marengo wrote:Solar wrote:Clocks show different "times" because the components of their constitution (atoms, protons, electrons etc) are affected by the fields and gradients of which they are also composed. All of which is unaccounted for in your video presentation.That is not "time dilation"; it’s an effect due to an alteration on the mechanics of the clocks.
Frankly, Solar, I do not understand at all what you mean here.
If two identical clocks run at different rates then one suffers time dilation relative to the other and that one suffers time contraction relative to the first. The exact mechanism is unimportant relative to the effect.
However the mechanism must be described in the theory of time dilation/contraction. That mechanism is the change to the electric field surrounding a moving charge.
Perhaps you would care to clarify the point you are trying to make.
It appears to me that you believe Time to be something more fundamental than what is measured by clocks.
If that is the case then I am afraid you are wrong.
However it would be useful if you were to explain exactly what you think Time is. Then we would have something to discuss.
I've corrected the typo in my previous post. As you see it is essentially saying the same thing that you are saying (atoms, electrons, protons etc being not only composed of electric fields but also being affected by e-fields and other gradients even when said atoms, protons, electrons etc constitute the components of a clock) but I do not consider the differences in two clocks so effected, to be such a thing as "time dilation". Let alone differences in tolerances during the manufacturing process contributing.
The largest problem (for me) with Marengo’s presentation of AToR is the loose use of nomenclature. It seems as if some of the terms used are assumed to be generally accepted and agreed upon when this is not the case (more on that later). Onward with David's request. Some thoughts:
David wrote:Solar,
Would you please comment of the following excerpt taken from the Miles Mathis web site:
“I maintain that time is simply a measurement of movement. This is its most direct definition. Whenever we measure time, we measure movement. We cannot measure time without measuring movement. The concept of time is dependent upon the concept of movement. Without movement, there is no time. Every clock measures movement: the vibration of a cesium atom, the swing of pendulum, the movement of a second hand.”
“In this way time can be thought of as a distance measurement. When we measure distance, we measure movement. We measure the change in position. When we measure time, we measure the same thing, but give it another name. Why would we do this? Why give two names and two concepts to the same thing? Distance and Time. I say, in order to compare one to the other. Time is just a second, comparative, measurement of distance.”
--Miles Mathis (
A Revaluation of Time)
I am still undecided on this issue, so I would very much appreciate hearing your take on the Miles Mathis definition of time.
Many thanks.
There have been a couple of threads regarding “Time” on this forum. The original and longest one began just over five years ago here:
What is Time?
I maintain now, as then on the first page of that thread, that “Time" is: ‘a mental and conceptual construct used to quantify the duration of events.’
What does that mean? It means that Mankind tends to lay atop Nature the ideations of what Mankind thinks Nature is doing. Whether or not Nature is actually doing what Mankind thinks it is doing; is debatable. Therefore, with regard to the concept called “Time” what appears to have occurred is that the scientism of the day has separated the abstract idea of “Time” from the devices which have been produced to supposedly “measure” same and made "Time" an essence, or energy all its own. Consider the relationship with that. To “measure” something requires that the something to be “measured” exist despite the device being used to “measure”. It suggest that a measuring device is something used for comparison.
This is why in Miles interpretation of “time” can be ‘flexed” and given
“two names and two concepts to the same thing? Distance and Time. … in order to compare one to the other.” The operative word being “compare” – because that is what the word ‘relative’ actually means. To compare. If I ask you to go see a movie and you ask ‘How long is it?’ Is that an appropriate question? All of a sudden and without thinking about it “Time” became a ‘length’? No, the duration of the movie event is about 2hrs. Such references are called IDIOMS and are figurative; not literal.
Relativistic thinking, or Relativism, plays loose with words and conjoins diametrically opposed concepts to form paradoxes. A clock does not measure “Time”. To say that it does is to posit that a clock is a device that serves as a detector of some essence that is in motion occupying some region of space that has influence upon said clock. A clock is not a compass for the concept called “Time”. “Time” is a concept. A clock is a mechanical device that merely represents the concept. A clock is not a detector nor is “Time” a substance to be detected and/or “measured”. As a result we have some pretty bizarre idiomatic machinations occurring with people wasting considerable “Time”; over speculating as to the nature of the manmade construct called “Time”:
Newsflash: Time May Not Exist
Does Time Exist
What is Time? (4 Minutes long)
What is observed (experienced)in Nature and the Cosmos are events. Events endure duration. We then devise rulers, clocks, meters, set standards and such in order to integrate and facilitate understanding some aspects of said events with our conceptual faculty. These are tools that establish relations with events. Now we witness supposed ‘great minds’ thinking about “Time” and it is honestly is like watching a spider entrapped in a web of its very own figurative making.
Do not say ‘Oh gee, now Solar wants to take Time out physics.’ This would be to miss the point entirely. I refer again to a snippet from one of the earlier mentioned articles that I think deserves some thought. From the keepers of the clocks themselves:
“I recently went to the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Boulder,” says Lloyd. (NIST is the government lab that houses the atomic clock that standardizes time for the nation.) “I said something like, ‘Your clocks measure time very accurately.’ They told me,
‘Our clocks do not measure time.’ I thought, Wow, that’s very humble of these guys. But they said,
‘No, time is defined to be what our clocks measure.’ Which is true. They define the time standards for the globe: Time is defined by the number of clicks of their clocks.”
Newsflash: Time May Not Exist
The supposed "measurement" of the concept *WE* created called "Time" is only a "measurement" by self imposed D-E-F-I-N-I-T-I-O-N; which utilizes a clock. Useful tool? Yes, sometimes. Does it actually exist? Only in our heads. Even the keepers of the clock know better and they should.
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
The clocks cannot be testing for relativity because they cannot. Time passage and length contraction are only locally perceived phenomena. They occur everywhere simultaneously.