# Thread: Time Dilation; what is it really?

1. Let me just start off by saying that I believe in special relativity, general relativity, and time dilation. However, I find that what people think time dilation is does not make complete sense to me, and I would like to come to an understanding with the public together.

Hence, what is time dilation? I see that it is understood that someone's time is relative to another person's dependent on the person's position on the gravitational field, and the person's velocity/momentum. This means that someone moving, someone in low gravity, and someone standing still will experience a different time all at once.

What I would like to discuss is the possibility that they do not experience a different time, but a time differential. While that sounds similar, I feel it has a different implication. Someone experiencing a different time would suggest that one person is in the past, while the other is in the future before it all evens out, while someone experiencing a time differential would suggest that whatever is happening to their body has more or less time to happen in their body.

The former makes some sense to me, but not as much as a time differential, because it assumes that every single particle in existence is experiencing a different moment in time; past, future, or present dependent on the frame of reference of the observer. This suggests time is both constant and not constant at once, which is the only part of all this that I can't comprehend. However, treating it as a time differential even that part makes sense to me.

The experiments involving atomic clocks and people in different positions and velocities, and observations of the speed of light show that while the former can be true, so can the latter.

Clocks reading different times, and people experiencing aging differently based on gravity and movement can be described by the bodies of these objects and people experiencing a force, or pull that reduces movement. Since singularity is a thing, black holes sucking everything in, gravity from planets can be said to ever so slightly affect the sub-atomic particles of any structure, and less so if they are further away. In the same way, a body experiencing momentum will experience a pull in a direction where the sub-atomic particles will be pulled in that direction and therefore unable to vibrate as usual. Thus, time dilation.

Same with observing a different time proposed by the speed of light. That seems like an even simpler explanation as all we see is based on what light hits our eyes. If from our perspective we see less time having passed for a person far away, that seems to me like merely because light took that long to reach us from that far away person.

When it comes to the Redshift and Blueshift phenomenon of light, also a great example of the Doppler Effect, but in this case we see that light has a higher frequency when it's close to the gravitational well of the sun, but I would attribute it to vibrating more because it's exerting more energy to escape the gravitational well, and being a photon rather than having mass. This part I'm less sure about, but that's my assumption.

Therefore a hypothesis: A person enacted by a force of any kind is induced by a time differential, and therefore time dilation, because the sub atomic particles within their body have less energy to vibrate due to being pulled and/or displaced by gravity and/or momentum.

Thoughts?

2.

3. Originally Posted by I_Want_To_Learn
Let me just start off by saying that I believe in special relativity, general relativity, and time dilation. However, I find that what people think time dilation is does not make complete sense to me, and I would like to come to an understanding with the public together.

Hence, what is time dilation? I see that it is understood that someone's time is relative to another person's dependent on the person's position on the gravitational field, and the person's velocity/momentum. This means that someone moving, someone in low gravity, and someone standing still will experience a different time all at once.

What I would like to discuss is the possibility that they do not experience a different time, but a time differential. While that sounds similar, I feel it has a different implication. Someone experiencing a different time would suggest that one person is in the past, while the other is in the future before it all evens out, while someone experiencing a time differential would suggest that whatever is happening to their body has more or less time to happen in their body.

The former makes some sense to me, but not as much as a time differential, because it assumes that every single particle in existence is experiencing a different moment in time; past, future, or present dependent on the frame of reference of the observer. This suggests time is both constant and not constant at once, which is the only part of all this that I can't comprehend. However, treating it as a time differential even that part makes sense to me.

The experiments involving atomic clocks and people in different positions and velocities, and observations of the speed of light show that while the former can be true, so can the latter.

Clocks reading different times, and people experiencing aging differently based on gravity and movement can be described by the bodies of these objects and people experiencing a force, or pull that reduces movement. Since singularity is a thing, black holes sucking everything in, gravity from planets can be said to ever so slightly affect the sub-atomic particles of any structure, and less so if they are further away. In the same way, a body experiencing momentum will experience a pull in a direction where the sub-atomic particles will be pulled in that direction and therefore unable to vibrate as usual. Thus, time dilation.

Same with observing a different time proposed by the speed of light. That seems like an even simpler explanation as all we see is based on what light hits our eyes. If from our perspective we see less time having passed for a person far away, that seems to me like merely because light took that long to reach us from that far away person.

When it comes to the Redshift and Blueshift phenomenon of light, also a great example of the Doppler Effect, but in this case we see that light has a higher frequency when it's close to the gravitational well of the sun, but I would attribute it to vibrating more because it's exerting more energy to escape the gravitational well, and being a photon rather than having mass. This part I'm less sure about, but that's my assumption.

Therefore a hypothesis: A person enacted by a force of any kind is induced by a time differential, and therefore time dilation, because the sub atomic particles within their body have less energy to vibrate due to being pulled and/or displaced by gravity and/or momentum.

Thoughts?
This seems rather garbled, especially the "hypothesis", but let me try to respond. Time, as measured by an observer moving at a different speed, or in a different gravitational field, from the events being observed will see them occurring at a different rate from what they would be if they had been in the same frame of reference as the observer.

But for an observer moving at the same speed, or in the same gravitational field, i.e. in the same frame of reference, they would occur at the "normal" expected rate.

If your hypothesis were correct and there was less energy etc, then the observer in the same frame of reference would see a reduction in energy, i.e. a change. That is not what happens.

4. So what exactly is garbled? Your first paragraph says what I said. Time moves at different rate, therefore a time differential.

Second paragraph I agree with, and it is the same as I said.

As for my hypothesis, it's the basic laws of thermodynamics. The conservation of energy. Since energy is being used for displacement, then there's less energy being used for other things. I think my hypothesis is correct because I don't believe there was any study done to test energy at different levels. Every study I've seen that is based on different gravitational potentials and the effects of gravity based on time dilation seems to only look at clocks rather than focus on why those clocks are at different times. If you know of any studies that actually checked that and confirmed it's not true, then please share them with me and I'd be convinced.

In my hypothesis, a simple explanation would be that analog clocks that depend on oscillation move faster or slower because gravity is acting on them, if you are moving back and forth, if something pulled you in a random direction with a weak force, wouldn't it affect the oscillation? Same explanation for electric/digital clocks. If a force is pulling on the electrons, won't they slow down? It's far fetched, but gravity is proven to affect sub-atomic particles because of black holes for certain. So why can't gravity exert a weak force on earth? In the same notion, why does movement effect sub atomic particles? Well, what resists gravity? A space station on a stand still would fall to earth, but one that's moving in an orbit doesn't, why is that? Because that movement counteracts gravity, and therefore is likely to affect sub-atomic particles in a similar if not the same manner.

5. Originally Posted by I_Want_To_Learn
So what exactly is garbled? Your first paragraph says what I said. Time moves at different rate, therefore a time differential.

Second paragraph I agree with, and it is the same as I said.

As for my hypothesis, it's the basic laws of thermodynamics. The conservation of energy. Since energy is being used for displacement, then there's less energy being used for other things. I think my hypothesis is correct because I don't believe there was any study done to test energy at different levels. Every study I've seen that is based on different gravitational potentials and the effects of gravity based on time dilation seems to only look at clocks rather than focus on why those clocks are at different times. If you know of any studies that actually checked that and confirmed it's not true, then please share them with me and I'd be convinced.

In my hypothesis, a simple explanation would be that analog clocks that depend on oscillation move faster or slower because gravity is acting on them, if you are moving back and forth, if something pulled you in a random direction with a weak force, wouldn't it affect the oscillation? Same explanation for electric/digital clocks. If a force is pulling on the electrons, won't they slow down? It's far fetched, but gravity is proven to affect sub-atomic particles because of black holes for certain. So why can't gravity exert a weak force on earth? In the same notion, why does movement effect sub atomic particles? Well, what resists gravity? A space station on a stand still would fall to earth, but one that's moving in an orbit doesn't, why is that? Because that movement counteracts gravity, and therefore is likely to affect sub-atomic particles in a similar if not the same manner.
OK, this too is garbled so I think the problem is your level of understanding rather than a language issue.

"Time moves at a different rate" does not mean anything. You have to specify what observer, in what frame of reference, is measuring the rate of passage of time. So that's one issue.

"Energy is used for displacement" does not make sense. Displacement need not involve any energy change, e.g, an object moving at constant velocity relative to an observer has a constant kinetic energy. To a co-moving observer (i.e in the same frame of reference), the kinetic energy is zero. So what one measures as the energy depends on the frame of reference of the observer. However whatever the values are, when measured in that frame of reference, energy will be conserved.

So if you try to compare energy measurements between observers in different frames of reference, you cannot expect them to agree. This does not violate the principle of energy conservation.

A force applied to a vibrating entity will not necessarily alter the vibration frequency. For a swinging pendulum it would, because it is gravity that provides the restoring force in the vibration, but for sound in an organ pipe, or the oscillator in an electronic circuit, gravity has no effect.

6. Counter argument: your understanding of time dilation is garbled.

The fact that you quoted and said ""Time moves at a different rate" does not mean anything." tells me that you're either picking on semantics or completely missed my point.

You keep mentioning an observer is required to notice such a thing, but I think that in itself is nonsense. Relativity measures different vector actions from different reference frames, but relativity is merely a consequence of what is currently happening to the position, within the 3 dimensions, you are observing from your reference frame. And once again you aren't disproving anything by mentioning observers as it just shows that you can observe such things happening. Just because you can observe it, it doesn't mean it's happening thus just because you're in a different frame of reference. Something at the observed point should still be happening to affect it.

"So if you try to compare energy measurements between observers in different frames of reference, you cannot expect them to agree. This does not violate the principle of energy conservation."

Most common energy measurements are kinetic energy and thus I'll use velocity as an example as a set velocity has a set kinetic energy. Velocity is a component of change of position, over the change of time. Velocity differs based on reference frame, but the position doesn't. The change of position does. As a point akin to position, why does time differ? Let's say you have two points at a standstill watching each other, the distance between them won't change. Now introduce a gravitational well between them then you'll notice a change in position, but once both of the points are at a standstill, you don't see a difference in distance unless one moves, so why would time differ? Velocity differs because it's moving in a direction and from different reference frames it'll have a different change of position over change of time..

So, why do you use the relativity of a vector and apply it to a positional variant such as time? If anything, time is more likely to have its own 3 dimensions (which I don't think is probable) rather than being a 4th dimension to position.

As for displacement not involving energy change? That in itself is a fallacy. The law of inertia says that an object in motion will remain in motion, and as per the laws of thermodynamics something in constant motion will retain the same kinetic energy. However, for every point of displacement there is always a force acting on objects. On Earth, that is air and gravity. In space, we have gravity. As for matter in space, I don't know. All the dark matter and dark energy stuff going around is confusing and this is another reason I want people to take my own hypothesis (not theory) with a grain of salt rather than outright dismiss it.

To add to the above, how can you be sure the conservation of energy doesn't apply to the sub-atomic particles? Everything is made from them, and they're the real base of everything happening around us. How unlikely is it that a particle facing gravity on earth and a second particle facing gravity in orbit will have different energy potentials for other functions? If anything it would -prove- (prove is too strong, the word I should have used is add credibility to) the String Theory if that's the case.

I understand what I'm saying is a big claim that basically says a lot of the scientists were chasing fairy tales, but I'm not doing this to be rude. I literally want to know if this is completely outlandish, or if there is a possibility. Science is meant to question everything that has even an ounce of possibility for a different explanation, which I don't think we've reached time dilation to being proven completely as being based on the observer. I question why does the observer see it happen as the explanation of a 4th dimension of time, or time being a vector, to me sounds a lot more outlandish than using the laws we have already proven to be true.

Edit: Oh, just as a bonus. Gravity does affect sound. At least this paper finds it to be so:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.08771

Edit 2: Gah. I used position in my vector reference when I should of used distance. All I can say is I messed up the semantics. Yeah, I know position is a vector because it has a direction. Alas, take my explanation with that extra grain of salt that I meant distance. Overall, that example is supposed to say that time is a scalar, and therefore shouldn't be treated relative as a vector is. Time has always been a measurement like distance.

Edit 3: Thank you for moving this to the correct part of the forum! I didn't notice this section earlier, my apologies!

7. Originally Posted by I_Want_To_Learn
Counter argument: your understanding of time dilation is garbled.

The fact that you quoted and said ""Time moves at a different rate" does not mean anything." tells me that you're either picking on semantics or completely missed my point.

You keep mentioning an observer is required to notice such a thing, but I think that in itself is nonsense. Relativity measures different vector actions from different reference frames, but relativity is merely a consequence of what is currently happening to the position, within the 3 dimensions, you are observing from your reference frame. And once again you aren't disproving anything by mentioning observers as it just shows that you can observe such things happening. Just because you can observe it, it doesn't mean it's happening thus just because you're in a different frame of reference. Something at the observed point should still be happening to affect it.

"So if you try to compare energy measurements between observers in different frames of reference, you cannot expect them to agree. This does not violate the principle of energy conservation."

Most common energy measurements are kinetic energy and thus I'll use velocity as an example as a set velocity has a set kinetic energy. Velocity is a component of change of position, over the change of time. Velocity differs based on reference frame, but the position doesn't. The change of position does. As a point akin to position, why does time differ? Let's say you have two points at a standstill watching each other, the distance between them won't change. Now introduce a gravitational well between them then you'll notice a change in position, but once both of the points are at a standstill, you don't see a difference in distance unless one moves, so why would time differ? Velocity differs because it's moving in a direction and from different reference frames it'll have a different change of position over change of time..

So, why do you use the relativity of a vector and apply it to a positional variant such as time? If anything, time is more likely to have its own 3 dimensions (which I don't think is probable) rather than being a 4th dimension to position.

As for displacement not involving energy change? That in itself is a fallacy. The law of inertia says that an object in motion will remain in motion, and as per the laws of thermodynamics something in constant motion will retain the same kinetic energy. However, for every point of displacement there is always a force acting on objects. On Earth, that is air and gravity. In space, we have gravity. As for matter in space, I don't know. All the dark matter and dark energy stuff going around is confusing and this is another reason I want people to take my own hypothesis (not theory) with a grain of salt rather than outright dismiss it.

To add to the above, how can you be sure the conservation of energy doesn't apply to the sub-atomic particles? Everything is made from them, and they're the real base of everything happening around us. How unlikely is it that a particle facing gravity on earth and a second particle facing gravity in orbit will have different energy potentials for other functions? If anything it would -prove- (prove is too strong, the word I should have used is add credibility to) the String Theory if that's the case.

I understand what I'm saying is a big claim that basically says a lot of the scientists were chasing fairy tales, but I'm not doing this to be rude. I literally want to know if this is completely outlandish, or if there is a possibility. Science is meant to question everything that has even an ounce of possibility for a different explanation, which I don't think we've reached time dilation to being proven completely as being based on the observer. I question why does the observer see it happen as the explanation of a 4th dimension of time, or time being a vector, to me sounds a lot more outlandish than using the laws we have already proven to be true.

Edit: Oh, just as a bonus. Gravity does affect sound. At least this paper finds it to be so:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.08771

Edit 2: Gah. I used position in my vector reference when I should of used distance. All I can say is I messed up the semantics. Yeah, I know position is a vector because it has a direction. Alas, take my explanation with that extra grain of salt that I meant distance. Overall, that example is supposed to say that time is a scalar, and therefore shouldn't be treated relative as a vector is. Time has always been a measurement like distance.

Edit 3: Thank you for moving this to the correct part of the forum! I didn't notice this section earlier, my apologies!
Delusional gibberish.

I'll leave you to it.

8. Thanks. I'd rather hear from someone who can provide a scientific study giving credibility to the 4th dimension over my hypothesis rather than someone who waves their personal bible around.

To those who actually want to engage in this discussion to either prove me wrong, or this hypothesis tickled your fancy, let me ask you about gravity wells and its ability to warp spacetime. Why do we need to consider it as only spacetime? What if we added direction to space and time separately?

Gravity warps distance and we have a change in position.

So why can't we assume that gravity warps time and therefore we have a vector, let's call it dime (direction + time) because I'm not creative, that changes?

I haven't seen any explanations that suggest gravity warps mass, the only clear thing we have is weight, but perhaps black holes are another good example of such?

Regardless, from my perspective I see that gravity warps basically everything, and the scalar counterparts are turned into vectors by adding directionality from the reference frame or the point of the observer.

- - - Old thoughts - - -
This explanation is hypocritical to the one I provided earlier in the sense that I said time can't be vector, but now can be part of one. However, it's still not the same as treating time as a 4th dimension, it's different in that it's assuming time itself is not a vector, but rather a scalar component of the vector.

- - -
New thoughts - - -
Instead of comparing time to distance, why don't we compare it to mass instead? What if time warped in the same sense that mass did? Weight. So the Dime would turn more into an energy equation in the sense that time remains scalar, however the effects of gravity affect the rate of change of time at the point. This fits in better with my original hypothesis in the sense that energy at that point is distributed in different directions giving the illusion of slowed or sped up time based on point of reference?

Edit: I edited my perspective, but I left the old two paragraphs in just to show you the kind of mental gymnastics I'm doing to process this.

9. No personal bibles being waved, more that your questions show significant misunderstandings that are not easy to address in a quick forum post. You need to learn more and come back with sensible, specific questions.

By the way "the prove me wrong" card is a hallmark of a crackpot, you are less likely to get serious answers phrasing your questions this way...

10. Originally Posted by I_Want_To_Learn
Clocks reading different times, and people experiencing aging differently based on gravity and movement can be described by the bodies of these objects and people experiencing a force, or pull that reduces movement. Since singularity is a thing, black holes sucking everything in, gravity from planets can be said to ever so slightly affect the sub-atomic particles of any structure, and less so if they are further away. In the same way, a body experiencing momentum will experience a pull in a direction where the sub-atomic particles will be pulled in that direction and therefore unable to vibrate as usual. Thus, time dilation.
No. Neither motion nor gravity affect the intrinsic properties of a point-like object¹. This is the principle of relativity. It is this principle that allows us to know what the properties of such an object are in its own frame of reference, so that we can determine what those properties will be when measured from a different frame of reference.

¹ In the case of an object that is not point-like, different parts of the object may experience different conditions leading to internal stresses. The effect of such stresses is not relativity but simple mechanics.

11. EDIT: I posted twice by accident, ignore this as I deleted the message, read the one below!

12. No personal bibles being waved, more that your questions show significant misunderstandings that are not easy to address in a quick forum post. You need to learn more and come back with sensible, specific questions.

By the way "the prove me wrong" card is a hallmark of a crackpot, you are less likely to get serious answers phrasing your questions this way...
Just like KJW has done, feel free to point out where the basics of my understanding of physics is wrong, and I'll respond. I understand my thoughts are all over the place and I'm just throwing punches left and right and some of them look like they have no basis, but that's why I'm here. To figure out why it has no basis, and perhaps even whet someone's appetite on developing a different theory.

As for no bibles being waved around? What do you call the inability to explain what's happening other than saying that it is because that's how it is other than faith? While my random thought processes may sound completely outlandish to you... To me the explanation of a 4th dimension being seen due to gravity is the same as a person observing a magician performing a card trick and calling it magic. Imagination is needed to be able to view things from a different perspective, and come to different conclusions, as rigorously following everything to the t in a book and taking it at face value as everything being true is the same as following a gospel. I understand that imagination can also lead to the said gospel by coming up with fairies and fairy-tales. That is why, however, I want the hypothesis of energy conservation at the sub-atomic level to be looked at more in depth.

No. Neither motion nor gravity affect the intrinsic properties of a point-like object¹. This is the principle of relativity. It is this principle that allows us to know what the properties of such an object are in its own frame of reference, so that we can determine what those properties will be when measured from a different frame of reference.

¹ In the case of an object that is not point-like, different parts of the object may experience different conditions leading to internal stresses. The effect of such stresses is not relativity but simple mechanics.
Thank you for your response. Then let's assume sub-atomic particles aren't point like objects then. Point like objects would be the most minute point possible. Let's assume there's still room to move at the sub-atomic level. Wouldn't that mean that the simple mechanics still apply in this case? Electrons move to induce a current, don't they? Or is that understanding fundamentally wrong? Given my example from earlier:

To add to the above, how can you be sure the conservation of energy doesn't apply to the sub-atomic particles? Everything is made from them, and they're the real base of everything happening around us. How unlikely is it that a particle facing gravity on earth and a second particle facing gravity in orbit will have different energy potentials for other functions? If anything it would -prove- (prove is too strong, the word I should have used is add credibility to) the String Theory if that's the case.
Let's make two assumptions in this case.
1. To prevent orbital momentum affecting time dilation let's assume the earth doesn't spin so a man on Earth will face full gravity without the spinning.
2. Let's assume a tower can be built from the ground up into space and has been done so. The man in space can therefore face the effects of gravity without needing to orbit around the planet without falling down.

In this scenario if you placed a human each or a clock each standing on the ground on earth or in orbit you would notice time dilation. But, since you have heavier gravity down on earth than in orbit, if you follow the conservation of energy... where does the energy, that gravity would induce on the body at the Earth level, go at the space level? This is the question that brought me to think that gravity affects bodies at the sub atomic level. Since the body has less force of gravity to resist, that energy gets distributed to other functions.

This can, and has already been tested with the use of atomic clocks on mountains too. First tested on sea level, then tested on a mountain. Time dilation is observed. The problem I feel is that people only look at the difference in clock time, rather than attempting to observe anything else and immediately attribute it to 4th dimensional time. I believe that if you tested the change in the speed of current at the same atomic precision, or whatever it is that scientists test, you'd notice the same thing, and that would explain why you have a time dilation that's not just magic.

13. Originally Posted by I_Want_To_Learn
Then let's assume sub-atomic particles aren't point like objects then. Point like objects would the most minute point possible.
No. Objects only have to be small enough that different parts of it aren't in different environments. For example, the tidal force experienced by a person due to earth's gravity is negligible. Thus, a person can be regarded as a point-like object as far as earth's gravity is concerned. The point I was making is that relativistic effects are not intrinsic effects caused by motion or gravity. If an observer is observing an object from the same frame of reference, then they will obtain the same results regardless of the motion or gravity they are both experiencing. Relativistic effects are the result of observing an object from a different frame of reference from the object itself. For example, gravitational time dilation is only observed when the observer is at a different height to the clock being observed. The clock itself is not affected by gravity, at least not in a way that causes time dilation.

14. Relativistic effects are the result of observing an object from a different frame of reference from the object itself. For example, gravitational time dilation is only observed when the observer is at a different height to the clock being observed. The clock itself is not affected by gravity, at least not in a way that causes time dilation.
That is exactly what I am challenging. Observations need to have an explanation other than being possible just because you are observing it from your reference frame. You literally mentioned that tidal force affects a person negligibly. Tidal forces are based on the gravitational attractive force.

Since tidal force negligibly affects a person, why can't gravity do the same? It's negligible in almost all cases. Are you telling me that the time dilation seen on atomic clocks is non-negligible? The minuscule amount of dilation a person receives could be the same as a minuscule amount of tidal force/gravitational force.

15. Originally Posted by I_Want_To_Learn
if you follow the conservation of energy... where does the energy, that gravity would induce on the body at the Earth level, go at the space level? This is the question that brought me to think that gravity affects bodies at the sub atomic level.
Suppose there is a mass on the bottom floor of a tall building. Suppose also that I'm also on the bottom floor and I very accurately measure the mass to be exactly 1 kilogram. Now I travel to the top floor and very accurately measure the mass on the bottom floor from the top floor. The measured value will be slightly less than 1 kilogram due to how gravitational time dilation affects mass. Using a string attached to the mass, I now lift the mass to the top floor. With both the mass and I on the top floor, I very accurately measure the mass to be exactly 1 kilogram. The increase in mass going from the bottom floor to the top floor is the mass equivalent of the work used to lift the mass.

16. Suppose there is a mass on the bottom floor of a tall building. Suppose also that I'm also on the bottom floor and I very accurately measure the mass to be exactly 1 kilogram. Now I travel to the top floor and very accurately measure the mass on the bottom floor from the top floor. The measured value will be slightly less than 1 kilogram due to how gravitational time dilation affects mass. Using a string attached to the mass, I now lift the mass to the top floor. With both the mass and I on the top floor, I very accurately measure the mass to be exactly 1 kilogram. The increase in mass going from the bottom floor to the top floor is the mass equivalent of the work used to lift the mass.
Thank you.

May I ask how someone would measure this mass to such accuracy to prove such? To elaborate, I don't mean how one would observe it at the bottom level from the top level. How would one test the mass at the bottom level, and then again together at the top level? I understand the difficulty of measuring mass at the bottom from the top, and it might be too complicated to explain, but please humor me on the same level measurements, and I'll try provide counter arguments.

If it's basically stepping on a scale and ending up with the same result. Just like atomic clocks, everything would need to be adjusted to read correctly. Edit: Correctly being the opportune word, because of relativity. Everything at your gravity level is affected, not just your perspective. You would see everything on the bottom level having less mass, but everything above you having more mass than your frame.

And I just realized the final sentence. "The increase in mass going from the bottom floor to the top floor is the mass equivalent of the work used to lift the mass." This completely ignores the change in gravitational energy affecting the mass.

17. Originally Posted by I_Want_To_Learn
The minuscule amount of dilation a person receives could be the same as a minuscule amount of tidal force/gravitational force.
No. Gravitational time dilation is independent of the tidal effect. Gravitational time dilation also occurs in artificial gravity, whereas the tidal effect only occurs in real gravity. Gravitational time dilation is due to an accelerated frame of reference, whereas the tidal effect is due to spacetime curvature. Note that the tidal effect is due to spatial changes in gravity, not gravity itself. An accelerated frame of reference that produces artificial gravity does not produce the spatial change that is the tidal effect.

18. Gravitational time dilation is independent of the tidal effect. Gravitational time dilation also occurs in artificial gravity, whereas the tidal effect only occurs in real gravity.
In part, this is also what I'm challenging. My claim assumes that gravitational warping of space makes time dilation and tidal effect happen at once based on reference frame. Can you provide a study where tidal forces were said to not change in artificial gravity?

19. Originally Posted by I_Want_To_Learn
Gravitational time dilation is independent of the tidal effect. Gravitational time dilation also occurs in artificial gravity, whereas the tidal effect only occurs in real gravity.
In part, this is also what I'm challenging. My claim assumes that gravitational warping of space makes time dilation and tidal effect happen at once based on reference frame. Can you provide a study where tidal forces were said to not change in artificial gravity?
If an observer is accelerating in flat spacetime, then the spacetime is still flat even from the accelerated observer's perspective. A flat spacetime is flat in every frame of reference. This is a fundamental result of the mathematics of General Relativity. Therefore, it is not spacetime curvature (tidal effect) that is the direct cause of gravity. However, it is time dilation that is the cause of gravity, including artificial gravity.

20. If an observer is accelerating in flat spacetime, then the spacetime is still flat even from the accelerated observer's perspective. A flat spacetime is flat in every frame of reference. This is a fundamental result of the mathematics of General Relativity. Therefore, it is not spacetime curvature (tidal effect) that is the direct cause of gravity. However, it is time dilation that is the cause of gravity, including artificial gravity.
I disagree. I agree that flat spacetime is flat in every frame of reference, but this is not an argument against gravity not causing both the tidal effect and time dilation through warping space. This is an argument that states a person in flat space time wouldn't see a difference and therefore a proof that spacetime is warped because we do see a difference. It's completely unrelated to tidal effect and time dilation.

If you mean to tell me that the accelerating observer will see time dilation because they're accelerating and not the tidal effect. I say that claim is bogus and the exact same claim you made in the previous post. I say it hasn't been proven yet, that's why I'm sticking with my hypothesis. Again, if you can provide a credible proof, I will believe it.

In the case you do not have such a study and use the same reasoning as the poster before you:

By the way "the prove me wrong" card is a hallmark of a crackpot, you are less likely to get serious answers phrasing your questions this way...
Then I say I'm speaking of a hypothesis, not a theory. You don't have to prove me wrong. We will just have to wait for scientists from credible research institutes to tell us which it is.

In the end though, there is no such thing as flat spacetime in our world because of gravity. All mass produces its own gravitational field and that's already proven unless you want to argue that point with places like NASA. This is not a point I'd argue with them, but I'd argue time dilation in a heart beat.

Thus, per my hypothesis, gravity warps everything and in turn induces spacetime curvature and time dilation through action at the sub-atomic level.

21. Originally Posted by I_Want_To_Learn
If you mean to tell me that the accelerating observer will see time dilation because they're accelerating and not the tidal effect. I say that claim is bogus and the exact same claim you made in the previous post. I say it hasn't been proven yet, that's why I'm sticking with my hypothesis. Again, if you can provide a credible proof, I will believe it.
The proof comes from the mathematics of General Relativity. Are you arguing against General Relativity?

22. The proof comes from the mathematics of General Relativity. Are you arguing against General Relativity?
Precisely.

However, I am not arguing against all of it. I am merely arguing that point as an alternative view on general relativity. Gravity being the basis of that relativity in many more aspects than general relativity assumes.

23. Originally Posted by I_Want_To_Learn
The proof comes from the mathematics of General Relativity. Are you arguing against General Relativity?
Precisely.

However, I am not arguing against all of it.
Then perhaps you don't understand any of it. General Relativity is not a loose collection of ideas from which one can pick and choose. It is a unified mathematical theory that is all or nothing. Your hypothesis concerning time dilation is irreconcilable with General Relativity.

24. I'm not a mathematician, nor a high level scientist. I am a layman in this regard. So, I won't argue the fact that I most likely do not understand the math behind it. However, I will argue that I understand the broad concept rather than the intricate details.

I do not argue against any of it being possible other than the 4th dimension being attributed to time rather than gravity itself. If all the math has proven to be correct then nothing would really change other than the fact that what people think is caused by time is actually just the effects of gravity. Attributing this to gravity in turn accepts a lot of the other proven theories that exist in the macro world into the micro world.
Edit: (I also argue that something cannot be so just because someone observes it. Something should still be happening at the observed point. I understand relativity grants a multitude of perspectives, but I believe gravity and energy conservation at the sub-atomic level is the best explanation for what we see.)

Perhaps time could be related here in some form or another, however that leaves more questions than answers rather than using gravity. Einstein believed space and time are part of the 4th dimension. My hypothesis suggests that gravity affects both. I believe that hints at a correlation rather than outright madness.

Edit2: I had some sleep and thus I had some time to digest my reasoning and your reasoning.

You may think my claim affects the math, but I offer a different view. The math provided in general relativity all remains the same even if my gravitational hypothesis is taken up. What would all this be? Just a matter of perspective.

All the math is done in relation to time, and because a difference in time is observed based on reference frame, the math would still be correct as long as you still take it from the perspective that time is changed.

If you use my hypothesis and say that all these things happen because of gravity, then you still see that the math is valid because time being affected is a consequence of gravity's actions. Therefore general relativity can be correct and whatever stems from my hypothesis can also be correct at the same time. And therefore, my claim that my argument against general relativity does not change the math is also valid.

25. Time is gravity. No difference.
If it didn't you'd be off your balance.

26. Time is gravity. No difference.
If it didn't you'd be off your balance.
That's irrelevant to my argument or in support of my argument. The big deal about this issue is because approaching time dilation through gravity rather than through time adds a whole new perspective that allows for a lot of things to be connected. This also implies that we've already tested changes in the sub-atomic level due to gravity, and we just didn't notice it. To you it seems there's no difference, but in the science world this is a big thing.

27. Originally Posted by I_Want_To_Learn
I'm not a mathematician, nor a high level scientist. I am a layman in this regard. So, I won't argue the fact that I most likely do not understand the math behind it. However, I will argue that I understand the broad concept rather than the intricate details.
I don't see the mathematics of General Relativity as mere "intricate details". I see the mathematics as fundamental to why there is General Relativity in the first place. As such, I don't think it is possible to truly understand General Relativity without understanding its mathematics. Of course, there are books that attempt to inform the layperson about General Relativity. But such books fail to provide the true essence of what General Relativity is really about. That is because these books are motivated to give the impression that the universe is a weird place, whereas the principle of general covariance is hardly something that the layperson can get excited about.

A lack of understanding of the mathematics has the consequence of being unable provide a precise explanation of how your hypothesis actually works. By contrast, when I said that gravity (including artificial gravity) is caused by time dilation, that was not a hypothesis, but is actually what causes gravity. That is what the mathematics says. Gravity is not caused by the curvature of three-dimensional space. It is the power of mathematics that allows me to be specific on what does and does not cause gravity.

A problem with the notion that time dilation is caused by the effect of gravity on intrinsic material properties is that there are many different types of clocks based on different mechanisms, and gravity would affect these different mechanisms differently, giving rise to different amounts of time dilation. But the various tests of time dilation have all given the same result based on an accelerated frame of reference.

28. A lack of understanding of the mathematics has the consequence of being unable provide a precise explanation of how your hypothesis actually works. By contrast, when I said that gravity (including artificial gravity) is caused by time dilation, that was not a hypothesis, but is actually what causes gravity. That is what the mathematics says. Gravity is not caused by the curvature of three-dimensional space. It is the power of mathematics that allows me to be specific on what does and does not cause gravity.
I disagree in three parts.

First, you need mathematical knowledge to create a theory, but not a hypothesis. A hypothesis is taking concepts of the world's functionality and putting them together into a new concept. Mathematics proves it.

Second, understanding of a broad concept does not require mathematical knowledge of the broad concept. If someone creates a square wheel and a round wheel and a second person looks at both. Does it take any math to realize that the round wheel will be more efficient? Granted we're dealing with something more complex, but you get the idea.

Third, all mathematical equations merely show what is on the other side of the equation, not what causes it. The words to explain what happens can change based on the set up of the equation as is basic algebra. Assuming you have G (gravity), T (Time Dilation), and X (All the other parts of the equation) and you have them like this G = T*X. This suggests the effects on gravity based on time dilation, however if you rearrange it to G/X = T This suggests Time dilation based on the effects of gravity. All equations that prove true can be arranged to show something else as the cause. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction applies not just to Newtonian laws, but critical thinking as well.

A simple example would be F=m*a. Force equals mass by acceleration.

F=m*a allows us to find the magnitude of the force. Or it can be inferred that Force exists if mass is accelerated.
a=F/m allows us to find the magnitude of the acceleration. Or it can be inferred that acceleration happens if you apply enough force on a mass.
m=F/a allows us to find the magnitude of the mass. Or it can be inferred that mass is at a standstill if you counteract acceleration with force.* (Edited to fix the correct phrasing) (Edit 2: I just realized I ignored inertia. Hence, not a standstill, but constant velocity even if it is of magnitude 0.)

In our case

G = T*X allows us to find the magnitude of Gravitational effects. It can be inferred that gravity effects are dependent on time dilation and other factors.
T = G/X allows us to find the magnitude of Time Dilation. It can be inferred that time dilation is dependent on gravity and other factors.
X = G/T allows us to find the magnitude of other factors. It can be inferred that other factors are dependent on gravity and time dilation.

None of this proves that gravity is not the source of the effects, it merely proves that they're dependent on each other.

A problem with the notion that time dilation is caused by the effect of gravity on intrinsic material properties is that there are many different types of clocks based on different mechanisms, and gravity would affect these different mechanisms differently, giving rise to different amounts of time dilation. But the various tests of time dilation have all given the same result based on an accelerated frame of reference.
My hypothesis suggests that acceleration provides different reference frames same as the known effects of gravity do. As the effects of gravity are nullified by acceleration in multiple cases. The most obvious? Satellites orbiting Earth.

I don't see the mathematics of General Relativity as mere "intricate details". I see the mathematics as fundamental to why there is General Relativity in the first place. As such, I don't think it is possible to truly understand General Relativity without understanding its mathematics. Of course, there are books that attempt to inform the layperson about General Relativity. But such books fail to provide the true essence of what General Relativity is really about. That is because these books are motivated to give the impression that the universe is a weird place, whereas the principle of general covariance is hardly something that the layperson can get excited about.
You say intricate details is an expression of simplifying something, I don't. Intricate details are the fundamental definitions. (A small argument on semantics; Definition of intricate: very complicated or detailed.) I never implied they were mere. I agree with General Relativity. My suggestions imply to rearrange the equation and look at a different perspective.

29. Originally Posted by I_Want_To_Learn
First, you need mathematical knowledge to create a theory, but not a hypothesis. A hypothesis is taking concepts of the world's functionality and putting them together into a new concept. Mathematics proves it.

Second, understanding of a broad concept does not require mathematical knowledge of the broad concept. If someone creates a square wheel and a round wheel and a second person looks at both. Does it take any math to realize that the round wheel will be more efficient? Granted we're dealing with something more complex, but you get the idea.
Mathematics doesn't just prove things, it also describes things. And the advantage of mathematics over non-mathematical descriptions is that mathematics is much more precise. If you are not using mathematics to describe your "hypothesis", then the vagueness of that description may mean that you are not really saying anything at all. Your example of the "round wheel" and the "square wheel" assumes that I know what these are. But if I didn't know what these are, you would have a problem conveying your message. It is often said that gravity is caused by curvature. But this statement without mathematics is too vague to even say if it is true because it can either be understood in a way that is true or misunderstood in way that is false.

Originally Posted by I_Want_To_Learn
Third, all mathematical equations merely show what is on the other side of the equation, not what causes it.
The notion of how mathematics expresses causality interests me deeply. I'm perfectly aware that an equality is a symmetric relation. Thus, the relation to which I refer is of the form:

Acceleration of an accelerated frame of reference = Time dilation associated with that accelerated frame of reference

Although I said that gravity is caused by time dilation, I also said that time dilation is caused by acceleration. In other words, I fully recognise the equivalence between acceleration and time dilation as a symmetric relation. But note that there are no other variables involved. But I should point out that the derivation is based on a stationary spacetime. This means that by "gravity", I'm referring to the familiar gravity that we all experience, and not necessarily the fully general gravitation of General Relativity.

It is important to note that the derivation of the equivalence between an accelerated frame of reference and time dilation is purely geometrical... there is no physics involved.

Originally Posted by I_Want_To_Learn
A simple example would be F=m*a. Force equals mass by acceleration.

F=m*a allows us to find the magnitude of the force. Or it can be inferred that Force exists if mass is accelerated.
a=F/m allows us to find the magnitude of the acceleration. Or it can be inferred that acceleration happens if you apply enough force on a mass.
m=F/a allows us to find the magnitude of the mass. Or it can be inferred that mass is at a standstill if you counteract acceleration with force.
This example is not as simple as you suggest. The three variables F, m, and a all need to be defined, and the way they are defined might put these variables on different footing, making the above three equations not quite the same.

Originally Posted by I_Want_To_Learn
You say intricate details is an expression of simplifying something
I said no such thing. One might have a theory with non-mathematical principles but expressed in mathematical terms, or a theory with principles that are themselves mathematical. In the first case, the mathematical terms are "intricate details", but in the second case, the mathematics goes beyond mere "intricate details".

30. Mathematics doesn't just prove things, it also describes things. And the advantage of mathematics over non-mathematical descriptions is that mathematics is much more precise. If you are not using mathematics describe your "hypothesis", then the vagueness of that description may mean that you are not really saying anything at all.
Agreed. However, I am using the very same math you are using. You agreed with the causality of equations, did you not? You stated that the gravitational effects are related to time dilation, did you not? Overall, mathematical proofs do describe reactions between multiple things in our universe. However, I believe you are conflating that the text behind the mathematical proof and the mathematical proof together are to be taken as fact. The math cannot be argued, only improved upon as we identify extra functions in our universe. However, the text behind it is a biased flavor that can change depending on what stage of proving we are at.

What I am pointing out is that real life tests have not been carried out to the full extent to prove that time dilation is merely perspective based on reference frame. I am pointing out that the explanation of it happens because you see it that way from one point to another, and is entirely based on perspective, on what we see, relies too strongly on faith and should be questioned on a deeper level. My hypothesis assumes, in agreement with the string theory, that the universe is connected, rather than relative on each individual point of reference. Our observations are relative, but there is a connection in everything happening and there should be an explanation for this, too.

I saw an example not so long ago where a cylinder viewed from one side looks like a circle, while from the other looks like a rectangle. It is a good example that things change based on perspective, but it is not a good example because we never get a full picture. Just as you saying my example of the square wheel and round wheel is wrong because someone not knowing what a wheel is would be fooled, then I remind you of your own hubris. Your understanding of time dilation is you seeing a square, and me seeing a circle. Neither of us has the full picture yet, and I'm glad to admit it, however it seems you are not.

If we base every observation on reference and nothing on substance we will never get anywhere. I apologize if the following sounds rude, but if I'm not mistaken, the bible was written on frames of reference. Look how much substance it has now. How many years have we known of time dilation, and we are still no further in discovering what it truly is. Perhaps it's time to look deeper into it or from a new angle?

To finalize, I feel it is more logical that gravity is the cause of all such as it links the conservation of energy to the sub-atomic level. I'll try avoid any further hypothesis and focus on electrons. We all know electrons flow when there is current. If my hypothesis is true, and gravity affects the electron flow and slows it down or speeds it up based on reference frame, then does it not match, and explain, the effects of time dilation?

Furthermore, I am not creating something out of nothing. I am standing on the shoulders of giants and using the puzzle pieces they have provided us to fit the puzzle together. Nothing about my hypothesis disagrees with the math. Newtonian laws, laws of thermodynamics, and the laws of relativity. All used together to explain this phenomenon at the sub-atomic level. If you are so well versed in the math, please, point out in the math of relativity where this view is wrong.

If you ask me for proofs. Then, I can provide none. As already discussed, I am a layman. Without the resources, nor the connections to even begin testing for something like this. You could say I could buy an atomic clock and measure the current, but I'm too poor even for that. Traveling is not an option for me right now.

The reason I am here is to provide a perspective and hope that it leads to something as this has not been tested.

Regardless, my hubris against yours will go nowhere. KJW, thank you for the discussion. While my thoughts have not changed, you have provided me with a refreshing discussion and some extra coherency in my own perspective.

31. Originally Posted by I_Want_To_Learn
I am using the very same math you are using.
I don't know about that. In an earlier post, you said:

"I'm not a mathematician, nor a high level scientist. I am a layman in this regard. So, I won't argue the fact that I most likely do not understand the math behind it."

So, I am guessing that I have done mathematics that you have not done.

Originally Posted by I_Want_To_Learn
You stated that the gravitational effects are related to time dilation, did you not?
That depends on how you interpret the question. In accordance with the principle of relativity and the equivalence principle, gravity does not affect the intrinsic properties of objects. But if one is in an accelerated frame of reference, which may be either true or artificial gravity, then there is time dilation between locations along the direction of the acceleration.

Originally Posted by I_Want_To_Learn
I believe you are conflating that the text behind the mathematical proof and the mathematical proof together are to be taken as fact.
Mathematics start from axioms, which in terms of the physical realm may be regarded as first principles. If the first principles can be regarded as fact, then so can the mathematical conclusions obtained from them. I should point out that in terms of mathematical philosophy, I am a formalist.

Originally Posted by I_Want_To_Learn
Your understanding of time dilation is you seeing a square, and me seeing a circle. Neither of us has the full picture yet, and I'm glad to admit it, however it seems you are not.
You don't have the full picture of time dilation because you refuse to accept the reality of four-dimensional spacetime. Time is the fourth dimension simply because the three-dimensional space around us changes with time. That there is a four-dimensional spacetime metric arises from the constancy of the speed of light. With four-dimensional spacetime, time dilation becomes straightforward.

Originally Posted by I_Want_To_Learn
If we base every observation on reference and nothing on substance we will never get anywhere.
This seems to be a misunderstanding of relativity. If we consider classical physics only, then an absolute objective reality does exist in relativity. For one thing, absolute scalar quantities are invariant to coordinate transformations and thus have the same value in all frames of reference. In particular, the distance between two spacetime points along a given path is the same in all frames of reference. But when we observe a quantity that is a vector or some other tensor, then we do so from a particular frame of reference and our measurements will be relative to that frame of reference. It's worth noting that timelike intervals in spacetime are invariant, and that relativistic time dilation is actually due to different timelike intervals being compared. In the case of gravitational time dilation, the timelike intervals are at different locations in the three-dimensional space.

Originally Posted by I_Want_To_Learn
Perhaps it's time to look deeper into it
I already have looked deep into General Relativity.

Originally Posted by I_Want_To_Learn
If you are so well versed in the math, please, point out in the math of relativity where this view is wrong.
Let me check to see that I understand your view correctly: You are claiming that time dilation is the result of gravity affecting the intrinsic mechanism of clocks? If so, then this is wrong because it violates the principle of relativity and possibly also the equivalence principle. It is inadequate because it doesn't explain how gravity affects the intrinsic mechanism of clocks in a way that leads to agreement with General Relativity, which has been tested by such experiments as the Pound-Rebka experiment. Also General Relativity explains gravitational time dilation without any difficulties.

32. I've already waxed plenty of philosophy with you, so I have nothing more to add to that. Your perceptions of life are different from mine, so I'll try and focus on the hypothesis only. I suppose I'll say thanks as you are actually making me think deeper and use the math.

Let me check to see that I understand your view correctly: You are claiming that time dilation is the result of gravity affecting the intrinsic mechanism of clocks? If so, then this is wrong because it violates the principle of relativity and possibly also the equivalence principle. It is inadequate because it doesn't explain how gravity affects the intrinsic mechanism of clocks in a way that leads to agreement with General Relativity, which has been tested by such experiments as the Pound-Rebka experiment. Also General Relativity explains gravitational time dilation without any difficulties.
Since you say you know the math in depth, perhaps you can guide me through how my hypothesis is against General Relativity and the Equivalence Principle? Every time I broach this subject, everyone seems to claim that the math says so without providing any background as to why other than eloquent words, so I hope I can at least go through the math with you. I quite frankly am tired of, and truly frustrated by, no-one's ability to point out where my hypothesis fails other than saying it's just so.

Gravitational Time Dilation:

Relative Time Dilation:

Weak Equivalence Principle:

Newton's law of universal gravitation:

Local gravitational field of Earth:

Einstein gravitational constant:

Einstein field equation:

Newton's second law:

Einstein's mass energy equivalence:

Momentum:

Everything I see, to me, looks interchangeable. At this point you need not describe how my hypothesis does not align with the math, and just point out to me where it does not align. If the equation that says so is not here, please link me to it. It is fine if you feel the need to say something, however, for me, all I need is a direction where, and I'll look into it myself before I agree with your statement, or show you why I disagree.

If you have proof of an experiment that says my hypothesis is wrong, you can link that too. Quite frankly, Pound-Rebka experiment does not prove my hypothesis wrong. It merely proves time dilation happens which I agree with.

If you are calling my hypothesis wrong because of words, opinions, someone once said or wrote, then I have nothing else to add. My perspective is unchanged.

33. Originally Posted by I_Want_To_Learn
Let me check to see that I understand your view correctly: You are claiming that time dilation is the result of gravity affecting the intrinsic mechanism of clocks? If so, then this is wrong because it violates the principle of relativity and possibly also the equivalence principle. It is inadequate because it doesn't explain how gravity affects the intrinsic mechanism of clocks in a way that leads to agreement with General Relativity, which has been tested by such experiments as the Pound-Rebka experiment. Also, General Relativity explains gravitational time dilation without any difficulties.
Quite frankly, Pound-Rebka experiment does not prove my hypothesis wrong. It merely proves time dilation happens which I agree with.
I take it that you are claiming that time dilation is the result of gravity affecting the intrinsic mechanism of clocks.

The Pound-Rebka experiment does not merely prove time dilation happens. It proved that time dilation happened according to the prediction of General Relativity applied to the acceleration of the earth's frame of reference and the height of the tower in which the experiment took place. In other words, it would be a remarkable coincidence if your hypothesis produced the same numerical result for the time dilation.

The "clock" in the Pound-Rebka experiment is a nuclear transition of 57Fe, and is used as both emitter and absorber in the experiment. By the principle of relativity, the intrinsic resonance frequency of the nuclear transition is the same for both emitter and absorber even though they are at different heights. Thus, the difference in frequency between the two clocks is due to the difference in the "rate of time" at the two locations.

Even though, according to the principle of relativity, the intrinsic resonance frequency of the nuclear transition is the same for both emitter and absorber, perhaps gravity does have a non-relativistic effect on the resonance frequency. If so, by the equivalence principle, acceleration would have the same non-relativistic effect on the resonance frequency. However, because the tower was not high enough for the earth's tidal effect to be significant, the two clocks have effectively the same acceleration. Even the predicted result of the experiment assumed a uniform acceleration between the clocks. Therefore, even if acceleration did have an effect on the resonance frequency, it would be the same effect for both clocks, and therefore no time dilation would be measured.

But you have suggested that the time dilation is a very small effect, and that the tidal effect of earth's gravity, even though it is a very small effect, may be sufficient to produce the very small time dilation that is observed. But this implies that acceleration itself has a large effect on the resonance frequency of the nuclear transition, which would be readily observed if it existed.

Therefore, it is untenable that time dilation is the result of gravity affecting the intrinsic mechanism of clocks.

34. I take it that you are claiming that time dilation is the result of gravity affecting the intrinsic mechanism of clocks.
The mechanism of all matter at the sub-atomic level.

it would be a remarkable coincidence if your hypothesis produced the same numerical result for the time dilation.
Once again, you are treating my hypothesis as if it is not in agreement with time dilation by opinion alone. My hypothesis supports time dilation happening due to the warp of spacetime by gravity.

For one thing, absolute scalar quantities are invariant to coordinate transformations and thus have the same value in all frames of reference. In particular, the distance between two spacetime points along a given path is the same in all frames of reference.
The "clock" in the Pound-Rebka experiment is a nuclear transition of 57Fe, and is used as both emitter and absorber in the experiment. By the principle of relativity, the intrinsic resonance frequency of the nuclear transition is the same for both emitter and absorber even though they are at different heights. Thus, the difference in frequency between the two clocks is due to the difference in the "rate of time" at the two locations.
I prefer to use data from direct sources when it comes to experimentation, but it is rather difficult to find the transcript of the experiment. Allow me to know if the data within this link does not match the Pound-Rebka Experiment. Pages 12 - 20.

First of all. Are mass and energy not absolute scalar quantities? No clocks were used in this experiment, but absorbers and transmitters of gamma rays. What was measured was the frequency. The frequency increased and decreased in the falling and rising respectively. E = hf = hc/(lambda). Therefore energy increased and decreased within the experiment.

With my gravitational hypothesis, the assumption would be that the emitter on the lower altitude would have less energy because gravity is placing more pressure on it. The emitter at the higher altitude would have more energy because gravity is placing less pressure on it. The absorber on the lower altitude would receive more energy (higher frequency) than expected, and conversely the absorber on the higher altitude would receive less energy (lower frequency) than expected. This is exactly what happened.

Where does my hypothesis disagree?

35. If you wish to analyze this in depth, here's a simple reordering of Einstein's mass energy equivalency, Newton’s law of universal gravitation, and Newton’s second law:

Had to use box because this site is not allowing me to upload images for some reason.

Edit: To add to this, the absolute total energy within a body will be E_o + E_oR where E_o is the total energy of the object relative to the big object in the equation in the link, and E_oR is the rotational kinetic energy [(1/2)Iω2]. We all know the Earth spins, and we spin with it. Rotational kinetic energy applies to all of us.

I suppose this implies we have entered a realm where nothing is very negligible anymore, as that means that the sun is affecting Earth's total energy non-negligibly, and in turn, the black hole of our galaxy is affecting the sun's total energy non-negligibly.

36. Originally Posted by I_Want_To_Learn
it would be a remarkable coincidence if your hypothesis produced the same numerical result for the time dilation.
Once again, you are treating my hypothesis as if it is not in agreement with time dilation by opinion alone.
I was pointing out how unlikely it would be for two non-equivalent mechanisms to produce the same result for an arbitrary experiment. Because you didn't supply any formulae, I could do no better than discuss likelihoods instead of something more precise.

Originally Posted by I_Want_To_Learn
My hypothesis supports time dilation happening due to the warp of spacetime by gravity.
Warp of spacetime? So you now accept the reality of four-dimensional spacetime? If so, then you have to accept the existence of time dilation caused by different "rates of time". And any other mechanism will combine with the "rate of time" mechanism, leading to a result that differs from the Pound-Rebka experiment.

Originally Posted by I_Want_To_Learn
Are mass and energy not absolute scalar quantities?
No, they are not. Energy is the time-component of the energy-momentum vector in four-dimensional spacetime. Relativistic mass is the mass-equivalent of this energy component by m=E/c². Rest mass is the mass-equivalent of the magnitude of the energy-momentum vector and is an absolute scalar quantity. There are other quantities that are the time-components of some other quantity corresponding to the space-components. An example is the electromagnetic field Fij, an antisymmetric 4×4 matrix (Fij=–Fji). The electric field vector is the time-components, Ftx=–Fxt=Ex/c, Fty=–Fyt=Ey/c, Ftz=–Fzt=Ez/c. The magnetic field pseudovector is the space-components, Fyx=–Fxy=Bz, Fzy=–Fyz=Bx, Fxz=–Fzx=By. In four dimensions, Maxwell's equations become much simpler.

Originally Posted by I_Want_To_Learn
No clocks were used in this experiment, but absorbers and transmitters of gamma rays. What was measured was the frequency. The frequency increased and decreased in the falling and rising respectively. E = hf = hc/(lambda). Therefore energy increased and decreased within the experiment.
The nuclear transitions are transitions between energy states. But the energy of the gamma photons is related to frequency via E=hf. And frequency is the reciprocal of time. So, the 57Fe is indeed a clock. And it is no less a clock than the atomic clocks that are explicitly called "clocks", because atomic clocks are also based on a transition between energy states.

Originally Posted by I_Want_To_Learn
With my gravitational hypothesis, the assumption would be that the emitter on the lower altitude would have less energy because gravity is placing more pressure on it. The emitter at the higher altitude would have more energy because gravity is placing less pressure on it. The absorber on the lower altitude would receive more energy (higher frequency) than expected, and conversely the absorber on the higher altitude would receive less energy (lower frequency) than expected.
Why does more pressure cause less energy, and less pressure cause more energy? Why does lower altitude cause more pressure, and higher altitude cause less pressure?

Originally Posted by I_Want_To_Learn
Where does my hypothesis disagree?
It is difficult for me to provide a definite answer when you haven't provided formulae for me to establish the variables upon which the time dilation depend. In General Relativity, time dilation depends on acceleration and height. If your formulae exhibits a different dependence, then it must disagree with General Relativity in general, even if it fortuitously agrees for a specific experiment.

37. It is difficult for me to provide a definite answer when you haven't provided formulae for me to establish the variables upon which the time dilation depend.
I have provided one.

Originally Posted by I_Want_To_Learn
If you wish to analyze this in depth, here's a simple reordering of Einstein's mass energy equivalency, Newton’s law of universal gravitation, and Newton’s second law:

Had to use box because this site is not allowing me to upload images for some reason.

Edit: To add to this, the absolute total energy within a body will be E_o + E_oR where E_o is the total energy of the object relative to the big object in the equation in the link, and E_oR is the rotational kinetic energy [(1/2)Iω2]. We all know the Earth spins, and we spin with it. Rotational kinetic energy applies to all of us.

I suppose this implies we have entered a realm where nothing is very negligible anymore, as that means that the sun is affecting Earth's total energy non-negligibly, and in turn, the black hole of our galaxy is affecting the sun's total energy non-negligibly.
Edit:

Warp of spacetime? So you now accept the reality of four-dimensional spacetime?
Yes and no. I understand that the equations suggest it's a 4th dimension, but I merely mentioned spacetime as that is the established name for the graphical board of our universe. Again, as I said, I believe that time dilation occurs.

38. Originally Posted by I_Want_To_Learn
If you wish to analyze this in depth, here's a simple reordering of Einstein's mass energy equivalency, Newton’s law of universal gravitation, and Newton’s second law:

Had to use box because this site is not allowing me to upload images for some reason.

Edit: To add to this, the absolute total energy within a body will be E_o + E_oR where E_o is the total energy of the object relative to the big object in the equation in the link, and E_oR is the rotational kinetic energy [(1/2)Iω2]. We all know the Earth spins, and we spin with it. Rotational kinetic energy applies to all of us.

I suppose this implies we have entered a realm where nothing is very negligible anymore, as that means that the sun is affecting Earth's total energy non-negligibly, and in turn, the black hole of our galaxy is affecting the sun's total energy non-negligibly.
I did look at this but didn't find anything that related to time dilation.

By the way, the following is the formula I derived for the acceleration of a stationary frame of reference in terms of the associated time dilation:

ak = –c2 L–1 ∂L/∂xk

where:

ak is the acceleration vector field
c is the speed of light constant
L is the magnitude scalar field of the timelike Killing vector field
L–1 ∂L/∂xk is the time dilation in the direction of differential dxk

A Killing vector field may be simply regarded as the "rate of time" at each point of an unchanging three-dimensional space but is technically an infinitesimal generator of an isometry.

The formula applies to any stationary spacetime, such as a constantly accelerating or rotating frame of reference in flat spacetime or the gravity of a possibly rotating planet. A stationary spacetime provides a well-defined meaning to the notion of time dilation, whereas a more general spacetime does not provide a simple notion of time dilation, although one can always determine the Doppler shift between two given worldlines.

Originally Posted by I_Want_To_Learn
Warp of spacetime? So you now accept the reality of four-dimensional spacetime?
Yes and no. I understand that the equations suggest it's a 4th dimension, but I merely mentioned spacetime as that is the established name for the graphical board of our universe.
Do you understand what spacetime curvature is?

Originally Posted by I_Want_To_Learn
Again, as I said, I believe that time dilation occurs.
Yes, I know that. The issue is why time dilation occurs. You seem to not accept that time dilation is the result of spacetime geometry.

39. I did look at this but didn't find anything that related to time dilation.
If I need to explain the relationship between acceleration and gravity, or the relationship between acceleration and time to you, then there is no point in arguing any longer.

Yes, I know that. The issue is why time dilation occurs. You seem to not accept that time dilation is the result of spacetime geometry.
That is an assumption that has persisted for 70 years because of hubris, and gate-keeping such as you are doing. I understand the necessity of gate-keeping, but if you keep everything out, progress will never be made.

By the way, the following is the formula I derived for the acceleration of a stationary frame of reference in terms of the associated time dilation:
Derived it from what?

40. Originally Posted by I_Want_To_Learn
I did look at this but didn't find anything that related to time dilation.
If I need to explain the relationship between acceleration and gravity, or the relationship between acceleration and time to you, then there is no point in arguing any longer.

Originally Posted by I_Want_To_Learn
Yes, I know that. The issue is why time dilation occurs. You seem to not accept that time dilation is the result of spacetime geometry.
That is an assumption that has persisted for 70 years because of hubris, and gate-keeping such as you are doing. I understand the necessity of gate-keeping, but if you keep everything out, progress will never be made.
But time dilation does happen because of geometry. Nothing you have said prevents that from being true.

Originally Posted by I_Want_To_Learn
By the way, the following is the formula I derived for the acceleration of a stationary frame of reference in terms of the associated time dilation:
Derived it from what?
The Killing equation:

jXk +▼kXj = 0

Where:

Xk is a Killing vector field

jXk is the j-component covariant derivative of the Killing vector field Xk (I couldn't locate the correct symbol for the covariant derivative)

I made this thread to confirm my hypothesis or to dismiss it. The moment I saw the equation, derived from nothing more than Einstein's mass energy equivalency, and Newton’s law of universal gravitation, I confirmed what I needed to. Any other text after that was me just wondering what you thought. I now know you are regurgitating information from books and sources without understanding what they mean on a deeper level.

42. Originally Posted by I_Want_To_Learn
The moment I saw the equation, derived from nothing more than Einstein's mass energy equivalency, and Newton’s law of universal gravitation, I confirmed what I needed to. Any other text after that was me just wondering what you thought.
When I read your derivation, it reminded me of one of those "proofs" of –1=1 that I have seen in mathematical puzzle books. While I don't think you made any mathematical error of the type found in the puzzle books, it seems to me that your conclusion is devoid of any substance.

Originally Posted by I_Want_To_Learn
I now know you are regurgitating information from books and sources without understanding what they mean on a deeper level.
That’s mighty presumptuous of you. I don't think you are in a position to say anything about my understanding of what I wrote.

43. Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by I_Want_To_Learn
The moment I saw the equation, derived from nothing more than Einstein's mass energy equivalency, and Newton’s law of universal gravitation, I confirmed what I needed to. Any other text after that was me just wondering what you thought.
When I read your derivation, it reminded me of one of those "proofs" of –1=1 that I have seen in mathematical puzzle books. While I don't think you made any mathematical error of the type found in the puzzle books, it seems to me that your conclusion is devoid of any substance.

Originally Posted by I_Want_To_Learn
I now know you are regurgitating information from books and sources without understanding what they mean on a deeper level.
That’s mighty presumptuous of you. I don't think you are in a position to say anything about my understanding of what I wrote.
I found a mistake that you made in your derivation. Actually two mistakes, but one was especially significant. Your mistake can be expressed in general terms as follows:

Suppose you are given two formulae:

(Eq 1) A = B

and:

(Eq 2) ƒ(A) = X

Applying (Eq 1) to (Eq 2) gives:

(Eq 3) ƒ(B) = X

Now, if you equate (Eq 2) and (Eq 3):

(Eq 4) ƒ(A) = ƒ(B)

This equality could have been obtained from (Eq 1) without any reference to (Eq 2). Therefore, (Eq 2) has been excised from the subsequent derivation. It becomes an error to regard the result of the subsequent derivation as having been derived from (Eq 2).

In the case of your particular derivation, the formula you excised from the final result was Newton's gravitation formula. Therefore, contrary to your claim, the final formula has nothing to do with gravity.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement