The misinterpretation of time dilation.

This is not an everything goes forum, but rather a place to ask questions and request help for developing your ideas.

The misinterpretation of time dilation.

Postby handmade on April 23rd, 2017, 10:25 am 

The misinterpretation of time dilation

Abstract-This paper is intended to show the true nature of time and show that time dilation is greatly misinterpreted. Also this paper aims to prove that Isaac Newton was correct about absolute time which is a conclusion reached by showing the misinterpretation of time dilation and the understanding of time.

Premise:Any measurement of time no matter how small of a measurement or the frequency/speed of measurement becomes an immediate past (history).


Introduction

Throughout history there has been many arguments about time and what is time. Scientists, philosophers and the general public all engaging in ideas about time. At the moment in Physics, we use the Caesium standard time, 9,192,631,770 Hz = one second of time , to measure time passed.

In 1914 Albert Einstein submitted his papers about special relativity in which is world widely accepted to be objective reality. Special relativity implies a wide range of consequences, which have been experimentally verified, including length contraction, time dilation, relativistic mass, mass–energy equivalence, a universal speed limit and relativity of simultaneity.

It is world widely accepted that time can slow down or speed up (time dilation), this a notion from Albert Einsteins special relativity papers which has been proven to be true by various experimental observations on many occasions. The more notable of these experimental observations being that of Hafele–Keating.

''Hafele–Keating experiment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.''


So far?
handmade
Banned User
 
Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017


Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

Postby BurtJordaan on April 24th, 2017, 12:12 am 

Not bad at all! ;)

Just watch your units in equalities like: "9,192,631,770 Hz = one second of time". The units of Hz is per second, so you cannot equate it to second. Think about it and correct.

I'm intrigued by the prospect of you proving Newton's theory compatible with all experiments.

PS: I have missed that you keep on repeating the popular, but incorrect view: "It is world widely accepted that time can slow down or speed up (time dilation), ..."

Time dilation is not that - the correct popularized view is that different observers, using clocks, record different elapsed times between the same two events. The correct scientific interpretation is that they have followed different (non-equivalent) paths through spacetime.
Last edited by BurtJordaan on April 24th, 2017, 12:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: PS
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2490
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

Postby bangstrom on April 24th, 2017, 2:13 am 

BurtJordaan » April 23rd, 2017, 11:12 pm wrote:
Just watch your units in equalities like: "9,192,631,770 Hz = one second of time". The units of Hz is per second, so you cannot equate it to second. Think about it and correct.

Our standard units of length, time, and c are all mutually defined so the redundancy is inescapable. We know the precise length of a one second interval of a light beam so any non-second units such as wavelengths can easily be converted to Hz so any units of choice will equate to seconds.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 325
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

Postby BurtJordaan on April 24th, 2017, 2:29 am 

Yes, but the correctly stated, one second = 9 192 631 770 periods of the specified cesium 133 radiation. This is the time standard for measuring frequency in Hz, in units of cycles per second. Otherwise you have the cart before the horse.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2490
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

Postby handmade on April 24th, 2017, 7:36 am 

BurtJordaan » April 24th, 2017, 1:29 am wrote:Yes, but the correctly stated, one second = 9 192 631 770 periods of the specified cesium 133 radiation. This is the time standard for measuring frequency in Hz, in units of cycles per second. Otherwise you have the cart before the horse.



I am a bit confused at this stage, you say ''one second = 9 192 631 770 periods'' . My way around ''fit's'' history. 9 192 631 770 periods measured to equal 1 second of a clock, then misinterpretation by yourself is changing it around.
One second is equal to a fraction of 24 hrs, the Caesium cycles are an equivalent to this. I will get to this in my theory. As it is though, it is the correct way around.

You also again say time does not slow down, agreeing with my countless argument on other forums in which I have been banned for.
Most forums misinterpret time dilation, my whole point of the theory is that time does not slow down and is synchronous for all observers. My premise for argument being an axiom that explains the entire theory in one sentence really.
handmade
Banned User
 
Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017


Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

Postby handmade on April 24th, 2017, 8:06 am 

handmade » April 23rd, 2017, 9:25 am wrote:The misinterpretation of time dilation

Abstract-This paper is intended to show the true nature of time and show that time dilation is greatly misinterpreted. Also this paper aims to prove that Isaac Newton was correct about absolute time which is a conclusion reached by showing the misinterpretation of time dilation and the understanding of time.

Premise:Any measurement of time no matter how small of a measurement or the frequency/speed of measurement becomes an immediate past (history).


Introduction

Throughout history there has been many arguments about time and what is time. Scientists, philosophers and the general public all engaging in ideas about time. At the moment in Physics, we use the Caesium standard time, one second = 9,192,631,770 Hz , to measure time passed.

In 1914 Albert Einstein submitted his papers about special relativity in which is world widely accepted to be objective reality. Special relativity implies a wide range of consequences, which have been experimentally verified, including length contraction, time dilation, relativistic mass, mass–energy equivalence, a universal speed limit and relativity of simultaneity.

It is world widely accepted that time can slow down or speed up (time dilation), this a notion from Albert Einsteins special relativity papers which has been proven to be true by various experimental observations on many occasions. The more notable of these experimental observations being that of Hafele–Keating.

''Hafele–Keating experiment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.''


So far?


I have edited the introduction to switch the equation the other way around for now, I will then later explain in the theory why that is the wrong way around.

I feel there is still something missing from my introduction, any thoughts how I can extend the introduction?

added - maybe under the first paragraph of the introduction I should explain the history of how we came to use the caesium to measure time? thus explaining why it is the other way around?

Equating the pace of time to a speed?
handmade
Banned User
 
Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017


Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

Postby BurtJordaan on April 24th, 2017, 10:41 am 

I stand with the modern (official) definition: one second = 9 192 631 770 periods of the specified cesium 133 radiation. The history of it is rather irrelevant to modern science.

And I also stand with: time has neither "pace", nor rate, nor speed. Elapsed time (or duration, time interval) is measured in base units seconds, not in "per second", like a rate is.

And lastly, a second is not 1/86400th of a day (of 24 hours). Sometimes there are 86401 seconds in a day and it could even be less than 86400 seconds. Why this is so, I have stated a few posts back. An hour is thus a very bad time standard - hence the modern definition of a second. It may be improved upon in the future, e.g. by going to even more precision with some element that radiates even more cycles in one second.

I recommend that you go on with the laying out of the details of your theory. One will typically write the intro and synopsis last.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2490
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Rating Time Rates

Postby Faradave on April 24th, 2017, 2:03 pm 

BurtJordaan wrote:time has neither "pace", nor rate, nor speed. Elapsed time (or duration, time interval) is measured in base units seconds, not in "per second", like a rate is.


Agreed. One reason "time rates" keep appearing is that a temporal ratio is inherent to the LFT for time dilation, which can be written (with c=1):

∆t'/∆t = 1/√(1-v2)

So, a dimensionless "seconds per second" ratio is often intuited in comparing inertial reference frames which differ by v. One might appeal to a universal standard by deriving ∆t for the rest frame of the cosmic background radiation and considering any other frame as ∆t'. This makes the safe assumption that every observer will find the universe to be aging (e.g. by expansion) and may then find his own personal "aging rate" relative to it.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1605
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

Postby handmade on April 24th, 2017, 2:08 pm 

handmade » April 23rd, 2017, 9:25 am wrote:The misinterpretation of time dilation

Abstract-This paper is intended to show the true nature of time and show that time dilation is greatly misinterpreted. Also this paper aims to prove that Isaac Newton was correct about absolute time which is a conclusion reached by showing the misinterpretation of time dilation and the understanding of time.

Premise:Any measurement of time no matter how small of a measurement or the frequency/speed of measurement becomes an immediate past (history).


Introduction

Throughout history there has been many arguments about time and what is time. Scientists, philosophers and the general public all engaging in ideas about time. At the moment in Physics, we use the Caesium standard time, one second = 9,192,631,770 Hz , to measure time passed.

In 1914 Albert Einstein submitted his papers about special relativity in which is world widely accepted to be objective reality. Special relativity implies a wide range of consequences, which have been experimentally verified, including length contraction, time dilation, relativistic mass, mass–energy equivalence, a universal speed limit and relativity of simultaneity.

It is world widely accepted that time can slow down or speed up (time dilation), this a notion from Albert Einsteins special relativity papers which has been proven to be true by various experimental observations on many occasions. The more notable of these experimental observations being that of Hafele–Keating.

''Hafele–Keating experiment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.''


So far?



Introduction continued......

Before Albert Einsteins notions about relative time, Issac Newton believed in absolute time, unlike relative time, Newton believed absolute time could only ever be understood mathematically. The change of time being so subtle, that humans had the inability to perceive this, humans only having the ability to perceive relative time, a mechanical construct of relativity.
It is now of course word widely accepted that Newton was disproved about absolute time and Einstein is correct about relative time.


Doe's this sound right to you?
handmade
Banned User
 
Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017


Re: Rating Time Rates

Postby BurtJordaan on April 24th, 2017, 3:19 pm 

Faradave » 24 Apr 2017, 20:03 wrote:This makes the safe assumption that every observer will find the universe to be aging (e.g. by expansion) and may then find his own personal "aging rate" relative to it.

Dave, this is a little confusing. Firstly, the universe do not age because it is expanding - a static or even contracting universe would also have aged. Secondly, we (or the earth, or whichever frame) do not age differently because we have a inertial-type velocity relative to the CMB, but because we are at a different gravitational potential than the universe at large.

OK, the concept "the age of the universe" is a slightly slippery one and too technical to really discuss here.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2490
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

Postby BurtJordaan on April 24th, 2017, 4:01 pm 

handmade » 24 Apr 2017, 20:08 wrote:Before Albert Einsteins notions about relative time, Issac Newton believed in absolute time, unlike relative time, Newton believed absolute time could only ever be understood mathematically. The change of time being so subtle, that humans had the inability to perceive this, humans only having the ability to perceive relative time, a mechanical construct of relativity.
It is now of course word widely accepted that Newton was disproved about absolute time and Einstein is correct about relative time.

Very confusing as it stands - in fact I don't really know what to make of it. As I said before, rather state your theory so that we have something concrete to discuss, not just "word salad". ;)
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2490
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

Postby handmade on April 25th, 2017, 7:21 am 

BurtJordaan » April 24th, 2017, 3:01 pm wrote:
handmade » 24 Apr 2017, 20:08 wrote:Before Albert Einsteins notions about relative time, Issac Newton believed in absolute time, unlike relative time, Newton believed absolute time could only ever be understood mathematically. The change of time being so subtle, that humans had the inability to perceive this, humans only having the ability to perceive relative time, a mechanical construct of relativity.
It is now of course word widely accepted that Newton was disproved about absolute time and Einstein is correct about relative time.

Very confusing as it stands - in fact I don't really know what to make of it. As I said before, rather state your theory so that we have something concrete to discuss, not just "word salad". ;)



Thank you for your opinion, I am sure Einstein did not rush any of his theories though.

You seem to be pushing for the theory without the explanation and ''run'' up to the theory.

In short - Time was devised by the Earths rotation, our present rate of time equates to a speed, if we evolved on a planet that rotated slower or faster than the earth to begin with, devised time in the same way, our present frequency of time would be slower or faster than it is on earth because the frequency measured would be equivalent to a clock second devised by the planets rotation.

ok?


added- the ''speed'' of time we presently use is directly relative to the rotational speed of the Earth.

9,192,631,770HZ = 1 second on a clock

We measured the frequency of the Caesium to be the equivalent of 1 second on a clock.

1 second is not equal to 9,192,631,770Hz

9,192,631,770Hz is equal to 1 second
handmade
Banned User
 
Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017


Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

Postby handmade on April 25th, 2017, 7:53 am 

I have added this separately :


Twin one on Earth at relative rest

Twin two on planet X at relative rest


Twin one and twin two have to devise a way to measure time.


added- They can both agree on c constant but they can't agree on any other way?
handmade
Banned User
 
Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017


Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

Postby BurtJordaan on April 25th, 2017, 8:52 am 

Handmade, you keep on making the same fundamental error over and over: equating a frequency (or a speed) to a time is wrong. Frequency in Hz is equal to a number of cycles per second, not to time. Speed is distance per second. They are inversely proportional to one another.

9,192,631,770 Hz is equal to 9,192,631,770 cycles per one second on our clock.
Earth's rotational frequency is approximately equal to 1/86400 = 0.000011574 Hz.

If you cannot get these elementary truths right, you can forget about anybody taking your effort seriously.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2490
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

Postby handmade on April 25th, 2017, 9:51 am 

BurtJordaan » April 25th, 2017, 7:52 am wrote:Handmade, you keep on making the same fundamental error over and over: equating a frequency (or a speed) to a time is wrong. Frequency in Hz is equal to a number of cycles per second, not to time. Speed is distance per second. They are inversely proportional to one another.

9,192,631,770 Hz is equal to 9,192,631,770 cycles per one second on our clock.
Earth's rotational frequency is approximately equal to 1/86400 = 0.000011574 Hz.

If you cannot get these elementary truths right, you can forget about anybody taking your effort seriously.


This is what keeps happening on other forums, you are trying to subject me to using present information that I am deeming wrong to begin with.
You say equating a frequency or ( a speed) to a time is wrong. Yes I totally agree and that is my point of my theory, history did exactly that and that is why presently frequency=t=speed

This is part of what I am proving history did and why there is no time dilation persay and Newton is correct about absolute time.


We can equate the caesium frequency back to the rotation of the earth's speed at the equator.

I did not devise the origin of the measurement of time or equal a frequency to a second of time.

Can you please answer one simple question?


If we evolved on a slower rotating planet x, 24 hrs was based on rotation, how does your earthly frequency now compare to the slower second of planet x?
handmade
Banned User
 
Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017


Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

Postby BurtJordaan on April 25th, 2017, 10:55 am 

handmade » 25 Apr 2017, 15:51 wrote:You say equating a frequency or ( a speed) to a time is wrong. Yes I totally agree and that is my point of my theory, history did exactly that and that is why presently frequency=t=speed

Dude, history did not do that - you did.

Can you please answer one simple question?

If we evolved on a slower rotating planet x, 24 hrs was based on rotation, how does your earthly frequency now compare to the slower second of planet x?

If you want a simple answer, then ask a proper question. We cannot compare a frequency to a second, not even on earth. All that one can say is that their day would be more than 24 of our hours and hence more than 86400 of our seconds.

This is getting a tad ridiculous - I think I'll now leave you to others that may be interested in your theory, since I have lost interest completely.

Cheers.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2490
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

Postby Positor on April 25th, 2017, 12:41 pm 

handmade » April 24th, 2017, 12:36 pm wrote:My way around ''fit's'' history. 9 192 631 770 periods measured to equal 1 second of a clock

Here you say "periods" (i.e. cycles). But in a later post you say "Hz", which is not the same thing.
Positor
Member
 
Posts: 999
Joined: 05 Feb 2010


Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

Postby bangstrom on April 25th, 2017, 12:47 pm 

handmade » April 25th, 2017, 8:51 am wrote:
If we evolved on a slower rotating planet x, 24 hrs was based on rotation, how does your earthly frequency now compare to the slower second of planet x?

If planet X divided a rotation into 360 degrees the same as we do, then their second would be longer than ours but their second would also be longer when measured against the frequency of a cesium emission. Cesium emissions do not vary from laboratory to laboratory or from planet to planet- everything else being equal. This is why cesium emissions are a better standard for measurement of time than the rotation of a planet. That big tsunami in Japan changed the rotation speed of Earth but it did not change the duration of a second based on frequency of a cesium emission.

This does not mean that cesium emissions are an absolute. Relativistic effects such as extremes in velocity or gravity are known to slow the rate of atomic emissions which is why we have relativity rather than Newton’s absolute time.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 325
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

Postby bangstrom on April 25th, 2017, 1:08 pm 

Positor » April 25th, 2017, 11:41 am wrote:
handmade » April 24th, 2017, 12:36 pm wrote:My way around ''fit's'' history. 9 192 631 770 periods measured to equal 1 second of a clock

Here you say "periods" (i.e. cycles). But in a later post you say "Hz", which is not the same thing.

Hertz 'Hz' is cycles per second and the cycles can also be called transitions, periods, wavelengths, rotations, or whatever you chose. A second is a fraction of a circle or rotation and seconds of time were originally defined as a fraction of the Earth's rotation and later defined as cesium transitions expressed in HZ so there is nothing wrong with saying 9 192 631 770 periods measured to equal 1 second of a clock or 9 192 631 770 Hz of a cesium emission = one second. It is all the same.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 325
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

Postby BurtJordaan on April 25th, 2017, 1:53 pm 

bangstrom » 25 Apr 2017, 19:08 wrote:... and the cycles can also be called transitions, periods, wavelengths, rotations, or whatever you chose.

Careful. Cycles, rotations and transitions are dimensionless counts. But a period is a time, a wavelength is a distance and Hz is, as you said, cycles per second. All related but not all equivalent.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2490
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

Postby handmade on April 25th, 2017, 8:09 pm 

BurtJordaan » April 25th, 2017, 9:55 am wrote:
handmade » 25 Apr 2017, 15:51 wrote:You say equating a frequency or ( a speed) to a time is wrong. Yes I totally agree and that is my point of my theory, history did exactly that and that is why presently frequency=t=speed

Dude, history did not do that - you did.




I hate to correct a moderator, but may I suggest you look up on the history of how time measurement was devised. Without sounding disrespectful sir, I did not do that, history did do that although you may not realise they did that. Forum member Bangstrom recognises the origin of time measurement, see below quote.

If planet X divided a rotation into 360 degrees the same as we do, then their second would be longer than ours but their second would also be longer when measured against the frequency of a cesium emission.


If member Bangstrom and yourself consider the relevance of the quoted then you might realise there is something wrong.

I believe the question I asked was a simple question and like the normal of forums it is intentionally avoided.

I ask again,

Twin one evolved on Earth and is at relative rest

Twin two evolved on Planet X and is at relative rest

Why can't the twins use rotation of their relative planets to measure time?


The answer to this shows why there is no time dilation, simultaneity is involved but that is also a deceit of perception.

I am afraid like all other forums we are not going get anywhere with this. What is relative is what we agree on .
handmade
Banned User
 
Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017


Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

Postby BurtJordaan on April 26th, 2017, 2:09 am 

handmade » 25 Apr 2017, 15:51 wrote:You say equating a frequency or ( a speed) to a time is wrong. Yes I totally agree and that is my point of my theory, history did exactly that and that is why presently frequency=t=speed

Burt wrote:Dude, history did not do that - you did.

handmade wrote:I hate to correct a moderator, but may I suggest you look up on the history of how time measurement was devised. Without sounding disrespectful sir, I did not do that, history did do that although you may not realise they did that.


Can you then please refer us to the publication(s) where history made statements like: frequency=t=speed?
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2490
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

Postby bangstrom on April 26th, 2017, 3:14 am 

handmade » April 25th, 2017, 7:09 pm wrote:

I ask again,

Twin one evolved on Earth and is at relative rest

Twin two evolved on Planet X and is at relative rest

Why can't the twins use rotation of their relative planets to measure time?


The answer to this shows why there is no time dilation, simultaneity is involved but that is also a deceit of perception.

I am afraid like all other forums we are not going get anywhere with this. What is relative is what we agree on .


Firstly, the twins can use the rotation of their planets to measure time and it would be quite natural to do so. The twin on the slower revolving planet would have a longer interval for a second than the twin on the faster planet. It is nearly impossible to measure a second by a planet’s motion so they would look for a more convenient measure like the swings of a pendulum but this would not change the fact that one twin would measure the length of a second as slower than the other.

If they wanted even greater precision and a uniformity they could use a different measure of time such as the rotational speed of a rapid pulsar or the wavelength of a sodium light or a cesium microwave emission. This is where the difference in the lengths of their seconds becomes apparent since these measures of time are independent of their planet’s rotations. The twin on the slower planet would discover that his second was longer than his twin’s second even though they had similar origins.

There is a difference in what they call a second because their planets rotate at different speeds but this a matter of units of measure and Galilean relativity rather than relativity of the Einsteinian sort. If they base their standard of a second on something like frequency of a sodium light emission, they should be able to agree on the frequency of a sodium light and its yellow color by converting from one system of measurement to another just as we do with the English and metric systems.

This makes it appear that there is no such thing as time dilation because a sodium emission should be the same universe wide but SR informs us differently. Einstein’s relativity began with the seminal thought that, if one could travel at the speed of light, a parallel moving light wave would look like a flat line. Or, at a little slower speed, the emission of a sodium light should appear at a shorter wavelength when approaching and at a longer wavelength when moving away. So the color of a yellow light should shift to green when approaching and to red when moving away. If either of the twins measures the duration of a second based on the frequency of a sodium or cesium emission, their measurements should vary with their speed relative to a stationary observer. This is the sort of relative time changes addressed by SR but not by your question.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 325
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

Postby handmade on April 26th, 2017, 7:11 am 

BurtJordaan » April 26th, 2017, 1:09 am wrote:
handmade » 25 Apr 2017, 15:51 wrote:You say equating a frequency or ( a speed) to a time is wrong. Yes I totally agree and that is my point of my theory, history did exactly that and that is why presently frequency=t=speed

Burt wrote:Dude, history did not do that - you did.

handmade wrote:I hate to correct a moderator, but may I suggest you look up on the history of how time measurement was devised. Without sounding disrespectful sir, I did not do that, history did do that although you may not realise they did that.


Can you then please refer us to the publication(s) where history made statements like: frequency=t=speed?



There is no statement from history that says this, Obviously because science and the world has not realised what they did.
handmade
Banned User
 
Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017


Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

Postby handmade on April 26th, 2017, 7:14 am 

bangstrom » April 26th, 2017, 2:14 am wrote:
handmade » April 25th, 2017, 7:09 pm wrote:

I ask again,

Twin one evolved on Earth and is at relative rest

Twin two evolved on Planet X and is at relative rest

Why can't the twins use rotation of their relative planets to measure time?


The answer to this shows why there is no time dilation, simultaneity is involved but that is also a deceit of perception.

I am afraid like all other forums we are not going get anywhere with this. What is relative is what we agree on .


Firstly, the twins can use the rotation of their planets to measure time and it would be quite natural to do so. The twin on the slower revolving planet would have a longer interval for a second than the twin on the faster planet. It is nearly impossible to measure a second by a planet’s motion so they would look for a more convenient measure like the swings of a pendulum but this would not change the fact that one twin would measure the length of a second as slower than the other.



Ok, very good, you will understand.

So if the twins used planet rotation to measure time, then later on realised that their planets rotated at different speeds, then decided to change 1 second to the Caesium, can you tell me the the consequence of result in using the Caesium frequency as an equivalent to their relative 1 second of time?

added - based on a planet that rotated half the speed of the earth

Planet Earth : 9,192,631,770 = 1 second


Planet X : 9,192,631,770*2 = 1 second
handmade
Banned User
 
Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017


Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

Postby handmade on April 26th, 2017, 8:21 am 

Sorry for the separate post.

I need to change the title of my theory:

Title : Time dilation is a consequence of simultaneity and greatly misinterpreted.

Added premise : If two observers at relative rest in two different inertia reference frames were to devise time by using the 1 cycle of rotation of their relative planet to equal twenty four hours, then neither observer can agree on
speed or time , both observers experiencing simultaneity by illogically using the rotation of their planets to measure time.
handmade
Banned User
 
Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017


Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

Postby bangstrom on April 26th, 2017, 2:50 pm 

The interpretation is that what planet Earth calls one second is one half of what Planet X calls one second. This is a matter of using two different systems for measuring time and they can easily convert from one system to another but it has nothing to do with Einstein’s relativity. The USA, Canada, and Australia all use the dollar as a currency and the value of a dollar varies from one country to another. The relative values are posted daily but, except for the name, this has nothing to do with Einstein’s relativity. This is a basic understanding that should require no explanation in any science forum.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 325
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

Postby bangstrom on April 26th, 2017, 4:40 pm 

handmade » April 26th, 2017, 7:21 am wrote:
Added premise : If two observers at relative rest in two different inertia reference frames were to devise time by using the 1 cycle of rotation of their relative planet to equal twenty four hours, then neither observer can agree on
speed or time , both observers experiencing simultaneity by illogically using the rotation of their planets to measure time.

This is why we don't use rotation of planets to measure time. One day on the moon is equal to 28 days on Earth so one second of the moon's rotation is equal to 28 seconds of the Earth's rotation. Astronauts on the moon do not move 28 times slower than people on Earth. BUT, if they did, that would be a time dilation of the Einsteinian sort and SR deals with the extreme conditions under which this could happen and we do observe changes in time and space just as Einstein described.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 325
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

Postby handmade on April 26th, 2017, 7:29 pm 

bangstrom » April 26th, 2017, 1:50 pm wrote:The interpretation is that what planet Earth calls one second is one half of what Planet X calls one second. This is a matter of using two different systems for measuring time


I have snipped your post there, relativity was devised at a much later date than time and at this time it is irrelevant to the discussion .
You recognise that by using rotation the twins would measure a day to be slower or faster than each others day, due to the rotational speed of their relative planets being different.
In affect one of the twins has a longer second than the other twin, ''time'' would pass slower for the twin with the slower planet rotational speed.

The simultaneity is that the twins measure different speeds of days relative to each other.

History devised 24 hrs from one rotation of the earth?

(before the caesium frequency was made an equivalent).

Please try to consider the affects of time dilation now compared to this.

The caesium frequency standard equates to 1 second which is a fraction of 24 hrs devised by the earths rotation.

Twin two's clock speed is said to ''tick'' slower than twin ones clock speed, tick's slower relative to the rotation of the earth.

Added - Just understand this, if we evolved on a planet that rotated at half the speed of the earth , then our measurement of time would be half the ''speed'' to what is now, and slower.
handmade
Banned User
 
Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017


Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

Postby bangstrom on April 27th, 2017, 12:13 am 

handmade » April 26th, 2017, 6:29 pm wrote:
I have snipped your post there, relativity was devised at a much later date than time and at this time it is irrelevant to the discussion .

You have stated the problem exactly. This discussion is irrelevant to relativity.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 325
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Next

Return to Personal Theories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests