It seems to me that the relativistic dilatation of time has been confirmed by at least 2 experimental facts:

1) The life span of the muon: This particle, discovered in 1936 by Anderson and Neddermeyer (it was originally called "mu-meson", but in the terminology of the Standard Model, it's actually a lepton) has an average proper life span of 2.2 micro-seconds at ground level. It was later discovered as a by product of cosmic rays in the stratosphere, and experiments conducted by Rossi & Hall around 1941 allowed to confirm the time dilatation effect in the following way: the muon speed in cosmic rays being about 0.998 c, it would take the particle 33 micro-seconds to come across the atmosphere according to galilean mechanics, a contradiction; but when applying the lorentzian correction factor, which is around 15,8, one gets 33 micro-seconds, which is approximatively the measured life span. For all this, see e.g. voyager.eggelescliffe.org.uk/physics/relativity/muons1_.html

2) The relativistic correction for Global Position System (GPS): The situation here is complicated by the "competition" between two relativistic correction factors: given the speed of a GPS satellite, the lorentzian dilatation factor (Special Relativity) would be about 7 micro-seconds per day; given its altitude, the contraction of time due to the gravitational discrepancy (General Relativity), now measurable thanks  to the precision of atomic clocks (up to 30 nano-seconds), would be around 45 micro-seconds per day. The resulting time correction of 38 micro-seconds per day is far from negligible: it corresponds to a distance correction of 10 kms per day ! For all this, see e.g. livingreviews.org/lrr-2003-1

The length contraction and time dilation are two effects demonstrated by Einstein in Special Relativity starting from Lorentz's Transformations. It is hard to think only one of these two effects is right and the other is incorrect. It seems to me more right a complete criticism of the Lorentz Transformations and to prove both effects are incorrect. Changes of space and of time, including contraction and dilation whether of space or of time, can be demonstrated to be relativistic, virtual and non real effects, due to different theoretical considerations and to experimental observations by different observers. The equation E=mc2 then can be demonstrated as per different considerations without starting from Lorentz's Transformations.

I like your use of the word "property". Time is a property of what?

Apart from that the registration of muons from the upper layers of atmospere is a school experiment that is quite convincing.

But, what is it whose property is time?

Time and space are properties of the universe. We cannot take hold of them or change them. But, we observe that time passes and that space gives us room to move around in. The properties of physics empirical evidence are length and duration. These are necessary substitutes to serve in place of the missing measures of space and time. We measure object length but cannot measure space. The unit of object length is the meter. The meter is not a piece of space. I used the word duration in place of time in order to make clear that time as a fundamental property of the universe is not represented in physics equations. Rather there is necessarily a substitute for the non-measurable property of time. That substitute is object cyclic activity. A number of cycles is chosen as its unit of measurement.  We count cycles as a workable substitute for time. However, it is workable only because we choose to count object cycles that are nearly the same. But they are not the same and are instead the least inaccurate substitute for counting the passage of time. With regard to the empirical evidence put forward as confirming the reality of time dilation. All of that evidence has to do with observing variations in object activity. There is no evidence where time was observed to be caused to become inconsistent. No one has ever experimented with time. There is no specimen of time in any laboratory. The idea that variations in object activity tell us about effects upon time is theoretical conjecture.  

Daniele Sasso,

I need to clarify that what you say here is correct; "The length contraction and time dilation are two effects demonstrated by Einstein in Special Relativity starting from Lorentz's Transformations. It is hard to think only one of these two effects is right and the other is incorrect. It seems to me more right a complete criticism of the Lorentz Transformations and to prove both effects are incorrect."

Now to clarify my point. I am not suggesting that one of the two effects that we call time-dilation and length-contraction does not occur. Both occur. I am suggesting that there is no empirical support for concluding that variations in the rate of an object's activity tells us that time varies its rate. This change does not prevent the Lorentz transforms, with only their interpretations changed, from being used to derive either E=MC^2 or its replacement equation.  Its replacement equation becomes possible if one includes a defined mass in place the present indefinable mass. In physics, a defined property is one that is defined in terms of pre-existing properties. A defined mass is defined in terms of its pre-existing properties. Its pre-existing properties are length and duration. When kilogram is made a defined unit, it is defined in terms of its two pre-existing units, meters and seconds. This change causes us to learn what it is that empirical evidence is revealing to us about the nature of mass. Presently, mass remains an indefinable  property meaning that it remains an unexplained property. Everything there is for us to learn about the nature of the universe is communicated to us by empirical evidence.  Physics empirical evidence consists of patterns in changes of velocities with respect to time, actually duration. The point is that it is change of velocity that informs us about the empirical nature of mass. However, that solution is another subject or perhaps invites the posting of the question: What  is mass?  

Has the dilation of the property of time been confirmed by empirical evidence to be physically real? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Has_the_dilation_of_the_property_of_time_been_confirmed_by_empirical_evidence_to_be_physically_real#57a106383d7f4b60a25b1b12 [accessed Aug 2, 2016].

I find that time-dilation is not about time and that length-contraction is not about space.  I accept that length-contraction of material objects exists for  a couple of reasons. One is that it is what is adjusted in order that the speed of light should measure locally as the constant C. Another reason is that my work tells me that there is empirical evidence for it as a common everyday measurable molecular effect. I work with a defined mass and its use in determining the size of atoms shows me that the fraction of 3/2 in the thermodynamic equation for internal energy of an ideal gas results from length-contraction of the molecules. The contraction is the difference between length before the molecule is formed and is like a loose proton and loose electron looking to  form a hydrogen atom. When the atom is formed local length shrinks by 1/3. With regard to the 3/2 fraction, there is no need for external walls to help account for it as is done in the molecular theory of gases. The fraction of 3/2 is the inverse of the 2/3 size of the molecules due to length-contraction of 1/3. When temperature is measured, it is measured locally so that this fraction does not show. Local length measurements give the same size regardless of the amount of length-contraction. However, the measurement of the average molecular kinetic energy is a remote measurement. This remote perspective 'sees' the effect of length-contraction. I offer this explanation without sufficient supporting work in this message. The supporting work is spread out on the Internet in my name.My website is http://newphysicstheory.com. There is some irony in my choice of that name. It turns out that my work consists of removing theory in favor of returning physics equations back to their empirical forms. Their empirical forms result from properly defining all properties except the two of empirical evidence. Those two are natural indefinable properties. But, there can be no other indefinable properties. Presently physics is deficient in this regard and has allowed three artificial indefinable properties to become stagnant fixtures in physics equations. 

The supporting work exists freely on the Internet . As a followup to "If you say so." I mentioned that I work with a defined mass. Officially, mass is an indefinable property. The same with temperature. That means they both remain unexplained. It is interesting that theoretical physics has advanced without learning what either mass and temperature are. The penalty paid for not correcting these deficiencies is that fundamental unity was lost very early on. Yes I say so.  

Time dilation and length contraction both exist as relative effects. However, they do not exist if you are moving with the frame. This is possible if there is an additional dynamic dimension beyond space and time, which allows different 4D spacetimes to co-exist in a 5D cosmos with the scale of 4D spacetime as the fifth “dimension”.

When Einstein derived SR he found that one parameter remained undetermined – the scale. He determined this scale by assuming that there is no length contraction perpendicular to the direction of motion, and then found the Lorentz Transformation (LT).

However, why should distances perpendicular to the motion remain the same, when we use signals at the speed of light to observe them?

If you construct a light-clock with signals perpendicular to the motion, and the clock rates are the same in both frames, then the signal in the moving frame as seen from the stationary frame would zig-zag and its perpendicular distance be contracted by the factor sqrt(1-(v/c)2). This leads to the transformation published by Woldemar Voigt in 1886, preceding the LT! Lorentz was not aware of this Voigt’s Transformation (VT), and later said that he would have used it instead of his LT if he had known about it. And, if he had used it, Einstein would probably have used it too.

The VT resolves the Twin Paradox by making it clear that moving frames merely appear to be contracted, explaining time dilation and length contraction.

If one models a Minkowskian line-element in GR with the scale factor 1-(v/c)2 one finds that the geodesic becomes an identity. This means that regardless of what the acceleration is, the motion will be on a geodesics of GR. In other words, the scale factor above curves spacetime during acceleration. This induces the inertial force as a curved spacetime phenomenon during acceleration, just like gravitation curves spacetime.

BY RELYING ON SR WITH ITS LT RATHER THAN THE VT WE HAVE MISSED THE EXPLANATION TO THE INERTIAL FORCE!

Furthermore, the velocity v is not the real velocity in terms of distance traveled per time interval, which is v/sqrt(1-(v/c)2). Thus the velocity c is not the highest possible velocity. It’s true that it is the highest OBSERVABLE velocity, but not in terms of distance traveled per time interval. In SR this is handled by a v

I was just thinking about the word 'skeptic'. It appears that relativists cannot imagine that their their strange world might be mythical. The success of predictions is attractive. However, the equations of physics are written to model patterns in changes of velocities with respect to time. It is the patterns that very often successfully extrapolate predictions that the patterns will continue. The equations don't contain properties directly. All properties are represented only by their units of measurement. The units, when properly defined consist always and only of combinations of meters and seconds. This is, of  course, not the case currently. Some units have never been defined such as kilograms and degrees Kelvin. Also, there is electric charge which is circularly defined. Being circularly defined means actually being not defined.

The equations of physics can tolerate these deficiencies most of the time. They can tolerate substitute properties and added-on properties. These types of properties are not real. They are invented by theorists, carefully designed to fill in blanks without harming the patterns that empirical evidence tells us must be maintained. So successful predictions can, when over relied upon let theorists go astray and lose their way when attempting to explain the nature of the universe.

Everything we need to know and can know is communicated to us by empirical evidence. Our lead in learning should be directly gained from empirical evidence. Yet I find many theorists, while highly skilled at mathematical modeling, are not trained to fully analyze empirical evidence for the answers they are seeking.  If seems that some believe that the function of empirical evidence is to confirm successful predictions. Successful predictions are not good guardians against faulty interpretations of the nature of the universe. The guardian most needed is to rely upon empirical evidence to learn what it is revealing to us about the nature of the universe.

This is why all properties used in physics equations must be defined in the same terms as physics empirical evidence is expressed. All units that represent properties in physics equations must be defined in terms of combinations of meters and seconds. The empirical evidence guides us in how to do this if we are looking for it. I look for it. Blanks are filled in and substitutes are removed. Theory is discarded in favor of returning the equations of physics to their empirical forms. Fundamental unity is always present. A lot of problems are solved when the presence of fundamental unity ties everything together.   

It seems to me that the relativistic dilatation of time has been confirmed by at least 2 experimental facts:

1) The life span of the muon: This particle, discovered in 1936 by Anderson and Neddermeyer (it was originally called "mu-meson", but in the terminology of the Standard Model, it's actually a lepton) has an average proper life span of 2.2 micro-seconds at ground level. It was later discovered as a by product of cosmic rays in the stratosphere, and experiments conducted by Rossi & Hall around 1941 allowed to confirm the time dilatation effect in the following way: the muon speed in cosmic rays being about 0.998 c, it would take the particle 33 micro-seconds to come across the atmosphere according to galilean mechanics, a contradiction; but when applying the lorentzian correction factor, which is around 15,8, one gets 33 micro-seconds, which is approximatively the measured life span. For all this, see e.g. voyager.eggelescliffe.org.uk/physics/relativity/muons1_.html

2) The relativistic correction for Global Position System (GPS): The situation here is complicated by the "competition" between two relativistic correction factors: given the speed of a GPS satellite, the lorentzian dilatation factor (Special Relativity) would be about 7 micro-seconds per day; given its altitude, the contraction of time due to the gravitational discrepancy (General Relativity), now measurable thanks  to the precision of atomic clocks (up to 30 nano-seconds), would be around 45 micro-seconds per day. The resulting time correction of 38 micro-seconds per day is far from negligible: it corresponds to a distance correction of 10 kms per day ! For all this, see e.g. livingreviews.org/lrr-2003-1

Well, I hoped without hope that you'd say that time is a property of the electromagnetic field.

You use quite a different philosophy from ours. For us, time is a measure, one of the measures, separating events. It is not a property but a parameter related to our illusion of the world. Why our notion of the world requires four paramaters remains a question. Kant thought that this is just apriori knowledge and I don't think that any substantial progress was made regading this question since then.

I cannot discuss your philosophy. I can briefly formulate ours.

Our illusion of the world deals with the notion of an event. Events are characterized with 4 parameters usually called time and 3 spatial coordinates. The choice of parameters is not unique. A linear transformation between them is called Lorentz transformation.

The principle of locality or causality, which is in the root of the theory of relativity, requires ordering of events via a single parameter called space-time interval and defined as s^2 = c^2t^2 - r^2 (more generally ds^2 = g_ij dx^i dx^j). This must be invariant for all transformations between 4 parameters including Lorentz transformation.

Too long already. For intersted, I can continue.

The 2 classic experiments are Kennedy-Thorndike and Ives-Stilwell, apart from the muon experiment, as well as various measurements of clocks going slow when being moved Hafele-Keating, Gravity probe A).

Kennedy-Thorndike is a Michelson-Morley experiment with unequal arms. As you can convince yourself, length contraction alone does not, then, lead to a null result, which was the result observed

Ives-Stilwell measures the Doppler effect of an atom moving at relativistic speeds and emitting light. The frequencies of the forward emitted light, and the backward, are averaged and found to give results compatible with time dilation.

There are thus several processes which slow down when observed from a moving vantage point, or when they take place in a reference frame in motion with respect to the measurement apparatus. It is, of course, meaningless to speak of an ``absolute dilation''.

Were different processes to slow down by different amounts, this would allow to measure motion in absolute terms. There is among physicists, a deep seated belief that this is not possible. There is also no indication whatever experimentally that this happens.

When all physical processes slow down by the same amount, however, then no definition of time, which must, as you yourself insist, involve a physical process, can be immune from such dilation.

Johan,

"However, why should distances perpendicular to the motion remain the same, when we use signals at the speed of light to observe them?"

In the experiment of the deep inelastic scattering of the SLAC  electrons were used to probe hadrons (in a similar way as Rutherford did for Nuclei against the thin gold layer). The faster or more energetic the electrons the smaller they become, till they reached transversal dimensions magnitude of orders smaller than hadrons themselves. This means experimentally that the length contraction exists but it is not only along the direction of motion it is a volume contraction.

Regarding time dilation there are many examples of slowing down of the processes. The accelerators for example are also used  to observe processes not detectable if had occurred at rest. Life time of some entities is significative if these are set at a high level of energy and such life time can be detected. In normal conditions the detection would be impossible due to their too short life time.

I saw experiments done with Atomic clocks in motion too where gravitation is not in the scope and the one which underwent acceleration for a certain time, so acquired a higher energy per unit mass slowed down according to the values predicted by the theory.

Stefano:

Thanks for your input about the experiment with electrons, which clearly shows that there is transverse scale contraction during motion in disagreement with SR. This agrees with the new finding that motion in general contracts the scale of 4D spacetime in a relative sense, while leaving the scale the same for co-moving observers. This means that the relative line-element for a moving inertial object is:

ds2=[1-(v/c)2][dt2-dx2-dy2-dz2]

The (during acceleration) dynamic scale-factor [1-(v/c)2] explains inertia as a curved spacetime phenomenon. All motion is on geodesics of GR.

The velocity v is an apparent observed velocity; the true velocity is v/sqrt[1-(v/c)2]. Thus, it appears that the time slows down simply because objects move faster than observed.

Yes Johan,

I've read your paper and it is quite interesting. The geometrodynamics is well implemented in 5 dimensions not 4. And I  think space-time is a limited model which deals only with point like objects (which do not exist) in SR, SR cannot model extended objects. In GR cannot be any motion other than the stationary ones since there is not a correct management of the local energy (equivalence principle is experimentally verified only in stationary motion). GR may represents a sort of a section of a higher dimensional system. But motion can take place only by being a variation of an intrinsic metric of the space in the absolute time.

Stephen:

You said: “Motion can take place only by being a variation of an intrinsic metric of the space in the absolute time”.

This true.

It appears that “motion” always takes place incrementally at the speed of light as seen in the 4D spacetime. Motion involves the metrical scale of 4D spacetime, which changes during motion. The universe is not four-dimensional, and therefore cannot be modeled by GR.

I observe postmodern physics has a great ability: to complicate always more the physical reality. All this is a consequence of a misinterpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment. That experiment and similar subsequent experiments prove only ether doesn' t exist. They don't prove the Galilean relativity isn' t valid and the speed of light doesn' t compose with other speeds. If we consider with attention this concept, the physical reality in wonderful manner becomes more beautiful

Stefano:

Do you know of any paper discussing the transverse length-contraction in the scattering of the SLAC electron experiment? Obviously, the experimental finding that there actually is such transverse length-contraction would be an important contribution. 

Johan I only know the result of the experiment which Bjorken reported. It was the proof of the existance of sub structures of the hadrons which Feynman called partons and Gell Mann called quarks (insPired by the Finnegan's wake). The only imaginable effect is the associated wave Lenght contracts. 

Stefano, is there enough information in this report to confirm the transverse contraction?

If Electron did not experience transverse contractIon it would not be able to pentrate the structure of the hadrons.  I would say that transverse contractIon is undeniable, the longitudinal one is opinabile, comes out of SR as a side effect of seeing one Rf from another Rf which is Just a perception not a matter of fact.

@ Daniele: it is good to look at several experiments. How about Fizeau's experiment (speed of light in moving water)? Also Kennedy-Thorndike (MM with unequal arms) Ives-Stilwell and finally, the fact that no one ever has been able to accelerate any particle faster than light, compounded with the fact that Galilean kinematics fails dramatically at the speeds close to c at which accelerators operate. Explain these using Galilean relativity and I might start to listen.

Leyvraz, thanks for your requirement of explanations after your downvote. At present I cannot consider for practical reasons all experiments that you cite. Anyway the K-T experiment with unequal arms isn't able to prove that Galilean relativity isn't valid, it confirms only ether doesn' t exist. I observe many associate the Galilean relativity with ether and with the absolute reference frame but it is wrong because those concepts were added after by Newton. The Galilean relativity is described completely only by the Principle of Relativity in which there are only relative inertial reference fames and thete aren't absolute references frames. The I-S experiment points out a second order effect that is absent in the classic effect, but I think you have understood I am not a neoclassic physicist. In fact the second order is perfectly explained in the order of the Theory of Reference Frames. You write the Galilean Relativity fails in particle accelerators, I think you refer to time dilation and to the problem of synchronization, but also that problem is studied and explained in TR. At last you write nobody has been able to accelerate particles at greater speeds than light. I would want only to note you nobody never measured those speeds in accelerators but they are only the result of a calculation.

Dear Johnan,

there is an interesting and well written Nobel lecture about the probing of hadrons by electrons.

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1990/friedman-lecture.pdf

The phrases length contraction and time dilation are misnomers in the sense that length does not really contract and time does not really dilate. What actually happens is a moving observer, measuring the length of an object finds that the length is shorter when compared with the length as measured by an observer when the object is stationary. Similarly, time interval between two events appears to be different when observed from two frames moving with respect to each other. Take an example of muon decay quoted above. Let us say the muon is born at time t1 and decays at time t2 in a frame in which muon is at rest. When one observes these two events from another frame in which muon is moving, the time interval appears to be larger. This follows from transformation of the space-time points of the two events from one frame to another. The relation is given by Lorentz transformation equations and has been verified experimentally. Time dilation was verified more accurately by flying atomic clocks in aeroplanes. But there we have two effects to account for. One is time dilation of special relativity and second is general relativistic time dilation. Another verification is Doppler shift of light. The special relativistic calculation shows that there is nonzero Doppler shift when the light travels in the direction perpendicular to the motion of the source. In nonrelativistic calculation, there is no transverse Doppler shift. This effect has also been measured. So, time dilation has a strong experimental basis.

I think to know theories that were born about a century ago as you, inter alias I searched for learning those theories directly from original sources for what is possible. Let us  consider for instance the transverse Doppler effect, it is true that the classic theory doesn't predicts that effect, but I specified I am not a neoclassic physicist. The Theory of Reference Frames explains exactly that effect and other things. You can find, if you desire, greater informations and widenings in my numerous papers. Besides I would want to specify the transverse Doppler effect generates always blueshift and not redshift. The consequence is that blueshift produces time contraction and not time dilation. This is one of numerous contradictions that are present in SR.

Stefano

It seems to me that we should follow up on this clear evidence that transverse dimensions during motion are smaller. If this is true we may be dealing with metrical scale contraction in a relative sense. In this case 4D inertial spacetime frames (manifolds) may coexist in a 5D cosmos where the scale of 4D spacetime is an additional dynamic degree of freedom. The implications are huge!

Is there experimental evidence for any transverse length contraction of Special Relativity? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_experimental_evidence_for_any_transverse_length_contraction_of_Special_Relativity#view=57a7091b217e208a3a1db31a [accessed Aug 7, 2016].

Christian,

Yes, you are right! The problem is that we have not yet discovered that the world is five-dimensional (5D) instead of 4D. A moving frame is in a different 4D Minkowskian manifold scaled by the factor 1-(v/c)2.  What we perceive in a stationary frame is merely the projection of the moving frame. 

Thong Nguyen Quang Do,

I think your phrase  "......experiments conducted by Rossi & Hall around 1941 allowed to confirm the time dilatation effect...", especially the words "...the time dilatation effect..." clarify the difference between our opinions. I agree that the "...time dilation effect..." has been confirmed. I emphasize the word "...effect...". The effect is the slowing of activity of objects. Since the only effect observed is upon the object, it  is not confirmed that there is an effect upon time. The experiments you cite were not conducted upon the property of time. When object activity slows,  I look to an effect upon the cause of that activity. Time has not been shown to either experience effects or to cause effects. 

Dear Christian Baumgarten,

I apologize for taking so long to reply to your first message. Quoting from that message:

"Relativity tells us how some object or event appears when regarded from the position of another inertial frame like perspective geometry tells us how distant objects appear when projected onto a screen (the retina or a photographic plate)."

You appear to me to be denying Relativity Theory. Your view that it tells us only how things appear to be different  for different observers, is very different from another type of claim typical  of Relativists such as claiming that "space-time is real". Are you presenting the view that Relativity theory is about appearances? Please do state your position in your own words. I don't want to appear to be speaking for you. I do need to accurately understand your position.

In answer to your second message: Time is a property of the universe only in the sense that time passes.  We tend to feel so strongly in the existence of time as a property that we substitute for it in physics equations. Typically, its substitute is presented as if it represents the real property of time. It is  even normal  to refer to the unit of second is a unit of time. It is not. 

When I say that the property  of time has never been  experimented  upon and that there is no empirical evidence for it either experiencing effects or causing effects, I am not claiming to know the nature of time. I am instead refuting all the bogus claims that space does this or time does that especially when Relativists take their hard line stand that space-time is proven. It can't be proven because there is no empirical evidence for behaviors of either space or time. There is only empirical evidence about patterns in changes of velocities of objects that are definitely not space or time. 

James

Has the dilation of the property of time been confirmed by empirical evidence to be physically real? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Has_the_dilation_of_the_property_of_time_been_confirmed_by_empirical_evidence_to_be_physically_real [accessed Aug 16, 2016].

Dear Christian Baumgarten,

I apologize for not yet responding to your previous message. 

I do describe time as a property. The universe uses time to evolve. It does not appear to  me to belong to anything that is less than the universe itself. I say the same about space. Both serve the universe. Neither serves at my pleasure. It is not possible to obtain specimens of either for the purpose of experimenting  upon them. I do say that both exist. I say that space exists because we have room  to move around in. i say that time exists because the motion of objects takes time to occur. All properties that serve us are represented in physics equations only by their units. If neither space nor time have units then they are not represented in physics equations. They are, however, substituted for by the the properties of objects. In the case of space, the meter is adopted to represent length in the sense that an object can be used to measure that length. The object occupies space but doesn't measure space. The size of objects varies due to length contraction. In the case of time, a unit of object cyclic activity substitutes for the passage of time while not being a direct measurement of time.  A unit of object cyclic activity cannot be equated with a unit of time. Object activity varies due to the effect that is incorrectly called time dilation. That effect is on the object and its properties. What dilates is the rate of activity of the object. I look to the cause of the activity to learn what is 'dilating'. 

Even after arguing in favor of the existence of space and time as properties of the universe, I recognize that if the universe consisted of nothing other than information and intelligence. we wouldn't know the difference from the one I am attempting to describe above. I  choose to accept the universe as being material. I recognize that everything we will learn about the mechanical operation of the universe will be learned from patterns in changes of velocities of objects, or in short, from empirical evidence. We are hindered in that pursuit by our persistent inability to define mass and temperature. 

I take the liberty of entering the fray.

Relativistic "time dilation" has nothing to do with the onward flow of time itself. 

"Time dilation" refers ot the apparent dilation of intervals of time as observed from different inertial reference frames moving with respect to each other. Clocks in frame K will register a different interval of time between two events E1 and E2 as observed from K than clocks in frame K' moving relative to K that observer the time interval between the same two events E1 and E2.

If you have no problem with relativistic length contraction then you should have no problem with relativistc dilation of time intervals. An interval of time is the analog in time to a length in space.

Dwight,

We first have to agree on what time dilation is. In physics is the delay registered by two clock between the same events. Clock retardation is not symmetrical if it is real.

Clock retardation is apparent only If you use Lorentz transformations alone. Then there is no way to predict any real clock retardation.

The actual clock retardation can be determined only in presence of a chanGe of the Irf due to acceleration. 

Hi Dwight Hoxie,

Welcome to the fray;

"If you have no problem with relativistic length contraction then you should have no problem with relativistic dilation of time intervals. An interval of time is the analog in time to a length in space."

I recognize that the effects called length-contraction and time-dilation are real. When i say I accept length-contraction as real, I do so because it uses the word length and doesn't use the word space. Object length will vary as described by the Lorentz transform for length-contraction. I reject time-dilation because it uses the word time. The effect is real, but it is occurring to objects, usually referred to as clocks, and not to the property of time. If the effect was named clock-dilation, I would have no problem with it. This is a critical difference in understanding. For example, when it is said that time is what clocks measure, I refute that claim. I say that it is actually saying that time is object activity or object activity is time. Whatever time is, it is not a property of objects. The universe could not evolve in an orderly manner if it had to rely on the behavior of clocks for keeping its evolution schedule on time.

I notice that when you completed your statement, you no longer referred to clocks, but rather spoke about "An interval of time is the analog in time to a length in space." If you had stayed with the word clock instead of time, I could accept it. If you had not also referred to a length in space, I could have accepted it. Because of the way you expressed your conclusion, I need to restate that i find that length-contraction is an effect that occurs to objects and not to space. Also, I find that time-dilation is an effect that occurs to objects and not to the property of time. In both cases there is no empirical  evidence to show that length-contraction occurs to space, and, there is no empirical evidence to show that time-dilation occurs to time. Addressing both effects, they are each observed to occur to objects only. There has been no case where either effect has been observed to occur to space or time.  

Has the dilation of the property of time been confirmed by empirical evidence to be physically real? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Has_the_dilation_of_the_property_of_time_been_confirmed_by_empirical_evidence_to_be_physically_real/4 [accessed Aug 17, 2016].

Dwight,

I speak about Physics, experimental phisics with atomic clocks and possible results of them.  I speak about real phenomena with instrumentations. If you speak about math do it yourSelf but do not expect to obtain actual results.

An afterthought: Time like space is intangible. You can't touch it, taste it, hear it, smell it or see it. A point in space has no meaning unless you can somehow specify its location in space. An instant of time likewise has no meaning unless it can be located in time by using, for example, GMT. But in space we can speak of the length of somethig because we can envision an object having length. In time we envision intervals of time analogous to length in space. "It takes fifteen hours to fly direct from Zurich to San Francisco." In this case we are speaking meaningfully of a "time interval", long and boring as it may be. Time advances continuosly and cannot be manipulated while time intervals are conceptual chunks of time that can be different in different reference systems.

Dear Stefano,

I know not of which you speak. Instruments like meter sticks and clocks are means of measurement nothing more. Phenonema are real in time and space and we use clocks and meter sticks to locate them in our own construction of time and space. I do not understand your problem.

Let me muddy the waters a bit more. Let us consider cosmic ray muon decay. In the laboratory we measure with clocks the times of decay of muons to form a distribution of decay tiems from which we compute a muon half-life. All of these "times", measured and computed, are "time intervals". Now we observe from cosmic ray data that more muons arrive the surface of the earth than is expected given their labortory determined half-lives. Here we witness relativistic "time-interval dilation" wherein now the laboratory clock is abord the speeding muon and our clock is in our earth-based reference frame that is moving with the speed of the moving muon towards a now stationary muon. From our now speeding reference frame the muon's clock appears to run slower (the time-interval ticks of the clock are dilated) and we perceive the muon to "live" longer.

Dear Christian,

Quoting  me: "For example, when it is said that time is what clocks measure, I refute that claim."

Quoting you: "In my view this is no claim, but the definition of what we (physically) mean when we speak about time. Such a definition is unavoidable for experimental science."

I feel that we say things more differently than is our meaning. I felt like agreeing with your response, but, I find that for clarification  of my view, I need to say that it is our substitute for time that is unavoidable for experimental science, Our substitute for time is clock cycles. We cant assign a unit to time, but, we can assign a unit to clock cycles. That unit for clock cycles is the second. This substitute is admittedly very dependable for keeping very accurate measurements. If we did have a unit for measuring time,  it is possible that we might find that the use of the 'real' unit of 'real' time, should one be established, is not significantly superior to our substitute. Discussion of this point could be argued to be philosophical.

However, if relativists insist that space-time is real, then i think it is in the interest of scientific integrity to point out that there is no empirical evidence for effects being experienced by either space or time, and, no empirical evidence for either space or time causes effects. In this sentence, my meaning of time is what I understand to be the meaning of time intended by relativists when they coined the name of their proposed property that they call spacetime. I understand their meaning to be referring to a universal property of time, just as I understand their meaning of space to refer to a universal property of space. I understand relativists to be claiming that spacetime refers to the shape of the universe and the origin of the effect we call gravity. I see this as theoretical conjecture having no empirical support.

For the sake of avoiding misunderstandlng, I am not saying that the physical effects that we call lengthcontraction and timedilation are not real. They are both measurable physics effects that do occur. The point I make is that they are effects that are observed to occur to objects, and have never been observed to occur to a universal property called space or a universal property called time.  

James

Has the dilation of the property of time been confirmed by empirical evidence to be physically real? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Has_the_dilation_of_the_property_of_time_been_confirmed_by_empirical_evidence_to_be_physically_real#view=57b4607e615e2793fe3618a6 [accessed Aug 17, 2016].

Dear James,

You say "I am not saying that the physical effects that we call lengthcontraction and timedilation are not real."

I need to understand what you mean by a "physical effect". Length contraction and time(-interval) dilation do not imply, for example, any physical contraction of say a meter stick made of steel. It is only that, in our reference frame that is moving relative to  the meter stick, we will measuere the length of the meter stick in our moving reference frame to be shorter than a meter stick located in our moving reference frame. It is thus an apparent contraction that increases as we increase our speed to approach the speed of light. Thus a photon at the speed of light "sees" nothing nor experiences a lapse of time, which statement is nonsense because photons do not experience anything: they are  and they are not. And now we enter the realm of fantasy.

Dwight Hoxie and Stefano Quattrini,

Dear Dwight, I will be responding to your messages, however, Stefano Quattrini's messages to you are good information from an orthodox understanding. My presentation will be more involved since my work contains a defined mass and a defined temperature  and a defined electric charge. These required improvements to physics equations recapture fundamental unity while eliminating, actually filling in the blanks that theoretical physics left behind, theoretical physics substitutes and guesses. I repeat one  of Stefano's messages to  you:

Stefano Quattrini · 18.86 · Ordine degli ingegneri della provincia di Ancona

Dwight,

We first have to agree on what time dilation is. In physics is the delay registered by two clock between the same events. Clock retardation is not symmetrical if it is real.

Clock retardation is apparent only If you use Lorentz transformations alone. Then there is no way to predict any real clock retardation.

The actual clock retardation can be determined only in presence of a chanGe of the Irf due to acceleration. 

Dear James,

I must confess that I did not understand Stefan's comment and addressed a response to him but have seen a reply.

Dear All,

Below is a correction to a earliar response directed to James and Stefano:

I am speaking of time in the context of Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity(STR) in which time t is a coordinate in a four-dimensional space - it is used as a coordinate analogous to x,y,z in Cartesian coordinates. Time also is a parameter and we can use it, for example, to say that the distance traveled by a moving object is a function of the parameter time t.

Clocks are measuring instruments. They measure the passage of time in time intervals (akin to centmeters) which by the usual convention are seconds. One second is an interval of time. So the concept of a time interval is fundamental to the measurement of time by a clock which simply counts time intervals.

Events occur in time and space. We observe two events occurring at the same location in our stationary reference frame K. When see the first event we start our clock (really just a timer) and count the clock time intervals until we observe the second event and stop the clock. Now we have the time interval between the two events as we observed them in our reference frame K.

Now reference frame K’ is moving past us at constant speed. An observer in K’ has a clock identical to ours and he starts it when he observes the first event and stops it when he observes the second event. So he has the time interval between the two events as seen from K’. But he also notes that in K’ the events occurred at different locations. STR says that the square of the total interval Δs2 between the two events must be invariant where in K we have Δs2 = Δt2 and in K’ we have Δs2 = Δx’2 + Δt’2 giving Δt’2 = Δt2 – Δx’2. Thus it is the time interval in K’ that is contracted in K’ as seen from K’.

We assume, based on Einstein’s first postulate, that the two identical clocks count time intervals the same way to the same accuracy.

Thus I maintain that the term “time dilation” is a misnomer and should be replaced by something like “time-interval dilation”.

Christian Baumgarten,

"I don't think that I have much more to say on this topic."

Thank you for your participation. I will be responding. What has been missing is my general reason for my conclusions about length contraction and time dilation. That reason involves a different understanding of the Lorentz Transforms. My remarks do not follow from an acceptance of the special relativity interpretation of the Lorentz Transforms. 

Here is a response I gave to a different question:

"First let me offer a result for clocks in a similar problem where the two observers are moving close to the Earth on the same line parallel to the surface of the Earth. The relative velocities for each of them with respect to the surface of the Earth are equal but opposite. The magnitude of each of their velocities is very close to C. Their relative velocity with respect to one another is twice their Earth velocities. There is a third observer stationary on the surface of the Earth with their own clock. Each moving observer will see the other's clock moving slowly compared to the clock of the stationary observer. When they look at their own clocks they will find that their clocks agree with each other. They both run equally slowly compared to the clock of the stationary observer. The reason for posing this example problem and offering my solution is to highlight that I read those transform equations and understand their meanings differently from relativists. The very same equations derived according to special relativity theory and with no changes look to me to be improperly applied by relativists."

Is it possible to know whether physical time is an n-dimensional vector? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_possible_to_know_whether_physical_time_is_an_n-dimensional_vector/3 [accessed Aug 18, 2016].

Continuing my last post and addressing length contraction: Each of the two observers with equal but opposite velocities parallel to the surface of Earth, will not observe or measure any difference between their own sizes. The third observer on the Earth will see the  other two observers suffer equal length contraction in the direction of their velocities. That third stationary observer will be seeing real physical changes to the moving observers. The two observers in motion will have their lengths contract in the direction of their velocities. The two moving observers will see the Earth observer expand. For both of them, the outside world will appear to be expanding along the direction of their velocities.  The stationary Earth observer's size will not be changing. The size  of  the Earth will not have changed. The meter stick  of the stationary observer will not have changed. The meter sticks of the observers in motion, if those sticks are in line with their velocities, will experience equal length contractions in the direction of their velocities.  

Dear James,

Considering your near earth problem, you need to be careful about who is viewing what from what vantage point. If one of the moving observers wants to compare his clock against an the earth based clock he needs two earth-based clocks along his line of travel.  He can only “see” an earth based clock when he is directly above it. So he starts his clock when he passes the first earth based clock and records the time he sees on that earth based clock. When he passes the second earth based clock he stops his clock and records the time registered on the second earth based clock. It is assumed that the two earth based clocks have been synchronized. It is further assumed that all of the clocks used are of the same kind and run at the same rate when they are all at rest with respect to each other. This moving observer will then observe that the time interval registered by the two earth based clocks will be longer than that shown by his moving clock. That is his moving clock appears to be running slower than the earth based clocks.

Maybe this is what you said in your analysis of the problem.

An post of mine to another question:

I find that time-dilation is not about time and that length-contraction is not about space.  I accept that length-contraction of material objects exists for  a couple of reasons. One is that it is what is adjusted in order that the speed of light should measure locally as the constant C. Another reason is that my work tells me that there is empirical evidence for it as a common everyday measurable molecular effect. I work with a defined mass and its use in determining the size of atoms shows me that the fraction of 3/2 in the thermodynamic equation for internal energy of an ideal gas results from length-contraction of the molecules. The contraction is the difference between length before the molecule is formed and is like a loose proton and loose electron looking to  form a hydrogen atom. When the atom is formed local length shrinks by 1/3. With regard to the 3/2 fraction, there is no need for external walls to help account for it as is done in the molecular theory of gases. The fraction of 3/2 is the inverse of the 2/3 size of the molecules due to length-contraction of 1/3. When temperature is measured, it is measured locally so that this fraction does not show. Local length measurements give the same size regardless of the amount of length-contraction. However, the measurement of the average molecular kinetic energy is a remote measurement. This remote perspective 'sees' the effect of length-contraction. I offer this explanation without sufficient supporting work in this message. The supporting work is spread out on the Internet in my name.My website is http://newphysicstheory.com. There is some irony in my choice of that name. It turns out that my work consists of removing theory in favor of returning physics equations back to their empirical forms. Their empirical forms result from properly defining all properties except the two of empirical evidence. Those two are natural indefinable properties. But, there can be no other indefinable properties. Presently physics is deficient in this regard and has allowed three artificial indefinable properties to become stagnant fixtures in physics equations. 

Has the dilation of the property of time been confirmed by empirical evidence to be physically real? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Has_the_dilation_of_the_property_of_time_been_confirmed_by_empirical_evidence_to_be_physically_real/1 [accessed Aug 18, 2016].

Has the dilation property of shadows as the sun sets been confirmed by experimental evidence to be physically real? Maybe James can give some arguments for and against. I personally do not know the answer: should we call this physically real? The problem is not what happens (we know that well enough), but what we choose to call real.

These arguments can then straightforwardly be translated to relativity.

Dwight,

Thank you for the reminder to not be sloppy. The cost paid is that the point that I wanted to make lacked clarity and explanation. Let say that no observer sees anything. Doppler effects don't matter. No observer times anything or measures any lengths. However, this example is the type that I say the Lorentz Transforms describe. All changes that I say will occur are what I say the Lorentz transforms predict. The moving observers will each experience equal physical change described by length contraction due to their velocities with respect to the Earth. There is no contribution of length contraction due to their relative velocity. The stationary observer and the Earth do not experience a change of length or shape. The clocks of the two moving observers will run slower at the same rates. The stationary observer's clock is not affected. The stationary observer's clock maintains the same rate all through the example. I will follow up with a message explaining How I  say the Lorentz transforms are to be read and understood. 

Now to clarify my message about length contraction and the 3/2 fraction in the equation for the internal kinetic energy of a hydrogen gas in equilibrium. When the electron and proton join to form the hydrogen atom their masses come close together and cause 1/3 length contraction of the photons that hold the atom together. The measurement of temperature of the gas is a local measurement. The point is that the local physical process of measuring temperature will experience the same 1/3 length contraction. The measurement of temperature does not detect a difference of length locally. If the pressure of the gas is measured, that is a remote measurement. The length involved in the physical process of measuring pressure is the non-contracted length experienced by a remote observer doing the measurement of pressure.

This explanation follows from my working with a  defined property of mass. A defined property of mass is one that is defined in terms of pre-existing properties. The only pre-existing properties are those of empirical  evidence. Those two properties  are length and time as  measured by clocks. Their units are meters and seconds. A defined mass has units that defined in terms of pre-existing units. The only two pre-existing units are meters and seconds. Therefore, a defined mass has units that are defined as a combination of meters and seconds only. The appropriate combination is not presented in this message. That explanation needs its own message.    

 I expect that there are negative responses to what i have been writing. A legitimate question is, why claim the changes are necessary when physics works so very well. The answer in short form is this: You, meaning everyone who does physics research including Einstein and Newton and all other greats that have contributed to make physics what it is today, have been working with two undefined properties. They are temperature and mass. They have never been defined. Their units are not defined. They both have been indefinable properties since they were introduced. Indefinable properties are  properties that have not been explained. For example, no one officially knows what temperature is. And, no one officially knows what mass is. Newton didn't know what  these two properties are and Einstein didn't know what these two properties are. No one knows officially what they are. Anyone is welcome to offer their opposition to this point by explaining what either one of them are. However, it is a physics fact that both properties were understood to be indefinable from the time they were each introduced. They remain indefinable properties to this day. So why bother to speak up about it. The reason is that it is an intolerable situation for physicists to be offering to describe the nature of the universe and not even know what temperature and mass are.   

 Why should anyone pay attention to the claim that the Lorentz transforms need to be re-interpreted? Here is the reason. Empirical evidence does give us guidance on how to define mass. When mass is defined, it is immediately obvious that relativity theory is wrong. Everyone who disagrees with this is invited to explain what mass is. perhaps I will pose that question nest. I asked another question: What was it that Clausius discovered when he wrote his mathematical expression for thermodynamic entropy? Why ask that question and how is it relevant to what I have written about here? This is why. Physicists do not know what Clausius' thermodynamic entropy is. The reason physicists do not know this is because they do not know what temperature is.  Anyone is, of course, invited to explain what either temperature or Clausius' thermodynamic entropy is.  What has all of this to do with time dilation? Lack of fundamental knowledge and unanswered question leave blanks in physics equations. Theorists rush to fill  in those blanks with properties that they imagine exist and that are mathematically workable in the equations without disrupting their predictive abilities. Their predictive ability results from their accuracy in modeling patterns in changes of velocities of objects. 

It has often been said, I think rightly, that Science woke up from its long medieval lethargy on the day when Galileo, insteading of asking, as did the Schoolmen: ``*What* is motion?'' instead asked: ``*How* do bodies move?''

What is mass? What is temperature? are in many ways questions both unanswerable, and the quest to the answer of which is likely to be wholly fruitless. Rather ask how temperature manifests itself, or how mass influences motion.

Dear F. Leyvraz,

"What is mass? What is temperature? are in many ways questions both unanswerable, and the quest to the answer of which is likely to be wholly fruitless. Rather ask how temperature manifests itself, or how mass influences motion."

The argument against that position is that the units of mass and temperature, also those of electric charge, are the sole representatives of their respective properties. If those units are not defined, then they are the cause of the loss of fundamental unity as well as the loss of understanding. The loss of fundamental unity in particular opens wide the door for theorists to intrude into physics equations and plug in their substitutes. We know what effects occur. One can easily report on the effects of mass. But one cannot know that mass does away with relativity theory. One cannot know, until mass represents its true self, that there is just one cause for all effects. When I point out that the error of making mass an indefinable property introduces fundamental disunity into physics equations, it is reasonable to think that this error in particular makes the introduction of multiple fundamental forces necessary. The fundamentals of physics must be known or the theories that are built upon them are inevitably wrong. I am not arguing that the equations of physics do not make spectacular predictions. I am arguing that those prediction result from the accuracy of the mathematics used to model the patterns of changes of velocities of objects that empirical evidence consist of. I have replacement equations that fit both with the existence of fundamental unity and with successful predictions. That was not the hard part. That result followed automatically from introducing the defined units of mass and temperature into physics equations. Electric charge is a problem in great need of correction also. Its current definition is a circular definition which means it also is not a defined property. It needs to be defined. It needs defined units. it needs to be known what it is. The magnitude of fundamental electric charge is a universal fundamental constant. It is imperative to physics to know the meaning of that fundamental constant. The correct meaning requires the correct, non-circular, definition of electric charge. 

Has the dilation of the property of time been confirmed by empirical evidence to be physically real? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Has_the_dilation_of_the_property_of_time_been_confirmed_by_empirical_evidence_to_be_physically_real#view=57b6396848954cdbec38a7e5 [accessed Aug 18, 2016].

This seems to maybe be a good time to mention that the universe has its own clock. There is an increment of time that occurs continuously everywhere in the universe without varying in magnitude. The magnitude of that constant is popularly known. Its magnitude is known from analysis of the hydrogen atom. On second thought, maybe I should first continue to wade my way through the usual stubborn resistance of theoretical physicists to the removal of their guesses and substitutes, some more of which the introduction of a universal constant measure of time would inevitably receive. 

Time dilation and length contraction are real in nature. If there is no time dilation and length contraction, then there is no quantum physics in nature, and quantum physics is not real in nature. That what says if we want to understand how the quantization of gravity.

http://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1490-18-azzam-almosallami-reinterpretation-of-lorentz-transformation-according-to-the-copenhagen-school-and-the-quantization-of-gravity.html

Dear James,

You ventured into the realm of therodynamics, a realm which has puzzled me for some time. Thermodynamics is rather much of a black sheep in the physics family and stands outside of the “real” physics that is conducted at CERN and the other big physics laboratorios.

The first thing to note about thermodynamics is that it seems to work not only in physics but in chemistry, geology, and biology as well. But as you note there seem to be some sleight-of-hand shenanigans associated with thermodynamics that make it work. You specifically raise the issue of temperature and entropy.

Temperature and entropy are in essence complimentary to each other. To simplify visualizing the problem consider a volume V of a chemically inert gas like nitrogen in, for example, a balloon. The nitrogen molecules will be moving around randomly within the volume V and thus each molecule will have kinetic energy of motion that for each molecule continually changes as molecules collide with each other and bounce of the walls of the balloon. (The molecules also will have internal vibrational and rotational energy but let us ignore that for this example.) So we can add up the kinetic energies of all the molecules inside the balloon to give a total internal energy U contained in the volume V.

The volume V also will be at some temperatura T that we measure with a thermometer and we can raise or lower the temperatura of the gas in the balloon by heating it or putting it in a refrigerator. Heating or cooling the balloon changes the kinetic energy of the molecules in the balloon and thus the total internal energy U inside the balloon. So we see that temperatura is a parameter that summarizes, in this example, the energy conditions within the balloon.

Here we are considering a balloon of volume V at a fixed temperatura T with a bunch of molecules bouncing around inside. We can ask the question “How is the energy U distributed among the molecules in V?” That is a problem of statistics but suppose we could, without deflating the balloon, put all of the molecules in half of the volume V the other half being a vacuum. We would have to change internally the locations of the molecule to shoo them all where we want them to go. In essence we would have to expend work and effort inside the balloon and this would add a bit of internal energy, say dU, to the total energy U.

Applying statistics we can develop a mathematical function to describe at temperature T the distribution of energies among the molecules in the volume V. This “distribution function”, in essence, is what we call entropy S. So from the example above we see that changeing how energy is distributed in V can change the total energy in V. Thus we can write succinctly dU = TdS where dS is a small change in the energy “distrbution function” or entropy S at constant temperature T. That is, we do not heat or cool the balloon nor do we change the volume V of the balloon. This example illustrates how entropy S enters the picture thermodynamically. Entropy also is associated with "information" but that is another topic.

For illustrative purposes only perhaps we can view the relation dU = TdS as a kind of "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle" that says there will always be some uncertainty associated with the internal energy inside the balloon because of uncertainty in knowing exactly how the energy is distributed among the molecules.

I agree fully with Christian! Science is based on a deductive understanding of nature in contrast to other belief systems, which however interesting in themselves serve different purposes. In physics we often ask "how", in philosophy "why". Both questions are interesting and do many times overlap in our strive for fundamental understanding. 

"The fundamentals of physics must be known or the theories that are built upon them are inevitably wrong."

The fundamentals of physics are the properties of f=ma. The means by which both mass and force become known to us in the sense that physics requires for its uses, is to learn what empirical evidence is revealing to us about them. The empirical evidence consists of patterns of changes of velocities of objects. The units of that evidence consists of meters and seconds only. All properties are represented in physics equations only by their units. These are the two pre-existing units of physics. There are no units before them by which we may define them. All properties that are inferred to exist from the empirical evidence must be defined in terms of the pre-existing properties of length and time. The units of all properties that are inferred to exist from the empirical evidence must be defined in terms of the pre-existing units of meters and seconds. If this is accomplished then the interpretation of the fundamentals of physics changes. Presently, the interpretation is the product of theory. In the case of f=ma mass was made an indefinable property because theorists believed that to be necessary to move forward with the use of f=ma. I am saying that it was not necessary to make mass and indefinable property nor necessary to otherwise choose force to be an indefinable property. Both could have been and should have been defined properties. I am not looking to propose a new theory. I argue that the empirical evidence gives guidance on how to proceed. By following the lead provided by empirical evidence fundamental unity is maintained throughout the process. Nothing that lacks empirical support survives this process. Physics changes. It becomes an empirical science. It leaves no opportunity for theoretical intrusions. The first step in demonstrating how this works is to define mass. For that discussion, I posted the question: What is mass? 

There should be no question that time dilation exists in a relative sense. Likewise, there should be no question that it does not exist locally regardless of motion. If this is true, the Twin Paradox of Special Relativity disappears.

Some may think that the (in)famous Hafele-Keating experiment proved that time actually runs slower locally when in motion, but this experiment was severely doctored to agree with time dilation as shown by A. G. Kelly:

http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/h%26kpaper.htm

One has not known what is causing the inertial force. I think it is caused by apparent metrical scale contraction of both space and time for an object in motion.

If this scale contraction factor is sqrt[1-(v/c)2] it would explain the inertial force!

It would also explain time-dilation and length-contraction as being purely relative effects caused by the apparent relative scale contraction.

This would mean that the world is five-dimensional (5D) rather than 4D, the fifth dimension being the scale of 4D spacetime of General Relativity.

Dear Johan,

The origin of the inertia exhibited by and object of mass m appears to be a given in this Universe  You suggest an alternative view that you express in your statement quoted below:

"One has not known what is causing the inertial force. I think it is caused by apparent metrical scale contraction of both space and time for an object in motion.

If this scale contraction factor is sqrt[1-(v/c)2] it would explain the inertial force!"

I think this suggestion cannot be correct as stated. Suppose the object has a speed of v = 5 m/s. Think of the number 5/299792458 now think of the number (5/299792458)2. This is a very small number. Now think of the number [1 - (5/299792458)2]1/2. I believe this number to be 1 for all practical intents and purposes.

 Dear All,

Let us discuss "temperature". Temperature in physics is a parameter that appears in the physics discipline "thermodynamics", which is a misnomer because the discipline focuses on equilibrium macroscopic systems and does not treat but in a cursory manner actual time-dependent dynamic systems and processes. "Macroscopic" means that the thermodynamic systems of concern are large compared to the characteristic size of quantum systems. Thermodynamically the macroscopic system contains internal energy U that is the sum of all of the energies of the system constituents. The macroscopic system has boundaries across which energy can flow but that do not permit the inward or outward transfer of matter. Temperature T is then a quantitative (measureable) but arbitrarily scaled parameter that is a measure of the energy “state” of the system. It is an indicator of how energy is distributed within the system under conditions in which the system would be in “thermodynamic equilibrium” in which there is neither inflow nor outflow of energy into or out of the system. Temperature therefore provides information regarding conditions within the system.

Temperature couples with entropy S (please see my previous comment on thermodynamics), which is a quantitative description of how the internal energy is distributed among the constituents of the system. Temperature T indicates the state of the system; entropy indicates the construction of that state.

LT can't describe the motion well. The motion must be defined according to the wave-particle duality. The real transformation that describes the motion well is 

x=R2(x'-vt') t=R2(t'-vx'/c2) y=Ry' and z=Rz' 

According to this transformation space is invariant, and it is only time according to time dilation. This transformation is vacuum energy dependent (gauge theory). And by the equivalence principle gravity is gauge theory also which is gravitational potential dependent. This transformation is the transformation of group during the motion by vacuum fluctuation not the phase, and the Lorentz factor is working same as the refractive index in optics globally which is vacuum energy dependent (gauge theory). According to that light speed is locally constant and equals to the speed of light in vacuum. But globally the speed of light as measured is variable which is vacuum energy dependent. 

At a certain point in space we have globally the measured speed of light

c'=R-1c  which represents the phase in case of collapsing the wave-function, and that explains Pound and Rebka experiment by the equivalence principle, where in this case R-1=(1-GM/c2r)

During the motion without determining the location of the moving object at a certain point in space, we have the measured speed of light globally is depending on the group and that equivalent to the motion in nonlinear dispersion by the vacuum fluctuation, and in this case we have

c'=(1-GM/c2r)2c , and that explains  light bending by gravity. In case of weak gravitational field we have (1-GM/c2r)2 is approximated to (1-2GM/c2r)

Same as we can explain Shiparo delay. And also by the wave-particle duality we explain Mercury precession and Pioneer anomaly. In this case no need to dark matter or dark energy and also infinities disappeared. Read my paper, gravity is completely quantized

Also H&K and Sagnac effect completely explained. If you take the time term of this transformation, you get

t=R2(t'-vx'/c2), in this case t-=R2(t'-vx'/c2) and t+=R2(t'-vx'/c2) From that we get

Delta (t)=R2 (2x'v/c2)  and since space is invariant, in this case we have x'=L thus we get 

Delta (t)=R2 (2Lv/c2), R is Lorentz factor, and that is the same explanation of Sagnac in the framework of the Ether theory but instead of the Ether theory it vacuum energy dependent. Read this paper for Sagnac effect

Classical and Relativistic Derivation of the Sagnac Effect, Wolfgang Engelhardt

http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.4075

Also by removing the reciprocity principle in this transformation, it explains completely the Unruh effect.

http://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1490-18-azzam-almosallami-reinterpretation-of-lorentz-transformation-according-to-the-copenhagen-school-and-the-quantization-of-gravity.html

Dwight, 

I do intend to respond to your mjessage regarding what thermodynamic entropy is; however, I will answer this one first because it is the easiest:

"Temperature T is then a quantitative (measureable) but arbitrarily scaled parameter that is a measure of the energy “state” of the system. It is an indicator of how energy is distributed within the system under conditions in which the system would be in “thermodynamic equilibrium” in which there is neither inflow nor outflow of energy into or out of the system. Temperature therefore provides information regarding conditions within the system."

Temperature is not a measure of the energy state of the system. Temperature is a measure of temperature. It is proportional to the average molecular kinetic energy. Temperature is an undefined property because it could not be explained so simply. Its units are degrees Kelvin and not joules because is not a measure of energy. It is an activity. It is something that happens at the surface of thermometers. It happens everywhere within the substance whether it is in equilibrium or not. This answer you gave is a substitute answer typical of what is taught. It can indicate, and, it can provide information; but. it is not a measure of anything other than itself.  Being proportional to average, or even local molecular kinetic energy does not explain what temperature is. 

Has the dilation of the property of time been confirmed by empirical evidence to be physically real? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Has_the_dilation_of_the_property_of_time_been_confirmed_by_empirical_evidence_to_be_physically_real#57b87158217e2051e74520b3 [accessed Aug 20, 2016].

Dwight,

"Applying statistics we can develop a mathematical function to describe at temperature T the distribution of energies among the molecules in the volume V. This “distribution function”, in essence, is what we call entropy S. So from the example above we see that changeing how energy is distributed in V can change the total energy in V. Thus we can write succinctly dU = TdS where dS is a small change in the energy “distrbution function” or entropy S at constant temperature T. That is, we do not heat or cool the balloon nor do we change the volume V of the balloon. This example illustrates how entropy S enters the picture thermodynamically. Entropy also is associated with "information" but that is another topic."

Your explanation that " ... Thus we can write succinctly dU = TdS where dS is a small change in the energy “distrbution function” or entropy S at constant temperature T. ..." is not telling us what Clausius's thermodynamic entropy is. dS is not a small change in " ... the energy distribution function". Temperature is not constant for the example you cited. If the energy increase, the temperature increases. 

I will provide a different example to show that thermodynamic entropy is not a measure of molecular kinetic energy whether average or otherwise. The Kelvin temperature scale uses a series of Carnot engines connected together as the physical basis for its scale. An equal amount of energy is removed from  each Carnot engine all  the way down the series. For each Carnot engine, its change in thermodynamic entropy during its full cycle is zero. Even though its internal kinetic energy has changed and the temperature has changed, the thermodynamic entropy has not changed. With regard to the complete series of Carnot engines, every one of them has zero change in thermodynamic entropy. From the first Carnot engine to the last Carnot engine their thermodynamic entropy for the heat intake part of the cycle is the same. For that same series of Carnot engines. The thermodynamic entropy of the heat sink part of the cycle is the same for all the Carnot engines. The number of gas molecules remains a constant. The average kinetic energy of each Carnot engine from the hottest to the coolest drops. The temperature drops. The thermodynamic entropy that is what Clausius discovered remains constant. It is officially unknown what it was that Clausius discovered when he wrote his equations for thermodynamic entropy. The reason it remains unknown is because temperature is still an undefined property. That means it is unexplained. It remains  unexplained in spite of your indirect relationships mentioned. It will be known when temperature is made a defined property; because, when it is defined its units of degrees Kelvin will be made defined units. Its units are what represent temperature in physics equations. They will represent to us the meaning of temperature. In light of our disagreement, I will ask if you have defined degrees Kelvin. In doing so, they must be defined in terms of pre-existing  units. 

In the case that my messages, which insist that all properties that are inferred to exist from empirical evidence, have moved too far from one of its references, I requote:

"The uninformative words primary and secondary have, in modern texts,replaced the informative words indefinable and definable. In order to make the basis for my discussion about temperature clearer for readers in general, I quote from:   

College Physics; Sears, Zemansky; 3rd ed.; 1960; Page 1, Chapter 1:

1-1 The fundamental indefinables of mechanics. Physics has been called the science of measurement. To quote from Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), "I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of Science, whatever the matter may be."

A definition of a quantity in physics must provide a set of rules for calculating it in terms of other quantities that can be measured.  Thus, when momentum is defined as the product of "mass" and "velocity," the rule for calculating momentum is contained within the  definition, and all that is necessary is to know how to measure mass and velocity. The definition of velocity is given in terms of length and time, but there are no simpler or more fundamental quantities in terms of which length and time may be  expressed. Length and time are two of the indefinables of mechanics. It has been found possible to express all the quantities of mechanics in terms of only three indefinables. The third may be taken to be "mass" or "force" with equal justification. We shall choose mass as the third indefinable of mechanics. 

In geometry, the fundamental indefinable is the "point." The geometer asks his disciple to build any picture of a point in his mind, provided the picture is consistent with what the geometer says about the point. In physics, the situation is not so subtle. Physicists from all over the world have international committees at whose meetings the rules of measurement of the indefinables are adopted. The rule for measuring an indefinable takes the place of a definition. ...

Chapter 15, page 286; 15-1:

To describe the equilibrium states of mechanical systems, as well as to study and predict the motions of rigid bodies and fluids, onlt three fundamental indefinables were needed: length, mass, and time. Every other physical quantity of importance in mechanics could be expressed in terms of these three indefinables., We come now, however, to a series of phenomena, called thermal effects or heat phenomena, which involve aspects that are essentially nonmechanical and which require for their description a fourth fundamental indefinable, the temperature. ... "

What is temperature? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_temperature [accessed Aug 20, 2016].

The process of defining mass, temperature, and, not yet but soon, electric charge, is part of returning fundamental unity to the equations of physics beginning with f=ma. For this  purpose I have posed some question in order to focus the discussions.These are the questions:

What is mass?

What physical event did Clausius discover when he wrote his mathematical expression for thermodynamic entropy?

What is temperature?

Has the dilation of the property of time been confirmed by empirical evidence to be physically real?

"Has the dilation of the property of time been confirmed by empirical evidence to be physically real?"

Of course not! The only way to advise that it does is to describe time as a function of object activity. Object activity does experience time dilation, more accurately referred to as duration which is an objects' view of passing time. There is no empirical evidence for anything occurring to time as a fundamental  property of the universe. There is substantial evidence to show relativists take advantage of the abstract underpinnings of relativity theory, to declare what is and isn't time, or, what is or isn't space. They reach all the way to declaring that neither time nor space exist independently but are one property named spacetime. I ask relativists: Since every property that appears in physics equations is represented only by their units; what are the units of spacetime? If you have units to reveal, then please include their definitions in terms of pre-existing properties. That will be the test as to whether or not there are empricaly supported units for spacetime. 

Dear James,

You ask a set of questions and presumably you ask them because you would like answers. But why do you ask these questions when you already have the answers to them that you want? You ask "What be temperature?" An answer was provided to you and you rejected it out of hand because you already had your own answer although I find it dificult to grasp what it is you really mean.

I think it likely futile to convince you otherwise but I would to offer a few remarks. First of all, if temperature is "indefinable", is not the question "What is temperature?" meaningless?

Yes, I offered a physicist's definition of "temperature" in the context of a thermodynamic interpretation of the parameter. But, then, it was, after all, in the development of therodynamics that the concept of temperature arose. And yes my poropsed "definition" (more an interpretation of what temperature is rather than strictly a "definition) made reference to a system that could be brought into thermal equilibrium because thermodynamics deals mostly with equilibrium systems or systems approaching equilibrium. And yes mine was a somewhat schematic approach.

I have now said enough, possibly too much, about this topic. You have your world and I have mine and may peace and harmony prevail in both!

But to just a couple of specifics:

I did not say that temperature was a measure of energy, I said it was a measure of the internal state of a system at or approaching (thermal) equilibrium. This provides the means to construct an enironment in which temperature is uniform throughout the system. This gives us a conceptual basis for defining temperature. We can then extend "temperature" wherever we like and develop a scale by which to measure temperature. One point on the scale can be fixed as the temperature of a bowl of ice and water whose undisturbed interior is in quasi-thermal equilibrium. Another point can be chosen as the temperature of the water in a pan of boiling water - a system far removed from thermal equilibrium.

Your statement "If the energy increase, the temperature increases." Is simply wrong. It is very easy to change the store of energy in a system while holding the temperature constant. For example we can do work by compressing the balloon in a room temperature environment and allowing heat (aka energy) to exit the system through the skin of the balloon.

Dwight:

Regarding the scale-factor: 1-(v/c)2

Note that according to GR the scale-factor for the gravitational acceleration is:

1-(2GM/r)/c2

Comparing this with the inertial acceleration:

1-(v/c)2

We can ignore the factor 1/c2 and compare the two terms:

2GM/r   v2    or    GM/r   v2/2

Setting 2GM/r=vg2, the gravitational acceleration is:

ag= d(vg2/2)/dr=vg*dvg/dr=d(GM/r) /dr= GM/r2=9.81 m/s2 on Earth

(I have ignored the negative sign.)

Similarly, with the linear velocity vi, the acceleration is (if vi is not=zero):

ai= d(vi2/2)/dr=vi*dvi/dr

Comparing the inertial acceleration with the gravitational acceleration we find that with vi=5m/s and the with same acceleration 1G:

dvi/dr=9.81/5=1.96 (m/s) is the increased velocity per meter

These numbers are reasonable. Thus, if the velocity is 5m/s and changes by about 2m/s in one meter's distance it would give the gravitational acceleration 1G. Therefore, the inertial term (v/c)2 makes sense.  It’s not too small.

This discussion illustrates the similarity between inertia and gravitation. The inertial field also satisfies Poisson’s equation just like the gravitational field does. Inertia and gravitation seem to be the same kind of physical phenomenon.

The implication is that object in motion may appear scale-contracted, which would imply the existence of a fifth dimension, which is the scale of 4D existence. This scale may also change with the cosmological expansion, and I think this is what makes time progress! We may be living in a 5D cosmos!

The apparent scale-contraction explains the time-dilation and length-contraction of SR.

This new cosmos model agrees with all astronomical observations and explains both the Dark Energy and the Dark Matter. But, since it invalidates much of current thinking it is being ignored in the West. But, the Russian Academy of Sciences has recently officially acknowledged this new cosmos model.

I urge everyone to look into this!

Dear Johan, 

Thank you for your reply. I like your idea but I need to ponder it a bit more.

Dear Johan Masreliez,

Yes dear Johan you are completely right!!!  I reached to the same idea in my quantization of gravity, and I studied this idea completely in my theory here. That is related to how to understand the equivalence principle of Einstein!!! 

http://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1490-18-azzam-almosallami-reinterpretation-of-lorentz-transformation-according-to-the-copenhagen-school-and-the-quantization-of-gravity.html

Dear Dwight,

I am sorry that we are having difficulty communicating accurately. I  understand that you feel that it is futile trying to convince me of your viewpoint. I will limit my response to  that point.

Quoting you: "I think it likely futile to convince you otherwise but I would to offer a few remarks. First of all, if temperature is "indefinable", is not the question "What is temperature?" meaningless?"

It is customary to use the word indefinable because it was concluded when temperature was introduced that it could not be defined. To say today that temperature is an indefinable property merely reflects the physics fact that physicists have not changed that viewpoint. Temperature is indefinable because theorists did not know how to define it. They called it indefinable. It is always preferable to define properties. The only two properties that are justifiably indefinable are length and time. Temperature is not justifiably indefinable. It should be a defined property. The question "What is temperature?" is posed to bring to the readers attention the physics fact that temperature is not explained. Its definition would make known its explanation. The question is not meaningless because the point I make is that temperature should have been and could have been made a defined property. This means temperature could have been explained when it was introduced. In summary, temperature is customarily and officially retained today as a fundamental indefinable property. I posed the question to raise the possibility in readers minds that temperature can be made a defined property with defined units. In other words, it can become known  what temperature is. i was attempting to show readers that empirical evidence gives us guidance on how to define temperature. Actually the first step would need to be to define mass. Then the definition of temperature follows from that correction. This pursuit seems to me to be of great importance to physics. It appears that others do not agree. You are correct that it is presently futile to convince me otherwise. Presently the matter seems too clear to me to abandon it. I thank you for your participation and for your helpful messages. 

Has the dilation of the property of time been confirmed by empirical evidence to be physically real? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Has_the_dilation_of_the_property_of_time_been_confirmed_by_empirical_evidence_to_be_physically_real [accessed Aug 21, 2016].

It has been questioned more than once: What do I mean by: "Proven to be physically real."  I think i understand clearly why this challenge was raised. Relativists, having relative positions also it seems, want to either declare relativity theory to be physically real, or, to declare Euclidean space to be a low level image of a higher level image, or something like that. It seems that the best defense of Relativity theory is an offense against Euclidean reality. What is clear is that empirical evidence is the sole domain of Euclidean space. I choose to learn from empirical evidence and to remove the unempirical intrusions by theorists into physics equations. Being physically real then is suggested to mean existing in Euclidean space.

Some Sunday night reading in the west about time being not relative but absolute.:

https://www.academia.edu/8806818/Replacements_for_Maxwells_Equations_are_derived_as_part_of_a_Unified_Field_Theory

Dear James, 

Re: Temperature

I guess the problem is our point of view. I have a Ph.D. in astrophysics (Yes, yes, "Ph.D." = "Big F . . . king Deal!) so feel that I can speak as a "physicist". I don't regard temperature as "indefinable". It is perfectly clear to me what temperature is based on the description that I provided in a previous comment. It is a parameter, not a property, that labels the state of a system or a parcel of air. It is fully measureable with units of Kelvins so I don't see a problem.

I also don't regard length or time as indefinables based on the premise that if you can measure it you can define it. Both length and time are measurable and, to me, definable. But I concede that mass and energy pose problems. Energy really is not measurable because it is a useful but abstract concept. And mass often is measured in energy units so both currently are indefinable.

Dear Dwight,

I am considering writing a couple of messages to you. This message is to prepare the way for some answers that I wish to share. My intent is not to teach you. Your PhD is a great accomplishment and I hope that you ... well you know I am thinking of writing words which are intended to show respect but might somehow sound like preaching and then maybe seem condescending. I don't want to risk giving that impression... . If you decide that you are interested in reading direct answers for the purpose of sharing your evaluation of the ideas that I have been trying to communicate, then, I will provide them. First, to test the waters, I will  do some repeating. I don't remember if I posted this first quote in a discussion where you might have seen it. So, I post it here for you to take into consideration. Perhaps you are familiar with it, I don't know:

The uninformative words primary and secondary have, in modern texts,replaced the informative words indefinable and definable. In order to make the basis for my discussion about temperature clearer, I quote from:   

College Physics; Sears, Zemansky; 3rd ed.; 1960; Page 1, Chapter 1:

"1-1 The fundamental indefinables of mechanics. Physics has been called the science of measurement. To quote from Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), "I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of Science, whatever the matter may be."

A definition of a quantity in physics must provide a set of rules for calculating it in terms of other quantities that can be measured.  Thus, when momentum is defined as the product of "mass" and "velocity," the rule for calculating momentum is contained within the  definition, and all that is necessary is to know how to measure mass and velocity. The definition of velocity is given in terms of length and time, but there are no simpler or more fundamental quantities in terms of which length and time may be  expressed. Length and time are two of the indefinables of mechanics. It has been found possible to express all the quantities of mechanics in terms of only three indefinables. The third may be taken to be "mass" or "force" with equal justification. We shall choose mass as the third indefinable of mechanics. 

In geometry, the fundamental indefinable is the "point." The geometer asks his disciple to build any picture of a point in his mind, provided the picture is consistent with what the geometer says about the point. In physics, the situation is not so subtle. Physicists from all over the world have international committees at whose meetings the rules of measurement of the indefinables are adopted. The rule for measuring an indefinable takes the place of a definition. ...

Chapter 15, page 286; 15-1:

To describe the equilibrium states of mechanical systems, as well as to study and predict the motions of rigid bodies and fluids, onlt three fundamental indefinables were needed: length, mass, and time. Every other physical quantity of importance in mechanics could be expressed in terms of these three indefinables., We come now, however, to a series of phenomena, called thermal effects or heat phenomena, which involve aspects that are essentially nonmechanical and which require for their description a fourth fundamental indefinable, the temperature. ... "

Leaving that quote and borrowing a message of mine from FQXi.org:

Quoting from my message to Akinbo:

Quoting Akinbo: "By using a question to reply my question, "What is it (mass)", I assume you are searching for the answer which is okay. We are all searching for answers."

No I know the answer. I know better than to give an answer in isolation. It would be a wasted effort. I ask the question of anyone to see if there is understanding of what I have written about fixing physics. Both the why and the how. There is no marketplace for solutions to problems that don't exist. If a reader doesn't understand my description of the problem, they will dismiss answers. The problem is that mass and temperature remain unexplained properties. The response to this statement is that others, physicists and laymen, either scoff or put forward what they believe are explanations of what is mass and what is temperature.

It is a symptom of how far afield that physics has drifted that it has become unknown that mass and temperature are properties that lack definitions. The meaning of the word 'definition' in physics has been lost and replaced with the non-technical, commonplace meaning. Physicists no longer know that they don't know what mass and temperature is. Laymen are comfortable with this change to a weakened standard. They, just like professional theorists have done, join the rush to propose their high level guesses about the overall nature of the universe.

I read the Lorentz Transforms and do not see what relativists see. I agree that length contraction is a real physical process. The Lorentz Transform for length contraction correctly predicts it when the transform is applied, i.e. read, correctly. The Special Theory of Relativity reading of the transform is wrong. The transform describes a condition where the observer, from whom's perspective the transform is being applied, is stationary with respect to the environment. An environment is implied for the speed of light to be C. If that speed does not vary, then the environment does not vary. The observer in motion has his velocity not only with respect to the stationary observer but also, more importantly for length contraction to occur as a real physical effect, with respect to the environment. The speed of light is C in the environment. The environment is implied to be infinite and homogeneous. That is the condition that the transform is describing. The transform cannot be applied reciprocally. The environment cannot be immediately changed from that of the first observer to that of the second observer. The environment is not reciprocal.  Yes this is not what is taught.  

Do the true objects really contract at relativistic velocities? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_the_true_objects_really_contract_at_relativistic_velocities#view=57bc00834048546c3c226d71 [accessed Aug 23, 2016].

James,

STR is based on the postulates of relativity, i.e. the properties of space-time and the constancy of the speed of light etc. The Lorentz Transformation, LT, is a unique consequence from these postulates that "translates" space-time coordinates in an inertial system K to another system K' moving with velocity v in relation to K.

There is no environment defined, only the systems K and K' and space-time fulfilling the axioms of relativity. LT has a very simple mathematical form and it can easily be inverted. Do not "read" anything else into STR.  

Dear James,

Let's see how far we can get to convergence step by step. So tentatively I suggest that "space" and 'time" are "fundamental" indefinables, noting that "length" is contained within "space". Fo mer, "space" and "time" are simply "given" as structural elements that underpin the overall structure of the Universe. They are defined by their presence one really can't go further without entering the realms of religion or of "specultive metephysics".

Within the Universe we have "mass" as you suggest and "eclectric charge" as indefinables along with host of other entities. 

Dear Erkki,

When Einstein derived the Lorentz Transformation (LT), one parameter remained undetermined-the metrical scale of space and time. He determined this scale by assuming that distances perpendicular the motion remained the same. However, if instead the scale of moving objects differ in a relative sense, they may be in a different 4D manifold with different relative scale. In fact, Voigt's Transformation (VT) suggests that this relative scale for the Minkowskian line-element is 1-(v/c)2. It turns out that the VT works as well as the LT since the field equations of GR are identical. In other words, GR ignores the scale of existence!

The "inertial scale" 1-(v/c)2 would not only explain things like time-dilation and length-contraction, but also the inertial force during acceleration. With this dynamic scale all accelerating trajectories are on geodesics of GR.

Erkki J. Brändas,

"STR is based on the postulates of relativity, i.e. the properties of space-time and the constancy of the speed of light etc. The Lorentz Transformation, LT, is a unique consequence from these postulates that "translates" space-time coordinates in an inertial system K to another system K' moving with velocity v in relation to K."

"There is no environment defined, only the systems K and K' and space-time fulfilling the axioms of relativity. LT has a very simple mathematical form and it can easily be inverted. Do not "read" anything else into STR."

The properties of space-time are not one of the postulates of special relativity.

The second postulate says that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant independent of the inertial system, the source, and the observer. The vacuum is not represented in the transforms. Therefore, the actually used second postulate is that the speed of light is a constant,  independent of the inertia system, the source, and the  observer. The only condition in which it is a constant is that it measures locally as the same constant everywhere. 

Everything that the transforms are communicating  to us should be read in them. 

There was an environment defined. It was the vacuum. I removed this environment as being irrelevant. Only what is represented in the equations is relevant. Yet there is an  environment implied. The condition that the speed of light will always measure as the sames constant everywhere. "Everywhere" is an environment. It is the ultimate environment. There are no other conditions  of the environment that are relevant, because, they are not represented in the equations. 

The Lorentz Transforms do not have a simple mathematical form. They fortell a special condition of general relativity. The special condition is that the environment is homogeneous and infinite. Anyone at rest is at rest with the 'everywhere' environment. 

The Lorentz Transforms cannot be inverted. The first observer solution says that observer is at rest and the second observer has a relative velocity. The second observer solution says that the second observer is at rest and the first observer has a relative velocity. If there was an actual condition where an observer was both at rest and had a velocity, it would be a one time solution of a single quadratic equation. The fact that the transforms must be applied separately to each observer in turn demonstrates that the transforms are not reciprocal.   

Dear Dwight,

I am not expecting agreement, but would welcome understanding: Space and time, and, their substitutes in our equations length and duration are each indefinable properties. They will always remain indefinable. All other properties should be defined properties. Their definitions should consist of combinations of the properties of their empirical evidence. The first indefinable property to be made a defined property is mass. Here is and introduction to my approach for defining mass and more: Attached is my paper The Empirical Origins for Force and Acceleration. 

Conference Paper Empirical Origins for Force and Acceleration

James,

 The postulates in general form concern privileged systems, i.e. systems in which the laws of dynamics are formulated, and particularly observing that all systems moving with uniform rectilinear motion with respect to it are also privileged. The laws are formulated as, see e.g. references to Pauli or Löwdin:

1.     The velocity of light is the same in all privileged systems

2.     The properties of space and time are homogeneous

3.     Space is isotropic

4.     Space is symmetric with respect to velocities

From 1-4 the Lorentz Transformation, LT, follows uniquely. There is no need to include a vacuum or an environment in the assumptions above. Note that Einstein showed that Maxwell’s Equations are invariant to LT under the assumption that the velocity of light is the same in all systems independent of the velocity of the light source. Pauli and later Löwdin showed that LT can be derived essentially from the axioms above.

The LT is a simple mathematical relation that translates space-time points in one privileged system K with the space-time points in another one K’ that moves with velocity v in relation to K. It has a simple inversion. In fact if you let the x’-axis in K’ point opposite to the x-axis in K, the inversion has the same form as the original transformation!

"Everywhere", as an ultimate environment is your invention and it has no place in STR. You are making erroneous assumptions and conclusions.  

 When you state: The first observer solution says that observer is at rest and the second observer has a relative velocity – and then The second observer solution says that the second observer is at rest and the first observer has a relative velocity and then conclude If there was an actual condition where an observer was both at rest and had a velocity, it would be a one time solution of a single quadratic equation, you are imposing your own erroneous postulates, which are outside STR.

STR means that an observer in K’ is moving in relation to and observer in K. At the same time an observer in K is moving with respect to and observer in K’. This is the essence of relativity. LT only translates space-time coordinates from the perspective of an observer in K to an observer in K’ – nothing more nothing less.

STR is a simple theory with a surprising result. Adding unnecessary elements to any theory may be dangerous and cause severe confusion. In order to start on a fundamental search for definitions of e.g. mass etc. one must begin with a deductive approach from which further knowledge may be derived and predicted. Confusions breeds more confusion and finally chaos.

Dear Erkki,

Quantum is not working with SRT  according to the reciprocity or the symmetry of LT. There is no reciprocity in physics. Can you prove the Twin paradox.

If you are right in that, then can you tell me is LT exact or approximate??? It is approximation and I showed you that many times.  Or Is Loretnz symmetry conserved for all velocity ranges? Can you answer this question

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Loretnz_symmetry_conserved_for_all_velocity_ranges

There are a lot of problems in quantum physics with LT same as the huge problems in gravity!!! You can't solve any of these problems!!! All of what you want to keep on the reality is observer independent in order to keep on materialism!!! 

That is not true in physics!!!

Suppose now a micro particle is moving between the two pylons A&B, then this particle will move according to the wave-particle duality and the energy is quantized!!

Now what is the difference between moving a train between the two pylons and the micro object between the two pylons. the micro particle has mass and the moving train has mass. The micro particle has energy and moving train has energy, and both of them are moving in space and time.

So why you want the moving train to move according objectivity and continuity and thus according to materialism, while the micro particle moves according to quantum theory and the Copenhagen school???

Both of them must move according to the same laws. That what I did in my theory. I could understand the motion of the moving train according to the Copenhagen school. Because of that I succeeded in quantization of gravity by my equivalence principle!!!

Locally the light speed is constant and equals to the light speed in vacuum, while globally is vacuum energy dependent!!! Now all experiments prove that is true, but you can't explain that according to relativity of Einstein. That is because Local and global are independent in SRT!!! Even light speed is variable in gravity globally depended on the gravitational potential!!!

In this paper  J D Franson 2014 New J. Phys. 16 065008

Franson calculated that, treating light as a quantum object, the change in a photon's velocity depends not onnthe strength of the gravitational field, but on the gravitational potential itself. However, this leads to a violation of Einstein's equivalence principle – that gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable – because, in a gravitational field, the gravitational potential is created along with mass, whereas in a frame of reference

accelerating in free fall, it is not. Therefore, one could distinguish gravity from acceleration by whether a photon slows down or not when it undergoes particle–antiparticle creation.

Also, In one paper, Marcel Urban from the University of Paris-Sud, located in Orsay, France and his colleagues identified a quantum level mechanism for interpreting vacuum as being filled with pairs of virtual particles with fluctuating energy values. As a result, the inherent characteristics of vacuum, like the speed of light, may not be a constant after all, but fluctuate. Meanwhile, in another study, Gerd Leuchs and Luis L. Sánchez-Soto, from the Max Planck Institute for the Physics of Light in Erlangen, Germany, suggest that physical constants, such as the speed of light and the so-called impedance of free space, are indications of the total number of elementary particles in nature. 

Do have any explanation??? Now I explained that completely according to my transformation!!!!

http://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1490-18-azzam-almosallami-reinterpretation-of-lorentz-transformation-according-to-the-copenhagen-school-and-the-quantization-of-gravity.html

Postmodern physics is in chaos, not certainly who searchs for alternative ways and solutions. It is in chaos who talks about relativity and physics making use continually of postulates and ignoring that in relativity the only thing that has importance is the Principle of Relativity that isn't a postulate but it has a certain experimental evidence, based firstly on Galileo's experimental work that many ignore.

Erkki J. Brändas,

'1.     The velocity of light is the same in all privileged systems

2.     The properties of space and time are homogeneous

3.     Space is isotropic

4.     Space is symmetric with respect to velocities"

"From 1-4 the Lorentz Transformation, LT, follows uniquely. There is no need to include a vacuum or an environment in the assumptions above. ... "

All four of them individually introduce an environment. 

1.  Privileged systems introduces an environment.

2. The properties of space and time are an environment.

3. Space  is an environment.

4. Space is an environment.

"The LT is a simple mathematical relation that translates space-time points in one privileged system K with the space-time points in another one K’ that moves with velocity v in relation to K. It has a simple inversion. In fact if you let the x’-axis in K’ point opposite to the x-axis in K, the inversion has the same form as the original transformation!"

The Lorentz transforms use only object related substitutes in place of space and time. They do not use space-time points. The Lorentz transforms use length and duration. Both are measures of object activity. The unit of second is not a unit of time. It is a unit of object activity. This follows directly from the definition of a second. There is no empirical evidence for effects suffered by either space or time, and, there is no empirical evidence for effects caused by space or time. All empirical evidence consists of patterns of changes of velocities of objects.

The leap by theoretical physicists to making claims that space does this or that, or, that time does this or that, or, that they are a property of space and time called space-time, is pure theorists conjecture. I find that there is evidence for the length-contraction of objects but none concerning space. I find no evidence for 'time'-dilation of time. There is evidence for dilation of the rates of object activities. My use of the word object refers to things that can be  caused to change their velocities. 

I'll address more in another message, but I repeat that reciprocity for the Lorentz transforms is not predicted by nor possible with the Lorentz Transforms. The practice of solving a transform equation twice with different information is evidence that reciprocity is being forced onto Special Relativity.. 

Has the dilation of the property of time been confirmed by empirical evidence to be physically real? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Has_the_dilation_of_the_property_of_time_been_confirmed_by_empirical_evidence_to_be_physically_real [accessed Aug 24, 2016].

Has the dilation of the property of time been confirmed by empirical evidence to be physically real? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Has_the_dilation_of_the_property_of_time_been_confirmed_by_empirical_evidence_to_be_physically_real [accessed Aug 24, 2016].

Erkki J. Brändas,

"STR is a simple theory with a surprising result."

There are no surprising results when physics equations are developed to model what is learned from empirical evidence. The predictions of physics equations are wholly provided for in the initial conditions that the equations are designed to model. In other words, the designer designs the result into the initial equations. It does not matter if the designer is unaware of the consequences of his work. The consequences or results were provided for when the equations describing the problem were first written. 

"Adding unnecessary elements to any theory may be dangerous and cause severe confusion."

I have added nothing to the meaning of the Lorentz Transforms. I know their derivation and their results. My objections to their use by relativists is that they have added results that were unprovided for in the initial setup of the equations. I repeat that: If there was an actual condition provided for in the initial equations where an observer could be both at rest and have a velocity at the same time, then, it would be a one time solution of a single quadratic equation. The fact that the transforms must be applied separately to each observer in turn with different information demonstrates that the transforms are not reciprocal.

I mentioned previously that the transforms describe a special condition in General Relativity (I use  this name with the understanding that the misinterpretations of special relativity apply also to General Relativity). With that understanding, the special condition I mention is that the environment implied by the Lorentz transforms is homogeneous and infinite.  

Has the dilation of the property of time been confirmed by empirical evidence to be physically real? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Has_the_dilation_of_the_property_of_time_been_confirmed_by_empirical_evidence_to_be_physically_real [accessed Aug 24, 2016].