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.

Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation

Postby handmade on May 3rd, 2017, 11:53 am 

Positor » May 3rd, 2017, 9:21 am wrote:
handmade » May 3rd, 2017, 11:48 am wrote:How do you presume that the twins could agree on a Caesium frequency when both twins argue their speed of frequency is the correct speed of time?

They agree (if they are in the same inertial frame) that the physical electronic transitions in their respective Caesium clocks occur at the same frequency. All they disagree about is the definition of a second. So they either agree to adopt the same definition, or make the necessary conversion from one definition to the other.

Exactly, they disagree on the length of a second no dissimilar to our dilated Caesium in motion.

handmade wrote:What equivalent are you going to use if you cant use a fraction of 24hrs?

The electronic transitions of atoms are periodic phenomena, just like the rotations of planets, so they can be used instead. They are not intrinsically linked to planetary rotations — the decision to pick a number of Caesium transition periods corresponding to the earlier rotation-based second was merely a convention. The Caesium definition is independent of any actual or possible changes in the rotation of the Earth.

Yes the Caesium is now independent of any possible changes in the earths rotation speed, however it is not independent of what history thought and how time was devised like you have just openly ''admitted'' in the above. Changing the ''colour'' of the mechanical second doe's not change the origin of the second, you are technically defining the ''speed'' of time being equal to the rotation speed of earth of how time was devised.

Can you please also address the other points in my previous post. In particular, how can relativistic phenomena depend on people from differently-rotating planets when no such people exist?

The people do not have to exist, what applies in our frame also applies in other frames, why should the other people on planet x devise time any different to us?

What is relative to the earth is not relative to elsewhere...
Banned User
Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017

Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

Postby Positor on May 3rd, 2017, 12:15 pm 

But even if everyone defines a second in the same way (same planet, or different planets with equal rotation), relativisitic time dilation still occurs.
Posts: 999
Joined: 05 Feb 2010

Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

Postby Heavy_Water on May 3rd, 2017, 12:32 pm 

It is rather amusing when a person posts something about "the misconceptions of....." and then makes a mistake himself at the very beginning in regards to that very topic! LOL

As did the thread author here, when he said that time dilation is the phenomenon of time speeding up.

It is, of course, just the opposite: time slowing DOWN.

Hence Einstein's famous metaphor of a space traveler coming back to Earth after many years and finding that his former friends and family are all much older than he is.

Hope this helps!

User avatar
Banned User
Posts: 61
Joined: 02 May 2017
Location: Texas

Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

Postby handmade on May 3rd, 2017, 12:33 pm 

Positor » May 3rd, 2017, 11:15 am wrote:But even if everyone defines a second in the same way (same planet, or different planets with equal rotation), relativisitic time dilation still occurs.

Yes the relativistic time dilation still occurs, but that still doe's not improve ''their'' interpretation.

What would happen if John was to use time planck (tp) to measure time, and Alan in motion on the Aeroplane with the Caesium was also to measure time using (tp).

Both Alan and John in my opinion and thinking about it , would measure time passing at the same ''speed'' because the speed of light over a distance x is constant.

Fractional 0 can not dilate, there is no length to dilate,
Banned User
Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017

Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

Postby thinker4life on July 4th, 2017, 4:34 pm 

[] 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).


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?

I agree with your theory because of my own beliefs on the universe's origins and workings, but would like to see the rest to see how you came to your conclusions... Can you share? I'm curious how absolute time (which I believe in as the 4th dimension) can be compatible with the relativistic experience from atomic clocks flown around the world... Can you share?
Posts: 105
Joined: 04 Jul 2017


Return to Personal Theories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests