geistkiesel
Valued Senior Member
A fallacy of time dilation.
A model widely used to explain time dilation is either
The reflections of a photon oscillating between parallel mirrors in a stationary frame with respect to a preferred frame Vp = 0 is seen below left. These photons show a repeated up/down trajectory where each cycle traces the previous trajectory. The saw-toothed trajectory represents motion in the mirror frame that is moving to the right with respect to the preferred frame. According to SR the observers on board will see the picture on the left where the photons continue to reflect as if no motion were incurred. A stationary observer will see the saw-toothed pattern where each reflected photon would take the extended trajectory. The stationary observer will see a time dilation due to the extended path that the moving observer perceives sees as a continuation of the vertical motion.
Who sees the proper dilated time?Who is correct? According to SR both observers are correct. However, let us review the postulate of light that motion of a photon is independent of the motion of the photon source. Therefore the straight up/down pattern will definitely be seen as continuing and not the saw-toothed pattern. Alternatively, we can replace the mirrors by LEDs, or equivalent, that is timed to provide the same effect as reflected photons.
Radiated side lobes.
We have all seen a flash light beam pointing to a distant target. From any angle the light beam is visible which means the photons are not all heading in the direction of the pointed beam. We may expect similar side lobe radiation in our model here. However, were we to maintain steadfast in our assertion that the motion of the light is invariant under motion changes of the sources, we come to the conclusion that the saw-toothed version is fatally flawed, and is constructed from effective chaff.
We expect scattering at the photon/mirror interface, which doesn’t justify using the side-lobe radiation as a substitute for the up/down trajectory of the stationary platform.
As shown the vertical trajectory is about to be swept from the picture as the frame catches up with the vertical trajectory, as it appears to slide down the surface of the mirrors to the left. Replacing the mirrors with LEDs triggered by the incoming photon we can technically adjust the LED absorption and emission rates to be equivalent to the photon reflection scenario.
SR Ambiguities
The dilation does not show any process that can be taken to slow down everything, or anything. Certainly nothing other than a clock slowing down because ioof a repeated mistake of observing the wrong photon packet. Time that uses the photon reflections is merely the extended path taken by the photons radiating from side lobes of the light beam. Thee is no process slowing. There is nothing even hinting at an effect that is frame wide. Likewise, as the mirrors are parallel and even though the mirrors shrink along the left-right axis, the up/down distance remains invariant.Asm longf as we are asked to rev8iew the material explaining SR timedilation etc, we should get some thing substrantial to consider This is as substantial as it gets.
Error repeated in Michelson-Morely ExperimentsThe side lobe selection is identical to the intrinsic error of Michelson-Morely experiments. The perpendicular reflections should have been used which would have laced all the error in the leg parallel to the direction of motion of the frame. What Michelson-Morely showed was an expected wave shift less than ¼ of the measured velocity, or so claimed MM. The results were an 8km/sec aether drag while expecting to measure at least 30km/sec. But this does not explain any facet of time dilation in the present model. Also, historically, the MM results have widely been advertised as “null”, clearly not verified from an examination of the experimental result. D Miller confirmed MM in the circa 20’s – 30’s, to a high degree of precision.
A model widely used to explain time dilation is either
- Contradictory on its face, or
- Blatantly interpreted erroneously as a mistaken interpretation of physical law.
The reflections of a photon oscillating between parallel mirrors in a stationary frame with respect to a preferred frame Vp = 0 is seen below left. These photons show a repeated up/down trajectory where each cycle traces the previous trajectory. The saw-toothed trajectory represents motion in the mirror frame that is moving to the right with respect to the preferred frame. According to SR the observers on board will see the picture on the left where the photons continue to reflect as if no motion were incurred. A stationary observer will see the saw-toothed pattern where each reflected photon would take the extended trajectory. The stationary observer will see a time dilation due to the extended path that the moving observer perceives sees as a continuation of the vertical motion.
Code:
_________________________
| \ /\ /\ /\
| \ / \ / \ / \
[U]___|_ \/ \/_ \/_ _\________[/U]
Radiated side lobes.
We have all seen a flash light beam pointing to a distant target. From any angle the light beam is visible which means the photons are not all heading in the direction of the pointed beam. We may expect similar side lobe radiation in our model here. However, were we to maintain steadfast in our assertion that the motion of the light is invariant under motion changes of the sources, we come to the conclusion that the saw-toothed version is fatally flawed, and is constructed from effective chaff.
We expect scattering at the photon/mirror interface, which doesn’t justify using the side-lobe radiation as a substitute for the up/down trajectory of the stationary platform.
As shown the vertical trajectory is about to be swept from the picture as the frame catches up with the vertical trajectory, as it appears to slide down the surface of the mirrors to the left. Replacing the mirrors with LEDs triggered by the incoming photon we can technically adjust the LED absorption and emission rates to be equivalent to the photon reflection scenario.
SR Ambiguities
The dilation does not show any process that can be taken to slow down everything, or anything. Certainly nothing other than a clock slowing down because ioof a repeated mistake of observing the wrong photon packet. Time that uses the photon reflections is merely the extended path taken by the photons radiating from side lobes of the light beam. Thee is no process slowing. There is nothing even hinting at an effect that is frame wide. Likewise, as the mirrors are parallel and even though the mirrors shrink along the left-right axis, the up/down distance remains invariant.Asm longf as we are asked to rev8iew the material explaining SR timedilation etc, we should get some thing substrantial to consider This is as substantial as it gets.
Error repeated in Michelson-Morely ExperimentsThe side lobe selection is identical to the intrinsic error of Michelson-Morely experiments. The perpendicular reflections should have been used which would have laced all the error in the leg parallel to the direction of motion of the frame. What Michelson-Morely showed was an expected wave shift less than ¼ of the measured velocity, or so claimed MM. The results were an 8km/sec aether drag while expecting to measure at least 30km/sec. But this does not explain any facet of time dilation in the present model. Also, historically, the MM results have widely been advertised as “null”, clearly not verified from an examination of the experimental result. D Miller confirmed MM in the circa 20’s – 30’s, to a high degree of precision.