Taking the results of the three topics on Lorentz Contraction Paradox, it seems confirmed that the process occurs. That is that Relativity mandates FTL velocities in cases of objects accelerating upwards toward v = c.

This being the consequence of the claim that distance contracts to "Zero" at v = c and collapsing the diameter of the universe, several billions of Ly across in a matter of seconds, hours, days or even billions of years produces the anomaly.

This topic is to address not the FTL requirement per Relativity which is in of itself unique to a theory which mandates FTL cannot happen but to the question of space itself.

Just how is it that we can claim to manipulate the dimensions of space or that space has properties such as permittivity and permeability and still hold that it is "Nothingness".

That is that space has no substance or fabric. Just how does one manipulate something or propogate anything where that something is proposed to not exist?

Does not the shear simple fact that we percieve that there exists distance between objects mandate that something with dimension (width, depth and height) exists? To exist does not it by necessity have to be something?

Before it is decided that this is philosophy let me point out that it is via a mathematical concept "Relativity" and its mathematics that we claim to do these otherwise impossible things.

Are there any mathematical proofs that space is nothing or that nothing exists?

MacM:

Taking the results of the three topics on Lorentz Contraction Paradox, it seems confirmed that the process occurs. That is that Relativity mandates FTL velocities in cases of objects accelerating upwards toward v = c.

You have shown nothing of the kind. I can't think of any situation in which an object in spacetime would be measured by an observer to travel faster than light. On the other hand, contraction or expansion of spacetime itself is not subject to the speed of light limit, and relativity never claimed it was.

Just how is it that we can claim to manipulate the dimensions of space or that space has properties such as permittivity and permeability and still hold that it is "Nothingness".

We can't manipulate the dimensions of space, except using matter/energy. We only observe different distances between objects, according to the relative motion of the observer. Also, who claimed space was "nothingness"?

That is that space has no substance or fabric. Just how does one manipulate something or propogate anything where that something is proposed to not exist?

Nobody has claimed space doesn't exist.

Does not the shear simple fact that we percieve that there exists distance between objects mandate that something with dimension (width, depth and height) exists?

No, but it mandates that dimensions exist.

Before it is decided that this is philosophy let me point out that it is via a mathematical concept "Relativity" and its mathematics that we claim to do these otherwise impossible things.

Who claims that? Where?

Are there any mathematical proofs that space is nothing or that nothing exists?

No, there aren't. Most people would agree that space exists and is not nothing. Nothing means no space.

James R.,

You have shown nothing of the kind. I can't think of any situation in which an object in spacetime would be measured by an observer to travel faster than light.

On this we agree as long as we are talking "Relative Velocity" of v = > c in our line of site. One would not "observe" it. It is like the electron vanishing from one orbit and in immeasurable time appearing in another, without existing inbetween. It fits my views perfectly.

On the other hand, contraction or expansion of spacetime itself is not subject to the speed of light limit, and relativity never claimed it was.

Now this issue is getting to where I have been wanting to take it. On the one hand you want to claim that via Relativity that we can contract (acceleration) or expand (deceleration) space. But then want to claim further that the expansion or contraction of space is independant of Relativity???

We can't manipulate the dimensions of space, except using matter/energy. We only observe different distances between objects, according to the relative motion of the observer. Also, who claimed space was "nothingness"?

Failure to provide any "Something" would make it "Nothing"

Nobody has claimed space doesn't exist.

It is a consequence of claiming space isn't something. Can't have it both ways.

No, but it mandates that dimensions exist.

Dimensions of what?

Who claims that? Where?

I for one. You can't manipulate something that has no substance or doesn't exist.

No, there aren't. Most people would agree that space exists and is not nothing. Nothing means no space.

Good then since we have space we must have "Something" not "Nothing". I suggest we attach a name to it, perhaps "aether" would do. :D, it could still bear all the same qualities you want to attach to it.

MacM:

Spacetime is a coordinate system. It is not a substance.

James R,

MacM:

Spacetime is a coordinate system. It is not a substance.

I agree with the first half of your statement but the implications of the second half is where we don't see things the same. Perhaps "substance" is not a good word but in general by it I mean "Something".

Otherwise I am forced to see being a coordinate system as comperable to being "Infinite". That is a concept but not physical reality. Space must be a phyical reality in my opinion hence it must be more than just a concept.

Space has physical reality, but that doesn't mean it is a substance.

JAmes T.,

Space has physical reality, but that doesn't mean it is a substance.

I believe that science needs to do a bit of thinking and come up with ome description of space that makes sense. Right now they seem to want to say it is real but not physical.

and ?

and ?

Point being that you cannot manipulate something (Contract, etc) that is not physically real. If it is physically real then it must consist of something. If we don't like the word "substance" then we need some sort of definition of what it is.

Einstein himself called it ether but it was an ether unlike prior claims of the ether. He said otherwise propagation of like would be impossible It seems he too wanted some form of "substance" to carry light, etc.

For the n-th time, space isn't contracting.

Yes, it is expanding. HeHe.

Lol .

Persol,

For the n-th time, space isn't contracting.

Good. Then you and I could agree. But I suggest you ask James R and Paul T as well as others that claim Lorentz Contraction applies to space. Which I would not personally believe but would not argue against at this time for lack of proof.

But the problem is that James R and Paul T have claimed that a rocket receeding away from earth sees space contract (indeed the entire universe contract) but that an earth observer doesn't see distance between him and the rocket contract.

That to me is clearly false. My position has been either both see it or neither see it.

I don't know why you posted "For the n-th time". You and I seem to agree. Can't believe I said that but got to take them as they come. :D

Yes, it is expanding. HeHe.


Are you sure.? You might look at my other thread ".....Cyclic Big Bang".


I don't believe that either but it is a consequence of believing in Relativity.

My point was keeping in with your space as a 'substance' view. If you cannot
'contract' space, you cannot 'expand' space unless there is something there to
contract or expand.

James R and Paul T have claimed that a rocket receeding away from earth sees space contract That's statement is still true.

But the problem is that James R and Paul T have claimed that a rocket receeding away from earth sees space contract (indeed the entire universe contract) but that an earth observer doesn't see distance between him and the rocket contract.

That to me is clearly false. My position has been either both see it or neither see it.


First, I admit to knowing pretty much nothing about relativity, just what was in a first year physics class years ago, so I apologize in advance to all physicists if I mangle things terribly :bugeye:.

But why is it the dude in the rocket sees the distance shrinking and the earth guy doesnt? Let me give my naive rational, and someone can correct my grievous errors :). Suppose the rocket is going fast enough to make gamma 2 (or is it 1/2?) so that each second an observer on earth feels, the dude in the rocket feels only 1/2 a second. Suppose the rocket is 2 ly away according to the earth observer. The earth guy sees that light takes 2 years to hit the rocket, and that's why he measured 2 ly distance. The same light that travels 2 years in earth time, the rocket guy watches take 1 year to reach him, so he thinks they are 1 ly apart. So isn't the length contracting a result of the time dilation?

Next question would be why does the rocket feel slower time than the earth and not the other way around? I vaguely remember a picture of a train and something about "inertial frames of reference". I'm gonna have to dig up my old physics text I think.

shmoe,


But why is it the dude in the rocket sees the distance shrinking and the earth guy doesnt? Let me give my naive rational, and someone can correct my grievous errors :). Suppose the rocket is going fast enough to make gamma 2 (or is it 1/2?) so that each second an observer on earth feels, the dude in the rocket feels only 1/2 a second. Suppose the rocket is 2 ly away according to the earth observer. The earth guy sees that light takes 2 years to hit the rocket, and that's why he measured 2 ly distance. The same light that travels 2 years in earth time, the rocket guy watches take 1 year to reach him, so he thinks they are 1 ly apart. So isn't the length contracting a result of the time dilation?


This is a very good argument and it's a correct way of thinking. Btw, gamma=2 is what normally used in the text books, not 1/2.

MacM,


But the problem is that James R and Paul T have claimed that a rocket receeding away from earth sees space contract (indeed the entire universe contract) but that an earth observer doesn't see distance between him and the rocket contract.


Earth observer sees Alpha Centaury as 4.3 Ly away from earth is true unquetionable, whether there is a rocket flying from earth to this star or not. Don't you agree with this? If not, give us a good reason. If yes, start from here, build theory around this "fact" instead of the other way round like you always do.

O, you think if the distance is concerning a moving rocket, we suddenly face with a totally new situation? Of course not. Imagine that the rocket hit Alpha Centaury at one point, don't you think the rocket is 4.3 Ly away when this happen?

Posted by MacM:“ James R and Paul T have claimed that a rocket receeding away from earth sees space contract ”


Posted by Persol:"That's statement is still true."

MacM's actual post:"But the problem is that James R and Paul T have claimed that a rocket receeding away from earth sees space contract (indeed the entire universe contract) but that an earth observer doesn't see distance between him and the rocket contract.

Now that we know you practice deceit and misrepresentation in your responses, we will give your posts due credit.

My point was keeping in with your space as a 'substance' view. If you cannot
'contract' space, you cannot 'expand' space unless there is something there to
contract or expand.

Understood.

Well considering that I responded to:Point being that you cannot manipulate something (Contract, etc) that is not physically real.it makes complete sense. They never said space was being contracted. YOU said it was being manipulated (contracted)... which is not the case.

Now that we know you practice deceit and misrepresentation in your responses, we will give your posts due credit.

Paul T,

“ Originally Posted by MacM

But the problem is that James R and Paul T have claimed that a rocket receeding away from earth sees space contract (indeed the entire universe contract) but that an earth observer doesn't see distance between him and the rocket contract.
”


"Earth observer sees Alpha Centaury as 4.3 Ly away from earth is true unquetionable, whether there is a rocket flying from earth to this star or not. Don't you agree with this? If not, give us a good reason. If yes, start from here, build theory around this "fact" instead of the other way round like you always do."

Just where in my post do you see Alpha C., ? The issue is simple observer 'A' and observer 'B'. Between them they have relavistic velocity. James R., and YOU have argued that while 'A" sees spatial contraction that 'B' doesn't. You are wrong period, simple as that. Perhaps you can give a "Yes or No" to this case and stay on topic rather than making your own and arguing your own case.

O, you think if the distance is concerning a moving rocket, we suddenly face with a totally new situation? Of course not. Imagine that the rocket hit Alpha Centaury at one point, don't you think the rocket is 4.3 Ly away when this happen?

Hard to hit something and be 4.3 Ly away don't you think? :D Unless you are going v =c according to Relativity. Just kidding. I know what you meant but that is not what you said. For the 6th time this issue has nothing to do with Alpha C. Only earth and the rocket.

Do you still claim that the rocket sees spatial dimension to earth contract and that earth does not see the same contraction to the rocket?? I should hope not.

Persol,

Well considering that I responded to:it makes complete sense. They never said space was being contracted. YOU said it was being manipulated (contracted)... which is not the case.



Not getting personal here but boy are you wacked.

Let me spell it out in detail since you clearly seem to have a reading problem.

1 - I personally do not believe in spatial contraction (as per Relativity).

2 - I have posted a discussioin regarding lorentz contraction in accordance with Relativity. Which mandates that relavistic affects are experienced by both parties in such relative velocity, otherwise you don't have relative velocity. It takes two to tango.

3 - In the process James R. and Paul T have stated that only the pilot sees space to earth contract but that earth does not see space to the rocket contract.

4 - They are wrong by Relativity and that is not arguing my personal view which is neither see any such contraction.


Now you have posted the following, as well as the above, all in the same string. Are you that confused or lost or is it that you just posted anything to be contrary to what is being said?

1 - For the n-th time, space isn't contracting.

2 - In response to my post (abbreviated by you): "
“ James R and Paul T have claimed that a rocket receeding away from earth sees space contract ”

That's statement is still true.

PS: We shall note that you are not against plagerisim either Now that we know you practice deceit and misrepresentation in your responses, we will give your posts due credit.

Just where in my post do you see Alpha C., ? The issue is simple observer 'A' and observer 'B'. Between them they have relavistic velocity. James R., and YOU have argued that while 'A" sees spatial contraction that 'B' doesn't. You are wrong period, simple as that. Perhaps you can give a "Yes or No" to this case and stay on topic rather than making your own and arguing your own case.


Bad argument, I would say, mister. So, as you didn't say Alpha Centaury, no one can bring such thing up? What a joke.

My point was, start with the thing we know first such as that Alpha Centaury is 4.3 Ly away, which a fact and moon is about 400,000 km, which is another fact. You know the fact and therefore stop arguing that earth observer have to observe distance the same as what rocket observer does. You did the exact opposite way. You said, rocket observer sees distance contraction, so must earth observer. Wrong way of thinking. I have no practical experience about whether the rocket observer would observe distance contraction. I believe neither you do. Therefore, I said, your argument start from the wrong end. Start from what you know, get what you don't know.

What you know here? Alpha Centaury distance and moon distance according to earth observer. The right question is, will the rocket observer see those distance as what we see them from earth or not?


Hard to hit something and be 4.3 Ly away don't you think? Unless you are ging v =c according to Relativity. Just kidding. I know what you meant but that is not what you said. For the (6) time this issue has nothing to do with Alpha C. Only earth and the rocket.


So, Alpha Centaury is too far? Try it with moon, mister, it's only slightly over one light second away. Okay, there is earth and rocket, and is there any problem if we add...there is moon, located 400,000 km away??? No, because you didn't say so?

Paul T,

Better yet, just try giving a "Yes" or "No" answer to the case I presented.

A rocket is accelerating away from earth. I say if he sees spatial contraction between him and earth, earth will see spatial contraction between themselves and the rocket.

Yes ________________

No _________________

Don't bother arguing your case answer mine. I don't have a problem with your case either but you are trying to side step the issue and your prior statements.

You said that the rocket pilot saw contraction but that earth didn't. You even proposed having a string going from earth out into space and claimed that proved that earth didn't see space contract. Anybody that understands frames of reference can see that the string is not in motion relative to earth and indeed it does not suffer contraction. The question was about the rocket and the earth. Not about strings, Alpha C., or anyother frame of reference. Just the rocket and the earth.

Paul T, I believe where Mac is hung up is that there is no relativistic velocity between
Earth and the moon or Alpha C. So why should the Earth observer see a contraction
in distance to them just because the rocket speeds away? There is a relativistic
velocity between the Earth and the rocket, viewed by either observer, correct?
Explain to Mac why the rocket observer sees a contraction of this distance in his
frame of reference and the Earth observer does not in his frame of reference. Also,
why the rocket observer will not see a contraction of distance to Alpha C. if he is
travelling at a 90 degree angle to Alpha C. and not towards it. Special Relativity
states the traveller only sees the contraction along his direction of travel. Explain
these observations and we will know you know SR well.

Paul T, I believe where Mac is hung up is that there is no relativistic velocity between
Earth and the moon or Alpha C. So why should the Earth observer see a contraction
in distance to them just because the rocket speeds away?

I am not hung up. :D They are hung up. As we all agree there is no contraction between observers without relative velocity.

There is a relativistic velocity between the Earth and the rocket, viewed by either observer, correct?

Correct.

Explain to Mac why the rocket observer sees a contraction of this distance in his frame of reference and the Earth observer does not in his frame of reference.

I truely hope you said that as a challenge and not that you believe that.

Also, why the rocket observer will not see a contraction of distance to Alpha C. if he is traveling at a 90 degree angle to Alpha C. and not towards it. Special Relativity states the traveller only sees the contraction along his direction of travel.

Once again you are correct. That was the very issue regarding my post on Quasar FTL data. They chose to argue that all such observation involved the "Illusion Solution" where the material was coming toward us at relavistic velocities. But actually only 1% of such data show "Blue Shift" and there are a number of other factors such a luminosity, etc. that also suggest that the "Illusion solution" is not correct for those Quasars. In fact a majority of such findings remain to appear to be FTL "Orthogonal" to our line of sight.

Explain these observations and we will know you know SR well.

Yes please, Paul T., enlighten us. :bugeye:

Explain these observations and we will know you know SR well.

I am not interested to prove to you how much or how little I know about SR.

Well, with the whole space contraction, it is important WHAT it is that you are measuring and HOW you are measuring it. If the Earth observer looks at something inside the rocket, then that is going to appear contracted. If the rocket guy looks at Earth, then Earth will be contracted. But there is no contraction of space between Earth and the rocket. The apparent effect is due to use of light as a time/distance measuring device. Just like driving fast in a car during a medium rainstorm, it feels like you're hitting a wall of water, no distance between drops. Yet if you stop, it hardly seems there is rain. I think contraction is just the limit of our measuring devices, we're smart enough to figure out proper relativistic speeds relative to Earth, why can't we figure out that just because we measure things using moving objects (photons) that we move at comparable speeds with, doesn't mean that reality is weird and misterious all of a sudden? Yes, we need to describe the world as we percieve it, but there is a calmer universe there beyond our perception.

Oh and the answer why Earthman doesn't see a contraction in distance. The only contracted distance is the one which the rocket occupies because it is moving. If everything else isn't moving then there is no reason for Earthman to see a contraction. The rocket is moving relative to most stuff, hence it should see , just like it sees Earth, things contracted in its direction of motion.

MacM:

3 - In the process James R. and Paul T have stated that only the pilot sees space to earth contract but that earth does not see space to the rocket contract.

4 - They are wrong by Relativity and that is not arguing my personal view which is neither see any such contraction.

Since you have not bothered to read my explanation of this in the other thread, I won't bother responding to your post.

If you want to claim I am wrong about relativity, you'd better show me the maths which says I'm wrong. Until you've digested my post addressing your silly claim, and responded to it, there will be no further communication between us. I am sick of this.

"Good then since we have space we must have "Something" not "Nothing". I suggest we attach a name to it, perhaps "aether" would do. , it could still bear all the same qualities you want to attach to it. "

What's wrong with the name "space"?

Space has to be nothing.

If its not nothing then it will consist of some particles. Particles will have to exist in something and will have space between them then what should we call that space hence we can safely assume that space is nothing.

Now nothingness cannot be contracted or expanded. Hence space bending is impractical and all theories associated with that figment. We should be able to swim in something that can be bend or not be able pass through.

This is a very good argument and it's a correct way of thinking.

Thanks for the response Paul. Now doesn't this explain the asymmetrical behavior (and MacM's complaint of a paradox) of the earth observer seeing no contraction while the rocket dude does? It's just a result of the time passing slower for the rocket dude than the earth observer and has nothing to do with 'space' changing. So this is just the twins paradox again, which I believe has a resolution (it's really time for me to dig up that physics text :)).

Btw, gamma=2 is what normally used in the text books, not 1/2.

Thanks, I knew it was either gamma or gamma^(-1) that I had :).

I am not interested to prove to you how much or how little I know about SR.


2Inquisitive, I guess that is infact an answer. A bit to proud to admit such foolish error about SR.

Well, with the whole space contraction, it is important WHAT it is that you are measuring and HOW you are measuring it. If the Earth observer looks at something inside the rocket, then that is going to appear contracted. If the rocket guy looks at Earth, then Earth will be contracted. But there is no contraction of space between Earth and the rocket. The apparent effect is due to use of light as a time/distance measuring device. Just like driving fast in a car during a medium rainstorm, it feels like you're hitting a wall of water, no distance between drops. Yet if you stop, it hardly seems there is rain. I think contraction is just the limit of our measuring devices, we're smart enough to figure out proper relativistic speeds relative to Earth, why can't we figure out that just because we measure things using moving objects (photons) that we move at comparable speeds with, doesn't mean that reality is weird and misterious all of a sudden? Yes, we need to describe the world as we percieve it, but there is a calmer universe there beyond our perception.

Oh and the answer why Earthman doesn't see a contraction in distance. The only contracted distance is the one which the rocket occupies because it is moving. If everything else isn't moving then there is no reason for Earthman to see a contraction. The rocket is moving relative to most stuff, hence it should see , just like it sees Earth, things contracted in its direction of motion.


I believe we agree but the idea that items contract and not space seems to conflict with James and Paul T.

While I personally don't believe in spatial contraction as per Relativity and that the contraction is in the dimension of objects, I am not argueing that issue here. My concern is the suggestion that the rocket sees spatial contraction to earth and that earth does not see spatial contraction to the rocket.

MacM:



Since you have not bothered to read my explanation of this in the other thread, I won't bother responding to your post.

If you want to claim I am wrong about relativity, you'd better show me the maths which says I'm wrong. Until you've digested my post addressing your silly claim, and responded to it, there will be no further communication between us. I am sick of this.

James R., sorry you are getting upset but I am afraid it is you that have made the error. I have responded to your post in the other thread. Let me suggest that you read it slowly.

"Good then since we have space we must have "Something" not "Nothing". I suggest we attach a name to it, perhaps "aether" would do. , it could still bear all the same qualities you want to attach to it. "

What's wrong with the name "space"?

Are you prepared to agree that "Space" consists of "Something" a medium and not "Nothing"?

If so we can be in agreement.

Space has to be nothing.

1 - If its not nothing then it will consist of some particles. Particles will have to exist in something and will have space between them then what should we call that space hence we can safely assume that space is nothing.


2 - Now nothingness cannot be contracted or expanded. Hence space bending is impractical and all theories associated with that figment. We should be able to swim in something that can be bend or not be able pass through.

I have numbered you statements for clarity. These two statements appear to conflict. Further I would have to say that #1 assumes we know everything. I am sure we don't. That is to say if space is "Something" I don't think we can assume it consists of matter as we know it.

I could agree on #2.

Thanks for the response Paul. Now doesn't this explain the asymmetrical behavior (and MacM's complaint of a paradox) of the earth observer seeing no contraction while the rocket dude does? It's just a result of the time passing slower for the rocket dude than the earth observer and has nothing to do with 'space' changing. So this is just the twins paradox again, which I believe has a resolution (it's really time for me to dig up that physics text :)).

Thanks, I knew it was either gamma or gamma^(-1) that I had :).

We could be approaching some form of explanation but I can't say I agree yet. If we are shifting from spatial contraction to time dilation causing an illusion of spatial contraction then perhaps. But at this juncture I don't think we have resolved the issue.

The reason I resist Paul's response is that time dilation is precisely the same problem as spatial contraction. It is mutually applicable to each observer.

Thanks Shmoe for your participation.

Persol,

But the problem is that James R and Paul T have claimed that a rocket receeding away from earth sees space contract (indeed the entire universe contract) but that an earth observer doesn't see distance between him and the rocket contract.



There is a difference between saying that the rocket observer sees a contracted universe, and saying that he sees the distance between him and the Earth contracted. The first is what Relativity predicts, not the second. (while the rocket remains in an inertial frame)

Example:

Both the Earth and the ship have measuring rods attached to them that extend along the axis of relative velocity (these measuring rods are physical manifestations of the coordinate systems of each frame). Assuming the relative velocity to be .866 c, Then when the rocket observer measures his distance between himself and the Earth as one light year (the Earth passes the one lightyear mark on the ship's measuring rod.), he will note that due to the contraction of the Earth and the Earth's measuring rod(coordinate system), he will passing the 2 lightyear mark on that rod. The distance between him and the Earth hasn't contracted, the measuring rod (coordinate system) used by the Earth has.)

Conversely, for the Earth's view, when the ship passes the 1 lightyear mark on the Earth measuring rod, from the Earth view, the Earth will be passing the 2 ly mark on the Ship's rod. Again, he sees the ship's measuring rod as contracted, not the distance from him to ship.

In the situation where the ship changes velocity from near c to even nearer c(relative to the Earth), then yes, the ship sees the distance between him and the Earth as decreasing. But that is because the ship, during the period it changes velocity, is in an accelerated frame. The effect of Relativity for an accelerated frame are different from those for an inertial frame. The Earth, on the other hand, has remained in an inertial frame throughout and does not measure any decrease in distance between itself and the ship (though it does see the ship contract and its associated measuring system contract as the relative velocity changes.)

Janus58,

You are correct. I have been excluding the full contraction of the universe by the rocket. I was concentrating on the relative velocity between earth and the rocket.

The affect of distance and lorentz contraction however is at given delta V's and not taken as acceleration affect.

To say the rocket is the one that accelerated in the past and gives it a different perception now, doesn't work, since everything in the universe has undergone acceleration at some point in the past.

Lets try it this way.

We have two rockets in space they have a relative velocity of 0.8 c. Which rocket, if either, or both see spatial contraction.?? Lorentz formula is based on velocity and has no such "he is the one that accelerated" tag on it.

So you disagree that both see the others clock as having time dilation? Does that not require "relative velocity" between the observers?

It seems you are starting to put together a pretty good arguement against any spatial contraction.

Good luck.

Janus58,

You are correct. I have been excluding the full contraction of the universe by the rocket. I was concentrating on the relative velocity between earth and the rocket.

The affect of distance and lorentz contraction however is at given delta V's and not taken as acceleration affect.


To say the rocket is the one that accelerated in the past and gives it a different perception now, doesn't work, since everything in the universe has undergone acceleration at some point in the past.
I wasn't talking about acceleration in the past, but acceleration in the present, as that is the only time that the occupant in the space ship will measure the distance between him and as Earth decreasing. While he is in an inertial frame, he just measures that the Earth's coordinate system has contracted.


Lets try it this way.

We have two rockets in space they have a relative velocity of 0.8 c. Which rocket, if either, or both see spatial contraction.?? Lorentz formula is based on velocity and has no such "he is the one that accelerated" tag on it.
I already explained this in my last post. Each will see spacial contraction of the other's frame. This does not mean that he sees the distance between him and the other ship as "contracted", but that the other frame, in being contracted, will measure the same distance as twice as great.



So you disagree that both see the others clock as having time dilation?

I've never said anything of the sort or ever implied it. In fact, you must have time dilation and length contraction working in concert.

Example. Two ships moving at .8c relative to each other with zero time on both being marked when the ships pass each other:

As per ship 1, as the distance between them reaches 1 ly, he notes that that the distance as measured by ship 2 will be 1.6667ly and that his(ship 1) clock will read 1.25 yrs. He will also note that the time on ship 2 will read .75 yrs. If ship 1 now waits until the distance between them reaches 1.6667ly, he will note that the distance according to ship 2 will be 2.7777 ly and the time on ship 2 as 1.25 yrs.

The same can be said if you replace ship 2 for ship 1. Each ship sees the other's time as dilated and the other's coorodinate system as contracted. And each will agree as to what time they will read on their clock when they pass any given point of the other's coordinate system.






It seems you are starting to put together a pretty good arguement against any spatial contraction.

Good luck.

No, I'm trying to correct your misconceptions on how spatial contraction(which is very real) operates.

We have two rockets in space they have a relative velocity of 0.8 c. Which rocket, if either, or both see spatial contraction.??

Spatial contraction of what?

So you disagree that both see the others clock as having time dilation? Does that not require "relative velocity" between the observers?

Time dilation is a property derived by comparing two clocks. A single clock cannot "have" time dilation. It is, however, true to say in your example that each rocket sees the other's clock as running slower than his own.

It seems you are starting to put together a pretty good arguement against any spatial contraction.

It seems your understanding is not improving.

I wasn't talking about acceleration in the past, but acceleration in the present, as that is the only time that the occupant in the space ship will measure the distance between him and as Earth decreasing. While he is in an inertial frame, he just measures that the Earth's coordinate system has contracted.

We agree but the issue is very much the distance between objects due to relative motion (velocity) not acceleration.

I already explained this in my last post. Each will see spacial contraction of the other's frame. This does not mean that he sees the distance between him and the other ship as "contracted", but that the other frame, in being contracted, will measure the same distance as twice as great.

Certainly. So then lets extend the proposed proof. That is the tape measure from earth out into space which the rocket moves past. Let us now attach a tape measure behind the rocket and drag it past the earth.

Can you tell me where the difference is between the rocket and earth in observing each others tape measures? Of course not the motion and the movement of the tapes are identical.

Hint "either both see spatial contraction or neither do."

The same can be said if you replace ship 2 for ship 1. Each ship sees the other's time as dilated and the other's coorodinate system as contracted.

Now you seem to be agreeing with my view. I'm getting whip lash.

James R.,

Spatial contraction of what?

The distance between them of course. :bugeye:

Time dilation is a property derived by comparing two clocks. A single clock cannot "have" time dilation. It is, however, true to say in your example that each rocket sees the other's clock as running slower than his own.

That is what I said and it is the consequence of having relative motion. The same relative motion that induces lorentz contraction between the two moving observers (and not the balance of the universe).

It seems your understanding is not improving.

Nor are your answers, I am sorry to say.

The distance between them of course.

Both rockets agree on the distance between them.

Both rockets agree on the distance between them.


Good. Now I reveal to you that one rocket was on earth still setting on the launch pad. :D

To repeat my proof in this thread that has been posted in the others.

A tape measure extending from earth out into space for which the rocket is moving past has been used to argue proof that space didn't contract for the earth observer since that tape shows normal length. Stupid, really stupid, since it is most obvious that the tape has no relative velocity to earth.

That is nonesense and an incomplete application of relativity.

Let us now attach a tape measure to the rocket and let it be dragged past earth.

The observation by observers of each others tape is identical in all respects.

All relavistic functions apply to both observers including spatial contraction between the earth and the rocket.

The only difference in the two views is that the rockets motion is changing velocity relative to all objects in the universe hence the universe contracts (according to Relativity) but its motion is not changing universal objects velocity relative to earth, the only changing (relative velocity) its motion changes relative to earth is itself and earth spatial contraction is just between earth and the rocket; which they both see.

My view is consistant with Relativity, yours is not.

MacM:

I really don't see why this discussion needs to be spread over three different threads. Anyway...

Rocket A says the distance to rocket B is x, then it is implicit that rocket A is measuring x with rocket A's rulers. Rocket B, measuring the distance with rocket B's rulers, says the distance to rocket A is x'.

For rocket A, the relationship between x and x' is x = (gamma)x'.
For rocket B, the relationship between x and x' is x' = (gamma)x

Let's look at some numbers. If the speed of B relative to A is 0.6c, then gamma = 1.25. So, if A measures the distance to B to be 1 light year, then at the same instant, as measured on A's clocks, B will measure the distance to be 1/(1.25) = 0.8 light years.

Now, looking from B's point of view, when B measures A to be 1 light year away, then at the same instant, as measured on B's clocks, A will measure B to be 0.8 light years away.

Notice that the relativity of simultaneity comes into play again. When we say "at the same instant", we must specify whose clocks we are using, because events which are simultaneous for A are not simultaneous for B.

So, my previous statement needs a little qualification. When I wrote:

Both rockets agree on the distance between them.

I meant that at the equivalent times as measured by the respective observers' clocks, the distance is the same. The distances are certainly not the same if measured according to only one observer's clock.

Suppose the two rockets start out at x=x'=0 at time t=t'=0. Then, according to A, the coordinate position of B at time t is x=vt. According to B, the coordinate position of A at time t is x'=-vt'. The primed coordinates refer to B's measurements, the unprimed to A's. The value of v is the same for both.

Let's look at the coordinate positions of rocket B alone. These are:

x = vt
x' = 0

The Lorentz tranformations are:

t' = gamma(t - vx/c²)
x' = gamma(x - vt)

Looking at the second equation here, and plugging in x = vt, we get x'=0, which is in agreement with what I wrote above. Now consider the first equation, with x=vt:

t' = gamma(t - v(vt)/c²) = gamma(1-(v/c)²)t = gamma(1/gamma)²t = t/gamma.

So, if we take some particular time measured on A's clock, say t=1 year, then according to A, the location of B at that time is:

x = vt = (0.6c)(1 year) = 0.6 light years.

At the instant when A's clock says t=1 year, B's clock says:

t' = t/gamma = (1 year)/(1.25) = 0.8 years,

and the distance of B from Earth, as measured by B is:

x' = -vt' = -(0.6c)(0.8 years) = 0.48 light years.

Notice, however, that at the time when B's clock reads 1 year, the distance to A as measured by B will be 0.6 light years, which is the same distance that A measures when A's clock reads 1 year.

The important point here is that the events 1:"A clock says 1 year" and 2:"B's clock says 1 year" are not simultaneous. A says that event 1 occurs before event 2; B says event 2 occurs before event 1.

It doesn't matter if rocket A is sitting on Earth, by the way. Exactly the same analysis applies.

Now, do you have any objections to the above analysis?

Certainly. So then lets extend the proposed proof. That is the tape measure from earth out into space which the rocket moves past. Let us now attach a tape measure behind the rocket and drag it past the earth.

Can you tell me where the difference is between the rocket and earth in observing each others tape measures?



You obviously haven't been reading my posts, because this is exactly the situtation I've been talking about!

MacM:

I really don't see why this discussion needs to be spread over three different threads. Anyway...

I agree but I still have to respond to what has turned into the same question in the three threads.

Notice, however, that at the time when B's clock reads 1 year, the distance to A as measured by B will be 0.6 light years, which is the same distance that A measures when A's clock reads 1 year.

The important point here is that the events 1:"A clock says 1 year" and 2:"B's clock says 1 year" are not simultaneous. A says that event 1 occurs before event 2; B says event 2 occurs before event 1.

Lets see even though the times (simultaneity) of their clocks is shifted the fact is that each observer sees the same distance when their respective clocks each read a given time in a moving system. Hmmmmm. Seems to say exactly what I have been saying each sees the same distance (contraction).

It doesn't matter if rocket A is sitting on Earth, by the way. Exactly the same analysis applies.

I think that was my point. Where you have argued against earth and the rocket seeing the same distance or earth seeing spatial contraction you quickly agreed that two rockets saw the same distance. I then suggested that the one rocket was sitting on the launch pad on earth.

Now, do you have any objections to the above analysis?

I don't object to the ultimate conclusion since it agrees with what I have been saying. Both see spatial contraction. Both see the same distance after a given amount of time on their respective clocks in a moving system.

I do object to the Texas Two Step getting to this point. Even this post has a tone of talking down, while actually (after days of condensending comments - mostly from others not you) about poor old MacM's ability to understand Relativity.

Just for the hell of it lets try to make my point more clear. Lets fudge the clocks and force them to read the same time at the same time universally.

The distance between objects at rest would have been 10 M Lyr as an example.

What is the distance seen by the Rocket and Earth observers after 10 hours of motion.

Since the value of gamma is the same for each at any selected velocity.

Rocket distance is 5 M Lyr at 3:00PM, 1/1/04
Earth distance is 5 M Lyr at 3:00PM, 1/1/04

Now please show me where my statement has been wrong and where, as was being claimed by you and others, that earth does not see the same spatial contraction (distance) that the rocket does.

The claim of simultaneity in the process is nothing more than a face saving confusion. It is not the same as claiming (as was being claimed) that the rocket contracts the universe and earth sees no contraction.

I do object to the Texas Two Step getting to this point. Even this post has a tone of talking down, while actually (after days of condensending comments - mostly from others not you) about poor old MacM's ability to understand Relativity.Perhaps that's because you don't listen. When you act like a deaf person, people are going to scream.

Perhaps that's because you don't listen. When you act like a deaf person, people are going to scream.

I have no problem with screaming. It is when a person screams three different answers to the same problem and accuses me of being in error or not understanding; when one of those answers is in fact one that I proposed all along that is aggravating.

I note that you had no technical contribution here.

James R.,


"So, my previous statement needs a little qualification. When I wrote: “ Both rockets agree on the distance between them. ” I meant that at the equivalent times as measured by the respective observers' clocks, the distance is the same. The distances are certainly not the same if measured according to only one observer's clock."

This seems to be the crux of the entire dispute. I have argued repeatedly and clearly have stated "relative velocity" between two observers and their views of each other.

You in turn have tried to break that logic and have been argueing from a single observer point of view. From the two observer point of view each sees spatial contraction, albiet shifted by simultaineity. I have no problem with that but I did and do have a problem with prior statements and arguements that stated only the rocket sees spatial contraction.

For all overall purposes your statement “ Both rockets agree on the distance between them.” is my statement, one which you flatly have heretofore rejected.

It seems a lot of unnecessary name calling has been generated here, frankly I suspect deliberately and until I fanangled you into that statement via the two rockets in space case, then switched to one rocket being on the launch pad on earth, before you found the courage to properly qualify what you had been saying.

It served your purpose to simply talk down and pretend that my view was absolutely inconsistant with Relativity when it indeed was not.

To the issue of relavistic functions between two observers in relative motion you have given three different answers:

1 - 'A' sees spatial contraction 'B' does not.

2 - Both see the same distance (also my answer)

3 - They see the same thing but at different times.

Do you have an explanation?

MacM:

In my last post, I wrote you a very detailed reply which completely resolves all the issues raised in this thread and the other ones on your rocket example. I think it is significant that in your replies you have not once refered to my mathematics. But worse than that, you have missed the point of my explanation, and you're still trying to claim the problem is not resolved.

The fundamental reason why it has taken so long to get to the point of resolving the problem is that you have not been careful enough to specify which references you are using. From long experience, I have learnt that when you're talking about relativity, you must be very careful in using terms such as "at the same time" or "the distance between A and B". These things are ALWAYS relative to the observer, and if you don't specify the state of motion of the observer and how the measurements are made, confusion reigns. Let me say, though, that the fault here has not entirely been on your side. I was slower than I should have been to realise the resolution to the problem; I should have known better than to get sucked in by intuitive descriptions when I should have looked deeper.

I think that was my point. Where you have argued against earth and the rocket seeing the same distance or earth seeing spatial contraction you quickly agreed that two rockets saw the same distance.

As I explained, the problem was not adequately specified prior to my doing it in my previous post. Taking one set of conditions, it was fair to say that the distance measured by both rockets was the same; on another set of conditions it was different. The reason for the two answers was that it was the details of the time measurements were not specified. I have now fixed that problem, and there is a single, unambiguous answer in my previous post.

I don't object to the ultimate conclusion since it agrees with what I have been saying. Both see spatial contraction. Both see the same distance after a given amount of time on their respective clocks in a moving system.

That is correct.

I do object to the Texas Two Step getting to this point. Even this post has a tone of talking down, while actually (after days of condensending comments - mostly from others not you) about poor old MacM's ability to understand Relativity.

I'm sorry you read it that way. That post was as much for my benefit as for yours. It follows my thinking process about solving the problem systematically. I would hope it would actually be of some help. However, I get the impression you've just skipped over the maths.

Just for the hell of it lets try to make my point more clear. Lets fudge the clocks and force them to read the same time at the same time universally.

That's impossible. There is no universal time, according to relativity.

Now please show me where my statement has been wrong and where, as was being claimed by you and others, that earth does not see the same spatial contraction (distance) that the rocket does.

You're not wrong. You've just given an incomplete specification of the problem. I suggest you read my previous post again, including the maths parts.

The claim of simultaneity in the process is nothing more than a face saving confusion. It is not the same as claiming (as was being claimed) that the rocket contracts the universe and earth sees no contraction.

I am saddened that your mind is so clouded that you cannot admit that the simultaneity issue completely resolves this problem. For you, my explanation is a "confusion". For me, and for anybody who really understands special relativity, my explanation makes things crystal clear.

This seems to be the crux of the entire dispute. I have argued repeatedly and clearly have stated "relative velocity" between two observers and their views of each other.

You in turn have tried to break that logic and have been argueing from a single observer point of view. From the two observer point of view each sees spatial contraction, albiet shifted by simultaineity. I have no jproblem with that but I did and do have a problem with prior statements and arguements that stated only the rocket sees spatial contraction.

As I said, the problem was incompletely specified. You talk about the rocket seeing spatial contraction. But spatial contraction of WHAT? and WHEN? The issue is now resolved.

For all overall purposes your statement “ Both rockets agree on the distance between them.” is my statement, one which you flatly have heretofore rejected.

They agree on the distance between them when their individual clocks read the same time. However, A's clock never reads the same time as B's clock simultaneously, except at t=0. That solves the problem.

It seems a lot of unnecessary name calling has been generated here, frankly I suspect deliberately and until I fanangled you into that statement via the two rockets in space case, then switched to one rocket being on the launch pad on earth, before you found the courage to properly qualify what you had been saying.

It simply took me a while to get to the crux of the matter. And frankly, MacM, you didn't help me along the way.

It served your purpose to simply talk down and pretend that my view was absolutely inconsistant with Relativity when it indeed was not.

I agree it was not, but the qualifications required for your view to be correct need to be careful specified - something you completely failed to do but which I have done.

To the issue of relavistic functions between two observers in relative motion you have given three different answers:

1 - 'A' sees spatial contraction 'B' does not.
2 - Both see the same distance (also my answer)
3 - They see the same thing but at different times.

Do you have an explanation?

How can you ask that, when I have just posted the complete explanation?

MacM:

In my last post, I wrote you a very detailed reply which completely resolves all the issues raised in this thread and the other ones on your rocket example. I think it is significant that in your replies you have not once refered to my mathematics. But worse than that, you have missed the point of my explanation, and you're still trying to claim the problem is not resolved.

Flatly false. I did read your post and while I didn't thank you for your mathematical explanation, for which I must apologize. It was a matter of coming down off the wall from all the dart holes that had been stuck in me, to see you admit that mine was one of many possible answers depending on view. My last post is not a contest of your solution. I am in full agreement with it.

The fundamental reason why it has taken so long to get to the point of resolving the problem is that you have not been careful enough to specify which references you are using. From long experience, I have learnt that when you're talking about relativity, you must be very careful in using terms such as "at the same time" or "the distance between A and B". These things are ALWAYS relative to the observer, and if you don't specify the state of motion of the observer and how the measurements are made, confusion reigns. Let me say, though, that the fault here has not entirely been on your side. I was slower than I should have been to realise the resolution to the problem; I should have known better than to get sucked in by intuitive descriptions when I should have looked deeper.

I accept your statement and only point out that you must also understand that you failed to properly describe your answers in the same way you accuse me of not describing mine. Only when you admitted that you were looking at the situation from only one perspective could I accept your answer.

I'm sorry you read it that way. That post was as much for my benefit as for yours. It follows my thinking process about solving the problem systematically. I would hope it would actually be of some help. However, I get the impression you've just skipped over the maths.

Wrong again. I accept your post here. Under the circumstance of being told I was inept, etc., and the switching of frames and views giving different answers, while accusing me of not understanding some rather obvious things like Alpha C. to earth distance doesn't change in earth's view, I was left with little faith that yours was a serious effort to do anything but prove MacM is wrong. This post clarifies your actual participation as part of the problem.

That's impossible. There is no universal time, according to relativity.

Of course I know that. But surely you don't oppose thought problems and their solutions? Going the speed of light or even .9c is not realistically possible for a rocket but we talk about it all the time.

You're not wrong. You've just given an incomplete specification of the problem. I suggest you read my previous post again, including the maths parts.

This concludes the issue as far as I am concerned. I'll only note that my descriptions were every bit as detailed and specified as your answers. I understand it was easier for you to simply say old MacM is lost and doesn't know what he is talking about but the fact is had you made it clear you were stating only the one clock view, I could have pointed out the duplicity of my point being as both views. (which I did verbally several times).

I am saddened that your mind is so clouded that you cannot admit that the simultaneity issue completely resolves this problem. For you, my explanation is a "confusion". For me, and for anybody who really understands special relativity, my explanation makes things crystal clear.

My mind isn't clouded. Why are you assuming I disagree? Because of my closing questions? You have mis-interpreted them.

They agree on the distance between them when their individual clocks read the same time. However, A's clock never reads the same time as B's clock simultaneously, except at t=0. That solves the problem.

Agreed.

It simply took me a while to get to the crux of the matter. And frankly, MacM, you didn't help me along the way.

Ditto, I am afraid. :D

I agree it was not, but the qualifications required for your view to be correct need to be careful specified - something you completely failed to do but which I have done.

I guess I really should thank you for vesting so much to prove me right. I still say my description should have been adequate because I was stating "Both observers views". Frankly the attitude in dealing with me clouded your view and kept you from understanding my poorely scripted descriptions. It was easier for you to assume I was talking through my hat than it was to realize the consequence of my stated condition as being in both views.:D

The following is an example of my postings:

“ The same can be said if you replace ship 2 for ship 1. Each ship sees the other's time as dilated and the other's coorodinate system as contracted. ”

My Response: "Now you seem to be agreeing with my view. I'm getting whip lash. "

Note: we are talking about time dilation and the two observer view of spatial contraction. What is unclear about the issue?

How can you ask that, when I have just posted the complete explanation?

My questions were not challenges to your answers. They were why my answer took so long to be recognized. I do think I clearly stated several times "From both observers views", etc. But in any case I am satisfied and I hope you are as well.

Thanks

I happy to call this one quits, MacM.

......and the sparing parties recieve a warm applause from the audience as they have found a way to agree to agree......

hmmmmm....so....hmmmmm...is there a paradox or not?

......and the sparing parties recieve a warm applause from the audience as they have found a way to agree to agree......

Hahahahahahaha. I would say, let MacM masturbates with his own idea that he is correct in all count. I, and many others in this forum, just know the truth about it. Well, hopefully one day MacM would be invited to Stockolm to have dinner with the King and Queen, receive his Nobel prize for....what?... proving that SR is wrong, hahahahahahahahaha.

Paul T.,

with his own idea that he is correct in all count.

More Paul T bullshit. Nowhere do you see me say I have been right on ALL counts. Nor have I claimed here to have proven SR wrong but only clarified what SR actually means. It does not mean what you claimed, that is that earth sees no spatial contraction.

That could however mean that I really do have a deeper understanding than you about Relativity, although my communication skill about it may not be current.

Learn to lose gracefully as_hole.

Double post!!! (Oooh, I'm evil!)

Let's see how I go... this might be more for my benefit than anyone else's, but it might help.


The distance between reference points in Earth's frame are contracted according to the Rocket, and not contracted according to Earth.

The distance between reference points in the Rocket's frame are contracted according to Earth, and not contracted according to the Rocket.

This is possible because distance is a spacetime interval between simultaneous events. But because simultaneity is relative, when two observers in different frames measures a distance, they are measuring different spacetime intervals.

In the case of measuring the distance between the Earth and the Rocket, there are actually four distinct spacetime intervals that could be measured (only considering the two relevant frames).

Note that spacetime intervals are not relative. All observers will agree on the magnitude (in length units) of any spacetime interval.


Here are some events that define end points of distinct intervals that are valid Earth-Rocket distances:
Spacetime events:
A - Rocket clips object comoving with Earth, and X units from Earth in Earth's frame
B - Earth clips object comoving with Rocket, and X units from Rocket in Rocket's frame
C - Earth at time simultaneous with A in Earth's frame
D - Earth at time simultaneous with A in Rocket's frame
E - Rocket at time simultaneous with B in Rocket's frame
F - Rocket at time simultaneous with B in Earth's frame

Here are the four intervals, and the distances to which they correspond:
Distances:
Earth-Rocket distance in Earth's frame as measured by Earth = interval A-C = X
Earth-Rocket distance in Earth's frame as measured by Rocket = interval A-D = X/gamma
Earth-Rocket distance in Rocket's frame as measured by Rocket = interval B-E = X
Earth-Rocket distance in Rocket's frame as measured by Earth = interval B-F = X/gamma


Appendix - Order of Events
In Earth's frame, events occur in the following order: D, BF (simultaneous), AC (simultaneous), E

In Rocket's frame, events occur in the following order: F, AD (simultaneous), BE (simultaneous), C


Here are two diagrams showing the two reference frames, with the events labelled.

The green lines are the four distances measured.
<img src="/attachment.php?attachmentid=2941&stc=1">
<HR>
<img src="/attachment.php?attachmentid=2942&stc=1">

(technical addendum - The time axes on these diagrams should technically be labelled ct, ie time multiplied by c to get a distance.)

MacM,


More Paul T bullshit. Nowhere do you see me say I have been right on ALL counts. Nor have I claimed here to have proven SR wrong but only clarified what SR actually means. It does not mean what you claimed, that is that earth sees no spatial contraction.


MacM, you did claim that SR is wrong. Anybody who learn a bit of SR knows that earth and rocket observers do not see the same length. But, you "proved" to us that they do. Don't you think that mean SR wrong????


That could however mean that I really do have a deeper understanding than you about Relativity, although my communication skill about it may not be current.


Now, as you have shown me how deep your understanding about relativity was, I realise that you do have a deeper understanding about Relativity than I and probably also most of us here. Hope you will spend time to teach us relativity, so that in future we could at least speak the same language.


Learn to lose gracefully as_hole.
As you can see from my response...I am defeated. You are the relativity king, amazing.

Now, as you have shown me how deep your understanding about relativity was, I realise that you do have a deeper understanding about Relativity than I and probably also most of us here. Hope you will spend time to teach us relativity, so that in future we could at least speak the same language.


Yeap. he allready taught us a few days ago that spacetime interval is SPACE*TIME (s*t).
:) :D

MacM,
MacM, you did claim that SR is wrong. Anybody who learn a bit of SR knows that earth and rocket observers do not see the same length. But, you "proved" to us that they do. Don't you think that mean SR wrong????

Not hardly. I only showed that your understanding (or presentation) of it was flawed.

Now, as you have shown me how deep your understanding about relativity was, I realise that you do have a deeper understanding about Relativity than I and probably also most of us here. Hope you will spend time to teach us relativity, so that in future we could at least speak the same language.

As you can see from my response...I am defeated. You are the relativity king, amazing.

I know this was hard for you and I know you are doing it in tounge and cheek but what matters is persons like James R and Pete have stepped up to the plate and actually clarified SR for others that lacked the recipocal understanding of which I was saying was mandated by Relativity itself.

I think it is important that such clarifications are made here vs the personal attacks which I must endure for the understandings I do have. In any case perhaps we can be buddies now. :D

Due to the duplication of this topic which has occured you may find my response to Pete here:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=37334&page=3 , at 7:51 AM.

Yeap. he allready taught us a few days ago that spacetime interval is SPACE*TIME (s*t).
:) :D

We all know what I have actually done is to clarify the experts presentation of the subject which was misleading others.

Not hardly. I only showed that your understanding (or presentation) of it was flawed.


You did say that earth and rocket observers must both see the length such as distance between the earth and rocket as the same numerically, contrary to common understanding by the vast majority that they do not. Could you at least admit your own claim rather than telling me without proof that my understanding or presentation were flawed?


I know this was hard for you and I know you are doing it in tounge and cheek but what matters is persons like James R and Pete have stepped up to the plate and actually clarified SR for others that lacked the recipocal understanding of which I was saying was mandated by Relativity itself.


No, no...it wasn't hard at all to admit that you have deeper understanding than I do.


I think it is important that such clarifications are made here vs the personal attacks which I must endure for the understandings I do have. In any case perhaps we can be buddies now. :D
Did I attack you? Come on, MacM, don't keep telling lie after lie. Since you said you know relativity better than I and probably also many others, therefore I asked you to teach us lesson. Why do you see that as an attack, MacM. If you really want to make us your buddy, you should help us who lack of understanding. Are we really buddies??? I have many questions about relativity to ask. When are you going to be ready, buddy?

We all know what I have actually done is to clarify the experts presentation of the subject which was misleading others.

Ahhh, MacM. Who misled who? The expert or you? But, the one given wrong interpretation was you, how could that mean as a clarification???

Mike Reed'sFlame Warriors (http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame49.html)
Howlers
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/assets/Howlers.jpg
Howlers generally populate academic, technical or special interest forums in which particular issues are discussed. Newbies to such forums often wander in thinking they have found some devastating new argument that contradicts accepted wisdom on the forum topic. Of course, if the forum is a long-standing and active discussion group it will probably have heard and debated the argument at length, so instead of reviving a dead topic Howlers will simply shout and throw excrement until the intruder leaves.

Paul T,

Now we see the real Paul T and we can all get back to business.

For those actually interested in the issue, I recommend Pete's efforts and diagrams above. He is also making solid contributions (not like some others) over on the FTL Spin Off thread.

PS: Sorry Paul T, MacM is not leaving and I am not a newbie. :D

Nope, just a ko0k who talks about himself in the thirs person.

Persol thinks MacM is losing 'it'.

Nope, just a ko0k who talks about himself in the thirs person.
Persol thinks MacM is losing 'it'.

What Persol thinks doesn't seem to amount to much around here. I note once again you have no real contribution to make. Is this over your head? Then go back to pseudoscience.

No. People have been telling you the answers for the last year. You're not really worth talking to any more... but I'll still make fun of ya:)

No. People have been telling you the answers for the last year. You're not really worth talking to any more... but I'll still make fun of ya:)

Don't mind that but it would be nice for you to actually contribue sometimes (that is something worthwhile at least. :p

It would seem that your statement merely reflects your actual ferver to learn. Being status quo and reading third hand explanations is more your speed.

Not all posters here seem to agree with your assessment, which is understandable.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=37334&page=3 ;17 June@ 5:22 AM