I Think Time Dilation Semantics Are Incorrect?

[antoine]

On the premise that my next chronological position  is immediately ahead of me and to give the position useful understanding, my next chronological position is a Planck length (tP) ahead of  me. 

 

 

Now if this statement is accepted to be true, then time can not dilate because there is no length to dilate or contract!

 

What do you think ?

 

 

 

 

I have included the illustration. 

 

Why does science use the grey area in the below illustration that is not really there when concerning the flow of time?

 

 

 

Below is my unfinished paper:

 

Title: Relative correctness and the correct semantics of information.

Abstract-

This paper is intended to correct relativity and semantics in a primary respect to science process. Using a dialectic approach and presenting logical arguments that opposes the present information. Showing a construction of deductive logical proof's , looking at the true values of relativity that humanity has quantified. Concluding that some of the content uses of relativity have no other discipline, other than the literal content created by the practitioner.


Introduction.

Anybody who has ever learnt some science, must of heard of Albert Einstein's relativity. I could not believe when I first ''heard'' time slowed down and wondered how much of relativity was fact and how much of relativity was mythology. The more we look at the intrinsic details of relativity, the more we can realise the mythology involved. In fact the more closely we inspect the entirety of physics science, the more we can observe an ever growing mythology . We can archive our beliefs because we can look at the intrinsic details of relativity that shows ostensibly, thus leading into explaining certain details that creates this mythology in science.

The Nature of time and defining time.

Many years have passed, and many great minds have considered time and the meaning of time and shared their thoughts. Humans , the very need for time, the very thought of time, something we look for outside of ourselves. Something we believe is quantifiable, something we believe can be measured, something we believe that can slow down or speed up. Newton believed time was absolute, but this was ''over ruled'' by Albert Einstein who first suggested time can slow down or speed up in his 1905 and 1914 papers on relativity.

I quote:Citation: Albert Einstein Part I: The Special Theory of Relativity : 8.On the Idea of Time in Physic

'' Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event. 4
Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an absolute significance, i.e. that it is independent of the state of motion of the body of reference. But we have just seen that this assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of simultaneity; if we discard this assumption, then the conflict between the law of the propagation of light in vacuo and the principle of relativity (developed in Section VII) disappears. 5
We were led to that conflict by the considerations of Section VI, which are now no longer tenable. In that section we concluded that the man in the carriage, who traverses the distance w per second relative to the carriage, traverses the same distance also with respect to the embankment in each second of time. But, according to the foregoing considerations, the time required by a particular occurrence with respect to the carriage must not be considered equal to the duration of the same occurrence as judged from the embankment (as reference-body). Hence it cannot be contended that the man in walking travels the distance w relative to the railway line in a time which is equal to one second as judged from the embankment''.



I quote:Citation: Albert Einstein Part I: The Special Theory of Relativity : 9.The Relativity of Simultaneity

''Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event''.

This then proven to be true by various experiments. One of the most famous experiments being that of Hafele–Keating experiment.

I quote:citation:Wikipedia Hafele–Keating experiment

''The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.''

Time dilation and relativity seemingly true and un-disputable. The nature of time seemingly explained and concluded by Albert Einstein.
However by using a dialetic approach and looking at the information and considering the information, there is seemingly something amiss. I found this interesting and used investigative thought to consider the thinking involved in Einsteins papers and the nature of time. Firstly my thoughts were in the direction of time speeding up or slowing down and considering the relativity between two individual observers. Time having the ability to speed up or slow down being suggestive that time has a speed. Thus leading to my first question in my mind, what is the speed of time, how fast does time pass?
In considering this, the next increment of time to follow the moment of ''now'' was seemingly immediately away, one increment of time passing to the next increment of time seemingly immediately with no ''gaps'' or pause between, a continuous flow without breaks. No matter how fast I tried to count , time seemingly past as fast as I could count. In my mind there was now an uncertainty of the nature of time that I had interpreted of present information. In view of my previous thinking 

I define time:A quantifiable measurement that is directly proportional to change 

t=Δ(tP)


Thus leading me how to explain this, which I looked too geometrical points. I could not displace a geometrical point without leaving a past geometrical position. It did not matter at what speed I tried too displace the point, it always left a past geometrical position. I then considered the direction of time, I could not displace the geometrical point without leaving a past chronological position on the time line, again at any speed. 
This then had me slightly bewildered, if one observers next increment of time is immediately ahead of them, then one must conclude that another observers next increment of time is also immediate ahead of them .
This thought was thought provoking, so I needed to look deeper for answers and in searching for an answer I came across a thought experiment called The Twin Paradox.

It is said in thought that there was two identical twins, let us call them twin one and twin two. Both identical twins start off on the inertia reference frame of the Earth. Twin two starts a journey into space leaving twin one on Earth, twin two returns some time later and it is said they had aged less than twin one because of time dilation, experiencing less time than twin one.

Ok, let us consider this in respect to the twins and consider two proposition statements and a model of the propositions.[attachment 1}

 

 

proposition 1 : twin one's next chronological position on the time line is (tP) time Planck ahead of them (p)

proposition 2: twin two's next chronological position on the time line is (tP) time Planck ahead of them (q)

conclusion : (p→q)Λ(q→p)⇒(p⇐⇒ q)

p implies q and q implies p which implies p and q are equal and equivalent statements.

From this we can deduct both statements have the same truth value in every model and twin one and twin two remain synchronous in timing in respect to relative motion.

Thus explaining the first postulate:Postulate one: Time is a quantifiable measurement directly proportional to change.

 

 Let us now consider a train carriage that is at rest relative to the embankment. On the embankment is a clock that is identical to a clock on the carriage. Both clocks tick at the frequency of one time Planck per tick. 

t1=t2'

Δt1=(tP)

Δt2=(tP)

Einstein claims that when the carriage is in motion relative to the embankment , the frequency of the ticking clock on the carriage in relative motion is different to the frequency of the clock at relative rest on the embankment, no longer being synchronous. 
In the earlier quote Einstein says {with respect to the embankment in each second of time.}
This is the error in thinking by Mr Einstein, a second being a much longer increment than the smallest measure of time (tP) time Planck. If on the carriage the rate of time was (tP) and the rate of time on the embankment was (tp), I conclude from the earlier shown evidental results of the twin statements, that the time would remain synchronous whether at rest or in relative motion. 
Evidentally if twin two was to travel in the carriage, relative too twin one, twin two's next chronological position on the time line remains (tP) time Planck ahead of them and synchronous too twin one. The unit of a Planck length being fractionally zero and having no negliable length to contract, thus leading us to look at the Lorentz length contraction and the thought experiment of a light clock that supports the time dilation ideology.

 

 

I quote:Citation Wikipedia Light Clock

''The light clock is a simple way of showing a basic feature of Special relativity. A clock is designed to work by bouncing a flash of light off a distant mirror and using its return to trigger another flash of light, meanwhile counting how many flashes have occurred along the way. It is easy to show that people on Earth watching a spaceship fly overhead with such a clock would see it ticking relatively slowly. This effect is called time dilation.''

In the below diagram [attachment 2}  we observe a carriage in relative motion and observe a light beam travelling between two points vertically. However this diagram differs from the original light clock thought in that our (A) to ( :cool: points are a Planck length apart. The observer clearly observes the light travelling a linearity, as opposed to the angled paths in the original thought experiment. Although one might conclude the linearity objectively looked a bit wave like but not perceivable by the eye and negligible when considering time dilation.

 

In the below diagram [attachment 3} we can observe the difference in thought experiment of the Lorentz length contraction if we were to substitute the length of carriage with a Planck Length. A ''Photon'' is emitted from point (A) and is reflected by point (B) back to point (A) in a continuous manner while the carriage travels left to right.

We can observe from the diagram that the substitute shows no length contraction or said time dilation.

 

 

 

To be continued......any questions about what I have said? Any disagreement with the opening statements of the post? 

 

 

P.s If the moderators feel by their objective thinking that this post is not really a silly claim, can I please ask the moderators to promote the thread to the correct section of forum.  Thanks in advance.

Edited July 31, 2017 by antoine

[antoine]

No comments, silence?  Hmmmmm,  I do not know what to think about that, I offered anybody to question my post, I guess I must be correct because nobody as ever said it is incorrect. 

[Maine farmer]

Wow! It never occurred to me that any assertion left unchallenged for some amount of time mut be true.

[antoine]

Wow! It never occurred to me that any assertion left unchallenged for some amount of time mut be true.

There is a possibility of that or I could just be on ignore by everyone.  However as yourself as replied , I assume you have read the post. I also can assume yourself does not have any valued argument against my post?

[Super Polymath]

This is the error in thinking by Mr Einstein, a second being a much longer increment than the smallest measure of time (tP) time Planck.

Unless it's a negative second. Which is why Einstein stated that if someone's velocity ever exceeded c they'd go backwards through time, which is what your Planck scale carriages are doing due to a subtraction of velocities. Time dilation has no limit, a particle of light does, the higgs field is turned off when symmetry breaks down, which is why galaxies are flying apart faster than light.

 

We're experiencing a linear motion of spacetime, near zero has an infinite subscale, anti de sitter space goes the other way. Time actually flows laterally & spacetime is continuous rather than discrete.

Edited August 2, 2017 by Super Polymath

[antoine]

Unless it's a negative second. Which is why Einstein stated that if someone's velocity ever exceeded c they'd go backwards through time, which is what your Planck scale carriages are doing due to division of velocities. Time dilation has no limit, a particle of light does.

Please explain what a negative second suppose to mean?   Are you suggesting using a second from the past that as already gone by?  That would be doing the same thing as Einstein who uses a positive future second, putting a length of time in the situation that does not exist when concerning the flow of time. 

 

I would simply ask you do you agree with the below statement:

 

Your next chronological position in time is immediately ahead of you and to give the position useful meaning, your next chronological position is a Planck length (tP) ahead of you. 

 

Is there any disagreement in the logical statement?  

 

If you agree with the statement, your agreement shows I am correct and we have reached relative agreement showing the semantics of time dilation to be wrong. If you disagree with the statement, you have a very hard explanation to give why you disagree. I am more than happy to be proved wrong if I am wrong. 

Edited August 2, 2017 by antoine

[Super Polymath]

Please explain what a negative second suppose to mean? Are you suggesting using a second from the past that as already gone by? That would be doing the same thing as Einstein who uses a positive second, putting a length of time in the situation that does not exist when concerning the flow of time.

 

I would simply ask you do you agree with the below statement:

 

Your next chronological position in time is immediately ahead of you and to give the position useful meaning, your next chronological position is a Planck length (tP) ahead of you.

 

Is there any disagreement in the logical statement?

 

If you agree with the statement, your agreement shows I am correct and we have reached relative agreement showing the semantics of time dilation to be wrong. If you disagree with the statement, you have a very hard explanation to give why you disagree. I am more than happy to be proved wrong if I am wrong.

Spacetime is continuous, not discrete. You can always get smaller, therefore yes, you go forward, but as you do so spacetime dilates radically, you go inbetween Planck lengths & relative to the macroscopic world the time you experience is negative, relative to you it's positive & the macroscopic world is moving backwards through time relative to you. This can only happen beneath the Planck length. Edited August 2, 2017 by Super Polymath

[antoine]

Spacetime is continuous, not discrete. You can always get smaller, therefore yes, you go forward, but as you do so spacetime dilates radically, you go inbetween Planck lengths & relative to the macroscopic world the time you experience is negative, relative to you it's positive & the macroscopic world is moving backwards through time relative to you. This can only happen beneath the Planck length.

I am not sure how that answers my question I asked you.  I said immediately, this means almost instantaneous but not quite.  There is no spacing between ''now'' and your next ''now'' moment in time.  I used a Planck length and time Planck because that is the smallest possible measurement in/of physics we can perceive before the physics ''breaks down''. i,e negligible.

 

You say space time dilates radically, you are using existing information has the ''defence''.  The ''defence'' as to break my theory down and show it to be false.  

 

 

Can you please answer the question I originally asked you? 

 

Your next chronological position in time is immediately ahead of you and to give the position useful meaning, your next chronological position is a Planck length (tP) ahead of you. 

 

Is there any disagreement in the logical statement?  

[Super Polymath]

Or above the Hubble radius. For instance, a large enough gravity wave will propagate faster than a particle of light. Galaxies ride such waves, we see this as expansion. It's acausal symmetry.

[Super Polymath]

I am not sure how that answers my question I asked you.  I said immediately, this means almost instantaneous but not quite.  There is no spacing between ''now'' and your next ''now'' moment in time.  I used a Planck length and time Planck because that is the smallest possible measurement in/of physics we can perceive before the physics ''breaks down''. i,e negligible.

 

You say space time dilates radically, you are using existing information has the ''defence''.  The ''defence'' as to break my theory down and show it to be false.  

 

 

Can you please answer the question I originally asked you? 

 

Your next chronological position in time is immediately ahead of you and to give the position useful meaning, your next chronological position is a Planck length (tP) ahead of you. 

 

Is there any disagreement in the logical statement?

 

They aren't negligible in your example though.

[Super Polymath]

http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2012/09/25/rspa.2012.0340

[antoine]

They aren't negligible in your example though.

I think it is quite clear I and you are not going to get very far in this discussion.  You seem to be ''rambling'' and posting random things rather than trying to have a discussion.   I assume you know you can't answer my question because your answer has to agree with the statement. 

 

added- Time forward is directly proportional to the history created.

 

Do you disagree with this statement?

 

No answer is validation of the statements truth. 

Edited August 2, 2017 by antoine

[Super Polymath]

added- Time forward is directly proportional to the history created.

 

It's lateral, these two different timelines propagating in opposite linear directions, so it overlaps the linear timeline but the opposite is occurring as well. Our line goes into the history of the opposite line. Edited August 2, 2017 by Super Polymath

[Super Polymath]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2011-03-grandfather-paradox.amp

[exchemist]

Keep it up, chaps! I think you two are made for each other. :)

[antoine]

Keep it up, chaps! I think you two are made for each other. :)

No answer is the validation of the truth, I gave anybody the opportunity to question, this of course includes yourself.   

[exchemist]

No answer is the validation of the truth, I gave anybody the opportunity to question, this of course includes yourself.   

You have just been banned again from sciforums, I see. This will have been partly at my instigation, as I have no interest in discussing anything with you. Sciforums is now sensitised to your sockpuppets, so you would be well advised to leave that forum in peace. 

 

By the way, claiming that lack of response indicates agreement is absurd, of course. Every nutcase on the street corner is ignored by most passers-by: obviously that does not mean they agree with him. But you know that. Your sole purpose it to try to get attention. Well, you've got one post more out of me. That will have to do.