Relativity is wrong!?

[Xinhang]

And I'm telling that that's not how the equations are used. You are applying them incorrectly. I get a signal from a clock at some new frequency, but the signal is measured in my frame. My frame's time is not dilated.

 

And all I have to do is count oscillations, which how actual clocks and timekeeping systems work. If I count zero-crossings of the signal, I will get a different result than when I compare to a clock in my own frame. If I beat the signals against each other, I will see they are running at different frequencies. That's a real effect.

 

Clocks display time dilation. It's been observed. Arguing that it doesn't happen is pretty senseless.

No, the slowdown of clocks are the effects of aether wind which are absolute, not relativistic time dilation which are frame-dependent. Relativistic time dilation can never be shown on clocks because clock time is invariant of Lorentz Transformation.

[swansont]

No, the slowdown of clocks are the effects of aether wind which are absolute, not relativistic time dilation which are frame-dependent. Relativistic time dilation can never be shown on clocks because clock time is invariant of Lorentz Transformation.

That may be your claim, but the empirical evidence is on my side. You can only defend an aether if you ignore evidence.

 

The only way to get your theoretical results is to mis-apply the equations. Which makes wrong answers unsurprising. But if you want to give it a shot, we have a speculations section where you can post your model and supporting evidence. I'm sure there are several people here willing to tear it to shreds, in the finest tradition of scientific review.

[studiot]

 

No, the slowdown of clocks are the effects of aether wind which are absolute

 

A century or more ago the aether wind may have been a plausible explanation, but since that time there have been so many confirmations of relativity in so many different directions, over so many different distances, large and small, that such an explanation cannot now be supported.

[Phi for All]

No, the slowdown of clocks are the effects of aether wind which are absolute, not relativistic time dilation which are frame-dependent. Relativistic time dilation can never be shown on clocks because clock time is invariant of Lorentz Transformation.

 

!

Moderator Note

While it might seem appropriate to offer an alternative to Relativity in a thread that implies it may be wrong, it would be a hijack to start talking about it here. If you have an aether theory you feel you can support scientifically, as swansont suggests, please start a thread in our Speculations section. Please be aware of the special rules for that section.

[Prophet12A]

The wrong is not with Relativity or Einstein's equations etc......its with current/popular expansionism 'beliefs'. Of course science will prove 'wrong' many who apply/accept 'expansionism' in their models/math/belief...as explained. Einstein's equations/Relativity etc are not wrong, how they are applied/interpreted can be in error....as in (constant and now ever increasing constant in the equation to explain redshift) the equation's (expansion) constant is wrong.

Edited May 19, 2016 by Prophet12A

[Strange]

The wrong is not with Relativity or Einstein's equations etc......its with current/popular expansionism 'beliefs'. Of course science will prove 'wrong' many who apply/accept 'expansionism' in their models/math/belief...as explained. Einstein's equations/Relativity etc are not wrong, how they are applied/interpreted can be in error....as in (constant and now ever increasing constant in the equation to explain redshift) the equation's (expansion) constant is wrong.

 

 

If you have any evidence to support that (or an alternative explanation for all the evidence supporting an expanding universe) perhaps you could present it. It might be more convincing than baseless assertions of your opinion.

[swansont]

The wrong is not with Relativity or Einstein's equations etc......its with current/popular expansionism 'beliefs'. Of course science will prove 'wrong' many who apply/accept 'expansionism' in their models/math/belief...as explained. Einstein's equations/Relativity etc are not wrong, how they are applied/interpreted can be in error....as in (constant and now ever increasing constant in the equation to explain redshift) the equation's (expansion) constant is wrong.

We assess rightness and wrongness of models by how well they agree with data. So you would have to argue that the data are somehow wrong, too.

[Unity+]

 

On the basis of multiple emails - many of which were rude and abusive by highly credentialed people who should have better manners given their senior position, the article will be withdrawn.

For those having nothing better to do but find personal fault with myself they can follow the above links and lose their breakfast, lunch and dinner elsewhere.

Just because that odious man Donald Trump has set the bar so low for public discourse it does not follow that we all need to emulate him in our own discourse with others.

My apologies to those grossly offended by the occasional publication error. Also if the comments thread below is lost it can happen sometimes due to the way Facebook manages comment threads when articles are substantially updated.

The article is now withdrawn.

I think this wraps up the debate lol

[Markus Hanke]

Xinhang, in post #47 you say :

 

 

 

The moving clock's displayed time is the same observed on both the moving frame and the stationary frame. That is, the moving clock won't show any time dilation.

 

which is evidently in direct contradiction to empirical data, and hence nonsense. In post #51 then you suddenly say :

 

 

 

No, the slowdown of clocks are the effects of aether wind which are absolute, not relativistic time dilation which are frame-dependent.

 

which seems to imply that you think time dilation is after all a real phenomenon. You are contradicting yourself here, you can't have it both ways. So does - according to you - time dilation exist, or not ? If you decide to respond to this, then bear in mind that in physics "time" is defined as being what clocks measure; you cannot decouple this concept from its physical measurement, or else you are no longer doing physics.