ravell

The Special Theory of Relativity claims that an observer in a spacecraft moving with the speed v relative to e.g. Earth, will always see that the clocks on Earth run more slowly than the clock in the spacecraft, according to the formula for time dilation T = To / (1- (v / c) ^ 2)) ^ 0.5. Let's check the credibility of this claim in the following example: T The reference clock on Earth simultaneously generates radio waves with the frequency f = 1000 Hz, and has an external, very large visible from space, digital display of the date measured by this clock. Assume that the spacecraft on 1.01.2020 takes off from Earth and at a speed of v = 180,000 km /s performs a travel to a newly discovered object in space, distant from Earth by 1.5 light years, in order to photograph it properly. N Now, let's answer the following simple questions: 1. What frequency f ' generated by the clock on Earth will be measured by an observer on a spacecraft, during his return flight towards Earth at a speed v = 180,000 km /s, knowing that the light clock in motion runs slower than at rest and that the Doppler effect occurs here? 2. What date will indicate the light clock on the spacecraft the day before reaching the Earth? 3. What date shown on the clock display on Earth, will be seen and photographed by the observer on the spacecraft the day before reaching Earth?

For ease, we are considering here the case in which our light clock moves perpendicular to the pulsar light line. It can therefore be assumed that it moves around the pulsar in an orbit with a radius R equal to, for example, the distance of the pulsar from the Earth. Therefore, there is no Doppler effect here. The light clock in spacecraft moving at the speed v = 0.866c, will have a tick twice as slow as on Earth at the moment of takeoff. Pulsar observed from Earth generates 100 flashes per minute. If any theory claims that the observer on the spacecraft will see less pulsar flashes per minute of the local clock than the observer on Earth, then the conclusion can only be such that this theory does not apply to our reality. The ISS station orbits 416 km above the Earth. Kinematic time dilation is -28,23 microseconds, and gravitational time dilation is 3,69 microseconds. Total -24,54 microseconds. Both of these values also result from Newtonian physics. The exact calculations in this area are available in the program on the link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/9ljwu5wwsi0v9up/VerificationTheoryRelativity.xlsx?dl=0 (To download the Excel file from Dropbox, you do not need to be logged in. You only have to choose the options: download> download directly> enable editing).

Can you explain how it would be possible or impossible? This is not true! Could you present here a picture of the propagation of a light wave in a moving light clock, which would prove that the length (L) of optical path for photon is always equal to the length (D) of the clock tube, regardless of the clock's movement? Light is an electromagnetic wave the same as radio waves, and its speed of propagation depends only on the environment in which it spreads, and does not depend on the motion of the generator of these waves. This has nothing to do with relativity! There is a full analogy to the propagation of waves in water (or air), where the speed of wave propagation in a lake does not depend on the speed of the boat that makes these waves (let's skip the Doppler effect here). It will not change? Regarding what reference clock he will find out? If the observer in motion will compare the tics of his light clock with the tics of an external reference clock, for example a pulsar, he will be absolutely watching the slowdown of his clock. Clocks at the ISS station orbiting at a speed of 7,7 km/s, are delayed about 24 microseconds a day, in relation to the clocks on Earth and it is observed on this station.

The tick time of the light clock at rest, is given by the formula To = 2D /c, where D is the length of the clock tube , and c is the speed of the photon timing the clock in the tube (speed of light). The tick time of the light clock in motion at the speed v, is given by the formula T = L /c, where L is the length of optical path of the timing photon, which for the tube transverse to the clock movement is L = 2 [(v * T /2)^2 + D^2]^0,5 Thus, the tick time of the light clock in motion is: T = L /c = 1 /c * 2 [(v * T 2)^2 + D^2]^0,5 Solving this equation with respect to T, we get: T = 2D/(c^2-v^2)^0,5 = (2D/c)/ (1-v^2/c^2)^0,5 = To/(1-v^2/c^2)^0,5 Thus, the Newtonian physics clearly shows that the light clock moving, for example, at the speed v = 0.866 c, will run two times slower than the clock at rest (on the Earth), and as shown above, this has nothing to do with theory of relativity.

The delay of light clocks in motion is a real phenomenon, having no relation to any observer and it can not be considered as a relativistic effect. In contrast, the following examples of claims of relativity theory have nothing to do with reality and are only a "relativistic illusion" or fiction: 1. For the observer in the moving spacecraft, the run of clocks on Earth is slowndown in relation to the clock in the spacecraft. 2. For the observer on Earth, the length of the spacecraft in motion is contracted, and for the observer in the spacecraft the objects on Earth have length contracted. 3. For the observer on Earth , the mass of the spacecraft in motion is increased and vice versa.

You're right. I think I do not understand your explanations. Pulse rate or frequency (f) by definition is the number of pulses (flashes) per unit of time. Wave length (λ = 1 / f) by definition is the unit of time divided by the pulse rate. When motion of the spacecraft is perpendicular to the direction of the pulsar flashes, there is no Doppler effect for the observer in the spacecraft so we do not consider here the change in wavelength (pulselength). Thus, if you say that the observer in the spacecraft will see 60 pulses / local minute, that is the same as the stationary observer on Earth, then according to the physics the clock on the spacecraft must walk at the same rate as the clock on Earth? That's how I understand your explanation. Both observers are watching the same pulsar, yet! That's right! Thanks! Thus, you yourself confirm that the light clock in the spacecraft during its flight had to run twice as slowly as the clock on Earth. Indisputable proof of this fact is the indication of the time of the clock in the spacecraft, after its landing on Earth. The slowdown of the light clock during its motion, is not therefore a "relativistic illusion" for a stationary observer remaining on Earth, but a real physical event caused by the clock movement. Thus, in our example with the pulsar, the observer in the spacecraft moving at a rate 0,866c, will see twice more flashes per minute, than the observer on Earth. I suppose that a sufficiently clear explanation by classical physics, regarding the slowdown of the light clock during its motion, is presented on the link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/tdswmin3t6sl0tr/TimeDilationIsFalseProof.pdf?dl=0 (If you download the Excel file from Dropbox, you do not need to be logged in. You only have to choose the options: download> download directly> enable editing).

Perhaps my question was not very precise, because you did not give a specific, numerical value in your answer. Let me repeat this example in a simplified, more clear form: Two identical A and B light clocks will be used to clarify the matter. Clock A remains on Earth as the clock at rest, and the clock B is placed in a measuring probe, which was sent from Earth in space for a 4 year travel at the speed v = 0.866c. At the start of the probe, both clocks A and B indicated the date of 1 January 2020. What date will the clock B show, when the probe returns to Earth after 4 years of travel? Clock A on Earth will then indicate the date 1 January 2024. The specific answer to the above example is necessary to clarify your questions. Are you sure? If the observer on Earth and the observer on the spacecraft moving at the speed 0.866c will see exactly the same 60 flashes / min. of the observed pulsar, which is treated here as a reference clock, it would prove that the clock on the spacecraft has exactly the same rate of run as the clock on Earth (!). Is that so?

Let us answer a question first, which concern the very theoretical example below. What time will show the light clock in the spacecraft after its return to Earth? The spacecraft with the light clock on board, took off from Earth and after a short acceleration period, reached the target speed of 0.866c . With this speed flew certain distance in space and, after 1000 hours on the clock on the Earth, returned to the Earth. Assume here, that the time of acceleration of the spacecraft to 0,866c, as well as decreasing to the speed of zero is the same and is 1 hour. Sorry, Your statement is unclear to me. Do you think that the Earth (where our spacecraft took off ), the reference pulsar, and the spacecraft already moving at a rate of 0.866 c, constitute one and the same reference frame? If not, could you answer how many pulsars flashes per minute of the clock on the spacecraft will see the observer on the board, if for the observer on Earth this number is 60 flashes per minute of the clock on the ground.

I will repeat my earlier statement : The light clock on the spacecraft moving at the speed of 0,866c, must runs 2 times slower than the clock at rest, and this is not a relativistic effect, but the real effect which results from classical physics. If it were not so, it would not occur the twin paradox, and would not be needed the offset for the clocks in GPS satellites. The observer on the spacecraft can be able to measure this delay, by comparing the cycle of the clock on board with the cycle of the external reference clock at rest, such as the transversally distant reference pulsar. If for the observer at rest the pulsar makes 60 flashes per minute, then for the observer on the spacecraft moving at a speed of 0.866c , the pulsar will hold 120 flashes per the minute of the clock on the board. Right. Seen by an outside observer the alleged contraction of the spacecraft , at such unreal speeds close to the speed of light, is an extreme abstraction even in the field of science fiction. A stationary observer observing at the back the movement of a 100-meter long spacecraft, will see nothing, beside a smaller and smaller point. A stationary observer standing aside, at a very large distance, of the moving spacecraft at a speed of 0.866 c (or other), will see not the contraction of the spacecraft, but its elongations to several hundred km, due to the inertness of the eyes or the measuring camera. Thus, the discussion about the alleged contractions of observed objects in motion, lies outside the area of serious science. It can only be treated as a kind of useless intellectual entertainment.

On the spacecraft the cylinder is 2 m long, the pressure is 20atm and this is obvious because the length contraction in reality does not exist. But the light clock on the spacecraft at 260 000 km /s runs 2 times slower, and it stems from classical physics. So as I understand it, emptying the cylinder up to ½ should take 100 local seconds and not 200s? The observer on the Earth is able to see theoretically, only the transverse diameters of the spacecraft and the cylinder, but in no way he is able to see and measure the length of the spacecraft (and the cylinder) and its contraction , during its move away with the speed of 0.866c. Therefore, the discussion about observed apparent contraction of the spacecraft at the speed of 0.866c (or other) is abstract and frankly amazing for me. Observed on Earth, the run of the light clock in the spacecraft moving away at the speed of 0.866c will be not 2 times slower , but almost 4 times slower, after taking into account the Doppler effect.

It is measurement of time of emptying the reference cylinder, to the half of the initial pressure, in the laboratory on Earth, in order to compare this time to the same experiments repeated in the spacecraft, at the speeds specified in the questions. On the spacecraft, before the launch, we install the same 2 reference cylinders as on the Earth, 2 m long and 20 atm pressure, to measure the time of pressure drop by half, after opening the valve, at the given speed of the spacecraft. The question concerns the pressure before opening the valve. Are you sure? Could you explain it? The clock on the spacecraft for 260 000 km /s runs 2 times slower, and for 290 000 km /s runs 4 times slower than the clock on Earth. I do not know. In the same way in which he sees and measures the relativistic length contraction of the spacecraft and the cylinder? Transmission by CNN? I am just curious about possible explanations, how will this whole experiment be seen by the observer remaining on Earth?

1. In the laboratory on Earth, the 2 m long cylinder was filled with air at 20 atmospheres pressure. After opening the small measuring valve, the pressure in the cylinder drops to 10 atmospheres after 200 seconds. Questions: 1. What pressure will be present in this cylinder placed, along the direction of travel, in a spacecraft flying at 260,000 km /s? According to relativity theory at 260,000 km/s, the cylinder length will be contracted to 1 meter. 2. After what time, according to the light clock on the ship, the pressure in the cylinder will drop to half the value after opening the measuring valve? 3. What will be the above values when the ship will accelerate to 290,000 km /s ? The length of the cylinder will then be 50 cm.

The value of Hubble parameter H is the same throughout the Universe for a given comoving time . Could you explain how we can see galaxies that are distant from Earth by 45 billion light years, while the age of the universe is only 13.8 billion years old? from https://www.space.com/24073-how-big-is-the-universe.html : „ Because of the connection between distance and the speed of light this means scientists can look at a region of space that lies 13,8 billion light-years away. Like a ship in the empty ocean, astronomers on Earth can turn their telescopes to peer 13.8 billion light-years in every direction, which puts Earth inside of an observable sphere with a radius of 13.8 billion light-years. The word "observable" is key; the sphere limits what scientists can see but not what is there.” Could you provide information sources on how the expansion rate was measured for different periods, in km / sec / Mpc, while the Hubble parameter H measured for today is 70km / s / Mpc and is approximately the same for all observed galaxies, regardless of their distance? No, these are just only examples that the parameter H = 70km / s / Mpc , as it is today, can be obtained at many different rates of the expansion of the universe Sorry, it is. If the expansion of universe takes place, the parameter H in km/s/Mpc must decrease as the age of the observed galaxy increases, by definition. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law : „ Since the Hubble "constant" H is a constant only in space, not in time, the radius of the Hubble sphere may increase or decrease over various time intervals. The H0 is the value of the Hubble constant today. Current evidence suggests that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating), meaning that, for any given galaxy, the recession velocity dD/dt is increasing over time as the galaxy moves to greater and greater distances; however, the Hubble parameter is actually thought to be decreasing with time, meaning that if we were to look at some fixed distance D and watch a series of different galaxies pass that distance, later galaxies would pass that distance at a smaller velocity than earlier ones.

According to the published data the Universe as a result of the Big Bang, expands at an increasing rate, with a speed increase of about 70 (km / s) / Mpc, the same for all observed galaxies, regardless of their distance from the Earth. The radius of the observed Universe was set at about 13.7 billion light years. Based on the above data the age of the Universe was estimated at about 13.7 billion years. From the modeled calculations in the Sagitarius BR program available at the link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/a1cu74xj4ep9iyq/SagitariusBRprogramForCalculationsOfSpeedOfStars.xlsx?dl=0, one can draw contradictory conclusions regarding the age of the Universe and the Big Bang itself, namely: 1. The Universe's expansion speed corresponding to the Hubble parameter H = approx. 70 (km / s) / Mpc, with the size of the Universe reached R = about 13.7 billion light years, can be obtained with many different accelerations of expansion and initial velocities Vo , after various time laps T for each case (3 examples in the table below). Thus, based on the Hubble parameter H and the observed size of the Universe R, the age of the Universe can not be reliably determined. 2. Observed , on the basis of the spectral shifts, the increase in the velocity of the galaxies moving away H = approx. 70 (km / s) / Mpc, the same for all galaxies, regardless of their distance from the Earth, contradicts the expansion of the Universe. The age of the observed galaxies is the younger the farther the observed galaxy is, which when the Universe expands should cause that the value of the observed parameter H, regardless of the expansion rate of the Universe, should gradually decrease for galaxies becoming older, ie closer to Earth, and we do not observe this. Is it correct to conclude, therefore, that the observed increase in the redshift of spectra from increasingly distant galaxies may result from other unknown reasons and not as the effect of the Big Bang and the expansion of the Universe? The size of the Universe and the Hubble parameter H for 3 examples of expansion rates Initial velocity Acceleration of expansion Elapsed time from BB Radius of Universe after T1 Parameter H after time T1 Approximate age of the Universe at the time of observation Value of parameter H after T2 years Vo a T1 R H1 T2 H2 km/s m/sek2 billion years billion ly (km/s)/Mpc billion years (km/s)/Mpc 0 3,330E-10 28 13,72 69,9 55 35,6 100 000 2,997E-10 20,8 13,75 70,1 48 34,5 299 900 0,0 13,9 13,9 70,4 42 23,3

The formula for the gravitational time dilation can be easily deduced by yourself, using VETER program available on the link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/9ljwu5wwsi0v9up/VerificationTheoryRelativity.xlsx?dl=0. Based on the sheet "GPS2" of the above program, the derived formula will be as follows: TR1 = TR2*c/ [c^2 - 2GM*(R2 - R1)/(R1*R2)]^0,5 Where: TR1 - clock tick at a lower level (R1), TR2 - clock tick at a higher level (R2), G - gravitational constant, M - mass of the object (eg moon), R1 and R2 – radius of the orbits between which the time dilation is calculated, c - speed of light. From the above formula we can see that the ticks of the light clock at a lower level (R1) will be longer than the clock ticks at a higher level (R2). That means that the light clocks on a higher altitude run faster than the clocks on a lower altitude.

I have a question, is there any explanation what happens to the energy emitted by the Sun (3,864E + 26W) and all other stars in the Universe, altogether about 2E + 22 suns, giving total power of 7,728E + 39GW (!), constantly pumped into space of the Universe?

Thank you very much for your explanation.

And how would it be in case of very big masses M1 = M2, suspended on a weightless rope supported in rolls in a very wide arrangement, as on the sketch: O’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’rope’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’ O I I M1 eg. D ≥ 3000 km M2 Whether, at the moment of cut off the mass M1, both the masses M1 and M2 will fall at the same time to the ground?

Due to the Doppler effect, the light waves in the arms of MM interferometer, generated by the light source, are shortened in the direction of the source movement and elongated in the opposite direction. These speed-dependent changes of the wavelengths in the arms of the interferometer, give in effect the null results of the MM experiment, and this is only when the light source and mirrors are not moving relative to each other. This is in my opinion, clearly shown in the previously given link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/9ljwu5wwsi0v9up/VerificationTheoryRelativity.xlsx?dl=0. The claims that in the MM interferometer there is no the Doppler effect, testify only to the misunderstanding of this phenomenon.

Sorry but I was not well informed, Dropbox on March 15, 2017 changed the current URL address of the Sagitarius BR program (v. 4.0++), to calculate the speed of stars , to this new address: https://www.dropbox.com/s/a1cu74xj4ep9iyq/SagitariusBRprogramForCalculationsOfSpeedOfStars.xlsx?dl=0

Dropbox on March 15, 2017 changed the current URL address of the VETER program, to verify the theory of relativity, to the new address: https://www.dropbox.com/s/9ljwu5wwsi0v9up/VerificationTheoryRelativity.xlsx?dl=0. In the light of the calculations presented on the link; https://www.dropbox.com/s/9ljwu5wwsi0v9up/VerificationTheoryRelativity.xlsx?dl=0. clearly demonstrating that the zero results of the MM experiment and other similar experiments are unambiguously derived from the Doppler effect, and not from the controversial Lorentz shortening, the claim that the MM experiment does not have Doppler effect is fundamentally wrong.

Dropbox changed the above address http on a new secure https: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26262175/SagitariusBRprogramForCalculationsOfSpeedOfStars.xlsx

Dropbox changed the above address http on a new secure https: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26262175/VerificationTheoryRelativity.xlsx

“The negative result of the Michelson–Morley experiment is generally considered to be the strong evidence against the aether theory, and initiated a line of research that eventually led to special relativity, which rules out a stationary aether. The experiment has been referred to as "the moving-off point for the theoretical aspects of the Second Scientific Revolution". Michelson–Morley type experiments have been repeated many times with steadily increasing sensitivity and confirmed the absence of any aether wind .“Michelson–Morley type experiments form one of the fundamental tests of special relativity theory.” In connection with the foregoing, and in light of the calculations presented in the link: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/26262175/VerificationTheoryRelativity.xlsx clearly proving that the negative results of the Michelson- Morley experiment are due to the Doppler effect, and not from the Lorentz contraction, the question arises where the truth lies? Does the stationary aether in fact exist, contrary to current views, or whether it does not exist?

I do not understand how these watts convert on the amplitude of the gravity waves? In what units it is therefore expressed the amplitude of gravitational waves, if not in g (m/sec2), and how much it is for example at a distance of 0.1 ly, from the binary system considered on the link given at the beginning of this thread?