0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Somebodies may have dogma, stigma, emotional, chauvinistic attitude about SR (even narcissistic breakage is possible). Of course we can understand these humanly reactions. However, these are reactions that have no place in science; reality is always forcemajor.
There is no emotion or dogma here. You simply have not provided any evidence against special relativity to get emotional about in the first place.
You just say that you are not convinced without mentioning technical details;
You just say that you are not convinced without mentioning technical details; you may be perceived as blind allegiance / opponent and you can be taken lightly.
Quote from: xersanozgen on 29/03/2020 12:54:16You just say that you are not convinced without mentioning technical details;You have not provided ANY details, or even any evidence.
You are challenging by high self confidenting. Whereas, science education is not required to understand this. Even, A person on the street will ask to you as "relative to what?". The differences (longer lifetime for muons) cannot be claimed/known without a comparison material.
Time dilation experiments have been done with control groups before. Perhaps you've heard of the one involving a clock on a plane and comparing that with a clock left on the ground?
I have an answer for this (probably this evidence is time contraction instead of time dilation).
Please give a link for a scientific paper that I want to answer in accordance with the interpration of my mentality. about light kinematics.
Quote from: xersanozgen on 31/03/2020 19:58:43I have an answer for this (probably this evidence is time contraction instead of time dilation).What is the different between time contraction and time dilation? More importantly, how can one experimentally determine the difference between the two?Quote from: xersanozgen on 31/03/2020 19:58:43Please give a link for a scientific paper that I want to answer in accordance with the interpration of my mentality. about light kinematics.http://www.personal.psu.edu/rq9/HOW/Atomic_Clocks_Predictions.pdf
This result cannot be explained by SR mentality.
Quote from: xersanozgen on 03/04/2020 09:40:09This result cannot be explained by SR mentality.Obviously it can be, since the measurements matched the predictions made by relativity. Check the data again.
Quote from: Kryptid on 03/04/2020 17:55:17Quote from: xersanozgen on 03/04/2020 09:40:09This result cannot be explained by SR mentality.Obviously it can be, since the measurements matched the predictions made by relativity. Check the data again.They reasoned random positions of Moon and Sun; but, they neglect energy factor (termic, radiation, microwave, etc). These cause faster frequence for atoms. They confirm sufficient precision of atomic clocks although their difference about 60 %.We encounter efforts to support the theory SR generally and even in scientific papers. In my opinion, if these papers would be sure, they would clearly use/say the coding "time dilation" instead of "lost" and "gain". They prefer ambiguity and hope your labelling as "time dilation". There is present similar manipulation/misinformation in the paper of muon lifetime and trouton rankine experiments. They use the inverse of relationship reason-result.Favoritsm may causes strained interpretation.
They reasoned random positions of Moon and Sun; but, they neglect energy factor (termic, radiation, microwave, etc).
These cause faster frequence for atoms.
We encounter efforts to support the theory SR generally and even in scientific papers. In my opinion, if these papers would be sure, they would clearly use/say the coding "time dilation" instead of "lost" and "gain". They prefer ambiguity and hope your labelling as "time dilation"
Quote from: xersanozgen on 04/04/2020 13:03:49These cause faster frequence for atoms.1- Evidence?Quote from: xersanozgen on 04/04/2020 13:03:49We encounter efforts to support the theory SR generally and even in scientific papers. In my opinion, if these papers would be sure, they would clearly use/say the coding "time dilation" instead of "lost" and "gain". They prefer ambiguity and hope your labelling as "time dilation".2- There is no manipulation. Time lost and time gained are relative to the clock left back on Earth. This video explains it: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=flfqLgSV0iAAll three clocks in the experiment would experience time dilation relative to a clock floating in free space. However, one of the planes experiences more time dilation than the clock on the ground and the other experiences less time dilation than the clock on the ground. This is why one plane is recorded as gaining time and the other as losing time (because it's relative to the clock on the ground). This is consistent with what relativity predicts, not inconsistent with it.
Especially higher temperature (thermal energy) causes faster tempo for atomic clocks (*)
2.1- Primarily, the airplane's relative speed (according to solar system or space) is not Vearth +/- Vairplane; If this is right, the time of west travels would be smaller (as half or quarter compare east travels). We have not a perception like this. The inverse status is right because of atmosphere's opposite speed. Please examine.Misinformation to convince like the others; or neglecting/ignoring few essential factors.2.2 If the theory has accuracy, the clocks on the airplanes have to indicate the same time. If we isolated them, their relative speeds according to other one is the same ( V relative = V1 + V2). SR likes the isolation (e.g. a photon and its source). Thereby each one of the clocks would be exposed to a same value of time dilation??? The results did not support this requirement.
The aircraft flying in opposite directions around the Earth are actually not equivalent to each other and thus you would not expect their time dilation factors to be identical. They are not in inertial frames. Rather, they are accelerating because they are flying in a circle. Acceleration is not relative. The aircraft flying with the Earth's rotation will complete the circle faster than the aircraft flying against the Earth's rotation will. This means that the aircraft flying with the Earth's rotation will have a higher acceleration than the other plane.
And the atomic clocks have to indicate the same time.
(especially, Vearth +/- Vairplane resultant speeds are clearly wrong)
Quote from: xersanozgen on 06/04/2020 10:36:37And the atomic clocks have to indicate the same time.Why would they have to indicate the same time when they aren't experiencing the same motion? One plane is experiencing greater acceleration than the clock on the ground, and the other plane is experiencing less acceleration than the clock on the ground.Quote from: xersanozgen on 06/04/2020 10:36:37(especially, Vearth +/- Vairplane resultant speeds are clearly wrong)How so?
1- In accordance with SR mentality, when we isolate the aircrafts (we consider that there are only these two aircraft in universe. SR had analyzed light's motion by isolating a photon and its source), their relative speeds according to each other are the same value; and the times on their monitor must to seem the same.
2- If we leave this SR's isolation, the relative speed of the train/source will get various values according to solar system, galaxy, cluster...etc.; and the train's clock will be confused about which percent of time dilations.
3- On your figure, relative speeds of the aircrafts has been given as Vearth +/- V aircraft. .the airplane's relative speeds (according to Earth) is not Vearth +/- Vairplane; If this is right, the time of west travels would be smaller (as half or quarter compare east travels). We have not a perception like this. The inverse status is right because of atmosphere's opposite speed. Atmosphere rotates slower and applies vacuum effect Please examine. If the Earth's clock is comparison/reference; already you have to consider the value of relative speeds according to the Earth; this is. only Vaircraft. Please consider fast trains instead of aircrafts in experiment.