This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team identified the following articles relating to Time as Vital: "for which Wikipedia should have a corresponding high-quality article, and ideally a featured article." Those marked with this icon: are also considered to be Core articles, "one of the core set of articles every encyclopedia should have."
Their quality-scale rating as of September 2010 is listed alongside each:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Two twin boys staying on two inertial reference frames with a constant relative speed will never find the other boy is younger than himself as they are at completely symmetric positions. This twin paradox actually denies the existence of time dilation as predicted by special relativity. Here is my paper proving the contradiction: Special Relativity Contradicts to ItselfXinhangshen (talk) 11:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Whatever validity you might feel that your results might have, this is not the forum in which to self-publish. An encyclopaedia must be compiled from secondary sources. — Quondum 14:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
They are not in symmetrical positions since the travelling twin undergoes acceleration and deceleration which the stay-at-home twin does not. It's all explained in the twin paradox article. MFlet1 (talk) 11:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Another Inconsistency in Special Relativity. SR is a constant-velocity theory, and any attempts to take it out of that limitation are wrong and subject to weird results. Acceleration is not allowed. Gravity is not allowed. http://brokenelevator.weebly.com/ That site attempts to show that free-fall in gravity is yet insufficient for the theory of SR. BTW, SR doesn't apply anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by W2einstein (talk • contribs) 03:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
It does not require too much intellectual effort to see that Length contraction and Time dilation are only illusory, no-real. I wonder why this aspect of SR is not discussed anywhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
SR and GR have been tested over and over, with very accurate results, from particle physics experiments to interplanetary spacecraft. Of course GR will break down at some point, and in the future some new theory will replace it to include GR plus the new corrections and predictions. No theory can be truly correct.
But SR can allow acceleration and even rotations and angular momentum (see for example relativistic mechanics), this is not the same as gravitation, which corresponds to curvature of spacetime and motion along geodesics. SR places inertial and non-inertial frames on different footing and accelerations are absolute, GR places all frames on equal footing and accelerations are relative. There is no contradiction in having time dilation either since coordinate time is relative. SR applies to any moving objects when gravity is negligible.
@Maschen: Per wp:TPG, please try to avoid engaging in this kind of subject discussions. They tend to go nowhere. I have put a second level level chat warning on their user talk page. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
It is useful to understand the mutual relation between the above-mentioned three closely related quantities, time, proper time, and standard time, more closely, which may be relevant for this article, at least it may be helpful for understanding:
As I see it at present, the standard time is defined by the "National Institute of Standards and Technology" of the country in question, ideally as the proper time of a certain free-falling atom (i.e. the velocity is exactly compensated by the local gravity forces, see General Relativity). The corresponding "ticks" of this time correspond to the periods of the corresponding quantum radiation of this atom.
This standard time is then propagated from the institute to railway stations, airports, and elsewhere. Finally this standard time also corresponds to the time of the watches, the passengers of Einstein's "fast trains", or "fast aircrafts", may carry on their arms, if they are sitting at rest on their seats in the vehicle. In particular this standard time, ideally also the time presented by the watches, corresponds to Einstein's i.e. to the (external) clocks on the platforms of the railway station, and not to the (internal) "proper time" of the well-seated passengers in the train or airplane. In fact, a re-standardization from to the last-mentioned according to would show only a slightly lower result, corresponding to some kind of Hafele-Keating experiment, since But for the internal quantity would diverge according to
Maybe you would like to comment on this, e.g. for my own better understanding? - With regards, Meier99 (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
The Earth is not an inertial frame of reference. So there will necessarily be distortions involved in any system of standardized time on Earth due to its rotation, revolution about the Sun, and the Earth's gravity. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Wave-Theoretical-Insight into the Relativistic-Length-Contraction, and Time-Dilation of Super-Novae light-curves
In a recent paper, titled: "Wave-Theoretical-Insight into the Relativistic-Length-Contraction, and Time-Dilation of Super-Novae light-curves"; published in Advanced Studies in Theoretical Physics Vol. 7, 2013, no. 20, 971 - 976 http://dx.doi.org/10.12988/astp.2013.39102 ; Hasmukh K. Tank has attempted to understand Relativistic Length-Contraction and Time-Dilation, in terms of Fourier Transform. This may be a bigining of unification of Relativity with Quantum-Mechanics.22.214.171.124 (talk) 08:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
The meaning of "classical" remains ambiguous
This article uses the word "classical" several times without adequately defining it. (User:Dr Greg clearly agrees.) The adjective "classical" is often used to mean "nonrelativistic" (equivalent to c → ∞) and/or "assuming the nonquantum limit (ħ → 0), but not always both. The article Classical mechanics assumes Galilean relativity; and Classical electromagnetism assumes the nonquantum limit but it assumes special relativity. I'd suggest therefore that either use of the the term "classical" must be disambiguated within the article for each word to which it is applied, or it should be replaced. —Quondum 15:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I removed the link to the intro article from the main article because right now the main article is far more accessible to the general reader. The intro is too technical and too incoherent. It's more like a garbled intro to advanced physics students, which makes the intro pointless. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 07:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)