Daedalus 330 Posted April 5, 2017 (edited) I believe this is what he is trying to say: Planck time is the smallest unit of time which is available to us. If it is the smallest unit, then it cannot get any smaller, i.e. cannot get dilated into a smaller unit. Correct and correct. the evidence is that there is no space between increments of the future becoming the ''now'' and then the ''now'' becoming the past. Photons travel a distance indeed, but the time it takes for the ''second'' wave packet to hit your eyes is almost negligible. Time dilation is nothing to do with time and length, time dilation is a change in output rate. Time dilation has nothing to do with how often photons are emitted or detected. It doesn't matter if the second photon was detected in a negligible amount of time or instantaneously from the first photon. Furthermore, it doesn't matter if the passage of time occurs in increments of Planck time. When considering time dilation in special relativity, the only things that matters are the constancy of the speed of light, the relative speed of the object being observed in the chosen coordinate system, and that the passage of time occurs. Please discuss the affect if Planck time was used as the rate of time, I am quite sure relativity changes. Look, I understand that you have an idea about what time "actually" is but, before you make claims that time dilation is busted, you really need to understand what time dilation is and how to derive the equations mathematically. Otherwise, you end up with a bunch of statements that make no sense at all. First, we need to agree on a few things before we can actually understand what scientists are referring to when they talk about time dilation. The passage of time occurs. How it occurs is not important; only that is does. We can always choose a coordinate system where the object being observed changes position through space. The speed of light is constant regardless of the chosen coordinate system. Now, let's consider two identical light clocks where the reflector plates are separated exactly one-half the distance defined by the Planck length. Light clocks measure time by "bouncing" a photon between two reflectors. Because the speed of light is constant, it will take exactly one Plank time for the light to go from the bottom plate to the top plate and from the top plate back to the bottom plate when the clocks are at rest relative to the observer. Figure 1 illustrates the path that photons traverse when the light clock is at rest relative to the observer. Figure 1: A light clock at rest relative to the observer. Let [math]\mathcal{L}[/math] equal the distance between the reflective plates of the light clock. Because photons traverse the distance between the reflective plates at the speed of light, the total amount of time it takes for photons to go up and back down is equal to [math]\Delta t=\frac{2\mathcal{L}}{c}=\frac{\sqrt{\frac{\hbar G}{c^3}}}{\sqrt{c^2}}=\sqrt{\frac{\hbar G}{c^5}}[/math]. As we can see, when the light clock is at rest relative to the observer, each tick of the clock occurs at intervals of Planck time. So far, everything is easy to understand, and we've managed to capture part of your idea that time occurs at discreet intervals of Plank time as defined by how our light clocks actually measure time. Now, let's consider a light clock that is moving with a constant speed relative to the observer. Figure 2: A light clock in motion relative to the observer. As illustrated by Figure 2, the distance light has to traverse between the two plates has increased because the clock is in motion relative to the observer. Photons can no longer move up and down and remain between the reflective plates of the light clock in motion. The path the photons traverse must also consider that the plates have moved through space with a speed of [math]v[/math] for every interval of time measured. Because we know how fast the clock is moving relative to the observer, the distance the clock has moved for each interval of time is equal to [math]v\Delta \tau[/math]. Using the distance between the plates and the distance the clock has moved for each interval of time, we can apply the Pythagorean theorem to calculate the total distance, [math]\mathcal{R}[/math], photons must traverse between each plates. [math]\mathcal{R}=\sqrt{\left(\frac{1}{2}v\Delta \tau\right)^2+\left(\mathcal{L}\right)^2}[/math] The total distance the photons have to traverse for each tick of the clock that is in motion as measured by the observer at rest is equal to [math]2\mathcal{R}[/math]. However, the speed of light is constant. So, the total amount of time the photons take to bounce between the plates is equal to [math]\Delta \tau=\frac{2\mathcal{R}}{c}[/math], [math]\Delta \tau=\frac{2\sqrt{\left(\frac{1}{2}v\Delta \tau\right)^2+\left(\mathcal{L}\right)^2}}{c}[/math]. Solving for [math]\Delta \tau[/math] we get: [math]\Delta \tau^2=\left(\frac{2\sqrt{\left(\frac{1}{2}v\Delta \tau\right)^2+\left(\mathcal{L}\right)^2}}{c}\right)^2=\frac{v^2\Delta\tau^2+4\mathcal{L}^2}{c^2}[/math] Multiply both sides by [math]c^2[/math]: [math]c^2\Delta \tau^2=v^2\Delta\tau^2+4\mathcal{L}^2[/math] Move the [math]\Delta \tau[/math] terms to the left side: [math]c^2\Delta \tau^2-v^2\Delta\tau^2=4\mathcal{L}^2[/math] Factor out [math]\Delta \tau^2[/math] from the left side: [math]\Delta \tau^2\left(c^2-v^2\right)=4\mathcal{L}^2[/math] Divide both sides by [math]c^2-v^2[/math]: [math]\Delta \tau^2=\frac{4\mathcal{L}^2}{c^2-v^2}[/math] Factor out [math]4\mathcal{L}^2/c^2[/math] from the right side: [math]\Delta \tau^2=\frac{4\mathcal{L}^2}{c^2}\frac{1}{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}[/math] Take the square root of both sides: [math]\Delta \tau=\frac{2\mathcal{L}}{c}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}[/math] Because [math]\Delta t=2\mathcal{L}/c[/math], we can substitute in [math]\Delta t[/math] and arrive at the equation for time dilation in special relativity: [math]\Delta \tau=\frac{\Delta t}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}[/math] This is a mathematical definition for what time dilation is according to special relativity, and our experiments confirm that this form of time dilation does, in fact, exist! Pretty cool huh? ... I am quite sure relativity changes. As you can see, time dilation doesn't depend on any of these crazy notions you keep repeating, and relativity didn't change. Edited April 5, 2017 by Daedalus 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

JohnLesser 63 Posted April 5, 2017 (edited) It cannot be disputed because it makes no sense. If I asked you to dispute the statement: ''time travel at the nearest so far planck speed of zero'', you couldn't, because the sentence doesn't represent a coherent thought. You have been told NUMEROUS times that all this talk about ''going into the past'', ''displacing zero'', ''leaving the past'', etc. doesn't mean anything. In order for something to be eligible for disputation, it needs to follow a logical structure. Then, someone can point out the flaw in the logic. You cannot dispute that which contains no logic in the first place. Poppycock, again a vein attempt and again a lie. The sentence is a single line in plane English. Can anyone on this forum displace 0 without leaving a past geometrical position or past chronological position? That is understandable so stop lying in avoidance by trying to say you can't understand it. Time dilation has nothing to do with how often photons are emitted or detected. It doesn't matter if the second photon was detected in a negligible amount of time or instantaneously from the first photon. Furthermore, it doesn't matter if the passage of time occurs in increments of Planck time. When considering time dilation in special relativity, the only things that matters are the constancy of the speed of light, the relative speed of the object being observed in the chosen coordinate system, and that the passage of time occurs. Look, I understand that you have an idea about what time "actually" is but, before you make claims that time dilation is busted, you really need to understand what time dilation is and how to derive the equations mathematically. Otherwise, you end up with a bunch of statements that make no sense at all. First, we need to agree on a few things before we can actually understand what scientists are referring to when they talk about time dilation. The passage of time occurs. How it occurs is not important; only that is does. We can always choose a coordinate system where the object being observed changes position through space. The speed of light is constant regardless of the chosen coordinate system. Now, let's consider two identical light clocks where the reflector plates are separated exactly one-half the distance defined by the Planck length. Light clocks measure time by "bouncing" a photon between two reflectors. Because the speed of light is constant, it will take exactly one Plank time for the light to go from the bottom plate to the top plate and from the top plate back to the bottom plate when the clocks are at rest relative to the observer. Figure 1 illustrates the path that photons traverse when the light clock is at rest relative to the observer. LightClockAtRest.png Figure 1: A light clock at rest relative to the observer. Let [math]\mathcal{L}[/math] equal the distance between the reflective plates of the light clock. Because photons traverse the distance between the reflective plates at the speed of light, the total amount of time it takes for photons to go up and back down is equal to [math]\Delta t=\frac{2\mathcal{L}}{c}=\frac{\sqrt{\frac{\hbar G}{c^3}}}{\sqrt{c^2}}=\sqrt{\frac{\hbar G}{c^5}}[/math]. As we can see, when the light clock is at rest relative to the observer, each tick of the clock occurs at intervals of Planck time. So far, everything is easy to understand, and we've managed to capture part of your idea that time occurs at discreet intervals of Plank time as defined by how our light clocks actually measure time. Now, let's consider a light clock that is moving with a constant speed relative to the observer. LightClockInMotion.png Figure 2: A light clock in motion relative to the observer. As illustrated by Figure 2, the distance light has to traverse between the two plates has increased because the clock is in motion relative to the observer. Photons can no longer move up and down and remain between the reflective plates of the light clock in motion. The path the photons traverse must also consider that the plates have moved through space with a speed of [math]v[/math] for every interval of time measured. Because we know how fast the clock is moving relative to the observer, the distance the clock has moved for each interval of time is equal to [math]v\Delta \tau[/math]. Using the distance between the plates and the distance the clock has moved for each interval of time, we can apply the Pythagorean theorem to calculate the total distance, [math]\mathcal{R}[/math], photons must traverse between each plates. [math]\mathcal{R}=\sqrt{\left(\frac{1}{2}v\Delta \tau\right)^2+\left(\mathcal{L}\right)^2}[/math] The total distance the photons have to traverse for each tick of the clock that is in motion as measured by the observer at rest is equal to [math]2\mathcal{R}[/math]. However, the speed of light is constant. So, the total amount of time the photons take to bounce between the plates is equal to [math]\Delta \tau=\frac{2\mathcal{R}}{c}[/math], [math]\Delta \tau=\frac{2\sqrt{\left(\frac{1}{2}v\Delta \tau\right)^2+\left(\mathcal{L}\right)^2}}{c}[/math]. Solving for [math]\Delta \tau[/math] we get: [math]\Delta \tau^2=\left(\frac{2\sqrt{\left(\frac{1}{2}v\Delta \tau\right)^2+\left(\mathcal{L}\right)^2}}{c}\right)^2=\frac{v^2\Delta\tau^2+4\mathcal{L}^2}{c^2}[/math] Multiply both sides by [math]c^2[/math]: [math]c^2\Delta \tau^2=v^2\Delta\tau^2+4\mathcal{L}^2[/math] Move the [math]\Delta \tau[/math] terms to the left side: [math]c^2\Delta \tau^2-v^2\Delta\tau^2=4\mathcal{L}^2[/math] Factor out [math]\Delta \tau^2[/math] from the left side: [math]\Delta \tau^2\left(c^2-v^2\right)=4\mathcal{L}^2[/math] Divide both sides by [math]c^2-v^2[/math]: [math]\Delta \tau^2=\frac{4\mathcal{L}^2}{c^2-v^2}[/math] Factor out [math]4\mathcal{L}^2/c^2[/math] from the right side: [math]\Delta \tau^2=\frac{4\mathcal{L}^2}{c^2}\frac{1}{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}[/math] Take the square root of both sides: [math]\Delta \tau=\frac{2\mathcal{L}}{c}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}[/math] Because [math]\Delta t=2\mathcal{L}/c[/math], we can substitute in [math]\Delta t[/math] and arrive at the equation for time dilation in special relativity: [math]\Delta \tau=\frac{\Delta t}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}[/math] This is a mathematical definition of what time dilation is according to special relativity, and our experiments confirm that this form of time dilation does, in fact, exist! Pretty cool huh? As you can see, time dilation doesn't depend on any of these crazy notions you keep repeating, and relativity didn't change. I appreciate your great effort, however again avoidance of the statement that shows time dilation is not true. I predicted this would happen. You don't seem to realise that I know what time dilation is and about, yes you are correct in that I could not do the maths required, but the point is I don't require maths for something that doe's not happen. displace 0 without leaving a past geometrical position or past chronological position You can not have a time dilation unless you can displace 0 without leaving a past If you are unsure of what 0 is, 0 is always equal to the present. 3s............2s.............1s............0 There is no forward of 0. Edited April 5, 2017 by JohnLesser -3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

Daedalus 330 Posted April 5, 2017 I appreciate your great effort, however again avoidance of the statement that shows time dilation is not true. I predicted this would happen. Unfortunately, you haven't made a single statement that shows time dilation is not true. You can continue to ignore everyone here and all of the experimental evidence all you like. Your idea isn't even expressed in the form of a valid scientific theory. So, you've got a tremendous amount of work you need to do and experiments to conduct if you want to dethrone relativity. Of course, considering that cookies can't think, you definitely are the smartest one in the jar ; ) 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

JohnLesser 63 Posted April 5, 2017 (edited) Unfortunately, you haven't made a single statement that shows time dilation is not true. You can continue to ignore everyone here and all of the experimental evidence all you like. Your idea isn't even expressed in the form of a valid scientific theory. So, you've got a tremendous amount of work you need to do and experiments to conduct if you want to dethrone relativity. Of course, considering that cookies can't think, you definitely are the smartest one in the jar ; ) The second prediction, ridicule. There is no point me even trying to explain is there? It would not matter if I wrote an article that was as good as any paper, you will always avoid the actual question and reply with some form of poppycock. You do not like it because it bothers your ego's. Years of science to be overturned by a single sentence. Well like it or not the single sentence is fact, you can't try to force your beliefs on me when the hard facts show you are wrong. Edited April 5, 2017 by JohnLesser -2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

Daedalus 330 Posted April 5, 2017 The second prediction, ridicule. There is no point me even trying to explain is there? It would not matter if I wrote an article that was as good as any paper, you will always avoid the actual question and reply with some form of poppycock. You do not like it because it bothers your ego's. Years of science to be overturned by a single sentence. Well like it or not the single sentence is fact, you can't try to force your beliefs on me when the hard facts show you are wrong. Well, it's better to be a Rick than a Morty 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

iNow 5835 Posted April 5, 2017 The sentence is a single line in plane English. *plain 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

JohnLesser 63 Posted April 5, 2017 Well, it's better to be a Rick than a Morty It's better to be correct than wrong. Have you even attempted to think how you can displace 0 without creating an immediate past? *plain Correct, but you knew what I meant so all good. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

JohnLesser 63 Posted April 5, 2017 Details matter True, but sometimes a simple sentence is all the details we need to ''observe'' something new. My statement of logic reinforces Newton claims of absolute time. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

Daedalus 330 Posted April 5, 2017 Have you even attempted to think how you can displace 0 without creating an immediate past? Do you realize how nonsensical that statement is? 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

JohnLesser 63 Posted April 5, 2017 (edited) Do you realize how nonsensical that statement is? RickAndMorty.jpg If you genuine don't understand it , why not ask in a genuine manner? The statement is not nonsensical, no offence a child could understand it. Ok try this , it may help you understand Displace the dot without leaving an immediate past: . 0 is representative of 0 time and 0 distance The point is you can not displace the dot without an immediate past, it is the exact same way with time. There is no space from moving from one moment of time to the next. So if you can imagine the two twins, one on earth and the other on another planet, they have the same dilemma. They can both agree they can displace the dot at the exact same rate or at different rates, but it would not affect the actual rate of immediate. Edited April 5, 2017 by JohnLesser 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

Daedalus 330 Posted April 5, 2017 If you genuine don't understand it , why not ask in a genuine manner? The statement is not nonsensical, no offence a child could understand it. Ok try this , it may help you understand Displace the dot without leaving an immediate past: Again, repeating something doesn't somehow manifests itself into a theory of how time dilation is busted. It doesn't matter if you want me to imagine a rocket at the coordinates (0,0,0) and move it to (0,1,0) without requiring the passage of time or leaving an immediate past as you like to call it. None of that nonsense supports your claims that time dilation is busted. The sad thing is that you didn't even try to understand the post where I explained relativity to you because you are firm in the understanding that you must be right and everyone else is wrong. Quite frankly, I could care less if you wish to remain ignorant, at least I tried. There is no amount of nonsense that you can spout to change anyone's mind. To do that, you need to define your ideas with the same rigor that is expected of everyone else. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

JohnLesser 63 Posted April 5, 2017 (edited) Again, repeating something doesn't somehow manifests itself into a theory of how time dilation is busted. It doesn't matter if you want me to imagine a rocket at the coordinates (0,0,0) and move it to (0,1,0) without requiring the passage of time or leaving an immediate past as you like to call it. None of that nonsense supports your claims that time dilation is busted. The sad thing is that you didn't even try to understand the post where I explained relativity to you because you are firm in the understanding that you must be right and everyone else is wrong. Quite frankly, I could care less if you wish to remain ignorant, at least I tried. There is no amount of nonsense that you can spout to change anyone's mind. To do that, you need to define your ideas with the same rigor that is expected of everyone else. I already understand the relativity post you provided, I appreciate your efforts and will probably read it a few times to make sure I miss nothing. I am not arguing that there is no maths for a time dilation based on relativity etc. I repeat because obviously you are not understanding something relatively simple. Let me change the context slightly. Twin one on Earth time passes for him at an immediate rate Twin two on Venus time passes for him at an immediate rate (consider the dot whilst you consider the above) Please explain how and where there is a time dilation? when the truth is immediate rates can not dilate. Edited April 5, 2017 by JohnLesser -1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

Phi for All 5871 Posted April 5, 2017 I already understand the relativity post you provided, I appreciate your efforts and will probably read it a few times to make sure I miss nothing. ! Moderator Note No. It's clear you don't understand relativity. There are people who make a living using this science, and they're trying to tell you you are WRONG. You are a classic example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, and you overrate your knowledge and abilities in science to such an extent that you've resorted to insisting you're right but can't show anyone else. You clearly aren't trying to remedy this ignorance, and you're ignoring any attempts to help you. Worse, you seem convinced everyone who understands relativity is in a conspiracy against you, and your bias is so strong that you become further convinced you're being tricked. You reached your conclusions emotionally, so any rational attempt to reason with you fails. You won't be fit to discuss anything with until you solve this personal problem. You can't keep posting here if all you're going to do is guess while insisting you're right. I can't continue to put the rest of the membership through the kind of denial hell you inflict on discussions. You're suspended pending staff review, and I'm going to recommend that, because you can't follow the rules we have, we ban you so you can find a place that appreciates your remolding of science. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites