for granted.

You say "a quantum effect". Yes, of course.
Springs are understood in terms of quantum behavior. But springs also drive clocks that measure time, a parameter of GR. Clock activity is modulated by GR, time dilation. That modulation caused by GR corresponds to the principle of this OP, a springs modulated expression of force. We can talk about the possibility this modulation of force isnt real, but it sure does appear to be an empirically derived measurement, an observation. So we're not even theorizing anything here. This is merely a description of the device and its observed behaviors within terms of QM and GR, within context that clocks are a single device that corresponds to both these fundamental theories. Clocks are made of QM parts, atoms, and so can be thought of as a study "in" QM. While clocks also measure the parameter of time, and so can be thought of as providing a study "of" GR. One device, a split personality.

If two things correspond to a third, then does that third thing instruct something of how those two things correspond to each other? Do clocks serve in this respect, as part of an association triangle?

This is not an effort in theory. The idea is to avoid theory, but still progress an inquiry based upon observables and empirical measurement. It might seam childishly simple, but I like the logics and believe them useful to some degree. Fun to think about at least.
I think you miss my point. A gear wheel clock has a mainspring only to overcome friction, more friction, bigger spring. The reality of friction requires an escapement mechanism with complexities to maintain time accurately. Now, a red herring is a metaphor for an argument that goes nowhere. (Herrings are fish that are not usually red) . As i pointed out, a simple clock with no friction could be set into motion and it would then keep time for ever. Hence the flywheel example, the spin is a perpetual motion like a planet in orbit.
That is why the clock part of your thought experiment is irrelevant. (Red herring) your question about a spring in a different gravity is the heart of the question, does the spring change in higher gravity? I am saying that is a reasonable physics question, and more straight forward than the time dilation of an ideal clock.
Last edited by profloater; 2018-Dec-23 at 12:02 PM.

11. Originally Posted by Presocratics
"All" clocks are force driven, and all natural systems are force driven.
Not true. Unless you are stretching the word "force" to breaking point.

It looks like an empirical measure to me, so Im not ready to dismiss it as "obvious and uninteresting" because time causes it.
That is not the reason for saying it is obvious. As Hornblower noted, the mechanics of the clock directly relate the state of the spring to the measured time. So if one clock has measured less time, as indicated by the movement of the hands, then it will also have unwound the spring less. That is why the observation is trivial, and not particularly interesting. You could, almost as easily, discuss the amount of wear on the gears of the mechanism and not that the one that has measured less time has also experienced less wear.
Last edited by Strange; 2018-Dec-23 at 02:57 PM.

12. Originally Posted by Presocratics
I mean, I'm not injecting "alternate theory". When I point to the spring comparative and derive a divergent force value. Or when I say clocks are a single device which correspond to both fundamental theories QM and GR. Or that clocks are dynamic systems which give us more information than merely a measure of time, by looking to the back end function. These are observations, not theory. Im not saying we cant continue our discussion, thought experiments.

I didnt raise the subject for gravitational gradients. I was responding to profloater. You and I had spoken about a good concept for a simple ideal clock. We should continue along those lines.

The information clocks give in addition to a measure of time, are the forces that drive the clocks function and enable it to measure the parameter of time. You simply take a note of the system forces, and note how they correspond to the measure of time. Time dilation, the forces modulate. As per the OP.

My clouded presentation simply points out that the use force driven systems to measure other force driven systems. "All" clocks are force driven, and all natural systems are force driven. The modulated force noted in the OP, does transpose to all natural systems. No natural system if beyond the scope of time dilation effect, so far as I am aware, and time dilation effect always enables a divergent measurement of distance that forces have acted over. Newtons, force divided by distance.

If you think this is silly then lets not worry about continuing. I dont really feel an urge to prove anything. Im just curious about it. It looks like an empirical measure to me, so Im not ready to dismiss it as "obvious and uninteresting" because time causes it. I think that poor reasoning
My bold. The information we get from observation is the amount the mechanism has turned and the tension of the mainspring. That is all. The relation between those two quantities is addressed in entry level physics. From our understanding of the dynamics we trust it as a timekeeper, and thus infer the amount of elapsed time during which the clock was running. This is also addressed in entry level physics. We observe that the mechanisms of the two clocks have turned by different amounts, which gives the appearance of different amounts of elapsed time. A possible reason is addressed by general relativity, a very advanced topic of physics but extensively covered in the literature.

I still cannot see what it is that you are curious about that is not addressed in literature you have been able to find. For all I know it may be a cerebral itch that defies articulation in words.

13. Member
Join Date
Dec 2018
Posts
67

video of a watch internal mechanisms

14. Originally Posted by Presocratics

video of a watch internal mechanisms
I fear that adds nothing. You are mistaken about force driven clocks, there is no direct relation, only the amount of friction to overcome. It’s a nice video though, that anchor escapement goes back to about 1657 and appropriately might have been invented by Hooke himself. It enabled smaller falling weights and smaller springs in later years.

15. Originally Posted by Presocratics

video of a watch internal mechanisms
Is there something in that video for which you cannot find explanations in the aforementioned literature?

16. Member
Join Date
Dec 2018
Posts
67
Originally Posted by Hornblower
Is there something in that video for which you cannot find explanations in the aforementioned literature?
Nice visualizations

17. Member
Join Date
Dec 2018
Posts
67
Originally Posted by profloater
I fear that adds nothing. You are mistaken about force driven clocks, there is no direct relation, only the amount of friction to overcome. It’s a nice video though, that anchor escapement goes back to about 1657 and appropriately might have been invented by Hooke himself. It enabled smaller falling weights and smaller springs in later years.
Force driven clocks measure time. Yet you say there is no relation between force and time.

A clocks rate of function is modulated by time dilation effect. A clocks function is force driven, so force is modulated corresponding to time dilation. The clocks mechanisms empirically demonstrate this modulation of force, in terms of Hookes Law, as per the OP. Yet you say there is no relation between forces and time.

You cite a reason, that the spring is merely to overcome friction. But we have spoken about this. We discussed the role of the balance wheel and hair spring in keeping a clocks rate of time, that its "function is a consideration of forces". Kinetic energy/force intrinsic of the balance wheels mass, interacting with restoration force/tension of the hair spring. The modulated rate of this function gives the same empirical result, modulated force. Each tick, oscillation corresponds to a value of force. If two clocks are counting different rate of ticks, they are expressing divergent values of force, as per the OP. We covered this point earlier, and moved past it, I had thought?

You cannot modulate a clocks function without implication for expressions of force. A clocks entire system acts uniformly, springs, gears, shafts, clock hands, all move as one, in proportional lock step.

We look to the clock hands as a measure of time. It is as though you imagine the clock hands exist free, and function entirely of their own merit. But clock hands take instruction from clock drive mechanisms. If the clock drive mechanism were the puppeteer, then the dial and its measure of time is but a puppet. You look to the puppet "clock dial" and dont see the strings, but the system "cause" originates from behind the dial/stage.

Think of clock function within terms of a puppeteer and puppet. Puppeteer is origin/cause, and the puppets motion is but effect. Within these terms, a clock mechanical function causes changes within the system, and the dial provides a measure of those changes. Force drives changes, and time being a measure of changes. This is an empirically correct description of a clocks function. If we observe a body being pushed and moving a set distance. Then we watch the body pushed again but now it moves a greater distance. We automatically know the forces have modulated, and caused the body to move a different distance. Look at the clock hands as being the body that is moving a different distance due to time dilation effect. (the force is definitely modulated "shown empirically" but can we look at modulated forces as being cause within the same respect? A turn of perspective

Let us summarize Spacetime as a coordinate system that accounts for point coincidences, "when and where particles point coincide in space". GR accounts for observed interactions "not" coinciding where and when we would expect. We measure this anomaly of point interactions with clocks and refer to it as time dilation. But modulated forces can be a reason why bodies arrive early and or later than one would expect at a point in space. Conceptualized simply as having been pushed harder or softer, modulated force. "that expressions of force correspond to times measure is empirically shown". So conceptually, modulated force can fit as being the cause.

There is an equality between Spacetime coordinates and expressions of force, which is empirically demonstrated by clock function. As per the OP. Force modulation and time dilation correspond, but which is cause of the other? forces look good as an origin/cause for very basic and straightforward reasoning's as set out before.

I only say that this interpretation is possible, given the correspondence shown between time and forces. Modulated forces can be a cause for why bodies dont arrive where and when you would expect them too within relative space.

Thats a bit of a rushed explination. I'm helping a friend build a deck, so have to go hold the ladder steady
Last edited by Presocratics; 2018-Dec-29 at 07:06 AM.

18. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Mar 2010
Location
United Kingdom
Posts
7,085
Originally Posted by Presocratics
I only say that this interpretation is possible, given the correspondence shown between time and forces. Modulated forces can be a cause for why bodies dont arrive where and when you would expect them too within relative space.
However they can't explain things like the fact that we see cosmic ray derived muons at the surface of the Earth. This is impossible unless you account for time dilation. So unless you have a model of how particles decay via a mechanical force (rather than the weak interaction) time dilation is a much better fit.

Edit to add: I'm not trying to discourage you from thought experiments about an equivalence, but it sounds like you are starting to get a little bought into it. Just want to make the point that you might be able to construct an equivalence in one very tightly constrained example but that more generally it is absolutely not that simple to equate time and force.
Last edited by Shaula; 2018-Dec-29 at 09:46 AM.

19. Originally Posted by Presocratics
Force driven clocks measure time. Yet you say there is no relation between force and time.

y
I will try to explain again.
Yes a spring driven clock winds down at the rate of the clock.
But the force of that main spring can be any value because its job is to overcome friction. Because all mechanical clocks have friction they all needsprings and then escapements to regulate the spring. But an ideal frictionless clock would not need a spring.
So maybe the friction value changes with gravity field but that is not your question.
That is why i say the clock part is irrelevant to what changes in a spring in gravity. Not much is a first order answer but in atomic theory or quantum consideeration maybe there is an effect on the metal crystals.
Time dilation is a whole different area and is thought about using ideal clocks or as near ideal as we can achieve, not clockwork!
As far as i know and others seem to agree, time dilation does not affect springs or forces.
In saying that i am making an assumption which is that force is more fundamental than acceleration due to force.
There are fundamental forces, the strong, the weak, the EM, and I am not answering the question of whether those change with gravity changes.
But your spring in the clock is there to overcome friction, not to force time. The spring in the balance wheel is part of an oscillation but i think you are looking for some effect on the main spring as a fundamental question. So i say again, it is there because real clocks have variable friction, not to force time.

20. Originally Posted by Presocratics
You cannot modulate a clocks function without implication for expressions of force. A clocks entire system acts uniformly, springs, gears, shafts, clock hands, all move as one, in proportional lock step.
But in relativity, it is not the clocks function that is being changed. The clock continues to operate completely normally (in its own frame of reference). So it is not the case that relative velocity or a change in gravitational potential causes the clock to behave differently and thus show a different time. (After all, different observers will observe the clock running at different speeds, so it can't be some mechanical effect. Similarly, completely different types of clock, which involve no forces, will show the same time dilation.)

Another example involving forces, that often comes up is the case of a spaceship with the rocket providing a constant force to accelerate it. So the people on the spaceship will experience a constant acceleration of 1g (for example) and measure their speed as increasing at 9.8 m/s per second.

However, someone back on Earth observing the spaceship will see the rate at which it accelerates gradually decrease as its speed increases. Is this because the force from the rocket is decreasing? No. It is because of time dilation and length contraction.

21. 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
Hi, please forgive the possible obviousness of my post.
It appears to me that the OP is concerned with an apparent modulating force which is somehow affecting the respective clock springs differently. As if relativity has had some effect on the materials of the springs, which contributes to their difference in stored force.

My impression is that the only difference between the springs is elapsed time, as others have noted. Perhaps the OP is forgetting that time is a component of force, and so a spring that has experienced less time will naturally hold more stored force. Hooke's law must be used with the correct parameters and in this case that means using each springs own time component. The law still holds but it must be relative to each springs experience and cannot be seen as universal across both.
Maybe I'm not explaining it very well, I'm not well versed in physics. But that appears to be the source of the inconsistency or search for extra forces in the OP.

ETA - I guess what I am trying to point out is better explained by "frames of reference". Calculations for one frame that use inputs from a different frame will turn out wrong.
Last edited by headrush; 2018-Dec-29 at 01:10 PM.

22. Member
Join Date
Dec 2018
Posts
67
Hi, please forgive the possible obviousness of my post.
It appears to me that the OP is concerned with an apparent modulating force which is somehow affecting the respective clock springs differently. As if relativity has had some effect on the materials of the springs, which contributes to their difference in stored force.

My impression is that the only difference between the springs is elapsed time, as others have noted. Perhaps the OP is forgetting that time is a component of force, and so a spring that has experienced less time will naturally hold more stored force. Hooke's law must be used with the correct parameters and in this case that means using each springs own time component. The law still holds but it must be relative to each springs experience and cannot be seen as universal across both.
Maybe I'm not explaining it very well, I'm not well versed in physics. But that appears to be the source of the inconsistency or search for extra forces in the OP.

ETA - I guess what I am trying to point out is better explained by "frames of reference". Calculations for one frame that use inputs from a different frame will turn out wrong.
No forgiveness necessary. Your input is good and welcome.

Your summery serves a traditional view point very well. For this reason I think everybody can appreciate what you have said, including me. What I am attempting to do is a little more tricky. And that is to seek non traditional perspective, and then communicate perspectives which are foreign to people. I just want to point out these challenges I have before me. I hope you appreciate that accounting the traditional viewpoint does not automatically discount an alternate explanation.

You said "the only difference between the springs is elapsed time". You say this as if it explains everything, but what does it really explain? It implies that you know what times process is, and how it imposes its effects on matter. Because if we didn't know how time operates, then how can we invoke such an unknown quantity as an "obvious" solution? You cant use unknowns to explain for unknowns. I know its really easy to assume what the nature of time is. But what I am doing now is to not take its assumed nature for granted. We have to ask ourselves questions like "how do we know time exists?" because it reveals answers like "we only every register time as motion states of bodies". Then we build our concept of time based on these reasoned assessments, and we restrain our concepts of time within these same assessments. For risk of assuming to much. The inventors of the concept of time, as you and I are familiar, wasn't physicists. It was invented by ancient farmers, and refined by train-drivers and ship captains. The concept was tailored to utility rather than for an attempt at a fundamental understanding of the world. Yet we still work within the traditional concept. The concept of time can be refined, and one very sensible avenue to explore is defining time in terms of how we measure it. The concept of time should not be indifferent to the instrument and or method of its measure. That it is considered so, might be a sign of misconception.

What does the concept of time look like defined strictly by its method of measure? Forces are implicated. This is true whether referring to windup clocks, atomic clocks, or celestial motion clocks.

The divergent values of force are empirical measures. Even if you say "time causes it". That doesn't make it un-noteworthy. Times process is not obvious or uninteresting, and any effects credited to times process is by extension, not dismissed as obvious or uninteresting. Empirical measures are empirical measures. And I point to one. If a preferred traditional conceptualization makes it seam boring, then maybe its the fault of the concept. A different point of view might reveal an intrigue.

Your last comment about frames of reference. You think they would turn out wrong. I assume you mean "the force considerations I provide would be contradicted by world observations". You are right in respect that this would be the test.

I'll end it here, although it feels much remains unsaid. but I must sleep

Thanks for joining the convo

Time does not have to be a component of force. Newtons are force divided by distance.

23. Member
Join Date
Dec 2018
Posts
67
Originally Posted by Shaula
However they can't explain things like the fact that we see cosmic ray derived muons at the surface of the Earth. This is impossible unless you account for time dilation. So unless you have a model of how particles decay via a mechanical force (rather than the weak interaction) time dilation is a much better fit.

Edit to add: I'm not trying to discourage you from thought experiments about an equivalence, but it sounds like you are starting to get a little bought into it. Just want to make the point that you might be able to construct an equivalence in one very tightly constrained example but that more generally it is absolutely not that simple to equate time and force.
I have to sleep now, so will return to this soon. Your conceptual tests are very good. I like where you are leading the conversation, and I dont get to say that as often as I'd like.

Yes, I have a pretty simple concept to share regarding cosmic rays. Not a complex discussion by any measure.

Whether my concept is relevant to a general context of the world, is the test. Force modulation values would have to conform to all spacetime coordinates. The question is, how can we know if this is the case of not?

24. Originally Posted by Presocratics

Time does not have to be a component of force. Newtons are force divided by distance.
And yet the Newton is defined as F = ma where a is acceleration.
Acceleration has definitely got a time component (m/s2)

25. Originally Posted by Presocratics
Newtons are force divided by distance.
You keep writing that, but it isn't so. Newtons are the units of force, not force divided by anything. Force has dimensions of Mass.Length.Time-2. Force divided by distance gives you dimensions of Mass.Time-2, which looks like an accelerating mass flow rate. I don't think it's what you want.

When considering spring tension, your tension force can be thought of as energy stored per length of spring. As your watch spring winds down, it delivers power, representing the rate at which the tension force (energy per metre of spring) reduces with elapsed time.

Your spring force is a function of time, therefore - not the other way around.

Grant Hutchison
Last edited by grant hutchison; 2018-Dec-29 at 05:27 PM.

26. Originally Posted by Presocratics
I have to sleep now, so will return to this soon. Your conceptual tests are very good. I like where you are leading the conversation, and I dont get to say that as often as I'd like.

Yes, I have a pretty simple concept to share regarding cosmic rays. Not a complex discussion by any measure.

Whether my concept is relevant to a general context of the world, is the test. Force modulation values would have to conform to all spacetime coordinates. The question is, how can we know if this is the case of not?
Given that you still have not accepted Newtons as a force unit, do you suggest that time dilation would be different for an atomic clock from a wonderful clockwork clock? Is that your question, that having a spring changes time dilation?

27. Originally Posted by Presocratics
I have to sleep now, so will return to this soon. Your conceptual tests are very good. I like where you are leading the conversation, and I dont get to say that as often as I'd like.

And when you wake up you can take this thread to ATM, as clearly you are not interested in mainstream explanations and are try to redefine what "Newtons" are and trying to put in your concepts about force into what you think relativity is.
This thread is closed, plus infraction for pushing ATM outside of ATM.