It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Lorentz had this to say about the differences in Time Dilation
Provided that there is an aether, then under all systems x, y, z, t, one is preferred by the fact, that the coordinate axes as well as the clocks are resting in the aether. If one connects with this the idea (which I would abandon only reluctantly) that space and time are completely different things, and that there is a "true time" (simultaneity thus would be independent of the location, in agreement with the circumstance that we can have the idea of infinitely great velocities), then it can be easily seen that this true time should be indicated by clocks at rest in the aether. However, if the relativity principle had general validity in nature, one wouldn't be in the position to determine, whether the reference system just used is the preferred one. Then one comes to the same results, as if one (following Einstein and Minkowski) deny the existence of the aether and of true time, and to see all reference systems as equally valid. Which of these two ways of thinking one is following, can surely be left to the individual
"If you look at the GPS satellites, the satellite time is slowing down, but according to the GPS satellites, our time is not slowing down—which would occur if it were reciprocal. Instead, our time is going faster relative to the satellites, and we know that because of constant communication with the satellites."
originally posted by: glend
Lorentz model describes directional time dilation linked to centre's of gravitational mass with only the moving object undergoing time dilation.
If instead we use Lorentz model for time dilution we come up with some astonishing differences. There would be no need for dark matter because the passage of time during the hubble expansion would have been in a faster time frame than present so expansion would have been slower if we convert the faster time frames back into todays time frame (aka Universe much older in todays time frame).
originally posted by: glend
a reply to: DJW001
Can you explain how it solves the twin dilemma please?
To repeat, as Dingle, and not a few other prominent physicists, have argued, “the theory [Special Relativity] unavoidably requires that A works more slowly than B and B more slowly than A –which it requires no super-intelligence to see is impossible.” However, Dingle’s (and others’) irrefutable logic has had no impact on the relativists. But now a hopefully inescapable avalanche of empirical data will open some minds. This blog entry summarizes the mismatch between Special Relativity and empirical data from GPS and other sources
Historical background: Before Einstein wrote his 1905 paper deriving time dilation, Lorentz derived his clock retardation equation which can be written as T = To/(1 – v2/c2)1/2 and which said that as absolute velocity (velocity with respect to a unique frame) increased, clock rates would decrease. This was an asymmetric equation based on absolute velocity and addressed clocks that were in inertial and non-inertial (e.g., accelerating, rotating) frames. If one wants to compare the rates of two clocks that are not at rest in the preferred frame using the Lorentz formula, one uses the velocity of each clock relative to the preferred frame to determine how much each clock has slowed relative to a clock at rest in the preferred frame and then computes the ratio of those rates to compare the two clocks that are NOT at rest in the preferred frame.
Subsequently, Einstein derived his time dilation equation which looked very much like Lorentz’s clock retardation equation except that absolute velocity was replaced by the relative velocity between the two clocks being compared. Hence, Einstein’s time dilation equation was inherently symmetric as it was based on relative velocity. Also, Einstein’s time dilation equation was said to be limited to comparing clocks at rest in inertial frames. Since Special Relativity’s version of the formula is symmetric, clock A “measures” clock B to be slow AND clock B “measures” clock A to be slow, so that would presumably indicate that Special Relativity’s time dilation is NOT describing (asymmetric) physical clock slowing.