This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This article is likely to scare away any people coming to learn and understand the concepts. I was thinking that maybe I was being picky, but then I read the Plato reference. Yes, Plato understood that something about you relative to me isn't the same as that thing relative to the planet Earth. Relative to you, this may seem very clever. Relative to everyone else on the planet, it just looks like a hopeless attempt at intellectualism.
I will take some time to re-write some of this article tomorrow. I hope that this does not offend anyone emotionally attached to childish wordings, but I am sure that it will vex me little if it does. Jimadilo ( talk) 22:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
The figure chosen to illustrate time dilation from a special relativity point of view, is irrelevant. As far as I know, time is running faster here on Earth than at the surface of Sun. The red object is simply not running in an inertial frame ..(you didn't think of that, eh?).. ! I will return later to remove this figure if that has not already been done. Hilmer B ( talk) 20:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
This chapter seems rather complicated, just to explain that for everyone, i.e. the very fast moving person and the relative stationary observer, the "other" clock looks like it's going slower than his/her own. Wouldn't it suffice to say, that for the fast moving person it seems like that it's just the entire rest of the universe, that is moving very fast, while he/she is stationary - thus all the clocks in the universe are going slower than his/her own clock...?! -- Xario ( talk) 21:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
According to the article:
From the frame of reference of a moving observer traveling at the speed v relative to the rest frame of the clock (diagram at right), the light pulse traces out a longer, angled path - apothem. Thus the base of the time dilation triangle is AA=s=vt’ where t’ is dilated time.
The velocity of the moving frame relative to the stationary frame is v in time t where t is not dilated. Assume both mirrors of the light clock are permanently attached to the ceiling and floor respectively inside of the moving frame. This means mirrors also move at v in time t (where t is not dilated) relative to the stationary observer.
The spatial distance covered by the moving frame at any time t is s=vt (where t is not dilated) relative to the stationary observer. This means
The spatial distance covered by mirrors of the moving frame is also s=vt (where t is not dilated) relative to the stationary observer.
Since the aforementioned distances (s=vt’ and s=vt) are not equal therefore what would be the real position of mirrors or any stationary object inside the moving frame relative the stationary observer. 2001:56A:7399:1200:7CEE:C3BC:325E:2345 ( talk) 18:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)eek
I have partly undone these edits for the following reasons:
- DVdm ( talk) 08:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I don’t think you will get a response from apologist with brain because time dilation concept (equation) is derived from the simplest mechanical light clock. Also, it is the mechanical clock, which confirmed the TD as mentioned in the article.
Earlier scientists (Einstein) never said, “This effect arises neither from technical aspects of the clocks nor from the propagation time of signals, but from the nature of spacetime” or “clock doesn't have to be mechanical”
Don’t mislead the Wikipedia users.
Wikipedia rules apply to all, therefore, leave the originality of the article, which is still official.
Either cede or create a separate page for your own wizardry on Wikipedia if they allow you or somewhere else. Good Luck 2001:56A:7399:1200:7C16:4242:EBEF:37CB ( talk) 00:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC) EEK
The opening paragraph states, "a clock that's at rest relative to an observer will be measured by him to tick at a SLOWER rate compared to that of a subject that's in motion relative to him ..." The first sentence in the "Velocity time dilation" section states, "a clock that's stationary relative to him will be measured to tick FASTER than a clock that's in motion relative to his frame of reference." I have capitalized the words SLOWER and FASTER to emphasize the contraditions. The word SLOWER in the opening paragraph is wrong and should be changed to FASTER. Mitguy ( talk) 18:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Here the correct time dilation:
This is wrong:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.198.150.23 ( talk) 06:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I am back , for only a short time.
I never understood why you rejected the source ( http://fermedesetoiles.com/documents/supports/le-paradoxe-des-jumeaux.pdf) by Levy-Leblond ? You know , even in France we have some good physicists ...
Well , let us make some observations.
1/Simple inference of of velocity time dilation.
The moving observer observes the fixed clock. But that says nothing about the same clock which the same observer could transport which him. I say that these transported clock would tic at the same rate than the fixed clock. That is predicted by the very first rule of relativity !
Definitively , we have just only established the Lorentz formula for a short interval !
2/Reciprocity.
I think it is a very bad idea to show a Loedel Diagram to illustrate that notion. In the contrary it is very easy to demonstrated the true general case.
If are the two time unit vectors , we have :
where t and t" are the (two) times simultaneous in the frame , to t' in the frame.
It would be easy to draw a nice figure ! By the way it is not an effect of perspective , but an effect of parallax.
3/Proper time and Minkowski diagram.
For the same reason the left figure is awful. There is no need to demonstrated the minimum propriety with so clumsy an argument ! I suggest to comment only the twin paradox figure.
4/You should add some short comment of principles of chrono-geometry (refering to Levy-Leblond ,page 34)
Cordially. Chessfan ( talk) 10:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC) Chessfan ( talk) 16:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This article is likely to scare away any people coming to learn and understand the concepts. I was thinking that maybe I was being picky, but then I read the Plato reference. Yes, Plato understood that something about you relative to me isn't the same as that thing relative to the planet Earth. Relative to you, this may seem very clever. Relative to everyone else on the planet, it just looks like a hopeless attempt at intellectualism.
I will take some time to re-write some of this article tomorrow. I hope that this does not offend anyone emotionally attached to childish wordings, but I am sure that it will vex me little if it does. Jimadilo ( talk) 22:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
The figure chosen to illustrate time dilation from a special relativity point of view, is irrelevant. As far as I know, time is running faster here on Earth than at the surface of Sun. The red object is simply not running in an inertial frame ..(you didn't think of that, eh?).. ! I will return later to remove this figure if that has not already been done. Hilmer B ( talk) 20:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
This chapter seems rather complicated, just to explain that for everyone, i.e. the very fast moving person and the relative stationary observer, the "other" clock looks like it's going slower than his/her own. Wouldn't it suffice to say, that for the fast moving person it seems like that it's just the entire rest of the universe, that is moving very fast, while he/she is stationary - thus all the clocks in the universe are going slower than his/her own clock...?! -- Xario ( talk) 21:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
According to the article:
From the frame of reference of a moving observer traveling at the speed v relative to the rest frame of the clock (diagram at right), the light pulse traces out a longer, angled path - apothem. Thus the base of the time dilation triangle is AA=s=vt’ where t’ is dilated time.
The velocity of the moving frame relative to the stationary frame is v in time t where t is not dilated. Assume both mirrors of the light clock are permanently attached to the ceiling and floor respectively inside of the moving frame. This means mirrors also move at v in time t (where t is not dilated) relative to the stationary observer.
The spatial distance covered by the moving frame at any time t is s=vt (where t is not dilated) relative to the stationary observer. This means
The spatial distance covered by mirrors of the moving frame is also s=vt (where t is not dilated) relative to the stationary observer.
Since the aforementioned distances (s=vt’ and s=vt) are not equal therefore what would be the real position of mirrors or any stationary object inside the moving frame relative the stationary observer. 2001:56A:7399:1200:7CEE:C3BC:325E:2345 ( talk) 18:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)eek
I have partly undone these edits for the following reasons:
- DVdm ( talk) 08:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I don’t think you will get a response from apologist with brain because time dilation concept (equation) is derived from the simplest mechanical light clock. Also, it is the mechanical clock, which confirmed the TD as mentioned in the article.
Earlier scientists (Einstein) never said, “This effect arises neither from technical aspects of the clocks nor from the propagation time of signals, but from the nature of spacetime” or “clock doesn't have to be mechanical”
Don’t mislead the Wikipedia users.
Wikipedia rules apply to all, therefore, leave the originality of the article, which is still official.
Either cede or create a separate page for your own wizardry on Wikipedia if they allow you or somewhere else. Good Luck 2001:56A:7399:1200:7C16:4242:EBEF:37CB ( talk) 00:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC) EEK
The opening paragraph states, "a clock that's at rest relative to an observer will be measured by him to tick at a SLOWER rate compared to that of a subject that's in motion relative to him ..." The first sentence in the "Velocity time dilation" section states, "a clock that's stationary relative to him will be measured to tick FASTER than a clock that's in motion relative to his frame of reference." I have capitalized the words SLOWER and FASTER to emphasize the contraditions. The word SLOWER in the opening paragraph is wrong and should be changed to FASTER. Mitguy ( talk) 18:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Here the correct time dilation:
This is wrong:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.198.150.23 ( talk) 06:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I am back , for only a short time.
I never understood why you rejected the source ( http://fermedesetoiles.com/documents/supports/le-paradoxe-des-jumeaux.pdf) by Levy-Leblond ? You know , even in France we have some good physicists ...
Well , let us make some observations.
1/Simple inference of of velocity time dilation.
The moving observer observes the fixed clock. But that says nothing about the same clock which the same observer could transport which him. I say that these transported clock would tic at the same rate than the fixed clock. That is predicted by the very first rule of relativity !
Definitively , we have just only established the Lorentz formula for a short interval !
2/Reciprocity.
I think it is a very bad idea to show a Loedel Diagram to illustrate that notion. In the contrary it is very easy to demonstrated the true general case.
If are the two time unit vectors , we have :
where t and t" are the (two) times simultaneous in the frame , to t' in the frame.
It would be easy to draw a nice figure ! By the way it is not an effect of perspective , but an effect of parallax.
3/Proper time and Minkowski diagram.
For the same reason the left figure is awful. There is no need to demonstrated the minimum propriety with so clumsy an argument ! I suggest to comment only the twin paradox figure.
4/You should add some short comment of principles of chrono-geometry (refering to Levy-Leblond ,page 34)
Cordially. Chessfan ( talk) 10:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC) Chessfan ( talk) 16:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)