Relativity and Cosmology


Is Time Dilation a Scientific Theory?

Authors: Ziaedin Shafiei

The idea of time dilation was initially proposed by Einstein in 1905 as one component/consequence of the theory of special relativity (SR). Based on a thought, not real, experiment it maintains that a light clock which is moving away from an observer with a constant speed, goes slower in comparison with a stationary clock. This slower tick is imagined in a clock which is positioned so that the direction of light movement within the clock at rest is perpendicular to the direction of the relative movement of the clock, φ=90⁰. It is shown in [2] that the idea of length contraction and time dilation is not supported by Michelson and Morley (M&M) experiment. It is argued further here that the thought experiment did not try, for no obvious reason, to test the clock function in any other angles, i.e. φ<90⁰. It is shown that if the clock so positioned that φ<90⁰ not only the clock on average goes even more slower but also the ticks become irregular. One tick is slower and the following one is faster than the tick of the stationary clock. This irregularity is worse when φ=0⁰. The first problem can be corrected by another component of SR, namely, length contraction. However, irregular ticks are left untouched by the theory. Also, in SR the tick of the clock is studied when it only moves away from the observer. Moreover, no associated time delay is considered in the tick. It is shown that a related time delay or time advance must be considered in the ticks when the clock moves away from or returns to the observer, respectively. Time dilation, thus, was proposed based on incomplete analysis of one thought experiment and not all-inclusive analysis of real experiments necessary for developing a scientific theory.

Comments: 11 Pages.

Download: PDF

Submission history

[v1] 2017-10-23 17:49:56

Unique-IP document downloads: 48 times is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular, anything that appears to include financial or legal advice or proposed medical treatments should be treated with due caution. will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.

Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.

comments powered by Disqus