Re: Time Dilation Can Only be Detected at Velocities Close to the Speed of Light

On 11/19/2024 05:47 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 11/19/2024 12:41 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
>

On 2024-11-17 19:03:25 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
>

Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
>

On 2024-11-15 21:52:05 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
>

Time Dilation Can Only be Detected at Velocities Close to the
Speed of
Light

>
Is one tenth of c close? At that speed time dilation is easy to
observe.
>
Time dilation is observed at the speed of an aeroplane.
>
Oscillators currently studied in laboratories will in near future
permit
the detection of time dilation at walking speed.

>
Amost  there:
0.3 meter of altitude is equivalent to about 9 km/h in speed.
More than walking, but already less than running,

>
Gravitational effect has already been demonstrated on smaller altitude
difference:
>
https://www.snexplores.org/article/a-new-clock-shows-how-gravity-warps-time-ev
>

en-over-tiny-distances
>
Yes, that has been mentioned here several times already.
But that is inside one, not for an entire clock.
>

However, Experiments with moving things are harder. All moving parts
tend to generate noise. Clocks are easiest to compare when stationary
side by side but then at least one of them must be accerated between
the comparisons and one must ensure that the acceleration does not
affect the clocks rhythm.

>
Has also been done already, with a van-mounted strontium clock.
<https://phys.org/news/2018-02-optical-clock-gravitation.html>
>
They don't talk about the Lorentz factors involved in driving the car,
but they must have compensated for them to get the gravity measurements
right.
>
One of the things the nutters here tend to forget
is that physicsts are not working all the time
to 'prove relativity right'.
Relativity is standard 'unproblematic background knowledge'.
It will be demonstated explicitly only when some parameter
can be pushed back by another decade.
>
They are out to do more interesting things.
Standard relativistic corrections are applied as a matter of course,
when and where needed,
>
Jan
>
>

>
The vis-viva is a really old theory that since Lagrange
and the fluid models and energy conservation, which is great,
that being since mechanical reduction was reduced to the
statistical ensemble after a stack of Hooke, Clausius,
Boltzmann, and a bit of Kelvin, for Boyle or gas law
thusly "2'nd" law, thermo, while the inertial and
momental lost any notion of "active" force at all,
and force was given as a quantity and not itself
derivative and a function of time, has it that:
in the classical, relativity only says it's whatever's
built the classical, the mechanics, in the limit,
which, according to thusly Galileo and Newton's
rest/rest motion/motion equal/opposite f=ma g=mm/r^2,
is entirely missing the Mertonian school, quite
thoroughly notions of meeting and parting and
stopping and starting, and otherwise makes for
inserting "zero-eth" laws about orbits and
meeting and parting and stopping and starting,
AND using relativistic derivations like Einstein's
second mass-energy equivalency in the classical,
and introducing "heft", makes for the entire idea
of "momentum" instead of "inertia" and "energy",
thusly, conserved, obsolete.
>
Though, correct in some simple cases.
>
>

The "Einstein's Relativity" is an _inertial_
system and a _differential_ system (and more
fully an _integral_ system) and besides Einstein's
attack on Newton and his foray into the centrally
symmetrical and "Einstein's Bridge" which is usually
applied to condensed-matter-physics while yet is
part of his account on mechanics, there's that
Einstein's "partial differentials" with regards
to usually the Laplacians and the limitations of
the Hamiltonian after Jacobi and even Jacobi again,
that one imagines Einstein would have found great
potential, pun intended, in more-than-partial
mathematics of Laplacians what arrive at harmonic
functions a more-than-partial potential theory,
with regards to the continuum mechanics which
also has a lot going on, and the Bayesian also
which is itself partial, pointing at weaknesses
all up and down the stack of derivations.
One imagines Einstein might say "yeah it's got
to be a differential system and when I say
'partial' differentials that's all we had, ...."
It's got to be "continuous" is what he says.
It's a sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials theory, ....