Clive Tickner B.A. BSC; [email protected]

Physics; a conjuring trick with space and time

ABSTRACT

Relativity insists that each ob ject at a point in space can have its own version of time , which may run faster or slower than other objects elsewhere. Relative changes in the experience of time are said to happen when one object moves toward s, or away from , another object , which cause s clocks to run at different speeds in different locations. In this paper I outline some simple events whereby the notion of time dilation is shown to be weak, or to fail, and that the inclusion of length contraction only makes matters worse.

KEYWORDS

Sp ecial Relativity, Gravitational attraction, Atomic clocks, Time dilation, Length contraction, Constant velocity, Relative velocity, Twin's paradox, Perception, Symmetry, Speed of Light.

CONTENTS

TITLE page 2 1) TWO ROCKETS page 2 2) The TRUSS page 4 3) THREE ROCKETS page 6 4) PERCEPTION page 7 5) DIRECTIONAL DEPENDENCE page 8 6) The TWINS PARADOX page 9 7) DIFFERING VELOCITIES page10 8) LENGTH CONTRACTION page 11 9) REACHING THE STARS page 19 10) LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION page 22 1 1 ) CONCLUSION page 36 NOTES 1 The Truss page 36 NO TES 2 Twins revisited page 39 NOTES 3 A lternative interpretations of the results and conclusions from time - dilation ' proving ' experiments. page 42 NOTES 4 Further reading page 44

1

Physics; a conjuring trick with space and time.

I am firstly going to describe examples where time dilation cannot occur , with diagrams to illustrate the concomitant problematic issues. I'll temporarily avoid the consideration of any length contraction t hat may or m ay not be pertinent. However, later, I will introduce that phenomenon to the paradigm in order to demonstr ate also the extent and errors of those dubious claims.

1 TWO ROCKETS

In an area of deep space, free of any gravitational attraction, we h ave tw o rockets: Yellow Rocket and B lue Rocket; onboard they each have an atomic clock. ( diagram 1)

A) Blue rocket is considered to be ' still ' relative to the travelling Y el low rocket .

B) Yellow rocket closes up to B lue, becomes level , and then passes it. A t the moment when the Y ellow rocket becomes level with B lue , their on - board clocks are synchronised with one another .

C) Because Y ellow is now moving away from B lue , (their relative velocities differ) S pecial R elativity expects us to believe that the Y ell ow rocket's time will be passing more slowly than the Blue rocket's time.

Diagram 1

PROBLEM However, considering synchronicity , we could consider that it is the B lue rocket that i s moving away from Y ellow , as we have no third object with which we can r elate the event . If we reverse (there's no direction in space) the above image to show the order C, B, A, (diagram 2) then Special Relativity would accept that the Blue rocket's time will be passing more slowly than the Yellow rocket's time.

2

Diagram 2

My claim is , that i t is absurd to have a condition whereby each rocket can be considered as having their time dilated in equal measure with the other.

Let's take this idea one step further.

Again we have t wo rockets, (Yellow and Blue) in deep space , away from any gravitational influence ; each , again, equipped with matching atomic clocks . They are moving with uniform motion along a shared straight - line path . ( diagram 3, image A to image D) . However , throughout, the Blue rocket has a greater constant vel ocity than the Yellow rocket, such that the distance between the rockets steadily increases with time.

Diagram 3

According to Special Relativity, time dilation insists that the two clocks should, in some way, run at different rates. Here the Blue r ocket is travelling 3 times faster than the Yellow craft, irrespective of their actual velocities.

3 We truly cannot say what their velocities are, as, once again, we have no universal reference point with which we can refer. Therefore, again, it will not b e possible to confirm which clock is running more slowly. All that we know, really, is that there is a increasing distance between the rockets. (As in diagram 1 above, there must be the possibility, when considering reciprocity, that the motion of both th e rocket's could be reversed ).

However, the belief is that each rocket pilot, (should t he y be able to access the clock in the other pilot's craft ) , would see that the opposing clock would be running more slowly, and by the same degree. But, again, if this double - view were ever possible, then the opposite clock is equally likely to be running more quickly.

This , therefore questions whether or not an ' Observer ' , is crucial for determining time dilation at all. E ither dilation occurs or it doesn’t, but if does , then physics should explain exactly how to specify which clock experiences more , or less, of it.

Until one person can see both events at the same time , it can only be each pilot's perception of someone else's time being dilated.

Lets look at thi s further , but with an example that employs known physical distances and speeds.

2 THE TRUSS

A two L ight - Hour long Truss is floating in space far from any gravitational attraction. The lengt h of the Truss has been established by reflecting a laser pu lse of light from one end of the Truss to the other and back , and the elapsed time compared with the speed of light. Two spaceships approach from either side of the Truss , each travelling at the same constant speed relative to each other ; with their direc tional travel line being equal but opposite . As before, e ach ship c arries an accurate atomic clock . (diagram 4)

Diagram 4

By coincidence, both ship s pass each end of the Truss at the same moment . At this point , both craft set the start button s on th eir respective atomic clocks providing a perfectly symmetrical situation. (diagram 5)

4

Diagram 5

But let's con sider the circumstance of this Truss more carefully. It cannot be still; it must be moving within and/or with all Universal motion. Therefore i t must have a velocity. If it has a velocity it must have a direction. As set up, its direction is relative to the two rockets. Therefore it must be either travelling towards the Blue Rocket or travelling towards the Red rocket. Therefore the speeds of the rockets, relative to the Truss will be different.

Time must have been passing for the Truss be fore the arrival of the rockets; but , before their arrival , there was nothing against which we could judge its velocity at all. All we know is that its velocit y is less than both the rockets, and therefore its time should be passing more quickly than both.

However, if the Truss is moving in the same direction as the R ed rocket then the differen ce in relative velocity for the Red rocket will be less than the di fference in relative velocity with the Blue rocket. Therefore the Truss 's time will be passing at a slower rate for the Red rocket than it does for the Blue rocket, whose difference in v elocity between itself and the Truss will be greater.

PROBLEMS

The T russ ; This situation requi res the Truss 's time to be different when compared with the time on each rocket, when we know that both rocket's clocks match. The Truss cannot have two time frames at once. Also, how can a Truss 's time alter just by the sudden a ppearance of rockets?

The Rockets; Relative to the Truss , then, the two rocket's clocks will also have to show different times, when we know they actually match. The situation can easily be reversed , as we do not know the actual direction or velocity of t he Truss in the first instance.

In order to determine time passing, there is , therefore, no logical way of choosing one rocket over the other. It is impossible to claim that the clock on one will be running more slowly, or running more quickly than the c lock on the other.

To maintain the scenario, t he spaceships continue to close in on one another.

5

Diagram 6 ; The non - central passin g point, as the Truss is considered here as travelling in the opposite direction to the Blue rocket .

The place where the spaceships cross , will be one side or the other of the centre - point of the Truss , according to the direction the Truss is taking, relative to the rockets. But at the passing point the speed of time passing must match for all three objects. If both craft's pilots took a photograph of their own clocks at that passing position , the pilots , later, could look at both images to make a comparison. The photographs of the clocks must show the same time, and if they have both slowed down or speeded up we'll never kn ow. From this we can only conclude that t ime dilation cannot be a real event, but only, at best, a perception.

(See NOTE 1 for the implications of length contraction , when added to this scenario)

3 THREE ROCKETS

To complicate the situation a little, let’s say there are now three rockets in our rather similar scenario : Yellow , Blue and R ed. As in diagram 1, the B lue rocket is considered to be still (relative to the Yellow rocket) and Y ellow is again movi ng to the right. Newly arrived R ed rocket is t ravelling to the le ft of B lue with the equal and opposite velocity of Y ellow. (diagram 7 )

Diagram 7

S pecial R elativity tells us that the Red and Y ellow rockets must be recording time more slowly than the clock on the B lue rocket , and that their two clo cks (Red's and Yellow's) are slow by the same amount. By reciprocity , the B lue rocket 's clock should slow down by the same degree relative to Red and Y ellow. But SR also tells us that the Red rocket's clock should be going slower than the Yellow rocket's clock , by a greater degree than relative to the Blue rocket's clock, and, likewise, the Yellow rocket's clock should slowdown the same amount relative to the Red rocket's clock.

6

So we have the following, inevitably conflicting statistics;

1) T he clock on the Blue rocket should be running faster than that on the Yellow rocket. 2) Diametrically opposite we have; t he Y ellow rocket's clock could be considered to be running faster than B lue 's clock .

3) The Red rocket's clock should be running faster than Blue's clock 4) Again the opposite; t he Blue rocket's clock c ould be running faster than that on the Red rocket.

5) The Red rocket's clock sh ould be running much faster than the Yellow clock. 6) Conflictingly, t he Yellow rocket's clock should be running m uch faster than the Red's clock.

7) Y et we absolutely know that the Red and Yellow rockets' clocks are synchronised to the same time.

I t is not possible for all three clocks to run slow (or fast) by an equal amount, for, s hould this actually occur , we co uld not tell whether any time dilation had happened at all . It would not be noticeable.

4 PERCEPTION

Diagram 8 ; An Earth observer's perception of a receding rocket

7

Diagram 9 ; An astronauts p erception of a rec eding E arth

Taking what we have learnt about reciprocity above and how we now know that there are as many variables in interpreting events within the framework of SR as there are observers, we are no longer able to determine definitively whether , as above , it is the rocket moving away from the Earth ...... or Earth moving away from the rocket......

Any periods of acceleration or deceleration can equally be applied to each . B oth classical mechanics and SR tell us that velocity has no absolute measure but ca n only be evaluated relative to something else.

Applying all this to the famous ' Twins Paradox ' we can therefore claim that the astronaut twin can survey the Earth moving away from her , and then returning to her, during her trip , just as easily as the sta y - at - home twin can see the rocket moving away from him, later to return.

However, SR claims that in this scenario , one twin (The astronaut) would have aged less than the other. But when SR's time dilation and symmetry hypotheses are applied correctly , we can see , then , that they both must have changed age - wise in equal measure, or not aged differently at all.

5 DIRECTIONAL DEPENDENCE

Let's remove the importance of directionally dependant events from affecting the time dilation of the Twins Paradox.

Diagram 10

8

The Blue and Yellow rockets are joined by a huge scaffolding Truss of a fixed 'proper' 'rest' length. T he R ed rocket travels between the two; that is, it is moving away from Yellow towards B lue.

If time dilation was directionally dependent th en R ed ' s clock should move slower than Yellows, but faster than B lue's But this would contradict the relation between Yellow and B lue whose clocks clearly move at the same speed, as they are conjoined.

6 THE TWINS PARADOX

As we have discovered above, adding observers (even if only one) to the concepts of dilated time, opens awkward and unanswerable questions . Similarly t he faults of SR's ' Twins ' concept falls apart if, again, we introduce a third observer . Here we again look at a three rockets scenari o , where Red and Yellow are considered linked, whilst a third travels relative to them.

Diagra m 11

So no w we have t hree rockets which are are moving through deep space, away from any gravitational attraction. They all advance with identical velocities . ( Diagram 9; frames A,B,C) Therefore there is no relative motion between them.

In frame D the B lue rocket starts to accelerate steadily, increasing its velocity as it approaches the R ed rocket. Time dilation predicts that as the B lue rocket is accelerati ng away from the Y ellow rocket , an atomic clock onboard the B lue rocket should slow down r elative to the atomic clock on Y ellow.

But the B lue rocket is accelerating towards the R ed rocket so B lue's atomic clock should speed up r elative to the atomic cloc k on R ed. Yellow and R ed are synchronised , so no time change can occur between them. Therefore Blue's atomic clock is both slower and faster than the two other rocke ts which are time - synchronised, which , of course, is not possible.

9 The further fault of co nsidering Twin Paradox is the notion that the sta y - at - hom e twin is ' static ', when, in fact, he will not only be moving relative to the E arth , but will also be moving with the Earth through the Universe .

For a completely new approach to solving the 'Twins Paradox' , that irrefutably disproves time dilation , please s ee NOTE 2 below.

7 DIFFERING VELOCITIES

I am now going to describe an event, again without considering length c ontraction, then, following that , I'll deal with the same example but with the emp loyment of length contraction variations.

Two identical rockets, speed towards one another, each with matching atomic clocks aboard. They travel at different velocities, through deep space, far beyond any gravitational attraction, towing behind them linke d - chain s of matching lengths as in diagram 12 .

Diagram 12

Both t he linked - chain s measure several , matching ‘light - hours’ in length, (relative to their own frames of reference),

Neither rocket's atomic clock is running. The B lue rocket 's velocity is at 40% the speed of light, relative to Red. As they pass each o ther, each pilot presses the start button on their atomic clocks . Diagram 13 . Blue then continues at its constant speed.

Diagram 13

Many hours later, the B lue rocket draws level with the far end of the Red rocket's linked - chain , and the pilot of Blue presses her stop button an d photographs the reading on her digital camera . Diagram 14 .

10

Diagram 14

At the same time, of course, the R ed rocket draws level with far end of the Blue rocket 's linked - chain . At this point, the R ed rocket's pilot presses the stop button on his atomic clock an d photographs the reading on his digital camera .

Much later the Blue rocket turns around and returns to meet the R ed rocket , where the two photographs a re compared.

The situation is fully symmetrical and each atomic clock travelled at 40%c relative to the other with no acceleration or deceleration. Hence, t he two photographs must inevitabl y show the same time.

Therefore, even without the linked - chain s t o mark distances , there is no way for these two atomic clocks, in these circumstances, ever to record more , or less time , having passed, than the other. Therefore no time dilation can have taken place.

8 LENGTH CONTRACTION

The notion of Length C ontr action is that objects shrink along the direction of travel , at speeds close to that of light.

However, Einstein's hypotheses are always based on the observations of two characters only, and in previous papers I have suggested that all the se theories fall apart when other observers are introduced. I now offer several further examples, and each, in their own way, refute the notion that objects can contract near light speed;

a) three rockets

11

Diagram 15; Classical perspective Green's perspective

Here , on the left, we have three rockets, red, blue and green . They are arranged such that they are all travelling away from one another at uniform, matching speed s .

It can be considered that the Green rocket is moving directly away from the Blue and R ed rocke ts . So from the point of view of the Green rocket's pilot , both the R ed rocket and the Blue rocket should be dilated in the direction of their travel. (right hand image.)

Diagram 16; Red's perspective Blue's perspective

Now consider the perspective of the pilot of the Red rocket. (left image above) She will see that the Blue and Green rocket's have their physical shape shrunk i n the direction of their travel .

The right hand image describes the perspective of the Blue rocket's pilot, who will compreh end that both the Green and Red rockets have their dimensions dilated.

12 This must demonstrate that length contraction can, at best, only be in the minds of the viewing pilots. Their perceptions, (if indeed this is the case), can not in any way have physical ly altered the ' rest ' shapes of the other rockets in this scenario. b) Three astronauts

S uppose we have a rocket of fixed length ; it is maintaining a non accelerating velocity beyond any gravitational influence, and a single observer, (astronaut 1) trave ls synchronously with the rocket , perceiving its length to be 6 meters.

Diagram 17.

Now we have two further astronauts floating directly towards the rocket , but at different velocities. A stronaut 2 moves at 0.87c (where γ=2) and Astronaut 3 at 0.94c (where γ=3). Therefore astronaut 2 will perceive that the rocket is 3 meters in length whilst the third astronaut will see the rocket as being only 2 meters in length. The rocket cannot actually be different leng ths at the same time, therefore , once again, the perceptions of length contraction are not valid in reality . c) towed chains of a known 'proper' length

Let ' s say that the relative velocity between two rockets is 0.6c, and the length of a linked - chain be ing towed behind each rocket , is 60 Light - M inutes long, ( as measured in their own frame of reference). Once again t he length of the linked - chain s could be confirmed by a pulse of laser light , being sent from the rocket to the end of the chain and back . By

13 recording the time taken for the emitted pulse to return to the rocket this would confirm the length of the linked - chain s when compared to the speed of light.

However, i ntroducing length contraction to the speeding rockets will alter the 100 minutes expec ted travel - time for one rocket to traverse the length of the other's 60 light - minute long linked - chain (whilst still travelling at 0.6c. )

This model must reduce each rocket's journey time to 80 minutes ( from 100 minutes ) , as b oth craft and chains must sh rink in the direction of their travel . A ppear ing to the opposing pilot, will be that the other's linked - chain will now be 80% shorter . That is; each opposing linked - chain will appear to the pilot s to be 48 light - minutes in length only, when their own link ed - chain s must still appear to them selves to be of their ' proper ' length of 60 light - minutes .

Diagram 18 ; The R ed rocket pilot will see a shortened Blue craft and its shortened linked - chain .

Diagram 19 ; The B l ue rocket's pilot will see the R ed craft s hortened , and its linked - chain shortened also.

If it is merely an inaccurate perception, or an optical illusion, that each pilot perceives that the other's chain is 80% shorter, then each craft will still have to travel for 100 minutes to reach the end of the 'proper' length of the opposing rocket's chain.

If e ach atomic clock does actually record 80 minutes at this point of passing, then , somehow , the speeds of the rockets have increased from 0.6%c in order to travel the (non - changing) 60 light - minute dis tance of the chains , because of the claimed affects of length contraction.

One more glitch will be, that when each pilot looks out of his or her porthole , at the other rocket, when momentarily running alongside the other craft , ( no

14 longer travelling in a straight - line - approach ) , according to SR , the rockets and chains should no longer appear to be foreshortened. The inconsistencies and im possible outcomes and inevitably erroneous results envisaged in this example , again show that time and length changes at near light speed cannot occur. Now, because many Relativists still believe that it is acceleration that determines changes in time and distance , (The Twins again) I, again, offer examples that remove acceleration from the equation. d) acceleration sidel ined

Two rockets, one B lue and one R ed are joined together by a nother giant steel Truss , whilst in deep space and far from any gravitational influence. Arriving at the scenario is a Y ellow rocket trave lling at 0.6c (relative to the Blue and R ed rockets). Diagram 20 .

Diagram 20

The Y ellow rocket will take 80 minutes crossing the distance between the Blue rocket and the R ed. When the Y ell ow rocket draws level with the B lue rocket, it fires a flash of light, and both those pilots photograph one another, being exactly level.

As the Yellow rocket passes the R ed rocket, again it sets off a flash of light, and the Red and Y ellow rocket pilots take photographs of each other , being exactly level.

This is how the passage would look , without showing length con traction.

Di agram 21 ; The Classical understanding of the scenario

Lets now consider the awkward circumstance when we do employ length contraction.

15

Diagram 22

This is the perspective of the B lue rocket's pilot. First , seeing the Yellow craft beside him, then, later, seeing the distant flash occurring well short of the Red rocket .

Diagram 23

This is the perspective of t he pilot of the R ed rocket. Firstly looking back and seeing the initial flash did not occur when the Yellow rocket was adjacent t o the Blue craft , then, later, seeing the Yellow rocket 's second flash occurring exactly alongside her.

F rom the point of view of both the B lue and the R ed rocket's pilot s , the passage of the Y ellow rocket will be shrunken equally, by 80%, but the passag e of travel will be differently located .

The photographs;

In Classical construction.... flash 1; Blue pilot would photograph Y e llow being parallel to him. flash 2 ; B lue pilot would photograph both the distant Red and Y ellow rockets, being parallel to one another. The Y ellow rocket w ill photograph both the Blue rocket and the R ed rocket being alongside it self during both of its flashes, having travelled the full length of the Truss .

Employing Length contraction flash 1 ; Blue p ilot would photograph Y ellow being exactly parallel with him. Red pilot would photograph the Y ellow rocket's first flash when it is already 20% of the way down the length of the Truss . That is ; she sees the Yellow rocket flash long after passing Blue. flash 2 ; B lue pilot would photogr aph the Y ellow rocket's second flash occur having travelled only 80% of the Truss distance. That is; the Yellow rocket will be flashing long before arriving at the Red rocket.

16 Red pilot would photograph the yellow rocket exactly by his side. The Y ellow r oc ket will photograph both the Blue rocket and the R ed rocket being alongside it at both of its flashes, having travelled the full length of the Truss . Again impossibly conflicting results arise from the employment of, and belief in , length contraction. ------

Now follows another example , with and without length contraction employed , further to endorse my claim that such a phenomenon is unworkable.

Here, we compar e travel times for various rockets to travel the length of another 60 light - minute Truss .

In deep space, beyond any gravitational influence , we have a B lue rocket and R ed rocket attached to each other by a nother giant 60 light - minute Truss . A Y ellow roc ket comes in to the scenario travelling at 0.6c, (relative to the Blue and R ed rockets ) When the Y ellow rocket is level with the B lue rocket they both start their atomic clocks running . Diagram 24 . At 0.6c the Y ellow craft should take 80 minutes to tra vers e the 60 light - minute Truss if any length contraction is to be ignored .

Diagram 24

Joining the scenario from the right, also travelling at 0.6c, (relative to the Blue and R ed rockets) is another craft, a G reen rocket which has its own atomic clock runn ing. Also d iagram 24. The Yellow and Green rockets draw level with R ed at the same moment . (diagram 25 )

Diagram 25 ; The classical view of this 'meeting point' scenario.

17 Yellow has taken 80 minutes to traverse the length of the Truss and , coincidentally , at this passing moment , the atomic clock on the G reen rocket already reads 80 minutes.

Now , introducing length contraction, awkward, if not unacceptable problems arise . The B lue rocket pilot's will now perceive that a shrunken Y ellow , and a shrunken G r een rocket , are meeting closer to her self than is the R e d rocket. In fact, for her , the Yellow rocket and G reen rocket are meeting at 80% of the distance down the Truss from her . Diagram 26 .

Diagram 26 , the yellow/green meeting point is completely diffe rent with LC.

The direction taken by each rocket is unimportant as the length contraction fo rmula squares velocity. As the Green and Y ellow rockets are travelling at the same relative speed they have to be shrunken evenly.

T he time that the B lue rocket p ilot records for the Y ellow craft to reach the Yellow/G reen m eeting point , from being beside her , will be 80 minutes, even although, for her , the Y ellow craft does not appear to have completed a full 60 light - minute distance . From the B lue rocke t's pilot's point of view the Yellow/ G reen meeting must h ave happened at only a 48 light - minute distance . Diagram 26.

The B lue rocket pilot keeps her atomic clock running whilst the G reen rocket approaches her , so that , as the Green rocket passes her , the Blue rock et's clock will read 160 minutes , since s he was initially passed by the Yellow rocket.

T he time passing which the G reen rocket pilot records , ( whilst journeying from the Y ellow / G reen meeting point to the B lue craft ) , will also be 80 minutes, and, addin g this to the 80 minute time already on that clock at the Yellow/Green meeting point , the Green's clock will also read 160 minutes. Diagram 27 .

The G reen rocket's travel time coincides with a 0.6c trip along an unshrunken 60 light - minute long Truss .

Thes e indisputable timings clearly show that a true and 'proper' distance, and not a shortened distance, of a 60 light - minutes Truss has been travelled, and, therefore, no length contraction can have occurred.

18

Diagram 27

T hus , appearances are deceptive! L e ngth contraction is no more than an individual ' s perception , rather than a concrete actuality.

9 REACHING THE STARS

Hopefully this last example will convince the most hardened believers in length contraction that such a phenomena can only be imaginary . S adly , it is not the sought after experience which could have had us travelling to far distant planets , whose distances might otherwise have been conveniently reduced.

A distant planet, Zog, is 6 light years from Earth. Earth and Zog are c onveniently linked by a 6 light - year long Truss . (In their own frame of reference).

A Blue rocket has been travelling , at 0.6c. for some years when it comes across planet Earth. (diagram 2 8 ).

Diagram 28

As it passes Earth it immediately sets its onboard atomic cl ock to zero , continuing on its way to wards Zog. (diagram 29). It doesn't intent to land on Zog, but to continue on its journey , past it , at 0.6c.

Diagram 29

19 Therefore the Blue rocket, travelling towards Zog, must take 8 years t o traverse the length of the Truss . . Exactly as the Blue rocket reaches Zog , it is passed by a Red rocket, which, coincidentally , has been travelling in the opposite direction at 0.6c. and its atomic clock already reads 8 years. Diagram 30.

The pilot of each rocket has two camer as that face out of each side of the nose of their crafts. Blue rocket's left - hand - side camera photographs Plan e t Zog, his right ca mera photographs the Red rocket, beside him. Diagram 30. The Red rocket's right - hand camera photographs the Blue rocket, its left - hand - side camera photographs deep space. Also diagram 30 . Classical physics would conclude the image below represents the 'passing' event, with both rockets being level with Zog, and their cameras functioning as suggested.

Diagram 30 ; photos tak en; classical image.

Diagram 31; photographic results, classical interpretation.

At this moment the Blue rocket 's atomic clock must have a time recorded of 8 years, and this figure continues to increase as the Blue rocket maintains its velocity passi ng by Zog .

As Red rocket finally passes Earth , its atomic clock now reads 16 years. (That being the 8 years on the clock when passin g the Blue rocket, plus the 8 years travelling down the 6 light - year Truss at 0.6c.) Diagram 3 2 .

20

Diagram 3 2 .

Now the s ame event but employing length contraction.

F or those who believe in L.C's miraculous possibilities , then Earth's view of the two craft being alongside one another, will appear to have taken place at a considerable distance from Zog' s position on space, e ven although the time recorded on the Blue rocket's clock is 8 years. (diagram 33 )

Diagram 33 ; photographs taken , same circumstances, but LC added.

Time The atomic clock, on Earth , records a 16 year interval between the Blue rock et passing Earth and the Red rocket passing Earth in the opposite direction. When the Red rocket crosses by Earth, 16 years will be recorded on its atomic clock also. (diagram 32 )

Photographs If length contraction had occurred then the Blue rocket's right - hand - side photograph would have to show a shrunken, (or non - shrunken) Red rocket, and the Red rocket's right - hand - side photograph would be of a shrunken (or non shrunken) Blue rocket. (diagram 33 )

The images from the ir other cameras would be of the Truss, or deep space only ; there could be no photographic record of the planet Zog.

21

Diagram 34; Photographic results with LC.

Again logic defies hypothesis. Inconsistent results deny the acceptance of scientific conjecture.

THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION

Next we examine a fixed d istance journey for several rockets, as understood by Classical physics, without the introduction of length contraction. This theoretical experiment will also be carried out afterwards, including the phenomenon of length contraction.

CONSTANT VELOCITY wit hout LT

In the diagram below we have an orange line with divisions that represent light years. Below that, we see a Blue rocket that is travelling at 0.95c. The annual distances that the Blue rocket achieves (relative to light years) are marked by blue ar rows.

Diagram 35; A Blue rocket travels at a constant velocity of 0.95c

Now, floating in space, away from any gravitational influence, is a Truss, which is 8.55 light years in length. The Blue rocket approaches the Truss at a constant velocity of 0.9 5c relative to any motion of the Truss.

Diagram 36; The rocket approaches the Truss

22 After one year's travel at this velocity, the rocket, in Classical 'proper' terms, will have 7.6 light years, remaining to travel until it reaches the far end of the T russ.

Diagram 37; The Blue rocket after 1 year's travel.

Exactly as the Blue rocket completes its second year of travelling along the length of the Truss, a Red rocket spins into the frame, joining Blue. The Red rocket is also travelling at a constant velocity of 0.95c, relative to the Truss. From the Red pilot's point of view, she sees her journey to the end of the Truss as being only 6.65 light years, from her starting point , at her current velocity, and, therefore, it is fair to say that the remainin g distance for the Blue rocket will also have to be that same figure.

Diagram 38; A Red rocket joins Blue at the 2 year marker.

After another year's travel, a Green rocket swings in to accompany both Blue and Red. For the Green rocket's pilot the 'pr oper' length that he measures for his own journey to the end of the Truss, from his starting point , will be 5.7 light years. Again it must be fair to claim that both the pilots of the Blue and Red rockets must also understand that their remaining distances to the far end of the Truss will be 5.7 light years.

Diagram 39; A Green rocket joins Red and Blue at the 3 year marker.

With all three rockets maintaining their constant velocities of 0.95c, they must all reach the end of the Truss, together, at the same time; that being - arriving at the Blue rocket's 9 year marker.

23 (9 x 0.95c = 8.55 light years)

Diagram 40; The three rockets arrive at the end of the Truss simultaneously.

Years of Per cent Total Length of travel speed of di stance Truss along light travelled. remaining, Truss to travel. (in light (in light years) years) At zero 0.95c 0 8.55 At the 0.95c 0.95 7.60 1 year marker At the 0.95c 1.90 6.65 2 year marker At the 0.95c 2.85 5.70 3 year marker At the 0.95c 3.80 4.75 4 year marke r At the 0.95c 4.75 3.80 5 year marker At the 0.95c 5.70 2.85 6 year marker At the 0.95c 6.65 1.90 7 year marker At the 0.95c 7.60 0.95 8 year marker At the 0.95c 8.55 0.00 9 year marker

Diagram 41;

24

ACCELERATION without LT

So much for the behaviour of a constant velocity rocket in 'proper' space and time.

Now we examine an accelerating rocket, which also discovers a Truss of an 8.55 light year length. As the Blue rocket approaches the Truss it is travelling at a velocit y of 0.90c, and by the end of the first year, travelling alongside the Truss, it has reached a velocity of 0.91c.

By the end of year 2 it has accelerated to a velocity of 0.92c.

Once again this temporarily ignores length contraction.

Diag ram 42; A Blue rocket accelerates from 0.90c to 0.99c alongside a Truss.

As we see from this diagram we have a rocket that increases its velocity by 0.1% each year, such that by the end of year 9 it is travelling at 0.99c.

At that point it has exactly reached the end of the Truss.

25

Years of Per cent Total Length of travel speed of distance Truss along light travelled. remaining, Truss to travel. (in light (in light years) years) At zero 0.90c 0 8.55 At the 0.91c 0.91 7.64 1 year marker At the 0.92c 1.83 6.72 2 year marker At the 0.93 c 2.76 5.79 3 year marker At the 0.94c 3.70 4.85 4 year marker At the 0.95c 4.65 3.90 5 year marker At the 0.96c 5.61 2.94 6 year marker At the 0.97c 6.58 1.97 7 year marker At the 0.98c 7.56 0.99 8 year marker At the 0.99c 8.55 0.00 9 year marker Diagram 43;

So, what have we discovered?

Diagram 44; Comparing acceleration and constant velocity

26 We see the, initially, slower Red (accelerating) rocket gradually ca tching up with the Blue (constant velocity) rocket, until they both arrive at the Truss's end together. However, Special Relativity requires that time will pass more quickly for a slower travelling object. Therefore the time passing for the Red rocket shou ld be slower than for the Blue rocket until their velocities match .

It is at just over 5 years when they both, momentarily, are travelling at 0.95c, after which the Blue rocket's time should be slower than for the Red rocket, as the latter now has a grea ter velocity.

The number of years that the Red rocket experienced time passing more slowly is greater than the number of years that the Red rocket's time was passing more quickly. This should result in the time being inconsistent between the two rockets when they reach the end of the Truss. But both the constant velocity craft and the accelerating craft have each travelled exactly the same distance in exactly the same time; 8.55 light years, in 9 of their years, so their clocks should match.

Physics draw s differences, in the hypotheses of time dilation and length contraction, between constant speed objects and accelerating objects. However, we can draw two conclusions from the above.

1) SR claims that acceleration affects time, when compared with an obj ect travelling with a constant velocity. (E.g; The Twins Paradox) This is disproved by the comparison above of an accelerating rocket with a constant velocity rocket, over a matching distance. 2) SR claims that a difference in velocity creates a slower or faster moving clock. This is disproved by our Red and Blue rockets travelling a matching distance in a matching time.

CONSTANT VELOCITY with LT

Now we can examine these same events with the inclusion of length contraction. Again, let's deal firstly wit h the rocket travelling at a constant velocity.

We have seen above that the initial length of the Truss is 8.55 light years. To calculate its length contraction I apply the Lorentz Transformation equation for a craft travelling at a constant 0.95c, alon g that Truss. The maths shrinks the Truss to 2.67 light years.

27

Diagram 45; Year 0; the whole Truss is seen as shrunk from a 'proper' length of 8.55 light years to 2.670 light years, by the LT.

But whilst the rockets are travelling along the Truss's l ength, this initial Lorentz Transformation of the 'proper' distance calculation becomes irrelevant, as the remaining distance to travel shortens , by virtue of the rocket's own travel forwards along the Truss.

It would be incorrect to maintain that the roc ket continues to proceed along that initial calculation of the LT distance, (2.67 light years) without taking in to consideration that the Pilot continues to see the remaining Truss length shortening by her own travel anyway.

Therefore the remaining dista nce becomes the figure from which we must calculate ongoing changes in length contraction.

The length of the Truss behind the rocket, over which the Blue rocket has already travelled, is no longer to be considered. It is passed; gone!

After one year of t ravel the calculation for length contraction of the remaining distance , from its present position, changes from 7.60 light years ('proper') to 2.373 light years, when applying the Lorentz transformation.

Diagram 46; At the Year 1 marker; the Truss is seen, ahead, as shrunk from a 'proper' length of 7.60 light years to 2.3730 light years, by the LT.

After two years of travel this LT figure will change again to 2.0765 light years remaining , from the Blue rocket's new position at the 2 year marker. This can easily be confirmed by the arrival of the Red rocket, whose pilot knows that the 'proper' distance for her is 6.65 light years, although the perceived distance for her trip will be 2.0765 light years. (by LT). Her whole journey down the Truss , of co urse, exactly matches the remaining distance for the Blue rocket.

28

Diagram 47; At the year 2 marker; the Truss is seen, ahead, by both rockets, as shrunk from a 'proper' length of 6.65 light years to 2.0765 light years, by the LT.

Now we allow the Gre en rocket to join the scenario. For this pilot, the reduced length of that part of the Truss he has to travel to reach its end, will be the Lorentz Transformation applied to the 'proper' length for him. And this will equal the remaining distance for both the Blue and Red rockets. This is 1.78 light years. (LT)

Diagram 48; At the 3 year marker; the Truss is seen, ahead, as shrunk from a 'proper' length of 5.70 light years to 1.780 light years, by the LT.

It follows that after one year of travel for th e Green rocket (along with Red and Blue rockets) the remaining distance, from their present position (at the 4 year marker for Blue rocket) will be the Lorentz transformed distance of 1.4832 light years, from that position .

Diagram 49; At the 4 year ma rker; the Truss is seen, ahead, as shrunk from a 'proper' length of 4.75 light years to 1.4832 light years, by the LT.

We can see from this how the Lorentz Transformation has been misused when only applying it to the initial distance down the Truss, and b y presuming that this fixed length pertains throughout the rocket's whole trip.

29

The arrival of accompanying rockets makes clear that the remaining distance down which the Blue rocket has to travel, must equal the initial distance for any new arrivals by its side. Therefore it is crucial that the Blue rocket's LT distance is re - evaluated as it moves forward.

Years of Per cent Total Length of Lorentz travel speed of distance Truss Transformation along light travelled. remaining, of distances Truss to travel. from each new (in light (in light position, (each years) years ) year) to the end of the Truss At zero 0.95c 0 8.55 2.6700

At the 0.95c 0.95 7.60 2.3730 1 year marker At the 0.95c 1.90 6.65 2.0765 2 year marker At the 0.95c 2.85 5. 70 1.7800 3 year marker At the 0.95c 3.80 4.75 1.4832 4 year marker At the 0.95c 4.75 3.80 1.1865 5 year marker At the 0.95c 5.70 2.85 0.8900 6 year marker At the 0.95c 6.65 1.90 0.5900 7 year marker At the 0.95c 7.60 0.95 0.29664 8 year marker At the 0.95c 8.55 0.00 0.00 9 year marker Diagram 50;

The interesting thing is, that even when applying LT to high speed journeys, the final result is that the 'proper' distance is travelled anyway.

The figures for the chart above, continue to be explained further in the diagrams below.

30

Diagram 51; At the 5 year marker; the Truss is seen to be shrunk from a 'proper' length of 3.80 light years to 1.1865 light years, by the LT.

Diagram 52; At the 6 year marker; the Truss is seen to be shrunk from a 'proper' len gth of 2.85 light years to 0.89 light years, by the LT.

Diagram 53; At the 7 year marker; the Truss is seen to be shrunk from a 'proper' length of 1.90 light years to 0.59 light years, by the LT.

Diagram 54; At the 8 year marker; the Truss is seen to be shrunk from a 'proper' length of 0.95 light years to 0.29664 light years, by the LT.

31

Diagram 55; At the 9 year marker; the Truss is seen to be shrunk from a 'proper' length of 0.00 light years, and also to 0.00 light years, by the Lorentz T ransformation.

By correctly applying the Lorentz Transformation, by re - assessing each calculation to accommodate for the forward progression of the rockets, we see that there is no distance / length advantage provided by LT, and the 'proper' distance / le ngth remains intact.

ACCELERATING ROCKET with LT

Now I apply LT to the figures from the accelerating rocket from earlier to determine changes in the Truss's length due to length contraction at near light speeds.

Over a nine year period the rocket ac celerates from 0.90c to 0.99c. The chart shows the 'proper' remaining distances as the rocket progresses down the 8.55 light year long Truss.

The diagrams that follow, record, year by year, the remaining LT distance that the rocket is yet to pass by, ackn owledging that the LT distance has to be calculated, each time, from the current location of the craft , rather than from the start of the Truss.

32 Years of Per cent Total Lengt h of Lorentz travel speed of distance Truss Transformation along light travelled. remaining, of the Truss to travel. remaining (in light (in light distance to years) years)

the end of the Truss At zero 0.90c 0 8.55 3.727

At the 0.91c 0.91 7.64 3.1676 1 year marker At the 0.92c 1.83 6.72 2.6337 2 year marker At the 0.93 c 2.76 5.79 2.128 3 year marker At the 0.94c 3.70 4.85 1.6549 4 year marker At the 0.95c 4.65 3.90 1.2178 5 year marker At the 0.96c 5.61 2.94 0.8232 6 year marker At the 0.97c 6.58 1.97 0.4789 7 year marker At the 0.98c 7.56 0 .99 0.1970 8 year marker At the 0.99c 8.55 0.00 0.00 9 year marker Diagram 56;

We see that, arriving at the beginning of the Truss, and travelling at 0.90c, the pilot of the Blue rocket will perceive that the 8.55 light year length of the Truss as being contracted t o 3.727 light years, according to the LT.

Diagram 57; The 'proper' length of the Truss, and the LT length of the Truss.

33

Diagram 58; Accelerating to 0.91c, the craft passes through year 1, reducing the LT remaining distance to 3.1676 light years.

Diagram 59; Accelerating to 0.92c, the craft passes through year 2, reducing the LT remaining distance to 2.6337 light years.

Diagram 60; Accelerating to 0.93c, the craft passes through year 3, reducing the LT remaining distance to 2.128 light ye ars

Diagram 61; Accelerating to 0.94c, the craft passes through year 4, reducing the LT remaining distance to 1.6547 light years.

34

Diagram 62; Accelerating to 0.95c, the craft passes through year 5, reducing the LT remaining distance to 1.278 ligh t years.

Diagram 63; Accelerating to 0.96c the craft passes through year 6, reducing the LT remaining distance to 0.8232 light years. .

Diagram 64; Accelerating to 0.97c the craft passes through year 7, reducing the LT remaining distance to 0.4789 light years

Diagram 65; Accelerating to 0.98c the craft passes through year 8, reducing the LT remaining distance to 0.197 light years.

35

Diagram 66; Accelerating to 0.99c the craft in its 9th year, reduces the LT remaining distance to zero light years.

Once again, we can see that when applying the Lorentz transformation correctly to either an accelerating rocket or to a rocket travelling at a constant velocity, it has achieved absolutely nothing in terms of shortening or contacting lengths and di stances.

10 CONCLUSION

The notion of time dilation was born of mathematics. The difference in comparative timings for two observers in relative motion was entirely based on the employment of the Pythagoras theorem . By relating the lengths of the upright to the hypotenuse, those discrete dimensions were subsequently expanded to provide equations purporting to demonstrate dispara te human / physical experiences in the passage of time. A scientific theory is a possible explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with scientific method. But when a theory fails in any single example , the whole idea has to be thrown out. However, I hear you demand, "What about all those famous experiments wh ich clearly pr ove time dilation? " NOTE 3 lists thoroughly convincing alternative interpretations o f the practices, results and conclusions from those wrongly attributed trials and tests. ------

NOTES

NOTE 1 ; THE TRUSS . From 2, THE TRUSS , page 4, we have the same circumstance involving a Blue rocket, a Red rocket and a two light - hour length Truss all in deep space, away from any gravitational attraction.

Diag ram 35 outlin es all the conflicting issues that the hypothesis of Length Contraction inevitably entails in this scenario . From the main text of this essay it could be construed that the different opinions of each observer are merely misleading perceptions of what is deemed to occur, when comparing relative velocities. However, even perception has to be ruled out, when circumstances require that each protagonist must physically be able to observe several diverse

36 dimensions and several dissimilar velocities, being pres ent at the same moment , for identical objects in a matching event.

BACK STORY for diagram 3 5 .

1) Once travelling in deep space , the two rockets have nothing with which they can confirm their velocity. With shrunken engines also , they will be unable to su bstantiate that they are still travelling at the speed which they attained when leaving Earth's significant gravitational reach.

2) The rockets cannot compare themselves with the speed of light, as passing light, or light generated from themselves, will always be travelling at 'c', regardless of the velocity of those two craft.

Diagram 67; The conflicting prerequisites of length contraction

3) Image 1 There has to be a time when the Truss can be considered 'on its own'. Therefore, before the arrival of the rockets, the Truss , when only travelling along with the combined motion of the universe, will not have its length shortened by any significant amount. (If at all) Thus we have its measurement of 2 light - hours.

4) The Blue and Red roc kets cannot be contracted additionally by their velocity, relative to the Truss , before they come across the Truss, otherwise those rockets would have to be, always, under some shrinking influence of everything in the Universe.

5) I mage 2 represent the ' rest' size and shape of both rockets, as appreciated by their own pilots, long before they get anywhere near the Truss. I add an astronaut to the Truss to avoid giving the Truss anthropomorphic properties. (i.e. to avoid providing 'opinions' by an inanimat e object)

37 6 ) Image 3 The universal direction given for the Truss is on a straight line towards the approaching Blue rocket . The Red rocket will be closing - in on the Truss , from the opposite direction.

7 ) Although the relative velocities of the two rock ets match one another , the Blue rocket will be closing - in on the Truss more quickly than the Red rocket , as the Truss is travelling towards the Blue , unlike the Red rocket, which is following the Truss. i.e. coming up 'behind'.

8) Image 3 also represent s the contracted length of each rocket, as seen by each pilot - of the opposite rocket, due to the velocity of each rocket being close to the speed of light. This , again, is before they get anywhere near the Truss .

THE MEETING

9) Image 4 . The rockets joi n the scenario of the Truss . How close must the rockets be to the distant Truss for relative length contraction to occ ur between them ? Does it happen gradually or with a snap change?

10) Image 4 also shows the contracted length of the Blue rocket, (now re lative to the 'approaching' velocity of the Truss ); as seen by the Red pilot.

11) Image 4 also shows the lesser contracted length of the Red rocket; (its 'following' velocity now relative to that of the Truss ), as seen by the Blue rocket's pilot.

12) Ho wever, t he two pilots should be seeing each craft as having matching contractions as their relative velocities equal one another.

13 ) Image 5 shows both rockets, now relative to the perception of the astronaut on the Truss . The Blue rocket is more contrac ted than the Red , as the difference in the velocity between the Blue rocket and Truss is greater than the difference between the Red rocket and the Truss . (Again, t his is due to the fact that the Truss is travelling against the direction of the Blue rocke t and travelling in the same direction as the Red rocket ) .

14 ) The astronaut on the Truss will see the Truss itself foreshortened by one amount ( Image 4 ) relative to the Blue rocket and less shrunk relative to the R ed rocket ( Image 5 )

CONCURRENT RESULTS a) The astronaut on the Truss will see his Truss as having three different lengths at the same time. b) The astronaut on the Truss will see both rockets as having two different lengths at the same time. c) The astronaut on the Truss will see both rocket s having two different velocities at the same time.

38 d) Each rocket pilot will see the other rocket as having two different lengths at the same time. e) Each rocket pilot will see the other rocket as having two different velocities at the same time. f) Each pilot will see the Truss as having two different lengths at the same time. g) Both pilots will see the Truss a s having two different velocities at the same time.

This is unacceptable chaos , of course.

The earlier part of this essay endeavoured to demons trate that Length Contraction could never be a reality , but, at best, could possibly be put down to a difference in the perception of the observers. However , this last scenario finally removes any possibility at all for the viability of Length Contraction , as it cannot even be explained away as a perceptive illusion when so ma n y versions of events are seen at once.

NOTE 2 ; THE TWINS revisited

One of the problems in considering the Twins Paradox is that, although there is no special direction in space, th e Astronaut twin's trip is always considered to be a straight line flight out and a straight f light home to a particular distant destination.

In this alternative answer , the astronaut twin does not travel directly away from E arth towards some far distant planet, star or galaxy, but accelerates upwards, past the Kármán line at 100 kilometers, past the International Space Station, ( at its altitude of just over 400 kilometers ) , to travel on , at 97% the speed of light , to reach a height from the E arth of 20 mi llion kilometers. ( This being almost half way to the nearest point of the orbit of Venus relative to our world). At this height she will be beyond any affect from Gravitational time dilation Here she changes direction , and , keeping to the same velocity, she follows a circular orbit around the Earth , completing as many orbits as are required to match the overall distance declared in the conventional 'Twins' narrative . At the ‘height’ above the Earth that our astronaut has attained , the circumference of su ch a n orbit will be approximately 125,663,706 kilometers in length; where a craft, travelling at 97% the speed of light, will take 7 . 19 minutes to circumnavigate the E arth once, completely, whilst keeping to that orbit.

39

Diagram 68; How shall we judge timings now? With a wristwatch, with an atomic clock, with a calendar? No! In this instance it will be a sensible choice to utilize the properties of 'Sidereal T ime' to judge and compare both the astronaut's and the home - bound twin's timing of th e spacecraft’ s number of revolutions of the E arth per day. ( Sidereal T ime is measured relative to fixed stars , rather than to the Sun . See INFORMATION at the end of this section ) . In her new quest, o ur astronaut has arranged her high orbit to coincide wit h a ‘ l ine of sight’ to the North Star, such that, with each orbit, she can pass a fixed point in space, viewable from Earth. F rom the home - bound twin’s given obs ervation point on E arth, the North Star will act as the ' starting ' and ' finishing ' post for eac h of his sister ' s completed orbits . N o matter how many revolutions of t he Earth the astronaut makes , she can be found at the same location with each of her Earthly revolutions. Thus, the home - bound twin, with his telescope aimed towards the North Star, wi ll see his sister pass - by approximately 200 times in his 24 - hour day. Whatever way the astronaut may appear to experience her time d ifferently from her brother on E arth, whilst being on the move, she has to note the number of times that she passes a line between the E arth and the North star. She just cannot pass by this marker, more, or less, times than is noted by her home - bound brother.

40

Diagram 69;

Our astronaut may circumnavigate the globe as many times as is required to equate to a distance of trav el to Andromeda, and she may then turn her craft around, having accomplished that similar spatial distance, and complete the same number of revolutions in the opposite direction; if we wish to make exact comparisons with the length of the Twin's Andromeda journey. But will her time experience differ from her home - bound brother? It cannot. There is no way the twins will disagree about the number of passes the craft has made across an Earth / Polaris, start / finish line. And don't forget, it is the outside observer's 'view' of a travelling clock that leads him to believe her time runs slow. There is no way he will believe her clock is running slow when he can see her pass the start / finish line at times that coincide with his own clock on E arth. It will tak e a desperate and time - dilation - committed physicist to find fault with this comparative trip. So, I ask, how could ‘time’ be different between our protagonists? Why is it considered that at a speed close to 'c' an astronaut would experience far less time p assing than the ‘proper’ time passing on earth? How can the actual time passing for this astronaut be influenced, at all, by the opinion , or by the mathematics, of her brother on E arth?

41 INFORMATION ; Sidereal Time 1) Sidereal time is a system that astronom ers use to locate celestial objects, thus it is perfectly suitable for enabling our home - bound twin to point his telescope to pertinent coordinates in the sky to judge his sister's performance. A mean sidereal day is only 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4.0916 seco nds, this being the time it takes Earth to make one rotation relative to the vernal equinox. However, this tiny discrepancy will make no difference to our calculations here. INFORMATION; CURRENT PHYSICS PREDICTIONS

Now, the prediction of the dramatic e ffect that time dilation has for an astronaut travelling at this speed, (as proposed by Brian Cox, for example), is that a 40 - year trip for a near - light - speed craft would see 59,000 years pass on Earth. This means that a 1 - year trip for the craft would co rrespond to 1,475 years for the earthbound twin - and his offspring.

Now we see that this is just n onsense!

NOTE 3

A lternative interpretations of the results and conclusions from several famous time - dilation ' proving ' experiments. i) Muon decay

Both the muons that are taken to speeds close to that of light , in a particle accelerator, and those muons which actually streak down to reach Earth from space , all appear to live longer than otherwise expected; before decaying. This is put down to the fact tha t their lives are extended by 'time dilation'.

However, a s an object increases speed so it also increases its energy ; it acquires kinetic energy - energy of motion. Energy is assumed to possess mass. Any object cannot take on extra energy without, at the s ame time, taking on the extra mass that goes with kinetic energy. And that extra mass must take longer to decay .

I offer the results gained by the experiment carried out at Stanford, California . Stanford scientists accelerated subatomic particles , close t o the speed of light, down a straight tube 3 kilometres long. By the time the particles emerged at the other end they had a mass 40,000 times larger than when they began their journey. Therefore one would expect the accelerated muon s to be able to descend a greater distance, from the upper atmosphere, whilst their additional mass is taking a longer time to decay.

This repudiation also rejects the 'time - dilation / length - contraction 'proving' results from the Brookhaven AGS physicists on Long Island . Here, a muon,

42 with an expected life of 2.2 microseconds was, when accelerated to near light - speed, able to complete 400 laps of the circular Synchrotron when only 15 were expected. Their assertion is that the muon ' s extended life.... is due to the size of the 14 meter tube shrinking for them . But, this is clearly the same error. It's that additional mass again. ii) Hafele and Keating

I n 1971 a super accurate (for its time) atomic clock was flown around the world on an airliner, having been synchronised, with an other at the at the US Naval Observatory on Earth . When the clocks were reunited, the experimenter s found that the round - the - world clock had measured marginally less time than its stay - at - home counterpart. Hence time was dilated for the clock in motion.

H owever the truth is that Four atomic clocks were flown, to "even out" (average) their time keeping! So a difference was expected anyway, between the flown and ground - based clocks! The published results required all the atomic clocks to be precise to one , t hree and a half trillion, trillionths of a second, which, at that time, no caesium atomic clocks were.

The ground based clock was subjected to critical temperature and pressure constraints. However, t he flown clocks experienced both temperature and pressu re changes. The whole experiment; the procedure and results, are now recognised to have been riddled with inaccuracies. iii ) The National Physical Laboratory

Both the National Physics Lab and the Paris Observatory have attempted to prove time dilation by comparing and analysing strontium clock's frequencies situated at different latitudes in different parts of the world. Synchronised lasers were employed through optical fibres in order to determine any frequency interruptions, having predicting a differ ence of 5 nanoseconds.

However, the latest results show that 'alpha' is less than 10 ˉ ⁸ , which is not at all what 'relativity' predicts . Although these experiments were considered to be far more accurate than earlier tests involving the comparing of caes ium clocks, and earlier still, by studying electronic transitions in lithium ions (moving at one - third the speed of light), the results are so inconsistent and woolly as to provide no proof of time dilation at all.

4) University of Maryland Now denied thr ough the irregular use of atomic clocks .

5 ) Michelson Morley Incorrect use of non - applicable results

43 6 ) The Mössbauer experiment This was an aether drift experiment, the drawbacks include the limited number of gamma ray sources and the requirement that samples be solid in order to eliminate the recoil of the nucleus.

7 ) Ives Stillwell Direct comparisons between the longitudinal and transverse mathematical predictions under the specified conditions of the experiment are invalid.

8) GSI Helmholtz Centre Flaws have been discovered in the procedure and results of this experiment as it exploits a weak decay involving the production of an electron neutrino where attempts were made to relate the observed oscillations to neutrino oscillations.

9 ) The Paul tra p experiment Limited accuracy of figures; wrong decision about the 'stationary' ion.

10 ) GPS Satellites Complete misunderstanding of the referential way these satellites work.

11) 'Atomic Clock Ensemble in Space' So far has no helpful data supplied .

12) Gravity Probe A and The Pound - Rebka These were both questionable experiments to prove gravitational time dilation. Not relevant here.

13) NASA makes no use of time dilation equations in their interplanetary flights. All times are US ground based.

NOT E 4 ; FURTHER READING

Parts of the first section of this essay can be found on; http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/index.htm

For a refutation of all experiments that claim to validate time dilation please see; http://gsjournal.net/Science - Journals/Research%20Papers - Relativity%20Theory/Download/7312 Chapter 7. and also; https:/ /www.gsjournal.net/Science - Journals/Research%20Papers - Relativity%20Theory/Download/7911

44 Further criticisms of time dilation and length contraction experiments can be found in; i ) http://gsjournal.net/Science - Journals/Essays - Relativity%20Theory/Download/ 7081 ii) http://gsjournal.net/Science - Journals/EssaysRelativity%20Theory/Download/6227 iii) http://www.anti - relativity.com/hafelekeatingdebunk.htm iv ) http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/time - dilation - and - hafele - and - keating.html v ) "The worldwide list of Dissident Scientists" by Jean de Climont page 332, by DC Champeney. Page 831, by H A Hill. Page 891, by Pr George R. Issak. Page 1612, by Martin Ruderfer. Page 1865, Pr Angelo Taraglia and Dr James Paul Wesley page 2039 vi ) h ttp://www.mrelativity.net/MBriefs/Ives_Stilwell_Exp_Flawed_P1.htm vii ) http://www.gsjournal.net/old/physics/faraj7.htm

END. Clive Tickner 21 /12 /2019

45