Talk:Time dilation/Archive 3

message: I copy and paste from above:
:[...] to me a gravitational field is defined by the result and not the cause. --EMS | Talk 05:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Very right. But that's what the article does, isn't it? Harald88 15:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operational definition of gravitational time dilation 

message: quote: "Time dilation occurs with respect to temporal coordinate systems set up in this manner." 
A non-physicist reader might be forgiven for thinking this means time dilation does not occur unless the clock synchronisation procedure is used. He could then ask, "So clocks never ran at different rates until sometime in the late 19th century? It is just an illusuon?". I guess the time dilation always occured, but it is always difficult to write about this without making it sound like a mere "appearance" on the one hand and a "reality" on the other. 
E4mmacro 22:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just "mere appearance", but it's difficult to explain. Maybe something like "it's a real effect, but the measured quantity depends on the measurement"... Harald88 15:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification sought

message: Hi please try not to save endless times small incremental edits; it makes for a horrible mess on the article spaces -- see for example: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Time_dilation&action=history
If you have internet problems or computer problems, you can use a text editor for the purpose of saveguarding your edits. Thanks, Harald88 15:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  request on editing 

message: There are more and more links to articles on wbabin.net and it has some interesting articles; but apparently those are in no way peer reviewed nor handed in with peer recommandation -- perhaps the editor decides if he likes the looks of it?
Thus I think that that site is not a good source, so that any link to an article it should only be included in the exceptional case that there is consensus about that link being helpful. Any other ideas? Harald88 22:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  www.wbabin.net? 

message: I have created an animation showing asymmetric velocity time dilation. This applies for example in the case of particles following a circular trajectory in a particle accelerator. Historially, the asymmetrical case is interesting, because it served to suggest the equivalence principle. Any object that is being accelerated by a force is pulling G's.
The acceleration with respect to the inertial frame has a symmetry breaking effect. The operative factor for the amount of difference in lapse of proper time is the difference in spatial distance travelled.
A possible disadvantage of this animation is its size: 114 KB. I think that is very large. --Cleonis | Talk 15:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the animation, it's very simple.  But it definitely needs a simple explanation...what kind of a caption would you put to go along with it?Pkeck 05:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animation of nonsymmetric velocity time dilation 

message: Shouldn't the equation at the top of the page be:
T_1 = T_0 \sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}
Not:
T_1 = {T_0 \over \sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}
[unsigned by 86.0.228.241]
No it's correct, but the way it is presented is confusing, and even not sufficiently defined. I'll try to rephrase it. Harald88 12:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right that that can be confusing. Note that T has memory. We can replace T_0 by a more standard notation with primed for co-moving, and unprimed for rest frame; but I think that your suggestion is the clearest. OK I change that. Harald88 22:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I have no clue what could be confusing about it. Perhaps you want to first explain in one sentence that the time between two ticks is (by definition) the time period? If you like, go ahead! But by all means avoid to use without definition the ambiguous word "time", and define about time on which clock you are talking! Usually time means coordinate time, but not here. And no, the indice "0" is commonly used for "proper", but the indice "1" is not commonly used for the frame of observation/stationary frame. Often used alternative is one version back (T and T'). People who simplify it to such an extreme level of ambiguity usually completely misunderstand time dilation... Harald88 22:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time Dilation Equation 

message: I know, it makes no sense, anyway! If universe is a closed system, conservation of momentum takes place. So, at, before, during, after the big bang, momentum should be the same, what ever happend. Therefore there exists a point of view (and so a lot of frames TypeX), where momentum is zero. But, universe contents energy, therefore objects are moving relative. But, an object with zero momentum in a frame TypeX "has speed zero" and therefore the highest rate of time. In this sense, there is an absolute frame. But, all macroscopic objects in the universe are very close to rest and all object with relativistic speed, we observe, are moving relativ to TypeX and, therefore are timedeleated. Still the laws of physics are the same for all inertial systems and there is no contradiction between a fixes frame and RT. ErNa 09:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Senselessness 

message: :ΔT is the time period as measured by a stationary observer,
:ΔT0 is the time period of the moving object as seen by the stationary observer,
I miss the definition of "time periode" ErNa 15:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps clock cycle is clearer. But, on second thought, "time interval" is probably more standard. Harald88 10:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time periode 

message: It strikes me that this article has three audiences: (1) the inquiring layman who's just looking for a very general overview in everyday language (ie, "The results of a great number of experiments have been interpreted as confirming Einstein's theory: that time runs more slowly for objects moving at speeds approaching that of light."); (2) nonexperts with some significant scientific background who find themselves "unclear on the concept" and would like a discussion of apparent inconsistencies, objections, and misconceptions; (3) persons looking for the math. Couldn't the article be restructured accordingly, in three labelled sections? -S. Dickerson
: Anyone can edit Wikipedia.  So I advise getting to work.  As a practial matter, it is best to create an account, draft the revised article in one's user space, and when it is ready tell people about it here and get their opinions. --EMS | Talk 05:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Subdivision of Article for Clarity