Strange Claims About Relativistic Time Split From A Alternative Theories Thread

[AnssiH]

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!".

But wait a minute, you have been saying for several posts now that in Relativity there's this abstract time that speeds up by the same factor that physical processes slow down, and now you acknowledge that you were referring to your own invention all along? Extremely confusing...

 

So now we have established that Relativity theory does not have this concept that you are talking about, next you should try to actually explain how do you deduce this idea. Your paper just states it as a matter of fact but doesn't say a word why would we expect this "abstract time" to exist.

 

As of the Physics Essays, I don't think they really analyze what they publish too much. Not that I care what gets published, but there are some pretty obvious elementary mistakes in your paper that they appear to be blissfully ignorant of. For one you are citing experiments that supposedly indicate the existence of aether, when in fact Lorentz aether theory is well known to be mathematically equivalent with Special Relativity. There cannot possibly be any experiment that could indicate one or the other. Baal vs Yahweh, same content, different package.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity_(alternative_formulations)#Lorentz_ether_theory

 

And as I also already mentioned before, the idea of getting one-way speed of light from dividing a two-way trip is in fact exactly Einstein convention, and it is called convention because doing so does not in any way tell you it is correct. It is just something you can always do whether it is correct or not (understanding why this move is always valid in any inertial frame is in fact the basis of understanding Special Relativity)

 

Yet, papers of some people who supposedly measure one-way speed of light manage to get published every now and then, and the authors simply don't realize that they define the results of their measurements by choosing Einstein convention.

 

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.

In the terminology of special relativity the moving wheel would have rotated less when compared to an identical wheel rotating in the stationary frame, by the Lorentz factor.

 

In your theory you add another parameter, unobservable "abstract time" which moves faster by Lorentz factor and thus cancels out the impact of Lorentz transformation. The supposed justification for doing so is a complete mystery to me.

 

I would also comment that it seems somewhat problematic to me that your theory actually seems to have less explanatory power than Special Relativity. If your expectation is that physical processes remain unchanged to any natural observer, then reconciling with experimental data becomes a bit cumbersome. In which case, what's the point?

 

Cheers,

[xinhangshen]

AnssiH, To make things clear, the fact that clocks time is Lorentz invariant is what I discovered along with the discovery of the existence of Galilean time and Galilean space as functions of relativistic time and relativistic space within the framework of special relativity. With the relationships between Galilean spacetime and relativistic spacetime, I have further proved that the real speed of light still follows Newton's velocity addition formula; relativistic time dilation and length contraction are illusions,

 

I originally only asked you the event of one wheel in the moving frame observed on the stationary frame. The answer is the angle will be the same observed in both frames because it is perpendicular to the motion of the frame and won't experience any relativistic effects. That is, the angle of the wheel will be the same observed in all inertial reference frames. If the angle represents the clock time of the moving frame, then people in all inertial reference frames will see the clock showing the same time. People may say that the time shown on each observer's clock is different. This is not true. The time of the observer here is not the time of his clock, but the relativistic time of his reference frame. Clock time is different from the relativistic time.

 

If there are two clocks, one is moving at a constant speed and the other is stationary in an inertia reference frame, If we set the clocks synchronized in the stationary frame (i.e. the angles of their rotating arms of the clocks are always the same observed in the stationary frame), then the angles of these two clocks observed on the moving frame will be the same too because the arms are rotating in the plane perpendicular to the motion of the moving frame and won't experience the relativistic effects. That is, the two events that the two clocks have the same clock time in the stationary frame can be transformed to the moving frame too with Lorentz Transformation. The result is that the two events observed in the moving frame still have the same clock time. Therefore, they are still synchronized in the moving frame too. 

 

If you insist on your conclusion that the angles are different, please present your step by step derivation how you get this conclusion. In the derivation, I think you will realize that either Galilean time or relativistic time must be accompanied by the progressing rate to become visible as the status of a physical process such as the angle of a rotating arm or the height of a burning candlestick so that we can measure it. Only when the progressing rate is invariant of inertial reference frames, we can obtain the time from the status divided by the constant progressing rate. 

[AnssiH]

AnssiH, To make things clear, the fact that clocks time is Lorentz invariant is what I discovered along with the discovery of the existence of Galilean time and Galilean space as functions of relativistic time and relativistic space within the framework of special relativity. With the relationships between Galilean spacetime and relativistic spacetime, I have further proved that the real speed of light still follows Newton's velocity addition formula; relativistic time dilation and length contraction are illusions,

You should try to present the logic how you get this result, because just stating it's so isn't very helpful... I mean, as far as I can see, your argument amounts to stating that there exists some kind of abstract time that just so happens to undergo a reverse Lorentz transformation alongside with the normal relativistic transformation, but why do you suppose that is so is not becoming any clearer...

 

I originally only asked you the event of one wheel in the moving frame observed on the stationary frame. The answer is the angle will be the same observed in both frames because it is perpendicular to the motion of the frame and won't experience any relativistic effects. That is, the angle of the wheel will be the same observed in all inertial reference frames. If the angle represents the clock time of the moving frame, then people in all inertial reference frames will see the clock showing the same time.

Ah, if you mean just one event of one clock then yes of course every observer would agree what the state of that clock face is, by the definition of what one event means (ignoring the fact that no clock face is actually infinitesimally small, but that would be splitting hair in the context of this conversation)

 

People may say that the time shown on each observer's clock is different.

No they may not actually if you are essentially referring to one event.

 

If there are two clocks, one is moving at a constant speed and the other is stationary in an inertia reference frame, If we set the clocks synchronized in the stationary frame (i.e. the angles of their rotating arms of the clocks are always the same observed in the stationary frame), then the angles of these two clocks observed on the moving frame will be the same too because the arms are rotating in the plane perpendicular to the motion of the moving frame and won't experience the relativistic effects. That is, the two events that the two clocks have the same clock time in the stationary frame can be transformed to the moving frame too with Lorentz Transformation. The result is that the two events observed in the moving frame still have the same clock time. Therefore, they are still synchronized in the moving frame too.

To reach that situation requires that the clocks are not identical; that they don't run at the same rate in the same inertial frame. That is so under the normal application of Lorentz transformation.

 

Now I know you are saying that because you are trying to make an argument about how clocks would always appear to run at the same rate to all natural observer, but this is just another example of simply stating "it is so", instead of presenting any reason to expect it to be so.

 

If you insist on your conclusion that the angles are different, please present your step by step derivation how you get this conclusion.

For two identical clocks, the one plotted as moving must run slower than the one plotted as stationary, and the arm angles drift apart accordingly. The derivation of this is any derivation of special relativity so I hardly have to repeat one here. There's no concept of any abstract time becoming faster in that derivation, like you seem to expect here;

 

In the derivation, I think you will realize that either Galilean time or relativistic time must be accompanied by the progressing rate to become visible as the status of a physical process such as the angle of a rotating arm or the height of a burning candlestick so that we can measure it. Only when the progressing rate is invariant of inertial reference frames, we can obtain the time from the status divided by the constant progressing rate.

And now I'm confused again because you are implying that under the theory of relativity the clocks would run at the same speed, when in the last post you stated you actually meant a new theory. Look, this idea of abstract time that somehow becomes faster does not exist in special relativity, but there is some math that I think could be superficially interpreted that way. Now I suspect again this may have happened to you, so if you do in fact believe that in the derivation of special relativity there existis an abstract time that becomes faster for a moving object, maybe you should point me to it and we can take a look.

 

And if on the other hand this concept only exists in your new theory, then you need to present the logic as to why one should expect it to be so, instead of just saying it is so.

 

Cheers,

[xinhangshen]

AnssiH, you are still confused by the definitions of time. Actually there are three definitions of time existing in our physics: the first one is defined by a physical process called physical time or clock time, the second is defined by Galilean Transformation called Galilean time and the last one is defined by Lorentz Transformation called relativistic time. We should never assume that they are the same thing before you have verified. The mistake of Einstein is to assume that clock time is relativistic time.

 

Both classic mechanics and special relativity are physics theories used to describe physical processes.

 

In classical mechanics, the status of a physical process can be calculated by the product of Galilean time and Galilean progressing rate of the process. Since Galilean progressing rate is invariant of inertial reference frames (i.e. Galilean Transformation), the status divided by the Galilean progressing rate becomes Galilean time. This is exactly how a clock can be used to measure Galilean time. Therefore, Galilean time is our physical time.

 

In special relativity, the status of a physical process can be calculated by the product of relativistic time and relativistic progressing rate of the process. Since relativistic progressing rate is no longer invariant of inertial reference frames (i.e. Lorentz Transformation) but experiences Transverse Doppler Effect, there is no way to separate relativistic time from the product of relativistic time and relativistic progressing rate. Therefore, relativistic time can't be measured by any clock and relativistic time is not our physical time but an artificial time introduced just for producing an artificial constant speed of light.

[AnssiH]

In special relativity, the status of a physical process can be calculated by the product of relativistic time and relativistic progressing rate of the process.

You are just repeating the same statement without giving any justification for the concepts you use, so what is anyone supposed to work out from that exactly?

 

You seem to assume I am taking and defending special relativity as a belief, but that is completely untrue. I simply don't do belief. The thing is that you can actually follow what the logical argument is behind Special Relativity, and when you do you can see in what sense it is assumptions and in what sense it is logical conclusions from some premise. Likewise, you need to also offer actual reasoning for your concepts instead of just stating "it is so". As I said, I don't do belief.

 

As an example of someone who actually gave reasons to follow the argument, and also in fact derived special relativistic relationships from epistemological grounds, you might want to take a look at the book at these;

 

http://foundationsofphysics.blogspot.fi/2014/09/some-background-on-special-relativity.html

 

http://foundationsofphysics.blogspot.fi/2014/09/epistemological-derivation-of-special.html

 

Notice that Richard defines his concepts and follows through actual logic to some conclusions. He is not asking anyone to just believe something he believes, he is instead taking a premise and showing what is already embedded in that premise via logical analysis. If X then Y, and that's all there is to it.

 

Notice that in his definition of "time", it is also not what clocks measure, but exclusively used as an interaction term (i.e. objects in "same time" can interact). He gives reasons as to why it is defined this way, and there are in fact good reasons to do so. (In fact in the quest for quantum description of gravity, multiple physicists have stated that conceptualizing time as a dynamic geometry is one of the primary headaches for their work, and that is exactly what you avoid by never conceptualizing time that way. See http://foundationsofphysics.blogspot.fi/2015/03/towards-quantum-gravity.html )

 

Anyway, there's no reason to continue this exchange if you are not willing or able to offer a logical derivation. But I hope it is at least clear to all the readers exactly where the problems in your argument lie. To summarize;

• Lorentz transformation is used in opposite way from what it originally means, for no reason given.
• Time is conceptualized in two parts; an abstract part that Lorentz transforms one way, and as "frequency" that inexplicably is not a function of time, but instead Lorentz contracts the opposite way, thus cancelling observable effects out.

To be honest I don't think a self-consistent theory is possible with these concepts.

 

Cheers,

[xinhangshen]

AnssiH, the reason I don't use so called epistemological terms in explaining the problem of relativity is that these explanations have been presented by many people before but nobody can really understand what they are talking about as shown on the link you gave me. I called this kind of debating "word games" without much help to clarify the problem of relativity, while the problem of relativity can be much more easily explained.

 

The sentence "In special relativity, the status of a physical process can be calculated by the product of relativistic time and relativistic progressing rate of the process." as you quoted represents the definition of the status of a physical process that has been adopted in both classical mechanics and special relativity, such as the velocity equals the distance divided by the time and thus the distance equals time multiplied by the velocity. Here the distance is the status of a physical process, the velocity is the progressing rate of the physical process. For a general case, it can be stated as "the status of a physical process is the product of time and the progressing rate of the physical process". Due to the differences of transformations in classical mechanics and special relativity, I used the terms of Galilean time and Galilean progressing rate to be distinguished from relativistic time and relativistic progressing rate. There is nothing I invented in the statement.

 

I never say that you defend relativity, but your statements show that you have not got what I have pointed out as follows: 

 

 

• Lorentz transformation is used in opposite way from what it originally means, for no reason given.
• Time is conceptualized in two parts; an abstract part that Lorentz transforms one way, and as "frequency" that inexplicably is not a function of time, but instead Lorentz contracts the opposite way, thus cancelling observable effects out.

 

The error of relativity is the wrong assumption that clock time is relativistic time. All so called relativistic effects are just the results of that error. If the error was removed from relativity, then special relativity would produce exactly the same results of classical mechanics in describing a physical phenomenon, very similar to a situation to use a polar coordinate system to replace a Cartesian coordinate system in describing the geometry of an object.  

 

Now let's have a look at a mechanical clock as a physical process in special relativity. The clock displays its reading as the angle of a rotating arm rotating in a plane perpendicular to the motion of its reference frame. Then we know that the angle will be the same observed in both the stationary and the moving frame (i.e. the clock frame) because relativistic effects won't appear in the plane perpendicular to the motion of the frame. The reason I want you to look at this case is that we have to know the behavior of a clock between different inertial reference frames so that we can know how to set the clocks "identical". Otherwise, we have no clue at all whether two clocks are "identical" or not. How a clock behaves as a physical process in Lorentz Transformation has never been mentioned in special relativity, in which a clock becomes an ideal device directly measuring the relativistic time.

 

Now we know that the reading of a clock is the same observed in two inertial reference frames. Since these frames do not have special properties assigned, we can directly conclude that the reading of a clock is the same observed in all inertial reference frames (i.e. invariant of Lorentz Transformation). If we set all the clocks with the same reading in one inertial reference frame, then these clocks will have the same reading observed in all inertial reference frames. That is, clocks can be synchronized in all inertial reference frames, which has been perfectly illustrated by the universal synchronization of clocks on GPS satellites and on the ground.

 

Therefore, relativistic time is not our physical time (i.e. clock time) and thus relativity as a theory of physics is wrong. 

 

All what I presented here is just logical reasoning without introducing any assumption.

[HydrogenBond]

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?

 

It is possible to have a contraction of time, without a distance contraction. Consider the twin paradox. One twin stays on earth, while the other is moving near relativistic speeds, so when he returns the moving twin has aged less.

 

Although the time change due to relativity is conserved; one twin is younger, the same twin does not remain shorter and thinner, even though space-time was contracted while in motion. Only delta time is conserved from the moving reference, when it returns to the stationary reference. 

 

The aging less impacts all his biology, all his chemistry and all his physics, not in distance, but in time. Even his cell phone battery will appear to have extra life, causing some extra energy to be conserved. Distance changes are not conserved. 

 

Moving references impact space-time, but once they meet again, only the time change remains active. 

Edited July 25, 2016 by HydrogenBond

[CraigD]

Good to see you back at Hypography, HBond! :)

 

The aging less impacts all his biology, all his chemistry and all his physics, not in distance, but in time. Even his cell phone battery will appear to have extra life, causing some extra energy to be conserved.

I agree.

 

Special Relativity predicts that everything that can be used to measure the passage of time, from atomic clocks to burning candles to senescening biological organisms, experience less passage of time when are in motion, relative to other clocks of any kind. It does not predict, and I’m aware of no experimental data supporting, xinhangshen, that there are different kinds of time, one called “relativistic t” and another called “physical” or “clock”.

 

It is possible to have a contraction of time, without a distance contraction. Consider the twin paradox. One twin stays on earth, while the other is moving near relativistic speeds, so when he returns the moving twin has aged less.

...

Moving references impact space-time, but once they meet again, only the time change remains active.

This isn’t what SR predicts.

 

Although it’s true that the twin in the twins paradox (which really isn’t a paradox, but a though experiment intended to teach SR) who is accelerated ages less than the one who doesn’t, the length contraction experienced by the twins is as permanent as the time dilation. The accelerated twin has not only aged less than the unaccelerated one, but, as he measures it, traveled less far. Not only his “[math]\delta[/math] t” change in time is less, his “[math]\delta[/math] x” change in position is, also.

 

Let’s say the though experiment specifies that the younger twin, Alice, left on her 20th birthday on a 40 light-year, straight out-and-back trip at a speed of 0.8 c. When she returns, her twin, Betty, is [math]20+\frac{40}{0.8} = 70[/math] years old, but she’s only [math]20+\frac{40}{0.8} \sqrt{1-0.8^2} = 50[/math].

 

The difference in distance traveled is less obvious, but in principle as measurable. Let’s say each of the twins has a long string on a spool that measures the amount of string pulled from it, and that each attaches the end of the string to the other. At the end of the trip, the Alice finds that, due to length contraction, the meter on her spool shows 12 light-years of string was pulled from, then retracted into, its spool. The Betty’s meter shows that 20 was. This lasting difference (or, to be precise, ratio) in readings of identical distance measuring devices,[math]\frac{12\,\mbox{ly}}{20\,\mbox{ly}}[/math] is the same as the difference in the readings of their two clocks, [math]\frac{30\,\mbox{years}}{50\,\mbox{years}}[/math].

[xinhangshen]

Regarding the paradox of twin brothers, we should be clearly aware what effects we want to see. On the above, HydrogenBon and CraigD talk about the effects of acceleration which are irrelevant to SR because SR's time dilation is about the effects of speed, not acceleration. 

 

The correct way should be a case with complete symmetric positions for the twin brothers. When they separate, they are on two spaceships moving in the opposite directions after exact the same acceleration. Once they are all in inertial reference frames, according to Lorentz Transformation, the time of one brother looks dilated observed by the other brother. But have you checked how the the aging rate are transformed by Lorentz Transformation? The aging rate of one brother will have a Transverse Doppler Effect, and looks slower observed on the frame of the other brother. The real biological age is the product of time and aging rate. This product remains unchanged after Lorentz Transformation because the effect of time dilation has been canceled by the effect of the slowdown of the aging rate. Therefore, each brother looks exactly the same observed by the other brother. There are no effects of time dilation on the biological ages of the brothers at all. There is no paradox.

 

The paradox is from the mistake to think that the time of relativity is our physical time, but the reality is that the time of relativity is just a new time defined by Lorentz Transformation without real physical meaning. Our physical time is always defined by the status of a physical process such as the number of cycles of an oscillation process, the angle of a rotating arm, the height of a burning candlestick, the shape of a moon, the position of the sun, etc, The status of every physical process is the result of time multiplied by its progressing rate and is always invariant of inertial reference frames. Therefore, they are absolute and universal as illustrated by the universal synchronization of GPS satellite and ground clocks. A physics theory is valid only when its defined time has the same property as the physical time, such as classical mechanics with Galilean time which is also absolute and universal. Special Relativity just fails to meet this criterion, and thus is wrong.

[A-wal]

Regarding the paradox of twin brothers, we should be clearly aware what effects we want to see. On the above, HydrogenBon and CraigD talk about the effects of acceleration which are irrelevant to SR because SR's time dilation is about the effects of speed, not acceleration. 

The situation is symmetrical in the sense that each twice sees the other as time dilated and length contracted and by the same amount assuming they accelerated away from each other equally. If one of the twins then accelerates so they can meet back up and compare watches it's the twin that accelerated that will have aged less.

 

The correct way should be a case with complete symmetric positions for the twin brothers. When they separate, they are on two spaceships moving in the opposite directions after exact the same acceleration. Once they are all in inertial reference frames, according to Lorentz Transformation, the time of one brother looks dilated observed by the other brother. But have you checked how the the aging rate are transformed by Lorentz Transformation? The aging rate of one brother will have a Transverse Doppler Effect, and looks slower observed on the frame of the other brother. The real biological age is the product of time and aging rate. This product remains unchanged after Lorentz Transformation because the effect of time dilation has been canceled by the effect of the slowdown of the aging rate. Therefore, each brother looks exactly the same observed by the other brother. There are no effects of time dilation on the biological ages of the brothers at all. There is no paradox.

This is no paradox is special relativity. The effect of time dilation is caused by Lorentz Transformation, not cancelled out by it. Even if they were somehow separate the Lorentz Transformation would have to increase the effect of the observed watch slowing down, it wouldn't cancel it out.

 

The paradox is from the mistake to think that the time of relativity is our physical time, but the reality is that the time of relativity is just a new time defined by Lorentz Transformation without real physical meaning. Our physical time is always defined by the status of a physical process such as the number of cycles of an oscillation process, the angle of a rotating arm, the height of a burning candlestick, the shape of a moon, the position of the sun, etc, The status of every physical process is the result of time multiplied by its progressing rate and is always invariant of inertial reference frames. Therefore, they are absolute and universal as illustrated by the universal synchronization of GPS satellite and ground clocks. A physics theory is valid only when its defined time has the same property as the physical time, such as classical mechanics with Galilean time which is also absolute and universal. Special Relativity just fails to meet this criterion, and thus is wrong.

Special relativity does describe physical time, which is certainly not absolute and universal! Just another deluded person who doesn't understand relativity but thinks thinks they know better. The flaw isn't in the theory, it's in your misconceptions of how time and space work when comparing different inertial frames.

[xinhangshen]

The situation is symmetrical in the sense that each twice sees the other as time dilated and length contracted and by the same amount assuming they accelerated away from each other equally. If one of the twins then accelerates so they can meet back up and compare watches it's the twin that accelerated that will have aged less.

 

This is no paradox is special relativity. The effect of time dilation is caused by Lorentz Transformation, not cancelled out by it. Even if they were somehow separate the Lorentz Transformation would have to increase the effect of the observed watch slowing down, it wouldn't cancel it out.

 

Special relativity does describe physical time, which is certainly not absolute and universal! Just another deluded person who doesn't understand relativity but thinks thinks they know better. The flaw isn't in the theory, it's in your misconceptions of how time and space work when comparing different inertial frames.

 

A-wal, you have not presented any rational refutation, but only assertion and criticism. That's not a scientific way for debating. 

 

When you talk about clocks or watches, it seems that these devices have some magic to directly tell the time of special relativity. Please be aware that whether a clock tells the time is not a simple assertion, but the result of the analysis of the physical process inside the clock. If the physical process can't be calibrated to produce the time of special relativity, then the the clock time is not the time of special relativity. The time of special relativity follows Lorentz Transformation while the reading of a clock is invariant of Lorentz Transformation.

[A-wal]

A-wal, you have not presented any rational refutation, but only assertion and criticism. That's not a scientific way for debating. 

Which is all you've done to sr. Why does your bs deserve better than an established model with supporting evidence?

 

When you talk about clocks or watches, it seems that these devices have some magic to directly tell the time of special relativity. Please be aware that whether a clock tells the time is not a simple assertion, but the result of the analysis of the physical process inside the clock. If the physical process can't be calibrated to produce the time of special relativity, then the the clock time is not the time of special relativity. The time of special relativity follows Lorentz Transformation while the reading of a clock is invariant of Lorentz Transformation.

The physical process can be calibrated to produce the time of special relativity. All it needs is observers in different inertial frames, exactly as special relativity describes. The consistency of the speed of light in all inertial frames proves the validity of time dilation and length contraction because there's no other way for objects in motion relative to each other to measure the same thing moving moving along the same axis at the same speed.

Edited July 26, 2016 by A-wal

[xinhangshen]

Which is all you've done to sr. Why does your bs deserve better than an established model with supporting evidence?

 

The physical process can be calibrated to produce the time of special relativity. All it needs is observers in different inertial frames, exactly as special relativity describes. The consistency of the speed of light in all inertial frames proves the validity of time dilation and length contraction because there's no other way for objects in motion relative to each other to measure the same thing moving moving along the same axis at the same speed.

A-wal, the problem is that I found the mistake of Einstein in his relativity and published a paper for the discovery. All theories may have errors and it is normal that new discoveries throw away old wrong theories. Don't be surprised!

 

You still simply asserted that the physical process can be calibrated to produce the time of special relativity, but didn't present how it does. For example, a clock uses the angle of its rotating arm to represent its clock time. According to Lorentz Transformation, if the arm rotates in the plane perpendicular to the motion of the reference frame, then the angle won't experience any relativistic effects. Then, the angle of the arm will be the same observed in both the stationary frame and the moving frame. Do you know what it means? It means that the clock time shown on the clock is invariant of Lorentz Transformation, different from the time of relativity which follows Lorentz Transformation. Have you got it?

[A-wal]

You're confusing time dilation with length contraction. If the arm of the clock is at a right angle to the plane of motion then it won't experience any length contraction (actually it will because it will be thinner but it will stay the same length). What causes the clock to run slow is time dilation.

 

The consistency of the speed of light proves that the Lorentz transformations are a physically accurate representation of length in time and space for an object in motion relative to the observer because there's simply no other way for objects in motion relative to each other to measure the same thing moving moving along the same axis at the same speed. Have you got it?

[xinhangshen]

You're confusing time dilation with length contraction. If the arm of the clock is at a right angle to the plane of motion then it won't experience any length contraction (actually it will because it will be thinner but it will stay the same length). What causes the clock to run slow is time dilation.

 

The consistency of the speed of light proves that the Lorentz transformations are a physically accurate representation of length in time and space for an object in motion relative to the observer because there's simply no other way for objects in motion relative to each other to measure the same thing moving moving along the same axis at the same speed. Have you got it?

Let me ask you step by step:

 

There is a clock using the angle of an arm rotating in the plane perpendicular to the motion of an inertial reference frame.

 

1. This angle will be the same observed in both reference frames (i.e. the frame of the clock and the moving frame).

2. This angle represents the clock time, for example, 30 degrees (i.e. 1 o'clock).

3. Thus, the clock time is the same observed in both reference frames.

4. The time of relativity of the clock frame will be different observed on the moving frame because it follows Lorentz Transformation.

5. Therefore, clock time is different from the time of relativity.

6. Our physical time is measured with clocks, and thus the time of relativity is just an artificial time without physical meaning.

7. The real speed of light is also measured with clocks.

8. Therefore, the speed of light defined with the time of relativity is nothing to do with the real speed of light.

9. The real speed of light has already been proved theoretically following Newton's velocity addition formula even in the framework of special relativity.

 

Please show me which step is wrong.

Edited July 27, 2016 by xinhangshen

[A-wal]

Please show me which step is wrong.

All of them except 2 and 7.

 

1. This angle will be the same observed in both reference frames (i.e. the frame of the clock and the moving frame).

 

Meaningless statement. What do you mean by "at the same time"? Events that happen at the same time in one frame of reference won't happen at the same time in other frames of reference.

 

 

2. This angle represents the clock time, for example, 30 degrees (i.e. 1 o'clock).

 

3. Thus, the clock time is the same observed in both reference frames.

 

4. The time of relativity of the clock frame will be different observed on the moving frame because it follows Lorentz Transformation.

 

Faulty assumptions based on the invalidity of point 1. Different from what? If you want to compare different frames of reference you need to actually understand how those frames of reference relate to each other.

 

 

5. Therefore, clock time is different from the time of relativity.

 

No. Relativity time is clock time. Proper time is the observer's measured time and coordinate time is arbitrary.

 

 

6. Our physical time is measured with clocks, and thus the time of relativity is just an artificial time without physical meaning.

 

No. Our physical time as measured by clocks is subject to Lorentz transformation, thus your posts describing absolute time are without physical meaning.

 

 

7. The real speed of light is also measured with clocks.

 

8. Therefore, the speed of light defined with the time of relativity is nothing to do with the real speed of light.

 

The speed of light is not defined by special relativity. Special relativity is defined by the speed of light.

 

 

9. The real speed of light has already been proved theoretically following Newton's velocity addition formula even in the framework of special relativity.

 

No it hasn't! Light doesn't follow any velocity addition formula. It always moves at the same speed relative to any inertial observers. This has been proven experimentally.

 

 

You're using the faulty assumption that time is absolute in your argument against relative time. You can't use an assumption as evidence of it's own validity. Although this is done routinely with the standard model it's still circular reasoning.

[CraigD]

Let me ask you step by step:

...

Please show me which step is wrong.

I assume you’re asking which step is wrong according to the predictions of Special Relativity.

 

There is a clock using the angle of an arm rotating in the plane perpendicular to the motion of an inertial reference frame.

 

1. This angle will be the same observed in both reference frames (i.e. the frame of the clock and the moving frame).

This assumption is wrong – that is, it is contradicted by a prediction of SR – for all but 4 angles.

 

According to SR, the angle of the rotating arm depends on the direction of the arm and the relative velocity of the two reference frames.

 

For example, if the 0 deg position of the clock is perpendicular to the direction its moving, and it is moving at 0.8 c, when the commoving observer sees the arm at 30^o, the stationary observer sees it at [math]\arctan \left( \frac{\sin \left(30^{o} \sqrt{1 - 0.8^2} \right) }{\cos 30^{o}} \right) \dot= 19.63^{o}[/math].

 

The moving and stationary observer agree on the angle of the arm only when it is at 0^o, 90^o, 180^o, and 270^o.