PDA

View Full Version : Velocity does not cause time to dilate.

Uclock
2007-Sep-01, 02:02 PM
I contend that it is not relative velocity ‘itself’ that causes time to dilate between relative frames. It is the gain in energy of an object as it is accelerated from the frame from which it is measured. All time dilation experiments involve acceleration at some point so it may well be the gain in energy caused by acceleration that is responsible for time dilation.
What do you think?

Uclock

BobbyGene
2007-Sep-01, 02:27 PM
I contend that it is not relative velocity ‘itself’ that causes time to dilate between relative frames. It is the gain in energy of an object as it is accelerated from the frame from which it is measured. All time dilation experiments involve acceleration at some point so it may well be the gain in energy caused by acceleration that is responsible for time dilation.
What do you think?

Uclock

The AOL board ANYTHING GOES SCIENCE kicked this idea around. For a long time, I thought something like this must be the answer. This idea that the acceleration legs of the journey would result in an increase of energy seems reasonable. But how would this increase in energy be lost on the decelleration phases? I thought about this for a long time and simply couldn't come up with a reason.

I suspect that energy may very well play an important role in the Twin Paradox, but I am unable to "connect the dots". However, there may be other reasons.

According to SR, there are two effects effects of velocity, time dilation and length contraction. What if one (time dilation) is caused by the other (length contraction). GR says that clocks run slow in a gravitational field. If lengths are contracted due to velocity, would this not effectively compact space? And would not a compacted space have a more intense gravitational field? And would not a stronger gravitational field cause clocks to run slower?

hhEb09'1
2007-Sep-01, 02:45 PM
I contend that it is not relative velocity ‘itself’ that causes time to dilate between relative frames. It is the gain in energy of an object as it is accelerated from the frame from which it is measured. All time dilation experiments involve acceleration at some point so it may well be the gain in energy caused by acceleration that is responsible for time dilation.
What do you think?In this writeup of the twin paradox (http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm), substitute a second "Bob", Bob2, who passes the outgoing Bob and compares clocks and returns to Ann. With Bob2, none of the participants changes speed or direction, but the effect remains. No gain or loss in energy.

mugaliens
2007-Sep-01, 02:49 PM
I contend that it is not relative velocity ‘itself’ that causes time to dilate between relative frames. It is the gain in energy of an object as it is accelerated from the frame from which it is measured. All time dilation experiments involve acceleration at some point so it may well be the gain in energy caused by acceleration that is responsible for time dilation.
What do you think?

Uclock

Because this effect has been measured by flying atomic clocks around the world and the fact that the GPS satellites have, since they're inception, experience precisely the time dilation that Einstein predicted, Uclock, I think your information is incorrect.

Please reference these time dilation tests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation).

Bignose
2007-Sep-02, 04:15 AM
Am I missing something here? Because acceleration does not necessarily mean energy change. A car that makes a 90 degree right turn while maintaining the same speed is definitely accelerating, but not necessarily gaining or losing any energy. For that matter anything in orbit is constantly accelerating, but not gaining or losing energy. Acceleration does not necessarily mean a change in energy.

Uclock
2007-Sep-02, 12:54 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uclock
I contend that it is not relative velocity ‘itself’ that causes time to dilate between relative frames. It is the gain in energy of an object as it is accelerated from the frame from which it is measured. All time dilation experiments involve acceleration at some point so it may well be the gain in energy caused by acceleration that is responsible for time dilation.
What do you think?

Uclock
The AOL board ANYTHING GOES SCIENCE kicked this idea around. For a long time, I thought something like this must be the answer. This idea that the acceleration legs of the journey would result in an increase of energy seems reasonable. But how would this increase in energy be lost on the decelleration phases? I thought about this for a long time and simply couldn't come up with a reason.

You cannot really answer that if you use Einstein’s relativity as the true explanation for spacetime. You would be correct in assuming that deceleration would also involve an increase in energy. The problem here is ‘what is energy?’ and without an explanation of it the mainstream is just shooting in the dark.
Although the mainstream refers to frames of reference they are not truly individual and only by making frames completely independent will the answer appear.

I suspect that energy may very well play an important role in the Twin Paradox, but I am unable to "connect the dots". However, there may be other reasons.

No, I think you are right, it has to do with energy.

According to SR, there are two effects effects of velocity, time dilation and length contraction. What if one (time dilation) is caused by the other (length contraction). GR says that clocks run slow in a gravitational field. If lengths are contracted due to velocity, would this not effectively compact space?

Yes if you view spacetime as a whole entitiy.

And would not a compacted space have a more intense gravitational field?

Yes that would seem logical yet I am not sure if the mainstream would agree.

And would not a stronger gravitational field cause clocks to run slower?

This is true, time does beat slower inside a gravitational field.

Tony

BobbyGene
2007-Sep-02, 01:43 PM

You cannot really answer that if you use Einstein’s relativity as the true explanation for spacetime. You would be correct in assuming that deceleration would also involve an increase in energy. The problem here is ‘what is energy?’ and without an explanation of it the mainstream is just shooting in the dark.
Although the mainstream refers to frames of reference they are not truly individual and only by making frames completely independent will the answer appear.

No, I think you are right, it has to do with energy.

Yes if you view spacetime as a whole entitiy.

Yes that would seem logical yet I am not sure if the mainstream would agree.

This is true, time does beat slower inside a gravitational field.

Tony

I'm afraid the mainstream wouldn't agree with me if I said the sun came up this morning. I unintentionally came on a little strong and the "old guys" took exception. Perhaps I should introduce myself.

I am a 69 year old retired computer programmer/analyst/manager/etc having retired from Indiana Blue Cross in 1993. I own a small farm about 20 miles west of Indiana University and raise mainly weeds, ticks and fleas. My background includes 8 years in the Air Force as a Weather Observer, Weather Instructor at Chanute AFB, Ill. and a 3 year assignment at the 3rd Weather Wing Scientific Services at Offutt AFB, Nebr where we supplied advanced weather support for the Strategic Air Command (SAC). I have math through Calculus and understand Differential Equations including Partial Differentials. I have about 12 hours in Chemistry, 12 hours in Geology, 24 hours in Physics and a zillion hours in other things. I maintain that one's true education in Physics comes in the first year basic courses. After that it is all about specialization. I have been interested in Relativity since I was 17.

I have two overriding interests, the true nature of space and time and the logical consequences of the Law of Conservation of Energy. I don't believe in ET even thou I once saw a UFO. I think everything can be explained so the average person can understand it, IF IT IS EXPLAINED CORRECTLY. I believe the average person can also understand the basics of math if it is explained correctly.

Finally, I am embarrassed to say I have also studied Law.

korjik
2007-Sep-02, 05:15 PM
I'm afraid the mainstream wouldn't agree with me if I said the sun came up this morning. I unintentionally came on a little strong and the "old guys" took exception. Perhaps I should introduce myself.

I am a 69 year old retired computer programmer/analyst/manager/etc having retired from Indiana Blue Cross in 1993. I own a small farm about 20 miles west of Indiana University and raise mainly weeds, ticks and fleas. My background includes 8 years in the Air Force as a Weather Observer, Weather Instructor at Chanute AFB, Ill. and a 3 year assignment at the 3rd Weather Wing Scientific Services at Offutt AFB, Nebr where we supplied advanced weather support for the Strategic Air Command (SAC). I have math through Calculus and understand Differential Equations including Partial Differentials. I have about 12 hours in Chemistry, 12 hours in Geology, 24 hours in Physics and a zillion hours in other things. I maintain that one's true education in Physics comes in the first year basic courses. After that it is all about specialization. I have been interested in Relativity since I was 17.

I have two overriding interests, the true nature of space and time and the logical consequences of the Law of Conservation of Energy. I don't believe in ET even thou I once saw a UFO. I think everything can be explained so the average person can understand it, IF IT IS EXPLAINED CORRECTLY. I believe the average person can also understand the basics of math if it is explained correctly.

Finally, I am embarrassed to say I have also studied Law.

First year physics is a relatively bad approximation of what really happens in physics. Until you have a decent grasp of quantum and relativity, you have big hole in your understanding of how things work.

Tdgonline
2007-Sep-07, 10:19 AM
Just wanted to add the comment about time dilation as a consequence of the speed of light being a constant. So as in the classic thought experiment of one observer sitting on top of a train traveling at near c while the other stationary observer on the ground watches the train go by, who will first see a bolt of lightening strike near the train?
And so the answer is I beleive, the stationary observer because time for him has not dilated as it has for the man on top of the train. Even though the man on top is moving towards the bolt of lightening at near c. And all of this because c is a constant, thus demanding a dilation of time.