Tamminen wrote: ↑January 11th, 2020, 1:22 pm

Proofs of time dilation using geometry:

Is there some Universal law that states 'geometry' holds the formula to solving this?

Or, are you just using geometry to "justify" some conclusion, which you believe is the conclusion?

Tamminen wrote: ↑January 11th, 2020, 1:22 pm

1. A space ship travels to a planet 4 light years from the Earth with a constant speed, 80% of light speed. So the trip takes 5 years according to clocks on Earth. We want to know the time it takes according to the traveler's clock.

Let us draw a right triangle with legs a and b, and the hypotenuse c.

a = the time it takes from a photon to travel during the voyage, horizontally in relation to the space ship, and in the reference frame of the space ship. This is what we are asking.

b = the distance traveled = 4 light years.

c = the time it takes from the aforementioned photon to travel during the voyage, in the reference frame of the Earth, ie. according to clocks on Earth = 5 years.

Now we see, using the Pythagorean theorem, that a = 3. So it takes 3 years from the traveler to make the trip, according to the clocks in the space ship.

Just about all of this makes no sense to me.

For example;

I do not know what you are asking in a. Are you asking how long does it take a photon to travel the exact same path that the space ship takes?

Are you also suggesting from a and from c that a photon travels distances differently according to the frame of reference of an observer?

If yes, then this will help me in explaining where the confusion, which has lead up to all of the misconceptions and wrong calculations, may have actually originated from.

You say using pythagorean theorem a = 3, as it takes three years from the traveler to make the trip, according to the clocks in the space ship.

I say using commonsense a = 5, as it takes five years for the traveler to make the trip, which would also be the same as the clock in the space ship.

Just plain old commonsense and very simple mathematics would tell you the space ship cannot travel that distance faster than the speed of light.

The whole point of 'relativity' as been completely taken out of context, and completely lost and misunderstood, to most people.

Tamminen wrote: ↑January 11th, 2020, 1:22 pm

2. A space ship is accelerating. A photon in launched from its wall, from point A. It reaches the opposite wall after traveling a horizontal distance d in time t. But because of acceleration it hits the opposite wall below the starting point, say at point B. Now the distance AB > d. This is the distance the photon has traveled from the perspective of an inertial reference frame, and therefore also its time of travel is longer than t. So time runs slower in the accelerating reference frame.

But this is not measuring time, nor even measuring what is called time. This example is just used to "justify" and to 'try to' prove what is assumed happens. What actually happens is much different.

A photon bouncing off of two walls is traveling the same distance, and therefore takes the same time to travel that distance, no matter if the two walls are fixed to planet earth or traveling in a space ship away from earth at any speed.

Acceleration or constant speed as no altering effect on this.

Some people 'try to' use mathematics and/or examples to "justify" their already held assumptions, views, beliefs, et cetera.

This just shows the power of belief at work here.

A lot of the formulas put forward as "justifications" for things could in fact be an absolute load of rubbish. Obviously, using symbols, which most human beings on the planet have absolutely no idea what they are, let alone what they refer to, does not prove anything at all. In fact it could be a way to hide the actual truth of things, and just be a way to pretend that some people know something, which truthfully they may not have any clue at all about. Using unknown symbols and unknown formulas and say that this proves this or that, after all, could just be a way one wanting to express that one's own beliefs as being the absolute truth. Some people will 'try' absolutely anything to prove and show that what they believe is true, is true. But because those unknown symbols appear to show that those people are "smart", then to some other people this then means that "they must be smart so they must know what they are talking about". But obviously if someone cannot explain something in very simple terms, then they may not simply know that thing at all themselves. Making things appear complex and hard, in order so that do not have explain things is, to me, a sign of insecurity and fear, and certainly not a sign of them actually knowing at thing at all.

To me, absolutely everything in Life, including ALL of Life, Itself, is just, simple and easy. There is absolutely nothing hard nor complex and Life and the Universe, Itself.

Tamminen wrote: ↑January 11th, 2020, 1:22 pm

The same applies to gravity, because of the equivalence principle. Objects on Earth ground accelerate in relation to free fall, which can be seen as an inertial reference frame. So time runs the slower the stronger the gravity field. And if the field is very strong, like in a black hole, time “stops” altogether, from the outsider's perspective.

Yes we have heard this same old stuff many times. We know that this is what some people say what you believe is true, because you have been told it is true. But just continually saying things does not make them true, nor real.

If anyone wants to say that 'time' "stops", then I just ask them what is 'time' exactly, which could have the ability to "stop", "run faster", and/or "run slower"?

When that answer is provided, which is sufficient, then we can start looking at and discussing how something called "time" could actually speed up, slow down, and/or stop, but until then all you are doing is just copying and repeating what you have read and heard so far, and which you believe is true, correct?

Tamminen wrote: ↑January 11th, 2020, 1:22 pm

What travelers in a black hole see when they look out the window, is another question. Nothing should happen to their clocks or anything else inside their space ship, because the ship is in free fall.

What does 'free fall' actually mean to you?

Tamminen wrote: ↑January 11th, 2020, 1:22 pm

All this is pure mathematics, reducible to a couple of premises, like the constancy of light speed and the equivalence principle. This has nothing to do with gravity affecting the physical mechanisms of clocks. Time, as a component of the geometry of spacetime, is a function of relative speed, acceleration and gravity.

If you want to use pure mathematics, then how long does light take to travel a distance of 4 light years?

If really does not get much simpler and easier than that.