Clock Dilation: Its cause?

Beginning with a stationary observer on the surface of the earth, the rate at which clocks operate changes with altitude and with speed relative to the observer. The question is: What is the cause for this clock dilation? The clock's operation is a physical occurrence. Does empirical evidence...

James,

Contrary to what you might think, time has a definition when used in physics, which is precisely the context under which this discussion is taking place. You seem wrapped up in the metaphysical definition of time, and frankly, that's not at all relevant to the concept of time dilation (clock dilation would mean you are making the clock bigger, and is pretty much rubbish).

Also, there is no need to "dumb down" physics simply because people who are too lazy to study or too stupid to understand haven't yet figured out how words are properly used in this context. Clock dilation? Really? Come on...


Read this. It's a good place to start, regardless if your interest lies in metaphysics or actual physics:

Being and Becoming in Modern Physics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

By *time* I mean exactly how it is defined:

The name of the interval is insignificant. What's important in the study of time dilation is the relationship of the intervals when comparing objects moving at different speeds to one another and altitudes from a gravitational source. Once a unit of measurement is agreed upon, whether it be minutes, seconds, or nanoseconds, that unit is applied to each condition being observed, and if the results demonstrate a predictable variance, than it can be theorized that time dilation is an actual occurance based on evidence. INow provided examples of experiments that have been conducted that arrive at just that conclusion.

So then one's perception of how misleading time dilation is becomes directly proportional to how resistant they are to the empirical evidence supporting it.

When it comes to time dilation, what's in a name?

I am not troubled by time. I am troubled by efforts to make time subservient to theory. I read the link. My own conclusion is that motion takes place in time, but is separate from time. We can't experiment with time in order to prove anything physical about it. However, there is a way to come close to it. That way would be to determine a fundamental constant that is a measure of time that is not affected by motion or gravity or anything that we can devise. It would be a universal clock keeping precise time free of material influence.

James

So, basically, you completely disregard relativity in favor of the idea of newtonian absolute time which has repeatedly been demonstrated to be false?

Okay. Interesting approach, but whatever floats your boat.

...which, as we all know, is buoyancy.

Time and space has to be included in any physics framework or you would not be able to make predictions about future events from past and present data events and therefore your physics would be ultimately useless as it would make no predictions.

Physics is a mathematical model of the universe, to model it properly you are forced by convention to adopt a spacetime approach.

Do you have another way of accurately modelling the universe without time ie can you progress the model forwards in time and make predictions ?

Peace

True, but motion need not be. [Edit] I think the "and" in your sentence makes the distinction. But just to be clear: Time dilation occurs too depending solely on elevation (or altitude) in a gravitational field, even when a body (or clock) is at rest compared to another at a different altitude. That is the signature of curved spacetime. It is a test of general relativity (which of couse has been tested and passed with flying colors).

See: Pound-Rebka experiment

Also: Gravitational time dilation


CC

Thanks for the clarification, CC.

The way I worded my statement could suggest that relative motion and altitude are both required for time dilation to occur and that would be untrue. I meant to distinguish them as two separate scenarios. Maybe the conjunction *or* would have been preferable.

[Speaking just about the use of space and time in theory) Its length and cyclic motion that we have to work. Calling these two space and time is unwarranted by any empirical evidence. It is found that length shortens and cyclic motion slows as an object nears a body of matter, but, that is the empirical evidence we should be working from. Cyclic motion changes with respect to time and and somehow it, theoretically, becomes time itself that has changed.

The increase in energy of light as it approaches the earth tells us important information about light and matter, but not about space or time.

James

I agree.

But how do you intend to model it ?

Its unclear to me how this could possibly be achieved you cant use matrices as you would inevitably end up modelling a spacetime of some sort.

A grid system of coordinates also seems to be out of the question as you would end up with semi-independant dimensions of space but you would have to include time somehow even if it you only conclude its a function of matter and energy or something else like that.

How do you propose to solve it... you definitely have to include time somewhere so where and how would be my question ??

Peace

I agree with this James. There is no need to start inventing terms. You can look up "proper time" and "coordinate time" and I think you'll find physics has done a good job of creating appropriate terms that apply to what you're trying to say.

-modest