Comments by "" (@1965ace) on "MIT OpenCourseWare" channel.

OK MIT, answer this one. Proper Time = Local Time but it assumes all others are moving and it is stationary but what if we looked at a number of clocks in various reference frames and discovered they are all running at different rates? Wouldn't that be proof that there is a spacetime reference frame (effected by GR so it's not flat) and objective proof that this assumption (all others are moving) is wrong ? After all this Proper Time is only based on the simple assumption that the closing velocity or opening velocity is the other object's movement and not your's ? It also assumes vector velocity as objective and not subjective velocity. We know through experimental data that clocks compaired before and after acceleration are rock solid proof that time dilation is a product of velocity (with one hypothetical exception that I believe is key). Given my input the math is correct even though it gives no evidence if xt or x't' is the one experiencing dilation only assuming x't' is actually the one with vector velocity. At best we can only assume this is a differential equation but like with special relativity without outside data there is no way to tell which Reference Frame is "correct", however if in reality we could look at these clocks the one running slower is more correct, the problem with Minkowski is it's a limited model assuming one space dimension which would actually correlate to a vector speed compaired to another vector speed (if xt and x't' are both moving). Someone please tell me I'm not wasting this insight on "math majors" who lack imagination and those who are awed but don't have a clue.
1
@E Thank you for your response but let's think bigger than what has been taught. Light itself is a time capsule from where ever it originated, we see a galaxy 1 million light-years away as it was 1 million years ago. Direction (3 dimensions) has no bearing on it. Think of the t axis as a universal frame rate and the universe as a big three dimensional film strip with each moment as a frame. Objects at " '"rest" will interact with every frame, those that speed along, skip frames and only interact with frames based on their velocity. This is why a black hole can be proved by it's gravitational effect on the universe but every other interaction has been muted. We know the photon is traveling at c but it can only be detected when we break its wave function. If all clocks are ticking at different rates either each one is in a different universe of reality or there is one universe and each special relativity is a modification. I can prove this by observation from an independent view of the universe, Gedankenexperiment. We know the universe moves along the t axis light moves with it at c, even though the photon in not changed it takes time for it to move through space, this is how we know there is a speed limit nothing can travel faster than c. It's clock rate is stopped the slowest rate of the t axis. It still travels along the t axis with the universe and it's interaction with the rest of the universe will be realised when it's wave function is broken. What would be the object experiencing the fastest travel along the t axis be? An object with the slowest movement change in all of the first 3 axis dimensions? To find this you need to compare clocks across the universe the ones ticking the fastest will help you find the primal rate of travel along the t axis. You'll have to calculate the effect of general realativity on the reporting clocks to be accurate. What are your thoughts please.
1
@E I'm saying they all intersect you can travel from one reference frame to another with time and distance. I'm saying the universe has a minimum rate of time which is in a RF traveling at c and we know that near relativistic velocities, the rate of time (in comparison to other RF's) is much slower. I'm suggesting there must be a RF where the rate of time is passing at a maximum compaired to all other RF's. I'm fully aware that SR means you can't measure rate of time within any given RF.
1
@E That is not logical, we have seen clocks slow down in a jet flying surely you aren't suggesting the people in the jet saw the observers on the ground clock slow down. We have irrefutable proof the clocks on the jet didn't experience as much time pass. Therefore they and the ground observers would agree upon comparing clocks that the jet clocks slowed. Remember the spaceship traveling at 95% c as their clocks to them seem normal to them but the universe would be running much faster. So is the universe the one changing rate or is it the RF in the spaceship? Of course, we know it's the spaceship that had time dilate. As has been taught, it's impossible within a RF to tell if it's the one in motion or the one passing it, however we have merely to compare clocks to prove who is moving and who is not. From a practical view, everything in the universe is in motion but if we could compare clocks we could determine which are moving faster.
1
@E With respect what you said is wrong, I can prove it. In the 60's there was a muon experiment. Muons have a very short life span. Muons that are created in the upper atmosphere even at near relativistic speeds they should decay in a few hundred feet but the experiment involved detectors deep under a mountain many thousands of feet below where they were created in the upper atmosphere. This meant that the muons traveling at near c lived much longer than those that are created with little or no velocity. If two muon brothers were created at the same time the one left in the upper atmosphere would experience a much faster time rate and decay much faster than the other racing toward the earth. This talk of paradox is not valid there is no real paradox only a misunderstanding. I get it, it's very hard for our minds to understand the unfamiliar idea of time rates, it took me several years. I believe I can unify special and general relativity they are taught as two different disciplines but in reality, they are two sides of the same effect.
1
@E There is no problem with physics or calculations only peoples understanding of it. I always remember Einstein's quote " to truly understand something you must be able to explain it in simple terms but no simpler". We must examine our basic understanding before moving forward and no thing is settled until all of it's parts are fully understood. How can you sleep at night thinking there is a paradox to be solved? It's funny you mention "problem of physics", my favorite book is "Trouble with Physics" by Lee Smolin. He describes the basic problem with systematic education and it's stubbornness to repeat errors. I was hoping to have a prolonged dialogue with you.
1
@E Are you familiar with the Hafele and Keating Experiment? First, they didn't predict that all 3 observers (cesium clocks) would expect the same results as the ground observer. They knew the clocks undergoing acceleration would either gain or lose time on the ground clock. The motion of the earth spinning was a determining factor. There is no paradox only time dilation doing what is unfamiliar to our subjective experience with time.
1
@E The classical twins' paradox correctly points out that (excluding acceleration) there is no way for any observer to determine where he is moving or his twin if they both assume they are the one not moving one is wrong or if they each assume they are the one moving then one is always wrong. If they chose to guess one is moving and the other one is not then they are either both wrong or both right. The fact that they both assumed something does not make it a paradox being physicists they would know it's a guess and understand what I just explained. Comparing clocks would determine what is correct. So do you understand why it's not really a paradox?
1
@E So can we agree that all observers even though they have no indication of movement should not assume they are the stationary observer? When we have more information like in the Hafele and Keating Experiment we can predict some observers will indeed lose time and some will gain time on the ground control observer. The formulas must modified to explain the relationship from the others viewpoint accurately. You, and I assume many students believe that because the formula describing gamma t is correct assumed this applies to all situations and so every observer should assume his perspective is correct but the formula is only correctly applied to the observer who was actually stationary. Are we on the same page?
1