# Thread: The Displayed Time Of A Clock Is An Invariant of Lorentz Transformation

1. Originally Posted by KJW

It can be mathematically proven that there does not exist a spacetime function satisfying the metric:

Suppose that such a function does exist. Then is an exact differential and satisfies:

Therefore:

But the determinant of is zero in conflict with invertibility of the metric tensor. Therefore no such function exists.
Interesting way to prove this, very simple and elegant ! Thanks KJW - though it's obvious in hindsight, I wouldn't have thought of this way of proving it

2. OK, let me just make things even clearer.

1. The time of Special Relativity is not the time of the physical world.
2. The time of the physical world is the displayed time of a clock.
3. Relative to the displayed time of a clock, there is no time dilation that can be observed no matter you observe the clocks on which inertial reference frame.
4. Relative to the time of Special Relativity, there is time dilation because the unit of the time of Special Relativity is artificially scaled down or up depending on the reference frame. Because the time of Special Relativity is an artificial variable that does not have real physical meanings, it is meaningless to say time dilation relative to this fake time.
5. The universal time means that the times of all clocks moving at any different constant speeds can be synchronized by setting the same origin and same frequency observed on any one inertial reference frame. From then on, these clocks will show exactly the same displayed time no matter observed on which inertial reference frames.

3. Now it is really clear that Special Relativity is wrong. I greatly appreciate all the participants of the debate. If you don't mind, I will be happy to invite you guys as co-authors to publish a journal paper. Please contact me at xshen@nacgeo.com if you are interested in authoring this paper with me.

Thanks, Everybody!

4.

5. Originally Posted by xinhangshen
Now it is really clear that Special Relativity is wrong.
Anti-relativity crankiness is not a curable disease.

6. *sigh*

7. Originally Posted by xinhangshen
OK, let me just make things even clearer.

1. The time of Special Relativity is not the time of the physical world.
2. The time of the physical world is the displayed time of a clock.
3. Relative to the displayed time of a clock, there is no time dilation that can be observed no matter you observe the clocks on which inertial reference frame.
4. Relative to the time of Special Relativity, there is time dilation because the unit of the time of Special Relativity is artificially scaled down or up depending on the reference frame. Because the time of Special Relativity is an artificial variable that does not have real physical meanings, it is meaningless to say time dilation relative to this fake time.
5. The universal time means that the times of all clocks moving at any different constant speeds can be synchronized by setting the same origin and same frequency observed on any one inertial reference frame. From then on, these clocks will show exactly the same displayed time no matter observed on which inertial reference frames.
It doesn't matter how much "clearer" you make it, it is still wrong for the reasons that have been pointed out earlier in this thread. However, I will specifically address the following points:

Originally Posted by xinhangshen
2. The time of the physical world is the displayed time of a clock.
There is no "time of the physical world". The time displayed by a clock is the time of the clock itself. A clock does not measure time that is not local to the clock itself. Clocks that have been separated and brought back together may register different intervals of time.

Originally Posted by xinhangshen
4. Relative to the time of Special Relativity, there is time dilation because the unit of the time of Special Relativity is artificially scaled down or up depending on the reference frame. Because the time of Special Relativity is an artificial variable that does not have real physical meanings, it is meaningless to say time dilation relative to this fake time.
Time dilation is not a scaling up or down of time. This statement presumes a preferred frame of reference that is the unscaled time and relative to which the scaling occurs. This is not true because all inertial frames of reference are equivalent. A given clock ticks at the same intrinsic rate in its own frame of reference irrespective of that frame of reference. Time dilation is best regarded as analogous to a change in the point of view from which an oriented length of rod is viewed.

Originally Posted by xinhangshen
5. The universal time means that the times of all clocks moving at any different constant speeds can be synchronized by setting the same origin and same frequency observed on any one inertial reference frame. From then on, these clocks will show exactly the same displayed time no matter observed on which inertial reference frames.
My previous post mathematically proved that no universal time exists. Perhaps you should address this proof rather than simply ignore it and restate your previous statements.

8. How to prove Special Relativity is wrong? Have a look at the following:
The physical time is the displayed time of a physical clock.
The displayed time of a physical clock is an invariant of inertial reference frames.
If all clocks are set to have the same displayed time and same frequency in one inertial reference frame no matter whether the clocks are stationary or not, their displayed time will be one same displayed time observed on any other inertial reference frame.
Therefore, the physical time is absolute, universal and independent from any inertial reference frame.
The time of Special Relativity is not absolute, universal but depends on the inertial reference frame.
Therefore, the time of Special Relativity is not the physical time.
Therefore, Special Relativity is wrong.

9. Originally Posted by xinhangshen
How to prove Special Relativity is wrong?
You can only disprove a theory via an experiment that falsifies it. Give it a rest.

10. Originally Posted by xinhangshen
How to prove Special Relativity is wrong?
As Howard already rightly pointed out - the only way to conclusively prove a model inapplicable is to produce an experiment the outcome of which violates the model's predictions. In the case of SR, no such experiment exists, since no violations of Lorentz invariance have ever been observed.

The time of Special Relativity is not absolute, universal but depends on the inertial reference frame.
Therefore, the time of Special Relativity is not the physical time.
You are still failing to understand the difference between coordinate time and proper time, even after it having been explained to you a number of times now; and you are also ignoring KJW's excellent proof that no "universal time" can exist. What you present here is not a failing of Special Relativity, but of your own understanding.

Now it is really clear that Special Relativity is wrong.
What is clear to us from this thread is that you value your personal opinions more than proper scientific reasoning. It's a pity, but hardly a surprise so far as anti-relativity proponents are concerned.

11. Originally Posted by markus hanke
Originally Posted by xinhangshen
how to prove special relativity is wrong?
as howard already rightly pointed out - the only way to conclusively prove a model inapplicable is to produce an experiment the outcome of which violates the model's predictions. In the case of sr, no such experiment exists, since no violations of lorentz invariance have ever been observed.

the time of special relativity is not absolute, universal but depends on the inertial reference frame.
therefore, the time of special relativity is not the physical time.
you are still failing to understand the difference between coordinate time and proper time, even after it having been explained to you a number of times now; and you are also ignoring kjw's excellent proof that no "universal time" can exist. What you present here is not a failing of special relativity, but of your own understanding.

now it is really clear that special relativity is wrong.
what is clear to us from this thread is that you value your personal opinions more than proper scientific reasoning. It's a pity, but hardly a surprise so far as anti-relativity proponents are concerned.
like

12. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by xinhangshen
How to prove Special Relativity is wrong?
As Howard already rightly pointed out - the only way to conclusively prove a model inapplicable is to produce an experiment the outcome of which violates the model's predictions. In the case of SR, no such experiment exists, since no violations of Lorentz invariance have ever been observed.

The time of Special Relativity is not absolute, universal but depends on the inertial reference frame.
Therefore, the time of Special Relativity is not the physical time.
You are still failing to understand the difference between coordinate time and proper time, even after it having been explained to you a number of times now; and you are also ignoring KJW's excellent proof that no "universal time" can exist. What you present here is not a failing of Special Relativity, but of your own understanding.

Now it is really clear that Special Relativity is wrong.
What is clear to us from this thread is that you value your personal opinions more than proper scientific reasoning. It's a pity, but hardly a surprise so far as anti-relativity proponents are concerned.
You are just trapped in the well Einstein made for people. Now you go out of Special Relativity and look at it from the outside. Don't use the terms and variables of it which just confuse you. We can just use two common agreements between Newton's mechanics and Special Relativity to reason:

1. The displayed time of a clock is an invariant of inertial reference frame.
2. The physical time is the displayed time of a clock.

With these two agreements, we can derive the conclusion that the physical time is universal and independent from any inertial reference frame. But the time of Special Relativity depends on the speed of an inertial reference frame. Therefore, the time of Special Relativity is not the physical time. Therefore, Special Relativity is wrong.

Now we have proved that the time of Special Relativity is not the displayed time of a clock. All the Special Relativity supporting experiments based on the displayed times of clocks just prove the opposite. They are just wrongly interpreted the results.

13. Originally Posted by xinhangshen
the physical time is universal and independent from any inertial reference frame.
Correction: PROPER time is frame-independent. You have been told this repeatedly. You still don't get it.

But the time of Special Relativity depends on the speed of an inertial reference frame.
Correction: COORDINATE time is the type of time that is frame dependent. You have been told this repeatedly. You still don't get it.

Therefore, the time of Special Relativity is not the physical time. Therefore, Special Relativity is wrong.
Correction: YOUR understanding of SR is wrong. You have been told this repeatedly. You still don't get it.

14. Originally Posted by xinhangshen
1. The displayed time of a clock is an invariant of inertial reference frame.
2. The physical time is the displayed time of a clock.

With these two agreements, we can derive the conclusion that the physical time is universal and independent from any inertial reference frame.
By saying "the physical time is the displayed time of a clock", you are assuming that there is a universal time. But this is what you are trying to prove. By using what you are trying to prove in order to prove something, your argument is invalid.

Originally Posted by xinhangshen
But the time of Special Relativity depends on the speed of an inertial reference frame. Therefore, the time of Special Relativity is not the physical time. Therefore, Special Relativity is wrong.
Non sequitur.

15. For example, the clock of a GPS satellite case. After the correction, the clock on the earth and the clock on the satellite have the same displayed time observed on an inertial reference frame at the observing moment attached to the earth. These two clocks will also show exactly the same displayed time observed on an inertial reference frame attached to the satellite at the observing moment. That is, the two clocks are strictly in symmetric positions. Therefore, they are identical.

Therefore, the identical clocks will always have the same displayed time no matter you observe them on which inertial reference frame.

16. Originally Posted by xinhangshen
These two clocks will also show exactly the same displayed time
This is incorrect, since you have already conceded that a correction factor must be applied.

Your very first post claimed "it remains a mathematical theory without any way to land on the physical world" (that post containing the majority of the maths that you're prepared to present), without showing that YOUR maths has any bearing on the real world that supports your view.
Since then you have simply made assertions.
You have been shown that the maths works: i.e. can be and is applied to the real world, your only rebuttal being, essentially, "Well yes it does, but it's not really time dilation".
The fact that the maths works is all that's needed.
It could be pixies or elephants working for the CIA as the underlying "reason", that's largely irrelevant.

Your entire "argument" seems to be predicated on your incredulity at, and knowledge of, the science involved.

Therefore:
Mod note - unless you can come up with a better argument than "I don't believe it therefore it must be wrong" further posts from you on this topic will be deleted and the thread locked.

17. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
The correction is to correct the effects of time dilation.
Exactly.
To correct the effects of time dilation: precisely as per the requisite mathematics.
Thus the maths applies to the real world - which you have denied.

Edit: my apologies if this confuses anyone - I just realised that I used the "edit" function rather than "quote".
A more correct version would be:

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by xinghangshen
The correction is to correct the effects of time dilation.
Exactly.
To correct the effects of time dilation: precisely as per the requisite mathematics.
Thus the maths applies to the real world - which you have denied.

18. Originally Posted by xinhangshen
How to prove Special Relativity is wrong? Have a look at the following:
The physical time is the displayed time of a physical clock.
The displayed time of a physical clock is an invariant of inertial reference frames.
If all clocks are set to have the same displayed time and same frequency in one inertial reference frame no matter whether the clocks are stationary or not, their displayed time will be one same displayed time observed on any other inertial reference frame.
Therefore, the physical time is absolute, universal and independent from any inertial reference frame.
The time of Special Relativity is not absolute, universal but depends on the inertial reference frame.
Therefore, the time of Special Relativity is not the physical time.
Therefore, Special Relativity is wrong.
I think what everyone is trying to tell you here is that Einstein’s view in SR is anchored by the speed of light not by a local time. As was so eloquently shown universal time is not sustainable by the equations accepted in relativity. Now if your clock arms are anchored to the speed of light you might present an argument.

19. Originally Posted by xinhangshen
Thus the maths applies to the real world - which you have denied.
Actually it is only you who denies the reality of time dilation, not anyone else.

1. The displayed time of a clock is an invariant of inertial reference frame.
2. The physical time is the displayed time of a clock.
No. Only total elapsed time is an invariant, but an instantaneous reading taken is observer-dependent and will only coincide with proper time if the observer happens to be at rest together with the clock, otherwise not.

Mod note - unless you can come up with a better argument than "I don't believe it therefore it must be wrong" further posts from you on this topic will be deleted and the thread locked.
I agree with The Duck on this - just repeating the same phrases over and over again even after you have been shown why they are inaccurate is simply not good enough, not even for the pseudoscience section. I suggest you start to address the points raised in response to you instead of just ignoring them, or else this thread will have outlived its usefulness.

Page 2 of 2 First 12