Special Relativity - SR - Time dilation

[Jan Slowak]

One of the results of SR is time dilation, TD. Check for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
There and in all other books I read about SR there is a relationship between the time t' from S' and t from S. S and S' are two inertial reference systems that move relative to each other at constant speed v.

Here I indicate this relationship:
t' = tγ
where γ = 1/(1-v²/c²)^1/2 is called the Lorentz factor, LF.

 

My question to you: Is it true that the concept of time dilation is depicted with this formula?
Yes or No.

[Strange]

21 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said:

Here I indicate this relationship:
t' = tγ
where γ = 1/(1-v²/c²)^1/2 is called the Lorentz factor, LF.

 

My question to you: Is it true that the concept of time dilation is depicted with this formula?
Yes or No.

Apart from the fact it should be Δt rather than t, yes.

But what is the point of this thread? The link you provide answers your question.

[Jan Slowak]

[7] Modern Physics; Second edition; Randy Harris; Chapter 2; Special Relativity; 2008
In the derivation of LT in [7], three special cases are used to determine the constants A, B, C, D.

The result of this derivation gives the following: B = −Av, C = −Av/c², D = A, A = γ. If you replace these values in
LEx': x' = Ax + Bt
LEt': t' = Cx +Dt
you get
LTx': x' = (x – vt)γ
LTt': t' = (t – vx/c²)γ
It is these two equations that are LT.

But during the derivation, the combination LEt', SC1 is not used. Therefore, we make a verification of a solution (as one should always do).
We calculate LTt' in SC1:
LTt': t' = (t – vx/c²)γ
SC1: x' = 0, x = vt
→
t' = (t-v(vt)/c²)γ →
t' = t(1-v²/c²)γ →
t'= t/γ

My comment: In the derivation of LT in [7] is used LEx ', LEt', SC1, SC2, SC3 and as a result you get time dilation t' = tγ.
But the verification of the derivation, LTt' with SC1 gives us t'= t/γ.

This shows that the derivation of LT in [7] is not self-consistent! This is one of the reasons I said that SR is nonsense.
I regret that everyone is upset by my conclusion but I have a lot more aspects of SR that I have analyzed in detail and everyone shows the same thing.

[Ghideon]

39 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said:

This shows that the derivation of LT in [7] is not self-consistent! This is one of the reasons I said that SR is nonsense.
I regret that everyone is upset by my conclusion but I have a lot more aspects of SR that I have analyzed in detail and everyone shows the same thing.

Limitations in scientific skills and knowledge does not upset me at all, I might even be interested in attempting to fix that. Soapboxing in mainstream sections could be upsetting but moderators will fix that.  

 

[Bufofrog]

4 hours ago, Jan Slowak said:

[7] Modern Physics; Second edition; Randy Harris; Chapter 2; Special Relativity; 2008
In the derivation of LT in [7], three special cases are used to determine the constants A, B, C, D.

The result of this derivation gives the following: B = −Av, C = −Av/c², D = A, A = γ. If you replace these values in
LEx': x' = Ax + Bt
LEt': t' = Cx +Dt
you get
LTx': x' = (x – vt)γ
LTt': t' = (t – vx/c²)γ
It is these two equations that are LT.

But during the derivation, the combination LEt', SC1 is not used. Therefore, we make a verification of a solution (as one should always do).
We calculate LTt' in SC1:
LTt': t' = (t – vx/c²)γ
SC1: x' = 0, x = vt
→
t' = (t-v(vt)/c²)γ →
t' = t(1-v²/c²)γ →
t'= t/γ

My comment: In the derivation of LT in [7] is used LEx ', LEt', SC1, SC2, SC3 and as a result you get time dilation t' = tγ.
But the verification of the derivation, LTt' with SC1 gives us t'= t/γ.

This shows that the derivation of LT in [7] is not self-consistent! This is one of the reasons I said that SR is nonsense.
I regret that everyone is upset by my conclusion but I have a lot more aspects of SR that I have analyzed in detail and everyone shows the same thing.

Do you have a pdf of the section of the book you are referring to?

[Strange]

22 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Do you have a pdf of the section of the book you are referring to?

It was posted in another thread about the same thing:

Modern Physics Randy Harris 2008 pages 14-15-v1-2.pdf

[beecee]

4 hours ago, Jan Slowak said:

This shows that the derivation of LT in [7] is not self-consistent! This is one of the reasons I said that SR is nonsense.
I regret that everyone is upset by my conclusion but I have a lot more aspects of SR that I have analyzed in detail and everyone shows the same thing.

So then, if you are so confident with your findings that repute the many findings and data over the last 100 years, why not then do the professional thing, and write up a paper for professional peer review and make a name for yourself as well as being the recipient of the next Nobel prize for physics. Afterall as is painfully obvious anyone at all, can make whatever claims they like on a forum open to the general public. 

[Jan Slowak]

I have written and submitted a lot of articles to physics magazines. But they are negative in the same way that you are on this forum.
2017-04-22 Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity - a mathematical impossibility!
2017-04-16 Mathematics and Lorentz transformations
2017-04-18 The mathematics shows that the Lorentz transformations are not self-consistent
2018-11-02 Twin Paradox: ... and so they lived ... at the same age ... ever after
2018-11-03 The Lorentz transformations and mathematics/1
2018-11-10 The Lorentz transformations and mathematics/03
2018-11-14 The special theory of relativity and reality
2018-11-18 The Lorentz transformations and mathematics/02
2018-12-11 The Lorentz transformations and mathematics/04
2019-02-10 The Lorentz transformations and mathematics/05
2019-02-16 The Lorentz transformations and mathematics/06
2019-02-17 The Lorentz transformations and mathematics/07
2019-03-02 The Lorentz transformations and mathematics/08
2019-03-15 The Lorentz transformations and mathematics/09
2019-03-17 The Lorentz transformations and mathematics/10
2019-04-25 The Lorentz transformations and mathematics/11
2019-05-10 Special Relativity and Time Dilation!

Their answer is the same:
Thank you for your submission to … . We have assessed your manuscript and have considered its suitability for the journal very carefully. We regret to inform you that your article will not be considered for review as it does not meet our strict publication criteria.

The quality and presentation of any research published in ... must be of the highest standard. Submissions should clearly demonstrate scientific rigour, extensive literature research and a careful assessment of the validity of any conclusions presented in the manuscript. Your manuscript does not meet these key publication criteria and we are unable to consider it further.
We are grateful for your interest in … .
Yours sincerely
...

 

[Strange]

1 minute ago, Jan Slowak said:

But they are negative in the same way that you are on this forum.

Maybe you need to think about why that is.

Which is more likely: (a) a lone genius has spotted a trivial mathematical error that has been missed by millions of students, scientists and mathematicians in over a century or (b) you have made a silly mistake?

You seem unwilling to consider that you might be wrong. You completely ignore the answers and explanations you have been given. You need to step back and consider your motives.

[Jan Slowak]

13 minutes ago, Strange said:

Maybe you need to think about why that is.

Which is more likely: (a) a lone genius has spotted a trivial mathematical error that has been missed by millions of students, scientists and mathematicians in over a century or (b) you have made a silly mistake?

You seem unwilling to consider that you might be wrong. You completely ignore the answers and explanations you have been given. You need to step back and consider your motives.

You said before that you are experts and that I do not listen to what you say. I would appreciate if you speak mathematics and physics.

If you want, you can disprove my claim in my second post. Refute it mathematically. Otherwise, I do not want you to reply to my posts.

 

[Strange]

30 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said:

You said before that you are experts and that I do not listen to what you say. I would appreciate if you speak mathematics and physics.

You have ignored the answers and explanations; these have included mathematics and corrections to your diagrams. You have clearly closed your mind to rational thought because of your personal belief that SR is wrong. I don't know what else anyone can do to help you if you are unwilling to learn.

[Jan Slowak]

12 minutes ago, Strange said:

You have ignored the answers and explanations; these have included mathematics and corrections to your diagrams. You have clearly closed your mind to rational thought because of your personal belief that SR is wrong. I don't know what else anyone can do to help you if you are unwilling to learn.

You mix my threads together. This is about time dilation.

Come with a mathematical counter-proof regarding t '= tγ otherwise write no more on this thread. You or someone else. 
I have no desire or time to read your cheap comments.

[Ghideon]

11 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said:

Come with a mathematical counter-proof regarding t '= tγ otherwise write no more on this thread. You or someone else. 

As a starting point: In other threads there seems to be misunderstandings regarding the two frames of reference S and S'. My initial thought is that t'=t/γ and γt'=t are identical and  t' = tγ and γt'=t looks like a calculation done using wrong frame of reference and/or mixing primed coordinates (') with non-primed. Further details might be needed to address this. 

[Strange]

29 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said:

You mix my threads together. This is about time dilation.

All of your threads are about your lack of understanding of the basics of SR and inability to do basic math (because you are blinded by your prejudices).

30 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said:

Come with a mathematical counter-proof regarding t '= tγ otherwise write no more on this thread.

Ghideon's suggestion is the obvious answer, but this is not worth wasting any more time on.

[Jan Slowak]

You just talk and talk. You dare not take hold of my concrete questions. Come with a mathematical counter-proof regarding t '= tγ (t' = t/γ).

Consider the following:
According to SR, LT applies to all points {(x, t), (x', t')}. SR says that t' = tγ.
The verification of LT in the point of SC1: x' = 0, x = vt gives t' = t / γ.
This is an clear mathematical contradiction. → LT is not self-consistent!

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said:

You just talk and talk. You dare not take hold of my concrete questions.

You have ignored all the previous answers to your questions. As you are clearly not interested in learning and correcting your mistakes, why should we keep answering the same question again and again. It is pointless, unless you are willing to engage in discussion.

[Ghideon]

9 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said:

Come with a mathematical counter-proof regarding t '= tγ (t' = t/γ).

You could start by trying to understand my previous comment which is a serious attempt by a non-expert to try to address the issue.

Another way is to refer to any decent book or papers about Lorentz and SR from the last 100 years. They are full of counter proofs, but you would have to understand them to make use of them.

[Jan Slowak]

You just talk and talk.

[Ghideon]

35 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said:

You just talk and talk.

I think that's kind of the point with a discussion form. What did you expect? Dancing?

More seriously; if some posts are not following the rules of the forum you could use the report button.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Jan Slowak said:

You just talk and talk.

And you are still refusing to engage.

Why do you ignore the answers and explanations you have been given? 

Do you expect people to just uncritically accept what you say, even when you are wrong? 

[Ghideon]

19 hours ago, Jan Slowak said:

[7] Modern Physics; Second edition; Randy Harris; Chapter 2; Special Relativity; 2008
The result of this derivation gives the following: B = −Av, C = −Av/c2, D = A, A = γ. 

The pages 14 and 15 posted does not contain γ. Can you post page 16? I suppose that is where [7] introduces γ? 
Of course I know what γ is but I would like to see what [7] states about A=γ since you refer to [7] a lot.

[swansont]

4 hours ago, Ghideon said:

As a starting point: In other threads there seems to be misunderstandings regarding the two frames of reference S and S'. My initial thought is that t'=t/γ and γt'=t are identical and  t' = tγ and γt'=t looks like a calculation done using wrong frame of reference and/or mixing primed coordinates (') with non-primed. Further details might be needed to address this. 

I agree. Strange pointed out that mixing frames is a common problem. You have to have a clearly defined problem, including the reference frames, and not deviate from that setup.

[Ghideon]

21 hours ago, Jan Slowak said:

[7] Modern Physics; Second edition; Randy Harris; Chapter 2; Special Relativity; 2008
In the derivation of LT in [7], three special cases are used to determine the constants A, B, C, D.

The result of this derivation gives the following: B = −Av, C = −Av/c², D = A, A = γ. If you replace these values in
LEx': x' = Ax + Bt
LEt': t' = Cx +Dt
you get
LTx': x' = (x – vt)γ
LTt': t' = (t – vx/c²)γ
It is these two equations that are LT.

But during the derivation, the combination LEt', SC1 is not used. Therefore, we make a verification of a solution (as one should always do).
We calculate LTt' in SC1:
LTt': t' = (t – vx/c²)γ
SC1: x' = 0, x = vt
→
t' = (t-v(vt)/c²)γ →
t' = t(1-v²/c²)γ →
t'= t/γ

My comment: In the derivation of LT in [7] is used LEx ', LEt', SC1, SC2, SC3 and as a result you get time dilation t' = tγ.
But the verification of the derivation, LTt' with SC1 gives us t'= t/γ.

This shows that the derivation of LT in [7] is not self-consistent! This is one of the reasons I said that SR is nonsense.
I regret that everyone is upset by my conclusion but I have a lot more aspects of SR that I have analyzed in detail and everyone shows the same thing.

(Cyan colour by me above)

I checked again while you (hopefully) analyses the other responses so far. An obvious source of confusion that I first missed is that you seem to mix Lorentz transfom and time dilation. Lorentz transform is used to transform between coordinate systems and that formula is not the same as the formula used to calculate time dilation. Please clarify.

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, Jan Slowak said:

You just talk and talk.

!

Moderator Note

You need to seriously read the replies you're getting if you think they're just talk. People are trying to help you understand something you've misunderstood for years. It's all done out of respect for the science and math. Show some yourself, please. It's intellectually dishonest to ignore people who're showing you where you're wrong.

If you can't engage in meaningful discussion using the rules of this site, I'll have to close this thread. Please listen to all the "talk and talk".

 

[Jan Slowak]

3 hours ago, Strange said:

And you are still refusing to engage.

Why do you ignore the answers and explanations you have been given? 

Do you expect people to just uncritically accept what you say, even when you are wrong? 

I have never said that anyone should accept my conclusions in my work. In this thread, I show a mathematical evidence that LT is non-self-consistent.
If you do not have counter-arguments, disproof, refrain from commenting.

Mathematics is the queen of science!

2 hours ago, swansont said:

I agree. Strange pointed out that mixing frames is a common problem. You have to have a clearly defined problem, including the reference frames, and not deviate from that setup.

There is no mix of coordinate systems (frames) in this thread.
It's about pure mathematics!

 

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

You need to seriously read the replies you're getting if you think they're just talk. People are trying to help you understand something you've misunderstood for years. It's all done out of respect for the science and math. Show some yourself, please. It's intellectually dishonest to ignore people who're showing you where you're wrong.

If you can't engage in meaningful discussion using the rules of this site, I'll have to close this thread. Please listen to all the "talk and talk".

 

You say I'll show something myself!
In this thread, I show a mathematical evidence that LT is non-self-consistent.