When Time measures differently on Earth and Moon, you are putting this down to time dilation/contraction and so proposing that Time is relative. (and refuting the absolute Time).
Well,
I didn't really propose that. It was a guy named Einstein.
When Mass weighs differently in the same scenarios, you are arguing that it is due the weight that is affected by gravity and stubborn with the idea that Mass is constant and absolute. How weird?
I think it is weird that you are not aware of the difference between mass and weight. It may not actually be primary school curriculum in your part of the world, but since you profess to be of some learning, this should be obvious to you.
However, let me educate you, then:
Mass is measured in pond (p). Weight is measured in gram (g).
On the surface of Earth, for most practical purposes, 1p = 1g.
However, weight is defined as the force that gravity exerts on an object. Thus the object that weighs 1kg in Earth weighs only about 0.167 kg on the Moon.
Mass is defined as the inertia of an object, and an object with a mass of 1kp (kilopond) will have that mass anywhere in the universe, unless accelerated to high speed. This means that a mass of 1kp moving at, say, 10m/s will hit you equally hard on Earth and on the Moon.
For reference:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mass.html
Well, you are actually arguing for me and contradicting your own previous statement. I am sure you didn’t mean that, so let me correct you.
As per GR, gravitational time dilation occurs not because clocks get affected by gravity (unlike the weighing machines) but because Time itself dilates in heavy gravitational fields. So please do some more home work and support your argument.
It is not my fault that you don't read my post. I said:
Hans said:
No. Most modern clocks are not affected by gravity. However, time dilation does exist, and if you measure time precisely enough, you will find that it is not exactly the same on the moon as on Earth.
- Which is essentially the same as you said above. I have met another fellow who made a habit of saying that people were wrong, and then repeated their words, as correction. Interestingly, he was a homoeopath, too.
I mention modern clocks, because some old clocks (e.g. pendulum clocks)
are in fact influenced by gravity.
That would definitely be the case if the experiment is carried out and interpreted in one’s bed room. My thought experiment is open to everybody who can use their reasoning skill.
It is not only open as a though experiment, it has been done in practice, and the result is different from your prediction.
Here, you are joining the rest of the crowd – My thought experiment is actually supported by the observations of the historical twin flight experiment
No, it is not.
Real twin flight experiment
Time dilation has apparently been ‘proved’ experimentally by running two flights with equal velocity in the opposite directions, one east wards and another west wards. It was noted that the clock in the east bound flight recorded less time than that in the west bound flight ‘indicating’ time dilation. This is because, earth’s rotational velocity (as it spins towards east) gets added to the east bound flight making its relative velocity more than the west bound flight which runs opposite to the direction of the earth’s spin.
For the third time: Yes. We all know this.
My Thought experiment
Imagine that a beam of light with velocity ‘C’ is shone towards the west. A west bound flight with a velocity ‘0.2C’ will measure the velocity of light as only ‘0.8C’ unless its time gets dilated (runs slower). Similarly the east bound flight with a velocity ‘0.2C’ will measure the speed of light as ‘1.2C’ unless its time runs faster. But we know that this was not the case from the real experiment.
What do you mean by the last sentence? That the experiment showed your thought experiment to be wrong? The you are correct. Although the clock experiment did not include measuring the speed of light. This has been done later, however, because all you need is shoot light beams in different directions, with Earth's rotation and against it. For good measure, such experiments are timed to add up not only Earth's rotation but also it's orbital speed, PLUS the Sun's orbital speed around the galaxy.
All in all, we can have a speed of appr. 300,000m/s, no less than 10% of the speed of light. So we shoot a light beam against that speed and with it, and measure the propagation speeds of those light-beams. Guess what we find:
They both move at the speed of light (c).
Also, we measure the speed of light reaching us from stars with various speeds relative to us, and we find that it always has the speed of c.
So we can conclude that the speed of light is constant, regardless of your reference frame.
Hans
)
