Experiment to demonstrate mutual observed time dilation

Wow. Go a way for a weekend at a star party and all hell breaks loose.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Welcome back!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nonsense indeed. Please justify your use of such a term. Please note that I have stated "Systemic". That is a measureable dilation between the two clocks. This statement does not preclude both from being dilated as a function of their energy or whatever process regulates their tick rate. But if both dilate equally (mutual dilation, not reciproicty) then there is no systemic dilation.

Systemically there can only be ONE clock dilated. So it is nonsense to make the comment "Nonsense".

You will know that when you read accumulated time on the clocks or when you have adequate information to determine which has a higher absolute velocity.

I think you have mis-interpreted my use of the word accelerated. They are indeed considered and remain inertial. The acceleration is in terms of the view that a dilated clock would see the other as running fast (accelerated) rather than the SRT assumption that it would also see it dilated and running slow.

I state reciprocity does not exist because it has never ONCE been observed or recorded; not to mention it is physically impossible for anything to have physical reciprocity where each run either slower or even faster than each other. To argue otherwise is shear nonsense.

I do not accept claiming ignorance as any defense of the issue.

I do not accept your assumption that one must be fluent in GR to assess the issue of reciproicty in SRT.

Point, Frame, these are all words. Point "C" is merely another referance point in addition to the "A" and "B" clocks and observers used in SRT.

Using the center of the earth is meant to convey a concept in simple terms. The actual location of Point "C" is not an issue as long as it lies on the line of relative velocity between "A" and "B".

Emperical data and logic hold you are fantisizing.

So then if you wanat to claim the muon IS a clock, please demonstrate exactly how it is that the muon clock views the earth surface clock as running slow.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If the muon clock ticks 0.05 ticks/earth tick then it will not see the earth tick rate as slow but as being 20/1 times its tick rate.

Please demonstrate otherwise.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Our fundamental problem (in addition to some conflicting use of terms) is that you believe in some things that I do not. According to me, and most professional physicists, your talk of "absolute velocity" is where the nonsense is. There is no preferred reference frame. Physic is exactly the same in any inertial frame. Only if it were different in some frame could there be a special / unique frame.

Your statment is incomplete. Let me restate it, adding the part in capitals:
"...the muon clock ticks 0.05 ticks/earth tick AS SEEN BY OBSERVER ON EARTH..." and
"will not see the earth tick rate as slow but as being 20/1 times its tick rate..." NO THE MUON ALSO SEES THE EARTH CLOCKS AS MAKING ONLY 0.05 TICKS FOR EACH OF ITS CLOCKS TICKS. (What an observer on Earth, Mars or planet "P" in orbit about star "S" of galaxy "Z" thinks about the muon clocks tick rate, compared to their own, will all be different, but these different views of the muon clock, from these diffrent frames, has no effect upon what the muon thinks/view is happening on Earth (or Mars, Planet P, or star S.) Certainly there is no basis for thinking that just because the Earth observer thinks, by his clocks that the muon clock is slow by a factor of 20, the muon is under no obligation to see Earth clocks as 20 times to fast. Travelers in two different invertial frames each see the clocks in the other frame as slow by the same factor.

If you want to include things like unicorns and absolute velocities in your understand of physics, I guess that is your right, but don't expect me to explain things using your assumptions. (Did you see my proof, following Gest's "symbol introduction method" that unicorns not only exist but can have horn lenths compared? Unicorn "c" which was initially running along side unicorn "a" speed up to later run along side unicorn "b" ? if yes, do you agree his defense of absolute velocity is as I stated in that post "circular logic"? (He assumes a symbol that has meaning only]/b] if an absolute rest frame does exist (his "Va"). Then, after a lot of "numeric smoke" manipulating this symbol among others, he concludes "yes the absolute rest frame exsist; so "Va" has meaning)

 

This is fun.

 

You are missing part of the definition I use. This absolute velocity is not absolute in terms of value but is a relative absolute value. That is where "C" measures "A" as -0.233c and "B" as +0.6c, the "Relative velocity considered by SRT would be 0.866c and yield a gamma of 2.000. (I disregard velocity addition in these discussions since they do not alter the conclusion and only confuse or mask the issue).

However, these velocities are "Relatively Absolute" That merely means you cannot claim "A" or "B" as being at rest and the systemic time dilation WILL NOT be as predicted by SRT based on a relatiove velocity of 0.866c or a gamma of 2.000.

The dilation will infact be found to be based on gamma A = 1.0283 and gamma B = 1.25 for an effective gamma = 1.25/1.0283 = 1.2156, not SRT's gamma = 2.000. It will be "B" that is dilated and ONLY "B", there is NO reciprocity in the physical universe. Reciprocity is a feature of SRT's flawed gendanken artifically limiting velocity to be between two FOR's where neither can sense their own actual velocity component and wrongfully conclude they are at rest and the total velocity is in their opponents motion.

You will object to this statement but that is OK. Your objection is based soley on dogma, rhetoric and a belief system which is totally unsupported by data and basless from any acceptable logic. Mine is supported by GPS findings and is completely logical.

Let me re-emphasize that you keep using the term "See". I am not debating any moving observer illusion, I am talking about physical time dialtion of clocks which results in change in accumulated time by the clock. In the real physical world reciproicty is prohibited.

Unfortunately the only unicorns in this discussion is SRT reciprocity. Now either post data showing at least ONE case of reciprocity or admit it is an unsupported assumption based on flawed mathematics, based further on a false view of the universe as having only two FOR's to judge velocity.

I have followed G's posts. I personally have not been able to conclude they demonstrate absolute velocity but that does not exclude absolute velocity from consideration.

Unless you can demonstrate reciprocity and cases where a clock will record multiple time dilations to support multiple view points, yours is a wholly unacceptable view.

 

"relatively absolute" must be something like "half pregnant" but even with this insite, I don't understand your terms /concepts. This may be part my fault - I don't grind thru a lot of numbers any more -too lazy. I especially won't do this grinding when they appear to be using concept I don't agree with.

You'll forgive me if I don't agree

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Infact, I think the facts (physics observation, GPS and especially the muon flux vs altitude observation of the last 75years) support the standard view that SRT is correct, as I believe, based on these many confirmations of it. I invite you to comment on the thread I started on Muons and SRT - a challenge for people like you that disagree with the generally accepted SRT. How do explain tha muons do get down to Earth surface when if there were not time dilation (or some thing that produces essentially the same result as SRT calculations) then less than 1% live long enough to descend 4000meters?

 

Hi Mac,

Sorry to bring up the muon thing again but...

Two muons approach each other. Assume that we somehow know that these particular muons will decay in 2us. They are moving at speeds, and over a distance, relative to an observer on the sidelines, such that they could not possibly reach each other. They do, and just as they collide, they decay.

Now, if you were on muon A your clock would read 2us. If you were on muon B your clock would read 2us. Our clock says the muons collided and decayed at oh, say, 1000us.

The A muon must see the B muon's clock run slow otherwise the collision could never occur (it would decay long before the collision). The same holds for the B muon. This is logically unassailable unless you postulate an absolute reference for the universe. This reference is the background against which all events in the universe are measured.

If there is an absolute reference, then it is possible to assign an assymetry to the above experiment, i.e. one muon is really moving faster (or slower) than the other with respect to Va = 0. If this were the case, one of the above muons would really decay well before the collision.

Well, perhaps the above experiment was done with both muons travelling perpendicular to the absolute reference field. Well, this experiment (of course this is my favorite muon scattering experiment) is done often and with no bias in the expected scattering crossection with direction.

How do you explain this?

 

Super question super!

 

I certainly can't fault you for not understanding the meaning of the term since it is my own construction. But what I am attempting to do is make a distinction between the SRT view of relative velocity and show that such velocity is not something that can stand on its own. That is the relative velocity may well be comprised of two identical accelerations one + and one - in which case there will be NO time dilation between the clocks.

It is most obvious that within any relative velocity there exists velocity components which comprise it. They are not obvious and must be specified.

The point is there is simply no data or evidence based on two objects with relative velocity where the velocity history is unknown which demonstrates the theory of SRT. All data consists of conditions where the total relative velocity is indeed correct for calculating time dilation - i.e. - muon decay and particle accelerators. But even in those cases neither demonstrates reciprocity.

Why do you continue to harp on this. I have already stated that muon time dilation occurs. What does not occur is reciprocity where the earth clock is recorded as running slower than the muon clock.

Or the surface clock running slower due to velocity than the orbiting GPS clock, etc.

The Lorentz gamma factor appears valid but it is being mis-applied to claim it supports SRT and reciprocity.

SRT uses the Lorentz gamma function but it is SRT that goes beyond this function and makes a series of stupid blunders and predictions which have not been demonstrated and never will be demonstrated. Reciprocity DOES NOT EXIST. It cannot exist in a physical universe. It only exists in the misapplication of the mathematics of relativity.

You must be able to do more than merely state it is so because SRT says so. It has not been observed nor recorded in 100 years of Einstien's relativity..

 

Don't be a jackass. We all (except you) know I mean you must accelerate to achieve a velocity. In a case of unknown origin of such velocity the component parts comprising such relative velocity are wrongfully ignored when speculating about time dilation affects.

Of course you believe that has no bearing but you are flat wrong. It is easily understood by any wishing to do so.

If I tell you "A" and "B" have a relative velocity of 0.866c. You will claim (wrongfully) that each will record a time tick rate less than the other by a factor of two.

Not only is this nonsense and clearly physically impossible but noting that "A" accelerated to -0.433c and "B" accelerated +0.433c from a common rest point, and it becomes obvious that neither will be dilated relative to the other.

So relative velocity must consider component velocities. End of your diatribe.

And the lack of such consideration is an obvious flaw.

For the 100th time, one does not need to bring clocks back together to analyze the problem. Stop trying to mask the failure of SRT by introducing GR.

PLease show your evidence that it see it run slow. At least my view is logical and physically possible. Your is ludricrus and is totally unsupported by evidence or data.

Yes your responses are boring. Yawn.

 

Not so. Each muon has it's own proper time and decays (statistically) just as it should for its energy level. If each has an equal velocity relative to you the observer then whether they collide or not is a function of their d =vt and has nothing to do with your clock. You don't even know what their decay times will be.

These things require emperical determination and are not determined by SR Theory. It is purely mathematical and is based on flawed assumptions. You cannot translate the data we have to such a scenario.

I don't have to I have not said their is some absolute referance field. That would not make any sense. The fact is time dilation doesn't care if the motion is ++. +-, -+ or --. That is a ficticious conclusion assuming the SRT view of relative velocity.

I have just showed that to claim one spaceship has a relative velocity to another spaceship of 0.866c that you cannot assume by SRT that their respective clocks are ticking at 50% of each other.

That relative velocity may well be based on one going -0.433c and the other +0.433c after equal rates and durations of acceleration from a common initial point of rest and in such case there is NO dilation between them.

So to continue to argue that relative velocity perse dictates time dilation and that it has reciprocity is shear lunacy.

Unfortunately your scenario consists of to many arbitrary conditions creating the affect you think you prove.


Now rather than leave this answered in such unacceptable fashion lets put your scenario into proper context.

You have an observer "C" in a lab located between two muon generating beams. Muons in this case are expected to decay in 1us but the generators are located approximately 259.6m from the observer.

Now the muons are fired to achieve a 0.433c velocity toward each other which according to the observer will require 2us to collide. Clearly they will decay before that time. (This is your "They are to far apart and can't collide but do" comment).

Now according to SRT they have a relative velocity of 0.866c which yields a gamma of 2.000 and their life span is extended due to time dilation to 2 us and bingo, they collide.

1 - The 0.866c relative velocity has nothing to do with their time dilation.

2 - They will not collide because their component velocity is only 0.433c and gamma = 1.1094 not 2.000.

3 - They will not each see the other as being dilated but will see each as running at their proper time which is equal but dilated relative to the lab observer "C".

4 - Mutual time dilation IS NOT reciprocity. Reciprocity as advocated by SRT requires that each would tick normal but also tick slow. Each does tick slow compared to lab observer "C" but not slower than each other.

5 - Before you respond please be prepared to justify claiming their relative velocity of 0.866c controls their decay time and not the lab observer relative velocity (mutually) of 0.433c.

6 - I hope you realize that your relative velocity claims now has muons colliding according to SRT but not according to the lab observer.

 

James R,

Respectfully, I cannot tell anymore whether you re arguing in favor of reciprocal time dilation, or against it.

If the muons should not collide in their own frame (according to the SR version of their own rate of time), then is it not the fault of SR for predicting the two different possible outcomes? I.e., they may collide or they may not, depending on which reference frame views the process.

 

The answer must obviously be that the muon moves through an Earth's atmosphere which is length contracted, and thus quite flat relative to the muon. What I find interesting now is the idea that the length contraction perfectly cancels out the time dilation. In other words, mutual time dilation is never accumulated.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

This comment shows your lack of understanding. One does not assume what the muon's frame is. You advocate that since the muon sees itself at rest it's tick rate remains unchanged and it has its original proper time. That is a false concept. Objects (clocks) cannot retain a constant proper time and also dilate simultaneously.

Now it is true that the muon (observer) cannot detect the change in his proper time but it changes none the less and it is that change which is recorded by the accumulated time on the clock.

False. MacM doesn't have a model and MacM's comments are in proper perspective to comment on the SRT model. It is flawed and you have failed and continue to fail to address the issue.

Now stop dancing around it and post data where reciprocity has been observed or recorded.

 

I'm not wasting my time responding to innuendo and false statements.

Empty assinine words. Please post ONE case of demonstrated reciprocity or stop pretending SRT is verified.