## fredag 31 januari 2014

### Why Time Dilation (and Special Relativity Theory) Is Illusion

Is it possible that inertial motion under zero external forcing can change the rate of a mechanical or atomic clock? No! Because with zero external forcing there is nothing which can affect the inner working of a clock and thus the clock rate must be independent of inertial motion. It is inconceivable that clock rate can be affected by inertial motion.

An illusion of changed clock rate is created by the Doppler effect: The light from a receding body will be red-shifted and thus will give the illusion of a changed frequency or change of clock rate. But this is only an illusion like the illusion of the size of an object decreasing with distance.

What about special relativity then? The reading of the same event in space-time in two inertial systems $S$ and $S^\prime$ with coordinates $(x,t)$ and $(x^\prime ,t^\prime )$ moving with constant velocity $v$ with respect to each other, are here supposed to be connected by the Lorentz transformation (in one space dimension)
• $x^\prime =\gamma (x - vt)$,
• $t^\prime =\gamma (t - vx)$,
where $\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v^2}}$ assuming the speed of light is 1 and $0 < v < 1$. The time rate in $S$ and $S^\prime$ then differ with a factor $\gamma$, so that with $S$ motionless the time in $S^\prime$ would seem to run slower, and the other way around.

What to make out of this? Is the clock rate really affected by motion, or is it only an illusion? Lorentz gave the answer by pointing out that the transformed time $t^\prime$ is not physical time, but only illusionary time. It was Einstein who against the judgement of Lorentz claimed that the transformed time $t^\prime$ is physical time, and out came the special theory of relativity, which is no theory according e.g. Louis Essen as shown in the preceding post. An mere illusion is not a physical theory.

Real clock rate cannot change by inertial motion, only imaginary illusionary invented non-physical clock rate can change by inertial motion. This statement is believed to be wrong by 99% of living physicists. No wonder that modern physics is in a state of crisis.

Physicists have been complaining since the mid 1920s when quantum mechanics was born, that quantum mechanics is incompatible with relativity theory, without however doing anything about it.
But if two theories of physics are incompatible or contradictory, then one must go. Your choice?

#### 8 kommentarer:

1. Real clock rate cannot change by inertial motion, only imaginary illusionary invented non-physical clock rate can change by inertial motion. This statement is believed to be wrong by 99% of living physicists.

For most living physicist this statement isn't a relevant one, they're not involved in physics where relativistic effects have any significance at all.

I guess you will not disagree with the statement that nature has the final saying in how it behaves. If the predictions of a theory deviates from experimental outcomes, the theory can be more, or less wrong. If the theory is less wrong deviations will be small from actually measured results. If it's more wrong (or the even stronger, not even wrong) it is useless in making any predictions at all.

With that said, empirical tests where the suitable conditions apply (insignificant gravitational effects), special relativity doesn't even seems to be a little wrong.

If you have any sources to experiments, done under controlled conditions, where the predictions from special relativity is completely wrong, please share.

If we look at your statement one more time,

Real clock rate cannot change by inertial motion, only imaginary illusionary invented non-physical clock rate can change by inertial motion.

How do you suggest to test this in a controlled experiment?

2. Check the clock in your car under different velocities. Besides, special relativity makes no predictions about reality, since it is not a theory about real physics, but instead a standardization law which cannot be subjected to real tests of physics, only to legal analysis.

3. it is not a theory about real physics

How do you define real physics? And how do you test that your definition is sound?

4. Real physics is physics without observer involved, letting the World go around without any physicist bringing Schrödinger's cat into life or death by looking into the box.

5. A theory like special relativity is a form of standardization prescribing how to view the world and not a revelation telling us what the World is, like a real physical theory.

6. I agree that during a fast motion due to limited speed of light in gravitational environment particles tend to slow their motions uniformly like eg. when a certain mater is being frozen. Bat to extrapolate slowing motions and therefore the time is slowing is inappropriate. It is good and working in physics conventionaly especially for particles, but it is gross exaggeration in relation to the time, which is an abstract dimension ie. rate of motion measured by the other rate ofmotion!

7. I totally agree that time dilation effect predicted by SR is an illusion. It is easy to falsify the theory using its own arguments. See my view on it at salchon.wordpress.com.

8. Light speed is not Constant (to observer) !!

All that we receive with our eyes are the facts of the past (unchangeable). Wavelength of incident light is coming from the past. On incident light, a formula c = λ f stands up. And λ is unchangeable (by our motion). Terms f and c change.

Sorry, I can't receive E-mail. I don't have PC.

http://www.geocities.co.jp/Technopolis/2561/eng.html