Bart

Sorry for errors pop-up on my posts, but apparently relativistic speed has also a bad influence on my writing. Let's change the question then. I, as an observer on Earth, by Spacenet ask you as the Captain on our spaceship (moving at a speed of 260 000km / s), what is according to the clocks on the ship, the period of flashes of the pulsar 1PPS?

If, for any events and calculations, on an object moving at high speed, must be used according to the SR theory, the units of time, mass and length, as displayed by the local clocks and other measuring devices, then these units for object moving at a speed of 260 000 km / s, will be in fact as follows: Relativistic second will be two times longer than the second on Earth, ie s' = 2s Relativistic kilogram will be two times heavier than the kilogram on Earth, ie kg '= 2kg Relativistic meter will be two times longer than the meter on Earth, ie m '= m / 2 This would mean that the gravitational constant G = 6.6726 E-11 m3/ (kg s2), applied on such object will be then as here: G '= 6.6726 E-11 m'3 / (kg' s'2) = 6.6726 E-11(m / 2) ^ 3 / ((2kg * (2s) ^ 2) = 1.04259 E-12 m3 / (kg s2) . So what will be the relativistic gravitation for the object like the Earth, but moving at a speed of 260 000 km/s ?

Are you sure that this is credible? This is where I have serious doubts. Quote from R.P. Feynman, R.B. Leighton, and M. Sands "... if the theory of relativity is right, the run of any clock, acting on the basis of any rule, will seem slower, (with increasing speed with respect to the observer), and it is in the same proportion - we can state this without further analysis. " Please take your attention on the words "will seem slower" for the observer at rest. It is not a confirmation of physically slowing down of any clock in motion. It may be a real physical illusion only. Let's look at the paraphrased quote : "... If the theory of optic is right, the size and run of any car, acting on the basis of any rule, will seem smaller and slower (with increasing distance from the observer) and it is in the same proportion - we can state this with full mathematical and experimental confirmation. " But we know that it is only real illusion.

. Not the second as the reference unit but time indications may not agree, if the clocks are ticked from a varies local generators, then their "second" may be longer or shorter than the true reference second, generated from the pulsar 1PPS. Therefore, we can not call such a local clock "second" as the second, because it will be a completely different unit, which for our spaceship local ticked clock will last according SR two true seconds as in the definition: The second as the reference unit of time, was defined as a time equal to 1/86400 part of the Earth’s day , which later for practical reason, was adopted as 192 631 770 periods of radiation corresponding to the transition between the two levels of the ground state hyperfine structure of atom cesium-133 at rest at 0 K and at standard gravitation on Earth. If, in our example, all clocks will be ticked from one source which is the pulsar 1PPS, then the seconds and time indications on the clocks will be the same in all frames of reference. Thus we return to post # 1.

I think we do not understand each other. If you do not have one common reference unit of time, than on what basis you find that time in one frame of reference elapses slower or faster than in the other? The comparison of it is not possible.

Could you explain it, please? If were so, that the basic physical units such as second, meter and kilogram were not universal and could be different units in various frames of reference, that were other than these units on Earth, that would mean, that in different reference frames would be used laws and physical constants different than those on Earth. Is that you wanted to say? How therefore for example, will look the gravitational constant on XXL object, or on the spaceship, as on Earth it is G= 6,6726E-11 m3/(kg s2), where m, kg, s are the cleary defined units on Earth ? So I repeat my position that any discussions about time in different frames of reference, become irrelevant and senseless, if the second as a reference unit is not the same as on Earth.

The formula for the relativistic transverse Doppler effect for the pulse frequency of the pulsar is: fo = fe *((c^2 - v^2)^0,5)/(c±vcosθ) where fe is the emitted frequency of the pulsar, fo is the detected frequency on the spaceship, θ is the angle of detection and v is + for recession and – for approach . For our spaceship cos θ is always = 0, so for the speed v =260 000 km/s fo = fe/2 It can therefore be concluded that despite the fact that during the travel of spaceship , 3600 pulses (bullets) per hour fired from the pulsar (gun) P will reach (hit) the ship , the clock/counter on the ship will count only half of these pulses (bullets), ie 1800. Where have gone the rest of the pulses (bullets)? This is an absurd of relativity theory! But, absolutely has to be something like a master unit of time and is, it is the second, equals 1/86400 Earth's day . If that were not, any discussions about time in different frames of reference, become irrelevant and senseless.

The clock as the time measurement device is simply a counter of reference pulses, produced by selected timing system (mechanical, electrical, atomic, astronomical), depending on the technology of the clock. The basic unit of time for all clocks, which is the second, is based primarily on astronomical frame of reference as 1/86400 of the Earth day. So defined a second, as a reference unit of time, must always be constant and invariant. It is a fundamental condition that it was possible to measure the true time in any frame of reference. With this in mind, below is presented a simple graphical proof that the interpretation of the theory of relativity in terms of time, stating that: - time slows down in the moving frames of reference, relative to the time in the frame at rest, and that; - time slows down with increasing gravity, it is not true. The following figure shows an example in which from Earth at a speed such as 260000 km / s, a vehicle is traveling in the direction of a very massive object XXL, with its mass of 1000 suns and in a distance 1 light year from Earth. In order not to take into account the Doppler effect, the vehicle moves in a direction perpendicular to the direction of incoming light pulses from a very distant pulsar P. Calculated on Earth the vehicle travel time, to and fro, with 1 year stay on the object XXL, is a total of about 3.4 years. . Pulsar P (> 1 k l.y from Earth) . ! ! ! . ! ! ! . ! ! ! . ! ! ! . ! 1 sec pulses from the very far pulsar ! . ! ! ! . ! ! ! . Earth ---->-------------vehicle-------------------<---Very massive object XXL (distance 1l.y.) According to the theory of relativity, clocks in a moving vehicle, as well as on the massive object XXL, will run more slowly, regardless of their construction. So the clock in the moving vehicle at 260 000 km / s, will run two times slower than on Earth, and the correspondingly slower on the XXL object, due to greater gravity there. After returning to Earth after 3.4 years, the clock in the vehicle will therefore show a measured time, shorter at least 1.14 years then the clocks on Earth. This difference of time indicated by clocks is interpreted by SR as a time dilation, and not was duo to clock technological reasons. Does this interpretation is indeed correct? As you can see from the figure, if the clocks on Earth, in the moving vehicle and on the XXL object, will be ticked from approved for all clocks, one standard source of pulses in the form of pulsar P, whose period be equal to 1sec., then the all clocks will always indicate the same time, regardless of the frame of reference. As can be seen, there may not be any time dilation. Time on Earth, in the vehicle moving with any speed, or on the massive XXL object, measured on the basis of a common master of the time unit , will always elapse at the same rate. So this is a proof that the interpretation of time dilation by SR is wrong. This statement does not exclude the truth of the claim that under certain conditions the clocks may go slower (or faster), but it is related to the technology of these clocks, not time itself. For example, atomic clock closed in the refrigerator will run slower than the same clock on the outside, which does not mean that time elapse slower in the fridge than outside.

As I mention in post # 7 , some fluctuations of the speed curve for the Milky Way, presented on Wikipedia drawing, may result from the increased concentration of mass in the galaxy spiral arms, in relation to the area between these arms. You can easily model this curve by yourself in “Sagitarius BR” , by increasing and decreasing, respectively, the distribution percentage of mass along the radius of the disk of the galaxy. For instance, if you use mass distribution model like to this: Ring #: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Mass %: 15 2 3,5 3,47 10 2 7 8 7 5,2 5 4,95 4,30 4,10 4,6 4 3,50 2,5 2,43 2 you will have stellar rotational velocity curve very similar to that of Vikipedia:

This is all true, but it applies only to the planetary calculations, where on the planet interact gravitational force only from one star. In the calculations of orbital speed of stars in galaxies, on every single star interacts gravity of all the other stars in the galaxy (including the mass of interstellar gas halo). We must therefore take into calculations, the total resultant force of all these interactions. And that is simple and the basic principle of calculations for the orbital speed of stars in the “Sagitarius BR” program. The calculations of the “Sagitarius BR” are based solely on Newton's laws, so these calculations are easily mathematically verifiable for anyone who may have some doubts. There are no dark tricks, no speculations, so there is no reason to correct errors of the adopted method. I hope that if you carefully read the description of the program, given on the link in post # 1, and check the operation of this program, available on the link: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/26262175/SagitariusBRprogramForCalculationsOfSpeedOfStars.xlsx , then you get rid of your doubts concerning the method of calculations adopted in this program. Surprising is the fact that the calculations of the “Sagitarius BR” for selected models of galaxies, show good agreement with the observed rates of stars. This is what gave rise to a critical look at the views that support the existence of dark matter (non baryonic) in galaxies , and in the amount almost five times the amount of normal matter.

The program "Sagitarius BR" is a very handy analytical tool that uses a method based on Newton's laws of motion. This method is clearly outlined in the program description (on te link in post #1) and give results consistent with observations. The assumptions adopted by mainstream science, applied probably method improper for galaxies, based on Kepler's laws (fig. from Web). Hence, the arising discrepancy between the observed speeds of the stars, and the calculations of the mainstream and which now trying to explain and justify it, for various weird ways. There is no clear consensus on this issue in mainstream science. In addition to dark matter are presented other equivalent attempts to explain the uniform speed of stars in galaxies, without dark matter (MSTG or MOND). An example of a scientific paper in this issue is the link: http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/636/2/721/fulltext/63031.text.html All of the above assumptions of mainstream science, are highly speculative and, as such, may be just conflicting to reality, as well. Observations/calculations of astronomers that ACG52 points out in post # 3, are doubtful about the dark matter, in the light of later observations of a gas halo pointed in post # 1.

On the Internet there are many curves presented for the observed rotation speeds of spiral galaxies, including the Milky Way. Most of the curves is very similar in shape. A number of such examples is shown in the link: http://www.google.pl/searchq=rotation+curves+of+spiral+galaxies&hl=pl&tbo=u&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=5bkUUfjdIqSn4ATe_4CwBA&ved=0CEoQsAQ&biw=1366&bih=600 The observed rotation speeds of galaxies, for example NGC 5033, NGC 801, NGC2998, NGC 2008, NGC 4157, NGC 7331 are constant or flat , similar to those of the Milky Way, with the same speed of about 220km/s across the width of the disk of the galaxy. Presented on Wikipedia some fluctuation of the curve for the Milky Way, may result from the increased concentration of mass in the galaxy spiral arms in relation to the area between these arms. In the above program, Sagitarius BR, you can easily modeled yourself, one or another shape of the curve for the stellar rotational velocity by increasing and decreasing, respectively, the percentage of mass distribution along the radius of the disk of the galaxy. It is worth to check it out for yourself for the Milky Way. The program Sagitarius BR in a convincing way shows that the observed rate of stars in spiral galaxies, may result from the natural distribution of mass (baryonic) in these galaxies, and the exotic dark matter or the MOND or MSTG, is not necessary to explain these rates.

Mathematic : "You are mxing up several different issues. Dark matter(1), dark matter in our neighborhood(2), missing baryons(3). Current model has non-baryonic matter ~ 25%, Baryonic matter ~ 4.5 %, with dark energy the rest. Since dark matter is believed to be more uniformly spread out over the galaxy, the amount in our neighborhood would be relatively small (2). Although baryonic matter is ~ 4.5%, visible baryonic matter (stars and hot gas clouds) make up about 1%, so something is needed for the rest, such as cold gas clouds, brown dwarfs, etc.(3) I'll leave it to others to respond to (1)." According to an observation, the Milky may have at least 100 billion stars, and planetary transit observations indicate that there may be at least as many planets bound to stars as there are stars in the Milky Way. It may means that the visible matter of the Milky Way can be estimated as at least 1.0x10^11 solar masses. If we add to this the mass of the gas halo, the total baryonic mass of the Milky Way, at the low end of the estimate range, will be 2.5x10^11 solar masses. If there was dark matter(non-baryonic), and it is more than five times greater amount of the baryonic matter, then the mass of the galaxy would be at least 1.25x10^12 solar masses, and the speed of rotation of the stars in the galaxy, as calculated by the program Sagitarius BR ( on the above link) , for the estimated diameter of the galaxy 200kly , would have to be about 500 km/s, and in fact, is observed only about 220 km/s . So dark matter in our galaxy does not occur.

In 2011 on the link: : http://dl.dropbox.com/u/26262175/SagitariusBRprogramDescription.pdf was presented a friendly computer program which explicitly showed that the observed the uniform orbital speed of stars in spiral galaxies, may result from the natural distribution of mass of the stars and gas halo in these galaxies. This contradicted the current claim of the existence of dark matter (non-baryonic) in these galaxies, as the dominant component of their gravitational mass, and the perpetrator of that uniform speed of stars. It turned out that the calculations of that program have been fully confirmed in 2012 by recent discoveries of astronomers (brief reminder of these findings, below). In light of these facts, we could conclude that the problem of dark matter has already been explained, and the case of this matter should probably be closed. Is not it so? "New studies suggest lack of mysterious dark matter in the vicinity of the Sun. These conclusions emerge from the analysis of the movements of the stars in the Milky Way conducted by a team of astronomers in Chile - tells European Southern Observatory (ESO). A team of researchers from the Universities of Chile and the European Southern Observatory has used several telescopes to investigate the movements of more than 400 stars located at distances of up to 13 000 light-years from the Sun. The largest ever study of movements of the stars in the Milky Way, on space, four times larger than the previous analysis. The results are surprising - there is no evidence for the existence of dark matter in the immediate vicinity of the Sun in the galaxy.” ( PAP, April 2012) “Astronomers have discovered a cloud of gas engulfing our Milky Way galaxy that weighs as much as all the stars inside our galactic home. If the size and mass of this cloud is confirmed, it may solve a longstanding astronomical mystery, experts say. The cloud, called a halo, appears to be enormous, extending hundreds of thousands of light-years across. Scientists suspect it is composed mainly of hydrogen, with some oxygen and other elements. The halo's temperature, size and mass were estimated using data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory, the European Space Agency's XMM-Newton space observatory and Japan's Suzaku satellite. Researchers think the mass inside this halo could be the answer to what's called the "missing baryon problem." ” (by SPACE.com Staff, Oct. 2012)

Mass of the example object XXL is 100 solar masses and has been shown in the post #21 and #31. It was not my intention to overturn the theory of relativity, but only the removal of its mysticism, and doubts of interpretation that are still open. Endless discussions and arguments on this theory, almost in the style of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and how it depends on the obesity of these angels and the speed of their dance, may give the impression that that theory is no longer science but has already become a kind of religion, that can not be overturned. I'm sorry if this sentence offended anyone.

And here you are wrong. If we denote the rotation period of Mars measured from the Earth as To, the rotation period of Mars measured from the object XXL will be T1 = To(c + v) / c, when the object XXL is moving away from Mars with the speed v, and T2 = To (c-v) / c, when the object XXL approaches Mars with the speed v. This is a simple change of the period resulting from the classical Doppler effect. But the most important, as a result of your answer is that the rotation period of Mars measured from the object XXL is independent from the mass of that object. You confirm therefore my opinion that current interpretation of the gravitational time dilation is wrong.

If my objection to the current interpretation of time dilation is incorrect, please answer what will be the rotation period of Mars measured from the object XXL, if this period measured from the Earth is 24h37m23s?

The first postulate of SR says: The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference. For the true description of the events with compliance to this postulate, must necessarily be applied the same physical constants and the same measurement units (meters, kilograms,seconds), identical for all reference frames. Thus the second as the reference unit of time, which according to its original definition is 1/86400 of the day, must be constant. So on the object XXL and on any other object, the second also must be 1/86400 part of the full diurnal rotation of the Earth. This may not be any"second" as measured by local clocks, which are late or fast (from the reasons given by the theory of relativity), because it is not the true second, but just a completely different unit of time. It can not therefore identify changes in the ticking rate of local clocks as the change of the passage rate of time, as measured in constant units of reference which are the true seconds. And this is the error of the current interpretation of time dilation.

GPS works but it is not a matter of time dilation, but the technological properties of the light clocks. It was explained in the post #37. And what about the gravitational constant on the object XXL? Happy are the people who never have any doubts. Thanks for the nice discussion. Bart

I see that there is still lack of clarity of understanding on the ensuring of uniform ticking rate for all clocks. For better understanding this case, forget here about minutes and seconds. All local clocks on Earth and wherever they are, are scaled in the UTU units and are tuned to the main master clock, which is the pulsar P1. Each time if the local clock is moved to another location, must be in the new location retuned to the master clock. Ordinary atomic clocks have its stability of the order of 10E-10, which means that such a local clock, after tuning in the new location to the master clock, will indicate at least for a period of several years, the time consistent to the master clock (P1) with an accuracy of 1 second. Temporary lack of visibility of the master clock will not affect the ticking rate of these local clocks. Thus, these clocks will everywhere show the same time, regardless of the mass of the object and the gravity at the place of installation. Therefore, our cake under the same environmental conditions will be baked for 20 UTU, everywhere. This is not so sure. The man probably never know the true nature of the universe. Some calculations based on Newtonian physics are fully consistent with the observations. An illustrative example of this is presented on the following link: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/26262175/SagitariusBRprogramDescription.pdf The assumption that only the theory of relativity can properly describe the universe, requires explicit confirmation that this theory is fully correct and consistent with reality. Even this thread shows that there is a lot of doubts. To explain this issue I repeat here my question from the previous post, whether the relativity theory is ideed consistent and universal, on an example of the gravitational constant G. G = 6,67384(80) * 10E-11 m3/kg sec2 Question: What is the gravitational constant for the calculations made on the object XXL which moves at a constant speed v, where the second on this object is no longer the true second because (according SR and GR) time slows down there, and the meter is not the true meter because of the contraction and the kilogram is no longer the true kilogram of the rest mass?

I do not understand this.Could you explain it more detail? What do you mean by the standard of time? The standard of time in our physics is the second. The original definition of the second was such that it is 1/86400 of the diurnal rotation of the Earth. For practical reasons in 1967, this definition has been changed (converted) to the frequency of the cesium atomic clock. This must be strongly stressed that the second as a unit of time, is unambiguously associated with the diurnal rotation of the Earth and not with the ticking of one or another clock, wherever they are located. Conversion of the seconds for the UTUs units does not change the passage rate of time, just as conversion centimeters to inches does not change the length of the stick. If your watch is late (or fast) and to correct this a watchmaker do precision adjustment of the ticking frequency of the watch, it does not mean that before the adjusment of the watch, your time passed more slowly than after making adjustments. The application of UTUs units of time maintains in full all the laws of Newtonian physics. In relation to the theory of relativity, let's first explain whether it is indeed cosistent and universal, as on the example of the gravitational constant G.: G = 6,67384(80) *10E-11 m3/kg sec2 Question: What is the gravitational constant for the calculations made on the object XXL moving at high speed v, where the second is no longer the true second, because time slows down there, and the meter is not the true meter, because of the contraction and the kilogram is no longer the true kilogram of the rest mass?

It's not like you mean it. Such a recipe for cake baking : "Bake for 20 UTUs" is useless wherever you baked this cake, even on Earth. If in the recipe you specify that cake should bake for 20 UTUs, at 200 ° C, at a pressure of air of 1 atm , etc. , then you bake this cake in 20UTUs in any place in universe. It is not true. The ticking frequency of the local reference atomic clocks can be slowed down or speed up, its no problem, so these clocks will tick at the same rate as the reference pulsar clock. The existing laws of physics will not be affected in the slightest degree, just the contrary, they become more universal and explicit than it is today.

I think that you did not understand properly the presented ideas. If for all clocks in the universe will be applied a selected pulsar as the reference clock, instead of the local atomic clocks, then everywhere in the universe we will have measured time in the same universal units of time UTU (let's say universal seconds). Such clocks from the user point of view do not differ at all from the present clocks, but they provide the measurements of time at the same tick rate, everywhere in the space. So wherever you are on Earth, the Moon, or on any other object in space, the passage of time as measured on your watch will be exactly the same as on Earth, and the time dilation disappears from the physics textbooks, forever. So, these are the fundamental benefits of the universal time units UTU. I stress it again that this is not speculation but the reality!

I am not saying that the time depends on the environment. I say that the ticking of the clocks is dependent on the physical conditions under which they work, which include: gravity, velocity, temperature, etc. Please note that I do not question the correctness of the theory of relativity, in its calculation of the time dilation, but I question its interpretation of this fact, and this is something completely different. The ticking frequency of the atomic clocks in GPS satellites are slowed down just before they are launched into orbit (to get 45-7=38 microseconds delay per day on the ground), so that once they are placed in their proper orbit, these clocks tick at the correct rate as compared to the reference atomic clocks at the GPS ground stations. So this is fully consistent with my conclusion: The time dilation of clocks is in fact the immanent property (fault) of these tools, by which we measure the passage of time, and which may be late or fast in relation to the reference clock, for various legitimate reasons. Such clocks should just tune on site to the reference clock, and not to treat discrepancies of their tick as the time dilation. Not at all. I do not say that your cake will need 100 ticks to be baked at any location in space, regardless of the conditions there. I claim that looking at your frying pan through a telescope from anywhere in the universe, I will always see that you are baking your cake for 100 ticks, it is the same as you. If in other conditions, you will need 90 ticks to bake your cake, then I will also see 90 ticks. The frequency of light is exactly the same parameter as the frequency of atom cesium in the atomic clocks. Atomic clocks as a special kind of light clocks are dependent on gravity, speed and may be affected by magnetic and electric fields.

A more complete commentary on this thread is shown in the link: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/26262175/TimeInUniverse.pdf I think that it is difficult to deny the conclusions presented in it. This is no longer speculations, but given the real facts.