# Nature of Time Dilation and Length Contraction

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Prosoothus, Apr 4, 2006.

1. ### PeteIt's not rocket surgeryRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,166
I've done this for you before. Off the cuff and without rigorous checking, I think that in any inertial reference frame the special theory predicts that averaged over many orbits, a clock in Low Earth Orbit will beat slower than a clock in geostationary orbit.

3. ### 2inquisitiveThe Devil is in the detailsRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
3,181
I don't recall you having done this for me before, but no matter. Now, off the cuff, will a clock in MID Earth orbit beat slower than a clock on the surface? Not Low Earth orbit, not geostationary orbit, but mid-earth orbit.

5. ### PeteIt's not rocket surgeryRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,166
The special theory says it will.

7. ### 2inquisitiveThe Devil is in the detailsRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
3,181
Exactly, Pete, but it doesn't. It beats faster by 38 microseconds per day. My hypothesis includes gravitational effects, which are not considered by Special Theory.

I would like to point out something else to you. Did you know an atomic clock will lose 10 picoseconds if moved across the Earth's surface at 65 kilometers per hour for a total distance of 100 kilometers? The clock will lose that much time compared to any other atomic clock located anywhere on Earth. The loss is due to motion through the ether, that clock will 'see' other clocks ticking faster than itself. The time dilation is not reciprocal, the moving clock is always the one that ticks slower.

8. ### PeteIt's not rocket surgeryRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,166
Just as predicted by general relativity.

So you're pitting your vague hypothesis against the theory of general relativity, not against special relativity? Then why didn't you ask what general relativity predicts for the satellite clock?

2inq, if you can't use your idea to make precise predictions, it's just not interesting. You can say that it includes whatever you like... but without numeric predictions, it's not testable, and impossible to evaluate.

No, I didn't. Is it true?

9. ### 2inquisitiveThe Devil is in the detailsRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
3,181
Now let me tell you how I came to the conclusion that the speed of light also has changed over time since the big bang. As I stated before, I believe the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum is directly related to the density of the ether. Gravity attracts the ether in my hypothesis, leading to compression. The compression leads to slower electromagnetic reaction time. Motion throught the ether compresses the ether, also leading to slower electromagnetic reactions. Now, if the ether is compressable by gravity, what happens when the gravity is reduced or almost eliminated? The ether, spacetime itself, will expand. When groups of galaxies separate enough that gravity is almost eliminated, they will begin to separate at increasing rates. But what about when the universe was smaller, in the early universe? The ether would have had to be denser then compared with today in this expanded universe. The universe is a closed system, it has increased in volume, but not matter and energy. So it naturally falls out that intergalactic space would be less dense today than early in the universe's evolution. The permittivity and permeability of interglactic space would be altered, less dense, leading to a change in electromagnetic processes, a faster speed of light when compared to the early universe, faster ticking atomic clocks.

Now back to time itself. There are two kinds of time, proper time kept by a local atomic or photon clock, and universal coordinated time, time kept by such things as pulsars. Proper time deviates from universal time because of local ether density and motion through the ether. Proper time is analogous to 'relative' time in a way because it changes according to conditions, but the universal time kept by the pulsar clock, a clock unaffected by local conditions, is 'true time'. The universe does not change time intervals because of local clock motion, the moving clock changes if it is based on electromagnetic processes.

10. ### 2inquisitiveThe Devil is in the detailsRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
3,181
Pete,
Yes, I first read the paper awhile back, but I looked up a paper where it is mentioned, along with a vague reference to another paper I read. The second experiment was flying atomic clocks on several military aircraft, whereby they compared the onboard clocks with the GPS time system. The onboard clocks ran slower than the GPS clocks, accumilating less time during the test. They also found some correlation between travel relative to Earth's rotational direction, but the travelling clocks always beat slower than GPS time. Of course, GPS time is synchronized with Universal Coordinated Time (UTC), our time standard on Earth. Here is a link to a paper referring to the examples I gave, which I believe you will find interesting, Pete.
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf

11. ### CANGASRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,612
Pro Relativity pundits may be entertained if they will bother to waste their time to dig up information about the peer reviewed ancient studies of the relation of permittivity and permeability to light's PHASE VELOCITY.

It is FTL.

In some specific circumstances, by a whopper factor.

Surprise, Larry, Moe, and Curly. And give my regards to Albert.

12. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
31,288
There's no problem with faster than light phase velocities, as long as no information is transmitted faster than light. And no information ever is transmitted faster than light, so there you go.

13. ### CANGASRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,612
The prevailing discussion had nothing to do with information. There we went.

It was pertinent to the relationship between c and permittivity and permeability, which Relativists desperately must sweep under the rug, to try to keep alive the illusion that c only depends upon frames of reference.

14. ### 2inquisitiveThe Devil is in the detailsRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
3,181
By the way, Pete, I when I first came up with the idea that the speed of light may be increasing as the universe expands, it took me awhile before I could think of a scientific observation that supported my idea. I found it. It relates to the astronomer's old friend for estimating large distances, the type 1a supernova. That, and the relativistic Doppler shift, if you, or anyone would be interested in seeing it. As I said, my hypothesis is based on actual evidence.

15. ### PeteIt's not rocket surgeryRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,166
Do you realise that the figure given (10 picoseconds for moving 100km at 65kph) is a derivation from special relativity, not a measurement?

Why are you offering derivations of the theory as though it's evidence against the theory?

16. ### CANGASRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,612
Generally speaking, if derivations of a theory don't work, that is good evidence against the theory. Duuh.

17. ### PeteIt's not rocket surgeryRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,166
Who said it doesn't work?
It's not a measurement because it hasn't been measured (and probably can't be, with current technology).

2inq stated it as fact that "an atomic clock will lose 10 picoseconds if moved across the Earth's surface at 65 kilometers per hour for a total distance of 100 kilometers" and suggested that this were evidence against the theory.

18. ### CANGASRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,612
Pete does not know what the phrase "generally speaking" means?

19. ### 2inquisitiveThe Devil is in the detailsRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
3,181
I read the actual paper which is referred to as the 'flight tests'. It is the one I spoke about. The 'simulation' is based on that paper. I have also read of other atomic clocks losing time after being transported. It is referred to as a 'relativistic effect', but the effect is only on the moving clock itself. I'm sure you know that atomic clocks also have to be 'adjusted' when they are moved to a location with a higher altitude, which effects their tick rates. The accumilated time difference occures during movement of the clock, whether the clock is returned to its original location or not. The altitude caused change in tick rate will disappear if the clocks are returned to their original altitude. Location and motion within the ether causes both effects.

20. ### CANGASRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,612
By the way, Einstein's gamma, a derivation of his theory, seems to be perfectly accurate.

At one velocity.

Zero.

21. ### PeteIt's not rocket surgeryRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,166
You seem to be suggesting that these effects are not predicted by special relativity... but you also suggested that the 10ps difference when moving a clock 100km at 65kph was not predicted by special relativity, when that's exactly where the number came from.

What, precisely, do you think that special relativity predicts when a clock is moved?

22. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
31,288
CANGAS:

Then why don't you put it out in the open, so we can examine it?

23. ### CANGASRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,612
It has been out in the open for 150 years, in all those books you never read.