Time Dilation

Why is it that the further out you are from earth, the faster time moves due to gravitational time dilation; and the the faster you go, the slower time moves due to velocity time dilation? Einstein theorized this, and actually has to be factored in Atomic clocks. And (if you believe it or not) GPS satellites.
Gravity does a lot more than "pull things."
Thanks for you time, I'm interested to know the explanation and the fun conversing that will follow

The density of ether is responsible for the time dilation effects.

Louis Essen, inventor of the atomic clock, stated that physicists seem to abandon their critical faculties when considering relativity.

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf

FEers are limited as to how much they believe in objects that move further away from Earth. Conclusions drawn from observations from said objects are basically inadmissible.
Some FEers do believe in gravity, mind you, they just believe only certain objects exert it, or that the gravitational constant is smaller.

When you are not moving relative to space, all of your motion is through time. You are traveling the speed of light through time. When you start to move, some of your motion through time is diverted to motion through space, so your speed through time slows down. The faster you go the more of your speed though time is diverted to speed through pace.

When you are not moving relative to space, all of your motion is through time. You are traveling the speed of light through time. When you start to move, some of your motion through time is diverted to motion through space, so your speed through time slows down. The faster you go the more of your speed though time is diverted to speed through pace.

Except that is the exact opposite of what you get, and doesn't explain why you go slower near heavy bodies.

Consider someone moving at the speed of light. Due to their speed in space, their speed through time would be 0. This means they wouldn't change what moment of time they are in and thus the rest of the world would appear to stand still, as if frozen in time.
But in reality, the opposite would occur, where someone travelling near the speed of light has the rest of the world fly past.

And then there is the issue of how do you have the speed of light, through time.

Time is a temporal dimension, measured in units of time, like second.
Space is a spatial dimension, measured in units of length, like m.
Speed (such as the speed of light) is measured in units of velocity, like m/s.

Travelling at the speed of light through time makes no sense.

Quote from: Albert Wesker on November 17, 2016, 11:07:30 AM

When you are not moving relative to space, all of your motion is through time. You are traveling the speed of light through time. When you start to move, some of your motion through time is diverted to motion through space, so your speed through time slows down. The faster you go the more of your speed though time is diverted to speed through pace.

Except that is the exact opposite of what you get, and doesn't explain why you go slower near heavy bodies.

Consider someone moving at the speed of light. Due to their speed in space, their speed through time would be 0. This means they wouldn't change what moment of time they are in and thus the rest of the world would appear to stand still, as if frozen in time.
But in reality, the opposite would occur, where someone travelling near the speed of light has the rest of the world fly past.

And then there is the issue of how do you have the speed of light, through time.

Time is a temporal dimension, measured in units of time, like second.
Space is a spatial dimension, measured in units of length, like m.
Speed (such as the speed of light) is measured in units of velocity, like m/s.

Travelling at the speed of light through time makes no sense.

I don't guess you know anything about frame of reference and relativity.

Quote from: JackBlack on November 17, 2016, 11:40:26 AM

Quote from: Albert Wesker on November 17, 2016, 11:07:30 AM

When you are not moving relative to space, all of your motion is through time. You are traveling the speed of light through time. When you start to move, some of your motion through time is diverted to motion through space, so your speed through time slows down. The faster you go the more of your speed though time is diverted to speed through pace.

Except that is the exact opposite of what you get, and doesn't explain why you go slower near heavy bodies.

Consider someone moving at the speed of light. Due to their speed in space, their speed through time would be 0. This means they wouldn't change what moment of time they are in and thus the rest of the world would appear to stand still, as if frozen in time.
But in reality, the opposite would occur, where someone travelling near the speed of light has the rest of the world fly past.

And then there is the issue of how do you have the speed of light, through time.

Time is a temporal dimension, measured in units of time, like second.
Space is a spatial dimension, measured in units of length, like m.
Speed (such as the speed of light) is measured in units of velocity, like m/s.

Travelling at the speed of light through time makes no sense.

I don't guess you know anything about frame of reference and relativity.

How about instead of insults you try explaining your position in a rational way?

I know quite a bit.

omg, there's a search utility - please use it.

Time dilates as a function of acceleration - which the earth is doing.

Quote from: Albert Wesker on November 17, 2016, 11:52:17 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on November 17, 2016, 11:40:26 AM

Quote from: Albert Wesker on November 17, 2016, 11:07:30 AM

When you are not moving relative to space, all of your motion is through time. You are traveling the speed of light through time. When you start to move, some of your motion through time is diverted to motion through space, so your speed through time slows down. The faster you go the more of your speed though time is diverted to speed through pace.

Except that is the exact opposite of what you get, and doesn't explain why you go slower near heavy bodies.

Consider someone moving at the speed of light. Due to their speed in space, their speed through time would be 0. This means they wouldn't change what moment of time they are in and thus the rest of the world would appear to stand still, as if frozen in time.
But in reality, the opposite would occur, where someone travelling near the speed of light has the rest of the world fly past.

And then there is the issue of how do you have the speed of light, through time.

Time is a temporal dimension, measured in units of time, like second.
Space is a spatial dimension, measured in units of length, like m.
Speed (such as the speed of light) is measured in units of velocity, like m/s.

Travelling at the speed of light through time makes no sense.

I don't guess you know anything about frame of reference and relativity.

How about instead of insults you try explaining your position in a rational way?

I know quite a bit.

This may or may not help. I drew it up more to help me, but here goes.

Under Special Relativity (keep gravitation out of it for now) we need to think in terms of not space and time, but space-time. We are always travelling forward in time and (in the appropriate units) can say we are travelling at "c". Now the maximum velocity anything can travel is c, so if we are travelling at v in the space dimension, the rate of travel in the time dimension must slow down. Just remember that this diagram is of our rate of travel (velocity) through space-time.

I have tried to illustrate our space-time travel in only two-dimensions, space velocity and time velocity, as four or even three dimensions are hard to visualise.

So to keep our rate of travel through space-time at c as we increase the velocity through space to v



I do hope that this has not made it worse! ( Please don't let any Physicist see it!  )

This may or may not help. I drew it up more to help me, but here goes.

Under Special Relativity (keep gravitation out of it for now) we need to think in terms of not space and time, but space-time. We are always travelling forward in time and (in the appropriate units) can say we are travelling at "c". Now the maximum velocity anything can travel is c, so if we are travelling at v in the space dimension, the rate of travel in the time dimension must slow down. Just remember that this diagram is of our rate of travel (velocity) through space-time.

I have tried to illustrate our space-time travel in only two-dimensions, space velocity and time velocity, as four or even three dimensions are hard to visualise.

Space-time diagram (v-t only)

So to keep our rate of travel through space-time at c as we increase the velocity through space to v

the rate of travel through time must be reduced to (c² - v²)^1/2

or time slows down by a factor of 1/(1 - v²/c²)^1/2.

I do hope that this has not made it worse! ( Please don't let any Physicist see it!  )

Well, there is still the issue of travelling at the speed of c in the time dimension making no sense.
and the not so important issue of the axis labelled time, which should be speed through time or the like (which, again, makes no sense as the appropriate units would be time per unit time, or 1).

The big issue I have is time slowing down by a factor of ...

Forget about it being time for now and instead just have it as space, with what was time being y and what was velocity being x, and to further simplify we can remove units all together, such that they are always travelling at a rate of 1.

Lets have a few people start out at 0 (I'm probably giving more than needed).
P1 just travels in y. This means it will take them 1 to reach position 1 (or for some units here, it would say take 1 second to reach 1 unit away).
P2 travels directly in x+y, so their distance in each is equal. This means that their speed in y (and x) is 1/rt(2) (roughly 0.7) and thus it would take them rt(2) (roughly 1.4) to reach 1. (so 1.4 seconds to reach 1 unit away).
P3 travels at 0.9 in x and thus travels at a measly 0.4 in y. This means it would take them 2.3 to reach 1.
P4 travels at 0.99 in x and thus travels at a measly 0.014 in y. This means it would take them 7 to reach 1.
P5 travels at 0.999999999999 in x and thus travels at a measly 0.0000014 in y. This means it would take them 707114 to reach 1. (to  put this into units, it would take almost a day to reach 1 unit away).

Now what does this mean for time?

P1 is just travelling through time, so we will declare that time passes normally for him.
So he starts out at 0, and ends up 1 s into the future, perceiving 1s to him.
For P2 to reach that same point in time, that 1s in the future from 0, it would appear to him as 1.4 seconds.
And so on for them all.
For P5, travelling almost at the speed of light, it would seem like an entire day has passed int that 1 second.

So to me anyway, this indicates the exact opposite of what is observed.
It indicates that the faster you go, the slower everyone else appears to go, such that if you reached the speed of light everything else would simply stand still.

Quote from: rabinoz on November 17, 2016, 06:41:05 PM

This may or may not help. I drew it up more to help me, but here goes.

Under Special Relativity (keep gravitation out of it for now) we need to think in terms of not space and time, but space-time. We are always travelling forward in time and (in the appropriate units) can say we are travelling at "c". Now the maximum velocity anything can travel is c, so if we are travelling at v in the space dimension, the rate of travel in the time dimension must slow down. Just remember that this diagram is of our rate of travel (velocity) through space-time.

I have tried to illustrate our space-time travel in only two-dimensions, space velocity and time velocity, as four or even three dimensions are hard to visualise.

Space-time diagram (v-t only)

So to keep our rate of travel through space-time at c as we increase the velocity through space to v

the rate of travel through time must be reduced to (c² - v²)^1/2

or time slows down by a factor of 1/(1 - v²/c²)^1/2.

I do hope that this has not made it worse! ( Please don't let any Physicist see it!  )

Well, there is still the issue of travelling at the speed of c in the time dimension making no sense.
and the not so important issue of the axis labelled time, which should be speed through time or the like (which, again, makes no sense as the appropriate units would be time per unit time, or 1).

The big issue I have is time slowing down by a factor of ...

Forget about it being time for now and instead just have it as space, with what was time being y and what was velocity being x, and to further simplify we can remove units all together, such that they are always travelling at a rate of 1.

Lets have a few people start out at 0 (I'm probably giving more than needed).
P1 just travels in y. This means it will take them 1 to reach position 1 (or for some units here, it would say take 1 second to reach 1 unit away).
P2 travels directly in x+y, so their distance in each is equal. This means that their speed in y (and x) is 1/rt(2) (roughly 0.7) and thus it would take them rt(2) (roughly 1.4) to reach 1. (so 1.4 seconds to reach 1 unit away).
P3 travels at 0.9 in x and thus travels at a measly 0.4 in y. This means it would take them 2.3 to reach 1.
P4 travels at 0.99 in x and thus travels at a measly 0.014 in y. This means it would take them 7 to reach 1.
P5 travels at 0.999999999999 in x and thus travels at a measly 0.0000014 in y. This means it would take them 707114 to reach 1. (to  put this into units, it would take almost a day to reach 1 unit away).

Now what does this mean for time?

P1 is just travelling through time, so we will declare that time passes normally for him.
So he starts out at 0, and ends up 1 s into the future, perceiving 1s to him.
For P2 to reach that same point in time, that 1s in the future from 0, it would appear to him as 1.4 seconds.
And so on for them all.
For P5, travelling almost at the speed of light, it would seem like an entire day has passed int that 1 second.

So to me anyway, this indicates the exact opposite of what is observed.
It indicates that the faster you go, the slower everyone else appears to go, such that if you reached the speed of light everything else would simply stand still.

Read what you wrote again. If P1 only travels in y, they would travel 0 cd in 1 ct (cd is light-distance, ct is light-time). P2 has velocity 0.7cd/ct, so in 1 ct they move 0.7 cd. P3 has velocity 0.9 cd/ct.
P1 has normal time passage, 1ct/ct₀. P2 experiences 0.7ct/ct₀, P3 0.4ct/ct₀ (ct₀ equals 1 unit in normal time passage). So already here we can see that time is passing slower for P2 and P3. But let's let them travel some distance. P1 does not move, so whatever. P2 has moved 0.7cd after experiencing 1ct, but they only experience 0.7ct/ct₀. How much time has P1 experienced? 1ct/ct_P1 = 0.7ct/ct_P2, ct_P1 = 1/0.7 = 1.4

P1 has experienced 1.4 seconds after P2 has experienced 1 second, after P2 moving a distance. Time moved faster for P1. Normal time that passed was 1.4 seconds.

Quote from: rabinoz on November 17, 2016, 06:41:05 PM

This may or may not help. I drew it up more to help me, but here goes.

Under Special Relativity (keep gravitation out of it for now) we need to think in terms of not space and time, but space-time. We are always travelling forward in time and (in the appropriate units) can say we are travelling at "c". Now the maximum velocity anything can travel is c, so if we are travelling at v in the space dimension, the rate of travel in the time dimension must slow down. Just remember that this diagram is of our rate of travel (velocity) through space-time.

I have tried to illustrate our space-time travel in only two-dimensions, space velocity and time velocity, as four or even three dimensions are hard to visualise.

Space-time diagram (v-t only)

So to keep our rate of travel through space-time at c as we increase the velocity through space to v

the rate of travel through time must be reduced to (c² - v²)^1/2

or time slows down by a factor of 1/(1 - v²/c²)^1/2.

I do hope that this has not made it worse! ( Please don't let any Physicist see it!  )

Well, there is still the issue of travelling at the speed of c in the time dimension making no sense.
and the not so important issue of the axis labelled time, which should be speed through time or the like (which, again, makes no sense as the appropriate units would be time per unit time, or 1).

I tried to answer this quickly on a tablet, but it got too much. I'll wait till I can get to a computer to finish it.

I did warn you, I'm no Physicist and this might be a case of the blind leading the blind. Part of it is a fault of my diagram. I labelled the vertical time, but it is really rate of travel through time and the value c simple means travelling through time at the rate of one second per second.

The next important point is that, to those moving, time always appears to pass at the normal rate.
The basis of relativity is that everything in any inertial frame of reference appears exactly the same. (Inertial frame in Special Relativity simply means travelling at a constant velocity).

And you are right, it is only for others that time seems to have slowed down. All inertial frames are equivalent, though by convention we often regard the "stationary stars as a reference".

Moving clocks are still running at their normal rate in their reference frame, but to us they semester to run slow.

When it comes to clocks in high earth orbit satellites GR comes in and the reduced gravitational field increases the clock rate above that on earth, with that being more than the effect of velocity.

I'll get back when I can, but I think you are close to the correct explanation.

There is a series on YouTube "Curved Spacetime in General Relativity, PBS Space Time" that might be worth watching. It is about relativity, so goes a lot further than this.

omg, there's a search utility - please use it.

Time dilates as a function of acceleration - which the earth is doing.

You know very well that using the "search utility" results in:

An Error Has Occurred!
Due to high stress on the server, the search function has been automatically and temporarily disabled. Please try again in a short while.

So of course I try "the Wiki" and get this set of equations
Under Special Relativity we find:
Now, this, from "the Wiki", seems to say that time dilation is dependent on velocity, not acceleration.

But no other reference to Time Dilation.

So, let's try General Relativity (nothing about time dilation under GR in "the Wiki"), and yes acceleration is equivalent to gravitation, but the 9.8 m/s² would give a time dilation of only about 350 parts in 10¹², big deal.

Your claim of time dilation as a function of acceleration is looking a bit weak, but all is not quite lost, acceleration results in velocity and velocity does cause time-dilation. But I'll let you work out how severe is, Excel runs out of puff after 10³⁰⁸.

But Mr Narcberry, time dilation is predominantly caused by velocity, but extreme gravitation or acceleration will cause it too.

So, please explain what you meant by "Time dilates as a function of acceleration".

v²+t²=c²
(v/s)²=v²/s²
(t/s)²=t²/s²
v²/s² + t²/s² = (v² + t²)/s²
-> (v² + t²)/s² = c²/s²
(v/s)²+(t/s)² = (c/s)²
(t/s)² = (c/s)² - (v/s)²
If v/s (acceleration of velocity) increase, t/s (time passage) decrease, i.e. time goes slower with higher deceleration.

omg, there's a search utility - please use it.

Time dilates as a function of acceleration - which the earth is doing.

I totally understand, but my goal was to ask why we observe it if gravity isn't real and the Earth is flat.

Quote from: narcberry on November 17, 2016, 05:56:36 PM

omg, there's a search utility - please use it.

Time dilates as a function of acceleration - which the earth is doing.

I totally understand, but my goal was to ask why we observe it if gravity isn't real and the Earth is flat.

Time dilates because the speed of light as measured in all reference frames is constant. Therefore n order for all reference frames to measure this, space and time have to change accordingly.

Read what you wrote again. If P1 only travels in y, they would travel 0 cd in 1 ct (cd is light-distance, ct is light-time). P2 has velocity 0.7cd/ct, so in 1 ct they move 0.7 cd. P3 has velocity 0.9 cd/ct.
P1 has normal time passage, 1ct/ct₀. P2 experiences 0.7ct/ct₀, P3 0.4ct/ct₀ (ct₀ equals 1 unit in normal time passage). So already here we can see that time is passing slower for P2 and P3. But let's let them travel some distance. P1 does not move, so whatever. P2 has moved 0.7cd after experiencing 1ct, but they only experience 0.7ct/ct₀. How much time has P1 experienced? 1ct/ct_P1 = 0.7ct/ct_P2, ct_P1 = 1/0.7 = 1.4

P1 has experienced 1.4 seconds after P2 has experienced 1 second, after P2 moving a distance. Time moved faster for P1. Normal time that passed was 1.4 seconds.

Nope. I think it would be better for you to re-read and understand what it is indicating and the massive problem with it of trying to say how quickly one is moving through time.
Why does P1 experience 0.7 ct/ct₀? Why isn't it 0.7 ct₀/ct?

The diagram would indicate that for 1 normal unit of time for him, he will only move 0.7 units of time for everyone else.

Like I said, compare it to space, if you travel in x+y, it takes you longer to reach the same point in y than someone just moving in y at the same speed.

As such, this indicates time for everyone else slows down as you move fast.

I tried to answer this quickly on a tablet, but it got too much. I'll wait till I can get to a computer to finish it.

I did warn you, I'm no Physicist and this might be a case of the blind leading the blind. Part of it is a fault of my diagram. I labelled the vertical time, but it is really rate of travel through time and the value c simple means travelling through time at the rate of one second per second.

The next important point is that, to those moving, time always appears to pass at the normal rate.
The basis of relativity is that everything in any inertial frame of reference appears exactly the same. (Inertial frame in Special Relativity simply means travelling at a constant velocity).

And you are right, it is only for others that time seems to have slowed down. All inertial frames are equivalent, though by convention we often regard the "stationary stars as a reference".

Moving clocks are still running at their normal rate in their reference frame, but to us they semester to run slow.

When it comes to clocks in high earth orbit satellites GR comes in and the reduced gravitational field increases the clock rate above that on earth, with that being more than the effect of velocity.

I'll get back when I can, but I think you are close to the correct explanation.

There is a series on YouTube "Curved Spacetime in General Relativity, PBS Space Time" that might be worth watching. It is about relativity, so goes a lot further than this.

I wouldn't say the blind leading the blind, but that diagram does misrepresent what happens. Relativity and time dilation makes no reference to everything always moving at a speed of c, either through time or space or some combination thereof (at least not that I am aware of).

The closest it would come is by considering a simple clock which is light bouncing between 2 mirrors in a vacuum, and light always travelling at the speed of light (and this works out quite similar to your digram). If you are stationary w.r.t an inertial reference frame, the time taken (one tick of the clock, t) is 2l/c where c is the distance between the plates.
If you speed up and are travelling at a velocity of v, then the distance increases to sqrt(l^2+(vt/2)^2), and thus the tick is 2sqrt(l^2+(vt/2)^2)/c, and after doing some math to rearrange that you get t=(2l/c)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

v²+t²=c²
(v/s)²=v²/s²
(t/s)²=t²/s²
v²/s² + t²/s² = (v² + t²)/s²
-> (v² + t²)/s² = c²/s²
(v/s)²+(t/s)² = (c/s)²
(t/s)² = (c/s)² - (v/s)²
If v/s (acceleration of velocity) increase, t/s (time passage) decrease, i.e. time goes slower with higher deceleration.

Except it doesn't. v and t do not have the same units.

It also contradicts reality. It indicates that as your velocity increases and you move faster, you travel through time slower, and thus everything would appear to slow down as you are moving through time slower and you need to go for a lot longer to go the same amount of time as someone at rest.

Quote from: Master_Evar on November 18, 2016, 03:50:10 AM

v²+t²=c²
(v/s)²=v²/s²
(t/s)²=t²/s²
v²/s² + t²/s² = (v² + t²)/s²
-> (v² + t²)/s² = c²/s²
(v/s)²+(t/s)² = (c/s)²
(t/s)² = (c/s)² - (v/s)²
If v/s (acceleration of velocity) increase, t/s (time passage) decrease, i.e. time goes slower with higher deceleration.

Except it doesn't. v and t do not have the same units.

This blind chicken is pulling out, after a few comments.
On my diagram the units are not time and distance, but both axes are (space-time)/(unit time) and the axes are the time-like axis and the space-like axis.

It also contradicts reality. It indicates that as your velocity increases and you move faster, you travel through time slower, and thus everything would appear to slow down as you are moving through time slower and you need to go for a lot longer to go the same amount of time as someone at rest.

As your velocity increases you travel through time slower, in other words you take less (of your) time to get there.

In the limit if you travel at c (only objects with zero rest mass, like photons, can do that) your velocity in the time-like direction is zero, so it takes none of your time to get there - time stands still

There is even observational evidence of this sort of thing (as I said I'm no Physicist, so correct me if I am wrong).

The muon is an unstable subatomic particle with a mean lifetime of 2.2 µs.

Muons are produced at an altitude of typically 15 km from the interaction of high-energy cosmic rays with the atmosphere.

Now it takes light about 500 µs to reach earth from 15 km, so muons must take a little longer, but their half-life is only 2.2 µs (some quote different values), so hardly any might be expected to reach earth.

But because the muons travel at so close to c time is slowed down so much for them that a large proportion does reach the surface.

Travelling slowly along the time-like direction means that time passes more slowly for us, that is we get more done (or more distance travelled in the space-like direction) in a given time.

Anyway, I've probably confused everybody, including me.

Nope. I think it would be better for you to re-read and understand what it is indicating and the massive problem with it of trying to say how quickly one is moving through time.
Why does P1 experience 0.7 ct/ct₀? Why isn't it 0.7 ct₀/ct?

This is relative to a frame of reference, ct₀ is this reference's "real" time. And 0.7 ct/ct₀ is what you get if you do the time dilation equations directly derived from rabinoz´s diagram.

The diagram would indicate that for 1 normal unit of time for him, he will only move 0.7 units of time for everyone else.

Ah, no, you are interpreting it wrong. When the frame of reference with timeline ct₀ has experienced 1 second, P2 has only experienced 0.7 seconds.

Like I said, compare it to space, if you travel in x+y, it takes you longer to reach the same point in y than someone just moving in y at the same speed.

And because P2 is moving in both space and time, they move through time slower than the reference frame. Since 0.7 < 1, P2 experienced less time, which they should have.

As such, this indicates time for everyone else slows down as you move fast.

In your own frame of reference, yes, since you are stationary in relation to yourself. But for everyone else you are the one moving slower.

Quote from: Master_Evar on November 18, 2016, 03:50:10 AM

v²+t²=c²
(v/s)²=v²/s²
(t/s)²=t²/s²
v²/s² + t²/s² = (v² + t²)/s²
-> (v² + t²)/s² = c²/s²
(v/s)²+(t/s)² = (c/s)²
(t/s)² = (c/s)² - (v/s)²
If v/s (acceleration of velocity) increase, t/s (time passage) decrease, i.e. time goes slower with higher deceleration.

Except it doesn't. v and t do not have the same units.

They do, technically. Time is also just a dimension, so length exists in time, and since t here means time passage, not absolute time, the units is m/s. Of course, second doesn't make sense here. So let's just say the unit for all numbers here are m/i (meter per iteration). Now it all makes sense. Iteration is equal to everyone and increasing. What we call time is distance travelled per iteration in the time dimension, same for velocity (but through space).

It also contradicts reality. It indicates that as your velocity increases and you move faster, you travel through time slower, and thus everything would appear to slow down as you are moving through time slower and you need to go for a lot longer to go the same amount of time as someone at rest.

You always perceive time going normal. If your time slows down, so does your brain and perception of time anyways.

As your velocity increases you travel through time slower, in other words you take less (of your) time to get there.

Again, I understand (somewhat) how it works in reality. That isn't the issue. My issue is saying we travel through spacetime at a constant speed and that that is how time dilation works (as it is complete nonsense which contradicts reality).

Specifically with your statement that you travel through time slower, why would this mean it takes less of your time to get there? Surely if you take less time you get there faster?
If you travelled through distance slower it would take more of your time to get there, not less. Why should it be the opposite for time?

This is relative to a frame of reference, ct₀ is this reference's "real" time. And 0.7 ct/ct₀ is what you get if you do the time dilation equations directly derived from rabinoz´s diagram.

Why?
Why isn't it 0.7ct₀/ct?

If ct₀ is the time for that reference frame, it should be the y axis, while ct is your time, i.e. you travel through 0.7 units of real time for your one unit or perceived time.

Ah, no, you are interpreting it wrong. When the frame of reference with timeline ct₀ has experienced 1 second, P2 has only experienced 0.7 seconds.

No. I'm not. At least I see no reason why I am.
As far as I can tell from the diagram, P2 should have experienced 1 second while that reference frame experiences 0.7 seconds. This is because it P2's second, he has only travelled through 0.7 of the reference frames second.

And because P2 is moving in both space and time, they move through time slower than the reference frame. Since 0.7 < 1, P2 experienced less time, which they should have.

Yes, they move slower through time. That means it will take them longer to reach the same point in time.
That means they will perceive more time than someone at rest. So no, P1 would only experience 0.7 units while P2 experiences 1.

In your own frame of reference, yes, since you are stationary in relation to yourself. But for everyone else you are the one moving slower.

No. In the reference frame of others, which you are moving through space in. In any inertial reference frame, those moving (according to that diagram and that "reasoning") should be experiencing more time than those at rest.

They do, technically. Time is also just a dimension, so length exists in time, and since t here means time passage, not absolute time, the units is m/s. Of course, second doesn't make sense here. So let's just say the unit for all numbers here are m/i (meter per iteration). Now it all makes sense. Iteration is equal to everyone and increasing. What we call time is distance travelled per iteration in the time dimension, same for velocity (but through space).

No. They don't. Time has units of s, not m.
Something being a dimension doesn't mean it can be measured in meters. Only spatial dimensions can be measured in m.
Temporal dimensions are measured in units of time. Energetic dimensions are measured in units of energy. Magnetic flux dimensions are measured in units of magnetism, and so on.

All you are doing is spouting pure nonsense. So no. Lets not through sanity out the window. Instead lets reject having time (or time passage) be measured in nonsensical units of m (or m per second).

If you want me to even consider doing something as insane as that tell me how many seconds are in a meter, and why.

And regardless, you still have the same issue.
P2 has travelled only 0.7 s (or meters if you want to be insane) for this iteration, while P1 has travelled 1 s. This means P2 needs to go through another partial iteration in order to be at the same time as P1. This means P2 needs to experience more iterations to be at the same point in time as P1. This means P2 would perceive more time passing than P1.

You always perceive time going normal. If your time slows down, so does your brain and perception of time anyways.

Hence why I said it appears everyone else is going slowly while you are moving, but that does have the issue of what reference frame. So it would perhaps be better to say someone travelling fast while you are at rest appears to be going much faster, ageing much more than the person at rest.

Again, with your iteration idea (but simplifying units), if you move at 0.5 s per iteration, then you need 2 iterations to go through 1 second, while someone at rest (travelling 1 s per iteration), only needs 1. This means you perceive 2 seconds (iterations) while the other person only perceives 1.

Quote from: rabinoz on November 19, 2016, 04:19:07 AM

As your velocity increases you travel through time slower, in other words you take less (of your) time to get there.

Again, I understand (somewhat) how it works in reality. That isn't the issue. My issue is saying we travel through spacetime at a constant speed and that that is how time dilation works (as it is complete nonsense which contradicts reality).

Specifically with your statement that you travel through time slower, why would this mean it takes less of your time to get there? Surely if you take less time you get there faster?
If you travelled through distance slower it would take more of your time to get there, not less. Why should it be the opposite for time?

It's not opposite, you are thinking about it in layman terms of "fast" and "slow". Why is a higher velocity better than a low velocity? Because it takes a lower length through time tor reach a certain length in space. So the higher velocity (or "faster") you go through time, the less distance through space you have to travel to reach it. Light don't experience time, they only travel through space. Their time is moving as slow as possible, they need to move for an eternity through space and still won't reach a point in time ahead of their time. We nearly don't move through space at all, but we move through time very quickly, so we can reach a certain point in time ahead of us without moving through much (if any) space, so we move quickly through time. That's why fast motion through time means experiencing more time, and slow means experiencing less. Have you seen that quicksilver scene from x-men, days of the future past? When he moves fast, does the others time move slow or quickly? In that scene, he experiences many seconds while the others don't even experience one second. But I think a lot of us think of it as if he's slowing down time for the others.

Quote from: Master_Evar on November 19, 2016, 07:44:23 AM

This is relative to a frame of reference, ct₀ is this reference's "real" time. And 0.7 ct/ct₀ is what you get if you do the time dilation equations directly derived from rabinoz´s diagram.

Why?
Why isn't it 0.7ct₀/ct?

If ct₀ is the time for that reference frame, it should be the y axis, while ct is your time, i.e. you travel through 0.7 units of real time for your one unit or perceived time.

There is no "you" in this. There is the reference frame and some people moving. If we were the reference frame, our time would be ct₀ and ct, so in that case ct/ct₀ = 1. If you mean the travelers time as "your time", your claim doesn't even make sense, as I established that refrence frame time is real time. And the math says that if the reference frame experiences 1 second (of real time), the traveler experiences 0.7 seconds (as perceived by the reference frame). Why? Because that's how the equation works. How? Einstein tried to make it so light speed is constant. Why? because that's what measurements show. Why?... You can only ask so many why's. This relation between time and space has been tested, that's how we know it works.

Quote from: Master_Evar on November 19, 2016, 07:44:23 AM

Ah, no, you are interpreting it wrong. When the frame of reference with timeline ct₀ has experienced 1 second, P2 has only experienced 0.7 seconds.

No. I'm not. At least I see no reason why I am.
As far as I can tell from the diagram, P2 should have experienced 1 second while that reference frame experiences 0.7 seconds. This is because it P2's second, he has only travelled through 0.7 of the reference frames second.

I gave you the answer to that already...

Quote from: Master_Evar on November 19, 2016, 07:44:23 AM

In your own frame of reference, yes, since you are stationary in relation to yourself. But for everyone else you are the one moving slower.

No. In the reference frame of others, which you are moving through space in. In any inertial reference frame, those moving (according to that diagram and that "reasoning") should be experiencing more time than those at rest.

And you don't understand frames of reference?

*sigh*

P2 thinks he has experienced 1 second and everyone else experienced 0.7
Everyone else thinks they have experienced 1 second and P2 experienced 0.7 seconds

And they are all right, in their own frame of reference. In other's refrence frame P2 are moving through, P2 has only experienced 0.7 seconds when the others have experienced 1 seconds. But P2 can't perceive that, because it's the OTHER'S reference frame, not P2's.

Quote from: Master_Evar on November 19, 2016, 07:44:23 AM

They do, technically. Time is also just a dimension, so length exists in time, and since t here means time passage, not absolute time, the units is m/s. Of course, second doesn't make sense here. So let's just say the unit for all numbers here are m/i (meter per iteration). Now it all makes sense. Iteration is equal to everyone and increasing. What we call time is distance travelled per iteration in the time dimension, same for velocity (but through space).

No. They don't. Time has units of s, not m.
Something being a dimension doesn't mean it can be measured in meters. Only spatial dimensions can be measured in m.
Temporal dimensions are measured in units of time. Energetic dimensions are measured in units of energy. Magnetic flux dimensions are measured in units of magnetism, and so on.

All you are doing is spouting pure nonsense. So no. Lets not through sanity out the window. Instead lets reject having time (or time passage) be measured in nonsensical units of m (or m per second).

If you want me to even consider doing something as insane as that tell me how many seconds are in a meter, and why.

How many meters are there in a second? It depends on your velocity. And this is what a stationary frame of reference would perceive, because in relativity everything is relative.
If you only travel in time (0 velocity in space, 1c through time) 1 s = 299 792 458 m
If you are a photon, you don't travel through time, so null
If you are moving at 0.7c through time, 1 s = 209 854 721 m

It's basic maths. Just like there are 299 792 458m in one second for us observing a photon or 1m in one second for something moving at 1m/s.

But then the unit for velocity would be m/m, that's why it should be m/i for velocity in these equations as well.
1c = 299 792 458m/i
If you want to, you can give me a special relativistics problem and I'll solve it by using m/i as the unit for time-velocity and space-velocity..

And this is all derived from your observation that in v^2+t^2=c^2 they must all share one unit. They are all some sort of change in length per some unit.

And regardless, you still have the same issue.
P2 has travelled only 0.7 s (or meters if you want to be insane) for this iteration, while P1 has travelled 1 s. This means P2 needs to go through another partial iteration in order to be at the same time as P1. This means P2 needs to experience more iterations to be at the same point in time as P1. This means P2 would perceive more time passing than P1.

I adressed the problem with this earlier in the post.

Quote from: Master_Evar on November 19, 2016, 07:44:23 AM

You always perceive time going normal. If your time slows down, so does your brain and perception of time anyways.

Hence why I said it appears everyone else is going slowly while you are moving, but that does have the issue of what reference frame. So it would perhaps be better to say someone travelling fast while you are at rest appears to be going much faster, ageing much more than the person at rest.

Again, with your iteration idea (but simplifying units), if you move at 0.5 s per iteration, then you need 2 iterations to go through 1 second, while someone at rest (travelling 1 s per iteration), only needs 1. This means you perceive 2 seconds (iterations) while the other person only perceives 1.

More iterations to experience the same time, sounds like that one is slower, doesn't it? Another reason m/i works better, it translates well into layman terms.

It's not opposite, you are thinking about it in layman terms of "fast" and "slow". Why is a higher velocity better than a low velocity? Because it takes a lower length through time tor reach a certain length in space.

No. What you are portraying is the opposite of how it was described.

You are simply trying to match up velocity in time with velocity in space.

As you said, a higher velocity in space would mean you take (or experience) less time to get there.
As such, a higher velocity through time, would mean you take (or experience) less time to get there.
So if someone is travelling at 1s/i, it would take them 1 iteration to get through 1 s of time, and thus they perceive and age for one iteration, while for someone travelling at 0.5s/i, it would take them 2 iterations to get through 1 s of time.

It should be just like distance.
If you travel at 1 m/s and someone else travels at 0.5 m/s, it will take them twice as long to reach the same point in space, i.e. they will experience twice as much time pass.
As such, if you travel at 1 s/s and someone else travels at 0.5 s/s, it will take them twice as long to reach the same point in time, i.e. they will experience twice as much time pass.

So the higher velocity (or "faster") you go through time, the less distance through space you have to travel to reach it.

Again, this is not how it was explained. And this doesn't work either. It gives you a completely different relationship.
Instead of getting the expected dilation of 1/(1-v^2/c^2) you would get something more like c/v.
It would mean light, travelling at roughly 300 000 000 m/s would experience 1 second for each 300 000 000 m it takes. Meanwhile, someone standing still would experience time just flying straight by.

So no, that won't work either.
That is just you grasping at straws to pretend it works.

That's why fast motion through time means experiencing more time, and slow means experiencing less.

Yes, so someone moving quickly through time will experience a lot of time for a given amount of their time, while someone moving more slowly through time will experience less time for a given amount of their time.
i.e. if you take an average person, with a lifespan of 80 or so, and have one move through time at a rate of 1 s/s, and the other move through time at a rate of 0.5 s/s, the one moving at a rate 0.5 s/s will die at age 80 (relative to himself), which would correspond to age 40 for the other person. He has only experienced half the rest frame's time.

Have you seen that quicksilver scene from x-men, days of the future past? When he moves fast, does the others time move slow or quickly? In that scene, he experiences many seconds while the others don't even experience one second. But I think a lot of us think of it as if he's slowing down time for the others.

Which would go along with what I was saying before. He was moving quickly. As such "he was moving through time more slowly" and thus he perceived far more time than the others over the same amount of real time, which lines up with what I was saying before. However, that is just fictional, and not representative of reality.

There is no "you" in this. There is the reference frame and some people moving. If we were the reference frame, our time would be ct₀ and ct, so in that case ct/ct₀ = 1. If you mean the travelers time as "your time", your claim doesn't even make sense, as I established that refrence frame time is real time. And the math says that if the reference frame experiences 1 second (of real time), the traveler experiences 0.7 seconds (as perceived by the reference frame). Why? Because that's how the equation works. How? Einstein tried to make it so light speed is constant. Why? because that's what measurements show. Why?... You can only ask so many why's. This relation between time and space has been tested, that's how we know it works.

Yes, it was meant to be P2, not you.
No. That isn't how the model works.
The model indicates that the traveller, P2, will experience 0.7 ct₀ during their 1 "s" of time.
Just like they are travelling at a rate of 0.7 m₀ per second.

No. The relation/model presented here has not been tested. The relation/model presented/defended by you is pure bullshit, which you are yet to justify.

I gave you the answer to that already...

No. You baselessly asserted it. There is a very big difference.

And you don't understand frames of reference?

No. I understand them quite well.

P2 thinks he has experienced 1 second and everyone else experienced 0.7
Everyone else thinks they have experienced 1 second and P2 experienced 0.7 seconds

The model/math shows the opposite. It shows that P1 thinks that he has experienced 0.7 s while thinking P2 has experienced 1 s.

How many meters are there in a second? It depends on your velocity. And this is what a stationary frame of reference would perceive, because in relativity everything is relative.

How about when you are at rest, i.e. your velocity (through space) is 0?

Regardless, that is pure garbage.
If you want to convert between units you don't need know your velocity.
I don't need to know how fast you are going to tell you how many mm there are in an inch. It is the same, regardless. This is because they are 2 units for measuring the same thing.

Time and distance are 2 different things, with different units. You can't just decide to measure distance in m. It makes no sense at all.

If you only travel in time (0 velocity in space, 1c through time) 1 s = 299 792 458 m
If you are a photon, you don't travel through time, so null
If you are moving at 0.7c through time, 1 s = 209 854 721 m

It's basic maths. Just like there are 299 792 458m in one second for us observing a photon or 1m in one second for something moving at 1m/s.

Except, it isn't.
That is how many seconds it takes to traverse a m, not how many seconds are in a meter, the 2 are fundamentally different.

Your numbers above don't even match that.
If your velocity is the speed of light, 299 792 458 m/s. then 1s=299 792 458 m. As such, there would be 1/299 792 458 seconds in a m.
If you are at rest, then your velocity is 0m/s. Thus 1s=0m.

But then the unit for velocity would be m/m, that's why it should be m/i for velocity in these equations as well.

No. That's why you should discard that bullshit entirely.

If you want to, you can give me a special relativistics problem and I'll solve it by using m/i as the unit for time-velocity and space-velocity..

Bullshit. You will use the real units, and just pretend they are these.

And this is all derived from your observation that in v^2+t^2=c^2 they must all share one unit. They are all some sort of change in length per some unit.

No. My observation was that they don't share a unit and thus the equation is bullshit.
You don't get to just fudge the units to make your equation work. If your equation was based upon reality, then the units would already be the same and not needing changing.

I adressed the problem with this earlier in the post.

Again, baselessly asserting crap is not addressing.

More iterations to experience the same time, sounds like that one is slower, doesn't it? Another reason m/i works better, it translates well into layman terms.

Again, this is an issue of using units of s/s. An iteration would represent how they experience time, for example a heartbeat or ageing 1 second or the like.
That also causes lots of issues with terms like slower and faster.
Yes, they are travelling through time slower, which means they would perceive more time passing (I know, issues with reference frame as well).
So for simplicity, make an iteration the tick of a clock.
A clock at rest ticks at a rate of 1s/tick. A clock travelling at 0.7c thus (according to this model, to the observer at rest) ticks at a rate of 0.7s/tick.


If you travel more slowly through time, you will experience more time passing to reach a particular point in time than someone travelling quickly through time.
Just like if you had 2 people travelling through space, one at a rate of 1 m/s (or m/i), and one at a rate of 0.7 m/s, in order to reach 1 m ahead, the one travelling at 0.7 m/s will experience more time.

So if you start at t=0, and go to t=0.7, the person at rest (1 s/ s) will perceive 0.7 s as passing, while the person travelling at 0.7 s/s will appear to perceive an entire second pass to the observer at rest.

No. What you are portraying is the opposite of how it was described.

You are simply trying to match up velocity in time with velocity in space.

As you said, a higher velocity in space would mean you take (or experience) less time to get there.
As such, a higher velocity through time, would mean you take (or experience) less time to get there.
So if someone is travelling at 1s/i, it would take them 1 iteration to get through 1 s of time, and thus they perceive and age for one iteration, while for someone travelling at 0.5s/i, it would take them 2 iterations to get through 1 s of time.

This is the exact kind of narrow-minded thinking (which is intuitive, so understandable) that makes relativity so hard for so many people.

It should be just like distance.

It IS. You don't measure velocity in space/space, you measure it in space/time. And just the same way, you have to measure velocity in time in time/space, not time/time.

If you travel at 1 m/s and someone else travels at 0.5 m/s, it will take them twice as long to reach the same point in space, i.e. they will experience twice as much time pass.
As such, if you travel at 1 s/s and someone else travels at 0.5 s/s, it will take them twice as long to reach the same point in time, i.e. they will experience twice as much time pass.

You CAN'T use s/s, it becomes null. You have to use s/m. If someone travels 1 s/m and someone else 0.5 s/m, it will take them twice as long (of travel through space) to reach 1 second.

Again, this is not how it was explained. And this doesn't work either. It gives you a completely different relationship.
Instead of getting the expected dilation of 1/(1-v^2/c^2) you would get something more like c/v.
It would mean light, travelling at roughly 300 000 000 m/s would experience 1 second for each 300 000 000 m it takes. Meanwhile, someone standing still would experience time just flying straight by.

So no, that won't work either.
That is just you grasping at straws to pretend it works.

No, it gives you the exact same relationship. Look at the graph. X and Y are interchangeable, because the curve is a perfect quarter sphere (c^2=x^2+y^2). Light travelling at 300 000 000m/s would experience 1 second for every 300 000 000m that everything in the universe moved past it. But to a photon the universe is completely flat(length contraction), so it takes no time for it to reach any point. To us, the photon does not experience time at all as it moves at 300 000 000m/s, so we observe that it doesn't experience any time moving between any two points. Also, you can't derive the lorentz factor from this graph alone, since it's a factor and there are no factors in the graph. And, the lorentz factor was derived by constructing a right trianlge and using pythagoras theorem, and if you plot all possible states of that triangle with a constant hypotenuse you get... a circle. The Lorentz factor is also based off of a pythagorean equation.

Yes, so someone moving quickly through time will experience a lot of time for a given amount of their time, while someone moving more slowly through time will experience less time for a given amount of their time.
i.e. if you take an average person, with a lifespan of 80 or so, and have one move through time at a rate of 1 s/s, and the other move through time at a rate of 0.5 s/s, the one moving at a rate 0.5 s/s will die at age 80 (relative to himself), which would correspond to age 40 for the other person. He has only experienced half the rest frame's time.

But 0.5s per second of a person experiencing 0.5 second for every second that is 0.5 second of every second... Don't you see what the problem is with this kind of thinking? After experiencing one second, they have experienced two seconds, which is 4 seconds, which is 8... The math doesn't agree with you. You can't use s/s.

Which would go along with what I was saying before. He was moving quickly. As such "he was moving through time more slowly" and thus he perceived far more time than the others over the same amount of real time, which lines up with what I was saying before. However, that is just fictional, and not representative of reality.

No, he was moving faster through time. As I said, the other's time seem to have slowed down. Let's challenge each other's model. Make up a relativistics problem, and we'll both solve it with our respective views on time. I'll use m/i, you can use s/s.

Yes, it was meant to be P2, not you.
No. That isn't how the model works.
The model indicates that the traveller, P2, will experience 0.7 ct₀ during their 1 "s" of time.
Just like they are travelling at a rate of 0.7 m₀ per second.

No. The relation/model presented here has not been tested. The relation/model presented/defended by you is pure bullshit, which you are yet to justify.

LOL, you actually think I have designed this model? Are you saying that a model, which explains the time dilation of GPS and half-lives of fast-moving particles, has "not been tested"? Are you saying that the theory of special relativity has not been tested? Do you think, you who use "s/s", that you understand relativity better than just the layman?

If you want me to justify it, I'll do it. Give me a relativistic problem and I'll solve it, I already told you.

No. You baselessly asserted it. There is a very big difference.

Actually, no. A baseless assertion is still an answer. The quality of it depends on the context. You have to understand that for you time is always normal. Or in your terms, you always, always, experience 1"s/s".
So yes, when P2 has experienced 1 s, the frame has experienced 0.7s. But when the frame has experienced 1 s, P2 has experienced 0.7 s. There are no preferred frames, so both P2 and the frame thinks the other is slower. Since you specified P2 is moving, I assume that we, the observer, are still in the frame of reference P2 is moving relative to.

No. I understand them quite well.

Maybe not well enough.

The model/math shows the opposite. It shows that P1 thinks that he has experienced 0.7 s while thinking P2 has experienced 1 s.

No, what I said is EXACTLY what the model shows, all of your weird claims comes fromt the whole "s/s", which is to be quite frank just BS.

How about when you are at rest, i.e. your velocity (through space) is 0?

Maybe if you didn't stop right there, which I see later in this post you didn't, you'd have the answer.

Regardless, that is pure garbage.
If you want to convert between units you don't need know your velocity.
I don't need to know how fast you are going to tell you how many mm there are in an inch. It is the same, regardless. This is because they are 2 units for measuring the same thing.

Evidently you don't understand frames of reference. I think you mean how long a second is in your own frame of reference, which is obviously 300 000 000m (rounded, I also wrote it out in my post, if you actually read it). I specified that this is how long someone else's second would look to a "still" frame of reference here:

And this is what a stationary frame of reference would perceive, because in relativity everything is relative.

Read better. And this is the exact same reason a 1m ruler will look like it's 70 cm if it moves away from you at 0.7 the speed of light.

Time and distance are 2 different things, with different units. You can't just decide to measure distance in m. It makes no sense at all.

If the math works, I sure can. Of course, it's important to distinguish meters in time from meters in space.

Quote from: Master_Evar on November 20, 2016, 02:40:47 AM

If you only travel in time (0 velocity in space, 1c through time) 1 s = 299 792 458 m
If you are a photon, you don't travel through time, so null
If you are moving at 0.7c through time, 1 s = 209 854 721 m

It's basic maths. Just like there are 299 792 458m in one second for us observing a photon or 1m in one second for something moving at 1m/s.

Except, it isn't.
That is how many seconds it takes to traverse a m, not how many seconds are in a meter, the 2 are fundamentally different.

And THIS is yet another sign of your narrow-mindedness. Time and space share similar properties. That's why it looks like that, because that's how it IS, and I think it's really neat and interesting.

Your numbers above don't even match that.
If your velocity is the speed of light, 299 792 458 m/s. then 1s=299 792 458 m. As such, there would be 1/299 792 458 seconds in a m.
If you are at rest, then your velocity is 0m/s. Thus 1s=0m.

"It's important to distinguish between meters in space and meters in time". Yes, a photon travels 299 792 458 m in space in one second for us. Not 299 792 458 m in time though, because to us it doesn't experience time.
And the same for the 0m/s. 0m in space =/= 0m in time. your velocity in space is 0m/s, your velocity in time is 299 792 458 m/"s" (or m/i, as I prefer). Time and space are separate dimensions with separate values.

No. That's why you should discard that bullshit entirely.

Why should I discard special relativity? It works, as long as you use it correctly and not incorrectly like you do.

Bullshit. You will use the real units, and just pretend they are these.

Lol, you just proved you're not confident in your position. If you were confident you'd have given me one and watch me fail, if it were so that I was wrong.

No. My observation was that they don't share a unit and thus the equation is bullshit.
You don't get to just fudge the units to make your equation work. If your equation was based upon reality, then the units would already be the same and not needing changing.

Maybe they are different because that's how we are used to perceiving them, and because it makes it easier to distinguish between time and space (for example, you didn't manage to distinguish between them when interpreting my conversion from seconds to time-meters). And a lot of the practical equations of relativity does not require a unit (since a lot of them are factors).

Again, baselessly asserting crap is not addressing.

It is, if it even was so that my answer was "baselessly asserting crap".

Again, this is an issue of using units of s/s. An iteration would represent how they experience time, for example a heartbeat or ageing 1 second or the like.
That also causes lots of issues with terms like slower and faster.
Yes, they are travelling through time slower, which means they would perceive more time passing (I know, issues with reference frame as well).
So for simplicity, make an iteration the tick of a clock.
A clock at rest ticks at a rate of 1s/tick. A clock travelling at 0.7c thus (according to this model, to the observer at rest) ticks at a rate of 0.7s/tick.

Yes. finally you got it. Read this again. A clock at rest experiences 1s/tick, and if we observe one moving at 0.7c we see it experience 0.7/tick, which is slower than 1s/tick.

If you travel more slowly through time, you will experience more time passing to reach a particular point in time than someone travelling quickly through time.
Just like if you had 2 people travelling through space, one at a rate of 1 m/s (or m/i), and one at a rate of 0.7 m/s, in order to reach 1 m ahead, the one travelling at 0.7 m/s will experience more time.

Yes, and that person is travelling slower through space. But you have to reverse the units to understand travelling through time.

So if you start at t=0, and go to t=0.7, the person at rest (1 s/ s) will perceive 0.7 s as passing, while the person travelling at 0.7 s/s will appear to perceive an entire second pass to the observer at rest.

Let's use s/tick again. Person at rest moves at 1s/tick, person who moves "experiences" (according to us resting observers) 0.7s/tick. To us, the person at rest needs to wait 0.7 ticks to reach 0.7 seconds. The person who moves needs to wait 1 tick to reach 0.7 seconds. It took more ticks, or longer, a.k.a slower, for the moving person to reach 0.7 seconds. But both only experienced 0.7 seconds in their own time.

Damn, I just realised it took almost 1.5 hours to make this response (not writing it in quite one go, but pretty much in one go).

This is the exact kind of narrow-minded thinking (which is intuitive, so understandable) that makes relativity so hard for so many people.

No. It is called rational thinking. You should try it some time.

It IS. You don't measure velocity in space/space, you measure it in space/time. And just the same way, you have to measure velocity in time in time/space, not time/time.

i.e. it is the complete opposite of distance.
If it was just like distance you would be able to use the same units. You wouldn't need different units.
If you change from x to y, in space, the units remain the same.
Why should the units change?
How is changing the units meaning they are the same?

Velocity is always per unit time.

You CAN'T use s/s, it becomes null. You have to use s/m. If someone travels 1 s/m and someone else 0.5 s/m, it will take them twice as long (of travel through space) to reach 1 second.

And that is why it is all a load of BS. Because it is null/unit-less.
You DO NOT use s/m because that is just making shit up.

No, it gives you the exact same relationship. Look at the graph. X and Y are interchangeable, because the curve is a perfect quarter sphere (c^2=x^2+y^2). Light travelling at 300 000 000m/s would experience 1 second for every 300 000 000m that everything in the universe moved past it. But to a photon the universe is completely flat(length contraction), so it takes no time for it to reach any point. To us, the photon does not experience time at all as it moves at 300 000 000m/s, so we observe that it doesn't experience any time moving between any two points. Also, you can't derive the lorentz factor from this graph alone, since it's a factor and there are no factors in the graph. And, the lorentz factor was derived by constructing a right trianlge and using pythagoras theorem, and if you plot all possible states of that triangle with a constant hypotenuse you get... a circle. The Lorentz factor is also based off of a pythagorean equation.

No. That is the exact opposite relationship.
The photon is not travelling through time at all. That means it would just exist for an instant and never be able to reach a point in the future.

Yes. If you manipulate the model to make it a circle, you get a circle. That proves nothing. Lorentz factors do not talk about how quickly you move through time (other than as time dilation, not this crap you have been defending), nor do they declare that everything is travelling at c.

But 0.5s per second of a person experiencing 0.5 second for every second that is 0.5 second of every second... Don't you see what the problem is with this kind of thinking? After experiencing one second, they have experienced two seconds, which is 4 seconds, which is 8... The math doesn't agree with you. You can't use s/s.

No. I can see the problem with this kind of thinking. That is why I rightly pointed out it is pure bullshit.

No, he was moving faster through time. As I said, the other's time seem to have slowed down. Let's challenge each other's model. Make up a relativistics problem, and we'll both solve it with our respective views on time. I'll use m/i, you can use s/s.

No. He was moving more slowly through time. This is what allowed him to do so much in such a short amount of time.
He did all that in less than a second. If he was moving quickly through time that second would have long passed before he got a chance to do anything (at least if it is the scene I am thinking of).
This is exactly what this model you are defending predicts, but goes directly against reality.

I'm not presenting my view here.
I am pointing out why this model is bullshit.
As I said, you pretending the units are that doesn't mean you are actually solving it like that.

But if you want a challenge, without any unit manipulation (i.e. no changing back and forth between m and s, so if you are using m/i for time, you need to give your final answer in m, just to show the absurdity of your bullshit), how long would it take someone to reach alpha centuri if they were travelling at the 0.9999 times the speed of light, for both an obsever on Earth (which can be assumed to be an inertial reference frame), and for that person?

LOL, you actually think I have designed this model? Are you saying that a model, which explains the time dilation of GPS and half-lives of fast-moving particles, has "not been tested"? Are you saying that the theory of special relativity has not been tested? Do you think, you who use "s/s", that you understand relativity better than just the layman?

No. This model doesn't explain it. It is a bastardisation to attempt to match it which requires continual manipulation to make it work.
This model is not the one that has been tested. This is not the theory of special relativity.
Yes, I am quite confident that I understand it better than you. I understand that you don't just get to manipulate units whenever you please.
Your ad-hom would only work if I was actually claiming that this model with its s/s bullshit was true.

Actually, no. A baseless assertion is still an answer. The quality of it depends on the context. You have to understand that for you time is always normal. Or in your terms, you always, always, experience 1"s/s".
So yes, when P2 has experienced 1 s, the frame has experienced 0.7s. But when the frame has experienced 1 s, P2 has experienced 0.7 s. There are no preferred frames, so both P2 and the frame thinks the other is slower. Since you specified P2 is moving, I assume that we, the observer, are still in the frame of reference P2 is moving relative to.

Again, that is the complete opposite of the model.
In the model, in the reference frame of P1, P2 appears to have lived for a second, while only 0.7 s have passed for P1.
This model predicts each one thinking the other is faster, not slower.

No, what I said is EXACTLY what the model shows, all of your weird claims comes fromt the whole "s/s", which is to be quite frank just BS.

No. What you said goes directly against the model. It comes from your bullshit of unit manipulation.

Read better. And this is the exact same reason a 1m ruler will look like it's 70 cm if it moves away from you at 0.7 the speed of light.

No. I have read quite well. You just need to stop using bullshit.
It isn't the reason a 1 m ruler will look like it's 70 cm. That is due to length contraction, not due to unit conversion. Unit conversion (which would be required to present time as m/i) works regardless of speed. There are always 25.4 mm in an inch, regardless of how fast you are going.

If the math works, I sure can. Of course, it's important to distinguish meters in time from meters in space.

But the math doesn't work. Yes, it is important to distinguish "meters" in time, from meters in space. That is because "meters" in time, are actually seconds.
If you could just convert, you wouldn't need to distinguish between the 2. You don't need to distinguish between m in space when measured in m, and m in space after conversion from inches.

It only appears to work because you continually manipulate the model to pretend it works, such as manipulating units and switching which is which.

And THIS is yet another sign of your narrow-mindedness. Time and space share similar properties. That's why it looks like that, because that's how it IS, and I think it's really neat and interesting.

No. It is yet another sign of my unwillingness to accept your bullshit.
That is not how it is.
I find reality interesting enough without needing to make up bullshit.

"It's important to distinguish between meters in space and meters in time". Yes, a photon travels 299 792 458 m in space in one second for us. Not 299 792 458 m in time though, because to us it doesn't experience time.
And the same for the 0m/s. 0m in space =/= 0m in time. your velocity in space is 0m/s, your velocity in time is 299 792 458 m/"s" (or m/i, as I prefer). Time and space are separate dimensions with separate values.

Once again showing your bullshit.
If you could just convert between units there wouldn't be a problem.
If you could just use velocity to determine how many m in a second, there wouldn't be a problem with what I said.

Why should I discard special relativity? It works, as long as you use it correctly and not incorrectly like you do.

Not special relativity, just the BS you have masquerading as it.
I am the one pointing out how this model is BS. You are the one trying to pervert it and pretend it matches.

Lol, you just proved you're not confident in your position. If you were confident you'd have given me one and watch me fail, if it were so that I was wrong.

No. I showed I am confident in your dishonesty. You will manipulate until you get the right result.

Maybe they are different because that's how we are used to perceiving them, and because it makes it easier to distinguish between time and space (for example, you didn't manage to distinguish between them when interpreting my conversion from seconds to time-meters). And a lot of the practical equations of relativity does not require a unit (since a lot of them are factors).

No. They are different because they are measures of different things. Time is different to space.
If they were the same, length and time dilation would be the same.

Yes. finally you got it. Read this again. A clock at rest experiences 1s/tick, and if we observe one moving at 0.7c we see it experience 0.7/tick, which is slower than 1s/tick.

No. I got it from the start. You seem unable to grasp it.
Assuming they both start at the same time, t=0 or midnight, which clock shows more time has passed, one which ticks one per second or one which ticks every 0.7 seconds?
I'll give you a hint, it isn't the one ticking once per second.

Yes, and that person is travelling slower through space. But you have to reverse the units to understand travelling through time.

No. Needing to reverse units further shows that you can't just relate them like you have. It shows that they are fundamentally different.

Let's use s/tick again. Person at rest moves at 1s/tick, person who moves "experiences" (according to us resting observers) 0.7s/tick. To us, the person at rest needs to wait 0.7 ticks to reach 0.7 seconds. The person who moves needs to wait 1 tick to reach 0.7 seconds. It took more ticks, or longer, a.k.a slower, for the moving person to reach 0.7 seconds. But both only experienced 0.7 seconds in their own time.

Yes, both only experienced 0.7 seconds in their own time, but the one travelling at 1 s/tick will think the other person has experienced 1s while they (the person travelling at 1s/tick) have only experienced 0.7.

No. It is called rational thinking. You should try it some time.

I am thinking rationally, thank you very much.

i.e. it is the complete opposite of distance.
If it was just like distance you would be able to use the same units. You wouldn't need different units.
If you change from x to y, in space, the units remain the same.
Why should the units change?
How is changing the units meaning they are the same?

Opposite or the same, depending on how you look at it. They WORK the same, is my point. They are not the same thing, just like two red balls are not the same ball. But the two balls work the same way. Both are distances, but through different dimensions. You can measure time in meters and space in seconds, as long as you make the important distinction from time-seconds and space-seconds, and vice versa. You cannot convert space-meters to time-seconds or vice versa, in that sense they are different. But you can handle both the same way. I can measure space-velocity in m/s, and I can just the same way measure time-velocity in s/m. And this is just semantics, because nothing is stopping me from calling meters seconds and vice versa. I can use the denotation s/m to represent space-velocity as long as I make the important note that seconds are length in space, and meters are length in time. The problem is that YOU are trying to make a point by treating one of them differently from the other, when I and the model shows that both time and space have to be treated (to work) the same way.

Velocity is always per unit time.

Not if you measure it in the time-dimension. Velocity means rate of change of an absolute value per change of another absolute value. When velocity is used normally, it's always m/s, but that's because the normal use is to use it to calculate velocity through space, not time.

And that is why it is all a load of BS. Because it is null/unit-less.
You DO NOT use s/m because that is just making shit up.

Then don't use it. And can you prove that s/m is bullshit, because I can tell you that s/m would hold up in any calculation. In fact, a/1 m/s = 1/a s/m. There, it's mathematically correct. Technically it's made up, just like literally every hypothesis and theory in the whole world is. But this is supported by very simple math.

No. That is the exact opposite relationship.
The photon is not travelling through time at all. That means it would just exist for an instant and never be able to reach a point in the future.

Can you tell me how it is the "exact opposite relationship"?
And about that photon, yes that is what I said. It will never go forwards in time, because it doesn't move in time, and you can't go slower than not moving, so it's as slow as it could possibly be.

Yes. If you manipulate the model to make it a circle, you get a circle. That proves nothing. Lorentz factors do not talk about how quickly you move through time (other than as time dilation, not this crap you have been defending), nor do they declare that everything is travelling at c.

We are allowed to manipulate a mathematical model as long as we follow mathematical rules and don't add anything.
But YOU said that the lorentz factor would look like c/v, but the lorentz factor can't be derived from that graph (since, as you observed, it does not contain velocity through time), it was you who where making a point about it. And I never said everything is travelling at c.

No. I can see the problem with this kind of thinking. That is why I rightly pointed out it is pure bullshit.

If you can't see the problem of 0.5s/s then you can't understand relativity. Does a person experience 0.5 seconds in a second or 2 seconds in a second?

No. He was moving more slowly through time. This is what allowed him to do so much in such a short amount of time.
He did all that in less than a second. If he was moving quickly through time that second would have long passed before he got a chance to do anything (at least if it is the scene I am thinking of).
This is exactly what this model you are defending predicts, but goes directly against reality.

To HIM it was not less than a second, it was many seconds. And this is a visualisation, not evidence. I see that you see that scene completely differently, so no point in discussing it.
And f*cking semantics - I have explained what "slow" and "fast" means. He was moving quickly through time, because he had more time (relatively, if you compared his brain to that of a normal person his brain would be thinking much faster, so if you think of time as brain activity he was faster).

I'm not presenting my view here.
I am pointing out why this model is bullshit.
As I said, you pretending the units are that doesn't mean you are actually solving it like that.

Then give me PROOF, give me a contradiction. You've shown nothing but bad understanding of relativity. Give me a problem to solve. If my model can't solve the problem, you are correct and it's BS. If It can solve the problem, it's not complete BS at least.

But if you want a challenge, without any unit manipulation (i.e. no changing back and forth between m and s, so if you are using m/i for time, you need to give your final answer in m, just to show the absurdity of your bullshit), how long would it take someone to reach alpha centuri if they were travelling at the 0.9999 times the speed of light, for both an obsever on Earth (which can be assumed to be an inertial reference frame), and for that person?

Ah, thanks.
Earthperson:
Observation - spacetraveller moves at 0.9999C m/i
c^2=v^2+t^2
t = (c^2-v^2)^(1/2)
t = (1C^2 - 0.9999C^2)^(1/2)
t = 4239599.606m/i

distance to alpha centauri = 4.132*10^16m
amount of i to travel at 0.9999C m/i to alpha centauri from perspective of earthperson =  4.132*10^16 m/0.9999C m/i = 137842468.4i
earth person is not moving, so they only move through time, so their velocity in time is 299 792 458m/i
amount of time in meters earthperson experienced: 137842468.4i * 299 792 458m/i = 4.132*10^16m
amount of time in meters that spacetraveller experienced according to earthperson: 137842468.4i * 4239599.606m/i = 5.844*10^14m
Calculate time dilation by dividing earthperson time by spacetraveller time: 4.132*10^16m/5.844*10^14m = 70.70499658. You can double check this number with the lorentz factor, I did to make sure.
So, that was how many meters in time the earthperson observes the spacetraveller to experience and the time dilation.

The length contraction cannot be derived from c^2=v^2+t^2, as it is only a translation between velocity in time and space. I used the lorentz transformation for that (which still works with m/i, there are only two variables and that is in (v/c)^2, which becomes ((v m/i)/(c m/i))^2. Due to length contraction, the spacetraveller would travel 5.844*10^14m through space, or roughly 1/70 of the distance, and thus only experience 1/70 of the time, or 5.844*10^14m of distance in time, the same the earthperson would observe is experienced by the spacetraveller.

No. This model doesn't explain it. It is a bastardisation to attempt to match it which requires continual manipulation to make it work.
This model is not the one that has been tested. This is not the theory of special relativity.
Yes, I am quite confident that I understand it better than you. I understand that you don't just get to manipulate units whenever you please.
Your ad-hom would only work if I was actually claiming that this model with its s/s bullshit was true.

This is indeed a part of special relativity. It's not the whole model, this is only the relationship between velocity through time and space.

Again, that is the complete opposite of the model.
In the model, in the reference frame of P1, P2 appears to have lived for a second, while only 0.7 s have passed for P1.
This model predicts each one thinking the other is faster, not slower.

Ok, do the math. Now. The model is c^2 = t^2 + v^2. We know that v is 0.7, and if we do the math we get that t is 0.7. According to P1, P2 is moving at 0.7c m/s, so to P1 P2 also has to move at 0.7 s/s (if using this unit makes you happy, I'd use 0.7c m/i but whatever). So when P1 has experienced 1 second, P2 has experienced 0.7 s/s * 1s = 0.7 seconds. Easy math. If you disagree, do the math yourself.

No. What you said goes directly against the model. It comes from your bullshit of unit manipulation.

I did the math above, looks like you are the one completely wrong.

No. I have read quite well. You just need to stop using bullshit.
It isn't the reason a 1 m ruler will look like it's 70 cm. That is due to length contraction, not due to unit conversion. Unit conversion (which would be required to present time as m/i) works regardless of speed. There are always 25.4 mm in an inch, regardless of how fast you are going.

......
Okay, I'm almost done with you. I have not said unit conversion is dependent on speed. You obviously do not understand what I'm writing.

But the math doesn't work. Yes, it is important to distinguish "meters" in time, from meters in space. That is because "meters" in time, are actually seconds.
If you could just convert, you wouldn't need to distinguish between the 2. You don't need to distinguish between m in space when measured in m, and m in space after conversion from inches.

Yes. Why did it take you this long to understand?

It only appears to work because you continually manipulate the model to pretend it works, such as manipulating units and switching which is which.

No, I'm not switching which is which. And I'm not manipulating units, I'm just calling them something different, to make a point that the dimensions work similarly.

No. It is yet another sign of my unwillingness to accept your bullshit.
That is not how it is.
I find reality interesting enough without needing to make up bullshit.

I didn't make this up, lol.

Once again showing your bullshit.
If you could just convert between units there wouldn't be a problem.
If you could just use velocity to determine how many m in a second, there wouldn't be a problem with what I said.

What?

Wait a little, you think I claimed time and space are the same thing and I can turn a meter in space into time? Damn, your reading comprehension is quite... yeah.

Also, "use velocity to determine how many m in a second"... when velocity normally literally is m/s.

No. They are different because they are measures of different things. Time is different to space.
If they were the same, length and time dilation would be the same.

Welll.... they kind of are. The dilation/contraction factor are literally the same, the lorentz factor.

No. I got it from the start. You seem unable to grasp it.
Assuming they both start at the same time, t=0 or midnight, which clock shows more time has passed, one which ticks one per second or one which ticks every 0.7 seconds?
I'll give you a hint, it isn't the one ticking once per second.

The one with 1.4 ticks/second (or 1 tick every 0.7 seconds). It has had more ticks (I assume you mean which shows the most ticks when you say which shows more passed time), i.e. it has experienced more ticks, and any clockmaker would tell you that this clock would be running faster than the other.

No. Needing to reverse units further shows that you can't just relate them like you have. It shows that they are fundamentally different.

I can totally relate them like I have claimed. Of course it does not work with your misinterpreted version of my claims.

Quote from: Master_Evar on November 21, 2016, 05:26:58 AM

Let's use s/tick again. Person at rest moves at 1s/tick, person who moves "experiences" (according to us resting observers) 0.7s/tick. To us, the person at rest needs to wait 0.7 ticks to reach 0.7 seconds. The person who moves needs to wait 1 tick to reach 0.7 seconds. It took more ticks, or longer, a.k.a slower, for the moving person to reach 0.7 seconds. But both only experienced 0.7 seconds in their own time.

Yes, both only experienced 0.7 seconds in their own time, but the one travelling at 1 s/tick will think the other person has experienced 1s while they (the person travelling at 1s/tick) have only experienced 0.7.

How? HOW? He waited for 0.7 seconds, and according to him the other person experiences 0.7 seconds per tick. Since he only experienced 0.7 ticks, the other person would to him only have experienced 0.7^2 seconds, or roughly 0.5 seconds. How does 0.5 seconds = 1 second?

tl;dr, lol

tl;dr, lol

Basically, yes.