It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Need help with relativity question: Has "Dingle's Question" ever been answered?

page: 2
8
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 05:37 PM

Velocity (or, specifically, uniform relative motion) does correspond to differences in the rate of change of time (Δt). However, it is acceleration which causes the change in Δt. This is obvious, as constant velocity means constant Δt. Only constant acceleration corresponds to a non-constant Δt.

That is, velocity is proportional to a constant Δt;
while acceleration is proportional to a non-constant Δt

Therefore, acceleration is directly responsible for a change in the rate of the passage of time, but velocity determines the rate of the passage of time at any given instant.
edit on 26-9-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 06:19 PM
The answer is "both". I do not understand why the OP does not accept that as a valid answer.

posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 06:33 PM

The OP hasn't had to accept or reject that has the answer, because it hasn't been suggested...because that's not the answer. Did you read, and understand, what Dingle's question is asking?

posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 07:06 PM

I actually started to draft a response along those lines. And that's more or less what I was going to say.

But then I decided to find out if he thinks Einstein is wrong first, to see if it's worth spending time helping him understand.

A lot of people think Einstein is wrong without having even researched exactly what it is Einstein's theory stipulates, and without researching all the experiments that have been consistent with relativity. It is probably not productive to argue with such people.

Others are just honestly confused and would like to know the truth. It is productive to try to help those people understand.

posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 07:18 PM

Originally posted by masterp
The answer is "both". I do not understand why the OP does not accept that as a valid answer.
I've seen no argument from anybody on either side of the debate who has suggested that as the answer to Dingle's question.

Nearly everyone seems to agree that the clock at the equator runs more slowly. The debate is about why that can't be explained with special relativity. McCausland had this to say:

redshift.vif.com...

I believe that future historians of science will be very puzzled by
the fact that, in spite of the ineptitude of the published attempts to
answer Dingle’s Question and his other arguments, the scientific
world remains almost unanimous to this day in its belief that Dingle
was all wrong and his opponents all right. Although I have quoted in
this paper only a few attempts to answer Dingle’s arguments, I have
shown elsewhere [11,12] that several of Dingle’s opponents
contradicted one another in their attempts to show that there is no

So apparently almost everyone agrees on which clock runs slower when one clock is at the pole, and the other is at the equator... What some people, like McCausland, can't seem to grasp, is that the accelerating clock at the equator is not a special relativity case, since special relativity doesn't deal with acceleration.

posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 07:53 PM

quote
"since special relativity doesn't deal with acceleration."
unquote

So then, the new found "annonally" is ~60 nano,secs,,(sorry ,,nano-nano,,had too say it,,),
faster, than est. set parrameters,,

because it accelerates does this mean it "still",,,belongs,,, to Einstien??
and all applicable, E M and SPEED a constant,,,

hmmmm

edit on 26-9-2011 by BobAthome because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 07:55 PM

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
Chk out the graph on the link in my signature.
I went to the link in your signature. I found a thread in skunk works titled "antigravity" something ...and the OP talked about the pH of tomatoes, with no explanation of how the pH is supposed to make the tomato fly, or what the relevance of a pH of a tomato is to antigravity. Actually none of it made any sense to me.

But I didn't see any graphs, and I skimmed through the first several pages in that thread.

Considering all the scientific experiments proving Einstein's either right or so close to it we can't tell the difference, even if you had a graph claiming Einstein is wrong, it wouldn't be credible without a mountain of peer-reviewed evidence to back it up.
edit on 26-9-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 07:57 PM

"Einstein" is more than just Special Relativity. Acceleration is dealt with in General Relativity.

Also, the experimental neutrino results have no bearing on this thread, as the question given in the OP is asked within the scope of Relativity, whether Relativity is right or not.

posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 07:59 PM

That would have to be a mother of a mountain.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who couldn't find any relevant graph in either of the links in AR's signature.

posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 09:08 PM

Yes. When 160 PhD's at CERN are having a hard time convincing the scientific community that Einstein was wrong with their detailed and documented neutrino measurements, one anonymous guy with a graph and no proof really doesn't stand a chance

Originally posted by BobAthome
because it accelerates does this mean it "still",,,belongs,,, to Einstien??
and all applicable, E M and SPEED a constant,,,
Even if the 60ns measurement is true, nobody has established that would be the result of acceleration. It could just as easily be the result of constant velocity. But chances are, it's not true so we should let the scientists do their job and see if they can find the error and refute it, or less likely, confirm it.

But CLprime is right; neutrinos are not the topic of this thread, you can post in the neutrino thread here if you wish to discuss them more:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 12:19 AM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

But I didn't see any graphs, and I skimmed through the first several pages in that thread.

Considering all the scientific experiments proving Einstein's either right or so close to it we can't tell the difference, even if you had a graph claiming Einstein is wrong, it wouldn't be credible without a mountain of peer-reviewed evidence to back it up.
edit on 26-9-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

There is a link in the subject OP and peer review is not really required since visible proof is there for all to see.
But at least you did call up the thread.

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 12:28 AM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

I agree with pretty much everything you said except the part about Dingle's question being answered.

To explain what happens in accelerating inertial reference frames, requires that general relativity be invoked. Dingle (and apparently also the author of that pdf) insist that general relativity can't be used to answer the question, and that it must be answered only with special relativity.

Special relativity says that all physics is the same in inertial reference frames.

One of the reference frames in question is not inertial (as you could locally record the accelerometer or measure changes in a pendulum's period). So you know from SR, that there is no paradox, but you don't have a quantitative formula for the right answer.

The calculations of transformations in non-inertial reference frames are not so well defined, that's what eventually leads to general relativity (which takes in much more of course).

It's like asserting that somebody needs to give a classical explanation for ferromagnetism, when there isn't one---the exchange interaction between atoms is a quantum mechanical effect, and so is the notion that you have point particles (electrons) which still have a magnetic moment because they have "intrinsic spin". There is no such thing as intrinsic spin with a classical point particle.

So the correct answer to Dingle's question is: stop being an ass.
edit on 27-9-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-9-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 12:30 AM

Originally posted by CLPrime

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Lol linear means the tangential velocity here and besides both the clocks experience equal accel.

"Linear" never ever means tangential velocity under any circumstance. Tangential velocity is the point velocity of an accelerating reference frame at any given instant. If velocity is linear, it has no tangent. The two are mutually exclusive.

Also, both clocks are certainly not experiencing equal acceleration.

Lol

Cant understand wt you are lolling about.
Linear vel of a rotating body about some external point
and besides both clocks are on the same meridian

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 01:50 AM

I don't know why McCausland, the pdf author, doesn't get it either.

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 02:06 AM

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
Cant understand wt you are lolling about.
Linear vel of a rotating body about some external point
and besides both clocks are on the same meridian
We are Loling because we can't understand why you think a point on the pole has the same acceleration as a point on the equator.

So what if it's on the same meridian? The clock at the equator travels over 40,000 km in one day by traversing the circumference of the Earth, versus the clock at the pole which barely moves due to the Earth's rotation?

There are additional motions through space such as the Earth's orbit around the sun, etc, but all those larger motions are the same for both clocks. The rotation of the Earth makes a big difference in how far a clock travels in one day when you compare a clock at the equator to a clock at the pole. I assumed this was self-evident, but I guess I shouldn't assume.

I also have no idea what you mean by "rotating body about some external point". The cause of the difference is the Earth rotating on its own axis and the shape of the Earth; what external point are you talking about?

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
There is a link in the subject OP...
edit on 27-9-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 09:59 AM

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Cant understand wt you are lolling about.

I actually wasn't "lol"ing about anything. I was mocking your use of "Lol".
I don't "lol" in internet conversations. And I don't "lmao" either.

Linear vel of a rotating body about some external point

There is no such thing.

and besides both clocks are on the same meridian

That doesn't matter. Both are accelerating due to gravity (it doesn't matter if the normal force cancels this out), and, beyond that, the one at the equator is experiencing additional acceleration due to rotation. That's a GR problem.
edit on 27-9-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 12:10 PM

Originally posted by CLPrime

That doesn't matter. Both are accelerating due to gravity (it doesn't matter if the normal force cancels this out), and, beyond that, the one at the equator is experiencing additional acceleration due to rotation. That's a GR problem.
edit on 27-9-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)

A plan view of 2 massless clocks on the same meridian will accel equally or they wil lgo out of alignment.
Besides GR is only a hypotheses and not adequately confirmed by experimenral data to date.

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 12:38 PM
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection

Why do you think that two clocks on the same meridian accelerate equally?

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 01:58 PM

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection

Why do you think that two clocks on the same meridian accelerate equally?

The rate of change of direction of the linear vel vectors is the same at both the points.
Why ya'll dont savvy the linear vel of a rotating body is beyond me.

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 01:58 PM

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection

Why do you think that two clocks on the same meridian accelerate equally?

The rate of change of direction of the linear vel vectors is the same at both the points.
Why ya'll dont savvy the linear vel of a rotating body is beyond me.

new topics

top topics

8