Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 35

Thread: Fitzgerald-Lorentz Time Dilation

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,100

    Fitzgerald-Lorentz Time Dilation

    I don't want to start an ATM debate; I'm just asking a simple question regarding what they state in the following article:
    https://www.omicsonline.org/open-acc....php?aid=78672

    It looks like Fitzgerald-Lorentz also predicted time dilation before Einstein's SR but I'm just wondering which time dilation prediction best matches the GPS observations according to the aforementioned article? (The article is mainstream)


    Thanks a lot,
    philippeb8


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    7,608
    OK I am out of my depth but those satellites no longer have relative velocity with one another, the apparent contraction occurs with relative velocity and logically with relative acceleration. Is it not that within their frame they are fixed?
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  3. #3
    Another factor that has to worked in is GR because the satellites are not in the same position of the gravity as Earth so that is also taken into account which is above me at the moment.
    ...I'm still free, you can't take the sky from me.
    You cannot run away from the truth, the world is not big enough. DI Jack Frost
    Don't Panic THGTTG
    Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. Einstein
    http://davidsuniverse.wordpress.com/

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,829
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    I don't want to start an ATM debate; I'm just asking a simple question regarding what they state in the following article:
    https://www.omicsonline.org/open-acc....php?aid=78672

    It looks like Fitzgerald-Lorentz also predicted time dilation before Einstein's SR but I'm just wondering which time dilation prediction best matches the GPS observations according to the aforementioned article? (The article is mainstream)


    Thanks a lot,
    philippeb8
    First up the article is not an accurate summary of the mainstream physics it is discussing. It mixes special and general relativity to get to its apparent contradictions. In a proper GR treatment these contradictions simply are not there. It also badly misrepresents several of the underlying physics principles. I got about half way through the paper before realising it was not worth spending more time on it because there were so many issues it'd turn into a much larger project than I am willing to undertake. I should have spotted that a physics paper is being published in what is basically a biology journal. Always a red flag.

    So the answer to your question is that the GR predictions are what fit the GPS results the best. You can just about apply SR but it is quite complicated because you are dealing with accelerating reference frames. You certainly can't just whack tangential velocity into the Lorentz-Fitzgerald equations and use the result as he has done.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,100
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    So the answer to your question is that the GR predictions are what fit the GPS results the best. You can just about apply SR but it is quite complicated because you are dealing with accelerating reference frames. You certainly can't just whack tangential velocity into the Lorentz-Fitzgerald equations and use the result as he has done.
    Ok thank you very much.

    I certainly agree GR's time dilation is accurate.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,778
    The journal alone makes this a dubious paper. Journal of Biosensors & Bioelectronics for a paper on SR and GPS? An editor should have rejected the paper as not suitable for the journal (no biology, no sensors, no electronics). Received July 27, 2016, published August 09, 2016 means couple of weeks for peer review by experts which is a bit rapid.

    Robert J. Buenker is also a bit dubious. His blog has an example of 2 clocks in 2 inertial reference frames and an observer with:
    It is simply irrational to believe that the rate of either clock is affected by the constant motion of an object which could be light-years away (Einstein causality).
    It is basic SR that the rate of either clock as measured by the observer depends on the 2 velocities.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    14,765
    I might simplify that slightly to:

    It is basic SR that the rate of either clock as measured by the other
    depends on their relative velocity.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
    http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

    "I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
    were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

    "The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
    point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    15,801
    Velocities?
    0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...
    Skepticism enables us to distinguish fancy from fact, to test our speculations. --Carl Sagan

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    14,765
    I deliberately changed it from "velocities" to "velocity". Did I goof?

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
    http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

    "I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
    were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

    "The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
    point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    14,765
    I assume that there are no accelerations and no gravity, so the
    relative velocity (or relative speed) between the clocks would be
    unchanging and the same for each. Perfect symmetry.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
    http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

    "I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
    were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

    "The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
    point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,205
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    It looks like Fitzgerald-Lorentz also predicted time dilation before Einstein's SR...
    I don't ever recall hearing that. Their transformation equations were about length contraction between two separate inertial frames. Einstein was greatly influenced by this, IIRC, but had the insight to claim that time was not invariant allowing physics to be unchanged independent of any inertial frame. This is the basis to SR.

    .. but I'm just wondering which time dilation prediction best matches the GPS observations according to the aforementioned article? (The article is mainstream)
    Without reading what may be a dubious article, the results should be identical when comparing the Lorentz transformation equations and SR. The time a spaceship would see on their clock when arriving at a distant star can either be computed by adjusting for a contracted distance (length contraction) or by having a slower clock (time dilation), both relative to Earth, of course. SR doesn't refute length contraction. The equations are essentially identical.

    For GPS satellites, the reduced gravitational field increases their clocks by about 45 microsec. per day, but their speed slows them by about 7 microsec. per day, IIRC.
    Last edited by George; 2017-Nov-16 at 03:04 PM. Reason: Sec. to microsec.
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,100
    Quote Originally Posted by George View Post
    Without reading what may be a dubious article, the results should be identical when comparing the Lorentz transformation equations and SR. The time a spaceship would see on their clock when arriving at a distant star can either be computed by adjusting for a contracted distance (length contraction) or by having a slower clock (time dilation), both relative to Earth, of course. SR doesn't refute length contraction. The equations are essentially identical.
    "Or" here is an exclusive or ("xor")? Meaning you can choose either but not both?

    In the case of the perihelion shift and the light bending then both time dilation and length contraction apply?

    What about mass increase that seems to be left behind... leading to the question: do black holes have infinite mass because of SR's mass increase?



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    15,801
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    I deliberately changed it from "velocities" to "velocity". Did I goof?
    We all have many velocities, relative to much, but even in the tiny model of a universe of two objects, restricting our attention to the two, their velocities must be different in direction. I don't see them sharing one velocity that could be designated their velocity. Maybe if you had talked of each object's velocity.

    Not that it matter.

    Matters! Agreement are hard. Sorry for the derail.
    0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...
    Skepticism enables us to distinguish fancy from fact, to test our speculations. --Carl Sagan

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    14,765
    Ah. Maybe I should have said "speed" instead of "velocity".

    I'm not sure that there is a distinction between speed and velocity
    in German. When Einstein's book on relativity was translated into
    English, no distinction was made.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
    http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

    "I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
    were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

    "The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
    point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Anzakistan
    Posts
    10,814
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    ...

    What about mass increase that seems to be left behind... leading to the question: do black holes have infinite mass because of SR's mass increase?

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Black holes don't have infinite mass.

    By "SR's mass increase" do you mean "relativistic mass"? That's a concept that's long been out of favour, partly through it leading to invalid comparisons.
    Measure once, cut twice. Practice makes perfect.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,100
    Quote Originally Posted by pzkpfw View Post
    Black holes don't have infinite mass.

    By "SR's mass increase" do you mean "relativistic mass"? That's a concept that's long been out of favour, partly through it leading to invalid comparisons.
    I don't understand what you mean.

    If according to GR, masses affect length and time then they should affect masses as well. The problem is this sounds "recursive".


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    14,765
    philippeb8,

    Relative speed does not affect the length of an observed object.
    It affects the length of the object relative to the observer.
    Same thing with time. Same with mass, too, but it was realized
    (in the 1950's, I think) that instead of talking about relative mass,
    it made more sense to talk about kinetic energy. So the idea of
    relative mass, though defined, isn't needed and isn't generally
    used. Dropping it avoids questions like yours, which make sense
    if you think the mass of an object depends on its speed. Obviously
    the kinetic energy of an object relative to an observer or another
    object depends on its speed relative to that observer or object.
    That takes care of everything that "relativistic mass" does.

    The proper mass of an object or a black hole isn't altered by any
    motion relative to an observer.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
    Last edited by Jeff Root; 2017-Nov-16 at 01:06 AM.
    http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

    "I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
    were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

    "The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
    point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,100
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    philippeb8,

    Relative speed does not affect the length of an observed object.
    It affects the length of the object relative to the observer.
    Same thing with time. Same with mass, too, but it was realized
    (in the 1950's, I think) that instead of talking about relative mass,
    it made more sense to talk about kinetic energy. So the idea of
    relative mass, though defined, isn't needed and isn't generally
    used. Dropping it avoids questions like yours, which make sense
    if you think the mass of an object depends on its speed. Obviously
    the kinetic energy of an object relative to an observer or another
    object depends on its speed relative to that observer or object.
    So the mass increase was cherry picked away? And the kinetic energy is not exactly the same as the relativistic gamma (the latter is square rooted).

    That takes care of everything that "relativistic mass" does.

    The proper mass of an object or a black hole isn't altered by any
    motion relative to an observer.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
    But okay thanks that answers my question.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Anzakistan
    Posts
    10,814
    ... and the other half of my comment on your post #12: black holes don't have infinite mass.

    You may be thinking of infinite density, at the singularity; but the literal existence of a singularity is not certain.
    Measure once, cut twice. Practice makes perfect.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,100

    Fitzgerald-Lorentz Time Dilation

    Quote Originally Posted by pzkpfw View Post
    ... and the other half of my comment on your post #12: black holes don't have infinite mass.
    Yeah but why not? GR is a generalization of SR and SR got mass increase in it.

    You may be thinking of infinite density, at the singularity; but the literal existence of a singularity is not certain.
    According to GR and the way I understand it there's 3 ways black holes can have infinite masses:
    - singularities
    - non baryonic dark matter that can be infinitely superposed
    - and now the forgotten mass increase as predicted by SR and extended to GR

    But I'm diverging from my original question so my conversation is over. Thanks.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    14,765
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pzkpfw
    ... black holes don't have infinite mass.
    Yeah but why not?
    Why should they?

    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    GR is a generalization of SR and SR got mass increase in it.
    No it doesn't. The mass doesn't increase at all. If you want, you
    can reasonably say that the relative mass increases, but the mass
    doesn't increase. The proper mass doesn't increase.

    It is like the height of a tower. As you walk closer to it, you have to
    look up at a higher and higher angle to see the tower's top. That
    doesn't mean the tower gets taller, but it does mean that the angle
    from you to the top of the tower increases. It is the relationship
    between the observer and the observed that changes, whether
    the change is in length, time, or mass.

    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    According to GR and the way I understand it there's 3 ways
    black holes can have infinite masses:
    - singularities
    Nothing about black hole singularities implies a change in mass.

    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    - non baryonic dark matter that can be infinitely superposed
    Even if dark matter can be infinitely superposed, it would require
    an infinite amount of it falling into a black hole. And dark matter is
    less likely to fall into a black hole than is ordinary matter because it
    has little or no friction to make it slow down.

    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    - and now the forgotten mass increase as predicted by SR and
    extended to GR
    There is no mass increase. Analyze the situation in terms of
    kinetic energy if you want to understand what is going on.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
    http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

    "I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
    were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

    "The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
    point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,100

    Fitzgerald-Lorentz Time Dilation

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    Why should they?


    No it doesn't. The mass doesn't increase at all. If you want, you
    can reasonably say that the relative mass increases, but the mass
    doesn't increase. The proper mass doesn't increase.

    ...

    Nothing about black hole singularities implies a change in mass.
    Ok let me put it this way:

    If I want to calculate the light bending of a neutron star then why do I have to consider time dilation, length contraction but not mass increase?

    Even if dark matter can be infinitely superposed, it would require
    an infinite amount of it falling into a black hole. And dark matter is
    less likely to fall into a black hole than is ordinary matter because it
    has little or no friction to make it slow down.


    There is no mass increase. Analyze the situation in terms of
    kinetic energy if you want to understand what is going on.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
    I know kinetic energy pretty well as this is what my work is based on.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,778
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    If I want to calculate the light bending of a neutron star then why do I have to consider time dilation, length contraction but not mass increase?
    In this case because there cannot be a mass increase. Photons have no mass. They also travel at the speed of light, so if they had a mass (they cannot though) their relativistic mass would be undefined. Or if you are talking about the star there is the same problem - its relativistic mass would be undefined for an hypothetical observer travelling at the speed of light.

    The bending of light by a massive body is determined by its rest mass M.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,100
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    In this case because there cannot be a mass increase. Photons have no mass. They also travel at the speed of light, so if they had a mass (they cannot though) their relativistic mass would be undefined. Or if you are talking about the star there is the same problem - its relativistic mass would be undefined for an hypothetical observer travelling at the speed of light.

    The bending of light by a massive body is determined by its rest mass M.
    I am referring to the mass of the star that should increase. The effects of the curved spacetime is caused by a mass but it makes no sense that the mass affects itself so that concept was thrown away as far as I understand it.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,829
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    I am referring to the mass of the star that should increase. The effects of the curved spacetime is caused by a mass but it makes no sense that the mass affects itself so that concept was thrown away as far as I understand it.
    No. Relativistic mass was a concept used to try to understand (or more often teach) some aspects of SR, such as why velocities don't increase linearly for an applied force as they do in Newton's equations. It is actually a scaled energy, not a true mass. It is nothing like length/time transformations - it was a label for a quantity that isn't actually a physical mass, not a measurement transform.

    It was abandoned because it is not a particularly useful concept. It only works for a few kinds of examples, it leads to confusion because (precisely as you have done) people thought it was an actual transformed mass rather than a scaled energy.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,100
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    No. Relativistic mass was a concept used to try to understand (or more often teach) some aspects of SR, such as why velocities don't increase linearly for an applied force as they do in Newton's equations. It is actually a scaled energy, not a true mass. It is nothing like length/time transformations - it was a label for a quantity that isn't actually a physical mass, not a measurement transform.

    It was abandoned because it is not a particularly useful concept. It only works for a few kinds of examples, it leads to confusion because (precisely as you have done) people thought it was an actual transformed mass rather than a scaled energy.
    Ok thank you.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    14,765
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    If I want to calculate the light bending of a neutron star then
    why do I have to consider time dilation, length contraction but
    not mass increase?
    Why would you have to consider mass increase?
    Really think about that.

    You are talking about light which reaches you after passing close
    to a neutron star such that its path is bent. The amount of bending
    depends on the mass of the neutron star. Your motion relative to
    the neutron star has no effect on its mass. So the path of the light
    is not affected by a change in the mass of the neutron star caused
    by your motion.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
    http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

    "I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
    were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

    "The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
    point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,100
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    Why would you have to consider mass increase?
    Really think about that.

    You are talking about light which reaches you after passing close
    to a neutron star such that its path is bent. The amount of bending
    depends on the mass of the neutron star. Your motion relative to
    the neutron star has no effect on its mass. So the path of the light
    is not affected by a change in the mass of the neutron star caused
    by your motion.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
    I know it makes no sense for the light bending to be affected by any mass increase but GR being an extension of SR and SR considering all 3 effects while GR only considers 2 of them.

    Actually in SR the speed is causing time dilation, length contraction and mass increase whereas in GR the mass is causing time dilation and length contraction. Something's not right there obviously.

    But I had the answer I was looking for and by all means I don't want to start debating it.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,829
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Actually in SR the speed is causing time dilation, length contraction and mass increase whereas in GR the mass is causing time dilation and length contraction. Something's not right there obviously.
    Yes, what is not right is that you are equating an increase in relativistic mass with a mass increase. As I have said, relativistic mass is a scaled energy and no a change in the measured mass of an object. It was dropped as a useful term precisely because of the this kind of confusion.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,100
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    Yes, what is not right is that you are equating an increase in relativistic mass with a mass increase. As I have said, relativistic mass is a scaled energy and no a change in the measured mass of an object. It was dropped as a useful term precisely because of the this kind of confusion.
    Ok thanks again.

    I've got a pretty good question now about length contraction but I will pass on it because I always turn out to be the one flagged to be confused. I will keep the status quo.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •