# Nature of Time Dilation and Length Contraction

Well, one day maybe somebody will inform me. I suppose it won't be you. In the meantime, I'll be just fine with my cosy illusions, I guess.

It's "COZY". With a Z.

Pete's partial copy of my post,
“ I would like to point out something else to you. Did you know an atomic clock will lose 10 picoseconds if moved across the Earth's surface at 65 kilometers per hour for a total distance of 100 kilometers? ”

by Pete,
No, I didn't. Is it true?
from U S Navy paper'
We have measured such effects on recent flight tests and have modeled
them via simulation. It is a surprise to many people that airborne platforms move fast enough, fly high
enough, or cover enough distance to cause large enough effects to care about. In fact, atomic clocks can
potentially exhibit relativistic effects even by their transport in a moving ground vehicle. For example, at
a velocity of 65 km/h over a distance of 100 km, the time dilation correction is 10 ps.
by Pete,
2inq stated it as fact that "an atomic clock will lose 10 picoseconds if moved across the Earth's surface at 65 kilometers per hour for a total distance of 100 kilometers" and suggested that this were evidence against the theory.
Your reading comprehension and quoting skills are severely lacking, or you are deliberately twisting what I wrote. I only suggested the time dilation was evident on the moving clock only, not reciprocal, as I stated earlier. You first stated you didn't even know there would be any time dilation, then later stated it was exactly as relativity predicted.
my exact quote:
Did you know an atomic clock will lose 10 picoseconds if moved across the Earth's surface at 65 kilometers per hour for a total distance of 100 kilometers? The clock will lose that much time compared to any other atomic clock located anywhere on Earth. The loss is due to motion through the ether, that clock will 'see' other clocks ticking faster than itself. The time dilation is not reciprocal, the moving clock is always the one that ticks slower.
in the last post by Pete'
You seem to be suggesting that these effects are not predicted by special relativity... but you also suggested that the 10ps difference when moving a clock 100km at 65kph was not predicted by special relativity, when that's exactly where the number came from.

What, precisely, do you think that special relativity predicts when a clock is moved?
My 'point', as I have stated over and over, is that only the moving clock accumulates less time. That is in support of my hypothesis. You, Pete, you keep bringing Special Theory into the discussion, not me. Now where the fuck do you see where I have stated 'these effects are not predicted by special relativity'? Try to keep at least halfway honest, Pete.

2inq:

Please excuse me if my question has already been covered in your posts. When the clock is being transported on the surface does it continually lose more and more time as long as the travel lasts? When the trip is over, the clock does not then regain time by itself? In other words, the time discrepency is a "permanent" effect?

Do you know about the internal layout of the clocks? Does that kind of clock have only one active element or perhaps multiple elements?

My questions are pertinent to my notion that light may travel in an absolute reference frame as in the classical ether theory, and therefore the directionality of the light path compared to the vehicle direction could make a difference in the internal working of the clock. I believe that the clock designer might have to make a critical decision about whether to assume an absolute reference frame in order to produce a clock that would work reliably, and so I am curious about how well those specific kinds of clock perform.

You may have noticed that the goon squad double teamed me a little while ago. I wish they would actually do their own homework to find out if they are right or wrong instead of just trying to browbeat the mavericks.

I only suggested the time dilation was evident on the moving clock only, not reciprocal, as I stated earlier.
Thanks for sharing. Did anyone expect it to be reciprocal?
You first stated you didn't even know there would be any time dilation,
Strictly speaking, nobody knows if the particular case you cited is true, since it's too small to be measurable. All we know is that it's what Special Relativity predicts.

My 'point', as I have stated over and over, is that only the moving clock accumulates less time.

That is in support of my hypothesis.
So you say, and yet you can't describe how your hypothesis predicts anything. I'm sure you have a general qualitative idea... but that's not enough, because vague qualitative ideas can be massaged to predict anything. Hard quantitative testable predictions are needed before a hypothesis is interesting to me.

Out of curiosity, do you think your hypothesis disagrees with special relativity when gravity isn't an issue? Does it disagree with general relativity?

CANGAS,
Please excuse me if my question has already been covered in your posts. When the clock is being transported on the surface does it continually lose more and more time as long as the travel lasts? When the trip is over, the clock does not then regain time by itself? In other words, the time discrepency is a "permanent" effect?
Yes, as the atomic clock is in motion, it contines to fall futher behind a identical clocks that are on the surface. The military experiment transporting atomic clocks confirmed that. I deleted the link to the experiment awhile back, while cleansing my long list of 'favorites'. The clocks were compared with GPS time signals while they were aboard the planes and they were ticking slower, accumilating time at a relatively reduced rate. After the experiment, they began to beat in synch with GPS time again. However, everyone seems to be missing the important point in my hypothesis. The atomic clocks beat slower because of a change in the pressure of the ether. A distant pulsar clock would be seen to beat at the rate it always has while the atomic clocks were in motion. The world's time rate did not change while the atomic clocks were in motion. In short, it was a local effect on the moving clocks themselves. Time was not running slower in the moving frame, electromagnetic processes only slowed down!

When Pete asked me about the lack of predictions by my hypothesis, there it is. The travelling twin does not return younger than her stay-at-home twin, her atomic clock just beat slower due to enviromental factors, a change in the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum caused by the atomic clock's motion through said vacuum.

A simple way to test my hypothesis would be to simply compare an atomic clock's tick rate with a very accurate mechanical clock while in space. I offered a pulsar clock as one method, but that would not verify that the 'local time' of the moving clock was not running slower. It will be necessary to carry an onboard mechanical clock of very high accuracy, to compare with the onboard atomic clock. There is an explaination of my 'two different types of time', electromagnetic processes that are influenced by enviromental factors (the density of the vacuum) and 'true time' which is not influenced by the density of the vacuum, the 'ether'.

Oh, and I can make a lot of predictions that are subject to verification, Pete. If you understand my hypothesis, that is clear to see.

Pete,
Out of curiosity, do you think your hypothesis disagrees with special relativity when gravity isn't an issue? Does it disagree with general relativity?
In certain instances, yes it disagrees with both ST and GR. That is because I used the same experimental evidence to arrive at a different philosophical interpretation. And, yes, philosophy does alter predictions. The main mathematical differences would be in the speed of light as a constant. It would still be measured as a constant in the observers own reference frame if a light clock or atomic clock were used for measurement, but the speed of light would vary when different reference frames were compared with each other. The Lorentz transforms would mask these differences, of course, because the transforms effectively compare light clocks with light clocks in different states of motion. Remember when I mentioned the type 1a supernova? Astronomers have arrived at a very precise method of estimating large distances based on the extreme similarity of all type 1a supernova. Know what they discovered? The supernova were much farther away than would be indicated by their Doppler shifts. An example would be a supernova with a Doppler shift indicating a recessional velocity of .5c. Astronomers could estimate both the distance to the supernova and the age of the supernova by its charateristics. The surprise was that the supernova was much farther away than the distance indicated by multiplying its age by recessional speed according to its Doppler shift. This was the reason the astronomers came up with a new method of scaling Doppler shift, one that varies from Special Theory's relativistic red shift. They based their new method on 'true' distance, calculated from type 1a supernova. Do you remember a few years ago when astronomers began to find objects in the universe which were older than the universe itself? That was because the objects couldn't reach their locations in the timespan since the big bang, if relativistic red shift was used. Thus, the new method of quantifying red shift. In my hypothesis, the true recessional velocity of the objects would remain the same, but the length of a light year would change by the changing speed of light. Information cannot be transferred faster than light, but recessional velocities between two distant objects can be greater than the speed of light 'back then'. In other words, the early light year was shorter when compared with a modern light year. When meters or light years are measured by a variable speed of light, those values change. The variable speed of light is due to a change in the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum over time, the expansion of the universe. Simple, eh?

I looked it up.

Around here it is always Z. Dictionary allows S as a variant. I guess on your planet you all go for S.

CANGAS said:
I looked it up.

Around here it is always Z. Dictionary allows S as a variant. I guess on your planet you all go for S.

Actually my dictionary shows Cosy only as being the Brit ish Spelling of Cozy and gives no additional definition. Under Cozy it gives the definition.

I've seen James use other words with the Brit sp. Now I have to wonder if the Brit dictionary would reflect Cozy as the American spelling for Cosy. :bugeye:

- The tap doesn't work.
- The what?
- The tap.
- Oh, the faucet.
- Yes, I tried to force it, but it doesn't work.

Yes, British dictionaries say "cozy" is an alternative spelling of "cosy".

You Americans need to realise that there are two standard versions of the English language - British Standard English and American Standard English. Neither is "better" than the other, and both are on an equal footing.

I am Australian, and Australian English is a little different again. Certainly, there are specifically Australian dictionaries, just as there are specifically American and British dictionaries. Australian English is much closer to British English than American, as one would expect given Australia's close historical ties with Britain.

The lesson here is to think before you try to "correct" somebody's spelling. Realise that it might be a British variant, and just as legitimate as your own spelling.

In fact, since English was invented in England, arguably British English is the standard and American English is an abberation.

JamesR:

In the time you wasted masturbating your ego with the English lesson, you could have begun your serious analysis of a Michelson interferometer and already figured out the fatal flaw. It's how long it took me.

Stay cocy.

Last edited:
And what could you have achieved in the time you have spent making empty claims that you've found a fatal flaw in relativity? At least I've provided some information.

P.S. Remember it was you who started the masterbation session by attempting to "correct" my already-correct English.

James R said:
Neither is "better" than the other, and both are on an equal footing.

As for the former: certainly. As for the latter: call me when Hollywood relocates to Britain.

JamesR:

Please stop calling me when I'm trying to sleep.

It's mastUrbation. With a U. Even on your planet. You should be an expert without needing anyone's help on the subject.

CANGAS:

I'm not "calling you". You reply when and if you wish to. Mostly with personal insults. Grow up.

James R said:
In fact, since English was invented in England, arguably British English is the standard and American English is an abberation.

Damn I hate having to agree with James R but there it is.

It is spelled with a "U".

Don't try to deny it.

Does JamesR's post have any business in the physics forum? Is it about English language or physics?

If Jmes R wants to argue about historical language developement, why is he posting in this forum?