0
$\begingroup$

General relativity has been proven many times over to be correct. In my meager understanding of things, they are all premised on the fact that the speed of light is constant to all observers. I would like a greater understanding of this phenomena. All explainations i have seen thus far (laser beam bounce etc.) triumphantly show the end result and conveniently skip over the "innards". To help me understand the inner workings of light and time (gravity's another story) i have the following question.... if jack and jill are are the only objects in existance and jack accerates away his clock slows down. The only change in forces jack experiences are his own enertial changes and the effects of jills gravity. Assuming time is a measurement if atomic activity (is this a wrong assumption?), which of these two forces is slowing his clock?

$\endgroup$

marked as duplicate by Emilio Pisanty, Kyle Kanos, ACuriousMind, Neuneck, Qmechanic Mar 12 '15 at 17:18

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "if jack and jill are are the only objects in existance and jack accerates away...". How (by what means) does Jack accelerate away if Jack and Jill are the only objects in existence? $\endgroup$ – Alfred Centauri Mar 10 '15 at 18:11
  • $\begingroup$ They both have jet packs and sufficient fuel in thier respective inertial frames...forgive for asking...what is the point of your question? $\endgroup$ – Mike Nethery Mar 10 '15 at 19:48
  • $\begingroup$ Why would there have to be a "force" to slow down the clock? $\endgroup$ – ACuriousMind Mar 11 '15 at 14:00
0
$\begingroup$

So far the only experiments done are “near” Earth. There, objects that are in lower gravity, underwent acceleration and high speed have shown time dilation as predicted by special and general relativity. Gravity at least does seem to be a factor here but exactly how much is unclear. I am afraid we would have to go ask Jack and Jill to answer this question. Edit: Assuming that time is a measurement of atomic activity sounds very reasonable to me. But it is still very open to debate what exactly the nature of time is.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you!...i can now let it go...thought i was the only one that didn't "get it"....i owe you a steak dinner.. $\endgroup$ – Mike Nethery Mar 11 '15 at 2:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "So far the only experiments done are “near” Earth." Except microlensing which is observed at distances from 1 AU to a large fraction of the observable size of the universe. $\endgroup$ – dmckee Mar 11 '15 at 4:38
0
$\begingroup$

The clock isn't slowed by any force, the clock is only slow from Jill's perspective due to his immense speed. From Jack's point of reference he is not moving and Jill is speeding away from him and her clock is slow.

$\endgroup$

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.