The response to my query appears to be that a simple flash of light will not “synchronize” clocks over distance, even when the distance is not changing. Special measurements and communications must be made for each distance. Furthermore, everyone responding seems to agree that there is “simultaneity of events” across the universe, for the universe, even though the events at every point in it are only observable after the fact, from any other point. This is true, even when distances are not changing.

Clocks that are “synchronized” when together in the same place will appear to run behind each other when separated, simply because they are then in each other’s past. To insist that motion, or speed causes time to “slow down,” when it is obvious that the increasing time delay that accompanies increasing distance is the cause, is to enlist magic into physics.

Decreasing time delay that accompanies decreasing distance between two clocks will cause the clocks to appear to run closer to their “synchronized” time. In other words, the clocks appear to run faster as they approach each other. It does not matter which one is assumed to be at rest.

Every foot change in distance is a nanosecond (or is it an attosecond? Yoctosecond?) change in time delay.

The logic above is irrefutable. Nature provides the Doppler shift, which is responsible for the physical appearance of time running fast or slow. Prove this to yourself. Make a recording of WWV time signals. Then play them back at a faster and/or slower speed. At the faster speed, the tones will be higher, and the time shorter, opposite for slower speed. Everything that happens, and is illuminated, is recorded by the radiation reflected from the event.

Our Sun provides continuous illumination, as opposed to the short focused pulse of a laser beam in an electronic distance-measuring meter. Events far and near are seen coincident (at the same time). This fact does not make all the events we see at any instant simultaneous with each other. The initial simultaneity of all events everywhere at each instant of existence is lost (and never witnessed anywhere) as the light reflected from those events travels away from each event. After the fact, the events observed from a distance at each point can only be determined simultaneous for that point, (by finding equal distance from each event to the observer.

So hep me again: does time dilation mean “a slowing of time” relative to some master clock? I think contraction of length means the apparent shortening of the distance between two points. I have that right.

So, if time is dilated and length is contracted, any time there is motion (speed,) as is always stressed in discussions of relativity, I may need council. Unless the discourse above is illogical, would not the contraction of length cause a decrease in the time delay, and thus a corresponding contraction in time? (apparent speed up in time?)
Hep me, Hep me, Curt

Re: Hep me again Curt Youngs, May 11 2008 at 10:23 PM

So, if time is dilated and length is contracted, any time there is motion (speed,) as is always stressed in discussions of relativity, I may need council. Unless the discourse above is illogical, would not the contraction of length cause a decrease in the time delay, and thus a corresponding contraction in time? (apparent speed up in time?)
Hep me, Hep me, Curt

Curt, you are asking a very good question. I, and I think many others at this site have dealt with the same puzzle and to me, I have to ask; how can time even know it has to dilate? An object traveling at a speed approaching C is traveling through Space not Time. Time dilation, rod contraction and mass increase are needed to keep SR alive because when V^2=C^2 Special Relativity falls apart, and all the Kings horses and all the Kings men will not put humpty Einstein back together again. That’s my side and I’m sticking to it. No sarcasm intended.

bob s

Curt;

I agree with your analysis of time delay due to variable or constant distance.
A different term for it is 'light travel time'.

The effect of light travel time is always present regardless whatever physical theory is used.
For example, Maxwell's Aether theory, Einstein's Special theory, and Ritz' Ballistic theory give the same results for time delay due to variable as well as constant distance.

However, time delay due to distance is quite different from the time dilation of Einstein's Special Relativity.
This second one depends only on the relative speed between the two reference frames, k & k', as can be inferred from the following Lorentz Equation:





As you can see, time dilation is characteristic of Einstein's Relativity; and it's quite unphysical and illogical; and hence, it has no chance at all of being true or real or part of the physical world.

AAF: As you can see, time dilation is characteristic of Einstein's Relativity; and it's quite unphysical and illogical; and hence, it has no chance at all of being true or real or part of the physical world.

cinci: The only thing unpohysical and illogical in your message is you. Relativity is quite logical and physical and is the best matheamtical model of the real world.....as you well know.

Cincirob: "The only thing unphysical and illogical in your message is you. Relativity is quite logical and physical and is the best mathematical model of the real world.....as you well know".



AAF: Hum; the only thing physical and real in the Theory of Relativity is your 'big bony head'!

Look closely at the Lorentz Equation for time dilation; what does it say?

It says, in a very illogical way, that you can have, at the one and the same moment, two times, t & t', with no common instant whatsoever between them.

That is absolutely impossible. Show me it is not impossible.
You can't do it; Cincirob. It is just impossible; and you just can't do it.

AAF
You assume: “as you can see.”

I am very slow with the math formulas. I think I have reproduced your transform t’ = {t-((V^2/c^2)}/√{1-(V^2/c^2)} (I am also slow with making symbols work in e-mails)

Anyway, I am trying to understand the formula. Is the t’ which is being transformed the new rate of passage of time as opposed to “t” which is the rate of passage of time in the original reference frame? If this is true, how does one compare the rates of passage of time? In the inertial frame, the accumulated number of cycles of several identical oscillators (running at identical frequency) can be started and stopped through identical length cables, the accumulated number of cycle counts on each would serve to compare the duration of time at various distances in the frame.

Comparing the regulation of time between frames is a bit hard to do with mechanical or physical methods, therefore we are stuck with using some form of radiation as the simplest means to the end of comparison.

I dug up this formula √{1±(V^2/c^2)} for the formula for Doppler shift: Lorentz transformation operator. Is this right? My understanding of this formula is that the ± is chosen by the approaching or receding direction. Right?

I notice that the Doppler shift transform is the denominator of the time transform, except for the option of choosing the direction with ±. Why is the ± of no consequence concerning the comparison of time regulation between frames?

(V^2/c^2) removes the distance squared, but what does time squared represent? In the Doppler transform, taking the root of time squared get back to time. This would be the denominator. The numerator of the time transform has time squared, right? What does this mean?

I hope you can figure what I am trying to ask.

All the best to you,
Curt

Brilliant use of the Socrates method, Curt:
http://facweb.bcc.ctc.edu/wpayne/diversity_and_the_socratic_metho.htm

But I guess it wouldn't work in the 'anti-relativity' case named 'AAF'! Quite simply, he has nothing positive or constructive or informing to offer in the field of special relativity. Only Cincirob, in my view, is positive enough and knowledgeable enough and familiar enough with special relativity to clear up confusions and answer very deep questions like these.

The (Pro-Relativity) case called 'Cincirob' has nothing but <>'humbug'!


Here is how to write equations in the traditional format on this forum:

Step #1: You go to a math editor online like this one:
http://www.codecogs.com/components/equationeditor/equationeditor.php

Step #2: You choose from the menu the right form for your equation.

Step #3: You type in the symbols of your equation in the main editor window.

Step #4: When done, you press the Render Button.

Step #5: Examine the final equation and make corrections if any.

Step #6: Copy the coded text in the Code Box below the displayed equation.

Step #7: Paste the coded text for the equation in your post.

And that is it.

The first part of the second expression is [vx/c²]; the rest is correct.

And there is no need for writing the Lorentz Equations; since they're reproduced here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation


The new rate of the passage of time is supposed to be implicit in this formula, which transforms the duration [t] in the first system to the duration [t'] in the second system. For instance, a duration of [t= 2 hours], in the stationary system can be transformed to a duration of [t'= 2 minutes] in the moving system; and so on…depending on the value of [v].


As for Doppler, I assume you're talking about these equations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect

And so, according to those equations, most of Doppler effect is due to distance as analyzed in your post.
And only a tiny part of this effect is due to time dilation, which becomes clear when the angle is 90 degrees and effect due to distance vanishes.