How do I account for time dilation when timing runs?

Don't forget the fact that time moves faster as you move away from the centre of the earth. 90 billionths of a second per 30.48cm every 79 years.

Relativity wrote:

Don't forget the fact that time moves faster as you move away from the centre of the earth. 90 billionths of a second per 30.48cm every 79 years.

This is a good point, but if I was able to do my idea and have a stationary clock that I controlled remotely, it would be at constant elevation, so I'd get the actual elapsed time with no interference from going up and down hills.

physics question wrote:

Relativity wrote:

Don't forget the fact that time moves faster as you move away from the centre of the earth. 90 billionths of a second per 30.48cm every 79 years.

This is a good point, but if I was able to do my idea and have a stationary clock that I controlled remotely, it would be at constant elevation, so I'd get the actual elapsed time with no interference from going up and down hills.

But you would have to adjust if you're training in different locations, so you don't suddenly think you're a quintillion of a second quicker just through better fitness.

physics question wrote:

So obviously the faster I go, the slower time moves for me. This means that my own watch will record a slower time than a clock that was left stationary.

But if I need to start and stop my clock during a run, I have to have the clock with me, so I can't just start a timer at home and then stop it when I get back. So how do I carry a watch, but get an accurate time for my run? Is there some way to control a stationary clock while I'm running (like put a clock at home, and just have a remote to start and stop the clock in my hand)?

Your own watch will give you the correct time. A stationary clock will be out by few billionths of a second. It's just something you have to accept on the road to glory.

physics question wrote:

How do I account for time dilation when timing runs?

My nazi-ufo does this automatically.

Ok, so you're saying that the time I should be using is the elapsed time based on my own personal time passage rather than a stationary point.

This makes a lot of sense, but raises another question. Races use a stationary clock, so by the above logic, race times are not accurate. Should races correct for this by having each athlete carry their own clock?

I do believe that must be the answer. All athletes must carry their own watch. Only way to ensure accuracy.

With that being said, all current race times (including WR) must be scraped until we embrace this idea.

ok, albert

Why can't you just use the time measured in your rest frame (i.e. the time on a watch you carry with you while running) and then do the Lorentz transformation when you get home? It should be pretty straightforward to calculate.

physics question wrote:

tardis runner wrote:

Your own watch will give you the correct time. A stationary clock will be out by few billionths of a second. It's just something you have to accept on the road to glory.

Ok, so you're saying that the time I should be using is the elapsed time based on my own personal time passage rather than a stationary point.

This makes a lot of sense, but raises another question. Races use a stationary clock, so by the above logic, race times are not accurate. Should races correct for this by having each athlete carry their own clock?

You're wasting your time arguing with the race timekeepers, they simply will not listen. You just have to suck it up and accept the time they give you.

Physics answer wrote:

I do believe that must be the answer. All athletes must carry their own watch. Only way to ensure accuracy.

With that being said, all current race times (including WR) must be scraped until we embrace this idea.

This is unnecessary. The stationary clock (in the rest frame of the track) will give you all the information you need to calculate each athlete's finishing time in his/her own rest frame.

You're overthinking this wrote:

Why can't you just use the time measured in your rest frame (i.e. the time on a watch you carry with you while running) and then do the Lorentz transformation when you get home? It should be pretty straightforward to calculate.

Right! If you are asking the question, the answer should be self evident.

I account for it by feel.

The relativistic Doppler effect may interfere with perception of a stationary clock at speed

john utah wrote:

ok, albert

We all know they don't teach real science in Utah, no need to bring your ignorance into this

Personal records should be like world records which must be officially timed via stationary clocks located at the start/finish line. (See [*] for point to point courses.)

Of course most casual runners generally carry a watch with them for the purposes of daily runs and workouts, where newtonian timing methods are often close enough for unofficial purposes. In the cases where this timing factor is not enough, official correction tables are available per the IAAF and USATF which give worst-case corrections from personal reference from to standard reference frame. I believe certain higher-end GPS watch models now incorporate this feature standard.

However, it should be noted that these tables require both altitude, exact time/location, and route information in order to correct for gravitational effects (particularly relative location of the moon and gas giants) as well as coriolis effects due to the Earth's rotation. If you don't fill these in you will get a very pessimistic correction factor. Special factors are available for running clockwise or counterclockwise on a track at certain major cities.

*For point to point courses, per IAAF and USATF rules, the clock must be located at the finish and must be started first, then may communicate via any physical means (i.e. sublight speed) to the start line where it may activate the starting gun or siren.

Forgot to mention that one should update their tables periodically (yearly should be sufficient for most purposes) to account for the Earth's slowing rotation over time. Also of interest but not yet ratified is the proposal by Japan and others to introduce an additional correction factor for runners under 5'2" as quantum effects become more pronounced at this level.

physics question wrote:

So obviously the faster I go, the slower time moves for me. This means that my own watch will record a slower time than a clock that was left stationary.

This is true. But you can easily compensate for this effect by programming your watch to perform a simple calculation. The clocks on GPS satellites do this all the time. If you don't know the formula, contact the GPS company and they'll be able to help you.

When I run on the track, I always bring my sundial. If you have a buddy on a bike with a rack, then you'll always have 100% accurate (relative to the sun, which technically our calendar is,) time. Of course, since you're running in circles, you have to compensate for your perspective relative to the cardinal directions, but thanks to my LRC-certified D1 college degree, I can relatively quickly compensate with some angular momentum trigonometry differentiation. In the purest astronomical sense of time, this is the way to go.