[Richard]

Van Flandern was right. Time travel is preposterous.

Moving through space is one thing. It involves getting traction on one thing in order to propel something the other way.

There is absolutely no traction on time.

It’s just simply not that kind of thing.

So I agree with you.

[Laura]

If as I propose, time does not really exist, and is just a measuring stick for change, what would happen if “T” time was removed from all the physics equations?

[David]

“what would happen if “T” time was removed from all the physics equations?”

Truth be told, time is rarely a part of any physics equations. If we look more carefully at the use of time in our units and equations we find that time mainly appears in the denominator. When time is in the denominator, we are not actually talking about time, but we are talking about frequency.

Consider for a moment what part of us seems to experience “time.’ Time is our perception of change as observed in physical matter. However, our mind does not experience a physical flow of time. For if our mind experienced a physical timeline then our mind would be flowing along the timeline the same as the physical matter that is flowing along the timeline. It would be like a leaf floating on a river.

Only when the mind is anchored in the present moment can the mind observe “time” in physical matter.

The present moment is always experienced by the mind as being right here and right now. If it were not for our memories, as created, stored, and recalled in the hippocampus region of our brain, we would have no experience of linear time at all.

Since “time” almost always expresses as frequency in our physics equations, and also since our mind always exists only in the present moment, we need to consider the possibility that in physical reality, time occurs as a constant oscillation between forward time and backward time. The net result would then be a temporal state in which no progress is ever made in either the forward time direction, or the backward time direction (i.e. the present moment).

The fact that physical matter does appear to change in the forward time direction, and that all physical observation of physical matter always take place in the present moment, then wouldn’t it seem more likely that physical matter is seeing only half of the present moment?

Consider the fact that physicists already know that a fundamental property of all stable subatomic particles is that they have half-spin. We know that the half-spin does not refer to angular momentum or rotation, and so the only other real possibility is that the half-spin nature of subatomic particles is that subatomic particles experience only the forward time direction of the temporally oscillating present moment.

The fact that time is almost always expressed as a frequency, rather than as linear time, supports the logic that the real temporal nature of the physical Universe is a frequency of forward time and backward time.

Our experience of the physical Universe is one of observing half-spin matter existing in a full-spin temporal cycle of the present moment. The perception of linear time is provided by the hippocampus of our brain. The brain also provides us with sight, depth perception, hearing, feelings, a sense of direction, and other interpretations of the world that do not solely depend on the physics of matter.

What we need to relearn is that what we thought was time is actually frequency.

[Jerry]

Hi Laura. I agree that “time is a human construct that measures rates of changes of things compared to one another.” However, that is only one definition. Time is also the inevitable feature of reality which is examined. And even if time is only a “human construct” without physicality, at least it does “exist” in that particular way. These two separate definitions somewhat remind me of how the word “science” doesn’t only apply to the vast accumulation of the most accurate knowledge possible. There is also the scientific approach itself (often called “science”), which is used to examine reality, to arrive at the most accurate knowledge.

Anyway, just a thought.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 3 months ago by  Jerry.

[Laura]

Okay, think of yourself in outer space, way far away from any star or galaxy. You are just floating there by yourself. Now … do you perceive time? If you use any motion, light, movement, etc. to base your answer on you are just measuring rate of change.

[Jerry]

I definitely agree. You could even say the same without the scenario of outer space. The process of observing or accounting for motion or light, takes time. It is done by using or acting within the abstract concept of time, which refers to the order of events, past, present, and future. Also, time refers to the ongoing “now”. Of course, time isn’t a physical structure or occurrence. Actually, if physical reality didn’t exist at all, why wouldn’t time inevitably continue? Anyway, just a thought.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 3 months ago by  Jerry.

[Ken]

Give me a 🙂 if you believe the stay-at-home twin ages twice as fast as her twin brother who travels at 0.866 c km/sec for 2 years before returning home as measured by the stay-at-home twin. Give me a ☹ if you believe there is no difference between the twins age when the traveling twin returns home.

[David]

☹ The postulates of Special Relativity theory state that space is not absolute, and that photons always travel at c in all reference frames. <div>

To begin with, the Michelson Morley experiment was not based on an absolute space, but rather it was based on a rigid space. The MM experiment showed that space is not rigid. As far as absolute, even Albert Einstein acknowledged that space has physical constants such as the constant speed c of photons, the permeability of space, the permittivity of space, and the rotation of physical objects in space. To these observations, Einstein admitted there had to be some kind of Aether.

<div>

The speed of c is absolute for each quantum of space. A physical photon moves through physical space according to the physics of that space. To claim that a photon will move in a reference frame at a the speed of c is completely unfounded. A reference frame is a human perception. There are no physical measurements of reference frames such that the second postulate could ever be tested.

The conclusion of the aging twin is based on a though experiment, which is based on postulates and imaginary reference frames.

As for General Relativity theory and the clocks with different time measurements, the physicist must choose which coordinate system they want to work with, and stick with that coordinate system. The physicist cannot calculate the clock trajectory in the space density gradient of Riemann curvature mathematics and then pretend what that calculated result may look like in Minkowski or Euclidean coordinates.

A clock that moves through a greater space density gradient at higher altitudes above the surface of a massive object has more space per orbital revolution to travel through than does a clock at lower altitudes. The clocks are still both accurate, but one clock has traveled through denser space than has the other clock. With more space to travel through, it is necessary for the clock to tick more times since the clock keeps accurate time.

The present moment remains the same for both twins, but one twin went off for an adventure through denser space. The extra ticks are due to the velocity through that denser space, and the extra ticks are not due to changes to the present moment.

</div></div>

[Ken]

I am rewording my last reply:

Give me a 🙂 or thumbs-op if you believe the stay-at-home twin ages twice as fast as her twin brother who travels at 0.866 c km/sec for 2 years before returning home 1 year younger than his stay-at-home twin sister. Give me a ☹ or thumbs-down if you believe there is no difference between the twins ages when the traveling twin returns home.

[Jerry]

Ken,

I would say that I don’t believe the twins ages would differ, so 🙁. Though I wouldn’t want either of the twins to seem so sad!

Also though, I’m highly skeptical (almost complete disbelief) about the “a clock on the plane and one on the ground” experiment, with Hafele and Keating, and from what I’ve heard, many others.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 3 months ago by  Jerry.

[Ken]

Jerry,

Do you believe that a lithium ion clock orbiting the Earth in a high orbit will run slower (i.e. will lose time) relative to a lithium ion clock running on the ice at the north pole?

Also, do you have any opinion concerning the results and speculations about clocks orbiting the Earth discussed at: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/einsteins-time-dilation-prediction-verified/

[Jerry]

Hi Ken.

Maybe time for a lithium clock in a high orbit does run slower than one on earth. Why to compare this to a clock at the north pole? Is it different from how time goes at the equator? Anyway, what is your view of why there is time dilation within the plane? Is it to account for the velocity of the plane, or the time dilation caused by the gravity of the earth compared to (at least slightly) outer space?

[Ken]

Jerry,

Thanks for your four questions (1) through (4) listed below with my answers 🙂:

(1) Why to compare this to a clock at the north pole?

Because at the north pole there is no rotational velocity (v) relative to an orbiting clock or the clock in the airplane. A reference clock at a pole will only have a significant gravitational acceleration represented by the escape velocity (ve) at the pole.

(2) Is it different from how time goes at the equator?

Yes, A reference clock at the equator will have a significant rotational velocity (v) as well as a significant gravitational acceleration represented by escape velocity (ve) at the plane’s altitude.

(3) Anyway, what is your view of why there is time dilation within the plane?

There is a time dilation (t’/t) for the clock’s time (t’) in the plane relative to the reference clock’s time (t) because the plane is traveling around the Earth at a significant velocity (v) due to Earth’s spin and planes ground speed as well as at an altitude that has a significant escape velocity (ve).

(4) Is it to account for the velocity of the plane, or the time dilation caused by the gravity of the earth compared to (at least slightly) outer space?

It is to account for both where (t’) for the clock in the plane is effected by v as well as ve, but the time (t) of the reference clock at the pole is effected only by a significant escape velocity (ve).

To better understand my answers please refer to “Time Dilation Effects in the Relativity Queuing System” at:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1K8WEASyPoP86dQ32_QX32w4TVbJQwBOr/view?usp=sharing

Thanks again for your interest, questions, opinions and open mindedness concerning critical analysts of Relativity Theory 🙂!

[John-Erik]

In Michelson-Morley’s tests we must use the wave model since a collimator defines – and a telescope detects – constant orientation of wave front and the same wave front in both arms. So, no wave front tilting and no effect in the reference arm. Therefore, no time dilation – and Galilean transform. So, the twin paradox is just an illusion by a mistake from Potier. This happened between 1882 and 1887.

With best regards from ______________ John-Erik

[John-Erik]

Physics went wrong 140 years ago.

John-Erik

[Jerry]

Hi John-Erik.

With Michelson and Morley, were you referring to their experiments with the interferometer there? And also “length contraction”?

[Jerry]

John-Erik,

Also, what is your viewpoint of exactly where physics went wrong 140 years ago? Was that caused by specific, yet mistaken, ideas of some one or many scientists? Of course, there have been countless other scientists at many other given times through the centuries who weren’t necessarily contributing valuable ideas. That there were even many detrimental ideas throughout the history of science, that were accepted by some or many others. Anyway, just a thought.

[John-Erik]

Jerry

The original mistake was, is I said, that an effect was introduced in the reference arm by Potier. This was based on wrong particle ideas. According to the more relevant wave model we find UNCHANGED orientation of wave fronts in MMX. The same wave front in both arms means no effect of ether wind in reference arm.

All this means that we can avoid time dilation and Lorentz effect and twin paradox. Instead we can use Gallilean transform.

With best regards from _______________ John-Erik

PS

Light is waves and NOT particles. In my article to PHYSICS ESSAYS in June 2021 you can see that ALL phenomena in light can be explained by the wave model. The wave model cal also explain CONTINEOUS radiation from hydrogen. See my profile on RecearchGate.

DS

[Laura]

I think part of the problem is the assumption that a thing can ever be “at rest” compared to something else. All things are moving constantly through space so any theory comparing clocks or twins on earth vs in space must incorporate that both are moving constantly. So ☹

[Jerry]

Good point, Laura. This does seem a complex problem.

Whenever a given object is “at rest”, or “stationary”, if the object or frame doesn’t accelerate, it is inertial, and could serve as a reference of “exactly how fast” another given object exists or travels. Of course, with Special Relativity, gravity and acceleration were ignored or considered irrelevant specifically for the purpose of solving this given problem.

And there’s also a much larger question, “what is everything within the whole universe relative to?” The answer considered by many over a century ago, was the aether, which was said to have been the ultimate valid frame of reference within which all objects exist or travel.

[Ken]

Laura,

Yes! The Earth and all of its satellites are moving though space around the solar systems barycenter, the Milky-way’s barycenter, etc. However, the tick rate (t’) of clocks in satellites orbiting a reference clock at the north pole will have a tick rate (t). In this scenario, a satellite clock’s tick rate (t’) will be different from the reference clock’s tick rate (t) for satellites where the combination of the effects of velocity (v) and gravitational escape velocity (ve) have been measured to have different tick rates from those of the “stationary” clocks that are only effected by escape velocity (ve). Thus, Time Dilation for satellites orbiting a massive body is defined as (t’/t) and is affected by v and ve according to the discussion at:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1K8WEASyPoP86dQ32_QX32w4TVbJQwBOr/view?usp=sharing

[Ken]

Laura,

I have made some changes to the 1 page discussion concerning the “fixed”, “stationary” or “at rest” inertial frame at the following link:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1K8WEASyPoP86dQ32_QX32w4TVbJQwBOr/view?usp=sharing

I hope these changes can help to clarify the meaning these hyphenated words 🙂.

[John-Erik]

To all regarding Scientific American article about time dilation:

The tests does not confirm time dilation. Instead the article demonstrates that the speed in Cesium clocks is dependent on the clock’s speed in relation to the ether. Time dilation is a mistake introduced by Potier. He stated that light must take a longer way in MMX transverse arm, after a reasoning based on particles.

Instead a reasoning based on waves leads to the same wave front in both arms. So, we can use Galiean transform without time dilation.

3 errors in MMX

1) Potier in reference arm

2) Maxwell did not observe that available effect in horizontal plane is 0.46 km/s (rotation), not 30 km/s, (translation) of our planet. He also missed the fact that we have a vertical ether wind of 11.2 km/s (equal to escape velocity). Too low sensitivity.

3) Maxwell did not observe that the effect in the measuring arm (2 antiparallel forces) is compensated by the control of atomic separation (2 antiparallel forces). Unobservable effect in measuring arm.

MMX is useless and we only need the wave model for light. Details are available in an article to PHYSICS ESSAYS June 2021 that can be ordered from my RESEARCHGATE profile. Search on my name!

With best regards from _______________ John-Erik

[Jerry]

John-Erik,

Have you read or heard of The Particle Model (TPM) ? It sounds quite compelling, though I’m unsure if the theory is completely accurate.

When you speak of the MMX and the “transverse arm” and “Potier in reference arm”, were you referring to the “arms” of the interferometer? That they’re somehow affected by the invisible and undetectable “aether”? I’m unsure if you accept any of the theory involving the MMX and the “arms” of the interferometer. Could you please clarify? Thanks.

[John-Erik]

Jerry

The reference arm in MMX is transverse to light direction so light moves inside the plane of the wave fronts in this arm. the meassuring arm is longitudinal to wave fronts.

Potier suggested that light takes a longer way due to the ether wind meaning an effect in the reference arm equal to half the effect in the measuring arm. This was influenced by partricle-based ideas and in error. If we strict follow the wave model we get NO effect in reference arm. Therefore, NO time dilation according to detailed reasoning I have described many times. We must use the same wave front in BOTH arms. See this article:

https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/8874

I have also explained that the wave model can explain all light phenomena with the wave model, so we do NOT need the particle model for light. The wave model can also explain how hydrogen radiation can be contineous although we only observe the interference frequencies. All these ideas are presented in a 7 page article to PHYSICS ESSAYS June 2021 (The wave-particle dilemma in light). The article is copyrighted so no public files. However you can order personal file over ResearchGate if you write my name on RG.

With best regards from _______________ John-Erik

[John-Erik]

Error in second line. Should be:

…longitudinal to light motion…(or normal to wave fronts)

John-Erik