Strange Claims About Relativistic Time Split From A Alternative Theories Thread

[xinhangshen]

You the one who just posted a response that didn't even attempt to provide any reasoning, you should at least try. And you're making bassless assumptions without any reasoning behind them as well.

 

Since Galilean progressing rate is invariant of inertial reference frames and can clocks can be used to measure it, clock time is Galilean time? That assumes that clocks measure Galilean time as opposed to relativistic time and we know that they don't because of experiments and because the speed of light is the same in every inertial frame. Bassless assumption 1! Where's the reasoning???

 

It was measured to be constant first and special relativity was formulated after to describe what has to happen to measurements of time and space for there to be a constant rate of energy propagation (the speed of light) in all inertial frames. The consistency of the speed of light in every inertial frame is not inferred from special relativity. Bassless assumption 2! Still no reasoning.

 

GPS satellites are calibrated in agreement with relativity! Because length contraction doesn't apply to the spacial dimension perpendicular to to the motion of the observed object that somehow means time doesn't dilate either? Huh? Bassless assumptions numbers 3 and 4! Still nothing remotely resembling any kind of actual reasoning.

 

Again claiming that clock time is not relativistic time and again claiming that a lack of length contraction in one spacial dimension that has noting to do with one that's contracted somehow means that time does dilate.

 

Yes, and your 'theory' is logically wrong and very stupid.

 

All your claims are assertions without any logical reasoning! Please present them with logical reasoning. Otherwise just be quiet!

[A-wal]

No they're not silly nincompoop!

 

You claim that clocks don't show relativistic time because the clocks aren't in synch. Special relativity describes the clocks not being in synch, you can't just claim that it's wrong, you have to show that is. You provided no reasoning!

 

You claim that no length contraction in a special dimension that has nothing to do with the relative motion of the observed object somehow means that time doesn't dilate, again without providing any reasoning for this absurd claim.

 

You claim that the consistency of the speed of light is inferred from relativistic effects when it's the other way round. No reasoning here.

 

You claim gps satellites refute relativity when in fact they support it. Again, nothing to support is blatant lie!

[exchemist]

A-wal, if you don't know how to reason, please keep quiet, thanks!

It is evident to most readers that A-wal knows very well how to reason and that problem lies, ahem, elsewhere.

[xinhangshen]

It is evident to most readers that A-wal knows very well how to reason and that problem lies, ahem, elsewhere.

 

Please don't represent other people. You can only represent yourself and A-wal here. Your argument will make other people embarrassed if you think that their reasoning is like A-wal's.

[A-wal]

I somehow doubt that I'm the one they'd be embarrassed to have their reasoning skills compared with.

 

Please provide your reasoning for these claims.

1. That clocks measure Galilean time as opposed to relativistic time.
The consistency of the speed of light in all inertial frames of reference precludes Galilean time being valid at high velocities, which brings us to...

2. That the the speed of light is not constant in all inertial frames of reference.
The consistency of the speed of light is well established and has been for a long time. It was not inferred from special relativity, it was the reason for the formulation of special relativity, it wouldn't have been needed otherwise.

3. That 'transverse Doppler shift' cancels out time dilation.
How and why does this happen?

4. That a lack of length contraction in the spacial dimension perpendicular to the direct of motion somehow means that time dilation is invalid.
This is my favourite. What does a lack of length contraction in a direction that special relativity doesn't describe any length contraction have to do with the validity of time dilation?

5. That the twin paradox contains an actual paradox.
The twin paradox is resolved by the fact the the twin that accelerates is not equivalent to the twin that doesn't. Only inertial frames are equivalent, not accelerated ones.

And you didn't answer CraigD's questions:

I agree that both the stationary and the co-moving observer will agree about the angle of the arm of the moving clock. Special Relativity doesn’t predict that they do not.

SR predicts that the two observers, or a third observer with any velocity relative to the two, will not agree that the arm of a clock at rest relative to one of them has the same angle as the arm of an identical clock at rest relative to the other, but that each will observe the arm of the other’s clock to have an angle less than theirs by the factor [math]\sqrt{1-\left( \frac{v}{c}) \right)^2}[/math].

You appear to disagree with this prediction, xinhangshen.
 
You are the only person, xinhangshen, that I’ve heard make this claim, other than as tentative speculation (I’ve heard it many times from students in introductory science classes). Do you know of, and can you provide links or references to, any similar claims by credible (or even discredited) professional scientists or science enthusiasts?

You appear to be claiming not that there are 2 kinds of physical processes that can be used to measure time – that is “clocks” – but only one kind, “physical clocks”. You use the phrase “relativistic clock”, but appear to claim that such a clock “is not available in the real world”, but could exist only by making a clock that adjusted some reliable periodic phenomena, such as the transition of electrons’ orbits used by atomic clocks, or the swinging of pendulums in pendulum clocks, by the factors given by SR. Is this an accurate statement of what you believe?
 
I strongly disagree. A scientific theory must make predictions, and those predictions must agree with observations of real physical phenomena, for a theory to sensibly be considered true.

The most fundamental predictions made by SR, are its postulates: 1) that the laws of physics are the same of all systems in uniform motion (also know as Galilean relativity); 2) that the vacuum speed of light is the same for all observers. These predictions are testable, and have been experimentally tested and found to be true. If they had not been, SR would not be considered true.
 
This view, and theories explaining it, are older than SR, and, I think, can be usefully broken down into 2 parts according to the 2 postulates of SR. Those that deny the 1st postulate can be described as “things going fast get somehow shaken making things like clocks do things like run slow”; while those that deny the 2nd are usually theories of a luminiferous aether that is “dragged” by large bodies such as the Earth so that experiments performed on Earth like the Michelson-Morley experiment falsely support the 2nd postulate.

Do you subscribe to such views and theories, xinhangshen? Can you briefly sketch why you believe the postulates of SR are wrong?

Fortunately, because we have much more precise and accurate clocks, and the ability to move them much faster, than 100 years ago, experimental test of SR are easier to perform now. Unfortunately, the people with such clocks and high-speed machines are mostly well-educated scientists and engineers who accept SR as true based on results of the more difficult experiments of the past, so have little interest in further supporting it experimentally. I often think it the public would be done a great educational service if effort and money were spent on a straight-forward experiments showing that the postulates of SR and its best know theoretical predictions, such as time dilation, are true. Some such results, can be found, in existing recorded data, so need only the attention of a good researcher to present them. I wouldn’t be surprised is this has already been done, and welcome any links/references anyone can provide.

6. That the laws of physics aren't the same in all inertial frames of reference.

If you think that lengths in time and space are constant and the speed of light isn't then you believe that there's a privileged frame of reference. Please give examples of objects that are at rest and/or in motion relative to this super special magical frame of reference and then explain exactly how and why this inertial frame get its special status.

[xinhangshen]

A-wal, I have already explained all the problems of special relativity and provided the answers of all your questions in my previous posts. Actually I have already repeated several times the answers of the same questions. Please spend some time to read them carefully. I appreciate your interests and expect your really challenging questions.

[A-wal]

No you haven't!

You claimed that a lack of length contraction in a direction perpendicular to the direction of motion disproves time dilation. This only makes any kind of sense if you ignore time dilation in the first place to allow different frames to compare at the same 'time'.

You claimed that clocks measure Galilean time as opposed to relativistic time because the clocks in relativistic time aren't universal. The special theory of relativity shows that time and length aren't universal, you can't use the conclusion of the theory as evidence of it's invalidity while ignoring all the reasoning behind it that shows that time dilation and length contraction are valid and an accurate representation of the effect of relative motion.

You claimed that transverse Doppler shift cancels out time dilation and length contraction. Time dilation and length contraction are independent of Doppler shift.

You claimed that the speed of light is not constant in all inertial frames because of these false arguments when in reality the speed of light has been shown to be constant and relativity is based on this observation rather than than the other way around. If the speed of light isn't constant then there's a privileged frame of reference that every inertial object moves in relation to so how is the frame defined and what makes it so special?

You've provided nothing but hollow statements and backwards logic.

[xinhangshen]

You claimed that a lack of length contraction in a direction perpendicular to the direction of motion disproves time dilation. This only makes any kind of sense if you ignore time dilation in the first place to allow different frames to compare at the same 'time'.

 

A-wal, you just don't know strict logical reasoning. I have told you previously that there is no extra time parameter at which you use Lorentz Transformation because Lorentz Transformation is a four-dimensional transformation and time is already included in the transformation. You don't need and actually are not allowed to specify a time for the transformation. Please study special relativity more carefully before making such claims.

 

I said that our physical time is measured by the physical status of a physical process such as the height of a burning candlestick. When an inertial reference frame is moving horizontally, the observer on the moving frame won't see any length contraction of the height of the candlestick, that is, the represented physical time (i.e. the height) will be the same observed on both the stationary frame and the moving frame. These observations are carried out for the same event (i.e. the same point represented by four-dimensional coordinates). 

 

You claimed that clocks measure Galilean time as opposed to relativistic time because the clocks in relativistic time aren't universal. The special theory of relativity shows that time and length aren't universal, you can't use the conclusion of the theory as evidence of it's invalidity while ignoring all the reasoning behind it that shows that time dilation and length contraction are valid and an accurate representation of the effect of relative motion.

 

Of course we judge the validity of a theory by its conclusions. If its conclusion contradicts the facts, it is simply wrong. You must be aware that all physical phenomena are observed with physical clocks. If relativistic time is no longer the physical time measured with physical clocks, then all what relativity claims are just pure imaginations, irrelevant to our physical world.

 

You claimed that transverse Doppler shift cancels out time dilation and length contraction. Time dilation and length contraction are independent of Doppler shift.

 

I said that the physical time represented by the status of a physical process is invariant of Lorentz Transformation, absolute and universal. When you use special relativity to represent the status of a physical process, it is the product of relativistic time and its progressing rate. Relativistic time will increase by factor gamma after Lorentz Transformation, but the progressing rate will decrease by the same factor gamma after Lorentz Transformation (i.e. Transverse Doppler Effect). Thus, the status of the physical process (i.e. the product) will remain unchanged after Lorentz Transformation. Therefore, physical time (i.e. the status of a physical process) is the same observed in all inertial reference frames.

 

You claimed that the speed of light is not constant in all inertial frames because of these false arguments when in reality the speed of light has been shown to be constant and relativity is based on this observation rather than than the other way around. If the speed of light isn't constant then there's a privileged frame of reference that every inertial object moves in relation to so how is the frame defined and what makes it so special?

 

The speed of light is constant only relative to the local aether, a fluid-like medium filling up the entire vacuum space, very similar to the speed of sound which is constant only relative to the local air. I have made a thorough analysis of the existence of aether in the paper. Please read my paper carefully before refuting my points.

Edited August 10, 2016 by xinhangshen

[A-wal]

You claimed that a lack of length contraction in a direction perpendicular to the direction of motion disproves time dilation. This only makes any kind of sense if you ignore time dilation in the first place to allow different frames to compare at the same 'time'.

:) Good one. You claimed that a dimension that has nothing to do with the transformation (the direction perpendicular to the direction of motion) disproves the time (what you just said you're not allowed to independently specify) part of the transformation.

 

A-wal, you just don't know strict logical reasoning. I have told you previously that there is no extra time parameter at which you use Lorentz Transformation because Lorentz Transformation is a four-dimensional transformation and time is already included in the transformation. You don't need and actually are not allowed to specify a time for the transformation. Please study special relativity more carefully before making such claims.

Each will observe the other's candle stick to be at a lower height than their own.

 

Of course we judge the validity of a theory by its conclusions. If its conclusion contradicts the facts, it is simply wrong. You must be aware that all physical phenomena are observed with physical clocks. If relativistic time is no longer the physical time measured with physical clocks, then all what relativity claims are just pure imaginations, irrelevant to our physical world.

We judge judge the validity of a theory based on how accurately it matches observations, not on whether or not we like its conclusions. Special relativity does match observations, the main one being the consistency of the speed of light in all inertial reference frames. Relativistic time is the physical time measured with physical clocks! They just happen to disagree in different frames of reference.

 

I said that the physical time represented by the status of a physical process is invariant of Lorentz Transformation, absolute and universal. When you use special relativity to represent the status of a physical process, it is the product of relativistic time and its progressing rate. Relativistic time will increase by factor gamma after Lorentz Transformation, but the progressing rate will decrease by the same factor gamma after Lorentz Transformation (i.e. Transverse Doppler Effect). Thus, the status of the physical process (i.e. the product) will remain unchanged after Lorentz Transformation. Therefore, physical time (i.e. the status of a physical process) is the same observed in all inertial reference frames.

The Doppler effect is dependent on the direction of motion of the observer relative to the observed object, time dilation is independent of the direction of motion. You can't use one to cancel out the other.

 

The speed of light is constant only relative to the local aether, a fluid-like medium filling up the entire vacuum space, very similar to the speed of sound which is constant only relative to the local air. I have made a thorough analysis of the existence of aether in the paper. Please read my paper carefully before refuting my points.

There is no evidence for an aether! Even if they were and light had a constant speed relative to it, length contraction and time dilation would still have to apply because that's the only way two objects relative to each other can measure the same thing moving at the same speed relative to something. Light moves at a constant speed relative to each inertial frame, not relative to magic fluidic pixie dust. I not going to read a paper about something that I know there's no evidence for and that wouldn't even answer any outstanding questions, it would just make a beautifully simple description more complicated and less beautiful for no reason so there's no reason to think that exists.

[xinhangshen]

:) Good one. You claimed that a dimension that has nothing to do with the transformation (the direction perpendicular to the direction of motion) disproves the time (what you just said you're not allowed to independently specify) part of the transformation.

Yes, the physical time is always represented by the status of a physical process such as the height of a candlestick. We can only use the status of a physical process to make the physical time measurable. We can easily see that the status of a physical process such as the height of a candlestick is invariant of Lorentz Transformation if the observer is moving horizontally, that is, our physical time is invariant of inertial reference frames, absolute and universal. 

 

 

Each will observe the other's candle stick to be at a lower height than their own.

No, you are wrong because you are comparing different set of events in different inertial reference frame. We should compare the same set of events in different inertial reference frames. When we say the two candlesticks have the same heights, we mean the same set of events have the same clock time observed in two inertial reference frames. Assume there are two burning candlesticks: one is stationary and the other is moving. Their heights represent the clock time of their own inertial reference frame respectively. If there are two events: (xs, t, T) and (xm, t, T) in one inertial reference frame (where xs and xm are their x-coordinates, t is the relativistic time and T is clock time) which have the same relativistic time and same clock time in the inertial reference frame. Now let us compare them in the moving frame. After Lorentz Transformation, the events become (xs', ts', T) and (xm', tm', T), in which T is unchanged because T is represented by the heights of candlesticks and is not influenced by Lorentz Transformation. Though their relativistic times ts' and tm' become different in the moving frame, their clock times are still the same T. Thus, these two events are still simultaneous according to their clock time. This is the right comparison.

 

We judge judge the validity of a theory based on how accurately it matches observations, not on whether or not we like its conclusions. Special relativity does match observations, the main one being the consistency of the speed of light in all inertial reference frames. Relativistic time is the physical time measured with physical clocks! They just happen to disagree in different frames of reference.

No, you can never say that a theory is correct if it has logical errors. Special relativity has a critical logical error: making completely different things (clock time and relativistic time) mixed up. On the other hand, all so-called relativistic effects are either null or wrongly interpreted or wrongly calculated. Please read my paper and the referenced papers to see the details.

 

 

The Doppler effect is dependent on the direction of motion of the observer relative to the observed object, time dilation is independent of the direction of motion. You can't use one to cancel out the other.

Please don't simply call Doppler effect that is not what I mentioned. I have only mentioned Transverse Doppler Effect. 

 

 

There is no evidence for an aether! Even if they were and light had a constant speed relative to it, length contraction and time dilation would still have to apply because that's the only way two objects relative to each other can measure the same thing moving at the same speed relative to something. Light moves at a constant speed relative to each inertial frame, not relative to magic fluidic pixie dust. I not going to read a paper about something that I know there's no evidence for and that wouldn't even answer any outstanding questions, it would just make a beautifully simple description more complicated and less beautiful for no reason so there's no reason to think that exists.

If you don't read my paper, how can you refute my points presented on the paper? That's all your problems. You should keep quiet here!

[sluggo]

xinhangshen #59

 

 

The phenomenon of time dilation is introduced via the light clock.

In fig.3 light is emitted from a source in a direction p, perpendicular to x, the direction of motion, and reflects from a mirror a distance d=1, to a detector/counter. For the clock to function, the photon path must have an x and p component. The x component compensates for the motion of the clock at speed v. The p component becomes the active part of the clock. Since the photon speed is constant, its path in any direction generates a circular arc for the 90º between the p axis and x axis. This means the relative photon speed u, along p, equals c*sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) = c/γ, i.e. the clock ticks slower, the faster it moves past an observer. This phenomenon is not restricted to clocks but applies to all processes involving light interactions. Fig.4 is the perception of the observer moving with the clock that is simultaneous with the static observer in fig.3.

 

If each (3 and 4) has their own clock rate, they wil have different accounts of events.

 

[A-wal]

I think you're wasting your time here to be honest, unless you want a lesson in hypocritical reasoning. He claims that physical time is represented by physical processes and then completely ignores those processes when they don't suit him. That's why I gave up. At least xyz doesn't know any better.

 

He even digs hypocritically.

Please don't represent other people. You can only represent yourself and A-wal here. Your argument will make other people embarrassed if you think that their reasoning is like A-wal's.

[xinhangshen]

xinhangshen #59

 

light clock2.gif

 

The phenomenon of time dilation is introduced via the light clock.

In fig.3 light is emitted from a source in a direction p, perpendicular to x, the direction of motion, and reflects from a mirror a distance d=1, to a detector/counter. For the clock to function, the photon path must have an x and p component. The x component compensates for the motion of the clock at speed v. The p component becomes the active part of the clock. Since the photon speed is constant, its path in any direction generates a circular arc for the 90º between the p axis and x axis. This means the relative photon speed u, along p, equals c*sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) = c/γ, i.e. the clock ticks slower, the faster it moves past an observer. This phenomenon is not restricted to clocks but applies to all processes involving light interactions. Fig.4 is the perception of the observer moving with the clock that is simultaneous with the static observer in fig.3.

 

If each (3 and 4) has their own clock rate, they wil have different accounts of events.

Sluggo, to make your light clock show time dilation, one must first accept that the speed of light is constant. But the problem is that the constant speed of light is all we want to question. If we use Newton's speed addition formula for the speed of light, your light clock will never show time dilation at all. Therefore, your light clock does not provide any extra support to the existence of time dilation.

[A-wal]

You said the reason that the speed of light is measured to be constant is that it's constant relative to a supposed aether.

 

If that were true then time dilation and length contraction would still apply, they would just depend on the observers motion relative to the aether instead of relative to other objects.

 

That's a more complicated version that has no evidence supporting it.

[xinhangshen]

You said the reason that the speed of light is measured to be constant is that it's constant relative to a supposed aether.

 

If that were true then time dilation and length contraction would still apply, they would just depend on the observers motion relative to the aether instead of relative to other objects.

 

That's a more complicated version that has no evidence supporting it.

Please make your point clear!

[A-wal]

That's perfectly clear!

 

You claimed that light the reason light can have the same velocity measured by two observers in motion relative to each other is because the speed of light is constant relative to a hypothetical background. They'd both have to be moving at the same speed relative to the aether to measure the same speed of light and they're in motion relative to each other so the aether would need to be in motion relative to other parts of the aether.

 

If two objects have different velocities relative to the aether then they would measure different velocities for light and there wouldn't need to be any time dilation and length contraction but according to you the two objects can be in motion relative to each other but both have the same velocities relative to the aether and that's why two observers that are in motion relative to each other can measure light to have the same velocity.

 

That would mean the different areas of this background would have to be in motion relative to other areas or the two observers in motion relative to each other wouldn't be able to measure light moving at the same rate but for light to have the same velocity from the perspective of two or more observers that are in motion relative to each other there needs to be time dilation and length contraction.

 

By using an aether you're creating a preferred frame of reference. That's a lot more complicated and far less beautiful than each frame of reference being equivalent.

[xinhangshen]

That's perfectly clear!

 

You claimed that light the reason light can have the same velocity measured by two observers in motion relative to each other is because the speed of light is constant relative to a hypothetical background. They'd both have to be moving at the same speed relative to the aether to measure the same speed of light and they're in motion relative to each other so the aether would need to be in motion relative to other parts of the aether.

 

If two objects have different velocities relative to the aether then they would measure different velocities for light and there wouldn't need to be any time dilation and length contraction but according to you the two objects can be in motion relative to each other but both have the same velocities relative to the aether and that's why two observers that are in motion relative to each other can measure light to have the same velocity.

 

That would mean the different areas of this background would have to be in motion relative to other areas or the two observers in motion relative to each other wouldn't be able to measure light moving at the same rate but for light to have the same velocity from the perspective of two or more observers that are in motion relative to each other there needs to be time dilation and length contraction.

 

By using an aether you're creating a preferred frame of reference. That's a lot more complicated and far less beautiful than each frame of reference being equivalent.

 

It seems that you can't understand how the speed of light is relative to aether. It is exactly the same situation as the speed of sound relative to air. You can use the speed of sound to derive the properties of the speed of light without needs of any time dilation and length contraction.