Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 120 of 120

Thread: Time dilation

  1. #101  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    By considering the situation in terms of Minkowskian spacetime, it is clear that there are no sync gaps. And because Minkowskian spacetime is fully consistent, any logic that indicates a cumulative synch gap leading to inconsistency has to be invalid in some way.
    I am not discussing imaginary sync gaps, I am discussing real ones. Why can't you tell me the real pattern of sync gaps for a circulating clock and for observers around a moving rectangle of clocks?
     

  2. #102  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,166
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew? View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    I made no mention of the aether. My argument is against asymmetric time dilation.
    I know you didn't, but the Wikipedia article makes it clear that the relative velocity being considered is that of "the hypothetical aether", not the centre of the Earth.

    Are you saying the experiment separately measured the time dilation of the apparatus and the aether and proved them to be equal?
    I wasn't referring to the Wikipedia article. Indeed, the measurements of the Mössbauer spectrum to which I was referring were not even intended as tests of relativity. I was referring to routine measurements made by chemists and biochemists as part of the characterisation process for iron compounds, and published in chemical and biochemical journals. The presumption is that different laboratories obtain the same spectrum for the same compound as part of the notion of repeatability that science is based upon.

    Suppose in one experimental arrangement, a target is located on the earth at a location where it is travelling at 250000 mm/s relative to the centre of the earth. The source is moving away from the target at 5 mm/s in an easterly direction. Thus, the target is moving at 250005 mm/s relative to the earth's centre. In another experimental arrangement, the target is at the same location, but the source is moving away from the target at 5 mm/s in a westerly direction. The relative speed between the source and target is the same, but the target's speed relative to the centre of the earth is now 249995 mm/s. In the first experiment, the target's speed relative to the centre of the earth is greater than the speed of the source. In the second experiment, the target's speed relative to the centre of the earth is less than the speed of the source. If the time dilation was asymmetric, then these two experiments should produce different spectra, but that is not the case. The spectra depends only on the relative velocity between the source and target, indicating symmetric time dilation.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
     

  3. #103  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,166
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew? View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    I did not suggest that Minkowskian spacetime proves that special relativity is correct. Rather, Minkowskian spacetime provides an explanation of special relativity. However, Minkowskian spacetime does prove that special relativity is consistent. Hence, my signature below.
    It doesn't matter that Minkowski spacetime is consistent with itself, it needs to be consistent with reality.
    Yes, but you have yet to show that it isn't. Also, your argument that the progression of sync gaps around a loop leads to a clock not being synchronised with itself is a challenge to the consistency of Minkowskian spacetime. That Minkowskian spacetime is consistent nullifies your argument regardless of its agreement with reality.


    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew? View Post
    Depending on which version is used, either its times or its distances are imaginary. This shows it does not apply to the real world.
    That is rather simplistic. What is the justification for the view that complex numbers do not apply to the real world?


    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew? View Post
    The statement that SR has no internal inconsistencies is no basis for claiming it does not lead to real world inconsistencies and paradoxes.
    This statement makes no sense at all. How can a theory lead to inconsistencies and paradoxes in the real world?
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
     

  4. #104  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,166
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew? View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    By considering the situation in terms of Minkowskian spacetime, it is clear that there are no sync gaps. And because Minkowskian spacetime is fully consistent, any logic that indicates a cumulative synch gap leading to inconsistency has to be invalid in some way.
    I am not discussing imaginary sync gaps, I am discussing real ones. Why can't you tell me the real pattern of sync gaps for a circulating clock and for observers around a moving rectangle of clocks?
    I can only tell you what Minkowskian spacetime indicates, and I have already done this. I can't tell you what a physical experiment would say because I am not an experimental physicist.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
     

  5. #105  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    How about answering my earlier questions.
    To what purpose ? Based on the history of your responses here, you will either disregard, reject, discredit or simply ignore the answers ( which, btw, have already been given earlier in this thread ), since they wouldn't support the conclusion you have already reached, due to that conclusion being contrary to current scientific consensus. This being a science forum, any answer you receive here will be from the point of view of the current scientific consensus.

    I asked you earlier if there is anything we could say to you that would change your mind, but you have ignored that question; I take that to mean that the answer is "no", and hence I don't see the point in investing more time into this.

    Clearly, you have decided that SR and GR must be wrong, contrary to scientific consensus - that is your personal choice, and your prerogative.
     

  6. #106  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    There are though other theories, mine being one of them
    What kind of wave equation are you proposing for the propagation of light, that is not relativistic in nature, and still in accord with experimental evidence ?
     

  7. #107  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Suppose in one experimental arrangement, a target is located on the earth at a location where it is travelling at 250000 mm/s relative to the centre of the earth. The source is moving away from the target at 5 mm/s in an easterly direction. Thus, the target is moving at 250005 mm/s relative to the earth's centre.
    I think you mean the source is moving at 250005 mm/s not the target, but such experiments are about the KE of photon impacts and are consistent with the conservation of space-time energy that I described earlier. Insofar as there is a significant increase in KE in one case there is an equal reduction in time energy from the asymmetric time dilation, so the total impact energy is the same. In contrast, SR does not conserve photon energy between frames. A photon emitted in one frame will have a greater or lesser energy in a moving frame depending on the appropriate Doppler shift.
     

  8. #108  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew? View Post
    Depending on which version is used, either its times or its distances are imaginary. This shows it does not apply to the real world.
    That is rather simplistic. What is the justification for the view that complex numbers do not apply to the real world?
    I wasn't talking about complex numbers. Distances are purely imaginary at the same time co-ordinate (or time intervals are imaginary at the same space co-ordinate). This shows they do not apply to the real world.

    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew? View Post
    The statement that SR has no internal inconsistencies is no basis for claiming it does not lead to real world inconsistencies and paradoxes.
    This statement makes no sense at all. How can a theory lead to inconsistencies and paradoxes in the real world?
    The predictions of false theories lead to inconsistencies or paradoxes in the real world; this is how we know theories are false.

    I keep saying that Minkowski space is completely irrelevant. SR's predictions lead to inconsistencies with the real world, therefore it is false. It makes no difference whether Minkowski space is consistent with itself. If a fairy tale is consistent with itself, does this mean it is consistent with reality?
     

  9. #109  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew? View Post
    SR's predictions lead to inconsistencies with the real world
    Can you cite an example of an experiment or observation that contradicts the predictions of SR?

    I wasn't talking about complex numbers. Distances are purely imaginary at the same time co-ordinate (or time intervals are imaginary at the same space co-ordinate). This shows they do not apply to the real world.
    Could you explain what you mean by this?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  10. #110  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew? View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    By considering the situation in terms of Minkowskian spacetime, it is clear that there are no sync gaps. And because Minkowskian spacetime is fully consistent, any logic that indicates a cumulative synch gap leading to inconsistency has to be invalid in some way.
    I am not discussing imaginary sync gaps, I am discussing real ones. Why can't you tell me the real pattern of sync gaps for a circulating clock and for observers around a moving rectangle of clocks?
    I can only tell you what Minkowskian spacetime indicates, and I have already done this. I can't tell you what a physical experiment would say because I am not an experimental physicist.
    In the thread Simultaneity, another question you said "The moving clocks are not synchronised in their own frame of reference. The clock immediately in front reads later and the clock immediately behind reads earlier ..." Here you say there are no sync gaps in Minkowski spacetime. If reality and Minkowski spacetime disagree then, again, it is irrelevant.

    One does not need to be an experimental physicist to make predictions from SR. In the real world, what sync gaps would be observed for a circulating clock and for stationary observers around a moving rectangle of clocks?
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    What kind of wave equation are you proposing for the propagation of light, that is not relativistic in nature, and still in accord with experimental evidence ?
    Light waves propagate in relation to the Earth centred inertial frame, not relativistically in relation to each observer.
     

  12. #112  
    Forum Sophomore Karsus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    194
    The only reason I've been keeping up with this thread so far is to see an answer to Markus' post #81 from Andrew. This discussion will just keep going in circles until that happens. Please, Andrew, the suspense is killing me.
     

  13. #113  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew? View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    What kind of wave equation are you proposing for the propagation of light, that is not relativistic in nature, and still in accord with experimental evidence ?
    Light waves propagate in relation to the Earth centred inertial frame, not relativistically in relation to each observer.
    The earth is not an inertial frame.
    Also, you did not answer my actual question.
     

  14. #114  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,586
    Markus, Andrew isn't going to answer you from what I can see, he's made up his mind and refuses to accept anything that contradicts what he thinks is happening
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
     

  15. #115  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Can you cite an example of an experiment or observation that contradicts the predictions of SR?
    Physicists have had ample time to demonstrate SR's predicted distance contraction, but they can't. As I say, the distances between stars should vary on a quarterly basis and the distances between particles in an accelerator ring should reduce. Either all the inter-particle spacings reduce, in which case they can't be accelerated when they are no longer in the accelerator ring, or some spacings need to increase to maintain the correct circumference, which would defy SR's predicted contraction. So SR's prediction is false.

    Hafele-Keating and the GPS system produce asymmetric time dilations. For example, westbound clocks run faster than a ground clock whereas SR only predicts that observers will see moving clocks run slower.

    The speed of light is found to be constant in the ECI frame which does not rotate with the Earth. In other words, the speed of light differs in easterly and westerly directions for an observer on the Earth's surface.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Could you explain what you mean by this?
    (Distance)^2 = (c.timeDiff)^2 -(xDiff)^2 -(yDiff)^2 -(zDiff)^2
    When there is no time difference (Distance)^2 = -(R)^2 where R is a real number, so Distance is the square root of a negative number and is purely imaginary.
     

  16. #116  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by Karsus View Post
    The only reason I've been keeping up with this thread so far is to see an answer to Markus' post #81 from Andrew. This discussion will just keep going in circles until that happens. Please, Andrew, the suspense is killing me.
    This post is 80 posts later than my question about how two clocks can simultaneously be slower than each other. SR's prediction is equivalent to saying A>B and simultaneously A<B. This is impossible. I was told the answer lay in SR's non-simultaneity, which I pointed out has no experimental support. But SR's predicted non-simultaneity applies to observations of more than one moving clock. In my example each observer records the signals from just one moving clock. So it is impossible for SR's predicted non-simultaneity to explain its impossible time dilation.

    When I started this thread I hadn't really given SR's non-simultaneity much thought. I was interested to see how time dilation could be defended, but now I see that it can't. If you are still in suspense then the answer is that nothing can persuade me to believe in the impossible.
     

  17. #117  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew? View Post
    Physicists have had ample time to demonstrate SR's predicted distance contraction, but they can't.
    This is one of the more convincing but there are others:
    "Heavy ions that are spherical when at rest should assume the form of "pancakes" or flat disks when traveling nearly at the speed of light. And in fact, the results obtained from particle collisions can only be explained when the increased nucleon density due to length contraction is considered.[14][15][16]"
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length..._verifications

    the distances between particles in an accelerator ring should reduce.
    No, because they are kept the same distance apart. But, of course, particle accelerators do falsify your claim as shown above.

    Hafele-Keating and the GPS system produce asymmetric time dilations. For example, westbound clocks run faster than a ground clock whereas SR only predicts that observers will see moving clocks run slower.
    Which is what is predicted.

    (Distance)^2 = (c.timeDiff)^2 -(xDiff)^2 -(yDiff)^2 -(zDiff)^2
    When there is no time difference (Distance)^2 = -(R)^2 where R is a real number, so Distance is the square root of a negative number and is purely I maginary.
    I thought that might be what you meant. And all I can say is good grief. If you have to resort to this level of self-delusion to maintain your religious beliefs, then there is probably no helping you.

    But I repeat Markus's question: What would change your mind?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  18. #118  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew? View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    What kind of wave equation are you proposing for the propagation of light, that is not relativistic in nature, and still in accord with experimental evidence ?
    Light waves propagate in relation to the Earth centred inertial frame, not relativistically in relation to each observer.
    The earth is not an inertial frame.
    Also, you did not answer my actual question.
    How on Earth can the Earth centred inertial frame not be inertial?

    I am not proposing any wave equation. This has nothing to do with the problem of A>B and simultaneously A<B. Wave equations do not need to be relativistic and SR is not compatible with the speed of light in relation to the ECI.
     

  19. #119  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    When there is no time difference (Distance)^2 = -(R)^2
    You cannot possibly be serious Did you actually think about what you wrote here ? Come on now, Andrew - you are more intelligent than this !

    I am not proposing any wave equation
    Then you don't have a "theory"; you have only some speculations and personal beliefs.
     

  20. #120  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    If you are still in suspense then the answer is that nothing can persuade me to believe in the impossible.
    MOD NOTE: In which case there is no purpose in letting this continue, because you are arguing outside the scientific method, so there is no common ground to have a scientific (!) discussion with you. You haven't even got a proper model of your own to present, nor have you sufficient understanding of what you are arguing against.

    Thread closed.
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. About Time Dilation
    By nakayama in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: January 25th, 2014, 04:19 AM
  2. Time dilation
    By Ladez in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: August 18th, 2011, 08:32 AM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 4th, 2008, 06:50 PM
  4. Time-Dilation
    By EV33 in forum Physics
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: February 2nd, 2008, 06:50 PM
  5. TIME DILATION
    By Tommy4711 in forum Physics
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: June 9th, 2005, 04:39 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •