Strange Claims About Relativistic Time Split From A Alternative Theories Thread

[xinhangshen]

In a perfect world where one was of arbitrarily great intelligence, never aged, and could retreat to a pocket universe to read, write, and learn for arbitrary durations, I’d agree.

 

But this isn’t such a world. We’ve each of us limitations, including a limited lifespan. Using our limited resources is an optimization problem, IMHO the most personal and arguably the most important of its kind. “Consider the source” is a good screening and prep technique.

 

Ideas are ideas, but the way they’re communicated are complicated, informal, social phenomena. The more factors you can bring into this process, well, the more optimal.

 

I empathize. It’s natural to want to be able to do everything, and something that I and many people I’ve known have, at some point in our lives, believed at least on an emotional level was actually possible.

 

My personal turning point, when I realized on a deep emotional level that I would not (barring the possibility of living some sort of trans-human future, eg: my personality uploaded to live forever in a computer) eventually know and be able to do everything, came I think in the early 1990s, influenced largely by two very dissimilar books. The first was Neal Stephenson’s 1992 cyberpunk tour de force Snow Crash. The other was Feynman’s 1985 adaptation of 4 of his 1979 lectures, QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter.

 

In Snow Crash, I was struck by a scene is which main character Hiro Protagonists (yeah, that’s the character’s actual name) having encountered the overwhelmingly intimidating Raven, has an epiphany in which he realize that his entire life, he had believed that if he really buckled down, dedicated his life, trained, that he could be the most badass person on Earth. Seeing Raven, he realizes he could never equal him. Rather than feeling crestfallen and disillusioned, Hiro feels liberated from his lifelong, barely conscious compulsion to be the best at everything.

 

In QED, Feynman describes the iterative perturbation techniques at the heart of the mathematical formalism of Quantum Electrodynamics, summarizing that it’s something you learn when you get a PhD in physics, making no attempt to even hint at where one might begin learning them on one’s own.

 

Somehow, these two utterances filled me with a sense of acceptance that, despite having spent most of my life learning and teaching mathematical formalism, I was not going to learn the formalism of QED, and this was OK, because others had and would. Even though I could not directly assure myself of it, I would accept that people like Feynman were not pulling some sort of Wizard of Oz hoax on me, and that they really had worked out the math. I would accept their authority on the subject.

 

Note that this thread discusses two “Special Relativity must be wrong!” papers, geolocation sofrware company CEO Xinhang Shen's Challenge to the special theory of relativity, and cardiologist László G. Mészáros's Special Relativity: a Contradicting Theory or an Account for an Optical Phenomenon. Both can be read for free at these links.

 

I’ve just read Shen’s paper. I thinks it’s essentially gibberish, including such gems as “[sR’s equivalency principle that the laws of physics should be the same in all inertial reference frames] should be the same only for the fundimental laws of physics, not for all laws of physics”, then goes on to simply deny that time dilation occurs at all.

 

As I described in this post, I thing Mészáros's paper is just a misguided, misinformed attempt at a “gocha” paradox.

Actually,my point is very simple. We all know that:

 

                       clock_time = time x frequency / calibration_constant.

 

If calibration_constant = frequency as in classical mechanics due to the invariance of frequency in all inertial reference frames, then

 

                       clock_time = time x frequency /calibration_constant = time (i.e. Galilean time)

 

That is, a clock measures Galilean time which is invariant of inertial reference frames too, absolute and universal.

 

In special relativity, frequency changes with the change of the reference frame (Transverse Doppler Effect), i.e. frequency != calibration_constant, then

 

                       clock_time = time x frequency / calibration_constant != time

 

Therefore, in special relativity, a clock does not measure the time of special relativity (it is just an artificial time without real physical meaning).

 

On the other hand, even in special relativity, clock time is still invariant of Lorentz Transformation because the dilation of time (i.e. the time of special relativity) is canceled by the change of frequency (Transverse Doppler Effect) in the product (note: variable with apostrophe is define in the moving frame) :

 

                       clock_time' = time' x frequency' / calibration_constant 

                                         = (gamma x time) x (frequency / gamma) / calibration_constant

                                         = time x frequency / calibration_constant

                                         = clock_time

 

Therefore, no matter in special relativity or in classical mechanics, clock time is always invariant of inertial reference frames, absolute and universal.

[exchemist]

I'm afraid I do not see how you can have the Lorentz apparent contraction of length without a corresponding time dilation. Surely the two are intimately related? For example the muon decay  experiment: we see the muons' lifetime is longer than we expect due to their time dilation, whereas from the muons' point of view, their time runs as normal but the distance through the atmosphere is contracted. The two are equivalent.

 

How would you account for this if there were no time dilation?

Edited May 4, 2016 by exchemist

[xinhangshen]

I'm afraid I do not see how you can have the Lorentz apparent contraction of length without a corresponding time dilation. Surely the two are intimately related? For example the muon decay  experiment: we see the muons' lifetime is longer than we expect due to their time dilation, whereas from the muons' point of view, their time runs as normal but the distance through the atmosphere is contracted. The two are equivalent.

 

How would you account for this if there were no time dilation?

 

In special relativity, time dilation and length contraction are relative but the muons lives are extended absolutely. That is, you can choose any inertial reference frame to observe the lives of muons to get the same results. Muons lives are actually increased by the effects of some medium (or media) in space, moving against which makes muons stability increased. Similarly, length contractions may occur in nature too if they are moving very fast against some medium in space, but they are not relative either, just like an airplane flying in the air that has a shorter length than a stationary one because of the air pressure. We should be aware that space has much more secrets than we think. 

 

People here have not really caught what I presented in the paper. Therefore, I would like to add something here.

 

We always say "time" without mentioning how "time" is defined. Actually there are three different definitions of time: clock time (i.e. our physical time) defined by the status of a physical process such as a physical clock, Galilean time defined by Galilean Transformation and relativistic time defined by Lorentz Transformation.

 

In special relativity, Einstein just mixed up the concepts of clock time and relativistic time, and thinks that a clock directly measures relativistic time, but that is a wrong assumption. As a physical process, a clock can be directly studied in special relativity too. For example, we can use a burning candle as a clock and its height represents the clock time. Since the height of the candle is perpendicular to its horizontal motion, the height is invariant of Lorentz Transformation. Therefore, the clock time is Lorentz invariant too which is absolute, same as Galilean time which I have proved still exists in special relativity as a function of relativistic time and relativistic space.

 

If we set the heights of all stationary and moving candles with the same burning rate and same initial height in one inertial reference frame, then these candles will have the same heights observed in all inertial reference frames thanks to the Lorentz invariance of the candle height. Thus, we have established a universally synchronized clock time, as shown by the universally synchronized time of the clocks on GPS satellites and the ground.

 

Time dilation is the property of relativistic time, not clock time. In the real physical world, we can never see relativistic time. All we have is only absolute and universal clock time.

[Buffy]

You haven't addressed any of Anissi's objections earlier in the thread.

 

Moderator's note: This thread is on the verge of being moved into the Strange Claims forum.

 

 

Whether it is true or not that not more than twelve persons in all the world are able to understand Einstein's Theory, it is nevertheless a fact that there is a constant demand for information about this much-debated topic, :phones:

Buffy

[xinhangshen]

...

 

I think they are probably honest in their presentations; they honestly believe their papers are valid because they have pretty elementary misconceptions about the theories they are discussing. Since I already went so far off the tangent in this post, I guess it was only fair I went through the trouble of identifying what their misconceptions are... :D

 

First Xinhang Shen's paper. Look at his description of "Lorentz invariance in the clock time" starting from page 8;

 

He establishes Frame A and Frame B, where a clock is stationary in frame B.

He establishes that Frame B would see for objects in Frame A as slowed down in time.

That leads him to assume that the opposite is true for opposite transformation; that Frame A sees the clock in Frame B as sped up.

That misconception (together with not understanding how "speed" and "frequency" also require definition of "time") is why he is making assertions such as;

 

"After a Lorentz transformation from a moving inertial reference frame to a stationary inertial

reference frame, the time in the moving frame is dilated by a factor [math]\gamma[/math], but the frequency of a clock in the moving frame decreases by the same factor [math]\gamma[/math], leaving the resulting product (i.e., the time displayed by the moving clock) unchanged."

 

(he thinks the first time dilation means the clock goes faster)

 

"Eq. (10) shows that a time dilation occurs after the Lorentz transformation from Frame B to Frame A, but Eq. (18) indicates that there is also a slowdown of the rotation speed of the arm of the clock upon the transformation from Frame B to Frame A, leaving the angle of the arm (i.e., the product of time and the rotation speed) unchanged after Lorentz transformation"

 

(i.e. Slowdown of the clock arm cancels the supposed speedup of the clock, which he also calls "time dilation")

 

He is also suggesting a one-way speed of light measurement, which implies misconceptions about the fundamental issues behind relativity (the simple fact that one-way speed of light is unmeasurable quantity because you can't synchronize clocks without already knowing the result).

 

And same confusion about how time dilation comes about;

 

"When the travelling twin is observed in the Earth reference frame, although the abstract time of the moving frame transformed into the Earth frame will dilate by a factor [math]\gamma[/math], the ageing rate of the travelling twin as observed on Earth will also decrease by the same factor [math]\gamma[/math], leaving the biological age (i.e., the product) unchanged"

 

And so on. His idea of time transformations leads into obvious inconsistency issues as he is basically arbitrarily choosing whether time dilation is a slow down or a speed up. That is why he thinks that Lorentz transformation cancels itself out, as he analyzes the same system twice with different arbitrary choices. That's a pretty critical error.

 

....

 

I personally think it's best to simply view it as an epistemological convention, as these "effects" are a consequence of a self-consistent coordinate transformation scheme, in the case that we define simultaneity separately for each inertial frame; a convention that is available for us as a direct logical consequence of maximum information speed being finite for us. That is very very rare view taken on mainstream publications, which rather tend to paint some kind of ontological picture, because, I guess people just "need to believe". I think they are also greatly confusing great many people, including Xinhang and László I guess...  :unknw:

 

Hi Buffy, I would like to make further explanation for the points raised by AnssiH and hope that it will not hit the button to make the thread be moved to the Strange Claim Forum. If you think anything inappropriate, please let me know and I will modify it to meet your requirement.

 

Regarding AnssiH's question, he seems to make the same mistake as Einstein that the time shown on a clock is considered the same time following Lorentz Transformation.But the reality is they are not the same. What I said in the paper is that the time shown on the moving clock (i.e. clock time) is the same observed in both Frame A and Frame B while the relativistic time of Frame B observed on Frame A dilates by factor gamma. The Lorentz invariance of clock time is obtained directly from Lorentz Transformation of spatial dimensions (y and z) perpendicular to the motion of Frame B. This invariance leads to the conclusion that relativistic frequency of the clock experiences a slowdown by the same factor after Lorentz Transformation, similar to Transverse Doppler Effect because clock time in special relativity is the product of relativistic time and relativistic frequency divided by a calibration constant. This conclusion can be extended to an atomic clock or any clock in Frame B which may not have a display surface perpendicular to the motion of Frame B, i.e., the clock time of any clock as the product of relativistic time and relativistic frequency will remain unchanged after Lorentz Transformation because the dilation of relativistic time has been canceled by the slowdown of the relativistic frequency. That is, relativistic time will dilate but clock time will be the same after Lorentz Transformation. Dilation is the property of relativistic time, but not clock time. They are different.

 

In the real world, relativistic time does not exist. We only have clock time, and clock time is the real physical time we have in observing physical phenomena.

 

The speed of light in nature is observed with clock time, not relativistic time. Relativistic time is just an artificial time introduced only for the creation of an artificially constant speed of light which is irrelevant to the real speed of light. In special relativity, absolute Galilean time and rigid Galilean space still exist as functions of relativistic time and relativistic space. That is, clock time and Galilean time are invariant of Lorentz Transformation, absolute and universal. Therefore, they can be calibrated to be the same thing. Thus, the real speed of light should be defined by Galilean space and Galilean time, which has been proved still follows Newton's velocity addition formula.

 

Regarding one way measurement of the speed of light, what I suggested is not a direct measurement of the distance a light beam travels within a given time period, but an indirect measurement of the properties of light beams through different media which does not need the synchronization of clocks. Therefore, the difficulty to synchronize clocks won't appear in the experiment. The experimental setup has been described in detail in my paper.

 

Regarding the twin brothers paradox, the result is the same: the ages of the twin brothers measured by clock time (i.e. the status of a physical process) will always the same no matter whether they are moving or stationary because the aging status as the product of relativistic time and relativistic aging rate is invariant of Lorentz Transformation similar to the clock time shown on physical clocks, but if they are measured with relativistic time, they will create a paradox because relativistic time is the elusive value of a mathematical function without physical meaning. 

[AnssiH]

Hi Xinghang, glad to see you could drop by.

 

There appears to be some mistakes in the definitions you are using, but I'm sure we can find the problems by examining this from your angle.

 

As you move along, you have to very carefully think about where do you get the quantities you are using, i.e. what exactly is supposed to define them, and how do we measure them accordingly. Special relativity is basically an excercise in self-consistent definitions of space and time coordinate transformations. Those definitions are certainly circular; that is what self-consistency implies. It's very easy to use these definitions in inconsistent manner without realizing it.

 

I'm having trouble following some of your definitions, and it looks to me like they go off the rails pretty early on and the rest just follows from there, so let's take this step by step.

 

First;

 

Actually,my point is very simple. We all know that:

 

                       clock_time = time x frequency / calibration_constant.

 

If calibration_constant = frequency as in classical mechanics due to the invariance of frequency in all inertial reference frames, then

So how do you establish the calibration constant? (And for what purpose?)

 

Second;

 

Regarding one way measurement of the speed of light, what I suggested is not a direct measurement of the distance a light beam travels within a given time period, but an indirect measurement of the properties of light beams through different media which does not need the synchronization of clocks. Therefore, the difficulty to synchronize clocks won't appear in the experiment. The experimental setup has been described in detail in my paper.

In page 5 of your paper it says;

 

"The direction with the maximal band displacement will be the direction of the aether wind, and the measured speed of

light in that direction minus the mean speed of light in all directions will be the speed of the aether at the location of the

experimental set-up."

 

How do you establish the "measured speed of light in that direction", without implying one-way speed measurement?

 

--

 

On a related note I would comment that discussing experimental results when discussing aether vs special relativity is not very interesting, as either one is quite simply a self-consistent convention. Once you have set your definitions (or ontological assumptions) accordingly, you have already pre-determined the outcome of your measurements (you have already defined how you interpret what you get). That issue runs far deeper than most people recognize.

 

Lorentz transformation was originally created in the context of an aether theory, and once you have it, it is trivial to just take the assumption that one (unobservable) inertial frame is special and a "true" frame in some sense; that is just an ontological assumption that cannot be falsified. As Lorentz commented, the difference between the theories is philosophical (they merely imply different ontological assumptions).

 

The most common interpretation of Special Relativity - relativistic spacetime suggested by Hermann Minkowski - in my opinion represents just as naive undefendable ontological view as the concept of aether. I really mean that, when people discuss experimental results or theoretical relationships that supposedly proves one or the other, to me it's the same as people arguing between Baal and Yahweh. Both sides are completely missing the fundamental issue, and not considering what actually can be known, and the fact that things pretty much are how we define them (so long we manage to define a self-consistent valid set). In fact the requirement for relativistic coordinate transformation arises from unbelievably few epistemological requirements that have got nothing to do with any of the ontological concepts implied by these various theories.

 

-Anssi

[xinhangshen]

Hi Xinghang, glad to see you could drop by.

 

There appears to be some mistakes in the definitions you are using, but I'm sure we can find the problems by examining this from your angle.

 

As you move along, you have to very carefully think about where do you get the quantities you are using, i.e. what exactly is supposed to define them, and how do we measure them accordingly. Special relativity is basically an excercise in self-consistent definitions of space and time coordinate transformations. Those definitions are certainly circular; that is what self-consistency implies. It's very easy to use these definitions in inconsistent manner without realizing it.

 

I'm having trouble following some of your definitions, and it looks to me like they go off the rails pretty early on and the rest just follows from there, so let's take this step by step.

 

First;

 

 

So how do you establish the calibration constant? (And for what purpose?)

 

Second;

 

 

In page 5 of your paper it says;

 

"The direction with the maximal band displacement will be the direction of the aether wind, and the measured speed of

light in that direction minus the mean speed of light in all directions will be the speed of the aether at the location of the

experimental set-up."

 

How do you establish the "measured speed of light in that direction", without implying one-way speed measurement?

 

--

 

On a related note I would comment that discussing experimental results when discussing aether vs special relativity is not very interesting, as either one is quite simply a self-consistent convention. Once you have set your definitions (or ontological assumptions) accordingly, you have already pre-determined the outcome of your measurements (you have already defined how you interpret what you get). That issue runs far deeper than most people recognize.

 

Lorentz transformation was originally created in the context of an aether theory, and once you have it, it is trivial to just take the assumption that one (unobservable) inertial frame is special and a "true" frame in some sense; that is just an ontological assumption that cannot be falsified. As Lorentz commented, the difference between the theories is philosophical (they merely imply different ontological assumptions).

 

The most common interpretation of Special Relativity - relativistic spacetime suggested by Hermann Minkowski - in my opinion represents just as naive undefendable ontological view as the concept of aether. I really mean that, when people discuss experimental results or theoretical relationships that supposedly proves one or the other, to me it's the same as people arguing between Baal and Yahweh. Both sides are completely missing the fundamental issue, and not considering what actually can be known, and the fact that things pretty much are how we define them (so long we manage to define a self-consistent valid set). In fact the requirement for relativistic coordinate transformation arises from unbelievably few epistemological requirements that have got nothing to do with any of the ontological concepts implied by these various theories.

 

-Anssi

 

Assi, in classical mechanics, if there is no standard clock established yet, then you have to choose a standard physical process for the clock and then simply use one as the calibration constant. If you have already had a standard clock, then you have to choose the calibration constant to make the final unit of your clock equal to the the unit of the standard clock, i.e., to make the calibration constant equal to the frequency of the clock because both the frequency and the calibration constant are invariant of inertial reference frames in classical mechanics. But in special relativity, this simple procedure can't be applied to the clocks any longer because the relativistic frequency of the clock is no longer invariant of inertial reference frames. No matter how you choose the calibration constant, you can't separate relativistic time from the product of relativistic time and relativistic frequency, and thus you can't get the relativistic time from any physical clock.

 

On the other hand, the reading of a clock as the product of relativistic time and relativistic frequency divided by a calibration constant is invariant of Lorentz Transformation, i.e., invariant of inertial reference frames because the effects of the dilation of relativistic time in the product is canceled by the decrease of the relativistic frequency (similar to Transverse Doppler Effects) after Lorentz Transformation. As I have proved in the paper, in special relativity, there still exist the absolute Galilean time and rigid Galilean space as functions of relativistic time and relativistic space. What does that mean? It means that even in special relativity, we still can use Galilean time and Galilean space to describe all physical phenomena. Using relativistic spacetime or Galilean spacetime is just an option we can choose based on our convenience, just like using Cartesian coordinate system or polar coordinate system to describe a geometric object. We should only pay attention how we apply the coordinate system to real physical phenomena. Now we have seen that both clock time and Galilean time are invariant of Lorentz Transformation and therefore, they are equivalent, but relativistic time is very different from clock time and can never be measured by clocks. In principle, we can also use relativistic time and relativistic space to describe all physical phenomena, just as use polar coordinate system to describe all geometric objects, if we use the relationship between relativistic spacetime and Galilean spacetime to calculate relativistic time and relativistic space as shown on my paper. But the very mistake of special relativity is that it uses clock time directly as relativistic time, and then thinks clocks behave like relativistic time. It is this mistake that leads to all so-called relativistic effects: time dilation, length contraction, mass increase, etc.

 

Regarding the average speed of light for my suggested experimental setup, it is pretty easy to get it. You can use a mirror to let a beam of light go a round trip of a given distance and measure the time it takes for the round trip. That experiment does not need the one way speed of light, but can be used to measure one way speed of light. Please read the description of the experimental setup for details.

 

Regarding the existence of aether, it is not a speculation or assumption. It is the logical conclusion of Fizeau experiment and Michelson & Morley (M&M) experiment: Fizeazu experiment tells us that the speed of light follows Newton's velocity addition formula, that is, the speed of light is isotropic only in one inertial reference frame at any given location. M&M experiment tells us that there does not exist an absolute inertial reference frame in nature. Therefore, the only possibility is that light is the wave of a fluid-like medium that we call aether.

[AnssiH]

Assi, in classical mechanics, if there is no standard clock established yet, then you have to choose a standard physical process for the clock and then simply use one as the calibration constant.

I see, so in other words you mean it's another clock. Typically you would choose some type of oscillator as a clock. So you take an oscillator to operate as a reference comparison for another clock, and call it "calibration constant". Got it.

 

So in other words...

 

Actually,my point is very simple. We all know that:

 

                       clock_time = time x frequency / calibration_constant.

 

If calibration_constant = frequency as in classical mechanics due to the invariance of frequency in all inertial reference frames, then

 

                       clock_time = time x frequency /calibration_constant = time (i.e. Galilean time)

 

That is, a clock measures Galilean time which is invariant of inertial reference frames too, absolute and universal.

 

In special relativity, frequency changes with the change of the reference frame (Transverse Doppler Effect), i.e. frequency != calibration_constant, then

 

                       clock_time = time x frequency / calibration_constant != time

 

Therefore, in special relativity, a clock does not measure the time of special relativity (it is just an artificial time without real physical meaning).

...here the calibration constant represents a clock that stays in a chosen rest frame, and your last point simply states that two clocks in different frames will not display the same measurement, which is correct.

 

But it is contradictory to your next statement...

 

On the other hand, even in special relativity, clock time is still invariant of Lorentz Transformation because the dilation of time (i.e. the time of special relativity) is canceled by the change of frequency (Transverse Doppler Effect) in the product (note: variable with apostrophe is define in the moving frame) :

 

                       clock_time' = time' x frequency' / calibration_constant 

                                         = (gamma x time) x (frequency / gamma) / calibration_constant

                                         = time x frequency / calibration_constant

                                         = clock_time

 

Therefore, no matter in special relativity or in classical mechanics, clock time is always invariant of inertial reference frames, absolute and universal.

...which contains an error. I was wondering why do you write "time x frequency", but I suppose it was because you wanted to get to the point of "clock_time' = (gamma x time) x (frequency / gamma)", but that statement is incorrect; Lorentz transformation doesn't imply that "more time has passed but frequency has lowered". This would be somewhat oxymoronic as frequency is by definition oscillations per time unit. "More oscillations" is by definition "higher frequency" and vice versa.

 

When people write [math]\Delta t' = \gamma \Delta t[/math] they mean the period of the moving clock is longer than the period of the rest clock. Or you can conceive it as the path length of the oscillator being longer, i.e. its frequency being lower, i.e. the moving clock is ticking slower.

 

See;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor#Occurrence

 

and for a simple derivation with path length of an oscillator;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Simple_inference_of_time_dilation_due_to_relative_velocity

 

So, when you to use (gamma x time) as implying that the measuring clock has experienced more time having passed, that's the opposite of what relativity implies (see my first post you replied to). Per the definitions of relativity, clock's frequency is the cycles it counts, or in the common terminology of relativity that is the "time it experiences" (which indeed is somewhat cumbersome definition for time but for more subtle reasons than you refer to).

 

There's no need to define "calibration factor" as an extra reference, if you just relate two clocks to each others. So what you should have written is;

 

clock_readout = frequency * elapsed_time

 

clock_readout' = (frequency * elapsed_time) / gamma

 

in other words

 

clock_readout' = clock_readout / gamma

 

I changed the names of your variables to remove some ambiguity, and I reckon the above is what you meant. Note that the above variables are also definitely circularly defined, and that does mean there are different ways to conceptualize the same relationships.

 

Regarding the average speed of light for my suggested experimental setup, it is pretty easy to get it. You can use a mirror to let a beam of light go a round trip of a given distance and measure the time it takes for the round trip. That experiment does not need the one way speed of light, but can be used to measure one way speed of light. Please read the description of the experimental setup for details.

I have, but measuring a round trip does not in any way imply a method for measuring a one way speed of light. I mean think about it, for one way you have to always rely on departure and arrival at two spatially separated locations; that implies two different clocks to catch the timewise separation of those events. At that point all bets are off as you cannot synchronize the clocks without already knowing the speed of your synchronization signal; the very thing you were supposed to measure. For some more food for thought, see;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light

 

Regarding the existence of aether, it is not a speculation or assumption. It is the logical conclusion of Fizeau experiment and Michelson & Morley (M&M) experiment: Fizeazu experiment tells us that the speed of light follows Newton's velocity addition formula, that is, the speed of light is isotropic only in one inertial reference frame at any given location. M&M experiment tells us that there does not exist an absolute inertial reference frame in nature. Therefore, the only possibility is that light is the wave of a fluid-like medium that we call aether.

There are very few things out there that don't contain assumptions. Think about it, how would you exhaustively find out that your conclusion is the only possibility based on an experiment. The very interpretation of any results of any experiment always rely on the validity of a collection of theories, which always contain a collection of circularly defined concepts. There's an infinite number of different ways to conceptualize any given theory if one is interested of such excercise. Surely you must recognize between "this seems like the most likely conclusion to me right now" and "this must be the only possible conclusion that could possibly be ever reached".

 

Especially in terms of Lorentz aether theory and relativity theory, it is easy to establish how they are the flipsides of the same coin, you are completely free to see it one way or another. Personally I think they are both just two arbitrary examples of general semantics over more fundamental epistemological issues.

[xinhangshen]

I see, so in other words you mean it's another clock. Typically you would choose some type of oscillator as a clock. So you take an oscillator to operate as a reference comparison for another clock, and call it "calibration constant". Got it.

 

So in other words...

 

 

...here the calibration constant represents a clock that stays in a chosen rest frame, and your last point simply states that two clocks in different frames will not display the same measurement, which is correct.

 

But it is contradictory to your next statement...

 

 

...which contains an error. I was wondering why do you write "time x frequency", but I suppose it was because you wanted to get to the point of "clock_time' = (gamma x time) x (frequency / gamma)", but that statement is incorrect; Lorentz transformation doesn't imply that "more time has passed but frequency has lowered". This would be somewhat oxymoronic as frequency is by definition oscillations per time unit. "More oscillations" is by definition "higher frequency" and vice versa.

 

When people write [math]\Delta t' = \gamma \Delta t[/math] they mean the period of the moving clock is longer than the period of the rest clock. Or you can conceive it as the path length of the oscillator being longer, i.e. its frequency being lower, i.e. the moving clock is ticking slower.

 

See;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor#Occurrence

 

and for a simple derivation with path length of an oscillator;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Simple_inference_of_time_dilation_due_to_relative_velocity

 

So, when you to use (gamma x time) as implying that the measuring clock has experienced more time having passed, that's the opposite of what relativity implies (see my first post you replied to). Per the definitions of relativity, clock's frequency is the cycles it counts, or in the common terminology of relativity that is the "time it experiences" (which indeed is somewhat cumbersome definition for time but for more subtle reasons than you refer to).

 

There's no need to define "calibration factor" as an extra reference, if you just relate two clocks to each others. So what you should have written is;

 

clock_readout = frequency * elapsed_time

 

clock_readout' = (frequency * elapsed_time) / gamma

 

in other words

 

clock_readout' = clock_readout / gamma

 

I changed the names of your variables to remove some ambiguity, and I reckon the above is what you meant. Note that the above variables are also definitely circularly defined, and that does mean there are different ways to conceptualize the same relationships.

 

 

I have, but measuring a round trip does not in any way imply a method for measuring a one way speed of light. I mean think about it, for one way you have to always rely on departure and arrival at two spatially separated locations; that implies two different clocks to catch the timewise separation of those events. At that point all bets are off as you cannot synchronize the clocks without already knowing the speed of your synchronization signal; the very thing you were supposed to measure. For some more food for thought, see;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light

 

 

There are very few things out there that don't contain assumptions. Think about it, how would you exhaustively find out that your conclusion is the only possibility based on an experiment. The very interpretation of any results of any experiment always rely on the validity of a collection of theories, which always contain a collection of circularly defined concepts. There's an infinite number of different ways to conceptualize any given theory if one is interested of such excercise. Surely you must recognize between "this seems like the most likely conclusion to me right now" and "this must be the only possible conclusion that could possibly be ever reached".

 

Especially in terms of Lorentz aether theory and relativity theory, it is easy to establish how they are the flipsides of the same coin, you are completely free to see it one way or another. Personally I think they are both just two arbitrary examples of general semantics over more fundamental epistemological issues.

 

AnssiH, the real confusing point of special relativity is to connect times of different frames. All people believing relativity are stuck at that point. If you really want to open your mind, you should not straightly follow the interpretation of Einstein's, which just makes you lost.

 

In order to make you easy to understand, I give you a new simple example. Let us see a series of clocks in which some are stationary and some are moving at different constant speeds relative to an inertial reference frames. These clocks are also synchronized relative to this frame. That is, at any given relativistic time, these clocks always have the same clock time. We denote the events as: (t, x1, T), (t, x2, T), ..., (t, xn, T) where t is relativistic time following Lorentz Transformation and x1, x2, ..., xn are the relativistic x coordinates of the clocks when relativistic time equals t, and T is the clock time shown on all clocks when relativistic time equals t.

 

Now let's have a look at another inertial reference frame. After Lorentz Transformation, these events will be (t1', x1', T), (t2', x2', T), ..., (tn', xn', T) where variables with apostrophe are the relativistic time and relativistic space of the new inertial reference frame. It is shown that in the new frame, these events have different relativistic times and are no longer synchronized according to the relativistic times.

 

But we can see that all these events still have the same clock time because clock time represented by either the angle of a rotating arm or the height of a candlestick in a plane perpendicular to the motion of the new frame will not change after Lorentz Transformation. What does that mean? It simply means that these events are still synchronized according to clock time.

 

Because the relativistic times of the events are not shown in the real world and thus have no physical meaning. In the real physical world, clock time is the real physical time as demonstrated by the universally synchronized clocks on GPS satellites and on the ground.

 

All physical phenomena are observed with clock time rather than relativistic time. It is meaningless to define the speed of light with relativistic space and relativistic time as shown in special relativity because the real speed of light is observed with clocks. It is a mistake of Einstein to assume that clock time is relativistic time and think clocks will show time dilation because relativistic time shows time dilation.

[AnssiH]

AnssiH, the real confusing point of special relativity is to connect times of different frames. All people believing relativity are stuck at that point. If you really want to open your mind, you should not straightly follow the interpretation of Einstein's, which just makes you lost.

Actually I view relativity from very uncommon perspective (follow the link in my sig to find out more if you want), but that has got nothing to do with how Lorentz transformation works, and whether it is a valid transformation or not. In my opinion the easiest way to convince oneself of its validity is to work out exactly how the transformation works as a scaling or skewing factor on a spacetime diagram. If you represent macroscopic objects inside a spacetime diagram, the shape or form of that diagram is not an observable property to those objects themselves. From that premise, you should pretty easily see that

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_diagram#Spacetime_diagram_of_an_accelerating_observer_in_special_relativity

and the same thing;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Relativity_of_Simultaneity_Animation.gif

 

...these transformation will retain isotropic signal speeds for all frames, and still any chosen frame will validly represent any physical system. What gives in is the simultaneity of events, and that can give in because we cannot possibly measure it (due to finity of signal speeds).

 

What that means "philosophically" or how that validity should be interpreted is another matter entirely.

 

Either way I think we should focus on the one critical error I pointed out in the previous post, because you still repeat it;

 

In order to make you easy to understand, I give you a new simple example. Let us see a series of clocks in which some are stationary and some are moving at different constant speeds relative to an inertial reference frames. These clocks are also synchronized relative to this frame. That is, at any given relativistic time, these clocks always have the same clock time. We denote the events as: (t, x1, T), (t, x2, T), ..., (t, xn, T) where t is relativistic time following Lorentz Transformation and x1, x2, ..., xn are the relativistic x coordinates of the clocks when relativistic time equals t, and T is the clock time shown on all clocks when relativistic time equals t.

 

Now let's have a look at another inertial reference frame. After Lorentz Transformation, these events will be (t1', x1', T), (t2', x2', T), ..., (tn', xn', T) where variables with apostrophe are the relativistic time and relativistic space of the new inertial reference frame. It is shown that in the new frame, these events have different relativistic times and are no longer synchronized according to the relativistic times.

 

But we can see that all these events still have the same clock time because clock time represented by either the angle of a rotating arm or the height of a candlestick in a plane perpendicular to the motion of the new frame will not change after Lorentz Transformation. What does that mean? It simply means that these events are still synchronized according to clock time.

In terms of relativity, the clock arm or the height of the candlestics will in fact display different "time measurements" as per your t1', t2' etc. So one candle will be burned more than another etc... Being perpendicular to the motion of the new frame have got nothing to do with time dilation, and I can only guess why do you suppose it does. Length contraction indeed is related to the relativistic notion of simultaneity and it's not in that sense optically observable (because we don't see events directly, we only see them via signal speeds and thus simultaneity is a matter of convention, and thus a "instantaneous" length of a volume is also a matter of convention)

 

I'm pretty sure your claim arises from the misinterpretaton which I addressed by saying;

 

Lorentz transformation doesn't imply that "more time has passed but frequency has lowered".

 

When people write [math]\Delta t' = \gamma \Delta t[/math] they mean the period of the moving clock is longer than the period of the rest clock.

Because as long as you have that issue upside down (you have stated it erroneously multiple times including in your paper), that allows you to get into these claims you are making.

 

Let me know how that strikes you.

 

I'm also interested of knowing what are your current thoughts on the problem of measuring one-way speed of light.

 

Cheers,

[xinhangshen]

Actually I view relativity from very uncommon perspective (follow the link in my sig to find out more if you want), but that has got nothing to do with how Lorentz transformation works, and whether it is a valid transformation or not. In my opinion the easiest way to convince oneself of its validity is to work out exactly how the transformation works as a scaling or skewing factor on a spacetime diagram. If you represent macroscopic objects inside a spacetime diagram, the shape or form of that diagram is not an observable property to those objects themselves. From that premise, you should pretty easily see that

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_diagram#Spacetime_diagram_of_an_accelerating_observer_in_special_relativity

and the same thing;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Relativity_of_Simultaneity_Animation.gif

 

...these transformation will retain isotropic signal speeds for all frames, and still any chosen frame will validly represent any physical system. What gives in is the simultaneity of events, and that can give in because we cannot possibly measure it (due to finity of signal speeds).

 

What that means "philosophically" or how that validity should be interpreted is another matter entirely.

 

Either way I think we should focus on the one critical error I pointed out in the previous post, because you still repeat it;

 

 

In terms of relativity, the clock arm or the height of the candlestics will in fact display different "time measurements" as per your t1', t2' etc. So one candle will be burned more than another etc... Being perpendicular to the motion of the new frame have got nothing to do with time dilation, and I can only guess why do you suppose it does. Length contraction indeed is related to the relativistic notion of simultaneity and it's not in that sense optically observable (because we don't see events directly, we only see them via signal speeds and thus simultaneity is a matter of convention, and thus a "instantaneous" length of a volume is also a matter of convention)

 

I'm pretty sure your claim arises from the misinterpretaton which I addressed by saying;

 

 

Because as long as you have that issue upside down (you have stated it erroneously multiple times including in your paper), that allows you to get into these claims you are making.

 

Let me know how that strikes you.

 

I'm also interested of knowing what are your current thoughts on the problem of measuring one-way speed of light.

 

Cheers,

Hi, AnssiH, now the difficulty that locks you up in relativity seems the assumption that time and space form a geometric space. You should not interpret it as a fact before you try to prove the validity of relativity. Now let us have a look at the case, If x and t formed an orthogonal Cartesian coordinate system in one inertial frame, then after Lorentz Transformation, x' and t' would no longer be orthogonal Cartesian coordinate system, but a re-scaled and skewed coordinate system. It is an error to consider that x and t form an orthogonal Cartesian coordinate system in all inertial reference frames. Actually, space and time are two fundamentally different things. It does not make sense to say they are orthogonal or not. There is no such a geometric relationship at all, just as to say that your weight is perpendicular to your skin darkness, although you can always draw the curve of your weight against your darkness with axes of darkness and weight.

 

Regarding the height of a candlestick, the height is already represent the clock time but not the relativistic time. You just mix up the two times. I have told you that the relativistic times of the frames attached to the candlesticks are different after Lorentz Transformation from one inertial reference frame to the other inertial reference frame. The events in the first inertial reference frame have already been determined. What we want to know is how these events will be transformed to another inertial reference frame. The result is that the relativistic times of these events become different, but the clock times remain the same. I have also told you that the relativistic times would not appear in the real world. All we have are clock times. If these events have the same clock time in all inertial reference frames, then they are considered simultaneous in all inertial reference frames.

 

There is another issue. It looks that you always get confused in observation results with measurement methods. When we say the quantities observed in an inertial reference frame, it means that they are the results from Lorentz Transformation. It is nothing to do with how hey are measured. You can use a light beam, a bullet, a vehicle or something else to measure them and the results should always be the same regardless the method you have employed. It is a mistake to think relativistic time dilation is caused by the difference of light beams' traveling times during the measurement. Relativistic time dilation is the result of Lorentz Transformation.

 

AnssiH said

When people write Δt′=γΔtΔt′=γΔt 

 

they mean the period of the moving clock is longer than the period of the rest clock.

Here you still mix up relativistic time and clock time. t and t' in the formula are relativistic times, not clock time that I always want you to distinguish because they are very different. I have repeated many times that relativistic time will dilate after Lorentz Transformation, but clock time as the status of a physical process such as the angle of a rotating arm or the height of a burning candlestick is invariant of Lorentz Transformation and won't show any dilation. 

 

Regarding one way speed of light measurement, I have clearly described in the paper that the modified Fizeau experiment can do the job which makes use of the properties of different media light beams travel through. You don't need to have one way speed of light in advance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

t

 

 

′

=γΔtΔ

t′

=γ

=γΔt

[AnssiH]

Hi, AnssiH, now the difficulty that locks you up in relativity seems the assumption that time and space form a geometric space. You should not interpret it as a fact before you try to prove the validity of relativity. Now let us have a look at the case, If x and t formed an orthogonal Cartesian coordinate system in one inertial frame, then after Lorentz Transformation, x' and t' would no longer be orthogonal Cartesian coordinate system, but a re-scaled and skewed coordinate system. It is an error to consider that x and t form an orthogonal Cartesian coordinate system in all inertial reference frames. Actually, space and time are two fundamentally different things. It does not make sense to say they are orthogonal or not. There is no such a geometric relationship at all, just as to say that your weight is perpendicular to your skin darkness, although you can always draw the curve of your weight against your darkness with axes of darkness and weight.

Well I would pretty much agree with that; there's no reason to assume ontological status to the usual geometrical spacetime interpretation. I believe I have said so with much verbose in my earlier posts. When I say Relativity is "valid" though, I mean that it represents time relationships that must be true. Special Relativity is not the same thing as its spacetime interpretation.

 

The geometrical representation of these relationship is nevertheless also "logically valid", even if not necessarily "real". If someone represents the same idea with colors or sounds or pine cones, that also doesn't mean that time and space are colors or sounds or pine cones. The logical relationship being represented can still be "logically valid".

 

So just to be clear, I think relativity theory at its core represents relationships that are valid, and it defines space and time in self-consistent manner. But I think that elevating an interpretation, including the usual spacetime interpretation, into magically factual status is naive; there is simply no way to know such things.

 

Regarding the height of a candlestick, the height is already represent the clock time but not the relativistic time. You just mix up the two times. I have told you that the relativistic times of the frames attached to the candlesticks are different after Lorentz Transformation from one inertial reference frame to the other inertial reference frame. The events in the first inertial reference frame have already been determined. What we want to know is how these events will be transformed to another inertial reference frame. The result is that the relativistic times of these events become different, but the clock times remain the same. I have also told you that the relativistic times would not appear in the real world. All we have are clock times. If these events have the same clock time in all inertial reference frames, then they are considered simultaneous in all inertial reference frames.

The above is in error, and I have tried to point out exactly where the logic fails in previous posts. In this quote I highlighted a sentence which you should be able to see is impossible statement. A clock too can be viewed as "a collection of events"; you cannot possibly have a clock that remains unchanged, if the events of the frame change. Just because someone calls something a clock doesn't mean it suddenly behaves differently than everything else.

 

The problem is in the idea that Lorentz transformation causes some kind of cancellation of time dilation. There is no such thing in Relativity theory as time somehow first operating faster, and then frequency of things lowering by the same amount. I'm not sure where you got that, I just guess maybe you mis-interpreted a commonly seen [math]\Delta t' = \gamma \Delta t[/math]. In fact you still state that I have got it mixed up, even though I referred you to two Wikipedia pages that explain what it means, and even have a simple derivation which most definitely explains to you it means lengthening of oscillation periods; slowing down of clocks, not speeding up.

 

You should re-think that area of your presentation. Just view everything as a collection of events - view clocks as photon oscillators for example - and then trace through what happens to that system - to the oscillation counts - during Lorentz transformation, and you get your answers.

 

There is another issue. It looks that you always get confused in observation results with measurement methods. When we say the quantities observed in an inertial reference frame, it means that they are the results from Lorentz Transformation. It is nothing to do with how hey are measured. You can use a light beam, a bullet, a vehicle or something else to measure them and the results should always be the same regardless the method you have employed. It is a mistake to think relativistic time dilation is caused by the difference of light beams' traveling times during the measurement. Relativistic time dilation is the result of Lorentz Transformation.

Nah don't worry; at all times in all of these posts I'm referring to how things are plotted down in a spacetime diagram, not what an observer optically sees (unless specifically stated otherwise).

 

The only reason I always say "clock measurement" is that it is more neutral to say so; it implies less about what clocks are or what exactly they measure. Even though I refer to what occurs due to Lorentz transformation, that circumstance too can be interpreted in multitudes of ways. Obviously; as for instance Lorentz' aether theory and Minkowski's spacetime interpetation are two different ways to view of the same exact relationships.

 

You might notice that Einsten too said "clock measurement" a lot for the same reason. You may or may not know that the common geometrical space-time interpretation was not defined by Einstein, and it does not exist in his paper about Special Relativity. The paper circles around the simple idea that Lorentz transformation can be used to establish isotropic C, so long that you allow frame-specific notion of simultaneity.

 

Here you still mix up relativistic time and clock time. t and t' in the formula are relativistic times, not clock time that I always want you to distinguish because they are very different. I have repeated many times that relativistic time will dilate after Lorentz Transformation, but clock time as the status of a physical process such as the angle of a rotating arm or the height of a burning candlestick is invariant of Lorentz Transformation and won't show any dilation.

Stating so doesn't make it so; you explained the logic of how you reckon this happens in earlier posts, and I pointed out the error, you should follow that through carefully. Note that I am not referring to beliefs or assumptions, but simply consistency of definitions; you cannot possibly have a system that Lorentz transforms into faster motion but simultaneously slower frequency; frequency is by definition oscillations per time unit.

 

Regarding one way speed of light measurement, I have clearly described in the paper that the modified Fizeau experiment can do the job which makes use of the properties of different media light beams travel through. You don't need to have one way speed of light in advance.

You simply stated that one-way speed of light will be used to determine the outcome of the experiment, but you don't in any way describe how do you propose to get that one-way speed of light. If you mean you will simply divide two-way speed in half, then that is exactly the convention of Relativity, not a measurement of anything. 

 

Cheers,

[xinhangshen]

AnssiH, it does not add more credit to quote wikipedia or other sources because the mainstream physicists are wrong in interpreting relativity. Let me point out the problem of Einstein and the mainstream relativity believers in interpreting relativity: they all think that a clock directly measures relativistic time. This is an assumption and is a wrong assumption. A clock is a physical process. Clock time is represented as the status of a physical process. But relativistic time is defined by Lorentz.Transformation. They are not the same thing.

 

In special relativity, the status of a physical process is the product of relativistic time and relativistic progressing rate of the process. After Lorentz Transformation, the status of a physical process in a moving inertial reference frame observed in the stationary inertial reference frame will remain unchanged because in the product the dilation of the relativistic time of the moving frame observed in the stationary frame is canceled by the slowdown of the relativistic progressing rate of the process observed in the stationary frame. That is, the status of any physical process is Lorentz invariant.

 

Therefore, clock time is invariant of Lorentz Transformation, and absolute. If we set the clock of the stationary frame with the same frequency and initial value of the moving clock observed in the stationary frame, these two clocks will keep the same clock time from then on as observed in the stationary frame. Since clock time is invariant of Lorentz Transformation, these two clocks will always have the same clock time observed in the moving frame too.

 

You may say that these events have different relativistic times in the moving frame. It's true. But relativistic time does not appear in real world. It is just a mathematically defined quantity without real physical meaning. In the real world, we only have clocks and clock time, and the synchronization is represented by clock time rather than relativistic time. The best example is the universal synchronization of all the clocks on GPS satellites and the ground. These clocks are synchronized not only relative to the ground frame, but also to the frame of every satellite.  

[AnssiH]

AnssiH, it does not add more credit to quote wikipedia or other sources because the mainstream physicists are wrong in interpreting relativity. Let me point out the problem of Einstein and the mainstream relativity believers in interpreting relativity: they all think that a clock directly measures relativistic time. This is an assumption and is a wrong assumption. A clock is a physical process. Clock time is represented as the status of a physical process. But relativistic time is defined by Lorentz.Transformation. They are not the same thing.

I'm not convinced you are really reading my replies because I've stated many times by now that I too am not viewing Lorentz transformation as a "real thing", but as just that; a coordinate transformation. I referred to Wikipedia pages in order to point out how things are defined in relativity, nothing more, nothing less. In my mind it's very simple; choosing what inertial frame one represents reality from does not change reality itself, it just changes how it's being represented it.

 

The problem I'm trying to get you to focus on has got nothing to do with how I or anybody believes reality is, but simply a self-contradiction in your definitions. I don't care if you define things differently from relativity, but you cannot have self-contradictory logic in your statements, and it is impossible logic that causes you to arrive at your conclusions.

 

This;

 

After Lorentz Transformation, the status of a physical process in a moving inertial reference frame observed in the stationary inertial reference frame will remain unchanged because in the product the dilation of the relativistic time of the moving frame observed in the stationary frame is canceled by the slowdown of the relativistic progressing rate of the process observed in the stationary frame.

You cannot possibly have a coordinate transformation that speeds up something but also "slows down its progress rate". That is like saying a flywheel starts rotating faster but each cycle will take longer; simply an impossible statement. Do you understand why I'm saying this?

 

I also have no idea why do you think that time dilation means faster progression of time, because you don't explain where do you get this logic, you just state over and over that this is how it is. Your paper just states it so as if it's a direct consequence of Lorentz transformation somehow, and now you are saying that everyone else is just misinterpreting Relativity. That is somewhat strange claim because anyone who is willing can freely follow any derivation of Special Relativity and form a personal understanding of exactly what Lorentz transformation is and how it operates, and thus also have a personal understanding of what is meant by time dilation in that context.

 

I agree that simply appealing to authority is useless, but in this topic personal understanding really can be formed, and it's not even that hard.

 

Take care,

[xinhangshen]

Hi AnssiH, thanks for your patience in the discussion. I tried to start the discussion from different ways in order to make the problem more clearly. It seems that does not work well. OK, I will directly answer your question:

 

"You cannot possibly have a coordinate transformation that speeds up something but also "slows down its progress rate". That is like saying a flywheel starts rotating faster but each cycle will take longer; simply an impossible statement. Do you understand why I'm saying this?"

 

In special relativity, there are two things in a physical process: the time lapse and the progressing rate. These are two different parameters of a physical process. Both of these two physical parameters have to be transformed through Lorentz Transformation when you change your inertial reference frame from the moving frame attached to the process to the stationary frame. It seems that you have accepted that time lapse has a dilation by factor gamma, but not the slowdown of the progressing rate. The fact is that the progressing rate of a physical process is similar to the frequency of light traveling in the direction perpendicular to the motion and has a slowdown by the same factor gamma as the Transverse Doppler Effect. Therefore, the product of the time lapse and progressing rate remains unchanged after Lorentz Transformation.

 

Your statement should be said like that "a flywheel rotates at a slower frequency but the time lapse becomes longer" when it is observed on the stationary frame. The result is that the angle the flywheel has rotated remains the same observed in both inertial reference frames. This is the result of the redefinition of the time in special relativity. Many people just mix up the concepts of progressing rate and time and treat them as one thing. That's why they always say "clocks go slower in moving frames". But there are two different concepts ambiguously included in the statement: slower because of time dilation or slow progressing rate. This is the mistake that has misled us for more than a century.

[AnssiH]

Hi AnssiH, thanks for your patience in the discussion. I tried to start the discussion from different ways in order to make the problem more clearly. It seems that does not work well. OK, I will directly answer your question:

 

"You cannot possibly have a coordinate transformation that speeds up something but also "slows down its progress rate". That is like saying a flywheel starts rotating faster but each cycle will take longer; simply an impossible statement. Do you understand why I'm saying this?"

 

In special relativity, there are two things in a physical process: the time lapse and the progressing rate. These are two different parameters of a physical process.

But you see, that's simply not true; in special relativity there are no two separate parameters like you describe, there is only the physical process described by electromagnetic laws, and how do we expect that description to behave under a coordinate transformation. What they call "time dilation" is simply such a coordinate transformation to the space-time description of a system, that requires that the system's electromagnetic "physical processess" must become described as progressing slower from any other inertial frame than its own.

 

I could go one step by step how and why that specific transformation comes about from finite signal speeds (with or without the concept of ether), but it's probably much more fruitful if you instead find a reference from somewhere which under your interpretation means that SR specifices these two separate parameters, and how is it that "time lapses" supposedly become faster under Lorentz transformation.

 

If you want to go directly to the source, it's found here;

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf

 

Or alternatively feel free to use any source of your liking. I'm sure we can solve this puzzle.

 

Note, if it is still your opinion that everyone simply got things mixed up when interpreting relativity, including Einstein, then you are not actually talking about "misinterpretation of relativity", you are talking about a different theory. But also in that case you have not outlined that theory, you have just stated things without actual defense, and that's not very useful at all I'm afraid :P

 

The fact is that the progressing rate of a physical process is similar to the frequency of light traveling in the direction perpendicular to the motion and has a slowdown by the same factor gamma as the Transverse Doppler Effect. Therefore, the product of the time lapse and progressing rate remains unchanged after Lorentz Transformation.

Had you examined the link to a derivation of Lorentz transformation that I gave several posts ago, you would have seen that the derivation revolves around exactly this idea, and only this idea. It is the only "parameter" in the derivation, and it is what "time dilation" is referring to. At no point they define a magical unobservable time lapse "thing" that also scales to the opposite direction.

 

Your statement should be said like that "a flywheel rotates at a slower frequency but the time lapse becomes longer" when it is observed on the stationary frame. The result is that the angle the flywheel has rotated remains the same observed in both inertial reference frames.

Note that you use very unfortunate ambiguity often when discussing your idea. For instance here when you say "time lapse becomes longer", I only know from your earlier discussion that you mean to say "time rolls over faster". Otherwise I could just as easily interpret it in the exact opposite way. I suspect your original study of relativity may have started off on bad foot if you've ran through exactly this type of ambiguity of language early on. But if you follow an actual logical derivation of the transformation, you can find out how it actually mechanically operates, and get over ambiguous statements.

 

Many people just mix up the concepts of progressing rate and time and treat them as one thing. That's why they always say "clocks go slower in moving frames". But there are two different concepts ambiguously included in the statement: slower because of time dilation or slow progressing rate. This is the mistake that has misled us for more than a century.

You know people who are serious about these things don't just "read about it" somewhere and base their interpretation on english language description, but they actually logically deduce the results, so that they understand from many different angles what things are connected and how exactly. So it's not really possible that everyone just misinterpret some common language description. I think the mainstream version of relativity tends to be criminally stupid, but not everyone are just mindlessly following that particular interpretation.

 

Anyway, next step, please just find a presentation where these two parameters you always talk about come up, and let's see what they really mean.

 

Later,

[xinhangshen]

AnssiH, many thanks for your insistence on this discussion. As I know, this discovery has not been found anywhere else. It is my discovery. That's why I dared to write a paper to claim it's my work. Otherwise, I would be a plagiarizer. I know it's really challenging as relativity has been published for more than 110 years, and has been accepted by the mainstream physicists who have already taken it as the base for more other physics theories. The disproof of relativity means the disproof of all these theories. It is a work to correct a 110 year history of physics in the world. Fortunately, the reviewers and the editor of Physics Essays thought that this paper is logically sound and allowed to be published. Like relativity in its early difficult years, this discovery may also experience a similar ordeal, but it will be finally accepted. Once it has been accepted by the mainstream physicists, then everybody will say "Oh yes, it's obvious!". 

 

Now I would like you to figure out the answer to the question in special relativity: There is a wheel in a moving inertia reference frame that is rotating in the plane perpendicular to the motion of the frame at a rate of w'. At time t' of the moving frame, the wheel has rotated an angel A'. Now what is the result of this event observed in the stationary inertia frame.