Existence

Whatever "time stretching" means.Gaasenbeek denies all relativity effects. For example, while you claim to believe that relative motion and decreased gravity affect cesium clock rates, Gaasenbeek would not agree with that. ICANT, you dealt this mess. But here:http://www.heliwave.com/gaasenbeek/spap2x.html

quote:

---

Consequently Robert's observed parameters such as: the distance he has traveled, the velocity at which he is traveling and his aging rate etc., differ from the actual distance he has traveled, his actual velocity and his actual aging rate

---

Also in the same paper, see his twin paradox calculations

quote:

---

The observed aging rate of Robert on his way out is:
A'OBS = c / (v + c) [6] or,
A'OBS = c / (.8 c + c)
A'OBS = .5555..... times normal.

---

A step by step analysis is not needed. Gaasenbeek correctly predicts how the twins would age if Newtonian Mechanics were correct. I agree that Gaasenbeek gets the same answer Newton would get.Gaasenbeek merely denies the effects of special relativity. The reason given for such a denial is merely that he finds the implications of relativity incredible. Not all cranks for sure. But how do they mark Gaasenbeck's work? That's right he's labelled as a crank.In any event, you can certainly use crank.net to find all of the crackpot relativity deniers you'll ever need. Why not cite the work of some actual scientists who deny relativity instead? Some are mentioned in the wikipedia article on relativity. What problems? I don't think I need to refute Gaasenbeek's made up, not verified in any way, junk just yet. After all, his theory is not your theory. You've cherry picked his denial of special relativity, but you don't agree with the details. I suggest the onus is on you to show that Gaasenbeek is at least credible.On the other hand, if you want to agree that your own position fails or succeeds with Gaasenbeek, perhaps it would be worth my time to critique his work.

Hi NoNukes, Dilation is the streaching or expanding of an object.
A concept can not be dilated.That is the reason I have asked repeatedly for a definition of time. What kind of an object is time that it can be dilated?If it is not an object it can not be dilated.We were talking about time dilation and I presented Gassenbeek's argument against time dilation.Why do we have to agree on everything else for me to use his refutation of the experiments used as proof for time dilation?

quote:

---

The two key experiments which are quoted most often as proof that time dilation exists were examined and found wanting.

---

Not only that he does propose an alternatative to SR and GR.

quote:

---

CONCLUSIONS
My previous paper: "Helical Particle Waves" and this paper: "Frames of Reference" together provide an alternative explanation for Einstein's theories of Special and General Relativity.

---

Are you saying the observed and actual aging rate are the same.If so why didn't you put the equation for the return trip?

quote:

---

The observed aging rate of Robert during his observed 5 year trip home is [6] or,
A'OBS = c / (v + c)
A'OBS = c / (-.8c + c)
A'OBS = 5 times normal.

---

AS well as the summary.

quote:

---

Both Robert and Eka aged 25 years during the time it took Robert to reach the planet and 25 years during the time it took him to get back home. Since the twins were 20 years old when Robert left, they will be 70 years old after he gets back.

---

No time dilation.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

And we've answered that exact question multiple times. Shall I do it again?Time is a continuum in which events occur sequentially in the direction of increasing entropy.It's a dimension, just like length, width, or height. The three spacial dimensions plus time make up spacetime.I wonder how many more times you'll lie and say nobody has defined time...

Please show me anywhere it says that dilation can only happen to physical objects, that is what you suggest, now prove it.It seems you want us to prove time is a object you can touch, which it isn't, because you think dilation can only happen to physical objects. Once again you are wrong.

---

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. ThompsonAd astra per asperaNihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

Hello ICANT. Let me present a definition of time dilation here. The definition will also help me distinguish your position from Gaasenbeek's.From the wikipedia article on time dilation (emphasis added).

quote:

---

Time dilation is an observed difference of elapsed time between two observers which are moving relative to each other, or being differently situated from nearby gravitational masses. An observer will see the other observer's clock ticking at a slower rate than his/hers [true for both observers for SR not GR]. This effect doesn't arise from technical aspects of the clock or the fact that any signal needs time to propagate, but from the nature of space-time described by theory of relativity.

---

The dictionary definition you are using for 'dilation' is not sufficient to understand what 'time dilation' means. We are discussing physics here not determining the time for delivering babies. The special relativity effect that causes observers to see clocks running slow in frames in motion relative to the observer's frame is called time dilation. Period. No more need to talk about objects dilating. Time dilation is different.I would note that what was really going on was the slowing of atomic frequency, there is no way that each observer would see the other observers clock as being slow.Repeated from the definition:

quote:

---

This [time dilation] effect doesn't arise from technical aspects of the clock or the fact that any signal needs time to propagate, but from the nature of space-time described by theory of relativity.

---

Gaasenbeek recognizes an effect on observed clock rates due to the need for signals to propagate. Your position on the other hand equates to just the opposite denial. You discuss an effect based on technical aspects of clocks during relative motion or decreased gravity.On the other hand, when we refer to actual Einstein-Lorentz time dilation, we first take into account the need for light signals to propagate at light speeds before we record the time of an event in our reference frame or before we compare clocks. You did no such thing, because Gaasenbeek does not have such an argument. He has an assertion that there is no real time dilation effect, and an expression of incredulity about Einstein's result. He gives no argument of any kind. He just thinks Einstein was an idiot. The short answer is, who the heck is Gaasenbeek and how is he credible?You cannot just grab any crackpot in a storm. If you want to cite Gaasenbeek's conclusions you are stuck with his rationale too. For example, Gaasenbeek uses his helical wave theory to explain away the apparent experimental confirmation of the twin paradox. He even admits that the SR is plausible absent his theory.But more importantly, Gaasenbeek makes no refutation. He simply denies. He attempts to explain contrary experimental results by invoking his laughable theory that electrons travel through space in helical paths. Unless you buy his helical nonsense, then you are left to explain scientific results that debunk his denial of relativity. Does Gaasenbeek use his theory to predict new results that disagree with Einstein? No he's playing catchup trying to force some agreement with the results Einstein predicts.Additionally, Gaasenbeek's theory gives the wrong result for time dilation (none), the wrong result for relativistic doppler effect (no higher order effects) among other things. Further, you cannot explain Mercury's perihelion anomaly using a sub atomic particle theory. Yet GR does explain Mercury's orbit.Gaasenbeek is a crank. The only thing he has in common with you is that you both deny special relativity. The internet is replete with cranks who think they are doing revolutionary science in obscurity, not unlike Einstein during his days in the patent office. You cannot just pick a random nobody and expect that he must be right just because he says something you want to hear.

quote:

---

The two key experiments which are quoted most often as proof that time dilation exists were examined and found wanting.

---

quote:

---

CONCLUSIONS
My previous paper: "Helical Particle Waves" and this paper: "Frames of Reference" together provide an alternative explanation for Einstein's theories of Special and General Relativity.

---

Experiments found wanting by Gaasenbeek. He doesn't actually deny that the experimental results are consistent with SR and GR. He just thinks the world hasn't learned about his helical particle wave concept. Further, he cannot explain all of the observed results of GR.Do you believe that electrons travel through free space in helical paths? Does Gaasenbeek provide any plausible reasoning to suggest how such a thing might come to pass? I'd be happy to discuss Gaasenbeek's helical wave theory with you if I thought it would actually help advance the discussion. But we both know that you'll simply grab onto anyone, no matter how crackpot, who denies Einstein's relativity. Is that a serious question? Did not Gaasenbeek explicitly say they were different in the portion of his article that I cited, but you snipped here.The above quoted equations state that the observed outgoing aging rate, according to Gaasenbeek, is a little more than half (0.5555) of the actual aging rate. So according to Gaasenbeek those rates are not equal due to light time travel effects. Please, ICANT. Isn't the discrepancy even larger (5 times normal) in the inbound case? Just how much of a whupping did you want?Why not just admit that Gaasenbeek did state that there is an observed, but not actual, effect on aging rates due to relative motion, exactly as I stated in my post. You simply missed it. Did I not indicate that the result was Newtonian. Did I also need to add that Newtonian mechanics means no actual time dilation? Let me make the Newtonian calculation the easy way. No need for any time delay effect nonsense.Round trip equals 2*20 light years or 40 light years.
40 light years/(0.8c) = 50 years. So the Newtonian prediction is that each twin ages 50 years.Gaasenbeek's calculations show nothing. If you use equations of motion that do not include relativisitic effects, then you don't expect the calculated results to include time dilation, length contraction, etc. That's what Gaasenbeek has done. He additionally tries to calculate a light travel time based apparent aging rate effect, for no apparent good reason. The apparent rate is not the same as that predicted by SR, so it does not help explain any experimental results that seem to agree with Einstein.As an analogy, if I performed a similar calculation using Lorentz's time dilation, length contraction equations, would you say that I have provided evidence for SR?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Then what word should we use to describe the observed fact that objective measurements of time differ between frames of reference where there is a difference in gravity or velocity between frames of reference?Perhaps it would help if we describe what time dilation looks like, and why it got that name. Let's say that you are parked in a space ship near a black hole. Someone gets into an airplane, starts up the propeller, and flies towards the event horizon of the black hole. You watch the airplane from the space ship.Your observations from the space ship:As the airplane approaches the event horizon you notice that the propeller goes slower, and slower, and slower, until it appears to almost stop moving (along with the entire airplane) as it nears the event horizon. The plane never crosses the event horizon in the time you observe it, nor over the next few years.The observations made by the airplane pilot:The pilot notices nothing out of the ordinary. The speed of the propeller never changes, the airplane itself never slows down, and the pilot moves right past the event horizon in short order.So why is there a difference in the observations? Relativity. The passage of time is different between frames of reference. From the spaceship, it appears that time is being stretched so that everything slows down. That is time dilation.If you don't like this description or the use of "dilation" then please come up with a different word to describe these observations. And we showed why his argument is not valid. He's a crackpot. The aging rate is the same. The passage of time is different between the two frames of reference. For the twin in the spaceship not as much time has gone by compared to the twin who stayed on earth.

Hi Taq, I have no idea what to call something that does not exist. What observations?A thought experiment is not something that is observed it is the imagination of the mind.Now if you are refering to why things are seen differently by different people I will see what I can do.Lets say we go to a concert by a 50's band. There is no sound system only the instruments to make the music.You have a front row seat and I have a back row seat. You are sitting close to the base drum so as you can see the mallet strike the batter drum head before you hear the sound.From my viewpoint I hear the sound before I see the mallet strike the batter drum head.Is that because of time dilation? Or is it because the sound reaches me before the visual picture reaches me? That puts him in good company then such as Newton and Einstein.But calling him a crackpot does not show why his math or his conclusions is wrong. Then explain how the math is wrong that shows the twins presented by Gaasenbeek come out to be the same age.A thought:I pull out my space cycle that I built in another thread and accelerate away from my wife at 1/2 c towards a planet that is exactly 1 light year including original acceleration to the half way point around the planet. She is 6 months younger than I am. I travel for two years which puts me 1 light year away half way into my turning around with no reduction in speed. The image of my turn around is 1 light year away from my wife so by the time the image of my turn around reachers her I am half way back. So she can observe all of my trip out but only half of my return trip which will seem to her that I am traveling at c when I am only traveling at 1/2 c. So she would view my out bound trip as 2 years and my return trip as 1 year, because she would miss half the return trip, because I was half way back when she saw my turn around. Thus we both would age 4 years during the trip.If the speed of c is constant how could I close the gap between our ages?How could time dilation exist?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Sound can't travel faster than light, ICANT, so there's no circumstances under which you could hear the drum before you saw the strike.Not only can nothing travel faster than light, but the speed of light is the same for all observers. We know that's the case by ample experimentation. Moreover, in order for that to be true, time, distance, and mass have to be relative between inertial reference frames. Which means that neither time, dimension, or mass are truly constant - but, rather, that they depend greatly on your own velocity.These are known facts. The math falls irrefutably out of the Maxwell Equations, which were proved over a hundred years ago. You're free to deny them but we observe that the universe behaves in this way. It's been demonstrated over and over again, and you just can't argue with the experiments (though I expect you'll attempt to, anyway.)I know you can't believe us or you'll go to hell, but there it is - you're just completely wrong about how the universe works. No, this is incorrect. She's able to observe your entire trip back because only at your most distant does the image of your vehicle take 1 light year to reach her. At 1/2 light year out, the image only takes 1/2 year; at 1/4 light year out, it only takes 1/4 year, and so on. By the time you reach Earth the light from your vehicle arrives at your wife basically instantaneously.She sees your entire return trip because you never travel faster than the speed of light, so you never reach Earth before any of the light you emit along your trip back. There's no part of that trip she's not able to observe. If you do the calculus you'll see that this is trivially true. She sees you take 3 years out - two years to reach your turnover point, plus a year for the light from that point to reach Earth - and sees your two-year return trip compressed into a single year. Your light will redshift as you depart and blueshift as you return. No, she would see a four year trip because you were gone for four years. You would experience a trip that was shorter than that because your velocity was an appreciable fraction of the speed of light and therefore time was slower for you. Because the speed of light is the same for all observers regardless of their velocity. If you're riding the Starlight Express at .99 c, and I'm watching it go by beside the tracks, and then the engineer puts on the headlight, from your perspective you see the light stream out the front at the speed of light. Under your conception of physics you would expect me to see the light shoot out ahead at it's own velocity plus that of the train, which is true when you toss a ball from a moving car or whatever, but the speed of light is the same for all observers.So, you see the light shoot out ahead at the speed of light, but so do I even though I'm watching shoot out ahead from an already-moving position. The only way that the speed of light can be the same for the both of us is if time and distance aren't the same for the both of us, because obviously speed is distance over time.

God?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Can everyone stop using this message subtitle please?On reflection, ICANT certainly is one of a kind. I've dealt with peddlers of crackpot ideas before, but have to admit that I've never come across anyone quite like him. He is a joy to watch in action - from a discreet distance, of course.

Gaasenbeek makes the same error in calculating the "observed" aging rate due to time travel errors. The details regarding when we can finally see the image of the traveler have nothing to do with relativity at all. Relativity is about the effects seen after signal time travel is addressed. But Gaasenbeek does not even calculate the "observed" rates correctly. Which brings us to another of Gaasenbeek's errors. Gaasenbeek calculations assumes the observed speed of a light beam leaving the spaceship moving at 0.8c is 1c +0.8c rather than c. Clearly wrong and in contradiction with experiment.I note that nearly every one of the numerous questions ICANT asked was already addressed in my last post. As if.

The discussion is pointless if your intent is to convince ICANT of any error. The man's a mule, both in stubbornness and intellect.It's not pointless if your intent is to call an idiot on his bullshit so that nobody else reads it and thinks he might be right. Remember, most people don't have even a basic grasp of topics like time dilation, and to them, ICANT's arguments may appeal to their intuition more than the real, proven physics arguments. It's important to respond to outlandish irrationality and reality denying simply so that nobody else becomes a crackpot because of people like ICANT.

If this is your position then perhaps you should discuss the science instead of arguing semantics. The GPS satellites have been put forth. They demonstrate relativistic effects quite nicely, and you continue to ignore it.There is also the Hafele-Keating experiment. From the wiki page:

quote:

---

According to special relativity, the rate of a clock is greatest according to an observer who is at rest with respect to the clock. In a frame of reference in which the clock is not at rest, the clock runs slower, and the effect is proportional to the square of the velocity. In a frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth, the clock aboard the plane moving eastward, in the direction of the Earth's rotation, has a greater velocity (resulting in a relative time loss) than a clock that remains on the ground, while the clock aboard the plane moving westward, against the Earth's rotation, has a lower velocity than the one on the ground, resulting in a relative time gain.

​

According to general relativity, another effect comes into play: the slight increase in gravitational potential due to altitude that speeds the clocks back up. Since the aircraft are flying at roughly the same altitude in both directions, this effect is more "constant" between the two clocks, but nevertheless it causes a difference in comparison to the clock on the ground. . .

​

The published outcome of the experiment was consistent with special and general relativity. The observed time gains and losses were different from zero to a high degree of confidence, and were in agreement with relativistic predictions to within the ~10% precision of the experiment. The results were verified in an improved experiment in 1976 by the University of Maryland, this time verifying the relativistic predictions to a precision of about 1%.[3][4] A reenactment of the original experiment took place on the 25th anniversary of the original experiment, using more precise atomic clocks, and the results were verified to a higher degree of accuracy.[5] Nowadays such relativistic effects are, for example, routinely incorporated into the calculations used for the Global Positioning System.[6]

---

It was meant to illustrate the reasons that "dilation" is used to describe relativity. First off, everyone would see the mallet strike before the sound waves reached them. This is because the propogation of light is faster than the propogation of sound in our atmosphere. This is not time dilation. Also, each of is sitting down in the same arena so we are both in the same inertial frame of reference.How does this relate to the GPS satellite example or the Hafele-Keating experiment? No, it doesn't. I think you are confusing "crack pot" with "verified theories". He is a crackpot because his he keeps pushing false conclusions and bad math on an internet website. The travel time would not be the same for both of you. Your wife would witness a 4 year trip. You would experience a shorter trip due to time dilation. You and your wife would be much closer in age after your trip.ABE: Here is a decent website with a nice chart.C-ship: The Dilation of TimeAt 0.5c, a day to you would be 1.15 days to your wife, the difference being 0.15 days. Multiply that by 4 and by 365, the number of days that you are traveling at 0.5c, and you get 219 days. Your wife would actually age 219 days more than you during the journey. You would actually experience a shorter trip by 219 days than what your wife observed from Earth. If you are exactly 6 months apart, you would arrive back at Earth to find that your wife is now older than you by a few weeks.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Hi Taq, Yes they are presented as a proof of SR and GR.But one of the pioneers of GPS says not so fast there with your conclusion and assertion.

quote:

---

There are three fundamental effects, generally described as relativistic phenomena,
which affect GPS. These are: (1) the effect of source velocity (GPS satellite) and receiver
velocity upon the satellite and receiver clocks; (2) the effect of the gravitational potential
upon satellite and receiver clocks; and (3) the effect of receiver motion upon the signal
reception time (Sagnac effect) . There are a number of papers which have been written to
explain these valid effects in the context of Einstein's relativity theories. However, quite
often the explanations of these effects are patently incorrect. As an example of incorrect
explanation, Ashby [2] in a GPS World article, "Relativity and GPS," gives an improper
explanation for each of the three phenomena listed above....

​

The Sagnac effect is also in conflict with the general theory, if the common
interpretation of the general theory is accepted....

​

Velocity Effects upon the Clock Rates.
The fundamental question of velocity is always: "Velocity with respect to what?"
Ashby, in the opening paragraph of his abstract, states:

​

Important relativistic effects arise from relative motions of GPS satellites and users, ...

​

And Ashby also states, at the start of a section on time dilation:

​

First, clocks in relative motion suffer (relativistic) time dilation,...

​

But these statements are patently untrue of GPS. It may appear to be a subtle
difference, but it is very important to note that the GPS satellites' clock rate and the
receiver's clock rate are not adjusted as a function of their velocity relative to one another. Instead, they are adjusted as a function of their velocity with respect to the chosen frame of referencein this case the earth-centered, non- rotating, (quasi) inertial frame....

​

The experimental evidence shows that the gravitational potential affects: (1) the rate at which clocks run;...

​

Sagnac effect is the result of a non-isotropic speed of light and arises any time an
observer or measuring instrument moves with respect to the frame chosen as the isotropic light-speed frame. And it is here that the Sagnac effect runs into trouble with the special theory. The special theory by postulate and definition of time synchronization requires that the speed of light always be isotropic with respect to the observer. And this is where the special theory is in errorthe Sagnac effect illustrates that error.

---

SourceBefore you call the gentleman that made these statements a crackpot I suggest you checkout his resume. He has been working in the field since 1962 when he graduated and went to work for Applied Physics Lab at Johns Hopkins developing navigation and survey algorithms for TRANSIT, the first operational satellite navigation system and the forerunner of GPS.He co-founded NavCom Technology, which was sold to John Deer which now has a commerical application for GPS that can set the grade that a motor grader or buldozer blade cuts to within 1/4".And now Hatch has a secure position as one of the foremost developers of GNSS signal processing and application software. Of which The Hatch Filter, a simple and elegant method of eliminating multipath errors, bears his name. He holds many patents that is used in GPS. It did not illustrate the reasons only the interpertation that was put forth. They were called crackpots before they were called genius's. I am traveling at 1/2 c it takes exactly 2 years to reach the middle of my turn around without slowing down.I continue my journey at 1/2 c which takes exactly 2 years to return to earth.So explain to me how I can experience less than 4 years if c is constant? I know you believe that but that does not make it a fact.As I ask above explain how I can age less than 1461 days on my journey when it takes exactly 1461 days to make the trip, whether my wife is observing my journey or on vacation.Time dilation can not happen.Now if I have a clock on board it can run faster the further I get from the gravatational field of the earth. But as I approached the planet I was headed to it would probably speed up until I made my turn around and started to leave the gravatational field of that planet and as I approached the earth it would speed back up and when I reached earth it would be keeping the same time it did prior to my departure.Time did not dilate the clock just slowed down due to less gravatational force exerted on the mechanism, and returned to normal when returned to earth.The people that build the NIST-F1 says this of the clock.

quote:

---

The laser cooled atoms are launched vertically and pass twice through a microwave cavity, once on the way up and once on the way down. The result is an observation time of about one second, which is limited only by the force of gravity pulling the atoms to the ground.

---

Limited only by the force of gravity.Gravity causes the clock to run slower. The further from the source of gravity the faster the clock will run.Time does not run faster only the mechanism measuring time runs faster.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

HI,In the conclusions section of the paper you presented... He was wrong, as seen by the results seen hereGood source though, not a nut, slightly dated. I only briefly skimmed it but I did see his conclusions and this one was way off.Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

---

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. ThompsonAd astra per asperaNihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.