Time Dilation Can Only be Detected at Velocities Close to the Speed of Light

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Time Dilation Can Only be Detected at Velocities Close to the Speed of
Light

Contrary to statements made in these forums by relativists, it does not
require speeds close to the speed of light. That is a cop-out.

Time dilation should be detectable at 30 km/sec.

This is precisely what the MMX was designed to detect.

[gharnagel]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Time Dilation Can Only be Detected at Velocities Close to the Speed of
Light
Contrary to statements made in these forums by relativists, it does not
require speeds close to the speed of light. That is a cop-out.
Time dilation should be detectable at 30 km/sec.
This is precisely what the MMX was designed to detect.

“Have you ever listened to someone for a while and wondered …
‘Who ties your shoelaces for you?’” – Mom’s Got Ink

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Gary: Time dilation is the difference in arrival times of the two beams
in the MMX caused by the ether wind. No such dilation took place. Time
dilation is disproven.

[gharnagel]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Gary: Time dilation is the difference in arrival times of the two beams
in the MMX caused by the ether wind. No such dilation took place.

Exactly, therefore, there is no ether wind. If there is an ether,
it doesn't have the property of motion. Or the ether is dragged by
the mass of the earth (which is refuted by starlight aberration).

"The aberration of light, together with Lorentz's elaboration of
Maxwell's electrodynamics, the moving magnet and conductor problem,
the negative aether drift experiments, as well as the Fizeau
experiment, led Albert Einstein to develop the theory of special
relativity in 1905, which presents a general form of the equation
for aberration in terms of such theory."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_(astronomy)

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Time dilation is disproven.

On the contrary, relativity predicts a null result for the MMX.
Time dilation occurs when components of measurement are in
relative motion. There is no relative motion among the
components of the MMX (except for the possibility of an ether).
Null result = no ether motion, and that is all that was confirmed.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Time Dilation Can Only be Detected at Velocities Close to the Speed of
Light

Nonsense.

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Contrary to statements made in these forums by relativists, it does not
require speeds close to the speed of light. That is a cop-out.

Who said so?

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Time dilation should be detectable at 30 km/sec.

Of course it is. (and also at much lower velocities)
What you can detect depends only on the accuracy
to which you can measure.

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
This is precisely what the MMX was designed to detect.

More nonsense.
Michelson ever said anything even remotely like that,

Jan

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Time Dilation Can Only be Detected at Velocities Close to the Speed of
Light

Nonsense.

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Contrary to statements made in these forums by relativists, it does not
require speeds close to the speed of light. That is a cop-out.

Who said so?

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Time dilation should be detectable at 30 km/sec.

Of course it is.

In the meantime in the real world, however,
forbidden by your bunch of idiots "improper"
clocks keep measuring improper t'=t in
improper seconds.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

J.J.: I did not say that time dilation can only be detected at speeds
close to light. Relativists at the Google relativity forum told me this.

The truth is that the difference in the arrival times of the two beams
in the MMX is precisely what time dilation properly refers to.

You have a choice. Either you admit there was no difference, or you
insist that time itself dilated, concealing the difference.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Den 16.11.2024 22:45, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:

Please quote what you are responding to.
========================================

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
J.J.: I did not say that time dilation can only be detected at speeds
close to light.

It is idiocy to claim that you didn't say what
you posted the previous day:

|Den 15.11.2024 22:52, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
|> Time Dilation Can Only be Detected at Velocities of
|> Close to the Speed Light

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Relativists at the Google relativity forum told me this.

Don't claim that "someone said" without reference or a literal quote.

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
The truth is that the difference in the arrival times of the two beams
in the MMX is precisely what time dilation properly refers to.

This is incredible stupid!

You are claiming that "time dilation" is impossible
because the speed of light is isotropic. :-D

----------------------

You have no clue what "time dilation" is.

Given an inertial frame with two synchronised clocks A1 and A2
a distance L from each other.
Clock B is moving at the speed v in the inertial frame, and passing
the two clocks.
NOTE: all three clocks are running with their proper rate,
advancing one second per second.

Clock B is adjacent to A1
==========================
A1 and A2 show t₁, B shows τ₁:

B->v
---|--------------|---------------->
A1 L A2


Clock B is adjacent to A2
==========================
A1 and A2 show t₂, B shows τ₂:

B->v
---|--------------|---------------->
A1 L A2

According to SR:
Δt = t₂-t₁ = L/v
Δτ = τ₂-τ₁ = (L/v)⋅√(1 −v²/c²)

Δτ/Δt = √(1 −v²/c²)

This is "time dilation".
Note that no clock "dilates". All clocks run at their proper rate.

https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
You have a choice. Either you admit there was no difference, or you
insist that time itself dilated, concealing the difference.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Paul B. Andersen
Please quote what you are responding to.
========================================

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
J.J.: I did not say that time dilation can only be detected at speeds
close to light.

I said no such thing. Please stop lying about what other people said.

Post by Paul B. Andersen
It is idiocy to claim that you didn't say what
|> Time Dilation Can Only be Detected at Velocities of
|> Close to the Speed Light

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Relativists at the Google relativity forum told me this.

Don't claim that "someone said" without reference or a literal quote.

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
The truth is that the difference in the arrival times of the two beams
in the MMX is precisely what time dilation properly refers to.

This is incredible stupid!
You are claiming that "time dilation" is impossible
because the speed of light is isotropic. :-D
----------------------
You have no clue what "time dilation" is.
Given an inertial frame with two synchronised clocks A1 and A2
a distance L from each other.
Clock B is moving at the speed v in the inertial frame, and passing
the two clocks.
NOTE: all three clocks are running with their proper rate,
advancing one second per second.

Correct of course. Question for LaurenceClarkCrossen:
How do you think any clock could possibly do anything else?
(unless it is broken)

Jan

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

J.J.: If time dilation existed, a difference in arrival times in the MMX
would have been detected. That it was not proves time dilation does not
exist. Your claim that it does exist is a claim that something in the
MMX concealed the difference.

[Mikko]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
J.J.: If time dilation existed, a difference in arrival times in the MMX
would have been detected. That it was not proves time dilation does not
exist. Your claim that it does exist is a claim that something in the
MMX concealed the difference.

The MMX is all about different arrival times. The central fringe is where
the arrival times are the same. All other fringes are because the arrival
times are different.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Mikko: The arrival times were exactly the same in the MMX. A time
dilation or LT is a claim that something magically canceled the
difference.

[Mikko]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mikko: The arrival times were exactly the same in the MMX.

At central fringe. At other fringes they are not.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
J.J.: If time dilation existed, a difference in arrival times in the MMX
would have been detected. That it was not proves time dilation does not
exist. Your claim that it does exist is a claim that something in the
MMX concealed the difference.

No quoted text, no reply,

Jan

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

J.J.: Do you think there was a time dilation of LT in the MMX?

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
J.J.: Do you think there was a time dilation of LT in the MMX?

No quoted text, no reply,

Jan

[Mikko]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Time Dilation Can Only be Detected at Velocities Close to the Speed of
Light

Is one tenth of c close? At that speed time dilation is easy to observe.

Time dilation is observed at the speed of an aeroplane.

Oscillators currently studied in laboratories will in near future permit
the detection of time dilation at walking speed.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Mikko

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Time Dilation Can Only be Detected at Velocities Close to the Speed of
Light

Is one tenth of c close? At that speed time dilation is easy to observe.

Rather - to gedanke. Anyone can check GPS,
real time (as defined by your idiot guru
himself) is galilean, like always.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Mikko

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Time Dilation Can Only be Detected at Velocities Close to the Speed of
Light

Is one tenth of c close? At that speed time dilation is easy to observe.
Time dilation is observed at the speed of an aeroplane.
Oscillators currently studied in laboratories will in near future permit
the detection of time dilation at walking speed.

Amost there:
0.3 meter of altitude is equivalent to about 9 km/h in speed.
More than walking, but already less than running,

Jan

[ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Mikko

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Time Dilation Can Only be Detected at Velocities Close to the Speed of
Light

Is one tenth of c close? At that speed time dilation is easy to observe.
Time dilation is observed at the speed of an aeroplane.
Oscillators currently studied in laboratories will in near future permit
the detection of time dilation at walking speed.

0.3 meter of altitude is equivalent to about 9 km/h in speed.
More than walking, but already less than running,

Clock with 8×10^−19 Systematic Uncertainty
Alexander Aeppli, Kyungtae Kim, William Warfield, Marianna S.
Safronova, and Jun Ye
Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 023401 – Published 10 July 2024
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.023401

For a semi-popular account:
Reducing Uncertainty in an Optical Lattice Clock
Han-Ning Dai and Yu-Ao Chen
July 29, 2024• Physics 17, 118
https://physics.aps.org/articles/v17/118

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Mikko

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Time Dilation Can Only be Detected at Velocities Close to the Speed of
Light

Is one tenth of c close? At that speed time dilation is easy to observe.
Time dilation is observed at the speed of an aeroplane.
Oscillators currently studied in laboratories will in near future permit
the detection of time dilation at walking speed.

0.3 meter of altitude is equivalent to about 9 km/h in speed.
More than walking, but already less than running,

Clock with 8×10^−19 Systematic Uncertainty
Alexander Aeppli, Kyungtae Kim, William Warfield, Marianna S.
Safronova, and Jun Ye
Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 023401 – Published 10 July 2024
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.023401
Reducing Uncertainty in an Optical Lattice Clock
Han-Ning Dai and Yu-Ao Chen
July 29, 2024• Physics 17, 118
https://physics.aps.org/articles/v17/118

"The Zeeman coefficients describe the effect
of a magnetic field on electronic energy levels,
and therefore on the frequency of light that is
emitted during the relevant transition."

Which is funny because at least 60 years before
Zeeman got a Nobel for not reproducing Faraday's
magnetizing the medium, Faraday did.

"Typically, magnetically insensitive clock transitions
are chosen so that the dominant first-order Zeeman
frequency shift is minimized. Such minimization
reduces the clock’s sensitivity to environmental
magnetic fluctuations. But weaker second-order effects
remain. "

Anyways you can read that "Zeeman" doesn't necessarily
reflect "clocks".

https://www.nature.com/articles/nphoton.2015.5

These only point at "10^ -18", yet, at least they're cold.
Those guys at "10^ -19" are like "don't look too close, ...".


What I'm saying is that the accelerated and retarded
frames with regards to the magnetic and the radiation,
or not, or accelerated charged particles, makes for
that there are a wide variety of ways to make
crystal or later "atomic" clock arrays.

How about a nuclear clock that simply measures radiation?
I think that you can understand that that would vary
in various accelerations in a kinetic field,
or, under an electrical field, whether it's
a magnetic field.

Also it would require very difficult to achieve
reference standards.

Anyways, Zeeman, has sort of a counterpoint
in Lyman, and Balmer, and Faraday, and so on,
with regards to "electron physics", and,
"the dominated-away" or otherwise the,
"not-electron physics".

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Mikko

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Time Dilation Can Only be Detected at Velocities Close to the Speed of
Light

Is one tenth of c close? At that speed time dilation is easy to observe.
Time dilation is observed at the speed of an aeroplane.
Oscillators currently studied in laboratories will in near future permit
the detection of time dilation at walking speed.

0.3 meter of altitude is equivalent to about 9 km/h in speed.
More than walking, but already less than running,

Clock with 8?10^?19 Systematic Uncertainty
Alexander Aeppli, Kyungtae Kim, William Warfield, Marianna S.
Safronova, and Jun Ye
Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 023401 – Published 10 July 2024
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.023401
Reducing Uncertainty in an Optical Lattice Clock
Han-Ning Dai and Yu-Ao Chen
July 29, 2024• Physics 17, 118
https://physics.aps.org/articles/v17/118

Yes, but 30 cm altitude difference
is what has been demonstrated already.
Again, c^2 = 9x10^16,
so a clock stability of 10^18 corresponds to an altitude resolution
of about 1 cm, [1]

Jan

[1] See that Wikipedia article on chronometric leveling
(aka relativistic geodesy) that needs to be written.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Mikko

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Time Dilation Can Only be Detected at Velocities Close to the Speed of
Light

Is one tenth of c close? At that speed time dilation is easy to observe.
Time dilation is observed at the speed of an aeroplane.
Oscillators currently studied in laboratories will in near future permit
the detection of time dilation at walking speed.

0.3 meter of altitude is equivalent to about 9 km/h in speed.
More than walking, but already less than running,

Clock with 8×10^−19 Systematic Uncertainty

A lie, of course, anyone can check GPS, systematic
uncertainty is much, much bigger.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Mikko

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Time Dilation Can Only be Detected at Velocities Close to the Speed of
Light

Is one tenth of c close? At that speed time dilation is easy to observe.
Time dilation is observed at the speed of an aeroplane.
Oscillators currently studied in laboratories will in near future permit
the detection of time dilation at walking speed.

0.3 meter of altitude is equivalent to about 9 km/h in speed.
More than walking, but already less than running,
Jan

Space-contraction, rather.

[Mikko]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Mikko

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Time Dilation Can Only be Detected at Velocities Close to the Speed of
Light

Is one tenth of c close? At that speed time dilation is easy to observe.
Time dilation is observed at the speed of an aeroplane.
Oscillators currently studied in laboratories will in near future permit
the detection of time dilation at walking speed.

0.3 meter of altitude is equivalent to about 9 km/h in speed.
More than walking, but already less than running,

Gravitational effect has already been demonstrated on smaller altitude
difference:

https://www.snexplores.org/article/a-new-clock-shows-how-gravity-warps-time-even-over-tiny-distances


However, Experiments with moving things are harder. All moving parts
tend to generate noise. Clocks are easiest to compare when stationary
side by side but then at least one of them must be accerated between
the comparisons and one must ensure that the acceleration does not
affect the clocks rhythm.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Mikko

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Mikko

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Time Dilation Can Only be Detected at Velocities Close to the Speed of
Light

Is one tenth of c close? At that speed time dilation is easy to observe.
Time dilation is observed at the speed of an aeroplane.
Oscillators currently studied in laboratories will in near future permit
the detection of time dilation at walking speed.

0.3 meter of altitude is equivalent to about 9 km/h in speed.
More than walking, but already less than running,

Gravitational effect has already been demonstrated on smaller altitude
https://www.snexplores.org/article/a-new-clock-shows-how-gravity-warps-time-ev

en-over-tiny-distances

Yes, that has been mentioned here several times already.
But that is inside one, not for an entire clock.

Post by Mikko
However, Experiments with moving things are harder. All moving parts
tend to generate noise. Clocks are easiest to compare when stationary
side by side but then at least one of them must be accerated between
the comparisons and one must ensure that the acceleration does not
affect the clocks rhythm.

Has also been done already, with a van-mounted strontium clock.
<https://phys.org/news/2018-02-optical-clock-gravitation.html>

They don't talk about the Lorentz factors involved in driving the car,
but they must have compensated for them to get the gravity measurements
right.

One of the things the nutters here tend to forget
is that physicsts are not working all the time
to 'prove relativity right'.
Relativity is standard 'unproblematic background knowledge'.
It will be demonstated explicitly only when some parameter
can be pushed back by another decade.

They are out to do more interesting things.
Standard relativistic corrections are applied as a matter of course,
when and where needed,

Jan

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by J. J. Lodder
One of the things the nutters here tend to forget
is that physicsts are not working all the time
to 'prove relativity right'.
Relativity is standard 'unproblematic background knowledge'.

While in the real world - forbidden by
your bunch of idiots "improper" clocks
keep measuring improper t'=t in improper
seconds.

Post by J. J. Lodder
They are out to do more interesting things.
Standard relativistic corrections are applied as a matter of course,
when and where needed,

A lie, of course - no such things and
the whole ingeniopus concept of your
idiot guru was - forbidding corrections,
as they violate some moronic symmetry.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Mikko

Post by Mikko

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Mikko

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Time Dilation Can Only be Detected at Velocities Close to the Speed of
Light

Is one tenth of c close? At that speed time dilation is easy to observe.
Time dilation is observed at the speed of an aeroplane.
Oscillators currently studied in laboratories will in near future permit
the detection of time dilation at walking speed.

0.3 meter of altitude is equivalent to about 9 km/h in speed.
More than walking, but already less than running,

Gravitational effect has already been demonstrated on smaller altitude
https://www.snexplores.org/article/a-new-clock-shows-how-gravity-warps-time-ev

en-over-tiny-distances
Yes, that has been mentioned here several times already.
But that is inside one, not for an entire clock.

Post by Mikko
However, Experiments with moving things are harder. All moving parts
tend to generate noise. Clocks are easiest to compare when stationary
side by side but then at least one of them must be accerated between
the comparisons and one must ensure that the acceleration does not
affect the clocks rhythm.

Has also been done already, with a van-mounted strontium clock.
<https://phys.org/news/2018-02-optical-clock-gravitation.html>
They don't talk about the Lorentz factors involved in driving the car,
but they must have compensated for them to get the gravity measurements
right.
One of the things the nutters here tend to forget
is that physicsts are not working all the time
to 'prove relativity right'.
Relativity is standard 'unproblematic background knowledge'.
It will be demonstated explicitly only when some parameter
can be pushed back by another decade.
They are out to do more interesting things.
Standard relativistic corrections are applied as a matter of course,
when and where needed,
Jan

The vis-viva is a really old theory that since Lagrange
and the fluid models and energy conservation, which is great,
that being since mechanical reduction was reduced to the
statistical ensemble after a stack of Hooke, Clausius,
Boltzmann, and a bit of Kelvin, for Boyle or gas law
thusly "2'nd" law, thermo, while the inertial and
momental lost any notion of "active" force at all,
and force was given as a quantity and not itself
derivative and a function of time, has it that:
in the classical, relativity only says it's whatever's
built the classical, the mechanics, in the limit,
which, according to thusly Galileo and Newton's
rest/rest motion/motion equal/opposite f=ma g=mm/r^2,
is entirely missing the Mertonian school, quite
thoroughly notions of meeting and parting and
stopping and starting, and otherwise makes for
inserting "zero-eth" laws about orbits and
meeting and parting and stopping and starting,
AND using relativistic derivations like Einstein's
second mass-energy equivalency in the classical,
and introducing "heft", makes for the entire idea
of "momentum" instead of "inertia" and "energy",
thusly, conserved, obsolete.

Though, correct in some simple cases.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by Mikko

Post by Mikko

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Mikko

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Time Dilation Can Only be Detected at Velocities Close to the Speed of
Light

Is one tenth of c close? At that speed time dilation is easy to observe.
Time dilation is observed at the speed of an aeroplane.
Oscillators currently studied in laboratories will in near future permit
the detection of time dilation at walking speed.

0.3 meter of altitude is equivalent to about 9 km/h in speed.
More than walking, but already less than running,

Gravitational effect has already been demonstrated on smaller altitude
https://www.snexplores.org/article/a-new-clock-shows-how-gravity-warps-time-ev

en-over-tiny-distances
Yes, that has been mentioned here several times already.
But that is inside one, not for an entire clock.

Post by Mikko
However, Experiments with moving things are harder. All moving parts
tend to generate noise. Clocks are easiest to compare when stationary
side by side but then at least one of them must be accerated between
the comparisons and one must ensure that the acceleration does not
affect the clocks rhythm.

Has also been done already, with a van-mounted strontium clock.
<https://phys.org/news/2018-02-optical-clock-gravitation.html>
They don't talk about the Lorentz factors involved in driving the car,
but they must have compensated for them to get the gravity measurements
right.
One of the things the nutters here tend to forget
is that physicsts are not working all the time
to 'prove relativity right'.
Relativity is standard 'unproblematic background knowledge'.
It will be demonstated explicitly only when some parameter
can be pushed back by another decade.
They are out to do more interesting things.
Standard relativistic corrections are applied as a matter of course,
when and where needed,
Jan

The vis-viva is a really old theory that since Lagrange
and the fluid models and energy conservation, which is great,
that being since mechanical reduction was reduced to the
statistical ensemble after a stack of Hooke, Clausius,
Boltzmann, and a bit of Kelvin, for Boyle or gas law
thusly "2'nd" law, thermo, while the inertial and
momental lost any notion of "active" force at all,
and force was given as a quantity and not itself
in the classical, relativity only says it's whatever's
built the classical, the mechanics, in the limit,
which, according to thusly Galileo and Newton's
rest/rest motion/motion equal/opposite f=ma g=mm/r^2,
is entirely missing the Mertonian school, quite
thoroughly notions of meeting and parting and
stopping and starting, and otherwise makes for
inserting "zero-eth" laws about orbits and
meeting and parting and stopping and starting,
AND using relativistic derivations like Einstein's
second mass-energy equivalency in the classical,
and introducing "heft", makes for the entire idea
of "momentum" instead of "inertia" and "energy",
thusly, conserved, obsolete.
Though, correct in some simple cases.

The "Einstein's Relativity" is an _inertial_
system and a _differential_ system (and more
fully an _integral_ system) and besides Einstein's
attack on Newton and his foray into the centrally
symmetrical and "Einstein's Bridge" which is usually
applied to condensed-matter-physics while yet is
part of his account on mechanics, there's that
Einstein's "partial differentials" with regards
to usually the Laplacians and the limitations of
the Hamiltonian after Jacobi and even Jacobi again,
that one imagines Einstein would have found great
potential, pun intended, in more-than-partial
mathematics of Laplacians what arrive at harmonic
functions a more-than-partial potential theory,
with regards to the continuum mechanics which
also has a lot going on, and the Bayesian also
which is itself partial, pointing at weaknesses
all up and down the stack of derivations.

One imagines Einstein might say "yeah it's got
to be a differential system and when I say
'partial' differentials that's all we had, ...."
It's got to be "continuous" is what he says.

It's a sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials theory, ....

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Mikko: Then a difference in arrival times should have been detected in
the MMX at 30km/sec.

[Mikko]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mikko: Then a difference in arrival times should have been detected in
the MMX at 30km/sec.

According to some theories. Both special and general relavitiy predict
zero. But so does FitzGerald's contraction theory, so the experiment
does not tell about time dilation.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Mikko

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mikko: Then a difference in arrival times should have been detected in
the MMX at 30km/sec.

According to some theories. Both special and general relavitiy predict
zero. But so does FitzGerald's contraction theory, so the experiment
does not tell about time dilation.

No it doesn't, and experiments don't say in general.
Time dilation is only said by a mumbling inconsistently
idiot and a number of brainwashed fanatics worshipping
him.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Mikko

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mikko: Then a difference in arrival times should have been detected in
the MMX at 30km/sec.

According to some theories. Both special and general relavitiy predict
zero. But so does FitzGerald's contraction theory, so the experiment
does not tell about time dilation.

Right. MMX is a worthless experiment for learning about nature.
It's zero doesn't tell us anything much.
In the decades following it a great many theories were advanced
to 'explain' it.
Michelson himself for example thought that he had proved
complete aether dragging by the Earth.

Until Einstein 1905 put matters right of course,
and after that it had become a triviality,
not worth mentioning, because the answer is inmediately obvious,

Jan

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Mikko

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mikko: Then a difference in arrival times should have been detected in
the MMX at 30km/sec.

According to some theories. Both special and general relavitiy predict
zero. But so does FitzGerald's contraction theory, so the experiment
does not tell about time dilation.

Right. MMX is a worthless experiment for learning about nature.
It's zero doesn't tell us anything much.
In the decades following it a great many theories were advanced
to 'explain' it.
Michelson himself for example thought that he had proved
complete aether dragging by the Earth.
Until Einstein 1905 put matters right of course,
and after that it had become a triviality,
not worth mentioning, because the answer is inmediately obvious,
Jan

Michelson-Morley was allowed to reach a very rest-ful state
as with regards to when it's spinning it's non-negative.

It's basically allowed to fall in line.

"Deep under Case University, ...."

Einstein of course in Sidelights on Relativity
does say "there is an ether".

You shallow pond

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Mikko

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mikko: Then a difference in arrival times should have been detected in
the MMX at 30km/sec.

According to some theories. Both special and general relavitiy predict
zero. But so does FitzGerald's contraction theory, so the experiment
does not tell about time dilation.

Right. MMX is a worthless experiment for learning about nature.
It's zero doesn't tell us anything much.
In the decades following it a great many theories were advanced
to 'explain' it.
Michelson himself for example thought that he had proved
complete aether dragging by the Earth.
Until Einstein 1905 put matters right of course,
and after that it had become a triviality,
not worth mentioning, because the answer is inmediately obvious,

Oh, correct answers are always soooo obvious
after correct brainwashing.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Mikko: Time dilation was not detected in the MMX.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Mikko: It has been admitted above that time dilation can be detected at
30km/sec. Then, the MMX should have detected it. Instead, it is merely
an interpretation. Correctly understood, time dilation is the alleged
delay in arrival times. If time dilation exists, the MMX would have
detected it. It does not exist.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Mikko: The cause of time dilation is ether. Ether does not exist, so
time dilation does not.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Mikko

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Time Dilation Can Only be Detected at Velocities Close to the Speed of
Light

Is one tenth of c close? At that speed time dilation is easy to observe.
Time dilation is observed at the speed of an aeroplane.
Oscillators currently studied in laboratories will in near future permit
the detection of time dilation at walking speed.

The problem with SRT:

if 'at rest' is indistinguishable from any other velocity:

how then could you assign any velocity to any object in the force free
space of SRT?

In that space you always need to have some other object, in respect to
which you measure velocity.

That reference object is usually regarded as being at rest.

E.g. we could regard our home upon planet Earth as being at rest.

So, we walk down the street at walking speed and regard ourselves as
rather slow.

But that is, of course, wrong, because the Earth rotates once per day
and circles in a huge ellipse around the Sun once per year (together
with our home).

The entire solar system swirls around the galactic center and our home
galaxy around the local cluster.

But which speed is actually ours while walking along our street???


TH