Relavistic Time Dilation Test Fraud

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by 1234567890</i>
<br />if we assumed the parts of the clock are all moving at the same rate, they are at rest with each other. So the detector of the transitions in the clock is measuring transitions in its own rest frame and not the transitions of a moving frame. Thus, all Cesium clocks should measure the same number of transitions.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, each and every transition will be present and accounted for. But the number of transitions <i>per second</i> will be different because the length of one second will be different.

Consider a single transition. Let's say it requires exactly one nanosecond in our frame. Now from the other frame, that transition begins in the past and ends in the future, so its duration in the present will be shorter than one nanosecond -- even though it is the same transition from the same clock.

In SR, time itself is slowed by motion, so clocks in frames with a relative motion have no choice but to do the same. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by 1234567890</i>
<br />As the ruler always reads 2 inches no matter what "frame" it is in, the detector always counts 9,192,631,770 transitions. If not, there is something else going on besides SR and GR.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Good example. Now here's the reality. We don't know how long one second is, but choose to define it as the length of 9,192,631,770 cesium transitions.

Now if we take an identical atomic clock into another frame, how long is one second in that frame? We still don't know, but observers in that frame can choose to define it as the same number of cesium transitions.

The problem is that when the observer in that other frame peers back into the original laboratory frame, he seems a smaller number of cesium transitions during one of his own seconds as just defined. But he could not even attempt that measurement until he found a way to exchange signals between the two frames and correct for light propagation delay. There is where he must make some additional assumptions, such as whether light propagates at speed c or c +/- v. His measurement will depend on his assumption.

If we make SR assumptions, we get results that agree with SR's predictions. One alternative is to choose a different number of transitions as the length of one second, as is done in GPS, so that the two clocks (satellite and ground) keep reading the same time. That simplifies life, but leads observers to measure light speeds of c +/- v even in their own frame. That is not at all in the spirit of SR. -|Tom|-

I deleted the post on accident. Oh well.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by 1234567890</i>
<br />I deleted the post on accident. Oh well.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

How do you delete a post "accidentally"? I really need to take pro-active steps and go through a password confirmation procedure to do this.

But I get what makes you say this. Please, do not feel embarrassed what you write or say on technical levels. Just look at Einstein (pun), was he ever embarrassed? []

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jan</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by 1234567890</i>
<br />I deleted the post on accident. Oh well.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

How do you delete a post "accidentally"? I really need to take pro-active steps and go through a password confirmation procedure to do this.

But I get what makes you say this. Please, do not feel embarrassed what you write or say on technical levels. Just look at Einstein (pun), was he ever embarrassed? []
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I started a very nice analogy, too bad I deleted it.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by 1234567890</i>
<br />As the ruler always reads 2 inches no matter what "frame" it is in, the detector always counts 9,192,631,770 transitions. If not, there is something else going on besides SR and GR.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Good example. Now here's the reality. We don't know how long one second is, but choose to define it as the length of 9,192,631,770 cesium transitions.

Now if we take an identical atomic clock into another frame, how long is one second in that frame? We still don't know, but observers in that frame can choose to define it as the same number of cesium transitions.

The problem is that when the observer in that other frame peers back into the original laboratory frame, he seems a smaller number of cesium transitions during one of his own seconds as just defined. But he could not even attempt that measurement until he found a way to exchange signals between the two frames and correct for light propagation delay. There is where he must make some additional assumptions, such as whether light propagates at speed c or c +/- v. His measurement will depend on his assumption.

If we make SR assumptions, we get results that agree with SR's predictions. One alternative is to choose a different number of transitions as the length of one second, as is done in GPS, so that the two clocks (satellite and ground) keep reading the same time. That simplifies life, but leads observers to measure light speeds of c +/- v even in their own frame. That is not at all in the spirit of SR. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The observer is not peering into any other inertial frame!!!- it is measuring time in its own frame. Let me try that analogy again.

In a photograph are some fruits: a papaya, a plum, an orange,
and a green apple. In front of each fruit (still inside the photo)
are rulers measuring the size of the fruits. The rulers all show
2 inches for the diameter of the fruits (strange fruits). If one were to blow up the photo 200%, the fruits would look larger than in the original photo to us, but the rulers inside this enlarged photo still reads 2 inches. Whether we blow up the photo 1000% or shrink it 1000 times, the ruler will still read 2 inches. Clearly then, 2 inches is an invariant size when measured by measuring instruments in its own frame.

An inertial frame is like the photo. Adding and subtracting velocity to inertial frames is like blowing up or shrinking the photo. The "photo" in our consideration is that of a Cesium clock. Each part of the clock is in the same "photo". Let us focus then on the part of the clock relevant to the discussion: the detector of the Cesium atom transitions. Should it or should it not measure the
same number of transitions whether the "photo" is "enlarged" or
"shrunken"? Just as in the case of the rulers always reading 2 inches regardless of "frame", the "ruler" in Cesium clocks should always "read" 9,192,631,770 transitions per second, irrespective of its velocity.

This is a consequence of the postulate of physics being invariant
in all inertial frames. Time dilation has nothing to do with this.
Thus, any "corrections" of the orbiting clock attributed to SR
is absurd. SR does not predict time dilation of the clock
in orbit.

Referring to the GPS, the Cesium clocks in orbit actually count
more transitions per second in its own frame. Going back to the photo, this would be analogous to the ruler and the fruits
not being blown up in a proportional manner, leading to it
measuring a size other than 2 inches for the fruit.

One can draw a couple of conclusions due to this supposed fact.
First, if physics is invariant in inertial frames, the Earth
clock and the orbiting clocks are not in inertial frames. Thus,
any clock corrections attributed to SR is a misnomer. I am
not as familiar with GR so I won't comment on this aspect. Second,
if we supposed the clocks to be in inertial frames instead, we would have to conclude that physics
is not invariant in inertial frames, thereby falsifying
SR and any other theory based on the principle of invariance.