DanMP

This topic is about time dilation. My theory is much more, so I'll make a new topic for it. Not now, but probably soon, although I'm not very pleased by your reactions. I still expect some answers. My theory makes predictions (I wrote 5 in my article), so it can be proved. It is different from GR like a 3D map is different from the 2D one I mentioned above. Same results, different understanding.

I'll show my theory later, at Speculations. Using my theory, the invariance of c can be explained, rather than postulated. That's "all". So, mathematically speaking nothing is changed That's a nice thing, but there is much more than that.

The award for Ryan's idea was about 1/3 of Nobel Prize ... Why? Ironically, he was somehow wrong (as Strange noticed) in explaining the rewarded kinematic time dilation, but his idea can be applied for gravitational time dilation. We also have longer paths (see the light clock explanation mentioned in the first post) and, in this case, observers from all inertial frames will agree which clock is ticking faster ... So, longer paths for light do mean time dilation, at least gravitational one. Don't ignore what happens in atoms/molecules. This is the way to understand things, not by using space-time. In my opinion Einstein's relativity is like a 2D (only it is 4D) map of a 3D reality. Like a topographic map with contour lines, capable to show, for a trained eye, the mountains and valleys on a 2D paper, Einstein's 4D space-time / relativity can also help trained physicists get good results but it isn't the true reality and can be misleading. It's like saying that we get tired walking from A to B not because that’s a mountain in between but because we are crossing many contour lines. This is not physics. Yes, the same frame See the site: "The Hafele–Keating experiment was considered in a frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth".

I have reasons to believe that we do have total linear frame dragging, meaning that the clock on Earth would not experience any kinematic time dilation. And this is a big difference, because kinematic time dilation for speeds around 30km/s (Earth's speed around the Sun) is something very detectable. We will notice if it's missing Unfortunately I am also not familiar with GR calculation. I hoped that someone here is ... The other clock tests are with 2 atomic clocks, placed one on each pole or one at one pole and the other close to the equator, in order to detect very small seasonal/daily changes in clock rate. You know about such tests?

Relativistic effect is only the difference between the classical result and the relativistic one. And for low speeds, this difference is very small, usually very hard to detect. This is the "trend", as we seen in the car going 100 km/hr example and Sagnac in air example. So, in the same way we still use classical physics for cars, we can and should have a complete classical explanation for Sagnac and Fizeau. Do you agree?

This is not my theory. It is Ryan's and, although it was rewarded, it is naive and incomplete, as you just noticed My theory is different, better, more consistent, and maybe I'll post it on Speculations, if you are interested to folow the idea above.

Please explain Hafele–Keating experiment (below), considering that we don't measure time directly, we use instruments, made of atoms, that count certain repetitive and reliable events. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele–Keating_experiment The Hafele–Keating experiment was considered in a frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth. So we have 3 clocks that counted different amounts of nanoseconds between the same START and STOP. So, same fame, different clock rates ... Why exactly? And please use Ryan's rewarded ideea (see above). The topic here is about a simple-explanation-for-time-dilation, an extension of the light-clock examples (see in the beginning) ... not about how to apply/solve/understand a mathematical model. The mathematical model is good to give results, but we, physicists, should understand what happens with atoms in different circumstances, how the prolonged paths folowed by light (and by any real or virtual particle that travels with the speed of light) affects atoms/molecules. See (again) this https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=KHjpBjgIMVk imagining that one ship is the nucleus and the other an electron.

Well than, I should expect from him the accurate outcome calculated using GR? On the other hand, I have 2 more tests with atomic clocks, on Earth, at least one at one pole. It is feasible?

Yes, if you can measure such effects, with very accurate instruments, than the only way to explain them is by using relativity, but as I wrote above, the measurements made in Fizeau and Sagnac are not that accurate. Note that SR explains Fizeau quite loosely, ignoring the changes in refractive index and the fact that the laboratory frame is not quite inertial. Also, the classical result for Sagnac effect in air is as accurate as the SR one, beeing the same. So where exactly is the tiny difference that you call a relativistic effect? I did. You want to see it?

If linear frame-dragging is total, the difference between the 2 clocks is quite big, the kinematic time dilation beeing experienced only by the clock far in space ... You seem to be much better (and fond) than me in (of) relativity, so maybe you can apply GR to this and calculate the outcome.

We don't measure time directly, from space-time. We use instruments, made of atoms, that count certain repetitive and reliable events. So, in other words, the "behaviour" (speed) of the atoms inside the instrument changes, not the measurements. Measurements are done in the same way, by counting the events mentioned above.

If they didn't "know" anything, how they knew that the measurements are made from a different frame of reference? See here why the distance varies (in SR): https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KHjpBjgIMVk This is valid for all matter.

How could it be? And who claimed that? This is not the point. Here is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele–Keating_experiment The Hafele–Keating experiment was considered in a frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth. So we have 3 clocks that counted different amounts of nanoseconds between the same START and STOP. So, same fame, different clock rates ... How the clock/atoms knew how to behave?

GPS clocks on orbits are running faster than "my" clock. How they know to do it? Did you watch the rewarded video after 5:13? Any comment?

Questions like: how the atom knows that it should run slower/faster, according to time dilation we calculate? The video is here: http://www.iflscience.com/physics/teenager-wins-400000-his-video-explaining-einsteins-theory-relativity from 5:13 is the best part

What reasons do you have to believe that "the prediction is smaller than our capability"?!? Did you apply relativity to see the outcome? Please do, before considering that is "no sense in looking". Did you find it there?

So, "we're right on the edge" of measuring "kinematic time dilation with a car going 100 km/hr" ... That means that, for such speeds, we are not yet able to even detect the relativistic effects, but you still consider that we should use relativity and only relativity to describe that motion?!?

Mathematical models give results, not answers. Otherwise we couldn't have so many completely different working models (see above). About atom, at speeds very close to c, electromagnetic interaction almost stop, because of the longer path. Maybe this is time dilation. Or you think that time is something out there, in the spacetime fabric, and the atoms somehow "take/read/use" it?

The time difference, if linear f.d. is present, should be quite big, because the clock on Earth would suffer no kinematic time dilation ...

So why did they give 400,000 dollars for a failed explanation? You should watch the video This is a good and needed exercise You said "time is affected". Ok, and how atoms, molecules, etc. are "informed"/afected by it? Don't you think that physics should explain things? Mathematically anything is possible. String teories use more than 10 dimensions and give good results. There is a theory with only 2 spatial dimensions (our 3D world beeing a holografic projection of the 2D) and it's mathematically correct. There is a working model with only 1 dimension, time. Also, there are scientists claiming that spacetime has no time dimension. Which model is better and why? We, physicists, should investigate all the implications, as Ryan begun in his video ... ( I did, before seeing the video, and obtained amaizing things) In my opinion, the explanation you mention is about how to understand Einstein's mathematical model and apply it in order to obtain the results, in this case, the "amount" of time dilation. This is not explaining what hapens in the atom if the path taken by the light between two objects (let's say the nucleus and one electron) increases, as both light-clock explanations suggested. We know that electromagnetic force is transmitted with the speed of light ... See this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KHjpBjgIMVk and imagine one ship as the nucleus ad the other as the electron. Anyway, if you love math, maybe you can answer this: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93377-more-tests-for-relativity/#entry904167

I imagined few more tests for relativity. Please tell me if they were already performed and with what outcome. The first one is about 2 atomic clocks, one at the South pole (to be at rest in Earth's center frame) and the other in Space, around the Sun, on Earth's orbit (same distance, same speed) but far from Earth. So, both clocks are travelling with huge, same speed around the Sun, but the one on Earth "tick" slower due to gravitational time dilation caused by the Earth. This is the only difference, or the clock on Earth benefits from linear frame dragging and is not afected by the Earth movement around the Sun? Did anyone perform this, or at least apply relativity to see the outcome?

Ok, but this doesn't mean that we have to use GR, and only GR, to describe the movement of a falling ball. We can predict well enough with Newton's laws, when the speeds are less than 100kph. You agree? And about the fact that "interferometers are generally sensitive devices", you should keep in mind that Sagnac effect in air/vacuum (rotating plate with mirrors) is very well explained in a classical manner, so there is not a problem of sensitivity ... By the way, in Fizeau experiment, the result given by SR is not exactly the measured one. It tends to it (see the site), but it is just an aproximation ... The refractive index changes with wavelenght, so, to be really accurate, we should consider that. We have redshift/blueshift there ... So, considering the above, we should have a classical explanation for Fizeau & Sagnac. Do you know one? Anyone?

It is important, because, as I said, the speeds are not relativistic, so these are not relativistic effects. A good explanation/theory of how light travels in transparent materials can and should cover this. I have such a theory and, as I said, this has almost nothing to do with relativity.

Because we, and our real clocks, are made of atoms. Ryan begun to apply the light-clock explanation to all that's made of atoms, but he didn't elaborate. I did ... before him, but also too naive, so I wasn't able to publish in a journal. Anyway, first I want to hear your opinion about his (rewarded) idea. Not the reason of the "length of the travel of the light (and thus also for the time)" is important, but the effect on atoms, molecules, people, etc..

The light clock I wrote about (see the first post) has 2 mirrors/detectors, one up and one down. So, the up and down detectors form one clock, the light clock.