Would computers accelerated to high speeds compute \"faster\" from our point of view?...

[Mohammad Halai]

Yesterday, I awoke with the following thought:

Let\'s imagine Computers A and B have identical specs and are both scheduled to run an algorithm that would usually take one year at time T, with the A computer being accelerated to 0.5c at that time (or anything c). Both are configured to send the results to a central computer automatically.



From my perspective, would A complete processing first?

Would we be able to pick up A\'s broadcast?

Would it make a difference if A was traveling in a straight line, circling a planet, or even orbiting a star system?

Is it possible to speed up a computer enough that it can \"compress time\" on a machine like the LHC?

I apologize if this question is inappropriate for this group; I\'m sure someone has asked it, but I\'m not sure where to seek for the answer—I\'m new to all things physics.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 04-May-22 10:55 am, Mohammad Halai wrote:

Yesterday, I awoke with the following thought:

Let\'s imagine Computers A and B have identical specs and are both scheduled to run an algorithm that would usually take one year at time T, with the A computer being accelerated to 0.5c at that time (or anything c). Both are configured to send the results to a central computer automatically.



From my perspective, would A complete processing first?

If B stays with you, you will always get the results from B before you
get the results from A.


Sylvia.

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 3 May 2022 17:55:23 -0700 (PDT), Mohammad Halai
<mohal3535@ugcloud.ca> wrote:

Yesterday, I awoke with the following thought:

Let\'s imagine Computers A and B have identical specs and are both scheduled to run an algorithm that would usually take one year at time T, with the A computer being accelerated to 0.5c at that time (or anything c). Both are configured to send the results to a central computer automatically.



From my perspective, would A complete processing first?

Would we be able to pick up A\'s broadcast?

Would it make a difference if A was traveling in a straight line, circling a planet, or even orbiting a star system?

Is it possible to speed up a computer enough that it can \"compress time\" on a machine like the LHC?

I apologize if this question is inappropriate for this group; I\'m sure someone has asked it, but I\'m not sure where to seek for the answer—I\'m new to all things physics.

That is basically the twins paradox:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

The one who traveled aged (and calculated) slower.


--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

 

[Mohammad Halai]

On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 8:58:50 p.m. UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 04-May-22 10:55 am, Mohammad Halai wrote:
Yesterday, I awoke with the following thought:

Let\'s imagine Computers A and B have identical specs and are both scheduled to run an algorithm that would usually take one year at time T, with the A computer being accelerated to 0.5c at that time (or anything c). Both are configured to send the results to a central computer automatically.



From my perspective, would A complete processing first?
If B stays with you, you will always get the results from B before you
get the results from A.


Sylvia.
Hi Sylvia,

I could argue that my accelerating computer \'loses time\' thus its clock moves slower. Computers ultimately work on clock cycles. Thus it is fair to say that, as its clocking is ticking slower -- from my POV-- the computer on my desk will finish first?

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 10:55:28 AM UTC+10, moha...@ugcloud.ca wrote:

Yesterday, I awoke with the following thought:

Let\'s imagine Computers A and B have identical specs and are both scheduled to run an algorithm that would usually take one year at time T, with the A computer being accelerated to 0.5c at that time (or anything c). Both are configured to send the results to a central computer automatically.

From my perspective, would A complete processing first?

Would we be able to pick up A\'s broadcast?

Would it make a difference if A was traveling in a straight line, circling a planet, or even orbiting a star system?

Is it possible to speed up a computer enough that it can \"compress time\" on a machine like the LHC?

I apologize if this question is inappropriate for this group; I\'m sure someone has asked it, but I\'m not sure where to seek for the answer—I\'m new to all things physics.

The question is close enough to one that has been subject to experimental test - admittedly with atomic clocks rather than computers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment

The results were to some extent confounded by the fact that both traveling clocks were higher than the clock that stayed put on the ground, which meant that it had more gravitational red shift than they had, but the experimental design made that relatively easy to sort out.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[server]

Mohammad Halai <mohal3535@ugcloud.ca> wrote in
news:20c1a94c-7c6a-40fc-bc43-deffbfa8ee2dn@googlegroups.com:

Yesterday, I awoke with the following thought:

Let\'s imagine Computers A and B have identical specs and are both
scheduled to run an algorithm that would usually take one year at
time T, with the A computer being accelerated to 0.5c at that time
(or anything c). Both are configured to send the results to a
central computer automatically.



From my perspective, would A complete processing first?

Would we be able to pick up A\'s broadcast?

Would it make a difference if A was traveling in a straight line,
circling a planet, or even orbiting a star system?

Is it possible to speed up a computer enough that it can \"compress
time\" on a machine like the LHC?

I apologize if this question is inappropriate for this group; I\'m
sure someone has asked it, but I\'m not sure where to seek for the
answer—I\'m new to all things physics.

The speed at which you are moving does not change the speed at which
the computer in your phone does its processing compared to a
stationary phone. The bits toggle at the same rate in both.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 3:35:57 PM UTC+10, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Mohammad Halai <moha...@ugcloud.ca> wrote in
news:20c1a94c-7c6a-40fc...@googlegroups.com:
Yesterday, I awoke with the following thought:

Let\'s imagine Computers A and B have identical specs and are both
scheduled to run an algorithm that would usually take one year at
time T, with the A computer being accelerated to 0.5c at that time
(or anything c). Both are configured to send the results to a
central computer automatically.



From my perspective, would A complete processing first?

Would we be able to pick up A\'s broadcast?

Would it make a difference if A was traveling in a straight line,
circling a planet, or even orbiting a star system?

Is it possible to speed up a computer enough that it can \"compress
time\" on a machine like the LHC?

I apologize if this question is inappropriate for this group; I\'m
sure someone has asked it, but I\'m not sure where to seek for the
answer—I\'m new to all things physics.

The speed at which you are moving does not change the speed at which
the computer in your phone does its processing compared to a
stationary phone. The bits toggle at the same rate in both.

Special relativity say otherwise. This has been tested moving devices do run more slowly

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment

Of course, general relativity came into it too, bu that effect could be more or less cancelled out.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Don Y]

On 5/3/2022 5:55 PM, Mohammad Halai wrote:

Yesterday, I awoke with the following thought:

Let\'s imagine Computers A and B have identical specs and are both scheduled
to run an algorithm that would usually take one year at time T, with the A
computer being accelerated to 0.5c at that time (or anything c). Both are
configured to send the results to a central computer automatically.

So, that \"central\" computer is following A at 0.25c?
Do you *imagine* the transport delays from each are zero?
(i.e., you\'ve not thought through your initial hypothesis)

> From my perspective, would A complete processing first?

And where, exactly, are *you*?

> Would we be able to pick up A\'s broadcast?

And where are *we*? At what fraction of c will A\'s broadcast occur?

Would it make a difference if A was traveling in a straight line, circling a
planet, or even orbiting a star system?

Is it possible to speed up a computer enough that it can \"compress time\" on
a machine like the LHC?

I apologize if this question is inappropriate for this group; I\'m sure
someone has asked it, but I\'m not sure where to seek for the answer—I\'m new
to all things physics.

The whole point of relativity is you can\'t be in two places at once -- so
there is no real way to compare \"there1\" and \"there2\", while they are
separated in space (and, thus, time).

Some years ago, Hawking presented an experiment in time dilation, here,
as part of the \"Genius\" TV series.

<http://leapsecond.com/great2016a/>
<http://leapsecond.com/great2016a/photos.htm>

It\'s really amusing when you see such esoteric bits of science actually
*work* as predicted!

 

[Martin Brown]

On 04/05/2022 02:09, Mohammad Halai wrote:

On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 8:58:50 p.m. UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 04-May-22 10:55 am, Mohammad Halai wrote:
Yesterday, I awoke with the following thought:

Let\'s imagine Computers A and B have identical specs and are both
scheduled to run an algorithm that would usually take one year at
time T, with the A computer being accelerated to 0.5c at that
time (or anything c). Both are configured to send the results to
a central computer automatically.

From my perspective, would A complete processing first?
If B stays with you, you will always get the results from B before
you get the results from A.

I could argue that my accelerating computer \'loses time\' thus its
clock moves slower. Computers ultimately work on clock cycles. Thus
it is fair to say that, as its clocking is ticking slower -- from my
POV-- the computer on my desk will finish first?

The twin that travels at relativistic speed always returns younger than
the stay at home. It is quite likely that if we ever do develop space
vehicles capable of true relativistic speeds the first one to set off
will be quickly overtaken by later models (who will also return first).

There is an interesting corollary to this in the real world for absolute
cutting edge hefty computing problems like ab initio computation of the
masses of fundamental practicals and the like.

If your problem will take more than 2 years to execute on currently
available bleeding edge hardware the quickest way to get your results is
to do something else for 18 months and only then run the program!

ISTR the original quote suggests going to the beach and surfing.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Don Y]

On 5/4/2022 12:59 AM, Martin Brown wrote:

There is an interesting corollary to this in the real world for absolute
cutting edge hefty computing problems like ab initio computation of the masses
of fundamental practicals and the like.

It needn\'t be \"bleeding edge\" but, rather, any design that is \"up against the
stops\" imposed by it\'s design criteria (e.g., cost limitations).

If your problem will take more than 2 years to execute on currently available
bleeding edge hardware the quickest way to get your results is to do something
else for 18 months and only then run the program!

The more practical corollary (for those of us that build hardware devices)
is not to dick around with minor optimizations unless they provide ~2X
\"performance\" (for some definition of \"performance\") increase.

In day-to-day terms, that means:
- delay hardware finalization
- write portable code (so you can change processors easily)
- automate testing (so you can rerun test suites on other toolchains)
- avoid crippling a design by limiting it to \"today\'s\" technology

In my case, I use three different compiler families (i.e., not gcc
with three different back ends!) on three different hardware
platforms (SPARC, x86 and ARM) and implement the \"processor choice\"
as a hierarchical block in the (SBC) design so I can replace it
easily. This also means taking deliberate care to keep the I/O
system very generic so it doesn\'t rely on any exotic parts or
peculiarities of a specific processor/-family. (I have a whole
suite of compilers/emulators to verify the performance of a particular
I/O subsystem)

Every ~18 months, I get the opportunity to decide if I want to lower
the product cost (to capitalize on technological advances) *or*
increase the capabilities of the hardware. It\'s intoxicating! :>

> ISTR the original quote suggests going to the beach and surfing.

 

[Phil Hobbs]

Martin Brown wrote:

On 04/05/2022 02:09, Mohammad Halai wrote:
On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 8:58:50 p.m. UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 04-May-22 10:55 am, Mohammad Halai wrote:
Yesterday, I awoke with the following thought:

Let\'s imagine Computers A and B have identical specs and are
both scheduled to run an algorithm that would usually take one
year at time T, with the A computer being accelerated to 0.5c
at that time (or anything c). Both are configured to send the
results to a central computer automatically.

From my perspective, would A complete processing first?
If B stays with you, you will always get the results from B
before you get the results from A.

I could argue that my accelerating computer \'loses time\' thus its
clock moves slower. Computers ultimately work on clock cycles.
Thus it is fair to say that, as its clocking is ticking slower --
from my POV-- the computer on my desk will finish first?

The twin that travels at relativistic speed always returns younger
than the stay at home. It is quite likely that if we ever do develop
space vehicles capable of true relativistic speeds the first one to
set off will be quickly overtaken by later models (who will also
return first).

There is an interesting corollary to this in the real world for
absolute cutting edge hefty computing problems like ab initio
computation of the masses of fundamental practicals and the like.

If your problem will take more than 2 years to execute on currently
available bleeding edge hardware the quickest way to get your results
is to do something else for 18 months and only then run the program!

ISTR the original quote suggests going to the beach and surfing.

Somebody wrote a paper like that 30 or so years ago, based on
algorithmic complexity and Moore\'s Law, that gave a formula for when one
should begin a computation in order to finish fastest.

Fun paper--I should try pulling it up sometime.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

 

[Ricky]

On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 9:09:51 PM UTC-4, moha...@ugcloud.ca wrote:

On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 8:58:50 p.m. UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 04-May-22 10:55 am, Mohammad Halai wrote:
Yesterday, I awoke with the following thought:

Let\'s imagine Computers A and B have identical specs and are both scheduled to run an algorithm that would usually take one year at time T, with the A computer being accelerated to 0.5c at that time (or anything c). Both are configured to send the results to a central computer automatically.



From my perspective, would A complete processing first?
If B stays with you, you will always get the results from B before you
get the results from A.


Sylvia.
Hi Sylvia,

I could argue that my accelerating computer \'loses time\' thus its clock moves slower. Computers ultimately work on clock cycles. Thus it is fair to say that, as its clocking is ticking slower -- from my POV-- the computer on my desk will finish first?

Yes. This is not a matter of speed, since speed is simply relative. It is a matter of acceleration which only one experiences. Unfortunately for scientists wanting their results faster, the accelerating computer is the slow one.

I\'m not going to deal with any of the issues of getting the results, since that is an even more sticky wicket and does not change the basic issue of acceleration resulting in time dilation.

The only way to make this work to get faster computing, is for the scientist to be the one accelerating, which slows his own clock, so he returns sooner (by his clock) and the computations are complete. Meanwhile, everything else unaccelerated has also moved on in time without the scientist, like cities and people. But if the scientist doesn\'t have anything to do for a year, a tour of the solar system at 0.9 times the speed of light might be a fun thing to do while waiting and it won\'t be so long this way. A perk of being a scientist.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Ricky]

On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 11:00:07 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 10:55:28 AM UTC+10, moha...@ugcloud.ca wrote:
Yesterday, I awoke with the following thought:

Let\'s imagine Computers A and B have identical specs and are both scheduled to run an algorithm that would usually take one year at time T, with the A computer being accelerated to 0.5c at that time (or anything c). Both are configured to send the results to a central computer automatically.

From my perspective, would A complete processing first?

Would we be able to pick up A\'s broadcast?

Would it make a difference if A was traveling in a straight line, circling a planet, or even orbiting a star system?

Is it possible to speed up a computer enough that it can \"compress time\" on a machine like the LHC?

I apologize if this question is inappropriate for this group; I\'m sure someone has asked it, but I\'m not sure where to seek for the answer—I\'m new to all things physics.
The question is close enough to one that has been subject to experimental test - admittedly with atomic clocks rather than computers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment

The results were to some extent confounded by the fact that both traveling clocks were higher than the clock that stayed put on the ground, which meant that it had more gravitational red shift than they had, but the experimental design made that relatively easy to sort out.

\"Relatively easy\"? Is that a pun?

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Ricky]

On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 1:35:57 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Mohammad Halai <moha...@ugcloud.ca> wrote in
news:20c1a94c-7c6a-40fc...@googlegroups.com:
Yesterday, I awoke with the following thought:

Let\'s imagine Computers A and B have identical specs and are both
scheduled to run an algorithm that would usually take one year at
time T, with the A computer being accelerated to 0.5c at that time
(or anything c). Both are configured to send the results to a
central computer automatically.



From my perspective, would A complete processing first?

Would we be able to pick up A\'s broadcast?

Would it make a difference if A was traveling in a straight line,
circling a planet, or even orbiting a star system?

Is it possible to speed up a computer enough that it can \"compress
time\" on a machine like the LHC?

I apologize if this question is inappropriate for this group; I\'m
sure someone has asked it, but I\'m not sure where to seek for the
answer—I\'m new to all things physics.

The speed at which you are moving does not change the speed at which
the computer in your phone does its processing compared to a
stationary phone. The bits toggle at the same rate in both.

Bzzzt! Sorry, wrong answer, even if it is technically correct. You didn\'t read the problem statement. \"the A computer being accelerated to 0.5c\" is the part you missed or ignored.

--

Rick C.

-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 9:36:25 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:

On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 1:35:57 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence..org wrote:
Mohammad Halai <moha...@ugcloud.ca> wrote in
news:20c1a94c-7c6a-40fc...@googlegroups.com:
Yesterday, I awoke with the following thought:

Let\'s imagine Computers A and B have identical specs and are both
scheduled to run an algorithm that would usually take one year at
time T, with the A computer being accelerated to 0.5c at that time
(or anything c). Both are configured to send the results to a
central computer automatically.



From my perspective, would A complete processing first?

Would we be able to pick up A\'s broadcast?

Would it make a difference if A was traveling in a straight line,
circling a planet, or even orbiting a star system?

Is it possible to speed up a computer enough that it can \"compress
time\" on a machine like the LHC?

I apologize if this question is inappropriate for this group; I\'m
sure someone has asked it, but I\'m not sure where to seek for the
answer—I\'m new to all things physics.

The speed at which you are moving does not change the speed at which
the computer in your phone does its processing compared to a
stationary phone. The bits toggle at the same rate in both.
Bzzzt! Sorry, wrong answer, even if it is technically correct. You didn\'t read the problem statement. \"the A computer being accelerated to 0.5c\" is the part you missed or ignored.

It isn\'t even technically correct. Special relativity points out that a moving phone is going to be clocked more slowly than a stationary phone. Acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity, so general relativity requires you to pay attention to the acceleration as well, but gravitational red-shift is a different thing from Lorentz time-dilation.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Ricky]

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:12:46 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 9:36:25 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 1:35:57 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Mohammad Halai <moha...@ugcloud.ca> wrote in
news:20c1a94c-7c6a-40fc...@googlegroups.com:
Yesterday, I awoke with the following thought:

Let\'s imagine Computers A and B have identical specs and are both
scheduled to run an algorithm that would usually take one year at
time T, with the A computer being accelerated to 0.5c at that time
(or anything c). Both are configured to send the results to a
central computer automatically.



From my perspective, would A complete processing first?

Would we be able to pick up A\'s broadcast?

Would it make a difference if A was traveling in a straight line,
circling a planet, or even orbiting a star system?

Is it possible to speed up a computer enough that it can \"compress
time\" on a machine like the LHC?

I apologize if this question is inappropriate for this group; I\'m
sure someone has asked it, but I\'m not sure where to seek for the
answer—I\'m new to all things physics.

The speed at which you are moving does not change the speed at which
the computer in your phone does its processing compared to a
stationary phone. The bits toggle at the same rate in both.
Bzzzt! Sorry, wrong answer, even if it is technically correct. You didn\'t read the problem statement. \"the A computer being accelerated to 0.5c\" is the part you missed or ignored.
It isn\'t even technically correct. Special relativity points out that a moving phone is going to be clocked more slowly than a stationary phone. Acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity, so general relativity requires you to pay attention to the acceleration as well, but gravitational red-shift is a different thing from Lorentz time-dilation.

Not sure what you mean about the moving vs. stationary clocks. I suppose I did not explain adequately. Since constant motion is purely relative, each clock is *observed* to be slower by the observer in the other time frame. So clearly, it makes no sense to talk about one clock actually running slower due to constant motion. It\'s just an effect of observation, with no actual change in time elapsing.

When one observer experiences acceleration, by either actual acceleration or a gravitational field, the effects are not relative, but absolute. So one observer does experience time differently as illustrated in the twin paradox.

From Wikipedia

Reciprocity
Given a certain frame of reference, and the \"stationary\" observer described earlier, if a second observer accompanied the \"moving\" clock, each of the observers would perceive the other\'s clock as ticking at a slower rate than their own local clock, due to them both perceiving the other to be the one that is in motion relative to their own stationary frame of reference.

Common sense would dictate that, if the passage of time has slowed for a moving object, said object would observe the external world\'s time to be correspondingly sped up. Counterintuitively, special relativity predicts the opposite. When two observers are in motion relative to each other, each will measure the other\'s clock slowing down, in concordance with them being in motion relative to the observer\'s frame of reference.


So what point are you trying to make?

--

Rick C.

-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Clive Arthur]

On 04/05/2022 08:59, Martin Brown wrote:

<snip>

The twin that travels at relativistic speed always returns younger than
the stay at home. It is quite likely that if we ever do develop space
vehicles capable of true relativistic speeds the first one to set off
will be quickly overtaken by later models (who will also return first).

The really difficult problem is how to calculate the astronaut\'s pay
when they return.

--
Cheers
Clive

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 12:01:05 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:12:46 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 9:36:25 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 1:35:57 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Mohammad Halai <moha...@ugcloud.ca> wrote in
news:20c1a94c-7c6a-40fc...@googlegroups.com:

<snip>

Bzzzt! Sorry, wrong answer, even if it is technically correct. You didn\'t read the problem statement. \"the A computer being accelerated to 0.5c\" is the part you missed or ignored.
It isn\'t even technically correct. Special relativity points out that a moving phone is going to be clocked more slowly than a stationary phone. Acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity, so general relativity requires you to pay attention to the acceleration as well, but gravitational red-shift is a different thing from Lorentz time-dilation.

Not sure what you mean about the moving vs. stationary clocks. I suppose I did not explain adequately.

It\'s more that your explanation misses some of the detail and is inadequate that that extent.

Since constant motion is purely relative, each clock is *observed* to be slower by the observer in the other time frame. So clearly, it makes no sense to talk about one clock actually running slower due to constant motion. It\'s just an effect of observation, with no actual change in time elapsing.

When one observer experiences acceleration, by either actual acceleration or a gravitational field, the effects are not relative, but absolute. So one observer does experience time differently as illustrated in the twin paradox.

From Wikipedia

Reciprocity
Given a certain frame of reference, and the \"stationary\" observer described earlier, if a second observer accompanied the \"moving\" clock, each of the observers would perceive the other\'s clock as ticking at a slower rate than their own local clock, due to them both perceiving the other to be the one that is in motion relative to their own stationary frame of reference.

Also from Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment

Common sense would dictate that, if the passage of time has slowed for a moving object, said object would observe the external world\'s time to be correspondingly sped up. Counterintuitively, special relativity predicts the opposite. When two observers are in motion relative to each other, each will measure the other\'s clock slowing down, in concordance with them being in motion relative to the observer\'s frame of reference.

So what point are you trying to make?

That there is experimental evidence that if you send an atomic clock around the earth in the same direction that the earth is spinning, it runs slower than one that has been sent around the earth in the opposite direction.Of course they both run a bit faster than the third atomic clock that stayed at home on the ground and was thus more red-shifted by the influence of the earth\'s gravitational field (which is weaker when you are up in an aircraft).

Clearly both moving clocks were subjected to much the same accelerations every time their plane took off and landed - that won\'t be affected by the direction in which they flew around the world.

The effects are separable. Looking up what \"reciprocity\" means seems to be a less useful exercise.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[server]

Clive Arthur <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote in
news:t50m0b$l5i$1@dont-email.me:

On 04/05/2022 08:59, Martin Brown wrote:

snip

The twin that travels at relativistic speed always returns
younger than the stay at home. It is quite likely that if we ever
do develop space vehicles capable of true relativistic speeds the
first one to set off will be quickly overtaken by later models
(who will also return first).

The really difficult problem is how to calculate the astronaut\'s
pay when they return.

By the time they return, society will have moved to cashless system.
Problem solved, they get nothing.

 

[Ricky]

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 10:34:27 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 12:01:05 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:12:46 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 9:36:25 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 1:35:57 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Mohammad Halai <moha...@ugcloud.ca> wrote in
news:20c1a94c-7c6a-40fc...@googlegroups.com:
snip
Bzzzt! Sorry, wrong answer, even if it is technically correct. You didn\'t read the problem statement. \"the A computer being accelerated to 0.5c\" is the part you missed or ignored.
It isn\'t even technically correct. Special relativity points out that a moving phone is going to be clocked more slowly than a stationary phone. Acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity, so general relativity requires you to pay attention to the acceleration as well, but gravitational red-shift is a different thing from Lorentz time-dilation.

Not sure what you mean about the moving vs. stationary clocks. I suppose I did not explain adequately.
It\'s more that your explanation misses some of the detail and is inadequate that that extent.
Since constant motion is purely relative, each clock is *observed* to be slower by the observer in the other time frame. So clearly, it makes no sense to talk about one clock actually running slower due to constant motion. It\'s just an effect of observation, with no actual change in time elapsing..

When one observer experiences acceleration, by either actual acceleration or a gravitational field, the effects are not relative, but absolute. So one observer does experience time differently as illustrated in the twin paradox.

From Wikipedia

Reciprocity
Given a certain frame of reference, and the \"stationary\" observer described earlier, if a second observer accompanied the \"moving\" clock, each of the observers would perceive the other\'s clock as ticking at a slower rate than their own local clock, due to them both perceiving the other to be the one that is in motion relative to their own stationary frame of reference.
Also from Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment
Common sense would dictate that, if the passage of time has slowed for a moving object, said object would observe the external world\'s time to be correspondingly sped up. Counterintuitively, special relativity predicts the opposite. When two observers are in motion relative to each other, each will measure the other\'s clock slowing down, in concordance with them being in motion relative to the observer\'s frame of reference.

So what point are you trying to make?
That there is experimental evidence that if you send an atomic clock around the earth in the same direction that the earth is spinning, it runs slower than one that has been sent around the earth in the opposite direction.Of course they both run a bit faster than the third atomic clock that stayed at home on the ground and was thus more red-shifted by the influence of the earth\'s gravitational field (which is weaker when you are up in an aircraft).

Clearly both moving clocks were subjected to much the same accelerations every time their plane took off and landed - that won\'t be affected by the direction in which they flew around the world.

The effects are separable. Looking up what \"reciprocity\" means seems to be a less useful exercise.

Ok, so you are talking about something different from the rest of us. Fine, glad we got that straight.

--

Rick C.

+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209