Experiment to demonstrate mutual observed time dilation

Not sure where things are getting twisted here but lets clear the air.

1 - First with the understanding that the diagram shows C2 having greater velocity relative to R than C1. Then C2 will actually physically become dilated compared to R or C1.

2 - While I doubt and disagree with the claimed perception of reciprocity of time dilation that has not and is not currently the arguement.

3 - The diagreement is with the fact that others here have claimed "What you see is what you get" and that the perception is physical reality.

Meaning such clocks will physically accumulate time and display those times when compared locally in the same FOR according to such perceptions while in motion.

That is clearly physically impossible and has not once been observed nor recorded in 100 years of Relativity. Indeed current technoloigy has produced proof that such reciproicty is a false concept; hence SRT is falsified.

The only thing verified is a one way gamma calculation where clock tick rate can be shown to vary as a function of its local absolute velocity relative to a common rest referance point and not merely relative to another clock which can claim a reversal of frames and affect.

That such physical changes in clocks do not constitute proof that time itself has changed. That it is more likely merely a process change where the clock marks the time interval at a different frequency.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Does the lack of reciprical dilation invalidate SRT in this experiement?
personally I don't think so......

It dos show how limited SRT is in application though.....my thoughts

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Mac,

Please read the ERROR SOURCES section. I have found an IEEE paper that describes the effect. Accuracy is not an issue over one day as we are trying only to qualify the effect. Stability re temperature, as stated in the proposal, will be handled by temperature control of the electronics.

ALL: I read several questions regarding the approach. Please reread the proposal. I think you will find the approach clearly spelled out. I will reread and modify anything that seems unclear. Please reference the proposal (thread starter). Thanks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No. The measurements are done live. The result we expect to get is a live difference measurement, as measured in each frame, as it happens.

 

What lack? I fully expect to see equivalent mutual dilation since C1 and C2 are in two different frames based on their relative velocity. If we don't see it, then we can start talking about invalidating SRT...

 

I think you are confusing your understanding that reciprocity does not apply with the idea that SRT doesn't advocate it. SRT advocates reciproicty in every case of relative velocity - period. Hence SRT is flawed.

These scenarios employ local absolute rest referances and preferred frames. SRT disallows such preferred frames and advocates complete reciprocity since no form of absolutes are considered.

 

ALL:

R has nothing to do with the dilation results in this experiment. It is simply a data collector. C1 and C2 do the comparison measurements IN THEIR OWN FRAMES. They digitally transmit their numbers to R for recording and display only. R is just us impartially watching and reporting the conversation between "Bob (C1) and Mary (C2)". Who says what about who?

 

Correct assesment!

 

This is a question not a statement. I am encouraged that you suggest you may actually attempt to perform such a test.

However, do you actually understand the requirements of your proof?

To prove what you claim to be reality, that is reciproicty of time dilation where each clock runs slower than the other clock; you must show that there is "No Measured Time Dilation" between two clocks with relative motion. :bugeye:

We already know that will not be the case by virtue of such historical measurements of time dilation. This has been my arguement and point and that is the conflict of the theory within itself.

 

That is fine but I suggest as a referance standard you include R's tick rate in your data since it will allow more indepth analysis of what the correct relationship is once you fail to record reciprocity, which you will.

I am assuming that you are considering moving C1 out of the rotating axis to have two motions for comparison.

 

Well, Mac,

R's tick rate would be C2's tick rate (the lab frame) besides, R is not a timing device, only a digital receiver/recorder. I keep stressing digital so that there is no confusion that we are receiving statements of fact from each frame, not analog data subject to dilation effects. We could very easily make the data 1 bit from each. A simple YES or NO that the other clock is running slower. I think we'll transmit the whole count difference.

As for moving C2 off of the axis, the relative velocity between the two is max with it on the axis. Why move it?

 

My primary concern with your test description is that you are not CYA'ing your data. That is if you do not set it up where you first demonstrate functionality the many untested possible enfluences will be used to argue failure of the test.

This is what Einstien did to Miller's data. He simply made an assumption that Miller had not adequately protected the experiment from temperature. While he claimed he did Einstein won the arguement with no evidence of any actual temperature contribution to the data.

Even though the temperature arguement is ludricrus when it is considered that the data was unchanging over all seasons and many years.

If you do not build your experiment to actually move C1 and C2 from R to some outer radius (hence variable velocity range) in a side by side simultaneous test, it can and will be argued that you have not proven both clocks response to physical stress being caused by the "ficticous" centrifugal force.

This must be a base line data set.

 

I think your assumption that traverse doppler yields the information desired, that you are missing an opportunity to actually demonstrate in a clear and concise manner a case where there is an inargueable velocity in both clock frames.

I agree with one clock at the axis you have the maximum relative velocity, if you are considering a centrifuge type setup. But you are testing a case where one clock is at theoretical rest and where one should not even anticipate reciprocity since in the configuration one clock has no velocity.

If you make the clock positions variable along the radius of the centrifuge or use independant track mounting where each can be driven at various speeds you can test the full compliment of relationships and better insure useful data for future analysis.

If you merely lock yourself into the configuration you propose, I suggest you absolutely will not prove anything useful. The lack of reciprocity will have been anticipated and confirmed.

The problem here is that you seem to think reciprocity is inherent in all configurations. Even if it exists in cases of relative velocity (which I am sure it does not) then it still would not be expected in cases where the one clock has no motion.

When such a clock lies at the axis of rotation you create a nonreversable scenario. You cannot under these conditions view and claim the clock rotating around the axis as being at rest and the axis clock as having motion.

The axis clock would only have spin not motion or velocity. Ask youself in this condition what is the axis clock's d/t motion? Is it equal to the nonaxis clocks d/t? NO.

In cases where both clocks have an orbiting velocity you can then claim either one as being at rest and the relative velocity remains the same.

The variable positioning of the clocks along the radii provides the greatest range of data and comparisons for future analysis of the true relavistic relationships.

My personal view is that such rotary test is invalid in any case because relative velocity in such a case is not the simple minded view of prepheral velocity of the components, inspite of Yuriy's claim. It is a sinusoidal type relationship established by a straight line connection between such clocks which have a (c+v) and (c-v) component as they have a different orbiting period.

The perpheral velocity only forms an absolute bias in the relative velocity upon which you will have an oscillating relative velocity +/- component.

 

Mac,

1) I would love to be able to do the experiment at multiple diameters for C1. Note that in the description there are multiple calibration runs and temperature compensation of the electronics.

2) Our main sticking point now seems to be the C2 clock in the middle. I claim that the relative velocity between C1 and C2 is just the same and just as valid as straight line motion between the two. Remember, the linear velocity component of C1 is relative to C2. From C2's POV C1 is racing around at 157m/s. From C1's POV C2 is spinning around it's own axis with a linear velocity component of 157m/s.

I have a compromise. Suppose we put C2 on a track with a diameter of 10m such that it co-rotates with C1? That shouldn't complicate things too much. Cogitate on this.

 

Are reference frames allowed to rotate? I would have thought your statement would have been more like this:

"From C2's frame, C1 is racing around at 157m/s. From C1's frame C2 is racing around at 157m/s."

Are you sure that the acceleration does not factor in? The psuedo-gravitational force is not a problem? For non-physicists, acceleration is usually an easy scapegoat explanation for time dilation being asymmetrical. It helps us around the concept of symmetrical time dilation. Now I have to wrap my mind around symmetrical time dilation in a rotating system. Oh my poor brain.

So when will the symmetery be broken? When clock C1 'decelerates' to return to the same frame as C2? Why is this acceleration important when the other acceleration was not?

One would think that a moon-based observer would see earth exactly as it is 'now' except with about a one second delay. The moon has been in relative motion to the earth for a very long time. Shouldn't the mutual time dilation have accumulated by now to the point where a moon-based observer would see the earth as it was a long time ago?

I was contimplating this earlier in the thread:

That is, if they rotate about a center point with equal radii and equal velocity.

 

If time dilation turns out to be nothing more than the doppler effect, I am going to be ill. We might as well say that a moving clock appears to run fast as it approaches, but then appears to run slow as it departs. Nothing could be simpler. If that is all SR is, then I want my money back.

 

I would be presumptious to say as a fact that doing the test with the clock at the axis will not prove what you hope to prove. However keep in mind that if you find no reciprocity you will have to wonder if it was because of the configuration of the test.

By articulating one clock either, as you say on a seperate track which can be independantly adjusted for velocity or as I suggest make the clock mount adjustable along the radius of the spinning disc, then you can run a variety of configurations.

The more comparative data and variations you can run the more likely you will be able to analyze the data into some logical performance relationship. That is you should hope not only to show what isn't true but what is true. The later requires more than one set of fixed relationship data.

 

Ned,

I liked your post! Transverse doppler is NOT the doppler you are thinking of, due to radial motion. Transverse doppler is simply the lengthening of the wavelength due to relativistic time dilation. It always is a red-shift. I also thought is was a bit confusing to call it that, but I suppose it is a doppler shift, only due to time dilation. No refunds!

Mac,

The only problem I have with complications to the motion equipment is feasibility. Also, I want to make sure that C1 and C2 stay on the same radius to eliminate any radial doppler effects.

I think a disc is out of the question, but a radial arm on a pivot at the axis, leading out to a bearing mount on a track at 100m radius suggests a couple of things:

1) As you point out, you could position C1 and C2 anywhere on the radius arm

2) C1 and C2 still rotate at the same angular rate, eliminating radial doppler

3) The motive power could then be a powerful motor at the axis

I'm liking this...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Thanks for clearing that up. I will edit my post to fix the error in my terminology. Did you see all my questions in the post above that one? I think I brought up some good points, at least the one about the moon.

 

Yes, I didn't really mean disc as in a solid disc but was thinking more of the plane of a disc and a radial arm as you say.

Yes, including the center where you seem to prefer to do your test. But in this configuraton you can run both simultaneously out the radius and record their individual performance under such stress/velocity conditions as a baseline data.

Then run one at the rim and the other at various positions (velocities) along the radius which yields different perpheral velocities (relative velocities).

Correct, you eliminate the oscillation of having two tracks and relative velocities where they have different periods and hence the (c+v), (c-v) relationship.

Good. I'm glad to see you are open to suggestions.