Talk:Time dilation

Larmor misquoted

The quote starting "individual electrons describe corresponding.." gives the incorrect equation. From the paper the quote should be "and the individual electrons describe corresponding parts of their orbits in times shorter for the latter system in the ratio e^-1/2 or (l — ½v²/c²), while those less advanced in the direction of v are"

In the article text the equation is given as √(1—v²/c²) which is the the inverse of the Lorentz and Einstein equation for gamma 2001:8003:146B:CD00:819A:61CD:C43C:35E1 (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

In the quoted text we have ε = 1/(1−v²/c²), and so, as you can verify, ϵ^(−½) = √(1—v²/c²), which is, as you can also verify, (1 — ½v²/c²) to first order in v²/c². In this article, we have simply left it as √(1—v²/c²), in stead of going to first order. Look at it as a semi-quote. I removed the double quotes. - DVdm (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Some suggestions, again ....

I am 87 now ! Must I await to be 100 years before you will accept my suggestions formulated in 2017 ! 🤔

See https://phymatheco.github.io

Read it before suppressing it , Non second chance !!! Chessfan (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Still no need to read it, as Wikipedia still does not accept wp:original research - DVdm (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

You cheat ! See Gourgoulhon General Relativity ! Chessfan (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Your calculations of the speed of light are wrong.

All or most of your discreptions of the speed of light are in a mind set of the distance light travels in one second. these figures of 186,000 miles are the distance that light travels in one second. The actual speed of light is approximately 171,000,000, 171 million miles per hour. Maybe you could pass this information on to the science laboratories around the world so they could be brought up to date in their mind sets. Professor of Advance Mechanical Physics 2600:6C48:407F:CFC2:FC88:DAE:2D58:D39F (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

The speed off light is 3e8 m/s. This number is consistent with what the article writes. Squalbert (talk) 04:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Simple inference section needs love.

There's a mirror on the bottom. Why? KISS.

"Right: Events according to an observer moving to the left of the setup"

Seems wrong to me. According to the diagram, the moving person emits the light and gets back the reflected light in the right panel, and he is moving to the right, not to the left. Jasontaylor7 (talk) 01:17, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

The caption was correct but confusing. The mirror setup is moving to the right which means the "observer" is moving relative, to the left. I changed the caption.

The Cassidy textbook image is clearer. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:51, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Withdrawn: Possible Wrong Lorentz Formulas in Derivation and formulation

In the Derivation and formulation section the forward Lorenz formula is used: ct'=𝜸(ct-𝛽𝒙). This formula maps rest-frame co-ordinates to moving frame co-ordinates. Then the text says "clock remains at rest in its inertial frame, 𝒙_a= 𝒙_b Here, the absence of "primes" implies this clock is in the rest frame. But the clock we are interested in is at rest in the moving frame so that: 𝒙_a'= 𝒙_b'. So I feel that this section should be modified to use the reverse Lorenz formula: ct=𝜸(ct'+𝛽𝒙') I know that the sign of the spacial term cancels out ultimately and so it doesn't matter if the forward formula is used. But I thought it would be more elegant if this article is modified to show the use of the reverse formula. ParticleHorizon (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

The clock it as rest in the unprimed frame, and the (primed) time coordinates (for a frame in wich the clock is supposed to be moving) of two of its ticks are calculated. We are not interested in the clock at rest in the moving frame, we are interested in the time coordinates of two events taking place on the unprimed clock as measured in a frame in which that clock is moving. So everyting seems to be correct and backed by the sources. - DVdm (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks I can see you are correct. Can I please complement the authors for a very well presented article. ParticleHorizon (talk) 13:34, 14 September 2026 (UTC)