I'd like to pick apart time dilation and no one I know in person seems to have both the apptitude and interest required.

Claim: A clock in motion runs slower than a stationary clock.

Experiment: Supposedly they used the same property used in atomic clocks, set one in motion, brought it back home and verified that less time had passed for that clock than the control clock on the ground.

It may be that I misundeerstood the experiment or the claim, but here is my dispute with it all.

If we say that the control clock was near motionless during the experiment and that the clock in motion moved at a significant enough portion of the speed of light for the difference in time passage for each to be noticed then reletive to the frame of reference of the control clock the clock in motion moved at some velocity, X.

However, from the frame of referance of the clock in motion, the clock in motion had a velocity of zero at all times. From that frame of referance it was the control clock that move at some some velocity, -X. So, from the frame of referance of the clock in motion, we should have seen the opposite dilation effect. The clock on the ground should have experienced less time.

One could say that it is only objects in motion that should experience this dialating effect, but I SAY that the frame of referance of the clock on the ground in no way supercedes the frame of referance that followed the clock in motion.

In other words the clock in motion is not in motion reletive to itself. There exists a frame of referance that follows the clock in motion and all natural laws of the universe should hold for that frame of refeance as well as any other.

Post replies here or e-mail them to me or both.
Thank you for reading.
timothy48342@yahoo.com

• the difference is - sagefr0g - April 22, 2003 - 09:03 UTC
  • Experiential difference between 2 clocks - timothy48342 - April 25, 2003 - 11:08 UTC
    • intuition - sagefr0g - April 25, 2003 - 16:42 UTC