Unanswered Problem With Time Dilation

[Amplituhedron]

For those new to this stuff and just tuning in, don't be bafflegobbed by the garbage from ralfie and marcospolo. Just read this. Simple!

 

Of course Ralfie boy will rant and rave about "parrots" and Wiki, but all his stupid caterwauling cannot change the fact that the discussion in the Wiki link above is correct.

[marcospolo]

Well, basically the universe follows an equation which you all know for time dilation which you reject thus like moronium you go into the crank category. The Universe does have slower rates of time for objects that are moving more quickly through space anyone who denies this is a crank and its hopeless for you ever to learn "Real Physics".

 

Ok, this is an equation, that much is true. But it is meangingless and there is nothing in the universe that demonstrates this transformation.

Ill have to dig up the various rebuttals for those two weak experiments that are supposed to prove time dilation when i get the time.

Muons and atomic clocks on planes are both debunked claims for supportiing SR. You need to read more, and not only wikipedia.

 Now, about that Lorentz transform equation, which requires and assumes an absolute stationary frame of reference.

First, t Prime is the UNKNOWN time, its what we are trying to determine.  Its explained as the stationary guys time as per einsteins example.

 

The moving guys clock is "Propper Time"... Propper compared to WHAT TIME exactly? You need to define this clearly please

 

Next, we have a error in the equation that you need to fix please, before we can accept it as a valid mathematical equation.

 

That error is simply that you have the UNKNOWN variable 't prime", on BOTH sides of the equation, so the equation as it stands, cant be solved.

 

Where exactly? well its the variable V.  Velocity of the moviing guy.  This is stated to be the velocity ACCORDING to the stationary guy. But Velocity is calculated by the equation v=dt.   AND THE "t" in this velocity is measured on t primes clock, and as this clock is running at an UNKNOWN rate, we can't ever calculate the velocity of the moving guy from t primes reference frame.

So please fix these errors in your lorentz equation then well give it some more thought.

[ralfcis]

Ok literal thinker, the moron gets the choice of how to solve the problem. That was established in the first part of the trick. The moron can choose whether the problem is solved by the muon seeing the atmosphere distance contracted or is the muon given a dilated time to cross that atmosphere. I know in our previous discussions you don't agree. The way the problem is always solved on wiki or on-line courses is the distance is contracted from the muon's perspective. So what, I proved there are at least 6 ways to solve the problem and I did those proofs in

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/index.php?app=core&module=search&do=search&fromMainBar=1

 

So if only 1 of 6 choices, length contraction or time dilation or Yv can be chosen from either perspective to solve the muon example, my relativity also allows any one of the 6 choices to prove the constancy of c from any perspective but Einstein's relativity requires both length contraction concurrent with time dilation. So can a moron who's both illiterate and literal concurrently either disprove my proofs or show where relativity  proves both td and lc must be concurrently used for c constancy. 

Edited June 10, 2019 by ralfcis

[marcospolo]

For those new to this stuff and just tuning in, don't be bafflegobbed by the garbage from ralfie and marcospolo. Just read this. Simple!

 

Of course Ralfie boy will rant and rave about "parrots" and Wiki, but all his stupid caterwauling cannot change the fact that the discussion in the Wiki link above is correct.

For those new to this stuff, don't surrender your own thinking to the hogwash of the Einstein Relativity. They have no rational case to present.

They repeat the same foolish and nonsensical claims in spite of the glaring errors. Its a religion, not a science.

Experimental evidence is fraudulent, concocted to prop up a failed hypothesis.

[marcospolo]

If the two incoming ships use the two messenger ships to sync their clocks, both their clocks will have the same reading when they meet on earth but the earth clock won't agree.

You are really not seeing the obvious fact that time passes equally for all players in your two way setup.

So the clocks on the ships will record the travel time, as will the earth clock. So every clock will still show the exact same time. How can you get any difference between the earth clock and the ship clock?

[ralfcis]

One: There is no round trip. You need to restate your explanation without using a round trip.

 

As I said you don't know the difference between time dilation and age difference. The round trip gives one answer and the light signal gives another. In the round trip example, the planes agree on the same time but their clock is one yr less than the earth clock. In the pure time dilation example with the starting light signal, all 3 clocks agree on the same time upon co-location with earth. Me saying the same thing over and over will not make it sink into your head. You'll just ignore the answer and keep repeating the question much like when my brains got scrambled in a car accident, I sounded very much like you.

 

Two: the ship's occupants are not interested in measuring anything about the other ship.  They are only comparing their time with the others time when they are all located at point E

 

In both the light signal and round trip examples, the planes have the same time.

 

Three: Why would the occupant want to use the SR convention? At this stage, you are still explaining how that convention could possibly be true.

 

I'm explaining the answer SR gets, you're saying you get another answer not using SR. So what. Are you asking  why a wrong answer is different from a right answer if you use a right and wrong method to arrive at that answer. You have no way of telling which method is right or wrong therefore you have no way of telling which answer is right or wrong. That's a brilliant insight but your conclusion that relativity must be wrong because its answer is biased to that method is not so brilliant.

 

Four: Why would the "delay" of any time comparison have any effect of the physics of this experiment? The two ships are first, not interested in comparing their clocks until they are at the position E. They knew that that started off on equal footings. So any "delay" is going to be identical for each ship, the time comparison is going to be exactly the same from the beginning of the experiment to the end, i.e, there will be no observed discrepancy for any observer.

 

As the ships come closer and closer their lines of simultaneity get shorter and shorter and there is less time difference between them at the ends of those lines until when they meet there is no time difference between them. The relative velocity is unchanged and so is the value of the reciprocal time dilation but their co-location prevents the time dilation from causing a reciprocal time difference between them. But you'd have to understand what a line of simultaneity is and how to draw it on an STD so there's no hope of you understanding my answer.

 

Five:  even though we are not interested in the outbound and inbound times, why do you say that "the outbound and inbound times process, times are not equal."   Einstein's postulate says that the time for a two way trip A to B and return must have equal times, and its also claimed in Galilean relativity. So now for some reason, you are claiming that this is NOT true?

 

I have no idea what you're saying here. Two round trips in opposite directions relative to each other will create no time difference between them but it will create a permanent time difference between them and the earth at co-location. The ships will have aged 1 yr less than the earth in that example.

 

Six: So you seem to be saying that somehow, during the trip, the clocks on the ships differ, but then by magic, when that pass each other, there is now no difference?  This is also counter to SR theory, which says that there is a real, lasting time dilation, remember the two ships meet at point E, BUT they are still both moving at the same velocity as they were throughout the entire trip.  Point E is NOT THE DESTINATION, its a position they both pass at the same time.

 

In the light signal example, from each ship's perspective of his own clock in causal proper time, their clocks do not differ. But when they send out light signals to each other of what their time is and the delay of the light between them is taken into account, they will each calculate from their perspective that less time has passed on the other guy's clock. This is an illusion of perspective that Einstein renamed as perspective reality and the rest of his theory falls apart from there. Time dilation was invented to explain the results of the MMX.

 

There is no real lasting time dilation, there is only real lasting age difference and that has a completely different cause than the cause for time dilation as I've explained over and over.

[marcospolo]

 

One: There is no round trip. You need to restate your explanation without using a round trip.

 

As I said you don't know the difference between time dilation and age difference. The round trip gives one answer and the light signal gives another. In the round trip example, the planes agree on the same time but their clock is one yr less than the earth clock. In the pure time dilation example with the starting light signal, all 3 clocks agree on the same time upon co-location with earth. Me saying the same thing over and over will not make it sink into your head. You'll just ignore the answer and keep repeating the question much like when my brains got scrambled in a car accident, I sounded very much like you.

 

Two: the ship's occupants are not interested in measuring anything about the other ship.  They are only comparing their time with the others time when they are all located at point E

 

In both the light signal and round trip examples, the planes have the same time.

 

Three: Why would the occupant want to use the SR convention? At this stage, you are still explaining how that convention could possibly be true.

 

I'm explaining the answer SR gets, you're saying you get another answer not using SR. So what. Are you asking  why a wrong answer is different from a right answer if you use a right and wrong method to arrive at that answer. You have no way of telling which method is right or wrong therefore you have no way of telling which answer is right or wrong. That's a brilliant insight but your conclusion that relativity must be wrong because its answer is biased to that method is not so brilliant.

 

Four: Why would the "delay" of any time comparison have any effect of the physics of this experiment? The two ships are first, not interested in comparing their clocks until they are at the position E. They knew that that started off on equal footings. So any "delay" is going to be identical for each ship, the time comparison is going to be exactly the same from the beginning of the experiment to the end, i.e, there will be no observed discrepancy for any observer.

 

As the ships come closer and closer their lines of simultaneity get shorter and shorter and there is less time difference between them at the ends of those lines until when they meet there is no time difference between them. The relative velocity is unchanged and so is the value of the reciprocal time dilation but their co-location prevents the time dilation from causing a reciprocal time difference between them. But you'd have to understand what a line of simultaneity is and how to draw it on an STD so there's no hope of you understanding my answer.

 

Five:  even though we are not interested in the outbound and inbound times, why do you say that "the outbound and inbound times process, times are not equal."   Einstein's postulate says that the time for a two way trip A to B and return must have equal times, and its also claimed in Galilean relativity. So now for some reason, you are claiming that this is NOT true?

 

I have no idea what you're saying here. Two round trips in opposite directions relative to each other will create no time difference between them but it will create a permanent time difference between them and the earth at co-location. The ships will have aged 1 yr less than the earth in that example.

 

Six: So you seem to be saying that somehow, during the trip, the clocks on the ships differ, but then by magic, when that pass each other, there is now no difference?  This is also counter to SR theory, which says that there is a real, lasting time dilation, remember the two ships meet at point E, BUT they are still both moving at the same velocity as they were throughout the entire trip.  Point E is NOT THE DESTINATION, its a position they both pass at the same time.

 

In the light signal example, from each ship's perspective of his own clock in causal proper time, their clocks do not differ. But when they send out light signals to each other of what their time is and the delay of the light between them is taken into account, they will each calculate from their perspective that less time has passed on the other guy's clock. This is an illusion of perspective that Einstein renamed as perspective reality and the rest of his theory falls apart from there. Time dilation was invented to explain the results of the MMX.

 

There is no real lasting time dilation, there is only real lasting age difference and that has a completely different cause than the cause for time dilation as I've explained over and over.

 

The passing of time IS the SAME as one aging. IF time somehow changed, then it can't somehow un-change.  If you have aging, then time is passing. This is not difficult.

 

The three objects, two moving ships and one stationary point in between the ships, all will get the same times recorded as per classical physics.

We have no problem with this, so why are you inventing a solution that changes time, when there is no problem with time to solve?

 

You create a problem out of thin air,  by applying wrong math, then by un-applying the same math, you claim to have solved the problem!

 

I don't agree that there is any problem that requires this tortured physics.

I've explained this many times, but some are just not capable of hearing it, having their own preconceived beliefs blinding them to learning anything new.

[rhertz]

So here's a trick question for you Victor. A factor of 10 time dilation for the muon allows it to barely cover the distance from the upper atmosphere to the surface of the earth. But relativity also says the muon will see that distance contract by a factor of 10. So why does this not mean the muon can easily cover 10 atmospheres of distance before it decays? 

 

 

Well that is simple because it is because time dilation and length contraction are the same effect that would be like measuring the same effect twice, if it covered 10 atmospheres, it would be like trying to take 2 * 4 = 8, but instead you are taking it twice so it is 2 * 4 * 4 = 32. Length Contraction and Time dilation are different views of the same effect on matter. If you did take the same effect twice it wouldn't be 2x but rather x² anyways ralfcis but having the same root cause you only take the effect of relativistic motion once.

 

This equation is why

 

 

That's right. So in every example of relativity you can either use time dilation or length contraction but not both. Correct? So why would you need to consider length contraction if time dilation is equivalent and can stand in for it? But  the constancy of the speed of light depends on both time dilation and length contraction occurring concurrently. How is that different from every other example? I've shown length contraction is never needed for the same reason you gave even when you consider c constancy. So why does Einstein's relativity need it? 

 

 

It is still a process that needs to be measured so you will know the exact length and time but they happen simultaneously It could be said why would you need to know relativistic mass increase either but it is just so you know all the properties effected by relativistic motion.

 

 

So, again, why does a muon get the choice of either applying time dilation or length contraction but  the constancy of the speed of light needs both concurrently?

 

 

I have already answered this question for you, but apparently you have me on ignore, which is great! 

 

It's unbelievable you would even ask this. 

 

Sorry for meddling into this problem. I posted a thread about muons recently:

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/35860-japan-muons-family-str-time-dilation-and-history/

 

but nobody cared about it.

 

As Lorentz transforms are symmetrical, you can choose frame K(x,t)  being at rest (sign -) or

frame K'(x',t') being at rest (sign +).

 

Measuring time elapsed or distances requires differences, which are represented by d (DELTA).

Also, Y is the Gamma factor):

 

Being K(x,t) at rest referenced to K'(x',t'):

 

dx' = Y (dx-vdt)            

dt' = Y (dt-vdx/c²)        

 

Also can be used this way, being K'(x',t') at rest referenced to K(x,t):

 

dx = Y (dx'+vdt')            

dt = Y (dt'+vdx'/c²)  

             

Now is when relativity became NASTY. This is the way science explain muon's time dilation and length contraction:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

1) For time dilation, K'(x',t') is selected for Earth observer and K(x,t) for the observer travelling with the muon.

 

dt' = Y.dt

dx'=0 because the observer at Earth doesn't move when measuring dt'. It means that, simultaneously:

dx = v.dt

 

Then, for dt=2.2 microsec (muon's decay time), and for v/c = 0.99587 then Y =10.

 

dt' = 22 microsec (measured at ground level)

dx = 660 meters (measured at the muon's reference frame).

 

This values are concurrent, BUT are only valid for TIME DILATION (Length contraction can't be used simultaneously).

 

2) For length contraction, I switch references and K(x,t) is selected for Earth observer, and K'(x',t') for the observer travelling with the muon.

 

dx' = Y (dx-vdt)     : distance measured from muon's RF.

dt' = 0 because both distances in dx' are measured at the same time t' in the muon's RF.      

dt = vdx/c²            : time lapse at Earth.

so, by replacing in dx', it gives:

 

dx' = Y.dx (1-v²/c²) = dx/Y  : distance measured at muon's RF (330 mt). It's contracted with reference to Earth.

so

dx = Y.dx' = 10 x 660 mt = 6,600 mt (distance measured from Earth's RF.)

 

dt = vdx/c²  is a mathematical identity without physical meaning, and can't be used for anything more than substitutions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This is how tricky relativity is applied to the muon's phenomena by "stablished physics".

 

The theory behind this can be consulted at HyperPhysics link, here:

 

Muon Experiment

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html

[fahrquad]

For those new to this stuff and just tuning in, don't be bafflegobbed by the garbage from ralfie and marcospolo. Just read this. Simple!

 

Of course Ralfie boy will rant and rave about "parrots" and Wiki, but all his stupid caterwauling cannot change the fact that the discussion in the Wiki link above is correct.

 

Don't worry, most of us just avoid these threads anyway.  :blahblahblah:

[marcospolo]

Don't worry, most of us just avoid these threads anyway.  :blahblahblah:

and burying your head in the sand is a good way to expand your knowledge..

[fahrquad]

and burying your head in the sand is a good way to expand your knowledge..

 

There is a little more to life than having a microscopic focus on just one topic.

[marcospolo]

This values are concurrent, BUT are only valid for TIME DILATION (Length contraction can't be used simultaneously).

Why can't relativists use time dilation AND length contraction simultaneously?

Einstein's SR theory says that there are three effects occurring when an object goes at relativistic speeds. 

Time dilation, length contraction and mass increase. (not momentum increase, MASS increase, the two are not interchangeable) If Einstein meant momentum, he would have said momentum, but he said MASS.

[marcospolo]

anyone going to answer my question from post #19?

 

about this equation..

[ralfcis]

Not caring is never having to say you don't.

[Vmedvil2]

Oh, I see. That's your "trick question"?

 

:lol:

 

Since the muon does not "get the choice" of  either time dilation OR length contraction, your "trick question" fails before it gets to the question mark! For the muon, everything is normal!

 

Time dilation is the same thing as length contraction just upon another dimension of space-time, they are both different figures of the same thing, thus both happen simultaneously.

[ralfcis]

Victor, you can't be serious. That's your answer? So you see no connection between question 1 and the follow up. You  stated td and lc can't be used concurrently in the muon example but now you're saying they are because they're the same thing. And you avoided answering every other question I asked. I'm really sick of the lack of integrity I see in the people on this forum. 

[Vmedvil2]

Victor, you can't be serious. That's your answer? So you see no connection between question 1 and the follow up. You  stated td and lc can't be used concurrently in the muon example but now you're saying they are because they're the same thing. And you avoided answering every other question I asked. I'm really sick of the lack of integrity I see in the people on this forum. 

 

I don't mean that you take the effect twice, I am saying that they are the same effect upon two connected dimensions, they mathematically cannot be used twice or you get a wrong answer but they both effect time and space simultaneously being the time dilation is equal to length contraction upon a space dimension and vice versa, meaning if you contract space it is equivalent to dilating time as the length of time is shortening its cycle.

Edited June 11, 2019 by VictorMedvil