Difference between conjectural relativistic time dilation and general wave distortion in clock oscillation:

Whether time dilation is wrong or right, but for the sake of argument here, I will consider the proposition of time dilation in terms of relativistic effects, i.e. speed or gravitational potential differences.

The orbital speed of a GPS satellite is not the relative speed with respect to the Earth. It is the angular velocity of a GPS satellite relative to the center of the Earth and is measured in degrees or radians. Angular velocity is the time rate at which an object rotates about an axis, or the angular displacement between two bodies changes.

The orbital speed of a satellite is not a consideration in relativistic time dilation involving relative motion, and angular velocity does not apply to time dilation because it considers either relative motion or gravitational potential difference. In relativistic time dilation, a moving object with respect to an observer on Earth requires a relative motion.

The time dilation equation 𝑡՚ = 𝑡/√(1− 𝑣²/𝑐²) applies to the relative motion of an object moving relative to an observer on Earth.

GPS satellites orbit about 20,000 km from Earth and are affected by relativistic effects due to the gravitational potential difference between the Earth observer and the satellite. Therefore, there is a relative gravitational potential difference between the GPS satellite and the observer on Earth.

The gravitational potential difference is greater with a GPS satellite in space than with an observer on Earth, so that the gravitational force is greater with an observer on Earth than with a GPS satellite in space. Due to the weakening of gravity, satellite clocks run about 45 microseconds a day faster than Earth clocks. Therefore, on balance, the clocks of GPS satellites in space run about 38 microseconds a day faster than the clocks of GPS receivers on Earth. This is called gravitational time dilation. Whereas, the angular speed of GPS satellites, in degrees, is not calculated in gravitational time dilation.

The gravitational time dilation equation is different from the time dilation equation due to motion. The gravitational time dilation of a GPS satellite or any other gravitational time dilation equation includes the gravitational constant (G) and the distance between the centers of objects (r), where G = 6.67×10¯¹¹ Nm²/kg², the gravitational time dilation equation is, T' = T/√1−2GM/rc², where (T') is the time interval affected by (Earth) gravity; (t) is the time interval (GPS satellite) unaffected by gravity; (M) is the mass of the Earth, (G) is the gravitational constant, (r) is the distance between the centers of objects and (c) is the speed of light (299792458m/s).

However, according to my scientific findings and experiments, my paper concern deals with relativistic covariant spacetime invalidating covariant time dilation and space. Since, time and space have no physical properties but they are only mathematical parameters, time cannot be expanded, and my experiments confirm that the loss of energy due to relativistic effects enlarges the wavelength of the clock's oscillation, which corresponds to incorrect time but relativity appears incorrectly. This error as time expands. Time dilation is actually an error in timing due to wavelength distortion.

The time interval T(deg) is inversely proportional to the frequency, for a 1° phase, we get a wave associated with time change. 1° phase shift = 𝑇/360 = (1/𝑓)/360. Time delay for 1° phase shift with frequency of 5 MHz and wavelength of 59.95 m,

𝛥𝑡 = 555 𝑝𝑠.

The GPS satellite's cesium-133 atomic clock orbits at an altitude of 20,000 km with a time delay of 38 microseconds per day.

Time delay for a 1455.5° phase shift or 4.04 Hz. With a frequency of 9192631770 Hz,

𝛥𝑡 = 0.00000010878 m𝑠. So 38 microseconds per day.

Reference: Relativistic effects on phase shift in relative frequencies invalidate time dilation.

Dismissal of objectionable filing against scientific paper entitled, "Relativistic effects on phase shift in frequencies invalidate time dilation II."

 Mr. Quilling, 

You continue to display your preconceived intellectual dishonesty, even after my reminders against it.

Also your preconceived exposition that says, "... the author's proposal contradicts the established understanding of time dilation ...,"

(1) When your statement fails to appreciate the premises stated in the author's paper, entitled, "The relative effect of phase shift on frequency invalidates time dilation II."

In particular, experiments with piezoelectric crystal oscillators have shown that due to the difference in relativistic effect, the resulting G-force distorts the frequency through a phase shift of the clock oscillation, showing a distorted time scale in line with the distorted wavelength of the wave, which shows an error in reading the clock time. Which is rather wrongly represented as time dilation.

Not appreciating the facts mentioned above, or not raising legitimate encounters against the tests mentioned in the author's paper, will be considered as acts of actual dishonesty by the commenter.

(2) Moreover, the commenter fails to appreciate that the author's paper ascribes the freedom of time to robbery. As recognized in the relativity paper. And relativity does not rule out classical abstract time, but arbitrarily relativizes time as normal which is subject to relativistic effects.

(3) Furthermore, the commenter fails to realize that previous experiments with time dilation by experimenters were incorrect and biased, as the author's paper notes, that physical wavelength distortions exactly correspond to conceptual time distortions; Through the relation λ∝T, while biased experimenters have not tried to find out that the wavelength λ is actually distorted and hence the distorted value of time T (usually t'), i.e. without distortion at wavelength λ, time (T) cannot be distorted. The warped wavelength λ is relevant here, not the time warp.

In addition, experimenters fail to realize that existential events invoke time from the conceptual progression of time, not the other way around. Because they made this deliberate mistake because they were too biased towards Einstein's statement of God, and not what proper science should be, although it was their natural duty as examiners of important scientific evidence.

(4) In addition to the above grounds, the paper contains many scientifically valid encounters that disprove the idea of time dilation, but they are not mentioned here to limit this answer.

Therefore, considering the above facts and circumstances, it appears that the commenter's comments are completely preconceived, on his own thoughts of relativity, and therefore he is absent from the facts stated in the author's paper and hence his arguments are against the author's paper. His complaint is that the author's proposal is inconsistent with time dilation. These comments by the commenter are based not only on guesses and assumptions, but also on the commenter's untrue, preconceived notions.

The commenter has failed to establish a valid scientific basis against the author's paper. Accordingly the above commenter is thrown in the dustbin and his complaint is dismissed.

The matter has now been settled.

Reference: https://doi.org/10.36227/techrxiv.22492066.v2

- Soumendra Nath Thakur (Author).

Effects of phase shift in frequency against period of time:

Instantaneous phase (ϕ) represents an angular shift between two sine waves and is measured in degrees (or radians). 

A sine wave and a cosine wave are 90° (π/2 radians) out of phase with each other.

After a period of time Δt, two sine waves initially synchronized in phase but differing in frequency by Δω degrees (or radians) per second will develop a differential total phase shift (ΔΦ).

Given by the equation: ΔΦ = Δω × Δt.

Phase shift in relative frequencies due to relativistic effects invalidates relativistic covariant spacetime:

In relativity, time and space are relativistic covariant but phase shift in frequencies due to relativistic effects invalidate relativistic covariant spacetime.

Explanation

In physics and statistics, time and space are polymorphous, but in pure mathematics time and space have no physical properties. They are only mathematical parameters:

In classical physics, time and space are determinist and invariant; 

In statistical physics, time and space are probabilistic and invariant; 

In relativity, time and space are relativistic, covariant, and downgraded mere components of relativistic spacetime; 

In quantum physics, time and space are probabilistic and invariant.

However, in relativity, time and space are relativistic covariant but Phase shift in relative frequencies due to relativistic effects invalidates relativistic covariant spacetime.

Reference: Relativistic effects on phaseshift in frequencies invalidate time dilation II

My observation - "A moving particle of mass (m), spends half of its total energy in achieving electromagnetic speed":

• A particle having no rest mass (m=0), and moving at the speed of light, spends half of its total energy (E/2), in becoming a particle at rest.  
• And, a particle having mass (m=1), and at rest, spends half of its total energy (E/2), in achieving the speed of light. 
• Where, total energy of any particle equivalents it's potential energy and kinetic energy E = (E.P+E.K) = mv²; E = (E.P+E.K) = mc²; (Note: p=mv but p=Ec).

Explanation:

A moving particle has total energy (E), mass (m), speed (v) but its mechanical speed is less than the speed of light (c). 

In this case, the moving particle will have total energy (E) = {kinetic energy (E.k) + potential energy (E.p)}.

E = (E.k + E.p)....... (1).

However, according to Newtonian mechanics, the kinetic energy of a moving particle,

(E.k) = 1/2mv²........(2).

When the mechanical speed (v) of the particle attains the speed of light (c) in vacuum, the total energy of the particle becomes,

E = m(c)²/2 ............(3).

According to mass-energy equivalence, the total energy (E) of mass (m),

E = mc² ................(4).

At full speed of light, the total kinetic energy of a particle should be only (E=mc²).

However, comparing all the above equations, especially equations three (...3) and four (...4), we get the total kinetic energy of the particle (E = m(c)²/2).

That is, half of the particle's total energy (E = mc²), expended from potential energy (E.p), so that the particle acquires mechanical to electromagnetic speeds.

Soumendra Nath Thakur. May 29, 2023.