Re: relativity of simultaneity - real or perceived?

On 23 May 2005 10:07:08 -0700, "Curious" <anthonyroseuk-curious@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

I will presume you're responding to my post although no reference
to content or poster is given here. So,

>>> At the risk of being stupid again, we can conclude that time
>>> dilation may be all apparent, correct?
>>
>> Time dilation is real. {...}
>
> I see. Can one say though that time is not dilating so much as
> the clock is showing time dilation?

Of course. If, in 1905 the CMBR had been known to Lorentz &
Poincare there most likely would have been a push to define the
effective speed c instead of altering time and distances in the
fashion done today. However, given that while nature did not
'conspire' to produce the Lorentz Group, it IS the nature state
of any medium and its fundamental processes. Therefore, without
access to the CMBR (or the global background noise present in
all compressible media) one cannot determine any global basis
for such a coordinate system. Therefore the LET/SR approach
with time dilation is just a natural observational result
stemming from lacking such a basis during the formative years.

Even if the alternative approach had been done it still would
have been, and is, convenient to create and use local coordinates
systems like the ECC of the GPS. In GR today the CMBR is
becoming the preferred frame to reference.

> In other words, the clock's processes are affected by its speed
> but time remains absolute THEREFORE the clock shows time dilation.

That is one interpretation. Be advised that mainstream relativist
take serious issue with this and will label you a crackpot, crank,
or kook if you persist and or insist on this approach. However,
this is the core point of my earlier comment, the physical universe
is totally independent of any passive observer and coodinate systems
they choose to define. Thus, there can be only one absolute ordering
and, by logical extension, arrow of time. Time is NOT! a distance,
no matter how hard relativist try to force it to be. But, if you
haven't already receive your notice, I am a dissident voice, an
aetherist but hey so were the majority of the physicists throughout
history. You may find this reference interesting, and one that
no card carrying member of the relativist crowd would point to,

http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

Coming full circle, clocks 'experience' a slowing due to motion
and that process is called today, time dilation.

Paul Stowe
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: ABOUT THE GALILEI PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY
    ... of events in a frame to coordinates in another frame. ... Talking about clock changing rates is a very misleading way to talk ... "Time dilation is the phenomenon whereby an observer finds that ... only true in the context of the observer's frame of reference. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Twin paradox negation lll
    ... > Einstein's depiction clock A is located alongside, ... Thus B is not all the time at rest in an SRT reference frame. ... >>> concept of time dilation has involved acceleration! ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: ABOUT THE GALILEI PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY
    ... of events in a frame to coordinates in another frame. ... Talking about clock changing rates is a very misleading way to talk ... Time dilation = clock slowing. ... only true in the context of the observer's frame of reference. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: relativity of simultaneity - real or perceived?
    ... >>> Time dilation is real. ... in 1905 the CMBR had been known to Lorentz & ... > becoming the preferred frame to reference. ... > this is the core point of my earlier comment, the physical universe ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: relativity of simultaneity - real or perceived?
    ... >> Paul Stowe wrote: ... in 1905 the CMBR had been known to Lorentz & ... >> with time dilation is just a natural observational result ... >> becoming the preferred frame to reference. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)