The following is the culmination of two years endeavor to point out what I see as a fatal flaw with the Theory of Relativity.

As can be anticipated that effort has been met with less than welcome fan fair. It has resulted in lengthy flame wars and abusive name calling and personal attacks which had nothing to do with the issue.

This is an important issue and I feel it is appropriate to place this at the top of a thread so as to not have it buried deep in such diatraibes as described above.

I leave the readers conclusion unto himself. Whatever vile comments this may generate just keep in mind they must properly address the issue or it stands.

Due to the high readership of this topic in several threads I am making this a vote thread. Hopefully the many readers which have not joined in the verbal debate will post an opinion.

For those voting "No" it would be advantageous if you give a bonafide response explaining why not. Note "Bonafide". Off topic personal attacks WILL NOT BE RESPONDED TO.

The issue has to do with the physical reality of claims in Relativity. It is my time dilation test case being answered by James R. A well respected member here quite knowledgeable in the issues of Relativity.

******************** Case and Response *********************

“ Two clocks A and B are seperated in space at relative rest and are some acceptable distance apart with a start controller located midway between the clocks. ”

“ That controller sends a signal to each clock, when received it sets timers in each clock to a time based on an acceleration schedule for clock B such that from each clocks perspective once B has reached 0.9c and stopped accelerating both clocks start according to the precalculated time. ”


Let me make sure I have this right. A remains stationary. B, upon receiving the signal, accelerates towards A until it reaches a relative speed of 0.9c. The instant it reaches 0.9c, clocks A and B both start to tick. Is that right?

Now, we just need to know in whose frame they start to tick simultaneously to complete the specification of the test. When the clocks are started, clocks A and B are not in the same location, and they are travelling at 0.9c relative to one another. Relativity therefore says that they cannot start simultaneously in both frames, but only in one frame.

For now, I will assume they start simultaneously in A's frame, but not in B's, unless you want to change this. Remember, you have agreed that they cannot be started simultaneously in both frames if relativity is correct, and you have given no reason to suppose that relativity is not correct, so far.

The test is designed such that the acceleration ends and timing starts when the moving clock is 9 light-hours seperation between clocks. This results in the 10 hours test before the clocks collide. ”


In which frame is the 9 light-hours measured? A's frame, or B's frame? Because, as you are aware, length contraction effects in relativity say that the distance measured in two co-moving frames will be different. Again, unless you say something to the contrary, I will take it you are measuring the 9 light hours in A's frame, but not in B's.


“ What does each clock display the instant they collide and certainly stop simultaneously.? and what time does each clock observe the other clock as displaying at the instant they collide? ”

In frame A, given the above assumptions:

B needs to travel 9 light hours at speed 0.9c, which will take 10 hours.
Clock A will read 10 hours at the time of collision.

In frame B, given the assumptions:

A needs to travel 3.92 light hours at a speed 0.9c, which will take 4.35 hours.
Clock B will read 4.35 hours at the time of collision.

At the instant of the collision, both observers will agree that clock A reads 10 hours and clock B reads 4.35 hours.

In B's frame, clock A was started before clock B, which accounts for the longer time displayed on that clock, even though clock A runs slower than clock B as seen by B. Similarly, clock A sees clock B running slow, but A and B were started simultaneously, which accounts for the longer time displayed on clock A in this frame.

Some posts later James R responded to one of my replies to another member with the following:

In which frame?

What follows is my response to James R

****************** MacM Response *********************

Both Frames

****************** Extract from James R Post ******************
At the instant of the collision, both observers will agree that clock A reads 10 hours and clock B reads 4.35 hours.
***********************************************

You stood by that statement Here when asked specifically about reciprocity in both frames.

**********Extract from James R Post ***********************

With all the assumptions I established in my post addressing your new scenario, I stand by my analysis of that scenario.
************************************************** ***

You tried your double talk Here by claiming in the observers view the clock must have ran slow. That is playing hide and seek with the truth and ignores your established fact that B clock accumulates less time because "A" traveled less distance. Your response goes to "Illusion" not "Reality". That is the issue, not if an observer can be fooled by an illusion of motion..

********************* Extract from James R Post ****************

No. It's simply a matter of which frame you choose to look at the problem in.

From A's point of view, B has to travel 9 light hours, which takes 10 hours. A explains the final reading on B's clock by saying B's clock was running slow during the 10 hour trip.

From B's point of view, A has to travel 3.92 light hours, which takes 4.35 hours. B explains the final reading on A's clock by saying that, although A's clock was running slow, it was started long before B's own clock was started, giving it enough time to catch up to and overtake B's time.
************************************************** ******


You try again Here to claim duality of clock displays by claiming the observers subjective view vs actual cause. There can be only one cause, which is it. If spatial dimension is valid as you calculated the clock display is satisfied by the lesser distance traveled in that view and the display is only correct if the clock's tick rate remains unchanged by relative motion.

************** Extract from James R Post ********************
They agree on final displayed times. They do not agree on total elapsed times since the start of the test. B says the test took 4.35 hours. A says it took 10 hours. The only way they can disagree about this is is time dilation effects occur.
************************************************** *****

You repeat and compound your error Here by showing the time dilation calculation produces the same result.

***************Extract from James R Post ******************
t2 = t1 sqrt(1-(v/c)2)

Plug in t1=10 hours, v=0.9c, and you get t2=4.35 hours.

There you go. Time dilation!
************************************************** *****

You fail to realize that you have not also computed the fact that the clock traveled less distance to produce that result.

I repeat BOTH cannot be physical functions. One or the other MUST be "Illusion of Motion". Which is it. You can't have both. It violates the clock displays in reality to assume both are physically real functions that must coexist simultaneously during relative motion.

SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS: After two years of BS about this issue it comes down to the fact that I have been right. Relativists have no sound arguement to declare BOTH spatial contraction and time dilation as BOTH physical realitites.

IFSPATIAL CONTRACTION IS PHYSICALLY REAL THEN THE TIMES ON THE CLOCK DISPLAYS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR BY DISTANCE TRAVELED BY THE MOVING CLOCK, D = VT AND CLOCK TICK RATES MUST REMAIN CONSTANT AND THE TWIN PARADOX IS A FRAUD AND HOAX. IT BECOMES NOTHING MORE THAN ME DRIVING 10 MILES OR 4.356 MILES AT THE SAME VELOCITY IN WHICH CASE MY AGE HAS NOT CHANGED DUE TO THE SHORTER TRAVEL TIME.

IFCLOCK TICK RATE IS DECLARED PHYSICALLY REAL THEN TIME DILATION COULD BE REAL AND THE TWIN PARADOX COULD EXIST BUT SPATIAL DIMENSIONAL CONTRACTION CANNOT.

CONSIDERING THAT THE TWIN PARADOX CREATES TEMPORAL COMPLICATIONS IF "EITHER" RELAVISTIC FUNCTION WERE TO BE CONSIDERED REALITY; WHICH IS NOW SUTIABLY DRAWN INTO QUESTION, THEN O'CAMS RAZOR WOULD FAVOR LORENTZ CONTRACTION AND NOT TIME DILATION AS BEING THE ONLY PHYSICAL REALITY.

Note: Amended to clarify.

MacM,

Your conclusions are incorrect. The reason is that you are mixing up different reference frames. Before I go into detail, here is a brief summary:

A's reference frame

A is stationary. B is moving at 0.9c
Initial distance between A and B = 9 light hours.
Time taken for B to travel the distance = 10 hours.
Final reading on A's clock = 10 hours.
A's clock time is not in any way dilated in this frame.

The final reading on B's clock is 4.35 hours.

A explains this reading by saying that B only measured 4.35 hours when he should have measured 10 hours. Therefore, B's clock has run slower than A's clock.

B's reference frame

B is stationary. A is moving at 0.9c
Initial distance between A and B = 3.92 light hours.
Time taken for A to travel the distance = 4.35 hours.
Final reading on B's clock = 4.35 hours.
B's clock time is not in any way dilated in this frame.

The final reading on A's clock is 10 hours.

B explains this reading by saying that although A was running slower than B, the clocks did not start ticking simultaneously in B's reference frame. In fact, clock A started ticking a long time before B started ticking.

Summary

In each frame, each observer sees the other observer's clock as undergoing time dilation. From A's point of view, B runs slow. From B's point of view, A runs slow. No clock experiences time dilation in its own frame.

Your post

Here are the errors in your post:

You tried your double talk Here by claiming in the observers view the clock must have ran slow.

This is not double talk. This is what happened.

That is playing hide and seek with the truth and ignores your established fact that the clock accumulates less time because it traveled less distance.

You're mixing frames. In A's frame, for example, B ran slow because of time dilation. In B's frame, B did not run slow - A ran slow.

You try again Here to claim duality of clock displays by claiming the observers subjective view vs actual cause.

Each clock displays one and only one time at any given time, in either reference frame. The claimed "duality" doesn't exist.

t2 = t1 sqrt(1-(v/c)2)

Plug in t1=10 hours, v=0.9c, and you get t2=4.35 hours.

There you go. Time dilation!

You fail to realize that you have not also computed the fact that the clock traveled less distance to produce that result.

Here, you have a basic misconception about when the above equation applies. It applies in a situation where t1 is measured by a clock stationary in one frame (in this case frame A - i.e. A's clock), and t2 is measured by a different clock stationary in a different frame (in this case frame B - i.e. B's clock). This equation tells you how time dilates between different frames.

It has nothing to do with distance. Both clocks are stationary in their respective frames. If they weren't, we'd have to use the general Lorentz transformations.

I repeat BOTH cannot be physical functions. One or the other MUST be "Illusion of Motion". Which is it. You can't have both.

Time dilation and length contraction are the two most well known effects of special relativity. You can't pick and choose which parts of relativity you like and which ones you don't like. If you accept the reality of length contraction, you must accept time dilation, too. They go together, and are both logically derived from the postulates of Special Relativity.

If length contraction is a real effect, as you seem to be claiming here, then time dilation MUST be equally real.

SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS: After two years of BS about this issue it comes down to the fact that I have been right. Relativists have no sound arguement to declare BOTH spatial contraction and time dilation as BOTH physical realitites.

Once again, you had completely failed to understand the concepts you are supposedly debunking.

You make yourself look very foolish.

James R,

While I believe I can show that your post is fundlemental incorrect, I don't have time this evening but will return to it.

I've said enough on this topic.

MacM,

Your conclusions are incorrect. The reason is that you are mixing up different reference frames. Before I go into detail, here is a brief summary:

A's reference frame

A is stationary. B is moving at 0.9c
Initial distance between A and B = 9 light hours.
Time taken for B to travel the distance = 10 hours.

Only in A's view

Final reading on A's clock = 10 hours.
A's clock time is not in any way dilated in this frame.

The final reading on B's clock is 4.35 hours.

Because B sees distance reduced to 3.92 Light hours and is traveling at 0.9c

A explains this reading by saying that B only measured 4.35 hours when he should have measured 10 hours. Therefore, B's clock has run slower than A's clock.

I have no objection to the term "explains" by A's view

B's reference frame

B is stationary. A is moving at 0.9c
Initial distance between A and B = 3.92 light hours.

Correct, which is why the clock only accumulates 4.35 hours and to do so its tick rate must remain unchanged.

Time taken for A to travel the distance = 4.35 hours.
Final reading on B's clock = 4.35 hours.
B's clock time is not in any way dilated in this frame.

The final reading on A's clock is 10 hours.

B explains this reading by saying that although A was running slower than B, the clocks did not start ticking simultaneously in B's reference frame. In fact, clock A started ticking a long time before B started ticking.

And this is where you shuffle the cards and make stuff up. B accumulated 4.35 hours because it distance contracted, not because its tick rate changed. "A" thinks B's clock ran slow because "A" dosen't see the change in dimension. But what "A" THINKS is an illusion and not the reality of the tick rate of "B". The tick rate of "B" is cast in its final display by t = d/v = 3.92/.9 = 4.35 hours.

Summary

In each frame, each observer sees the other observer's clock as undergoing time dilation. From A's point of view, B runs slow. From B's point of view, A runs slow. No clock experiences time dilation in its own frame.

No disagreement. Other than the tick rate do not change any deviation in displays are a function of length contraction. Or the only alternative is to claim time dilation and say that length contraction is an illusion. BOTH cannot be physically real and coexist simultaneously other wise the clocks will read 10 hours and 1.9 hours.

Your post

Here are the errors in your post:

“ You tried your double talk Here by claiming in the observers view the clock must have ran slow. ”


This is not double talk. This is what happened.

Sorry. Not so. What happens if you assume length contraction real is that the clock has a reading equivelent to the distance traveled divided by the velocity.

“ That is playing hide and seek with the truth and ignores your established fact that the clock accumulates less time because it traveled less distance. ”

You're mixing frames. In A's frame, for example, B ran slow because of time dilation. In B's frame, B did not run slow - A ran slow.

And here is where you run into trouble if you stop shuffleing the cards and look at your hand pragmatically. If both run slow by an equal amount (which they must according to Relativity) then there can be no net measureable time differential in the final clock displays. HINT: No measureable time dilation between clocks and hence no Twin Paradox.

The falicy of claiming I am mixing frames is addresed below and has been clarified in my original post.

“ You try again Here to claim duality of clock displays by claiming the observers subjective view vs actual cause. ”

Each clock displays one and only one time at any given time, in either reference frame. The claimed "duality" doesn't exist.

Wrong. The clocks both coexist as part of a common relative velocity relationship. They do not read one time then another. Since stipulating frames is arbitrary you force clocks to display two different times arbitrarily. Clocks do not record arbitrary times, they record actual tick rates and will display only that tick rate, which is unchanging in its frame. The view of the other frame is nothing more than that "A View" a perception an illusion.

“ Originally Posted by James R
t2 = t1 sqrt(1-(v/c)2)

Plug in t1=10 hours, v=0.9c, and you get t2=4.35 hours.

There you go. Time dilation! ”


"Originally Posted by MacM
You fail to realize that you have not also computed the fact that the clock traveled less distance to produce that result. ”


Here, you have a basic misconception about when the above equation applies. It applies in a situation where t1 is measured by a clock stationary in one frame (in this case frame A - i.e. A's clock), and t2 is measured by a different clock stationary in a different frame (in this case frame B - i.e. B's clock). This equation tells you how time dilates between different frames.

No, more correctly it tells you how the clock will appear to dilate. The clock tick rate is unchanging and they will on inspection display only one time regardless of who is looking at them in a moving frame.

It has nothing to do with distance. Both clocks are stationary in their respective frames. If they weren't, we'd have to use the general Lorentz transformations.

Relevant only in that each clcok is always at rest in an inertial frame and always ticks at its local proper tick rate which remains unchanged by any moving observer, inspite of the fact that the moving observer sees an illlusion of motion caused by length contraction which would suggest the tick rate had changed.

“ I repeat BOTH cannot be physical functions. One or the other MUST be "Illusion of Motion". Which is it. You can't have both. ”


Time dilation and length contraction are the two most well known effects of special relativity. You can't pick and choose which parts of relativity you like and which ones you don't like. If you accept the reality of length contraction, you must accept time dilation, too. They go together, and are both logically derived from the postulates of Special Relativity.

If length contraction is a real effect, as you seem to be claiming here, then time dilation MUST be equally real.

False. For reason shown. These two do not coexist. They are one and the same calculation. If you assume length contraction is real then the result becomes the illusion of time dilation. If you assume time dilation the the result is the illusion of length contraction.

If both length contracted and time dilated then you would get 1.9 hours not 4.35 hours.

“ SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS: After two years of BS about this issue it comes down to the fact that I have been right. Relativists have no sound arguement to declare BOTH spatial contraction and time dilation as BOTH physical realitites. ”


Once again, you had completely failed to understand the concepts you are supposedly debunking.

Once again- False.

You make yourself look very foolish.

Ditto.

I have voted yes to the question, in that I believe that relativity is fundementaly flawed. I say this with no pleasure or delight and understand that whilst it is flawed it has advanced our understanding of mathematics and most importantly the nature of time and how if not absolute we would understand it.

I believe at thi spoint that the fundemental nature of light and gravity will eventually irrevocably change our view to a more simpler and yet more sophisticated view of the universe and time.

It is in some ways saddennig to see so much work go on in areas that have failed to be premised properly and it is here thatthe challenge remains and that is to premise our theories in more fundementally correct ways.

Areas of fundemental concern are:

1) Light acceleration and deacceleration from source to reflector.
2) Proving that light actually has velocity formally and completely.
3) Learning how we have built an industry to support a theory in ways that have made the theory so complex that falsification is virtually impossible.
4) Einstiens inspiration about light has been adapted to existing thougth and adpated further on with lorentzian math etc, to make that adaptation complete.[even Einstien was guilty of this bastardisation of his own inspiration]
5) Our inability to accept that light may very well be a gravitational pheno.
60 our inability to grasp the absolute nature of the Now [present] adn allow dilation due to velocity to co-exist.
6) by dis-allowing a common inertial frame and depending only a lopsided 'single frame at rest' perpective.
7) Inability to deal with fundemental errors in our observations, such as electron jumping and casmir effects on energy and force.
8) Not understanding or even allowing for fundemental insight into magnetic force and gravity that come into dispute with SR.

The sheer strength in the attempt to justify Sr means that we have closed our minds to alternatives and shut the door on any forward post GR SR era.

if Sr and GR can't work in any area of physics then the laws of physics do nopt apply equally to all frames of referrence thus the theory is flawed becasue this is one of it's primary postulates.

The laws of physics apply always to all frames of reference........this is a fundemental logic yes?

well even JamesR has admitted that SR breaks down at quantum levels and extreme distances...so this alone invalidates this theory by it's own postulate.

I am sorry if I have mixed up Sr and Gr but all the same.........the theory stands invalid by it's own postulate.

READERS and James R,

While it is not true that I am mixing frames, I can see where he makes that arguement. I have left things to be understood from a pragmatic level and didn't tie them down explicit enough. It doesn't alter the conclusion but has left the door open to his claim and that is bad.

CLARIFICATION:

When I said that "B" accumulates 4.35 hours due to d = vt, that does not mean that "B" is in motion. In that view it is "A" that is in motion but the accumulated time is based on d = vt until collison of the clocks.

It matters not which clock is in motion the accumulated time is the same but to keep Relativists happy when "B" accumulates this time it is "A" that is moving.

The case was drafted as collison of the clocks to stop the arguement about simultaneous stopping of the clocks.

Clearly no clock continues to run in any frames view.

Lets see some votes by the silent majority of readers here. Take a position be you professionaly qualified or not.

Mac, no matter how many votes are cast, I suspect that you will always cling to the belief that there is some "silent majority" out there who believe in you...


Do you have any real reason to suspect that this is the case?
Do you consider it possible or probable that no such silent majority exists?

I think it's sad that this is there are 2 or 3 polls that MacM stated to see if 'people believe he is right'. There's a reason they never turn out in your favor.

You post tons of stuff out of context... JamesR and others correct you in detail... you claim they are wrong and start to pout....a few come in and make fun of you to at least make the thread entertaining since it isn't educational.

And you still can't figure out reference frames.... just give up pretending you know what the theory is actually about.

To draw a parallel, this is sort of like the election happening today. You have the far left, the far right, and the rest. MacM falls into the far X category. No matter how much things are explained he will never change his mind. He will completely ignore opposing facts... or will twist them to say what he thinks they should mean. Debate is pointles; all you can do is point and laugh.

Mac, no matter how many votes are cast, I suspect that you will always cling to the belief that there is some "silent majority" out there who believe in you...

I think you missed the point. It is not a matter of believing in me. It is a matter of trying to get all those readers that haven't participated in posts to cast a vote.

Do you have any real reason to suspect that this is the case?
Do you consider it possible or probable that no such silent majority exists?

Possible but not probable. Readership is to high vs posts. Also the vote will have no affect on my position either way. The facts are absolutely clear and I could be the only person left on earth to say so and it would not change the facts, hence nor my position.

It really is high time that other address the facts and stop reciting the theory.

The number of times a thread has been viewed has nothing to do with the number of people who are viewing it. There really is no contigent of devoted yet silent MacM supporters here. Much like your arguments on relativity's flaws, it's all in your overactive imagination.

- Warren

I think it's sad that this is there are 2 or 3 polls that MacM stated to see if 'people believe he is right'. There's a reason they never turn out in your favor.

As I said to Pete it is not a matter of seeing if I am beleived right but to see what generally people believe.

It is undrstood that most of the poster here will disagree because you are all Relativists. I want to see a general concensus, not just Relativists views expressed .

Perhaps if these people realized that they vote annonomous and do not need to post they will vote.

You post tons of stuff out of context...

False.

JamesR and others correct you in detail...

False.

you claim they are wrong and start to pout....

False.

a few come in and make fun of you to at least make the thread entertaining since it isn't educational.

False. You post BS because you cannot actually address the issue.

And you still can't figure out reference frames....

False.

just give up pretending you know what the theory is actually about.

Pretending would be to say anything you have said has any merit. Don't you EVER tell the truth? Do you always just make shit up?

To draw a parallel, this is sort of like the election happening today. You have the far left, the far right, and the rest. MacM falls into the far X category. No matter how much things are explained he will never change his mind. He will completely ignore opposing facts... or will twist them to say what he thinks they should mean. Debate is pointles; all you can do is point and laugh.

And you can remain in your cacoon blissed by ignorance.

Off topic personal attacks WILL NOT BE RESPONDED TO.Seems your memory has faded again.

The number of times a thread has been viewed has nothing to do with the number of people who are viewing it. There really is no contigent of devoted yet silent MacM supporters here. Much like your arguments on relativity's flaws, it's all in your overactive imagination.

- Warren

Third time. NOTE: This is not about MacM supporters. And it is about physical realities and not mumbo-jumbo physically impossible realities which you seem willing to accept and laughsaying "Gee it is so counter intuative"..

"Impossible is not the same as Counter-Intuative". Nothing posted by any one of you here has physically resovled the issue I raise. All the dancing around the issue simply shows you have no valid answer.

Do I expect to see any one of you ever agree. Hell no. But I do expect that those many readers are at least being given information they would not otherwise be given by Relativists.

However, I just realized that the readership can't post. The list currently shows 20 members and 240+ guests. Guests can't vote and that is a 12/1 ratio. Come on "Join and vote damn it." :D

So the only voters here seem to be Relativists in a majority, so the results of such a poll shouldn't be surprising since Relativists refuse to acknowledge physical realities and choose to play "Find the Token".

Seems your memory has faded again.

Not at all. Yours was a borderline post. I actually thought about just letting you blow off your mouth.

Not at all. Yours was a borderline post. I actually thought about just letting you blow off your mouth.Well my response just then was nowhere near borderline.

You'll also note that why you've addressed the personal attacks, you've left JamesR's explaination of your errors completely untouched.

Seems your memory has faded.

Well my response just then was nowhere near borderline.

You'll also note that why you've addressed the personal attacks, you've left JamesR's explaination of your errors completely untouched.

Seems your memory has faded.

Don't you ever consider telling the truth?

Truth

And to think I was about to ask the same thing...

MacM:

And this is where you shuffle the cards and make stuff up. B accumulated 4.35 hours because it distance contracted, not because its tick rate changed. "A" thinks B's clock ran slow because "A" dosen't see the change in dimension. But what "A" THINKS is an illusion and not the reality of the tick rate of "B". The tick rate of "B" is cast in its final display by t = d/v = 3.92/.9 = 4.35 hours.

You're mixing frames, as I said. A clock's "tick rate" never changes in its own reference frame. It does, however, change in other frames. In this case, B's tick rate slows in A's frame, and A's tick rate slows in B's frame.

You are relying on the fact that B's tick rate doesn't change in B's frame to deduce that it doesn't change in A's frame. Unfortunately for you, you can't draw that conclusion from that reasoning.

If both run slow by an equal amount (which they must according to Relativity) then there can be no net measureable time differential in the final clock displays. HINT: No measureable time dilation between clocks and hence no Twin Paradox.

This is false. Please review the explanation already given. In A's frame, the final time difference results from time dilation alone. In B's frame, the final time difference results from time dilation plus the fact that clock A started running before clock B.

Wrong. The clocks both coexist as part of a common relative velocity relationship.

This is a MacM fantasyland concept which has no meaning in the real world.

They do not read one time then another.

Every clock in existence reads "one time then another".

If you assume length contraction is real then the result becomes the illusion of time dilation. If you assume time dilation the the result is the illusion of length contraction.

Which do you assume is real?

It is strange that you, the great detractor of relativity, are suddenly agreeing that length contraction exists.

Have you half-converted to the Church of Relativity?

Or is this merely another argument of convenience for you? When can we expect the next bait and switch?

If both length contracted and time dilated then you would get 1.9 hours not 4.35 hours.

Not in this scenario.

Quantum Quack:

I have voted yes to the question, in that I believe that relativity is fundementaly flawed.

On what grounds?

Don't tell me you've been sucked in by MacM's arguments. Have you read and understood my responses? Have you considered the problems yourself? Have you read any books on the mathematics of relativity? Have you, in fact, made any real attempt to learn about the theory?

Or is this all just about what makes you feel good, like it is for MacM?

Could it be that you simply find relativity hard to understand, and you long for something simple? I think that explains much of MacM's underlying motivation. He wants a "common sense" picture of the world. Unfortunately, it has been proven that our world, at its most fundamental levels, is very counter-intuitive. Like it or not, we have to cope with reality.

If it's all too hard, why not take up gardening, or some other easier hobby than physics, and leave the physics to the professionals?

I say this with no pleasure or delight and understand that whilst it is flawed it has advanced our understanding of mathematics and most importantly the nature of time and how if not absolute we would understand it.

Relativity uses mathematics as a tool. It adds little to mathematics, but it has had a huge impact on our physical understanding.

I am puzzled as to how you believe relativity could add to our understanding of time while at the same time being an incorrect description.

I believe at thi spoint that the fundemental nature of light and gravity will eventually irrevocably change our view to a more simpler and yet more sophisticated view of the universe and time.

Based on what? Gut feeling?

It is in some ways saddennig to see so much work go on in areas that have failed to be premised properly and it is here thatthe challenge remains and that is to premise our theories in more fundementally correct ways.

I suspect you have no idea of what work has been done in this area. Your claim that relativity is not "premised properly" is the claim of somebody who has no idea at all about the subject he is commenting on.

If you actually believe there is something wrong with relativity, why don't you post on the details of the problems you see, rather than riding on the coat tails of people like MacM? Try thinking for yourself. Try learning what it is your are criticising.

Areas of fundemental concern are:

1) Light acceleration and deacceleration from source to reflector.

Light does not accelerate.

2) Proving that light actually has velocity formally and completely.

Velocity is distance travelled over time taken. Do you dispute that light travels a certain distance in a certain time? If not, then you believe light has a velocity.

3) Learning how we have built an industry to support a theory in ways that have made the theory so complex that falsification is virtually impossible.

SR is quite simple mathematically. Conceptually, it is more difficult, but anybody who makes an effort can come to understand it. GR is much more complicated, but not in essence more complicated today than it was back in 1916.

How much of the literature in the field have you reviewed? What made you reach the conclusion that the theory has become so complex as to be unfalsifiable? How do you account for experiments which could falsify the theory in one fell swoop, such as the current Gravity Probe B experiment?

Relativity is eminently falsifiable. It just hasn't been falsified.

4) Einstiens inspiration about light has been adapted to existing thougth and adpated further on with lorentzian math etc, to make that adaptation complete.[even Einstien was guilty of this bastardisation of his own inspiration]

Explain for us how Einstein's ideas have been "bastardised".

5) Our inability to accept that light may very well be a gravitational pheno.

Please explain how light could be a gravitational phenomenon.

60 our inability to grasp the absolute nature of the Now [present] adn allow dilation due to velocity to co-exist.

Now is not absolute, but relative for each observer, so you are just wrong here.

6) by dis-allowing a common inertial frame and depending only a lopsided 'single frame at rest' perpective.

I have no idea what you're talking about here, and I suspect neither do you.

7) Inability to deal with fundemental errors in our observations, such as electron jumping and casmir effects on energy and force.

Which specific errors are you referring to? Please explain, with references if appropriate.

8) Not understanding or even allowing for fundemental insight into magnetic force and gravity that come into dispute with SR.

Which disputed insights? Please explain.

The sheer strength in the attempt to justify Sr means that we have closed our minds to alternatives and shut the door on any forward post GR SR era.

What do you mean "attempt"? SR and GR have been justified in countless thousands of experiments. There's no need to justify them. They are accepted fact by all reputable physicists.

MacM and other people like him would like you to believe that there is some doubt about whether relativity is real. He is like a Young-Earth Creationist who wants you to believe that there is some argument about the reality of evolution among qualified biologists. There is no argument among professionals - only among uneducated amateurs who don't understand the theories.

if Sr and GR can't work in any area of physics then the laws of physics do nopt apply equally to all frames of referrence thus the theory is flawed becasue this is one of it's primary postulates.

That is false. For example, it is well recognised that GR is not a quantum theory. Therefore, it does not apply on very small length scales. Those scales are out of the scope of the theory. But those effects say nothing at all about the accuracy of the theory its area of applicability.

The laws of physics apply always to all frames of reference........this is a fundemental logic yes?

Yes, although Relativity makes a much stronger statement than this.

well even JamesR has admitted that SR breaks down at quantum levels and extreme distances...so this alone invalidates this theory by it's own postulate.

No. The laws of physics still apply to quantum levels and "extreme distances".

However, I just realized that the readership can't post. The list currently shows 20 members and 240+ guests. Guests can't vote and that is a 12/1 ratio. Come on "Join and vote damn it." :D

As you probably know, I have a lot of experience running science forums. The majority of guest users on forums like this one are either:

1) people who follow a single link from a search engine like google, read that page, and never come back

2) automatic search engine software agents that are indexing the site

Despite your hope, it is very unlikely that many (or any) of those 240+ guests are actually people silently reading this thread, nodding their heads in agreement with your immaculate reasoning.

So the only voters here seem to be Relativists in a majority, so the results of such a poll shouldn't be surprising since Relativists refuse to acknowledge physical realities and choose to play "Find the Token".

So let me get this straight -- this poll's results should be discarded because only relativists are voting on it? That sounds like a very circular argument. Let's suppose Kerry wins the election tonight. Should we also discard that conclusion because mostly democrats voted?

It sounds to me like you'll go to great lengths to rationalize away the clear and obvious truth: almost everyone thinks you are wrong.

- Warren

I think it's also worthwhile to note that those who vote yes to this particular poll do so for different stated reasons...

MacM:

You're mixing frames, as I said. A clock's "tick rate" never changes in its own reference frame. It does, however, change in other frames. In this case, B's tick rate slows in A's frame, and A's tick rate slows in B's frame.

False. There is NO possibility that clock tick rates vary physically. IF it exists it is shear illusion.

You are relying on the fact that B's tick rate doesn't change in B's frame to deduce that it doesn't change in A's frame. Unfortunately for you, you can't draw that conclusion from that reasoning.

I draw the conclusion that NO clock changes tick rate from any perspective. Any such obsrvation is merely that an observation and not the true tick rate of the clock.

This is false. Please review the explanation already given. In A's frame, the final time difference results from time dilation alone. In B's frame, the final time difference results from time dilation plus the fact that clock A started running before clock B.

Only by proclamation, not physical reality. You cannot quote the theory as its own proof.

This is a MacM fantasyland concept which has no meaning in the real world.


Sorry Relativity is fantasyland. Reality is absolute.

Every clock in existence reads "one time then another".

Only if you consider the arrow of passage of time. That means it cannot actually accumulate one time that is less or greter than its local ACTUAL tick rate. All other rates are only illusions of motion, not actual tick rates.

Which do you assume is real?

Neither.

It is strange that you, the great detractor of relativity, are suddenly agreeing that length contraction exists.

You have asserted this (wrongfully) before and I have repeated many times that By making this point I am NOT claiming either to be real.

Have you half-converted to the Church of Relativity?

I have become even more assured and confident that I am correct. Relativity is total nonsense.

Or is this merely another argument of convenience for you? When can we expect the next bait and switch?

There has never been a bait and switch.

Not in this scenario.

The simple truth is you continue and will continue to advocate the nonsense of Relativity with absolutely no regard to physical reality and/or physical impossibilities. That frankly is your loss.

As you probably know, I have a lot of experience running science forums. The majority of guest users on forums like this one are either:

1) people who follow a single link from a search engine like google, read that page, and never come back

2) automatic search engine software agents that are indexing the site

Despite your hope, it is very unlikely that many (or any) of those 240+ guests are actually people silently reading this thread, nodding their heads in agreement with your immaculate reasoning.

So let me get this straight -- this poll's results should be discarded because only relativists are voting on it? That sounds like a very circular argument. Let's suppose Kerry wins the election tonight. Should we also discard that conclusion because mostly democrats voted?

It sounds to me like you'll go to great lengths to rationalize away the clear and obvious truth: almost everyone thinks you are wrong.

- Warren

I simply conceeded the point that the displayed readership is not going to be voting and that I would not expect Relativists to agree with my view.

Fortunately that does NOT mean you are right or that I am wrong. It ONLY means we disagree.

The vote actually isn't all that bad yet. In absolute terms it is only 2/1 that I am wrong. That is 1/3 seem to feel Relativity is either wrong or is not a shoe in. That isn't a good record for a 100 year old theory vs a two year old challenge.

Put in your political terms that means I am running 30 times better than Ralph Nader. :D

I think it's also worthwhile to note that those who vote yes to this particular poll do so for different stated reasons...

As I said earlier the I made this a poll thread was get a feel for the percentage of viewers that believe or do not believe in the reality of Relativity.

JAmesR sorry for taking so long to reply, I missed the fact that you had posted a response...so I'll give it a go now

Light does not accelerate

So please explain how light leaves the source at 'c' with out accelerating to 'c'
[explanation and proof is required of course.....]
( a possible answer would be that the photon is in some sorrt of orbit and just leaves that orbit at the rate of 'c' with out accelerating but hey I am only guessing)

Velocity is distance travelled over time taken. Do you dispute that light travels a certain distance in a certain time? If not, then you believe light has a velocity.
I believe light to be a gravitational effect that requires no distance to travel. Have I proof....not yet....The velocity of light is a throw back to the 1600's when everyone was thinking in terms of particles/distance.....

If Gravitational hammering is a way of describing light and EM.....a reflector will always reflect gravity as invariant...and so does a reflector reflect light as invariant...Gravity and light are both invariant for the same reasons.

SR is quite simple mathematically. Conceptually, it is more difficult, but anybody who makes an effort can come to understand it. GR is much more complicated, but not in essence more complicated today than it was back in 1916.

Because in 1916 light was deemed to have velocity Einstiens inspiration about a "ray" of light had to be adapted to the thinking of the time. If light is a gravitational effect and 'c' is the rate of reflector change [distance] over time then SR becomes obsolete as a way of explaining time and light.

Now is not absolute, but relative for each observer, so you are just wrong here.

If you can prove this I'll lay down and say die........

It is encumbent upon SR to prove absolute time as invalid and as yet I have not encounted any such proof. Time dilation is not proof that the Now is not absolute. AS alternative explanations are possible. However explanations are not enough as proof , hard physical proof of a variable now is warranted and even a dilated object still exists in the absolute now.

I have no idea what you're talking about here, and I suspect neither do you.

Alluding to ignorance of the opposition is beneath you JamesR.
By relying on a single reference frame you achieve a distorted view of reality..
A common inertial frame that takes all frames into account allows for a balanced view.....just my opinion.

7) Inability to deal with fundemental errors in our observations, such as electron jumping and casmir effects on energy and force. ”


Which specific errors are you referring to? Please explain, with references if appropriate

How does SR deal with an electron jumping orbits.....with out time involved in the jump. [ this is how it was explained to me]

“ 8) Not understanding or even allowing for fundemental insight into magnetic force and gravity that come into dispute with SR. ”


Which disputed insights? Please explain.

The mere fact that we are stuck in a velocity of light limitation means that gravity and magnetic forces are forced to adhere to 'c', ideas like gravity waves and magnetic propagation will never conform to a time delay when they have zero velocity....or instantaneous effects.....

When you pull a magnet away from another magnet how fast does it take for the other magnet to experience the change?....common answer is 'c' which is most bizzare...like wise the arguement that if the earth and sun separated 1000 kms in one second how long does it take for either to experience the change? So we choose a frame and what does that tell you? Nothing.....both objects are in a simultaneous instantaneous relationship...so any understanding of gravity and magnetism is severely limited by Sr concepts that require the limitation of 'c'.......if you want I would love to discuss this particular problem.....

well even JamesR has admitted that SR breaks down at quantum levels and extreme distances...so this alone invalidates this theory by it's own postulate. ”


No. The laws of physics still apply to quantum levels and "extreme distances".

so you are now saying that Sr is not a law of physics.....??.....hmmmmmm...sorry I will rethink my position.....


James I am dissappointed by your attempt to suggest that I am in some way caught up in MacM's machinations. For I know you are capable of a much better attitude.

You have taken it upon yourself to be the defender of SR and this places you in a position of authority and also implies a responsibility.

To imply that my integrity is in some way compromised by also dissagreeing with Sr is not only unfair but immature. As time progresses I have come to learn where there are weakness in this theory, by sometimes suggesting the most outrageous things. When it all comes together it will make a lot of sense but until then we just have to wait. Many of the questions I have asked over the past two years have been inadequately answered and slowly they form a picture...[ I keep all posts I make and summaries of responses in file ]

Light clocks, photon acceleration, twin paradox, rail and train [with wheels] paradox, and the inability to describe why light is invariant [ referring to the light cones] just to name a few......I do find it funny how all roads lead to a so called paradox........the same paradox and all due to the concept of 'c' as being a velocity over distance and not a distance travelled by mass over time



I am puzzled as to how you believe relativity could add to our understanding of time while at the same time being an incorrect description.

Because by learning how to compute even in error we have learned how to deal with relative time........and frames etc.......with out the concept of SR we would never have had to deal with time and space concepts in the way that SR has promoted. A form of negative learning if you like......I should know....I use this method all the time....[accellerated learning by taking the negative to convention]

So please explain how light leaves the source at 'c' with out accelerating to 'c'
[explanation and proof is required of course.....]
( a possible answer would be that the photon is in some sorrt of orbit and just leaves that orbit at the rate of 'c' with out accelerating but hey I am only guessing)
Light leaves the source without accelerating since it is created with velocity c. This is the same as when you drop a stone in the water, the waves that are created have the velocity of sound in the water, and they do not accelerate.
If you want a proof, take Maxwell's equations. You can find them for example here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/maxeq.html . For em waves in vacuum, take the differential form of the Maxwell's equation (in the absence of magnetic and/or polarizable media, since we are looking at light in vacuum) and you can see that outside the source, the (.ie by taking ρ = 0 and J = 0) you can take for example the third equation (Faradays law) and differentiate it wrt time and use the fourth equation (Ampere's law)in order to replace the derivative of the electric field wrt to time by curl(B) and finaly by using the second equation you find that the magnetic field is the solution of the wave equation. From the wave equation you find that the solutions are traveling waves that go at velocity 1/sqrt(ε₀μ₀).
I'll leave you as an exercice to show that the electric field is also a wave in phase with the magnetic field, that they are orthogonal to each other and they are orthogonal to the propagation direction of the waves.


I believe light to be a gravitational effect that requires no distance to travel. Have I proof....not yet....The velocity of light is a throw back to the 1600's when everyone was thinking in terms of particles/distance.....

The velocity of light is a theoretical result that comes from Maxwell's equation.


If Gravitational hammering is a way of describing light and EM.....a reflector will always reflect gravity as invariant...and so does a reflector reflect light as invariant...Gravity and light are both invariant for the same reasons.

If you understand what is written here. please explain it.



Because in 1916 light was deemed to have velocity Einstiens inspiration about a "ray" of light had to be adapted to the thinking of the time. If light is a gravitational effect and 'c' is the rate of reflector change [distance] over time then SR becomes obsolete as a way of explaining time and light.

I understand from you don't either believe in Maxwell's equations
Please tell me in what part of physics do you believe?


It is encumbent upon SR to prove absolute time as invalid and as yet I have not encounted any such proof. Time dilation is not proof that the Now is not absolute. AS alternative explanations are possible. However explanations are not enough as proof , hard physical proof of a variable now is warranted and even a dilated object still exists in the absolute now.

Absolute time means that when you change from a reference frame to another, time is absolute: t' = t.
According to SR when you change from one reference frame to another, time is transformed according to: t' = γ(t - vx/c^2). This means that time is not absolute according to SR.


Alluding to ignorance of the opposition is beneath you JamesR.

I thought that you have allready admitted that you never studied physics.


By relying on a single reference frame you achieve a distorted view of reality..
A common inertial frame that takes all frames into account allows for a balanced view.....just my opinion.

There is no common inertial frame that takes all inertial frames into account.
If you see a car that moves wrt you, you cannot find a frame where both you and the car are at rest.
However, from the pov of relativity, there is no prefered frame. the same laws apply in all reference frames.


The mere fact that we are stuck in a velocity of light limitation means that gravity and magnetic forces are forced to adhere to 'c', ideas like gravity waves and magnetic propagation will never conform to a time delay when they have zero velocity....or instantaneous effects.....

That's right, I agree wityh you that since em waves and gravitational waves travel at c, they do not have a 0 velocity (infinite delay) or infinite velocity (0 delay).



When you pull a magnet away from another magnet how fast does it take for the other magnet to experience the change?....common answer is 'c' which is most bizzare...like wise the arguement that if the earth and sun separated 1000 kms in one second how long does it take for either to experience the change? So we choose a frame and what does that tell you? Nothing.....both objects are in a simultaneous instantaneous relationship...so any understanding of gravity and magnetism is severely limited by Sr concepts that require the limitation of 'c'.......if you want I would love to discuss this particular problem.....

Why talk only on the influence of the sun on the earth. I understand that you believe that the gravitational influence (even though it is very small but it exists) of the farthest galaxy on the earth is instantenous, ie. physics is non local. I'd say that this is bizzare.


To imply that my integrity is in some way compromised by also dissagreeing with Sr is not only unfair but immature. As time progresses I have come to learn where there are weakness in this theory, by sometimes suggesting the most outrageous things. When it all comes together it will make a lot of sense but until then we just have to wait. Many of the questions I have asked over the past two years have been inadequately answered and slowly they form a picture...[ I keep all posts I make and summaries of responses in file ]

You have admitted several times that you didn't study physics. Most of the discussions here on the validity of relativity are lead by people who think that they understand it but prove all the time that they don't understand it.
As long as you don't learn relativity, you cannot see the weakness (as you claim) of this theory. The same way that I am not in a position to find the weakness in psychological theories, or biological theory that I might know only at the laymen level.


Light clocks, photon acceleration, twin paradox, rail and train [with wheels] paradox, and the inability to describe why light is invariant [ referring to the light cones] just to name a few......I do find it funny how all roads lead to a so called paradox........the same paradox and all due to the concept of 'c' as being a velocity over distance and not a distance travelled by mass over time
c is a velocity. This means that it is a distance over time.

If both length contracted and time dilated then you would get 1.9 hours not 4.35 hours.
You're ignoring the problem of synchronicity. When the 'synchronising' photon is emitted, in A's frame, the photon is emitted from 4.5 light hours away, while B is a further 8.55 light hours away.
B sees the photon emitted from 3.73 light hours away, while A is 1.96 light hours from the photon being emitted, but travelling towards where it was emitted at 0.9c. Therefore, in B's frame, clock A starts a long time before clock B.
[quote=MacM]That is 1/3 seem to feel Relativity is either wrong or is not a shoe in. That isn't a good record for a 100 year old theory vs a two year old challenge[quote]
As you pointed out before, people who do not agree with SR are not automatically agreeing with you. As for disputing SR, that's been going on for 100 years, yet for some reasons physicists still use it...

You're ignoring the problem of synchronicity. When the 'synchronising' photon is emitted, in A's frame, the photon is emitted from 4.5 light hours away, while B is a further 8.55 light hours away.

B sees the photon emitted from 3.73 light hours away, while A is 1.96 light hours from the photon being emitted, but travelling towards where it was emitted at 0.9c. Therefore, in B's frame, clock A starts a long time before clock B.

The tone of your post is appreciated; however, it appears you have misunderstood the basic timing. No light signal has been transmitted while the clocks have relative motion.

The start signal is midway between clocks and simply sets timers at each clock to a number precalculated using relavistic mathematics which will cause them to reach t = 0 simultaneously when the clock that has accelerated reaches the 0.9c test velocity and at the same instant starts the scheduled acceleration of the clock.

Therefore if the relavistic calculation has been done properly both clocks do start simultaneously, even though from each others perspective they of course would apear to have started at different times due to information delay. But the reality is they start at the same instant in real time.

That is 1/3 seem to feel Relativity is either wrong or is not a shoe in. That isn't a good record for a 100 year old theory vs a two year old challenge

As you pointed out before, people who do not agree with SR are not automatically agreeing with you.

Agreed. But I want to take this opportunity to emphasize that inspite of all the verbage, there has NOT been ONE case of the issue being rebutted by a Relativist. All they have ever done is run and hide behind the theory claiming it proves itself which is not only unconviencing but ludricrus since they are ignoring certain unargueable physical realities when they do so.

NOT ONCE has it been shown that when you calculate length contraction, which shortens the accumulated time on a clock, do you also compute a dilated tick rate for that clock.

That is because the accumulated time differential has already been accounted for due to the shorter distance traveled and wherein the clock's tick rate MUST have remained constant and NOT dilated to have accumulated the displayed time.

If time dilation were a real affect of relative motion then one can NOT also claim length contraction. The mathematics are clear and my case is in fact made, even though there are those that will refuse to acknowledge it.

That is that one or the other or both must be merely illusion of motion since both cannot coexist in the same relavistic motion calculation.

If the clock time is reduced due to length contraction you can now only claim it "Appears" to have dilated, while ignoring the change in distance. If you compute time dilation of the clock you can then only claim distance "Appears" to have lessened, while ignoring the computed time dilation.

BOTH cannot be reality simultaneously. Realities cannot be arbitrarily choosen. Either length contraction is real and time dilation is illusion or time dilation is real and length contraction is illusion.

That is the crux of my arguement.

As for disputing SR, that's been going on for 100 years, yet for some reasons physicists still use it...

I have never said it doesn't have utility. My effort is to clarify what is reality and what is illusion. As long as we deliberately refuse to address this question we are not advancing our physical understanding and we are missing aspects of our existance and physics which can and must be identified to move forward.

The current habit of simply talking in circles does just that, confine our progess to going in circles.

I am not quite sure about the attempt to define the scientific truth by voting, and as long nobody can tell what actually is wrong with Relativity it is unlikely that a consensus will be reached here, even though it is clear that SR yields clearly inconsistent (paradoxical) results (see for instance also my thread The Ultimate Twin Paradox (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=41636)). However, I have addressed the actual reason behind the many inconsistencies of SR on my webpage http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/lightspeed.htm . I hope this sheds some light on this matter.

False. There is NO possibility that clock tick rates vary physically. IF it exists it is shear illusion. That's the end of discussion right there. You start out with a premise that contradicts relativity, and then use that as proof that relativity is flawed.

You've decided that you are going to ignore the results of reference frames (which you don't understand anyway) and then wonder why the problem doesn't seem consistent to you.

From the tsmids website linked to
NOTE: Because the usual addition of velocities does not apply to light, the notion of a 'speed' or 'velocity' of light should therefore strictly speaking not be used at all. With regard to light there can only be distances and light travel times.

So in essence you are saying what I have been suggesting. That light indeed does not have velocity but the effect is distance determined?

If one thinks of teh separation as being zero between source and reflector and note that 'c' is derived by the rate of change in the reflector only and not time in the distance from source then the whole difficulty with SR disappears.

Tsmid, I tend to agree with your hypothesis in general. ( Not that that means much)

That's the end of discussion right there. You start out with a premise that contradicts relativity, and then use that as proof that relativity is flawed.

And you choose to claim Relativity is valid by quoting Relativity. You nor anyone has directly addressed the issue I have raised.

You've decided that you are going to ignore the results of reference frames (which you don't understand anyway) and then wonder why the problem doesn't seem consistent to you.

False. I take the facts as they present themselves. Should they agree with Relativity then so be it. But they don't, so be it. Unlike yourself I am free to object to the failure of Relativity and Relativists to properly address the issue.

My position is based on the failure of Relativity, not some preconcieved concept. Your arguemnent can only be supported by inclusion of the theory being questioned. That is using claims of the theory as the theories own proof.

That proves nothing.

Relativity is likely flawed because it doesn't take into account the entire universe. We don't have a bigger picture yet. Until we have that, relativity is the best theory we have to work with. So... I would vote "yes", but not "most likely"...

Oh! Was that "shown"? Then my answer is actually "no opinion" :D :p

Quantum Quack:



On what grounds?

Don't tell me you've been sucked in by MacM's arguments. Have you read and understood my responses? Have you considered the problems yourself? Have you read any books on the mathematics of relativity? Have you, in fact, made any real attempt to learn about the theory?

Or is this all just about what makes you feel good, like it is for MacM?

Could it be that you simply find relativity hard to understand, and you long for something simple? I think that explains much of MacM's underlying motivation. He wants a "common sense" picture of the world. Unfortunately, it has been proven that our world, at its most fundamental levels, is very counter-intuitive. Like it or not, we have to cope with reality.

If it's all too hard, why not take up gardening, or some other easier hobby than physics, and leave the physics to the professionals?



Relativity uses mathematics as a tool. It adds little to mathematics, but it has had a huge impact on our physical understanding.

I am puzzled as to how you believe relativity could add to our understanding of time while at the same time being an incorrect description.



Based on what? Gut feeling?



I suspect you have no idea of what work has been done in this area. Your claim that relativity is not "premised properly" is the claim of somebody who has no idea at all about the subject he is commenting on.

If you actually believe there is something wrong with relativity, why don't you post on the details of the problems you see, rather than riding on the coat tails of people like MacM? Try thinking for yourself. Try learning what it is your are criticising.



Light does not accelerate.



Velocity is distance travelled over time taken. Do you dispute that light travels a certain distance in a certain time? If not, then you believe light has a velocity.



SR is quite simple mathematically. Conceptually, it is more difficult, but anybody who makes an effort can come to understand it. GR is much more complicated, but not in essence more complicated today than it was back in 1916.

How much of the literature in the field have you reviewed? What made you reach the conclusion that the theory has become so complex as to be unfalsifiable? How do you account for experiments which could falsify the theory in one fell swoop, such as the current Gravity Probe B experiment?

Relativity is eminently falsifiable. It just hasn't been falsified.



Explain for us how Einstein's ideas have been "bastardised".



Please explain how light could be a gravitational phenomenon.



Now is not absolute, but relative for each observer, so you are just wrong here.



I have no idea what you're talking about here, and I suspect neither do you.



Which specific errors are you referring to? Please explain, with references if appropriate.



Which disputed insights? Please explain.



What do you mean "attempt"? SR and GR have been justified in countless thousands of experiments. There's no need to justify them. They are accepted fact by all reputable physicists.

MacM and other people like him would like you to believe that there is some doubt about whether relativity is real. He is like a Young-Earth Creationist who wants you to believe that there is some argument about the reality of evolution among qualified biologists. There is no argument among professionals - only among uneducated amateurs who don't understand the theories.



That is false. For example, it is well recognised that GR is not a quantum theory. Therefore, it does not apply on very small length scales. Those scales are out of the scope of the theory. But those effects say nothing at all about the accuracy of the theory its area of applicability.



Yes, although Relativity makes a much stronger statement than this.



No. The laws of physics still apply to quantum levels and "extreme distances".
James R is a pompous, boorish ass and amateur propagandist. Not to worry James R, MacDonald's is hiring , and they train you too!.

Quantum Quack:

On what grounds?

Don't tell me you've been sucked in by MacM's arguments. Have you read and understood my responses? Have you considered the problems yourself? Have you read any books on the mathematics of relativity? Have you, in fact, made any real attempt to learn about the theory?

Or is this all just about what makes you feel good, like it is for MacM?

Could it be that you simply find relativity hard to understand, and you long for something simple? I think that explains much of MacM's underlying motivation. He wants a "common sense" picture of the world. Unfortunately, it has been proven that our world, at its most fundamental levels, is very counter-intuitive. Like it or not, we have to cope with reality.

Your repeated comparisons of QQ to MacM is both unwarranted and feloneous. Your efforts to state my views as simplistic do nothing to answer the questions I have raised. Yours is nothing more than an egotistical dodge of the issue. Claiming a superiority while in fact you cannot even address the issue forthrightly, relying instead in the habit of recitations of SRT as it's own proof.

If it's all too hard, why not take up gardening, or some other easier hobby than physics, and leave the physics to the professionals?

One would think such highly skilled professional would be able to properly address the questions of us poor confused and inept souls. LOL.

If you actually believe there is something wrong with relativity, why don't you post on the details of the problems you see, rather than riding on the coat tails of people like MacM? Try thinking for yourself. Try learning what it is your are criticising.

And you should try to answer the unrebutted issue.

Velocity is distance travelled over time taken. Do you dispute that light travels a certain distance in a certain time? If not, then you believe light has a velocity.

Good. Now we can see that an object that traveled 3.93 lHr at 0.9c took 4.35 hours and that the onboard clock did not have its tick rate dilated to accumulate, that display.

Relativity is eminently falsifiable. It just hasn't been falsified.

It has but you refuse to acknowledge it.

MacM and other people like him would like you to believe that there is some doubt about whether relativity is real. He is like a Young-Earth Creationist who wants you to believe that there is some argument about the reality of evolution among qualified biologists. There is no argument among professionals - only among uneducated amateurs who don't understand the theories.

Sorry James R, but yours is a bunch of egotistical hogwash. What I posted is in complete agreement with the claims of Relativity. By your own mathematics you have shown that the clock accumulated less time because it traveled less distance and indirectly therefore that the clocks tick rate did not change due to relative velocity.

Your response that "But from the other observers perspective the rate MUST have dilated", only verifies my claim. The other frame is an "Observation", an "Illusion" and not a physical reality of the clock.

And you choose to claim Relativity is valid by quoting Relativity. You nor anyone has directly addressed the issue I have raised.jamesR did... your response amount to "No, I'm right... wah... really.... I'm right. You're wrong... wah"
False. I take the facts as they present themselves.You start with the assumption that time is absolute. This is not a 'fact'. Don't pretend like it is.
My position is based on the failure of Relativity, not some preconcieved concept.Funny that after all this time you still have been unable to demonstrate this alleged failure.
This proves nothing.I agree completely.

Your repeated comparisons of QQ to MacM is both unwarranted and feloneous.Please get a dictionary... or a law book... either will do.

JamesR maybe the worlds garndeners may find offense in your comparing incompetance or levels of skill required. To say that I ride on MacM's shirt tail is a sad inditement of your own competancy to make such or any comments about a persons abilities.

For the record I don't believe I have yet agreed to anything that MacM has proposed adn so I take it you are just stressed out an acting irrationally. [for which I might add you are forgiven]

I have as requested stated an opinion just as you have, my opinion may not be as informed as yours but it is still my opinion.

And the funny thing is that you have not actually addressed any of the issues I raized in the depth required but have reverted to slander and ridicule by association to some how prove your point.

the issue of proving light has velocity....as ridiculous as it sounds is a valid question from a person wanting to get the facts right.

Is it an issue worth exploring? Does light have velocity? It is encumbent upon relativity to prove all it's premises and not just slide on the subject.

Show me proof that a photon actually travels and I'll stop looking for that proof...circumstantial evidence is not good enough....sorry

jamesR did... your response amount to "No, I'm right... wah... really.... I'm right. You're wrong... wah"
You start with the assumption that time is absolute. This is not a 'fact'. Don't pretend like it is.
Funny that after all this time you still have been unable to demonstrate this alleged failure.
I agree completely.

We can only note that you are on the list of those that cannot properly address the issue. Your only defense is a childish offense display of unsupported claims of superiority..

Please get a dictionary... or a law book... either will do.

You really have shown your ass here.

WEBSTER: UNWARRANTED is the opposite of being WARRANTED.

WARRANT: (1b) justification or reasonable grounds for some act, course, statement or belief


FELONIOUS: (1) Wicked, base.

BASE: (1) Having or showing little or no honor,courage, or decancy; mean, ignoble,contemptible.

Let me suggest instead of wasting your time trying to be cute that you learn a bit about physics reality and try to answer the issue.

geistkiesel:

James R is a pompous, boorish ass and amateur propagandist.

Again with the personal attacks? It is clear that you don't have any arguments which will stand up to scrutiny, so this is what you descend to.

Not to worry James R, MacDonald's is hiring , and they train you too!.

I liked the response of the other person you directed this comment to, so I will borrow it from him.

I don't think you'd want me as your boss.

QQ:

JamesR maybe the worlds garndeners may find offense in your comparing incompetance or levels of skill required.

Gardeners are very good at gardening. Physicists are very good at physics. See the point, now?

And the funny thing is that you have not actually addressed any of the issues I raized in the depth required but have reverted to slander and ridicule by association to some how prove your point.

On the contrary, I asked you to justify your claims, but you have completely ignored my request.

the issue of proving light has velocity....as ridiculous as it sounds is a valid question from a person wanting to get the facts right.

Is it an issue worth exploring? Does light have velocity? It is encumbent upon relativity to prove all it's premises and not just slide on the subject.

I already explained this to you. Have you forgotten? Here is the explanation again:

The velocity of an X is the distance d that the X travels, divided by the time t taken to travel the distance. Thus v=d/t.

This is the definition of velocity. If X is a tennis ball or a photon it makes no difference. If it travels, it has a velocity. Go to the light switch and switch the light on. Does light travel from the light to your desk? If so, then light has a velocity. If not, then you can't see anything. The fact that you aren't blind means light has a velocity.

Case closed.

MacM:

Your repeated comparisons of QQ to MacM is both unwarranted and feloneous.

Why? Do you disagree with QQ?

Your efforts to state my views as simplistic do nothing to answer the questions I have raised.

Correct. I have answered the questions separately.

Yours is nothing more than an egotistical dodge of the issue. Claiming a superiority while in fact you cannot even address the issue forthrightly, relying instead in the habit of recitations of SRT as it's own proof.

I have never attempted to prove SR. In fact, I have explicitly stated that it can't be done. And no other scientific theory can be proved either. Evidence is what counts, and the evidence in favour of relativity is overwhelming.

One would think such highly skilled professional would be able to properly address the questions of us poor confused and inept souls. LOL.

It's not my fault that you can't understand explanations. You have to make an effort, I'm afraid, and it seems to be too much for you.

And you should try to answer the unrebutted issue.

There is no unrebutted issue.

What I posted is in complete agreement with the claims of Relativity.

I have patiently pointed out your many errors.

MacM:

Why? Do you disagree with QQ?

IF I agree or disagree is moot. It is your unwarranted effort to use my name in vane that is at issue here. You most certainly have not justified taking that position. The suggestion that I am like a Creationist infers things totally contradictory to the facts here.

Correct. I have answered the questions separately.

False. You have merely recited SRT as fact and have completely failed to address the issue. You cannot hide behind SRT and ignore the fact that SRT has the clock accumulate lesser time because it traveled less distance and then claim that the clock tick rate changed. I did not.

The two cannot be made coexist in the same calculation. IF one is calculated. i.e - length contraction, then the other becomes illusionary not a real affect. The clock displayed 4.35 hours after traveling 3.93 lHr at 0.9c.

t = 3.93/.9 = 4.35.

To then claim that from the others view the clock MUST have dilated is to make the view illusionary since no actual affect on the clocks tick rate has occured.

The accumulated time is due to the shorter distance. The perception of time dilation can occur but it is not a real affect. It is a false perception, an illusion.

I have never attempted to prove SR. In fact, I have explicitly stated that it can't be done. And no other scientific theory can be proved either. Evidence is what counts, and the evidence in favour of relativity is overwhelming.

You have repeated this position several times. Each time you do so, you ignore the indisputable fact that the clock tick rate cannot have changed in the above scenario. That is in disagreement with your view that time dilation is a real physical process.

Sticking your head in the sand and reciting SRT doesn't make that disparity go away.

It's not my fault that you can't understand explanations. You have to make an effort, I'm afraid, and it seems to be too much for you.

I frankly think at this juncture you have shown that I seem to think more clearly than yourself on this issue. I have stated the facts. Now either properly address them or admit:

1 - Relativity (as presented being real) is false, or

2 - Admit you have no answer and

3 - Stop trying to use innuendo and slander offensively as your defense.

There is no unrebutted issue.

Only if you are so niave as to believe that to recite SRT is the answer. This is a very simple and pragmatic issue. One does not (and cannot) hide behind verbage and claim superiority.

I have patiently pointed out your many errors.

As pointed out you have not. You only make claim to having done so by side stepping and ignoring the obvious flaw in your position ,citing theory which doesn't resolve anything, and by making derogatory remarks about personalities.

Now explain to us how when 4.35 hours have accumulated on the display of a clock which has gone 3.92 LHr at 0.9c, that the clock tick rate is anything but unity.

And explain to us that when another observer views that clock and sees that dispay and disagrees with the time and claims that the clock therefore has dilated time, that this is not a physical reality but is an illusion of motion.

MacM:

The suggestion that I am like a Creationist infers things totally contradictory to the facts here.

Young-Earth Creationists argue that evolution is false based on their faith that the God exists and the Earth is only 6000 years old. They provide no actual evidence for either claim, and in fact there is a wealth of evidence which is in direct conflict with the second claim.

You argue that relativity is false based on your faith that universal time exists. You provide no evidence for that claim, and in fact there is a wealth of evidence which is in direct conflict with you claim.

You do the math. Fair comparison? I think so.

You have merely recited SRT as fact and have completely failed to address the issue. You cannot hide behind SRT and ignore the fact that SRT has the clock accumulate lesser time because it traveled less distance and then claim that the clock tick rate changed. I did not.

I gave you the SR answer. I have hidden nothing. Everything is out in the open. If you had anything to dispute my answer then you would have presented it by now. But you don't.

To then claim that from the others view the clock MUST have dilated is to make the view illusionary since no actual affect on the clocks tick rate has occured.

At the end of the test, clock A reads 10 hours and clock B reads 4.35 hours. They both agree on all events which occurred. They agree that both clocks started ticking at the end of the acceleration phase, as specified. They agree on the final readings, when the clocks are brought together. There is an actual discrepancy in the readings when they are brought back together. That is no illusion.

I've told you in detail how relativity accounts for the discrepancy, but you have not given your alternative explanation. So, since you never come forward with your alternative, let me ask you directly.

1. Do the clocks have the same reading, or different readings when they are brought back together?
2. Can you justify your answer to (1)? Please show the mathematics.

I've already shown you that your claims about what relativity says are false, so there's no need to continue that argument. We have established what relativity has to say about the matter. The only remaining thing to do is to compare what relativity says to what your brilliant theory says. So far, we have nothing from you, and full detail from relativity.

You have repeated this position several times. Each time you do so, you ignore the indisputable fact that the clock tick rate cannot have changed in the above scenario. That is in disagreement with your view that time dilation is a real physical process.

There is no inconsistency in my views. Moreover, the "indisputable fact" that you refer to here is precisely the matter which is the centre of our dispute.

All we have here is a FIAT declaration from you about so-called "indisputable facts" which, in fact, are very much disputed.

One does not (and cannot) hide behind verbage and claim superiority.

Then stop doing it.

Now explain to us how when 4.35 hours have accumulated on the display of a clock which has gone 3.92 LHr at 0.9c, that the clock tick rate is anything but unity.

What's to explain. A person co-moving with a clock never sees the clock rate change. The number's you quote here refer to B's distance and B's time, and are calculated in a frame co-moving with B's clock. Therefore, there is no time dilation of B's clock in this frame. (There is, however, time dilation of A's clock.)

And explain to us that when another observer views that clock and sees that dispay and disagrees with the time and claims that the clock therefore has dilated time, that this is not a physical reality but is an illusion of motion.

This is your incorrect idea, not mine. It's up to you to explain it.

JamesR, I woudl like to ask you a simple question:

How can you expect a person of reasonable intelligence to agree with a theorythat relies on a mathematical model that places an object at 'c' in a eternal, everywhere dimension.

The math that you use to do the time dilations and length contraction suggest that if 'c' is attained the universe disappears into 2 dimensions. Now you don't even have to stay at 'c' for more than a millisecond of earth time and everything turns into 2 dimensions for our object.

Now we are talking about relativistic velocitys 0.8 or more and well aren't we getting close to that 2 dimensional state that I believe a photon is anyway.....


so tell me how can we accept the math at slower velocities if it doesn't stack up at the maximum speeds?

Young-Earth Creationists argue that evolution is false based on their faith that the God exists and the Earth is only 6000 years old. They provide no actual evidence for either claim, and in fact there is a wealth of evidence which is in direct conflict with the second claim.

You argue that relativity is false based on your faith that universal time exists. You provide no evidence for that claim, and in fact there is a wealth of evidence which is in direct conflict with you claim.

False. I base my view on facts. Facts which you choose to ignore. t = d/v is not faith it is mathematics.

You do the math. Fair comparison? I think so.

That shows further failure of your mental processes. To think an opinion based on shown mathematical relationships is noting but unsupported faith is ludricrus slander.

I gave you the SR answer. I have hidden nothing. Everything is out in the open. If you had anything to dispute my answer then you would have presented it by now. But you don't.

WHAT. Are you deaf also? You must be blind to not see that you wrote that "A" SEES B's time as dilated and to then argue that it is physical reality when "SEES" is a perception on top of having shown that mathematically t = d/v leaves NO room for a dilated clock tick rate.

You are simply being hard headed and refusing to admit that time dilation is therefore illusion and not physical.

At the end of the test, clock A reads 10 hours and clock B reads 4.35 hours. They both agree on all events which occurred. They agree that both clocks started ticking at the end of the acceleration phase, as specified. They agree on the final readings, when the clocks are brought together. There is an actual discrepancy in the readings when they are brought back together. That is no illusion.

Correct but the descrepancy is not a dilated tick rate of the slow clock. It is accumulated time at a normal tick rate and a shorter distance traveled at the same relative velocity.

I've told you in detail how relativity accounts for the discrepancy, but you have not given your alternative explanation. So, since you never come forward with your alternative, let me ask you directly.

Only as many times as you have made the unsupportable arguement that A's view is physical change in B's tick rate.

1. Do the clocks have the same reading, or different readings when they are brought back together?

Different: 10 hours and 4.35 hours.

2. Can you justify your answer to (1)? Please show the mathematics.

Already have numerous times. 3.92 LHr/0.9c = 4.35 hours. 9 LHr/0.9c = 10 hours. Both times are a function of clocks having a common tick rate but traveling different distances at the same relative velocity.

I've already shown you that your claims about what relativity says are false,

Flase. You have shown no such thing. Just the opposite. It has been shown that I was absolutely correct and that you simply refuse to acknowledge the simple truth.

so there's no need to continue that argument. We have established what relativity has to say about the matter.

And we have established that what Relativity says is false.

The only remaining thing to do is to compare what relativity says to what your brilliant theory says. So far, we have nothing from you, and full detail from relativity.

Your continued effort to ignore the mathematics does not make them go away. Please explian how a clock that goes 3.92 LHr in 4.35 hours at a velocity of 0.9c has a tick rate other than unity.

Do your math here:_____________________________________________ ___
__________________________________________________ ______________

There is no inconsistency in my views. Moreover, the "indisputable fact" that you refer to here is precisely the matter which is the centre of our dispute.

It is indisputable. You have yet to refute it. You simply attempt to sweep it under the rug and ignore it. It will not go away, so now address it.

How does a clock that accumulates 4.35 hours time having gone 3.92 LHr at 0.9c have a tick rate other than unity?

All we have here is a FIAT declaration from you about so-called "indisputable facts" which, in fact, are very much disputed.

Your definition of dispute does not fit the dictionary definition of dispute. You cite SRT and ignore the issue. That is not a dispute. It is entrenchment, blind faith and fiat.

Then stop doing it.

Surely you know you look foolish here.

What's to explain. A person co-moving with a clock never sees the clock rate change. The number's you quote here refer to B's distance and B's time, and are calculated in a frame co-moving with B's clock. Therefore, there is no time dilation of B's clock in this frame. (There is, however, time dilation of A's clock.)

No there is not. There is only an illusion of motion in the jperception of B'sa clock. A's view did not alter B's clock. A's view that B's clock dilated is just that a false view created by the fact that A does not see the distance that B traveled correctly.

This is your incorrect idea, not mine. It's up to you to explain it.

I have and you have not addressed it. You have failed. Your view of reality and claims of relativity are false.

My view is solid mathematically and logically. In your view you refer to frames of referance and views and don't even realize that "View" means perception. I have never said "A" doesn't have that view or jperception I simply point out that A's VIEW does not alter B's tick rte. B's tick rate is physical. A's view is perception of B's tick rte distorted by a failure to see the correct bases of that dispaly which was shorter distance.

In one frame you claim the cause as length contraction and a constant tick rate and in the other frame you claim fixed (false distance) and the cause as dilated tick rate. You are mixing physical reality and causes with no basis for having done so.

Your declartion that both are physical realities is nonsense and is unsupported period. Yours is the fiat which runs counter to the evidence, even of Relativity.

So in essence you are saying what I have been suggesting. That light indeed does not have velocity but the effect is distance determined?

If one thinks of teh separation as being zero between source and reflector and note that 'c' is derived by the rate of change in the reflector only and not time in the distance from source then the whole difficulty with SR disappears.The delay between emission and detection of a light signal is clearly distance related, but only as far as the distance at the moment of emission is concerned, i.e. the delay is independent of relative velocity and any subsequent motion of both.
If you replace the light signal by material particles, then the delay with which the latter would reach the detector would depend on the relative velocity of emitter and detector (according to the usual vectorial addition of velocities). However, as experiments show, this velocity dependence does not apply for light, which means that you run into problems if you try to describe the propagation of light by the usual notions of 'velocity' or 'speed'. Einstein thought he could solve this problem by first using the usual concept of 'speed' nevertheless, and then redefining his original length and time units because otherwise his 'speed' of light would not be invariant anymore in different reference frames. It did not occur to him that for light a different definition for 'speed' has to be used where the travel time of the light signal depends only on the distance between emitter and observer at the moment of emission, but not in any way on their relative motion.

By the way, apart from my page http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/lightspeed.htm where I discussed this issue in more detail, I have shown on my page http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/photons.htm why the particle picture of light is erroneous for other reasons. This also invalidates the common idea of light consisting of particles flying through space just like any other particles (and being therefore subject to the usual velocity dependences).
As indicated above, it is best to think of light propagation just as an emission followed by a detection with a delay that depends merely on the distance at the time of emission, but not as something that travels independently through space and eventually hits the detector.

tismid,

I am having a bit of trouble visualizing just how you claim that this is based on the distance at the time of emmission.

IF there is relative velocity then that distance is changing during the propagation between transmission and reception?

tismid,
I am having a bit of trouble visualizing just how you claim that this is based on the distance at the time of emmission.
IF there is relative velocity then that distance is changing during the propagation between transmission and reception?No, the distance at the time emission does obviously not change. If the light is emitted at time t=0, then it is the distance *at that moment* which determines the travel time, whatever the change of distance thereafter is.

No, the distance at the time emission does obviously not change. If the light is emitted at time t=0, then it is the distance *at that moment* which determines the travel time, whatever the change of distance thereafter is.

I gathered that is what you meant but I guess I am looking for your explanation mechanically or physically how that ocurrs.

James R,

In the following response you gave in another thread you seem to be in complete agreement with my assertion that both length contraction and time dilation are not applied simultaneously. Each has the same mathematical affect and it really does not matter which you assert as long as you don't try to assert both in the same case.

Your veracity is in question

******************** Extract *******************
..........plus length contraction (or time dilation, depending on how you want to look at the problem).
**********************************************

Why do you persist at changing your claims to suit your arguement.?

This position clearly states that to claim time dilation is an arbitrary choice vs claiming that distance has contracted. Real physics are not arbitrary. They would occur if you chose to calculate them or not.

Since you are choosing what you want to claim real as being different at different times, you are making neither one real or both illusionary.

Is it that you can't decide which is real and don't want to give up either that you try to claim both are real?

Without question a clock that accumulates less time during a trip which is shorter but has a constant or common tick rate is entirely a different matter than claiming that a clock has altered or dilated time.

These are wholly seperate physical principles and switching from one definition to the other as being reality is shear fraud and la la land physics.

Relative motion is relative motion and I find it curious as to why you would have "A" see time dilated and not see distance contracted but have "B" see distance contracted but not time dilated. Each hold the view that they are at rest and it is the other that is in motion.

What is your basis for treating the two observers differently? If both see the same distance (being under identical circumstances) then there simply is no basis to claim time dilation at all.

Any spatial objects at rest with "A" become in motion when viewd by "B". Any object at rest to "B" become viewed as in motion when viewed by "A".

There is no special frame and no justification for your duplicitious treatment of the clocks.

Either both see distance contracted between them and no time dilation or both see time dilation and no length contraction, since the parameters of relative motion are identical.

Which is real physics with real affects and which is an arbitrary illusion created by redefining parameters? Real is real and cannot be arbitrarily turned on and off.

That is the origin of the physical problem at issue. That is to claim a clock ticks at two or more rates based on an observers view. You create the problem, it doesn't exist in reality.

MacM:

I asked you some questions, and you answered as follows:

1. Do the clocks have the same reading, or different readings when they are brought back together?

Different: 10 hours and 4.35 hours.

2. Can you justify your answer to (1)? Please show the mathematics.

Already have numerous times. 3.92 LHr/0.9c = 4.35 hours. 9 LHr/0.9c = 10 hours. Both times are a function of clocks having a common tick rate but traveling different distances at the same relative velocity.

Then, a little further down, you say:

And we have established that what Relativity says is false.

You own explanation, given above, relies on the reality of length contraction, which is an effect of Relativity. Therefore, you are trying to prove relativity false by first assuming it is true. You error, as has been explained, is that when you assume it is true for the purpose of your disproof you take only part of it, and ignore other parts. That is simply dishonest. You can't pick and choose which parts of the theory to use. It's all or nothing.

All you have proven by advocating part but not the whole is that your bastardised version of relativity with time dilation taken out is not viable.

Your refer to a response of mine from another thread:

..........plus length contraction (or time dilation, depending on how you want to look at the problem).

You have left out the context, of course, but it doesn't really matter. Note that I said "depending on how you want to look at the problem". What I meant by that is "depending on which frame of reference you want to work in".

This is perfectly consistent with everything else I've said.

This position clearly states that to claim time dilation is an arbitrary choice vs claiming that distance has contracted.

Not arbitrary. Frame dependent. There's a separate thread you can look at to educate yourself about reference frames. I suggest you take a look.

Is it that you can't decide which is real and don't want to give up either that you try to claim both are real?

Both are real.

Without question a clock that accumulates less time during a trip which is shorter but has a constant or common tick rate is entirely a different matter than claiming that a clock has altered or dilated time.

Not if you're referring to two different views of the same trip, which is the situation here.

Relative motion is relative motion and I find it curious as to why you would have "A" see time dilated and not see distance contracted but have "B" see distance contracted but not time dilated. Each hold the view that they are at rest and it is the other that is in motion.

This is telling indeed.

Even after two years of discussions, you haven't managed to grasp the most basic concepts about reference frames.

Go and get a book on special relativity and read it. Please.

QQ:

JamesR, I woudl like to ask you a simple question:

How can you expect a person of reasonable intelligence to agree with a theorythat relies on a mathematical model that places an object at 'c' in a eternal, everywhere dimension.

A reasonable person weighs up evidence for and against a claim, and judges it accordingly. Despite the fact that relativity is counter-intuitive, all the available evidence supports it to the tiniest detail.

so tell me how can we accept the math at slower velocities if it doesn't stack up at the maximum speeds?

The same math applies at all speeds.

In fact, though, the Lorentz tranformations have a mathematical singularity at v=c, so we can't use them to tranform into the reference frame of a photon. This is why it is not totally correct to say things like "an object moving at the speed of light would be contracted to zero length and its time would stop". That conclusion comes from extrapolating the theory into a region where it does not technically apply. Therefore, any such conclusions must be treated with some suspicion.

(MacM won't understand this response. Watch him leap on this post and claim some new "disproof" of relativity based on the new fact he has just learnt.)

The same math applies at all speeds.

In fact, though, the Lorentz tranformations have a mathematical singularity at v=c, so we can't use them to tranform into the reference frame of a photon.

ok....so you can not transform into the frame of a photon?
Can I ask why not?

Also you state that the math applies to all speeds and this would include 'c' I would assume. After all is not the transforms all about 'c' and the invariance of 'c'?

the problem that I am trying to figure out is probably more a political one.

In that from my limited understanding of the transforms I see a situation that exists that when an object is mathematically deemed as travelling at 'c' it and the universe disappears into a state of either 2 or zero dimensions.

The object observer will lookout of his space ship and see what? Nothing?

The other aspect is that the object can not travel at 'c' as there is effectively no where to go and most imortantly this happens as soon as v=c is achieved. So what happens to the reat of the universe as our object approaches and achieves 'c'.....hmmmmm.......the object must disappear from our ability to percieve it.

So in a way the faster the object travels the slower it goes until eventually it is stopped as it's velocity becomes zero when it achieves 'c'.


So to my limited view point this indicates that the transform process is fundementally paradoxed....in that we are attempting to apply the transforms to real objects when the result would be impossible....

And on that basis alone this brings the transforms and it's comceptualisation into a state of precarious credibility.

The transforms work with time and distance but in a real universe time is ongoing yet our object is heading for a timeless zero dimensional universe and I see this as a significant conflict that the transforms need to accomodate somehow.

So the question I ask is how can we accept the results of a transform that produces these sorts of predictions......?

I might add in a ironical sort of way the transforms prove my point about light not having velocity but is given velocity by a stationary observer.

This will I think help in the understanding I am seeking about the fundemantals of gravity , light , and Magnetic forces regards spacetime.

Even though the transforms have a problem in my view they are very helpful all the same.

(MacM won't understand this response. Watch him leap on this post and claim some new "disproof" of relativity based on the new fact he has just learnt.)

Where I think SR is flawed is that it relies on a mathematical model that losses it's credibility at extremes. It is little wonder that people will jump up an down about these and other issues.

Conceptually the transforms whilst shown as you say in manny ways to be true and evidenced also show that it is possible they have the wrong end of the stick so to speak. Like pretending you are your reflection in a mirror instead of being the person creating the reflection....everything makes sense until you shut your eyes.....and realise that you are on the wrong side of the glass. This meaning that SR is possible quite a sound theory but that it is being applied form the wrong perspective.
This is for me hard to explain and essentially a gut feeling.

If we assume a photon perpective distance is irrelevant but from ours it is very relevant. So we have an absolute frame of time in our photon and an relative frame of time(s) in our mass.
And most importantly the transforms prove this.

I asked you some questions, and you answered as follows:

“ 1. Do the clocks have the same reading, or different readings when they are brought back together?

Different: 10 hours and 4.35 hours.

2. Can you justify your answer to (1)? Please show the mathematics.

Already have numerous times. 3.92 LHr/0.9c = 4.35 hours. 9 LHr/0.9c = 10 hours. Both times are a function of clocks having a common tick rate but traveling different distances at the same relative velocity. ”


Then, a little further down, you say:

“ And we have established that what Relativity says is false. ”


You own explanation, given above, relies on the reality of length contraction, which is an effect of Relativity. Therefore, you are trying to prove relativity false by first assuming it is true. You error, as has been explained, is that when you assume it is true for the purpose of your disproof you take only part of it, and ignore other parts. That is simply dishonest. You can't pick and choose which parts of the theory to use. It's all or nothing.

No dishonest is to continue to redefine the frames view and make claim in one frame that distance contracted and then in the other frame make claim that time tick rate has dilated.

The relative velocity in each case is identical. In each case the view is frm a frame at rest. It is blatantly dihonest to therefore treat the two frames differently. You create the problem. It does not exist in real physics.

Saying the problem is that I do not understand refereanc frames is an outright sham.

TELL US ON WHAT BASIS YOU JUSTIFY TREATING EACH FRAME DIFFERENTLY.

All you have proven by advocating part but not the whole is that your bastardised version of relativity with time dilation taken out is not viable.[/qluote]

JUSTIFY BASTARDIZING PHYSICAL REALITY BY TREATING TWO IDENTICAL FRAMES DIFFERENTLY. Claiming that I use only part of the theory is simply to acknowledge that I refuse to apply duplicitious tactics to an identical physical circumstance. Of course you can create all sorts of wierd affects if you claim in one instance distance contracted but in the identical situation you claim time dilated.

This is not an either or choice. If it is real then it exists and you do not have an arbitrary choice of which affect you choose to claim.

[quote]Your refer to a response of mine from another thread:

“ ..........plus length contraction (or time dilation, depending on how you want to look at the problem). ”


You have left out the context, of course, but it doesn't really matter. Note that I said "depending on how you want to look at the problem".

Just how did I leave it out of context when I posted the link to your comments and even quoted the very same verbage you claim I left out of conte