Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Time Dilation Tests

  1. Test 1 Valid

  2. Test 1 Invalid

  3. Test 1 Conclusions Valid

  4. Test 1 Conclusions Invalid

  5. Test 2 Valid

  6. Test 2 Invalid

  7. Test 2 Conclusions Valid

  8. Test 2 Conclusions Invalid

Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Sep 12, 2004 #1
    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.



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


    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:


    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

    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

    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.


    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


    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. jcsd
  3. Sep 12, 2004 #2
    Test 2:


    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


    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"
    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.


    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.


    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. :smile:
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2004
  4. Sep 12, 2004 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Anyone else in favor of moving this thread to theory development?
  5. Sep 12, 2004 #4
    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.?

    Last edited: Sep 12, 2004
  6. Sep 12, 2004 #5
    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
  7. Sep 12, 2004 #6
    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.
  8. Sep 12, 2004 #7

    Doc Al

    User Avatar

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

    Of course.


    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!
  9. Sep 12, 2004 #8


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    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).
  10. Sep 12, 2004 #9


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    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.
  11. Sep 12, 2004 #10


    User Avatar

    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
  12. Sep 12, 2004 #11
    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.
  13. Sep 13, 2004 #12


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

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

    - Warren
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook