Originally Posted by Fuell
Or... Like the 10 frames listed above. Lets say, for arguments sake, that only one of those could be correct, which would you choose and why?
I would choose all of them because all of them are correct. Period. Any physicist you ask will give you the exact same answer, it's really not something up to opinion. You can't say "universal time" and then count it in "seconds", because before humans "seconds" didn't even exist. What most humans call "time" is entirely our invention, something we created based on the patterns we saw with sunrise and sunset, moonrise and moonset. Put it this way - if the sun and the moon didn't exist, humans would've instead used the time it took (just as an example) for an object to fall 10 meters and call that 1 second (or 1 whatever) since we wouldn't have had the sun or moon as references.
Originally Posted by Fuell
I basically say its more accurate to go with the frame of reference measured by the object itself. This has the least amount of variables and highest likely chance of being measured correctly without any external influence from outside forces such as "relativity" and all the issues it brings into the fold. Though I'm being vastly over simplistic
, I hope this finally helps get the rough
point across. Well, it will have to, because its 4:11am and I'm tired, and this thread is making me a sad panda right now.
We ARE already going with the frame of reference by the object itself. Us, here, together on earth are all moving at the same velocity through space. As far as 99.9% humans are concerned our clocks run at identical speeds because during our daily lives we just don't move fast enough for general relativity to have a measurable effect.
General relativity and it's impact on time are almost irrelevant to our lives, that's why a fairly accurate "set time" has been agreed on by everyone using atomic clocks.
But what you're not understanding is that we (as a whole) are already
experiencing time dilation, the planet is moving at thousands of km/h, the solar system is moving at tens of thousands of km/h, the Milky Way has estimated to be moving at 1.2 million miles per hour (relative to other local groups). Say for example, the galaxy Andromeda was moving at 600 million miles per hour relative to us, and a guy named Jim grabbed a clock and teleported to Andromedia. If Jim pointed his ultra-powered telescope at earth (lets just forget about the distance between the galaxies and the time light takes to travel), he would see our clocks moving in slow motion compared to his own clock because our galaxies are moving at different speeds.
But that doesn't matter
to us, atleast as far as everyone on Earth is concerned.
A clock running in our galaxy would run at a different rate compared to a clock in another galaxy (assuming said galaxy was moving faster or slower relative to us).
So if each person on earth
was moving around at different
percentages of the speed of light, THEN what you're asking will hold some water. It will become a severe problem to say who is measuring the correct time due to everyone having clocks running at different speeds, they will all be experiencing different values of time dilation. You would probably say "well the only guy who is standing still will be measuring the "correct" time." Wrong, he's only standing still relative to EARTH.
So lets remove the earth. 10 people were left in empty space and each of them were zooming around at a different percentage of C (0%, 10%, all the way to 90%) then the only person who was standing "still" (the 0% guy) would be screaming "I'm not moving, all your clocks are running weirdly slow! My clock is the most accurate!" and then another guy would reply "Wrong, I am standing still and YOU are moving! YOUR clock is running weirdly slow, mine is more accurate!" and it would go on and on, nobody would be right because they all see each other moving and they all see each others' clocks running slower than their own.