Pulsars contradict theory of relativity

[Bart]

The clock as the time measurement device is simply a counter of reference pulses, produced by selected timing system (mechanical,
electrical, atomic, astronomical), depending on the technology of the clock. The basic unit of time for all clocks, which is the second, is based primarily on astronomical frame of reference as 1/86400 of the Earth day. So defined a second, as a reference unit of time, must always be constant and invariant. It is a fundamental condition that it was possible to measure the true time in any frame of reference.

With this in mind, below is presented a simple graphical proof that the interpretation of the theory of relativity in terms of time,
stating that:

- time slows down in the moving frames of reference, relative to the time in the frame at rest, and that;

- time slows down with increasing gravity,

it is not true.

The following figure shows an example in which from Earth at a speed such as 260000 km / s, a vehicle is traveling in the direction of a very massive object XXL, with its mass of 1000 suns and in a distance 1 light year from Earth. In order not to take into account the Doppler effect, the vehicle moves in a direction perpendicular to the direction of incoming light pulses from a very distant pulsar P. Calculated on Earth the vehicle travel time, to and fro, with 1 year stay on the object XXL, is a total of about 3.4 years.

. Pulsar P (> 1 k l.y from Earth)
. ! ! !
. ! ! !
. ! ! !
. ! ! !
. ! 1 sec pulses from the very far pulsar !
. ! ! !
. ! ! !

. Earth ---->-------------vehicle-------------------<---Very massive object XXL (distance 1l.y.)

 

According to the theory of relativity, clocks in a moving vehicle, as well as on the massive object XXL, will run more slowly, regardless of their construction. So the clock in the moving vehicle at 260 000 km / s, will run two times slower than on Earth, and the correspondingly slower on the XXL object, due to greater gravity there. After returning to Earth after 3.4 years, the clock in the vehicle will therefore show a measured time, shorter at least 1.14 years then the clocks on Earth. This difference of time indicated by clocks is interpreted by SR as a time dilation, and not was duo to clock technological reasons.

 

Does this interpretation is indeed correct? As you can see from the figure, if the clocks on Earth, in the moving vehicle and on the XXL object, will be ticked from approved for all clocks, one standard source of pulses in the form of pulsar P, whose period be equal to 1sec., then the all clocks will always indicate the same time, regardless of the frame of reference. As can be seen, there may not be any time dilation.

Time on Earth, in the vehicle moving with any speed, or on the massive XXL object, measured on the basis of a common master of the time unit , will always elapse at the same rate. So this is a proof that the interpretation of time dilation by SR is wrong.

This statement does not exclude the truth of the claim that under certain conditions the clocks may go slower (or faster), but it is related to the technology of these clocks, not time itself. For example, atomic clock closed in the refrigerator will run slower than the same clock on the outside, which does not mean that time elapse slower in the fridge than outside.

Edited March 3, 2013 by Bart

[swansont]

According to the theory of relativity, clocks in a moving vehicle, as well as on the massive object XXL, will run more slowly, regardless of their construction. So the clock in the moving vehicle at 260 000 km / s, will run two times slower than on Earth, and the correspondingly slower on the XXL object, due to greater gravity there. After returning to Earth after 3.4 years, the clock in the vehicle will therefore show a measured time, shorter at least 1.14 years then the clocks on Earth. This difference of time indicated by clocks is interpreted by SR as a time dilation, and not was duo to clock technological reasons.

 

Does this interpretation is indeed correct? As you can see from the figure, if the clocks on Earth, in the moving vehicle and on the XXL object, will be ticked from approved for all clocks, one standard source of pulses in the form of pulsar P, whose period be equal to 1sec., then the all clocks will always indicate the same time, regardless of the frame of reference. As can be seen, there may not be any time dilation.

The clock on the spaceship will not measure the pulsar period to be 1 sec. This transverse motion effect has been experimentally confirmed; it even uses a system with gamma = 2 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ZPhyA.289..151H

 

Time on Earth, in the vehicle moving with any speed, or on the massive XXL object, measured on the basis of a common master of the time unit , will always elapse at the same rate. So this is a proof that the interpretation of time dilation by SR is wrong.

There is no such thing as a master time. You can't assume there is in order to try and disprove relativity.

[Bart]

 

The clock on the spaceship will not measure the pulsar period to be 1 sec. This transverse motion effect has been experimentally confirmed; it even uses a system with gamma = 2 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ZPhyA.289..151H

 

 

 

The formula for the relativistic transverse Doppler effect for the pulse frequency of the pulsar is: fo = fe *((c^2 - v^2)^0,5)/(c±vcosθ)

 

where f_e is the emitted frequency of the pulsar, f_o is the detected frequency on the spaceship, θ is the angle of detection and v is + for recession and – for approach .

 

For our spaceship cos θ is always = 0, so for the speed v =260 000 km/s fo = fe/2

 

It can therefore be concluded that despite the fact that during the travel of spaceship , 3600 pulses (bullets) per hour fired from the pulsar (gun) P will reach (hit) the ship , the clock/counter on the ship will count only half of these pulses (bullets), ie 1800.

 

Where have gone the rest of the pulses (bullets)?

 

This is an absurd of relativity theory!

 

 

There is no such thing as a master time. You can't assume there is in order to try and disprove relativity.

 

But, absolutely has to be something like a master unit of time and is, it is the second, equals 1/86400 Earth's day . If that were not, any discussions about time in different frames of reference, become irrelevant and senseless.

Edited March 4, 2013 by Bart

[swansont]

The formula for the relativistic transverse Doppler effect for the pulse frequency of the pulsar is: fo = fe *((c^2 - v^2)^0,5)/(c±vcosθ)

 

where f_e is the emitted frequency of the pulsar, f_o is the detected frequency on the spaceship, θ is the angle of detection and v is + for recession and – for approach .

 

For our spaceship cos θ is always = 0, so for the speed v =260 000 km/s fo = fe/2

 

It can therefore be concluded that despite the fact that during the travel of spaceship , 3600 pulses (bullets) per hour fired from the pulsar (gun) P will reach (hit) the ship , the clock/counter on the ship will count only half of these pulses (bullets), ie 1800.

 

Where have gone the rest of the pulses (bullets)?

 

You can't mix frames like this.

 

 

This is an absurd of relativity theory!

 

 

 

 

Incorrect application of a theory often leads to absurdities.

 

 

But, absolutely has to be something like a master unit of time and is, it is the second, equals 1/86400 Earth's day . If that were not, any discussions about time in different frames of reference, become irrelevant and senseless.

 

Time as measured in one frame is not a master time. It is the time measured in that frame. One second on earth is one second on earth. You can't assume it's one second anywhere else.

 

Misapplying relativity in order to disprove it isn't going to work.

[Bart]

You can't mix frames like this.

Could you explain it, please?

 

 

Time as measured in one frame is not a master time. It is the time measured in that frame. One second on earth is one second on earth. You can't assume it's one second anywhere else.

 

 

If were so, that the basic physical units such as second, meter and kilogram were not universal and could be different units in various frames of reference, that were other than these units on Earth, that would mean, that in different reference frames would be used laws and physical constants different than those on Earth.

 

Is that you wanted to say?

 

How therefore for example, will look the gravitational constant on XXL object, or on the spaceship, as on Earth it is G= 6,6726E-11 m3/(kg s2), where m, kg, s are the cleary defined units on Earth ?

 

So I repeat my position that any discussions about time in different frames of reference, become irrelevant and senseless, if the second as a reference unit is not the same as on Earth.

 

 

 

Edited March 5, 2013 by Bart

[swansont]

Could you explain it, please?

 

 

 

You're comparing the firing rate in one frame with the rate in another, and then claiming that bullets "went missing". That's not how it works.

 

 

 

 

If were so, that the basic physical units such as second, meter and kilogram were not universal and could be different units in various frames of reference, that were other than these units on Earth, that would mean, that in different reference frames would be used laws and physical constants different than those on Earth.

 

Is that you wanted to say?

 

 

No.

 

The laws will be the same from frame to frame, and within the frame, everything is consistent. The two frames, however, will disagree on things that are not invariant, such as elapsed time.

 

How therefore for example, will look the gravitational constant on XXL object, or on the spaceship, as on Earth it is G= 6,6726E-11 m3/(kg s2), where m, kg, s are the cleary defined units on Earth ?

 

So I repeat my position that any discussions about time in different frames of reference, become irrelevant and senseless, if the second as a reference unit is not the same as on Earth.

 

Repeating it doesn't make it right.

[Bart]

You're comparing the firing rate in one frame with the rate in another, and then claiming that bullets "went missing". That's not how it works.

 

 

 

 

No.

 

The laws will be the same from frame to frame, and within the frame, everything is consistent. The two frames, however, will disagree on things that are not invariant, such as elapsed time.

 

 

Repeating it doesn't make it right.

 

 

 

I think we do not understand each other. If you do not have one common reference unit of time, than on what basis you find that time in one frame of reference elapses slower or faster than in the other? The comparison of it is not possible.

 

 

 

[swansont]

 

 

 

I think we do not understand each other. If you do not have one common reference unit of time, than on what basis you find that time in one frame of reference elapses slower or faster than in the other? The comparison of it is not possible.

 

 

 

 

You have a reference, but the realization of that reference will not agree when compared in different frames. So a 1 PPS pulsar as observed from earth is not 1 PPS in a moving frame, or on some other planet.

[Bart]

.

 

You have a reference, but the realization of that reference will not agree when compared in different frames. So a 1 PPS pulsar as observed from earth is not 1 PPS in a moving frame, or on some other planet.

 

Not the second as the reference unit but time indications may not agree, if the clocks are ticked from a varies local generators, then their "second" may be longer or shorter than the true reference second, generated from the pulsar 1PPS. Therefore, we can not call such a local clock "second" as the second, because it will be a completely different unit, which for our spaceship local ticked clock will last according SR two true seconds as in the definition:

 

The second as the reference unit of time, was defined as a time equal to 1/86400 part of the Earth’s day , which later for practical reason, was adopted as 192 631 770 periods of radiation corresponding to the transition between the two levels of the ground state hyperfine structure of atom cesium-133 at rest at 0 K and at standard gravitation on Earth.

 

If, in our example, all clocks will be ticked from one source which is the pulsar 1PPS, then the seconds and time indications on the clocks will be the same in all frames of reference.

 

Thus we return to post # 1.

Edited March 5, 2013 by Bart

[swansont]

.

 

 

 

Not the second as the reference unit but time indications may not agree, if the clocks are ticked from a varies local generators, then their "second" may be longer or shorter than the true reference second, generated from the pulsar 1PPS. Therefore, we can not call such a local clock "second" as the second, because it will be a completely different unit, which for our spaceship local ticked clock will last according SR two true seconds as in the definition:

 

The second as the reference unit of time, was defined as a time equal to 1/86400 part of the Earth’s day , which later for practical reason, was adopted as 192 631 770 periods of radiation corresponding to the transition between the two levels of the ground state hyperfine structure of atom cesium-133 at rest at 0 K and at standard gravitation on Earth.

 

I'm curious where you got that definition. That last part doesn't show up on a Google search.

 

 

If, in our example, all clocks will be ticked from one source which is the pulsar 1PPS, then the seconds and time indications on the clocks will be the same in all frames of reference.

 

Thus we return to post # 1.

 

 

 

 

A clock on the spaceship, even compensating for the change in gravitational potential, will not measure this standard time, because there is relative motion involved. IOW, a properly calibrated clock on the spaceship will disagree with the pulsar. There is no "reference second" from a device, that observers in different reference frames can use, in accordance with relativity.

 

You want to choose a pulsar to be a standard, and that's a choice you can make, but doing so does not contradict relativity in any way. It will also cause problems, because all other systems, which follow the laws of physics, don't care about the timing system you have put in place and will age according to relativity and what local clocks display.

[Spyman]

Sounds more and more as Bart's old thread: Gravitational time dilation, where he argues that such synchronized clocks will rule over all physical events on the spaceship. But events and happenings on a fast spaceship will not unfold in accordance with such a clock, they will take place on a timescale of the local time.

[Bart]

 

 

A clock on the spaceship, even compensating for the change in gravitational potential, will not measure this standard time, because there is relative motion involved. IOW, a properly calibrated clock on the spaceship will disagree with the pulsar. There is no "reference second" from a device, that observers in different reference frames can use, in accordance with relativity.

 

You want to choose a pulsar to be a standard, and that's a choice you can make, but doing so does not contradict relativity in any way. It will also cause problems, because all other systems, which follow the laws of physics, don't care about the timing system you have put in place and will age according to relativity and what local clocks display.

 

 

Are you sure that this is credible? This is where I have serious doubts.

 

Quote from R.P. Feynman, R.B. Leighton, and M. Sands

 

"... if the theory of relativity is right, the run of any clock, acting on the basis of any rule, will seem slower, (with increasing speed with respect to the observer), and it is in the same proportion - we can state this without further analysis. "

 

Please take your attention on the words "will seem slower" for the observer at rest. It is not a confirmation of physically slowing down of any clock in motion. It may be a real physical illusion only.

 

Let's look at the paraphrased quote :

 

"... If the theory of optic is right, the size and run of any car, acting on the basis of any rule, will seem smaller and slower (with increasing distance from the observer) and it is in the same proportion - we can state this with full mathematical and experimental confirmation. "

 

But we know that it is only real illusion.

Edited March 6, 2013 by Bart

[swansont]

Are you sure that this is credible? This is where I have serious doubts.

 

Quote from R.P. Feynman, R.B. Leighton, and M. Sands

 

"... if the theory of relativity is right, the run of any clock, acting on the basis of any rule, will seem slower, (with increasing speed with respect to the observer), and it is in the same proportion - we can state this without further analysis. "

 

Please take your attention on the words "will seem slower" for the observer at rest. It is not a confirmation of physically slowing down of any clock in motion. It may be a real physical illusion only.

 

No, because unlike Einstein, we've had the opportunity to get experimental confirmation, many times. Limiting your focus to the original theory doesn't make those results disappear.

 

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

.

 

The second as the reference unit of time, was defined as a time equal to 1/86400 part of the Earth’s day , which later for practical reason, was adopted as 192 631 770 periods of radiation corresponding to the transition between the two levels of the ground state hyperfine structure of atom cesium-133 at rest at 0 K and at standard gravitation on Earth.

 

9 192 631 770 periods not 192 631 770...

[Bart]

........ . But events and happenings on a fast spaceship will not unfold in accordance with such a clock, they will take place on a timescale of the local time.

 

 

If, for any events and calculations, on an object moving at high speed, must be used according to the SR theory, the units of time, mass and length, as displayed by the local clocks and other measuring devices, then these units for object moving at a speed of 260 000 km / s, will be in fact as follows:

 

Relativistic second will be two times longer than the second on Earth, ie s' = 2s

 

Relativistic kilogram will be two times heavier than the kilogram on Earth, ie kg '= 2kg

 

Relativistic meter will be two times longer than the meter on Earth, ie m '= m / 2

 

This would mean that the gravitational constant G = 6.6726 E-11 m3/ (kg s2), applied on such object will be then as here:

 

G '= 6.6726 E-11 m'3 / (kg' s'2) = 6.6726 E-11(m / 2) ^ 3 / ((2kg * (2s) ^ 2) = 1.04259 E-12 m3 / (kg s2) .

 

So what will be the relativistic gravitation for the object like the Earth, but moving at a speed of 260 000 km/s ?

 

 

 

Edited March 10, 2013 by Bart

[swansont]

You're mixing frames, and also kind of butchering general relativity by using relativistic mass and Newtonian gravity. GR has the stress energy tensor, which includes mass but also momentum, resulting in the effect being unchanged when going from one inertial frame to another. A corollary of this is that you can't make a star into a black hole simply by moving past it quickly.

[Bart]

You're mixing frames, and also kind of butchering general relativity by using relativistic mass and Newtonian gravity. GR has the stress energy tensor, which includes mass but also momentum, resulting in the effect being unchanged when going from one inertial frame to another. A corollary of this is that you can't make a star into a black hole simply by moving past it quickly.

 

 

 

Sorry for errors pop-up on my posts, but apparently relativistic speed has also a bad influence on my writing.

 

Let's change the question then.

I, as an observer on Earth, by Spacenet ask you as the Captain on our spaceship (moving at a speed of 260 000km / s), what is according to the clocks on the ship, the period of flashes of the pulsar 1PPS?

 

 

 

Edited March 10, 2013 by Bart

[swansont]

Let's change the question then.

I, as an observer on Earth, by Spacenet ask you as the Captain on our spaceship (moving at a speed of 260 000km / s), what is according to the clocks on the ship, the period of flashes of the pulsar 1PPS?

 

Gamma is 2, so 1 pulse every 2 seconds.

 

Since the travel to XXL is 1 LY in the rest frame of the earth, in the spaceship traveling at 0.866c it's 1/2 LY, so it takes .433 year in the spaceship frame while on earth they measure .866 years.

[Bart]

Gamma is 2, so 1 pulse every 2 seconds.

 

.

 

If it be so, that 1 pulse from the 1PPS pulsar will have a period of 2 seconds in the spaceship, it would mean that the clocks in the spaceship not slowed down, but speed up twice, compared to the clocks on Earth.

 

 

"Since the travel to XXL is 1 LY in the rest frame of the earth, in the spaceship traveling at 0.866c it's 1/2 LY, so it takes .433 year in the spaceship frame while on earth they measure .866 years."

 

I do not understand it. Could you explain what you want to show, here?

Edited March 11, 2013 by Bart

[swansont]

If it be so, that 1 pulse from the 1PPS pulsar will have a period of 2 seconds in the spaceship, it would mean that the clocks in the spaceship not slowed down, but speed up twice, compared to the clocks on Earth.

 

 

That's a different question. You asked what the spaceship sees, not what an observer on Earth sees. The Earth observer was not part of the question at all. Earth sees the spaceship's clock running slow.

 

 

 

 

"Since the travel to XXL is 1 LY in the rest frame of the earth, in the spaceship traveling at 0.866c it's 1/2 LY, so it takes .433 year in the spaceship frame while on earth they measure .866 years."

 

I do not understand it. Could you explain what you want to show, here?

 

That the spaceship sees 1 pulse every two seconds.

[Bart]

That's a different question. You asked what the spaceship sees, not what an observer on Earth sees. The Earth observer was not part of the question at all. Earth sees the spaceship's clock running slow.

 

 

 

That the spaceship sees 1 pulse every two seconds.

 

 

An observer on the Earth does not have any possibilities of observing clocks in the spaceship.

 

Information about what is happening in the spaceship I can receive only from you, through Spacenet communication system. You sent me a message that 1 pulse from the 1PPS pulsar has a period of 2 seconds. This is a clear indication to me, that according to this information, the clocks in the spaceship speed up twice, when compared to the clocks on Earth.

 

The theory of relativity is based solely on the transport side of the light, completely ignoring the most important information layer in this medium, what is a big drawback to this theory.

 

 

 

Edited March 11, 2013 by Bart

[swansont]

An observer on the Earth does not have any possibilities of observing clocks in the spaceship.

 

In your contrived scenario perhaps, but not in general.

 

 

Information about what is happening in the spaceship I can receive only from you, through Spacenet communication system. You sent me a message that 1 pulse from the 1PPS pulsar has a period of 2 seconds. This is a clear indication to me, that according to this information, the clocks in the spaceship speed up twice, when compared to the clocks on Earth.

 

All you know is that that spaceship thinks the pulsar is running slow. Since you refuse to include in your scenario a way to make any other comparison, you really can't draw any further conclusions.

 

The theory of relativity is based solely on the transport side of the light, completely ignoring the most important information layer in this medium, what is a big drawback to this theory.

 

The theory works (when applied correctly, at least), so I think your claims of a drawback are overblown.

[Bart]

....

 

Since you refuse to include in your scenario a way to make any other comparison, you really can't draw any further conclusions.

 

So, let's check for our example, all possible variants of the comparison of the pulsar pulses and clocks on the spaceship, in relation to the clocks on the Earth. Gamma is 2.

 

1. According to the SR, clocks on the spaceship slowdown 2 times, but let in spite of the SR, the transverse Doppler effect for 1PPS pulse does not exist.

 

Captain of the spaceship will see 2 pulses from the pulsar every 1 second. Such information for the observer on Earth will indicate that the clocks in the spaceship actually slowed down 2 times (but without existence of the transverse Doppler effect).

 

2. Clocks on the spaceship slowdown 2 times, but there is also the transverse Doppler effect (as it SR says), which increases the length of the pulsar pulses also 2 times.

 

Captain of the spaceship will see then 1 pulse from the pulsar every 1 second. Such information for the observer on Earth will indicate that the clocks in the spaceship run in fact, exactly as the clocks on Earth. This is so, in spite of the slowing down of clocks in the spaceship, because duration of the outer events as seen from the spaceship, also slowed down there 2 times.

 

3. Clocks on the spaceship run at the same rate as on Earth, but there is also the transverse Doppler effect, which increases the length of the pulsar pulses 2 times.

 

Captain of the spaceship will see then 1 pulse from the pulsar every 2 seconds. Such information for the observer on Earth, taking into account the existence of the transverse Doppler effect, will indicate that clocks on the spaceship run in fact, exactly as the clocks on Earth. This is so, in spite of the slowing down of clocks on the spaceship, because duration of the outer events as seen from the ship, also slowed down there 2 times. Without taking into account the transverse Doppler effect, the observer on Earth will state that clocks on the spaceship run two times faster than on Earth.

 

4. Clocks on the spaceship run at the same rate as on Earth, and the transverse Doppler effect for 1PPS pulse does not exist.

 

Captain of the spaceship will see then 1 pulse every 1 second. Such information for the observer on Earth will indicate that clocks on the spaceship run exactly as the clocks on Earth.

 

 

So, we have analyzed all four possible variants of the comparison, and as can be seen here, each of these variants contradicts the theory of relativity. (?)

 

Edited March 13, 2013 by Bart

[swansont]

So, we have analyzed all four possible variants of the comparison, and as can be seen here, each of these variants contradicts the theory of relativity. (?)

 

 

When you do the analysis wrong, or apply the wrong analysis, you'll get the wrong answer. Big surprise.

[Bart]

When you do the analysis wrong, or apply the wrong analysis, you'll get the wrong answer. Big surprise.

 

 

Your answers did not explain or a bit of my doubts and as you wrote, error of my thinking. But thank you very, very much for discussion and a possible further discussion in this thread I leave to others.