Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 119

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

  1. #1 The Displayed Time Of A Clock Is An Invariant of Lorentz Transformation 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    42
    Abstraction
    After examining a rotating clock with the time displayed as the angle of an arm rotating in a plane perpendicular to its constant speed motion in an inertial reference frame, the displayed time of the clock (i.e. the angle of the arm) is found to be an invariant of Lorentz Transformation. This can be further generalized to all physical clocks including atomic clocks. Since the time of Special Relativity is not an invariant of Lorentz Transformation, the displayed time of any physical clock can never be used as the time of Special Relativity and can never show time dilation.

    Introduction
    In Special Relativity, the time of a reference frame and the displayed time of a clock attached to the reference frame are two completely different things. A clock itself is a system of motion that should follow the laws of motion and Lorentz Transformation, rather than a pure time keeper which can record time directly. Instead, a clock can only record the result of a physical process (e.g. the angle of a rotating arm, the number of cycles of oscillation, etc) during a period of time. The result of a process is usually the multiplication of time and the speed of the process (e.g., the rotating speed of the arm or the frequency of oscillation, etc). After Lorentz Transformation, though time will increase by a factor, the speed of the process will decrease by the same factor, which makes the final multiplication unchanged after Lorentz Transformation.

    Derivation
    Assume a clock moving at a constant speed v along the x-direction of an inertial reference frame called Frame A while the frame attached to the clock is called Frame B. In the following, all variables of Frame B will carry apostrophe ( ' ) to distinguish them from those of Frame A. The clock uses the angle of its arm to represent its displayed time, which rotates at a constant speed ω' in the plane perpendicular to the clock's moving direction.

    At the event that the clock passes the origin of Frame A, the location of the clock is at

    (1) x1= x’1 = 0

    where x1 and x'1 are the coordinate of the clock in Frame A and Frame B respectively, and the arm of the clock points at 0 degree:


    (2) α1 = α'1= 0


    which represents zero time of both Frame A and Frame B:


    (3) t1 = t’1 = 0


    At a new event:


    (4) t2 = τ


    (5) x2 = vτ


    (6) α2 = ωτ


    in Frame A, the corresponding variables in Frame B after Lorentz Transformation:


    (7) x’2 =
    γ(x2 – vt2) = 0

    (8) t’2 =
    γ(t2 – vx2/c2) = τ/γ

    (9) y'2 = y2


    (10) z'2 = z2


    where
    γ = 1/(1– v2/c2)1/2 and (y2, z2) and (y'2, z'2) are the coordinates of the tip of the arm in Frame A and B respectively. Here are the relationships between the angle and the coordinates:

    (11) tan(α2) = y2/z2


    (12) tan(α'2) = y'2/z'2


    From Equation (9), (10), (11) and (12), we have:


    (13) α'2 = α2


    Since the displayed time of the clock has been calibrated to the angle of the arm of the clock, Equation (13) tells that the displayed time of a rotating clock is an invariant of Lorentz Transformation. Therefore, we will never see time dilation shown by the displayed time of a rotating clock. Many people including Einstein believe that a moving clock will display a time different from the displayed time of a static clock.This mistake is caused by the belief of people including Einstein that all clocks can directly record time. The fact is that any physical clock can only record the result of a process during a period of time, but not time itself. The result of a process is usually the multiplication of time and the speed of the process. After Lorentz Transformation, time changes by a factor, but the speed of the process will also change which will exactly cancel the effect of the change of time and make the final multiplication unchanged after Lorentz Transformation. This can be illustrated in the following:

    Since

    (14) α'2 = ω't'2


    from (4), (6), (8),(13) and (14), we get:


    (15) ωτ = ω'τ/
    γ

    That is


    (16) ω' =
    γω

    Equation (8) shows there is a time expansion after Lorentz Transformation from Frame B to Frame A, but Equation (16) shows there is a slowdown of the rotating speed of the arm of the clock from Frame B to Frame A. The angle of the arm (i.e. the multiplication of time and the rotating speed) remains unchanged after LorentzTransformation. Since the angle of the arm of the clock represents the displayed time of a clock, therefore, the displayed time (for example, 30 degrees: one o'clock, 60 degrees: two o'clock, 90 degrees: three o'clock, etc) remains unchanged after Lorentz Transformation.

    Discussion
    Since any clock can display its time as the angle of an arm through either mechanical gears or a digital converter, the above derivation can be logically extended to any physical clock, even to an atomic clock on which the displayed time is the number of cycles of oscillation (i.e. the multiplication of time and frequency of the oscillation) and remains unchanged after Lorentz Transformation because the expansion of time cancels the slowdown of the frequency in the multiplication. Therefore, time dilation will never be noticed on all clocks in Special Relativity.

    Some people argue that Special Relativity has been mathematically proved without any contradiction.This may be true. The problem of Special Relativity is not in its mathematical derivation. The problem of Special Relativity is that it is not a mathematical theory, but a theory of physics that has to be connected to the physical world.
    Einstein made an assumption that the time in Special Relativity is the time measured by a clock, which has led to the contradiction as I illustrated above.

    Conclusion

    Though Special Relativity is beautiful in mathematical formulation, it remains a mathematical theory without any way to land on the physical world as its time can't be measured by any clock. All its predictions are pure imaginations. There is no such thing called time dilation in the physical world. People will never be able to travel to the past or future.


    Last edited by xinhangshen; October 2nd, 2014 at 06:34 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,937
    Good use of crackpot fontTM, it nicely flags your post for the nonsense it is...


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    *checks his clock for arms*

    *remembers he lives in the digital age*
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,218
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    *checks his clock for arms
    Moi aussi.



    Whats' "digital"?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,114
    I've reported the denialist crank for demotion to pseudo.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    42
    You can just derive the frequency of the oscillation of your digital clock after Lorentz Transformation. You will see the frequency also changes after LT and it will make the displayed time (i.e. the number of cycles of oscillation) unchanged after LT. Actually, all clocks are equivalent no matter whether they are digital or mechanical or atomic clock because you can use a set of gears and/or digital converters to change the way for displaying time. The core is that the displayed time is an invariant of LT and will never show time dilation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,114
    Quote Originally Posted by The Wiki
    The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.
    Hafele
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Wiki
    The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.
    Hafele
    This is obviously fake because human operated flights around the earth would have errors not in nano-seconds, but minutes or even hours.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,218
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    minutes or even hours.
    And those figures are based on what?
    Massive ignorance?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    minutes or even hours.
    And those figures are based on what?
    Massive ignorance?
    Sorry that I made a mistake to consider it as the time difference between the times spent in the two flights.

    However, the results still in questions. If the clocks met after the flights with different times, the event of the meeting would have multiple set of space-time coordinates, contradictory to the uniqueness of space-time coordinates for every event.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,218
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    the event of the meeting would have multiple set of space-time coordinates
    Still relying on massive ignorance I see...
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,114
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Wiki
    The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.
    Hafele
    This is obviously fake because human operated flights around the earth would have errors not in nano-seconds, but minutes or even hours.
    The Hafele Keating experiment is not fake. You are delusional or a liar.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    42
    Please point out my error in the following statements:

    1. An atomic clock counts the number of cycles of oscillation, not time itself.
    2. The number of cycles of oscillation of a moving atomic clock n' is the multiplication of time t' and the frequency f'.
    3. The parameters can be transformed to the earth reference frame by Lorentz Transformation:
    a. t = t'/ɣ
    b. f = ɣf'
    c. n = tf = t'f'
    4. The number of oscillation is an invariant of Lorentz Transformation.
    5. All atomic clocks will not show different displayed times caused by motion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    42
    In the above, ɣ = (1 - v^2/c^2)^(1/2)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    ...re-thinking.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    KJW
    KJW is online now
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,346
    You are quite correct in saying that the time displayed by a given clock is the same for all observers regardless of their motion. But this does not conflict with time dilation or any other relativistic effects. Indeed, the notion of proper time, the time indicated by a clock, is an important invariant in relativity. Spacetime diagrams make it clear what time dilation is and why it is not in conflict with the notion of invariant proper time.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    You are quite correct in saying that the time displayed by a given clock is the same for all observers regardless of their motion. But this does not conflict with time dilation or any other relativistic effects. Indeed, the notion of proper time, the time indicated by a clock, is an important invariant in relativity. Spacetime diagrams make it clear what time dilation is and why it is not in conflict with the notion of invariant proper time.
    This is irrelevant to the difference between "Proper Time" and "Coordinate Time", which counts the influences of paths between two events . As in the above example of eastward and westward flights, the difference of the displayed time of the two atomic clocks of the two flights has been directly used as a proof of time dilation, which according to the properties of an invariant of the displayed time, should not happen in Special Relativity.

    On the other hand, all physical processes are similar to a physical clock and won't show any time dilation effects either. For example, the biological aging status of a person is a multiplication of the time and the aging speed and is also an invariant of Lorentz Transformation. Therefore, the aging status will never been different because of motion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    42
    This can be further extended to all particles that have their lives as invariants of Lorentz Transformation, and should never shown time dilation effects.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    42
    No matter how beautiful the Theory of Special Relativity is, its most important conclusion is time dilation that can never happen in the physical world.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,218
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    can never happen in the physical world.
    This is self-evidently false, as shown by previous responses and links.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Time dilatation of atomic and classical clocks is very real and the formula for that is very accurate.
    So there you are in denial of established observation.
    The fysical origin of this formula however, has never been properly illustrated, because a hypothetical photon clock does not behave as currently assumed,unless we only accept its proper behaviour for the comoving observer. Further an observed path lengthening can never be used to derive a real effect, elementary logic tells us that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    42
    As we have proved that any physical clock can't show time dilation, these observed "time dilation" phenomena just indicate some hidden secrets that wait for us to reveal.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post


    That is


    (16) ω' =
    γω


    This is called "Transverse Doppler Effect". Except that your "derivation" is rife with errors, had you applied SR correctly you should have obtained . A trademark of cranks is misapplication of SR in order to "prove SR wrong".


    The effect is confirmed by, among other things:

    1. The Ives-Stilwell experiment.
    2. GPS
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Time dilatation of atomic and classical clocks is very real and the formula for that is very accurate.
    So there you are in denial of established observation.
    The fysical origin of this formula however, has never been properly illustrated, because a hypothetical photon clock does not behave as currently assumed,unless we only accept its proper behaviour for the comoving observer. Further an observed path lengthening can never be used to derive a real effect, elementary logic tells us that.
    So, you are back to inserting your fringe ideas . After I spent a whole thread explaining to you the relativistic effects on the clocks. And you claimed that you understood. I guess your natural anti-relativity is impossible to cure.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    KJW
    KJW is online now
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,346
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    As we have proved that any physical clock can't show time dilation, these observed "time dilation" phenomena just indicate some hidden secrets that wait for us to reveal.
    There are no "hidden secrets" with regards to time dilation. Relativity is quite clear about it and without contradiction with anything else.

    Suppose I start my clock at 1pm and look at it at 2pm. In this case, 1 hour has passed. If I look at it again at 3pm, then 2 hours have passed. In other words, the same clock has registered time intervals of 1 hour and 2 hours. But there is obviously no contradiction, is there? Time dilation in relativity is similar. Where people fail to understand this is generally the lack of understanding of the relativity of simultaneity.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post


    That is


    (16) ω' =
    γω


    This is called "Transverse Doppler Effect". Except that your "derivation" is rife with errors, had you applied SR correctly you should have obtained . A trademark of cranks is misapplication of SR in order to "prove SR wrong".


    The effect is confirmed by, among other things:

    1. The Ives-Stilwell experiment.
    2. GPS
    You are wrong because here the clock is moving, not the observer moving.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post


    That is


    (16) ω' =
    γω


    This is called "Transverse Doppler Effect". Except that your "derivation" is rife with errors, had you applied SR correctly you should have obtained . A trademark of cranks is misapplication of SR in order to "prove SR wrong".


    The effect is confirmed by, among other things:

    1. The Ives-Stilwell experiment.
    2. GPS
    You are wrong because here the clock is moving, not the observer moving.
    Generally cranks who deny special relativity also deny galilean relativity. They just don't realize it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    As we have proved that any physical clock can't show time dilation, these observed "time dilation" phenomena just indicate some hidden secrets that wait for us to reveal.
    There are no "hidden secrets" with regards to time dilation. Relativity is quite clear about it and without contradiction with anything else.

    Suppose I start my clock at 1pm and look at it at 2pm. In this case, 1 hour has passed. If I look at it again at 3pm, then 2 hours have passed. In other words, the same clock has registered time intervals of 1 hour and 2 hours. But there is obviously no contradiction, is there? Time dilation in relativity is similar. Where people fail to understand this is generally the lack of understanding of the relativity of simultaneity.
    I never say Special Relativity has internal contradictions. What I want to say that Einstein made a critical mistake to use the displayed time as the time of Special Relativity and the properties of the time of Special Relativity to predict time dilation on moving clocks. Moreover, the time of Special Relativity can never be measured by any physical clocks and all physical processes including clocks and particle lives won't show any time dilation. Actually the time of Special Relativity is just an artificial variable which does not have any real physical meanings.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Wiki
    The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.
    Hafele
    This is obviously fake because human operated flights around the earth would have errors not in nano-seconds, but minutes or even hours.
    The Hafele Keating experiment is not fake. You are delusional or a liar.
    One good thing about having a text book in PDF, is the ability to copy and paste. I do think, however, the experiment is more mentioned for historical value more than for it's precision.


    Macroscopic Clocks. In October 1971, Joseph Hafele and Richard Keating
    carried out what must have been a grueling experiment. They flew four
    portable atomic clocks twice around the world on commercial airlines, once in
    each direction. Their purpose was “to test Einstein’s theory of relativity with
    macroscopic clocks.” As we have just seen, the time dilation predictions of
    Einstein’s theory have been confirmed on a microscopic scale, but there is
    great comfort in seeing a confirmation made with an actual clock. Such macroscopic
    measurements became possible only because of the very high precision
    of modern atomic clocks. Hafele and Keating verified the predictions of the
    theory to within 10%. (Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which predicts
    that the rate at which time passes on a clock is influenced by the gravitational
    force on the clock, also plays a role in this experiment.)
    A few years later, physicists at the University of Maryland carried out a
    similar experiment with improved precision. They flew an atomic clock
    round and round over Chesapeake Bay for flights lasting 15 h and succeeded
    in checking the time dilation prediction to better than 1%. Today, when
    atomic clocks are transported from one place to another for calibration or
    other purposes, the time dilation caused by their motion is always taken into
    account.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    As we have proved that any physical clock can't show time dilation, these observed "time dilation" phenomena just indicate some hidden secrets that wait for us to reveal.
    There are no "hidden secrets" with regards to time dilation. Relativity is quite clear about it and without contradiction with anything else.

    Suppose I start my clock at 1pm and look at it at 2pm. In this case, 1 hour has passed. If I look at it again at 3pm, then 2 hours have passed. In other words, the same clock has registered time intervals of 1 hour and 2 hours. But there is obviously no contradiction, is there? Time dilation in relativity is similar. Where people fail to understand this is generally the lack of understanding of the relativity of simultaneity.
    I never say Special Relativity has internal contradictions. What I want to say that Einstein made a critical mistake .
    Nope, Einstein made no mistake. But you are.

    particle lives won't show any time dilation.
    All the experiments with elementary particles disprove your statement. Start by studying the explanation of the presence of atmospheric muons at sea level.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Wiki
    The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.
    Hafele
    This is obviously fake because human operated flights around the earth would have errors not in nano-seconds, but minutes or even hours.
    The Hafele Keating experiment is not fake. You are delusional or a liar.
    One good thing about having a text book in PDF, is the ability to copy and paste. I do think, however, the experiment is more mentioned for historical value more than for it's precision.


    Macroscopic Clocks. In October 1971, Joseph Hafele and Richard Keating
    carried out what must have been a grueling experiment. They flew four
    portable atomic clocks twice around the world on commercial airlines, once in
    each direction. Their purpose was “to test Einstein’s theory of relativity with
    macroscopic clocks.” As we have just seen, the time dilation predictions of
    Einstein’s theory have been confirmed on a microscopic scale, but there is
    great comfort in seeing a confirmation made with an actual clock. Such macroscopic
    measurements became possible only because of the very high precision
    of modern atomic clocks. Hafele and Keating verified the predictions of the
    theory to within 10%. (Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which predicts
    that the rate at which time passes on a clock is influenced by the gravitational
    force on the clock, also plays a role in this experiment.)
    A few years later, physicists at the University of Maryland carried out a
    similar experiment with improved precision. They flew an atomic clock
    round and round over Chesapeake Bay for flights lasting 15 h and succeeded
    in checking the time dilation prediction to better than 1%. Today, when
    atomic clocks are transported from one place to another for calibration or
    other purposes, the time dilation caused by their motion is always taken into
    account.
    As we have proved above that the displayed time of a clock is an invariant of Lorentz Transformation, the time differences of this case should not be regarded as the time dilation of Special Relativity, but other unknown causes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    As we have proved that any physical clock can't show time dilation, these observed "time dilation" phenomena just indicate some hidden secrets that wait for us to reveal.
    There are no "hidden secrets" with regards to time dilation. Relativity is quite clear about it and without contradiction with anything else.

    Suppose I start my clock at 1pm and look at it at 2pm. In this case, 1 hour has passed. If I look at it again at 3pm, then 2 hours have passed. In other words, the same clock has registered time intervals of 1 hour and 2 hours. But there is obviously no contradiction, is there? Time dilation in relativity is similar. Where people fail to understand this is generally the lack of understanding of the relativity of simultaneity.
    I never say Special Relativity has internal contradictions. What I want to say that Einstein made a critical mistake .
    Nope, Einstein made no mistake. But you are.

    particle lives won't show any time dilation.
    All the experiments with elementary particles disprove your statement. Start by studying the explanation of the presence of atmospheric muons at sea level.
    Please point out my errors with proper reasoning, not just a rude denial. Thanks!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Wiki
    The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.
    Hafele
    This is obviously fake because human operated flights around the earth would have errors not in nano-seconds, but minutes or even hours.
    The Hafele Keating experiment is not fake. You are delusional or a liar.
    One good thing about having a text book in PDF, is the ability to copy and paste. I do think, however, the experiment is more mentioned for historical value more than for it's precision.


    Macroscopic Clocks. In October 1971, Joseph Hafele and Richard Keating
    carried out what must have been a grueling experiment. They flew four
    portable atomic clocks twice around the world on commercial airlines, once in
    each direction. Their purpose was “to test Einstein’s theory of relativity with
    macroscopic clocks.” As we have just seen, the time dilation predictions of
    Einstein’s theory have been confirmed on a microscopic scale, but there is
    great comfort in seeing a confirmation made with an actual clock. Such macroscopic
    measurements became possible only because of the very high precision
    of modern atomic clocks. Hafele and Keating verified the predictions of the
    theory to within 10%. (Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which predicts
    that the rate at which time passes on a clock is influenced by the gravitational
    force on the clock, also plays a role in this experiment.)
    A few years later, physicists at the University of Maryland carried out a
    similar experiment with improved precision. They flew an atomic clock
    round and round over Chesapeake Bay for flights lasting 15 h and succeeded
    in checking the time dilation prediction to better than 1%. Today, when
    atomic clocks are transported from one place to another for calibration or
    other purposes, the time dilation caused by their motion is always taken into
    account.
    As we have proved above that the displayed time of a clock is an invariant of Lorentz Transformation, the time differences of this case should not be regarded as the time dilation of Special Relativity, but other unknown causes.
    ...and this is precisely why your "paper" landed in "Pseudoscience". "Trash" would have been equally appropriate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    As we have proved that any physical clock can't show time dilation, these observed "time dilation" phenomena just indicate some hidden secrets that wait for us to reveal.
    There are no "hidden secrets" with regards to time dilation. Relativity is quite clear about it and without contradiction with anything else.

    Suppose I start my clock at 1pm and look at it at 2pm. In this case, 1 hour has passed. If I look at it again at 3pm, then 2 hours have passed. In other words, the same clock has registered time intervals of 1 hour and 2 hours. But there is obviously no contradiction, is there? Time dilation in relativity is similar. Where people fail to understand this is generally the lack of understanding of the relativity of simultaneity.
    I never say Special Relativity has internal contradictions. What I want to say that Einstein made a critical mistake .
    Nope, Einstein made no mistake. But you are.

    particle lives won't show any time dilation.
    All the experiments with elementary particles disprove your statement. Start by studying the explanation of the presence of atmospheric muons at sea level.
    Please point out my errors with proper reasoning, not just a rude denial. Thanks!
    I already did. Your math is wrong (and I showed where) and experiments contradict your claims. Tough.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post

    As we have proved above that the displayed time of a clock is an invariant of Lorentz Transformation, the time differences of this case should not be regarded as the time dilation of Special Relativity, but other unknown causes.
    So, you're saying the equations for special relativity work, but for unknown reasons?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    KJW
    KJW is online now
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,346
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    As we have proved that any physical clock can't show time dilation, these observed "time dilation" phenomena just indicate some hidden secrets that wait for us to reveal.
    There are no "hidden secrets" with regards to time dilation. Relativity is quite clear about it and without contradiction with anything else.

    Suppose I start my clock at 1pm and look at it at 2pm. In this case, 1 hour has passed. If I look at it again at 3pm, then 2 hours have passed. In other words, the same clock has registered time intervals of 1 hour and 2 hours. But there is obviously no contradiction, is there? Time dilation in relativity is similar. Where people fail to understand this is generally the lack of understanding of the relativity of simultaneity.
    I never say Special Relativity has internal contradictions. What I want to say that Einstein made a critical mistake to use the displayed time as the time of Special Relativity and the properties of the time of Special Relativity to predict time dilation on moving clocks. Moreover, the time of Special Relativity can never be measured by any physical clocks and all physical processes including clocks and particle lives won't show any time dilation. Actually the time of Special Relativity is just an artificial variable which does not have any real physical meanings.
    Suppose we have two clocks: A and B. Clock A is at rest relative to me and clock B is moving at constant speed away from me. At the instant clocks A and B meet, they are both reset to zero. Suppose time displays on clock A. The question is: what time is displayed on clock B? But crucial to this question is what it means to be at the same time as the display of on clock A. Once it is established the event at which the worldline of clock B intersects the three-dimensional space of simultaneity at the display of on clock A, the display on clock B is . The clock readings themselves are invariant. But what changes with respect to the observer is the notion of simultaneity. This changes which events are being considered, and therefore the clock readings at those different events.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    KJW
    KJW is online now
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,346
    It should be noted that the time dilation of clock B is relative to the frame of reference defined by clock A. It is not a property of clock B itself. Clock B doesn't actually slow down.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    It should be noted that the time dilation of clock B is relative to the frame of reference defined by clock A. It is not a property of clock B itself. Clock B doesn't actually slow down.
    That is exactly the problem I would address: people always think that clocks directly measure time in Special |Relativity, but the reality is that a clock can only measure the result of a process during a period of time, not time itself in Special Relativity. This is because the displayed time and the time of Special Relativity are no longer equivalent in Special Relativity, where the result of a process during a period of time is the multiplication of time and the speed of process, both of which are variants of Lorentz Transformation and can't be separated. In Newton's mechanics, the speed of a physical process of a clock is an invariant of Galileo Transformation and constant in all inertial reference frame. Therefore, the result of the process can be calibrated to time by dividing the constant speed of the process.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    It should be noted that the time dilation of clock B is relative to the frame of reference defined by clock A. It is not a property of clock B itself. Clock B doesn't actually slow down.
    That is exactly the problem I would address: people always think that clocks directly measure time in Special |Relativity, but the reality is that a clock can only measure the result of a process during a period of time, not time itself in Special Relativity.
    Seriously? Time is defined as "the entity measured by a clock". It is amusing to see that you are not denying relativity only, you are denying the whole field of physics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    This is because the displayed time and the time of Special Relativity are no longer equivalent in Special Relativity
    What clocks physically measure in their own rest frame is proper time; what is determined for some other remote frame in relative motion is coordinate time. The two are not the same thing, unless the two frames are together at rest. Relative time dilation and length contraction ( which is the same phenomenon ) signify the relationship between two frames in relative motion, it is not something that "happens" to a clock or a ruler. That is already well understood, and really the whole raison d'être of Special Relativity ( in the sense that this relationship preserves separation between physical events ), so reading through this thread I fail to see what your point actually is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    This is because the displayed time and the time of Special Relativity are no longer equivalent in Special Relativity
    What clocks physically measure in their own rest frame is proper time; what is determined for some other remote frame in relative motion is coordinate time. The two are not the same thing, unless the two frames are together at rest. Relative time dilation and length contraction ( which is the same phenomenon ) signify the relationship between two frames in relative motion, it is not something that "happens" to a clock or a ruler. That is already well understood, and really the whole raison d'être of Special Relativity ( in the sense that this relationship preserves separation between physical events ), so reading through this thread I fail to see what your point actually is.
    We are talking about how a physical clock measure time, not about how to calculate proper time which depends on the path between two events. The most important discovery here is that a physical clock can never directly measure time, but only measure the result of a process during a period of time. In Newton's mechanics, the result of a process during a period of time can be calibrated to time by dividing the speed of the process because the speed of the process is an in variant of Galileo Transformation and is constant across all inertial reference frames. But in Special Relativity, the speed of the process is a variant of Lorentz Transformation, the result of a process during a period of time is the multiplication of time and the speed of the process, which can not be calibrated to time by dividing the speed of the process. Therefore, the time of Special Relativity cannot be measured by any physical clock. It is a mistake to use a physical clock as a time keeper in Special Relativity.

    On the other hand, the displayed time of a physical clock is the multiplication of time and the speed of a process. Time transformed from the frame of the moving clock to the stationary frame by Lorentz Transformation will increase by a factor and the speed of the process will decrease by the same factor after Lorentz Transformation, which makes the displayed time of a clock i.e. the multiplication remain unchanged. That is, the displayed time of any physical clock is an invariant of Lorents Transformation that can never show time dilation no matter how fast a clock moves. Similarly, the result of any general physical process is an invariant of Lorentz Transformation and will not show time dilation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post

    We are talking about how a physical clock measure time, not about how to calculate proper time which depends on the path between two events.
    The functionality of GPS proves that the two are one and the same.

    Therefore, the time of Special Relativity cannot be measured by any physical clock.
    Repeating the same BS doesn't make it true. No matter how many times you do it. I see that you have been a very busy bee.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post

    We are talking about how a physical clock measure time, not about how to calculate proper time which depends on the path between two events.
    The functionality of GPS proves that the two are one and the same.

    Therefore, the time of Special Relativity cannot be measured by any physical clock.
    Repeating the same BS doesn't make it true. No matter how many times you do it. I see that you have been a very busy bee.
    OK, let us have a look at an atomic clock used in GPS satellites.
    1. Do you agree that the clock counts the number of cycles of its oscillation instead of time directly?
    2. Do you agree that the number of cycles is equal to the multiplication of time and the frequency of the oscillation?
    3. Do you agree that the time transformed from the reference frame of the clock to the stationary reference frame (I.e. Earth frame) by Lorentz Transformation will increase by a factor r?
    4. Do you agree that the frequency will decrease by the same factor r after Lorentz Transformation?
    5. Do you agree that the number of cycles remains unchanged after Lorentz Transformation based on the above 2.,3. and 4. Statements?
    6. Do you agree that the displayed time (I.e. the number of cycles ) of the clock cannot show any time dilation?

    Please point out my error above. thanks!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post

    We are talking about how a physical clock measure time, not about how to calculate proper time which depends on the path between two events.
    The functionality of GPS proves that the two are one and the same.

    Therefore, the time of Special Relativity cannot be measured by any physical clock.
    Repeating the same BS doesn't make it true. No matter how many times you do it. I see that you have been a very busy bee.
    OK, let us have a look at an atomic clock used in GPS satellites.
    1. Do you agree that the clock counts the number of cycles of its oscillation instead of time directly?
    It is the same thing. Until you learn what a clock is, there is no point in continuing.



    6. Do you agree that the displayed time (I.e. the number of cycles ) of the clock cannot show any time dilation?
    Proper time does not exhibit time dilation. Coordinate time does. This was explained to you several times.

    Please point out my error above. thanks!
    I just did.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    3. Do you agree that the time transformed from the reference frame of the clock to the stationary reference frame (I.e. Earth frame) by Lorentz Transformation will increase by a factor r?
    4. Do you agree that the frequency will decrease by the same factor r after Lorentz Transformation?
    Let me correct two more of your misconceptions"

    3'.

    So, the coordinate time, t, is the one that "increases". The proper time is frame invariant.

    4'. Nope, frequency decreases OR increases, nothing to do with the way time transforms. It has to do with the relative motion source-receiver. Google "Doppler effect".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    KJW
    KJW is online now
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,346
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    The most important discovery here is that a physical clock can never directly measure time, but only measure the result of a process during a period of time.
    If physical clocks don't measure time, then what actually is "a period of time".
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    The most important discovery here is that a physical clock can never directly measure time
    That is trivially wrong by virtue of time in physics being defined to be what clocks measure : Time in physics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    You may choose to disagree with this operational definition, however, by doing so you leave the domain of physics and enter philosophy and metaphysics instead.

    That is, the displayed time of any physical clock is an invariant of Lorents Transformation that can never show time dilation no matter how fast a clock moves.
    Of course proper time is invariant under Lorentz transformations; relative time dilation is a coordinate effect, after all. This has been well known and understood for over a century now, so I still don't get what your point actually is. Special relativity is about how measurements in different frames are related to one another in space-time, so a single clock or a single ruler will never allow you to observe time dilation or length contraction, or else observers in relative motion would experience different laws of physics, which is manifestly not the case.

    We already know all of this, so what is your point, really ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    xinhangshen, I urge you at this point to take a step back and articulate clearly what your assertion actually is, because to be honest I don't see your point other than that the currently accepted definition of "time" in physics ( being what clocks measure ) is somehow not to your liking. If this is so, then please propose an alternative definition that still preserves the known and established laws of physics, and we will have a look at it for you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post

    We already know all of this, so what is your point, really ?
    It is encapsulated in the Conclusion section of his "paper":

    Conclusion
    Though Special Relativity is beautiful in mathematical formulation, it remains a mathematical theory without any way to land on the physical world as its time can't be measured by any clock. All its predictions are pure imaginations. There is no such thing called time dilation in the physical world. People will never be able to travel to the past or future.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    xinhangshen, I urge you at this point to take a step back and articulate clearly what your assertion actually is, because to be honest I don't see your point other than that the currently accepted definition of "time" in physics ( being what clocks measure ) is somehow not to your liking. If this is so, then please propose an alternative definition that still preserves the known and established laws of physics, and we will have a look at it for you.

    The time of Special Relativity is a new variable that is no longer the same thing as the time of Newton's mechanics, but Einstein and all his believers mistakenly use physical clocks to count the new variable - the time of Special Relativity. All physical clocks can only count Newton's time because every physical clock in the world is based on one assumption that the frequency of its oscillator is a constant across all inertial reference frames. A clock just needs to count the number of the cycles of the oscillation which can be calibrated to time by dividing the constant frequency.

    But in Special Relativity, this assumption is no longer valid because the frequency depends on the speed of the reference frame. The number of cycles of oscillation is the multiplication of time and frequency and can't be calibrated as time by dividing the frame speed dependent frequency. Therefore, any physical clock cannot display correct time in Special Relativity.

    Regarding proper time and coordinate time, let's discuss an atomic clock of a GPS satellite. In Special Relativity, though the coordinate time of the clock in the earth frame is the proper time of the clock multiplied by a factor
    γ, the time message we receive from the satellite is not the time of Special Relativity but the number of cycles of oscillation divided by a constant frequency. This number of cycles is an invariant of Lorentz Transformation and will remain unchanged from the clock frame to the earth frame after Lorentz Transformation. Therefore, this time (i.e. the displayed time of the clock) will never show time dilation.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    xinhangshen, I urge you at this point to take a step back and articulate clearly what your assertion actually is, because to be honest I don't see your point other than that the currently accepted definition of "time" in physics ( being what clocks measure ) is somehow not to your liking. If this is so, then please propose an alternative definition that still preserves the known and established laws of physics, and we will have a look at it for you.

    The time of Special Relativity is a new variable that is no longer the same thing as the time of Newton's mechanics, but Einstein and all his believers mistakenly use physical clocks to count the new variable - the time of Special Relativity. A

    Told ya!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    the frequency depends on the speed of the reference frame.
    No it doesn't. As we have been saying to you multiple times, a single clock never shows time dilation, regardless of its state of relative motion. If you are together with the clock in question, its frequency doesn't magically change just because it is moving. Time dilation is the relationship between more than one clock in space-time. Your entire claim is based on a failure to understand the nature of measurements and frames.

    Regarding proper time and coordinate time, let's discuss an atomic clock of a GPS satellite.
    The time dilation in GPS satellites is made up of both relative time dilation and gravitational time dilation, which are distinct phenomena. Here is how it's done : http://www.triangulum.nl/Werkgroepen...PS%20essay.pdf

    This number of cycles is an invariant of Lorentz Transformation and will remain unchanged from the clock frame to the earth frame after Lorentz Transformation.
    No, because neither the Earth frame nor the satellite frame are inertial; they are not related via Lorentz transformations. Of course you still have to account for their relative velocity, but by far the larger contribution arises from the difference in gravitational potential - see link above. This is all really basic stuff, and the fact that you don't seem to know these things makes me question on what grounds you come here to argue your personal theories, other than being just another anti-relativist.

    Therefore, this time (i.e. the displayed time of the clock) will never show time dilation.
    You are right in that neither Earth clock nor satellite clock on their own show time dilation, as has been said many times now. However, when you compare the two you will find time dilation ( of both types ) as expected; the proof lies in the fact that the GPS system works at all, because it explicitly compensates for this effect.

    The time of Special Relativity is a new variable that is no longer the same thing as the time of Newton's mechanics
    In Relativity, measurements of space and time are observer-dependent quantities, so we are no longer dealing with Newtonian physics. That's kind of the point of the whole exercise.

    Therefore, any physical clock cannot display correct time in Special Relativity.
    What clocks physically display is by definition the "correct time". In physics, there is no time other than what clocks physically display; the job of Special Relativity is quite simply to ensure that this is true in all frames regardless of their state of relative motion. Relativity relates measurements taken in different frames to one another, and it does a very good job at it, as is easily tested via experiment and observation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    it remains a mathematical theory without any way to land on the physical world as its time can't be measured by any clock. All its predictions are pure imaginations. There is no such thing called time dilation in the physical world.
    Do you own an old-style mercury thermometer ? The mercury in it is liquid because of Special Relativistic effects. Or do we only imagine it being liquid ?
    Have you ever owned a CRT television ? It displays a picture only because we correctly account for relativistic effects in the motion of the electrons. Or do we only imagine there being a picture on screen ?
    Do you wear gold jewellery ? It is gold in colour only because of relativistic effects. Or is the gold colour pure imagination ?

    And the list goes on and on.

    Not only is relativity an integral part of how the universe works, it is also present in our everyday world, in unexpected and surprising places. Furthermore, it is utilised, tested and observed on a daily basis in all manner of scientific and engineering applications ( think nuclear reactors, particle accelerators etc etc ) - your claim that its predictions are pure imagination is so manifestly meaningless that it is really quite laughable. But don't feel bad - anti-relativism is one of the staples on this and all other forums, and it crops up every so often; a lot of people just can't get their heads around the idea that the universe is anything other then Newtonian and Euclidean in nature. Fact is though, that relativity is one of the most extensively tested theories in all of physics, so it has become part of the mainstream for a reason; no amount of philosophising and rhetorics will ever change that. I leave you with this list, which is far from comprehensive, but a good starting point nonetheless :

    Modern Tests of Relativity

    I will soon expand this list with a few recent experiments, once I got the time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    the frequency depends on the speed of the reference frame.
    No it doesn't. As we have been saying to you multiple times, a single clock never shows time dilation, regardless of its state of relative motion. If you are together with the clock in question, its frequency doesn't magically change just because it is moving. Time dilation is the relationship between more than one clock in space-time. Your entire claim is based on a failure to understand the nature of measurements and frames.

    Regarding proper time and coordinate time, let's discuss an atomic clock of a GPS satellite.
    The time dilation in GPS satellites is made up of both relative time dilation and gravitational time dilation, which are distinct phenomena. Here is how it's done : http://www.triangulum.nl/Werkgroepen...PS%20essay.pdf

    This number of cycles is an invariant of Lorentz Transformation and will remain unchanged from the clock frame to the earth frame after Lorentz Transformation.
    No, because neither the Earth frame nor the satellite frame are inertial; they are not related via Lorentz transformations. Of course you still have to account for their relative velocity, but by far the larger contribution arises from the difference in gravitational potential - see link above. This is all really basic stuff, and the fact that you don't seem to know these things makes me question on what grounds you come here to argue your personal theories, other than being just another anti-relativist.

    Therefore, this time (i.e. the displayed time of the clock) will never show time dilation.
    You are right in that neither Earth clock nor satellite clock on their own show time dilation, as has been said many times now. However, when you compare the two you will find time dilation ( of both types ) as expected; the proof lies in the fact that the GPS system works at all, because it explicitly compensates for this effect.

    The time of Special Relativity is a new variable that is no longer the same thing as the time of Newton's mechanics
    In Relativity, measurements of space and time are observer-dependent quantities, so we are no longer dealing with Newtonian physics. That's kind of the point of the whole exercise.

    Therefore, any physical clock cannot display correct time in Special Relativity.
    What clocks physically display is by definition the "correct time". In physics, there is no time other than what clocks physically display; the job of Special Relativity is quite simply to ensure that this is true in all frames regardless of their state of relative motion. Relativity relates measurements taken in different frames to one another, and it does a very good job at it, as is easily tested via experiment and observation.
    No matter whether it is caused by speed, acceleration or gravitation in a small coordinate time interval, any small changes of the proper time of a clock relative to the coordinate time will be accompanied by a small change of the "proper" frequency of the oscillator relative to the frequency of the stationary clock which will make the multiplication - the number of cycles of the oscillation unchanged. After an integration along the path for the clock from the stationary origin to the final satellite track, the proper time of the clock has been changed relative to the coordinate time, the "proper" frequency of the oscillation of the clock will also change exactly by the same factor inversely, which will make the displayed time of the clock (the number of cycles of oscillation) unchanged relative to the number of cycles of the stationary clock. The satellite sends back to us not the proper time but the number of cycles divided by its original manufacturer set frequency of oscillation (not the "proper" frequency of oscillation), therefore, the time in the message will never be different from the displayed time of the stationary clock. There will be no time dilation caused by either motion or gravitation that can be noticed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    42
    On the other hand, the twin paradox has led to the failure of all physical clocks. This is because the paradox makes the time of a clock depend on its history (i.e. paths). If we don't know the history of a clock, we can't say whether it is correct or not. Therefore, all physical clocks can't tell the time of Special Relativity if you don't know their histories.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post

    The satellite sends back to us not the proper time but the number of cycles divided by its original manufacturer set frequency of oscillation (not the "proper" frequency of oscillation), therefore, the time in the message will never be different from the displayed time of the stationary clock. There will be no time dilation caused by either motion or gravitation that can be noticed.
    Actually, what you posted is just a collection of lies. The differences in total elapsed proper time at the satellite and at the GPS receiver end were so noticeable when the system was started without the GR corrections that the cars were missing turns by more than a block withing the first hour of testing. Once the scientists turned on the relativistic corrections, the system functioned correctly. Reality differs from your fantasies.

    On the other hand, the twin paradox has led to the failure of all physical clocks. This is because the paradox makes the time of a clock depend on its history (i.e. paths). If we don't know the history of a clock, we can't say whether it is correct or not. Therefore, all physical clocks can't tell the time of Special Relativity if you don't know their histories.
    And since the total elapsed time does depend on the spacetime path taken by the clock, you are forced to admit that special relativity is correct in its predictions. Game out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    KJW
    KJW is online now
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,346
    I think it needs to be remarked that there is no such thing as absolute time in relativity. In other words, one can't associate a point in spacetime with time. The twin clock "paradox" shows that the time interval between two given points depends on the path between them. In more technical language, it can be said that in the metric expression:



    is not an exact differential and there is no spacetime function .
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    42
    OK, let me to put things even simpler. If there are two identical clocks synchronized, at the beginning, they are all stationary. Then one starts to move and the other remains stationary. As I mentioned above, any time expansion of the moving clock due to the motion (speed and/or acceleration) will be accompanied by a decrease of the frequency of the oscillation of the moving clock, which will make the displayed time of the moving clock (i.e. the number of the cycles of oscillation) remain unchanged relative to the stationary clock. Therefore, no time dilation can be observed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    OK, let me to put things even simpler. If there are two identical clocks synchronized, at the beginning, they are all stationary. Then one starts to move and the other remains stationary. As I mentioned above, any time expansion of the moving clock due to the motion (speed and/or acceleration) will be accompanied by a decrease of the frequency of the oscillation of the moving clock, which will make the displayed time of the moving clock (i.e. the number of the cycles of oscillation) remain unchanged relative to the stationary clock. Therefore, no time dilation can be observed.
    Experiment disproves your claim. GPS functionality proves your claim false every minute, every second of every day. You can also try reading about the Hafele-Keating experiment. Or you can continue to post nonsense. Your choice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    will be accompanied by a decrease of the frequency of the oscillation of the moving clock, which will make the displayed time of the moving clock (i.e. the number of the cycles of oscillation) remain unchanged relative to the stationary clock.
    This is an obvious self-contradiction - in fact this is exactly the type of contradiction that Special Relativity prevents from happening

    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen
    therefore, the time in the message will never be different from the displayed time of the stationary clock.
    And yet it is different when it is received, because the two frames don't share the same notion of simultaneity. This is why the GPS system has to be adjusted for this effect, as explained and calculated in the link I gave.

    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen
    Therefore, no time dilation can be observed.
    Tell that those muons which we continue to detect here, even though without SR they should have decayed long before reaching the Earth's surface.
    Just continuously repeating the same sentences does not make them any less wrong, you know.

    Quote Originally Posted by KJW
    I think it needs to be remarked that there is no such thing as absolute time in relativity. In other words, one can't associate a point in spacetime with time. The twin clock "paradox" shows that the time interval between two given points depends on the path between them. In more technical language, it can be said that in the metric expression:



    is not an exact differential and there is no spacetime function .
    Yes, exactly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    KJW
    KJW is online now
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,346
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    OK, let me to put things even simpler. If there are two identical clocks synchronized, at the beginning, they are all stationary. Then one starts to move and the other remains stationary. As I mentioned above, any time expansion of the moving clock due to the motion (speed and/or acceleration) will be accompanied by a decrease of the frequency of the oscillation of the moving clock, which will make the displayed time of the moving clock (i.e. the number of the cycles of oscillation) remain unchanged relative to the stationary clock. Therefore, no time dilation can be observed.
    I'll repeat:

    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    the time interval between two given points depends on the path between them
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    42
    Here are some questions that may help you understand my point:

    1. When an atomic clock moves from the earth to the track of a satellite track, is the frequency of the oscillation observed on the frame attached to the clock still identical to the frequency of the oscillation of its identical atomic clock on the earth observed on the earth?
    2. If the frequency has changed, does it mean that the moving clock not working even observed in its own reference frame?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    KJW
    KJW is online now
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,346
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    Here are some questions that may help you understand my point:

    1. When an atomic clock moves from the earth to the track of a satellite track, is the frequency of the oscillation observed on the frame attached to the clock still identical to the frequency of the oscillation of its identical atomic clock on the earth observed on the earth?
    2. If the frequency has changed, does it mean that the moving clock not working even observed in its own reference frame?
    In the frame of reference of the clock itself, its oscillation frequency does not change regardless of its location or motion (even if accelerated or in a gravitational field).
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    Here are some questions that may help you understand my point:

    1. When an atomic clock moves from the earth to the track of a satellite track, is the frequency of the oscillation observed on the frame attached to the clock still identical to the frequency of the oscillation of its identical atomic clock on the earth observed on the earth?
    2. If the frequency has changed, does it mean that the moving clock not working even observed in its own reference frame?
    In the frame of reference of the clock itself, its oscillation frequency does not change regardless of its location or motion (even if accelerated or in a gravitational field).
    Good! Now let us see the contradiction:

    If there are two identical and synchronized atomic clocks at the same location in the beginning, the displayed times of the two clocks (i.e. the numbers of cycles of oscillation of the two clocks) are identical in the beginning.

    Then one clock starts moving. Since the number of cycles of a clock is an invariant of Lorentz Transformation, any new addition of the number of cycles of the moving clock transformed to the earth frame will be the same number of addition of the number of the cycles of the stationary clock during the time equal to the time of the moving clock transformed from the clock frame to the earth frame.

    Thus, the displayed time of the moving clock transformed to the earth frame will remain identical to the displayed time of the stationary clock after any small interval on the path. An integration along the entire path will result in the same conclusion.

    Therefore, the displayed times of the two clocks will not show time dilation no matter how fast the moving clock gets accelerated or moved.

    If the frequency of oscillation observed in the moving clock frame is still the frequency set by the manufacturer, the displayed time is the time of the reference frame, then the identical time of the two clocks will contradict to the time transformation formula of Lorentz Transformation.

    Here the most important thing to mention is that the two clocks have the same displayed time at the very beginning, which make the displayed time always the same when they are all transformed to the earth frame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    Here are some questions that may help you understand my point:

    1. When an atomic clock moves from the earth to the track of a satellite track, is the frequency of the oscillation observed on the frame attached to the clock still identical to the frequency of the oscillation of its identical atomic clock on the earth observed on the earth?
    Not as observed on Earth. Refer to GPS theory to understand why.

    2. If the frequency has changed, does it mean that the moving clock not working even observed in its own reference frame?
    Nope. This is the part that you do not get, the clock still ticks at the rate of 1second per second in its comoving frame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    Here are some questions that may help you understand my point:

    1. When an atomic clock moves from the earth to the track of a satellite track, is the frequency of the oscillation observed on the frame attached to the clock still identical to the frequency of the oscillation of its identical atomic clock on the earth observed on the earth?
    2. If the frequency has changed, does it mean that the moving clock not working even observed in its own reference frame?
    In the frame of reference of the clock itself, its oscillation frequency does not change regardless of its location or motion (even if accelerated or in a gravitational field).
    Good! Now let us see the contradiction:

    If there are two identical and synchronized atomic clocks at the same location in the beginning, the displayed times of the two clocks (i.e. the numbers of cycles of oscillation of the two clocks) are identical in the beginning.

    Then one clock starts moving.

    <snip nonsense>


    Here the most important thing to mention is that the two clocks have the same displayed time at the very beginning, which make the displayed time always the same when they are all transformed to the earth frame.
    Err, nope. The two clocks will show the same time only while they are next to each other. When one of the clocks starts moving they get desynchronized. As confirmed by countless experiments.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    42
    Maybe the easier way to do the comparison is as follows:

    Assume we have two atomic clocks which have the same frequency observed on the earth reference frame. One of it is moving at a constant speed, and the other remains stationary. When they meet, their time has been synchronized. Therefore, on the earth frame, their times are always synchronized.

    Now let us observe the two clocks on the moving clock's reference frame. Since the number of cycles of each clock is an invariant of Lorentz Transformation, we will see both clocks in the reference frame of the moving clock have the same displayed times (i.e. the numbers of cycles). They are still synchronized.

    Therefore, we can say that the displayed times of all clocks are invariants of Lorentz Transformation and will not change after Lorentz Transformation.

    The very big mistake of Einstein in comparing clocks is that he already assumed the moving clock move has slower time shown on the clock. That's the wrong comparison. We should compare two clocks having the same displayed time in one reference frame at all time, and then to compare them on the other reference frame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    Maybe the easier way to do the comparison is as follows:

    Assume we have two atomic clocks which have the same frequency observed on the earth reference frame. One of it is moving at a constant speed, and the other remains stationary. When they meet, their time has been synchronized.
    We can stop right here, you clearly do not understand the notion of "synchronized".

    The very big mistake of Einstein in comparing clocks is that he already assumed the moving clock move has slower time shown on the clock.
    The biggest mistake Einstein made was hoping that people like you will ever understand his theories.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    The very big mistake of Einstein in comparing clocks is that he already assumed the moving clock move has slower time shown on the clock.
    No, what Einstein assumed is that all inertially moving observers experience the same laws of physics. The Lorentz transformations and all of SR follows from this as a logical and necessary consequence.

    We should compare two clocks having the same displayed time in one reference frame at all time
    There is no concept of "universal time" in relativity, so the notion of comparing clocks "at the same time" is meaningless.

    and then to compare them on the other reference frame
    ...which automatically gives you time dilation and length contraction.

    Therefore, we can say that the displayed times of all clocks are invariants of Lorentz Transformation and will not change after Lorentz Transformation.
    We all know that proper time is invariant under Lorentz transformations, that's the whole point of SR. You don't need to repeat this over and over again. Relative time dilation has no effect on recorded proper time ( unlike gravitational time dilation ), it effects only coordinate time - this has been pointed out to you more than once now. If you don't understand the difference between coordinate time and proper time, then just ask and we will explain it to you; it seems this is where your problem in understanding this is to be found.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    42
    Therefore, we can say that the displayed times of all clocks are invariants of Lorentz Transformation and will not change after Lorentz Transformation.
    We all know that proper time is invariant under Lorentz transformations, that's the whole point of SR. You don't need to repeat this over and over again. Relative time dilation has no effect on recorded proper time ( unlike gravitational time dilation ), it effects only coordinate time - this has been pointed out to you more than once now. If you don't understand the difference between coordinate time and proper time, then just ask and we will explain it to you; it seems this is where your problem in understanding this is to be found.[/QUOTE]

    No, that's not what I mean. Here is what I mean:

    If the displayed time (i.e. the number of cycles of oscillation) of multiple clocks with same oscillation frequency moving at different constant speeds are the same observed on one inertial reference frame, then the displayed time of the clocks will be the same on all inertial reference frames. That is, all the clocks will display one single time in all reference frames.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    42
    That is the real physical time that is unique across the universe on all reference frames. The time of Special Relativity is just an artificial variable that don't have any real physical meaning.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,937
    Repeating your unsupported claims1 does not magically make it true...

    1. Not only unsupported but contradicted by experiment. Why do you prefer your made up stuff to reality?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Repeating your unsupported claims1 does not magically make it true...

    1. Not only unsupported but contradicted by experiment. Why do you prefer your made up stuff to reality?
    Please use your reasoning in the debate! Which is my made-up stuff in the following:

    1. Can we observe the displayed times (i.e. the numbers of cycles) of multiple clocks moving at different constant speeds in one inertial reference frame?
    2. Can we observe the frequencies of multiple clocks moving at different speeds in one inertial reference frame?
    3. Can we compare the observed results in one inertial reference frame?
    4. Are the displayed times of the clocks are invariants of Lorentz Transformation?
    5. If they (the displayed times) are same observed on one inertial reference frame, are they still the same observed on another inertial reference frame?
    6. If they are the same value observed on all inertial reference frames, does that mean that the displayed time is the same across the universe no matter on which inertial reference frame?
    7. Is this unique time more close to your intuitive time that is unique and monotonically progresses?
    8. Is it more reasonable to use this unique physical property as a measure of the physical time than to use the frame dependent time of Special Relativity as a measure of the physical time?
    9. Using this displayed time as a measure of physical time, can these things (time dilation, traveling to the past or future) happen?

    Please just take another look and think thoroughly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,937
    Please use your reasoning in the debate!
    What debate? You post crap, people point out it is crap, that is not a debate, your use of the word "debate" implies your position is reasonable and worthy of consideration, as you have provided no evidence except your own claims and it is contradicted by experiment it isn't...

    "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

    Which is my made-up stuff in the following:
    You have already been given this information in this thread (try scrolling up) the fact you have ignored the refutations of your nonsense leads me to think I would be wasting my time on you...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Please use your reasoning in the debate!
    What debate? You post crap, people point out it is crap, that is not a debate, your use of the word "debate" implies your position is reasonable and worthy of consideration, as you have provided no evidence except your own claims and it is contradicted by experiment it isn't...

    "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

    Which is my made-up stuff in the following:
    You have already been given this information in this thread (try scrolling up) the fact you have ignored the refutations of your nonsense leads me to think I would be wasting my time on you...
    Too bad! If you don't have time, nobody asks you to answer!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,937
    ...and as you have shown you don't listen to answers and just carry on with your delusions I'm guessing no one else will have much time for you either and you'll fade away like all the other cranks...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    ...and as you have shown you don't listen to answers and just carry on with your delusions I'm guessing no one else will have much time for you either and you'll fade away like all the other cranks...
    It seems that you have plenty time to insult people but never think of the real debate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,937
    As I've said there is no debate (if you ever read or tried to understand the replies you get you might have noticed this), also I only insult people who demonstrate gross stupidity and/or a complete failure to think rationally...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    42
    Go ahead to pour out all your insulting words! I hope it will help cleaning your brain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,937
    you'll fade away like all the other cranks...


    http://gifshost.com/052011/1304618376_tumbleweed-gif.webm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    That is, all the clocks will display one single time in all reference frames.
    No such "universal time" exists or can exist, since relatively moving frames don't share a common notion of simultaneity. That's common sense, since the causal structure must be contained within each observer's light cone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    That is, all the clocks will display one single time in all reference frames.
    No such "universal time" exists or can exist, since relatively moving frames don't share a common notion of simultaneity. That's common sense, since the causal structure must be contained within each observer's light cone.
    Your claim is just the result of believing the time of Special Relativity. Please open your mind and use reasoning to compare the definitions of the physical time:
    1. the displayed time of a physical clock that is unique in the universe observed on all inertial reference frames and monotonically progresses. It can make history written clearly along the time line.
    2. the time of Special Relativity that is inertial reference frame dependent and makes people crazy to figure out the time sequence. Nobody can really write history due to the lack of a universal time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    42
    What was Einstein's philosophy? “If the facts don‘t fit the theory, change the facts.” -Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    What was Einstein's philosophy? “If the facts don‘t fit the theory, change the facts.” -Albert Einstein
    I can't help but think of Maxwell.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    What was Einstein's philosophy? “If the facts don‘t fit the theory, change the facts.” -Albert Einstein
    You are getting very close to a permanent ban. Misquoting Einstein here puts you closer to the edge.

    If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.
    • This seems one of the more highly dubious statements attributed to Einstein, but it has become widely attributed to him on the internet without any definite source; it seems that this might be a case of an unknown originator seeking to practice what is preached.
    • Searching for "facts don't fit" and "change the facts" on google books turns up this 1958 book which apparently says on p. 9: 'There is an age-old adage, "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the theory." But too often it's easier to keep the theory and change the facts.' And this search shows that before that there was a popular variant, used for example by Charles Darwin's brother Erasmus, which goes something like "if the facts won't fit, then so much worse for the facts". Hypnosifl 06:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
    Talk:Albert Einstein - Wikiquote
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    KJW
    KJW is online now
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,346
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    Assume we have two atomic clocks which have the same frequency observed on the earth reference frame. One of it is moving at a constant speed, and the other remains stationary. When they meet, their time has been synchronized. Therefore, on the earth frame, their times are always synchronized.
    No. If one atomic clock is moving relative to another atomic clock, then they do not have the same frequency in the one frame of reference. They have the same frequency in their own frames of reference (two different frames of reference). Thus, the clocks do not remain synchronised in the one frame of reference.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    Assume we have two atomic clocks which have the same frequency observed on the earth reference frame. One of it is moving at a constant speed, and the other remains stationary. When they meet, their time has been synchronized. Therefore, on the earth frame, their times are always synchronized.
    No. If one atomic clock is moving relative to another atomic clock, then they do not have the same frequency in the one frame of reference. They have the same frequency in their own frames of reference (two different frames of reference). Thus, the clocks do not remain synchronised in the one frame of reference.
    I have explained the above to him three times. Doesn't take, will NEVER take.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    KJW
    KJW is online now
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,346
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    4. Are the displayed times of the clocks are invariants of Lorentz Transformation?
    It seems to me that this is where you are failing. As it stands, the sentence is correct, but you are interpreting it incorrectly and drawing the wrong conclusions from it. If a clock registers an interval of 1 second in one frame of reference, it registers 1 second in all frames of reference. But that says nothing about other clocks in other frames of reference.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    Assume we have two atomic clocks which have the same frequency observed on the earth reference frame. One of it is moving at a constant speed, and the other remains stationary. When they meet, their time has been synchronized. Therefore, on the earth frame, their times are always synchronized.
    No. If one atomic clock is moving relative to another atomic clock, then they do not have the same frequency in the one frame of reference. They have the same frequency in their own frames of reference (two different frames of reference). Thus, the clocks do not remain synchronised in the one frame of reference.
    In your situation, your conclusion is perfectly right because of the difference of frequencies. But what I said is a different situation in which the moving clock has exactly the same displayed time and same frequency observed on the stationary frame as those of the stationary clock when they meet observed on the earth frame. That is, they have the same displayed time all the time observed in the stationary frame. Because of the invariance of the displayed time after Lorentz Transformation, these two clocks will remain the same displayed time observed on the moving frame attached to the moving clock as well. They are completely symmetric, you can't say which goes faster or slower in any reference frame. Therefore, their displayed time will remain one single time no matter which reference frame you are at to observe the clocks.

    If we have one standard clock maintained on the earth. If all other clocks, no matter whether they are moving or not, are synchronized with that standard clock on the earth frame (i.e. the displayed time and the frequency of any clock are the same as those of the stationary standard clock observed in the earth frame), then these clocks will maintain exactly the same displayed time of the standard clock no matter where you observe the clocks. This standard time can be regarded as the universal time. All our history can be ordered according to this standard time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post

    If we have one standard clock maintained on the earth. If all other clocks, no matter whether they are moving or not, are synchronized with that standard clock on the earth frame (i.e. the displayed time and the frequency of any clock are the same as those of the stationary standard clock observed in the earth frame), then these clocks will maintain exactly the same displayed time of the standard clock no matter where you observe the clocks. This standard time can be regarded as the universal time. All our history can be ordered according to this standard time.
    well, they do that routinely with the GPS. Except that, contrary to your fringe ideas, the "synchronization" an only b maintained by slowing down the frequency of the atomic clocks on the satellites wrt the frequency of the clocks left behind on Earth. Before you criticize relativity, you need to LEARN relativity. You do NOT know relativity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post

    If we have one standard clock maintained on the earth. If all other clocks, no matter whether they are moving or not, are synchronized with that standard clock on the earth frame (i.e. the displayed time and the frequency of any clock are the same as those of the stationary standard clock observed in the earth frame), then these clocks will maintain exactly the same displayed time of the standard clock no matter where you observe the clocks. This standard time can be regarded as the universal time. All our history can be ordered according to this standard time.
    well, they do that routinely with the GPS. Except that, contrary to your fringe ideas, the "synchronization" an only b maintained by slowing down the frequency of the atomic clocks on the satellites wrt the frequency of the clocks left behind on Earth. Before you criticize relativity, you need to LEARN relativity. You do NOT know relativity.
    The correction for the clock on a GPS satellite perfectly means that relativity has problems. Here is the reasoning.

    After correction, the clock on the GPS satellite is perfectly symmetric to the clock on the earth. That is, their displayed times are not only the same when observed on the earth frame, but also the same when observed on the frame attached to the satellite. Therefore, the symmetric property means that these two clocks are identical after correction, which clearly indicates that he frequency change of the satellite clock before correction is caused by other factors.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    After correction, the clock on the GPS satellite is perfectly symmetric to the clock on the earth.
    No it isn't, because they are not at the same gravitational potential. Did you even look at the article I referenced earlier ? It seems not.

    That is, their displayed times are not only the same when observed on the earth frame, but also the same when observed on the frame attached to the satellite.
    That is trivially wrong, because if that were so, no correction would be required at all. That is obviously not what we find.

    The correction for the clock on a GPS satellite perfectly means that relativity has problems.
    The exact opposite is the case. Without taking into account relativistic corrections, the GPS network quite simply wouldn't work - hence relativity is a valid and experimentally verified model.

    1. the displayed time of a physical clock that is unique in the universe observed on all inertial reference frames and monotonically progresses. It can make history written clearly along the time line.
    Such a clock does not exist. If it did, all observers in relative motion would necessarily see different laws of physics, which is manifestly not the case, so you are wrong.

    Your claim is just the result of believing the time of Special Relativity.
    No, it is a result of the empirical observation that all observers in relative motion experience the same laws of physics, which is something you seem to deny. Specifically, it is the result of the fact that Maxwell's laws are valid in all inertial frames, which precludes the possibility of a "universal time".

    Please open your mind and use reasoning
    I was going to suggest the same to you, but...ah well
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    After correction, the clock on the GPS satellite is perfectly symmetric to the clock on the earth.
    No it isn't, because they are not at the same gravitational potential. Did you even look at the article I referenced earlier ? It seems not.
    Of course in real situation, the satellite frame is no longer an inertial frame. It's just a simplification trying to show that the corrected clock is identical to the one on the earth.
    That is, their displayed times are not only the same when observed on the earth frame, but also the same when observed on the frame attached to the satellite.
    That is trivially wrong, because if that were so, no correction would be required at all. That is obviously not what we find.
    The correction is to correct the errors caused by other factors, not the effects of relativity.
    [QUOATE]
    The correction for the clock on a GPS satellite perfectly means that relativity has problems.
    The exact opposite is the case. Without taking into account relativistic corrections, the GPS network quite simply wouldn't work - hence relativity is a valid and experimentally verified model.[/QUOTE]

    That's the question waiting for us to answer.

    1. the displayed time of a physical clock that is unique in the universe observed on all inertial reference frames and monotonically progresses. It can make history written clearly along the time line.
    Such a clock does not exist. If it did, all observers in relative motion would necessarily see different laws of physics, which is manifestly not the case, so you are wrong.
    That can be just the current standard clock in the world.

    Relativity is incorrect and does not solve the problems of the transformation of physics laws.

    Now it has been clear that all the previous arguments a century ago about light and Maxwell's equations are becoming open again:
    1. Is light really travelling at a constant speed in all inertial reference frames?
    2. Is there really an absolute static inertial reference frame in the universe?
    3. If there is an independent time and the space is 3-dimensional, is the center of the Big Bang the center of the universe?
    4. Is there any media really existing for light and other electromagnetic waves to travel?
    5. If there is no absolute static inertial reference frame, shall we add new parts into Maxwell's equations to keep the invariance of Maxwell Equations transformed among inertial reference frames?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post

    If we have one standard clock maintained on the earth. If all other clocks, no matter whether they are moving or not, are synchronized with that standard clock on the earth frame (i.e. the displayed time and the frequency of any clock are the same as those of the stationary standard clock observed in the earth frame), then these clocks will maintain exactly the same displayed time of the standard clock no matter where you observe the clocks. This standard time can be regarded as the universal time. All our history can be ordered according to this standard time.
    well, they do that routinely with the GPS. Except that, contrary to your fringe ideas, the "synchronization" an only b maintained by slowing down the frequency of the atomic clocks on the satellites wrt the frequency of the clocks left behind on Earth. Before you criticize relativity, you need to LEARN relativity. You do NOT know relativity.
    The correction for the clock on a GPS satellite perfectly means that relativity has problems.
    Nope, it means that you have problems in understanding relativity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    Relativity is incorrect and does not solve the problems of the transformation of physics laws.
    Really ? So you are claiming that the metric is not invariant under Lorentz transformations ? I am looking forward to a detailed mathematical proof of that

    The correction is to correct the errors caused by other factors,
    What exactly are these "factors" ? Provide peer reviewed evidence that those same factors are present in all of these experiments : Modern Tests of Relativity

    That can be just the current standard clock in the world.
    No it can't, because that is an arbitrary choice and I might just as well pick the clock in my satellite as my standard, and find that they disagree. And no, there are no other "factors" involved.

    Now it has been clear that all the previous arguments a century ago about light and Maxwell's equations are becoming open again
    These arguments are settled, both theoretically and experimentally. You just saying otherwise does not carry much meaning.

    shall we add new parts into Maxwell's equations to keep the invariance of Maxwell Equations transformed among inertial reference frames
    Maxwell's equations are not just locally Lorentz invariant, but also generally covariant; I'd like to see you try emulating this by modifying the equations without breaking any laws of electromagnetism on the way. Go on, we are waiting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    KJW
    KJW is online now
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,346
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    Assume we have two atomic clocks which have the same frequency observed on the earth reference frame. One of it is moving at a constant speed, and the other remains stationary. When they meet, their time has been synchronized. Therefore, on the earth frame, their times are always synchronized.
    No. If one atomic clock is moving relative to another atomic clock, then they do not have the same frequency in the one frame of reference. They have the same frequency in their own frames of reference (two different frames of reference). Thus, the clocks do not remain synchronised in the one frame of reference.
    In your situation, your conclusion is perfectly right because of the difference of frequencies. But what I said is a different situation in which the moving clock has exactly the same displayed time and same frequency observed on the stationary frame as those of the stationary clock when they meet observed on the earth frame. That is, they have the same displayed time all the time observed in the stationary frame.
    I'm considering two identical clocks in motion relative to each other. Because they are identical, a meaningful comparison can be made between them. By contrast, you are not considering a realistic situation.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    42
    Is it still not clear for you? Here are some explanations:

    In the physical world, we don't have any methods to measure the time of Special Relativity. All we can use are physical clocks which can only display the result of a physical process (called the displayed time), not the time of Special Relativity. The displayed time of a clock is the multiplication of time and frequency of its oscillator. In Newton's mechanics, the displayed time is equivalent to the time because it can be calibrated to time by dividing the constant frequency which is invariant across all inertial reference frames. In Special Relativity, the frequency is no longer an invariant across inertial reference frames, therefore, the displayed time can't be calibrated to the time of Special Relativity. All physical clocks with motion relative to the observer in Special Relativity fail to tell the time of Special Relativity.

    The good thing is that though Special Relativity has changed the definition of time, the facts are always facts that can't be changed. The physical time of a clock is a physical fact that nobody can change. In Special Relativity, the displayed time of a physical clock is an invariant of inertial reference frames. What does that mean? It means, any time elapse measured by the displayed time of a clock is the same across all inertial reference frames. There is no time dilation can be observed on any physical clocks.

    Moreover, the invariance of the displayed time of physical clocks also means that there exists a universal time independent of any inertial reference frame, i.e. independent of motions of clocks. This can be easily illustrated by multiple clocks with the same displayed time and same frequency of oscillation observed on an inertial reference frame no matter whether they are moving or stationary. Because of the invariance, the displayed time of each clock will be the same observed on any other inertial reference frame, i.e., all these clocks will have exactly the same displayed time no matter you observe them on which inertial reference frame. Therefore, any physical clock if accurate enough can be used to measure the physical time without needs to be concerned with its motion because there is only one absolute physical time in the universe.

    Furthermore, the status of all physical processes are invariants of inertial reference frames, just like clocks. Therefore, the status of a physical process relative to a physical clock will remain unchanged after Lorentz Transformation, i.e., be exactly the same observed on all reference frames. No time dilation can be observed on any physical processes if you measure the time with a physical clock. The time dilation of a physical process can only be observed with the time of Special Relativity because Special Relativity artificially scales down/up the time unit. Good thing is that the displayed time of any physical clock is the multiplication of time and frequency. If the time gets scaled down or up, the frequency will get scaled up or down which makes the fact unchanged.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    Is it still not clear for you? Here are some explanations:

    In the physical world, we don't have any methods to measure the time of Special Relativity.
    Repeating the same lies over and over doesn't turn them into truth. They remain lies.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    KJW
    KJW is online now
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,346
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    Is it still not clear for you?
    Relativity is quite clear to me. That is why I know you are mistaken. Actually, it strikes me as extremely arrogant for someone to think they have uncovered a mistake that the many physics students over the past 100 years have missed.


    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    there is only one absolute physical time in the universe
    There is no universal time in relativity. The proper time measured by clocks is analogous to the length of a path. And just as the distance between two given points depends on the path between them, the time interval between two events in spacetime depends on the worldline between them.

    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.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    Is it still not clear for you?
    Just as for KJW and Howard Roark, relativity is pretty clear to me; once you understand the fundamental principles, it is mostly just common sense, notwithstanding the tediousness of the associated mathematics.

    The good thing is that though Special Relativity has changed the definition of time
    No it hasn't. Time is, always was, and always will be, what clocks measure. Relativity simply tells us how measurements taken at different places and in different states of relative motion relate to one another.

    The physical time of a clock is a physical fact that nobody can change.
    Ditto.

    It means, any time elapse measured by the displayed time of a clock is the same across all inertial reference frames.
    I think you don't understand the difference between the total elapsed time between events as recorded by a clock ( which is an invariant ), and the displayed time on a clock at any given instant, which is frame-dependent and hence not at all invariant unless clock and observer are together at rest. If you think about this difference more carefully, you will eventually realise your mistake.

    There is no time dilation can be observed on any physical clocks.
    Relative time dilation in SR is a coordinate effect, and has no relation to total recorded proper time - see my last sentence above. On the other hand, in GR where frames are no longer inertial, even proper time is indeed affected by gravitational time dilation. This can be directly tested and measured, for example with a Pound-Rebka style experiment.

    Moreover, the invariance of the displayed time of physical clocks also means that there exists a universal time independent of any inertial reference frame, i.e. independent of motions of clocks.
    "Displayed" time at any given instant is not invariant ( since it is an instantaneous measurement and hence subject to RoS ) unless both clock and observer are together at rest, in which case proper time and coordinate time happen to be the same - otherwise, only total recorded proper time, i.e. the total length of a world line, is invariant. But since this depends on the path taken between events, it cannot be used to established an absolute frame of reference.

    No time dilation can be observed on any physical processes
    You know of course that experiment and observation directly contradict you - which is why no one here takes you seriously, in case you haven't noticed that already. It is a mystery to me why you cannot ( or don't want to ) see that It's like insisting that the sky isn't actually blue, but pink - no matter how often you repeat it, it still remains wrong since it is not in accord with empirically testable evidence. This is why we employ the scientific method - if we subject SR to this method it passes with flying colours each and every time ( which is why it became part of mainstream science ), but your claim that no time dilation is observable in the relationship between clocks fails the scientific method quite miserably.

    If the time gets scaled down or up, the frequency will get scaled up or down which makes the fact unchanged
    ...which is precisely time dilation. You are trying to explain yourself by using the very principle you deny - not particularly smart or convincing. More like the opposite of that, actually.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Lorentz transformation derivation.
    By newspaper in forum Physics
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: May 14th, 2014, 05:44 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 12th, 2014, 10:21 AM
  3. astronomy and the clock time vs sun time
    By luxtpm in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: June 2nd, 2011, 04:57 AM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: October 6th, 2010, 04:35 PM
  5. lorentz transformation
    By ten_ben in forum Physics
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: October 11th, 2007, 08:57 PM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

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
  •