# Clocks do not confirm theory of relativity

## Recommended Posts

On the link is presented one-page article, which clearly shows that the current interpretation of the theory of relativity, on the slowing down of clocks in motion and time dilation, is wrong.

##### Share on other sites

Scientists with relativity have sufficient financing therefore they don't need right theory.

##### Share on other sites

On the link is presented one-page article, which clearly shows that the current interpretation of the theory of relativity, on the slowing down of clocks in motion and time dilation, is wrong.

How does a table full of incorrect values prove anything?

I note that you don't include atomic clocks, which have been used in multiple tests and practical applications of relativity because of their accuracy.

You don't explain why you have caclulated the wrong values for most rows, so it is hard to know how to comment further.

GPS?

##### Share on other sites

How does a table full of incorrect values prove anything?

I note that you don't include atomic clocks, which have been used in multiple tests and practical applications of relativity because of their accuracy.

You don't explain why you have caclulated the wrong values for most rows, so it is hard to know how to comment further.

GPS?

Mathematical exploring in two frames is exacter thing than unilateral experiment.

Relativity is mathematically wrong in two frames of observings with own measurements.

Edited by DimaMazin
##### Share on other sites

Ah dropbox, that well known repository for peer-reviewed papers.

##### Share on other sites

On the link is presented one-page article, which clearly shows that the current interpretation of the theory of relativity, on the slowing down of clocks in motion and time dilation, is wrong.

Your spreadsheet is false. The correct information is that, no matter what type of clock you use (light, atomic, sound, ping-pong balls), the periods are as follows:

1. In the frame co-moving with the clock :

$T=\frac{2L}{s}$

2. In the frame wrt. the clock moves at speed $v$:

$T=\frac{2L}{s \sqrt{1-(v/c)^2}}$

where $s$ is the speed of the signal ($s=c$ for light, $s=v_{sound}$ for sound, $s=v_{pingpong}$ for ping-pong balls, etc).

The proof is non-trivial, it requires serious understanding of SR.

Edited by xyzt
##### Share on other sites

Not this again!

The author has no idea what he is taliking about.

Example: he state that SR predicts the Sound clock in the traverse direction will tick at 1 sec/sec and in the lengthwise 0.5 sec/sec according to observers A and B.

He does so, because he thinks he can simply take the distances traveled reative to the ship and divide them by the speed of sound. But this isn't what SR say you have to do. SR says you have to apply the relativistic formula for the addition of velocities to get the speed at which the sound travels with respect to the ship in each direction according to A and B. Thus, in forward direction the sound travels at:

$\frac{0.866c+1.11e-6c}{1+\frac{0.886c(1.11e-6c}{c^2}}- 0.866c = ~2.78e-6c = 0.0832646 km/s.$

If L' = 0.08325 km, then the trip time for the forward leg is ~1 sec.

For the return trip, we get a speed of

$\frac{0.866c-1.11e-6c}{1-\frac{0.886c(1.11e-6c}{c^2}}- 0.866c = 0.0832647 km/s.$

Which gives a return trip time of ~1 sec

The total round trip take 2 sec. Which matches the result of the light clock.

In the case of the tranverse trip, you have to apply the formula for orthogonal velocities.

$S= \sqrt{v^2+u^2-v^2u^2}$

to work out the speed at which the sound travels with respect to the ship according to A and B as predicted by SR.

And if you do so you get the same agreement with the light clock.

These are glaring errors that indicate that the author doesn't even grasp what SR predicts in this scenario. He is not exposing any flaws in SR, only his own inablity to grasp it.

##### Share on other sites

Ah dropbox, that well known repository for peer-reviewed papers.

For work that doesn't even meet the standards of vixra.

(Wait, vixra has standards now?)

##### Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

Since this concept isn't part of Relativity and also seems to have some speculative, questionable aspects to it, I'm moving this to Speculations so we don't confuse any test-takers out there.

##### Share on other sites

In the case of the tranverse trip, you have to apply the formula for orthogonal velocities.

$S= \sqrt{v^2+u^2-v^2u^2}$

The units seem messed up.

Edited by xyzt
##### Share on other sites

Ah dropbox, that well known repository for peer-reviewed papers.

For work that doesn't even meet the standards of vixra.

(Wait, vixra has standards now?)

These replies are worthless because they're posted on an internet forum site that ignorant people can post on.

Or... we could judge writing by its contents and not where it's posted. These are similar to ad hominem attacks, and are irrelevant.

The original argument doesn't make any claim of peer review or meeting high standards, so there's no reason to refute it.

Edited by md65536
##### Share on other sites

These replies are worthless because they're posted on an internet forum site that many ignorant people post on.

I suspect they were intended to be humorous rather than deeply meaningful. YMMV.

##### Share on other sites

These replies are worthless because they're posted on an internet forum site that many ignorant people post on.

Or... we could judge writing by its contents and not where it's posted. These are similar to ad hominem attacks, and are irrelevant.

Well, the OP is dross wherever it's published.

But the fact that it wasn't published anywhere respectable (in spite of the fact that, if it were true, it would be Nobel prize stuff) suggests that it's not worthy of publication anywhere better than vanity publishing on the web.

You can, to some degree, judge a report by where it's published.

##### Share on other sites

These replies are worthless because they're posted on an internet forum site that ignorant people can post on.

Or... we could judge writing by its contents and not where it's posted. These are similar to ad hominem attacks, and are irrelevant.

I strongly disagree. This is not a request for help made by someone who wants us to check his work and give him pointers; it was linked for us with the comment that it is a "one-page article, which clearly shows that the current interpretation of the theory of relativity, on the slowing down of clocks in motion and time dilation, is wrong".

In that light, it is a very strong indicator that the OP does not have a good understanding of the academic process or any formal system of peer review. This in turn allows fairly accurate inferences to be drawn about their rigour and acumen.

The original argument doesn't make any claim of peer review or meeting high standards, so there's no reason to refute it.

And I did not state that it did. I am entirely free to make comment on the fact that Dropbox is not an academic or publishing resource, regardless of your views, and I will thank you not to police my posting decisions.

##### Share on other sites

I suspect they were intended to be humorous rather than deeply meaningful. YMMV.

Oh, I didn't know that making fun of contributors by association was acceptable here. But I guess one shouldn't expect anything better from replies on scienceforums.net (ha ha).

This in turn allows fairly accurate inferences to be drawn about their rigour and acumen.

It's still a logical fallacy. I am trying to discourage it. All the upvotes suggest that it is encouraged here.
##### Share on other sites

It is a logical fallacy to say "Because the Sun rose every morning for the last zillion years, it will rise tomorrow".

But it's still a pretty good bet.

It is also the same logical fallacy to say that, because the mass of an electron was (whatever) yesterday, it will have that value today.

Experience permits us to judge what predictions can be made on past experience, and to what level of certainty.

Edited by John Cuthber
##### Share on other sites

Oh, I didn't know that making fun of contributors by association was acceptable here. But I guess one shouldn't expect anything better from replies on scienceforums.net (ha ha).

It's still a logical fallacy. I am trying to discourage it. All the upvotes suggest that it is encouraged here.

As several people have already pointed out the errors and/or asked the OP for some more explanation (after all, simply posting some wrong data is not really a compelling argument) I see nothing wrong with a little light-hearted banter.

If you think we should all be deadly serious all the time, even in the face of something as silly as the OP, then this would be a very dull place.

I'm curious why you are defending something so obviously wrong as the OP's "paper". It's not as if he is presenting something which there could be some doubt or debate about. It is just wrong. There isn't much more to say. Except, perhaps, to understand why the OP has such a gross misunderstanding and thereby help him come to terms with how SR really works.

Edited by Strange
##### Share on other sites

As several people have already pointed out the errors and/or asked the OP for some more explanation (after all, simply posting some wrong data is not really a compelling argument) I see nothing wrong with a little light-hearted banter.

If you think we should all be deadly serious all the time, even in the face of something as silly as the OP, then this would be a very dull place.

OP didn't post as a joke, the "light-hearted banter" is at OP's expense and not shared.

I'm curious why you are defending something so obviously wrong as the OP's "paper".

I'm not defending the paper, I know it's wrong (because it's been refuted, not because it's not published in Official Journal of Science or because OP obviously lacks Nobel prize-worthy respectability and rigour).

I'm calling out the use of ad hominems that are attempting to further "humorously" discredit the work when it doesn't even need to be discredited. Rule 4 is "The use of logical fallacies to prove a point is prohibited." This doesn't just apply to one side of the argument. This bugs me because I see it A LOT on this site (that bad arguments in support of the "right" side are just fine) and often the "fairly accurate inferences" used to discredit people, are wrong.

Edited by md65536
##### Share on other sites

""The use of logical fallacies to prove a point is prohibited." "

What point was anyone seeking to prove?

This

"Ah dropbox, that well known repository for peer-reviewed papers."

for example is a valid (albeit ironic) comment on peer review at drop box.

It's offered as an unevinced assertion, but no as proof of anything.

"For work that doesn't even meet the standards of vixra.

(Wait, vixra has standards now?)

"
is similar.
They may well have little scientific value, but they are still valid comment.
##### Share on other sites

Oh, I didn't know that making fun of contributors by association was acceptable here. But I guess one shouldn't expect anything better from replies on scienceforums.net (ha ha).

It's still a logical fallacy. I am trying to discourage it. All the upvotes suggest that it is encouraged here.

A logical fallacy occurs when invalid logic or an unsound logical argument are used in furtherance of an argument. Since I made no argument, no logical fallacy can be said to have occurred. My comment is best characterised as jest, and it is aimed at the juxtaposition of the import of the OP's chosen subject matter with the apparent clumsiness of his tool use.

You cannot possibly make a conclusion about the motives behind upvoting. You cannot say why people voted, only that they did. You also cannot assume that the community is homogenous and there were no downvotes, only that there were fewer downvotes than there were upvotes. Since you're taking the super serious high road and calling "logical fallacy" (albeit incorrectly), it seems very strange that you'd then draw such a spurious inference.

I suggest you drop this now. In future when you see a post which you think is abusive, off-topic, or otherwise breaks the rules, use the post reporting tool like you're supposed to.

##### Share on other sites

The units seem messed up.

Sorry, I should have clarified that this form sets c to be equal to 1, and u and v are in fractions of c. So the 1/c² part of the last term vanishes.

##### Share on other sites

One fundamental problem here is that the "paper" does not describe an experiment, and the values presented are not experimental data. The only way to refute relativity is with experimental data.

The paper represents a thought experiment, or a prediction, using relativity. However, since it contradicts relativity, one can immediately conclude there is an error internal to it. The math of relativity is self-consistent; after all, so before you compare it with nature, it is only math. Essentially what has happened here (and not for the first time, IIRC) is the author has calculated a value two different ways, and they don't agree. The only conclusion one can make is that the author has made a series of math errors (This would include the possibility of setting the problem up incorrectly) but I do not feel an overwhelming need to find the errors. YMMV

##### Share on other sites

Sorry, I should have clarified that this form sets c to be equal to 1, and u and v are in fractions of c. So the 1/c² part of the last term vanishes.

OK, makes sense

##### Share on other sites

The clock on my wall, while nice to look at, has been broken for years. So I am quite certain that clock indeed doesn't confirm relativity.

Edited by timo
##### Share on other sites

You cannot possibly make a conclusion about the motives behind upvoting.

He didn't make a conclusion, he said the results suggested a motive. If you are going to attack his logic you should make sure yours is impeccable.

##### Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
×