# Time Dilation Tests

## Are the Tests Valid and/or Conclusion Warranted

40.0%

20.0%

40.0%

20.0%

40.0%

40.0%

60.0%
8. ### Test 2 Conclusions Invalid

40.0%
1. Sep 12, 2004

### macm

Based on this site's "Sticky" rules I anticipate that this thread may get deleted or moved. I would hope however that it can remain in that I would hope to see some rebuttals of the test and/or the conclusions.

Because of the length of this post I must break it into a post and a reply.

Thanks.

****************************************************
TEST GOAL DESCRIPTION:

To evaluate the mathematics of Relativity with respect to time-dilation
between observers moving with a linear relative velocity.

CASE IN POINT:

Given a case where two clocks have been synchronized and are seperating
under a relative velocity of 0.9c.

Clock "A" is considered the reference clock at rest.
Clock "B" is moving away from clock "A" as stated.

According to relativity a relative velocity of 0.9c creates a gamma =
2.29416. 1/gamma = 0.435888n or a clocks view of other clocks is that they
are operating at only 43.5888% of normal tick rate.

Therefore if clock "A" runs a 10 hour test and then stops, "A" sees "B" as
having accumulated only 15,692 seconds. At that point in time "B" would
have observed "A" as having only run for 6,840 seconds because it sees "A"
running t/gamma slower than it's own clock rate.

However an issue called "Relativity of Simultaneity" is used which masks the
fact that physical clocks in real time cannot posses and/or display two
different accumulations of time simultaneously. Simultaneity exists because
"B" cannot see "A" shut down, until information about the shut down traverses
from "A" to "B". During this added time that "B" is running it is still
accumulating time and observes "A" as accumulating time, even though "A" is
already shut down and not accumulating time in reality.

Relativiity would have us believe that this delay in information as to the
actual status of clocks in reality is an actual shift in time. But I believe the following tests show that it is perception only and that time is invariant of relative velocity. I am aware of the muon decay, and atomic clock tests and particle accelerator data, issues but inspite of such supporting data, if time-dilation does not exist then such data must be as a consequence of some alternative but yet undiscoverd cause.

TEST 1:

SETUP:

Each primary clock has onboard a laser and each clock is calibrated to the
common beam frequency which is used to maintain constant communication.

The doppler shift in this carrier beam represents and can be correlated to
relative velocity.

One clock is placed under acceleration and it continues to do so for some
amount of time and then cuts the thrusters and begins to coast.

It has been agreed in advance that once the doppler shift of each others
communication beam stablizies that they know they have a fixed linear
relative velocity and convert that and find that they are now seperating at
0.9c.

Since each clock is incremented proportional to the local light beam
frequencey without doppler shift, they will in fact operate at their local
proper time flow rate.

The magnitude of the doppler shift is converted to display their relative
velocity to each other.

The clocks are started upon simultaneous receipt of each others unchanging
doppler shifted light carrier wave and they modulate the carrier beam in
proportion to their local clock rate. The sideband amplitude modulation
determines the number of carrier waves cycles per modulated envelope and
is converted by an on board monitor to show the other remote clocks actual
time in reality by setting the rate of ticks in the monitor to the actual
tick rate of the other clock in reality.

Since velocity stability can only be determined after at least two
increments of light having the same frequency, on the second equal frequency
of light or some specified number of such cycles, each clock will start to
modulate the side band for the test. Since the speed of light is invariant and
equal in both directions each clock will recieve the other clocks modulated
packet simultaneously regardless of the delay in its receipt.

When the first modulated packet of information arrives the system resets the
clock and begins keeping time locally and converting the information being
sent by the other clock into a tick rate monitor to allow it to track its actual
time in reality. the monitor counter accumulates time in accordance with
information about the other clock's accumulated time in reality via about its tick rate.

This is because accumulated time in reality is a direct function of a clocks
tick rate. Knowing the tick rate it can be converted to accumulated time
precisely.

Each clock will run for 36,000 seconds local time for the test and then
shut down and compare data.

From this scenario it can be seen that both clocks will register the same
amount of time over time and the remote monitor of the other clocks time
disagrees with Relativity in that all clocks and monitors show the same
accumulated time simultaneously since this is being done where the relative
velocity is constant and the information, albeit delayed, contains
information about the other clocks true physical tick rate, hence
accumulated time.

RESULTS:

At the end of the test:

A = 36,000
B = 36,000
"A's" Monitor of "B" = 36,000
"B's" Monitor of "A" = 36,000

CONCLUSION:

Relativity does not exist in reality. It is a product of misinformation due
to using a delayed information system of comparison. One could indeed
establish an alternate method of communication using sublight velocities but
greater than the seperation rate or relative velocity between the clocks and
get even different Relavistic responses.

The curves of relativity are a direct function of the method and magnitude
of information delay, nothing less, nothing more and that is perception and
not physical reality.

The physical reality is all time flows at the same rate regardless of
relative velocity. 0.9c above can be changed to 0.1c and the results of
all measurements of real time accumulation will still be 36,000 seconds.
for all clocks and monitors. A relavistically moving observer therefore
does not age more slowly than his counter part.

2. Sep 12, 2004

### macm

Test 2:

PREMISES:

Primis 1: It is not necessary to physically achieve or even be able to
achive conditions stipulated in the test as long as such simulations of
conditions used result in correct Relavistic responses mathematically.

Primis 2: Since it is known that particle entanglement is apparently fact
and that such particles communicate instantaneously exploring the function
of Relativity in that regime of communication, using multiple clocks and
clock monitors via simulations calibrated to mimic Relativity will result in
exposing physical impossibilities in the predictions and functions of
Relativity.

TEST DESCRIPTION:

The test will replicate time dilation predicted by Relativity for linear
relative velocity between two (or more) clocks. It will by simulation
demonstrate the functions of Relativity by simulating instantaneous
communications type control, exposing the underlying basis for
Relativity functions.

SETUP DESCRIPTION: Two clocks equally calibrated.

1 - A primary test control clock labled "A" is presumed to be located in
deep space as a relative rest inertial frame.

2 - A secondary clock labled "B" is used to simulate an observer in relative
motion to clock "A", at a velocity of 0.9c. This is achieved by calibrating
this clock to run at the dilated rate predicted by Relativity as though it
were in fact in space moving at the stipulated relative velocity, however is
is actually setting along side clock A" on the lab bench.

The calculated gamma function for 0.9c is being taken to be 2.29416 which
will cause clock "B" to run at 43.589% of the rate of clock "A" in "A's"
view
and results in an accumulated time display of 15,692 seconds when
simultaneously clock "A" has accumulated the 36,000 seconds of the test
period before it shuts down.

3 - Clock "A" has a secondary clock which is calibrated to simulate "A's"
relavistically dilated view of clock "B" time which is the same calibration
used on clock "B" producing an accumulated time display of 15,692 seconds
during the test period.

4 - Clock "B" also has a secondary clock calibrated to act as a monitor of
"B's" relavistically dilated view of clock "A". This calibration must be
for a gamma of 2.29416 of the clock rate of "B" or produce 43.589% the count
of 15,692 seconds which is 6,840 seconds that clock "B" says clock "A"
accumulated before stopping the test prematurely.

5 - To simulated instantaneous control all calibrated oscillators, but not
the power
supplies and displays of all clocks and monitors are connected to a common
On-Off switch control to shut off by clock "A" acquiring a count display of
accumulaion of 36,000 seconds.

RESULTS:

Having turned on the simulator system starting with every clock and monitor
having been set to 00000.0000.

When clock "A" reaches the preset test time it turns off all clock
operations other than the displays of accumulated time. As expected and
required for the test to be valid by Relativity it correctly displays all
times as
predicted for all clocks and monitors as being:

"A" = 36,000 seconds.

"A's" Monitor of clock "B's" dilated time per "A" = 15,692 seconds.

"B" = 15,692 seconds

."B's" Monitor of clock "A's" dilated time per "B" = 6,840 seconds.

"A" and "B" clocks agree on their view of B's dilated time relative to "A"
but they disagree as to the time clock "A" must record to be relavisticly
relative to "B".

Clock "A" in accordance with Relativity must possess and display two
distinct times simultaneously of 36,000 seconds and 6,840 seconds.

CONCLULSION:

Since upon conclusion of the local time of the test clock "A" terminated the
test throughout the system instantly and simultaneously it recorded each
clocks view according to the Theory of Relativity for comparison. The fact
that clock "A" accumulated and displays 36,000 seconds but that "B's"
Monitor dilated view of "A" claims that "A" must display 6,840 seconds, is
not only invalid but impossible in physical reality.

Relativity relies upon physical impossiblities normally hidden or masked by inclusion of information being transferred via finite and invariant speed of light information transfer system which induces real time delays and distorts accumulated data on a real time or instant basis.

Dan K. McCoin

PS: I voted for my own Test to insure at least one favorable response.

Last edited: Sep 12, 2004
3. Sep 12, 2004

### pervect

Staff Emeritus
Anyone else in favor of moving this thread to theory development?

4. Sep 12, 2004

### macm

Just to let you know I have no problem with that if that is the moderators decision but I want to invite you and any other professionals to come over and rebut the concept.

Also a quick check and I do not see "Theory Development" on the menu. If this is moved how does one get to that section.?

Thanks

Last edited: Sep 12, 2004
5. Sep 12, 2004

### zefram_c

I will let some other brave soul deal with test #1. As for test #2, here's the SR scenario it translates to. Let's suppose the clocks are indeed moving relative to each other, and let's say the relative velocity is such that the gamma parameter is 2 (makes things easier). When each clock has passed 36000 it concludes the other clock reads 18000 at that instant. Clock A can calculate what the clock B thinks clock A is reading at that point (9000). So can clock B (also 9000). That doesn't imply there is a contradiction. If clock A attempted to send a light signal to B saying "I now read 36000", clock B will receive it at exactly the time it reads clock A to reach 36000. All's well.
If absolute time existed, the fact that B thinks A to read 9000 while A reads its own clock to be 36000 would be a problem. But absolute time doesn't exist, and comparing time measurements from different frames in this manner is meaningless.

Last edited: Sep 12, 2004
6. Sep 12, 2004

### kawikdx225

Your mistake can be found in this paragraph.

2 - A secondary clock labled "B" is used to simulate an observer in relative
motion to clock "A", at a velocity of 0.9c. This is achieved by calibrating
this clock to run at the dilated rate predicted by Relativity as though it
were in fact in space moving at the stipulated relative velocity, however is
is actually setting along side clock A" on the lab bench.

Either clock can claim to be at rest but you apply a "calibration" only to clock B.

7. Sep 12, 2004

### Staff: Mentor

Test 1: complicated? meaningless?

Test 1 sounds overly complicated yet meaningless. More informative would be to have each clock, when it starts counting time for the test, send out a coded signal saying "STARTED COUNTING". And when done, send another coded signal saying "STOPPED COUNTING". Then you can figure out, by accounting for light travel time, when each clock started and stopped according to each observer. That would be interesting. And, of course, the results would fully support relativity. (Actually, your setup can be interpreted this way. See comments below.)

OK.

OK. Realize that there are two beams: one that A sends to B, another that B sends to A.

Of course.

OK.

Simultaneous receipt? Says who? But, no matter. I take it that clock A sends its "ticks" to B by modulating the carrier beam. OK. So at some point in time B will begin receiving the modulated ticks from A, and vice versa. Not at the same time, but who cares? (This is equivalent to sending the START and STOP signals that I suggested at the top of this post.)

No need for any bogus assumption of "simultaneous receipt". Just have A measure when it receives the START and STOP signals from B, and vice versa.

Now what are you talking about? What do you mean by "accumulated time in reality"? Do the two clocks work properly or not?

Yeah, but so what? The interesting question is: According to A's clock, how long did B's test take? And vice versa.

Baloney. Both clocks send signals out for 3600 seconds local time. And A will conclude that B's clock operated slowly according to A's clock; and vice versa.
Sure, if you "recalibrate" the signals coming in to read the originating time (accounting for time dilation), you will get the same time. But so what? We knew that the test runs for 3600 seconds for each observer! :rofl:

Correct conclusion: Relativity works! Yay!

8. Sep 12, 2004

### pervect

Staff Emeritus
Somewhere around here is the reason I have to answer "I don't understand what the experiment purports to measure". The author probably has some idea of what he means by "accumulated time in reality" and "true physical tick rate". Unfortunately, I don't have a clue as to what he thinks this means, and the proposed experiment doesn't really enlighten me. He sets up a rather elaborate apparatus, then unfortunately slips into his own private philosophy.

I'm guessing that the author thinks that modulating the carrier beam is somehow significant or will give different results than sending a signal of some other sort. For the case we are interested in (the speed of light in a vacuum), there is no difference between the propagation speed of a signal, the speed of it's AM modulation, or the speed of it's FM modulation.

If there was a physical medium involved, any or all of these could be _slower_ than the constant 'c' (the speed of light in a vacuum) - but we don't have a physical medium involved (fortunately for us, we've got enough confusion already).

9. Sep 12, 2004

### pervect

Staff Emeritus
I'm going to start another somewhat related thread - it's about a particular interpretation of relativity that might be useful for people who can't help but think about "true physical time". I'm posting it in a separate thread because I think the conversation will flow better that way.

10. Sep 12, 2004

### Staff: Mentor

Well, that's convenent: 'I don't like the implications of the data, so I'll ignore it.' Sorry, that's not science. Further, you're trying to construct a theory that will, by your own admission, explain less than Relativity. What could possibly lead you to the conclusion that your "theory" would be any better than the one we already have?

macm, you have chosen to analyze SR in a way that clearly confuses you (on purpose or not). Using linear speed only means you have to deal with both simultenaety and time dilation. Analyze SR in an experiment (thought or real) where there is no simultenaety issue and it'll help clarify things for you. Some good examples are the particle muon decay experiments, GPS, atomic clock tests, etc. I cannot emphasize enough that SR has successfuly predicted the results of every experiment ever conducted within its scope, ever.

Last edited: Sep 12, 2004
11. Sep 12, 2004

### macm

Doc Al,

thanks for taking the time to do some analysis. We agree on most of your comment but not all. I'll only respond to those I differ on for clarification etc.

Simultaneous because obviously it is the same distance from A to B as it is B to A and light speed is the same in both directions.

Both clocks work correctly but you have two different times. The one predicted by time dilation and the one that the clock actually reads if you eliminate theinformation delay between clocks. The later I call accumulated time in reality (proper time)

Not in this setup. that was the reason for the sideband modulation. The test starts with the first packet of modulated data. That modulation informs clock "B" of "A's" clock rate; hence the monitor accumulating "A's" time aboard "B's" system will display the same time that is displayed if standing at "A" viewing its proper time.

I don't see how that can be considered re-calibration. The packet simply tells the other clock the true tick rate which is then correlated to accumulated time without the affects of information delay. The "So What" is that it appears that Relativity is really not much more than a case of mis-information via delay. When you take that delay out you see either Relativity doesn't exist or if you assume it does, that the numbers are in conflict.

12. Sep 13, 2004

### chroot

Staff Emeritus
Seriously, Mac, did you really think you were going to last more than a day over here?

- Warren

Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Similar Threads - Dilation Tests Date
I Testing 0.25" water manometer Mar 2, 2018
I Time dilation Oct 7, 2016
B Dilation by atmosphere? Aug 10, 2016
I Gravitational time dilation May 4, 2016
B Who really understands time dilation and relativity? Feb 20, 2016