Talk:Time dilation

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Time contraction. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 18#Time contraction until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  DVdm (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Redirect was deleted - DVdm (talk) 10:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Time contraction" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The section on "Combined effect of velocity and gravitational time dilation" claims it is using the Schwarzschild metric, and links to the Schwarzschild metric page, but it looks more like a misformed representation of isotropic coordinates, and it cites a source that uses what the source calls an "ECI frame" which looks like a weak-field Newtonian metric.
5.57.12.217 (talk) 11:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: To me it looks like conforming to the cited sources and like pure Schwarzschild. - DVdm (talk) 12:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Combined effect of velocity and gravitational time dilation" has a mislabeled metric 

message: The animation where the red clock rotates around the blue clock as illustration for special relativistic effects is misleading, since at least one of the two clocks is not part of an inertial system and thus SRT does not apply.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.95.168.158 (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you figure? SRT applies to the red clock; the animation shows the effect on that clock compared to the frame of reference of the blue clock. —C.Fred (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  The red clock is rotating around the blue clock so it is not representing an inertial system and so the SRT approach to time dilation does not apply to the red clock. (Well: Of course also the blue clock could be rotating around the red clock, if we take the red clock to be inertial. However, at least one of the systems is not an inertial system.) Of course, in this situation there also is time dilatation, but it is not a special relativistic effect alone. We have general relativistic effects as well, since acceleration is part of the game (or, locally equivalently, gravitation).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.163.198.2 (talk) 11:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  You share a common misconception that SRT does not apply to accelerated systems. It does. Where SRT does not apply is in the presence of gravitation. See Spacetime_diagram#Accelerating_observers Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 11:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting argument. Agreeing to yours. Mine runs as follows: The red clock is accelerated. By the equivalency principle this acceleration is locally equivalent to a gravitational field. This gravitational field produces a time dilatation. This effect is not predicted by SRT. So while the SRT might mathematically be used (as your citation suggests), the SRT formula will produce an incorrect result. I agree that the SRT can be used. I fear it will produce an incorrect prediction in the scenario we are looking at. Which leaves us with an illustration in the article suggesting a theory which will be delivering a result which is different from current state of the art (which should use ART, despite the fact that SRT does produce a consistent result, different from experiment). Interested in your opinion on this. 87.163.198.2 (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading Animation 

message: Can we read by myanmar subject ? Waiyanaungphyo (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Waiyanaungphyo Looking at the links to the article in other languages (at the top of the article page), this article is available in Bangla and Sinhala. Does that help? —C.Fred (talk) 13:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  language 

message: The quote starting "individual electrons describe corresponding.." gives the incorrect equation.  From the paper the quote should be "and the individual electrons describe corresponding parts of their orbits in times shorter for the latter system in the ratio e^-1/2 or (l — ½v²/c²), while those less advanced in the direction of v are" 
In the article text the equation is given as √(1—v²/c²) which is the the inverse of the Lorentz and Einstein equation for gamma 2001:8003:146B:CD00:819A:61CD:C43C:35E1 (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: In the quoted text we have ε = 1/(1−v²/c²), and so, as you can verify, ϵ^(−½) = √(1—v²/c²), which is, as you can also verify, (1 — ½v²/c²) to first order in v²/c². In this article, we have simply left it as √(1—v²/c²), in stead of going to first order. Look at it as a semi-quote. I removed the double quotes. - DVdm (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Larmor misquoted 

message: I am 87 now ! Must I await to be 100 years before you will accept my suggestions formulated in 2017 ! 🤔
See https://phymatheco.github.io
Read it before suppressing it ,  Non second chance !!! Chessfan (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Still no need to read it, as Wikipedia still does not accept wp:original research  - DVdm (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You cheat ! See Gourgoulhon General Relativity !  Chessfan (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some suggestions, again ....