ravell Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 The theory of relativity claims that all clocks regardless of their design and principle of operation, slowdown their ticks in the following cases: - during its movement, according to the formula T = To / (1- (v / c) ^2)^0,5 - as gravity increases. It turns out that such a slowdown of the clock ticks, called time dilation, is true only for light clocks, which include atomic clocks, and does not apply to all clocks. This slowing down of the clock ticks is therefore only a technical feature of light clocks, and not a dilation of time as such. For example, the pendulum clock will not slow down but will tick faster when the gravity increases, as it shown in the following formula for the clock's cycle: T = 2 π (I / mgr)^0,5 where: m - pendulum mass, g - gravitational acceleration, r - distance of the center of mass from the pendulum axis, I = mr ^ 2 - moment of inertia relative to the axis of oscillation. Another claim of special relativity is the length contraction of objects during motion, according to the formula: L = Lo (1- (v / c)^2)^0,5 The fundamental evidence of this length contraction is to be the null results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. This is also untrue, because the null results of the Michelson-Morley experiment and all other similar experiments are solely due to the Doppler effect and nothing else. Detailed analyzes and calculations in the above cases have been clearly presented in the VETER program for verification of relativity theory, available on the link: url deleted Therefore, all the above claims of the theory of relativity are not in fully consistent to the truth and therefore require appropriate correction. -1
swansont Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 On 1/31/2020 at 5:00 AM, ravell said: Detailed analyzes and calculations in the above cases have been clearly presented in the VETER program for verification of relativity theory, available on the link: url deleted ! Moderator Note Using dropbox to convey information about your conjecture is a violation of the rules. Do you understand this? On 1/31/2020 at 5:00 AM, ravell said: The theory of relativity claims that all clocks regardless of their design and principle of operation, slowdown their ticks in the following cases: - during its movement, according to the formula T = To / (1- (v / c) ^2)^0,5 - as gravity increases. It turns out that such a slowdown of the clock ticks, called time dilation, is true only for light clocks, which include atomic clocks, and does not apply to all clocks. This slowing down of the clock ticks is therefore only a technical feature of light clocks, and not a dilation of time as such. For example, the pendulum clock will not slow down but will tick faster when the gravity increases, as it shown in the following formula for the clock's cycle: T = 2 π (I / mgr)^0,5 where: m - pendulum mass, g - gravitational acceleration, r - distance of the center of mass from the pendulum axis, I = mr ^ 2 - moment of inertia relative to the axis of oscillation. Come up with a model to explain why we observe time dilation in clocks that don't have an explicit dependence on g (e.g. atomic clocks). Alternately, show the explicit dependence on g for an atomic such a clock. (I mean, let's be honest — using a pendulum as a counterexample for gravitational time dilation clock shows a spectacular failure of understanding of the issue)
Strange Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 ! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. 13 minutes ago, swansont said: (I mean, let's be honest — using a pendulum as a counterexample for gravitational time dilation clock shows a spectacular failure of understanding of the issue) ! Moderator Note Indeed. I was tempted to move it to Trash for that reason alone. 1
Markus Hanke Posted February 1, 2020 Posted February 1, 2020 19 hours ago, ravell said: It turns out that such a slowdown of the clock ticks, called time dilation, is true only for light clocks, which include atomic clocks, and does not apply to all clocks. Time dilation is a fundamental feature of the world, it applies to all clocks irrespective of their internal make-up - be they mechanical, electromagnetic, atomic, light, or whatever else. It also applies to statistical processes such as the decay of elementary particles, which have no internal structure or mechanisms at all. Crucially, all other things being equal, the amount of time dilation is the same in all cases, regardless of what type of clock you use. This alone already shows that it is not an artefact of the clock mechanism. 19 hours ago, ravell said: which include atomic clocks Atomic clocks are not light clocks. 19 hours ago, ravell said: pendulum clock A pendulum clock is subject to time dilation, but it is also subject to external forces, so it is an unnecessarily complicated measuring device for this purpose. However, you can use the pendulum clock, if you know how to interpret the observed effects correctly. Locally in a small enough area, tidal effects can be neglected, and what we observe as “gravity” is entirely down to time dilation. So, it’s not that gravity causes time dilation, but gravity is time dilation - it’s curvature in the time direction. 19 hours ago, ravell said: Therefore, all the above claims of the theory of relativity are not in fully consistent to the truth and therefore require appropriate correction. Newtonian tabletop mechanics aside, the theory of relativity is the most well-tested model in all of physics, and in perfect agreement to all experimental data within its domain of applicability. 19 hours ago, ravell said: The fundamental evidence of this length contraction is to be the null results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Length contraction can be directly observed in a number of different contexts, not just MM. Most notable here would be pretty much any particle accelerator experiment, atmospheric muons, the entire model of electrodynamics, undulator radiation, and so on. Note that kinematic time dilation and length contraction are just two aspects of the same phenomenon.
md65536 Posted February 2, 2020 Posted February 2, 2020 On 1/31/2020 at 3:00 AM, ravell said: For example, the pendulum clock will not slow down but will tick faster when the gravity increases, as it shown in the following formula for the clock's cycle: T = 2 π (I / mgr)^0,5 where: m - pendulum mass, g - gravitational acceleration, r - distance of the center of mass from the pendulum axis, I = mr ^ 2 - moment of inertia relative to the axis of oscillation. It's not increased g but lower gravitational potential energy (depth in a gravitational well) that makes clocks relatively slower. It's easy to confuse because with common masses g is typically higher where the potential energy is lower. If you took a pendulum clock tuned for Earth's gravity and suspended it somewhere above the sun where g=9.81 m/s^2, you could confirm that the clock keeps time with a nearby light clock the same way one would on Earth. But it should be deeper in a gravitational well compared to the Earth's clock, so that if you compared the two pendulum clocks operating with an equal g, the one above the sun should be slower. That's the thing about "all other things being equal"; you can make all other things equal and you still get the relativistic effects, so you can rule out mechanical reasons for time dilation. 2
swansont Posted February 2, 2020 Posted February 2, 2020 4 hours ago, md65536 said: It's not increased g but lower gravitational potential energy (depth in a gravitational well) that makes clocks relatively slower. It's easy to confuse because with common masses g is typically higher where the potential energy is lower. No, you can't say that because it depends on the position as well, and it's gravitational potential, not potential energy.
md65536 Posted February 2, 2020 Posted February 2, 2020 6 hours ago, swansont said: No, you can't say that because it depends on the position as well, and it's gravitational potential, not potential energy. Oh right, gravitational potential energy is gravitational potential * mass, so a more massive clock would have higher potential energy, but wouldn't tick faster than a nearby lighter clock. If I worked out the maths I'd make fewer mistakes like this. Do you mean it depends on the position of the reference clock? Is it just the relative gravitational potential (determined eg. by height h and g(h)) of the two clocks that matters? If you have two clocks and all you know is their gravitational potentials relative to some arbitrary common reference point, can you determine their gravitational time dilation?
swansont Posted February 2, 2020 Posted February 2, 2020 20 minutes ago, md65536 said: Oh right, gravitational potential energy is gravitational potential * mass, so a more massive clock would have higher potential energy, but wouldn't tick faster than a nearby lighter clock. If I worked out the maths I'd make fewer mistakes like this. Do you mean it depends on the position of the reference clock? Is it just the relative gravitational potential (determined eg. by height h and g(h)) of the two clocks that matters? If you have two clocks and all you know is their gravitational potentials relative to some arbitrary common reference point, can you determine their gravitational time dilation? I worded that awkwardly. (Changed wording without proofread). It’s the issue of not being potential energy
Markus Hanke Posted February 3, 2020 Posted February 3, 2020 I think it should also be noted that the notion of “gravitational potential” as we are used to it from Newtonian mechanics can only be meaningfully defined for specific types of spacetimes - at the very least they need to be stationary, spherically symmetric, and asymptotically flat. It is not a universally valid concept in GR.
Eise Posted February 3, 2020 Posted February 3, 2020 On 1/31/2020 at 11:00 AM, ravell said: It turns out that such a slowdown of the clock ticks, called time dilation, is true only for light clocks, which include atomic clocks, and does not apply to all clocks. There is so much wrong with this... In the first place, the fictional light clock and atomic clocks work on completely different principles, so I have no idea why you throw them in one bucket. Secondly, you should not forget that SR is based on 2 postulates: one is the invariance of the speed of light, and this is used in the example of the light clock. The other postulate is that there is no physical experiment that can show you that you are in absolute rest: observers in all inertial frames see exactly the same laws of physics. But if clocks based on other principles than the light clock would run at different rates, one would have a criterion to say who is at rest, and who is moving. The light clock is just a nice example to easily explain time dilation to lay people. But there are derivations of SR that are much more fundamental, than this. (Why do you think the original article of Einstein was titled 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'? There appears no light clock at all in this article.) Do not think that SR is based on the example of the light clock! 3
swansont Posted February 3, 2020 Posted February 3, 2020 The underlying issue of why we don't observe time dilation in clocks other than atomic clocks is that they simply don't have the precision for such a measurement. Gravitational time dilation frequency change near the surface is around a part in 10^16 per meter. The best pendulum clocks (Riefler) were good to around 10 ms per day, which is around a part in 10^7. No way you could determine g well enough to determine the frequency of a pendulum clock for that to matter even at that scale, and you're many orders of magnitude short of being able to see time dilation. Your best shot would be a quartz oscillator, but they tend to flicker and perhaps drift. You have an outside shot of measuring dilation with a >1 km difference in altitude if you could get oscillators better than a part in 10^13. Cryogenic sapphire oscillators could do that. But nobody would bother with this, because we already have more robust atomic clocks with which to do such measurements. And it occurs to me we have done this with the GPS satellites, whose oscillator frequency is dialed down because they run fast in orbit. Much larger distances, so there is a much larger effect. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5253894/ (see "relativistic effects on satellite clocks" The calculation end at eq. 36)
SergUpstart Posted February 4, 2020 Posted February 4, 2020 (edited) On 1/31/2020 at 1:00 PM, ravell said: For example, the pendulum clock will not slow down but will tick faster when the gravity increases, as it shown in the following formula for the clock's cycle: T = 2 π (I / mgr)^0,5 where: m - pendulum mass, g - gravitational acceleration, r - distance of the center of mass from the pendulum axis, I = mr ^ 2 - moment of inertia relative to the axis of oscillation. In a state of free fall, the pendulum clock will not work at all in the orbit of a spacecraft, an unfortunate example. Edited February 4, 2020 by SergUpstart
nobody Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 If you put a pendulum clock in free space (no gravity) and and accelerate it at one gravity. Initially a stationary clock at the starting point and the moving clock are in phase, but as relative velocity increases for the stationary observer, clock phase of the moving clock will lag behind his "stationary" clock, just like the atomic clocks do. The discussion about the needed precision and stability is important. At low velocity difference, drift inherent in your clocks is more variable than the measurement and your experimental data will be useless (as pointed out above). When velocity becomes a significant percentage of the speed of light the measured data should useful for measuring the phase drift (frequency difference).
ravell Posted February 16, 2020 Author Posted February 16, 2020 (edited) On 1/31/2020 at 12:00 PM, swansont said: ! Moderator Note Using dropbox to convey information about your conjecture is a violation of the rules. Do you understand this? I really appreciate and respect your comments and suggestions on this forum. but I regret to say that I do not understand your allegation above. The rules of this Forum under Section 2 include the following: Quotes 7. …… We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site. 11. … We are here to discuss science, in the open. Question Why my thread was moved to Speculation and the link to the VETER program (noncommercial) was removed and why I was banned for over 12 days? Does the practice of removing links related to the discussed scientific topic, or closing the thread without discussion mean, that in this scientific forum it is forbidden to submit comments or show discrepancies regarding existing scientific theories? "Come up with a model to explain why we observe time dilation in clocks that don't have an explicit dependence on g (e.g. atomic clocks). Alternately, show the explicit dependence on g for an atomic such a clock. " Atomic, electromagnetic and simple light clocks form a class of light clocks in which timing is based on electromagnetic oscillations. As it was shown in the VETER program, the speed of light decreases as the gravity increases and this results in the delay of atomic clocks as the gravity increases. "Alternately, show the explicit dependence on g for an atomic clock." Based on the sheet "GPS2" of the program VETER, the derived formula will be as follows: T1 = T2*c/ [c^2 - 2GM*(R2 - R1)/(R1*R2)]^0,5 = T2*c / [c^2 – 2gm*(R2 - R1)]^0,5 Where: T1 - clock tick at a lower level R1 where g is larger than at R2, T2 - clock tick at a higher level R2, G - gravitational constant, M - mass of the star/planet , R1 and R2 – radius of the orbits between which the time dilation is calculated, c - speed of light, gm=GM/(R1R2) - the mean integral value of gravitation on the distance R2 - R1. From the above formula we can see that the ticks of the light clock at a lower level R1, where g is larger, will be longer than the clock ticks at a higher level R2, where g is lower. This proves that the speed of light decreases as gravity increases. To confirm the correctness of the presented formula, I once again provide the access link to the VETER program (noncommercial): "(I mean, let's be honest — using a pendulum as a counterexample for gravitational time dilation clock shows a spectacular failure of understanding of the issue) " The theory of relativity claims that all clocks regardless of their design and principle of operation, slowdown their ticks as gravity increases. A pendulum clock is a clock for measuring the passage of time, just like a spring clock, electric clock, digital clock etc. Pendulum clocks have been used for centuries to measure time, isn’t it? If you don't think so, can you explain where you see the contradiction in the pendulum clock example given here? The VETER program shows that “time dilation” applies only to light clocks , and does not apply to all other types of clocks. On 2/1/2020 at 6:56 AM, Markus Hanke said: Time dilation is a fundamental feature of the world, it applies to all clocks irrespective of their internal make-up - be they mechanical, electromagnetic, atomic, light, or whatever else. It also applies to statistical processes such as the decay of elementary particles, which have no internal structure or mechanisms at all. Crucially, all other things being equal, the amount of time dilation is the same in all cases, regardless of what type of clock you use. This alone already shows that it is not an artefact of the clock mechanism. Unfortunately, this cannot be true and it is not true. If it is the passage of time that slows down as gravity increases, and all type of clocks only show this effect, then explain the following very theoretical example. You have moved to planet X with your clock tuned on Earth in our units of time, seconds, minutes and hours, and let gravity on this planet be so high that, according to the theory of relativity, the passage of time is there twice as slowly as on Earth. Can you give answers then, what time values you will measure on your clock on the planet X for the following events: 1. The period of flashes of a distant pulsar that, seen from Earth, flashes once a second? 2. Earth rotation period, which on Earth is 24 hours? 3. The travel time of light back and forth in a vacuum pipe 150 m long, which on Earth is 1 microsecond. 4. The travel time of sound in a pipe 340 m long (air pressure 1 atmosphere) , which on Earth is 1 second. 5. The frequency for the A sound, which on Earth is 440 Hz? 6. The time it takes to cook a pancake at a given frying pan temperature, which on Earth is 5 minutes? ☺ If you already have the answers, now answer the same 6 questions, but using the local clock on the planet X, which is tuned so that its ticking rate is the same as for clocks on Earth, i.e. 1 sec on this clock = 1/86400 Earth day. On 2/4/2020 at 1:44 PM, SergUpstart said: In a state of free fall, the pendulum clock will not work at all in the orbit of a spacecraft, an unfortunate example. It”s obvious. Pendulum clock in the absence of gravity will not work, like the atomic clock will not work in the absence of electricity. However, during movement, only light clocks slowdown, not all clocks, as relativity theory claims. This slowdown of light clocks during movement is not a relativistic effect, as it results from classical physics. This was clearly presented in the article (noncommercial): Edited February 16, 2020 by Strange Delete links
Strange Posted February 16, 2020 Posted February 16, 2020 ! Moderator Note 1. You have been repeatedly been told not to keep posting those links, and yet you do. 2. You have one more chance to provide some evidence for your claims. If you do not do that in your next post, the thread will be closed and you will not be permitted to bring it up again. Statements of incredulity and ignorance ("Unfortunately, this cannot be true and it is not true") are not evidence.
Markus Hanke Posted February 16, 2020 Posted February 16, 2020 21 minutes ago, ravell said: Can you give answers then, what time values you will measure on your clock on the planet X for the following events: 1. Once in 0.5s 2. 12 hours 3. 1ms 4. 1s 5. If you increase gravity, then the atmosphere around you will become more dense, so the exact equivalent of A as subjectively heard by someone will be found at a different frequency. What exactly that frequency is, is not trivial to work out, but in any case has nothing to do with time dilation. 6. Again, increasing local gravity will change atmospheric pressure, so the cooking time will probably slightly change, albeit not because of time dilation. The answer is thus roughly 5min. 28 minutes ago, ravell said: If you already have the answers, now answer the same 6 questions, but using the local clock on the planet X, which is tuned so that its ticking rate is the same as for clocks on Earth, i.e. 1 sec on this clock = 1/86400 Earth day. If you build a mechanism that is artificially synchronised (in terms of ticking rate) with a clock on Earth, you get 1. Once per 1s 2. 24h 3. 0.5ms 4. 0.5s 5. See comment above 6. Roughly 2.5min, see comment above What you are failing to understand here is that time dilation is a relationship between clocks, not something that happens locally to a clock. So, if the process you are considering and the clock are in the same frame, you will never see time dilation of any kind. It’s only when you compare distant clocks at different gravitational environments, or clocks in relative motion, that you can see time dilation. 34 minutes ago, ravell said: like the atomic clock will not work in the absence of electricity. Atomic clocks have nothing to do with electricity. 35 minutes ago, ravell said: However, during movement, only light clocks slowdown, not all clocks, as relativity theory claims. Incorrect, kinematic time dilation is independent of what type of clock you use. A good example here is atmospheric muons (which are elementary particles, and have no internal mechanism at all). You can also directly test this by putting an unstable particle with known lifetime into relative motion (particle accelerator) - you will find that, in the lab frame, its lifetime will be dilated. This is routinely observed in particle accelerator runs. 36 minutes ago, ravell said: This was clearly presented in the article (noncommercial): This is not very wise. You were told by the moderators not to link to Dropbox files.
swansont Posted February 16, 2020 Posted February 16, 2020 Quote I really appreciate and respect your comments and suggestions on this forum. but I regret to say that I do not understand your allegation above. The rules of this Forum under Section 2 include the following: Quotes 7. …… We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site. 11. … We are here to discuss science, in the open. ! Moderator Note Dropbox is not YOUR noncommercial site, and you’ve ignored the part that says people have to be able to participate without clicking any links.
ravell Posted February 23, 2020 Author Posted February 23, 2020 On 2/16/2020 at 6:02 PM, Markus Hanke said: 1. Once in 0.5s 2. 12 hours 3. 1ms 4. 1s 5. If you increase gravity, then the atmosphere around you will become more dense, so the exact equivalent of A as subjectively heard by someone will be found at a different frequency. What exactly that frequency is, is not trivial to work out, but in any case has nothing to do with time dilation. 6. Again, increasing local gravity will change atmospheric pressure, so the cooking time will probably slightly change, albeit not because of time dilation. The answer is thus roughly 5min. A. Measurements on the astronaut clock ( A). On Planet X the light clock of the astronaut, will run twice as slowly as on Earth, due to ”time dilation”. According to your answers above, it follows that the actual speed of light on Planet X, measured by this clock, is twice as low as on Earth. That's correct But also in your opinion, the speed of sound is there twice as low as on Earth? Why? It takes twice as much time to cook a pancake here than on Earth? On 2/16/2020 at 6:02 PM, Markus Hanke said: If you build a mechanism that is artificially synchronised (in terms of ticking rate) with a clock on Earth, you get 1. Once per 1s 2. 24h 3. 0.5ms 4. 0.5s 5. See comment above 6. Roughly 2.5min, see comment above B. Measurements on the local clock (B). If the ticking frequency of clocks on Earth and of the local clock on Planet X are identically tuned, based on a common reference standard, which in our example is the rotation of the Earth or a distant pulsar, flashing at a frequency of 1 sec., then these clocks will measure time in the same units, i.e. on the same scale. Your answers regarding local clock B are in contradiction to the answers related to clock A, because you show here that the speed of light, measured by the local clock B on the same scale as for clocks on Earth, is twice as high on Planet X than on Earth. The same is for the speed of sound, which is twice as high here as on Earth? Also the cooking time of a pancake is shorter by half than on Earth. All of the above is not true. Taking your answers for both clocks A and B, where do you see here the gravitational time dilation, as GR claims? The “time dilation” cannot be equated with the slowdown of ticking of light clocks, because this slowdown is due to the decrease in the speed of light as the gravity increases. Only your answers for questions 1 and 2 are correct for both clocks A and B. On 2/16/2020 at 6:02 PM, Markus Hanke said: What you are failing to understand here is that time dilation is a relationship between clocks, not something that happens locally to a clock. So, if the process you are considering and the clock are in the same frame, you will never see time dilation of any kind. It’s only when you compare distant clocks at different gravitational environments, or clocks in relative motion, that you can see time dilation. Sorry, but the relationship between the clocks has nothing to do with the passage of time as such. If you have a clock in room A that is fast, and in room B a clock that is late, it does not mean that in room B the passage of time is slower than in room A. If any two clocks measure a divergent values of the passage of time, it only means that the clocks are not synchronized with a common reference standard. After synchronization with the reference standard, both clocks will measure the passage of time in an identical scale, regardless of the value of gravity at the location of each. On 2/16/2020 at 6:02 PM, Markus Hanke said: Incorrect, kinematic time dilation is independent of what type of clock you use. A good example here is atmospheric muons (which are elementary particles, and have no internal mechanism at all). You can also directly test this by putting an unstable particle with known lifetime into relative motion (particle accelerator) - you will find that, in the lab frame, its lifetime will be dilated. This is routinely observed in particle accelerator runs. Material particles are only a condensed form of electromagnetic energy. Life dilation of muons and other elementary particles during movement is just a confirmation of the above fact. So I repeat here again, during movement, only light clocks slowdown, and not all type of clocks as SR claims, and this is clearly presented in the article The interpretation of time dilation is incorrect. The links to this article and to the program VETER for verification of SR theory, has been so far stubbornly removed by the moderator. I am very sorry for the Moderator of this forum for the fact that due to my respect for all who read this thread and want to know the details, I attach here this "prohibited" link once more : THAT'S A BIG NOPE Let's not be afraid of the truth, gentlemen. Thank you very much Markus for your comments. -4
Strange Posted February 23, 2020 Posted February 23, 2020 59 minutes ago, ravell said: According to your answers above, it follows that the actual speed of light on Planet X, measured by this clock, is twice as low as on Earth. That's correct ! Moderator Note Obviously not 59 minutes ago, ravell said: I attach here this "prohibited" link once more : ! Moderator Note No you don't 59 minutes ago, ravell said: Let's not be afraid of the truth, gentlemen. ! Moderator Note Ironic from someone who is terrified of learning. Which is a good reason to close this thread. Do NOT start another one on this subject. 1
Recommended Posts