It seems a previous post of mine fell out during the last crash, so I've taken it out of the thread it originated in, and given it it's own thread instead, as that was more appropriate.

Anyway, MacM has (finally) come with a concrete claim, which should be easy for him to demonstrate:

Spatial Length Contraction can only be claimed because you choose to ignore known, calculated time dilation of the moving clock. If you retain the known physical and emperically demonstrated affect of time dilation when doing the trip travel times, it turns out that distance MUST remain constant.

I'd really like to see a proof of this, because the last time I did the calculations of time dilation for a light clock parallel to the direction of motion (e.g. here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=823851#post823851)), with length contraction, the correct time dilation popped out. That is, I contest your claim.

Please show me the math giving a consistent gamma for a light clock perpendicular and parallel to the direction of motion, without using length contraction.

The math shouldn't be hard to do, in fact, it's only elementary algebra, but I'd like to see it from your hand.

[EDIT:] This thread is about the math of str. MacM has made a very specific claim about a specific piece of str math. I believe he is wrong but will give him the chance to defend himself.

I'd really like to see a proof of this, because the last time I did the calculations of time dilation for a light clock parallel to the direction of motion (e.g. here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=823851#post823851)), with length contraction, the correct time dilation popped out. That is, I contest your claim.
On the contrary, I know of no experiment that proves length contraction actually exists. It is just assumed to exist since special relativity requires it. Thus any time dilation experiment explained by special relativity assumes length contraction inheriently. I do not think the challenge you have put forth for MacM can be proven by MacM or disproven by you.

On the contrary, I know of no experiment that proves length contraction actually exists. It is just assumed to exist since special relativity requires it. Thus any time dilation experiment explained by special relativity assumes length contraction inheriently. I do not think the challenge you have put forth for MacM can be proven by MacM or disproven by you.

I disagree only in this respect. It is easy to demonstrate mathematically that spatial length contraction only exists when you exclude the time dilation also known to exist in the moving clock you claim travels less distance.

You simply cannot disregard, not just a claim of time dilation, but the fact that IT has been physically demonstrated.

It physically exists and cannot be disregarded. If you retain that physical fact then spatial length contraction vanishes.

That to me is suffcient proof of the failure of Special Relativity.

That to me is suffcient proof of the failure of Special Relativity. You cannot prove something with your silly statements and your own self-only-intuitive brand of physics!

You cannot prove something with your silly statements and your own self-only-intuitive brand of physics!

I hope you understand this statement says nothing and it is what is silly. You have just said mathematics do not count unless you accdept and use SR mathematics. Sorry but you fall way short on this one.

If you claim I am wrong it is your burden to show where I am wrong. Please show me a case of spatial contraction where time dilation of the moving clock claimed to travel less distance, is retained. Go ahead, we all await your posting this simple proof I am wrong.

You have just said mathematics do not count unless you accdept and use SR mathematics. Sorry but you fall way short on this one.
Oh I did? I did not ever even think that, how could I have possibly have said that? I guess I need to keep close watch on my mouth... er, hands.


If you claim I am wrong it is your burden to show where I am wrong. Please show me a case of spatial contraction where time dilation of the moving clock claimed to travel less distance, is retained. Go ahead, we all await your posting this simple proof I am wrong.
Well... here we go again.

As I've said before:
I've never said your interpretation is right or wrong. You seem to equate me telling you that your intepretation cannot be proven as claiming it is wrong. (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=47515&page=3&pp=20)

It seems a previous post of mine fell out during the last crash, so I've taken it out of the thread it originated in, and given it it's own thread instead, as that was more appropriate.

Anyway, MacM has (finally) come with a concrete claim, which should be easy for him to demonstrate:

I'd really like to see a proof of this, because the last time I did the calculations of time dilation for a light clock parallel to the direction of motion (e.g. here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=823851#post823851)), with length contraction, the correct time dilation popped out. That is, I contest your claim.

Please show me the math giving a consistent gamma for a light clock perpendicular and parallel to the direction of motion, without using length contraction.

The math shouldn't be hard to do, in fact, it's only elementary algebra, but I'd like to see it from your hand.
Funkstar,
Can you please demonstrate that the photons moving orthogonal to the motion of a frame and reflecting from mirrors move in a zig-zag pattern? Is this directly related to any postulate of SRT? Is it just convenient to use the light zig zagging as you have indicagted?

I can understand if the mirrors are not oriented with their vector describing their plane aligned with the trajectory of the light that is reflecting between the mirrors and that the slight tilt could account for the zig- and the zag.

However, from the posutlates of light that assure us that the light speed is independent of the source of the light, seems to be violated [as was the same error made in the Michelson-Morley Experiments].

1.Is an impulse of momentum applied to the light in the direction of the motion of the frame? If so why does not your analysis not concern itself with this physical event?

2. Does the contracted mirror along the direction of motion get deformed into little planes on the surface that are tilted in the direction of motion of the frame?

3. I have seen in a number papers the terms similar to, "the light gets carried along by the frame". Can you explain this?

4. Can you give some SRT rationale for the reason the light moves as you describe?

Geistkiesel :cool:

Oh I did? I did not ever even think that, how could I have possibly have said that? I guess I need to keep close watch on my mouth... er, hands.


Well... here we go again.

As I've said before:
I've never said your interpretation is right or wrong. You seem to equate me telling you that your intepretation cannot be proven as claiming it is wrong. (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=47515&page=3&pp=20)

If d = (t * v)/k where k is the time dilation factor due to motion of the clock making the trip. Just where is the proof missing.? I stated if you retain the physically known to exist time dilation due to motion of the clock that the distance cannot change.

Now I have written a formula that encompasses that statement. Please use it and post samples that my statment is not proven.

If d = (t * v)/k where k is the time dilation factor due to motion of the clock making the trip. Just where is the proof missing.? I stated if you retain the physically known to exist time dilation due to motion of the clock that the distance cannot change.

Now I have written a formula that encompasses that statement. Please use it and post samples that my statment is not proven. By this example, we could equally prove special relativity - this tells me nothing.

By this example, we could equally prove special relativity - this tells me nothing.

No, you can prove that Special Relativity tells you a bunch of hocum.

No, you can prove that Special Relativity tells you a bunch of hocum. Beautiful.

Beautiful.

:D ..................

On the contrary, I know of no experiment that proves length contraction actually exists. It is just assumed to exist since special relativity requires it. Thus any time dilation experiment explained by special relativity assumes length contraction inheriently. I do not think the challenge you have put forth for MacM can be proven by MacM or disproven by you.
I don't care about experiments, I want to see the math. MacM claims that length contraction only pops out by ignoring time dilation in str. I contest that claim.

I disagree only in this respect. It is easy to demonstrate mathematically that spatial length contraction only exists when you exclude the time dilation also known to exist in the moving clock you claim travels less distance.

As I said: Prove it.

Show me the math.

Geist, all of your objections can be solved if you think about the fact that you can see yourself in the mirror on a moving train.

Funkstar,
However, from the posutlates of light that assure us that the light speed is independent of the source of the light, seems to be violated [as was the same error made in the Michelson-Morley Experiments].

This is, of course, wrong. In fact, the invariance of light speed is exactly how time dilation pops out. So the length of light's velocity vector is frame invariant. A vector also has a direction, however, and that is frame dependent (because you change coordinates going from frame to frame).

Moving on:

1.Is an impulse of momentum applied to the light in the direction of the motion of the frame? If so why does not your analysis not concern itself with this physical event?

There's no momemtum imparted to the light simply by observing it from a moving frame, and no such momemtum is assumed.

2. Does the contracted mirror along the direction of motion get deformed into little planes on the surface that are tilted in the direction of motion of the frame?

No. The mirrors are perfectly flat.

3. I have seen in a number papers the terms similar to, "the light gets carried along by the frame". Can you explain this?

I won't, because I didn't write that. However, I can see what they mean, and it is explained below.

4. Can you give some SRT rationale for the reason the light moves as you describe?

Yes. We're simply observing the path of the light. Since both observers agree that the light does in fact bounce back and forth between the mirrors (otherwise the theory would be non-sensical), the path of the light comes out as the zig-zag pattern to the embankment observer. It's just a coordinate change.

Think about the part in blue if you don't get it.

I don't care about experiments, You should - experiments are all that matter in this case.


I want to see the math. MacM claims that length contraction only pops out by ignoring time dilation in str. I contest that claim. Ignoring time dilation in str? You must be kidding... or have a misunderstanding. MacM says you can ignore length contraction in str and interpret time dilation differently. Unforntunately, MacM doesn't understand the implications of this - most notably the reject of the postulates of special relativity as being correct or complete.

You should - experiments are all that matter in this case.

This is a theoretical thread about a thought experiment. Of course, you're absolutely right that experiments have the final word about a theory's validity as a model of the real world, but this has nothing to do with that. MacM claims that length contraction can be claimed in str only because time dilation is ignored, and I challenge him to produce the maths to prove it.

Ignoring time dilation in str? You must be kidding... or have a misunderstanding. MacM says you can ignore length contraction in str and interpret time dilation differently. Unforntunately, MacM doesn't understand the implications of this - most notably the reject of the postulates of special relativity as being correct or complete.
It's right up there in the OP.

It's right up there in the OP.
Exactly, MacM never claims to ignore time dilation - just the opposite.

I don't think you understand. MacM states that in str length contraction can only be claimed if one ignores time dilation. It is this claim I challenge.

I don't care about his reinterpretation of time dilation.

I don't think you understand. MacM states that in str length contraction can only be claimed if one ignores time dilation. It is this claim I challenge.

I don't care about his reinterpretation of time dilation. Well then he would be wrong - can you provide evidence of him saying this multiple times? Or was there just one instance which surely you'd have to forgive if he retracts.

Edit: Again, I do not read the quote you provided in the opening post as agreeing with your interpretation as you just stated.

I don't care about experiments, I want to see the math. MacM claims that length contraction only pops out by ignoring time dilation in str. I contest that claim.

Contest all you want. Show me a case where the moving clock claiming spatial length contraction has had its dilated tick rate considered.

Easy. Just show such a case.

*Fault buzzer*

The clock will never claim that it is length contracted.

Try again.

Edit: Also, I don't have to show anything. You are the one making a controversial claim, so the onus is on you, and you alone, to make an argument for your case.

funkstar:

Edit: Also, I don't have to show anything. You are the one making a controversial claim, so the onus is on you, and you alone, to make an argument for your case.

Amen and Halejulah. Good luck with that!

*Fault buzzer*

The clock will never claim that it is length contracted.

Try again.

Edit: Also, I don't have to show anything. You are the one making a controversial claim, so the onus is on you, and you alone, to make an argument for your case.

Well, I guess if you are unable to back up your theory with physics then we will just have to leave it at that.

Amen and Halejulah. Good luck with that!

Ditto.


To close on a valid note instead of BS:

Given two identical cars that have had their speedometers calibrated and drive side by side at 60 Mph but car A has had his clock certified by NBS and unknowingly B's clock is defective and only ticks once per two ticks of A's clock.

After 30 minutes A stops and signals B to stop.

They try to determine just how far they have gone.

A says we were going 60 Mph for 30 minutes therefore d = v * t = 30 miles.

B says wait a minute, you are wrong we only went 15 miles because we only traveled 15 minutes.

Now with a straight face tell me that B only went 15 miles while A went 30 miles. :D

This is the precise affect in SRT resulting in spatial length contraction where you disregard known physics of the moving clock becoming dilated.

Neither dilation nor a low battery causes distance to change. :D

I thought you said you wouldn't bullshit?

Your gedanken is nothing like what str claims, and you know it. And why? Because A can simply look at B's clock which has no relative velocity wtr A(!) and see that his clock has a proper lower tick rate, i.e. they are in the same frame and therefore one of their clocks are wrong. They can even find out which, because a second is measurable by experiement. There is only one definition of a second.

Time dilation has to do with different frames, and your experiment has only one frame.

Next.

I thought you said you wouldn't bullshit?

Your gedanken is nothing like what str claims, and you know it. And why? Because A can simply look at B's clock which has no relative velocity wtr A(!) and see that his clock has a proper lower tick rate, i.e. they are in the same frame and therefore one of their clocks are wrong. They can even find out which, because a second is measurable by experiement. There is only one definition of a second.

Time dilation has to do with different frames, and your experiment has only one frame.

Next.

It would be next after you supply viable arguement or evidence. You have not.

It would be next after you supply viable arguement or evidence. You have not.
You don't think "They have no relative velocity and it is therefore a qualitatively different situation to those treated by str" is a viable argument?!?

You really are living in a world of twisted logic, aren't you?

Listen, I just want you to show the math that shows that in order to claim length contraction one must ignore time dilation, like you claimed str does. Is that so difficult for you?

MacM, are you going to (as you like to say) "address the damn issue"?

Or will I have to resort to tedious namecalling, unsupported retoric, fiat, dogma, etc. ?



"See through,
I can see through you!"

MacM, are you going to (as you like to say) "address the damn issue"?

Or will I have to resort to tedious namecalling, unsupported retoric, fiat, dogma, etc. ?

"See through,
I can see through you!"

Funny post. As I say "Now address the damn issue". You haven't.

Funny post. As I say "Now address the damn issue". You haven't.
I don't see any maths, MacM.

Try again.

I don't see any maths, MacM.

Try again.

Having scanned back over this thread I admit the math is very limited. However, these issues are currently running in several other threads and the points being raised are throughly mathematically treated there.

It is late tonight but tomorrow I will link several posts which show you are full of crap.

I still don't see any math.

LOL.

So, MacM, I saw you make the same claim again in another thread:


Your problem here is that you are accepting an unsupported assumption of SRT and forgetting that it is derived by ignoring the tick rate of the clock in motion which is claiming the spatial contraction.


Are you going to keep infecting other threads with your unsubstantiated bullshit, or are you going to step up and provide the maths behind your reasoning?

History suggests the former will be the case. Since you apparently lack the skill to do even simple algebra (or are outright lying about what you've "proved"), as evidenced by your failure to provide what should be a simple derivation, I contend that you have absolutely (pun intended) no idea what you're talking about.

Of course, if you had actually read a serious book on relativity, you'ld realize that for str to be internally inconsistent is about as meaningful as saying the integers are inconsistent. Do you understand why?

Of course, if you had actually read a serious book on relativity, you'ld realize that for str to be internally inconsistent is about as meaningful as saying the integers are inconsistent. Do you understand why?

Has MacM ever said that SR is internally inconsistent? I believe his argument has always been one on the true nature of reality. He has disregarded SR and presented his own alternative. The fact that you keep telling him that his alternative is contrary to what SR says just proves you don't understand that he is disregarding SR. You may think his alternative theory is nuts (I certainly do), but you can't use what SR predicts to prove it.

Actually, ignoring UniKEF, Mac has stated that SR claims a "real, physical time dilation of clocks in relative motion such that both clocks really, physically somehow tick less that each other" (my paraphrase).

Which is a complete misinterpretation of the simplicity of what it really says. The sticking point is, I believe, that Mac does not accept the "relativity of reality". He feels that two clocks in relative motion are not in different realities (based on the different spacetime coordinates) and that the clocks can be compared physically while in motion.

I always thought he was taking the time dilation as predicted by special relativity as correct, but the way it is found is fundamentally flawed. It's probably because I don't really try to understand what MacM is really saying and I am just forcing my own interpretation.

What is UniKEF?

Oh! You don't know! It's this:

UniKEF (http://www.unikef-gravity.com/UniKV2/page1.htm)

MacM is Dan.

Oh! You don't know! It's this:

UniKEF (http://www.unikef-gravity.com/UniKV2/page1.htm)

MacM is Dan.

Finally, UniKEF goes through zero and becomes repulsive which is consistant with an accelerating expansion of the universe

Woah, just skimming through that poorly put together abstract, and this still stuck out like a sore red thumb.

What evidence is there that gravity dies down -to- zero, yet alone surpass zero and become negative? Sorry but this is an unsubstantiated claim. Gravity dies down with the square of distance. This means that the gravity of everything will affect even the most distant stars/galaxies in an attractive way - even if this attraction is effectively zero (exponentially small).

The major problem with this is worse than that. If gravity did become repulsive at any time, the structures (galaxies) themselves woud fly apart. I don't know if he addresses this anywhere. Galaxies seem to become more organized the closer we get to the current epoch.

Yeah, like I said, I only skimmed the abstract. Not a very well thought out theory IMO.

Well, you're not alone.

So, MacM, I saw you make the same claim again in another thread:

Are you going to keep infecting other threads with your unsubstantiated bullshit, or are you going to step up and provide the maths behind your reasoning?

I already have and if basic algebra is beyond you then you should set back and learn not speak.

Now perhaps you will be so kind as to be specific as to your assertion it is unsubstantiated BS. I have claimed the fact that the comparative tick rate of the clock in motion which is known to be time dilated is ignored when calculating distance. d = v * t.

Of course any 1st grader can see that if 't' is based on seconds which are extended (ticking slow) so as to have the clock only tick 30 times a minute (at 0.866c) then making the trip in one half the time is already accounted for and distance did not change. Only by ignoring the tick rate of the dilated clock does it calculate that distance did change. Your theory is BS.

If that isn't true then post information to the contrary. Don't just bump your gums because you think it sounds good.

History suggests the former will be the case. Since you apparently lack the skill to do even simple algebra (or are outright lying about what you've "proved"), as evidenced by your failure to provide what should be a simple derivation, I contend that you have absolutely (pun intended) no idea what you're talking about.

And this bit of slander is just that slander and totally ignores the simple algebraic proof demonstrated.

Of course, if you had actually read a serious book on relativity, you'ld realize that for str to be internally inconsistent is about as meaningful as saying the integers are inconsistent. Do you understand why?

Distance does not change due to velocity. Do you understand why?.

BTW: Einstein's work literally translated (paraphrased) "When an observer is in motion distance may "APPEAR" to be shortened in the direction of travel".

Einstein never even claimed a physical reality to contraction.

I have claimed the fact that the comparative tick rate of the clock in motion which is known to be time dilated is ignored when calculating distance. d = v * t.

And, of course, this makes no sense. You do realise that speed has units, right? And that when A says that B is travelling at, say, 7 m/s, it means that A sees B move 7 meters in 1 second, right? I.e. the velocity is strictly linked to A's meters and A's seconds, i.e. A's frame? Not A's meters and B's seconds, or B's meters and A's seconds, or B's meters and B's seconds.

So this:

Of course any 1st grader can see that if 't' is based on seconds which are extended (ticking slow)

is simply wrong. 't' is not based on seconds which are ticking slow. 't' are seconds in A's frame. And, of course, A doesn't care that B is time dilated when calculating how far B has gone, because nothing in the equation (d=vt) he uses requires him to use times (or distances) from B's frame.

Try again. A little more math, next time.

And, of course, this makes no sense. You do realise that speed has units, right? And that when A says that B is travelling at, say, 7 m/s, it means that A sees B move 7 meters in 1 second, right? I.e. the velocity is strictly linked to A's meters and A's seconds, i.e. A's frame? Not A's meters and B's seconds, or B's meters and A's seconds, or B's meters and B's seconds.

So you are content to compute distance using a variable timing device and consequently claim distance has changed. HaHaHa, HeHeHe, wow some physicist. Now when my battery gets low in my timex, I should be able to go across the USA on one gallon of gas in my cadillac because according to my clock It only took a few minutes, therefore distance must have contracted.


BTW: By what justification do you disregard the alternaive view of the traveling observer. v = d / t. Maybe he was going faster from his view point.

is simply wrong. 't' is not based on seconds which are ticking slow. 't' are seconds in A's frame. And, of course, A doesn't care that B is time dilated when calculating how far B has gone, because nothing in the equation (d=vt) he uses requires him to use times (or distances) from B's frame.

You are a blind fool.

Try again. A little more math, next time.

Fine. At 0.866c my clock is dilated and ticks at a 50% rate compared to when I made the trip at subrelavistic speeds.

At sub-relavistic speeds I . Computed d = v * t and found d = 1 lyr. tr is comparative tick rate of the same clock.

But now at 0.866c I computed d = v * t and ignoring the tr of my clock I claim the distance is only one half as far. But being an astute scientist I planned ahead an on the previous trip I placed and kept a standard clock to double check my instruments. Everything was pre-programmed such that the standard clock began timing the moment I started my trip.

What I learned was my clock only ticked one half as many times as it should have and therefore d = v * t / tr = d = 1 * 0.5 / 0.5 = 1.

MacM:

Fine. At 0.866c my clock is dilated and ticks at a 50% rate compared to when I made the trip at subrelavistic speeds.

No. At 0.866c everyone elses clocks are dilated and tick 50% slower. Your clock ticks normally.

You're not making a trip. The outside world is coming to you at 0.866c.

So you are content to compute distance using a variable timing device and consequently claim distance has changed. HaHaHa, HeHeHe, wow some physicist. Now when my battery gets low in my timex, I should be able to go across the USA on one gallon of gas in my cadillac because according to my clock It only took a few minutes, therefore distance must have contracted.

What a terrible analogy. Of course, the timing device is not variable. It always ticks out a standard second. In it's own frame, of course, and it doesn't matter the slightest bit how this frame is moving relative to other frames.

BTW: By what justification do you disregard the alternaive view of the traveling observer. v = d / t.

First of all, he wasn't travelling at all from his own point of view. He considers himself at rest, and is perfectly justified in doing so. Ever heard of Newton's first law? And....

Maybe he was going faster from his view point.

Second: You know, I left that bit hanging to test you. I had an irking suspicion that in all these relativity threads you were, effectively, pulling things out of your arse. That suspicion was strengthened when you failed to make a lucid reply to my comment about the non sequitur of str being internally inconsistent, such as this ignoring time dilation business you claim. (The answer to that one: Str is Minkowski space. How can R⁴ with the Lorentz metric be internally inconsistent? The concept simply doesn't apply.)

Now, if you had even the most basic knowledge of special relativity theory, you would most certainly know that relative speed is invariant between frames. I.e. B will claim A moves 7 of B's meters in 1 of B's seconds. Do the math.

You can never have used the Lorentz transform equations or seen them derived and understood what was happening if you make up bullshit like this, meaning that you just don't know str!

That you even think to make the above objection is iron-clad proof of this. If you ever had any then this tid-bit removes any and all of your credibility to speak about relativity theory.

You are a blind fool.

What a devastating reply. Any actual objections? No, I suspected as much.

Fine. At 0.866c my clock is dilated and ticks at a 50% rate compared to when I made the trip at subrelavistic speeds.

At sub-relavistic speeds I . Computed d = v * t and found d = 1 lyr. tr is comparative tick rate of the same clock.

But now at 0.866c I computed d = v * t and ignoring the tr of my clock I claim the distance is only one half as far. But being an astute scientist I planned ahead an on the previous trip I placed and kept a standard clock to double check my instruments.

How do you substantiate the implicit claim that your clock wasn't time dilated the first time around?

A preemptive strike: You were moving at subrelativistic speeds, you say, but wrt what?

Everything was pre-programmed such that the standard clock began timing the moment I started my trip.

As a sidenote, just how do you propose to do that?

What I learned was my clock only ticked one half as many times as it should have and therefore d = v * t / tr = d = 1 * 0.5 / 0.5 = 1.
Why is the clock you left there more correct than your own, and distance measured in that frame more correct than your own measurements?

I smell a preferred frame (and see it, too). Another rather basic error, there.

You can try again, if you want to. But the fact will remain that you are wrong.

No. At 0.866c everyone elses clocks are dilated and tick 50% slower. Your clock ticks normally.

You're not making a trip. The outside world is coming to you at 0.866c.

Unsupported rhetoric. Data from emperical testing shows only one clock dilates (actually accumulates less time), therefore your assumption that both run slower than the other is called reciproicty and represents a physical impossiblity. The assumption made in Special Relativity is stupid and unjustified.

For a clock that is dilated other clocks appear to run fast not slow. Check GPS functions for clarification of reality and shit can SR it is false.

Ah MacM. Did you know hardening of the arteries can lead to dementia and other serious mental problems?

Ah MacM. Did you know hardening of the arteries can lead to dementia and other serious mental problems?

Ah, SL did you know that failure to respond with sound physics rebuttals and posting shear unsupported nonsense and innuendo shows you are defeated? :D

Im such a loser. I should be floged.

edit- flogged.

MacM, I see you're still posting about the "length contraction ignores time dilation" thingy.

Stop that. You're not qualified to speak about relativity theory, and we wouldn't want you to hurt yourself on the equations.

MacM, I see you're still posting about the "length contraction ignores time dilation" thingy.

Stop that. You're not qualified to speak about relativity theory, and we wouldn't want you to hurt yourself on the equations.

And I see you are still running off at the mouth saying nothing. I have infact posted every SRT function correctly many times so stick it in your ear.

And I see you are still running off at the mouth saying nothing. I have infact posted every SRT function correctly many times so stick it in your ear.
Being able to copy an equation from a book or website is not the same as being qualified to talk about it. Your d=vt confusions show that you're unable to handle even Galilean relativity.

So, since you are apparently unable to even handle simple dimension analysis (that is, keeping your units straight and not using times from one frame to calculate distance with velocity from another, which is horribly, embarassingly wrong), I suggest you give up posting about relativity, because judging from your posts you're way out of your depth.

Read. Take a course, if you must. But for god's sake, stop posting! It'll only raise your blood pressure to be beaten down repeatedly (even if you fail to see it).

Fine. At 0.866c my clock is dilated and ticks at a 50% rate compared to when I made the trip at subrelavistic speeds.

At sub-relavistic speeds I . Computed d = v * t and found d = 1 lyr. tr is comparative tick rate of the same clock.

But now at 0.866c I computed d = v * t and ignoring the tr of my clock I claim the distance is only one half as far. But being an astute scientist I planned ahead an on the previous trip I placed and kept a standard clock to double check my instruments. Everything was pre-programmed such that the standard clock began timing the moment I started my trip.

What I learned was my clock only ticked one half as many times as it should have and therefore d = v * t / tr = d = 1 * 0.5 / 0.5 = 1.

The only way you can discard length contraction is to also discard your on-board clock rate (from the journey with relativistic speed). It seems that you must accept length contraction if you accept that your clock rate seemed perfectly fine to you during the journey. I am sure you would have noticed if it was only the clock ticking slow, and not time itself. (It would have been obvious if the second-hand was moving half the speed that you are used to seeing it move.)

If you accept time dilation, you must also accept length contraction, because otherwise a light-clock will tick at a different rate when it is oriented perpendicular rather than parallel to the direction of motion. I have derived the math before, but I will not do so again right now. If someone else wants to post it they can, otherwise I will work on a diagram that shows it and perhaps post it some time in the furture.

by Neddy Bate:

"If you accept time dilation, you must also accept length contraction, because otherwise a light-clock will tick at a different rate when it is oriented perpendicular rather than parallel to the direction of motion."
================================================== ============

Really? That is only if you accept Special Theory as being the only explaination for time dilation. Your statement is not true in 'local ether' or field theories. Your statement is not true in GENERAL RELATIVITY. Clocks can beat relatively slower, OR FASTER, with no relative motion between them.

by Neddy Bate:

"If you accept time dilation, you must also accept length contraction, because otherwise a light-clock will tick at a different rate when it is oriented perpendicular rather than parallel to the direction of motion."
================================================== ============

Really? That is only if you accept Special Theory as being the only explaination for time dilation. Your statement is not true in 'local ether' or field theories. Your statement is not true in GENERAL RELATIVITY. Clocks can beat relatively slower, OR FASTER, with no relative motion between them.
2Inquisitive, my statement was addressing a specific SRT issue given earlier in this thread (refer to MacM's quote included above my previous post). MacM implied that he accepts time dilation, but does not accept length contraction in such cases. The example he gave was within the usual SRT parameters of translational motion, not GRT, etc . Here is an earlier quote, also pertinent:

...

Given two identical cars that have had their speedometers calibrated and drive side by side at 60 Mph but car A has had his clock certified by NBS and unknowingly B's clock is defective and only ticks once per two ticks of A's clock.

After 30 minutes A stops and signals B to stop.

They try to determine just how far they have gone.

A says we were going 60 Mph for 30 minutes therefore d = v * t = 30 miles.

B says wait a minute, you are wrong we only went 15 miles because we only traveled 15 minutes.

Now with a straight face tell me that B only went 15 miles while A went 30 miles. :D

This is the precise affect in SRT resulting in spatial length contraction where you disregard known physics of the moving clock becoming dilated.

Neither dilation nor a low battery causes distance to change. :D

But more to your point, 2Inq, of course there are examples of time dilation which occur without length contraction. One GR example is probably two (relatively) stationary planets with surfaces of different gravitational escape velocities. Clock A ticks slower than clock B, and clock B ticks faster than clock A.

Another example might be a rotating planet with a clock on the equator and a clock on the pole. Even though the gravitational potential energy of the two clocks might be identical, the clock at the equator ticks slower than the clock at the pole simply due to its relative motion (SR). In such cases, there do not seem to be any paradoxes, because they cannot be considered to be "reciprocal".

Being able to copy an equation from a book or website is not the same as being qualified to talk about it. Your d=vt confusions show that you're unable to handle even Galilean relativity.

Once again stick it in your egotistical selfserving ear. I happen to have had formal education in ME, EE and NE; plus electronics and have a documented history of very successful career in R&D.

You sir are unqualified to discuss my views in that you can't keep basic simple physics principles correct.

So, since you are apparently unable to even handle simple dimension analysis (that is, keeping your units straight and not using times from one frame to calculate distance with velocity from another, which is horribly, embarassingly wrong), I suggest you give up posting about relativity, because judging from your posts you're way out of your depth.

You are merely indoctrinated to accept the unacceptable and have no actual physics understanding or ability to hold free thoughts. You must recite the book. that is all you know. Sad, very sad, another sheep goes baa, baaa.

Read. Take a course, if you must. But for god's sake, stop posting! It'll only raise your blood pressure to be beaten down repeatedly (even if you fail to see it).

My blood pressure is just fine since I have not been beaten down yet. Only shouted down by non-thinkers that pretend to be smart.

by funkstar:


"What a terrible analogy. Of course, the timing device is not variable. It always ticks out a standard second. In it's own frame, of course, and it doesn't matter the slightest bit how this frame is moving relative to other frames.

First of all, he wasn't travelling at all from his own point of view. He considers himself at rest, and is perfectly justified in doing so. Ever heard of Newton's first law? And...."
================================================== ===========

Sorry, funkstar, but you are incorrect. Proper time DOES vary from one gravitational
potential to the next, and time dilation due to velocity DOES slow the moving clock only, in its own frame of reference relative to a frame of reference when the clock was
'stationary'. Note, I DID NOT SAY ABOLUTELY AT REST. I am always surprised that 'real' physicists are ignorant of emperical tests that prove this. Want to challenge
me?

2inq:

We're not considering gtr. If you read the thread title it very clearly says str. Of course, I know about gravitational redshift, we even discussed together previously. That's not what this is about. You're being anal to draw it in, and you know it.

...

Good for you! I don't care!

2inq:

Sorry, funkstar, but you are incorrect. Proper time DOES vary from one gravitational potential to the next

Sorry 2inq, PROPER time never varies, that's why it's called PROPER time. Time deeper in a gravity field AS OBSERVED from outside the gravity field is slower. To me, in the gravity field, my clock seems to tick normally - PROPERLY. Think about it.

Sorry 2inq, PROPER time never varies, that's why it's called PROPER time. Time deeper in a gravity field AS OBSERVED from outside the gravity field is slower. To me, in the gravity field, my clock seems to tick normally - PROPERLY. Think about it.

No, superluminal, you are speaking of time as measured by an observer in the same frame, which is proper time. Proper time will vary as the frame moves
relative to an identical synchronized clock that does not move. Proper time will also vary as the clock moves into a region with less gravitational potential, relative to a synchronized clock which does not change location in the gravitational field. Proper time is a direct result of location and movement through a field, varying with the strength of the gravitational field and velocity through the field.

Here are some excerpts from a paper presented at the 34th Annual Precise Time and Time Interval Meeting.

"What is not so commonly known is that motion associated with, for example, aircraft can also result in
measurable relativistic effects. We have measured such effects on recent flight tests and have modeled
them via simulation. It is a surprise to many people that airborne platforms move fast enough, fly high
enough, or cover enough distance to cause large enough effects to care about. In fact, atomic clocks can
potentially exhibit relativistic effects even by their transport in a moving ground vehicle. For example, at
a velocity of 65 km/h over a distance of 100 km, the time dilation correction is 10 ps."

"A clock consists of a device capable of counting the periods of a repeatable phenomenon, whose motion
or change of state is observable and obeys a definite law. Cesium or rubidium clocks of the type carried
onboard GPS satellites have a precision on the order of a few parts in 1014, or about 10 ns over a few
hours. Hydrogen maser clocks in the laboratory offer a precision of a few parts in 1015 or 1016.
Technologies under development, such as those involving cesium fountain clocks, will improve these
precisions."

"Historically, timescales have been based on the rotation of the Earth on its axis (Universal Time), the
revolution of the Earth around the Sun (Ephemeris Time), and the quantum mechanics of the atom
(Atomic Time).
Atomic Time has been maintained continuously in various laboratories since 1955. Coordination of the
atomic timescales was entrusted to the Bureau International de l’Heure (BIH) in 1961 at the Paris
Observatory (OP). The 14th General Conference on Weights and Measures (CGPM) in 1971 approved
the establishment of International Atomic Time (TAI) as the coordinate timescale whose unit interval is
the second of the International System of Units (SI) as realized on the rotating geoid. In 1988,
responsibility for TAI was transferred from the BIH to the International Bureau of Weights and Measures
(BIPM). Approximately 250 cesium-beam standards and hydrogen masers located at observatories and
national metrology laboratories around the globe contribute to the formation of TAI.
Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) is an atomic timescale that agrees in rate with TAI, but differs by an
integral number of seconds."

"In parallel to the development of clocks and timescales, there must be a corresponding theoretical
development of methods of time dissemination within an adopted spacetime coordinate system. These
methods involve considerations of hardware properties, propagation effects, and relativity physics.
For relativistic time transfer, the distinction between coordinate time and proper time must be recognized.
Coordinate time is a global coordinate that has the same value throughout all of space for a given event.
In contrast, proper time is the time indicated by a clock in its own frame of reference and depends on the
velocity of the clock and the gravitational potential at the location of the clock."

"First, there is the effect of time dilation. The velocity of a moving clock causes it to appear to run slow
relative to a clock on the Earth. GPS satellites revolve around the Earth with an orbital period of 11.967
hours and a velocity of 3.874 km/s. Thus on account of its velocity, a GPS satellite clock appears to run
slow by 7 µs per day."

"Geotemporal Sciences (GTS) group personnel have conducted two series of flight tests to investigate
relativistic effects on clocks in subsonic airborne environments and to study and develop two-way time
transfer technology for these flight regimes.
Three flights were staged from Edwards AFB in the timeframe of March and April 2001 in support of the
DARPA-funded Advanced Tactical Targeting Technology (AT3) program. The focus of this program
was to develop and test a prototype system that will demonstrate that tactical (fighter and ground attack)
aircraft can simultaneously accomplish their primary missions while satisfying SEAD/ESM requirements
if each is equipped with an ESM sensor and processor interconnected by a single, real-time network [6].
A related requirement is that each participating aircraft must have sufficient knowledge of time and its
own position to support the ultimate target geolocation accuracy requirement of 50 meters CEP."

"The results of the first flight test are representative of many tactical military missions. The flight lasted
3.62 hours, during which the aircraft flew a “right triangle” profile at latitude 36° (of approximate
dimensions 4° × 5° in the sequence east, north, and southwest) at an altitude of about 8,200 m (27,000 ft),
as shown in Figure 2, and at a typical speed of about 560 km/h (300 knots), as shown in Figure 3."

Me: Note, this test was not just along a linear vector relative to the 'Earth' clock.

"Figure 4 illustrates the effect due to the difference in gravitational
potentials between the flight clock and ground clock. This effect, which caused the flight clock to run fast
by 9.40 ns relative to the ground clock, was the dominant relativistic effect. Figure 5 illustrates the effect
due to velocity, which caused the flight clock to run slow by 1.63 ns relative to the ground clock. Finally,
Figure 6 illustrates the Sagnac effect, whose cumulative value of –0.10 ns is small because the flight
covered a closed path bounding a small area."
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf

2inq:

No, superluminal, you are speaking of time as measured by an observer in the same frame, which is proper time.

Um, yes...


Proper time will vary as the frame moves relative to an identical synchronized clock that does not move. Proper time will also vary as the clock moves into a region with less gravitational potential, relative to a synchronized clock which does not change location in the gravitational field

What the fuck. I mean, what the fuck? Somebody please help me here.

2inq, please let someone else respond to this before you post again. Please?

Read the damn paper, superluminal. Coordinate time is a time measurement system set up to reach thruout all the universe, something like your 'disallowed' absolute time. Proper time in moving frames of reference VARY with regards to this coordinate time, not the other way around. This is the time system used in the ICRF reference frame. This is the time system used in GPS, which I have tried to explain to you before. Relative to a 'stationary' position, physics in moving frames DOES change with regard to time. The speed of light is frame dependent. End of story.

Do you hear yourself? Proper time changes! Listen to yourself! Proper time is defined IN the restframe. The clock with you reads PROPER time. Always!

Proper time in moving frames of reference VARY with regards to

"Proper time varies with regards to..." Fucking hell! I haven't read the paper, I don't care about the paper, I'm sure the paper is fine and correct, I don't care about GPS or ICRF's. Read your own words!

Say it with me:

Proper time is the time in my rest frame. Time seen in my frame from OUTSIDE my frame will appear variable. MY PROPER time is fixed. My PROPER length is fixed. My PROPER mass is fixed. From outside my frame, there is no reference to my PROPER time. It's my DILATED time, my DILATED length...

No, superluminal, you are speaking of time as measured by an observer in the same frame, which is proper time.

Yes, of course. What other measure of time could the observer have?

Proper time will vary as the frame moves
relative to an identical synchronized clock that does not move.

No, that's simply wrong. What about something else moving way over there could possibly make my clock tick differently?

Proper time will also vary as the clock moves into a region with less gravitational potential, relative to a synchronized clock which does not change location in the gravitational field. Proper time is a direct result of location and movement through a field, varying with the strength of the gravitational field and velocity through the field.

If what you're saying is that we can observe different times from different frames, then, yes, of course. But proper time doesn't vary. If I move in a geodesic across a curved spacetime, I don't see anything odd about my clock at all.

What the fuck. I mean, what the fuck? Somebody please help me here.
I know how you feel: In the "SR Problem" thread, I'm having the greatest of difficulties getting Aer to even get past the abstract of a Phys.Rev.Letters paper with a fucking image of Lorentz contraction...

I don't think you would succeed with Aer in your rational mission.

Superluminal,

Suppose that me and you are sitting together watching TV. Now, we both have a clock and they are both synchronised. Now, I'm a lazy git and decide to stay here doing NOTHING. That's right, absolutely NOTHING. But you, you decide to zip off around the universe for a while and you are doing all sorts of stuff, expending energy and accelerating back and forth etc.

When you get back, who's clock, in your opinion, has altered, and why?

How do you agree on whose clock has altered? What are the reasons for the disparity?

dav57,

Read a book on relativity. Or a ton of my (or others) posts here. I've spent my last breath on the "twin paradox". (Hint: assymmetry in the spacetime path). The tone of your post indicates that you have some problem with standard relativity. Good luck with that.

dav57,

Read a book on relativity. Or a ton of my (or others) posts here. I've spent my last breath on the "twin paradox". (Hint: assymmetry in the spacetime path). The tone of your post indicates that you have some problem with standard relativity. Good luck with that.

I've read loads of books on relativity and I only ask all these questions, not to be awkward but to grasp a better understanding of the subject. I do appreciate you guys and your knowledge of the subject so don't get me wrong with the tone of my post.

All I'm saying is that perhaps there is a more preferential "proper" time when considering two bodies, one of which does nothing where as the other expends energy and moves around quite fast.

One thing that bothers me is that a body experiencing severe acceleration will undoubtedly suffer stresses that the stationary one will not. Time for that person would surely be affected from even his point of view. I mean, metabolic rate might slow and even atomic vibrations might be actually physically affected.

Hmmm, maybe I'm wrong :confused:

dav57, sorry about the tone of MY post. I just can't take too many more people with their own theories of relativity (or anti-relativity!).

Anyway, the guy that accelerates (alters his velocity) does indeed show up back home younger than the folks at home. The acceleration itself does not affect the passage of time (the "clock postulate" http://www2.corepower.com:8080/~relfaq/clock.html ) as shown by experiments under EXTREME acceleration. There are lots of sites that describe this. Here's one:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_paradox.html

dav57, here's another scenario. I'm sitting in my rocket in deep space (watching Family Guy, that "Brian leaves home" episode). As far as I can tell, nothing's happening. I'm not expending any energy on accelerating or anything. Suddenly, I see a rocket approaching, really fast, with you in it (you have 'dav57' written on your forehead). Fortunately, I have a system in place that detects approaching objects (Foreign Object Resilience, or FOR), and it tells me exactly where and when objects are. Now, using Supercallifragilisticexpialidocious Magnification Technology (SMT) I can see that, not only do you have an SMT Telescope just like mine, but you also have an Ultrahyperprecise Masercorrected Cesiumclock Thingy (UMCT). Just like mine. And, dadgummit, when I correct for light propagation time (which I can, due to the FOR) your UMCCT is ticking slower than mine (and 'Futurama' on your TV is in slow motion. Zoidberg is even weirder that way.) Since I'm not moving in any discernible way, I conclude that your clock (and TV) is wrong. Odd that you also seem to be moving in slow motion, and balls on your ship drop slower, but no matter.

Now, you experience the exact same thing (From your point of view you're not moving at all. No energy expenditure, nothing.) So who's clock is "correct"? Which doesn't "really" measure out time?

Anyway, the guy that accelerates (alters his velocity) does indeed show up back home younger than the folks at home.
This is true. The thing to consider is that only one of the players involved changes frames. The actual acceleration part (in which one clock definitely is ticking slower than the other) is only of minor importance: The significant part is that one part is (at rest) in two different frames for a significant part of the round trip.

This can be easily visualised with space-time diagrams. The player who stays at home has a straight worldline in every possible single frame for the whole trip, while the other definitely does not. Given the Lorentz metric, this straight line absolutely means more proper time for the "stay-at-home" twin.

Easy.

Childs play.