Re: Explaining Time Dilation

From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 11/08/04 

Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 22:49:18 GMT

"V ertner Vergon" <vergon_enterprises@highstream.net> wrote in message
news:b337f5db.0411080337.4826cef5@posting.google.com...
> "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:<Ulbjd.21030$K7.17843@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > "TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:cc2dde17.0411060849.51f1934f@posting.google.com...
> > > Below is an excerpt from my essay, "The Time And Motion
> > > Relationship",copyright 1996, tyropress@yahoo.com. All comments are
> > > welcome.
> > >
> > > CHAPTER TWO
> > > Common Notions Of Varying Time Rates
> > > Part One
> > > It is difficult to figure out time.
> >
> > Only for philosophy types. In physics time is what a clock reads does
just
> > fine. See http://www.friesian.com/feynman.htm
> >
> > > We cannot get beyond Dr.
> > > Einstein's premise of time-space interdependence because it bonds time
> > > and space as partners absolutely and forever.
> >
> > True.
> >
> > > This has had the
> > > effect, evidently, of creating a "blind alley" by discouraging any
> > > in-depth consideration of the idea that there may be more relevance to
> > > time other than our usual under-standing of it as simply the Siamese
> > > twin of space and not much else than that.
> >
> > Examples would be nice.
> >
> > > Therefore, when we think
> > > about time, we usually think of it as part of the "continuum" or
> > > "fabric" of time and space in which all things exist equally subject
> > > to the "force" of time's irresistible and un-wavering flow. However,
> > > such a concept requires time to have or to be a force of its own - it
> > > requires that time must be energy or must contain energy.
> >
> > It implies no such thing - please acquaint yourself with what energy
is -
> > http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath564/kmath564.htm.
> >
> > > Subsequently, that viewpoint leads us to another blind alley where we
> > > find that we can't explain certain "loose ends" or, apparent natural
> > > contradictions. For example, how can time possibly have/be energy or
> > > have/be a force?
> >
> > It isn't - you are simply stringing together words is strange ways.
> >
> > > In order to support the idea of the existence of a
> > > "time and space continuum," scientists have had to come up with the
> > > notion that there must be such things as time and space "warps,"
> > > "curvings," "dilations," etc.
> >
> > Please see a wonderful essay by John Baez on the real meaning of General
> > Relativity - http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/.
> >
> > > For many "hard-thinkers," though, it is
> > > just too hard to be able to really and truly and successfully imagine
> > > the warping or curving of boundless space in any way other than as the
> > > literary trick we see used quite often in science fiction stories as a
> > > relatively quick and easy way to travel around the universe.
> >
> > Mind naming these hard thinkers and their accomplishments? For example
is
> > was not too hard for people like Feynman and Weinberg.
> >
> > > It is a
> > > task too difficult for us because we are unable to reasonably extend
> > > the con-cept of ordinary space far enough to reconcile in our
> > > inquiring minds how it could be that empty space can "do", "act", or
> > > "perform", any physical act.
> >
> > It is a task made more difficult by people who want to read more into
that
> > is really happening.
> >
> > > For scientists to take ideas from science fiction is a risky adventure
> > > as it can too easily become a case of the tail wagging the dog, as it
> > > were.
> >
> > The reason is simple - they have these ideas forced onto them by the
> > physics - not science fiction.
>
> SNIP>-
>
> Vergon:
>
> The rest of this diatribe can be read in the original post.
>
> The point I want to make here is that this is a good example of the
> amature strnging together a bunch of unsubstantiated hazy, wordy
> assumptions and offering them as a scientific work.
>
> Compare TomGee's presentation with the following one that deals with
> known accepted concepts and phenomena in a purely logical constuction
> (on this same subject).
>
>
>
>
> ON TIME DILATION AND DOPPLER TIME
> Vertner Vergon
>
> ABSTRACT
>
> We examine time dilation and find it leads to an unforgiving
> contradiction. We also find it is contrary to empirical experience. In
> examining Doppler time we find it has none of these deficiencies. We
> therefore conclude that the erroneous concept of time dilation be
> replaced with the concept of Doppler time variation.
>
>
>
>
> We start our examination of the time dilation concept by going to its
> source -- Einstein's paper, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.
> We refer to his gedanken experiment of moving clocks. One of two
> identical clocks remains at rest while the other moves away and
> returns. When Einstein perceived the difference of the clock readings
> in his calculations, he stated the moving clock "was slow by ...". The
> immediate perception by the public was that if a clock was "slow by" -
> it had to have run slower. He also said the moving clock was "behind"
> the inertial clock by ..." . These two statements do not mean the same
> thing. If one clock is running slower, then it is running slower, and
> that has only one meaning.
>
> On the other hand to say one clock is behind the other is open to
> alternative explanations, eg., the moving clock could have traveled a
> shorter world line -- or may have traveled faster than observed. In
> either case the clock would maintain its normal (proper) rate but for
> a shorter duration than the inertial clock. At any rate the accepted
> version is that the clock ran slower and thus was born the concept of
> time dilation.
>
> This concept is usually stated by an illustration that says if one
> were to observe a clock on a fast moving spaceship, they would observe
> it to run slowly. It must be emphasized that this running slowly
> occurs regardless of the direction or vector of the ship. That is to
> say it matters not whether the spaceship is receding or approaching,
> time runs slower. Also to be emphasized is that this slowness of time
> is *not* just a matter of observation but actually takes place -- for
> when the clock returns it is actually 'behind" the stationary (or
> Earth) clock.
>
> Since this is the case, we are inevitably drawn to only one
> conclusion, the moving clock has to be running slowly in its own
> coordinate system. Here we are faced with an unforgiving contradiction
> for basic relativity states that all clocks keep proper time in their
> respective coordinate systems. It is inconsistent that a clock can
> actually run slowly in its own coordinate system - and also, the
> while, keep proper time. This contradiction requires that the time
> dilation concept, i.e., t' = t sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) be discarded.
>
> The question arises, is there something to take its place? The answer
> is yes.
> To lay the foundation for this replacement we note that any known
> constant frequency is a clock. The scientific community has chosen the
> excited cesium atom as the standard. This is an arbitrary choice.
> Next, we note that the cesium clock (or any other constant frequency
> atom) will never vary in its rate. So they will always keep proper
> time. However, *observations* of these clocks will show a variation
> due to the Doppler effect. We declare this variation in frequency is a
> variation in *observed* time. Since the frequency is a clock, an
> observed variation in the frequency is an observed variation in time.
> Call it Doppler or what one will, that is merely a description of the
> mechanics. In the final analysis it is a variation in observed time.
>
> Next, we examine a counter argument which states that the relativistic
> Doppler rate is the result of the following: If one takes the
> non-relativistic Doppler rate and modifies it by the time dilation
> they, come up with the relativistic Doppler rate. This, supposedly,
> confirms time dilation. Upon further examination, we perceive that
> even if we were to accept that explanation, what we have is the
> situation whereby an approaching clock is observed to run *fast* --
> not as fast as non-relativistic mechanics would have -- but fast. This
> is contrary to time dilation which requires an approaching clock to
> run slowly. That a reversal in direction results in a reversal of
> time rate is to be expected since time variation is the result of
> velocity vectors - and vectors are directional.
>
> If a theory conflicts with empiricism, it has to be discarded.
> Next we point out that we need not necessarily accept the above
> explanation. We note that above, the non-relativistic Doppler is
> modified by applying time dilation. We also note that time dilation is
> written
>
> t' = t sqrt(1 - v2/c2).
>
> Now non-relativistic Doppler in direct approach is written
> (where V = v/c)
>
> nu'/nu = 1/1- V
>
> Next, we apply time dilation:
>
> nu'/nu = (1/ 1 - V) x t sqrt(1 - V2).
> It is immediately apparent how clumsy this equation is. Frequency
> times time is n/t x t = n. To avoid this problem we may write:
> nu'/nu = (1/1 - V) sqrt(1 - V2)
>
> Now the argument presents itself that the equation immediately above
> does *not* represent the application of time dilation but does instead
> simply apply the Lorentz transformation to the frequency as it does to
> other parameters in transposing from one coordinate system to another.
> Thus relativistic Doppler is simply that - and not modified by time
> dilation.
>
> Now it can easily be shown -- using the famous "Twin Paradox" as an
> example -- that utilizing the observed Doppler time rate will yield --
> when the clocks are reunited -- a difference in the readings
> commensurate with the time dilation *rate*. And to restate, it can be
> shown that using the Doppler time rate will yield the time dilation
> *effect*. And that is the proper way to refer to it -- "time dilation
> effect". The reason: The net time differential when the movement of
> the clock is complete is the same *as though* dilation time was
> operative throughout.
>
> What then? What is the explanation for the "effect", but not the
> actuality of time dilation? Particle accelerator operators and Ives &
> Stillwell claim to have "directly observed" time dilation. What they
> have observed is transverse Doppler rates. And it so happens, by some
> extraordinary coincidence, that the transverse Doppler rate is the
> same as the time dilation rate.
>
> And now to display the Doppler time resolution of the Twins Paradox:
> What is displayed here is the round trip Twins' experience with no
> paradox. The upward arrow signifies outward bound, the downward arrow
> signifies inward bound. The double arrows signify the ship being
> observed going outbound while in fact it is traveling inbound. (second
> chart). This, of course, is due to the time it takes light to travel.
> The velocity is sqrt(.75c). At this velocity the so called time
> dilation rate is 1/2 . The distance to far-point is sqrt(3 light
> seconds). So the elapsed time for the ship is one second due to the
> fact the distance traversed is a coordinate system in relative motion
> to the ship and to the ship is .5 sqrt 3 light seconds). ( For seconds
> or years, the figures hold.)
>
> This means that four years on earth would be only two years on ship.
> The time rates shown in the second chart are the time rates of the
> ship as observed by earth. Both charts are Doppler time rates. They
> have to be. Any invariable frequency -- clock or atom -- will be
> observed at Doppler rates. The same is true for observations of earth
> by the ship (first chart). So there is a parity of rate observations
> as required by the principle of relativity.
>
> Notice, there is no time dilation rate observed (1/2 in this case) --
> *but* when the trip is concluded the difference in the clock readings
> is *as though* the ship clock had run at half time to the earth clock,
> i.e , run at dilation time. When Einstein saw that differential in his
> calculations (1905 paper) he said the moving clock "ran slow" by ... .
> This created the impression that time really ran slower for the ship's
> clock. The table below shows this isn't so.
>
> It is worth repeating that according to the STR a clock in the
> approach mode runs slow - but astronomers observe clocks in the
> approach mode, and they are running fast. Consequently, *there is no
> time dilation observed.* There *is*, however, a *time dilation
> effect*, i.e., there is a transit time differential on the two clocks
> -- and it was created by Doppler time. However, quantitatively it
> appears to be created by the time dilation rate.
>
>
>
>
> ASTRONAUTS TABLE
>
>
> ELAPSED x DOPPLER = OBSERVED
> TIME ON TIME/ TIME ON
> SHIP FREQUENCY EARTH
> (in seconds) (t/f)
> =====================================================
> /|\
> | 1.00 x .268 = .268
>
> | 1.00 x 3.732 = 3.732
> \|/
> -----------------------------------------------------
> 2.000 4.000
> total elapsed time
>
>
>
>
>
> ASTRONOMER'S TABLE
>
> ELAPSED x DOPPLER = OBSERVED
> TIME ON TIME/ TIME ON
> EARTH FREQUENCY SHIP
> (in seconds) (t/f)
> ======================================================
>
> (in seconds) (t/f)
>
> /|\
> | 2.00 x .268 = .536
>
> /|\ | 1.732 x .268 = ,464
> | \|/
>
> | .268 x 3.732 = 1.000
> \|/
> -------------------------------------------------------
> 4.000 2.000
> total elapsed time
>
>
> Note: Not only is there a parity of rate observations, but the length
> of time each twin is an observer is equal to the time he is observed.
> Thus there is a time commonality of observation. This, in a space-time
> chart given in Spacetime Physics (by Taylor and Wheeler), is labeled
> the "line of simultaneity".
>
>
> __________________________
> · Both Ives & Stillwell and accelerator operators made right angle
> observations of fast traveling radiation-emitting atoms or particles
> and found that the radiation shifted in accordance with time dilation
> calculations (which happen to be the same as transverse Doppler).
>
>
>
> ADDENDUM:
>
> ABSTRACT
>
> Establishes the existence of superluminal velocities - and
> consequently a showing that the concept of a traveling twin returning
> younger than his bother is not valid.
>
>
>
> In the above dissertation it was stated that the distance to Farpoint
> was sqrt(3 light seconds) and
> that to the transiting space ship this distance was foreshortened to ½
> that. This is not quite true.
>
> Whereas it is true the measurement taken by the ship would show a
> foreshortening - it should be
> recognized that the space does not really contract. What then?
>
> The sqrt(3 light seconds) is 1.732 light seconds - and half that is
> .866 light second. Since the ship
> transits the distance in one second, the passenger calculates his
> velocity to be .866 light second
> per second.
>
> We recognize this is the result of a foreshortened measurement - but
> that the proper distance
> remains 1.732 light seconds. Therefore, we can state that the proper
> velocity of the space ship is
> 1.732 light seconds per second. We recognize this as a superluminal
> velocity.
>
> Thus we see that the true cause for the time differential between a
> moving coordinate system and
> an inertial one is that the moving system is traveling faster than
> measured. The faster velocity is
> the proper velocity, the slower velocity is the relative velocity.
>
> Measurement from the inertial frame is another matter. This
> measurement is strictly a subjective
> one in which the distance to far point does not foreshorten. Thus, in
> the example, the distance to
> be traversed is 1.732 light seconds and the velocity of the ship -
> though having a proper velocity
> of 1.732 light seconds per second - is perceived by the inertial
> observer at .866 light second per
> second by the following considerations:
>
> Einstein has already shown that a rod in a moving coordinate system
> will measure as contracted
> or foreshortened so that will not be repeated here. If we substitute
> the space ship for the rod, we
> conclude that a measurement of the ship also contracts in length.
> Further, we conclude that
> length is the same as distance - and since distance contracts,
> velocity being distance per time,
> also contracts. So every proper velocity has a corresponding relative
> velocity.
>
> Applying that to our example, we conclude that to the inertial
> observer the 1.732 light seconds per
> second proper velocity of the spaceship foreshortens to a relative
> velocity of .866 light second
> per second - and further, the calculated time for transit of the
> 1.732 light second distance is
> 1.732 / .866 or 2 seconds.
>
> But we are not through yet. This is the calculated time not the
> observed time. The observed time
> develops as follows:
>
> The calculated time for transit is 2 seconds. At the end of that time
> the ship will have arrived at
> farpoint - but the inertial observer will not be aware of that until
> the signal of that arrival reaches
> him. At a distance of 1.732 light seconds to farpoint that will take
> an electromagnetic signal 1.732
> seconds.
>
> Thus it will take 2 + 1.732 seconds from departure for the inertial
> observer to observe the
> completed transit.
>
> The observed velocity, then, is distance / time or 1.732 / 3.732 =
> .464 light second per second.
>
> This is based on a relative velocity which is a derivation of a proper
> velocity - and which
> undergoes the mechanism of observation.
>
> If one will consult the Twins Astronomer chart above they will come up
> with the same result.
>
> The time for the outward (up arrows) observation is 3.732 seconds
> elapsed time on earth - and
> the distance (being inertial) is 1.732 light seconds. This 1.732 /
> 3.732 yields an observed velocity
> of .464 c.
>
> One last consideration. Now that we have established superluminal
> velocities, what are the
> complications?
>
> Let us again use the Twins example.
>
> Consulting the charts we see that to the Astronaut the round trip is
> two seconds, whereas to the
> Astronomer it is four seconds. (Let us transpose seconds to years).
>
> What happens when the Astronaut lands and strolls over to stand
> shoulder to shoulder with the
> Astronomer? He must necessarily see the same as does the Astronomer.
> What would that be?
> And would that violate any laws of physics?
>
> We again consult our charts and we see that the landing must take
> place at the first line of
> ASTRONOMER'S TABLE which is two years into his observations. This is
> so because
> Astronaut's journey is two years. Now, what do they both see?
>
> Line 2 (double arrow). Translated, that means they "see" Astronaut
> still on his outward journey
> though he is actually on his way inward. Yes, Astronaut observes
> himself on his outward journey.
>
> This transpires for 1.732 years. At the end of that time both parties
> observe (line 3) Astronaut on
> his way in at the observed velocity of 1.732 light seconds /. 268
> seconds or 6.463 light
> seconds / second. Thus, the inward journey will be observed by both
> for .268 years.
>
> Regardless of first impressions, this violates no laws of physics. Let
> me relate an analogy.
>
> A pilot of a super sonic jet traveling at a super sonic velocity turns
> off his engine and glides
> silently. What does he experience? As he slows down to subsonic
> velocities he hears, as it
> catches up to him, the sonic boom created by his supersonic flight.
> So it is with light.
>
> The question arises, what about the accepted concept that one can
> never chase a light beam and
> catch up to it? *
>
> Consider the following: As one increases their velocity in this
> pursuit, the beam gradually reduces
> in frequency - until at the speed of light, there is no frequency at
> all. If one exceeds this velocity
> and then stops, it violates no law that he perceives the
> electromagnetic vibrations left behind,
> same as the pilot having his sonic boom overtake him. Note that the
> reduction in frequency does
> not alter the fact of the beam always preceding the observer at c
> until the frequency reaches
> zero.
>
> Finally, as a consequence of the above, we see that there is no age
> difference between
> Astronomer and Astronaut. Astronaut lands after two years from
> departure - and Astronomer
> greets him two years into a four year observation, the latter two of
> which they experience
> together.
>
> V. VERGON
> October, 2004
> ----------------------------------------------------
> · CHASING A LIGHT BEAM
> In actuality it is impossible to chase a light beam (or photon) for
> that means it is advancing before the observer. Photons or beams can
> only be observed when they are approaching the observer. Therefore,
> the situation must be that the observer is proceeding in the same
> direction - and within - the light beam. Thus, in actuality, what he
> is observing is the source of the emission - and from that he is
> receding. Should he recede at the speed of light, the observed
> transmission would have a frequency of zero.

Others have dealt with Vertner Vergon's stuff before - no need for me to add
my voice eg see
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?q=Vertner+Vergon+dirk&hl=en&lr=&group=sci.physics.relativity&selm=pNcD8.70612%24Ze.10827%40afrodite.telenet-ops.be&rnum=4

Bill

Relevant Pages

  • Time dilation
    ... ON TIME DILATION AND DOPPLER TIME ... We examine time dilation and find it leads to an unforgiving ... Einstein perceived the differen ce of the clock readings in his ... of time each twin is an observer is equal to the time he is observed. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Explaining Time Dilation
    ... We examine time dilation and find it leads to an unforgiving ... When Einstein perceived the difference of the clock readings ... The velocity is sqrt. ... of time each twin is an observer is equal to the time he is observed. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • TIME FLOW
    ... We examine time dilation and find it leads to an unforgiving ... he stated the moving clock "was slow by ...". ... The velocity is sqrt. ... of time each twin is an observer is equal to the time he is observed. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • SCIENTIFIC METHOD
    ... We examine time dilation and find it leads to an unforgiving ... Einstein perceived the difference of the clock readings in his ... The velocity is sqrt. ... of time each twin is an observer is equal to the time he is observed. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Note: Relativity and FTL Travel FAQ
    ... We examine time dilation and find it leads to an unforgiving ... he stated the moving clock "was slow by ...". ... The velocity is sqrt. ... of time each twin is an observer is equal to the time he is observed. ...
    (sci.physics)