Time dilation

Maths describes what we see, although I would accept the view that maths can be the explanation. In areas of very abstract physics I long ago gave up the idea that a mental picture was in any way possible so I picture the solution a function something thats quite easy to do in these days of graph plotting software and assume that nature obeys it, for what ever reason nature seems mirror maths very well. Though as special relativity is one of the least mathematical arguments in modern physics I dont see the problems. The only maths involved is in actually quantifying how great the time dilation is, the actual argument is almost entirely qualitative.

 

Streamlight

So time dilation occurs cause light must travel a longer distance in the same amount of 'time' So as NOT TO SEEM like it was going faster than light, mass then adjusts its objective rate of process cause it dosnt what light to look like it is going too fast.

LOL
Thats the funniest thing occam has heard in ages.
Occam

 

No one has yet offered ANY ideas on WHY relativistic effects occur

U just keep quoting others on the effects.

occam asked a question and offered a possible reason.
he does not want old info on effects..he wants new input on causes.

THAT. is science.
Unless of course no one here can do science [thinking].. u just parrot others results and call it fact.

Occam

 

I really dont know what you want. You seem to be looking for a deeper to reason to something that is pretty straight up. Time only exists for us because we travel slower than the speed of light. You think a photon has any concept of time? If your asking why time dilation occurs then thats simply to do with the fact that a second appears to be a different lengths to different people in different inertial refernence frames. If your asking what time is then thats a significantly more deep question. GR suggests that time is a dimension like the other 3. As to what determines one second from the next, why we seem to march indisriminately forward in time, well its been suggested, possibly with a little to much conviction for my liking, that is due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the fact that entropy can increase.

 

Yes, light speed is a constant, so, if it must travel a longer distance in a set amount of time, it will slow down time, i dont see how your theory of friction is any more likely.

 

He is saying, lets look for an extended, or new, hypothesis based on the observations that we have; if you ask me "why do we need this" I suppose that for now I will say that it is implicit that the causes of time dilation are not fully explained and that the intrinsic rewards, in my view, are great and that the material rewards for greater explanation are likely very significant.


.

 

All the observations we have support Einsteins explanation, im not sure what you want to change. Your talking like theres some theory it doesnt fit with or that it somehow needs fixing, it doesnt. Its the one part of modern physics that doesnt require a massive mathematical understanding to understand why hammer it so. If people want to discuss its philosophical meanings thats fine. When inserted into quantum mechanics the properties of atoms just appear, that was the lecture when I truely appreciated mathematics, insert SR into QM and properties of atoms that previosuly seemed quite arbitary just appeared.

 

Tony,


You write,

Parsed,

True. However, as it should be, SR does not address the underlying casues for the postulates that form SR. SR addresses what would happen if the postulates are true; testing SR has shown that these postulates appear to be true. Occam is, in effect, asking for non-circular logic that explains why the postulates appear true; in particular what causes the invariance of 'c' in 'free-space.' I don't think that the idea is to "change" anything, in the sense that you appear to imply, but instead to find additional information related to why the postulates of SR hold true.


Peace,

David


.

 

Special relativity is based on 2 postulates. The first one is that absolute motion cannot be detected, basically saying that there is no universal preferred speed, this is what newton said, just expanded to be universal as opposed to just Newtonian motion. The second is that the speed of light is independant of the motion of the source. This is a common result from electromagnetism and wave mechanics in general. I guess its technically possible that the first one is wrong and there is an aether though the fact relativity works seems pretty damning evidence. Everything flows form these two postulates.

 

.

 

The speed of light being a constant in all frames comes from wave mechanics not SR. For example the speed of sound from a car horn is independant of whether the car is moving. If I have ever implied that the part about the speed of light being constant in all IRFs is a result of SR not an input, I do apologise for the confusion.

 

time dilation is a function of quantum resonance throughout the synaptic field (neocortex), that is a function of perception; math can't accurately explain that.

 

.

 

.

 

Thy may travelest back in time through thy mind, and not through hi-tech machinery. Just believe~.........