Is Time Dilation Just a Clock Issue Afterall??? 

Hey, sorry we're late to the party here -- but thanks a dozen for providing such a great and nuanced breakdown of this topic! Again, we find your style of presentation very straightforward and easy-to-follow, and your enjoyment in teaching and debating these sorts of topics really translates to enjoyment for the viewer. We immensely appreciated your discussion of the relation between atomic clocks and light clocks, as many people were confused about how these can be the same thing, and the deeper dive into the Doppler effect and what it means to "see" other clocks ticking was illuminating as well. You were very apt and correct to point out the issue of the longitudinal orientation of light clock; we received quite a bit of justified criticism for not addressing that issue in our video. At the time we refrained because we were uncertain of how length contraction was supposed to play into the picture; indeed we have since concluded that one will require a physical contraction of the light-clock apparatus in order to make the sound-wave analogy consistent -- which of course plops us right back at the Lorentzian ether theory. Now as to the very interesting point about muons and elementary particles that you made, our knowledge of particle physics is VERY fuzzy, but our basic assumption would be along the lines that, if a particle can decay into other particles, something in this process must cause the decay, and that such a process would likely involve the transmission of a light-speed signal somewhere at some point. Of course that requires a much deeper dive into the philosophy of elementary particles! Making RU-vid videos can be hard work with often little feeling of reward, but RU-vid needs more educators like yourself who are professional, deliberate, and not afraid to delve into the details, so we hope to see more content in the future. Btw, we are more than open to collabs and/or debate, if you are ever interested drop us a line, we promise to be nice :-)

Your video and the comments section (not Dialect's one) make me rethink that time dilation could be an effect of "clock", the electromagnetic one. As you pointed out in the end of your video, muon decay is the proof of time dilation that we are using for a long time, but if the "clocks" in the muons are also affected by the electromagnetic force, then things may turn out to be just clock issue. The hint to electromagnetic force could affect nuclear decay is that the electromagnetic interaction and the weak interaction are believed to be part of the electroweak, thus the decay rate can be affected by the motion in the electromagnetic field and can be delayed, resulting in what we have been seeing.

I think this channel and dialectphilosophy should have a debate or do like an hour long collaboration.

THANK YOU - I found that "sound clock" thing on Dialect quite odd too. Nothing in a sound based system has velocities sufficiently high to bring in relativistic effects.

I love both of your content as a physics major. I learn more fundamental ways of thinking about relativity from you folks than from my professors here.

Nice video. The only (very slight) issue I have is about the name "special" relativity. It's not special because it changes things about what is relative. It is special because it applies the principle of relativity to a special set of reference frames. Namely inertial ones. While General Relativity applies the principle of relativity to _all_ reference frames. So it holds in general. Einstein used the expression "special theory of relativity" in 1915, to distinguish it from general relativity.

1. Relativity was never “proven”. 2. Time is the interval over which change occurs, so when time dilation affects “time” it is equivalent to a “clock issue” and an everything else issue too. Time is not a parameter of the universe subject to change or control… only the interval over which change occurs is subject to change. Want your coffee to reach room temperature later? Put it in a thermos. What your food to heat up quicker? Put it in a microwave. Want your frequency transformations to take less time? Use a FFT instead of the OG one. Etc…. Want an entire system to take more time to change? Send it off at high velocity.

Liked how you pointed out the flaw in the light clock metaphor by making the "clock" run in the direction of motion rather than orthogonal to it. I think the metaphor can be saved (and adequately distinguished from a sound clock) by extending it to 4 dimensions. From the moving clock's own perspective it's always oriented in its "time" dimension which is always orthogonal to any spatial dimension. In other words unlike a sound clock you can never orient the "clock" in a different direction besides proper time, nor can you "block" the medium with a physical barrier because the medium - the electromagnetic field in this case - itself exists in 4 dimensions.

There is no time without (some sort of) clocks, there are no clocks without time.

In moving clock, the light travels more distance, only from the perspective of stationary observer. It doesn't actually travel more in perspective of moving clock. And so the theory begun to resolve the paradox.

I think it is measuring entropy, not Time, as it is always the Present, and that is where everything takes place and exists.

There is a preferred state of motion in General Relativity that is analog to "free particles move in a straight line" from Newton. It is the postulate that test particles move along geodesics (they move in a optimizing path for proper time just like in Newtonian mechanics they take the shortest distance between two points). In all these twin paradoxes you have a closed loop, so the clocks can be compared exactly and the clock that is not moving along a geodesic will be running slower no matter what the trajectory is, assuming there are no pathological situations which usually are implicitly assumed to not exist when people write these paradoxes.

While time dilation is a matter of clocks, it's really a matter of gravity bending space and dilating time. The most important thing to remember is that everything happens in the present. The past and future do not exist. Massive objects such as galaxies bend space and slow the passage of time within those massive bodies. It's weird because different objects age at different rates depending on their orientation within the galaxy. But they are still in the present. Everything that happens in that galaxy and the universe is in the present regardless of what the clock says. The objects are merely aging at different rates.

When I heard that Einstein said that "time is what the clock measures" and that everyone repeats it without seeing that it is one of the stupidest answers I have ever heard, I realized that they don't know what they are talking about, being physicist and no one can prove to me that time really exists, or at least tell me how time interacts with the clock to say that it is time that the clock is measuring, (the atomic clock is a simple clock). if you believe that time dilation it is not clocks issues, show it, talk about time without mention the clock, talk about fiscal magnitude without talking about the measuring machine...

1. All inertial motion between objects in the universe is relative. 2. Two objects, in inertial relative motion, can not both have clocks which continuously physically go slower compared with each other. 3. A relative motion (or position) between objects (any objects in the universe) can not come, and has never come, into existence without acceleration (a force on objects). 4. Therefore, logically, the only phase in which a physical/objective time dilation can come into existence is during an acceleration/deceleration phase. Accelerations are objective. 5. Time dilation in GR is created with a constant force on an object, accelerating it upwards in a gravitational field (here assuming a constant location in the field, compared with an object hypothetically outside of any gravitation). 6. The GR time dilation equation is mathematically equivalent with the time dilation equation in SR. They just have a different set of variables in them. Insert the escape velocity equation in the GR equation and you obtain the exact SR-equation with the v^2 variable. 7. Therefore, logically, the SR time dilation must also be an acceleration based equation. The v^2 variable = 2 • acceleration • distance, it is called the Torricelli equation (he lived before Newton). v^2 is not an average velocity or an instantaneous velocity when coasting, and the equation can not be used for time dilation calculations with inertial relative motions. It is only valid while a force (acceleration) is operating on the object. 8. If the GR equation produces physical/objective time dilation (which it does, GPS etc), the SR equation must obviously do the same, and only during phases when/where an object is accelerated/decelerated. Atoms (and their rate of change = physical time) can not react differently in these two situations. In other words, this is the equivalence principle in a mathematical form. 9. This is more a metaphysical opinion/statement. An atom clock (cesium clock) does not only measure time in an exact way, it IS physical time itself. Twin "paradox" solved, imo. Concerning which point (1-9) do you disagree, if you do ? Please be specific. Cheers from Sweden

When it comes to Time Dilation, I simply think about it as a component of mass which introduces or affected by space time and clocks are irrelevant, this clears the true understanding of Time Dilation. We only talk about clocks to specify specific spacetime properties. Everytime I see a ping pong bouncing in the spaceship always confuses me.

I've been eagerly following Dialect's alternative explanation of relativity, and I'm a follower of this channel, too. I do not have an advanced knowledge of physics, but It seems to me that your confutation of Dialect's sound analogy lacks something. First of all, no one pretends to rule special relativity wrong. Einstein's SR has been proved so many times that no doubt at all may remain. But physics is not about telling how things really are, but how to make effective predictions on things. So, there may be an alternative way to "see" reality than SR, provided that it is able to make predictions that are as well as valid as SR's (including muon's decay). This is what I see that Dialect's is doing and I find it very interesting. I considered the sound analogy just an observation that the same mathematics used by SR may arise in other contexts' too, without the need for complex explanations. In particular, it shows with one example that the Lorentz transformation is not necessarily linked to a relativity of the medium. So, trying to disprove the sound analogy rotating the clock is not the point. Dialect is still introducing its theory, which is not complete at the moment. In particular, Dialect uses the critical fact that it is not possible to measure the two-way speed of light (the Michelson-Morley experiment didn't measure the one-way SoL, too!). As far as I can understand, Dialect is not saying at all that the SoL have different values by different observers or different directions. The fact that the two-way SoL (the only one that can be measured) is the same for all observers is an established fact. SR states it, but it has to be in Dialect's alternative explanation, too (otherwise, no effective prediction can be made and the theory is disproved). In particular, the variation of epsilon the Dialect's theory (and the different mathematics that arises) is something that cannot be reproduced with the sound analogy. Neither the "air medium" in sound is equivalent to the "space medium" in Dialect's theory. Apart from all this, it is in any case an interesting debate and I thank both Dialect and you for your work.

Another difference between the Doppler formula for sound in air and light in a vacuum is that with sound, the amount of the shift changes depending on whether it is the receiver or sender that is moving relative to the air. You see a different result if you are at rest with respect to the air, and the source is moving in respect to the air than you get if you are moving with respect to the air and the source is at rest with respect to the air. With light in a vacuum, all that matters is the relative velocity between you and the source.

The solution to this problem is quite simple. Particles are light clocks. If there is no rigid body connecting the boundary conditions, the wave (sound or light) would need time to travel from one boundary condition to the other to translate any change of motion. Length contraction and inertia would be coupled as a function of acceleration and only carried by momentum, and the sound clock analogy would hold regardless of how the clock is tilted.

The myon question is a good one, and one probably has to think very carefully about what makes particles decay in the first place. You might find a light clock in there.

There's a fundamental issue with this argument, which is the lack of understanding that everything is a clock. Clocks are just built to indicate the passage of time. But fundamentally, every interaction is moderated as photon exchange - which is a "light" clock. Everything. This is also why the sound analogy fails - sound is not the fundamental moderator of all action.

Excellent video. I also investigated Dialect’s aether-relativity and obtained the exact same equations and conclusions that you showed in this video. I guess we’ll have to wait for Dialect to complete making his case for the aether. I’m particularly curious to know if he can reproduce invariance of Maxwell’s field equations by means of aether-theory. That would be quite something!

Two Words : General Relativity.

The glint in your eyes as you step us through all this (in my case, for the first solid review in nearly a half century), is wonderful. Al the while, I'm thinking "What a glorious guided tour to Michelson-Morley." I still recall my 3rd year Mechanics prof explaining how a very rare first order relativistic effect can be seen by attempting to synchronize 3 (or more) clocks roughly equal separated around Earth's equator. If I recall correctly, it cannot be done more closely than about 4 micro seconds.

Quoting Stewiesaidthat - Space and Time are two separate frame of reference. Clocks are instruments that measure motion in space. Combining the two frame to believing that clock measures time is what creates the paradox. Space-Time diagram? That shows one person is experiencing more space in the same amount of time.

It would be a cool experiment to see what would happen if you were to drop a clock and start a timer ground level to see the difference

A question always comes up when I see the light clock cartoon as I can’t do a light ray diagram that works for the moving clock. If we allow for the light source to be a laser aimed transversely then do we see the beam kink as it heads to the mirror or do we see a rotation of the laser? Or do we see a skew in dimentions? If rotation or skew then what happens on the return path from the mirror? Maybe we just see skew in the light beam which is the only logical choice but that seems to raise issue with the concept of planer waves from a coherent light source.

The point is not about the clocks, we measure the difference using atomic clocks, but the important thing is that we measure the speed of light the same in all reference frames and that means relativity has to be true

No mystery. GPS satellites must be routinely adjusted to compensate for relativistic time dilation. Happens all the TIMES.

so glad you made this one so promptly in response

Please treat me like I am five. Clocks do not (and cannot) measure time. Yes? And clocks themselves are not time. Yes? Clocks only measure oscillations of one type or another type. Yes? Clocks will run at different rates depending on where they are. Yes? A hourglass will not run at all on the ISS. Neither will a pendulum clock. And both clocks will run more slowly the further from the surface of the Earth they get. Yes? As velocity relative to space is gained, all accelerated particles increase in mass according to Einstein. Yes? And so a moving object has rest mass, momentum, and a small amount of "relativistic" mass. Yes? And when oscillating particles gain in mass, their oscillation frequency must decrease due to the conservation of momentum. Yes? And so ALL clocks slow down as they gain velocity, no matter what principle they operate on. Yes? Why would a clock running slower indicate time dilation? Time kept running at the exact same rate, and MUST do, because the conservation of momentum must result in fewer oscillations per time period. Yes? If time itself were slowing down, then the clock would have to lose even more time, in order for momentum to be conserved. Yes? Doesn't the Twins Paradox then simply disappear in a puff of smoke? Things taking longer to happen is mass in action, not time changing the rate at which it passes.

This guy is an excellent communicator. As an American listening to Lukas, his speed and tone are perfect. His physics is top notch and he communicates clearly. 👍 Hope he keeps publishing more. I’m still unsure why the Aether isn’t quantum fields, though.

Time: a certain amount of mass, with a certain amount of energy, over a certain amount of distance. Time = M x E x D Time is not a 'thing' you can interact with. Time is a concept of motion. A second is a standard of motion. When your atomic clock is moving, you are adding distance to the equation. That means you are no longer measuring standard time. M x E x (D + d') Since matter, energy and distance are factors of time, any equation that includes time as a factor is susceptible to inaccuracies if one or more of the factors of time (M, E, D) is also present in the equation.

God I think I‘ve just realised why the bouncing light clock is BS: we *observe* light moving a longer distance than it actually is because we think it’s moving through our space - but it‘s not. It’s moving vertically through a horizontally moving space. Not the same thing at all.

C, is the speed of light in a vacuum. To recreate the experiment the speakers should not have been open to the air.

The orbit of Merrcury can only be explained if time dilation is real.

Time is still defined as what we measure using clocks in different frames of reference.

You sort of accidentally nailed the answer to your question in your question. "The medium for light doesn't interact with matter." Things moving the speed of light, are light, they don't interact mechanically, chemically, or in any nuclear way. As you move through space - even a small fraction of the speed of light, you physically are more photonic. All of the ways you measure and experience the passage of time happen less often. Up to and including the limit of light speed where all such interactions stop. If you accelerated somehow to light speed and ran into a mirror, you wouldn't have collision with the mirror you'd be reflected. The limit of light speed isn't coincidence, there's just no type of engine you could construct that experiences time passing to function any longer once it reached that speed. The gears couldn't turn, the fuel couldn't burn, everything is already completely transformed into radiation.

what is meaning of "just a clock issue"? As opposed to what? Are you proposing that there is an aether that could also explain time dilation? Perhaps another viewer could answer these questions.

Clearly, space and time are absolute. Relativity is false and the analogy between light and sound is legitimate. It's not a coincidence, one can deduce approximate Lorentz symmetry in qm. At high energies this symmetry will break down.

Kudos to you man. I teach for a living, and think your videos are excellent. Very succinct and clear. I already know quite a bit about SR/GR but it's still a pleasure to watch, I wish you were around when I was learning it. :)

Obviously time dilation is an issue of variable measurement Time is our own construct It is always "now" everywhere So under set of conditions X a clock counts 100 seconds and under set of conditions Y an identical clock counts 101 seconds You have not discovered that X causes time to progress 1% faster than Y because the clocks exist simultaneously at the end of the experiment Instead, you have discovered that X causes the clock's inner processes to run 1% faster than Y

Interferometer is equalized ny length contraction and light aberration

An interesting experiment to look at is the "Ives Stilwell" experiment. They considered the effects of high speed hydrogen ions emitting light and considered the apparent redshifted wavelength as well as the blueshifted wavelength. They then averaged the two wavelengths and found that the result was not the original wavelength, suggesting real time dilation had occurred. I think this experimental setup is far more reliable than just some guys putting atomic clocks on planes and trying to measure nanoseconds on the hour.

Thats not how clocks work, no clock on earth (or in space) uses a bouncing beam of light to compute time. Mechanical clocks have nothing to do with light, but with moving mechanical parts, and digital clocks are based on quartz crystals which vibrate at a certain frequency when applied a certain voltage- again nothing to do with light. Atomic clocks use a combination of quartz and cesium atoms to syncronise the quartz crystals, and again light is not involved in the process. So wtf is this guy talking about here ? About his immaginary relativistic clocks which are based on bouncing light ?

New Dialect video just dropped, this time with the Aether! Can't wait to see a breakdown of it!

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="761">12:41</a> Moving clocks are perpendicular to each other, but still show the same time dilation. Why? Because they’re both perpendicular to the 4th dimension of time! Yes, I know time is not a spatial dimension, except there is a way to treat it as such. FloatHeadPhysics elaborates on that, talking about infinitely compactified spatial dimension becoming time.

So, what is measured is wave propigation. Frequncy behavior and the focus is location of sensors and an effect of intertia (the changing direction thing)? So Einstiein was studying frequency effects and calling it time. Waves that turn around to return to their source. Now that would be an awesome subject to research.

Here's an interesting question. Is it possible to construct a clock of materials that will allow it to tick the same whether it's stationary or moving fast? Has anyone attempted that yet?

The rotated clock doesn’t account to changes in all electromagnetic forces between interacting particles due to move? Wouldn’t just that cause size change depending on direction of movement?

Hey, if general relativity is true, and it is, that means the parameters to measure light-speed change and both changes compound or exaggerate the changes in the speed of light. I wrote a little book about it. This would explain faster than expected motion the farther removed from the source of gravity it is. Redshift is also affected by gravity.

I think everything seems to boil down to quantum field theory because for instance QED or QCD shows us how things, even at the quantum super-positional level, interact as "light clocks". The dilemma is between two perspectives. Materialist (processes are seen as laws) perspective: it is because of light speed interactions we end up being materially limited with the speed of causality, where the force carrier particles act like Hermes but since they are the only information carrier sources of matter delays and dilations emerge (like time dilation). Idealist (laws cause processes) perspective it is BECAUSE of the principle or the law embedded in the universe that in all frame's of reference speed of light is the same value and the principle itself is causing time dilation. I honestly prefer the first one because I think if we accept that change (causality like in QED interactions) is happening through speed of light interactions there remains no reason to put an external "law of government". I think Einstein assumed that there was a LAW of relativity and that mislead him to think faster than speed of light interactions at any level would be metaphysically illegal. Than, because no matter how wrong he was he was ingeniously wrong, he predicted the quantum entanglement interactions which in my opinion proved that he was wrong to adopt the idealist (law fundamentalist) stance.

What Twin Paradox? That apparant paradox has been explained.

The clocks we've built are all oriented 90 degrees, nearly perfectly, to the direction of motion - time. In 4D time is the direction of motion of everything around us, so orienting the clocks in any dimension in 3D still leaves them perpendicular to time and no orientation effects will be observed

I still feel that Dialect is correct. The trick of rotating the clock 90° will not work, for a very simple reason: the definition of the meter. Whichever one you choose - even the oldest ones from some whatever rod length - is ultimately tied to the speed of light, which in turn demands that c remains constant. Choosing the height of the sound clock to appropriately match that which would be prescribed by an analogue 'sound meter' you get exactly the same results - essentially because the model is the same. Indeed, if you could only interact with sound, and could not interact with physical objects which obey regular physical laws, you would find it really hard to define a meter that doesn't in the end become a tautological 'distance travelled by sound in x amount of time'. Which, ex-post, is what we have always been doing. The deep meaning of special relativity is indeed this: we cannot define a galileian "local" meter without time - locally a point cannot see what a meter is, and we cannot define a "local" galileian time without a definition of distance - because some kind of reproducible physical process has to take place in order for time to be measured. This needs a fixed size apparatus and thus a meter. It's a catch 22. If we had access to the "real" units of measurement, we may find that things are indeed quite a bit more galileian. But we are living *inside* the experiment, and thus it is impossible for us to define a galileian "outside meter", or a galileian "outside time". This is simply a fundamental limitation of the human experience. We are a point inside space, and we interact with said space through the distorting lens of fundamental interactions. This filter makes it impossible to look further That said, an immediate consequence of this line of reasoning is that if we ever found a particle faster than light, with another faster speed limit, let's call it "F35 Lightning II" we could use it to make faster light clocks and measuring rod, which now would use this new speed as a universal limit, and use those to measure the behaviour of this electromagnetic aether we live in (whose existence, in this case, we would be obligated to assume, as time inside the aether would otherwise be unexplicable) without any contradiction. As long as these particles are not out there, the two points of view are indistinguishable.

So clocks measure time, and depending on the type of clock, different things are measured to calculate time elapsing. Because muons are affected, we think it's something on a more fundamental level. Do I have this right so far? If light can be particular and wavelike, depending on observation, could time be more like a flame? Something that occurs as a result of composition rather than an isolated property?

Cool video analysis but at the end you say “Time dilation is about time after all”, isn’t that a circular argument? The question is what is time? Is there such a thing as universal clock? Relativity says no to the latter and seems to answer to the first that motion changes the frequency measurement of atomic oscillations in different frames of reference, making even precision clock give different measurements. Relativity makes possible to adjust the clocks between different frames of reference then?

There is a problem which I've not understand (due to my lack of knowledge in electrodynamics) is the derivation of the Doppler effect for light in Einstein's 1905 paper. If you follow the classical explanation of the Doppler effect, the wavelength does not increase or decrease as you only observe one speed of light. The only cause of change in wavelength is length contraction in Lorentz transformation. Thus there would be no red-shift or blue-shift. Do you have any comment on this?

No no no! The theory of Relativity was discovered and built by Henri Poincaré with Lorentz help, during 20 years, between 1885 and 5 June 1905. At this last date, the theory was checked and complete. So much so that Poincaré exposes not only space-time quadrivectors invariants, but also EM ones, before applying this achieved theory of Relativity to gravitation and predict gravitational waves. And Einstein hadn’t written a line on the subject yet! The very term « Relativity » also comes from Poincaré who generalizes in 1895-1900 to all Physics, the old Galilean principle of relativity restricted to mechanics. Extending it in particular to EM and Gravitation (the two only known « forces » at this time). In other words it comes from Poincaré universal « Principle of Relativity » on which he builds this « new mechanics » (as he called it sometime) : the theory of Relativity. Moreover the theory is not restricted at all to « inertial frames » and « Galilean frames » relatively moving in uniform translation. Since it perfectly deals with relatively accelerated frames via the Lie algebra of the Poincaré-Lorentz group.

What has Doppler effect have to do with anything. Doppler doesn't belong in this equation. The speed/velocity of the wave propagation does not change in the same medium/density. So the sound wave propagation velocity is constant to the global frame. I expect that the light wave propagation is constant to the global frame. > I think everyone is a little confused :)

Length contracts the closer you get to the speed of light because e.g. the electrons cannot go as fast into the travel direction, so matter flattens to the observer. To the traveller, everything looks the same on his end. As for muons, maybe it's worth considering that they aren't as elementary as we think, or they have some form of rotational speed that slows down their clock the faster they travel, dilating their time.

the light isn't actually traveling a greater distance in the moving clock. it would just look that way to a stationary observer. I can't grasp why this misunderstanding persists.

Maybe galaxies are just the hands on the face of the spacetime clock. Each galaxy tells it's own time, but also adds to the overall time of all of the galaxies in the universe.

Excellent, thanks for this!

Very clearly argued. But I am biased because I agree that it is time and not clocks that explains the phenomenon. Thanks.

Why do muons last longer? Or why do faster muons travel more distance in the same time.. see how redundant that question is.

I agree. «Time dilation» is being misused by phycisists. I think any clock is just ticking with a speed that is relative to any other clock. Our communication satelites is affected by time dilation, while existisng within the same «now» as We do on earth. Also, how can all galaxies exisist within the same «space», and I mean universe, if every heavy objects creates it’s own local «space time»?

Why use "sound" and not air particles is sort of like specifying the light frequency / color. The analog to photon (no mass) is an air particle (has mass). Will love if you can take a look at my last video and see if you can make a better explanation.

The one-way speed of light has never been measured.

The reason why time dilation also happens to human beings is because all biological processes are in fact chemical processes and all chemical processes are in fact physical processes and all physical processes are based on the interchange of energy and the interchange of energy happens by the exchange of elementary particles, like for example photons, that travel at the speed of light. Yet when the source and destination of such an interchange are in motion, the interchange happens slower, as the photon has to travel a larger distance; just like in case of the light clock. This causes energy transfers to be slower, which causes physical effects to be slower, which cause chemical effect to be slower, which causes biological effects to be slower and that's why one twin ages slower than the other one, since ageing is a biological effect.

Einstein once famously said, there is no such thing as time...just clocks.

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="211">3:31</a> I was going to say: GPS!

Scientists worked this incorrectly. If we follow the axioms of algebra, we can see how this works. Here are the correct equations for relativity. x'=x-vt y'=y z'=z t'=t If there is a slower clock such as Einstein describes in his Special Theory, it is not shown in the above equations, which are called the Galilean transformation equations and were used to describe relativity until scientists decided to discard them in 1887. To show the time of a slower clock, we use the following equations for the inverse equations. x = x' - (-vt/n' y = y' z = z' n = n' n' is the time of the slower clock described by Einstein in his special theory. (-vt/n') is the velocity of frame of reference S(x,y,z,t) relative to frame of reference S'(x',y',z',n'). To show constant speed of light we would say, x=ct and x'=cn'. x'=x-vt cn'=ct-vt n'=t(1-vt/c) In order to understand the meaning of these equations, we have to define what we mean by time. Are we saying a second is a certain number of transitions of a cesium isotope atom? Not if the transitions slow down or speed up depending on conditions of motion and gravitation. If Galileo and Isaac Newton defined a second to be 1/864,000th of the time it takes to rotate on its axis, then two clocks with different rates cannot both agree with 1/864,000th of a of a day on earth. But time is even more complex than that. We have solar time and sidereal time because earth rotates one more time relative to the universe during a year than it does relative to the sun. The revolution of the earth around the sun adds one more rotation of the earth relative to the entire universe than it does relative to the sun. So if we are referring to the above equations we are referring to solar time with regard to events on earth or sidereal time with regards to events of the entire solar system or entire universe. Scientific or atomic time relates to these other concepts of time differently than scientists are saying. Time does not contract lengths or curve space. It is a concept, not a force.

matter is a hidden light clock, systems of moving and interacting matter is also a moving light clock, this is essential if you are to understand why the two way speed of light is always measured to be the same. it is way more fundamental than general or special relativity. it takes a fair while to prove it but essentially without it these theories are incoherent, and extensions of the theories fall apart. we will always measure the speed of light as the same even if it changes from place to place, we can only ever measure different speeds of light in different locations by means of their effect on intrinsic time elapsed for physical systems. but the speed of light varies in space, and the gradients is a part of the gravitational potential. if you don't take my word for it, go back to 1914-1940 and read what Einstein said about it, he always thinks about it in these terms and not purely geometrical terms, because these terms are more fundamental.

What if we only can use sound to compare sound clocks?

Ron Halton wrote an article, " Those scandalous clocks" would disagree. It's not the motion but the gradient of the gravity( potential) that affects the time dilation. Ron Halton had twenty-three patents for GPS-Time system and was a consultant to NASA when they timing issues with their satellites.

Something still seems off here when you rotate the clocks. I don't think length contraction is being considered. When you rotate the clock the math is still the SAME even for light clocks. I think the only reason the gamma^2 factor is avoided for light clocks is because one of the gamma's is absorbed by L and we call it "length contraction". But if the sound wave analogy is correct then there would be no length contraction, and so you still get gamma^2 even for a light clock.

So, If length contraction occurs for an anisotropic speed of light, it raises the possibility that the speed of light may not be uniform in all directions? Thanks a lot for this video. (Looking forward to see if Dialect manages any response)

Time IS movement...

Who was the knight who died for the sake of perspective? Don't call yourself a physicist if you don't know! The Florentine painter Paolo Uccello painted a triptych entitled _The Battle of San Romano._ In one of the three paintings is shown a dead knight lying on the ground, but foreshortened by perspective. I am in the habit of referring to this as the Uccello Contraction. In the theory of elliptical perspective, we have the Uccello Contraction, and in the theory of hyperbolic perspective, we have the Fitzgerald Contraction. The theory of hyperbolic perspective is also known as Special Relativity, and there is plenty of evidence for it being also true. The Uccello Contraction and the Fitzgerald Contraction are both equally mysterious, or equally obvious, depending upon one's point of view. Anyway, just have a look at _The Battle of San Romano_ online.

At <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="429">7:09</a> there is an issue. You are mixing light waves "looking" and sound waves "sound clock". What if your "observation" of the other sound clocks could only be done using sounds waves?

I have a question. And it's the same since any tried to explain time dilation to me. movement is relative, means when you move relative to me, I move relative to you. So to both of us the other one clock is ticking slower. How can one be aged differently when they meat again? Often times this gets explained by one is on earth and the other one moves fast through space. But we are on a rock, floating through space and unimaginable speeds. So much about the other one floats though space. And we are in a gravitational field, here on earth. If Gravitation also causes time dilation, shouldn't we here on earth then age less then our friends up in space? And what if I move in the opisire direction of in which the earth is moving through space. In that case I am moving slower through space itself then the earth and anyone on it. Tjqts why I still ask the same question: how does time dilation actually work? And I mean in detail.

Sounds like a lot of confused high school school students they got past because the teachers don’t want to look bad

This is the very Idea I put up in a video years ago where time dilation is not the same when you travel towards a location and when traveling away from a location. The thought experiment the Einstein did was him moving away from a clock tower and he thought that the closer he got to the speed of light the slower the clock would appear to tick as he got close to light speed moving away from the clock. His ideas NEVER cover to what happens when traveling towards a location and what happens at that point is the clocks tick rate you travel towards will incease in its time rate or look like time is going faster then it is for you for locations you go towards. There is NO WAY that time would slow down everywhere around you when traveling close to light speed. this idea is not possible only time speeds up for locations you travel towards and slows down for locations you travel away from. This is the only way the time dilation idea works and makes sense the idea that all clocks moving run slower the clocks that are traveling at a slower speed is not the connection it is traveling away or traveling towards locations that cause this time dilation time rate change effect. What Brian Green and so many others have attempted to teach people about time dilation is absolutely 100% incorrect and the whole light beam bouncing up and down between 2 mirrors is not in any way a valid experiment to prove anything about how time rates change for locations you travel away from and travel towards.... Now its been 5 years sense i posted this video and i have less then 50 views on it....... This person as I'm posting this has had this video up for 9 days and he has 26 thousand views for this video.... ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0ARg3rpvXB0.htmlsi=ZtNzIEkdtVNmBGIL Posted this idea 5 years ago......... less then 50 views what BS this is......

this physical length contraction issue is exactly why i mentioned imagining what matter would be like if it was made out of a medium of air, it would have to length contract, and so the time dilation would be the same anyway. that is there is no difference between a medium and whatever people think special relativity is like, special relativity is exactly a theory corresponding to a medium you cannot detect absolute motion with respect to. in fact the example you showed for how you would measure the speed on air can be fixed by just assuming length contraction takes care of it and then you are only solving for one unknown, compare that unknown to the length contraction functions on special relativity. i am telling you special relativity is an ether theory, people think it is not an ether theory, and that such things were refuted, basically because they learned special relativity in a simplified way and then someone told them so. but that isnt true, that is a misconception, special relativity and ether theories where the ether cant be detected like this has the exact opposite problem, it is not that the ether is impossible, but that any ether with any velocity is possible. except from the effects familiar to anyone who knows gr of frame dragging and gravity, it just has to be in uniform motion.

If everything is a clock and everything that is a clock has the clock problem, and we cant find anything in the universe that isnt a clock, then we dont have a clock problem. Like what theres an invisible superclock of time behind the scenes ticking away at a constant speed totally separate from anything else, that cannot interact with anything and cant be measured? So what? Theres an invisible pink elephant in my garage that has a perfect clock and keeps perfect time no matter who is seeing it from any point in space, the only issue is, its invisible so nobody can see it.

"If there was such a medium for light, it would have to not interact with matter, or else the Earth would collapse into the Sun from drag." 1. Dark matter/energy???? 2. Doesn't the rotating Earth release gravitational waves, and therefore would collapse into the Sun from drag anyways?

We write "after all" as two words.

Like all discussions of relativity, this video doesn't define what a clock is. That is never done in Einstein's theory. A clock counts ticks. Since the tics are segments of time which are longer for the moving clock, that clock counts fewer tics for a given interval of time. Hence the elapsed time doesn't change, just the number of tics counted. In relativity, it is claimed time is changed, although what changes is just the number of tics on the clock being counted. The total time, being number of tics times the length of each tic doesn't change. Conclusion: Relativity is incorrect physics, because time is never properly defined.

At <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="793">13:13</a>, can't sound waves also be spherical waves within the air medium, just like the light spherical waves in the EM medium? This would mean there should be a transverse and longitudinal effect with sound, just like light. The longitudinal Doppler Effect of Sound changes the pitch, but the wave speed in the medium is still constant. The longitudinal Doppler Effect of Light changes the color, but the wave speed in the medium is still constant.

I feel as though relativity is mapping of the variability of the universal constants in relation to background energy of the space it is travelling through, not in relation of one object to another. Time is immutable and absolute simultaneity is real and can be recognized by the interactions of quantum mechanics. Only your perspective of time can change due to the electrical signal in your brain travelling at a different relative speed to the body etc. Time is described inaccurately as it is described in terms of the Planck Time, which is how long it takes for light to travel the Planck Distance. There is basically a big difference between the conceptualized model of time in all of our minds compared to what it is modelled as mathematically in relativity. The one we all conceptualize in our minds is absolute, what we witness in quantum mechanics is absolute as well, only the meta physics of Einstein state that time is mutable when it is immutable, only our perspective of time can change. The way Planck modelled time is flawed as it assumes all light travels at a universal speed, when you look at the universe from an absolute frame of reference light travels at different speeds in comparison to each other (I am sick of people ignoring the time experienced by photons just because the photons perspective of time is different. It still exists and no metaphysics can eliminate that fact) and has carried over to Einsteins model. If relativity was proven then we could take two clocks apart from each other and bring them back together and they would be synchronized due to their mechanisms or coding catering to the momentum. We can't get time synchronized exactly and that is a failure of Relativity. We would also be able to unify quantum mechanics with physics, could explain singularities, why the galaxies are drifting apart (i.e. what is "dark matter" and "dark energy") as well as various other shortcomings. Stop putting Einstein on a pedestal, the guy was just a dreamer and felt that reality was objective (Your perspective is your reality which is unique for each particle) when it is definitely non-objective (Things happen in a certain order regardless of how you perceive them, causality is real). "SeeThePattern" produces some nice Lorentz Ether Theory videos as well, I like his ones related to the rivalry between Lorentzian theory and Einsteinian theory. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-iqAvgHJa7Yw.html Werner has some great stuff related to the stuff you are talking about, hopefully Dialect has seen the material: www.youtube.com/@wernerhartl2069

Perhaps the ether has a drag that moves relative to local frames of reference? As in... There is a sorta interaction resistance as a result of internal component interacting with such a field taking time. Which should make sense given waves in the electric field, causes magnetic currents in the magnetic field. You can't just instantly interact between electric and magnetic fields. And so stuff gets muddy on small scales meshing them together as stuff moves. Hence "electromagnetic waves" with vacuum permittivity and permeability coming out as a result. In this case you wouldn't notice any difference in the Michealson Morley experiment. I should also mention that in such a case, We would be using a tetrad formalism and killing vector fields to keep constancy of this vacuum permittivity and permeability values as you partially drag this ether around via motion. Effectively indicating a variable speed of C in a flat spacetime under this tetrad killing vector formalism, is equal to a constant speed of light in curved spacetime. Hence the unification of Quantum field ideas and Gravitational field ideas. There just 2 ways of looking at the same thing. In fact if you look at the chalk board of Einstein's he left around after his death, You'll see precisely this. A tetrad formalism in a flat metric killing vector field, which turns out to have the same degrees of freedom as standard GR. 👀 In this case the constancy of C is more like a summed value aka a average of the given electromagnetic field. Altho... It could fluctuate on smaller scales technically just as with any quantum field.

Muons have spin. They are also clocks

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="438">7:18</a> this is only the case if you could define a rest frame for the medium. This is exactly what everyone gets wrong about the aether, and why no one takes it seriously. To define such a frame you need something indipendent from the medium to compare it to, and this is usually done with matter. But if the medium is literally ALL there is, you cant define such a frame, and relativity works just fine. As an analogy, think about a boat on the ocean. You can define the rest frame of the ocean by watching how the boats motion creates waves (none when the boat is at rest with the ocean). Now imagine instead the boat is not separate from the ocean, so instead visualize a wave on the surface. Its motion does not disturb the ocean from the frame of the wave, so it says it is still relative to the ocean. But so can every other wave say the same. The only "true" stationary, preferred frame would be that of no waves at all, but that would mean empty space. There's nothing to compare your measurements with in empty space.

ether is smaller than atoms so its an open clock. And its the inertial mass that increases in atomick clock and thus its signal changes against the ether since the medium itself is its source of inertia/momentum. Its like sound clock but the faster it moves the less dense the air becomes and thus the interval is longer. (sound is sort of inverse of ether where more dense ->faster where as more dense ether light goes slower edit; sort off but unknown... more like more matter the slower light goes and faster it goes the present matter becomes thicker per se)

If the "clock" direction is a separate dimension (like in kaluza-klein) it might not be so easy to turn the clock.

Are you using sound clocks to derive the expression for Doppler in the case of sound as you would use light-based clocks in the case of light?

No one bothered to ask WHAT was making the quartz vibrate and how gravity and the em field can both effect the CLOCK but not time

The fact that we are taught from a young age, there is no sound in outer space is wrong. There are many many parts of space that are extremely dense, and can transmit vibrations from particle too particle across huge distances. If those parts of outer space were made of colossal super refined condensates, electrify could travel near the speed of light. Standing waves are the connection between time and distance, the same way the spooky action at a distance works. Instantaneously 😂 💙🇦🇺🤜🏼🤛🏼😎🍀☮️☮️☮️

We're being short-sighted, the question is what is time? The solution for this problem is that time is not what we think it is.