http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/ato/rel/MacM said:
Is The Theory of Relativity Fatally Flawed?
- Thread starter MacM
- Start date
- Status
1100f said:
Your post is appreciated, however there is a major short-coming in the fiat declaring time dilation. While I didn't respond to James R above because it has been repeated to many times and he ignores the issue, it is the same issue that I will clarify here.
The assumption that time has dilated always is based on disregarding the parallel claim that there is length contraction in the direction of motion.
In the clock scenario that was being discussed here James R showed that distance of 9 lhr had contracted to 3.92 lhr. And to accumulate 10 hours travel in one view and only 4.356 hours in the other view is perfectly accounted for by the distance traveled WITH AN IDENTICAL TICK RATE.
James has tried to glaze over this issue by saying that the tick rate of one tick/second is still one tick/second locally but therein implies that the designation is superflous and that somehow A's 1 tick/second has a different duration than B's 1 tick/second.
1 - There is simply no basis to make that assumption.
2 - Mathematically A's tick rate and B's tick rate in direct comparison MUST be identical or else the accumulated times and clock displays would not be as claimed in the first instance.
3 - Having the clocks produce a flash of light with each tick and having them travel the respective distances stipulated at a common velocity of 0.9c shows that the flash interval between ticks is absolutely identical. If they were not the accumulated times would not be as claimed.
4 - So with accumulated time being fully accounted for due to lorentz contraction, time dilation becomes an impossible feature to claim.
Only as in your example above can you claim time dilation in that no calculation of lorentz contraction has been made. Both length contraction and time dilation employ the exact same formula and produce the exact same result on time accumulation; because they are arbitrary views of cause for change in accumulated time.
The most important point which is being disregarded however, is that you cannot declare BOTH as being physical realities. A physical reality is not something which can be turned on or off as a matter of choice.
If length contraction is physical it occurs if you calculate it or not. If you do not calculate it and then claim time dilation, the numbers still work out but you have ignored what you call a physical reality and that is length contraction. They are one and the same using different names and causes.
If you try to claim length contraction and time dilation are both physical realities then the clock time no longer matches d = vt (t = d/v) but becomes t2 = t1(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup> * (1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup1/2</sup> so as to accommodate both length and time changes as being physical.
That would cause clock B to only accumulate 1.9 hours where t = 3.92/0.9 = 4.35, not 1.9. So BOTH cannot be claimed as physically real.
This really is a very simple and straight forward issue. It is amazing how easily many choose to disregard the macroscopic view and vary the microscopic detail to suit their desired result. But that violates physical reality.
Last edited:
READERS:
In contrast to the claim that this paper was merely produced for a symposium and not properly peer reviewed, it has become widely publicized in many journals.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...wave+antennas+and+time+dilation&hl=en&start=1
In contrast to the claim that this paper was merely produced for a symposium and not properly peer reviewed, it has become widely publicized in many journals.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...wave+antennas+and+time+dilation&hl=en&start=1
Billy T & Other Readers:
The argument about muon decay and proof of time dilation is shown here to be as I also claim. That is merely a matter of length contraction. It can be shown that IF length contraction claimed a valid physical principle then the muons need only be traveling at 0.99c to arrive at the earth's surface in the quantities measured - WITHOUT ANY time dilation.
http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node136.html
If you want to argue in favor of time dilation then you are forced to reject length contraction as a physical reality.
Where you could argue that the muons actually are only moving at 0.98c and hence both length contraction and time dilation compound to produce the observed result; that solution fails in the cases of stipulated clock testing where velocity is known.
The mathematics fail if you argue BOTH affects are real physically given known conditions.
The argument about muon decay and proof of time dilation is shown here to be as I also claim. That is merely a matter of length contraction. It can be shown that IF length contraction claimed a valid physical principle then the muons need only be traveling at 0.99c to arrive at the earth's surface in the quantities measured - WITHOUT ANY time dilation.
http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node136.html
If you want to argue in favor of time dilation then you are forced to reject length contraction as a physical reality.
Where you could argue that the muons actually are only moving at 0.98c and hence both length contraction and time dilation compound to produce the observed result; that solution fails in the cases of stipulated clock testing where velocity is known.
The mathematics fail if you argue BOTH affects are real physically given known conditions.
Last edited:
Persol said:
Yes but referenced with the same conclusion; which you stated would not be shown anywhere except the symposium presentation, as though it were an AD HOC claim made seperate from the presented paper.
It wasn't. It is an integral part of the finding and you are obligated to address that conclusion based on the experimental evidence.
Note that his test had an accuracy to 5E<sup>-15</sup>c or 0.0015 mm velocity/second.
Persol said:
And you have no technical response:
Further some interesting work in GR.
Interesting work evaluating GR and reality of time dilation.
http://www.serve.com/herrmann/time.htm
*******************************************************
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...p.+schiffer+a.b.+whitehead+1960&hl=en&start=8
5. Neither the Special Theory of Relativity nor Weyl's Quantum Principles are the primitive concepts they are currently thought to be.
2) the strong force may be due to the non-singular nature of the potentials and not due to an independent force, and
*******************************************************
#2 above supports my contention that the strong nuclear force may actually be an enhanced form of gravity not a seperate force entirely.
Not a bad guess for an old fool.
geistkiesel
Valued Senior Member
Persol said:
Persol, I am stepping in here because this is a pet situation for me for which I have been seeking some rational way in which this conundrum may be resolved. Do you have any suggestions?I].
There is nothing obvious in the schematics described below, here or wherever else this problem is described that adequately describes the physics for the motion of the light in the zig zag light tajectorywe are presented with as a factual rendering of a physical situation. Somewhere along the line someone just started describing the reflection process as "zig zag" without any apparent reason for the trajectory being offered. Following this abject complacency took over and curiosity went to sleep.
Personally I consider the whole description as a contrivance and another theoretical conveinence, unproved and unprovable.
Geistkiesel
.
Geistkiesel,
From the last paragraph of your posted link:
******************************************
The explanation comes from Special Relativity. In accordance with the time dilation effect, the physical process responsible for muon decay appears to be running slowly when viewed from the Earth. If the muon is moving at a velocity of .99c, the time dilation factor is about 7. Thus, to an observer on Earth, the muon appears to live seven times longer (about 14 microseconds instead of just 2). It therefore can travel seven times further (over 4 kilometers), and traverses most of the atmosphere before decaying.
******************************************
This has been repeatedly posed as proof about time dilation. Rest assured Relativists are not going to tell you what I will now tell you.
It is bullshit.
Why? Well relativity also claims there is such a thing as length contraction.
At 0.99c the distance a muon travels becomes 0.14 as far or it goes 7 times further than you would think it should. Result 14 microseconds/7 = 2 microseconds or no change in life from the muon's point of view.
Time dilation is an artifact of length contraction and no change in time occurs.
From the last paragraph of your posted link:
******************************************
The explanation comes from Special Relativity. In accordance with the time dilation effect, the physical process responsible for muon decay appears to be running slowly when viewed from the Earth. If the muon is moving at a velocity of .99c, the time dilation factor is about 7. Thus, to an observer on Earth, the muon appears to live seven times longer (about 14 microseconds instead of just 2). It therefore can travel seven times further (over 4 kilometers), and traverses most of the atmosphere before decaying.
******************************************
This has been repeatedly posed as proof about time dilation. Rest assured Relativists are not going to tell you what I will now tell you.
It is bullshit.
Why? Well relativity also claims there is such a thing as length contraction.
At 0.99c the distance a muon travels becomes 0.14 as far or it goes 7 times further than you would think it should. Result 14 microseconds/7 = 2 microseconds or no change in life from the muon's point of view.
Time dilation is an artifact of length contraction and no change in time occurs.
Persol said:
I have posted a half dozen links to scientific reports and papers. You choose to not address them. Why?
You can't or you don't want to?
The simple truth is that there are hundreds of scientists and physicists world wide that say RT is bullshit. They have found conflict in their areas of expertise and have written extensively but they are generally ignored in that Relativists maintian an ego that only they can evaluate Relativity.
When the facts are they are not specialists in the fields where experimentation have shown Relativity flawed.
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/Preiksch.htm
http://vishnu.mth.uct.ac.za/omei/gr/chap5/node3.html
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...m/advrel2001.ps+marzke+wheeler&hl=en&start=10
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...sics/physics.doc+ives+stillwell&hl=en&start=1
Pete said:
And this is where we have a major disagreement. You and others it seems want to talk about perception of the earth observer and claim time dilation but you also acknowledge that the muon see no extension of its life but sees a shorter distance traveled.
I find it unacceptable to change realities between frames. The muon makes it to earth BECAUSE it travels less distance. We earthlings know that and it is unjustified to then claim that time was in any way affected.
Pete said:
You insist on changing realities. Time of the muon is local to the muon. Your observation has no meaning to the muon and does not affect the muon. It is only the muon's perspective that determines the muon's life time.
What is so difficult in recognizing perception as perception and reality as reality?
Once again attach a strobe light to the muon and a strobe light at earth. Each set to one million flashes per second. What you will see is that the flash intervals are equal but that the muon accumulates fewer flashes.
d = vt mandates that the flash interval remain equal or the clocks would not accumulate the times calculated for distance and velocity.
That means time did not dilate but that the muon traveled less distance than you percieved. That is not time dilation. It is an illusion created by a form of dimensional tunneling.
It would infact be identical to the "Illusion Solution" for Quasars. You infact would think you were seeing the muon travel at 6.93 c instead of 0.99c.
You would see the muon move 2,079m not 297m per flash (1 microsecond).
Last edited:
I suppose we can assume we know everything there is to know about muons, hey?
Maybe they collect energy becasue of their velocity and has nothing to do with time dilations......maybe....
Maybe they collect energy becasue of their velocity and has nothing to do with time dilations......maybe....
maybe their energy efficiency is increased due to velocity ....maybe
- Status