# Thread: Can General Relativity model causation of time dilation?

1. Originally Posted by 514void
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
SR says that all inertial frames are equal, therefor there is no preferred frame, so how can any asymmetric time dilation happen in SR?
Asymmetric time dilation happens if one or both of the frames are non-inertial, i.e. if an accelerometer placed into one such frames shows a non-zero reading.
it would seem that time dilation would only happen in "accelerating" frames and not "accelerated" frames.
Nope. Take a break from posting crank ideas mixed with outright nonsense.

2. Originally Posted by Strange
Perhaps you are mixing two different things: (1) time dilation that happens (symmetrically) between two inertial frames of reference and (2) the difference in time experienced between two events depending on differences in acceleration and/or gravity experienced by different observers.
I was trying to understand how each one works.
It seems there there is misunderstanding of these 2 effects and how they work,
so I came up with some example where the 2 effects could be identified.

3. Originally Posted by 514void
Originally Posted by Strange
Perhaps you are mixing two different things: (1) time dilation that happens (symmetrically) between two inertial frames of reference and (2) the difference in time experienced between two events depending on differences in acceleration and/or gravity experienced by different observers.
I was trying to understand how each one works.
You are being dishonest, what you have been trying (and failing, miserably) is to show that relativity is inconsistent, incorrect, self-contradictory, etc. The trademarks of a crackpot.

It seems there there is misunderstanding of these 2 effects and how they work,
In your mind? Certainly.

so I came up with some example where the 2 effects could be identified.
Nonsense. Until a few minutes ago, you weren't even able to distinguish between the two effects.

4. what are you doing xyzt, trying to do physics with debating skills?

5. Originally Posted by 514void
what are you doing xyzt, trying to do physics with debating skills?
I explained the physics part and I exposed you for what you are.

6. So you think that an accelerated frame is non-inertial?

7. Originally Posted by 514void
So you think that an accelerated frame is non-inertial?
An accelerated frame IS non-inertial. Why do you keep playing stupid games?

8. ok, so an accelerated object that then stops accelerating is at rest in an accelerated frame?

9. Originally Posted by 514void
So you think that an accelerated frame is non-inertial?
Just to head off any misinterpretation:

If you mean a frame that is actively accelerating, then it is a non- inertial frame.

If you mean the rest frame of something that has undergone an acceleration but is no longer accelerating, then yes, it is an inertial frame. It is just a different inertial frame than it was at rest in prior to accelerating.

10. Originally Posted by 514void
ok, so an accelerated object that then stops accelerating is at rest in an accelerated frame?
Stop posing ineptitudes. Stop trolling.

11. Originally Posted by 514void
ok, so an accelerated object that then stops accelerating is at rest in an accelerated frame?
There is is no such thing as an accelerated frame in this way. There are inertial frames ( no acceleration) and non-inertial frames (accelerating). An objects past acceleration history has no effect on whether it is in an inertial frame or not.

12. ok, so an object that is accelerated for 1 second, travels for 100 years, accelerates back for 2 second, travels another 100 years and then accelerates for 1 second to come to rest where it started would not be more than 4 seconds younger than its surroundings.

13. Originally Posted by 514void
ok, so an object that is accelerated for 1 second, travels for 100 years, accelerates back for 2 second, travels another 100 years and then accelerates for 1 second to come to rest where it started would not be more than 4 seconds younger than its surroundings.
What gives you this bright idea? (Hint: it is not correct).

14. Originally Posted by 514void
ok, so an object that is accelerated for 1 second, travels for 100 years, accelerates back for 2 second, travels another 100 years and then accelerates for 1 second to come to rest where it started would not be more than 4 seconds younger than its surroundings.
NO, NO and NO.

The time difference would depend on how fast it was moving relative to his initial starting point during the non-accelerated periods.

For instance, if he accelerated to 0.6c, for both out bound and return legs, 200 years pass for him while 250 years passed for someone who stayed at his starting position.

You are fixating too much on just time dilation. There is also length contraction and the relativity of simultaneity to take into account.

As far as the stay at home person is concerned, the object travels to distance of 75 light years at a speed of 0.6 taking 125 yrs to do so and then take the same time while returning. Meanwhile, due to time dilation, time for the object runs at a rate of 0.8 and a total of 200 years pass for it.

For the object things are different. After it reaches a speed relative to its original frame of 0.6c, it will measure, it will notice the effects of time dilation, length contraction and the relativity of simultaneity affecting it's original frame (which now has a relative speed of 0.6c wrt it.) Thus it will measure the distance measured as 75 light years in that frame as being 60 light years. And by his clock, it will take 100 yrs to cross 60 light years.

He will also note that he no longer agrees with his original frame as to simultaneity. For instance, if there was a clock at the turn around point that was synchronized with the "home" clock in the original frame, it will no longer be in sync according to him. It will actually be ahead of the home clock by 45 yrs.

During the outbound trip he will also note that both the home clock and turn around clock will under time dilation and run at a rate 0.8 of his own and advance by 80 years during the outbound leg. Thus if the clocks both read 0 in the original frame when he left home, The home clock will read 80 years and the turnaround clock will read 45+80= 125 years upon his arrival at the turnaround.

He now accelerates back towards home. Afterwards he has changed to yet another inertial frame, moving in the opposite direction than he was before with respect to the home frame. The time dilation rate and length contraction he measures for the home frame frame doesn't change, however the relativity of simultaneity does. Now the it will be the home clock that will be ahead of the turn around clock by 45 years. So, by his reckoning, upon leaving the turnaround clock, it will still read 125 yrs and the Home clock now reads 170 yrs. It will again take 100 yrs to cross 60 light years by his clock to return home while both the turn around and Home clocks undergo time dilation and advance 80 years.

Upon arriving home, the home clock will read 250 years, the turn around clock will read 205 yrs and his clock will read 200 yrs. Once he accelerates one last time and returns to his original frame, the Turnaround clock will once more be synced with the Home clock and will read 250 yrs.

Now you might be asking whether or not the Home frame would not also see length contraction and relativity of simultaneity affecting the object. The answer is yes, but they don't come into play. There is no extended distance in the object frames that the Home frame needs to be concerned about nor are there any separated clocks to deal with in either of the frames.

15. Originally Posted by xyzt
What gives you this bright idea? (Hint: it is not correct).
logic.

If there is only symmetric time dilation between 2 inertial frames, then all things that are not accelerating will have the same rate of time.

16. Originally Posted by 514void
Originally Posted by xyzt
What gives you this bright idea? (Hint: it is not correct).
logic.

If there is only symmetric time dilation between 2 inertial frames, then all things that are not accelerating will have the same rate of time.
False, you still don't get it.

17. Originally Posted by Janus
NO, NO and NO.
The time difference would depend on how fast it was moving relative to his initial starting point during the non-accelerated periods.
That would mean that the inertial frames are not equal, that is a contradiction of the postulates of SR.
It would mean that clocks of exactly the same structure would behave differently in different inertial frames.

18. Originally Posted by xyzt
Originally Posted by 514void
Originally Posted by xyzt
What gives you this bright idea? (Hint: it is not correct).
logic.
If there is only symmetric time dilation between 2 inertial frames, then all things that are not accelerating will have the same rate of time.
False, you still don't get it.
so there is a preferred frame?

19. Originally Posted by 514void
Originally Posted by xyzt
Originally Posted by 514void
Originally Posted by xyzt
What gives you this bright idea? (Hint: it is not correct).
logic.
If there is only symmetric time dilation between 2 inertial frames, then all things that are not accelerating will have the same rate of time.
False, you still don't get it.
so there is a preferred frame?
Only in your brain, only in your brain.

20. Originally Posted by 514void
Originally Posted by Janus
NO, NO and NO.
The time difference would depend on how fast it was moving relative to his initial starting point during the non-accelerated periods.
That would mean that the inertial frames are not equal, that is a contradiction of the postulates of SR.
It would mean that clocks of exactly the same structure would behave differently in different inertial frames.
No it doesn't. I'm sorry, but your arguments arise from a fundamental misconception. You are just not grasping what it means to say that space and time measurements are frame dependent. You are trying to hold on to a paradigm of "time" which is not valid.

People have been trying to get this across to you, but you are not listening.

You are like the people who used to ask: "If the world is round, what keeps the people on the underside from falling off?" To them, their logic was just as unassailable as you feel your argument of "Either there is no time dilation between inertial frames, or there is a prefer frame" is. But both arguments are just as misbegotten and based on a false paradigm.

21. Originally Posted by Janus
your argument of "Either there is no time dilation between inertial frames, or there is a prefer frame"
you misunderstand, I am saying that according to the rules of SR, there is no asymmetric time dilation between inertial frames.

22. Originally Posted by Janus
"If the world is round, what keeps the people on the underside from falling off?"
I live in Australia, and we have to wear magnetic shoes.

23. Originally Posted by 514void
Originally Posted by Janus
"If the world is round, what keeps the people on the underside from falling off?"
I live in Australia, and we have to wear magnetic shoes.
...and tinfoil hats

24. Originally Posted by xyzt
...and tinfoil hats
nice conclusion jumping.

25. Originally Posted by 514void
Originally Posted by Janus
your argument of "Either there is no time dilation between inertial frames, or there is a prefer frame"
you misunderstand, I am saying that according to the rules of SR, there is no asymmetric time dilation between inertial frames.
Same difference. You are wrong, and are still trying to apply "Flat Earth" rules to a "Round Earth" Universe.

26. Originally Posted by Janus
Originally Posted by 514void
Originally Posted by Janus
your argument of "Either there is no time dilation between inertial frames, or there is a prefer frame"
you misunderstand, I am saying that according to the rules of SR, there is no asymmetric time dilation between inertial frames.
Same difference. You are wrong, and are still trying to apply "Flat Earth" rules to a "Round Earth" Universe.
"Flat Earth" rules?
"Round Earth" Universe?
Am I supposed to change the rules whenever I hit a paradox?

27. Originally Posted by 514void
Am I supposed to change the rules whenever I hit a paradox?
You did not pay attention to an earlier post I made; there are in a fact two physically distinct forms of time dilation :

1. Relative time dilation - this depends purely and solely on relative velocity at a given moment in time. It does not depend on the past history of the observers.
2. Gravitational time dilation - this is a function of differences in gravitational potential, and affects accumulated proper time of an observer. It therefore depends explicitly on the clock's past history throughout the experiment. Bear in mind that the presence of acceleration changes a frame's gravitational potential.

Whether or not a frame is inertial can be told simply by placing an accelerometer into that frame - if that accelerometer reads zero at a given instant, it is an inertial frame, otherwise it is non-inertial. If you accelerate first, and then cruise uniformly afterwards, then your are first non-inertial, and then become inertial as soon as acceleration stops.

Also - there are no paradoxes in SR, in fact it can be explicitly proven that there cannot be any paradoxes : General Proof that Special Relativity is Self-Consistent

28. Originally Posted by 514void
Originally Posted by Janus
Originally Posted by 514void
Originally Posted by Janus
your argument of "Either there is no time dilation between inertial frames, or there is a prefer frame"
you misunderstand, I am saying that according to the rules of SR, there is no asymmetric time dilation between inertial frames.
Same difference. You are wrong, and are still trying to apply "Flat Earth" rules to a "Round Earth" Universe.
"Flat Earth" rules?
"Round Earth" Universe?
Am I supposed to change the rules whenever I hit a paradox?
No, you're supposed to pay attention to the lessons that have been generously offered to you. Instead of routinely jumping to the conclusion that you've brilliantly and uniquely uncovered a paradox that has evaded identification by brilliant minds for nearly a century, you should routinely assume that the problem lies between your ears.

29. Originally Posted by 514void
Am I supposed to change the rules whenever I hit a paradox?
No, you are supposed to learn what the rules are, rather than pretending that they must be wrong because you don't understand them.

30. I have been told the rules,

1) there is no preferred frame
2) there is no asymmetrical time dilation between inertial frames
3) an object has no memory of previous accelerations

But people still insist that the rate of time in 2 separate inertial frames would be different if an object accelerated from one to the other.

31. Originally Posted by 514void
I have been told the rules,

1) there is no preferred frame
2) there is no asymmetrical time dilation between inertial frames
3) an object has no memory of previous accelerations

But people still insist that the rate of time in 2 separate inertial frames would be different if an object accelerated from one to the other.
Time dilation (the "rate of time") between two inertial frames is determined purely by their relative velocity. And is symmetrical.

The total time elapsed between two frames will vary, dependent on non-inertial effects (acceleration, gravity) they experience.

This is well understood and quite well explained in various sources such as the Wikipedia page on the "Twin Paradox".

32. Ok, I looked at that page and there are heaps of completely different explanations.
I am unsure that anyone actually knows which is the right one if any.

33. Another thing I just thought of is if you accelerated constantly, why would you need more and more energy to keep accelerating as you approach the speed of light?
At any instant, the speed difference between you and c would be c, you would never approach the speed of light.

34. Originally Posted by 514void
At any instant, the speed difference between you and c would be c, you would never approach the speed of light.
Some confusion on your part is evident here.

35. Originally Posted by 514void
Another thing I just thought of is if you accelerated constantly, why would you need more and more energy to keep accelerating as you approach the speed of light?
If you accelerate at a constant rate, you will use a constant amount of energy.

36. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by 514void
Another thing I just thought of is if you accelerated constantly, why would you need more and more energy to keep accelerating as you approach the speed of light?
If you accelerate at a constant rate, you will use a constant amount of energy.
This except from a lecture called Conserving Momentum the Relativistic Mass Increase by Michael Fowler, UVa Physics, 12/1/07 should cover that.
Einstein Rescues Momentum Conservation

Einstein was so sure that momentum conservation must always hold that he rescued it with a bold hypothesis: the mass of an object must depend on its speed! In fact, the mass must increase with speed in just such a way as to cancel out the lower y-direction velocity resulting from time dilation. That is to say, if an object at rest has a mass M, moving at a speed v it will have a mass . Note that this is an undetectably small effect at ordinary speeds, but as an object approaches the speed of light, the mass increases without limit!
Mass Really Does Increase with Speed

Deciding that masses of objects must depend on speed like this seems a heavy price to pay to rescue conservation of momentum! However, it is a prediction that is not difficult to check by experiment. The first confirmation came in 1908, measuring the mass of fast electrons in a vacuum tube. In fact, the electrons in an old style color TV tube are about half a percent heavier than electrons at rest, and this must be allowed for in calculating the magnetic fields used to guide them to the screen.
Much more dramatically, in modern particle accelerators very powerful electric fields are used to accelerate electrons, protons and other particles. It is found in practice that these particles become heavier and heavier as the speed of light is approached, and hence need greater and greater forces for further acceleration. Consequently, the speed of light is a natural absolute speed limit. Particles are accelerated to speeds where their mass is thousands of times greater than their mass measured at rest, usually called the “rest mass”.

37. ok, but at any instant, you are in a inertial frame right? and the speed of light in that reference frame is c.

38. Originally Posted by 514void
ok, but at any instant, you are in a inertial frame right?
Only if you are not accelerating (or in a gravitational field).

But I think you have been told that before ...

39. ok then, to make it easier on you, you accelerate for 1 second then coast for 1 second and repeat, during the coasting (no acceleration) you are in an inertial frame.
in this inertial frame, the speed you are doing is 0, and the speed of light is c.
you would not notice you mass increase right?

40. Originally Posted by 514void
in this inertial frame, the speed you are doing is 0
0 relative to what? Yourself? Well, obviously yes. And that is why ...

you would not notice you mass increase right?
You never notice your mass increase (or your length contraction, or time dilation). These are all relative effects between frames of reference.

Don't you think it would be worth you spending a little bit of time to make an effort understand the theory? Instead you seem to be coming up with an endless stream of, "I haven't understood this, so it must be wrong."

41. I am spending a bit of time understanding the theory, and learning about what people think is the resolution to my skepticism about certain points. It is valuable information to see when different people have different understandings, and their basis for their disagreements.

42. In regards to you accelerating, does your mass increase in all inertial frames?

43. Originally Posted by 514void
Ok, I looked at that page and there are heaps of completely different explanations.
Not really.

I am unsure that anyone actually knows which is the right one if any.
They are all correct (because they are all equivalent).

44. Originally Posted by 514void
In regards to you accelerating, does your mass increase in all inertial frames?
This, again, has nothing to do with acceleration, but relative velocity. You will appear to have greater mass from frames of reference which are in motion relative to yours.

(Nut note that the idea of relativistic mass increase is generally disfavoured nowadays as being too likely to lead to misunderstandings. The last thing you need.)

45. Originally Posted by 514void
1) there is no preferred frame
True.

2) there is no asymmetrical time dilation between inertial frames
True.

3) an object has no memory of previous accelerations
That depends what you mean by "memory". Total accumulated proper time of a clock between two fixed events in space-time does indeed depend on the entire world line of that clock between those events.

46. Originally Posted by Strange
This, again, has nothing to do with acceleration, but relative velocity. You will appear to have greater mass from frames of reference which are in motion relative to yours.
(Nut note that the idea of relativistic mass increase is generally disfavoured nowadays as being too likely to lead to misunderstandings. The last thing you need.)
so you would appear to get lighter to an inertial frame that you are catching up to?

47. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
That depends what you mean by "memory". Total accumulated proper time of a clock between two fixed events in space-time does indeed depend on the entire world line of that clock between those events.
I am not sure how these world lines turn symmetric time dilation into asymmetric time dilation, I should look into it a bit.

48. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by 514void
Ok, I looked at that page and there are heaps of completely different explanations.
Not really.
Have you read it?
Some explanations say that asymmetric time dilation is caused by acceleration, and some say it is caused by gravity, or that there is 2 frames compared to one.
I think that I could come up with a scenario that would bypass all of those explanations.

Something like:
there are 3 spaceships (S1, S2 and S3). S1 and S2 are 1 lightyear apart in inertial frame I1 and S3 is in another inertial frame.
S3 passes S1 and they record each others clock. S3 passes S2 and they record each others clock.

49. Originally Posted by 514void
so you would appear to get lighter to an inertial frame that you are catching up to?
Your mass would appear to increase from another frame of reference.

50. Originally Posted by 514void
I think that I could come up with a scenario that would bypass all of those explanations.
I doubt it. Particularly as you don't seem to have a clue about how the theory of relativity works.

51. Originally Posted by 514void
I am not sure how these world lines turn symmetric time dilation into asymmetric time dilation, I should look into it a bit.
There is no such thing as "asymmetric time dilation".

How many more times....

52. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by 514void
so you would appear to get lighter to an inertial frame that you are catching up to?
Your mass would appear to increase from another frame of reference.
wrong.

53. Originally Posted by 514void
Your mass would appear to increase from another frame of reference.
wrong.
On what basis do you say that? (See post #436, for example. Or Relativistic mass )

54. Shit, I now realize that the merry go-round youth park I invested in isn't going to work. Now I have to cheat everyone or I go belly-up. It's a suicide rap. A constant 1-g merry-go round potential well just won't integrate up to much - it's about as good as sitting on the earth - part in 10 billion type stuff.

55. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by 514void
Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by 514void
so you would appear to get lighter to an inertial frame that you are catching up to?
Your mass would appear to increase from another frame of reference.
wrong.
On what basis do you say that? (See post #436, for example. Or Relativistic mass )
because if your mass appeared to increase as it sped up and also as it slowed down doing a yo-yo would be dangerous.

56. Originally Posted by 514void
I am not sure how these world lines turn symmetric time dilation into asymmetric time dilation, I should look into it a bit.
Proper time is quite simply the length of an observer's world line between events; if you compare observers, you compare the length of their world lines. Inertial observers trace out straight world lines in space-time, whereas non-inertial ones trace out world lines with more complicated geometries. In both cases, the times they record on their wrist watches is the lengths of their world lines.

57. Originally Posted by 514void
because if your mass appeared to increase as it sped up and also as it slowed down doing a yo-yo would be dangerous.
Relativistic mass is dependent on velocity. If something moves relative to you it will appear to have more mass. If it moves faster it will have more mass. If it moves slower it will have less mass. If it is not moving at all it will have just its rest mass.

Why would this be dangerous?

58. Originally Posted by Strange

Relativistic mass is dependent on velocity. If something moves relative to you it will appear to have more mass. If it moves faster it will have more mass. If it moves slower it will have less mass. If it is not moving at all it will have just its rest mass.

Why would this be dangerous?
It should be noted that "relativistic mass" isn't really mass in the classical sense at all, but merely a measure of total energy. All that increases with speed is total energy, which is really quite obvious. "Mass", in all modern textbooks, specifically refers to rest mass, which is invariant for all observers, regardless of their states of relative motion.

59. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by 514void
because if your mass appeared to increase as it sped up and also as it slowed down doing a yo-yo would be dangerous.
Relativistic mass is dependent on velocity. If something moves relative to you it will appear to have more mass. If it moves faster it will have more mass. If it moves slower it will have less mass. If it is not moving at all it will have just its rest mass.

Why would this be dangerous?
because if gained mass as it sped up and also gained mass as it slowed down it would get heavier and heavier.

60. Originally Posted by 514void
Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by 514void
because if your mass appeared to increase as it sped up and also as it slowed down doing a yo-yo would be dangerous.
Relativistic mass is dependent on velocity. If something moves relative to you it will appear to have more mass. If it moves faster it will have more mass. If it moves slower it will have less mass. If it is not moving at all it will have just its rest mass.

Why would this be dangerous?
because if gained mass as it sped up and also gained mass as it slowed down it would get heavier and heavier.
Make sure you don't take off your tinfoil hat. "They" might be beaming thoughts in your brain.

61. Originally Posted by xyzt
Make sure you don't take off your tinfoil hat. "They" might be beaming thoughts in your brain.
You seem a bit crazy.

62. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
It should be noted that "relativistic mass" isn't really mass in the classical sense at all, but merely a measure of total energy. All that increases with speed is total energy, which is really quite obvious. "Mass", in all modern textbooks, specifically refers to rest mass, which is invariant for all observers, regardless of their states of relative motion.
so relativistic mass doesn't cause more gravity?

63. Originally Posted by 514void
because if gained mass as it sped up and also gained mass as it slowed down it would get heavier and heavier.
Well, it is a good job that isn't what happens then.

Is your repeated invention of new aspects of the Theory of Bogo-Relativity some sort of performance art thing? Or is it a hilarious joke? Either way, it isn't really working.

64. Wait... mass increases with speed.....
Spin up a wheel and move it, spin it down and move it back, Bam, anti-gravity machine. (or just a yo-yo)

off you go xyzt, go teach "them" a lesson.

65. Originally Posted by 514void
Wait... mass increases with speed.....
Spin up a wheel and move it, spin it down and move it back, Bam, anti-gravity machine. (or just a yo-yo)

off you go xyzt, go teach "them" a lesson.
Keep your tinfoil hat on.

66. Originally Posted by 514void
I have been told the rules,

1) there is no preferred frame
2) there is no asymmetrical time dilation between inertial frames
3) an object has no memory of previous accelerations

But people still insist that the rate of time in 2 separate inertial frames would be different if an object accelerated from one to the other.
No. Again, you seem to be determined not to understand the clear explanations given to you. Either you aren't listening, or you are refusing to consider the answers (perhaps because you are an anti-relativity crackpot, many of whom display behavioral characteristics very similar to yours). In any case, re-read Markus' post 456. The key point is a correct interpretation of 3) above. No one is saying, let alone insisting, that the "rate of time" in 2 separate inertial frames differs. What they have been saying, and that you keep ignoring, is that the proper time reported by, say, the twins in the famous twins "paradox" does certainly depend on their histories. The "asymmetry" that you keep obsessing about is due to the accelerations that one -- and only one -- of the twins undergoes.

There is no paradox. There is no logical inconsistency. If you think there is, the correct response should be for you to assume that the problem, again, lies between your ears. Fix that, rather than jumping to the erroneous conclusion that you've uncovered a previously undiscovered problem with relativity.

67. Originally Posted by 514void
Originally Posted by Janus
Originally Posted by 514void
Originally Posted by Janus
your argument of "Either there is no time dilation between inertial frames, or there is a prefer frame"
you misunderstand, I am saying that according to the rules of SR, there is no asymmetric time dilation between inertial frames.
Same difference. You are wrong, and are still trying to apply "Flat Earth" rules to a "Round Earth" Universe.
"Flat Earth" rules?
"Round Earth" Universe?
Am I supposed to change the rules whenever I hit a paradox?

No, you are supposed quit trying to reinterpret the rules of a "Round Earth" universe to fit into your "Flat Earth" mindset.

68. Originally Posted by 514void
I have been told the rules,

1) there is no preferred frame
2) there is no asymmetrical time dilation between inertial frames
3) an object has no memory of previous accelerations

But people still insist that the rate of time in 2 separate inertial frames would be different if an object accelerated from one to the other.
Perhaps you should listen and try to understood those rules before entering another physics conversation.

When you get back please don't get into aggressive tit-for-tats that leave the impression you are an ignorant troller. One week off.
--

69. I am trying to understand how relativity works, but I still don't understand how there can be asymmetrical time dilation and there be no preferred frame.
for example if you have 2 syncronised clocks 1 lightyear apart in an inertial frame and a 3rd clock is in an inertial frame that passes by both clocks, would it show any slowing effect between those to clocks.
In SR there should be no slowing effect since there is no preferred frame.
In LET there 'might' be a slowing either way depending on both inertial frames' velocity compared to a preferred frame.
I believe that for any proper evaluation of any effects would have to take this into consideration, for incomplete understanding of the theory being used would lead to mistakes in any conclusions.
I realise that I am being labeled as an ignorant troller, but I was just trying to be scientific, and when scientists don't understand something, shouldn't they admit it?

70. Originally Posted by 514void
I realise that I am being labeled as an ignorant troller, but I was just trying to be scientific, and when scientists don't understand something, shouldn't they admit it?
You are the farthest thing from a scientist, you use these questions to disguise your anti-mainstream spirit, you think you are being very clever about it. You are not.

71. If GPS doesn't adjust the speed of clocks then mainstream science works great.

72. You are doing exactly what you were warned not to do. One week off wasn't enough. Maybe two weeks will work this time.

73. Originally Posted by 514void
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
It should be noted that "relativistic mass" isn't really mass in the classical sense at all, but merely a measure of total energy. All that increases with speed is total energy, which is really quite obvious. "Mass", in all modern textbooks, specifically refers to rest mass, which is invariant for all observers, regardless of their states of relative motion.
so relativistic mass doesn't cause more gravity?
Yes, relativistic mass DOES cause more gravity. Naively, rest matter and kinetic energy (the mass "put-on" due to motion) both can bend space and time and can also themselves travel in a curve due to other distributions of "mass-energy". The gravity of motion can even dwarf rest gravity. Less naively, you may want to look into the Stress-energy tensor portion of the Einstein-Hilbert ("Poisson's") inhomogeneous non-linear field equation. In that, you will find that there are a number of contributions to the sources (ie. the right hand side) - they are: Energy density, Momentum Density (this causes light to behave differently than particles with rest mass), Pressure, and Shear Strain. On the left hand side is how space-time is shaped by the "sources". So in short, relativistic mass "put-on" does cause more gravity and more attraction. In the case of a photon, it's a little bit more complicated and you may want to read up on that. The behavior of photons is not as intuitive - depending on what direction they are traveling, and it's hard I would guess to see them pull in on each other - perhaps impossible (perhaps not yet experimentally even ever observed) but photons are a slightly different animal than the other entities - namely - particles with some rest mass.

Note that above where I mention Momentum Density, that a gas of photons has a somewhat different gravitational effect than massive particles with the same energy - but nevertheless it's something without rest mass and yet it DOES have gravity (of the pure energy type).

But you ask a good question - it's yes.

74. OMG could you please come on my thread and answer my relativity question (which has been re-worded at the last post). You're knowledge seems to be way deeper than mine.

Page 5 of 5 First ... 345
 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