Do clocks

[Tiggeroo]

Move faster or slower in a place where time moves faster or slower? For example if time moved slower on mars would your watch move slower while you were there? We are actually arguing about this here.

 

[FredinFL]

The time device would simply move according to the constraints upon which it is made.

So, if a 12 hour watch was on a planet that had 14 hour days, it would lose 2 hours a day. IF the hours were 60 minutes.

If it were a 70 minute hour, it would lose more time more quickly, if it were a 50 minute hour it would gain time.

 

[MnMomtoboys]

I have no idea but your either drinking or thinking too much.

 

[lizabu]

I would say no because the actual passing of a minute does not make the clock move forward 1 minute. Instead it is a machine that has been designed to move forward 1 minute at the passing of 60 seconds. If you move the clock to mars it will still function the same way if does on Earth.

 

[Magic Mom]

Time doesn't move faster or slower on other planets. It moves at the same rate. A second is a second on Mars or on Earth. Now the passing od a day, as in how long it takes for the sun to move across the sky, differs depending on the planet's rotation, but time moves at the same rate. So, a day on Mercury (a planet that rotates slowly) would be 1407 hours long, but the hours are the same amount of time as they are here on Earth.

 

[redlight]

A planet that is rapidly moving would experience time a tiny tiny bit more slowly due to Einstein's relativity. That would be reflected in watches/clocks. It's a really tiny, almost immeasurable, amount unless you are going very quickly.

 

[FredinFL]

Yes, time might move at the same rate, but the time is not consistent in the representation of the day. If you wanted a "day" compressed or expanded into a 24 hour period, the clock would be wrong. It's only right on earth, in a time standpoint. The "hours" would be shorter or longer. So the clock would still tick time at earth time, even if it took longer or shorter for the day to complete on the other planet.

So the clock would not be effected, tho it's accuracy for the OTHER planet would be.

That makes sense in my head anyway.

 

[donaldduck352]

Marty your not thinking 4'th dimensionaly.I know Doc,I got a real problem with that..

 

[crispychicky]

Actually, yes, they would. Time slows down as you approach the speed of light. Say you have 2 matched atomic clocks. You put one in a rocket ship and launch it, say to circle Mars and then return to Earth. The other clock stays here on Earth with you. When your rocket lands back on Earth, the 2 clocks will be out of sync. The one that took the rocket ride will read an earlier time than the clock that stayed on Earth. It will only be a tiny, tiny fraction of a second off, but still....


ETA- found the equation: time delta on Earth = time delta in rocket * 1/sqrt(1-((v*v)/(c*c)))
where v=velocity of the rocket & c = speed of light. as v->c, time delta -> infinity

 

[Tiggeroo]

Actually, yes, they would. Time slows down as you approach the speed of light. Say you have 2 matched atomic clocks. You put one in a rocket ship and launch it, say to circle Mars and then return to Earth. The other clock stays here on Earth with you. When your rocket lands back on Earth, the 2 clocks will be out of sync. The one that took the rocket ride will read an earlier time than the clock that stayed on Earth. It will only be a tiny, tiny fraction of a second off, but still....


ETA- found the equation: time delta on Earth = time delta in rocket * 1/sqrt(1-((v*v)/(c*c)))
where v=velocity of the rocket & c = speed of light. as v->c, time delta -> infinity

Ha. This is the example my kids gave. I didn't believe them. I insisted clocks are calibrated to work based on time as we know it. Therefore as a minute of our time passes the clock must go forward a minute unless it is broken.

 

[ZephyrHawk]

It's important to recognize that the clock is not actually moving slower or faster, merely that it is moving slower as compared to a different relative timescape. In other words, in the example given above, the clock that went around Mars does not "experience" a difference in time, the difference is only noticeable when compared to its relative pair. So, if you were on the rocket watching the clock and counting to 60, your time and the clock's time would match for one minute. However, when you returned to earth, you would realize that those who were watching the other clock and counting did so in a shorter relative period than you did.

Does that make any sense? I'm basically just trying to say "earth relative time is not the be all and end all" or perhaps more simply "it's all relative".

 

[Carly_Roach]

All movements of any kind will function based upon the reality in which they were created. If the reality experienced was a 14 hour day rather than a 24 hour day, then your clock would move at the faster rate that would complete the day in 14 hours. The beauty of this theory is that you never know there was a different reality out there, hence your "normal" is a 14 hour day.

However, if you are open to the theory of an infinite amount of realities, all happening at the same time, then perhaps you would experience a slower- or faster-moving clock should you happen to spontaneously move into another reality. On the chance that you were to actually able to complete that shift to another reality, then it would only seem strange for a short period of time. Once you'd become accustomed to that reality, the new time count would seem normal to you.

Until you shifted again to another reality.

Hence, the theory of regeneration or reincarnation, and/or quantum physics.

Deep thoughts for so early in the morning, yes?

 

[kirbsam]

Ha. This is the example my kids gave. I didn't believe them. I insisted clocks are calibrated to work based on time as we know it. Therefore as a minute of our time passes the clock must go forward a minute unless it is broken.

it actually depends on your point of reference. if you are on the fast moving rocket, you will experience normal time, no matter how close to the speed of light that you are going.

think about this. if you can see a clock and move away from said clock at the speed of light, time will actually stand still.(the clock will not move). but your watch will still move as normal because it is travelling at your speed.

 

[shortbun]

I have no idea but your either drinking or thinking too much.

+1 and HUH?

 

[Tiggeroo]

I have a son and dd who are very interested in theoretical physics. My one son told me yesterday he was considering going back to school to study this. I told him that it is not possible for a theoretical physicist to present proof of his theories to an average person, proofs that are observable and measurable and time travel was one of the examples I gave. This discussion was part of his argument. It makes my head hurt.

 

[Tiggeroo]

I understand that there are alternate realities (times) and that time is relative. My argument was if you took my clock and placed it in an alternate reality where time moved slightly faster, then my clock would be that annoying clock that always runs a little slow.

 

[Carly_Roach]

I have a son and dd who are very interested in theoretical physics. My one son told me yesterday he was considering going back to school to study this. I told him that it is not possible for a theoretical physicist to present proof of his theories to an average person, proofs that are observable and measurable and time travel was one of the examples I gave. This discussion was part of his argument. It makes my head hurt.

You are right about the average person not getting it. But an above average person would LOVE to sit down and talk with a theoretical physicist. You can't beat the kind of mind that comes with doing theoretical gymnastics all the time.

That's the kind of guy you want to have around to figure out how to get out of situations, not the guy who has to prove everything so everyone knows how smart he is. TP's are used to creative thinking and ponderances.