Time Dilation Gets a Quantum Twist

Pentcho,

Could you please specify why you are invoking "measurements of the Doppler shift" as supporting emission theory? Doesn't the Doppler effect belong to waves?

And how to explain MGP 1925 with emission theory?

While I abstain from speculations about effects of gravitational force on light I nonetheless don't question de Sitter's argument that a constant speed of light from the double star to the earth is perhaps the most plausible explanation of the missing influence of the emitter's velocity.

Even if there was a compensating effect, wouldn't full compensation to zero be extremely unlikely?

I consider Michelson's 1881/1887 null-result likewise compelling:

There is no aether wind. You know my suggestion to explain this enigma:

There is no natural point of reference in space; the speed of a linear steady motion can only relate to distances. A null-result was to be expected.

What about gravity, I tend to consider Akinbo's suggestion serious. If necessary in practice, it might be reasonable to correct the speed of light in vacuum by the usually very tiny deviation from its value on earth.

Eckard

Eckard,

When the observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v, the frequency with which the wavecrests hit him shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L, where L is the wavelength. This can only happen if the speed of the wavecrests relative to the observer has shifted from c to c'=c+v, a prediction of the emission theory that contradicts special relativity.

In this sense the Doppler frequency shift confirms the emission theory and refutes special relativity.

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho,

"When the observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v" is this different from when the light source starts moving towards the observer with speed v?

In case of acoustic waves, both cases are different from each other because v relates to the assumed at rest medium air.

As one has to infer from Michelson's 1881/1887 null result, there is no such medium to refer to in case of electromagnetic waves in vacuum.

To me this is plausible because acoustic waves/phonons can be understood as conveying energy from particles to particles while electromagnetic waves/photons are thought as consisting of energy. Therefore they don't need a carrier.

Acoustic waves exhibit specific velocities of propagation c but not specific frequencies.

I reiterate my question: How to explain MGP 1925 with emission theory?

Eckard

Einsteiniana : The Sirius B Hoax

"Consider the case of astronomer Walter Adams. In 1925 he tested Einstein's theory of relativity by measuring the red shift of the binary companion of Sirius, brightest star in the sky. Einstein's theory predicted a red shift of six parts in a hundred thousand; Adams found just such an effect. A triumph for relativity. However, in 1971, with updated estimates of the mass and radius of Sirius, it was found that the predicted red shift should have been much larger - 28 parts in a hundred thousand. Later observations of the red shift did indeed measure this amount, showing that Adams' observations were flawed. He "saw" what he had expected to see."

"In January 1924 Arthur Eddington wrote to Walter S. Adams at the Mt. Wilson Observatory suggesting a measurement of the "Einstein shift" in Sirius B and providing an estimate of its magnitude. Adams' 1925 published results agreed remarkably well with Eddington's estimate. Initially this achievement was hailed as the third empirical test of General Relativity (after Mercury's anomalous perihelion advance and the 1919 measurement of the deflection of starlight). IT HAS BEEN KNOWN FOR SOME TIME THAT BOTH EDDINGTON'S ESTIMATE AND ADAMS' MEASUREMENT UNDERESTIMATED THE TRUE SIRIUS B GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT BY A FACTOR OF FOUR."

"...Eddington asked Adams to attempt the measurement. (...) ...Adams reported an average differential redshift of nineteen kilometers per second, very nearly the predicted gravitational redshift. Eddington was delighted with the result... (...) In 1928 Joseph Moore at the Lick Observatory measured differences between the redshifts of Sirius and Sirius B... (...) ...the average was nineteen kilometers per second, precisely what Adams had reported. (...) More seriously damaging to the reputation of Adams and Moore is the measurement in the 1960s at Mount Wilson by Jesse Greenstein, J.Oke, and H.Shipman. They found a differential redshift for Sirius B of roughly eighty kilometers per second."

Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud: "Le monde entier a cru pendant plus de cinquante ans à une théorie non vérifiée. Car, nous le savons aujourd'hui, les premières preuves, issues notamment d'une célèbre éclipse de 1919, n'en étaient pas. Elles reposaient en partie sur des manipulations peu avouables visant à obtenir un résultat connu à l'avance, et sur des mesures entachées d'incertitudes, quand il ne s'agissait pas de fraudes caractérisées. (...) Autour de l'étoile brillante Sirius, on découvre une petite étoile, Sirius B, à la fois très chaude et très faiblement lumineuse. Pour expliquer ces deux particularités, il faut supposer que l'étoile est aussi massive que le Soleil et aussi petite qu'une planète comme la Terre. C'est Eddington lui-même qui aboutit à cette conclusion dont il voit vite l'intérêt : avec de telles caractéristiques, ces naines blanches sont extrêmement denses et leur gravité très puissante. Le décalage vers le rouge de la gravitation est donc 100 fois plus élevé que sur le Soleil. Une occasion inespérée pour mesurer enfin quelque chose d'appréciable. Eddington s'adresse aussitôt à Walter Adams, directeur de l'observatoire du mont Wilson, en Californie, afin que le télescope de 2,5 m de diamètre Hooker entreprenne les vérifications. Selon ses estimations, basées sur une température de 8 000 degrés de Sirius B, mesurée par Adams lui-même, le décalage vers le rouge prédit par la relativité, en s'élevant à 20 km/s, devrait être facilement mesurable. Adams mobilise d'urgence le grand télescope et expose 28 plaques photographiques pour réaliser la mesure. Son rapport, publié le 18 mai 1925, est très confus car il mesure des vitesses allant de 2 à 33 km/s. Mais, par le jeu de corrections arbitraires dont personne ne comprendra jamais la logique, le décalage passe finalement à 21 km/s, plus tard corrigé à 19 km/s, et Eddington de conclure : "Les résultats peuvent être considérés comme fournissant une preuve directe de la validité du troisième test de la théorie de la relativité générale." Adams et Eddington se congratulent, ils viennent encore de "prouver" Einstein. Ce résultat, pourtant faux, ne sera pas remis en cause avant 1971. Manque de chance effectivement, la première mesure de température de Sirius B était largement inexacte : au lieu des 8 000 degrés envisagés par Eddington, l'étoile fait en réalité près de 30 000 degrés. Elle est donc beaucoup plus petite, sa gravité est plus intense et le décalage vers le rouge mesurable est de 89 km/s. C'est ce qu'aurait dû trouver Adams sur ses plaques s'il n'avait pas été "influencé" par le calcul erroné d'Eddington. L'écart est tellement flagrant que la suspicion de fraude a bien été envisagée."

Pentcho Valev

Einsteiniana : The Hafele-Keating Hoax

Around-the-World Atomic Clocks: Predicted Relativistic Time Gains, J. C. Hafele; Richard E. Keating, Science, New Series, Vol. 177, No. 4044. (Jul. 14, 1972), pp. 166-168: "Because the earth rotates, standard clocks distributed at rest on the surface are not suitable in this case as candidates for coordinate clocks of an inertial space. Nevertheless, the relative timekeeping behavior of terrestrial clocks can be evaluated by reference to hypothetical coordinate clocks of an underlying nonrotating (inertial) space."

By "hypothetical coordinate clocks of an underlying nonrotating (inertial) space" Hafele and Keating mean clocks at rest with respect to the center of the Earth. But such clocks are neither nonrotating nor inertial - they rotate around the Sun, around the center of the Galaxy etc. It may well have been that, during the experiment, the Earth center temporarily rotated around some other center of rotation even faster than the jet used by Hafele and Keating, which means that Einstein's theory of relativity, true or false, was totally unable to predict the outcome of the experiment.

Conclusion: Hafele and Keating must have fabricated their results, misled by the subconscious feeling that the Earth center is the nonrotating inertial center of rotation of the whole Universe.

Pentcho Valev

Interesting point you note Pentcho. Even the earth-centred clock is rotating! Humanity should steer the future by taking a comprehensive look at some of these foundational experiments.

Akinbo

Einsteiniana : The Orbit-of-Mercury Hoax

The blatant lie: Einstein was able to predict, WITHOUT ANY ADJUSTMENTS WHATSOEVER, that the orbit of Mercury should precess by an extra 43 seconds of arc per century:

"This discrepancy cannot be accounted for using Newton's formalism. Many ad-hoc fixes were devised (such as assuming there was a certain amount of dust between the Sun and Mercury) but none were consistent with other observations (for example, no evidence of dust was found when the region between Mercury and the Sun was carefully scrutinized). In contrast, Einstein was able to predict, WITHOUT ANY ADJUSTMENTS WHATSOEVER, that the orbit of Mercury should precess by an extra 43 seconds of arc per century should the General Theory of Relativity be correct."

The truth: Einstein desperately changed and fudged his equations many times until eventually they "predicted" the known-in-advance precession. Noteworthily, already in 1907 Einstein sets himself the goal "to use his new theory of gravity, WHATEVER IT MIGHT TURN OUT TO BE, to explain the discrepancy between the observed motion of the perihelion of the planet Mercury and the motion predicted on the basis of Newtonian gravitational theory":

Michel Janssen: "But - as we know from a letter to his friend Conrad Habicht of December 24, 1907 - one of the goals that Einstein set himself early on, was to use his new theory of gravity, whatever it might turn out to be, to explain the discrepancy between the observed motion of the perihelion of the planet Mercury and the motion predicted on the basis of Newtonian gravitational theory. (...) The Einstein-Grossmann theory - also known as the "Entwurf" ("outline") theory after the title of Einstein and Grossmann's paper - is, in fact, already very close to the version of general relativity published in November 1915 and constitutes an enormous advance over Einstein's first attempt at a generalized theory of relativity and theory of gravitation published in 1912. The crucial breakthrough had been that Einstein had recognized that the gravitational field - or, as we would now say, the inertio-gravitational field - should not be described by a variable speed of light as he had attempted in 1912, but by the so-called metric tensor field. The metric tensor is a mathematical object of 16 components, 10 of which independent, that characterizes the geometry of space and time. In this way, gravity is no longer a force in space and time, but part of the fabric of space and time itself: gravity is part of the inertio-gravitational field. Einstein had turned to Grossmann for help with the difficult and unfamiliar mathematics needed to formulate a theory along these lines. (...) Einstein did not give up the Einstein-Grossmann theory once he had established that it could not fully explain the Mercury anomaly. He continued to work on the theory and never even mentioned the disappointing result of his work with Besso in print. So Einstein did not do what the influential philosopher Sir Karl Popper claimed all good scientists do: once they have found an empirical refutation of their theory, they abandon that theory and go back to the drawing board. (...) On November 4, 1915, he presented a paper to the Berlin Academy officially retracting the Einstein-Grossmann équations and replacing them with new ones. On November 11, a short addendum to this paper followed, once again changing his field equations. A week later, on November 18, Einstein presented the paper containing his celebrated explanation of the perihelion motion of Mercury on the basis of this new theory. Another week later he changed the field equations once more. These are the equations still used today. This last change did not affect the result for the perihelion of Mercury. Besso is not acknowledged in Einstein's paper on the perihelion problem. Apparently, Besso's help with this technical problem had not been as valuable to Einstein as his role as sounding board that had earned Besso the famous acknowledgment in the special relativity paper of 1905. Still, an acknowledgment would have been appropriate. After all, what Einstein had done that week in November, was simply to redo the calculation he had done with Besso in June 1913, using his new field equations instead of the Einstein-Grossmann equations. It is not hard to imagine Einstein's excitement when he inserted the numbers for Mercury into the new expression he found and the result was 43", in excellent agreement with observation."

Pentcho Valev

Einsteiniana : The Michelson-Morley Hoax

"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous."

Banesh Hoffmann's text clearly shows that, in the absence of ad hoc hypotheses such as "contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations", the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY confirms the assumption that the speed of light varies with the speed of the emitter (c'=c+v). That is, in 1887, Newton's emission theory of light was the only existing theory able to explain the null result of the experiment. Then FitzGerald, Lorentz and Einstein abused reality by replacing the true Newtonian assumption, confirmed by the experiment, with its antithesis - the false assumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter (c'=c). They also devised an ad hoc protective belt - "contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations" - that quite successfully deflected refuting evidence from the false assumption:

"Lakatos distinguished between two parts of a scientific theory: its "hard core" which contains its basic assumptions (or axioms, when set out formally and explicitly), and its "protective belt", a surrounding defensive set of "ad hoc" (produced for the occasion) hypotheses. (...) In Lakatos' model, we have to explicitly take into account the "ad hoc hypotheses" which serve as the protective belt. The protective belt serves to deflect "refuting" propositions from the core assumptions..."

Imre Lakatos, Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes: "All scientific research programmes may be characterized by their 'hard core'. The negative heuristic of the programme forbids us to direct the modus tollens at this 'hard core'. Instead, we must use our ingenuity to articulate or even invent 'auxiliary hypotheses', which form a protective belt around this core, and we must redirect the modus tollens to these. It is this protective belt of auxiliary hypotheses which has to bear the brunt of tests and get adjusted and readjusted, or even completely replaced, to defend the thus-hardened core."

Pentcho Valev

Sabine Hossenfelder: "How is time-dilatation in a gravitational field less strange than entanglement?"

Gravitational time dilation is not just strange - it is absurd. Einstein fabricated it in 1911. According to him, the effect occurs even in a HOMOGENEOUS gravitational field, which means that the two clocks, although at different heights, are in EXACTLY THE SAME immediate environment (experience EXACTLY THE SAME gravitational field) and yet one of them runs faster than the other. In other words, in a homogeneous gravitational field, the miraculous effect has no cause.

Pentcho Valev

there is no time dilatation at al, time cannot dilate as time is not phycical. Rate of clocks is "relative" regarding density of quantum vacuum. Less qv is dense less is speed of clocks and all other change, speed of light inclusding. Shapiro experiment shows light has a bit lower speed in lover density of quantum vacuum. But this change of C is so small that SR remains valid.Attachment #1: Relative_velocity_of_material_change_in_a_3D_quantum_vacuum.pdfAttachment #2: Errata_-_Amrit_Sorli_-_J._Adv._Phys._2012_Vol._1_No._1_pp_110_20.11._final.pdf

Reductio ad Absurdum in Einstein's Relativity

"Reductio ad absurdum (...) is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial, or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance."

It follows from Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate that stationary clocks run both faster and slower than moving clocks.

Let us imagine that all ants spread out on the closed polygonal line have clocks, and assume for the moment that the clocks/ants are STATIONARY.

Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate entails that, if a single moving ant travels along the polygonal line and its clock is consecutively checked against the multiple stationary ants' clocks, the travelling clock will show less and less time elapsed than the stationary clocks. In terms of the twin paradox, the single moving ant gets younger and younger than stationary brothers it consecutively meets.

Let us change the scenario: the multiple clocks/ants are now MOVING - they travel with constant speed along the closed polygonal line and pass a single stationary clock/ant located in the middle of one of the sides of the polygon. Again, the single (stationary this time) clock is consecutively checked against the multiple (moving this time) clocks passing it.

Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate entails that the single stationary clock will show less and less time elapsed than the multiple moving clocks consecutively passing it. In terms of the twin paradox, the single stationary ant gets younger and younger than moving brothers it consecutively meets.

Clearly Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate entails absurdities and should be rejected as false.

Pentcho Valev

Reductio ad Absurdum in Einstein's Relativity

It follows from Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate that unlimitedly long objects can be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers, and that during the trapping the objects undergo compression and do not undergo compression at the same time:

"The simplest version of the problem involves a garage, with a front and back door which are open, and a ladder which, when at rest with respects to the garage, is too long to fit inside. We now move the ladder at a high horizontal velocity through the stationary garage. Because of its high velocity, the ladder undergoes the relativistic effect of length contraction, and becomes significantly shorter. As a result, as the ladder passes through the garage, it is, for a time, completely contained inside it. We could, if we liked, simultaneously close both doors for a brief time, to demonstrate that the ladder fits."

A long ladder gloriously trapped inside a short garage, thanks to Divine Albert's Divine Theory

"How fast does a 7 m long buick need to go to fit in a 2 m deep closet?"

"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. (...) If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."

Stéphane Durand: "Ainsi, une fusée de 100 m passant à toute vitesse dans un tunnel de 60 m pourrait être entièrement contenue dans ce tunnel pendant une fraction de seconde, durant laquelle il serait possible de fermer des portes aux deux bouts! La fusée est donc réellement plus courte. Pourtant, il n'y a PAS DE COMPRESSION matérielle ou physique de l'engin."

The long-object-trapped-inside-short-container result is obviously absurd, therefore Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is false.

Pentcho Valev

Reductio ad Absurdum in Einstein's Relativity

It follows from Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate that, in the bug-rivet scenario, the bug is both dead and alive. Einsteinians camouflage the absurdity by introducing two additional absurdities: 1. The rivet shank length miraculously increases beyond its at-rest length. 2. "The end of the rivet will just keep on going [at 87% the speed of light!] until this wave, typically travelling at the speed of sound, reaches it."

"In an attempt to squash a bug in a 1 cm deep hole, a rivet is used. But the rivet is only 0.8 cm long so it cannot reach the bug. The rivet is accelerated to 0.9c. (...) The end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it looks like the bug is squashed. (...) The bug disagrees with this analysis and finds the time for the rivet head to hit the wall is earlier than the time for the rivet end to reach the bottom of the hole. The paradox is not resolved."

John de Pillis Professor of Mathematics: "In fact, special relativity requires that after collision, the rivet shank length increases beyond its at-rest length d."

Brian Clegg: "Unfortunately, though, the rivet is fired towards the table at a fair percentage of the speed of light. It's somewhat typical of this book that all it tells us about the speed is that γ is 2, which doesn't really give you an idea of how fast the rivet is going, but if my back of an envelope calculations are right, this is around 0.87 times the speed of light. Quite a fast rivet, then. (...) But here's the thing. Just because the head of the rivet has come to a sudden stop doesn't mean the whole rivet does. A wave has to pass along the rivet to its end saying 'Stop!' The end of the rivet will just keep on going until this wave, typically travelling at the speed of sound, reaches it. That fast-moving end will crash into the beetle long before the wave arrives. (...) Isn't physics great?"

Clearly Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, entailing the above absurdities, is false.

Pentcho Valev

Did Einstein Tell Einsteinians How to Leapfrog into the Future?

Brian Greene: "Time Travel is Possible (2:48) If you wanted to leapfrog into the future, if you wanted to see what the Earth would be like a million years from now, Einstein told us how to do that."

Brian Cox (03:56): "Time travel into the future is possible".

Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")."

Did Einstein tell Einsteinians how to leapfrog into the future? No he didn't. Even if his 1905 postulates were true, time travel into the future still remains an invalid conclusion. Here is the original invalidity:

ON THE ECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, A. Einstein, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B."

Herbert Dingle noticed the invalidity and asked a fatal question:

SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS, Herbert Dingle, p.27: "According to the special relativity theory, as expounded by Einstein in his original paper, two similar, regularly-running clocks, A and B, in uniform relative motion, must work at different rates. (...) How is the slower-working clock distinguished?"

Of course, Dingle's question is rhetorical - the slower-working clock cannot be distinguished on the basis of Einstein's 1905 postulates alone. The postulates entail that, as judged from the respective system, either clock runs slower than the other. That is, for an observer in the moving clock's system, the stationary clock at B lags behind the moving clock; for a stationary observer, the moving clock lags behind the stationary clock at B.

So Einstein's famous conclusions that made him a superstar, "moving clocks run slow" and "travel into the future is possible", are based on two flaws. Initially Einstein advanced his false constant-speed-of-light postulate, which allowed him to validly deduce that:

moving clocks run slow, as judged from the stationary system.

Then he illegitimately dropped the second part of the above conclusion and informed the gullible world that:

moving clocks run slow, that is, travel into the future is possible.

Many Einsteinians know that time travel into the future is impossibe and sometimes hint at that, preparing themselves for times when Einstein's idiocies will no longer strangle the spirit of mankind:

"Pour la plupart des commentateurs, le jumeau voyageur B a effectivement moins vieilli que son frère sédentaire A. Pour les autres, les deux jumeaux ont conservé le même âge ou le problème est sans signification. La controverse tourne autour du fait que, du point de vue de la Relativité restreinte, les situations des jumeaux ne sont pas symétriques : A coïncide avec un seul repère galiléen (en général celui de la Terre, idéalisé comme inertiel, pour l'occasion) pendant toute la durée du voyage, tandis que B effectue un demi-tour et coïncide ainsi avec au moins deux repères galiléens successifs. Cette différence fait que la relativité restreinte s'applique différemment à l'un et à l'autre, notamment à cause de l'accélération permettant le retour de B, en provoquant un changement de repère galiléen. Si, pendant la partie du voyage à vitesse constante, B vieillit moins vite que A, il se pourrait qu'il vieillisse plus vite durant les phases d'accélération. On relève 54 points de vue sur le paradoxe, émis entre 1905 (Einstein) et 2001 (Hawking)."

(1:06:45): "Est-ce que l'avenir existe déjà dans le futur ? C'est une question fondamentale ... Les relativistes disent oui - le futur est déjà là mais nous on n'y est pas encore ... Les physiciens quantiques, les présentistes disent non - le futur est un néant ... Les voyages dans le futur sont impossibles pour les présentistes alors qu'ils sont possibles pour les relativistes."

Neil deGrasse Tyson (02:22): "I have no access to the past. I have no access to the future."

Pentcho Valev

time has only a mathemaical existence

http://link.springer.com/search?query=sorli+amrit+

Hello Amrit,happy to see you again

Best Regards

there is no such a thing as "time dilation"

only speed of changes is slowing down.....Attachment #1: 1_New_Insights_in_SR.pdfAttachment #2: 1_Special_theory_of_relativity_in_a_3D_Euclidean_space.pdf

How Einsteinians Confuse the World

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Special_relativity_clocks_rods/index.html

John Norton: "If we are to retain both of Einstein's postulates, we will have to make systematic changes throughout our physics. Let us begin investigating these changes. They will overturn our classical presumptions about space and time. The first change we will investigate has to do with time. An inertially moving clock runs more slowly than one at rest."

The conclusion

"An inertially moving clock runs more slowly than one at rest"

does not follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates. What follows is:

(A) An inertially moving clock runs more slowly than one at rest, as judged from the system at rest.

(B) An inertially moving clock runs faster than one at rest, as judged from the moving system.

The combination of (A) and (B), a deductive consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, makes the famous time travel into the future impossible and converts Einstein's special relativity into an absurdity.

Pentcho Valev

No. Each observer sees the other's clock as running slower.

You could have had a Phd in relativity by now if you were serious.